*Contrary to Senators Clinton and Obama's presidential positions I don't think NAFTA is the culprit for fewer factory/manufactoring/union jobs.  I think its automation.

Well...nothing is black and white, but... NAFTA opened the floodgates for something corporations had been doing since the 80s - moving jobs to areas where they would pay the workforce less. 

In defense of the corporations, their only obligation is to the bottom line - a corporation is not a human person, it has no feelings or emotion.  So, what does it care if a community is destroyed by it's pulling out?  It owes nothing to the community, and by free-market rules, the community needs to come up with a new way to make a buck.

I get that.

But here's where I'm a democrat - I don't believe that the goverment or corporations need to coddle the community, but I do believe in an agreement between the government and corporations and the community - the government, using tax dollars (yes, I said it), provides health, safety and preparation (in terms of military, police, firefighters, infrastructure, education, healthcare) and corporatiosn provide an oppertunity within the community to create goods and services that people want, need or desire and in turn, the healthy educated safe American worker lives up to his or her potential to thrive and make America strong and productive.

It's that Rooseveltian mix of free-market with a socialist safety net.  I get that if you're opposed to taxes, you're not in favor of this - but it's my understanding of how things will work most effectively.  It's why I vote Democrat.

And, having said that, Clinton did not deliver on Democrat ideals.  If I wanted a Republican, I would have voted for one.

Now, having said that, he did some good things while in office; that's fine.  He helped bring a lot of peace to the world.  Ireland owes that guy a lot of thanks, for example.  But none of his positive attributes had anything to do with what he, as a democrat should have delivered.  In retrospect, Nixon did good in China - doesn't mean I support his presidency.

Don't get me wrong - I voted for Clinton twice - campaigned for him in 92, even.  But I held my nose to vote for the guy.  This is why I'm so jazzed about Obama - for the first time in my life, there's a serious candidate that I can actually support.  That I don't vote for because he's "not the other guy". 

I don't believe that the goverment or corporations need to coddle the community, but I do believe in an agreement between the government and corporations and the community - the government, using tax dollars (yes, I said it), provides health, safety and preparation (in terms of military, police, firefighters, infrastructure, education, healthcare) and corporatiosn provide an oppertunity within the community to create goods and services that people want, need or desire and in turn, the healthy educated safe American worker lives up to his or her potential to thrive and make America strong and productive.

Mike, I hear what you are saying but these are not, per se, "Democratic" ideals.  I don't think modern Republicanism is necessarily adverse to Government services (and I am not talking about this "compassionate conservative" shit Dubya has mouthed the last 7 years). FDR (and later Johnson) so dramatically shifted how Americans think of government there is not a pragmatic way that one could argue for a laissez faire government anymore and be elected.  Its a question of how large the government becomes, what services it delivers and how they are delivered. Much of this is done by working with industry to incentivize "public service."  Which probably should have been done in exchange for NAFTA.  Note I didn't say NAFTA has resulted in no jobs lost -- simply its not the culprit its alleged to be in states like Ohio.  And based on their voting records I think Obama and Clinton know this to be the case.  Corporate profits are not evil --we are a capitalist country after all! But corporate exploitation is an evil and both parties need to guard against it.  I happen to think that there is  middle ground between the two ideologies wherein we can all have policies that work.  I tend to think it works best when the legislature and the executive branches are of different parties, or when you have a chief executive who is not dismissive of the "other' parties ideas. 

There also is an inherent ideological difference vis a vis states rights issues between the parties but that tends to get a little more legalistic and less political I think. 

This is why I'm so jazzed about Obama - for the first time in my life

Give the mud slinging fox watching swift boaters a chance and they will try to do the same thing to Obama, Just stay strong Mike, fight the good fight! You are honestly one of the nicest guys I have met on a forum and you make me want to be a better democrat.

Here is how bad Clinton was:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton _administration_was_the_federal.html

This chart says it all:

I think Geoff is full of crap!  (edited because I made the mistake of thinking Geoff wasn't just a plain old republican, which he says he isn't but I disagree)

When did I ever say I wasn't Republican?  Why am I full of crap?

And, having said that, Clinton did not deliver on Democrat ideals.  If I wanted a Republican, I would have voted for one.

I guess you're full of crap too, Mike! Welcome to the club! We have pie!

 (and the GOP congress)

Had almost the same one the first 4 years of Bush, bang up job they did!  So who screwed up, Bush or the Republican congress? I think both got most wrong.

I agree with Mike about Nafta.

Brian you are welcome.