Rethinking NAFTA or not

I can barely believe that NAFTA is still a lightning rod for public opinion, yet it continues to be so in all three countries. Amid the recent noise of this second Super Tuesday are the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. McCain is the only one among the three who has expressed support for the free trade agreement.

Here is a quick rundown of some news coverage;
Barack Obama takes heat over NAFTA memo, Rezko - Chicago Tribune

But much of the heat didn't come from a shift from chilly Ohio to last-minute campaigning in humid Texas. Instead, it involved a top Obama adviser's recent visit with Canadian officials that included a discussion of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a trade pact that President Bill Clinton considered a signature accomplishment, but one that now has been the subject of calls for renegotiation by both candidates.

Two faces on NAFTA Chicago Tribune

Hillary Clinton is an odd one to accuse someone of being two-faced on this topic. After all, it was during her husband's presidency, and with his support, that the treaty was ratified. As recently as 2004 she made it clear she grasped its value. "I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America," she said, while indicating she had some reservations as well. Now, of course, Clinton insists she never liked it.

Buckeye blues - The Daily Standard

WHEN VOTERS IN OHIO go to the polls today, they will have heard over and over again from Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that their state's economic troubles are caused by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other trade treaties.

But there was fresh evidence last week that NAFTA has had little to do with Ohio's doldrums, its job losses in particular. When the U.S. Air Force awarded a $40 billion contract for 179 new aerial refueling tankers, Ohio wasn't in the running as a site where the aircraft might be built. Instead, they'll be built in Alabama outside Mobile.

Why? The answer is simple: Alabama's business climate is good and Ohio's isn't. When major business projects are looking for the best site, job-hungry Ohio is rarely considered. And NAFTA has little or nothing to do with it.

Surely Obama and Clinton know this. If they don't, their understanding of the economy is lacking. If they do, their attacks on free trade were aimed to please NAFTA-hating union members. In truth, NAFTA is a boon to the Ohio economy. Roughly 55 percent of Ohio's exports go to Canada and Mexico, America's NAFTA partners. That exceeds the national share of exports--35 percent--to those countries.