Obama's NAFTA 'Border Incident'.

Senator Obama has managed to cause what the Wall Street Journal refers to as a 'border incident', causing a diplomatic incident with Canada recently when he declared that he would unilaterally withdraw from the NAFTA agreement.

He made the promise at last week's Democrat Campaign Debate in Ohio, and said "that he will opt out [of NAFTA] unless we renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards."

Unfortunately, he 'misunderestimated' how quickly things can get turned around in the media, especially in the midst of a political campaign.

As it turns out, there was a memo that was sent to a Canadian diplomat from Obama's chief economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, that told them that Mr. Obama's vow was merely campaign rhetoric aimed at Ohio primary voters.

However, according to the Chicago Tribune, the much-defiled NAFTA isn't even a bad thing for America:

Most experts agree that NAFTA has been a net asset. A 2003 report by the Congressional Budget Office found it has boosted the output of both the United States and Mexico. Since Goolsbee is a first-rate economist, we doubt he is telling Obama anything different.

In fact, the accord has served to open up foreign markets to American companies while reducing prices for American consumers. It has also proven good for most workers: Inflation-adjusted average hourly earnings, which declined in the decade before NAFTA took effect, rose in the following ten years. NAFTA doesn't deserve all or even most of the credit, but it hasn't been the scourge often portrayed.

The Wall Street Journal comes to similar conclusions, pointing out that Obama's 'campaign rhetoric aimed at Ohio primary voters' was incredibly misguided.

Leaving Nafta alone would be great news for Ohioans in particular, as the Cato Institute's Daniel Griswold recently noted. Canada and Mexico buy more than half of Ohio's exports, and since Nafta's 1993 enactment the U.S. economy has added a net 26 million new jobs. The average real hourly compensation (wages and benefits) of workers has climbed 23% and real median household net worth has increased by a third.

We suspect Mr. Goolsbee knows all of this, because the benefits of free trade are one of the few things that economists of the left and right agree on. The Commerce Department reports that while countries with which we enjoy free trade agreements generate only 7.5% of global GDP, they consume more than 42% of U.S. exports.

In other words, Obama's using the template of 'NAFTA is bad' as a campaign tool only illustrates how little he actually understands about the United States' economy. Even I 'get' that our trade with North American countries is a two-way street, and we're benefiting from it greatly. If he actually had any interest in reducing trade deficits, he'd redirect his gaze from our northern border and look towards Asia.

And, USAToday agrees:

The reality is that NAFTA has relatively little to do with either the overall job losses or job gains. China is a far larger factor. But the number that best displays the nonsensical nature of the debate is 66% — the increase in the manufacturing output of American industry since 1993.

It's impossible to look at an economy that has increased its manufacturing output so dramatically while simultaneously cutting its manufacturing workforce and not see a much larger force at work than NAFTA.

That force has been the unprecedented and sweeping gains in worker productivity that have allowed U.S. companies to churn out more goods with fewer people. Some of this has come from outsourcing the most labor-intensive parts of manufacturing, particularly to Asia. But much of it is from the use of more automated systems for assembly lines and high-tech inventory management.

And, Newsweek (via FactCheck.org) provides an even more stunning set of numbers that NAFTA opponents often ignore:

NAFTA critics often point to the loss of manufacturing jobs, which have declined by 3.1 million between Jan. 1994, when NAFTA was implemented, and January of this year. But total nonfarm employment, meanwhile, has increased by 25.6 million in the same time period. Whatever effect NAFTA may have had on U.S. jobs, however, Obama is relying on a statistic that has been criticized, questioned and contradicted by other researchers.

In other words, there's been a net gain of 22.5 million jobs in the United States since NAFTA was implemented in 1994.

Obama just doesn't get it, and it's yet another reason why he'd be a poor choice for President. Our friends in Canada get it. Hopefully, our friends in the Democratic Party will, too.

Welcome to the big leagues, Barack.

Apparently, Mr. Obama's inexperience was on full display today when he was blindsided by a media barrage that left him, in the words of the Washington Post, with 'the surprised look of a man bitten by his own dog.'

"I don't have any preliminary statement," Obama said as he began his news conference, encouraging reporters to "just dive in." That was a mistake.

Tom Raum of the Associated Press led off with a question about whether an Obama aide had told Canadians not to take seriously the candidate's public rhetoric critical of the NAFTA trade agreement. "Let me, let me, let me, let me just be absolutely clear what happened," Obama answered, explaining that the meeting was a "courtesy" and involved no "winks and nods."

Then an agitator -- columnist Carol Marin with the Chicago Sun-Times -- broke in. Marin, a visitor to the Obama entourage who accused the regulars of being too "quiet," accused the candidate of concealing details about fundraisers Rezko had for him and a real estate transaction between the two.

"I don't think it's fair to suggest somehow that we've been trying to hide the ball on this," Obama answered. But this only provoked a noisy back-and-forth between Marin, Sun-Times colleague Lynn Sweet and Michael Flannery from Chicago's CBS affiliate. "How many fundraisers? . . . Who was there? . . . Disclosure of the closing documents?"

Obama, while repeating his formulation that it was "a boneheaded move" to do business with Rezko, tried to shut down the requests for more information. "These requests, I think, could just go on forever," he said. "At some point, what we need to try to do is respond to what's pertinent."

Reporters, however, had a different idea of what was pertinent, and the questions about Rezko, NAFTA and other unpleasant subjects continued to come. An aide called out "last question," and Obama made his move for the exit -- only for reporters to shout after him in protest.

"C'mon, guys," he pleaded. "I just answered, like, eight questions."

The questioning, however, has only just begun.

Welcome to the big leagues, Senator.

What's remarkable is, that part quoted about isn't even the most entertaining part of the article.

Check this out:

The day before primaries in Ohio and Texas that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination for him, a smiling Obama strode out to a news conference at a veterans facility here. But the grin was quickly replaced by the surprised look of a man bitten by his own dog.

Reporters from the Associated Press and Reuters went after him for his false denial that a campaign aide had held a secret meeting with Canadian officials over Obama's trade policy. A trio of Chicago reporters pummeled him with questions about the corruption trial this week of a friend and supporter. The New York Post piled on with a question about him losing the Jewish vote.

Obama responded with the classic phrases of a politician in trouble. "That was the information that I had at the time ... Those charges are completely unrelated to me ... I have said that that was a mistake ... The fact pattern remains unchanged."

When those failed, Obama tried another approach. "We're running late," the candidate said, and then he disappeared behind a curtain.

Before he beat his hasty retreat, however, Obama found time to assign blame for the tough questions suddenly coming his way. "The Clinton campaign has been true to its word in employing a 'kitchen sink' strategy," he protested. "There are, what, three or four things a day?"

Spoken like a man who had just been hit on the head with a heavy piece of porcelain.

Heh.

Oh, and Senator? You may want to keep in mind that, if you're going to make a cornerstone of your campaign holding President Bush accountable for going to war with Iraq only to find out later that his intelligence was faulty, you may not want to then trying parading out the "When I gave you that information, that was the most accurate information that I had at the time" excuse ...