You stated that people are bashing Hillary for NAFTA because it was Bill who signed it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to putting the onus on him and exonerating her. You can't have it both ways. Either she was side by side and has the experience and knowledge from that experience or she doesn't. You can't pick and choose different parts of Bill's 8 years to prove her qualifications.

Associated Press: Obama said the United States should `pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.' "Obama said the United State should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement." [AP, 9/8/04]
Decatur Herald & Review: 'Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA.' "While some people believe NAFTA has been good for U.S. farmers, the trade results could have been better, Keyes said. NAFTA negotiators said the United States might lose manufacturing jobs but would become a service economy, but now those service jobs also are being exported, he said. Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA. He said, at the same time, there must be recognition that the global economy has shifted, and the United States is no longer the dominant economy. 'We have competition in world trade,' Obama said. 'When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade." [Decatur Herald & Review, 9/9/04]

In a memo released today from allies, the Obama campaign repeats a charge that's been 'widely criticized as bogus' about Hillary's position on NAFTA. From the memo:

As late as September 2006, Senator Clinton touted the President Clinton's support for NAFTA.
And again:

AS LATE AS SEPTEMBER 2006: Hillary Said NAFTA Was A Victory For President Clinton, Would Lead To An Economic Improvement.
In fact, Hillary didn't say this in September 2006. The Obama campaign cites a Newsday article that asserts what Hillary "thinks" about NAFTA without any substantiation.

The Obama campaign then cites an article from 12 years ago that also doesn't quote Hillary and her book, where Hillary mentions NAFTA as something that passed through Congress in 1996. That's why the Politico called a piece of mail featuring the same claim "bogus" and noted the Obama campaign has failed to produce any evidence that she championed NAFTA.

The Obama campaign fails to mention that he is not calling for the repeal of NAFTA and believes "it's not realistic to expect to renegotiate NAFTA." [Crain's Chicago Business, 2/16/04]

Based on his positions in Illinois and the United States Senate, the National Journal concluded that Sen. Obama was "the most likely presidential candidate to support further trade liberalization." Sen. Obama opposed an amendment that would have prevented the weakening of laws that protect against unfair trade practices. (Hillary supported the amendment.) Sen. Obama also supports fast track authority.

There are reasons for tariffs and protections. And free trade isn't free.

One thing few people point out is that NAFTA allowed Big Ag to dump lots of corn in Mexico, undercutting small farmers there. Not being able to feed their families, guess where they went? So instead of enriching the average Mexican, NAFTA impoverished him.