A disappointly partial approach to NAFTA

There are a number of reasons why I believe Senator Obama has a solid integral intuition, as I've detailed.  There are also a number of times that I've been disappointed, and today brings one of them.

Senator Clinton is contending that some of the Obama campaign's mailings regarding NAFTA are false; the Obama campaign is defending them as fair.  I'm not all that interested in that controversy (see here if you are: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_mailings_false.html); I'm disappointed in the treatment of the subject itself.

The mailing faults Senator Clinton for alleging supporting NAFTA, and in stark terms - of the how-dare-anyone-support-such-a-thing variety.  In other places, I've heard Senator Obama discuss free trade as something we need to do carefully, with assurances of fair trade and fair labor standards.  That's a nuanced approach to a difficult issue, one that takes into account the emerging global economy and at least recognizes the values involved and the necessity for a principled - even implicitly developmental - approach (i.e., free market forces alone won't ensure that worldcentric values will be practiced, and we thus run the danger of undermining our labor force, which works in a system built on more-costly worldcentric values, and undermining our values).  And one can certainly conclude that, in this context, NAFTA isn't an ideal example of a free trade agreement.

The Obama campaign's mailing captures none of that nuance, though, and instead casts NAFTA as harmful, period (and Senator Clinton as wrong for supporting it, whether true or not).  This is part of the picture, of course, but without any of the nuance that would bring it close to a whole picture.  Perhaps this is just Senator Obama tacking left and catering to labor to secure the nomination; but dammit, catering to the partial truths of particular groups is what I want less of, not more.