I remember watching it at the time--"the giant sucking sound you hear" is the sound of jobs going to Mexico. Classic sound bite!

Gore "won" the debate, but performances like this sowed the seeds that grew into Nader's presidential bids.

Funny you should ask  I remember the debates.  One reason there wasn't more vocal opposition was because people felt some inevitability about the issue and were hoping and praying that Clinton wouldn't sell them down the river in the process.  Holy cow!  Where's the freakin paddle when you need it?

I didnt watch the debate, but like you MattI was, historically, a free trader.  I started reconsidering my views in the early 90s when it became clear that wages had stagnated over the so-called boom Reagan years.  Thus, I was ambivelent about NAFTA; I was concerned about jobs and wages but was sort of "bought off" by the idea that there were side deals that would protect workers and the environment.  It quickly became apparent that these side deals were worthless.  By the mid-90s I became a strong fair trader and remain so today.  

Because they never actually push for barrier free trade, the only push for deals that benefit certain corporate interests.

Sugar is the prime example. I read somewhere that for once the US and world prices were not that far apart but traditionally US food producers and consumers paid roughly double the world price due to quotas and tariffs.

This is done for purely political purposes, a fact made most blatant in Florida where the Fanjul brothers actual split their giving, one designated to give to Democrats, the other to Republicans, an apparent attempt to not have it look like a single entity buying off every politician in the state.

Have you ever seen a Free Trader seriously addressing this? Me neither. All the cane juice you want at Open Secrets;
http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/cashingi n_sugar/sugar08.html

"Gephardt played the crucial role of passing Fast Track authority."

What?  That's not how I remember it. I'll never forgive Gephardt for caving on the Iraq war resolution, but he was a water-carrier for labor his entire career, and preventing Fast Track authority was almost their number one priority in the early 1990s.

So strange, Ross Perot was more right than anyone could have believed.  I didn't watch that video, or the original debate (I was roughly Matt's age), but I remember Perot.

A real free trade deal should take up no more than 1 page (plus signature pages).

It should read something like this:

We, the undersigned nations, shall make no laws impeded the flow of trade.

Truly free trade means:  No intellectual property rights.  No labor rights.  No environmental protections.  Free movement of all goods.  Free movement of people.  No drug laws.  

It means no government restrictions on trade.  It means no government subsidies.  

Its a very scary thing at the end of the day.

What NAFTA and similar deals are are pro multinational corporation trade deals that inflict damage on the working classes of all parties involved, not to mention usurping the sovereignty of involved nations.

Yeah Perot kicked his ass and the media -- all pro-Nafta --  spun it that Gore won, somethings never change.

What stands out to me is, how young Gore looked then. Almost as young as Obama looks today.

For my taste, both look too young to give me the reassurance that they would be capable presidents.

Just a gut feeling...

Of course I would work my ass off for Obama, if he became the nominee.

The main thing I took from that clip is that no matter how strong the message, you need an attractive messenger to succeed. If Perot was arguing for free trade instead, we'd probably have fair trade today. Well, maybe not, but I think you get my point. There's a reason why Chuck Hagel is a more effective war critic than Dennis Kucinich, and it's an unfortunate one, and one that I think has less to do with partisan politics than would seem obvious: the closer you are to the physical ideal, the more likely you'll win a debate with the American people (mostly because of the very different way conventionally attractive and unattractive people are treated by the media). This plays out all the time. For one example, it's apparently conventional wisdom among pundits that Al Gore, at his present weight (somewhat overweight but nowhere near obese), is unfit for the presidency, despite living in the fattest nation in the world and being eminently qualified. The general treatment of Michael Moore over the years is another example. Need I mention Hannity and Colmes? This is a very silly country.

Matt,

Are you just strolling down memory lane by posting this video, or are you trying to suck the oxygen out of the draft-Gore campaign by portraying him as a free-trader to the netroots?

Fifteen years is a long time, and there is room for the possibility that Gore has changed his mind about free trade.  He has certainly been an advocate for fair trade.

I remember the debate, and though I sided with Perot materially, I remember a reverse-role performance.  Gore was trying to show a sense of humor and have a little fun with the discussion.  Perot came across as humorless and dogmatic.

I saw part of the debate. Gore won on style, Perot on substance. Perot was right about NAFTA and many things. Too bad he was such a looney. We could use a  progressive rational Ross Perot today. His black board chats about the deficit and about unfair trade were pretty good, certainly much more educational that standard fare political ads.

I was a volunteer in the "WHite House Email Project Office" in the Old Executive Office Building, right after graduating from college in 1993. I coded emails for the issues and positions, printing out ones that prez advisors should read.

We got the emails downloaded as text files to disc (In 1993 we were using Win 3.0 - you still booted to Dos). The computers were NOT connected directly to the internet.

So anyway, I recall coding many many emails on my volunteer nights AGAINST NAFTA - people from all over the US emailing in how bad it was and how it was going to ruin the US.

Little did I know at the time. I chalked it up to anti-Clinton foolishness, which was pretty heavy at that time.... but now.... I get it.

I remember Perot's frequent "giant sucking sound" comments about NAFTA, as well as his deficit lectures, and I voted for him twice.

The next time a presidential candidate made a lot of sense to me, it was Howard Dean, and the MSM decided he was crazy, too.

I remember that debate. I was pulling so much for Perot. Al Gore just kicked his ass! It's too bad the same Al Gore didn't show up to debate George Bush.