FROM Susan Delacourt
NAFTA, the Canadian Government and the Democratic Campaign Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are looking for votes in Mississippi tomorrow, but last week's flap over the North American Free Trade Agreement is still on the radar screen. US Ambassador David Wilkins complained that the Canadian government had interfered with the US political process. During a Clinton-Obama debate in Ohio, both promised publicly to pressure for renegotiation of NAFTA, but Ohio voters heard only about Obama. Canada TV then reported that an Obama aide had privately reassured Canadian officials not to worry, that it was all political rhetoric in a state where NAFTA is blamed for a loss of jobs. The Clinton campaign accused Obama of dishonesty, and the issue contributed to his loss in Ohio. Meantime, as Clinton escalates her attacks, Obama is beginning to respond in kind. Are they handing John McCain issues to use in November? Will their ongoing battle make it harder for him to get the attention he needs to rally Republican skeptics?
Venezuela spirals into economic and political chaos Venezuela, a country whose potential for prosperity is unmatched, finds itself on the verge of civil war. What sustains the repressive government? With time running out, guest host León Krauze looks at what the international community can do to pull the country from the edge of collapse.
Who's to blame for the opioid crisis? Some of the lawyers who took on Big Tobacco are now going after Big Pharma. It’s all about the deadly epidemic of opioid use. Are the drug companies to blame? What about the users? Later, on today’s Talking Point: making sense of Britain’s upset election.
The Trump agenda: where's the beef? President Trump says big things are happening. After celebrating a House bill on health care, he doesn’t yet have Senate agreement. With James Comey’s public testimony scheduled tomorrow, the President today tweeted his selection of a new FBI Director. Is the Chief Executive all style and no substance? Later, terror attacks in Iran and conflicting claims about who’s behind them.