Obrador on NAFTA/Who was the hypocrite?

In reply to my post titled "Corn, Beans, and ... Hypocrisy?" Wick o' the Bailey opined that it would be a mistake to equate Obrador's policies with socialism. I'm not sure how it's supposed to be a mistake, given that Obrador is in favor of keeping Mexico's energy industry under unified government control; that's clearly a socialist position, even granting that Obrador isn't enough of a socialist to satisfy various international socialist groups. I'd be surprised if WotB refrained from calling Bush a "conservative" despite his free-spending ways.

WotB points to Obrador's own campaign website to defend from charges that the would-be Mexican president would buck the NAFTA agreement.
Well, somebody's not telling the truth (Obrador or the US press):

At stake is not just the presidential race but the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Lopez Obrador says he opposes, as well as the well-being of millions of Mexican small farmers and future relations with Mexico's neighbor to the north. (San Francisco Chronicle)

Leftist presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said for the first time Saturday that he would not honor Mexico's commitment under NAFTA to eliminate tariffs on corn and beans if he is elected.(Associated Press)

Maybe Obrador is just slow in updating his website.

WotB then trots out a history professor (courtesy of the New York Times op-ed page) to declare the inability of Mexican farmers to compete with U.S. agribusiness.

Why, then, would the US import agricultural goods from Mexico?

I have to rely on WotB for the content of Professor Grandin's op-ed, but what I see from him draws no distinction between white corn (favored by Mexican farmers and consumed heavily in tortillas and the like) and yellow corn (the primary variety produced in the US and used primarily in Mexico as feed for livestock).

WotB says that methods that work for the US "almost certainly will not work for Mexico."
WotB says that Mexico "must find its own way, a distinctly Mexican way"--but why?
How does Mexico go about forging a economic model that is hitherto undescribed?

Finally, WotB offers me a compliment in a context-twisting kind of way:

...see SuBlo's fine commentary on Bush's reasons for withdrawing from/not entering into some otherwise substantially international agreements) unless the agreement benefits the United States, first and foremost.

While that's a fascinating recast of my commentary, my focus was on the comparison between Obrador's willingness to ignore an existing agreement which had been compared to Bush's behavior. In the three main cases provided to ostensibly compare Obrador to Bush, we find that Bush in each case acted according to the agreement except where there was no agreement (Kyoto).
It is simply unfair and inaccurate for WotB to suggest that agreements need benefit the United States "first and foremost," though I'm sure the empty rhetoric plays well in some parts.

My use of the term "hypocrisy" in the earlier post, BTW, referred to the charge that Bush was doing as Obrador was accused of doing, which would have made the USA/Bush out to be the hypocrite.