by Damozel | My colleague addressed Obama's professed love for 'the free market' yesterday. (BN-Politics) Indeed, economist Paul Krugman pointed out back in January that Obama was less progressive than either Clinton or Edwards on certain issues affecting domestic policy. With respect to today's article in Fortune --- certain to cause alarm and despondency among progressive supporters who were carried away by his Message of Hope --- color us unsurprised. Forewarned by Krugman and others, we checked the fine print.
His campaign was quick to point out that this isn't really a reversal as such. He's just worked back round to his original position.
His spokesman, Bill Burton said, 'Obama-as the candidate noted in Fortune's interview-has not changed his core position on NAFTA, and that he has always said he would talk to the leaders of Canada and Mexico in an effort to include enforceable labor and environmental standards in the pact'.(The Nation)] Of course what he said during the interview is a little different, as The Nation points out, from what he said when he was trying to beat Hillary in the Rust Belt.
He now calls those statements 'overheated.' Some might
call them
'lies.' Not me, though. I just call it 'saying what you have to
say to win.' They all do it. Obama's supporters, believing he wouldn't, were the more deceived.
Easton, the author of the Fortune article writes:
Obama's tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign's anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.
The Democratic candidates fought hard to win over those factions of their party, with Obama generally following Hillary Clinton's lead in setting a protectionist tone.
In February, as the campaign moved into the Rust Belt, both candidates vowed to invoke a six-month opt-out clause ("as a hammer," in Obama's words) to pressure Canada and Mexico to make concessions. (Fortune)
In other words, Obama said what Hillary said when it looked like the right thing to say in the states where they were campaigning. Those who were following the campaign at the time will remember the scandal known as NAFTA-gate, during which his adviser Austan Goolsbee met privately with the Canadian consul to say Obama didn't exactly mean what he was saying to the voters about NAFTA; it was 'political maneuvering.' (BN-politics; See also BN-Politics: here, here, here, and here). As Easton notes, Goolsbee's views on NAFTA aren't those of the average populist/progressive. All this is covered in the Fortune article as well.
And now?
Now, however, Obama says he doesn't believe in unilaterally reopening NAFTA. On the afternoon that I sat down with him to discuss the economy, Obama said he had just spoken with [Canadian Prime Minister Stephen] Harper, who had called to congratulate him on winning the nomination.
"I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama said. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people."(Fortune)
Big Tent Democrat --- like me, a Hillary supporter who has reluctantly accepted Obama as presumptive nominee --- congratulates Obama for having the intelligence not to believe his own press clippings.
Let the Dance of Disillusionment begin!
David Sirota at the HuffPost wants to believe that this is just Obama trying to please everyone (as if that weren't a major problem, if true) and that Nina Easton 'breathlessly overstates what's going on here.' At the same time, he thinks that the article reflects the power of 'Big Money over Obama and the Democratic Party.' So he ain't happy:
Here you have a policy -- NAFTA -- that is among the most unpopular policies of the last generation, according to polls. Here you have a candidate who campaigned against it in the primary. And within weeks of getting the general election, here you have that same candidate running to Corporate America's magazine of record to reassure Wall Street about that same policy. This is precisely what the populist uprising that I describe in my new book is all about -- a backlash to this kind of politics. (HuffPost)
As Sirota says, progressives really don't see any grey areas when it comes to NAFTA.
Obama is trying to find a "third way" on a binary issue. He's trying to make everyone happy - and he seems to think you can simultaneously appease Corporate America and American workers on trade rules that inherently force politicians to take one side or the other. You either have trade rules that are aimed at helping ordinary workers, or trade rules that are aimed at padding corporate profits and enriching a transnational elite.
Sirota's piece is called: 'Memo to Obama: You Can't Represent the Uprising While Undermining It.' Uprising? Uprising? Memo to Sirota: Next time, take a look at who the candidate's got advising him (or her). Obama was never intending to lead a populist uprising. When he talked about 'change,' that was mainly code for 'One Clinton administration is really enough, don't you think?'
The Nation weighs in:
The McCain camp is already suggesting his Democratic rival is hypocritical, at best, when it comes to trade policy. The Fortune interview will add fuel to the fire.
If Obama does not change his tune, he's likely to get burned in Ohio, Wisconsin and other states where primary surveys showed that the vast majority of Democratic, Republican and independent voters felt that the radically pro-corporate free trade policies of the Clinton and Bush years had harmed rather than helped America.
The comments on the piece in The Nation , worrying about this 'about-face' confirm what I've always said: the progressives who supported Obama weren't paying attention to anything but the rhetoric.
At any rate, as the presumptive nominee, he doesn't need their approval. Time to start courting the moderates and undecideds.
I mean, we're stuck with him right? And whatever you think about him, he's clearly preferable to McCain.
Looking forward to a lot more discussion on Memeorandum.
OTHER RECENT POSTINGS AT BN-POLITICS
Muslim Women Barred by Obama Campaign from Photograph
Recipe-gate Part 2: A Teapot in a Tempest
Obama Loves the So-Called "Free Market": Oh, Dear...
Doyle Hire: Was It A Big F*** You to Clinton & Her Supporters?
Gore Endorses Obama; Patti Solis Doyle Joins Obama Campaign (and What that Means for Clinton)
Olbermann vs. His Demographic; Network Boss Thinks Hillary Viewers Will Come Back for More
Comments