NAFTA and Iraq...NAFTA and Iraq...Repeat...

by: David Sirota

Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:38


A series of new polls shows John McCain closing in on Barack Obama in industrial swing-states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and widening his lead in places like North Carolina. I was on CNN this morning suggesting how Obama can turn those trends around - namely, by talking about John McCain's NAFTA cheerleading and about his support for spending $12 billion a month of taxpayer money in Iraq - positions that are controversial, to say the least, in precisely these swing states:

This goes back to my earlier post and newspaper column about how Obama can counter McCain's odious cultural populism bewailing sex education and screaming "Country First," and I think he can counter it with a strong brand of economic populism - a brand Obama has only fleetingly embraced. Issues like NAFTA and the war are issues McCain can't muddle like he has taxes or health care. Put another way, those two issues are the ones that draw the most clear, easy-to-understand contrast between the two candidates.

I think Obama has to make this kind of contrast, or he could lose the election.  
David Sirota :: NAFTA and Iraq...NAFTA and Iraq...Repeat...
I also think he's entirely capable of doing this - that is, I think he's entirely capable of tuning out the Bob Rubins who he's lately decided to surround himself with, and capable of tuning into what the average American is worried about. I'm actually optimistic that he will start making this transformation (I actually said that to CNN, but you can see it get snipped at the end of the clip).

And here's the kicker: When he does do this, he won't just be connecting with voters on "issues" - he'll be showing a populist fire in the belly that speaks to those deeper qualities like character and courage.

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
NAFTA and Iraq...NAFTA and Iraq...Repeat... | 22 comments
But Obama already got slapped around on NAFTA (4.00 / 1)
and he did indicate that he wasn't too serious about renegotiating any of it, didn't he?  
Can Obama be credible on NAFTA? (4.00 / 2)
In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.

Obama says he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/1...

If Obama does not win, he may look back to June 2008 when he "moved to the middle" as the turning point.

McCain is far worse on NAFTA, but this comment could be turned right back on him in an ad.  I think Obama will downplay NAFTA.  

Yes, his moving even farther (4.00 / 2)
away from a progressive position in trade at the outset of the general was a grave mistake, but I still see no reason why he couldn't use NAFTA against McCain; the fact is, Obama didn't vote for it (he wasn't in Congress) and doesn't support it, and McCaim is literally one of its most ardent apologists.

Could, could, could, and he will probably have to if he wants to win Michigan and Ohio. But after a while you have to come to conclusion that he's dead-set against it. if you read Obama's convention speech, you'll be stuck by just how un-populist it is. The phrases NAFTA, free trade, fair trade, corporate trade, trade deal do not appear in the speech.

[ Parent ]
Maybe It's Because He's Not A Populist (0.00 / 0)
Working for the people and taking down The Man are two different concepts.

I realize that a lot of people just want a leader who will destroy the powerful, but revolutions never succeed. They only create a power vacuum.

[ Parent ]
He's not (4.00 / 1)
I don't know what made anyone believe he was. It's quite clear that Clinton is more progressive that Obama is and I say this as someone who has always supported Obama. Unfortunately, the netroots and the MSM projected onto Obama an image that he was the progressive populist  candidate for no other reason that he wasn't Hillary Clinton.

The real progressive populist was Edwards, then Clinton, then Obama.

Now you're all upset at Obama because he isn't something he never was in the first place and you only imagined him to be.  

[ Parent ]
Depends (0.00 / 0)
I see your point, but the Who Is More Progressive? question can go either way. I've seen the charts which put Hillary higher on the progress-o-meter, but that war vote sticks out like a wolf at a sheep convention.

As for Edwards, he had a nice populist speech that he gave, but his record was hard-line centrism, and it was hard for a lot of people to reconcile the two.

Either way, you're right. Obama is not, and never was a populist. And I'm not convinced that's a bad thing.

[ Parent ]
Revolution? (4.00 / 1)
Do you actually believe that progressive fair traders like Sherrod Brown and John Edwards want revolution? And what about Andy Stern? Yeah, he's a real Marxist revolutionary.

More to the point, we aren't suggesting that Obama transform into William Jennings Bryant. We're suggesting that Obama merely tout positions he already holds.

[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
Well, then I guess we have different definitions of populism. I don't find fair trade to be a populistic idea. It's a nice idea, but hardly populist.

And as for positions he already holds, correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama's position on NAFTA is that it's fine the way it is. Barack can hardly rail against McCain for taking a position that he has no intention of opposing.

[ Parent ]
He is (0.00 / 0)
you're just figuring out now they're not the same as yours.  
[ Parent ]
That is what he always beleived (0.00 / 0)
That is why he lost states like Ohio in the primaries. NAFTA voters could sniff out his insincerity. He panders to whatever he feels he has to pander to and will take two positions in one day if talking to different audiences. I saw this in him even before he announce his run. That is one of the reasons why I never liked him as our nominee.
[ Parent ]
Please Supply Examples (0.00 / 0)
Please supply examples of Obama taking two positions in one day.
[ Parent ]
See (0.00 / 0)
and that's how I saw Hillary.  
[ Parent ]
Obama Must Be More Economically Populsit Or We're Doomed!!! (0.00 / 0)
You just keep pounding away at that same idea, don't you? And you never provide any supporting data, only the occasional anecdote.

Look, I'm more or less an anarchist. However, I have no illusions that if Barack utters the magic Anarchist phrases that he's a lock to win.

If there's any lesson to be learned from the last ten years it's that people suck at voting in their best interests. Winning an election is not nearly as simply as telling the people that you'll work for them, or even proving it with a lifetime record of service. The fact is, a lot of people are unimpressed by such things.

I think that for the most part, anyone who cares about policy has looked into policy and made their decision already. The next two months are about winning over the people who care about image and personality. I'm completely unconvinced that turning into Tom Joad's Avenger at this late date would make any electoral different whatsoever, and it might actually hurt.

policy, credibility, and decisionmaking... (4.00 / 3)
I think that a whole lot of people who do care about policy are in something of a pickle -- they don't like what the GOP stands for, but see McCain as someone who won't follow the GOP line, but they don't believe a word that Obama says.

The time to get the "policy people" in line for Obama was prior to the convention -- but Obama pretty much blew off large chunks of the Democratic base during the last months of the primary season and the period after the primaries, and instead concentrated on solidifying his personal base and flirting with the evangelical right.

The election will come down to 'character' issues because Obama deliberately downplayed "issues" up until now -- he has no identifiable agenda other than "not being a Republican", has no "signature" issue, and his lack of a record means that voters have nothing but his "character" to evaluate him on.


[ Parent ]
Not Issues? (0.00 / 0)
How are abortion, ending the war, and alternative energy not issues?
[ Parent ]
The MSM (0.00 / 0)
decided not to frame Obama on the issue, rather than frame him as celebrity.

I've been following Obama since day one. There wasn't a time where it wasn't clear to where he stands on issues or that he was talking about issues...unfortunately the MSM didn't cover them and instead covered Obama as "the change guy" without defining what that change is, even though he did.

I can sit here and dish out all the specifics, but I've done that before to no avail. This election will be about character because the MSM decided that the people will believe Obama isn't running on issues and McCain is.

[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
I do agree with you there. The next two months are about winning over the voters who are going to decide who to vote for at the last minute based on nothing but a gut feeling.

Which is why I honestly don't care if Joe Biden goes around talking about what a nice guy John McCain is. If Joe Biden complimenting his opponent is going to give these people a nice gut feeling, then Joe should keep doing it.

[ Parent ]
That's the way the media wants it (0.00 / 0)
believe me, I know, I work for the media. They framed this election solely on issues, this wouldn't be a race, so they have to frame it on character.

I've been in editorial meetings where that was specifically said.  

[ Parent ]
On Iraq (0.00 / 0)
The other thing that needs to be done in addition to talking about the financial cost is to revisit the human cost. This has been sanitized out of existence.  The tragedy of Iraq is not just that we are wasting money it is that we have thousands of soldiers dead, tens of thousands maimed or with psychological injuries and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties. It is not just the monetary cost of war it is the horror of war.  

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


David (4.00 / 1)
Forget about it. What you've been seeing is what you get. There is no more to pull out of Obama. He has reached his political ability peak. He has used all the political weapons he knows. He has no where else to go. The tank is empty.

He is more stand-up comedian than serious communicator and leader and his actions and the video of his actions show that clearly. Matt's mashup video clearly shows that.

He is more a community organizer in his stump talk than a strong person you can trust and believe in. Even one of my black friends, Jeff, says he sounds more like a preacher than a President. I always knew he would be a weak candidate. I said that here and at other blogs for the last year. It was an easy call as I have known many Obama's in the my life.

People are begging Obama to become something he is not. They are hoping against hope and will be left standing at the alter alone I'm afraid.

He could win just because the political winds are at his back but it wouldn't be a win based on his political talent. Yeah he could win - but I wouldn't bet the house, or my car, or even a hundred bucks on it.

fooling yourself (0.00 / 0)
I also think he's entirely capable of doing this... I think he's entirely capable of tuning out the Bob Rubins... capable of tuning into what the average American is worried about...optimistic that he will start making this transformation...

You seem to be basing your whole argument on the assumption that Obama can change his whole position on these issues any day now. Not inspiring a lot of hope I'm afraid...

Iraq? What about Afghanistan? (0.00 / 0)
It's noteworthy that I don't see a lot of poll results about whether the American people want to send more troops to Afghanistan.  Or how many.

Fact is that Obama and Bush are in general agreement about pulling troops out of Iraq -- to send them to Afghanistan.  Yes, there's a difference.  Obama want to send more!  Climbing out of one hole to jump into a deeper one.  Yes, Obama is less of a maniac and more of a negotiator, but in the broad strokes, not much difference.

Can you spell q-u-a-g-m-i-r-e?

His primary issue, which worked in 2006, is off the table.  You can quibble around the details, but campaigns aren't won or lost on details.

And the Freddie Mae/Mac bailout?  No difference.  Obama supports a more humane cushion for the American people being crushed by the collapse of the economy, but he has little to say about that collapse.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

NAFTA and Iraq...NAFTA and Iraq...Repeat... | 22 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox