home

Obama Honestly Reflects On Politics And NAFTA

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:57:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This is the Barack Obama I really like a lot. The one who is going to be a great President:

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.

Self aware, rational and intelligent. He knows better than to believe his own press clippings. Good for him.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Voting Reform in FL Still Moving Too Slowly | A Time To Lead On FISA >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Honestly Reflects On Politics And NAFTA | 205 comments (205 topical)
    I always knew this (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:02:43 PM EST
    and as a free trader and a supporter of NAFTA, I always knew Obama was just demagoguing.

    But I am pleased to see him acknowledge it here.

    Lovin that free trade. (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:19:25 PM EST
    I'm sure the people in the 40 million jobs that are expected to be sent offshore in the next 20 years love it even more.

    [ Parent ]
    Can I offer you a tomato? ;) (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:19:53 PM EST
    Seriously though, I wish he would be upfront about trade and what he is going to do about protecting the citizens from dangerous product (hint to Obama: it's not just lead!!!) and how to level out the good and bad with free trade . . . .

    His "demagoguing" is not appreciated by MANY.

    [ Parent ]

    That's (5.00 / 11) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:31:00 PM EST
    what bugs me. Why not just be for free trade during the primary and be honest about it. This is the kind of stuff that makes people continue to be mad.

    What else has he promised that isn't true? That's what it makes me think.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama went left on trade (5.00 / 5) (#129)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:14:16 PM EST
    simply to appear "progressive" and to demonize the Clinton administration and Hillary.
    He hoodwinked many of his followers, but not us.

    [ Parent ]
    But he didn't acknowledge it during the primaries (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by bridget on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:31:23 PM EST
    that's when it counted for the voters. He remained vague to the point of dishonesty - and in typical Obama form he

    instead trashed Hillary re NAFTA w. the help of the Russerts. It was a disgrace.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly, trade is a central wealth gap issue (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by datadriven on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:35:59 PM EST
    His comments now simply serve to re-position him more to the right for the general election.

    Goolsbee already told the Canadian government not to take his Ohio trade comments seriously. Now we see why Goolsbee wasn't tossed under the bus with so many others.  

    [ Parent ]

    I always knew (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:42:25 PM EST
    from his staff appointments.  

    As an opponent of what we generally call "free trade," watching it's destructive effects on families and whole communities and the negative impact on the nation as a whole, I have to say that this simply reinforces my view of Obama as an ignoble, unfortunate occurance in the life of our nation. Obama has been the classic example of the politician who would say anything to be elected, old politics in new and even more pernicious packaging.

    I'd really like to see the justification for weakening the nation as a whole for the benefit of an elitist few.  Those "studies' have got to be something out of Grimm's Fairy tales.

    [ Parent ]

    Just makes in him sound ... (5.00 / 17) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:03:31 PM EST
    like a Status Quoist.  This is the Obama I don't like.

    Because essentially all he's saying is, "We say a bunch of crap to get elected, and then just let things continue as they are."

    Another "words that mean no much" (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:32:27 PM EST
    moment.  So far, obama has backpedaled on about 85% of what he has said.  Let's see if he stays on the straight and narrow in this regard before rushing to conclusions.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry...words that mean not much (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:32:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. Well said. (4.95 / 20) (#44)
    by bridget on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:23:50 PM EST
    After Hillary was trashed and more often than not misquoted by the Obama campaign and the media re her stance on Free Trade past and present ...

    after Obama and the media trashed and misquoted the Clinton/Gore admin re NAFTA

    So now Hillary is out and he is in and he feels save in the backtracking department. It this is only the beginning of a long long novel "What I really meant, sort of mean, or might mean tomorrow" coming at you ...

    So Why in the world does this unimpressive Obama comment show that he will be a great President? How? When in fact The opposite is true IMHO.

    just speaking for myself, of course.

    P.S. There has not be a single moment during this whole campaign that I thought Obama would or could be President, let alone a great president.
    The debates told me all I needed to know. And believe me, I wish it wasn't so.

    [ Parent ]

    You can speak for me, too (5.00 / 5) (#190)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:03:02 PM EST
    I agree with everything you said.

    So, Obama is politics as usual, at its bare bones worst. Only his young followers weren't aware of what Obama was doing. Those of us who have been around awhile knew he was just like bush and Axelrod is using Rove's play book. I think I'm going to take my Millenium kids, who support Clinton, out to dinner.

    I'm surprised Obama revealed this prior to his absolute annointing as the candidate.

    How does being this kind of politician equate to becoming a great president?

    [ Parent ]

    That's not what he said (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:04:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's pretty close. (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:08:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No it is not (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:10:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    or i said stuff I didn't (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:17:59 PM EST
    1)believe
    2)hope for
    3)Mean

    [ Parent ]
    And in your first post you said he (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    was "just demagoging".

    [ Parent ]
    And he says so here (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:10:22 PM EST
    and he says that's politics. And it is.

    [ Parent ]
    I just meant that Robot Porter's interpretation (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:13:59 PM EST
    was pretty much the textbook meaning of demagoging.

    Anyway, yeah it was always pretty clear that he (and likely Clinton and Edwards) were pushing anti-NAFTA for strategic reasons.

    [ Parent ]

    Edwards went out early on a limb with NAFTA. (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:27:42 PM EST
    It may have buried him in Iowa, where they export grain.

    [ Parent ]
    politics (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by cigan on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:44:19 PM EST
    Yes it is politics.  But is he not the one that wants "change" not politics as usual?

    [ Parent ]
    That is just politics too (5.00 / 7) (#111)
    by bridget on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:00:16 PM EST
    except the Obamafans may not have gotten it yet - and probably never will.
    Change a la Obama: Bush out, Obama in the White House.

    While the Dem party changes for the worst while we type.

    Sort of like M.Moulitsas for whom change always meant a place on the pundit power table for him, an article in Newsweek etc. The netrooters on his site worked as his foot soldiers ready to impress the Olbermanns. Same thing.

    [ Parent ]

    A "devastating" rejoinder, BTD (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:10:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:11:25 PM EST
    I do no think your comment required much more than a demurral.

    It is not what he said.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course he didn't laud the Status Quo (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:17:07 PM EST
    But that's exactly what he'll end up doing.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD, have you been to any Obama (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:08:33 PM EST
    campaign appearances?  Can't figure out why you are so convinced of his merits as President and I'm not.  Thanks.

    Another question: have you read either (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:10:03 PM EST
    or both of Obama's books?

    [ Parent ]
    I read one of his books (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:17:56 PM EST
    One was really boring and put me to sleep.  I read it when I had a stomach illness for 10 days straight and never quite finished.  It was one of those bathroom books you pick up and you put down to never pick up again.  

    The other one was Audacity of Hope.  The book left me convinced that Barack was an insightful guy but left some questions for me as to his commitment on gay rights and a woman's right to choose.  Neither book convinced me he should be president.  

    [ Parent ]

    A of H (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:21:44 PM EST
    left me wondering why he was so ambiguous about everything.  It appears he gets some sort of ideological and political Carte Blanche to go from one idea in a sentence to a contradictoory idea in the next sentence...

    I guess he was in practice for the elections.

    [ Parent ]

    One of my tertiary-educated friends, a (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:28:28 PM EST
    long-time liberal who usually questions everything, is a fervent Obama supporter.  Recently I asked her why she supports him.  Answer:  read A of H.  

    [ Parent ]
    I was stunned at the vacuity of the presentation. (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:34:38 PM EST
    The foreward is all about compromising on Abortion, and suddenly after Clinton's out, he's supposed to be the saviour of family planning rights and the protector of Roe v Wade. lol.

    Makes me sick seeing the sharpness of it all.
    His comments about the New Deal "crumbling" made me wonder what his game really is about. he appeared to knock Clinton, Truman and FDR --laud Reagan and suggest he had the answers to resolving class conflicts and the nature of the Welfare State in the US (with some bromides about Education.)

    [ Parent ]

    the whole book is a political ad (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:56:03 PM EST
    Whoever you are, I feel your pain--unless you crossed me like Alan Keyes, in which case I'll talk about what a jerk you are for a couple of pages...and then I'll resume feeling everyone's pain.

    [ Parent ]
    I do not want ot hear... (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by AX10 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:57:13 PM EST
    about how "stupid" those "hicks with guns" are anymore.  The educated class if proving to just of that stereotype that the left has made of them.
    The educated/creative class cannot even tell you what Obama stands for.  At least those "backwood hicks" could tell you what Reagan and Bush stood for.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm really tired of it too (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:56:27 PM EST
    I find it arrogant and elitist.  I am not that.  I'm kinda in the Obama demographic but I am not someone who likes to sit around looking down upon those who are different than me.  Isn't that what Republicans do?

    [ Parent ]
    oculus (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:54:19 PM EST
    Don't you mean "books"

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:10:32 PM EST
    Since NAFTA is said to have had a "mild, positive effect" on the U.S. economy then he not only was demagoguing the issue but he was also wrong. "Devastating" is very, very far from "mild, positive".

    The problem with coming clean after (5.00 / 16) (#43)
    by hairspray on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:23:42 PM EST
    the nomination is in the bag, is that he led a lot of people on who believed he was different and that Clinton was the evil one.

    [ Parent ]
    The nomination is only in the bag (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:06:25 PM EST
    if the Superdelegates don't respond appropriately to this.

    Apparently, there is a big full page article coming out in a major newspaper putting the SD's on notice their elections are at risk.


    [ Parent ]

    The effects of NAFTA (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:28:16 PM EST
    are still HIGHLY debatable.
    This isn't meant to defend Obama; it's pretty obvious he was pandering.
    But it is way to early to judge whether NAFTA has been "mild" and "positive" when there have been studies that have shown the opposite.

    [ Parent ]
    something can be (1.00 / 2) (#34)
    by tben on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:20:14 PM EST
    and in NAFTA's case is, both mildly positive for the economy as a whole, and devestating for some individuals, industries, and communities, and even whole regions.

    To characterize the whole package as devastating when there are a lot of positives is an exaggeration, but it is not nearly as egregious as you seem to indicate.

    [ Parent ]

    What? So he lies during the primaries... (5.00 / 17) (#12)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:11:10 PM EST
    and now that he coyly agrees that he "lied" he's going to make a great president?

    I'm sorry - what about the politics of change?  And words matter?

    Oh please (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    so now you trust politicians?

    How ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]

    This be fascinating watching his true (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:18:54 PM EST
    belivers in the antiwar community slowly wake up from the spell of glamour.

    [ Parent ]
    Bush's TRUE believers did not wake up (5.00 / 11) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:23:04 PM EST
    for so far (7+ years), why do you think Obama's TRUE believers will be any different.

    When a person invests so much of themselves and their egos into a politician, they can not admit that they might have been wrong about anything they believed.

    [ Parent ]

    There will be lots of shattered ego's over the war (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:25:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    See comment #17 (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:43:03 PM EST
    for the type of rhetoric you will hear from the true believers when Obama fails to end the occupation. He will be praiseworthy for being honest on how difficult the task is or something.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:34:04 PM EST
    plenty of Bush's true believers woke up. It just took too long for them to do it unfortunately. And the few that approve are the ones who hate democrats more than anything.

    [ Parent ]
    Can't find the party affiliation data behind (none / 0) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    Bush's most recent dismal job approval rating but in polls past he has held on to Republican support. Rasmussen's recent poll giving him a 31% approval said"

    Just 68% of Republicans now voice approval for the President, also an all-time low.

    Buried in that number I would guess that there is at least 28% who still think Bush walks on water.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not about trust (5.00 / 18) (#37)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:21:41 PM EST
    It's about hypocrisy. I hate hypocrisy. If Obama were running as a straightforward politician, instead of a "new kind of politics", then I would expect him to lie. But he isn't. People are impressed with him because he is making himself out to be something he isn't: A candidate who will change the way Washington works. He's not just slanting his belief's to make them more palatable to voter's, he is a commodity that is being marketed, using some truly hateful marketing techniques. I've said before that the only "change" Obama is going to bring to Washington is his ancestry. His politics are as old as politics itself.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't mind a hypocritcal position. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:26:26 PM EST
    Or person. To some extent everyone is hypocritcal.

    [ Parent ]
    But Obama not only held ... (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:31:05 PM EST
    one position on NAFTA and now holds another.

    But he vehemently denied that he did during the campaign, when the Goolsbee issue came up.

    What other issues will he do this on?

    Iraq springs to mind.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually there use to be a few things that you (4.75 / 4) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:21:15 PM EST
    could trust most Democratic politicians on. In 2005, when a united party stood firm against the mantra that Social Security was in crisis, I trusted them to protect Social Security. In 2008, after they stood silent while Obama made them all out to be liars on Social Security, that trust is diminished.

    I trusted that I would be disappointed by Hillary's actions on a lot of things but I did and do think that she has a firm commitment to Health Care and Women and Children issues.

    Based on Obama's words and actions, I do not trust him on those issues. In fact, I cannot point to one issue that Obama has stood firm on if challenged.

    [ Parent ]

    Barack Obama is running (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:31:49 PM EST
    on the "Bill Cosby platform."  

    In other words, he's jello.  ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I trust politicians to, at least, (4.75 / 4) (#202)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:22:03 PM EST
    be reasonably close to what they truly believe and Barack Obama has been polar opposite on key issues from the primary to now.

    THAT'S why we don't trust him with pro-choice.  If he lies about Nafta and Iraq, you know he will throw women under the bus at the first chance and in the name of Kumbaya.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD could you help me link back to your (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:27:33 PM EST
    Holding Dems Accountable and Why Isn't Obama Leading threads so I can replenish my previously unshakable faith in you?

    Delete with extreme prejudice as it's much to nice a day to be buggin or bugged.

    [ Parent ]

    this is perfectly consistent with those posts (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:32:27 PM EST
    It is OUR JOB to make him pay a price for not doing the right thing.

    this is my whole point. always has been. Pols are pols and do what they do.

    What WE do is something different.

    I agree with Saul Alinsky on this point.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama sailed through the primaries (5.00 / 9) (#74)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:37:11 PM EST
    without making any commitments except to "hope and change". How can Democrats make accountable a candidate who they select without extracting promises from? I don't get it.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:42:27 PM EST
    and I fought hard to avoid that.

    [ Parent ]
    So BTD is your vote in doubt ... (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by davnee on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:48:32 PM EST
    ... if Obama makes similar comments before November about Iraq?  You are a free trader, so you are happy to see Obama confess his pander on NAFTA.  You are glad to see the flip.  But what if he confesses to pandering on Iraq?  What if he starts amplifying his pandering to the right on abortion?  What if he continues to send out strange signals on social security?  Are there any lines in the sand you will not let him cross?

    [ Parent ]
    yes, and thank you (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:59:52 PM EST
    and now as the GE proceeds and more things come out, we should stomp on any orange complainers, because they have no right to complain since they made no requirements for their nominee. All they can say is that what they thought W.O.R.M was wrong. Oopsie.

    [ Parent ]
    Or think he'll be ... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:45:08 PM EST
    a "great president" when he reverses himself on one of the few "promises" he did make.

    That makes no sense.

    [ Parent ]

    FDR had a studied mercurail side to him. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:44:26 PM EST
    He was damned hard to pin down.  A president is often forced to be pragmatic and thus Mercurial by circumstances.

    [ Parent ]
    I understand that. The difference is that, (5.00 / 6) (#101)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:50:31 PM EST
    unlike Obama, FDR had a substantial record when he ran for President. One could have hope of change, beyond merely hearing the words.

    [ Parent ]
    All of these posts (4.75 / 4) (#148)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:27:06 PM EST
    really make me wish, even more than normal, that Hillary was our candidate.  

    At least with Hillary, you knew what you were getting.  You might not have agreed with her on everything but you knew what you were going to get.  

    Rise Hillary Rise!  (Who did I just steal that from?!)  

    [ Parent ]

    BTD you sound more and more like a (none / 0) (#152)
    by GMN on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:28:20 PM EST
    LAWYER.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Words, even coyly lied, matter in the primaries (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by bridget on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:47:00 PM EST
    because it seems to have worked for Obama voters

    but will never turn him into a great president

    in fact, his lack of knowledge about EVERYTHING scares the heck out of me ....

    [ Parent ]

    He's a politician (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:13:39 PM EST
    It goes to show. And I'm glad he said it. Of course things get overheated on the trail, and of course the rhetoric is demagoguing to get votes. It's what politicians do. Whatever works for them to get votes, they milk it 'til it's dry. That goes for Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain, and anyone who's ever run for an office higher than county treasurer. People do things and say things to get elected. That's always the case. I'm a pro-free-trader myself, and I knew that when Obama made those statements it was to try and get votes in OH and MI and PA. I typically don't fault candidates for this kind of thing, because it's the only way to get elected.

    Are you saying that (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:15:52 PM EST
    Obama will do anything and say anything to win? Sounds positively, monstrously, Hillaryian.

    People do things and say things to get elected.


    [ Parent ]
    Rove playbook: (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:21:49 PM EST
    Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain is not missing the opportunities to (none / 0) (#201)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:20:37 PM EST
    point that out everytime Obama does something to earn it, either.


    [ Parent ]
    Okay, he's a politician (none / 0) (#149)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:27:23 PM EST
    and politicians can say anything to get the votes. So, at what point is Obama held accountable? What campaign lie becomes one lie too many? Is he lying about his position on choice? Is he lying about privatizing SS? Is he lying about getting out of Iraq?

    [ Parent ]
    Rhetoric gets overheated and amplified (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:14:59 PM EST
    when needed to defeat one opponent and toned down when you want to change your position completely to win the next stage.

    This is the Obama I expect but not one I particurly trust on the issues.

    Wink, wink (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by airwon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:19:21 PM EST
    So which one of his positions is he not exaggerating?

    Well (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:22:03 PM EST
    I am glad that he admits he's a politician. It was always obvious that the whole "hope" and "change" thing was just an angle.

    What bothers me is that a lot of his supporters actually believed this. And that they, and the Obama campaign itself, accused Clinton of being "old politics" and some sort of evil being. Which is total nonsense. Obama is a politician, and he won't do anything spectacularly new. Hey, he just basically hired Bill Clinton's foreign policy team. And that's fine. I just wish his campaign and his supporters would stop pretending that he's some sort of transformational figure.

    Typical Politician (5.00 / 12) (#40)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:22:52 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but Obama has been, is, and will always be a typical Washington Pol.

    And so are Clinton and McCain (and the rest of them) and they always will be.

    But Obama, being the (D) presumptive nominee, reeks of disingenuity when his campaign is based on new politics but his words and behavior and those of his surrogates and aides show otherwise.

    At least McCain, and Clinton for that matter, do not run away from that notion, but they have shown so much more realness in their efforts to move away from it ... Unfortunately, Obama doesn't even know, or accepts he's part of it.

    Yet again, we in the D-Party are stuck with voting for the better of two nutbags in the final race. urgh.

    Can we all agree to trust Obama (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:26:26 PM EST
    implicitly on SS now?
    Good!

    yeah (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:29:15 PM EST
    I certainly don't trust him any better after this. Does he realize that he's put himself in the position to be Kerry 2.0? Probably not.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:28:08 PM EST
    I'm glad that he doesn't believe his press clippings if you are right. However, he needs to quit with the arrogance too.

    He stands for change.... (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Moishele on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:30:42 PM EST
    and that is just what his opinions/ policies do from moment to moment.

    It's enough to make you wonder which Obama will show up. Oops, sorry- that remark can only be used against Clinton.

    Excellent! (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:02:44 PM EST
    His positions change from time to time, and you can hope they change to your liking.  

    Thanks for clarifying Obama's campaign message.  Took me 18 months to arrive at it.

    [ Parent ]

    Ouch, that would actually make a (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:05:44 PM EST
    great campaign ad.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:46:01 PM EST
    Truly outstanding that he's willing to admit, now that we're in the general election, that he's not as far to the left on this issue as he portrayed himself during the primary.

    That is, indeed, a refreshing degree of candor.  Perceptive posts like this one remind me of the BTD I really like a lot, the one who is going to be a great blogger.

    Heh (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:47:44 PM EST
    Well for crazy protectionists like Sirota (and you?), maybe not what they want to see.

    [ Parent ]
    Sirota will forget all about the Protectionism. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:55:32 PM EST
    He's an anti-racist these days. Doncha Know.

    [ Parent ]
    Eh, Sirota's just trying to sell books ;-) (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:08:24 PM EST
    Here's a Sirota quote:

    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. - D

    Sirota's heart bled for Obama during the primary.  He must feel betrayed -- or not, if it sells books.

    [ Parent ]

    Where is that quote from? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:11:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sent via (none / 0) (#130)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:14:26 PM EST
    email.  I'll see if I can find it on his web site.

    [ Parent ]
    I just want to savor (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:22:16 PM EST
    Sirota's teeth gnashing.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's a (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:35:33 PM EST
    KOS diary on the subject.

    Link

    Savor away. ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    LOL, OK, now I'm having fun n/t (none / 0) (#184)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:55:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#180)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:49:31 PM EST
    It has nothing to do with the merits of the trade issue.  I'm just stunned that you can find something praiseworthy about this comment.  It's one thing to say that we expect no better from pols, it's another thing to compliment them for it.

    Try it this way.  Do you think Obama took a staunch anti-NAFTA position in the primaries because it was to his political advantage, or because "the rhetoric got overheated and amplified" (passive voice and all, as if it's just this thing that happened)?  If the former, to what does "honestly" refer in your title?

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is a fraud in that case. (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by AX10 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:48:25 PM EST
    He claims to be the candidate of change.  The one who will NOT pander to get votes.  Yet, that is EXACTLY what he did in Ohio.  He came out against NAFTA in order to paint Hillary into a corner.
    Now, he's all for it.  Obama is just another politician, like the other 99.9% of them.
    The entire premise of the Obama campaign, was that he was different from the other politicians.  Come to find out, he is just another one of them.
    That really puts down the biggest reason that his campaign has been claiming why we should support him.

    I think BTD just (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:49:53 PM EST
    secretly threw us some red meat, while pretending he respects it.  

    Thanks, BTD, I was getting a little iron deficient.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by davnee on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:00:54 PM EST
    You know I might not dislike Obama so much if not for his ridiculous movement.  People running around waxing poetic about how inspiring it is to fall for a politician's pandering and manipulations should just be patted on the head and sent on their way - far, far away.

    [ Parent ]
    Gullible, ain't we? (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:03:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well..he is smart (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by ajain on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    But, quite a hypocrite.
    He attacked Hillary for the 'obliterate' comments which were obviously hyperbole. He questioned her character by calling her a say-or-do-anything politician and now that the primaries are over and the majority of Americans see NAFTA as a mixed bag and not absolute crap he is walking back his previous criticisms. That makes me question his character and call him a say-or-do-anything politician.

    Hypocrite (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:01:25 PM EST
    is in the job description for politicians.

    [ Parent ]
    And he's a master hypocrite! (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by davnee on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:11:32 PM EST
    Whoopee!  Look I think Obama is a cunning and ruthless pol.  He's obviously got serious skills, and a great team, to be able to hoodwink enough primary voters into buying into a movement that is absolute, unadulterated bunk.  And that he got so many to sell their souls to him so easily and so completely that there is no electoral cost to him for pulling back the curtain even before the GE is astonishing.  Props to him.  

    But will this make him a great president?  Depends on if we expect a president to deliver us policy genius as well as political genius.  Brilliant politics can be in service of both good and evil.  Haven't years of Republican political genius taught us that?

    [ Parent ]

    I thought you loathed hypocrisy? (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:13:09 PM EST
    Don't disappoint me!

    [ Parent ]
    From so called reality based community members (none / 0) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:15:46 PM EST
    Certainly.

    From pols? It is like loathing that sharks are always attacking prey.

    They do what they do.

    [ Parent ]

    I actually find (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by tek on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:31:25 PM EST
    am really tired of this argument from Obama backers.  If we're going to say politicians just do terrible things, then why not vote for a Republican or Libertarian or whatever?  They're all alike, right?

    [ Parent ]
    well, you hope that even if they (none / 0) (#179)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:47:51 PM EST
    are slimy politicians, that they at least have at some core similar ideas of how things should be as you do. So the slimy politicians in the blue gang tend to favor things I like and the slimy politicians in the red gang tend not too.

    But of course that all assumes you have enough data on a politician to make a good guess at them through all of the slim.

    [ Parent ]

    Why is he smart? (5.00 / 6) (#194)
    by bridget on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:10:55 PM EST
    Why is he a talented politician.

    Why? What makes pundits and other pols say this about Obama? Cause I just don't see it.

    Bill Clinton was a brilliant candidate, the smartest ever. And He was amazing in discussing pol issues clearly in a just a sentence or two. There was nothing he couldn't respond to - no matter what it was.

    From watching the Obama debates, I just don't see it. Why is Obama smart?

    [ Parent ]

    Sadly, what most people do not get (none / 0) (#116)
    by AX10 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:04:24 PM EST
    including my father, is that Obama campaigned on the pledge that he is a different kind of politician.  Come to find out, Obama is the typical politician.
    Hillary made no illusions as to who she was.  I respected her greatly for that.  She was human.
    I am pissed at Obama for doing this.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess he'll say anything and do anything to win (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:06:19 PM EST


    So let me get this straight. (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    McCain attacks Obama for saying he would unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA, which Obama clearly did say.  Obama responds by saying -- had my fingers crossed, didn't really mean it.  And this is presidential and praise-worthy how?

    Isn't Obama setting himself up for a media narrative that he's the biggest flip-flopper since -- oh, I don't know, maybe John Kerry?

    Cite? (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ramo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:23:50 PM EST
    Where did he reverse himself on renegotiating NAFTA?

    [ Parent ]
    he reversed himself the very day (none / 0) (#146)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:26:14 PM EST
    Don't you remember all that CanadaGate stuff from the debates? And if it wasn't clear from what his people said to Canada then, this post and it's referenced discussion makes that more clear.

    [ Parent ]
    No, he didn't. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ramo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:29:03 PM EST
    That's a bald assertion.

    Goolsbee reportedly reassured members of the Candian gov't (as did members of the Clinton team regarding their candidate) that Obama wasn't a protectionist.  Which he isn't (and she isn't).  Nothing was ever reported about his stance regarding renegotiating NAFTA.

    [ Parent ]

    Um, why don't you read the article (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:04:47 PM EST
    linked at the top of BTD's post.  I said Obama has flip-flopped on unilaterally renegotiating NAFTA.  The article says:

    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.

    Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called that threat a mistake, and other leaders abroad expressed worries about their trade deals. Leading House Democrats, including Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, distanced themselves from the candidates.

    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 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."

    Flip flop.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think the term (5.00 / 9) (#135)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:16:41 PM EST
    "honestly reflects"  accurately describes what he did in that interview.He says politicians sometimes use "overheated" and "amplified" rhetoric, and that he may have done that during the campaign. But what he did was totally misrepresent (i.e. lied about) his stand on NAFTA, even when his advisor got nabbed tell the truth to the Canadian government.  "Overheated" and "amplified" are not synomyms for lying. The are synonyms for exaggeration, but not for bold faced misrepresentation. He lied about NAFTA and now he's lying about what he was doing when he lied about NAFTA. No honesty there, just more deflection.
     

    Renegotiating NAFTA (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by bridget on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:22:29 PM EST
    it was Hillary who wanted to do that. Obama kept pretty mum about it cause he had no opinion if you ask me but was against NAFTA cause it sounded good at the time. What else is new.

    This came up more than once in the debates when the "boys" incl. Obama and his media and blog friends attacked Hillary for months - basically over nothing it now turns out.

    I am just waiting to hear him apologize for his other nasty strategies during this primary. You know all the stuff that ruined it for Hillary before S. Carolina and the way he maligned and "disappeared" the Clinton Administration while praising the GOP and Reagan. That should be another interesting novel.  

    No. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ramo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:25:01 PM EST
    You have the issues wrong.  Both of them said that they were for renegotiating NAFTA.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I do have it on tape (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by bridget on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:32:45 PM EST
    but it wouldn't be the first time that Hillary anwered a question during a debate and Obama said with great relief since usually he was pretty clueless re pol issues: "Me, too."

    ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    next: choice and the war (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:23:55 PM EST
    I fully expect him to similarly reflect honestly on choice and the war.

    Like Powers said, he will eventually say we have to stay in Iraq for many years, pull out slowly, and most likely have permanent bases.

    And as his AofH book, and his debate answers hint, he's not really pro choice. He's for compromising with the right at best, and pro life at worst. I can see him siding with Roberts and others in their continuing effort to water down Roe -- next up, requiring husband notification (given what we know, I think he would be for that).

    Those I expect to come out after he's elected (if he is). I assume all the progressives out there will similarly think he's a great president then. After all, it will just be politics. Can't complain then I'm afraid.

    This sounds (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by tek on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:29:05 PM EST
    so much like the posturing that was done for George W. Bush!  can't wait for Obama to "reflect honestly" on the issues.  (WTH)? Why didn't he speak honestly on the issues during the primary campaign?

    [ Parent ]
    ah, you were expecting an honest leader (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:35:50 PM EST
    then. Sorry, you were looking at the wrong candidate if you wanted that from Obama. He's a typical politician. And yes, they all are. Sad but true. And he'll be slipper and dishonest when it suits him. As they all do. And maybe they all really do have to do that.

    Problem here is, he hasn't been around long enough for anyone to get a handle on what he really believes. Because even with typical politicians, eventually what they think and want comes through with enough time. So no one but he and his family and perhaps close under the bus friends know what he really wants to do. We can only guess. And my guesses make me worry.


    [ Parent ]

    I actually find (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by tek on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:27:33 PM EST
    this quite disturbing.  It is true flip-flopping.  He can say things were "heated" but that is exactly when a competent politician stays on message and spits out the facts.  There's always an excuse for Obama, though.

    Sammy Sosa will always be remembered as (5.00 / 6) (#164)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:35:42 PM EST
    a great hitter who got caught using a corked bat.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:36:49 PM EST
    Indeed, he will be a great president, for this and many other reasons. From more representative parts of the article (for those who don't bother to click through):

    Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that 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...

    On the afternoon that I sat down with him to discuss the economy, Obama said he had just spoken with 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."

    Obama has repeatedly described himself as a free-trade proponent who wants to be a "better bargainer" on behalf of U.S. interests and wants agreements to include labor and environmental standards...

    In the Fortune interview, Obama noted that despite his support for opening markets, "there are costs to free trade" that must be recognized. He noted that under NAFTA, a more efficient U.S. agricultural industry displaced Mexican farmers, adding to the problem of illegal immigration.

    We "can't pretend that those costs aren't real," Obama added. Otherwise, he added, it feeds "the protectionist sentiment and the anti-immigration sentiment that is out there in both parties."
    Everything is negotiable (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by aquarian on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:47:36 PM EST
    "I'm not a big believer