Obama Honestly Reflects On Politics And NAFTA

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I always knew this (5.00 / 1) (#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 / 6) (#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.

    Can I offer you a tomato? ;) (5.00 / 4) (#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.


    That's (5.00 / 10) (#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.


    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.

    But he didn't acknowledge it during the primaries (5.00 / 7) (#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.


    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.  


    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.


    Just makes in him sound ... (5.00 / 16) (#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 / 5) (#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.

    sorry...words that mean not much (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:32:56 PM EST
    Exactly. Well said. (4.94 / 19) (#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.


    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?


    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
    It's pretty close. (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:08:16 PM EST
    No it is not (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:10:45 PM EST
    or i said stuff I didn't (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:17:59 PM EST
    2)hope for

    And in your first post you said he (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    was "just demagoging".

    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.

    I just meant that Robot Porter's interpretation (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.

    politics (5.00 / 5) (#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?

    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.


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


    Of course he didn't laud the Status Quo (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:17:07 PM EST
    But that's exactly what he'll end up doing.

    BTD, have you been to any Obama (5.00 / 6) (#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?

    I read one of his books (5.00 / 7) (#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.  


    A of H (5.00 / 4) (#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.


    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.  

    I was stunned at the vacuity of the presentation. (5.00 / 5) (#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.)


    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.

    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.

    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?

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

    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 / 15) (#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.

    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.


    The effects of NAFTA (5.00 / 5) (#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.

    something can be (1.00 / 1) (#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.


    What? So he lies during the primaries... (5.00 / 16) (#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.


    This be fascinating watching his true (5.00 / 7) (#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.

    Bush's TRUE believers did not wake up (5.00 / 10) (#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.


    There will be lots of shattered ego's over the war (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:25:24 PM EST
    See comment #17 (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.


    It's not about trust (5.00 / 17) (#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.

    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.

    But Obama not only held ... (5.00 / 6) (#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.


    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.


    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.  ;-)


    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.


    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.


    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.


    Obama sailed through the primaries (5.00 / 8) (#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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?!)  


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



    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 ....


    Rhetoric gets overheated and amplified (5.00 / 3) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 8) (#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 / 11) (#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 / 5) (#48)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:26:26 PM EST
    implicitly on SS now?

    yeah (5.00 / 4) (#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.

    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 / 3) (#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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


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

    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.

    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.


    Savor away. ;-)


    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
    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?


    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.

    Gullible, ain't we? (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:03:26 PM EST
    Great President? (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Piledriver on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:54:54 PM EST
    My Ass!  Nothing but a media creation.  The thought of him and his wife in the white house makes me gag!

    What you said. (none / 0) (#176)
    by tek on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:46:22 PM EST
    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.

    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?


    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!


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

    They do what they do.


    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?

    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.


    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?


    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.

    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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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."



    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?

    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.


    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 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."

    This is why I have difficulty with Obama's message.  Some things are not negotiable.  I call them principles.  If you have principles, and are still willing to meet and discuss with the opposition, that is principled leadership.  If you take no position before going into the meeting, you run the risk of compromising more than you should.


    Who says (none / 0) (#191)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:04:03 PM EST
    everything is negotiable?

    I think this little video clip of how he plans to approach getting health care for all Americans passed is very instructive about his approach. You go in with clear goals, he says (making sure everyone has coverage, improving quality, and controlling costs). You bring everyone to the table and don't exclude any of the stakeholders, but you are very clear about the goals going in. Then you do the horse-trading necessary to make sure everyone gets what they need out of it and no one gets all the burdens. It's that pragmatism that makes it work, i.e., recognizing that everyone needs to actually win for a deal to be made.


    Honestly, (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:32:45 PM EST
    I really can't wait to see how that works out.

    this (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:50:36 PM EST
    doesn't look like it went over very well.  

    Does Clinton get a free pass for amplifying a trip to Bosnia?

    I think not.

    Does obama get his free pass for being a politician?  Of course.  This is all dirty and scummy.

    This is the obama I might have liked if I never saw the obama who pretended to be something different.  

    Now it just makes it all worse somehow.

    Great just great.  He knows he's willy loman.

    maybe he'll soon be more forthcoming about (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:01:15 PM EST
    his tax plans.

    link to Lambert

    No money for UHC? No surprise there. (none / 0) (#198)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:14:49 PM EST
    Slouching Toward Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by WakeLtd on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:01:40 PM EST
    The fact is that Obama is going to continue to move closer and closer to the positions that Hillary Clinton espoused even when they helped to cost her the nomination. A great deal of credit for his early primary wins that carried him through the almost-devastating end of the primary season goes to Obama's stance as being far different from Hillary. But then - there is that pesky matter of the "other" 18 million voters. It is one thing to say "they have nowhere else to go" - it is dangerous though to base one's general election hopes on that premise. Obama doesn't want them  to go nowhere - he wants their votes. Expect him to continue to move toward the liberal-centrist positions that Hillary Clinton based her campaign on.  Primaries might be won by a rock star - the election is going to be won by ideas that make some sense and appeal to a wider spectrum of voters.

    I disagree that Hilary and Obama are the same (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by Saul on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:48:33 PM EST
    kind of politicians.  IMO Hilary really was not hiding anything she was not going to try to do. She ran a typical campaign.  She was not concern with how I got to the nomination. She would run the typical campaign just like Kennedy and FDR ran.  Just get me there and I will show you what I can do was her theme.  Obama went beyond that saying I will not be your typical politician like Hilary is.  I will be different. One thing is to  to say you are going to be a different politician and make it a theme of your campaign and it's another to totally hoodwink and bamboozle the masses on who you really are and later those masses have lingering doubts, saying, "Should I have really  voted for him knowing what I know now."  There is doubt with him but not with Hilary.

    To make my point if we started the campaigns all over again today  knowing everything we know about Obama now, I honestly think Hilary would have been the over whelming nominee very early on.  This would prove that they would still feel the same about Hilary but would feel different about Obama.
    Emphasis is that Hilary did not hide anything but Obama faked it.  No they are not the same type of politician.   Hilary is a typical politician, but Obama is a devious Becket

    So many Obama's to choose from! (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by ricosuave on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:40:21 PM EST
    That's the great thing about Obama...everyone can find Obama quotes that highlight the Obama they like.  

    Hate NAFTA?  So does Obama!  Like NAFTA? So does Obama!

    Is there any issue he hasn't done this with?

    He is and always was... (4.93 / 16) (#13)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:11:14 PM EST
    a corporate candidate, acceptable to the corporate power, or he never would have made it.

    Let's not kid ourselves.

    The movement is an illusion, based on pure marketing.

    Fast forward to the future: (4.92 / 14) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:20:12 PM EST
    Obama, after winning the election:

    "Of course, I said I was pro-choice.  But that was just good politics.  I hear John Roberts has a brother who would make a very nice Supreme Court pick.

    And did I say torture was a bad thing?  Oh sorry, we all just get a little carried away on the campaign trail.

    And Habeus Corpus?  You took me seriously on that one too?  Silly you!"

    LOL!  that's where this leads!

    When a man has almost no record (5.00 / 9) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:27:30 PM EST
    and he "honestly" admits to this NAFTA switcheroo, someone is going to have to tell me how he can be trusted on ANY ISSUE.

    The press won;t say anything (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:28:58 PM EST
    I'm guessing. they never hold him intellectually accountable for his statements.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:30:11 PM EST
    See I think he is progressive, pro-choice, pro-habeas corpus, etc.

    I'll bet some intelligent folks thought (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:34:25 PM EST
    he was anti-NAFTA too.  In fact, pre-Ohio, many people came out to say that Hillary was "teh evil" and Obama was the good on the very subject.

    The man has little record of any stance on anything.  You have to take him on "faith".  Bad idea.

    Wonder how he polls in Ohio now?


    you "hope" (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:37:35 PM EST
    he is.

    Well, his politics-as-usual (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:42:54 PM EST
    is progressing nicely, as he gradually comes out from behind some previous positions and moves ever closer to the right, he's making a believer out of a lot of people who will most certainly be exercising a choice not to vote for him, and I guess he ought to believe strongly in habeas corpus so that all of his contradictory statements do not languish in media purgatory and he gets yet another opportunity to explain what he really meant.

    I have no idea who or what Barack Obama is or believes and what he plans to do when and if he manages to get elected.

    I guess the "change we can believe in" simply refers to his ever-changing positions.

    I think when the GOP gets revved up, all we are going to be seeing are ad after ad after ad of Obama "changing" right before our eyes; yes, I know McCain seems to be a master at it, too, but that does not and will not level that playing field.


    Mercurial suites him. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:45:44 PM EST
    I think he's a stealth libertarian. (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:05:00 PM EST
    Yes, he doesn't like the government (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:08:42 PM EST
    telling people what to do. That value is higher for him than having programs that work (UHC)

    I have the same suspicion (4.75 / 4) (#136)
    by davnee on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:18:05 PM EST
    Actually, it is funny that I dislike him so strongly, because I've always had a libertarian streak myself.  But in recent years, I've come to believe that regulation has its place.  I'm also a hater of hypocrisy, so I don't like people running as stealth anythings.  So there you go.  But I really do think there is a reason all these former R's love him and why the young and the well-heeled love him too.  They are the ones who don't particularly need a progressive state apparatus.

    Libertarians are great as critics. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:24:14 PM EST
    I'd rather trust a Marxist-Leninist to run the government though.

    Sure, you think all those things (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:28:59 PM EST
    but you don't really know, do you? That's the danger of Obama.

    I don't (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:42:30 PM EST
    which is why some of us are having some problems still. I think he's pro life. I think he's middle of the road on many other issues and progressive on some, and conservative on some. I think he and McCain are exactly the same on the war as crazy as some might find that. Show me a record of activism, leadership, or voting that says any different.

    Labour suspended Habeus Corpus... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:38:59 PM EST
    ...when the IRA bombed Guildford and Birmingham.

    Habeus never survives an active terror campaign even with left wing governments, because the conviction is so hard to get straight.  And your average pol  does't want to let a clever cell leader slip from his clutches because of the principle of a speedy trial.


    yes yes they caught the wrong men. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:42:42 PM EST
    But there would have been a Pogrom of Ireish peole in teh UK had th egovernment not locked em up and fixed the trial.  

    It's not the courts have a better record with ordinary crime in destroying innocent people's lives.


    Another Fast Forward To The Future (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:38:25 PM EST
    "Of course, I said privatization of Social Security was off the table.  But that was just good politics.  You will just love those investment accounts, higher caps and reduced benefits.

    I know I said that I would end the war in Iraq but really that was just semantics. BTW having 80,000 to 100,000 American troops in the secure bases that Bush was kind enough to build for me is not really continuing the war. Oh, I know I increased the number of Blackwater contractors to compensate for some of the troops I brought home. Heck they may cost a heck of a lot more but its worth it to bring some of the troop home. When am I going to bring all the troops home? You know the American public doesn't really care if they stay in Iraq for decades. Just look at how long we have been in S. Korea.  


    judging from the way he Zeligged Edwards and Clint (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    on's Talking points. I suspect he'll govern just a smidge to the left of McCain.

    Well he already (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:47:09 PM EST
    let Samantha Powers back him off the Iraq War withdrawal, then threw her under the bus for saying it.

    Now, if/when he wins, he can say, "see, Samantha told you way back when, I didn't lie!"

    My prediction, This man isn't going to do anything he promises, except run to the right.

    If he nominates Hagel, McKinney's gonna get a lot of votes.


    Glen Ford executive editor of (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:55:17 PM EST
    Black Agenda Report is recommending voting for Cynthia McKinney.

    The man has no record (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:54:24 PM EST
    He is on many sides of every issue.  To say that any of us can determine what he's for or against is just a whole lot of hopey-changy wishful thinking.

    Unsolicited advice: if you are really (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:36:50 PM EST
    planning to run for public office, shouldn't you change your user name?

    how about: hoffinator (none / 0) (#174)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:44:41 PM EST
    And no charge either. Happy to help. :-)

    A name that doesn't look like (none / 0) (#186)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:56:32 PM EST
    it's misspelled would be good.

    From my perspective... (4.87 / 8) (#15)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:12:16 PM EST
    ...this is what makes him a not great President. He attacked Clinton during the election for her position on NAFTA (well, her support of her husband's position, anyway), and now he is backing down his rhetoric to something more like... her position. He doesn't seem to stand for anything but "I'll say whatever I need to say to get elected".

    That is what every politician does (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:12:49 PM EST
    Includng Hillary Clinton.

    OTOH (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:23:13 PM EST
    He's never called out on it.  So far anyway.  He's constantly contradicting himself, and gets a pass on things no other poll has been given since the press gave the same benefits to Bush in 2000.

    She never suggested she wasn't a regular (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:18:44 PM EST
    politician, either. She refused to eliminate PAC donations, she never said she would eliminate earmarks, and she didn't belittle Obama with "say anything it takes" stump speeches.

    It's the hypocricy of claiming to be above politics and usual.


    She just didn't do it as well. No Samantha (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:18:29 PM EST
    Power to Goolsbee (sp) to signal king's ex.

    Dalton, the point here is that (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:14:25 PM EST
    he sold himself to the youth vote by claiming he would not be a regular kind of politician. The main message in his stump speeches was that Clinton would say and do anything to get elected, but he was above that. He claimed he was running on the issues (even though they were rarely mentioned on the campaign).

    He has never mentioned those pesky earmarks again, either, has he? McCain doesn't do earmarks. Obama does. He may have made a really big mistake on that topic, because McCain IS talking about it.


    And Hillary (3.00 / 2) (#76)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:37:36 PM EST
    who has always been supportive of NAFTA went hard after Obama on NAFTA after the Gooslbee incident.

    It be a lot easier if you simply said "There is no position that Obama can take on any issue that I will find acceptable". Makes things much easier to understand.


    I think (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:41:27 PM EST
    if he hadn't pretended to be some sort of "new politician" then people really wouldn't care. Now he's throwing the "new politics" under the bus because apparently he doesn't think that it's a winner.

    Oh please, (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by Inky on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:46:33 PM EST
    Hillary's support of NAFTA has always been nuanced, and there's no reason to disbelieve David Gergen and Carl Bernstein when they say that privately she opposed NAFTA when her husband first pushed for it. Meanwhile Obama has been completely disingenuous on this issue, even portraying himself on the campaign trail as a more fervent opponent of NAFTA than Edwards.

    You said it n/t (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by bridget on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:44:00 PM EST
    And denying that ... (4.83 / 6) (#110)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:58:51 PM EST
    Goolsbee spoke for his position.  And it's now very clear that he did.

    Right (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:47:29 PM EST
    Clearly David Gergen was just lying when he said the opposite on CNN, because he's such a huge Hillary fan and defender.

    I'm not criticizing his position... (5.00 / 9) (#109)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:58:23 PM EST
    ...I'm criticizing his refusal to find a position and stick to it. Totally different concept. And please don't defend Obama by saying "Clinton did it, too". That's not a defense for a candidate who ran on a platform of being morally superior to his opponent.

    You tune out truth when it's about Hillary? (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:16:08 PM EST
    She has not always supported NAFTA. Do some research.

    Changing the paradigm (2.66 / 3) (#17)
    by Veracitor on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:12:24 PM EST
    The biggest reason I support Obama is because of his frank and thoughtful way of expressing issues in a fresh perspective - often non-PC.  People have become so used to political correctness and political "speak," that they are caught off guard by this new paradigm.

    Are you being serious here? (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:15:36 PM EST
    Can't be serious (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:17:35 PM EST
    Since the point of the post is that it's the same old same old.

    Absolutely (2.66 / 3) (#35)
    by Veracitor on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:20:26 PM EST
    Who else would freely admit that they have engaged in unsavory politics for political gain?

    Obama breaks the window.


    I love that you credit him (5.00 / 13) (#67)
    by davnee on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:33:56 PM EST
    for demonstrating that his new politics is nothing more than being forthright about engaging in old politics.  The only change Obama brings to politics is as follows:  I will lie to you to get your vote (old politics), but then I will calmly and happily tell you I lied to you once you vote for me (kinda new politics), and then you will worship both me and the policy or principle you once believed was worth voting against for doing so (revolutionary politics).

    This is why I think Obama in a cult figure.  He abuses people and they thank him for it.  It's bizarre.


    I think the New Paradigm is the Old D0uchebaggery (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:41:40 PM EST
    He's the fresh new voice (sampling better speakers and leaders) until he's caught lying with his own words (and then he'll cop only to what's necessary) and if he wasn't forthcoming there he'll cop again.

    Really, just saying he's a liar is more honest:

    Obama: So I lied, whatev.

    Obama: I was bored being a senator.

    Obama: Who needs the people, just get their checks.


    Right (4.42 / 7) (#175)
    by tek on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:45:11 PM EST
    like the forthright, non PC statement during the Great Race Speech when he said older Democrats are latent racist who are unenlightened and need to be tutored by the youth?  Not PC at all. Unfortunately, Obama is so uninformed he doesn't seem to realize that if it hadn't been for older, white Democrats who risked their lives going into the South to march with blacks and make sure they got civil rights BARACK OBAMA, the ignorant of history, would NOT be running for president.  Wonder how many causes Obama has risked his life for lately?  Ever?

    But, please, let's have the youth, those people who have suffered so much for their principles, tutor us oldsters.


    Okay, I'm glad he's being honest (none / 0) (#36)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:20:29 PM EST
    He's a lot like Jimmy Carter who I think Obama could model his presidency after.  Jimmy Carter was the most moral and honest politician who ever occupied the oval office.  Now I would not say Obama is as honest or pure as Jimmy Carter but he should definetly try.  

    I believe this is BTD's initial post (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:31:05 PM EST
    exhibiting his full-throated support for Barack Obama.

    "Great President" (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:36:11 PM EST
    And, I agree.

    Do you really (none / 0) (#126)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:12:30 PM EST
    know that Obama isn't for the same things as McCain.  I mean, do you REALLY know that?  If so, why?

    I know why I don't know.  It's because he's never took a firm stand on ANYTHING.

    He obviously did. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Ramo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:15:36 PM EST
    You can look at his voting record.  Consistently center-left on these issues (slightly to the left of Clinton).  You can look at his policies on his website.  His Presidential agenda, in fact, is far more firm than McCain's.

    Saying that he doesn't stand for anything is hyperbolic nonsense.


    His Vote For Cheney's Give Away To Oil (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:27:05 PM EST
    Energy bill, left of center? Even McCain voted against it.

    Ridiculous game. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Ramo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:35:20 PM EST
    Obama is not Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders.  As I said, he's center-left, and made a number of votes that I strongly disagree with.  He supported the Energy Bill because of its ethanol subsides (hopefully to cater to his constituents, as opposed to genuinely thinking it was a good idea).  I think he was wrong on both the merits and politics here, but 4 years obviously doesn't boil down to that single vote.  Are you going to say that Clinton doesn't stand for anything because of her vote for the IWR?

    Hillary Was Not The (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:55:11 PM EST
    subject being discussed nor is she the presidential nominee. The Energy Bill was no where close to left of center. It was a pure give away to big oil.

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Ramo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:10:58 PM EST
    And he voted for it for other reasons (ethanol subsidies).  Which also happen to be bad in my opinion.

    But occasional deviations from the left puts you in the center-left.  It certainly doesn't make you a flip-flopper who doesn't stand for anything.

    I bring up Hillary because "left" and "right" only means something in relation to others.


    yes, he stands for "present" (snark) n/t (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:31:03 PM EST
    Present (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Ramo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:37:50 PM EST
    Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice.
    1.     100 percent
    2.      100 percent
    3.     100 percent

    He only voted with NARAL 100% of the time...  What a flip-flopper...

    no, he didn't (5.00 / 6) (#196)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:12:58 PM EST
    he hardly ever voted for pro choice. He voted present, and he "accidentally" voted against it. And he said publicly he hasn't yet decided when life starts (at conception or later). Which means in a nut shell, he hasn't decided if he's pro choice or pro life yet. Period. The fact that NARAL likes him might have more to do with the money he gave them. Just a guess.

    Obama's Progressive Punch Score (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:23:53 PM EST
    on Family Planning is 80% and he ranks 40/99.

    took = taken (none / 0) (#127)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:13:03 PM EST
    I edit, therefore I mis-grammar.

    Obama (none / 0) (#144)
    by sas on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:24:35 PM EST
    never met an issue that he didn't take both sides of.  This is just another example.

    It just depends who he is talking to.

    Pandering weasel.

    lots of gop commercial material (none / 0) (#151)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:28:20 PM EST
    with all of these flip flops. But perhaps they have just as much or more about McCain. This is definitely going to be a nasty fight.

    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?

    What, BTD, is your definition (none / 0) (#169)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:39:25 PM EST
    of free trade?

    Obama Honestly Refects on NAFTA (none / 0) (#170)
    by deebee on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:40:07 PM EST
    You know .. if this is what makes for a good president..  they all should have been good.

    There is nothing new about the politics delivered here unless everything old is new again

    BTD you sound more and more like a (none / 0) (#177)
    by GMN on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:46:57 PM EST

    Yes, I reposted this comment.  My first attempt resulted in it being buried within another side discussion of this topic.

    Honesty and politics??? (none / 0) (#206)
    by Yotin on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:19:15 PM EST
    Honesty and politics are mutually exclusive. Obama honestly reflects on politics?... its politics as always.

    This is the Obama you like? (none / 0) (#208)
    by northeast73 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:35:27 AM EST
    The one who admits that he is nothing but a clever politician who is good ad demonizing his opponents over "wedge" issues, and later admits he is a phoney.


    To be frank, I am a little disappointed in TL lateley.  I know you are trying to appease the "unity pony" but, please.

    Why no write up on the lovely Obama supporters BOOING Jennifer Granholm this week?  That was something many of us would like to discuss.

    Oh my.... (none / 0) (#209)
    by masslib on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:52:37 AM EST
    Actually, this shows Obama lacks principles.  People who lack principles NEVER make great Presidents.  

    Gee where'd all that (none / 0) (#210)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:00:30 PM EST
    righteous moral indignation regarding hateful haters full of nothing but hate hate hate, go?

    "Weasal", "douchebag", etc etc

    "We" are only slightly amused, and many of "us" dont know whether to laugh or cry.

    Btw, (none / 0) (#211)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:26:26 PM EST
    WHAT "non-partisan studies"?

    And if it has a mildly positive effect here and a God awful effect elsewhere, is it necessarily a good thing?

    Free Trade is a substance-of-things-hoped-for/evidence-of-things-unseen phenomenon almost as much as the revealed religions, IMHO.