Republican John McCain is most militantly pro-free trade presidential candidate. That fact, alone, should guarantee his defeat in Ohio and other industrial states where his strategists entertain hopes of surfing a "Reagan Democrat" crossover of working-class Democratic voters to the GOP column this fall.

All that is required is that Barack Obama campaign as a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement and other deals that have battered workers, farmers, communities and the environment in the US and abroad.

Unfortunately, Democrat Barack Obama, who sent so many smart signals on trade issues when he was competing with Hillary Clinton for his party's presidential nomination, appears to now be backtracking toward the insider territory occupied by McCain.

Obama's interview with Fortune magazine -- headlined "Obama: NAFTA Not So Bad After All" -- is the best news the McCain camp has received since Mike Huckabee folded his run for the Republican nomination.

If Obama takes the economic issue that white working-class voters best understand off the table, he creates a huge opening for McCain in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

And that is precisely what the Democrat cynically dismisses his appropriately anti-NAFTA rhetoric during the primary season as "overheated and amplified."

In her interview with the candidate, Fortune's Nina Easton reminded Obama that earlier this year he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake" and suggested that he would use an opt-out clause in the trade agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico to demand changes that would be more favorable to workers and farmers in all three countries.

Obama replied that, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified" -- which would have been enough of an indication that he was backing off the stance that contributed significantly to his success in the February 19 Wisconsin primary that proved to be a critical turning point for his campaign.

But the presumptive Democratic nominee for president dug the hole deeper.

"Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he continued, suggesting that those who doubted his sincerity when he denounced NAFTA in a speech to Janesville, Wisconsin, autoworkers might have been right.

Abandoning the tough talk of the winter and spring, Obama sounded an awfully lot like free-trader McCain when he said he was for "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."

Easton took it that way.

"The general campaign is on, independent voters up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade," she began. "In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee suggests he doesn't want to unilaterally blow up NAFTA after all."

Referring to Obama's soft-peddling of the fair-trade position he embraced in the primary campaign, Easton writes, "That tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign's anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.

"The Democratic candidates fought hard to win over those factions of their party, with Obama generally following Hillary Clinton's lead in setting a protectionist tone. In February, as the campaign moved into the Rust Belt, both candidates vowed to invoke a six-month opt-out clause ('as a hammer,' in Obama's words) to pressure Canada and Mexico to make concessions... Now, however, Obama says he doesn't believe in unilaterally reopening NAFTA."

As David Sirota, the author of a terrific new book on populist anger at Washington's trade and economic policies, The Uprising, correctly observes, "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."

The McCain camp is already suggesting his Democratic rival is hypocritical, at best, when it comes to trade policy. The Fortune interview will add fuel to the fire.

If Obama does not change his tune, he could get burned in Ohio, Wisconsin and other states where primary surveys showed that the vast majority of Democratic, Republican and independent voters felt that the radically pro-corporate free trade policies of the Clinton and Bush years had harmed rather than helped America.

Comments (82)

1. John Nichols, why don't you examine your own buying into mainstream myths of a slice-and-dice electorate that has for so long been used by righ-of-center candidates to divide voters racially to defeat progressive movements.

   You sound like a parrot talking about "white working class" voters.

   There'll be no progressive change, Obama or not, if supposed progressives keep buying into the corporatocracy's divide-and-rule narratives.

   Posted by lintonv at 06/18/2008 @ 3:42pm

2. Not a question of moving right but how far right.

   Obama's speech in Michigan the other night was pretty lofty and great oratory. All the promises and the hope are going to run into the brick wall of political reality.

   How far Obama goes right and at what point some voters will consider the other candidate not because they support the other candidate, but rather they want a check on the Dem Congress is hard to say. I know I have my limits.

   The last thing we need is more pork barrel spending on behalf of corporate donors of the Dem variety. If it takes gridlock to stop them, that may realistically (and unfortunately) be in "our" best interests.

   Progressives only need to look back to the 2006 election to remember the "big" difference between promise and reality from the Democratic Party.

   Posted by OneVote at 06/18/2008 @ 3:48pm

3. He is setting his eyes on winning. He has to win more than just far left Demo's. I don't think most people are in favor of completely scrapping NAFTA, I think most people just want to fix it.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/18/2008 @ 4:01pm

4. Sorry, was everybody under the naive idea (I exclude Mr Nichols from this, since naivete' is his forte'...heheh)...

   that Obama was going to slam down the gates, throw up the 20% tariffs, and cut off trade with the world?

   Incrementalism, folks. Get used to the idea. He'll play harder ball with China, etc....but he's still going to be in the game.

   And until somebody can explain how the working family who saves $2500 a year at Wal-mart is supposed to "make up the difference" when the Glorious Return of Protectionism comes....that's the way it's going to be.

   Posted by Mask at 06/18/2008 @ 4:14pm

5. Mr. Nichols,

   We need to ask ourselves as progressives why this "tack to the center" strategy has become de rigueur for the Democrats every four years.

   It's like watching your favorite football team year after year doggedly repeat the "three yards and a cloud of dust" offensive strategy while the super bowl champs employ sophisticated "west coast" offensive schemes employing multiple receivers, and multiple offensive sets to confuse and confound defenses.

   The physics of our American political scene are obvious enough –the left is anemic compared to the right in showing any observable effect on the nominee's trajectory.

   Why is this?

   I believe that progressive institutions --The Nation magazine in conjunction with other progressive mags and organizations-- must find a way to synchronize their efforts and lay out a palate of critical issues for the Democratic nominee to be held strongly accountable on. Issues such as a rapid and complete Iraq withdrawal, a strong "fair not free" trade stance, massive public investment in our educational, technological, and physical infrastructure, and equally massive cuts in multi-billion dollar boondoggles --e.g. the F-22 and ballistic missile "defense"-- would be a good short list. We could also toss in a strategy for massive campaign finance reform and Constitutional restoration.

   But we must find a way to dig in deeply and rapidly. And we must form a credible threat to Obama of serious loss of support if he doesn't heed our calls.

   If we don't do so soon, we are likely to find ourselves out in the open getting mowed down by a Republic that has gone rabid.

   P.S. And to those who cry, "We better be careful or we'll get a McCain presidency and more right wing Supreme Court Justices etc…", I say that the time for timidity is well past. Obama is likely to beat McCain in any case even if it gets a little hairy.

   In contrast, if we don't get feisty and spoil for a fight we'll have only ourselves to blame when our Republic is lost. That's more hairy than I care to contemplate –and you'd better believe the threat is real.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/18/2008 @ 4:35pm

6. Do I hear echoes of Bill Clinton's total about face on NAFTA back in '92? Obama's change of attitude on NAFTA is going to open the door to McCain AND Ralph Nader in Midwest states that are not exactly enthusiastic about Obama in the first place. Obama should have known pandering to Fortune Magazine was not going to go unnoticed - especially in this specific economic meltdown that is going to get worse not better. If Obama does not have a true progressive agenda - shades of FDR,JFK, or Jimmy Carter as well - then who is he? This country CANNOT afford BILL CLINTON II. That is exactly how the neo-cons got a stanglehold on this country with Bush II.

   Posted by jimijazz at 06/18/2008 @ 4:49pm

7. Ralph Nader is not walking through that door.

   Posted by Hman23 at 06/18/2008 @ 5:26pm

8. I remember counting 7-8 presidents at the signing of NAFTA with the introduction of the ceremony by Al Gore. If the repub congress had not defunded the teeth out of it's regulatory compliance conditions, workers and the environment would've been protected. Go back and reread how it was supposed to work and all the shit the repub majority in congress did to it within a decade to make it such a mess.

   History counts too.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 06/18/2008 @ 5:27pm

9. Don't forget all the other gov agencies, programs, economy, military, FEMA, VA, Ed, constitution, etc., the new con repubs have turn to shit.

   That is what happens when you put idiots in charge.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 06/18/2008 @ 5:33pm

10. "..massive public investment in our educational, technological, and physical infrastructure,...."

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/18/2008

    BK, in order to get the "massive" investments you're asking, you first have to get the states to stop spending every dime the feds give them.

    Posted by ACook at 06/18/2008 @ 5:33pm

11. Posted by hsuBfools at 06/18/2008

    All 900 pages?

    Posted by ACook at 06/18/2008 @ 5:52pm

12. Speed read?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/18/2008 @ 5:54pm

13. Of course I'm also talking about the changes that were made to it thereafter too.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/18/2008 @ 5:55pm

14. Nichols,

    You MISSED KEY PARTS of the Fortune article that show OBAMA COMMITTED TO FAIR TRADE!

    Like these:

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

    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.

    "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."

    n 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."

    Obama also reiterated his determination to be a tougher trade bargainer. "The Chinese love free trade," he said, "but they are tough as nails when it comes to a bargain, right? They will resist any calls to stop manipulating their currency. It's no secret they have consistently encroached on our intellectual property and our copyright laws. ...We should make sure in our trade negotiations that our interests and our values are adequately reflected."

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/18/2008 @ 7:20pm

15. This is what happens during election time. The left feels that the candidate is not far enough left so they start to try to tear him down because he is not going far ENOUGH left.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/18/2008 @ 8:29pm

16. Some of the sound bites that I have heard lately seem to indicate that, "The Senator," has made a sharp right turn to Wall Street. I don't know which is worst Wall Street or K Street. I think it is just a short commute and neither one is terribly attractive to working class America. The choice of his economic advisers also don't inspire great confidence. I would have held out for a Paul Krugman or Robert Reich. There appears to be a little cronyism.

    Posted by julien38 at 06/18/2008 @ 9:30pm

17. John, you should have dug a little deeper, before jumping the gun...

    before all get into a complete tizzy, please read (from the Huffington Post..) http://tinyurl.com/3w2v7y Jeff

    Posted by Jeff_B at 06/18/2008 @ 9:42pm

18. Also, for all here who are starting to feel a little antsy about the more than predictable shift to the center (like there were no signs during the debates), maybe at least some here shouldn't have been so quick to jump on the Nader is a spoiler bandwagon.

    from his blog of June 13: 2008 Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader discusses a remark made to him by a fellow alumnus at a recent Princeton reunion. read the transcript below.

    ****

    I was at my Princeton reunion the other day, and a young alumnus came up to me - he was very kind - and he said "You know, I really like what you're doing - I like what you did - but please don't run."

    I said "Do you realize what you are saying?"

    And he said "Yes, I said please don't run."

    I said "You're telling me not to use my First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and petition inside the electoral arena. You're telling me to shut up. Are you aware of what you're saying?"

    He said "I understand, I understand, I like what you're doing, but please don't run."

    So I went through and I said "Well, would you tell those voters instead of trying to determine which one was worse between the Democrats and the Whigs, the two major parties in the 19th century, and instead cut out and voted for the Liberty Party, which was the anti-slavery party - would you say to those candidates, 'Don't run'?"

    And he sort of paused.

    And I said "How about the people who refused to go least-worst between the Republicans and Democrats on women's suffrage? Would you tell those candidates 'don't run'? What do you say to that?"

    And he paused.

    And I took it up to date and I said "Would you tell Buchanan not to run?"

    And he said "I understand what you are saying, but please don't run."

    And I said "You know, unwittingly, you are engaging in a politically bigoted statement. Because you can oppose, and you can support, any candidates you want. But when you are saying to someone 'don't run' you are saying to someone 'do not speak, do not petition, do not assemble inside the electoral arena.'"

    Now I'm saying this because I'm sure you've had these conversations with people. Look at the word spoiler. Spoiler is a contemptuous word of political bigotry. They do not accuse George W. Bush of being the spoiler in 2000, and last I heard he got more votes than I did, vis-a-vis Al Gore. It's only the independent and third parties that are called spoilers.

    And think of the hubris here - these two parties have spoiled our elections, they've spoiled our government, they've spoiled our politics - and to have the temerity to say to someone who wants to reform the process that they are spoilers - they have no sense of humor - I mean, how do you satire satire?

    - Ralph Nader, New York City, May 31, 2008

    You can watch the video on his YouTube page, btw

    Posted by Jeff_B at 06/18/2008 @ 9:50pm

19. Nader was on Democracy Now! today, and he hit it on the head, saying Obama is more and more becoming a corporate shill as well as staying away from any real changes in our foreign policy.

    Posted by onthehelm at 06/18/2008 @ 10:23pm

20. Well, surprise surprise. The ponytailed geniuses either got snookered again and/or some of them were in on the snookering. I've been saying all along that the guy's is no better than HRC, possibly worse, and even less electable.

    Amazing. It's like seeing an accident ( or a robbery) occur in slow motion and not being able to stop it. Oh well.

    Thanks to a tacit alliance between Wall Street and the ponytails (the former owns the media and the latter ran the caucuses) we now have a centrist DLC candidate (remember when in 06' when he endorsed Lieberman over Lamont and called Lieberman his mentor?) who'll won't pickup any of the red states (no matter how many hippie votes he got in the Dem caucuses) and will probably lose some of the key blue states he'll need to win, no matter how lame McCain is.

    Posted by wgilwood at 06/18/2008 @ 10:33pm

21. And until somebody can explain how the working family who saves $2500 a year at Wal-mart is supposed to "make up the difference" when the Glorious Return of Protectionism comes....that's the way it's going to be.

    Posted by Mask

    disclaimer: I DO NOT FAVOUR PROTECTIONISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    saving $2500 means little when your wage has be cut in half.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008 @ 10:46pm

22. more obamathesame:

    Muslim woman: Scarf kept her from seat near Obama

    By JEFF KAROUB – 8 hours ago

    DETROIT (AP) -- A young Muslim woman said she and another woman were refused seats directly behind Barack Obama -- and in front of TV cameras -- at a Detroit rally because they wear head scarfs. Hebba Aref said Wednesday that she and Shimaa Abdelfadeel were among 20,000 supporters who gathered to see the Democratic presidential hopeful on Monday at the Joe Louis Arena when the groups they were with were separately invited by Obama campaign volunteers to sit behind the podium. But Aref said the volunteers told members of both parties in separate discussions that women wearing hijabs, the traditional Muslim head scarves, weren't included in the invitation and couldn't sit behind the podium.

    Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer, said a member of her group was told by a volunteer that she could not invite Aref because of "a sensitive political climate." Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued a statement saying such actions are "not the policy of the campaign."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008 @ 10:55pm

23. was told by a volunteer that she could not invite Aref because of "a sensitive political climate." Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued a statement saying such actions are "not the policy of the campaign."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    Pretty weird from the camp who wants to bring us all together. Like the flagpin crap....playing into Repub fear mongering is sign of weakness.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/18/2008 @ 11:41pm

24. Odds are whether the scarf wearers were or weren't repub new con plants, the new cons were going to use the visual or as now-- even the possibility of a visual, as negatively as possible. Pull shit out their butts and toss, pull shit out their butts and toss, pull shit out their butts and toss, pull shit out their butts and toss, ad infinitum. That's all new con repubs got.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/18/2008 @ 11:56pm

25. Hmmm.... surprise surprise, Obama is a neo-liberal who flaunts a vague vision of hope and progress that doesn't add up to much concrete in terms policy and reform.

    Let's recap:

    Obama is staunchly pro-Israel/has yet to even refer to the Palestinians and their impoverishment facilitated through a US back Israeli army (granted it is complicated, under-educated hopeless poor people result to terrorism-it sucks, it's bad, however the responsibility lies in Israel to change their policies and offer reparations rather than continuing to steal more land and deprive the Palestinians with the construction of the wall, issues completely off the radar of Obama's vision of hope), http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/330911 Obama Goes Soft on Free Trade lacking in sing-payer health care plan/given huge funds from insurance companies, voted for the patriot act, supported funding for both Afghanistan and Iraq wars (which, contrary to popular belief, suggests that if he became a senator in 2003 when the Iraq war started he would have voted for it), voted against capping credit card interest rates at whopping 30%, voted for the republican backed Class Action Fairness Act (this moved class action suits from the state to federal level, making lawsuits against corporations on account of damaging practices more difficult), voted against an amendment to the Commerce Appropriation Bill that would have protected US trade laws/tariffs from being scraped by NAFTA trade negotiaters, laws which protect from "dumping" of below cost foreign goods (i.e. sweatshop clothing), has yet to articulate a green energy policy / he supports corn based ethanol energy which is highly fossil fuel dependent (probably this was an expedient decision to capitalize on Iowa votes).

    um.........woops

    Posted by ssj at 06/19/2008 @ 12:23am

26. Always advocated throwing my vote away to the most rightwing candidate. Such strategy will work well in the long run to help elect true progressive president. Capitalist America always takes two steps forward and one step back in its quest to fleece America. Bush was the two step foward; and now Obama is presented as our savior who is going to restore America's sanity.

    Let us not allow them to fool us again. Vote for McCain and let the destruction and fleecing continue. This could be the only way to convince Americans of the Ralp Nader's imperative.

    Posted by zziadeh at 06/19/2008 @ 03:52am

27. If he goes Bill Clinton Republican lite, he will be a one termer for sure. I have not heard any talk of holding off bringing the troops home. That will be a big lift, psychologically, when it occurs. I am not happy to hear this kind of talk. Nafta has not benefited any voter constituency, other than a few very wealthy people, so why move to the center on this issue?

    Posted by mrsanfran at 06/19/2008 @ 05:16am

28. If he goes Bill Clinton Republican lite, he will be a one termer for sure. I have not heard any talk of holding off bringing the troops home. That will be a big lift, psychologically, when it occurs. I am not happy to hear this kind of talk. Nafta has not benefited any voter constituency, other than a few very wealthy people, so why move to the center on this issue?

    Posted by mrsanfran at 06/19/2008 @ 05:16am

29. I must say, I have seen this coming since before he started campaigning. But no one pays any attention to a man's record. Instead they spend it all on his vacuous platitudes, especially if they are particularly attractive and well-delivered, as they were in this case. Don't say I didn't warn you.

    Posted by izaworwag at 06/19/2008 @ 07:26am

30. John, Obama has always been a corporate-conservative, a DLCer. His popularity stemmed from not being Hillary Clinton, but everyone from <a href="http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task =view&id=618&Itemid=1"><i>Black Agenda Report</i></a> and <i>The Progressive</i> to Paul Krugman and <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html"><i>Counterpunch< /i></a> has been warning that the Most Holy Obamasiah is nothing but the second coming of Bill Clinton -- and therefore hellbent on forfeiting the election in November to McCain. Worse, he may become president precisely because, as <i>The New Republic</i> <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=46a816dc-f843-41ec-9fe4- fbeac17bcfca">reports</a>, he is in a far better position to save movement conservatism than McCain, the latter of whom can only continue hurting the cause.

    Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 06/19/2008 @ 07:30am

31. I have not heard any talk of holding off bringing the troops home. That will be a big lift, psychologically, when it occurs.

    Posted by mrsanfran

    It won't be a lift to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who will die. We need to stand up for what we did but premature withdrawal has become a feature of America. We left Afghanistan in the lurch after the Soviets fell. We left Iraq after the first gulf war. I'm sure you are going to say we shouldn't have gone in in the first place but that is irrelevant now.

    Posted by abell12ct at 06/19/2008 @ 08:02am

32. To Hman23, I sure you are going to be surprised, shocked even in November. I sure you must be some status quo Dem insider or at least that is your position because if you were a republican why would you care about Ralph Nader? There have been many ominous signs from the Obama camp lately and that spells trouble for the Dems. Wait till the convention when the frustration will be building and Dem voters start to realize they are nominating another coprorate lackey. Ralph Nader will not win the election certainly, anybody can see that, but come election time voters that are fed up will go McCain or Nader with the usual Dems making up about 40%. I say Ralph Nader gets a least 10% of the vote. Just enough to give McCain the presidency.

    Posted by jimijazz at 06/19/2008 @ 08:30am

33. Obama has always said he is supporter of Free trade in fact he told this to Labor Unions in Chicago and he told them that you too are a supporter they were shocked and he pointed out they were wearing sneakers and if they were then they implicitly supported free trade.

    What he has said is that he is going to negotiate better standards. The opt out clause was campaign rhetoric people need to get realistic here. If we opt out of all free trade agreements who do you think is going to suffer the most POOR PEOPLE free trade bring the price of goods down which benefits people who are living on fixed income. WE CANT OPT OUT OT IT. But what you can do is negotiate better terms for American workers. Obama beleives that they can compete just as well with other countries he also believes that the future for American workers lie in Creating alternative source of energy such as making windmills.

    I wish people would pay attention to the nuances of Obama's position because that is what makes him different. This binary way we have of viewing things is part of what has caused gridlock in this country. Its NOT all or nothing its finding balance.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 06/19/2008 @ 08:38am

34. Why don't you just say it like it is? Obama lied. He lied. St. Obama lied. It seems that old story that Obama's campaign told the Canadians that his tough anti-Nafta talk was just political rhetoric was true, so he LIED about that also. OBAMA IS A LIAR. What will the Obamamaniacs do with that? Take their marching orders and moveon.org.

    Posted by rcglad at 06/19/2008 @ 08:58am

35. I wish people would pay attention to the nuances of Obama's position because that is what makes him different. This binary way we have of viewing things is part of what has caused gridlock in this country. Its NOT all or nothing its finding balance.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 06/19/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    Well...I wish Mr. Obama would be forthright on exactly what his position is. He didn't seem too "nuanced" during the debates with Clinton....fact is he clobbered her on the issue. Is it all right to know what we are buying? Mr. Obama's idea of compromise to come later may not fit my comfort level.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/19/2008 @ 09:04am

36. Okay a few points...

    1. To the Nader Cultists. Ralph Nader will NEVER be elected President, just to set that parameter. There is no logical or realistic scenario by which that will happen.

    Second, he will not "pull Obama back to the Left", if THAT's your rationale. Especially after Ralph only got 0.34% in 2004.

    Third, if you honestly think "there would have been no difference" if Gore had been elected over Bush....you are totally bat-s**t insane.

    2. Speaking of Gore, HE will not be President or Vice-President in 2008. If Obama is elected, it's likely he will NEVER be President. That's for the ONE Gore Cultist here.

    3. Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008

    FZ, come up with a realistic scenario by which a working class family loses $2500 in savings at WM and makes it up...and I'll support tariffs on "cheap junk from China". Telling them to "cut back" is not one.

    Posted by Mask at 06/19/2008 @ 09:04am

37. So you're wearing a pair of Nike sneakers and that automatically puts you in cahoots with a corroded, corrupt, NAFTA which has lost thousands of jobs in America? C'mon Carol. NAFTA is wrong and nuances do not cut it with the state this country is in.

    Posted by jimijazz at 06/19/2008 @ 09:07am

38. Now I know why Bush just let those 30,000 crack dealers out of prison...it wasn't because of overcrowding by putting in "non-patriots"...it was to get a voting bloc for mcbush, who wants to have 45 nuclear reactors, offshore drilling everywhere, but STILL refuses to subsidize wind/solar.....AND advocated permanent military bases in Iraq for 100 years....WHILE on his podium, it says "peace"...what a schmuck.....

    Posted by jrs112 at 06/19/2008 @ 09:33am

39. MrSanFran,

    In the words of the Iraqi foreign minister, don't expect much difference in Obama and McCain when it comes to Iraq:

    "He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. "

    I'm amazed by those on the far-left who drink the Kool-aid, and really think Obama is going to pull US troops out of Iraq. People, it's not going to happen, no matter who is elected. They are building the largest US Embassy in the world in Baghdad. Right or wrong, we broke the country, and now we have to fix it. I can PROMISE you, 10 years from now we will still have US troops in Iraq. Not at the current levels, but at least 30-50k troops. So all of you who can't wait for Obama's inaguration, believing that the Iraq war will magically be over, you better start preparing yourselves.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR200806 1702034.html

    Posted by ruascott at 06/19/2008 @ 10:10am

40. I have been saying all along that left's support for Obama was not based on policy principles and issues since it failed to ask its candidate any hard questions. May be its support for Obama was a product of its anti-Hillary hysteria rather than positions taken by Obama. What is amazing is that the left is still backing Obama blindly without asking any hard questions. Also, I have been deeply disillusioned by the left in the slimy tactics it adopted in denegrating Obama's opponents. The right wing would be proud.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 06/19/2008 @ 10:11am

41. The only thing shocking about this is that Obama wasn't smart enough to wait until after the election to betray the working class and his voters, like Clinton did in '92. Why he felt the need to pander to Corporate America, given his lead in fundraising and the probablility of his election in the fall, I do not know. This was an incredibly boneheaded move.

    If I were a Democrat, and thank Trotsky I am not, I would be running against Bush, against McCain, and for pushing for a much more aggressive stand for governmental regulation of trade and finance and for a speedy and complete withdrawal from Iraq, no matter what Obama is saying. As I've said before, our best hope, such as it is, is probably for a big Democratic majority in both houses of Congress shoving progressive legislation down the throat of a President Obama who just barely squeaked into office. Stupid, unnecessary moves like this - timed as if he were campaigning in the middle of the Reagan Era, not watching it crumble at home and abroad - make it more likely that the second half of that proposition could very well come true.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/19/2008 @ 10:12am

42. In regards to NAFTA, you are all shocked that Obama is pivoting towards the general election. You complain of NAFTA, but do you realize our #1 trading partner in the world is Canada? We also EXPORT well over $100B/year TO Mexico. Our trade inbalance comes from China, and has very little to do with NAFTA. And nobody complains on here of the savings that poor and middle class Americans gain from shopping at WalMart everyday.

    Posted by ruascott at 06/19/2008 @ 10:21am

43. So, when he was in Michigan and Ohio, he said he'd use the opt-out clause 'as a hammer' to convince Canada and Mexico to make NAFTA more worker friendly.

    Now he says, he doesn't want to have to use the opt-out clause, but he wants to convince Canada and Mexico to make NAFTA more worker friendly.

    Yeah, there's a big contradition there...

    Posted by MatthewH at 06/19/2008 @ 10:24am

44. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

    Read Jason Linkins' article "Fortune Article Selectively Quotes Obama, Misleads on NAFTA Position" to see how Sen. Obama's words were twisted. Whether his stance on NAFTA -- reforming it as opposed to replacing it -- is a problem, he has not flip-flopped on this stance from earlier explanations of his proposed policy. Of all places, I am shocked to see writers for 'The Nation' peddling corporate magazine propaganda to try to Kerry-ize Obama's trade positions.

    [the comment box prohibited a direct link to the article]

    Posted by paperbackwriterbg at 06/19/2008 @ 10:49am

45. When power corrupts it sure does a great job. If "The Senator continues to drive down Wall Street I'm voting for Nader. There seems to be a sort of arrogance developing in Mr. Obama's campaign.

    Posted by julien38 at 06/19/2008 @ 10:53am

46. Nichols,

    You MISSED KEY PARTS of the Fortune article that show OBAMA COMMITTED TO FAIR TRADE!

    Like these:

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

    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.

    "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."

    n 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."

    Obama also reiterated his determination to be a tougher trade bargainer. "The Chinese love free trade," he said, "but they are tough as nails when it comes to a bargain, right? They will resist any calls to stop manipulating their currency. It's no secret they have consistently encroached on our intellectual property and our copyright laws. ...We should make sure in our trade negotiations that our interests and our values are adequately reflected."

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2008 @ 11:02am

47. The next thing you know Obama will be clinging to his own guns and religion. Then, if he becomes President, will tell America it is not in our interests to withdraw from Iraq.

    Posted by abell12ct at 06/19/2008 @ 11:27am

48. "It's me, O Lord", please guide Barack on the fair-trade issue. And btw, repubs & ops, butt out!

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/19/2008 @ 11:28am

49. Obama has definitely run a great campaign. He doesn't even need public financing anymore. There is a new vice president poll at votenic dot com if you want to check it out. The results were posted yesterday. See who America thinks should be VP.

    Posted by votenic at 06/19/2008 @ 11:31am

50. If NAFTA is an unpopular policy, it's only a reflection of American economic illiteracy. Of course unions advocate for highly regulated, closed economies. If we inch in that direction, they stand to gain while everyone else is worse off. But this is attitude is very dangerous; eventually it is a recipe for economic depression.

    Going back to Smith and Ricardo, free trade is one of a handful of policies that economists agree is unquestionably the proper course. Of course, the gains from trade are uneven, and some industries/workers will suffer. As a society, it would be much more productive to discuss how we can more effectively soften the blow of globalization to those that are hardest hit, such as the low skilled, while enjoying a stronger economy. Instead, anti-trade advocates call for pulling out of agreements, leaving society worse off. It is more than selfish. It is destructive.

    Posted by gatormka at 06/19/2008 @ 11:37am

51. Obama also reiterated his determination to be a tougher trade bargainer. "The Chinese love free trade," he said, "but they are tough as nails when it comes to a bargain, right? They will resist any calls to stop manipulating their currency. It's no secret they have consistently encroached on our intellectual property and our copyright laws. ...We should make sure in our trade negotiations that our interests and our values are adequately reflected."

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    The hallmark of a great leader is not to give away the farm before the negotiations start. Obama's conciliatory posture prior to sitting down at the negotiation table means that those parties with whom he wishes to negotiate will be as hard line or harder than ever. To wit: 'those Chinese are tough negotiators.' Well...he just made them tougher.

    The same came be said regarding pushing his agenda before Congress. You want to ask for the moon before negotiations and debate rather than make your compromises before negotiation. "Incrementalism" is a reality, but we will have nothing if Obama makes all his concessions and conciliation upfront.

    His leadership ability on this issue is already compromised. What next?

    Screwup Count Since Presumptive Nomination: #1; and we have got months to go.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/19/2008 @ 11:54am

52. Posted by OneVote at 06/19/2008

    Obama has not conceded ONE THING to the Chinese or anybody else.

    The plain fact is that John Nichols distorted the Fortune article to try to make it fit into his own fears about Obama going soft on fair trade when the reality is that Obama is just as committed to fair trade as he always was - he just doesn't believe in unilateral action on the part of the US.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2008 @ 12:11pm

53. I am not surprised, and expected he would support NAFTA. This is why I am voting for Nader. I think this primary was setup so Corporate Democrats would lead the party. It resembles the electorial college, and it was not intended to be Democratic. We need a national law that sets primaries and or caucuses on the first Tuesday in June for the PRESIDENTIAL election. However, I think the world will be in the middle of a"Free Trade" cause depression during the next Administration, and anyone who supports it will go have only one term. In the next four years, both former Republicans and Democrats will to form new parties that represent American interests. Many Progressives came out of the Republican Party, and were run out by Conservatives.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 06/19/2008 @ 12:14pm

54. Once again. You guys are throwing up your hands in uproar before you actually even know what you are talking about. No far left candidate will ever win. Look at Nader. He is about as left as you can go and he has never been a viable candidate. Obama has to win independents and if you come in too far to the left you never will. He preaches about unity in Washington and that can never be achieved by someone too far to the left. You have to be able to reach common ground.

    He isn't a corporate shill, as the more extreme on this site put it, he is just playing the political game which everyone HAS to play if they ever expect to be President.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 @ 12:25pm

55. I am not surprised, and expected he would support NAFTA.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 06/19/2008

    He never said he supported NAFTA. Maybe if you actually read what he said instead of reading what you wanted to hear you would see that.

    "Democratic nominee suggests he doesn't want to unilaterally blow up NAFTA after all."

    This is a lie to begin with. He never said he wanted to completely scrap NAFTA. He said he wanted to alter it in order to protect workers rights. No one is ever going to scrap NAFTA. All it needs is the protection of our workers and environment. So go ahead and throw away your vote on Nader, that of course is your choice. Of course you will still be in the same place you are if you just didn't vote at all.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 @ 12:28pm

56. Obama has not conceded ONE THING to the Chinese or anybody else.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    He has conceded that he will be milk toast in negotiations - and not to worry. Nichols fear is that Obama's rhetorical flourish isn't matched by his conviction. This is something that all of us should be mindful of, and keep his "feet to the fire" as much as we can. Nichols in this article warns us to watch the move right, and if anyone is going to be watching for context, it is going to be those business interests that will benefit from the status quo of free trade. You think there is any outside chance that Obama may be a Dem of a similar ilk to that say of a Nancy Pelosi? I would say there is a very good chance of that. Progressives were duped in 2006 and we should try not to let that happen again. This kind of crap is zero tolerance - the Democrats don't deserve our trust.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/19/2008 @ 12:50pm

57. No far left candidate will ever win.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    Heard some polls last night that Obama was ahead of McCain in swing states like Ohio, Florida, & Pennsylvania. Obama has a pretty good lock on the Blue.

    Dem voter turnout in record numbers (lots of young voter's who believe Obama is a champion of their cause). Got any numbers of primary voting of Dems versus Repubs? Wasn't it more than 2 to 1 in favor of Dems based on primary votes cast?

    Many independents want change - not the status quo.

    What is going to happen to young voter turnout when they feel Obama is but a sellout? I think they are going to stay home.

    If you want a race with a Dem who leans a little left and a Repub who leans a little right, I believe there is risk that Obama is going to lose as much support as he gains. Maybe it is just a matter of money, but as I recall, he owes his campaign financed success to people who want some serious change....not just a little change.

    The inevitablity of compromise comes in pushing his agenda before Congress. Guaranteed that there will be compromises there. This election is about change, and the far left leaning liberal (as Obama has been classed) should avoid moving too far right. He wouldn't have won the nomination even in his own party if change wasn't a popular notion this time around.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/19/2008 @ 1:29pm

58. The inevitablity of compromise comes in pushing his agenda before Congress. Guaranteed that there will be compromises there. This election is about change, and the far left leaning liberal (as Obama has been classed) should avoid moving too far right. He wouldn't have won the nomination even in his own party if change wasn't a popular notion this time around.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/19/2008

    I agree but you also have to think about this OneVote. McCain won his parties candidacy by going far right. He is not coming center again to win independents. Extremes never win. You can stand for change without being as far left as many people on here want him to be. There is change for the better and then there is pushing an unrealistic agenda. If you push an unrealistic agenda then you will not become President.

    The Dem vs. Repub turnout in primaries this year can't exactly be used as a legitimate statistic solely for the fact that the Republican primaries were over so quickly while the Dem's went through all the states and territories. This is just a side fact and has nothing to do with the above.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 @ 2:02pm

59. Ah well... Just another reminder that the political party in Amerika is the Big Business Party. With, of course, Choice(tm) between the left and right of the thing...

    Posted by mikecope at 06/19/2008 @ 2:30pm

60. >>>He has conceded that he will be milk toast in negotiations - and not to worry. Nichols fear is that Obama's rhetorical flourish isn't matched by his conviction. This is something that all of us should be mindful of, and keep his "feet to the fire" as much as we can. <<<

    >>>Posted by OneVote at 06/19/2008<<<

    Nichols' fears are not grounded in fact. Obama, at most, will shift his "rhetoric" to the center, but is still the same true blue progressive that he always has been.

    The truth that Nichols doesn't want to acknowledge is that you can spout off progressive "rhetoric" all the time and be elected president of the United States. The best we progressives can hope for is a true progressive that "sounds" like a moderate like Barack Obama.

    If you have been following Nichols this entire primary season, it is clear that he is more comfortable with progressive "talk" . it certainly sounds good to hear progressive sounding words, but we need to be smarter than that and focus on what a politician actually does.

    On that score, Barack has racked up one of the most progressive records of any presidential candidate in recent history, and has 8 years in the Illinois legislature to demonstrate this fact.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2008 @ 2:35pm

61. Obama campaign slogans:

    CHANGE ... what you'll have left after I raise taxes. CHANGE ... your gas prices upwards, but gradually CHANGE ... my hat size because every day my head gets bigger CHANGE ... what I do to my story depending upon whom I'm talking to. CHANGE ... what I do every day to my foreign policy CNAHGE ... what I do to my trade policy depending upon whom I'm talking to CHANGE ... your lifestyle because the rest of the world doesn't like you CHANGE ... my friends when they turn out NOT to be "The person I knew" CHANGE ... what my radical left-wing ideologue handlers have in store for you CHANGE ... what I do to facts to suit my needs. CHANGE ... more of you into victims of something and build government programs to take care of you CHANGE ... you into a ward of the state so that I OWN you and your vote CHANGE ... your mind and believe in me for I am the Obamessiah come to save you CHANGE ... into sycophants; what the liberal mainstream media do under the spell of the Obamessiah CHANGE ... the chant I use to control the weak-minded Obamanized masses CHANGE ... into an Obamatron; join the cult, repeat the chant: CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE ... CHANGE ... what I plan to do to America because it's the greatest country on the planet. CHANGE ... the national anthems of all the nations of the world to Kumbaya using my messianic skills CHANGE ... into mumble-mouthed idiot when I don't have speech to read. CHANGE ... your underwear because you'll defecate in your pants when you wake up to find out what the left-wing liberal ideologues have done after gaining complete control of government.

    CHANGE ... you better freaking BELIEVE in because it will WORK you over. Obama: the AUDACITY to count on you and I being DOPEs

    Posted by occam at 06/19/2008 @ 4:17pm

62. That is what happens when you put idiots in charge.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/18/2008

    hsuBfools, You give Bush more credit than he deserves. I don't think he's an idiot, I think he's an asshole who is intentionally undermining the federal government. Placing fools in charge to make it look like government agencies can't handle anything. What would this lead to but what we hear on this blog over and over from these moronic rethugs who wish to privatize everything. If they could they'd privatize the supreme court, congress and the executive branch.

    In essence, I guess they already have with W in charge and the dipshits in Congress who passed the bill granting immunity to the telecom companies and all parties involved.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2008 @ 5:05pm

63. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2008

    "I think he's an asshole who is intentionally undermining the federal government. Placing fools in charge to make it look like government agencies can't handle anything."

    I think most people with any common sense whatsoever realize that putting the federal government in charge of just about anything is the best way to screw it up. Of course, this criteria excludes about 90 percent of those who come to this site, (the rest of us being said 'rethugs'), otherwise why would you be leftists?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/19/2008 @ 6:45pm

64. Posted by occam at 06/19/2008

    "Obama: the AUDACITY to count on you and I being DOPEs"

    Hey, give the guy credit - he's right about that - there is institutionalized stupidity in this country, and The Nation and it's supporters are living proof. God help us, they may have even reached a majority.

    You got to admit, though, they're good for a laugh. I especially like the folks who complain about huge oil company profits that result when they close off new oil production; then they talk about prosecuting companies for raising prices, all while they favor policies that 'encourage conservation' - not realizing that means either rationing or higher oil prices - which means big oil company profits - which they complain about. Then, to top it off, the idiot leaders of said idiots - Hinchey (D-NY) being a good example - demand to nationalize the oil refineries so they can 'control prodution'. They're a hoot - and they've got control of the country seemingly in reach - which is not so funny.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/19/2008 @ 6:53pm

65. Thing with NAFTA is that it gives the US honorary Canadian citizenship as far as Canada's natural resources go.

    US got the bad end of the stick regards manufacturing, but Canada got the bad end of the stick regards resources.

    Scrapping NAFTA could really hurt some sectors.

    Posted by johnny canuck at 06/19/2008 @ 6:59pm

66. The Dem vs. Repub turnout in primaries this year can't exactly be used as a legitimate statistic solely for the fact that the Republican primaries were over so quickly while the Dem's went through all the states and territories. This is just a side fact and has nothing to do with the above.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    Agreed - that any total tabulation would likely be irrelevant, but early on when McCain was running with the crowd, Dem turnout was significantly larger than Repubs, and maybe even of more relevance set some records for Dem turnout compared election year to election year as I recall. Some of this has to do with "charm" of the Dem candidates running this election cycle, and some of this has to do with pre-general election enthusiasm for change by voters who dread every day that Bush & Company remain in office.

    History is on your side about extremes on either side, and I have acknowledged this previously, but as I recall all candidates are running on the platform of change this election. Status quo centrism looks good to the insiders of course, and perhaps this is what you are referring to. As Stalin said in effect ---"it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes that counts."

    In the same breadth, I do feel that there are election dynamics in play here that may prove that history doesn't necessarily have to repeat itself. Lots of us never thought that Hillary Clinton and her Democratic Party Machine could be defeated....but it happened. Go Figure. I do believe that many "hysterical" progressives like myself will feel mighty bad about Mr. Obama if he moves too far right.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/19/2008 @ 7:44pm

67. I think most people with any common sense whatsoever realize that putting the federal government in charge of just about anything is the best way to screw it up.-----Posted by pontificus at 06/19/2008

    So, if somebody had said in 2006, "We need to nationalize the oil companies"...

    likely you'd have said "Are you crazy? If we do that, we'll have gas at $4, maybe $5 a gallon by 2008!!!"...right?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/19/2008 @ 7:52pm

68. Nichols' fears are not grounded in fact. Obama, at most, will shift his "rhetoric" to the center, but is still the same true blue progressive that he always has been.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    Mett - I hope you are right. The most impressive thing he has done is beat Hillary Clinton! He deserves the Presidency on that alone. There will lots of temptation from the status quo whores on the inside, but all we really got left is faith and hope. A strong reminder of his promises from his base of support from time to time doesn't necessarily mean insurrection, but I think it does give him the signal to stay grounded.

    Our past experience is being projected onto Obama and his unknowable intent at this point. We've been sold out too many times. He will makes mistakes. But we should be there to remind him not to make mistakes of choice.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/19/2008 @ 8:02pm

69. Does all political discourse have to presuppose free trade and free market capitalism as inevitably just and fair so long as its balanced ?

    Posted by ssj at 06/19/2008 @ 8:02pm

70. I do believe that many "hysterical" progressives like myself will feel mighty bad about Mr. Obama if he moves too far right.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/19/200

    We are in agreement everything you said here.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 @ 8:04pm

71. Posted by ssj at 06/19/2008

    "Does all political discourse have to presuppose free trade and free market capitalism as inevitably just and fair so long as its balanced ?"

    Not at all. Presupposing those things is only required if you want to talk about a system that actually works in the real world. This is as opposed to things that are most often discussed here at The Nation.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/19/2008 @ 8:09pm

72. I know Obama has always been a bit middle of the road on free trade.

    One meeting with a union, he pointed out that by wearing sneakers, they all supported globalization.

    Posted by johnny canuck at 06/19/2008 @ 8:56pm

73. And nobody complains on here of the savings that poor and middle class Americans gain from shopping at WalMart everyday.

    Posted by ruascott

    i'm sure those people would rather have their old jobs back instead of saving 37¢ on their tupperware.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2008 @ 9:27pm

74. I think most people with any common sense whatsoever realize that putting the federal government in charge of just about anything is the best way to screw it up.

    Posted by pontificus

    is that why they pay blackwater so much in iraq?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2008 @ 9:29pm

75. I especially like the folks who complain about huge oil company profits that result when they close off new oil production;

    •••••• if you referring to continental shelf/anwr drilling, this may be of some use:

    "The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently did a detailed study of the likely outcome of offshore drilling for their Annual Energy Outlook 2007, "Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)." The sobering conclusion:

    The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.

    And the impact of the projected 7% (!) increase in lower-48 oil production that might result in 2030 thanks to opening the OCS is … wait for it …

    … any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant." ••••••

    then they talk about prosecuting companies for raising prices,

    •••••• i don't. i'd prosecute ben bernanke. •••••••

    all while they favor policies that 'encourage conservation' - not realizing that means either rationing or higher oil prices

    •••••• moronic. i get 42 mpg (city) from a honda civic (madeincanada) rated at ~28 mpg. no sacrifice. it's fun. and cheap. and easy. •••••••

    - which means big oil company profits - which they complain about.

    •••••• how do you feel filling up at the local citgo? ••••••

    Posted by pontificus

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2008 @ 9:46pm

76. Anyone who sincerely hoped that this clown would live up to his promise is already feeling a profound sense of disappointment. Within 24 hours of sewing up the Democratic nomination, Obama was doing a full court grovel before his patron and Congress's landlord, AIPAC, and now this free trade business! If you're looking for war with Iran and another generation of Middle Eastern turmoil, vote for Obama. And now, if you want to see the completion of our de-industrialization, vote for Obama. Lets face it, this guy is just entirely out of his depth. And to think that the rest of the troika leading us will be Nancy "AIPAC-told-me-to-remove-the-clause-requiring-Congressional-approval-bef ore-we-attack-Iran" Pelosi and Harry Reid! It almost makes you nostalgic for Denny Hastert. Is there anyone in politics in this country prepared to represent American interests in Washington and not those of Likud. Think real hard, there may be one or two. I mean our government is owned, enslaved, by a foreign power and that's not likely to change! And tonight its reported that recent Israeli air force manuevers were clearly aimed at Iran. The only question as yet to be resolved is whether Obama was flying one of the planes.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/19/2008 @ 10:49pm

77. I hate to break it to everybody here but chances of renegotiating NAFTA are virtually nil no matter who's elected president or even if the Democrats capture 2/3s of both houses of Congress. Given that both Mexico and Canada have their own grievances with the way NAFTA has worked out, it would open a can of worms with all three countries that if NAFTA collapsed, it could lead to an all out trade war that could replicate the worst effects of the Smoot-Hawley tariff of the early 1930s with none of the hoped for benefits. Unemployment would soar as export markets would collapse as other countries retaliate against any unilateral measures the US might take. Like it or not, the world is getting globally tied together economically and has been doing so since WWII. Trying to rip this apart might satisfy some people but it will come at a price that makes the ructions caused by NAFTA like minor indeed, like probably a another world war that followed the last collapse of a global economy in the 1930s.

    Posted by tobias_R at 06/20/2008 @ 02:48am

78. I can't believe Liberals. No one on the far left of the political spectrum is going to win the White House...or govern properly for that matter.

    Carol and mkagator are two of the people who actually make some kind of sense here.

    People voting for Nader? How do you think the esteemed George W. Bush was elected in the first place? Do you really want another 8 years of that?

    As a few have mentioned, it is true that the impact of globalization does need to be softened somewhat, but the idea of scrapping trade deals is remarkably unwise.

    Folks, you should come to terms with the fact that Obama, although left of center, is really not far left in terms of either economic or foreign policy. There are no credible national candidates who are or will likely to be...for good reason.

    On the other hand, like DLCers, he does have an acute sensitivity to the needs of working folks.

    Posted by NewDem at 06/20/2008 @ 05:53am

79. cka2nd, Wolfgang, and I are having a great debate on Social Security on the Passing Through thread. I think it is a perfect example of what political debate should be. I'd like to invite people to check out that last dozen or so posts on the topic of partial privatization of SS.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    Why thank you, marybretbrad, you ignorant slut.;)

    For those of you not old enough to remember, I just paraphrased Dan Ackroyd on Saturday Night Live playing James J. Kilpatrick during the old 60 Minutes Point/Counterpoint segment with Shana Alexander, played on SNL by Jane Curtin. Kilpatrick argued as a conservative, Alexander as a liberal. Interestingly, Nicholas von Hoffman held the liberal chair before Alexander. Von Hoffman now writes for both The Nation and The American Conservative. They replaced the whole Point/Counterpoint concept with curmudgeon Andy Rooney.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/20/2008 @ 11:07am

80. It just struck me: Why is this title, "Obama Goes Soft on Free Trade" instead of, "Obama Lied to the Left to Secure Nomination"?

    Is there any evidence that there has been some monumental change in his thinking? I think not. I think this is what he believed all along and just told the Left what they wanted to hear.

    Don't forget: "Change we can believe in!"

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/20/2008

    There is no evidence that he changed his way of thinking on Free Trade at all.

    Let's break down what he said. He basically told corporations "I am not going to completely scrap NAFTA." This was what he has been saying from the beginning. He only ever said he wanted to reform NAFTA in order to protect workers and the environment. Which is EXACTLY what he said here and has always been saying. Why is it no one can see this?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 1:15pm

81. #

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

    Read Jason Linkins' article "Fortune Article Selectively Quotes Obama, Misleads on NAFTA Position" to see how Sen. Obama's words were twisted. Whether his stance on NAFTA -- reforming it as opposed to replacing it -- is a problem, he has not flip-flopped on this stance from earlier explanations of his proposed policy. Of all places, I am shocked to see writers for 'The Nation' peddling corporate magazine propaganda to try to Kerry-ize Obama's trade positions.

    [the comment box prohibited a direct link to the article]

    Posted by paperbackwriterbg at 06/19/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    LOL...huffingtonpost.com is the sleaziest of liberal website. If you start quoting this site to prove your point, you are further perpetuating the propaganda of the left that blindly supported Obama without asking the questions.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 06/21/2008 @ 01:17am

82. We must find a candidate who will stand up to these unfair practices that have been allowed by Congress and the White House to harm the US economy while pretending that they are uninformed about how the economy works. Let me sum it up for you, when Americans are working, have job security, cheaper energy, they have excess money to spend, thus making the economy strong, when jobs have either been lost to H1B Visas holders or outsourced for the sake of supplying the top 10% with cheap labor. We need out of trade deficits and free trade agreements, we need to gain control of our immigration systems, we need a cap on H1b and H2B Visas. Neither candidate is willing to tackle these issues, therefore neither one should be elected, I promise that I will write Ron Paul's name in, I will not vote for rhetoric and hurtful policies to my nation, because I love my country that much.

    Posted by czarcastik at 06/24/2008 @ 6:24pm