Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Obama Goes Soft on Free Trade

By John Nichols, TheNation.com. Posted June 25, 2008.


Obama campaigned against NAFTA during the primaries. Now he's backpedaling and reassuring Wall Street about that same policy.
Advertisement

Republican John McCain is a 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 would be required would be for Democrat Barack Obama to 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 United States and abroad.

Unfortunately, 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.

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 United States, Canada and Mexico to demand changes that would be more favorable to workers and farmers in all three countries.

Obama replied, "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 Feb. 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, Wis., 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-pedaling 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's likely to get burned in Ohio, Wisconsin and other states where primary surveys showed that the vast majority of Democratic, Republican and independent voters felt that the radically pro-corporate free trade policies of the Clinton and Bush years had harmed rather than helped America.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: obama, free trade, nafta, trade policy

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
nothing new, primarys are over, time to backtrack
Posted by: Richard House on Jun 25, 2008 12:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nevertheless, it's technology that has a lot more to do with lost manufacturing jobs than trade. NAFTA is a mixed bag -- and it's the small businesses that lose the most.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Meet your new candidate : Barack O'Bilderberg ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Jun 25, 2008 12:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Left Wing of the Corporate Party is now in charge. Free Trade Agreements are full speed ahead, the light is green for Israel to Bomb Iran, the Chicago Boys will run the economy, the telecoms ( and probably the whole Bush Administration ) will get immunity and the gutting of our civil and constitutional rights will continue apace.

The truly amazing aspect of all this is how fast and how blatant it all was. This was an in your face repudiation of the mantra of fundamental change that brought him to victory. Get a good grip on your ankles cause it will be the Corporate Party in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What Gives You That Impression? Posted by: pdxstudent
» NAFTA, CAFTA and now the SHAFTA Posted by: Richard House
» NAFTA, then CAFTA and now the SHAFTA Posted by: Richard House
true but...
Posted by: CosmoViking on Jun 25, 2008 2:03 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a corporate world...how utterly boring! The only true fundamental change will come from the people, but I believe a president like Obama will take the cue if we do it right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: true but... Posted by: StillStanding
» RE: true but... Posted by: mainspark
» Shape-shifting Posted by: Dboy
We might have known
Posted by: StillStanding on Jun 25, 2008 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama was sounding too good to be true. His visit to AIPAC, his reversal on public campaign finance, his backtracking on NAFTA, and his support for the FISA bill all show he's just another fascist stooge. Now that he's revealed his hypocrisy, I can turn off the news and forget about the election since it's clear he offers only more of the same.

Too bad, Barack - now that I see who you really are, I want nothing to do with you. Buh-bye.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Could you elaborate? Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Could you elaborate? Posted by: StillStanding
gimme a break... NAFTA would/could never be touched...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Jun 25, 2008 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... because what you receive from it far out paces that which you give!

It would be a rather huge economic mistake to even consider going back to the table because even just thinking on changing it is enough to be its undoing!

BTW... I'm all for killing NAFTA too, please give us back control of our resources!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good analysis by a poster on NAFTA Posted by: carbon-based
Thanks dems!
Posted by: carbon-based on Jun 25, 2008 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have the democrats to thank for NAFTA..now they are running from it like "Obama from Rev Wright"!

Obama flipped on this issue months ago when Canada and Mexico started voicing their concern. He wasnt aware of the global implications of reversing NAFTA.. Dems got us into it and can't get us out!

American jobs out the door - (as I'm looking at a box that says made in China in my office -I'm sending it back)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thanks dems! Posted by: StillStanding
How Strange
Posted by: thebeerdoctor on Jun 25, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So all of this talk about change comes down to "overheated rhetoric" on the part of the presumptive Democratic nominee. How strange that McCain, despite embracing a wrongheaded policy, appears to come off as the one with consistency. The thing I do not understand about the Obama campaign is why does the candidate kiss so many kneecaps of people who will never vote for him anyway? All of this me-too posturing to present appearance of what? In the high stakes poker game of politics, Senator Obama has revealed that he is incapable of holding his cards close to his vest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How Strange Posted by: StillStanding
» RE: How Strange Posted by: Knot_Rich
What's next?
Posted by: reinaldok on Jun 25, 2008 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nafta - Aipac - CANF - What will be Obama's next surprise? Many of us backed Obama from day one and now are just trying to figure out what the heck is going on. Ask some of Barack's chief followers something about these flip-flops and you certainly will get answers that would have made Cantinflas or Danny Kaye proud. All just double-speak. Even many non USA followers of the Obama spectacle are totally dismayed. The United Nations General Assembly recently voted, I believe for the thirteenth time, calling for the end to the absurd USA embargo of Cuba. The vote this time 184 to end the embargo and three staunch USA allies voted to back the USA. Israel, Palau and The Marshall Islands. Even the so called USA puppets like the Czech Republic and Colombia voted aginst the USA. Of course there was one other who has told the CANF that he will back George Bush and continue the ridiculous embargo (blockade). Obama, of course. Change, yeah right!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's next? Posted by: Dboy
Free trade is the scapegoat, not the problem
Posted by: Hans B on Jun 25, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a European, I can say that I - and most Europeans - have benefitted from our own free trade zone. True, the European Union is not only about free movement of capital and of goods, but also of people. But when Spain and Portugal joined, that was not yet the case and those countries nevertheless enjoyed phenomenal growth without other countries losing out.

Free trade, and NAFTA, is the scapegoat, not the problem. The problem is domestic policies which radically favor the rich and make the poor and the middle class pay for their corruption (at least in Mexico and the US - not by chance the two countries where workers suffered). The US has the additional problem of an almost total neglect of manufacturing, with the exception of military manufacturing. You can't devote 70% of your capital investments to the military and hope to keep up in civilian production.

"Populism" is not necessarily a good thing. When exaggerated military expenditure is popular but useless and destructive, a populist will blame Mexican workers for the problems it causes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Canadians HATE NAFTA because .... Posted by: stellabloo
» NAFTA is a nightmare Posted by: PaulC
Mustache Friedman's kind of guy
Posted by: Teller on Jun 25, 2008 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's on the NAFTA pad, always has been. He's also on the pad of AIPAC, the Cuban American National Foundation, Jason Thurman's mother and Rubinoid battle axe Gail Thurman, and every Wall Street bundler who's ever jerked a chain around a lobby-driven DC law firm while quoting editorials from The Nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NAFTA
Posted by: Jim V. on Jun 25, 2008 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it comes to playing hardball the US always seems to think Canada is the culprit here that we're the reason you have such an inbalance trade deficit why not play hardball with countries like China or Saudi Arabia the ones who are really sticking it to you, remember Canada provides just as much oil as does Saudi's do yet politicians want to screw over the friends from the north Canada has stuck with the US on many issues except for Iraq for obvious reasons but really it's China here folks that needs to be reeled in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, who do you want?
Posted by: liberalibrarian on Jun 25, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you going to stay home in Nov? Are you going to not vote and then grouse about it? Are you going to blather about a third party pie in the sky?

Get over it. Obama is the better choice. We have to begin to take responsibility about our own government and it doesn't stop the day after election day.

I'm so sick of the whining on this site--but I guess I feel the need to be a voice crying in the wilderness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So, who do you want? Posted by: leland61
» RE: So, who do you want? Posted by: fatbradley
» RE: So, who do you want? Posted by: mainspark
» Stop whining and get over it Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist
» RE: So, who do you want? Posted by: StillStanding
» RE: So, who do you want? Posted by: anna132
» RE: So, who do you want? Posted by: StillStanding
» Liberal blackmail alert. Posted by: Coleman
» RE: So, who do you want? Posted by: notinKansas
I have only one word:
Posted by: pfeifer999 on Jun 25, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CHANGE

Keep saying it. Keep saying it. You'll believe it too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I have only one word: Posted by: Knot_Rich
» Flip flop? No---outright lies!!!! Posted by: pfeifer999
» Qu'ran in public school? Posted by: pfeifer999
» Veritas? Quod est veritas? Posted by: pfeifer999
Obama replied,
Posted by: pdxstudent on Jun 25, 2008 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"'Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified ... 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, Wis., autoworkers might have been right."

So, Obama doesn't exempt himself from saying things he doesn't mean? By his standards, the most vaunted aspects of his campaign are nothing more than anyone ever said they were "overheated and amplified" rhetoric: CHANGE!

Don't think I am suggesting who one shouldn't or should vote for by criticizing Obama. We all know in America for whom we are allowed to vote, and anything outside of the Obama-McCain matrix of democracy is simply not allowed. Letting Obama in office as if this forced choice did not exist, as if he were the best choice freely elected by The People, is what the Left must combat if it's going to vaccinate itself from the neoliberal delusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» JUST WORDS? Posted by: pfeifer999
You've Been Had
Posted by: Southern Gal on Jun 25, 2008 9:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Face up to it Obama supporters, you've been had. The alternative media helped by focusing on killing Clinton's candidacy and not providing information on Obama, his advisors and his positions. He was basically given a free ride. Is he the better choice over John McCain? I believe that he is, but the change that he promised was empty rhetoric. I also believe that we have to work on public financing of political campaigns and on forming a third party with populist candidates and resoures to support them. I'm tired of being screwed by the Republicans, the Democrats, the Pentagon and the corporations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You've Been Had Posted by: StillStanding
» Not A Third Party Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Not A Third Party Posted by: StillStanding
» RE: Not A Third Party Posted by: pdxstudent
Look, I supported Edwards
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jun 25, 2008 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But Obama hasn't sold us out - yet. If he does, I'll scream as loud as anybody.

Candidates always move right or left (depending on party) in the primaries and back to the center for the general.

JFK's record was not that of a screaming liberal either (before he was elected President - in fact, there was a lot for liberals to fear) - but look how he turned out. Before you can govern, first you have to get elected.

His history gives me a lot of hope - and the fact that the bulk of his support comes from small donations does also. We will be able to hold his feet to the fire.

Jimmy Carter: "One thing I learned, you can't win as a democrat without the left wing of the party."

Barack isn't stupid. He knows that. Consider the alternative and cut him a little slack - until January 21, 2009.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Look, I supported Edwards Posted by: pdxstudent
» Nader or McKinney Posted by: CUnknown
» RE: Nader or McKinney Posted by: jmp3954
» RE: Look, I supported Edwards Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: Look, I supported Edwards Posted by: StillStanding
» He is selling us out as we speak - Posted by: sallythewally
» feet to the fire? Posted by: pfeifer999
» No, all you smell is sand..... Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Look, I supported Edwards Posted by: helenwheels
jareilly
Posted by: jareilly on Jun 25, 2008 10:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barack Obama doesn't believe in himself, he doesn't believe in the party grassroots and activists, and he doesn't have a real position on almost any real issue. He is dim, shallow and unimaginative enough to drink the DLC kool-aid about "moving to the center" in the general election. He doesn't even understand the significance of the campaign he started and the hopes he raised. Short of a few miracles we are headed for a hard fall, especially after the Dem convention when the Repubs have timed their Rezko scandal attack. Obama has a choice right now; have faith in the very people he claims to champion or go on bended knees again to the elites. How did he get in to start with? Groveling before Mammon.

Think he'll "change"?

Think there is "hope"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is measured hope
Posted by: PaulC on Jun 25, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's insistence on not taking lobbyist money may be more than a gimmick. It may give him a degree of autonomy that he otherwise might not have had. And there is still his history of local activism that may remain to influence how he sees things.

We shall see - although hopefully we can make enough noise that his advisers are forced to listen.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sorry, Paul, but no Posted by: pfeifer999
Obama: a step in the correct direction
Posted by: realveive on Jun 25, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but after he wins there's a helluva long way to go before this country is returned to we, the people. Rather than going the silly "3rd party" route, we'd best take this step in the correct direction and, to retain and/or regain our sanity, remember that the longest journey begins with a single step.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What DiD You Expect?
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jun 25, 2008 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This guy was pushed upon blind voters by Oprah, which ought to be enough to drive any thinking person running hard, screaming, the other way. We had some decent candidates that never got traction thanks to the Celebutard voter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes We Can, lie to all of you pathetic suckers, Yes We Can...
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jun 25, 2008 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Same goes for FISA..

Yes We Can Spy on any and all of you Without a Warrant for 67 days, YES WE CAN..!


John Edwards was our best hope for any real change...The Democrats blew it...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vote For Obama, But Hold Him To What He Originally Stood For
Posted by: ZPaul on Jun 25, 2008 12:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He has done the predictable thing: Sell out, dilute the message, etc. But I don't see any feasible alternative other than to vote for him and work from there.
If he's elected, I will celebrate, not so much because he won, but because the Republic party didn't, and because it will then be time to put the pressure on the Democratic party and on Obama in particular, to be what they are supposed to be, and not what they are now, a party of the elite with some slightly liberal tendencies. What we cannot afford to do is to go to sleep if Obama wins. If we do not continue to hold him to his original promises, he will take the path of least resistance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ZPaul Posted by: pfeifer999
Trotsky, Strauss and The Neocons: War Party's Leftist
Posted by: Persephone8 on Jun 25, 2008 6:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and elitist Roots exposed: Justin Raimondo


Read article: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html

if you STILL don't get it....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TIME TO VOTE FOR NADER????
Posted by: artie on Jun 25, 2008 10:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Obama begins openly endorsing NAFTA, WTO, and the World Bank policies, I will vote Nader, and strongly urge other Dems to do the same. Such an endorsement would transparently demonstrate that when in Washington, Obama does as the "Washingtonian" does! What a change!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: TIME TO VOTE FOR NADER???? Posted by: realveive
Hmm....flip flops on NAFTA....is it a coincidence?
Posted by: pfeifer999 on Jun 26, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't THINK so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yellow Posted by: pfeifer999
» Yellow..... Posted by: pfeifer999
» You're copping out Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: You're copping out Posted by: yellow
» great scholarship Posted by: pfeifer999
Obama, Like Bill Clinton, is a "New Democrat" and thus for Free trade. The New Deal is, sadly, dead!
Posted by: yellow on Jun 26, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The globalization that began in the 1980s killed the New Deal and the underlying coalition that supported its agenda of progressive taxation, public investment and deficit spending, social safety nets and government provided social services like pensions, health care and education. A new coalition of disenfranchised working poor will have to demand these things if it wants them on the table.

Obama is a Wall Street candidate. Wall Street expects him to stimulate the stock market with low interest rates, capital gains tax cuts with cuts in military spending to shift further income into consumer spending, a bailout of homeowners to save the housing market and thus stimulate consumer spending and save the financial system in general and, of course, stimulate GDP growth will very modest spending on such non-controversial budget items as infrastructure repair. Obama has proposed a $30 billion outlay for this project which is significantly less than the $150 billion tax cut "stimulus" of Bush or the $1.6 trillion needed over the next ten years to fix America's crumbling infrastructure as advised by the civil engineering profession. Cutting energy prices, probably through a windfall profits tax to give a disincentive to price hikes, will also stimulate the economy and serve as Obama's main effort to control inflation.

Obama also will prioritize reigning in the nation debt and deficits as did Clinton. He will try to accomplish this feat more by stimulating economic growth than by tax cuts alone which only provide additional federal revenue in a growing economy. He will probably raise the top marginal federal income tax rate but only modestly.

That Obama's foreign policy will be superior to Bush's is unquestionable. Only Ghengis Khan could conduct a worse foreign policy than Bush. But don't expect to relieve the plight of the working poor and struggling middle class. That will require an agenda very different from that of the "New Democrats."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama WILL sell you out!
Posted by: Clockwise Cat on Jun 30, 2008 2:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He doesn't care about jobs or the well-being of the people! He cares about profits for his corporate constituents!

He cares about coddling the establishment, not about peace, or security, or happiness for all.

I love how people act so "shocked" when Obama does something against the progressive grain. AS IF he were ever progressive to begin with!

Sure, he is charismatic and even gave a brilliant speech or two, but he is NO MLK, he is NO anti-establishment pro-people progressive! He is a CORPORATE DEMOCRAT! As if there were any other these days.

Sigh. When will progressives wake up and smell the stench of fascism fouling up American air?

THE DEMOCRAPS ARE JUST AS GUILTY AS THE REPUGNICANS FOR THE RAPIDLY DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF THIS COUNTRY!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]