Obama Flip-Flops on NAFTA: ‘Overheated’
OK, this is pathetic: Obama now says that his anti-NAFTA rhetoric during the campaign was a bit ‘overheated.’ He added that NAFTA has indeed been positive for the US in some ways, and that his earlier criticism – while trying to convince white blue collar voters in some states to vote for him – ‘overheated and amplified.’
When asked whether his rhetoric was ‘overheated and amplified’ the new kind of politician answers: “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself.”
He also ‘nuanced’ his criticism, by implying that he does not ‘want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.’ Instead he may ‘open up a dialogue’ with America’s main North American trading partners, “and figuring to how we can make this work for all people.”
Nevertheless, Obama’s 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. On the afternoon that I sat down with him to discuss the economy, Obama said he had just spoken with Harper, who had called to congratulate him on winning the nomination.
“I’m not a big believer in doing things unilaterally,” Obama said. “I’m a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.”
That’s of course the sensible approach, but it’s interesting to see that Obama, once again, proves that he is willing to deceive people and to tell them what they want to hear, as long as they vote for him. Now that he’s the nominee, and he needs independents to support him, he suddenly becomes much less radical on NAFTA. Amazing that.
Canada and Mexico, though, will most likely not care; after all, this is in their interest. Whether a person supports NAFTA, mostly, because he or she believes in it, or because he or she wants to get (re)elected, well, in either case both countries enjoy the benefits of free trade.
More at The Moderate Voice.
Your anger on this issue is unwarranted given that John McCain is flip-flopping, too. No, I don’t like it, but I hope you’ll be giving as much coverage to his flip-flopping as I know you will to Obama’s.
I think its absolutely true that he didn’t change his core position; people made it sound like he wanted to throw NAFTA in the trash, while he always just wanted to renegotiate on labor and environmental standards. People who support free trade are just too goddamn zealous about it, and portrayed that as closing trade.
But on the other hand, if Obama didn’t mean it was "disastrous", he shouldn’t have said it
What a shock. A politician running to the extreme during the primaries, and then back to the center for the general election. Amazing.
Now if you had a case of a politician running away from the center for the general election, that would be news. But I don’t recall ever hearing of anyone, from either party, ever doing that — at least, not successfully.
He absolutely changed his core position. In a Feb Ohio speech, Obama said NAFTA destroyed 1 million US Jobs (a long-refuted stat that is based on ridiculous economic assumptions) and blasted Clinton for her one-time support for the Agreement (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/24/remarks_for_senator_barack_oba_1.php "Well, I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America – and I never have.")
Now he thinks NAFTA’s great (which it is). So much for a new kind of politics!
WJ- of course it’s not shocking, unless the candidate is running as a post-partisan, anti-washington messiah. This is simply another example of BO’s lofty rhetoric not matching his actions. The truth is that he’s just another washington politician. If you like his (liberal) policies, fine. But if you really think he stands for hopechangeblahblahblah, then you’ve been duped.
I don’t think that changing your mind is flip-flopping. But whatever – if Obama wins by doing things that annoy people who still insist he wins by throwing dust then all the better. All this lame pride in stripping the emperor of his new clothes (when he has a skeleton of decency and intelligence that makes McCain look like four more years of The Scum) just makes me happy. It’s like Gore, who probably stays fat just to piss off his obsessive stalkers.
Utsu, under your definition, McCain is also "changing his mind" on things like the tax breaks and not tabling the use of torture for the CIA, and other things he’s changed on. As for the tax breaks, I might be willing to let him go on that, since at least for that enough time passed where he might actually have changed his mind.
I agree with calling Obama’s NAFTA positions flip-flopping is close to correct. What he’s saying now is different than what he said in the primaries. Heck; what he said earlier in the primaries is different than what he said later in them.
My own honeymoon phase with both nominees is fading pretty fast.
You mean Sen. Obama pandered. No, say it ain’t so.
TheTruth,
He’s not changing his policy position, which has always been to keep NAFTA but renegotiate labor and environmental standards.
And even when he gave his "disaster" rhetoric, he made addenda saying he believed free trade wasn’t bad it was just implemented poorly. Then, he gave that assurance to Canadian officials that some of his rhetoric was "overheated". Even now he doesn’t say everything was hunky-dory with NAFTA, just changing his emphasis.
Unfortunately, because Obama is pandering, his emphasis seems to be all-or-nothing, a disaster, or good.
But his original policy position is exactly the same, and doesn’t entail "shutting down trade". Mexico and Canada will not be willing to throw away NAFTA because the US wants to put some more standards in place. Canada doesn’t care, because they have as good or better labor and environmental standards than the US. That’s why he advised the Canadian officials they ‘have nothing to worry about’, because they have nothing to lose from what he’s proposing anyway. Mexico would not give up NAFTA for this either, especially since the government rejecting labor standards will look especially bad for voters there.
And btw, if you go back and watch the Perot v Gore debate, Perot also said that he was a free trader and believed an agreement like NAFTA was good, but he didn’t support it in the current form, without tough standards that would protect Mexican workers.
Cries about "protectionism" are almost always as demagogic.
lol, MVdG doesn’t give equal means of bashing a politician when it comes to Obama. He gave complete passes to Clinton while bashing Obama for the same things.