Why did Obama compare "Anti-Trade Sentiment" to Prejudice? I was in agreement up till that

[Leopolds Ghost]

He lost me there completely.

I was in agreement with his statement up until he compared
Religion and "Anti Trade Sentiment" to prejudice and other
typically Republican behavior, as if protectionism and
religion were the province of Reaganism.

Even the "cling to guns" was an OK statement because gun control is
a controversial issue with a lot of contention, so it is fair to
say that a zealous 2nd amendment advocate is "clinging to guns"
above and beyond other issues.

Religion in America is NOT controversial, something to
"cling to" in time of distress. It is central to most
American's liberal beliefs -- if they have any.

(Would that it were more controversial -- Christianity is in its
origins an anti-establishment religion, completely corrupted by
the self-satisfied "middle class" and Calvinist bullshit
Wright spoke about.)

Neither is Fair Trade and "anti-Trade Sentiment".

They should not be controversial. They are not the product of
"bitterness" or "understandable overreaction."

Not after NAFTA and Seattle and 15 years of DLC policies!

Not in a Democratic Primary GODDAMNIT!

Fair Trade should NOT be controversial something to "cling to"
in distress.

Why does Obama continue to reassure his wealthiest backers
(and the American public) that he will not diverge from Hillary
enough to burn his bridges with them on this issue? He will not
go in for the kill on NAFTA or Columbia BECAUSE HE APPARENTLY
SUPPORTS HILLARY'S POSITION ON TRADE.

It is sad and disgusting to see an entire party so spineless
in the face of the neo-colonialization of America.

The Media is utterly disregarding this portion of his statement
as are elite Dems here on the blogosphere because they don't
care about it. Free trade is their bread and butter and they
actually fault both Dems for even pretending to "pander" to
anti-free trade working class Americans.

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. Anyone care about the trade issue?

Or is fair trade the Dems' version of abortion -- red meat for the voters
once every 4 years, followed by swift pledges of moderation to the donors?

[QC]

2. My money's on the latter.

Both candidates support so-called "free trade."

[datopbanana]

3. He was trying to explain a million things in 15 words. It came off wrong.

[Leopolds Ghost]

4. Having heard the recording, I'm inclined to agree. BUT it seems like both candidates feel compelled

to mollify major donors on the issue of trade, sort of like having to
explain why some of the folks at the anti-war march were radical leftists.

It's almost like anti-free-trade sentiment is a "crazy uncle in the attic"
that Obama may privately sympathize with but is not allowed to publically
stand up for.

[jackson_dem]

5. Because he is a "free" trader and looks down upon small town people being upset at trade

"anti-trade" is Wall Street/rethug code for wanting fair trade.

[JoFerret]

6. Sounds about right

.

[KoKo]

7. That disappointed me also...because he was only quoting the Book..."What's the Matter with Kansas"

but he took it a "step farther" to assure "some of his supporters" he won't stray far from NAFTA/GATT and other "Trade Agreements" because folks "fear them."

It was a big disappointment to me. But, I'm neither an Obama nor Clinton supporter...and since I can't vote until May 6th...I'm still actively watching both of them so I feel comfortable with my choice, when I vote.

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. "WTMWK" comes from the Radical Populism of the Baffler and Michael Lind

Back when Michael Lind had just left the Republican Party and was accurately
pontificating about how we had two parties of the Overclass in American politics
thanks to an obsession with wedge issues and an UNWILLINGNESS TO TOUCH the dogma
of unfettered hyper-capitalism.

A dogma that was not shared by American leaders in the "old days" BTW.

The term "laissez-faire" was coined as an ideal, to be realized by ambitious robber barons in the 1920s-1950s, not as a reality in the 1800s.

America was founded on tarriffs.

[crankychatter]

8. If he outright opposed NAFTA, he'd be watching the debates at home with Dennis and John

they're STILL deanscreaming his ass... the msm is making me heartsick

I wish we didn't refer to it so much on this website

we can't even get a mild progressive, centrist politician like Obama because he wouldn't take ALL THE PAC MONEY... they just won't trust him.

Between your two remaining Dem Candidates this is your choice... who do YOU trust to alleviate the Labor and Environmental side effects of NAFTA?

Ask yourself, "who is telling the truth?"

The problem is he's running for President per our Constitution... not Dictator Puppet of Transnational Corporations and War Profiteers.

Well, I'm just going to watch and pray... register voters in Missouri this Spring

seriously... if they don't get away with pushing him out by character assassination... god help my man, Obama... I know at this point... I would take a bullet for him... no hesitation.

Now, if THESE PEOPLE ARE SO AGAINST HIM, why not align yourself WITH HIM?

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. I agree with you... NO DOUBT... it is so sad that it literally comes down to mortal danger

For any POPULAR politician that actually starts talking about anything
remotely populistic or contrary to the needs of Wall St. forget leftism
it is not about that necessarily...it is about the lack of an acceptable
alternative to the Wall St. dogma we are supposed to accept as gospel,
and take the problems that go with it as axiomatic and a necessary part
of American life. we are not allowed to challenge the deadlock of
corporate friendly policy.

Fair Trade is the love that dare not speak its name.... it is
interesting how McCarthyism has outlasted the Soviet Union thus proving
that propaganda is fundamentally an appeal to base emotions unconnected
to any real external threat. If they wanted to get Americans to hate
people wearing blue ribbons in their hair, if that were a threat to
big business, they could. And Obama would have to go on the record
saying that he was not a particular fan of blue ribbons personally,
but refuses to condemn others for wearing them... or be laughed off
the media stage.

[crankychatter]

9. Rove's Permanent GOP Majority is now Dem Complicity

Who needs a majority when the opposition party won't oppose?

But the fact remains... we haven't had a non-Southern Dem in the White House since JFK...

I disagree with Obama on a host of issues besides NAFTA but I'm not going to post them up so that Clinton supporters or trolls can recommend the post and throw in their fifty cents.

They're in la la land. It's lesser of evils time... happens every four years.

[cbayer]

10. Isn't that a shame, though.

At a time when we really should be discussing what we support and don't support in the candidate's platforms, we are dissuaded from this discussion because we know we will be attacked. I feel handcuffed most of the time. If I support or disagree with either candidate, I will be seen as a shill for the other. It's just gotten ridiculous.

[amandabeech]

11. Both Clinton and Obama are globalist free-traders, IMHO.

I fear that Obama may be worse than Clinton because many of his economic advisers come from U-Chicago, which is a hot-bed of extreme free-trade thought.

The only thing on which I disagree with you is the guns issue in rural areas. There is no controversy on guns there--almost everyone has one, often a hunting type, and nobody cares. People don't have a problem with guns, and will keep and use them in good times and bad. To suggest that people vote guns only in times of economic trouble simply isn't true out where I come from, and shows a misunderstanding of the culture.

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. I'm not against guns myself...

It's like the voting franchise, the right to bear arms can mean different
things depending on reason so long as the fundamental individual right to
bear arms of some sort is protected. There was a devastating article
about this in the Washington Post I think... pointing out that (a) the
right to bear arms was always individual and (b) arms were not anything
special in the 1700s and were used for hunting, and were pathetic weapons
that could not be given away in yard sales -- like adult bicycles in the
1960s.

If the SCOTUS gets it wrong on the 2nd Amendment and does not settle
the issue and admit that jurisdictions are free to apply their own
reasonable restrictions without limiting the franchise, I fully expect
them to either legalize private ownership of tanks, or ban all firearms
and weapons, or admit that they are hypocritical false judges and I will
drink their milkshake.

[TLM]

12. Because both are wedge issues.... along with guns, god, gays etc.

Obama was talking about why wedge voters vote on wedge issues.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html

Full transcript:

OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.


Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. Trade is not a wedge issue, its a core issue. Why the hell are folks so used to cheap foreign goods?

The very idea of "cheap foreign goods" should be an oxymoron.

And IS an oxymoron in any sovereign power with an industrial policy.

The very notion of "cheap foreign goods" is a DELIBERATE MANUFACTURED CONDITION
created to allow businesses like Wal-Mart to put mom and pop out of business.

Created by folks like Reagan and the Clintons.

If government is not needed to set tariffs, then there is no need for
government. That is all the federal government was envisioned to be
doing for the most part by the Jeffersonian Democrats, of whom I am one.

[McCamy Taylor]

17. Hillary and Obama have to suck up to the corporations of they dont want to be axed by the MSM

the way that John Edwards was. That does not mean that either of them is actually going to do the bidding of the corporations once they get into office. I think that they are both playing FDR on this. Bill Clinton has always said that Hillary was idealistic and he should know, he lives with her. She has probably nagged him for years for being too pragmatic. Obama has made some sort of weird decisions like staying with Wright . He would not have done that if he was just a 100% pragmatic corporate candidate. I think both of them would do very well as a team and they just need to get over themselves and start working together. If we had such a thing as co-presidents this would be easy.