Latest Obama Scandal: Can he Survive This?

Nothing like putting a cartoon label on a complex position.

There’s a lot going on in these trade agreements. One significant part of them has been to make the other parties in the deal adopt U.S. intellectual property standards. Hell, we haven’t had much debate in this country about whether the changes in IP law in the past 20 years or so have been a good idea, and here the same people who snuck those changes through Congress are trying to force them on our trading partners, too.

And that’s just one (uncovered, undebated) issue with respect to a trade deal like the one proposed with Colombia.

I’m for anyone who says, for whatever reason, that it’s time to slow down and take a look at what’s really going on with these trade deals. Instead, all we get in our media is cartoonish discussion: Free Trade Good. Opposing Free Trade Deals Bad. Protectionism. Ugh.

Sam Stone, do you withdraw the claim that he’s arguing that certain beliefs are the result of bitterness?

I agree. I’m not on board with Obama on this trade issue, but calling it simply “protectionist” is not helpful in the debate. No trade deal we enter into comes without conditions, and we’re just debating what those conditions should be. If we’re going to sling that term around casually like that, then all the candidates are “protectionists”-- except maybe Ron Paul.

Sorry, Sr., but you’re incorrect. I don’t think anyone here doesn’t think it was a big deal. It was a big deal because it was MADE INTO a big deal when it shouldn’t have been. And trying to draw a parallel by finding an issue the other side is passionate about “and linking them to being some racist yokel to imply that [we] only worry about that stuff because [we’re] too dumb to know what’s best for [us]” doesn’t work precisely because that’s not even remotely what Barack Obama said or implied. That is your interpretation (and a wild one at best) based on your biases.

Our biases don’t prevent us from being able to see that his remarks were controversial and that his choice of words was unfortunate. But twisting those words into something they clearly are not, is absolutely evidence of bias.

Given that Barack Obama isn’t opposed to trade, but simply wants any trade deal to be fair and enforced (which our current administration isn’t doing), it seems to me that your two sentences above are contradictory. Did you read all of BrainGlutton’s linked article?

This is going to backfire on Hillary big time, especially with the superdelegates and party officials who see her – once again – siding with her Republican opponent over her fellow Democrat.

His stated position – did you even read it? – is actually much more nuanced than that:

If you want to express disagreement with the above, please be specific.

I disagree with his definition of “fair”, so I’m not talking about enforcement-- of course the terms of any treaty should be enforced. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

Unfortunately this has been the character of Hillary’s entire strategy. It’s just a continuation of Mark Penn. Her campaign org sucks, this is all they’ve got.

I just gotta say, as a rural Pennsylvanian (My parents run the general store in a dead coaltown in west-central PA), most of the people I’ve talked to understood what Obama meant just fine–bitterness about economics makes people ignore it and fight harder for non-sequitor issues like gun rights and religion. And there’s a LOT of bitterness–hell, the brick factory in the next town over STILL gets spraypainted with “Thanks, NAFTA!” on a regular basis even going on five years after it re-opened (at half capacity, though).

I say this as a semi-rural (town of 100k+ but five minutes drive to farmland), gun-owning, theistic, conservative Democrat–the people Obama is upsetting with that remark aren’t the people who’d vote for him anyway, from where I sit and from who I talk to. Sure, my parents are going to single-issue vote on abortion–but they’re damn sure that McCain leaves a sour taste in their mouths more than Obama does, and I might convince them yet. The only reason I haven’t is because they have no faith that Obama or any other politician is actually going to be anything other than more of the same on economics–if Obama gets elected, and proves he’s got the chops to work with Congress to get a more progressive (sorry, Sr. =P) economic plan and trade agreements pass, I predict a MASSIVE shift of the rural working class to Democrat again–especially if he stays sane but fair on national gun regulations.

Thanks for weighing in, Zeriel.

I know you said your folks will have to be convinced on economic issues, but since abortion seems to be the issue that’s put them squarely in McCain’s camp for now, perhaps you could have them read Barack’s Call to Renewal keynote address. They might disagree with him, but like what he has to say none-the-less.

ETA: They also might like what he had to say in his remarks to the Building Trades Legislative Conference today.

Good luck!

Looks like voters aren’t as knee-jerk hyper-sensitive as Clinton/McCain would want to believe:

So, as long as every voter sees that video…

When** Zeriel** weighed in, it caused me to realize that a lot of people have been doing exactly what some have “accused” Obama of doing: that Mr. Obama appears to think he can intuit/understand/express what these Pennsylvia voters think and feel - and why. But those who appear to be angry about it are also speaking “for” the Pennsylvanians and choosing to be insulted on their behalf.

Then Zeriel steps up. I know he’s only one person, but he’s one of the people that Mr. Obama supposedly condescended to, one of the people who supposedly thinks Mr. Obama is an elitist interloper who belittled and patronized them. Maybe there are lots more just like him.

The next weeks will be interesting. The polls I’ve seen do not have Ms. Clinton leaping ahead.

Can someone explain Obama’s re-interpretation of the “cling” comment? He now says he meant they cling in a good way to important traditions:

What about the part where they “cling” to anti–immigrant or anti-trade issues. Are those important traditions that sustain us in bad times?

That’s the problem, isn’t it? The equation of religion and guns to anti-immigrant and trade. I don’t choose to believe that Obama was trying to express a value equivalence among the several things he mentioned- he’s clearly a man who feels strongly about his religion for instance, and it’s hard for me to see him equating religion to “antipathy to those who are not like us”.

In fact for me it’s the (to me, clearly unintended) equivalence that allows him off the hook on this statement. He muffed it, but I don’t think it’s indicative of some sneaky sub-rasa elitism because the religious, at any rate, are clearly his people.

Frankly, I do detect an elitist attitude in the remark. But, as was noted earlier, this should come as no surprise since he is part of the elite-- just like Hillary and McCain are. They are all going to slip up once in awhile a make comments that reveal that elitist outlook. I’m not going to hold this against Obama, but I’m not going to pretend like it was “speaking truth to power” or something like that.

Bush is an elitist. Cheney is an elitist. Gore is an elitist. Kerry is an elitist. Bush Sr is an elitist. The list goes on…

I’ll go along with that. I realize that I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here, but I really believe that he rather does care about why people vote against what he believes is their own economic benefit- like a puzzle he wants to solve- as opposed to a cudgel that he can use to amass political power. It’s a key distinction for me, as long as we’re reading the Obama tea leaves.

I’m at the point where I’m almost hoping that he comes out in some way that can be construed as guardedly pro-life, just because I know exactly what that’ll do to his numbers in my neck of the woods.

Will the idea that he’s personally opposed to abortion give him cover for also realizing that his personal feelings about it don’t make it legal or moral for him to try to enshrine a fetus’s right-to-life into law? Because there is an awful lot of misunderstanding on the pro-life side that all pro-choice people are actually pro-abortion, and that’s just not true. I don’t really know anyone of note in the pro-choice ranks who actually promotes abortion. A lot of us consider it an unfortunate necessity that it remain legal, but a necessity nonetheless. Meanwhile, we work to make the necessity of an abortion less common by promoting sex education and easier access to birth control.

But, again, that’s not a soundbite. It’s too nuanced. That’s the problem with modern politics…if you actually try to explain your position, you’ve already overspoken the time the public and the media are going to give you. Politics seems to favor those who speak as broadly and as fuzzily as possible. That’s what makes Obama’s success so far kind of amazing…

And yes, the abortion thing is always a problem for national Democrats in Pennsylvania, home of the Caseys and their fellow pro-life Democrats.

Amen, brother. I don’t even know what it says about me that I know a lot of people, including but not limited to “pretty much my entire hometown”, who vote straight D locally but R for national elections based solely on the pro-life status of the candidates in question.

Hell, my staunchly (so he says) pro-life dad said the exact same thing you did when we were talking politics this weekend over a beer. “We need more good sex education so we don’t have as many dumb kids getting pregnant, then we’d have fewer abortions anyway. I mean, I’m Catholic and all, but holding a no-birth-control position in this day and age is just plain dumb.”

If you’d like to know exactly what Obama has said on this topic, look here at his discussion a couple of days ago in the “Compassion Forum” at Messiah College.

You should also take a look at the video clip concerning torture, and the one about science versus faith.

Heck, watch 'em all.