A Stitch in Haste

Barack Obama supports free trade, except when he doesn't:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama assured U.S. trading partners on Sunday that he did not oppose free trade despite making increasingly critical comments about multilateral deals such as NAFTA.
...
Asked how other countries should interpret his position, Obama responded that he supported free trade but wanted it to be fair.

"What the world should interpret is my consistent position, which is I believe in trade," he said after meeting with workers at a manufacturing plant in Ohio.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "supports" is. How someone can "support free trade" while opposing NAFTA (i.e., "opposing free trade") is not clear. What does he think the "FT" in "NAFTA" stands for — "f*ck that"?

Perhaps Obama could be so kind as to clarify?

"I just want to make sure that the rules of the road apply to everybody and they are fair and that they reflect the interests of workers and not just corporate profits."

What exactly does he think a "free trade agreement" is if not an agreement that free trade will "apply to everybody"? Does he think a free trade agreement is the functional equivalent of a signing statement? "We agree, except when we choose not to..."

As for the socialist, Naderite "workers not profits" gobbledygook, free trade of course benefits consumers — which, last time I check, both included and outnumbered "workers." A trade agreement that lowers prices and increases variety, for every single person in America, is "bad for America" — how?

And it should not need reiteration that without "corporate profits" there can be no workers. Just ask every heavy industry in America that was "collectively bargained" and "fair trade not free traded" straight into bankruptcy: steel, textiles, autos, etc.

If Obama, or any other candidate, is going to swim in populist tripe, one would hope that they could do so in a way that does not so insolently insult the intelligence of anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics.

---

Speaking of "who outnumbers whom in America," could you imagine if Barack Obama had the intellectual honesty to reword his website such that each of his "Obama will ___" campaign promises to "Obama will force taxpayers to ___" or "Obama will raise the deficit to ___"?

No, I can't imagine it either.

(Via Hit & Run.)

---

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is of course no better. Someone should remind her who signed NAFTA into law.

On the one hand:

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

On the other hand:

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama's campaign called the Canadian government within the last month — saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

I don't care if people think Barack Obama is the second coming of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln. He is an actively campaigning politician in a tight race. And the only unvarying truth about actively campaigning politicians in tight races is that they will say anything, absolutely anything, to a single-issue crowd to curry their favor.

Gays, particularly gay Democrats, got "Clintoned" once (twice in fact). I think they're smart enough not to get "Clintoned" again by believing anything Hillary says about gay rights. Whether they are smart enough not to get Clintoned again by believing anything Obama says about gay rights remains to be seen.

(Note: I am not passing judgment about those who support, or oppose for that matter, Obama as a "whole candidate" with a whole platform. I'm merely referring to giving especial credence to anything he says about gay rights to a gay audience.)

Please tell me he didn't:

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

It's almost as if they brought forth upon this continent a new nation. Or something.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Long endure? Meh -- new birth of freedom. Etc.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution -- a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

Of-by-for, QED. P.S. "Yes we can..."

This is the candidate hailed as the great political orator of our time?

"Just words" indeed.

---

As for the rest of Obama's speech, I fail to understand why people are so orgasmic over it:

--I agree with Jeremiah Wright, except when I disagree with him.

--I look up to him, except when I condemn him.

--I'm proud of my membership in his church, except when I'm ashamed of it.

--I transcend race-based politics, except when race matters.

--Oh, and more government is always the answer to every problem, especially the problems created by government in the first place.

Did I miss anything?