"Mr Obama is more of an instinctive free-trader than Mrs Clinton" and has "neoclassical" advisers

If true, folks should know this before voting for him because of "hope" that he will be different than Hillary and be a "change" from (Bill) Clintonomics.

-snip-

Mr Obama has carefully avoided any such rhetoric. His trade strategy, like much else, is still short on details. Like Mrs Clinton, he voted against the free-trade agreement with Central America. But judging by his latest book, Mr Obama is more concerned with helping people deal with globalisation than trying to slow it down. One trade wonk who knows both candidates says that Mr Obama is more of an instinctive free-trader than Mrs Clinton.

Judging by the advisers surrounding him, Mr Obama may end up with more market-oriented ideas elsewhere too. While the Clinton economic team is run by experienced practitioners, Mr Obama relies on his Senate staff and a growing group of young academics, all of whom have impeccable neoclassical credentials. At the centre is Mr Goolsbee, a 37-year-old public-finance whizz. Then there is David Cutler, a top health economist from Harvard, who focuses on changing incentives to improve the quality of health care. David and Christina Romer, a husband and wife team from Berkeley, advise on macroeconomic matters. Jeff Liebman, a labour and pensions expert at Harvard, also plays an important role. He is the co-author of a bipartisan Social Security reform plan that includes individual retirement accounts.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?stor...

and always will - and that means the protection of BushInc will continue for another decade certain.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Oh, and no president is going to investigate the any past one, especially not the previous one. If you are voting for Obama because of this it is a false hope.

and ANY negotiation of those deals.

The fact that you have to ASK tells me your concerns are surface concerns and that have never gone very deep to understand the whys and hows and who is aspects of their deliberations.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Read the link above and you will get a BIGGER PICTURE of how EVERY issue rises or falls depending on the openness of government.

The question is what kind of person we have negotiating the deals in the first place. It seems based on all the available evidence that Obama is not what many of his anti-Clinton supporters "hope" he is on trade. This isn't surprising. Much of Obama's vote is anti-(Bill) Clinton rather than pro-Obama. No one stops to look and see that he is firmly in the Clinton mold.

the AGENDA of BushInc. Obama will not have those ties binding him mso completely tehe way Clintons have.

Clinton had Poppy Bush and Jackson Stephens telling him what to do and made deals accordingly.

Obama would be a free trader more in the mold of a Gore or Kerry, who believe in global free trade BUT with protections for labor and environment.

Way more so than Clinton - who would throw environmental measures out the window to protect HIS benefactors like Jackson Stephens on WTI.

In my opinion. He has been fighting for it consistently.

I guess the wonk's quote is right? I don't see Obamties disputing it but rather are trying to change the subject.

to realize that EVERY ISSUE is dependent on whether it is dealt with OPENLY or in secret.

Wake up.

Do you even read the article you link to? It's all about partisan investigations, which BO appears to have no interest in.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton oversaw the declassification of tons of Cold War-era documents, and held firm to keep the internet open.

As the saying goes, "that dog won't hunt."

You think uncovering IranContra or BCCI or Iraqgate or CIA drugrunning was just a way to attack a focking Republican administration?

Monica Lewinsky and WH travel office were PARTISAN INVESTIGATIONS.

IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning were CRIMES OF OFFICE that ended up leading directly to 9-11..... so they were SERIOUS MATTERS of National Security.

Geez - what happened to proportion?

And consider Obama's repeated calls to rise above partisan wrangling and not look back. If you still can't see why using *that* article to say Obama will do something differently isn't a joke, I throw up my hands.

and the reason I trust he WILL be a more open administration is because he is surrounding himself with open government advocates I do have reason to trust.

that amounts to a rush to the bottom. We had a preview of that when mills in Massachusetts shut down when they couldn't compete with non-union mills in the South.

Obama more of a free trader than a Clinton? What a joke. What he wrote in his book doesn't reflect that.

What he wrote in his book reflects the Clinton, DLC view. Whether that qualifies as "free" or "fair" trade is in the eye of the beholder but he clearly comes down on the side of Clintonians and the DLC on trade. His voting record on trade is basically the same as Hillary's and Hillary has taken a more leftist view on trade in her platform. She is calling for a review of all trade agreements to assess which are working and for a trade agreement time-out, a long sought labor goal. Obama is not calling for a time-out and will only review NAFTA.

The article you linked above doesn't have substance. What part of his book is so DLC on trade? Quote it instead of making hopeful claims. What about Hillary's trade platform is more leftist? Can you provide a link to what you claim above? You keep making these same claims about their views on trade and I've NEVER seen you quote or link anything to back it up. Guesswork by unnamed sources and identifying some of his advisers is not substance.

People throw "DLC!" around as a bogeyman and project all sorts of nefarious motives and negative views to it. In reality the DLC stands for what Hillary and Obama, and by extension most Democrats, stand for. A great example is the DLC's views on trade are exactly like Obama and Clintons. Use Clinton as a proxy for the DLC if you don't want to go through DLC position papers. What differences are there between Obama and Clinton on trade?

The trade platform of both were compared yesterday. Obamites conveniently ignored the thread just like they always do when presented with anything that conflicts with their hopes and dreams. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4521457

Here's just one DLC article on trade to give a flavor of what the DLC stands for. Compare that to Obama and Hillary. The basic tenets of the Obama and Hillary views on trade are embodied in this and this is reflected by both Obama and Hillary supporting the Peru trade agreement that this DLC endorsed deal paved the way for (Edwards opposed the Peru deal).

DLC | New Dem Dispatch | May 11, 2007
Idea of the Week: Reviving Trade Policy

Some real progress emerged yesterday on an unexpected front: an agreement between House Democratic leaders, led by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), and the Bush administration on a template for future trade agreements. For the first time, the administration has agreed to the inclusion of core labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, along with a comprehensive effort to update and expand domestic programs that help U.S. workers deal with dislocations caused by globalization and other factors. This accord paves the way for congressional approval of at least two pending Free Trade Agreements, with Peru and Panama, while establishing a framework for future deals. It is a triumph for Chairman Rangel, and a very good sign for Democratic leadership on policy in the years ahead.

The agreement establishes as U.S. policy that future bilateral Free Trade Agreements -- that is, agreements which create special relationships offering partners greater access to the U.S. market than WTO rules require -- include enforcement of the fundamental workers' rights provisions set out by the International Labor Organization's 1998 Declaration on Core Labor Standards (including the right to organize unions, and bans on child labor and discriminatory practices), and of seven specific international environmental pacts.

And it commits the administration and House leaders to a "Strategic Worker Assistance and Training Initiative " to "promote education, training and portable health and pension benefits, design and implement concrete and comprehensive programs, including public-private partnerships to educate youth, update and upgrade workers' skills on the job, stimulate science education and research, provide meaningful health and pension benefits and income support, go beyond the current TAA system to provide meaningful support, training and revitalization programs for entire communities hurt by the effects of trade and technology."

The latter provision has been a long-standing goal of all pro-trade progressives. And the labor and environmental standards usefully focus on widely acknowledged international norms that will be binding on the United States and its FTA partners equally, avoiding arbitrary and unilateral efforts to impose wage rates on poorer countries that would simply make trade agreements impossible.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=900010&contentid=254299

Obama

Date Bill Title Vote
12/04/2007 United States-Peru Trade Agreement NV
09/19/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Y
06/29/2006 U.S. -Oman Free Trade Agreement Y
07/28/2005 CAFTA Implementation Bill N
06/30/2005 CAFTA Implementation Bill N

Hillary

Date Bill Title Vote
12/04/2007 United States-Peru Trade Agreement NV
09/19/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Y
06/29/2006 U.S. -Oman Free Trade Agreement Y
07/28/2005 CAFTA Implementation Bill N
06/30/2005 CAFTA Implementation Bill N
07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act Y
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act Y
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N

DLC statement: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=900010&contentid=254492
Clinton statement: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4113

I couldn't find an Obama statement but he, despite voting present like Hillary, also expressed his support for it and when asked about it during the South Carolina debate echoed the DLC/Clinton view. Contrast that to Edwards and Brown.

Edwards' statement opposing Peru trade: http://www.art-us.org/node/282
Sherrod Brown: "Congress (has) passed another job-killing trade agreement that will shut down our factories, hurt our communities, and send more unsafe food into our kitchens and consumer products into our children's bedrooms."

Brown, like the other freshmen Democrats elected to the Senate in 2006, understands something that Clinton and Obama are still missing. "Our current trade model chases short-term profits for the few, at the expense of long-term prosperity, health and safety for the many. It's a model that doesn't work. Look at our trade deficit, look at manufacturing job losses, look at wage stagnation, look at imported product recalls, look at forced labor, child labor, slave labor. Look what it does to communities," says the senator, who made changing trade policy a central issue in his successful challenge to Republican Senator Mike DeWine, as did other Democratic winners such as Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Claire McMaskill of Missouri, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, John Tester of Montana and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island – all of whom opposed the Peru deal.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=256831

He echoes the DLC, Clinton talking points.

-snip-

"Obama said he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement next week, in response to a question from a man in Londonderry, NH who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for American workers. He said he supported the trade agreement with Peru because it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO, despite the voter's protests to the contrary. He also affirmed his support for free trade."

The voter's "protests to the contrary" are exactly right. The AFL-CIO does not support the bill expanding NAFTA into Peru, and the much-trumpeted labor/environmental standards leave enforcement up to the Bush administration, rather than empowering third parties to enforce them (like corporations have the power to enforce investor rights provisions in these same trade agreements). Leaving enforcement to the Bush administration -- or any administration -- is the biggest loophole possible. It is precisely why corporate lobbyists have bragged to reporters that the standards are not enforceable.

Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress. His announcement is not necessarily surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project -- a Wall Street front group working to drive a wedge between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues. His announcement comes just days after a Wall Street Journal poll found strong bipartisan opposition to lobbyist-written NAFTA-style trade policies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/breaking-obama-says-he-w_b_67780.html

Explain how that works again?

First I notice how quickly you dismiss them having the same voting record. If Hillary is DLC and they have the same voting record...She is better because she will review all trade agreements and will call for a trade agreement time-out. Obama has not done the latter and will review only NAFTA.

This is about what Obama stands for and your inability to show that the two are the same on trade.

The blog post you linked to is very slanted. It has more quotes for Hillary and ignores things Obama as said.

I asked if you could back up your claims with quotes from Obama, his book, his website, speeches and you gave me something from the DLC instead. So I guess that answer is no, you can't back it up with substance. Claiming Obama is DLC doesn't make it true.

You are clearly ignoring Obama's statements and record on trade. How can anyone honestly see a difference between him and the DLC's state position on trade and Peru? How about you point out the difference between the DLC's position and Obama. You, like any Obamite, won't because there is none.

"Inability to show that the two are the same on trade". Showing their voting records isn't enough? It is enough to establish a prima facie case. The next thing to look at is their platforms and the differences that exist show Hillary to the left.

He has been trained by the Chicago Boys! Vote Hillary!

The liberals, progressives and fair traders are going to be kept busy keeping either candidates' feet to the fire.

unless it bothers you that it sounds like 'neoconservative'.

I'm a regular Economist reader and one of the reasons I support Obama is because of his free-trade instincts. Overall, more trade ang globalization are good for the world and help reduce poverty. The challenge is to achieve economic growth by increasing trade without throwing people on the scrapheap if they're behind the economic curve (for example, working in a dying industry or one which no longer competes effectively).

Protectionist policies often sound good up front but basically they amount to wasting tax dollars to stave off outside competition, while imposing unfair trade requirements (such as tariffs) on workers in foreign countries.

And no, I don't make fat money or have huge overseas investments, so my views aren't motivated by the idea that I'm going to get rich by making money on the backs of Chinese factory workers or suchlike.