There have been so many diaries expressing shock, disappointment, and even enough outrage to the extent that some will not work for Obama as hard as they once said they would. One key reason is Obama's flip on NAFTA. In this entry, I argue that Obama had no choice but to flip-flop, and those of us who did not see it coming were not closely following the campaign.
First, check out this video on Obama & Clinton and NAFTA
(you can see how Obama lies at what he says when he looks down, and boy is Russert a sharp questioner):Obama & Clinton on NAFTA
In the first part, Obama has always been a free trader. Why?
First, Obama's policy wonk team has always consisted of centrists, whether they be economists, foreign policy analysts, and domestic policy analysts (an Economist article highlights the main players of Obama's team, which has no lefties on board, including Austan Goolsbee who said Obama's opposition to NAFTA was "political positioning" to Canada, and anyone following the campaign would have known this before: Who's who in Obamaworld.). So yes, one can tell that his ideology was centrist from the start.
Second, Obama has made statements in support of globalization (please see Despite NAFTA attacks, Clinton and Obama Haven't Been Free Trade Foes.""). As this article makes clear, Obama has supported free trade agreements that received little press, such as Peru. As an international trade analyst, I can tell all first-hand that the Peru FTA, NAFTA, and Colombian FTA all contain similar labor & environmental standards, and all have a similar affect on US jobs. In addition, Peru and Colombia are not very different in terms of drugs, violence, and instability (Peru in fact is more unstable than Colombia, a country in which political parties are weakly institutionalized and have little ability to govern). So, if you were to support Peru, there's little reason to oppose Colombia--the union killings argument is a moot one because both Peru and Colombia have it (Peru: Death threats against union activities, and Colombia's union deaths have seen a marked decrease since the beginning of the millennium: Union deaths down, see Figure 1. Despite being cited by CATO, the information is factual). So it's pretty clear Obama is a free-trader.
Now, here's the grind of my analysis. Can anyone please convince me as to how Obama could have answered
this question by Russert honestly without losing Byron Dorgan's endorsement
specifically because of his opposition to NAFTA), more voters in Ohio,
especially since this was the first primary in a few weeks and NAFTA
was THE issue at the time and THE issue that unions harped on so much
at the time in union-strong Ohio & PA later), and enough support to
not lose by even more significant numbers that could cost him the
tight Dem nomination? This was a very sharply worded question that
Russert (RIP) not only asked, but re-asked and re-asked yet again.
People are watching this, taking notes. What's he supposed to say,
"Well, I still am ambivalent" or "I, too, think there needs to be
serious consideration of opting out and renegotiation"? Russert would
never have left that fly and would have made him say what he really
meant. Such equivocation would be noted by the press and viewers, and
Obama had no choice but to say anti-NAFTA rhetoric clearly and without hesitation.
Also, Hillary Clinton is very much relevant. Many are saying that "he
should answer the question the way he really means," but he was going
against the entire time someone who wasn't so honest herself, and
Hillary's very forthright statement in opposition to NAFTA in that
video segment was very distortionary, as she had publicly praised
NAFTA time and again before (as recently as in her 2003 biography
which she said roughly that "NAFTA, on balance, is a good thing."
You know this, politics is a game that needs to be played the right
way.
Now, was it right for Obama (and Hillary) to do that? Of course not.
They both should have been honest and said that it's there, I'm not
changing it, especially because such a position is consistent with
their core beliefs. I really think Clinton was the one that should be
criticized here for saying such a strongly anti-position on NAFTA
there, and that really spelled Obama's response. If she was less
anti-NAFTA, I think he would have been too.
Therefore, in the final analysis, for all those Obama supporters here who now threaten to not support or even vote for him because of this issue, then you are either simply being naive (that he "flip-flopped"), or that you should never have been supporting him. His position was the same as it has always been, and I hope he doesn't let you call him a flip-flopper on it.
So please, let's not criticize Obama for "going against his word", keen political observers like us should act smarter than this. Whether he should support or oppose NAFTA is a different question. But let's at least acknowledge Obama has not "changed" his position. It was most likely his position the entire time.