-
sponsorship
With a debate in Ohio tomorrow and a primary there a week from now, the Clinton and Obama campaigns have been struggling to distance themselves from NAFTA—and to portray the other as NAFTA’s best friend. But the fact is, both candidates have said good things about the free-trade agreement in the past, and both now condemn it. They should really save themselves the oxygen and declare a truce.
To hear Obama tell it, Clinton’s original sin lies in her husband’s administration, under which NAFTA passed. Obama also cites a quote from Hillary in 2004, when she said, “I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America.” An Obama mailer distributed in Ohio claimed that Clinton had said NAFTA was a “boon” to the economy, but it turns out that was Newsday’s characterization of Clinton’s stance—not her own word. (Even Newsday says Obama's comments are a misrepresentation.) Her real position seems to be ambivalence—understandably, given that NAFTA has benefited many and hurt many others—but Obama has been quick to exploit it.
Clinton has similar dirt on Obama. During his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama attended an event in rural Shirley, Ill., where he spoke to 100 members of the Illinois Farm Bureau—a group that had decidedly benefited from NAFTA, since it opened up markets for the farmers' grain. According to an account of the event by the Decatur Herald & Review, “Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA.” The Associate Press confirms this account. So far, so bad.
But the Herald piece goes on: “He said, at the same time, there must be recognition that the global economy has shifted, and the United States is no longer the dominant economy. ‘We have competition in world trade,’ Obama said. ‘When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade.’ ”
In other words, Obama’s main point was that the country has to be more aggressive about protecting American interests. If anything, the first part about the United States benefiting enormously was a hedge—a statement meant to lessen the blow of what he was about to say. That doesn’t mean he didn’t say it. It just means it was part of a larger point that the United States can’t rely on free markets to solve all its problems.
Obama boasts about speaking truth to people who don’t want to hear it. He prides himself on lecturing automakers about fuel-efficiency standards, telling leaders in the Cuban community that we should relax travel restrictions, and talking up merit-based pay in front of teachers. But the Shirley, Ill., instance seems more complicated. He clearly couldn’t say, “NAFTA sucks,” but he seems to err on the side of accommodating farmers—and then says something different to workers losing their manufacturing jobs.
In the world of political campaigns, there are no gray zones. You’re either for a policy or against it. Nuance reads as evasion. Adjustment reads as flip-flopping. Given this, both Clinton and Obama would benefit from dropping the NAFTA issue. Both candidates have complex positions rooted in ambivalence. Neither one’s opposition research is much stronger than the other’s. They can spend the next week bloodying each other with allegations about past statements, but it’s not an argument either person is going to win. There’s plenty worth debating about the future —Obama’s protectionist “Patriot Employers” plan, for example, or the creation of “green collar” jobs. But quibbling over ancient NAFTA statements isn’t benefiting anyone. Save yourselves the trouble. Declare a truce.
-
sponsorship
Back in December, TV Guide published a roundup of the presidential candidates’ favorite TV shows. (Clinton: The Ed Sullivan Show; Edwards: Boston Legal, Obama: The Wire.) Noting a few oversights, we did some digging and figured out that Mike Gravel watched the History Channel and Ron Paul only watches the news.
Now that Ralph Nader has entered the 2008 race, it’s time to update the list. According to Nader’s Facebook page (Supporters: 127), the activist’s favorite TV show is Star Trek. (The lack of specificity and his age suggest that he prefers the original series, as opposed to a later incarnation.) Perhaps he and Hillary Clinton can finally agree on something.
Also, notice that his favorite movies include Gandhi but NOT An Unreasonable Man. So modest!
-
sponsorship
On a conference call with Clinton advisers just now, a reporter asks
why the campaign is using harsh words against Barack Obama, given that previous negative
attacks haven’t played well with voters. Communications Director Howard Wolfson weighs in:
“Every time the Obama campaign has attacked Sen. Clinton, her
veracity, her credibility, the press has largely applauded him. When we
have attempted to make contrasts with Sen. Obama, we have been criticized. … I
reject the notion that Sen. Clinton has [been the one making negative attacks.]
… I think [Obama’s] entire campaign against Sen. Clinton has been negative. He
has called her the status quo, he has called her divisive, he has said she’d do
or say anything to get elected. … Is it negative to debate a health care plan?
I don’t think so.”
-
sponsorship
Over the past week, we’ve seen a bunch of Hillary Clintons. At the debate in Austin on Thursday, we saw Comtemplative Hillary, who spun an anecdote about wounded soldiers into a reflection about the big picture of this campaign. Then on Saturday, we saw Defiant Hillary, who declared, “Shame on you, Barack Obama,” for a mailing she said mischaracterized her health-care plan. Today at George Washington University, we saw Serious, Trusted Leader Hillary, flanked by military endorsers including Wesley Clark, a throwback to the confident inevitability of her pre-Iowa days.
The Clinton campaign hyped it as a major foreign policy speech, but there was nothing new, policywise. She still wants to pull troops out of Iraq within her first year (though she stressed that “withdrawing troops is not easy” and will take time). She still wants to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil and international lenders. She still says she won’t sit down with leaders of Cuba and Iran without preconditions.
But unlike pre-Iowa, Clinton peppers her speeches with Obama digs. “The American people don’t have to guess whether I know the issues,” she said, “or need a foreign policy instruction manual, or need to rely on advisers to guide me on global affairs.” Later: “I will not broadcast threats against Pakistan just to demonstrate I am tough enough for the job.” Also: “I will not be penciling leaders of [Iran, North Korea, Syria, and others] into the presidential calendar, until we have evaluated their motivations.”
Even at this late hour, “experience” is still the campaign’s main argument against Obama: We will arrive in the White House knowing what to do; he will not. The Barack Obama painted by Clinton is impulsive (willing to rattle sabers at Pakistan one moment) and naive (willing to break bread with dictators at the next).
But the contrast feels forced. Both candidates want to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within the first year or so of their presidency. Both decry military action as anything but a last resort. Both want to boost America’s energy independence and reduce reliance on foreign creditors. Perceptions of the surge have changed over the past year, but Clinton and Obama still agree that staying in Iraq isn't worth the resources. The only real foreign policy contrast is whether they would talk to rogue leaders without preconditions—a decision that, while important, is hardly a fateful fork in the road. Given all that, Clinton’s argument still boils down to I’ve been around longer than he has. Meanwhile, Obama's rebuttal is still If only that helped her make good decisions.
This campaign has seen its ups, downs, twists, turns, and stunning reversals. But in terms of foreign policy, we're still where we were last year.
-
sponsorship
In case you were growing tired of fights over NAFTA, lofty rhetoric, and debates, the Democrats have a new spat du jour for you. Today, the Drudge Report posted a big, fat headline that howled, “Clinton staffers circulate ‘dressed’ Obama.” Accompanying the headline was a picture of Obama on a diplomatic trip to Kenya in 2006, wearing some type of traditional dress of the area—complete with a turban-looking headdress.
The picture was taken while Obama was in Wajir, a rural desert area in the northeast of Kenya. I spoke with Mark Bellamy, a former ambassador to Kenya and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who told me that Wajir is a pastoral town of about 5,000 people—almost all of whom are Muslim. Bellamy—who hasn’t declared his preference in the presidential race—didn’t recognize the “outfit” but said it wasn’t Islamic garb. He thought it was probably some sort of traditional Somali-Kenyan dress and that the people hosting Obama offered it to him as a sign of hospitality. “Wherever I travel I get dressed up in same way,” he said, “out of consideration for the hosts.”
Obama’s campaign is offering a similar line. On a conference call, retired Air Force Gen. Scott Gration said Obama was just being polite by trying on the garment. They compared it to when you open up gifts at Christmas—even if you don’t like that ugly sweater, you still try it on so your aunt smiles. As a friend pointed out, responding with that logic allows Obama’s campaign not only to push back against the Manchurian-Muslim rumors but also remind voters that Obama’s a Christian and he gets crappy Christmas gifts like the rest of the country.
The conference call wasn’t the only action between the two campaigns. First, the Obama campaign sent around a press release at 9:29 a.m. from campaign manager David Plouffe, in which he said the photo is “exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world.”
Then, at 10:54 a.m., Clinton’s campaign manager, Maggie Williams, pierced the quiet with her own release. “Enough,” she wrote. “If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.” She goes on to say Obama is trying to “distract from the serious issues.” Note that they never refuted Drudge’s piece. (More detail on that piece of the story is trickling in.)
Let’s take a moment to review: Obama’s campaign thinks Clinton is trying to be divisive by encouraging the Obama-is-a-Muslim myth. Clinton’s campaign thinks the Obama campaign is being divisive because it thinks Clinton’s campaign is being divisive. We love these spats as much as the next blogger, but Clinton’s stance is flimsy at best. While Obama cries foul, he also gets to show everybody that he is experienced enough to have gone on a diplomatic mission to a foreign country. Plus, he gets a high-profile platform to say he isn’t a Muslim. Clinton, meanwhile, is forced to play traditional-clothing catch-up while covering-up her staffers’ foolishness.
This episode is reminiscent of two others that happened earlier in the campaign. First, in June 2007, the Clintons disclosed a liquidation of their investments in India to avoid a conflict of interest during the campaign. In response, Obama staffers mass-mailed news outlets an analysis of the financial deal with the headline: “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab).” Clinton got the better of that spat, and Obama apologized while faulting his staff. Maybe Obama can offer Clinton some advice on the perils of running an organization with hundreds of employees.
But the more fitting precedent was set by other Hillary Clinton staffers earlier in the campaign. In December, the campaign asked two of its employees to resign after they proliferated rumors that Obama was a Muslim. If the campaign is consistent, we should see Clinton undress another staffer’s career in a few days.