Why Isn't Obama Slamming McCain on NAFTA, Jobs and Trips to S. America

where is Obama's campaign right now?

When I heard McCain was taking a trip to Colombia I thought it was Columbia, Missouri, not south america.

Now McCain's in Mexico with web ads talking about creating jobs in Mexico..

What am I missing?  This is a perfect time after 6 straight months of heavy job losses to nail McCain on trade and jobs..

I'm thinking Obama's campaign is overconfident or not realize how the new independent expenditure group created within the RNC is going to trash obama.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanma rtin/0708/RNC_creates_independent_expend iture_arm_.html

The Republican National Committee has tapped a GOP media consultant to run an independent expenditure campaign set up to target Barack Obama, according to a source familiar with the plan.

Brad Todd will run the new arm of the RNC, broadcasting ads and sending mailers with committee money.

The new entity is barred by law from any coordination with either McCain's campaign or the RNC, but some of the cash they use to air the spots will have been raised by the GOP nominee.  

Oh well,,,  I was kinda hoping Obama would trot out with Edwards and talk about the silliness of traveling to Mexico talking about job creation there..

to make matters worse there's a ton of bad things in McCains past that are never talked about by the media yet tapes that don't exist on michelle are talked about. things the media never says about McCain 1. he's part of the keating 5 2. his wife stole drugs from her non-profit and confessed on TV 3. His families 500,000 monthly credit card bill (yet the Obama's are "elite") 4. McCain finishing 894/899 in his naval class yet his dad helping him get prestigious gigs.. etc...

Tags: mcsame (all tags)

Comments

53 Comments

please don't tell me

it's a new politics thingy.

by TarHeel 2008-07-03 05:48AM | 0 recs
It's too soon for Obama personally...

... to go negative.

He's making his point with positive statements, introducing himself to Middle America.  He's gotta be Jackie Robinson for a while yet.  He's gotta talk about himself and what he intends to do.

In the meantime, he lets his high-profile supporters talk about McCain.

There will be plenty of time for hard-hitting direct attacks in October.

by tbetz 2008-07-03 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Isn't Obama Slamming McCain on NAFTA, Jobs

sorry he himself is busy flipflopping on nafta.. once he gets his position clear.. he will go after Mccain on nafta!

by gladiatorsback 2008-07-03 06:03AM | 0 recs
Obama should listen to Huffington

trade is a huge issue..

I don't care if he wants to move to the center but the Center on trade is that NAFTA is bad,,,, I don't know what the heck Obama's campaign is thinking.

it's almost like he's trying to lose.

by TarHeel 2008-07-03 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should listen to Huffington

His campaign did slam McBush for going to South America when america's economy is going down the tubes.  They talked about this on The Page yesterday.

by Spanky 2008-07-03 06:23AM | 0 recs
Here's the link

CBS News

This morning, the Obama campaign argued that McCain's trip highlights his support for Bush's economic polices. In an email to reporters, spokesman Tommy Vietor wrote, "Senator McCain's trip to Mexico and Colombia just underscores his insistence on continuing George Bush's failed economic policies that have left nearly 2.5 million more workers unemployed--including unfair trade deals that have been written by lobbyists."

Vietor also noted a New York Times report which says that McCain advisor, Charlie Black, earned $1.8 million for lobbying on behalf of the leading oil and gas exporter in Colombia. "This is more of the Washington politics that has left American working families struggling to compete in a global economy by putting the lobbyists and special interests first," Vietor said.

by differance 2008-07-03 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

"yet his dad helping him get prestigious gigs"

not this again.  this didnt work against Bush so it CERTAINLY won't work against war-hero McCain.

by William Cooper 2008-07-03 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

Actually, I think the country is sick of Bush and any further link of McCain to Bush will be harmful to McCAin.  THis could be one of them

by KLRinLA 2008-07-03 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

Give it a shot.  Keep calling him McBush, etc.  It won't work IMO. McCain has too long of a verifiable and very public track record of bucking his party's line.

If you want Obama to win you better find some hardcore policy differences and exploit those.

by William Cooper 2008-07-03 08:51AM | 0 recs
Yeah, about that Maverickness

McCain has too long of a verifiable and very public track record of bucking his party's line.

Not in this decade, he doesn't.

by differance 2008-07-03 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, about that Maverickness

Only in this decade, actually.

by William Cooper 2008-07-03 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

Followed by an equally public record that completely contradicts every single instance of bucking his party. Nothing McCain has said cannot be contradicted by something else he said. Well... except for being in favor of the war in Iraq.

by vcalzone 2008-07-03 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

Im not saying youre wrong, im saying it won't fly with the american public.  Obama's recent torrent of flips and flops was too visible.

I would stay away from that issue if I were you.

by William Cooper 2008-07-03 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

No, that would be stupid and would do nothing to counter the line of attack they are using. They are trying to say that McCain is principled and reliable, and that is complete and utter bullshit. It's not even something we have to hint about! We have video! LOTS of video! It's not something we should push, but it is the main line of attack as Obama is being pegged as unprincipled.

by vcalzone 2008-07-03 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

"It's not even something we have to hint about! We have video! LOTS of video! "

Well, Obama has flipped on almost every major position he took in the primary.  McCain hasn't.  This is a loser tack for Obama backers.  But by all means, shoot yourselves in the foot.  Play up this angle.

by William Cooper 2008-07-05 02:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

Sir, you are woefully misinformed. McCain reversed his position on offshore drilling just a week or two ago.

by vcalzone 2008-07-05 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

Like I said, be my guest.

by William Cooper 2008-07-06 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

Idiot, it's already working:

The Gallup/USA Today poll found that 68% of voters said they were concerned when asked whether they thought McCain would pursue "policies that are too similar to what George W. Bush has pursued." Of those polled, 49% said they were "very concerned."

by venician 2008-07-03 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

"Idiot, it's already working:"

Ohh, idiot, ok.

I stopped reading at that point.  

by William Cooper 2008-07-03 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

Well then you missed the important part taht McBush is working.  I will continue t do the same thing, this country is in a shite state of affairs because of Bush Admin and the lock step Repubs.  McCAin most certainly wants to mirror BUsh because he is a fucking moron.  This dumb shit wants to cut taxes which even conservatives know that you have to raise taxes if we don't want a deficit that will land us in the 2nd tier.    Do you want 4 more years of this shite, newbie?

by KLRinLA 2008-07-03 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

I don't deign to reply to abusive postings.

Have a nice day.

by rankles 2008-07-04 04:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

Oh that was for Cooper.  I wondered why you were calling me a 'newbie', lol.

by rankles 2008-07-04 04:29AM | 0 recs
Ha Ha!!

Check out the PUMA trying to pretend he wants Obama to win.  You are funny.

by Blue Neponset 2008-07-03 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Ha Ha!!

Im not supporting Obama, my intention to vote progressive I've made perfectly clear.

by William Cooper 2008-07-03 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Ha Ha!!

Ah. Good luck with that, then.

by vcalzone 2008-07-03 10:16AM | 0 recs
It is the 4th of July weekend

No one wants to hear about NAFTA while they are drinking beer, eating hot dogs and lighting off illegal fireworks (hopefully not in that order).

by Blue Neponset 2008-07-03 06:25AM | 0 recs
Oh, it's big.

The McCain new jobs thing is pretty new but mighty substantial, I imagine they'll have something up soon. Stupidly, McCain is now running on a platform of... wait for it... jobs first!!!!!!! Yes, first move them to Mexico, then.... well, he hasn't planned that far.

Little gaffes you run on briefly. Stuff like this you savor. I'd be surprised if we didn't see something fairly soon, though. Obama doesn't HAVE to be anti-NAFTA to kick John McCain's ass.

by vcalzone 2008-07-03 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, it's big.

I agree with Blue Neponset, though. No reason to let something this big get buried in the news cycle.

by vcalzone 2008-07-03 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, it's big.

"Yes, first move them to Mexico, then.... well, he hasn't planned that far."

Heh, good post.  McCain is clueless.

by William Cooper 2008-07-03 08:18AM | 0 recs
Wow

You really have no idea, do you?

You wanna solve a good chunk of America's economic problems?  Solve Mexico's first.  They come here because there's little to no opportunity for them back in Mexico.

We need an economically viable neighbor in Mexico, and right now that's a pipe dream.  John McCain is absolutely right that Mexico needs more and better jobs.  Them having those jobs does not mean we have less.  If anything, it means we'll do better because more Mexicans will be able to buy American products.

Mexico is an economic hellhole.  They need to develop.  The fact that McCain's people got this one right does not mean that they're particularly smart.  Even a busted clock is correct twice a day.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-03 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

What kind of jobs do you speak of? Service sector work? As long as we have NAFTA, wouldn't it just be any remaining manufacturing jobs heading down there, all under the blessing of the government?

by vcalzone 2008-07-03 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

At this point in the game you're nuts if you think Mexico is a threat to our manufacturing jobs.

That flood already happened, and a lot of the jobs that went to Mexico have left Mexico for countries that pay their workers even less.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-03 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

McBush will be in Mexico with Jeb Bush.  If that don't tell ya there will be a third term for Bush I don't know what will???

by Spanky 2008-07-03 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

That's pretty unrelated to my point that Mexico needs more and better jobs.  This shouldn't be a Left vs. Right issue, either.  Having Mexico to the South of us is a bit like having a methhead next door.  

It's dangerous.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-03 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

"You wanna solve a good chunk of America's economic problems?  Solve Mexico's first.  They come here because there's little to no opportunity for them back in Mexico."

That doesn't make sense.  IMO having mexicans here working actually helps lessen our economic problems.

Not to mention that if you want Obama to win you should hope that Obama NEVER EVER makes the statement that he is into solving mexico's economic problems, no matter how rational or unrational your reasoning may be.

That's a slam dunk election loser for him.  Talk about losing middle America, sheesh.

by William Cooper 2008-07-03 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Sometimes the right thing isn't the popular thing to say.  Politics and policy do not always overlap.

Mexico is a festering cauldron of suck, economically.  You wanna know part of why we have a drug problem in the US?  The Mexican druglords are incredibly (and increasingly) powerful, and they can wield that power because of a comparative lack of opportunity for so many Mexicans.

The list of reasons why we benefit if the Mexican economy improves is great.  Whether or not that's a valid point to make in the general election is a fair question, but my point (as a point of policy) is reasonable and valid.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-03 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

festering cauldron of suck

heh, can I name my next band that?  It's quite a turn of a phrase.

"The list of reasons why we benefit if the Mexican economy improves is great."

Except for the part about whether a strong mexican economy with goodies for all will ultimately hurt our ability to fill out our workforce.

by William Cooper 2008-07-03 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Come back and say that again if the unemployment rate keeps dropping. I think a lot of those jobs that Americans "don't want to do" would become a major point of contention.

by vcalzone 2008-07-03 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Yes, that could well end up being true.

by William Cooper 2008-07-03 12:53PM | 0 recs
Third rail

The problem is there's no right answer on NAFTA.  No matter what Obama said, he would piss someone off, whether it's working-class whites, Latinos, or elite opinion-makers.  McCain's in the same situation, though for him it's nativists versus big business.

I don't know what the right answer is on NAFTA, but I think that the less candidates pander on it, the better.  If it becomes a major campaign issue, everyone loses.

by username 2008-07-03 08:43AM | 0 recs
McCain strongly supports NAFTA

Just because your candidate has waffled on this issue--telling us that his previous statements were a little "overheated"--don't assume that McCain has done the same thing. His steadfast support of NAFTA--even while campaigning in places like Michigan and Ohio--has been strong and consistent.

McCain's consistency on NAFTA is a refreshing contrast to Obama's waffling....on everything from NAFTA to FISA to Guns to Tax Increases to Faith Based organizations......and so on.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-07-03 11:11AM | 0 recs
*guffaw*

You're right on NAFTA -- McCain's consistently for expanded trade deals with no environmental or labor standards.  He may also be consistently pro-kitten-killing, but that doesn't strike me as a virtue.

As for "McCain's consistency"...  ah, truly it is to laugh.  Is he opposing his own immigration bill today, or his he opposing his opposition to that bill?  I can't keep it straight.

by username 2008-07-03 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Isn't Obama Slamming McCain on NAFTA, Jobs

The Obama campaign has not gone into full GE mode yet. That will come. It is a long way to November. If you start talking about things now they will be forgotten by November. We are in the early rounds right now. Each candidate is throwing jabs to try to discover their opponents weakness. The haymakers and uppercuts are coming. Give it time.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-03 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Isn't Obama Slamming McCain on NAFTA, Jobs

Yes, BUT... this is when the arguments and characters are laid out. Obama has to be CERTAIN he is being defined properly and is defining McCain properly. So policy fights aren't a huge deal, but he can't let McCain make himself into a reformer. Not after two years of proving it was all lip service.

by vcalzone 2008-07-03 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Isn't Obama Slamming McCain on NAFTA, Jobs

Obama needs to do more than define himself. First, he has to introduce himself to most people. As hard as it is for us to accept it, most of the voters in this country know nothing more about Obama than the fact that he is black.

The election is a long ways off as far as most voters are concerned. People that are not actively involved in politics don't follow the races closely until it gets close to election day. They know that things can change and what they hear about one of the candidates today, might not matter two months from now.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-03 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Isn't Obama Slamming McCain on NAFTA, Jobs

No, you are right, I just think that you can't underestimate the importance of the early season. I do hope they are doing that. Seems like they are as of late. The effect is largely cumulative, not day to day.

by vcalzone 2008-07-03 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Isn't Obama Slamming McCain

Slamming is what the candidate who's losing does. Hillary and McSame, for example.

The front runner campaigns on a positive message. Obama, that is.

I hope this explanation helps.

by Beren 2008-07-03 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Isn't Obama Slamming McCain

Exactly. Obama is easily winning this thing and is even leading in Montana! What would be the point of going negative or attacking McCain right now?

He will engage when it's worth his time. As long as he cruising their is no use in trying to overplay his hand.

I'm rec'in this because I agree with everything but the "go after McCain NOW" point. Also, it's stirred great debate in the comments section.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-03 10:11AM | 0 recs
Well, yesterday's Gallup was 46-44%

Obama leading McCain by 2% points--and 5 in most others--is bad news for Dems.

1)Worst year imaginable for the GOP
2)Economy in meltdown
3)Bush popularity lower than Nixon's
4)Gas $4 a gallon.

And Obama is leading McCain by 2% points in the Gallup tracking poll??? Do you really think this is good news?

It should be a landslide....like, maybe, 20 points. Given the factors I listed above, why do you suppose it's not a blowout at this point?

by BJJ Fighter 2008-07-03 11:05AM | 0 recs
Bad news?

According to some back in the primary days, Obama was supposed to be down by 20% now. He leads in every poll, some by double digits, and in many states Democrats have written off for decades. And he's competitive in others.

You can tell McDesperate knows he's in deep trouble by the way he has to think of a new attack against Obama every day.

If Obama starts doing it, that's when we'll know he's the one in trouble.

Attacking is a gamble that can help or backfire. It's a chance frontrunners don't need to take.

(And I would recommend that Obama disregard any and all advice from Hillary or McSame supporters who only wish him ill.)

by Beren 2008-07-03 11:42AM | 0 recs
Repeat: why is this even a contest?

This is the worst year ever for Republicans; even worse than Watergate.

Why is this race even close?

by BJJ Fighter 2008-07-03 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Repeat: why is this even a contest?

There are a lot of idiots out there.

But as i pointed out, your Gallup poll aside, other polls have been showing Obama up 10%.

And, as you neglected to acknowlege, he's well up in a number of "swing" states, leading in some "red" states, and closely competetive in some that haven't been for decades.

I suggest you stop trying create a problem, for whatever reason, which doesn't even exist.

by Beren 2008-07-03 02:59PM | 0 recs
But is Barack for NAFTA, or against it?

I don't think he wants to raise this issue, given that he recently said his own previous statements about NAFTA were "overheated"....

You may have forgotten that last March, Obama had a little dustup with the Canadians over NAFTA. You see, he was against the trade agreement before he was for it. His clumsy attempt to dispatch Austin Goolsby (who must have gone into the witness protection program, because he seems to have vanished) to reassure our neighbors didn't fool the Canadians. David Emerson, the country's foreign trade minister, wrily noted:

"Knowledgeable observers should inform Mr. Obama that our country is the United States' largest supplier of energy....perhaps he would like to buy oil from Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelans"

So Obama did his mea culpas and apologized, but the damage was done. In any event, I'd suggest you look at the recent GDP figures, and you'll realize that if weren't for our exports, our economy would truly go over a cliff. Free Trade and NAFTA are winners, and most centrist Democrats remain proud that it was a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, who made it happen.

So to answer your question, I'd say that there are two reasons Barack Obama isn't slamming McCain over NAFTA:

  1. Because Obama hasn't decided where he himself stands on this issue, and
  2. McCain--in stark contrast--has been steadfast in support of free trade. He forfeited the Michigan primary to Mitt Romney when he told autoworkers there that he would not change his position. Just as he forfeited Iowa because he opposes our country's insane ethanol policy. (Isn't it refreshing when a politician puts principle over political expediency? If Obama ever manages to do it, it will give you a great feeling, trust me.)

When I think of notable people slamming NAFTA, Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan come to mind. If you think Barack should saddle up with people like that, have at it. Reputable economists--and politicians--know better.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-07-03 11:00AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads