June 19, 2008
Third Clinton Term
"Third Clinton Term" lacks pejorative power -- it is exactly what my Democrat friends lust for, and wouldn't be a hard sell to moderates.
Glenn Reynolds linked to a jammies wearing fool post about the number of Clinton retreads coming into the Obama advisory camp.
And also to this:
In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA."Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.
Obama says he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."
My highest hope for Obama was that he might be another President Clinton, governing from the center, caring more about power and likeability rather than pursing any beliefs or philosophy.
If he can pick up Professor Goolsbee from under the bus that quickly on this, this man has no beliefs. That would normally be an insult, but Senator Obama's purported beliefs were sooooo bad, I'll take lust for power as a plus.
Good posts today JK.
NAFTA is a non-issue in the general election, and there's no novelty in this blatant about-face in the theatre of politics.
Show me a quote of Obama saying he doesn't want to do everything possible to handicap the traditional energy economy, and that previous criticisms of "big oil" were "overheated and amplified rhetoric." Then - maybe - I'll believe that the young senator has no beliefs or philosophy.
But even then I'll never believe he's not an instrument for furtherance of American collectivism.
Posted by: johngalt at June 19, 2008 3:02 PMAnd I must remember that Clinton's "get along" worked with Republican Congresses 104, 105 and 106. A get along Obama administration would cave to the collectivists on the Democrat side and the crooks across the aisle.
I just remember his performance in the debate -- it's seared into my memory -- there was no question that this cowboy unilateralist was gonna pull us out of NAFTA. As Taranto pointed out yesterday, he's even pivoting on Iraq. That will attract a little more attention.
Posted by: jk at June 19, 2008 3:35 PMThe Refugee thinks that any hope of a center-left governing stance from Obama is wishful thinking. The Refugee fears that the combination of Obama and a Congress beholden to the Soros wing of the Democratic party would result in an astonishing lurch to the left. Give Obama two picks on the Supreme Court and the resulting institutionalized collectivism would be impossible to dismantle, just as the current programs are.
The only hope is a continuing turn of events. To use a Texas Hold 'Em analogy, the Dems thought they had a winning hand and bet the farm after the "flop" of Iraq. Then, came the "turn" of events in Iraq. Now, with the "river" of oil drying up, we have a "hole" new card game.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 19, 2008 6:14 PM | What do you think? [3]