Even Less Love On Trade

Last weekend I wrote of the lack of love the Democratic contenders were receiving on their trade stances. That lack of love is continuing, with Newsweek International's editor, Fareed Zakaria, writing "The Democrats' Dangerous Rhetoric" concerning their trade stances.

Just this one quote from a Latin American diplomat should make folks on the left side of the aisle wonder if we'll really increase our world standing by electing either Obama or Clinton:

The backlash could be greatest against Obama because he's raised the highest hopes. A senior Latin American diplomat told me, "Look, we're all watching Obama with bated breath and hoping [his election] will be a transforming moment for the world. But now that we're listening to him on trade - the issue that affects us so deeply - we realize that maybe he doesn't wish us well. In fact, we might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave and courageous on trade and immigration." (emphasis mine)

That quote should send shivers through the spines of Democrats. Having other countries diplomats openly, and rather brazenly, stating they'd rather deal with Bush than Obama is not good for Mr. Obama's image as the great uniter.

The democrats are starting to find that they can't have it both ways when it comes to America's world standing. You can't be a "kinder, gentler giant" in one area and a protectionist thug in another, and have everyone base their opinion on the kinder side of things. Hillary Clinton's own polling profiles should tell her that.

One problem that Zakaria has, as do a lot of Americans, is confusing politics with leadership, and the electorate with people who will do their homework. In both cases the it's a poor assumption.

And isn't the point of leadership to educate and elevate people, not to pander and drag them into the swamp of ignorance and fear? There is a way to speak about the pain of globalization - and about the need for investments in retraining, education, health care and infrastructure - so that we can compete but also absorb the shocks of a changing global economy. Unfortunately, that is not what the Democratic candidates are talking about.

Yes, that is the point of leadership, but politics point is to get votes, regardless of how you do it, especially in primaries. One of the ironies of our election process is how many times in the last 20 years candidates have been burned for "flip-flopping" positions from the primaries to the general election season, and how they continue to do it.

In 1950 it was easy to say something in Dallas on a campaign stop and have it not heard anywhere else. Then when the convention came around the candidate could take a more populist, across the aisle stance, and no one would be the wiser. It doesn't work that way anymore, YouTube, CNN, Fox, MSNBC (for both viewers) are their 24/7.

Then again, both candidates on the Democratic ballot are running their campaigns on the trade topic as if it's the 1930's; both in substance (protectionism), and in their obvious belief that what's said in Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas or Pawtucket won't be heard outside those cities.

Too bad for them that it's not 70 years ago, that protectionism has been proven to be an economic disaster, and that the Internet and satellites exit. Editors will continue to run articles about how poor a position they've taken, and trade partners will continue to talk about the apprehension of having either of them in office.

Read The Full Post!

Name Calling Politics and Smears

Yesterday's buzz in the political world was Bill Cunningham, host of "The Big Show, With Bill Cunningham" repeatedly referring to Barack Obama at a John McCain rally as Barack Hussein Obama (the Senator's given name). Everyone this side of Mars knows the reason, it's to try and get folks to think (wrongly) Obama is a covert Muslim agent or some other silliness.

McCain repudiated the remarks, rightfully so, and spoke out pretty forcefully against Cunningham, who today tossed his hat into Hillary Clinton's ring. My though, good, she deserves you.

When I heard the story my first thought was that Cunningham has been reading too many blogs, on both sides of the aisle, that think name calling is some sort of "good thing". It's not. That's not saying I haven't done it, I'm sure that searching through nearly three years of dribble on this blog you'll find some instances of such behavior. That still doesn't make it right.

The truth is the folks who call Hillary Clinton 'Hitlery', or continue with the asinine Barack Hussein Obama, or any of the dozens of names attributed to G.W. Bush over the last 7 years don't look any smarter, more informed, or "in the know" than other folks. They basically look like childish folks who are (in many cases) hiding behind funny names on their blogs.

You are much less likely to sway an opinion based on using a derogatory names directed that the candidate you loath than you are with a well reasoned argument about their positions. Enough on that.

The other big story lately is the picture of Obama in the traditional Somali garb that has been making the rounds, evidently starting on the Drudge Report, supposedly provided by Clinton operatives. Obama's camp has called the circulation of the photo an attempt to smear him. That folks, is wrong. You see, the good Senator had that picture taken at a public photo op a few years ago while visiting Africa.

The idea that showing people something you did publicly is a "smear" is kind of reminiscent of John Kerry complaining when folks showed pictures from his war protest days. Sorry, but if you don't want something to come back and bite you later, don't do it.

The one telling thing on the whole incident is the Obama camp overreaction to the picture. The better tact, than implying someone was trying to smear the good Senator would have been to explain it as Gen. Scott Gration (USAF ret) did a day and a half later:

"And in the course of this, Senator Obama was given an outfit and as the guest that he was, the great guest, he took this outfit and they encouraged him to try some of it on," Gration said. "It was a thing that we all do."

The explaination was very simple, clear and above the fray, and not buying into what Drudge was selling, which was fear mongering. The "smear" accusations, and looking for a scape goat may have shown how unready Obama and his staff are for the real tests they'll face against unknown 527 hacks and other's should he win the nomination of the Democrats.

Read The Full Post!

Fractured Democrats

Funny things are happening with the party in charge of Congress lately. The kumbaya moments from November's election victory are quickly dissipating as Iraq, and the next set of elections start taking center stage.

As I mentioned last night, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha's position on Iraq has come under fire from Dick Cheney, who was on the news this morning not only standing by his comments, but increasing his attacks on Pelosi & Co.

Hillary and Barack Obama are fueding over who Hollywood should be supporting, and it's turning into an ugly throw down. Everyone expected Hillary to take off the gloves in the fight for the White House, it was a given. I don't think anyone expected haymakers to be thrown in the first round of the fight. Obama, to his credit, isn't doing a bob and weave, but instead firing body shots right back at the Senator from New York.

And finally, in what would be a huge blow to the party, Joe Lieberman has mentioned he could change his caucus vote to the GOP if the Democrats try to undermine funding for the war in Iraq.

A Lieberman switch would move Senate control back to the GOP, and lead to a bloodletting of the Democratic leadership in the Senate. Harry Reid has to know this and I'm wondering what he's going to do to both placate Lieberman, and the ultra liberal base that is running the party agenda.

Fun times in politics folks!

Technorati Tags: Lieberman, Pelosi, Cheney, Clinton, Obama, Murtha, Iraq, Congress, Senate, Reid

Read The Full Post!