The Talented Mr. Obama
10 October 2007 5:01 pm by Taylor Marsh
I’ve been sensing a sort of benign neglect (or maybe it’s arrogance) that has Barack Obama and his campaign shrugging
off ideology for the pull of his personality, thinking that if he simply shows up the voters will come. Lots of emails flying these days over many of Mr. Obama’s stances,
statements, as well as what his campaign aides are doing and what’s unfolding.
There are many contradictions coming to light.
Of course, the most alarming is Obama’s decision to come out in favor of the
NAFTA expansion, the first of the candidates to do so. This could turn into
a real boon for John Edwards in Iowa, as I discussed on my show today, depending
on what Clinton does. Clinton has said NAFTA and CAFTA should be “revisited,”
but I haven’t heard back from the campaign on her specific views on expanding
NAFTA.
Well, this morning I was on a conference call that included Mario Ramos, Peru
Program Coordinator of Amazon Watch; Robert Guimares, Vice President of the
Peruvian Amazonian Federation of Indigenous Peoples; Victor Menotti, Program
Director of the International Forum on Globalization. To say that the group
assembled was against the expansion is putting it mildly. They also tore apart
Obama’s rationalizing of why he’s for the expansion. The people on the call
are worried about the implications of NAFTA expansion, which through the use
of translators on the call, was made very apparent. Peruvian Indigenous leaders
are in Washington, D.C. to plead their case and urge Congress to reject the
expansion of NAFTA to Peru. Here’s the background as the people sponsoring the call see it:
Bush’s NAFTA expansion to Peru could undermine energy independence and climate
change initiatives by increasing incentives for foreign oil extraction and
deforestation. Among these incentives are provisions that grant multinational
oil corporations extraordinary new rights to sue the Peruvian government for
any government action that might reduce the future expected profits, such
as canceling a lease in order to protect indigenous peoples’ territories from
environmental degradation. These and other free trade agreement (FTA) incentives
for environmentally harmful extractive industries could increase deforestation
in the Amazon. Global deforestation currently accounts for about 20 percent
of all greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn fuel global warming. U.S. agriculture,
which depends on Amazon-driven rainfall as far north as Iowa, will bear the
costs of measures that further global climate chaos.The Peru FTA is overwhelmingly opposed by Peru’s Indigenous Peoples. Already
the Amazon Rainforest, long inhabited by Indigenous Peoples, has been increasingly
opened to foreign oil corporations in anticipation of the approval of the
FTA. In 2004, only 13% of the Peruvian Amazon basin was zoned for oil and
gas development. Now, just three years later, that figure is 65%. Many of
the new concessions overlap indigenous territories and reserves established
to protect isolated tribes. If approved by Congress, the Peru FTA would give
even more incentives for this environmental destruction to continue.
Obama is ignoring the facts and hoping we are too. Here’s what Sirota had to
say, though it’s also good to note he’s an Edwards supporter.
Not a single American labor union has endorsed the Peru trade pact, which
extends NAFTA into Peru. While the AFL-CIO has said that some language in
the deal is better than old trade pacts, the AFL-CIO is nonetheless against
the deal because it extends the overall NAFTA model. The Hill Newspaper just
a few weeks ago once again confirmed that “The AFL-CIO is not supporting
[the Peru] deal.” In fact, almost every single labor, human rights, religious,
environmental, anti-poverty and consumer advocacy organization has come out
against the Peru pact – and that includes those organizations both in the
United States and in Peru. For more on that opposition and on how this Peru
deal is a 99% mirror of NAFTA, see here, here, here and here. Additionally,
please recall that the Chamber of Commerce has already confirmed it has been
given confirmation by the Bush administration that the watered down labor
language in this NAFTA expansion is unenforceable.The
Offshoring of Hope: Obama Now Misleads Voters About NAFTA Expansion
The following statement by Obama
on trade is pure, unabashed baloney.
“The Peruvian agreement contains the very labor agreements that labor
and our allies have been asking for,” he said. “What I’m saying,
is that the same provisions that we fought for – and that the AFL-CIO and
other labor organizations had been asking for and that weren’t contained in
NAFTA – they are in this agreement.”
Then there’s what Obama’s campaign mgr. said recently to a group of Nevada
reporters:
During a conference call with reporters to announce additions to the campaign’s
field operations in the state, Obama national campaign manager David Plouffe
said that obviously the campaign would like to have endorsements from the
60,000 strong Culinary union as well as the 16,000-member SEIU.But Obama “can win the nomination and Nevada without those endorsements,”
Plouffe said. Support from the unions is “not essential, in my view,
to victory.” … ..
The mind spins on what would happen if Terry McAuliffe made such a statement about unions not being essential to Clinton’s victory. The world as we know it would explode.
For all the talk about the youth vote, camp Obama doesn’t seem too worried
about them either.
Obama’s Campaign Manager David Plouffe’s comment about the youth
vote falls right into a familiar trap. Obama’s campaign has been amazing
around young voters by holding “Obama Camps” to train them how
to register their peers and creating a space online for young people to share
their support of the campaign. Instead of talking about all of the innovative
ways young people are involved in their campaign and how young people have
brought in energy and money into the campaign, Plouffe states the youth vote
“is not central to our strategy. It is additive to our strategy.”
Obama’s campaign is making a serious mistake here. You cannot motivate
a sector of a population to their face, tell them they are the hope of the
campaign and then turn around in the media and say young people are basically
just icing on the cake.Clinton’s campaign strategist Mark Penn answers the youth vote question
right when he says, “there is a younger vote – and it is a significant
segment. But the age structure of the Iowa caucus vote is that it is a heavy
preponderance of the older voter.” … ..
There are many things that started me wondering about Barack Obama, regardless
of his natural talents which are considerable. Talent is not enough. I’ve written about them a lot,
starting with the fact that Obama isn’t driven by ideology, but sees himself more
as a consensus builder and someone who can bring people together. Politicians
in the end are deal makers, which is why I don’t suggest anyone get into the
“can I trust?” him/her debate. Compromising to accomplish is fine,
but as you see above there is a point where turning away from ideology has us
all walking down a road with no particular destination in mind as long as we all can get along. Political philosophy
becoming a victim to the path of least resistance.
For me, winning the presidential election is an important moment for Democrats to put our agenda into action. I don’t get the sense that Mr. Obama is in it for that at all. In fact, I don’t even know why he wants to be president, unless it is to bring people together, something that’s admirable, but certainly not infused with substance. Clinton and Edwards both have plans and know what they want to do because ideology guides their campaigns, passion and politics. Honestly, I don’t know what guides Barack Obama. It worries me.
