Vitally Important Day, Electorally Speaking…
…and we should be getting some results soon. If there is late momentum, it’s seems to be going Hillary’s way, ironically enough because of NAFTA, a subject of great interest around these parts as of late. Obama did the wrong thing by pandering to Ohio natives about NAFTA, then did the right thing by sending a message to Canada that it was all a bit of a nudge-nudge, wink-wink, say what you have to to get elected, then did the wrong thing again by lying about it when caught, and he’s paid the price in Ohio, which seems a near certainty to go to Clinton now.
Let’s get back to NAFTA again with Fareed Zakaria:
Despite their spirited squabbling, the two Democratic candidates are united in the view that one of the big benefits of electing either of them would be an improvement in America’s reputation and relations with the world. Hillary Clinton promises to send special envoys to foreign capitals the day after she’s elected. Barack Obama offers to reach out to America’s foes as well as friends. Unfortunately none of this will matter if they continue to spout dangerous and ill-informed rhetoric about trade.
For the rest of the world—particularly poorer countries—nice speeches about multilateralism are well and good. But what they really want is for the United States to continue its historic role in opening up the world economy. For a struggling farmer in Kenya, access to world markets is far more important than foreign aid or U.N. programs. If the candidates think they will charm the world while adopting protectionist policies, they are in for a surprise.
Already the mood is shifting abroad. Listening to the Democrats on trade “is enough to send jitters down the spine of most in India,” says the Times Now TV channel in New Delhi. The Canadian press has shared in the global swoon for Obama, but is now beginning to ask questions. “What he is actually saying—and how it might affect Canada—may come as a surprise to otherwise devout Barack boosters,” writes Greg Weston in the Edmonton Sun. The African press has been reporting on George W. Bush’s visit there with affection and, in some cases, by contrasting his views on trade with the Democratic candidates’. The Bangkok Post has compared the Democrats unfavorably with John McCain and his vision of an East Asia bound together, and to the United States, by expanding trade ties.
For Obama, the backlash could be greatest because he’s raised the highest hopes. A senior Latin American diplomat, who asked to remain unnamed because of the sensitivity of the topic, says, “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.”
The facts about trade have been too well rehearsed to go into them in any great detail, but let me point out that NAFTA has been pivotal in transforming Mexico into a stable democracy with a growing economy. And, in Lawrence Summers’s words, “[it] didn’t cost the United States a penny. It contributed to the strength of our economy because of more exports and because imports helped to reduce inflation.” Trade between the NAFTA countries has boomed since 1993, growing by about $700 billion. There are no serious economists or experts who believe that low wages in Mexico or China or India is the fundamental reason that American factories close down. And labor and environmental standards would do very little to change the reality of huge wage differentials between poor and rich countries’ workers.
An argument one often hears from the candidates’ supporters is that they don’t really mean what they say, that their actual proposals on trade agreements involve only minor tinkering. It is an odd defense of candidates promising change, honesty and a new approach to politics to say that they are being cynical and hypocritical. Besides, both candidates are proposing to renegotiate NAFTA, which is a terrible idea. (And one that has prompted the Canadian prime minister to retort that if that happens, his country, too, would like to get more concessions from the United States.) Hillary Clinton has proposed that free-trade deals be re-evaluated every five years, which is absurd. The benefits of trade deals rest on the fact that they are permanent.
But both candidates surely know that no one is really paying attention to their policy papers on the topic. It is their general attitude and rhetoric that matter. And on this crucial topic they are pandering to the worst instincts of Americans, encouraging a form of xenophobia and chauvinism and validating the utterly self-defeating idea of protectionism.
Well said. Very well said, indeed…
UPDATE 6:26 p.m.: Vermont shocker! Well, okay, not a shock at all – but Vermont shocker has a certain ring to it, doesn’t it? As expected, the Vermont primaries go to Obama and McCain, respectively…
UPDATE 6:31 p.m.: Ohio goes to McCain, but Democratic outcome not announced at this time…
UPDATE 6:45 p.m.: I’m smelling a good night for Hillary – I’m making a bold prediction – Hillary wins BOTH Texas and Ohio and stays alive. What do I base this on? Just a gut feel and the chatter going on at CNN at the moment, seemingly indicating strong exit poll results for Hillary that they are not permitted to discuss yet…
UPDATE 8:18 p.m.: Huckabee is dropping out and endorsing McCain as I speak, as John McCain is the Republican nominee. Congratulations to a great American for a step he has clearly always coveted, regardless of what happens in the general election…
UPDATE 8:24 p.m.: Hillary has won Rhode Island, and though it hasn’t been declared, is comfortably ahead in Ohio. However, Obama has a strong early lead in Texas…
UPDATE 8:59 p.m.: Well, that was one strong acceptance speech by McCain…VERY STRONG on free trade…we’ll be revisiting that speech a little later on, probably in a seperate post…
UPDATE 9:06 p.m.: A personal report of sorts: one of the Democratic caucus locations is near my house, and it is PACKED. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the caucus turnout in Texas has overwhelmed Democratic officials and will probably be a major embarrassment. Tonight might spell the end of the split primary/caucus for Texas Democrats…
UPDATE 9:33 p.m.: Worth noting, as Texas looks to be a squeaker in the primaries, is that Obama will almost certainly win the caucuses by a substantial margin. Thus, a true mess may ensue, with Hillary winning the popular vote, and Obama winning more delegates. What a primary season this has been!…
UPDATE 9:55 p.m.: Ohio goes to Clinton, and there is no doubt about it, she had a good night and her campaign will continue…
UPDATE 10:01 p.m.: Continuing in the vein of the last update, congratulations are due to Hillary, who was heavily outspent in Texas (trust me, HEAVILY outspent, perhaps 2-1 or even greater). No matter what happens with the delegate count in Texas, she has very much risen from the dead again…regulars know I’m no fan of the Clintons, but I’ve maintained from the beginning that they are very, very tough political pros, and you count them out at your own peril. Hillary is going to really, really enjoy seeing the multiple servings of crow handed out in the days to come…
UPDATE 10:26 p.m.: Well, I can’t stay up all night waiting for my home state to finish reporting, but however Texas turns out, I think it’s safe to say this has been Hillary’s night. More tomorrow…
UPDATE 10:36 p.m.: Well, one more thing…Texas may yet go Obama’s way, let’s stress once more, because (a) the caucus will go his way, for certain, and (b) the fact that the big urban areas, heavily favoring Obama, still have a lot of vote outstanding. Still, even if Obama wins Texas, the symbolic victory for the evening belongs to Hillary, because the story a few days ago was when Hillary would leave the campaign, while she now is undeniably continuing on…
A good friend, who votes in RI says this:
“i like hillary’s substance and experience.. both of those are a plus
for her. probably a negative when it comes to dealing with
republicans, but i think that obama isn’t going to have it any easier
with them either so i’m not really concerned about that. he’s
enjoying his honeymoon on that for now.
so do i vote for obama and change and hope and a fresh start and the
promise of broad US and International acceptance? Basically vote for
him on his upside versus Hillary and her, to me, fundamental grasp of
the issues and (for better or worse) known policy strengths.”
I bet he goes for Hillary, and the peeps in Ohio and Texas do the same math.
Hillary might win the Texas primary (at least the popular vote), but I still think Obama wins Texas on delegates, probably even primary delegates, but definitely when the caucus delegates are counted.
Either way, it’s a big upswing for Hillary though — after 11 straight losses she’s winning at least two out of four races tonight. This may help with the fundraising she needs to fight on to Pennsylvania.
Loved McCain’s acceptance speech — major kudos to his speechwriters for capturing the essential vapidity of so many of the Dems’ positions in such perfect little soundbites.
Yep, she’s going on to Pennsylvania, there’s no doubt about it…good news for Republicans, as the slugfest is going to get nastier…
Karl Rove was on Fox News pointing out that it’s not an unmixed blessing — the Democratic campaign will continue to be interesting. Come Pennsylvania next month, we’ll be hearing all about Obama and Clinton, but will they even bother putting up a picture of McCain with the word “Winner” on it?
It may be a slugfest, and it may become nastier, but I think the eventual nominee will be stronger for it.
And will only have to respond to Republican arguments for a paltry nine weeks. After another six months during which the Democrats will define all of the assumptions and terms of the policy arguments…
Yuck.
Hopefully John McCain has a good plan for dealing with this…
He’s got plenty of time to put one together, and by not being burdened with further campaigning, can watch them very closely to look for weak points to attack, all while he bolsters his support within the party and raises more money.
While I give kudos to Ms Clinton for her 3 victories last night, I would also like to ask her, “At what price did those victories come?” Those who voted for Ms. Clinton better understand fully that she has sold part of her soul and a good chunk of the democratic party for her wins. It has taken some pretty ugly and indefensible diatribe to get her “back in the game”. The latest attacks from Clinton, joining herself with John McCain against Senator Obama, should have all democrats shaking their heads in wonder and disgust at what future they can possibly look forward to with this candidate in the running.
It is disheartening to believe that people of this country would be, not only swept up into the media driven, anti Obama rhetoric of the last week, but also voting out of fearful instinct and lack of education on the REAL issues. While there is no excuse or redemption for Hillary playing the Muslim card last week, or her fear mongering 3 a.m. ads, or the media beating those ideas to death, there is also no excuse for those Americans who were still wondering on Sunday night, “Is he a Muslim?” We can certainly ascertain by last nights outcome, many chose to just sit back and believe the news commentators as they spun these stories whichever way the ratings dictated, rather than educate themselves with unbiased facts.
I don’t know what happens from here, I am sure most of it will be downright ugly, which is very unfortunate for the democratic party. What I do know, is that my belief in Senator Obama has not been shaken. I will continue to do what I can to help him win this nomination; as I believe in his vision, I admire his positive campaign and I am proud to be in his camp. But, I will be stopping by the county seat on the way out to pick up and independent voter registration card, just in case. Ralph Nader is looking pretty good right now.
Sincerely,
Robin Greed
I’m completely unconvinced that Clinton’s tactics have been either beyond the pale or particularly damaging to the Democratic Party. Obama is all but mathematically guaranteed to win this thing, and her continued presence allows him some batting practice against dirty politics. If there’s anything we’ve learned from the 2000 and 2004 elections, it’s that loosely-affiliated Republican proxy groups are more than happy to lie and smear their candidate’s way to the White House. The right has long since run out of ideas other than “more war, all the time” and they’re more than happy to substitute invective (or vapid macho idiocy: “Let’s tell the Israelis and Palestinians to cut the bulls**t”) for policy. Obama is going to be called a Muslim and a traitor all the way through the general – having to deal with Clinton calling him weak on security at least gives him some space to define his counterarguments.
“There are no serious economists or experts who believe that low wages in Mexico or China or India is the fundamental reason that American factories close down.”
If that statement is actually true, that is why I hate economists. That is not the ONLY reason we cuild plants in those countries (there are people there that buy goods too), but it is the chief reason a plant is closed in, say, Bloomington, IN and those lines are sent to Celaya (I worked in the GE factory there one summer, it’s now gone). Best part is, their quality is worse. And the CEOs keep making short term gains, until eventually it’s all gone and no more short term gains can be realized.
You hate economists because they rely on actual facts and data rather than your impressions of Bloomington, Indiana? That seems… lazy. As is your implication that CEOs are somehow the world’s only beneficiaries from moving factories to Mexichindia. That firms make short term gains until there are no more to realize is, uh, Econ 101. It’s called market equilibrium.
I find it interesting that Robin G. has such a dim view of her fellow Democrat’s reasoning power, that he/she (sorry, Robin is one of those gender neutral names) believes they are so easily duped by marginal campaign tactics.
Call me a cynic, but I think “Robin” is a troll.
I am highly sceptical that there are many Democrats who have decided that, if Obama doesn’t get the nomination, they are going to vote for Nader instead. Perhaps such people do exist, but I think there’s a simpler explanation…
I agree Jacques. A very good friend voted in RI yesterday and pulled the lever for Hillary. He tells me that it was the demonstrable differential in political and leadership experience between Hillary and Obama. Knowing him as well as I do I can say with certainty that he was not duped or hoodwinked by some nefarious Clintonian campaign tactics. It’s pretty clear to me that many Democrats are doing similar math.
To be fair:
“Ralph Nader is looking pretty good right now.”
No non-troll would ever say that. Ever.