Barack Obama: World's Worst Negotiator

On Tuesday, Barack Obama announced his support for President Bush's bid to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement to Peru.

Yup - Obama is once again helping pass one of President Bush's top priorities - even as Bush blocks the entire Democratic agenda and daily rains rhetorical abuse down on Democratic heads. Is this how Obama is going to negotiate in the White House?

I don't know for sure if Obama honestly felt that the Peru Free Trade Agreement was, on balance, the right thing to do, or whether he just wanted to curry favor with the major corporations whose financial support is fueling his campaign. It's probably a little of both. Some Democrats have argued, for instance, that even though the Peru FTA's environmental and labor protections are weak and that the pact could result in significant job losses and deforestation, the fact that there are any protections at all is a step in the right direction and that it could produce modest economic growth.

But I don't think even Obama would argue that passing this highly flawed agreement should be more of a priority than tackling the climate crisis, ending the war in Iraq, protecting civil liberties, or expanding health care - all core elements of the Democratic agenda that have been blocked by President Bush and the Republicans. Obama himself said as much when discussing why he was going to oppose the only slightly weaker Central America Free Trade Agreement, telling workers that because the government was doing nothing about health care or wages, he couldn't "look them in the eyes" and defend free trade.

So why is he giving in now, even as longtime free trader Hillary Clinton admits that NAFTA created big problems and John Edwards calls for the wholesale renegotiation of trade agreements (though neither has made their position on the Peru FTA clear).

Well, Obama has made a pattern of accommodation and capitulation ever since he got to the Senate - and, as a result, keeps getting rolled. He voted for President Bush's class action bill that made it harder for victims of pollution and other corporate malfeasance to be compensated, voted for President Bush's 2005 energy bill that included massive oil, coal, and nuclear subsidies, and voted to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent - all the while getting no help from Republicans in passing the Democratic agenda.

That's why it's hard for me to get excited about Obama's admittedly ambitious climate and energy plan or his plan to end the war. Having lofty goals is great, but those goals will be meaningless without the stiff spine needed to achieve them. And I also worry what his chutzpah deficit says about Obama's ability to win in 2008: if he gets rolled when bargaining with Republicans legislatively, what will happen when he faces the Republican machine in the general election? What's more, what will happen when he's facing the Chinese, Russians, or Iranians at the negotiating table?

Democrats and Americans need someone with a big heart and a stiff spine for president - and thus far Barack Obama is clearly not meeting that standard.

Comments

[poopdeck]

And voted for all but one funding of the war in Iraq. "Chutzpah deficit". I like that!

[bethinCary]

Who crafted NAFTA?

Oh right.....that was Bill Clinton.
Why no blame put where it belongs?

[bethinCary]

Ummm, I think you are overlooking other Dems that voted just a week ago on CAFTA trade-which most of the NY delegation voted for.

[loudguyrick]

So, if I understand you correctly, you are criticizing Obama for advocating for an agreement that contains everything that both sides wanted, INCLUDING organized labor concerns, because of Bush's opposition to other Democratic­-sponsored legislation? Isn't that just a political extension of "Mine's bigger"??????

That is silly and not pragmatic at all. There are times to stand on principle, and there are times to work for the betterment of the American people. I guess you've made your choice.

[ashbeth71]

Speaking of corporate donations .... As of the July FEC reporting, Hillary Clinton had received over 1/2 million dollars in PAC contributions to less than five thousand for Barack Obama. Breaking down those contributions, you find that Clinton's donations were 55% from business interests while Obama's were only 36%. Obama has received 99% of his campaign funds in individual contributions to Clinton's 83% and he has the most of any candidate ... that's ANY candidate, Republican or Democrat ... from individual donors indicating their association with one of the armed services (yeah, our men and women in uniform). Only 1% of his contributions are in the "other" category, whereas Clinton has 16% of her contributions in that category. So, please, folks, before you go accusing any candidate of being in the back pocket of corporate interests, do your homework.

Obama '08

[DANIELLECLARKE]

"I think that NAFTA and CAFTA did not reflect the interests of American workers but reflected the interests of the stock owners on Wall Street, because they did not contain the sorts of labor provisions and environmental provisions that should have been embedded and should have been enforceable in those agreements. ... You got the stock market sky-high. Corporate profits going up, but those workers who get laid off as a consequence of displacement, there's some sort of weak retraining program that trains people for jobs that don't exist in communities all across the country."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_OBAMA_OUTSIDER_NHOL-?SITE=NHMAL&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-10-09-20-46-03

[Kendo Nagasaki]

By the time you have retrained for the next hot job it has been outsourced or off shored.

[DANIELLECLARKE]

"The Peruvian agreement contains the very labor agreements that labor and our allies have been asking for. ... 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," Obama said.

[RealBlackGirl]

Okay, if I take you at your word how did Hillary, Biden, and Dodd vote on this legislation? I agree with an earlier post that you present this as if Obama alone could have stopped this from happening. Are you trying to suggest that his was the deciding vote?

[ThomasDoubting]

I voted for Obama, helping him to become a U.S. Senator. I would like him to explain to me why he feels it benefits his constituents to allow credit card companies to charge over 30% interest, plus late charges, over limit charges, etc. These rates are applied almost exclusively to people who can least afford to pay. A year ago I considered Barrack Obama to be a very attractive presidential candidate, since then he has moved to the right, while the rest of the country has moved to the left. He seems to be popular with Republicans, and has accepted millions from corporate interests that supported Bush four years ago. That does not get my vote. If in the general election we must choose between two corporate sponsored candidates, is that really a choice? . .Maybe it is time for plan B

[Herr Oberinspektor]

Thank god that Obama is for free trade. Those who are against free trade are for what? Un-free trade? Who is to say that I, a citizen of the world first, cannot freely engage in commerce with other countries? Why should I have to live with any restrictions? Like tariffs? Why tax me for freely engaging in what is by natural law my freedoms that are self evident?

[EspressoAtNoon]

>> " Those who are against free trade are for what? Un-free trade? "

-- No, Fair Trade (ensuring workers in these countries get a livable wage, that the companies can't pollute and dump waste all over their environment, etc..).

When these restrictions are put in place, many U.S. corporations will decide it might be best just to stay in America and continue to employ Americans. Those who otherwise would be exploited south of our border then won't jump our fence and come here. EVERYONE WINS!

[Kendo Nagasaki]

What is fair ?

When wages are the same in India, China
and the US ?

[INQUIRER]

"Why should I have to live with any restrictions?" This juvenile, selfish and immature attitude is that of both the narcissist and the psychopath. Thanks for your self-refuting post, which actually casts quite a lot of light on the free-trade issue.

[Halsey]

Inquirere...you, sir, are correct..my GAWD..that idiot "herr"..by his own admission, feels that..okay...free trade should allow me to dump toxic waste in a stream that flows down river..to the drinking water of others...why? because it's my RIGHT!....­helloooo..­. get a friggin clue...

to the author's post on Obama...how sad..that this man who supposedly was for "change"..is the same old tired democratic wanna be we had under the FIRST Clinton... He seems more and more like HRC all the time..(except for the vote for war ..and that's turning into a Rudy'esq one trick pony...over played).. me thinks...s­adly...he'­s looking to a VEEP spot..damnit all...hope that draft Gore gains ground..and ..when do they announce the Nobel Peace PRize!...I can't wait..

[scooperss]

These so called *free trade* acts are the reason we are losing manufacturing jobs in this country. I've heard two people in recent weeks say one reason unemployment is down because we have more service industry jobs.
Free trade has gotten us cheap tainted goods from China.
NAFTA has gotten us uncontrolled illegal immigration as workers migrate looking for better paying jobs. And where are those jobs? In the service industry of course.

[AngryAmish]

Being for free trade is like being for unicorns.

[TimtheDemocrat]

GROAN...


(regretting my early support)

[Haser]

The reality that the dems & independents must face is that Obama cannot & will not win and the best potential president will not be nominated. Unless Gore steps in, Hillary will be the nominee.

[loudguyrick]

Respect your opinion, but also respectfully disagree. Look below the shallow reporting by the media for the hard facts. There is a lot more support there than some would acknowledge.

[JimR]

Agree. In late 2003, Howard Dean led in the polls, and it looked like John Kerry didn't have a chance.

The media has anointed Hillary the front-runner, but it's based mostly on their perception.

[claytongrayum]

I am not voting for the Enabler Party of Democrats. And I am a Democrat!

“This government does not torture people.”
"Mission Accomplished"
"Your Doing a Heck-of-a-job Brownie"

What more do the Dems need to Impeach Bush on? We can't even get children's healthcare passed.

Enablers-

[SeanGardner]

"it's hard for me to get excited about Obama's admittedly ambitious climate and energy plan..."

Well, I know I am excited. So is David Roberts, one of HUFFPO's BLOGGERS. Read his great piece about Obama's Energy Plan: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/obamas-energy-plan_b_67617.html

In fact, the League of Conservation Voters rate Obama higher than the other Democratic Candidates:

The percentages are as follows:

Obama--96%
Kuchinich--92%
Clinton--90%
Biden--84%
Richardson--82%
Dodd--77%
Edwards--59%
Gravel--35%

Go Barack!

[SeanGardner]

You mentioned that Obama voted for "President Bush's class action bill yet you left out the part of the article you linked where it noted that Obama said the bill was "poorly written".

Yes, he did vote to allow credit card companies to raise their rates over 30 percent, but you left out this passge from the very article you linked: "“He (Obama) studied the issue,” Williams said. “Some assumed he would just go along with consumer advocates, but he voted with us on several points. He understood the issue. He wasn’t closed-minded. A lot of people found that very refreshing.”

I don't agree with every single thing position Obama has taken. But as a liberal independent voter, I also know that the issues important to me will not always be addressed and implemented to my liking 100% of the time. In fact, one of the article you site had this:

"Obama said that the “blogger community”...gets frustrated with him because they think he’s too willing to compromise with Republicans. “My argument,” he says, “is that a polarized electorate plays to the advantage of those who want to dismantle government. Karl Rove can afford to win with 51 percent of the vote. They’re not trying to reform health care. They are content with an electorate that is cynical about government. Progressives have a harder job. They need a big enough majority to initiate bold proposals.”

Tell me how that isn't true?

Barack Obama '08: not for being a perfect candidate; not for being a candidate who will capitualate uncontrollably to the far-left of his party; and for not for being a candidate who will tell me and the electorate what it wants to hear: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-08-29-obama-backers_N.htm

No its Obama '08 because he knows that you have to be reasonable, diplomatic, and often accomadating in the hyper-partisan atmosphere that is Washington DC. America is "Red and Blue Politics", but Obama has the right amount of "Purple Politics" to split the difference.

a.

[SensibleAmerican]

Don't get defensive, learn to handle the truth and finally, wake up to all the fluff ...

[AeneasAnnai]

Ah NotsoSensi­bleAmerica­n makes another anti-Obama comment, touting it as the truth no less. Well fluff is what you put on a peanut butter and marshmellow fluff sandwich, but bringing change to politics is real.

Obama 08

[itmaybetoolate]

Big deal - he studied the issue. I don't give a rat's ass - he voted to allow credit card companies to engage in usury! Do you think this might have had ANYTHING to do with the recent housing meltdown? Why were people taking out home equity loans? Look, a candidate who would vote to support a raise in credit card interest rates to 30% or more won't get my vote - just as a candidate who refuses to end the war won't get my vote. Votes reflect principles, don't they?

[loudguyrick]

Yes, votes do reflect principles, but votes are often on a bill that actually contains more than one provision. My guess is that the bill he voted on probably contained a whole bunch of other things stuck in there by way of amendments. That can confuse and muddle things. It's like being held to account for voting for a tax raise when the actual main bill contained relief aid for disaster victims.

If you ask me, there needs to be a bill passed that prohibits amendments that add on anything not pertaining to the originally sponsored legislation.