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

[altohone]

OK.

Presenting this as if Obama could have single-handely prevented this deal had he taken a stand is hogwash. Suggesting his votes should hinge on a quid pro quo that could have stalled the Bush agenda has no basis on reality in how Congress works.

Your "pattern of accommodation and capitulation ever since he got to the Senate" is cherrypicking and misrepresentation.

Compared to Edwards co-sponsoring the Iraq war resolution and Hillary's full-throated support, not to mention their DLC corporatist records far more accomodating to Bush's agenda, the context of this attack is out of whack.

Free trade rhetoric from the DLC'ers Hillary and Edwards should be taken with a mountain of salt considering their voting records... the lesser of the evils becomes quite clear when the whole range of issues is compared to reality rather than pandering rhetoric whose results in future actions are built on less than rock-solid promises or capabilities.

Unfairly bashing Obama will lead to the election of far worse Hillary.

This reminds me of fraternity brothers rallying around the candidate who promised to build a beer moat around campus.

[SensibleAmerican]

"Presenting this as if Obama could have single-handely prevented this deal had he taken a stand is hogwash" ... No! He is NOT presenting it that way, he is criticizing Barack Hussein's stance and support for Bush

No amount of spin can cover up the fluff that is BHO's candidacy. "Hope" and "change" are good bumper slogans but slogans do not a Presidency make nor win elections! More and more people are realizing that he is nothing but hot air. His unfavorables are going up and his poll numbers are going down! ALL for good reasons ...

[AeneasAnnai]

I'm glad your very active on this website so that while you continue to bash Obama, we're on the ground getting votes, building a movement, and preparing the world for a much needed change. Keep doing what you do man it just helps us out that much more.

Obama 08

[bethinCary]

No and Hillarys' position of "Mo' lobby money please!" is so much better.

Forget the fact that she actually hasn't even said what she is for...
Syrup for that waffle-what about her $5000 baby bond she's already backed off on?
What about her healthcare package which is why pharma and HMOs' are giving money....don't think it's on behalf of the public...

[CLYDEFOROBAMA63]

WOW do you have a lot to learn. do some research and learn the truth about Senator Obama. I did and am one of his biggest supporters. Although I have to say it is surprising that you make comments like these when you don't really know what he is all about. Quit reading the drivel on this website and do some research

[JimR]

Not sure what the main point of your post is, but it seems to be that if Bush is for something, Democrats in Congress should automatically be against it, no matter what? Don't we want more from our representatives?

I've always found that when you look for Obama's rationale of why he voted for or against something, it's usually there. He usually puts a lot of thought into his positions.

I'd also like to point out that even though he was seeking a Senate seat at the time, Obama took the unpopular stance of speaking out against starting a war in Iraq. He did this as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who were both in the Senate at the time, voted to authorize war.

[SensibleAmerican]

What's critical of the gander is critical of the goose! Your "fairness" does not ever apply to Hillary?!?

To take a leaf out of the Barack Hussein campaign: "Obama: Bush lite"!!!