It seems to me that the United States could not have become the leading industrial power that it became during World War II without the farsighted programs of FDR during the great depression.
Instead of using deficit spending to decrease taxes on the rich, like our current leader, FDR used deficit spending to build a huge network of infrastructure in energy production and distribution. The great hydro-electric projects of the 1930s enabled the factories to run 24 hours a day during WWII.
FDR pushed through many programs that made the U.S. a stronger nation. It is unfortuneate that the modern Republican party seems to have its sights set on weakening social security. When that happens, the number of homeless Americans will climb dramatically.
McCain: Straight Tripe on Trade
John "Bomb Iran" McCain is more divorced from reality when it comes to our economy than he is when it comes to war. Yesterday at Rice University, he assailed the Democratic presidential nominees as "protectionist" for having the temerity to criticize NAFTA:
"Anyone who studies history understands that every time this country or other nations in the world have practiced protectionism, they've paid a very heavy price for it," McCain said.
What possibly could he be thinking of? Only someone who gets his history from the back of a Wheaties box could make that statement.
The United States grew to become the world's greatest industrial power by nestling its industry behind high tariff walls. For decades, this was the policy championed by McCain's own Republican Party, yoked to the manufacturing industry. Without those tariffs, the US probably would have remained an impoverished, underdeveloped nation, supplying food and raw materials to Britain in exchange for products manufactured over there. Instead, behind protectionist tariffs, fueled by public investments in infrastructure from canals to railroads to land grant colleges, US industry was able to grow competitive, build broad internal markets, invent new products and eventually dominate the world.
It's probably unfair to expect the Senator to understand US history. But couldn't he just lift his ideological blinders to take a side glance at the world we're in?
China, he may not have noticed, is on the rise. With a sophisticated mercantilist policy -- blending protectionist barriers and other restraints on access to its markets, currency controls, aggressive subsidies for exports, wholesale theft of technology and intellectual property -- China is becoming the industrial capital of the world. We now run a deficit with China in advanced technology products. US multinationals are setting up factories and R and D centers in China by the hundreds. Free trade is not what allowed Japan, the Asian tigers or China to lift their countries out of poverty.
China may be too far away for McCain to notice, but shouldn't he at least have some passing recognition that the current trade policies that he defends -- a trade strategy by, for and of the multinationals -- have driven this country into a ditch? We're now running an economy dependent on the kindness of strangers, primarily Asian and Persian gulf bankers. We're forced to borrow or sell off assets at the staggering rate of $2 billion a day to cover our current account deficits. Under Bush, McCain's trade policy has contributed to the loss of one in five manufacturing jobs. And now, as a pro-"free trade" economist Alan Blinder notes, some 40 million service jobs could potentially be moved off shore.
A thirty year old worker in America makes less in inflation adjusted dollars than his father did. . There is no economist with a wit who doubts that globalization has contributed to the wage stagnation that plagues this economy. Sure, senators ensconced in Washington haven't felt it. But if McCain bothers to listen to folks around the country rather than to hector them about the war, he'll hear something about it.
We need a serious debate about a new national strategy in a global economy, not an exchange of spitballs and historical inanities. McCain admitted he didn't know much about the economy, he doesn't have to prove it every time he opens his mouth.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Protectionism works in the early stages of industrialization, but at some point, quantitative growth has to change to qualitative growth, something the Soviets were incapable of doing and China may have similar problems. It is curious that the author uses China as an example of successful industrial policy (as does Pat Buchanan) when it is the opposite that has occurred in China - the post Mao liberalization of the economy is why China is booming, although there are still serious issues of stealing intellectual property, controlling foreign exchange,etc. And Ireland has one of the most successful economies in the world with little industrial policy. France, with their statist and dirigiste tradition, has seen its world ranking (GDP per capita) plummet from 7th to 17th. Egypt and South Korea had similar levels of economic development - guess who is ahead now due to integration in the world economy?
But as a democrat, I feel Obama and Clinton were pandering on NAFTA. The overall results of NAFTA have been positive, growth to our GDP, enhancement of specialization and, hence efficiency, a slight increase of jobs (according to a Carnegie study, between 0 and a quarter million for the U.S.). U.S. unemployment was considerably lower in the decade after NAFTA than the decade before it. Of course there are regional winners and losers. Ohio has not fared well, with only $2B in exports to Mexico last year. But business in Texas is booming, exports reaching $56B last year! NAFTA wasnt a boom, but it was overall positive.
The U.S. share of world manufacturing output has stayed relatively steady since 1990, although we produce 30% more goods with 22% fewer workers now. Wage stagnation is obviously a problem, however, although many factors account for that state-by-state; wages remain high in Washington, low in Alabama - there is no evidence of a convergence towards the bottom.Levels of unionization also contribute to wage rates state-by-state.
But the larger point is that there is no alternative to as much free trade as possible, although doses of industrial policy here and there are also needed(i.e.saving Harley Davidson in the 1970's). But we need higher savings, a better educated workforce, more trade adjustment assistance to displaced workers to compete effectively. Anything but tariffs and protectionism.
People need to understand that if we measure US consumer prices in Euros rather than dollars, consumer prices have more than doubled in the last 6 years. This is not due to a strong Euro, but to a weak dollar. Even in terms of the Loonie, prices have risen unacceptably.
Ben Bernanke testified there's a risk of inflation. But inflation is not a risk; it is a behavior of governments and central banks, a behavior exhibited with a vengeance the past 6 years. Bush's policies created enormous deficits, and those deficits were monetized by Greenspan's inflationary Fed policies. We've already seen the consequences as measured in foreign currencies. It's only a matter of time till they manifest themselves in dollar prices.
Robert Borosage says, "A thirty year old worker in America makes less in inflation adjusted dollars than his father did. . There is no economist with a wit who doubts that globalization has contributed to the wage stagnation that plagues this economy. "
I have to ask, if globalization was the problem, wouldn't the race to the bottom affect CEO salaries as well? Wouldn't the stockholders who see greater profit by offshoring be asking if Carlos Slim Helu could do the same job for a much smaller salary?
This is the big problem I have with the anti-globalist rhetoric; they take every bad thing that's happened and try to find a way to blame it on globalization. The Winner-Take-All Economy would have happened with or without globalization, so we should address that problem directly. Another problem is that de-monopolization has caused a lot of pain. But why do we blame Mexican workers for that pain when we don't blame Apple employees for the suffering of IBMers or Southwest crews for the troubles of legacy airlines.
"The United States grew to become the world's greatest industrial power by nestling its industry behind high tariff walls."
I dismiss this as coincidence. I think that there was enough entrerpreneural energy in the US that we could have built just as much without the walls. Indeed, the tariff was the "grandfather of monopolies," forcing up prices to the poor and middle classes to benefit the rich.
"Instead, behind protectionist tariffs, fueled by public investments in infrastructure from canals to railroads to land grant colleges, "
Did Mr. Borosage notice that the tariff raised the cost of building railroads? Further, this view takes the era of high tariffs as being uniformly protectionistic. For much of the time between the start of the railroad era and the Civil War, tariffs were coming down.
"China may be too far away for McCain to notice, but shouldn't he at least have some passing recognition that the current trade policies that he defends -- a trade strategy by, for and of the multinationals -- have driven this country into a ditch? "
Yes or no, does Mr. Borosage think that without globalization; the Dubyanomic deficits and an energy policy of favoring producers would not have hurt us? Bill Clinton was even more pro-trade, but we had 3.8% unemployment--actually below the standard assumption for "frictional" unemployment--the people who would register on the Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys as unemployed--people leaving one job before finding another, people just entering the job market, those who can't find work but don't want to settle on welfare, etc--when the economy is going full blast.
"There is no economist with a wit who doubts that globalization has contributed to the wage stagnation that plagues this economy. "
So by Mr. Borosage's standards, the term "economist with a wit" is an oxymoron. Free trade was highly supported by the Keynesians as well as the more Conservative members of the profession. I call myself a "Free Trade Liberal" in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. I know the dangers in trying to determine how the dead would have dealt with issues after their passing; but I seriously doubt that they would have found that unions in the monopolized industries finally getting their bosses to share the benefits of monopolization to be reason to abandon all concern for those who cannot get for themselves these monopoly privileges.
Good serious analysis. This is what is needed, not diatribes!
"I dismiss this as coincidence. I think that there was enough entrerpreneural energy in the US that we could have built just as much without the walls. Indeed, the tariff was the "grandfather of monopolies," forcing up prices to the poor and middle classes to benefit the rich."
Tariffs and growth of industry and technology are a coincidental? You may dismiss it all you want in the privacy of your own home.
Existential proof is available at your state University, where enrollments in science and technology are at historic lows. There is no longer any money to be made at it. Students correctly view technology as a dead end in America.
The entrepreneurial traditions of America where husbanded, nurtured and fed by a strong economy. Coincident with tariffs? Hearken back to elementary school civics class. Science, experimentation, productivity and progress are luxuries supported by and through division of labor. A division of labor is itself a luxury of law and reason and judgment.
The luxury of reason and science was starved for the eons it took to establish law, faith in justice, and the prudence of sharing prosperity with the working class. The age of economic super abundance was caused by one thing only. That thing was sharing the bounty of increasing productivity through division of labor.
Characterizing tariffs as monopolies disregards the difference in objectives between government and business. Business"s natural motive is profit, the more the better, and monopoly is the most powerful pricing position. Government must have the mission of the most benefit to the most people. Government and business therefore, naturally, have conflicting goals.
The better question is "How can America retain an economy that rewards entrepreneurial endeavor?"
JudgeMoonBox,
"wouldn't the race to the bottom affect CEO salaries as well?"
CEO salaries have been predicated on profits. Profits are high. For the better part of two decades, profit growth in corporate America has been substantially based in cost cutting rather than innovation and productivity increases, although productivity increases have been historically high. Prudent business plans for sustained growth have been displaced by the emphasis on quarter over quarter profit goals in disregard for long term viability. The problem is that the school of cost cutting to maximize short term profits and inflate stock prices is a zero sum game. You cannot continue cutting costs beyond what it takes to produce a marketable product.
Since cost cutting is a zero sum game, cost cutting efforts, having depleted domestic opportunities, shifted focus to offshore labor to exploit the differential in cost of living and wage expectations in the third world. Profits increased and stock prices and CEO salaries followed. But these are not sustainable increases in profitability. It is still a zero sum game.
The cost of labor has been decreased but will not continue to decrease unless foreign wage demands lag productivity increases.
In the mean time, the market for products of any kind is being withered away by declining purchasing power on the part of our domestic workforce. The market on which the multinationals depend to sell at margins increased by exploitation of cheap labor is disappearing by their own hand. They are in fact committing business suicide in order for CEOs to enjoy higher salaries and share holders to enjoy unsustainable increases in stock valuation.
The better question is "will CEO salaries eventually decline because of a race to the bottom?" Yes.
Ah, NO - when a company's results are good , the CEO gets a raise - when the results are bad, he (usually a he) gets a raise because the results were caused by circumstances beyond his control and he might even get a bonus for preventing even "worse" results" or so the corporate media machine will explain.
When the company goes into the tank - the CEO will fasten his golden parachute and jump along with his millions of bucks.
In the late 1940's, the average CEO made about 19 times what the guy on the shop floor made in total compensation - now it is over 400 times what the guy on the assembly floor makes. The main problem is that the vast majority of CEOs compensation is based on the number of employees they have in their company not profitability. Which is why a lot of companies merge or buy other companies so the CEO can claim - "instead of 100,000 employees, I now have 150,000 - so I should get a raise".
CEOs in Europe and Japan DO NOT make the money that American CEOs make - the heads of Toyota and Honda make less than the head of General Motors and they regularly clean his clock in the marketplace.
Accountability is a valid concept only in college.
I wish we could get away from the "hero" title for McCain. He was dropping bombs on people in another illegal and immoral war. He got shot down and spent 5.5 bitter years counting small moving things, fingers and toes. How does this make him a hero? Yes, he certainly is a survivor, but otherwise no more ept or up for the job than the misfit Bush. He has already stated his raison d'etre is war, and lots of it. This is a dangerous man, not only due to stupidity, but because he is a one-track 360 degree horse. Today I heard an excerpt of an interview with the misfit Bush. In part, he said that the $3 trillion war did not hurt our economy, "it created lots of jobs...what hurt the economy is building too many homes..." Yes, we have a lot to fear, way more than fear itself, my friends.
A lesson in economics: Gresham's Law: "Bad money drives out good."
A leeson in semantics: Reagan's Law: Anytrhing can be dumbed down.
Taking the two together, "hero" can be debased.
If McCain's heroism qualifies one to be President, then my uncle who was a POW at Nagasaki should have run for POTUS.
Yes, McCain suffered in Viertnam. End of story. Unless you live in the Southwest.
This is an incredibly revisionist interpretation of history. The U.S. wouldn't have developed if we didn't have tariffs?? Firstly, it's impossible to compare today with 200 years ago. 200 years ago international trade was infinitesimal as a portion of global production for the simple reason that we didn't have massive container ships, airplanes, etc. The costs of transporting goods across oceans was usually prohibitive. The U.S. was going to develop its own industry regardless of whether we had tariffs for the simple reason that it was easier and quicker to produce locally. Secondly, it's a logical flaw to say the U.S. had tariffs and the U.S. is rich, therefore tariffs were the reason we became rich. It's more likely that the U.S. developed in spite of the tariffs which every economist will tell you is harmful to economic development. Industries that develop behind tariff walls are notoriously inefficient, high-cost and low-quality, and end up being unable to compete internationally. Advocating protectionism for developing countries is advocating economic suicide.
OK.
Now, how do you explain Korea, Japan and Taiwan this century? They are economic powerhouses. They developed how?
First, they all had tariff and non-tariff barriers that protected domestic producers from US competition. They still do.
Second, they stole US intellectual property and repackaged it as their own and sold it back to us. The US was kind enough to lower our tariffs for them, so they could develop.
Third, as I mentioned before, if you look at the history of European imperialism over the last 500 years, Europeans went abroad to take back raw materials to supply their budding industrial societies. Why do you think the Europeans started exploring the world? It wasn't to spread European values. It was for raw materials. It was for spice. It was for gold and silver.
Europeans waged war in competition to control these resources and others, going all the way to World War 2.
Guess what? They had high tariffs in their countries to prevent competition while forcing poor countries to adapt "free trade." They intentionally prevented poorer countries from competing with them by controlling their finance, controlling their raw materials, controlling their governments through occupation, and writing their tax laws.
Sounds like Iraq, doesn't it?
Instead of spouting a neo-liberal line that has no basis in reality or thousands of years of economic history, I suggest you crack some books and learn how the trade system actually operated.
You're making a broad assumption that the reasons behind East Asian countries' success was one small part of their economic policy. Can you really discount the incredibly hard work that they put in, the focus on education, research and development? It was really just tariffs? India has had huge tariffs, didn't do much for them did it? When it comes to economic development, tariffs have either no role or a negative one.
As far as economic history and tariffs, you have to admit your view is a minority fringe view. It is not widely accepted among economic historians.
As the world turns.
Remarks of JFK Upon Signing the Trade Expansion Act, October 11, 1962:
http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/publicpapers/1962/jfk449_62.html
TODAY I am signing H.R. 11970, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
This is the most important international piece of legislation, I think, affecting economics since the passage of the Marshall plan. It marks a decisive point for the future of our economy, for our relations with our friends and allies, and for the prospects of free institutions and free societies everywhere.
This act recognizes, fully and completely, that we cannot protect our economy by stagnating behind tariff walls, but that the best protection possible is a mutual lowering of tariff barriers among friendly nations so that all may benefit from a free flow of goods. Increased economic activity resulting from increased trade will provide more job opportunities for our workers. Our industry, our agriculture, our mining will benefit from increased export opportunities as other nations agree to lower their tariffs. Increased exports and imports will benefit our ports, steamship lines, and airlines as they handle an increased amount of trade. Lowering of our tariffs will provide an increased flow of goods for our American consumers. Our industries will be stimulated by increased export opportunities and by freer competition with the industries of other nations for an even greater effort to develop an efficient, economic, and productive system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.
By means of agreements authorized by the act, we can move forward to partnership with the nations of the Atlantic Community. Together with the Common Market, we account for 90 percent of the free world's trade in industrial products. Together we make up - and I think this is most important in this vital period - the greatest aggregation of economic power in the history of the world. We now have the means to make certain that we build our strength together and that we can maintain this preeminence.
We shall also use the authority of the act to negotiate with our other great trading partners, Canada and Japan, and with the countries of Latin America, Asia, and Africa - and we're particularly concerned that the countries of Latin America shall have an opportunity to participate in this period of economic growth particularly as it affects the Common Market as well as our own United States. We will use the specific authorities designed to widen markets for the raw materials and manufactures of the less developed nations whose economic growth is so important to us all and to strengthen our efforts to end discriminatory and preferential arrangements which in the long run can only make everyone poorer and the free world less united.
A vital expanding economy in the free world is a strong counter to the threat of the world Communist movement. This act is, therefore, an important new weapon to advance the cause of freedom.
And I want to express my strong appreciation to the members of the Congress who were so greatly involved in the passage of this bill - Chairman Mills and members of the House Ways and Means Committee who reported it to the Floor and the members of the House of Representatives who passed it; Senator Byrd and the members of the Senate Finance Committee; Senator Kerr and others who participated in the passage of this legislation; the leadership of the House and Senate and all those on both sides who made this legislation possible; citizens groups, Mr. Petersen and Mr. Gilbert; the labor organizations, Mr. George Meany, who's here today, who was of great importance to the passage of this bill which if administered as it must be and will be directly from the White House, with the cooperation of the Departments of State, Commerce, Agriculture, and Labor, can mean so much to this country.
Obviously you failed to read the article, specifically how the US economy modernized and how China is profitting from the same strategy.
No, I read it several times. Schopenhauer dictated that ad hominen arguments should follow at the end, not lead. And all I did was make an observation: "As the world turns".
Kennedy described himself as a free-trader Cold Warrior. Now McCain claims that mantle, though Reagan ended the Cold War (lol!), but thankfully (for business and Republicans) we're still in Iraq, even though many people have to remind themselves that we're still in Afganistan. What are the tariff structures in those copuntries BTW?
"We shall also use the authority of the act to negotiate with our other great trading partners, Canada and Japan, and with the countries of Latin America, Asia, and Africa - and we're particularly concerned that the countries of Latin America shall have an opportunity to participate in this period of economic growth particularly as it affects the Common Market as well as our own United States. We will use the specific authorities designed to widen markets for the raw materials and manufactures of the less developed nations whose economic growth is so important to us all and to strengthen our efforts to end discriminatory and preferential arrangements which in the long run can only make everyone poorer and the free world less united. " As the song goes, "Who's sorry now?"
Take all the names mentioned above. If NAFTA were on the table today, would they be for or against it? Well, some are alive now. Let's ask Byrd. Would George Meaney favor US job losses?
Pound sand.
I am adding your McCain remarks to my private investigation, "Is McCain A Lot More Stupid Than He Sounds?" We've seen natural selection (and opportunities at the higher levels of our society) continually offering "passing grades" to people who possess highly accessible personalities (and/or great looks), in spite of really poor "test scores" in the brains department. Knowing that helped when I first began to suspect that McCain's friendly personality was disguising his shortcomings. I first began keeping a close eye on McCain's brains, or lack thereof, even before I learned that he had scored in the bottom fifth of his graduating class. The thing that first alerted me was a little thing: McCain was inserting into every speech his condemnation of Time Magazine for making Putin "Person of the Year", despite the fact that "Person of the Year" is not Time's way of honoring someone, it is just meant as a reflection of their impact (admittedly Time sets everyone up to make this mistake, even when they gave the title to Hitler, but after a while of saying this over and over, shouldn't McCain have had a way open for someone to pass him the correction?). I have NOTHING against stupid people, some of my favorite sitcoms are stupid, but that doesn't mean I want another idiot at the Controls.
I second (or third) your opinion that Sen. McCain is not very bright. He may be bright enough to fly a jet plane, but that does not make him smart enough to lead a nation. Having said that, I think he is a very decent person, with strong principles. If he were smart enough to understand what is going on in Iraq, he would probably win the election in the fall, because he would be calling for us to minimise our presence in both Iraq in and Middle East. Instead, he thinks fighting insurgents in Iraq makes sense, even though if someone invaded the U.S., we would be fighting them, and we would be called the insurgents. He actually thinks that most of the insurgents are "al Qaeda in Iraq," something that is obviously not true.
It's funny that you are checking into that. I started thinking the same thing after seeing a biography on McCain on MSNBC the other night. He was nothing but a party boy just like Bush in his younger days. The only thing that kept him in the military was that it was a family tradition. It appears that disaster followed McCain. I was wondering if this was due to bad luck or maybe he wasn't a good learner. At anyrate I wonder, do we want "Catastrophe McCain" in the Whitehouse?
McCain is no "hero".
John McCain is ignorant scum who lies to the American people on
a daily basis.
The only thing more scummy and weak than McCain are his
vile supporters.
We will remember who they are.
Serfie why don't you look at the bright side of things? Canada's ability to build cars for instance, less expensively than America is partially based on it's universal health care. With the matter of free trade in the news, perhaps the powers that be in the U.S. will realize that and bring in affordable health care for all, then you get to reduce your costs of building cars, thus saving your automobile industry and reduce your loss of jobs to other countries like Canada as well. Sort of like two for the price of one. So while I agree that you need us less than we need you, if you try to screw with us you will suffer blowback directly related to your already disasterous economy. No, much better to play fair don't you think?
Sure Canada "makes" cars, from parts made in the USA and elsewhere. The Finance Minister in Canada says he would welcome re-negotiaring NAFTA, as oil royalties, electric power are all overdue for a raise, and also remember, their are other unions in the World
Economy, stupid, to the power of ten! I would urge Sen. McCain to study economy in a hurry. There are no shortcuts in this field; I am a theologian, and know very little about it. But the world economy has become so intricated, that old concepts like "protectionism" or "free market" mean little! This is why Sen. McCain must surround himself with the best economists of the world, to try to account for the cosmic changes that take place as I write.
"I would urge Sen. McCain to study economy in a hurry." My friend, as McCain would start, I'd leave him dumber than dirt, and let it show during the general election. Pounce on it and hang on like a bulldog.
" I would urge Sen. McCain to study economy in a hurry." It economics. Start there. :)
And, please, Sen. McCain, don't forget that the best insights come from God! For this reason, you should listen to the theologians, as well! In fact, any person that is blessed by God can see things better in their totality, than the best of scientists who do not have [spurn] such help from God!
Umm, on re-reading your two posts....you're being sarcastic, aren't you? (O "God", I hope so.)
Robert:
History is also full of examples of where countries that have high unemployment and huge amounts of poverty are also restless. The more unstable that China or India are the worse off the rest of the world is specially its immediate neighbors. Sound familiar (Mexico)? So if we don't share the wealth we become vulnerable from social maladities. Having said this I also understand the plight of the manufacturing sector worker who loses his job to a foreigner. The key is to create new industries locally which pay good salaries. I would suggest an enterprise such as weening ourselves off of petroleum using alternative energy sources and I'm sure that with our ingenuity it can be accomplished in a decade. This would be a magnificent financial engine creating jobs locally and saving our environment to boot. The government could give tax rebates to the companies if they keep the manufacturing of these new devices on shore instead of off shore to boost the economy even further. We can't close up to the rest of the world like China did for centuries. We must lead but we must do it using our minds, hard work and adventurous spirit. I'm sure we can also pay for this adventure, all we have to do is stop invading countries preemptively and use the money to invest in our future. McCain doesn't see or understand this, he's to focused on using the money for war. Kennedy understood this back in the 1960's when he challenged America to put a man on the moon before the decade was over. We need a challenge from our leaders to ween America off of petroleum and believe me our economy will zip by China and India and the Arabs will have to sit on their huge amounts of reserves...and many people will be employed!
Robert,
It sounds as though you expect McCain to possess vast amounts of knowledge on trade, history and economics. Granted McCain may not have all the answers but what do you expect of Obama, just to stand there and look pretty. I don't even think Obama knows what a Wheaties box is. Good thing for this country we have a General Election. As far as Obama, if he wants to be President with a non-existent resume he better start at least acting the part because the President of this nation is the number one Citizen and the ultimate Patriot and believer it all that is good about this country. Because when the Democratic primary is over and his pretty speeches done McCain in the general will stomp a mudhole through his rhetoric and expose his inexperience to the light of day. The Democrats should have backed Richardson because Obama, if he is fortunate enough to win, will be the scariest President this nation will have had since Jimmy Carter's high taxes and lost jobs administration and lets not forget how Carter handle Iran back then and he had it easy. Obama comes in with havin
Posted February 29, 2008 | 08:08 AM (EST)