What Really Went Down in Pittsburgh

On Monday, Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton came to Pittsburgh for substantive dialogue about their trade policies and, particularly, how they plan to address China's unfair trade practices. The Alliance for American Manufacturing, a labor-management, non-partisan partnership, hosted the forum and rightly put the candidates on the spot about their plans to get tough on trade.

In the aftermath of the AAM forum on Monday, scores of media reports in the mainstream press and the blogosphere, as well as a new television ad by Senator Obama, focused on a few jeers that Senator Clinton received at the event for her response to the well-publicized "bitter" remarks Obama previously made. As the convener of that forum, I'm disappointed that this exchange has been blown far out of proportion. But I'm not surprised.

It's much easier for the media and the blogosphere to comment on the inevitable back-and-forth, which amounted to a mere fraction of the time that both candidates spent with us, than to focus on the substance. For those media elites and bloggers who do not understand the economic challenges facing every day people, and who may be too uninterested or too lazy to actually do some research and real reporting, the back-and-forth became the story.

Few in the media or blogosphere have bothered to report that both candidates received lengthy standing ovations for their remarks on international trade and the economy, and that both candidates were frequently interrupted with applause. (The Obama ad didn't mention that aspect, either.)

The fact that both candidates outlined detailed agendas on how to get the manufacturing economy back on track and reform the country's flawed trade policies also received scant attention. The important news for Pennsylvanians on Monday was that both candidates committed to a new direction on trade -- one that won't allow countries like China to cheat, and one that won't encourage further outsourcing of manufacturing jobs.

In Pittsburgh we had an audience of blue collar workers, white collar workers, CEOs, retirees, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. We expected about 1,000 to attend when we finalized the event about ten days ago. We were blown away on Monday morning --1,600 manufacturing workers, managers, and retirees came through our doors. Of those 1,600, maybe 50 or so offered a few jeers. The overwhelming majority offered positive responses to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.

Our audience came to the forum to learn more about what the candidates would do to grow manufacturing, crack down on China's unfair trade practices, and reform our own trade policies to benefit more Americans. And they came away from the forum pleased they had that opportunity. It's a real shame that the media and the blogosphere didn't give more people that opportunity through responsible coverage of the event. As for the Obama ad, I'm convinced that more people would respond to his plan to crack down on China's cheating, but then again, I'm an idealist, not a political consultant.

Comments

[okeydokey]

Your article may explain the mystery. When watching this ad I noticed that just as we expect to hear Hillary say something the Obamakins could jeer. We don't. Words appear on the screen telling us she was "jeered" Why edit the clip at this point? Could she possibly have made a valid point? This they wouldn't want the viewer to hear. Or was the reaction as you suggest not that big?

[Kache]

"It's a real shame that the media and the blogosphere didn't give more people that opportunity through responsible coverage of the event."

That's right Scott. So where is yopur contribution. You've squandered your moment in the blogosphere complaining about the blogosphere instead of telling us what you claim we would know if people like you were more responsible. Geezus guy!

So what did the candidates have to say?

How do the candidates propose that we have our cake (keep jobs here) and eat it too (pay China prices at Walmart)?

Do the candidates really oppose Ma & Pa Wong putting a few dollars in the bank? Watch the Hong Kong Exchange, Ma & Pa Wong are pretty shrewed investors when given a few bucks to play with.

Did the candidates oppose the Columbia free trade treaty that would have removed Columbia's tariffs on US goods? And if they did, did they mention that that treaty would give Columbian death-squads a free hand to once again start murdering union organizers?

Come on Scott. You want to talk trade, or just talk about not talking about trade?

[ZekeBundren]

A, It was entirely appropriate for the audience to jeer Clinton when she strayed from substantive issues. While character is important as a filter in primaries, we are beyond the point in intramural contests where character issues add strength in the general election. Everyone seems to get that but the Clintons and other Republicans.

B. Taking on trade issues with China and other cheap-labor third world armpits is just part of the solution. It is good to see Obama and Clinton appear to get that part. Whether either can do anything remains to be seen.

C. No problem exists in a vacuum. Equally important problems for almost all US citizens include direct (legal) incentives and indirect (illegal) incentives to corporations using cheap illegal and legal imported labor.

D. A less obvious but no less real problem is the shift in government objectives since 1980 from serving the interests of humans living on Main Street to serving corporate citizens of Wall Street that feed off Main Street via direct fees and indirect government subsidies.

E. When are Democrats going to hold that discussion?

[Independent_voter]

hillary clinton is the head if the Senate India caucus whose sole mission is to export additional technology jobs to India. You don';t seriously think she cares about the American workers do you?

[YY2H8]

As someone who has attended events like the one you describe, I know there is a surprising inclination to be nothing but polite in spite of one's political leanings.

I watched that whole speech live, and I know Hillary was not booed throughout. However, the reaction when she went dirty and tried to bring her divisive pettiness into a policy forum DID receive a visceral and genuine response. People were there to hear about policy, and seemed to appreciate both candidates when they stayed on task.

I believe the people at that rally offered a measured, gentle feedback that Hillary should have considered as a guide towards her subsequent conduct. Considering the pressure to be respectful and polite, I was impressed that they would have the courage to offer that feedback.

[IronMikeHouston]

Hillary and Barry don't have a clue about jobs. They do know how to collect money for their campaign. I would suspend all welfare so that these inner-city welfare queens would be forced to be productive (not squatting out kids to get more benefits). I suspect these people would need to move out and farm since many don't have any education because they pissed it off.

Next, I would eliminate corporate taxes. Corporations don't pay taxes, people do!

[Kache]

Or, remove all personal taxes and tax only corporations. They would just pass it on at the checkout counter.

[TN]

I saw Obama's speech on Saturday and he said point blank that the jobs that left probably won't come back. I about fell of my chair, but what he did say was the labor standards, the tax incentive to leave and the creation of new energy jobs would be our future. Now we have to make sure that US taxpaying citizens, displaced from jobs that went overseas, get those jobs and not greedy owners of those companies hiring illegals. We also need a massive overhaul/investment in our infrastructure that has been left to crumble under republican congress for 12 years. Those jobs must go to taxpaying citizens.

[Caringthinkingperson]

Mr. Scott, while we bloggers have no control over what the media presents, and all sides - other than the media - are spinning from the sound-bite mentality that pervades our airwaves, the truth is far more important. Thank you for your even presentation of the evening..

Your premise that we are lazy, or uninterested is incorrect. The vigor with which you witness bloggers writing in highly editorialized views is not arrived at through laziness, it is arrived at through frustration. We see a major Democratic candidate disrespecting their opponant in order to get elected. We see them employing tactics reserved for the Republican party, and we are left to only witness and complain.

The blogospere performs a valuable service as a safety valve for people who have divergent opinions that are largely overlooked. At least in this forum we are beginning to feel like we have a voice. If there is too much hoopla made about the few (50 or so) who jeered back at Senator Clinton it is because many Democrats would be jeering if they had an invitation to attend. As bloggers we present an individual opinion and hope it reaches many. As a valuable Manufacturing representative you hold the clout for which many of us can only dream.

Next time you think poorly of people focusing on jeers, please understand that we who are jeering do not have an association to represent us, nor a union to defend us. We only have our blogs.

[Luc65]

Mr. Scott understand clearly what objective journalism is. Your article is good as it informs on the content of the event without taking position.

Which is what the medias should do instead of filling our brain with useless comments and bias opinions.

Thank you.

[Jezreel]

This was an informative post and I appreciate it. It seems like the candidates did a great job explaining their policy proposals. And that's a good thing. What I don't understand however is why the audience expressed their disapproval.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"The important news for Pennsylvanians on Monday was that both candidates committed to a new direction on trade"

If both candidates said that they are committed to a new direction on trade, do you believe both of them?

HRC is a practiced liar.

[Desiderata]

C-Span covers it all without getting in the way of letting us form our own opinions of what we saw and heard.

[kamldp]

I appreciate hearing what actually happened on Monday in Pittsburg. You are so right that it would have been more informative if people were told what they plan to do to deal with China's manufacturing practices, etc.

The unfortunate truth here has become that it is not possible to focus on the issue/details, the entire campaign has turned into a side show. As an example I hold up the debate on Wednesday on ABC.

I am a strong, nothings ever going to change it, Obama supporter - I can hardly contain myself every time Mrs. Clinton starts with the spin. I really don't know how Senator Obama handles it, I surely couldn't and wouldn't even try. I guess that's why he's running for President.

Please keep in mind that, even by less biased people than myself, almost every punch that is thrown originates with Mrs. Clinton - Sen. Obama has little choice but to defend/go on the offensive. It may not always seems right but darn, what can you expect from him.

I'm glad you got the answers you wanted at the meeting, I hope you will closely consider the content and also consider who said it and how good/trustworthy is the source. Personally, I'd bet the house on Sen. Obama doing what he says and saying what he does. He has proven himself to be a far more trustworthy, honest person and I'll vote for that every time.

Thanks.

[FedUpWithThisMess]

Yes, they may have both gotten standing ovations, good for both of them, but he didn't get jeered at, did he?

[SShaw490]

Thank God someone posted something on some subject that matters to people. Between "bitter" and Bosnia, I forgot these two people were running for president of the United States. I started getting the impression they were running for Debate Team captain.

[GoodwithWood]

Another example of the failure of the MSM who are the true enemies of America.

[kgb999]

Thank you for posting this.

I understand that campaign ads accentuate what the candidate wants people to think about. We can ask them to keep it civil (and complain when they don't) - but that's really the game. They are politicians.

The press SHOULD be different. For this entire election - covering both democrats - the role of the press, from start to finish has just been horrid.