Obama Economics Without Hope

"FOR a man who has placed "hope" at the centre of his campaign, Barack Obama can sound pretty darned depressing." That about sums it up. The Economist at least hasn't fallen into Obamamania and be entranced by his magic wand Hillary Clinton speaks of.

The Economist claims that Obama's rhetoric is exceedingly populist. Imagine that, for one thing the Obama campaign hasn't been about the people as much as it has been about Obama's desire to be liked, loved and admired.

Time's Joe Klein wrote down his thought about Inspiration vs. Substance on Obama. He states that the Obama campaign is the ultimate self licking ice cream, "The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is."

There is no denying that for some middle-class Americans, the past few years have indeed been a struggle. What is missing from Mr Obama's speeches is any hint that this is not the whole story: that globalisation brings down prices and increases consumer choice; that unemployment is low by historical standards; that American companies are still the world's most dynamic and creative; and that Americans still, on the whole, live lives of astonishing affluence.

What is interesting is that when McCain or Clinton bring up 9-11 it is fear mongering, but when Obama brings up the economic troubles of America that the media has over hyped, it isn't fear mongering.

The Economist rails not only against Obama, but also against Clinton since they share the same politics, it is just that Obama wraps it up in a prettier package. They both sing the same song, business-bad, government-good. And what is worse is the idea of pulling out of NAFTA unilaterally. What happened to this diplomacy kick we were suppose to have where we'd sit down with our allies and not make a move until we had a consensus of how the US should behave. Yet one more lie Obama has delivered.

From the Obama website, "Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe." So Obama is willing to talk with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and their ilk, for diplomatic purposes, but he has stated without any consultation with the US's largest trading partner, Canada, the US will no longer honor a treaty agreed to by both nations.

Then again, maybe Obama has been talking to our allies in the fashion of good ol' back room politics.

Another issue raised by the Clinton campaign was a report that an Obama adviser, Austan Goolsbee, had quietly told the Canadian consul in Chicago that Obama would back away from his criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement once he took office.

"The story's just not true," Plouffe said. "No one in our campaign has said or otherwise implied that he would back away from his position on NAFTA."

This leaves us to wonder, what exactly is Obama's position on NAFTA. He plans on saying he wants to disband it unilaterally for votes in Ohio, but for diplomatic purposes, he's meeting with our allies, as promised, to orchestrate a back room deal where he says this, but doesn't mean it and it will all blow over once he is in office.

How do the Canadians feel about this-we'll they were given a heads up about the NAFTA rhetoric according to the Canadian media. "The [Obama] staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value. it sounds like liars lie, and cheaters cheat and Obama is both.

In defense of Obama, The Economist does state that once you look at his website, he does have some politically sound centrist ideas, but it concludes:

The sad thing is that one might reasonably have expected better from Mr Obama. He wants to improve America's international reputation yet campaigns against NAFTA. He trumpets "the audacity of hope" yet proposes more government intervention. He might have chosen to use his silver tongue to address America's problems in imaginative ways—for example, by making the case for reforming the distorting tax code. Instead, he wants to throw money at social problems and slap more taxes on the rich, and he is using his oratorical powers to prey on people's fears.

Mr Obama advertises himself as something fresh, hopeful and new. But on economic matters at least he, like Mrs Clinton, has begun to look a rather ordinary old-style Democrat.

The media needs to tell Obama that when it comes to fear mongering, politicians living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.