As many of you know, I'm a former Edwards supporter who now supports Senator Obama. While I strongly support Obama, I want more courage than what I just saw in his 60 minutes interview with Steve Croft.
Croft was in Ohio where he talked to a group of citizens in Chillicothe, a rural community that used to be a major manufacturing hub. Most of the group used to have good, secure, blue collar jobs until their own government sacrificed their well being at the altar of free trade. One man, who can't afford health care, has a wife with MS and hasn't had a good paying job since a local paper company relocated to China.
While their stories brought me to tears, the most important part of Kroft's piece was when he interviewed a socially responsible CEO of one of the few reamining paper companies in Chillicothe. When Kroft asked him about what Obama or Hillary could do to reverse the trend of job loss, he said "couragous action needs to be taken" and even brought up the "t" word..tariffs.
Of course, imposing high tariffs on importants leads to an even dirtier word in our political discourse: protectionism. But for Ohio and the vast majority of America, some protection from Chinese slave laborers could go a long way.
After the brutal truth that came from the paper making CEO, Kroft asked Hillary about the issue of tariffs. She started out by talking about how she wants to declare a "trade timeout" (which accomplishes nothing). But to her credit, she didn't paint a completely negative picture of protectionism and cited eras in American history where higher tariffs benefited our economy.
As I expected, however, she did not concur with the paper making CEO in Chillicothe and came short of fully endorse higher tariffs on imports. After all, her husband brought us NAFTA and her campaign is being funded by the few and the powerful who benefit from outsourcing.
Next up was Obama and his response was especially disappointing. Unlike Hillary, he didn't even give the citizens of Chilliothe the courtesy to say that a more protectionist approach to trade was in America's best interest. Instead, he spewed the same Tom Friedman nonsense that the world would end if we don't embrace globalization and completely skirted around the issue of tarrifs.
This is a bipartisan problem. Even my first choice, John Edwards, doesn't have a squeaky clean record on trade (go back to his Senate if you don't believe me). If the change that Barack Obama talks about is ever going to become possible, he needs to demonstrate more courage on behalf of American workers.
What makes me more hopefull about Obama on this issue, however, is that his campaign isn't as littered with special interest money. As he often accurately states, his campaign is funded by us and if we make enough noise on this issue of trade, he is much more likely to respond accordingly. Perhaps I'm naive but at least Obama has the potential to improve on trade. Hillary, on the other hand, will never, ever win my trust on trade related issues.