The reaction to the shocking revelation obvious truth that Obama is a more or less conventional free trader has been quite strong (see Mr. Robert’s article for a prime example of how “support” for Obama on the right is purely and understandably an expression of anti-Republican sentiment).  Obama opposed CAFTA back when he was preparing to get labour endorsements, and bashed NAFTA when he was trying–and failing–to prevail in the Ohio primary, but he has been quite clear that he is well within the consensus that supports free trade.  So in addition to condescending to small-town America, he is also uninterested in defending its interests.  As with foreign policy, on the policies of immigration and trade where the bipartisan consensus is most wrong and most at odds with a majority of Americans, Obama sides with the political class (as well he might, since he is part of that class!).  Goolsbee let slip privately to the Canadians what Obama is now saying publicly: it was all for show. 

This does not surprise, though Jim Antle is correct that this is a case where Obama has pandered to the Democratic base and tried to have it both ways.  Following up on my earlier observation about Obama’s domestic policies, I would add that this is the one exception where his formal position is to “the right” of what he has sometimes said on the campaign trail, and it is yet another example of how Obama will not challenge the status quo in any meaningful way and has no interest in the sort of fundamental policy change that his partisans clearly want.  If there are powerful interests that must be confronted, if great political risk is involved, Obama remains the guy who “won’t make no waves and won’t back no losers.”  Essentially, this seems to confirm the criticism that Clinton and Edwards and a large part of the netroots made against him during the primaries: he won’t fight.  This also drives home the point that I have tried to make before, which is that for all of his apparent sympathy for working- and middle-class voters, he does not propose to do anything for them with respect to trade or immigration or concerning the related problem of growing income inequality. 

At the same time, it’s worth noting that putting Webb on the ticket at this point would make Webb doubly miserable.  Not only is he not temperamentally suited for the VP nominee role (i.e., he is independent-minded and likes to say what he thinks), but since a significant part of his campaign in ’06 was based in appeals to “economic fairness” and opposing at least some free trade deals it is difficult to see how he would serve effectively in an administration that was essentially yielding to neoliberalism*.  If Webb thinks this is a Time to Fight, Obama gives the impression through his unwillingness to oppose entrenched interests that it is always time to yield.

*Referring here to the theory of liberalising international trade, not the domestic variety.

P.S.  The Nation article quotes from David Sirota, who has been one of the progressives on Obama’s case for the longest time, and with this latest news his earlier critiques seem to have been vindicated.  Back in December 2006, Sirota had Obama’s number on trade, and he said then:

But if this aversion to confronting power previews the rest of his campaign, there will indeed be a major opening for a real populist candidate to win the nomination and the presidency.

Perhaps there was such an opening briefly, and Edwards tried to exploit that unsuccessfully, but it was not to be.  Sirota sums up well the problem with Obama with that phrase “aversion to confronting power.”  If you want to understand how Obama will govern, just think about how he can avoid confrontation with entrenched interests and that is likely what he will do.