Honeymoon over?

[kimmy]

After months of breathlessly cheerleading for Hope and Change, it sounds as though some at the CBC are having second thoughts. Anna Maria Tremonti asked on this morning's show: "Could everybody's Dream President turn out to be our worst nightmare?" After noting that over 80% of Canadians supported Obama's election, Tremonti wonders aloud whether they'll be as excited once they read the fine print.

She had former US ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci on the show, as well as Anne Golden who is apparently some sort of economic policy analyst. Tremonti discussed with her guests a variety of concerns about what the Obama presidency will mean for this country.

They discussed rising US protectionism and what impact that might have on Canada, particularly in regard to the auto sector and agriculture. A spokesman for a farmers association confirmed they're worried. Also discussed was Obama's Afghanistan policy, which Cellucci believes will have Obama calling on Canada to extend its mission beyond the planned 2011 withdrawal.

With the state of the economy, trade was the primary focus on the show, and Paul Cellucci anticipates that the pressure on Obama from his own party to take action to protect American workers will be immense. Cellucci foresees pressure on President Obama to follow the path he indicated in the primaries on NAFTA (or as Cellucci puts it, "preshah on President Obamer to follow the path he indicated in prahmmeries on NAFTA") when Obama and Clinton were racing to see who could tear up NAFTA faster. However, he notes that reopening trade is not a one-way street but rather a negotiation, and that energy is Canada's big stick in those negotiations. Cellucci believes that a trade confrontation would work out badly for both countries and remains hopeful that cooler heads will prevail.

Overall, while listening to Tremonti, it sounded like she's feeling buyer's remorse... that feeling you get when you're home from the store and try on those incredible pants again, and start to wonder if they make your ass look huge.

The thing I am wondering... why didn't we get more of this sort of discussion earlier on?

-k

[jdobbin]

After months of breathlessly cheerleading for Hope and Change, it sounds as though some at the CBC are having second thoughts. Anna Maria Tremonti asked on this morning's show: "Could everybody's Dream President turn out to be our worst nightmare?" After noting that over 80% of Canadians supported Obama's election, Tremonti wonders aloud whether they'll be as excited once they read the fine print.

She had former US ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci on the show, as well as Anne Golden who is apparently some sort of economic policy analyst. Tremonti discussed with her guests a variety of concerns about what the Obama presidency will mean for this country.

She is the President of the Conference Board of Canada.

Celluci is a Republican so let's not get too carried away if he is in opposition to Obama.

They discussed rising US protectionism and what impact that might have on Canada, particularly in regard to the auto sector and agriculture. A spokesman for a farmers association confirmed they're worried. Also discussed was Obama's Afghanistan policy, which Cellucci believes will have Obama calling on Canada to extend its mission beyond the planned 2011 withdrawal.

I think you have to remember that protectionism is more led from Congress than the President.

As far as Afghanistan goes, Obama can ask just as Bush asked. If we stay, I don't know if we will continue in Kandahar.

With the state of the economy, trade was the primary focus on the show, and Paul Cellucci anticipates that the pressure on Obama from his own party to take action to protect American workers will be immense. Cellucci foresees pressure on President Obama to follow the path he indicated in the primaries on NAFTA (or as Cellucci puts it, "preshah on President Obamer to follow the path he indicated in prahmmeries on NAFTA") when Obama and Clinton were racing to see who could tear up NAFTA faster. However, he notes that reopening trade is not a one-way street but rather a negotiation, and that energy is Canada's big stick in those negotiations. Cellucci believes that a trade confrontation would work out badly for both countries and remains hopeful that cooler heads will prevail.

Energy *is* the big stick and Celluci knows it. The Americans just backed off on meat in the last day and Canada backed off on going to the WTO. I suspect we will see more negotation on a variety of issues but no tearing up of trade agreements.

Overall, while listening to Tremonti, it sounded like she's feeling buyer's remorse... that feeling you get when you're home from the store and try on those incredible pants again, and start to wonder if they make your ass look huge.

And the conclusion was that McCain would have been better?

There is a difference in expressing concerns about what the relationship might entail and regreting that the other guy didn't get in.

Hell, McCain might have been asking Canada to join his war in Iran. What then? Woo-pee-ki-yay?

The thing I am wondering... why didn't we get more of this sort of discussion earlier on?

There was.

It seems you feel that McCain/Palin would have been better for Canada and the world but most Canadians felt it would be a continuation of Bush policies.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Overall, while listening to Tremonti, it sounded like she's feeling buyer's remorse... that feeling you get when you're home from the store and try on those incredible pants again, and start to wonder if they make your ass look huge.

The thing I am wondering... why didn't we get more of this sort of discussion earlier on?

We did, but Canadian Obamamaniacs were so happy at the thought of turfing Bush/McCain "neocons", they forgot the job description for US president. Look at the bright side....any tension or disputes will be discussed with words having lots more syllables.

[Wilber]

The thing I am wondering... why didn't we get more of this sort of discussion earlier on?

Because that isn't what people tend to do. That's how people like Hitler can gain power under certain circumstances. Please, I am not comparing the two, just pointing out that folks aren't good at reading the fine print, particularly when it comes to replacing really unpopular governments such as the Bush administration has become. Anything must be better, right? They're looking for a savior. Canadians should bear in mind Obama has no particular interest in being Canada's savior. Why should he.

[Shady]

The thing I am wondering... why didn't we get more of this sort of discussion earlier on?

-k

Also, because objective journalism died in 2008. They were too busy parachuting investigators into Wasilla to bother with Chicago.

[jdobbin]

Also, because objective journalism died in 2008. They were too busy parachuting investigators into Wasilla to bother with Chicago.

Oh please. Don't try to make out that journalism issues started in 2008. And don't make out that journalism coverage was the reason the election was lost.

McCain was hoping that his announcement was going to have a certain euphoric effect (which it did) and that the party would be able to play a peek-a-boo media reveal to election victory.

I don't think McCain's people really looked into her much because the investigation for impropriety should have immediately disqualified for. In short, until it was cleared up, there was no way McCain could say for sure that she was going to come out well. Moreover, the investigation was automatically going to draw reporters curious to know more.

[guyser]

Oh please. Don't try to make out that journalism issues started in 2008. And don't make out that journalism coverage was the reason the election was lost.

Come on, that is shady's entire existence. Blame the media.

He has MDS. Media derangement syndrome.

[kimmy]

Celluci is a Republican so let's not get too carried away if he is in opposition to Obama.

He was hardly campaigning against Obama during the interview yesterday. He was responding to issues raised by Tremonti, and gave what I thought were extremely careful, neutral, and balanced answers. If anything, Cellucci was complimentary of Obama, and hopeful that Obama will have the sense to resist the protectionist pressures that will be brought to bear from congress.

And the conclusion was that McCain would have been better?

I'm not suggesting that Tremonti was suddenly regretting that McCain didn't win. I was remarking on the dramatic difference tone of yesterday's episode of the program compared to prior coverage of Obama.

It seems you feel that McCain/Palin would have been better for Canada and the world but most Canadians felt it would be a continuation of Bush policies.

I'm skeptical of the degree to which Canadians actually understood what they were cheerleading for.

-k

[jdobbin]

He was hardly campaigning against Obama during the interview yesterday. He was responding to issues raised by Tremonti, and gave what I thought were extremely careful, neutral, and balanced answers. If anything, Cellucci was complimentary of Obama, and hopeful that Obama will have the sense to resist the protectionist pressures that will be brought to bear from congress.

He did campaign against him in the election.

I don't mind seeing see his analysis but I keep in mind where his political butter is.

I'm not suggesting that Tremonti was suddenly regretting that McCain didn't win. I was remarking on the dramatic difference tone of yesterday's episode of the program compared to prior coverage of Obama.

The words "buyer's remorse" suggests regret.

I think the issues of the important relationship between Canada and the U.S. needed to be presented matter of factly. There is a lot that rides on the President but many of Canada's problems with the U.S. come from Congress.

I'm skeptical of the degree to which Canadians actually understood what they were cheerleading for.

So you think Canadians wanted a continuation of Bush policies?

[kimmy]

The words "buyer's remorse" suggests regret.

Regret isn't exactly what I intended to convey. Just that yesterday's piece seemed to treat Obama with a degree of sobriety and caution that I hadn't previously heard on her program.

So you think Canadians wanted a continuation of Bush policies?

I think that Canadians generally speaking lacked an objective view of what they were getting behind.

I think Canadians generally speaking thought they were supporting hugs and rainbows, not protectionism.

I think Canadians generally speaking thought Obama winning would mean "peace! no more wars! Canadian troops come home sooner!" I don't think many Canadians understood that Obama's Afghanistan policy is to call on America's allies for a stronger commitment in Afghanistan.

-k

[jdobbin]

Regret isn't exactly what I intended to convey. Just that yesterday's piece seemed to treat Obama with a degree of sobriety and caution that I hadn't previously heard on her program.

I know many on the right don't seem to like Tremonti and consider her to be a lefty. We have heard that on threads here more than once.

I don't hear the show often enough to be able to judge it.

I think that Canadians generally speaking lacked an objective view of what they were getting behind.

I think Canadians generally speaking thought they were supporting hugs and rainbows, not protectionism.

I think Canadians generally speaking thought Obama winning would mean "peace! no more wars! Canadian troops come home sooner!" I don't think many Canadians understood that Obama's Afghanistan policy is to call on America's allies for a stronger commitment in Afghanistan.

I think that Canadians objectively felt that McCain was closer to Bush than Obama. Many were not happy with a lot of those Bush policies and how they affected Canada and the world and it appeared to many that McCain was a continuation of those polices.

Edited January 14, 2009 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

I don't hear the show often enough to be able to judge it.

She is among the most biased hosts on CBC Radio. The hosts of the local shows in BC are much better.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....I think Canadians generally speaking thought Obama winning would mean "peace! no more wars! Canadian troops come home sooner!" I don't think many Canadians understood that Obama's Afghanistan policy is to call on America's allies for a stronger commitment in Afghanistan.

Agreed....they are about to get sucker punched by their "anything but Bush" mantras. Perhaps they will find comfort in the realization of little choice in the matter to begin with.

[punked]

Agreed....they are about to get sucker punched by their "anything but Bush" mantras. Perhaps they will find comfort in the realization of little choice in the matter to begin with.

I got to vote for him, so did my brother, mother, grandmother, cousins and uncles all in in swing states all Canadian residents.

[bush_cheney2004]

I got to vote for him, so did my brother, mother, grandmother, cousins and uncles all in in swing states all Canadian residents.

Sure they did.....in the "states".

[punked]

Sure they did.....in the "states".

Hahahaha my vote counts as much as yours welcome to democracy!

[August1991]

Overall, while listening to Tremonti, it sounded like she's feeling buyer's remorse... that feeling you get when you're home from the store and try on those incredible pants again, and start to wonder if they make your ass look huge.

Buyer's remorse? To borrow an expression, fanatic Obama voters have drunk the Koolaid.

As I have posted elsewhere, Obama could move to a position to the right of Genghis Khan and many Obama voters would still vote Obama. Obama knows this. So, unlike Bob Rae, Obama will move to the centre or even the right. Will there be remorse? Among Canadian/foreign CBC Tremonti types, possibly, but they don't matter. But among hard core American Obama voters (blacks and white liberals), there will be no remorse.

----

For my New Year's vacation, I drove to New Orleans to visit a friend. And while I drove there and back, I listened to Obama recite his two books (Dreams of My Father and Audacity of Hope) on CD. Among various things, I was struck by the fact that Obama's understanding of law and economics seems to come from his Harvard Law education, and talking to ordinary people in Illinois who often were unemployed.

I note this because I wonder whether Obama is a free trader. He has certainly enjoyed the freedom to travel in his own life - but he also seems to accept trade and migration restrictions.

Obama seems to be an eloquent young man who has few defined principles except a vague desire "to protect ordinary people" and an understandable desire to bring diverse groups together.

If I compare Obama to Trudeau or Levesque, I am struck by Obama's innocence in such matters of nationalism, or of individual and collective rights. As to international affairs, Obama (following his mother's philosophy) seems to believe that poverty and humiliation explain the attacks of September 2001. Obama believes in empathy.

With some experience in this, I truly wonder whether empathy can apply to people like Mohammed Atta.

[punked]

No one on the left has buyers remorse they are just trying to force Obama more left then he wants to go. It is this little thing called Politics maybe you have heard of it?

[Shady]

No one on the left has buyers remorse they are just trying to force Obama more left then he wants to go. It is this little thing called Politics maybe you have heard of it?

And there's a little thing called a comma. Try using it in a post once in a while.

[kimmy]

New poll reveals... Canadians love Obama, but have serious reservations about his policies on trade, Afghanistan, and the economy.

The EKOS survey suggests:

* A high level of worry among Canadians over the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Obama has mused about renegotiating in order to protect jobs in the U.S. About 62 per cent of those polled felt concerned or moderately concerned about Canada suffering from such a move.

* A reluctance to support Canadian troops staying in Afghanistan past 2011 if Obama requested Canada's help past that date, with 55 per cent of respondents opposing such an extension, compared to 30 per cent supporting it.

* A sense that Americans will be hurt in the future by Obama's intention to continue running deep deficits in order to fund hefty stimulus packages. About 71 per cent of those polled felt the cost would be a serious problem for Americans, with another 15 per cent saying it would be somewhat serious and nine per cent considering it not very serious.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/18/obama-poll.html

-k

[BigAl]

He was hardly campaigning against Obama during the interview yesterday. He was responding to issues raised by Tremonti, and gave what I thought were extremely careful, neutral, and balanced answers. If anything, Cellucci was complimentary of Obama, and hopeful that Obama will have the sense to resist the protectionist pressures that will be brought to bear from congress.

I'm not suggesting that Tremonti was suddenly regretting that McCain didn't win. I was remarking on the dramatic difference tone of yesterday's episode of the program compared to prior coverage of Obama.

I'm skeptical of the degree to which Canadians actually understood what they were cheerleading for.

-k

That seems to be the biggest problem, Kimmy. With all the hype surrounding this election, combined with the excitement of finally hearing the end of George Bush and co., I don't blame Canadians for being excited...but on the same token (as I've mentioned on other threads) it seems that the celebrity surrounding Obama outdid his political platforms for a lot of over-enthusiastic Canadians and Americans alike. Guaranteed a lot of people are going to be pissed that Obama doesn't usher in a new Golden Age in the first ten minutes of his administration...but we have nobody to blame but ourselves if we were actually deluded enough to believe that could happen.

[kimmy]

Hyperpartisan hack Heather Mallick is also finding the afterglow of her Obamagasm has faded rather quickly.

Barack Obama is making me nervous. "Be the change," his official inauguration poster urges. Until recently I would have done anything the man suggested. But could he be more specific?

(...)

What change? Does it make me uncool to wonder if I shouldn't make the change rather than be it?

(...)

But over-interpreting the Obama poster isn't what is worrying me. I'm only doing it to get rid of my discomfort with exhortations in general and with why Obama shouldn't be making them, particularly now that he has the power to create real propaganda.

(...)

It's unwise, is all I'm saying. Obama is still creating expectations he can't fulfil, even though he has been warned against this.

As actor Eddie Izzard said when he was castigated for hanging around then prime minister Tony Blair, he wasn't disillusioned with the hated Blair. "I was never illusioned."

I don't want to be illusioned about Obama. I want to get it right, from the start, and not be let down.

(...)

Hark at me, trying to pump up enthusiasm in my own personal head. Yes, we were right. The thing is, though, I'd almost rather have been proved wrong.

I feel no triumph whatsoever and the triumphalism of the inauguration poster leaves me wary. It's redolent of wartime. I don't feel giddy. I just feel tired.

Man, talk about Lowered Expectations.

-k

Edited January 19, 2009 by kimmy