It seems that Clinton that needs to fire someone for talking to Canadians. Mr. Goolsbee simply restated the candidates position.

I still don't understand how Obama saying "We need to renegotiate NAFTA to have stronger labour and environmental standards" and then Goolsbee saying to some Canadian official "Don't worry, we just want to renegotiate, not scrap NAFTA" leads to "Obama doesn't believe the things he says in public about NAFTA."

Is there a new standard of politics where saying in private what you also say in public with slightly different emphasis is hypocrisy?

Ezra,

Since I don't have anywhere else to say this: That "cookbook medicine" article that you linked is absolutely atrocious.

We need much more cookbook medicine (or when not using a derogative term, evidence-based medicine) and stop pretending the doctors have a sixth sense to determine when the statistically best path of diagnosis/treatment doesn't apply to a given patient. While there are clearly situations that does merit individual treatment (I've made the point that population medicine isn't practiced at the individual level many times) the pendulum is currently wat too far towards not using the evidence than using. The penultimate quote in the article?

there's no doctor out there today practicing medicine without evidence.

Wow. The data is so strong against that point, its astounding (or more specifically, doctors practice using evidence from 20 years ago, when the data has since changed). Linking evidence-based medicine to insurance companies is an excellent strategy for providers who'd rather be left alone than having to deal with increased accountability and transparency on the quality of their practice of medicine. From a health policy standpoint, that article is close to being completely counter to the reforms necessary.

Apologies for the thread hijack.

Back to regularly scheduled programming.

All Goolsbee did was basically state what Obama did: Don't panic, we're not going to pull out of NAFTa. We're just going invoke our right to renegotiate some minor points.

But even if He did go way off the reservation, Obama can't fire him now. The way the press is treating Texas+Ohio as the resurrection o Hillary Clinton, there's no way to fire Goolsbee without triggering a hundred press reports of panic in the obama camp.

Seriously, I HATE NAFTA. But I doubt anyone seriously believes that Canada's environmental record or anti-worker policies (LoL) have anything to do with the decline of our manufacturing base. Other than some lumber complaints, Canadian Health care is responsible for the vast majority of their advantages.

In regards to Mexico, however, we have a whole lot of complaints. I'd imagine there are quite a few Mexicans who have some complaints too. The only people who benefit from that relationship are the wealthy in both countries. They do so at the expense of the poor and middle class in both countries.

When you hear Clinton or Obama talk about NAFTA do not worry just remember that are only lying.

Politicians are scum. Clinton and Obama are Politicians.

I live in Pittsburgh, PA. I'll tell you that I find that guy's advice silly and dated. Pittsburgh is no longer the steel mill town it once was. Do you know how many steel mills are in Pittsburgh today? I'll give you a hint. It's a number that is lower than 1.

The idea that you have to go to Pittsburgh to appeal to factory workers is goofy.

"Goolsbee is his adviser because...Barack Obama doesn't really agree with what Barack Obama is saying about 'NAFTA, China trade and a host of related issues.'"

Eh, I'm not sure that is exactly right. I don't know if there is any other way to articulate it than having Goolsbee has one of his economic advisors is a very U of C thing to do. And I mean that in a good way!

Obama has never said that he is anti-trade generally, he's just called for improved labor, environmental, and product safety standards. I see nothing inconsistent between that and having Goolsbee as an advisor.

Sounds like Ezra is for Hillary again.

If the problem isn't Goolsbee (and by the way, I'm not alone in thinking that it is, and that Goolsbee said just what was said in the memo - pay no attention to the posturing), then the problem is that Obama's not being clear about his economic policies (and again, I'd say he isn't), and he needs to be. Moreover, I think his economic team is to Clintonite - even more, interestingly, than Hillary's. And while some Clintonite economics can carry over into th next Administration, it's also clear we'll need some different economic policy prescriptions - the mortgage crisis, the real estate problems we have are partly a product of the nineties, and we need a fresh eye, I'd think, not Robert Reich's. I think a strong, clear economic speech from Obama woud go miles to reversing what went wrong in Ohio and Texas for him, showing working class people that he gets it, that he's got targeted solutions, and he's ready to fight the fight for them. As long as he seems more concerned with the 401K set (a very Clintonite notion of public concern), I think he'll struggle with the concerns of people whose biggest, immediate problems are the wolf at the door, and the good jobs that left their communities. That's why NAFTA pandering works. If he's got a better idea, he should share it.

Dear Jeremy,

Your yuppie Pittsburgh post is so shortsighted to be laughable. Yet this is no laughing matter.

Sure, there are so few steel mills in Pittsburgh, but what do you think the people whose jobs were vacated by the steel industry do now. High-tech/Professional Service work? No. They are out of fucking work. Just because there are no steel mills that doesn't mean the blue collar workfoce/people magically morphed away. In fact, that was the entire point of the Ohio vote and John Nichols' piece.

How many steel mills/rubber /manufacturing plants etc do you think there are in Ohio. Answer: Not many. That does not mean that people in Ohio are not former employees and that their concerns are very real and relevant.

Same goes for Pittsburgh. In fact, if appealing to factory workers is so "goofy" to you, why dont you venture on down. Im from Duquesne, PA. Its a short stop right out of Pittsburgh, you may be familar. I could give you a tour and introduce you to some folks who might differ from your understanding of the wanting Pittsburgh economy.

Ad far as Ezra's clueless curiosity of John Nichols' insistence on bagging 'ole Goolsbee, he is righting from the perspective of someone who actually cares about these issues. Therefore, to him, goolsbee et al are anathema to the liberal politics he believes. This may be troubling to Ezra, MY, and, well, my new friend Jeremy, but some find politicians posing as a friend of the working man while stabbing us in the back to be offensive. Something commonly found here. But more importantly, faux liberal posturing will not return the democrats to long-term glory. If they want to become a mainstay authority, they need to start getting serious about the majority of American's economic plight. And unfortunately, Obama's conservative economic cabal, as Nichols' rightly points out, is troubling to many an American

Guys - you should look at the Canadian press on this argument before commenting on it AT ALL. We're receiving a very different story up here.

The CBC has gone through the layers of double-talk on this, quite clearly. The guilty parties here would appear to be entirely limited to our own Conservative prime minister and his chief of staff, and the author of the memo.

It would be smart of Goolsbee to be clearer about exactly how he was misrepresented in the memo and what the original words were, but you guys should bear in mind that we're talking about a leak which stems from the hand of our very own mini-Bush and his immediate advisors. I want you to imagine that it was, say, Condi who "offhandedly" mentioned this foofaraw to a bunch of bored reporters, and a member of her staff who prepared the memo thus disputed.

Can you see how the questions Ezra is addressing would simply not even make the priority list at that point?

"But Austan Goolsbee isn't Barack Obama's adviser by accident, or because Obama never noticed he violently disagrees with Goolsbee's economic outlook"

That is a little incoherent on two fronts. One how do we know that Obama 'violently disagrees' with Goolsbee? Two if he does why did he bring him on the team? Call me naive but I assume that Obama has advisors for the purpose of giving him advice and that he will either listen to that advice with approval or get a new advisor. Everything I see suggests that Obama is taking advice on health care from Cutler, advice on Social Security from Liebman, and advice on trade from Goolsbee. Further I expect that advice is in line with their recent work product. Yet despite his centrist team and despite his dropping centrist talking points people still insist that at heart Obama is some sort of economic progressive. Well where's the beef?

The guilty parties here would appear to be entirely limited to our own Conservative prime minister and his chief of staff, and the author of the memo.
Nuh-uh. Them, too, for leaking something that was supposed to be confidential. But if you read that consulate memo, you'll see it's highly unlikely it's simply a misrepresentation of Goolsbee's comments. It's a detailed, sympathetic memo using near-stenographic level note-taking (see "(unintelligible)" in point 4). The Canadian foreign ministry is simply saying it didn't get all of Goolsbee's nuances, and they're saying that because they want (1) a possible future president not to hate them, and (2) because they want to be able to gather worthwhile confidential information from people again -- someday in the distant, distant future.

Everything I see suggests that Obama is taking advice ... on trade from Goolsbee.
Again, no. Again, read the memo. At the end of the memo, it says "One name Goolsbee passed along (and that GHCGOh as relayed to WSHDC) was Georgetown Professor Dan Tarul lo who specializes in internat ional economic requisition, international law, and banking law. Tarullo, a former Clinton Administration advisor, was identified as someone looking more closely at the NAFTA issues." I know nothing more about him.

In the scheme of things I'm personally more upset with Hillary putting herself AND MCCAIN!! on a higher C-in-C pedestal than Obama. But what Goolsbee did was stupid, and I agree with Nichols that he should have been canned.

Almost every in-depth profile of Obama speaks about how he enjoys getting in Socratic dialogue with advisers with whom he disagrees with, as a way to develop his own understanding of the issue.

Just because Obama's stated policies don't map onto his advisors' with perfection doesn't mean he's a hypocrite.