That’s a crucially important point. It certainly does appear that she has moved. If anything, the rhetoric coming out of the Obama camp is becoming MORE pro-free trade than it was to start with.

“Obama on the other hand is seemingly busy using a lot of rhetoric yet in actual policy has multiple areas that are clearly ineffective for the US national interest, middle class, as many economists are pointing out. Packing on UoC economic advisers, ignoring the predatory loan practises that happen to have prayed extensively on US diversity home buyers, indeed blaming those victims, is most assuredly not even comprehending what has happened with new “mortgage” vehicles, hedge funds or the trading of these mortages in markets.”

Obama appears to understand little about anything outside of motivational speaking.

“Obama seemingly also cannot recognize the law of supply and demand, fundamentals of domestic labor markets via labor economics theory of which immigration, illegal or legal is a major variable.”

Obama’s lack of understanding of the laws of supply-and-demand when it comes to labor supply & immigration is a deal breaker.

He is completely unqualified to be President, vice President, or even a Senator. He’s nothing but a windbag, with all the substance of cotton candy.

Economic Populist Forum

Secondly, if you note I found Obama lobbying for the Peru Trade deal, not just saying he would vote for it, from other sources (multiple) and used the Huffington post.

3rdly, Hillary is moving policy to be much more middle class focused, working America focused and if the unions caused this, good for them but the reality is she moved. Obama on the other hand is seemingly busy using a lot of rhetoric yet in actual policy has multiple areas that are clearly ineffective for the US national interest, middle class, as many economists are pointing out. Packing on UoC economic advisers, ignoring the predatory loan practises that happen to have prayed extensively on US diversity home buyers, indeed blaming those victims, is most assuredly not even comprehending what has happened with new “mortgage” vehicles, hedge funds or the trading of these mortages in markets. Obama seemingly also cannot recognize the law of supply and demand, fundamentals of domestic labor markets via labor economics theory of which immigration, illegal or legal is a major variable.

I’m sorry but more of the same is not change and that’s the entire point of the blogs, netroots is to give people voice to represent them.

We shall see if Hillary is lying but from the rhetoric versus actual policy, Obama is lying right now.

What I see going on here is some incredible oratory, mesmerizing the masses, and behind the scenes, policy that most assuredly will keep things status quo. Considering the US may be headed into a long protacted recession of it’s own making through all of these corporate driven policies, I do not believe that is something America can afford.

I also believe manipulating words such as change to actually mean the status quo is a Karl Rove technique.

Also, a correction to your post (and if you read our post, we discuss this): Obama didn’t “lobby for” the Peru agreement. Just as Clinton did, he announced that he supported it, and then didn’t show up to vote on it because he was on the campaign trail.

In my view, you’re making a mistake if you vote for Clinton because you’re hoping that she’s going to be more of a trade skeptic than Obama. She only announced her support for a “timeout” in December, when she was trying to get union endorsements, and after she supported the Peru agreement. Yes, she is now slightly to Obama’s left on the issue, but not long ago she was to his right.