Obama & McCain On The Issues: Global Trade, Iraq, Iran Afghanistan, Financial Regulation

Global Trade

For all the fury that the North American Free Trade Agreement generated last winter, when Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton one-upped each other in denouncing the deal and accused the other of being a closet supporter of it, trade has been less of an issue during the general election. That is not unusual: scholars say that trade hasn’t been a decisive factor in electing presidents for decades.

It is also not clear how big a gap there is between Senator Obama and Senator John McCain on Nafta, given the murky tale about a visit last year to Canada by Mr. Obama’s economic adviser, Austan D. Goolsbee, in which he was said to have reassured Canadian officials about his boss’s position. But trade is a byword for the forces of globalization, and in this broader debate, there are differences between the two. In 2005, Mr. Obama supported a bill that would have imposed a tariff on imports from China if the Chinese did not agree to revalue their currency; Mr. McCain opposed it.http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/issues/trade.html

Iraq and Afghanistan
Most foreign policy experts say that Senator John McCain has Senator Barack Obama on Iraq, and that Mr. Obama has Mr. McCain on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Mr. Obama’s insistence on withdrawing United States combat troops from Iraq on a fixed timeline, they say, could jeopardize gains made over the last 18 months. Still, many experts credit Mr. Obama’s argument that a fixed timeline for withdrawal would force Iraqi politicians to get their act together.

In Afghanistan, the difference between the candidates is largely rhetorical. Mr. McCain has chided Mr. Obama for suggesting that he would attack targets in Pakistan if American interests were at stake. The reality, policy experts say, is that the Bush administration, and a McCain administration, would do the same; they just wouldn’t announce it first.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/issues/iraq.html

Iran
During the campaign, as Iran has kept building centrifuges to produce nuclear fuel, both candidates have been less than specific about three big issues. The first is how to gain leverage against Iran: While each candidate has called for greater sanctions, neither has said how he would decide if it was time to invoke military options.

The second is what military action, if any, might work: Intelligence officials say they believe that Iran’s nuclear facilities are so well dispersed that an attack against the biggest sites might only set the nuclear program back by a few years. And neither candidate has addressed the most likely scenario: That Iran would acquire the fuel and technology for a bomb, but not build or test one. That would leave it just within the limits of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, but poised to make a weapon on short notice. http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/issues/iran.html

Financial Regulation
Both candidates promise to streamline a financial regulatory system that splits enforcement powers among a half-dozen entities ranging from the Federal Reserve to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Senator Barack Obama’s comments suggest a more comprehensive overhaul, but neither senator has said which agencies might be closed or merged. Both would attempt to limit executives’ pay and tighten capital and liquidity standards for financial institutions.

Their difference on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, however, illustrates a contrast in the style they might employ in pursuit of the same general goal: While Senator John McCain would carve them up and privatize the parts, Senator Obama has emphasized that it is less important how the companies are reshaped than that the public purpose — assuring liquidity for banks to make new mortgages — is best preserved http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/issues/regulation.html