This is the one statement that alwasy confuses the heck out of me. I understand the problem with long-term, recurring trade deficits in many sectors of the economy, but I've always contended that these numbers tend to be almost meaningless over the last few months because of the enormous impact that energy prices have on trade balance figures.
When it comes to the country's trade balance in commodities that are not end-products themselves but are only raw materials to be used elsewhere in the chain of production/consumption, I would make the case that a large trade deficit is a GOOD thing. If the U.S. maintains a trade deficit of $X in oil, for example, then this is a clear sign to me that oil is more readily obtained at lower cost outside the U.S. If we didn't have access to this foreign oil, we'd be spending $X plus more on the same oil.
Importation of raw materials is not necessarily "bad" if the materials are being further processed in value-added industries that create wealth. However, if those productive industries are themselves in decline, and utilization of the imported materials is increasingly used to sustain the consumptive service sectors, then wealth creation is in decline and is actually being dissipated. That WOULD be "bad".