>>Populism always rises during times of change. When the US shifted from an ag economy to and industrial economy there was a rise in populism. Today the economy is shifting from industrial to information/service and populism has risen.<<
There is some unjustified resentment of information technology. But people who are concerned about losing key industries to China are not necessarily Luddites opposed to all progress. For example, Huawei Technologies (with close ties to the Chinese military) wanted to buy a big chunk of 3Com (which provides security equipment/services to the Pentagon) but did not get US government approval of the deal, and rightly so.
But your post does provide some good insight into the complexities of ideological and political factions today.
I think what really made Hillary so angry at Obama was that he pointed out in Ohio that Bill Clinton was a strong supporter of NAFTA. Clearly, NAFTA took some jobs and created others, but at least among Dem voters in Ohio, it looks like an albatross for Hillary.
If Obama is the Dem nominee, NAFTA and other global trade issues will come back when Obama fights McCain for Ohio. Obama (Hillary would do the same, despite her husband’s history) will remind Ohio and Michigan that McCain said “Some of those jobs aren’t coming back.” The fact that Romney beat McCain in Michigan could be because he was the favorite son, not necessarily because of jobs. Cause and effect are sometimes difficult to pin down, and independents might not vote the same as voters from either party.
The most important of those reasons is the widely accepted(among democrats) conspiracy theory that Reagan, Bushes, the VRWC, and the Federalist Society are using NAFTA, CAFTA, and FTAA to undo all the regulatory law that the dems put in place(Roll back the New Deal)