Was Kerry's acceptance speech protectionist?

Was Kerry's acceptance speech protectionist?

Geitner Simmons identifies a protectionist slant in Kerry's acceptance speech, arguing that, since the speech is designed to have a "centrist tone" it signals that the Democratic party "now regards protectionism as well within the policy mainstream." See "That which must not be named".

I didn't see the speech, but I'm curious to see what Kerry said. The text of the speech is here: "Text of John Kerry's acceptance speech" Here are some selections:

"...And here at home, wages are falling, health-care costs are rising, and our great middle class is shrinking. People are working weekends - two jobs, three jobs - and they're still not getting ahead.

We're told that outsourcing jobs is good for America. We're told that jobs that pay $9000 less than the jobs that have been lost is the best that we can do. They say this is the best economy that we've ever had. And they say anyone who thinks otherwise is a pessimist...

What does it mean in America today when Dave McCune, a steel worker I met in Canton, Ohio, saw his job sent overseas and the equipment in his factory literally unbolted, crated up, and shipped thousands of miles away along with that job? What does it mean when workers I've met had to train their foreign replacements?

America can do better. So tonight we say: help is on the way...

...So here is our economic plan to build a stronger America:

First, new incentives to revitalize manufacturing.

Second, investment in technology and innovation that will create the good-paying jobs of the future.

Third, close the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping our jobs overseas. Instead, we will reward companies that create and keep good paying jobs where they belong – in the good old U.S.A.

We value an America that exports products, not jobs – and we believe American workers should never have to subsidize the loss of their own job.

Next, we will trade and compete in the world. But our plan calls for a fair playing field – because if you give the American worker a fair playing field, there's nobody in the world the American worker can't compete against..."

Someone is going to be disappointed. Either the unsophisticated voter who thinks, on the basis of the code words, that Kerry is going to make foreigners play "fair," or the sophisticated Laura Tyson who thinks we should look at what Kerry has done in the past, not what he says.