Senator Clinton's Wrong Priorities

The Peru trade agreement is an example of how corporate interests and their lobbyists and cronies have corrupted the Democratic Party. Like the failed free trade agreements before it, this agreement puts the interests of the big multinational corporations first, ahead of the interests of American workers and communities. Despite progress on labor and environmental standards, the guidelines outlined in this agreement are only as strong as George Bush's will to enforce them -- and we all know, trusting Bush to enforce a trade agreement is like letting Mark Penn negotiate a labor contract for workers.

Coincidentally, Senator Clinton's announcement that she supports the agreement came on the same day that the New York Times reported she would receive the endorsement of former Clinton Administration official and NAFTA architect Robert Rubin. Rubin's endorsement builds on Clinton's already robust support among Wall Street elites who favor free trade policies that prioritize the profits of multinational corporations over the needs of America's workers.

We've all seen the devastating effects of these free trade policies: in recent years our country has lost middle-class manufacturing jobs, seen wages stagnate, and run up larger and larger trade deficits. But it doesn't have to be this way. Instead of expanding the NAFTA model, we need our leaders to fight for trade agreements that strengthen and maintain, rather than undercut and erode, labor rights, environmental standards and wages.

Instead of cozying up to corporate interests, John Edwards will fight for safe and smart trade policies that put the interests of Main Street above the profits of Wall Street. By supporting this agreement, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are sending a powerful signal to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and across America that they have very different priorities.

Comments

[BUSHsurvivor]

Like Obama during the 2002 Iraq vote, Edwards has the upper hand when it comes to speaking about, but not actually having a vote.

Again, backseat politicians!

[amberglow]

It seems that Clinton and Obama agree on everything--and they're both usually wrong. It's pathetic.

[Boadicea]

Well, I see that I've aroused some emotion on here!

I can see why so few others are willing to present an opposing view! It's a shame, because it's a topic worthy of much discussion. Perhaps a less politically-slanted blog on the subject will appear soon.

I do respect Paul Krugman, whom I know opposes FTAs. Alas, can't agree with him on everything! And he hasn't convinced me that economic isolationism is the answer for us. I've spent too much time living in other countries.

[tkondaks]

As a conservative I can only hope and pray that:

1) Hillary becomes president; and

2) She governs as Bill did.

IT WOULD BE A CONSERVATIVE DREAM!!!

See: http://tinyurl.com/28t8yy

[GGinSC]

Thanks for offering voters better understanding of the three Democratic front runners and the significant differences in their priorities.

John Edwards has been my choice all along, one reason being his unwaivering commitment to working people over corporate interests. He continues to walk his talk and is consistent in his positions, regardless of where, or to whom, he's speaking.

Not only is he our country's greatest hope, he's the GOP's worst nightmare; they know he can WIN!

[Marsangusidaho]

All along I've been expecting that John Edwards would catch on and then face his inevitable "Dean"ing by the powers that be: The party insiders would join with the corporate media interests to kill his front-running campaign with something as nonsensical as Gov. Dean losing his voice for a second. What I see happening, though, is Edwards maintaining a respectable third place in the polls with the leading candidates starting to show signs of wear just as we come up to Iowa. Take a look at Edwards's poll numbers creeping upward in the early states.
I'll gladly vote for any Democrat who gets the nomination, but I am for Edwards because of his national health plan and for standing up to the corrupting forces of the political system. I've had my doubts about his campaign catching on, but am beginning to see how this could happen. Take heart, Edwards supporters!

[Lucille]

I've already written off Hillary because of who has endorsed her and her double speak.

Obama said when he announced his run for the presidency that he wanted to take America back from corporate interests undermining American workers (I'd like to hear him re-affirm that position).

Edwards has been saying the right thing all along, I guess I'll have to reconsider him after all.

[therealredstateblues]

The bottom line is that DLC democrats, which include Hillary, Rangel, Pelosi, Hoyer, Emanuel and many others have sold out the labor base and the US worker. All of this bunch needs to go. They have totally ignored the wave of populist and fair trading candidates that put the dems back in power. No wonder the congressional approval is below the worst president in history. Sure a good chunk of the poor approval is Iraq, but the democratic "leadership" is totally "misunderestimating" the large portion of the disapproval that is the economic unease and anxiety of middle america. No candidate that doesn't address these issues of economic fairness in any meaningful way will win in middle america - the region most hardest hit by unfair trade. More of the same failed trade policy is not going to help middle class and working people in this country. Democrats who ignore or downplay this issue do so at their own peril. Rangel actually admitted on national TV that the Peru trade deal (PUFTA) is a bad deal for working americans, yet he rammed it thru anyway. This insanity has got to stop. Congress is elected to represent the will of the people and congress has the constitiutional responsibility to regulate trade two of the major portions of their job -shirked.

[RAMHaiti]

The last time we had a reasonable economy, there was a Clinton in the White House.

[Boadicea]

Let's have a look at what Senator Clinton said about the Peru trade agreement:

"I support the trade agreement with Peru. It has very strong labor and environmental protections. This agreement makes meaningful progress on advancing workers" rights, and also levels the playing field for American workers. Most Peruvian goods already enter the U.S. duty free, but our exports to Peru have been subject to tariffs.

"However, I will oppose the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. The South Korean agreement does not create a level playing field for American carmakers. I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia. And as long as the head of Panama"s National Assembly is a fugitive from justice in America, I cannot support that agreement. Accordingly, I will oppose the trade agreements with these countries.

We need to vigorously enforce our trade agreements. As President, I will appoint a trade enforcement officer and double the enforcement staff at the office of the United States Trade Representative. I will also systematically review every trade agreement to ensure that it is delivering benefits to American workers. I will also expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance program so that workers negatively affected by the global economy get the help they need. And as President, in my first months in office, I will take a time out from new trade deals to assess their impact before going forward."

[eddiestardust]

David,

Thanks so very much for jumping all over the Senator...it's something all of us should do.

I usually DON'T listen to "Flip flopping" remarks but this one is one for the books:

She says she is against Overseas Outsourcing BUT
she is for the continued use of H-1B Visas which are just the reverse side of the outsourcing coin.

She has said that she voted FOR Peru but will vote against other trade bills coming down the pipe.

What kind of rot is this?

Either she is for or against, there is NO IN BETWEEN!

I've just decided to NOT vote for Hillary and if Gore does not get in the race, I may write him in.

American citizens should have the right to NOT have our jobs taken away by Coporate CEO's who are greedy and by foreign nationals.

If we don't have that right, then anything else just doesn't matter!

[mmckinl]

Thankyou David Bonoir but ...

"Despite progress on labor and environmental standards" is not true . The labor standards in the agreement are weaker than Peru's existing standards.

Again and again we see the neolliberal econometrics of the Repugs and the DLC Dems that undermine both the sovereignty and populations of both countries to the benefit of corporate profit.

The War Party Complex of military conglomerates, mutinational corporations and financial NGOs is still in charge.

[okamichan13]

Excellent article that gets to the heart of why Senator Clinton just really isn't the one that lead or really fight for change.

And I don't really understand why it is so difficult for her to make clear decisions and explain her positions. If she can't do that, she certainly won't be able to do it as president and would be elected with a mandate for nothing.

Whoever the democratic nominee is, they should stand for something. Its clear where Edwards stands. Clinton? Don't really know.

[glitzqueen]

Besides all of its destructiveness to us, how any American could in good conscience endorse legislation that places the Peruvian people in thrall to CitiGroup and others profiting from a widely reviled private social security scheme is beyond me.

[MikeMidCity]

Hillary is not inevitable.