BREAKING: Clinton Announces Support for NAFTA Expansion

Under intense pressure from opponents in the 2008 presidential race and a building national fair trade movement, Sen. Hillary Clinton tonight finally disclosed her position on a Bush administration-backed bill to expand the NAFTA trade model that passed the U.S. House today and is now moving to the U.S. Senate. Reuters is reporting that Clinton says she will vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement - the first agreement in a package of corporate-crafted agreements to vastly expand the NAFTA trade model.

Clinton is citing the Peru deal's labor standards as justification for her support, despite the fact that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has told reporters it has received "assurances" that those labor standards are "unenforceable," and despite a Columbia University report showing how the Peru deal could actually weaken labor law enforcement.

The announcement, which flies in the face of polls showing the public strongly opposed to NAFTA-style trade policies, comes on the same day the New York Times reports that Clinton is being endorsed by NAFTA architect Robert Rubin, the CEO of Citigroup - a company that stands to reap financial rewards from the NAFTA model. Rubin's announcement came with a promise to raise Clinton more money from Wall Street.

This announcement could change the dynamics of the presidential race, considering recent headline-grabbing plant closings in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and considering the NAFTA expansion was opposed by two out of Iowa's three Democratic House Members, and both of New Hampshire's.

As my nationally syndicated newspaper column out tomorrow details, trade and globalization is taking center stage in the 2008 presidential campaign. Clinton's announcement will now specifically make job-killing, wage-destroying NAFTA-style trade policy a flashpoint in the race for the White House.

Comments

[blpdc]

Again with the quote out of context, Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber was talking about enforcing ILO conventions in the United States NOT Peru, sorry if this inconveniences the argument but the "assurances" of which he speaks are that existing state and federal laws will still be the standard by which companies in America operate.

[Trittydi]

I can't vote for her - she's garbage.
*

[sabocat]

U.S. foreign economic policy vis-a-vis Latin America has always been unabashedly bipartisan in its basic imperialist thrust, and NAFTA is no exception. No one should be surprised that, 1) Clinton supports the expansion of NAFTA in Peru, and, 2) Rangel supports her.

To paraphrase Jose Marti, the imperialists seek to divide and conquer, we seek to unite in order to win. Fortunately, the pink tide sweeping Latin America is rendering any and all potentially divisive and splitting maneuvers out of D.C. null and void. If Peru goes along with the expansion they'll simply be isolating themselves from the most progressive contemporary movement in the world.

[rixhex56]

Her husband was an advocate for NAFTA. She's not a true progressive; I think neither of the two front-runners are. Edwards is the guy that is standing firm on a platform that would definitely bring solid change to America... and he might actually be able to get elected.

[myskylark]

Pardon me, but I saw an interview tonight with Charlie Rangel who opposed NAFTA and supports the deal with Peru because he maintains that the Peru deal is good for the U.S.and Peru. Before everyone gets hysterical and starts sliming Hillary Clinton, let's take a deep breath and wait for the details. What's wrong with you people? Don't you ever use your brains? Keep this up and you'll be crying in your beer as you watch Rudy's inauguration. Hillary Clinton is the only cadidate of the top three who can win. If you can't see that, you're not living in the real world.

[Merg]

This is truly disappointing. I did hear her say it was time to re-think NAFTA but she didn't elaborate on that. She probably figures it does not hurt her in a General Election, running against any Republican because they all support NAFTA

[peterg76]

I guess it's not as bad as war crimes and treason, but then again it is close.

Since Clinton is a Republican and actively destroying what image her party has left, isn't there some way the Democratic Party could expell her?

[Doofus]

Wow. What is she going to do next?

Just because she expects to get votes
as the inevitable Demo candidate, why
does she think she can get away with
so many strange, antithetical decisions?

It ain't over til it's over, y'know.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

I though she said she didn't support NAFTA. No . . . wait . . . I'm so confused . . . never quite sure what that woman stands for.

Oh nevermind; I wasn't going to vote for her anyway. I ain't fightin for her New World Order.

[Countess]

Mrs. Clinton will work hard to continue eliminating american jobs happily giving them up to the countries whose lobbyists have given her the most money. What a progressive she is.

[laurenc]

This is the moment. John Edwards is poised to take the nomination from the corporate candidates...if only we will jump in and help him. www.johnedwards.com...check it out, at least, huffpost readers. Can you imagine how exciting the election could be?

[in10se]

I am not surprised by her position on this proposal... I am surprised that she has the fortitude to state it. Maybe a new Clinton adminstration won't be so bad after all.

[jazzlover824]

I am starting to have second thoughts about Hillary. She has seen that NAFTA has done nothing but hurt the average American citizen. It has caused lower wages,lower working standards for Americans. It has caused the other nations to resort to exploiting children . Because of NAFTA, my grand kids will not know a better live than I. This country is going to hell and it is people like you that is making it happen. You are not down here with everyday people, losing their jobs and home because of globalization. Please stop the madness.

[StrategicThinker]

Thanks again, David for being on top of this.

I wonder what her calculus is. I wonder if Biden or Dodd are supporting the trade deal.

Maybe her team has concluded that if John Edwards wins Iowa he'll run out of money after the first four primaries.

If Edwards had $40 million on hand, I doubt she'd have taken this political risk.

[readyforchange]

Pay attention, Hillary Lovers! This is why so many of us will NOT support her. She has already sold her soul...