Hillary Clinton, NAFTA & Triangulation 2.0

Harold Meyerson's column in The Washington Post today is a terrific read -- and got me thinking about just how unprincipled and smarmy Hillary Clinton really is on this one. You'll notice Meyerson reports that "Clinton has yet to take a position" on the NAFTA expansion that will be voted on in the House today.

My guess is that Clinton will vote against the first part of the NAFTA expansion -- the Peru Free Trade Agreement. That "no" vote would be a good thing. But her silence in the lead up to the vote is really the bigger story that's already been written, no matter how she ends up voting. She wants to please the Big Money interests who are underwriting her campaign and who are pushing this trade policy, but she also faces an increasingly competitive primary challenge from John Edwards, who has come out strongly against NAFTA-style trade policies (more on Edwards in my upcoming nationally syndicated newspaper column out on Friday).

So my guess is that what's going on is that she has told the lobbyists, corporate executives and other Big Money interests financing her presidential run that she'll stay quiet in the lead up to the vote, so as to not change the dynamic of the vote in Congress by getting more Democrats to oppose the Peru deal. Then, when its clear the deal is going to sail through because folks like her haven't stepped up and been leaders, she'll quietly cast her vote against it, and then during select campaign appearances with select groups, she'll brag about her supposed courage and pretend she took a strong stand for the middle class.

You can call this smart politics, and sure -- if Clinton votes against the deal in the end, that's good. But what this really is is Triangulation 2.0. And, as I said, it's unprincipled and smarmy -- the opposite of, ya know, "leadership."

Comments

[Bobzmcishl]

I was finally forced to look up what this term "triangulation" meant. The definition said: see Clinton, Bill and Hillary. What is funny is that Dick Morris who came up with this strategy is now the Clinton's arch enemy and now working his Rovian style of politicking for the Republicans. The net net of all this is why in the world are Democrats still enamored with the Clinton's. They are as much a fraud as the Bush's and now it looks like we will be stuck with another of them for four to eight years. Yet again the electorate will be choosing the least of two evils. The MSM reinforces this mindset by constantly focusing on the Clintons to the exclusion of candidates who might really give us a choice for the future, candidates like Dennis Kuchinich and Joe Biden. Kuchinisch had the best retorts in the debates last night. He actually did not have to go into the "If I had only known " routine. He did vote on the right side of the major issues of our time - against the Iraq war, against NAFTA, against the Iran resolution. We need a president who get's it right the first time. Give some new blood a chance to lead America.

[thgy]

That was the question I didnt ask on U-Tube. Have you made any concessions or agreements with anyone or made any promises to anyone in order to become president? And if so who?

[milo9]

Truth. She also intends to hide the negative consequences of Nafta on the Latin American countries. The campesinos are being driven off their farm land because they cannot compete with Corporate Ag. Where are they to go?

[RobertPaul]

David
She's apoliticia­n...that's what politicians do.

To think of her in any other way is just foolish.

No, I don't like it either, but if it "walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...."

[laurenc]

Edwards: Senator Clinton Must Take A Stand On Peru Trade Deal
Nov 4, 2007

"I grew up in Carolina mill towns and I've seen firsthand the devastating impact trade can have on American workers and their communities. America is bleeding jobs. Now, more than ever, it is time we take a clear stand against the Peru trade deal and any other NAFTA-like trade agreements that will needlessly cost America more jobs and hurt middle class and working families.

"Sadly, Senator Obama has chosen to support the Peru trade deal. While I am disappointed by his choice, and I hope he reconsiders, at least he has taken a position. Unfortunately, Senator Hillary Clinton still refuses to say whether she is for or against the Peru trade deal.

"On all issues, whether it is Iraq, Iran, Social Security or trade, voters deserve straight talk and a leader who will have the strength to tell voters where they stand.

"I believe the Peru trade deal continues failed trade policies. It is wrong for America, and I strongly oppose it. As president, I will promote smart and safe policies by negotiating better deals and rejecting bad deals, enforcing the terms of those deals, helping dislocated workers and communities and ensuring the products sold to American families are safe.

"For the sake of hard-working families in Iowa and all across America, I hope that Senator Clinton will finally take a stand, do what is right and join me in strongly opposing the Peru trade deal."

[OtayPanky]

David Sirota: You can call this smart politics, and sure - if Clinton votes against the deal in the end, that's good. But what this really is is Triangulation 2.0. And, as I said, it's unprincipled and smarmy - the opposite of, ya know, "leadership."

===

Yet another member of the boys club unfairly piling on Billary.

OTAY!

[katiekat489]

What a surprise that she would be sooo deceptive--but true to form for her. Leader??/Please of what?? Her money backers are the real voice and it is obvious with her robotic performance.I want a change desperately from this old guard.Was not the Nafta and Telecom from Clinton 1?

[hopeless277]

This country stinks. It must be the smell multiple fish heads rotting in our capitol. Money trumps everything. Why does someone run for president? Money. Plain and simple. Our real choice in 08 will be whether we want to be screwed by a Republican or a Democrat. Same screwing, different party. I'm voting Republican. If I'm gonna be a slave to the state, at least I want to be a rich slave.