In Iowa Speech, Edwards Demands Answers From Clinton On NAFTA Expansion

This press release just came across the transom...looks like America's NAFTA-style trade policy is taking center stage in the presidential contest and shocker - Hillary Clinton is trying to hide.

Here's the release:

EDWARDS: SENATOR CLINTON MUST TAKE A STAND ON PERU TRADE DEAL

Chapel Hill, North Carolina - Today, in Charles City, Iowa, Senator John Edwards made the followed statement calling on Senator Clinton to take a stand on whether she is for or against the Peru trade deal, which would expand the NAFTA model:

"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."

Stay tuned - the Peru deal is expected to be voted on this week. We'll see what happens. But no matter how any of the presidential candidates vote, it is already clear that Clinton refuses to take a leadership role on these, the most important economic issues facing the middle class. She's surrounded by the Wall Street wing of her party - and though her rhetoric has been nice, she is making clear where her real loyalties lie.

Cross-posted from Credo Action

Comments

[therealredstateblues]

And this my friends is precisely why I could never vote for Hillary Clinton

I am still fuming that Bill sold us out on Nafta.

There is no and I mean absolutely no reason to think that Hillary will do anything but continue the neoCON and neolib policies of "free" trade, supply side economics and open borders started by Reagan, Bush I, Bill and shifted into high gear by Bush II.

[mulegino]

These "free-trade" agreements [actually not free, and not reciprocal trade] are gold mines for the Clintons and their ilk, and benefit them in inverse proportion to the harm they do to the American standard of living.
The Clintons probably don't care about American labor, organized or not; on their radar screen, the big blips are the corporate donors and millionaire pardon purchasers.
Clinton will no doubt pander to the AFL-CIO with platitudes come general election time, and receive that organization's endorsement, along with the endorsement of most of the other major unions, whose leadership apparently never tires of being taken for granted and having its rank and files rights and livelihoods trampled on.
The faith based economics of "free trade", along with unregulated financial markets, irresponsible fiscal policy [nation building in the middle east, crumbling infrastructure in the U.S.A.] represent a far greater long term danger to the U.S. than any exterior threat.

[eddiestardust]

I think this discussion should be widened.

What the heck is the difference between Overseas Outsourcing and the use of H 1B Visas?

There isn't any difference.

[laurenc]

Edwards is not "bought and paid for" by anyone. He stands for and with American working families, and against the horrific "globalization" that has bankrupted American manufactoring and ended us up with cheap and toxic products from abroad.
Thank God we have him...and pray that he can become the Democratic candidate.

[RobertPaul]

She can't vote against the Peru deal because it would reflect on the Nafta deal the her husband put in play when he was President.

Here, I think, is where the rubber hits the road.

The FACT is that NAFTA and CAFTA are bad for this country and have vacuumed jobs right out of our country and left us with trade goods coming into the country that are, in many cases, dangerous and often products of "slave" like labor.

Now, to my mind, these issues should be voided or significantly modified to be more equitable to our country and others. I say others because the middle class in some places (like Mexico) have suffered almost as badly as we.

If any candidate (especially Hillary since the MSM has already crowned her President) isn't interested in addressing these issues then I'm not interested in voting for them.

I am DEEPLY disappointed in Obama!

[GreggNC]

Edwards is bought and paid for by the unions. That is all his position is about. Americans benefit very much from cheaper goods and free trade. Econ 101, law of comparitive advantage. Unions, their exhorbitant demands, and inflexibility have had far more to do with job loss in NC than trade. Of course, the plethora of jobs in NC require better educations than the old mill and tire mfg jobs. That's just life. Edwards, may also want to talk about OBGYN's leaving NC, but thats another topic, and he is responsible.

[nancytheragingliberal]

It depends how much the corp's are funneling into her coffers. Come on, $ talks and you know it. So what if millions of American jobs get shipped out of the USA. It is just doing "bidness." (a W-ism) Bidness for the lowest price and that means, the lowest bidder gets the contract. If an American makes minimum wage with a few paltry benefits, but the job can be done in Peru for 1/2 our minimum wage and no benefits. Where do you think the product will be made? Come on, this Economics 101.