Clinton could have defeated Edwards yesterday...but didn't

This week's Nation article has a very good argument about Senator Clinton's missed Golden opportunity.
She could have voted "NO" on the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

Had Clinton joined Edwards in opposing the Peru FTA, she would have stolen the spotlight from the candidate with whom she is competing for labor support while at the same time identifying herself as more attuned to the concerns of working Americans than Obama.

It would have been a political masterstroke.
Thanks to John Nichols.
So what happened? Why did Clinton vote "YES?"

... Clinton's far enough ahead in the polls so that she feels she can dismiss Democratic voters. And, of course, she's betting that she'll collect enough campaign money from investment bankers and multinational corporation CEOs to buy the advertising that will allow her to buy down the concerns of soon-to-be-unemployed factory workers and soon-to-be-landless farmers.

I don't know about you, but there is a lot of hurting going on in this country. My friends are losing their homes due to the mortgage scams, others have dropped their healthcare to afford gas to get to work, and others can't find a decent job.
It angers me that the presumed nominee of the Democratic party is taking me and my friends for granted and selling us out. What kind of Democrat is this?
David Sirota calls them the "money" party.
I believe he is right and that there is a centrist group of Democrats and Republicans that are essentially the same group, giving lip service to their constituencies, while voting against the interests of the citizens of the Country.

Sirota also notes the following about this new NAFTA vote...

The announcement 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 benefit from the NAFTA model. Rubin's announcement came with a promise to raise Clinton more money from Wall Street.

Too bad for Senator Clinton that she thinks she can take us for granted.
This is now 2 things that have happened that have blown my mind.
Twice now, her campaign has had ample time to do the right thing and twice they have done the wrong thing.
1) The Lieberman-Kyl vote.
2) Now Hillary is saying yes to more NAFTA, a completely out of touch vote with the American public.

By the way, Lieberman just came out and said this about us- those opposed to war.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base—even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.

Really? So who are the sensible democrats?

For all of our efforts in the 1990s to rehabilitate a strong Democratic foreign policy tradition, anti-war sentiment remains the dominant galvanizing force among a significant segment of the Democratic base.

Who are the people he is referring to in "our efforts"?
I believe that would be the DLC or the "money party."

And we know where their allegiance lies...
Can't forget this...

Bill, you were a hero of mine, but you and your wife have thrown in your lot with the DLC and you even campaigned against Ned Lamont, who could have sent a huge anti-war message to our citizens.


Now that I am older, and looking back on the NAFTA and GATT deals, I can say one thing about your presidency Bill,
you made it impossible for me to trust someone just because they have a "D" behind their name.
There is a difference, there are choices, and our primary system ensures WE THE PEOPLE have a choice and a voice.

Thanks Hillary, you have made it quite clear to Iowans and Americans that John Edwards is the right choice for our President.


Very nice, Wade

Thank you.

Just so you know...our teaser doesn't work like the Kos/Mydd teasers. You have to put what is in the teaser in the body of the post if you want it to show up in the diary.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Peru FTA does have does come with its share

of concerns, but equating it to NAFTA is misleading.

The biggest concern is that the Peru FTA relies on the Bushies to enforce the provisions concerning labor and environmental standards which are part of the core of the agreement.

Pelosi has also pushed through a companion bill that would increase aid to workers who lose their jobs through trade. The downside there is that Bush has threatened to veto it.

It's not all joy and light but it's not NAFTA. Projections have it increasing exports to Peru by 35-40%, up 1+ billion dollars. That represents quite a few American jobs.

Person County Democrats

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

I am guessing you are an Obama supporter

But i am not sure, but for you the voters, this is another NAFTA agreement.

400,000 Peruvians protested it.

Free Trade does nothing for the working class, only the CEO class.

more from David Sirota....
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has embarked on a campaign of misdirection - ironically (or perhaps, predictably) similar to the original campaign of deception that marked the original debate over NAFTA.

Here is just one example of the deception. It would be a conspiracy if the facts debunking his rhetoric wasn't so out in the open and public for all to see.


"The Peruvian agreement contains the very labor agreements that labor and our allies have been asking for." - Barack Obama, 10/10/07


Not a single American labor union has endorsed the Peru trade pact, which extends NAFTA into Peru. While the AFL-CIO has said that some language in the deal is better than old trade pacts, the AFL-CIO is nonetheless against the deal because it extends the overall NAFTA model. The Hill newspaper just a few weeks ago once again confirmed that "The AFL-CIO is not supporting [the Peru] deal." In fact, almost every single labor, human rights, religious, environmental, anti-poverty and consumer advocacy organization has come out against the Peru pact - and that includes those organizations both in the United States and in Peru. For more on that opposition and on how this Peru deal is a 99% mirror of NAFTA, see here, here, here and here. Additionally, please recall that the Chamber of Commerce has already confirmed it has been given confirmation by the Bush administration that the watered down labor language in this NAFTA expansion is unenforceable.

hey P.C.Dems, do you still favor this agreement?

"What's the use of a fine house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?"

Henry David Thoreau

Well, I never said I was in favor of it, just that

it's not NAFTA. After another round of research, I still think that it is misleading to compare it to NAFTA. Much information on Peru FTA is contained at this House website.

It includes supporting documents from the UAW and the National Resources Defense Council among others. It also has provisions that allow for more broad oversight; it does not rely on the executive branch for enforcement.

Apparently the original bill was quite a bit like NAFTA, but democrats worked to get changes put in that addressed many of the concerns.

I am still not sure if support Peru FTA as there may well be hidden provisions or some back room deals that haven't seen the light as yet., but I still believe that it is not another NAFTA.

I do appreciate your post as it was the inspiration for me spend some time looking up info on Peru FTA.

Oh, and I am not an Obama supporter, but i am not opposed to the idea. ;)

Person County Democrats

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

Wade, I tried to read the Bill on THOMAS afew nights ago

and I don't believe anyone not familiar with the nuances of language used could ever make heads or tails of what it really means....or how it can be enforced. It is so complex...probably purposefully so...that no ordinary citizen could decipher whether or not we're getting screwed.

There's alot more to it than trade also... but I'm not qualified to comment. I'm told that in order to get this deal the Peruvian government had to agree to privatize their "social security" system. Wonder who will profit from that? Not you and me.

Stan Bozarth

Wonder where they got that idea?

I'm told that in order to get this deal the Peruvian government had to agree to privatize their "social security" system.

and I wonder how much BushCo will profit from it?

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Clinton could have voted against it

but she really couldn't have. Her campaign is being financed by those who wanted that legislation to go through. Without their millions for teevee and print ads and direct mail she'll lose the election. She really couldn't vote, "NO".

::::sigh:::: She's not even won the first primary yet and she's already owned.

"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."