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.