Clinton on Ross Perot's "Giant Sucking Sound"; Obama Tries to Have it Both Ways

By Holly Shulman, Eyes on Trade. Posted November 19, 2007.

And lots of trade on the campaign trail this week:

According to Business News Analysis (BNA), "Sen. Clinton Invited to Colombia in Bid To Reverse Her Opposition to Trade Pact" (sorry, not linkable):

Clinton, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a Nov. 8 statement posted on her campaign's Web site (www.hillaryclinton.com) that she opposes U.S. congressional endorsement of the Colombia FTA, as well as those with South Korea and Panama.

"I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia," the statement said.

Speaking to reporters in Chile on Nov. 9, Uribe called Clinton's statement unacceptable. "This is very serious, very serious," he said. "It's an unforgivable misunderstanding of Colombia."

Plata, who is visiting Washington the week of Nov. 12 to meet Bush administration officials and members of Congress, said that the Colombian government has made major progress in curbing violence in the country, including against union members.

And according to the Associated Press:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton told union activists Monday she would call a "time out" on trade agreements if she wins the White House to see if the deals are draining jobs from the U.S.

"I am going to do everything I can to move toward smart trade," said Clinton.

She promised to appoint an official to ensure that trade agreement provisions designed to protect labor and environmental standards are enforced by groups such as the World Trade Organization and the International Labor Organization.

Is she saying the time out starts right after she votes for the Peru NAFTA expansion?

Also according to the Associated Press, "Obama Challenges Clinton on Trade Deals" (ironic given this):

"So, when a candidate rails against NAFTA today, it's fair to ask her where she was with NAFTA 20 years ago," said Obama. "You don't just suddenly wake up and say NAFTA is a terrible thing when you were for it before."

Obama made his case at a regional convention of the United Auto Workers just a day after Clinton used the same forum to call for a "time out" on new trade deals while their impact on American jobs is assessed.

In her speech, Clinton said she would be cautious on new trade agreements, but she carries the baggage of her husband's presidency during which NAFTA was negotiated and approved.

"Politicians often say they are pro-labor at election time, no matter what they've said or done before," said Obama. "And that leaves you wondering what they will say or do after the election."

Well, I guess we don't have to wonder, but Obama's consistent support of the NAFTA model (with the weird exception of CAFTA which has the same rules as the other agreements, incl. Peru, Panama, etc.) in spite of the facts might be scarier than a candidate who responds to the politics of the situation. NAFTA expansions have proven to be both bad policy and bad politics.

And from the John Edwards campaign this week, according to the Associated Press, "Edwards Vows to Reverse Trade Policies:"

Democrat John Edwards vowed Wednesday to labor leaders that if elected president he will reverse trade and tax policies -- some of them dating from Bill Clinton's administration -- that he said are designed to wipe out middle-class working families.

And from last night's debate in Las Vegas, according to MSNBC's First Read:

See more stories tagged with: democrats, trade, election08, nafta, peru fta

Holly Shulman is the press officer at Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »