Obama, Clinton & the NAFTA Kabuki Dance

We are watching something truly absurd - and that says a lot for the generally absurd realm of American politics.

Earlier this week, we saw Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) promise to call a "time out" on passing NAFTA-style trade deals if she is elected president - a promise that was made just four days after she announced she would be casting a vote to enact a vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement - the latest NAFTA-style trade deal moving through Congress.

Now, today, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is criticizing Clinton for being a part of the previous administration that passed NAFTA-style trade deals. It's fair criticism, of course - but not if you yourself have already promised to vote for the same NAFTA-style trade policy in the near future. Yes, Obama's criticism comes just a few weeks after Obama himself declared he, too, would be voting for this same NAFTA-style trade policy moving through the Senate.

The Associated Press reports that Obama told an audience of union workers that he "vowed to fight any deal that doesn't protect workers and the environment." Clinton has made the same promises. Both square this circle by claiming the NAFTA-style deal they are going to vote for does include strong labor and environmental protections. Yet, Washington's top corporate lobbyists have long ago told the public that the supposedly strong labor protections in the NAFTA-style deal he is going to vote for "cannot be read to require compliance." Meanwhile, no major environmental, labor, human rights, anti-poverty, consumer protection or religious group in either Peru or the United States has endorsed the deal. In fact, most of them have put out statements strongly criticizing the deal.

Obama and Clinton also both say that they are going to oppose proposed NAFTA-style deals with Colombia and South Korea, based on their complaints about those specific countries. That's good, but it still means they are endorsing the NAFTA trade model - which is the most important point of all. As I told Alternet's Joshua Holland regarding Clinton's position:

What's going on here is that she is endorsing the NAFTA trade model, but saying that she has problems with certain countries' specific behaviors. And that's what's really telling. She is saying she has no problem with trade deals rigged to crush American and foreign workers on behalf of Wall Street, and that the only real reason to ever oppose that model is if there are other problems/complications with the specific country in question.

So let's just step back and ask a simple question: What the hell is going on here? Why when polls show overwhelming bipartisan opposition to NAFTA-style trade policies are two leading Democratic candidates talking out of both sides of their mouths on the issue? NAFTA-style trade policy is so unpopular that even Republicans like Mike Huckabee are using it to climb in Republican presidential primary polls. So, again, what the hell is going on here with Clinton and Obama?

This is a tougher question than it seems. Some of it has to do with the culture of Washington - a culture that, as I reported in a recent syndicated column, is dominated by a revolving door of insiders who seamlessly glide between raking in huge cash as corporate lobbyists, advising candidates on economic policy and holding high government positions.

Both Clinton and Obama's campaigns are, to varying extents, immersed in this culture, whether it's Clinton's lead consultant simultaneously running a union busting operation, or whether it is Obama's chief adviser being the former top staffer to Bob Rubin - the icon of the Wall Street Democrats who has personally threatened Democratic presidential candidates should they represent the populist line.

Many of these hangers on are hoping for a high level administration job if their candidate gets elected - but they want to make sure they still have the option of living it up on K Street if their candidate loses, and so their advice tends to be cautious on corporate issues like trade. They tell their candidates not to actually represent the will of the public, but to make sure not to offend Big Money.