Trade Fight: Edwards is Right, Obama's Wrong, Clinton's Useless

The Peru Free Trade Agreement fight that is coming to a head in Congress pits George Bush and Nancy Pelosi against the workers of the United States and Peru.

As such, it is a test of whether Democrats are satisfied with Pelosi's compromises -- on the war, presidential accountability and domestic policies -- or prefer to oppose the least popular president since Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal.

Illinois Senator Barack Obama is with Bush and Pelosi. He says he'll vote for the Peru FTA.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton is not sure where she stands. As the House prepares to vote, she could raise her voice to counter that of Pelosi. Instead, she says she's "undecided."

Fortunately, dozens of House Democrats -- including Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich -- know where they stand. They will break with Bush and Pelosi to oppose the trade deal. It won't be easy. Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer are whipping Democrats in the chamber to get on board with Bush's plan. And many are doing just that, claiming that the Peru FTA contains meaningful protections for the rights of workers.

The deal's backers are either confused or corrupted.

They are, as well, wrong.

As Illinois Congressman Phil Hare, a former textile union leader who has led the fight against the Bush-Pelosi line, notes: Peru is currently threatening striking miners with the loss of their jobs if they do not return to the mines. That's not protecting the rights of workers. Indeed, says Hare, "The striking miners were fighting for, among other things, an eight hour work day. In addition, we recently learned that there are 2 million children working in Peru, many in these very same mines."

"Is this the progress the supporters of the Peru FTA were referring to?" asks Hare, who adds, "Today's news should serve as yet another wakeup call that the best thing to do for workers both at home and in Peru is defeat this unfair trade deal."

Hare's right. But he needs some allies among the party's leading presidential contenders.

Obama's wrong and Clinton's of no use.

Thankfully, John Edwards is reading the issue right.

"The Peru deal will continue the trade policies that have long failed our workers and cost American workers their jobs," says Edwards. "It's time to show some guts and backbone, stand up and oppose this trade deal, and demand trade policies that put families and workers first. I urge members of Congress to vote against this deal."

Adds the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee: "The fact that the Peru trade deal is supported by a bipartisan group of insiders, including George Bush and senior officials from the first Clinton Administration – many of whom are now lobbyists, corporate lawyers, and business consultants – should be proof-positive of why members of Congress should join with me and oppose this deal. The benefit to corporate lobbyists from both sides of the political aisle will come only at the expense of hard-working families. Senator Obama has chosen to support this bad deal. I strongly disagree with his position, but at least he has taken one. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, has refused to take any position. I urge Senator Clinton to publicly announce, today, her opposition and join with me in encouraging members of Congress to vote against the Peru trade deal."

Edwards is right to stand with Phil Hare, as opposed to Nancy Pelosi and George Bush.

For those who suggest that there are not enough differences between the Democratic frontrunners, here's an example of where one leading contender -- John Edwards -- stands head and shoulders above the others.

Comments (13)

1. does it look like its going to pass?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2007 @ 10:54pm

2. Here's a quarter for your call to someone who cares Mr. Nichols!

   Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/07/2007 @ 10:53pm

   Indeed, Rio - workers having to strike to demand an 8-hour working day and the government trying to browbeat them, children working in mines...why should you - or anyone - care when American workers get 8-hour days, American children don't have to work in mines? Hell, if it suits American interests, just go ahead and do the deal - and the people of Peru be damned!

   Posted by oneworld at 11/07/2007 @ 11:21pm

3. i think you and the peruvians should use the costa rican method to decide.

   and so should we.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/08/2007 @ 02:15am

4. Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/07/2007 @ 10:53pm

   ...ahhh, yes - suffer the little children yet again Rio Loco? Why is it you guys out on the right fringe hate equality, freedom, and children?

   Posted by leftofcenter at 11/08/2007 @ 06:51am

5. ...ahhh, yes - suffer the little children yet again Rio Loco? Why is it you guys out on the right fringe hate equality, freedom, and children?

   Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/08/2007 @ 06:51am

   Don't waste your time with Rio. I haven't seen Rio utter one thing that wasn't filled with hatred, greed and stupidity. He's a true neocon redneck.

   He's kind of like the people of India believing in the caste system. You are where you are becaue you did something in a previous life to earn your present position in life. That's some grand thinking if you are in a position of wealth and wish to keep your wealth. Not so grand if you are starving.

   If the tables were turned on the Rio types, they'd be the first ones whining about injustice. But, as long as they've got theirs, everything is true bliss.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/08/2007 @ 07:11am

6. I used to think that Hillary might make a good president, but the more I see her waffling on major issues the less I trust her to be a president of any worth.

   We need someone with the courage to actually stand up against these international corporations pitting people of nations against each other to drive working wages and benefits down. So far, the majority of the people running for office have shown the are outright bought off by the corporations they should be policing.

   Our choices are extremely limited, and the candidates who actually might work for us, the media tries to make look like fools. What the hell are they asking Kucinich about UFO's for if they weren't trying to make him come off like some guy out there in left center field?

   We are dealing with a seriously stacked deck in favor of the good of corporations over the good of the people. It really boils down to philosophies. Is the good or welfare of corporations greater than the good or welfare of the people? I would hope not.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/08/2007 @ 07:24am

7. "Senator Clinton, on the other hand, has refused to take any position. I urge Senator Clinton to publicly announce, today, her opposition and join with me in encouraging members of Congress to vote against the Peru trade deal."

   Mr Nichols...please. You've GOT to give her time to run the polls and focus groups, as well as consult with the consultants, and then check and see if she can come up with enough innocuous language that any PFTA donors won't object.

   Then she has to get out a talking point for FRANKGRITS!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 11/08/2007 @ 09:18am

8. Since the beginning, I have said that the Clintons were more worried about Edwards than Obama, which is why I think they are trying to figure out what they are going to do.

   We'll see exactly whether they are concerned about Edwards or Obama based on what she decides in the end.

   If she opposes the deal that you know the DLC has no problem with, then she's worried about John Edwards winning Iowa, and could really care less about Barack Obama. She tells her corporate friends to trust her, because she has to win.

   If she supports the deal that the DLC likes, then she's saying that she doesn't see Edwards as a threat.

   Posted by tray at 11/08/2007 @ 09:30am

9. Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/08/2007 @ 07:11am

   Yeah...and we all know ignorance is bliss!

   Posted by leftofcenter at 11/08/2007 @ 09:50am

10. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/08/2007 @ 09:50am

    ignorance is the pacifier of fools

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/08/2007 @ 10:42am

11. "You've GOT to give her time to run the polls and focus groups, as well as consult with the consultants, and then check and see if she can come up with enough innocuous language that any PFTA donors won't object."

    How true.... Also, she has to review Edwards' position and Obama's position, and see how she can copy from theirs to come up with one she can call her own, which doesn't say much, and manages to straddle some middle line between them. So, she can say, "Well, it's a complicated issue and something needs to be done about it. But I'm not about to lay any cards on the table until I've had a chance to (familiarize myself with the details, form a commission to study it, or whatever the excuse is not to take a stand) blah, blah, blah, blah...."

    How this woman's supporters can possibly, and with straight faces, say that their candidate gives straight answers is beyond me.

    John Edwards is the only one who consistently, time after time, stands with working people--not only in this country but throughout the world!

    Posted by amc654 at 11/08/2007 @ 12:41pm

12. How this woman's supporters can possibly, and with straight faces, say that their candidate gives straight answers is beyond me.---Posted by AMC654 11/08/2007 @ 12:41pm

    Standby....FRANKGRITS and HELENDAO will try!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2007 @ 1:08pm

13. Oh and...

    "John Edwards is the only one who consistently, time after time, stands with working people--not only in this country but throughout the world!"----Posted by AMC654 11/08/2007 @ 12:41pm

    Well...except when his Fortress Investment Group is engaging in predatory lending practices!

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2007 @ 1:13pm