Clinton on Trade: I'm As Awful As Obama

Hillary Clinton had a chance to do one of two things on the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

She could announce her opposition to the proposal and score the remarkable political coup of trumping both Barack Obama and John Edwards of an important issue for grassroots Democrats -- thus all but assuring her front-runner status as the race toward the first presidential caucuses and primaries accelerates.

Or she could do what Wall Street demanded.

Clinton went with Wall Street. On the same day that a majority of House Democrats voted against the Peru FTA, the senator from New York endorsed the current economic-policy priority of the Bush administration.

In so doing, Clinton confirmed that the only thing more important to her than securing her lead in the race for the Democratic nod is keeping the likely financiers of her fall campaign happy.

In so doing, Clinton joined Illinois Senator Obama in supporting the trade deal.

That means that, among the top contenders in the Democratic contest, only former North Carolina John Edwards is standing with the majority of congressional Democrats in opposition to the Bush administration's free-trade agenda.

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.

But 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.

Comments (28)

1. Clinton and Obama - The two Democratic candidates acceptable to Wall Street, i.e. Shills for Wall Street and/or unelectable, and thus anointed via the Wall Street owned and controlled mass media as the "leading candidates".

   Posted by wgilwood at 11/08/2007 @ 9:15pm

2. i like playing this little game..."who wrote the campaign blog" by just looking at the title...

   i've gotten pretty good at it (which is not something i'm terribly proud of, by the way...)

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/08/2007 @ 9:39pm

3. this one had "nichols" written all over it...lol

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/08/2007 @ 9:41pm

4. Seriously...

   what happened to HAPPY's theory that "The Nation" staff are "Hillary boosters"?

   LOL!

   Posted by Mask at 11/08/2007 @ 9:57pm

5. I'm glad that she followed her heart, LOL.

   Now, maybe she'll tell the truth, that she actually has no problems whatsoever with NAFTA, either.

   That the Telecommunications Act that Bill signed was a great and necessary piece of legislation.

   That the Union Endorsements she received were all intended to just still the thunder for John Edwards, not because she cared more about labor than Wall Street.

   After all, labor unions didn't get stronger under the Clintons.

   Posted by framecop at 11/08/2007 @ 10:30pm

6. what happened to HAPPY's theory that "The Nation" staff are "Hillary boosters"?

   Posted by MASK 11/08/2007 @ 9:57pm

   Doesn't matter much now! Hell, even pat Robertson can endorse Rudy...so, why hasn't TN endorse a non-Hillary? The Nation has done its deeds and now must run with the Progressive herd....circulation, you know!

   After next Feb/March, we'll see just how BIG and MONSTROUS of a Hillary supporter TN (and YOU) has been all along!! Who'll have the last laugh? So damn predictable!

   Posted by Happy at 11/08/2007 @ 10:48pm

7. Posted by HAPPY 11/08/2007 @ 10:48pm

   HAPP, why not admit you're full of crap?

   OF COURSE, "TN" is going to support the Dem nominee (who'll be known by "next Feb/March" and likely Her Nibs). What do you expect that they'll say "Write-in Ralph Nader and throw the election to Rudy (or Mitt)!"?

   You claimed they were "Hillary boosters" weeks ago...now, you have story after story, and not just from Ari Berman, going after her and your b.s. theory fell apart like HSUB's "impeachment by October" theory.

   And you'll accuse them of hypocrisy for supporting her come next Feb/March...all the while EXCUSING your (and LVLIB/RIO/PONTI's) support for (in the case of Giuliani or even Romney) a guy who supports "partial birth" abortion, gay rights, and is pro-gun control all because he says "a noun, a verb, and 9/11"!

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

8. Posted by MASK 11/08/2007 @ 11:11pm

   I'd say TN and you are full of crap! Talking out one side of the mouth taking tinny little potshot at HRC while voting for who you don't trust!

   TN is absolutely FOR STATUS QUO while wearing a progressive veneer! It's a subsidiary of the DLC! I visit here to see if TN, far older and more than David Corn alone, can make a difference......and it ain't, so far!

   I don't know exactly when it'll sink in just how much crap lies behind "Don't trust her but will vote for her"! I can't top that even if I try! For you, seems you're the NATURAL SHEEP!

   One thing everybody is right about is the money! Both parties buy the pols....the Right don't much complain, it's BUSINESS.......you Lefties complain and complain and complain some more, sounding all holier-than-thou but vote like sheep anyway....Ur, "Don't need to trust me, but Vote for ME!"--HRC's best campaign slogan, compliment of MASK! IF I don't trust somebody, they can't buy my vote....well, take that back, I do have a price but it's pretty high!

   I feel sorry for the few true progressives like SRJ, knowing the odds against them when even TN is but a sham!

   Posted by Happy at 11/09/2007 @ 12:14am

9. If you want to know what's going on... follow the money.

   Posted by mikecope at 11/09/2007 @ 06:07am

10. In principle I'm all for trade between peoples and companies but to call this 'free trade' is like saying the US is a 'free market' economy.

    As long a the government is involved in any way, you take the 'free' out of the equation.

    Posted by Tom Paine Jr at 11/09/2007 @ 06:20am

11. Posted by HAPPY 11/09/2007 @ 12:14am

    HAPP, you don't honestly think the "progressives" here think that you are "just looking out for them and their principles" and want them to make sure to "stay true to your values and don't vote for Hillary" and "don't listen to TN when it says 'Oh, okay. I guess we have to vote for her''"...

    because "you care"....do you?

    You want the Left to split (or not turn out) for Hillary (IF she's the nominee) because you want the Repub candidate to win.

    Just like you'd see through it, if somebody got on a conservative blog and said "'National Review' is for the status quo....they'll want you to vote for Rudy, when we all know Rudy supports baby-killing and fags marrying....stay true to your principles, don't vote for these RINO Republicans!!!" to depress the Right's vote.

    Believe me, the Left needs no help (as noted most recently by Posted by MADLIB 11/09/2007 @ 12:49am).

    But don't act like you're just trying to push the liberals to "remain non-hypocritical" because you have a deep concern for their ethics....you want the Repubs to win, and if trying to convince (more than they already have been) the Left to not vote helps....you'll do it.

    But don't think that some of us, can't see through your "devilishly clever" plan!...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/09/2007 @ 09:21am

12. can't see through your "devilishly clever" plan!...heheh

    Posted by MASK 11/09/2007 @ 09:21am

    YOU don't get it! Both the GOP & Dems are ok...in the final analysis. Why do you suppose campaign money is flowing to the Dems?

    The GOP are more true to their words in being Pro-Business, Anti-Tax, Pro-Growth,Personal Responsibility and such.....But the Dems are about the SAME, but with a much less honesty in its rhetorics since its main base, is composed of a lot of sheeps....lower educated, prone to sound bite politics and uninterested or time-pressed to understand the details!

    HRC's got a lock on the `Usual Suspects' of blacks and such but her ultimate not-so-secret weapon is working-class women, PERIOD!!!

    Posted by Happy at 11/09/2007 @ 10:26am

13. You want the Left to split (or not turn out) for Hillary (IF she's the nominee) because you want the Repub candidate to win....

    Posted by MASK 11/09/2007 @ 09:21am

    Both sides OUGHT TO HAVE THE RISKS OF SPLITS! It's healthy! Something is definitely NOT RIGHT with our two party mess!

    Look at yourself.....supposedly a small-l libertarian but willing to vote for someone you DON'T TRUST who espouses socialistic health care....libertarian my ass! You are dead-center DLC!

    Posted by Happy at 11/09/2007 @ 10:31am

14. Posted by HAPPY 11/09/2007 @ 10:26am Posted by HAPPY 11/09/2007 @ 10:31am

    LOL!...."They're both the same, fine with me whoever wins".

    Again, HAPP, there are some naive and dopey liberals here, but there are some smart ones too, and a few of us in the Middle who can spot this ploy as well--

    Right-winger comes out saying "there's no diff", tries to depress the Left vote by convincing the libs that there IS no diff and they might as well not show up to vote.

    But YOU sure as HELL aren't going to "stay home" on Nov. 7th 2008 because "there's no difference".

    You even admit it...first you say "Both the GOP & Dems are ok...in the final analysis. Why do you suppose campaign money is flowing to the Dems?"...

    then you go after me for supporting Hillary (again YOUR words) "who espouses socialistic health care".

    The GOP "espouses socialistic health care"?...or maybe there IS a difference...hmmm?

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

15. HAPPY, my response Time-Warped to before Posted by WGILWOOD 11/08/2007 @ 9:15pm.

    Posted by Mask at 11/09/2007 @ 11:19am

16. As I search further in the list of present seekers of the White House, it has become more and more apparent the media and business interest have only two players in mind. It seems only New York has the kind of person who will continue to play us for fools. yet there still may be hope for the likes of Ron Paul, and John Edwards if we listen to what they have to say and not what the media tells us they said. should Edwards change his stand on immigration and follow the will of 78% of the American population his rise in the polls would sky-rocket,scaring the crap of the present ruling class in Washington. Edwards, Obama as the ticket gives us someone who is willing to take on the established powers who have given us the lose of respect that we now enjoy with the rest of the world and try to change of position as the worlds greatest debtor nation that we now enjoy. None of the candidates have all the answers to our problems but they may have the courage to make changes that we need and need fast. We seemed to have lost the reals race we are facing, and the present media attention on the White House race only clouds the issue that it is the Congress that must be changed, with new thoughts and ideas, not the marching in step of the Senators and Congressmen that now only listen to the special interest and powerful lobbyist support them. This, the same people that stand to gain in Hillary or Rudy being in the office of President, and the same People in Congress as to continue the existing smoke screens that protect their "FAT CAT LIFESTYLES." All politics "ARE LOCAL" and disregarding of who now represent us in our districts and states either Red or Blue, its time to really send a message, and replace them with someone who is Red ,White,and Blue. At present only John Edwards has said he want to take on these special interest and has the record of fighting for the individual in his past. Maybe with some new minds in congress, and the White House, we will find Americans again feeling that their children will have a better life in the future, and not be regulated to the status of third world nation the seems to be what present day leaders have in mind. Soon, if not already we will start to see on our local news and in the local papers all of the great wonders our congressmen and senators have done for us in Washington, don't be fooled, these are the same people who got us where we are at today. We have heard very little from them until re-election comes around and now they want our money and votes so they can continue to "REPRESENT" us in Washington and do great wonders in the coming years. Just as the usual verse of " I am returning to private life in order to spent more time with my family." comes about every time one of them is caught with problems he or she cannot explain away

    Posted by ronsview at 11/09/2007 @ 12:26pm

17. Posted by RONSVIEW 11/09/2007 @ 12:26pm

    Ron on pure comprehension and aesthetic reasoning...

    hit the Enter key after a couple of sentences and give us some SPACE or paragraphing.

    Posted by Mask at 11/09/2007 @ 12:57pm

18. I can back Kucinich and talk everyone I knows ear off about my liberal beliefs till I'm blue in the face, but it won't make a damn bit of difference when the majority of people are only ready enough for "change" to get us a Hillary nomination. That's the funny thing about democracy, or democracy as we know it at least. At some point one has to realize that, well okay I'm pretty left, and there are a lot of us who feel the same, but obviously not enough to get the candidate we wanted nominated. At that point, do you:

    a.) fold your arms and sulk

    b.) go rob another bank

    c.) vote for the democrat, so as to thwart another 4 years of neo-conism, thus (at the very least) inching the cultural ideology in the direction of myself and my friends.

    I'll be clear: I'm a moderate socialist, but it'll never happen unless the majority of Americans wanted it to happen, and I wouldn't dare suggest that it occur by any method other than democracy.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/09/2007 @ 1:11pm

19. the Dems have failed the American people yet again.

    I would really like to see some reasonable bipartisan ticket opportunities. Ron Paul/John Edwards could do some damage. But instead we are left with yes men and women who have no interest in changing the status quo in this country.

    Posted by badtimmay at 11/09/2007 @ 1:48pm

20. b.) go rob another bank

    Posted by MATTMAN 11/09/2007 @ 1:11pm

    Hey, where IS Empty SPENCE anyways?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/09/2007 @ 2:50pm

21. Only John Edwards has called for creating a new test for trade: Will new deals benefit working families, not just multinational corporations? Why has The Nation omitted him from the equation?

    Framing the issue as "fair trade" rather than opposition to "free trade" makes considerably more strategic sense to Democrats. We are all globalists in the sense that our beautiful world and its humanity is one. The failure of humane global development will doom us all to suffering. U.S. and global economies are interconnected and "Fair Trade" is linked to domestic job growth.

    John Edwards has the most specific proposals of any candidate to re-negotiate free trade agreements so they are once again fair trade agreements. Regarding "fair trade," John Edwards is for strong labor and environmental standards and against illegal subsidies and currency manipulation. He is also for rigorous enforcement of trade agreements, not just negotiation. Edwards also advocates for the restoration of tax fairness and the enhancement of competitiveness and job growth. In the breadth and detail of his economic proposals, John Edwards differs substantially from the other candidates. The difference and contrast between Edwards and Clinton is that Edwards has the keener sense of what unfair trade has meant while Clinton double-talks about "trade balance" and "seeing NAFTA with hindsight."

    John Edwards is informed by the fact that 300,000 taxpayers make half of the nation's income, while 150 million make the other half, which represents the greatest income inequality in this country since 1928. This reality has been exacerbated by the combination of unfair tax practices, the ill effects of unfair globalization, and trade policies that mostly enrich multinational corporations and certainly not workers.

    "It's time we honored work in this country, not just wealth." - John Edwards

    Posted by mdtaichi at 11/09/2007 @ 2:51pm

22. Posted by MASK 11/09/2007 @ 2:50pm

    Him and Johannesrolf! I hope he hasn't died!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/09/2007 @ 3:21pm

23. Hey, where IS Empty SPENCE anyways?

    heheh

    Posted by MASK

    Ask your momma.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/09/2007 @ 3:43pm

24. I'll be clear: I'm a moderate socialist, but it'll never happen unless the majority of Americans wanted it to happen, and I wouldn't dare suggest that it occur by any method other than democracy.

    Posted by MATTMAN

    And you call this sham a democracy?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/09/2007 @ 3:44pm

25. Posted by MATTMAN 11/09/2007 @ 3:21pm

    "Professor" ROLF got tired of "us kids" mocking him and not bowing down at the altar of his superior intellect....and left. Good riddence to bad arrogance, I say.

    Empty isn't going anywhere. He's got to stick around for a few years telling us not to vote, then no matter who gets elected, tell us how wise and principled he was to not participate....and then going on for another 4-8-16-24 years waiting for the Democrats to do everything he wants and not settling for one iota less than Empty perfection from them!

    Unless he pulls another heist and then we don't see him for 5-7...maybe 4 with good behavior.

    Posted by Mask at 11/09/2007 @ 4:01pm

26. And you call this sham a democracy?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/09/2007 @ 3:44pm

    Label it what you will, it's what we have to work with in the here and now, regardless of the obvious fact that the left has to work against the grain to make headway. Rather than submit a call to arms and ignite a bloody revolution to take the white house by coup, the only option at anyone's disposal is to play The Game.

    The Game is rigged, but to what extent is a function of which party is stacking the deck. Democrats taking the white house will put lefties at a much more advantageous strategic position for future power grabs than we would get should our left vote be divided by another Nader.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/09/2007 @ 4:24pm

27. I don't know about any of you lefties and moderates, but the leading Republican contender, Rudy Giuliani, scares the shit out of me with the attitudes he's displayed. Four years of an augmented Bush? No thanks. He makes Hillary look like the freakin Messiah!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/09/2007 @ 4:27pm

28. Hillary is Bill in drag ... She'll put a big Wal Mart smiley face on the carnage in Iraq , as Bill did when he helped 500,000 children die there during his tenure with sanctions. She'll praise technological advances while continuing Media conglomeration , as Bill did with the Telecommmunications Act. She'll advocate for the down trodden in foreign countries , while freetrading any advances away to new and more naive countries as Bill did with NAFTA and the WTO.

    Posted by mmckinl at 11/10/2007 @ 12:36am