Clinton Backing Bush's NAFTA Expansion Will Hurt Her In Iowa & NH

By David Sirota:

Under intense pressure from opponents in the 2008 presidential race and a building national fair trade movement, Sen. Hillary Clinton tonight finally disclosed her position on a Bush administration-backed bill to expand the NAFTA trade model that passed the U.S. House today and is now moving to the U.S. Senate. Reuters is reporting that Clinton says she will vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement - the first agreement in a package of corporate-crafted agreements to vastly expand the NAFTA trade model.

Clinton is citing the Peru deal's labor standards as justification for her support, despite the fact that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has told reporters it has received "assurances" that those labor standards are "unenforceable," and despite a Columbia University report showing how the Peru deal could actually weaken labor law enforcement.

The announcement, which flies in the face of polls showing the public strongly opposed to NAFTA-style trade policies, 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 reap financial rewards from the NAFTA model. Rubin's announcement came with a promise to raise Clinton more money from Wall Street.

This announcement could change the dynamics of the presidential race, considering recent headline-grabbing plant closings in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and considering the NAFTA expansion was opposed by two out of Iowa's three Democratic House Members, and both of New Hampshire's.

As my nationally syndicated newspaper column out tomorrow details, trade and globalization is taking center stage in the 2008 presidential campaign. Clinton's announcement will now specifically make job-killing, wage-destroying NAFTA-style trade policy a flashpoint in the race for the White House.

Link: http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/breaking_clinton_announces_support_nafta_expansion

we need to export these folks

the progressive and liberal wing of the Democratic party have been taken for granted, and played for suckers by the Democratic leadership in Congress, and I suspect by the leading Democratic candidate, and they just keep coming back for more

Look at how many labor unions that have endorsed Hillary. Far more than the other Democratic candidates

Sometimes we deserve exactly what we get. bush was elected by a fraud in 2000, and in 2004 the Democrats did NOTHING to prevent voters from being disenfranchised as they were in 2000.

I will vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is in 2008, only because of the Supreme Court, but to be frank, I don't trust them on that either. The leading candidate voted for the IWR, a clear violation of the War Powers Act, and also voted for the Patriot Act, a clear violation of the Constitution. Now they shift their positions, but that only says they lack good judgement, or they don't vote based on what is right, but what they perceive will get them more votes.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

"assurances" are coming from the rich who think they can keep getting judges to rule that labor standards inspectors can not inspect anything without owner permission.

Peru says it has changed.

We shall see one way or another.

But I do agree this will hurt Clinton and I expect Obama to win Iowa.