Hillary Clinton's support of the Peru Free Trade Agreement rules her out as an acceptable option to George Bush. She obviously just doesn't get it.
The Democrats’ answer to the corporatocracy friendly Republicans, Hillary Clinton, finally took the position she has been hiding the past few weeks: she supported the Peru Free Trade Agreement. She joined Barack Obama on this vital issue; unfortunately, Hillary and Barack are solidly on the wrong side on this one. The agreement, hailed by the House leadership for its apparent worker protections, has holes big enough to drive an uninspected truck through. The chamber of commerce has been assured that the worker protections are unenforceable, and environmental and safety concerns are lacking. If you like the trade agreements Bill signed into law in the ‘90’s, egged on by Wall Street’s own Robert Rubin, you’ll love this one. It will continue the race to the bottom for the cheapest labor available in the world, but we will get lower prices at Walmart. Frankly, Clinton’s support doesn’t surprise me in the least, but I am disappointed in Obama. I guess money talks.
This leaves the only viable option of the front runners as John Edwards. I’m not sure where the remainder of the field stands, except for the always right but unfortunately unelectable Dennis Kucinich. Edwards came out strongly against the pact, and chided Clinton to come out of the closet and declare her position (as if there was ever any doubt). This health care reformer turned big pharma and insurance industry shill can always be expected to do what she believes will have the best chance of getting her elected. I sincerely hope that she has miscalculated this time.
Edwards, on the other hand, has throughout his career consistently stood up for working families. His entire campaign is predicated on the two Americas; the haves and have nots. The main stream press may continue to bring up $400 hair cuts, and his former involvement with hedge funds, but his record is solid. Furthermore, he has the good sense to realize when he makes a mistake, admits his error, and attempts to make things right.
After the past 25 years of Reagan, Bush, Bush, and yes, Clinton, we need more than a new direction; we need wholesale sweeping change. In the 1990’s, there was a small majority who believed the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, who developed the premise of supply-side-economics by defining the desired end point (more wealth for the wealthy) and developed the theory from there. In that realm, Bill Clinton’s "centrist" economic policy looked pretty good. I voted for him twice, and have no regrets.
In the 21st century, however, we need nothing short of an economic populist revolution, and John Edwards is the best qualified to lead that revolution.
Joe