John Edwards appears to oppose free trade, while Clinton and Obama support it...

[k_jerome]

to some degree. Will this make a difference to the electorate when the real campaign begins and the debates commence in earnest? I see this as being a real hot button in the coming months.

[AshevilleGuy]

1. How does he oppose free trade? NT

[k_jerome]

2. he voted against free trade agreements in the Senate...

and used trade as an issue to separate himself from John Kerry in 2004. he even zinged Kerry regarding his support of free trade agreements.

[auntAgonist]

3. I heard him on "on point" with Tom Ashbrook

today (Monday)on NPR. He says he's for 'fair trade'.
I missed a lot of the program because I was at work, but I did catch that.

aA

[k_jerome]

4. i think he will use it to separate himself from Clinton and Obama...

as he did with Kerry in 2004.

[auntAgonist]

5. Here is a link to the interview

with John Edwards on the program "On Point" with Tom Ashbrook. You can listen to the show.


http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/02/20070226_a_main.asp

[FrenchieCat]

6. My understanding is that all of the frontrunners are for Fair Trade.....

IN fact, all of the Democrats running are for Fair Trade. In fact, I don't know any Democrats who talk only about Free Trade and doesn't include the same safeguards to ensure Fair Trade.

Why don't you detail the differences between the stances that you believe makes John Edwards different, so that we can understand more what it is that you are expressing?

Hillary
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=240183

Obama
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050630-why_i_oppose_cafta/index.html

Edwards
http://www.jregrassroots.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4993

Handy - 3 frontrunner photo from the Wapo! :)

[k_jerome]

8. just noting that Edwards voted against free trade agreements while in the Senate...

and criticized John Kerry in 2004 regarding free trade. Both Obama and Clinton, while voting against CAFTA, did vote for a free trade agreement with Oman recently.

I believe Edwards will use this issue as a way to differentiate himself from the other two.

[Top08Gear_com]

7. Free trade vs Fair Trade

Edwards has always stood for FAIR trade while any talk on the matter from the other candidates is a recent thing. However, seeing as I'm for fair trade, if any of them actually follows through to attempt to level the playing field for Americans in the global marketplace...more power to em! :)

As for Edwards:

Edwards and Unions Stand Together

[FrenchieCat]

9. But aren't they all for "free" trade as well?

MR. EDWARDS: Senator Edwards, you voted to admit China to the World Trade Organization. China now enjoys a $100 billion trade surplus with the United States, and I would expect some of those textile jobs in Carolina are now being done in China.

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, first, Bob, let me say I come from a family of textile workers. I grew up in a small town in North Carolina where the mill was the primary source of employment. And when that mill closed, it was devastating in our community. And it is so important for us to have a president who understands that jobs are about a lot more than a paycheck. They are in fact about dignity, `self-respect`, `self-worth`. We have so much work to do to deal with the jobs that we've lost, and to protect the jobs that we already have.

First, we need trade agreements that are -- we can have free trade, but we need fair trade also -- which is, by the way, why I voted against Fast Track, why I voted against the Singapore trade agreement, why I voted against the Chile trade agreement, why I voted against the `coal-bed` methane trade agreement -- because they did not have those protections in place. And we need real protections for workers.
http://www.jregrassroots.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4993

[tblue]

11. What matters to me is how they've actually voted, rather than what they say now

[FrenchieCat]

12. It's my feeling that all three are pretty similar on the issue of trade....

even if Hillary is not as "warm" when she says it.

[tblue]

13. Am I the only one (and you, too) who doesn't give a sh*t if she's warm or not?

[FrenchieCat]

14. I don't care about warm either,

I'm looking for competence first. judgment second, and brains third....everything after that is extra. I can get warmth from by hubby and a blanket. I don't think I'm needing a politician to give that to me.

[tblue]

15. Or who would be fun to have a beer with. We see how well that worked out.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Yep. I can drink champagne with my friends....

don't need a President for that either. In fact, there's gonna be soooo much work, I don't even want my next President drinking alcohol for the first 90 days! :)

[tblue]

17. I also like it when the president is a lot smarter than me

[FrenchieCat]

18. Seems like we should all want that.

It's a big job.

I'm just amazed that George Bush was selected for it. He is way too small minded and unintelligent.

I'm still in shock when I think about it. He really devalued the office, didn't he? Sad.

[tblue]

21. But notice how almost all Republic POTUSe since Nix*n were all very malleable

so they can be made to do the bidding of the multinational corps that install them. The only qualification is to be appealing on the most superficial level and willing to do what they're told. Oh, and they must be without any morals whatsoever. They don't have to have experience, knowledge, or brains. In fact, the less brains, the better.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. I don't think that's very realistic

After about a week when the new President begins to fully realize just how much Dubya has fucked things up, I think that he or she is going to need a drink or two.

[tblue]

22. Yeah, can you imagine trying to clean up this mess?

[Robson]

31. Agreed... Free Unfair Trade is NOT Free

What's it been now......30-40 years of free trade and the result for the USA has been a relentless annual increase in trade deficits. How f#$%^in long does in take our supposed "trade reps" to figure out something is wrong. At the present rate we'll have totally sold our country out and down the tubes in the name of "free trade".

I compare the government nomenclature "free trade" the same as "patriot act" or "clear skies initiative". It's all bull propaganda.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

10. I hate this issue,

The problems associated with free trade have less to do with globalization itself and more to do with domestic policies of our own making. The fact that the US has chosen the "low road" approach to contemporary economic change isn't the fault of anyone but ourselves. Much of what has happened would have happened with or without globalization.

But in politics, trashing a foreign actor who is unlikely to get involved is just so much easier.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. The terms "free trade" and "fair trade" are extremely vague

Free trade is supposedly when two countries decide to have trade with each other free of restrictions. Yet if that were the case, NAFTA and other supposedly "free trade" agreements wouldn't be thousands of pages long and include plenty of tariffs and quotas.

Fair trade is supposedly when trade agreements are written to benefit workers in the developing world. Personally I'm an advocate of free trade and believe that the US should not trade with countries that don't treat their workers in a humane manner and pay them a living wage (of course we're going to have to start paying a living wage here at home if we want to do this).

There is, however, a difference between fair trade and protectionism and a misconception that fair trade will stop outsourcing. Fair trade will not stop outsourcing. Yes it may reduce its effects somewhat, but the fact is that even if China, Mexico, Indonesia, and all of the other countries have to start paying their workers a living wage, their living wage is a lot less than an American living wage. Jobs will still be outsourced. Protectionism is the institution of tariffs and quotas specifically for protecting American industries. Protectionisms benefits are that it protects American industry from having to compete with foreign competition and American jobs from being shipped overseas. On the other hand, consumers benefit greatly from foreign competition because goods are cheaper (again, even if Wal Mart didn't exploit its workers here and overseas it would still be able to provide goods that are cheaper than if they were made in America).

Protectionism according to most economists is bad for the American people, because the bottom line is that we pay more for our goods and services if we demand that they be produced in America instead of overseas. On the other hand, the American workforce is having an extremely difficult time adjusting to the global economy. At first it was just manufacturing jobs but the high tech jobs are also being outsourced. There is definitely a case to be made that protectionism is necessary at least until we can adjust.

[AJH032]

23. I like your assessment

it seems reasonable and fair, and I agree.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. As a clarification, I mean to say that I'm an advocate of "fair trade"

Not "free trade".

[pampango]

28. That is a great discussion of the difference between fair trade

and protectionism. ;-)

[sandnsea]

24. Is this a problem??

Edwards opposing free trade agreements?? :shrug:

[NDP]

26. John Edwards does not "oppose" free trade

There is actually no such thing as free trade. It's a frame.

[geek tragedy]

27. Obama and Clinton voted against CAFTA.

Edwards represented a state that had a lot to lose from increased imports but that doesn't gain a lot from exports, so he naturally was going to oppose more trade agreements than Senators from Illinois or New York.

[mnhtnbb]

29. Interesting discussion of free/fair trade and the positions of

Edwards and Obama on dailykos.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/26/8217/90407

[leftofthedial]

30. the electorate was sold the "free trade" bill of goods once already

by the DLCers. It will be interesting to see if they learned anything from the experience and its tragic consequences.

Judging by how long it took the electorate to figure out that Iraq is a disaster, I'm not optimistic. I imagine whichever "Democrat" has the most money to spend will "win."