Reply #5: And of course there's the matter of Columbian President Uribe

[anigbrowl]

Calling out Obama over the trade agreement...but curiously, not Clinton who is also opposed to it. As far as I know.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/04/obama-refutes-colombian-president/?mod=WSJBlog
"In an interview with the Journal’s Jose de Cordoba published Friday, Uribe said opposition to the trade agreement would deal a serious blow to U.S. relations with Colombia, one of Washington’s strongest allies in South America where anti-American attitudes have been resurging in recent years. “I deplore that Sen. Obama, apparently because he wants to be president of the U.S., ignores all that Colombia has achieved,” he said.

Labor unions have fought hard against the trade deal, arguing that the Bogota hasn’t done enough to quell violence against trade union organizers. Uribe said that the country had made progress, and that the number of assassinated union members and teachers had fallen to 26 last year from 205 in 2001.

“That’s not the kind of behavior that we want to reward,” Obama said. “I think until we get that straightened out its inappropriate for us to move forward.”

He pointed to his support of the Peru trade deal that Congress passed last year as an example of his support for free trade under the right circumstances. “We’ve got to have some sort of standards that we stick to,” he said."

Doesn't it seem just a bit coincidental that Mark Penn was having a meeting with Columbia's ambassador earlier this week to discuss the trade deal he is lobbying for, and that the Columbian president only criticized the Democratic candidate that Penn doesn't work for?

PA voters should going to take a long look at Ohio, and NAFTA-gate and Canada-gate and then compare them with this situation.