Is HRC or Richardson or Biden or another candidate the most moderate?

[Tejanocrat]

Frankly, I had just assumed that HRC was the most moderate candidate, but Biden has some anti-choice and some anti-consumer votes so I figured he'd be in close contention.

But Bill "High Times" Richardson seems to be holding himself out as the most moderate centrist in a field of liberals:

He stood at the center of "Spin Alley" -- a room given over to candidates and their chosen mouthpieces for hours of post-debate "analysis." And Richardson was analyzing away.

"I came out as the most moderate candidate with the clearest position on Iraq," Richardson insisted as he took a slug from a bottle of water. "I'm a different kind of Democrat."

Richardson was working overtime -- hence the sweat -- to sell that message, a pitch he had struggled to make during the 90-minute debate, where he often looked uncomfortable on stage and failed to distinguish himself from the other "second-tier" candidates.

For Richardson, Spin Alley offered a second bite at the apple, a unique opportunity to change conventional wisdom before it hardened.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042800748.html

"I am not a rock star, but I've got a solid record," he said. "I have got serious experience. I get things done."

Richardson is a former congressman, an ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of Energy under President Clinton. A staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, he said he believes he is the party's moderate candidate.

http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=localnews&tableId=141418&pubDate=4/28/2007

I was looking at Richardson's pro-pot stands and thinking that he couldn't be the most centrist. http://www.hightimes.com/ht/news/content.php?bid=557&aid=3 But it seems that Richardson is reaching out to the middle.

Who's the consensus most moderate centrist candidate, HRC, Richardson, Biden, or someone else?

[wyldwolf]

1. It has never been a secret that Biden and Richardson are more centrist than Clinton

Though I'd put Richardson more to the right than Biden and Clinton.

[dmallind]

3. Depends on the issue

but overall yes I'd agree. Bill Richardson is more cnetrist than the other two - which being a moderate/centrist type is why I support him. Hate to say anyone should NOT support "my guy" but if you are looking for straight ultra-progressive policies down the line he's probably not your best bet ("you" here is generic, not directed at the OP or anyone else as an individual).

[wyldwolf]

4. I am talking overall.

[dmallind]

9. Then yep.

Not sure I could really place HRC and Biden as 2 and 3 either way but Bill's a touch more centrist than either. Closer to the "other" Clinton really, who was fiscally speaking at least very close to a Concord Coalition type. Wouldn't say the gap between any of them is all that huge though. Bog standard regulated global capitalism types who want to balance budgets, all of 'em. Which is fine by me.

[Tejanocrat]

10. I see that point of view. I agree that Richardson isn't too progressive on domestic issues but he's

well qualified on foreign policy. He's got a lot to offer even though he's much more conservative than me on domestic issues.

[wyldwolf]

11. Biden has plenty to offer on foreign policy.

Clinton by extension (more so than anyone else) has plenty to offer on foreign policy.

[Tejanocrat]

12. I simply do not buy into Biden's plan for the US-mandated Balkanization of Iraq.

Much of the strife in the Middle East is exacerbated by Britain's artificial creation of nations and inorganic boundaries to split up the Ottoman government after WWI. This artificial imposition of Western ideas about how the Middle Eastern map should be drawn was a bad idea a century ago and it's not a better idea now.

Moreover, an independent Kurdistan in what is now northern Iraq would invite an ethnic war of cessation in southern (ethnically Kurdish) Turkey. Creating a Shiite state in Southern Iraq would essentially create an Iranian client state on Saudi Arabia's border and remove any buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia (an invitation to regional Sunni versus Shia and Arab versus Persian conflict).

Here is an article discussing other inherent problems in creating "made in the USA" Iraqi states as re-divided by an unwelcome occupying power splitting the country along racial lines as Biden proposes:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=215618

Besides, imagine if a foreign occupying power had intervened in the US Civil War and (1) decided that we were better off with a division rather than a civil war and (2) chose where the North-South border should be drawn. That might give the illusion of a solution that might promote stability, but it would not hold and it would earn the occupying force much enmity.

Saddam was a bad man, but he was a bad man who used brutality to keep the factions in place (I'm not saying this was a good thing; I'm just discussing cause and effect). We removed him. Now there is no one who can keep the factions from each others' throats (this is true both in Iraq and in the broader Middle Eastern division between Sunni and Shia). We couldn't keep them apart even if it was a good idea to impose ourselves into their civil war.

The relative sectarian "peace" in Iraq under Saddam was a false "peace" because it was artificially imposed by a vicious dictator. That false "peace" is now over and if it were possible to restore that false "peace" - if that were a good thing, which is debatable - it would have to be restored with equal brutality by a dictator comparable to Saddam.

Sen. Reid was partly right when he said the war in Iraq was lost. What he should have said was:

(1) the war to oust Saddam has been won,
(2) the war to turn Iraq up-side-down and shake it to confirm that there were no WMDs has been concluded,
(3) the war has evolved into a civil war among the Iraqis and unless the US wants to pick a side in this Iraqi civil war and fight for that side (which would be foolish) there is no role for the US where we can define any plausibly likely outcome as a victory for the US,
(4) the hope harbored by some that we could transition from Saddam's dictatorship to another form of government without an intervening civil war has been lost (either because it was never really Bush's goal because he had ulterior motives, or because Bush was ill-informed and unrealistic in setting this as a goal, or because of Bush's mismanagement of the conflict - take your pick).
Signature lines are currently turned off due to high traffic.

[Czolgosz]

2. I agree. Richardson most conservative, Biden next, Hillary third most conservative.

The Drum Major Institute evaluated the whole Senate based on 8 key votes to support the middle class, from protecting social security to fair trade to Medicare drug protections to the minimum wage:



Only 9% of the Senate (all Democrats) were awarded the highest grade of "A" for supporting the middle class on all 8 issues:



Hillary was one of those 9 Senators who got an "A" for consistently supporting the middle class (along with Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Sarbanes, Corzine, Lautenberg, Leahy, and Feingold). For comparison, both McCain and Hagel got an "F".

http://www.drummajorinstitute.com/congress/outerenvelope_senate.htm

Hillary is too DLC for my taste, but she's hardly the most conservative while Biden and Richardson remain in the race.

[sandnsea]

5. Biden, Hillary then Richardson

I don't know why he's trying to sell himself as a centrist, since the country has moved away from Lieberman style politics.

Richardson is pro-union, pro-choice, signed medical marijuana. He's got a few areas that I'm not happy with, but he's put his signature down when it counted, and is solidly anti-Iraq war. He's a much better bet for the people than Biden or Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

7. hmmm

Richardson is DLC, he says he would have voted for the IWR if he'd been in Congress. Pro-death penalty, pro-gun, for medical pot but voted for mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs and does not believe in legalizing drugs, supports NAFTA, GATT, & WTO.

[Tejanocrat]

18. How can you be pro-union and also pro-NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT?

[sandnsea]

19. We've traded forever

Trade and labor are not exclusive of each other. The trade isn't the problem. Not putting labor, environmental and human rights IN the trade agreements is the problem. Lots of people advocate a change in these trade agreements, not necessarily just pulling out of them altogether.

[Tejanocrat]

22. Whether or not some hypothetical trade agreement has adequate labor, environmental, and human rights

protections is besides the point because NAFTA doesn't and it is NAFTA which labor strongly opposes and which Richardson appears to strongly support.

Or am I missing the point?

I totally agree that Richardson -- more than any other candidate with the possible exception of Biden -- has the ABILITY to negotiate the best trade agreements, but I wonder if he has the VALUES to put labor, environmental, and human rights protections as an absolute condition to access for global markets.

[sandnsea]

23. Why I added info

So people could decide what his values are.

"And we didn’t abandon union families along the way. One of the first things I did as Governor was reinstate collective bargaining for public employees. We secured the first public works labor agreement in New Mexico history. And we made our prevailing wage a union wage.

When it came to standing up for the rights of working people, we didn’t compromise our ideals. We acted on them.

To create all those jobs, we first passed a specific tax credit for creating good paying jobs. We made the rural jobs tax credit permanent, enacted a three-year tax holiday for high-tech startups, and invested state money in local companies that showed great promise for success and job creation.

Rather than use tax cuts to reward the wealthy … I use them to reward putting people to work."


http://blog.4president.org/2008/bill_richardson/index.html

[Tejanocrat]

24. Thanks. You have a good knowledge of Richardson's record (which I sadly lack). But doesn't he stand

by NAFTA or am I mistaken about that?

I have never met anyone in labor who wasn't 100% against NAFTA.

[sandnsea]

26. Google has a good knowledge of Richardson's record

I bother to look it up. Why don't you try it.

[Tejanocrat]

29. I did. You are giving a positive interpretation on his recored (which I like). Google turns up this:

I searched "'Bill Richardson' nafta wto" and here are my top four results:

NAFTA critically important for US as well as Mexico: Strongly Favors {supporting & expanding free trade}
Expand regional trade with Chihuahua: Strongly Favors {supporting & expanding free trade}
Supports NAFTA, GATT, & WTO: Strongly Favors {supporting & expanding free trade}

1st Google result: http://www.ontheissues.org/Bill_Richardson.htm

That seems reasonable enough, but here is my second result:

Protective tariffs generally had been a Republican thing up until Richard Nixon. With this in mind, it was not surprising to old fashioned Republicans that it was a Democrat, Bill Richardson, who worked to fashion a trade policy that allowed American jobs to go to underpaid child laborers in foreign countries that lacked environmental and labor safeguards while American consumers chose foreign goods over American goods. Bill Richardson, promoter of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), saw his dream of a corporate-run world manifested when Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law. Richardson's plan to become President is also the dream of his backers, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which more recently brought us the bankruptcy-elimination legislation. To this day, Bill Richardson stands for free trade and big business.

"NAFTA was critically important, and not only for the reasons commonly cited by its supporters. Yes, the treaty would create the world's largest free-trade region, a market of 360 million people in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Estimates of NAFTA's economic impact varied, but the treaty promised to be a win-win-win for all three countries." http://www.massscorecard.org/Archive/Between_Worlds_Bill_Richardson.htm, Between Worlds by Bill Richardson, p. 112, Nov 3, 2005

In Bill Richardson's own words, his answers to questions about NAFTA, GATT and the WTO:
Q: Do you support broadening North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to include other countries?
A : Yes.
Q: Do you support the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support the WTO?
A: Yes.
Source: 1996 Congressional National Political Awareness Test Nov 1, 1996,http://www.massscorecard.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Free_Trade.htm

Any questions about where this guy stands on the WTO, GATT or NAFTA?

Is anyone surprised that he is a poster boy for the DLC? His corporate connections may explain why he supports continuing to cut taxes for the rich.

Interestingly, his work with the Bilderberg Group has done nothing to prepare Richardson for rescuing corporations from disaster. Serious questions have arisen over his involvement with Peregrine Systems. Inc. He served on the board of directors from February 2001 to June 2002. During that time, the company was reportedly covering up accounting fraud in the amount of $509 million in overstated profits and $2.6 billion in understated losses. He resigned two months after the SEC uncovered the fraud conspiracy. According to Wikipedia, Peregrine's leadership covered up their schemes while selling off their stock, as the result of an audit by BMC. This and other scandals led to the demise of Arthur Andersen, who reportedly aided executives involved in the cover up deceptions. The shareholder equity loss totaled over $4 billion dollars. His close friend and in-law, Peregrine's former president and CEO, Stephen Gardner pled guilty on March 13, 2007 to three felony charges of defrauding the company and shareholders out of millions of dollars. Peregrine filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on September 23, 2002, after laying off the majority of its employees, thousands of workers. During his time on the board Richardson reportedly attended 15 board meetings and was briefed several times on the accounting meltdown inside the company. Richardson made no known move to protect the stockholders or employees. Some believe that Richardson will have little better odds of being elected President than anyone on the board of Enron, a company where similar leadership resulted in a similar disaster.

The Bilderberg Group's power would make a good plot for a movie. Most informed Americans wish it were as fictional as most movies. It is a quasi secret consortium of the international elite who meet annually to plan world economic and political policies. It is connected with the powers behind the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. The attendees and events at the meetings are known, despite attempts to keep the meetings private. Much has been written about the organization, its members and selection process for the U.S. Presidency. Bill Richardson and most 2008 candidates for the Presidency have attended its meetings. The Bilderberg Group is looking forward to seeing one of its vetted candidates, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Chris Dodd, becoming the next commander and chief.

Bill Richardson's campaign is promoting the International Money Fund (IMF), the front for a group that believes corporations should be able to privatize the world and its resources, including food and water. This has been a disaster for countries where the citizens had to march in the street to get rid of the unsanitary privatization of their resources. On Richardson's campaign website, there is a call for providing the IMF with more resources. Bill Richardson received praise at a G-7 summit for his call for the United Nations to serve as a parallel forum to the Bretton Woods institutions. The Bretton Woods Committee notes, in its mission statement, that it "seeks to increase understanding of the World Bank, IMF, WTO and the regional development banks and their efforts to spur economic growth, alleviate poverty and improve financial stability." Mr. Richardson has a history of participation in the Global Marketplace G-7 conferences.

California and Nevada farmers are concerned about the impact of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository. Scientists have found that the design is unsafe and that normal ground water levels could flood the containment area, leading to contamination of the ground water and the Colorado River. As the head of the Department of Energy, Richardson approved a $3.1 billion contract with Bechtel for work on the project. Richardson's department issued a controversial report validating Yucca Mountain's suitability for the project.

Richardson has declared his strong support for the death penalty, a punishment that, in the Western Hemisphere, has been only used by the United States in recent years.

Some Americans would use the word "racist" to describe Richardson's call for revoking citizenship of children of immigrants. "Children of illegal immigrants, born in the United States, should not automatically receive US citizenship." http://www.massscorecard.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Immigration.htm The ambiguity has caused Latino groups to ignore Richardson and look for candidates who will not threaten the rights of children.

If politics were a sport or an adventure, Bill Richardson would be a leader of a mountain-climbing expedition for a pot of gold at the top of a dangerous mountain. He would make sure that the richest climbers had the better equipment. After learning that the hard-working climbers in his party were using defective equipment, he would silently rush on while allowing ropes to break and his supporters to fall off the cliff. When he got close to the goal, he would tell the majority of climbers who stuck it out with him they are no longer needed and to return home.

2nd Google result: http://www.ontheissues.org/Bill_Richardson.htm

Can you now see why I'd prefer to trust your take on Richardson than this guy's?

Here's the third Google result:

NAFTA was critically important, and not only for the reasons commonly cited by its supporters. Yes, the treaty would create the world's largest free-trade region, a market of 360 million people in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Estimates of NAFTA's economic impact varied, but the treaty promised to be a win-win-win for all three countries.

That didn't mean the absence of dislocation: while NAFTA figured to create more jobs in the US, some jobs would be lost. A key part of the final bill presented to Congress needed to include worker-adjustment programs and other so-called side agreements addressing such issues as labor standards and the environment.

I felt the treaty was crucial to Mexico. I thought NAFTA would create positive economic change and help to stimulate a broader political debate. I thought it also had the potential to affect the immigration issue: if Mexico's economy boomed, better-paying jobs would provide Mexicans an incentive to stay home.
Click for Bill Richardson on other issues. Source: Between Worlds, by Bill Richardson, p.112-3

3rd Google result:http://www.issues2000.org/News_NAFTA.htm

I can live with this as a source, but here's my fourth Google result:

Thoughts on the South Carolina Presidential Debate

I saw most of the South Carolina debate tonight. However, I just had gotten home, was eating dinner, and cleaning up while it was on. Here is my feelings on how the debate went:

I was impressed with the questions that were asked by Brian Williams. These weren't at all softball questions. With 8 candidates however, it was hard for them to get very in depth on the answers during the 90 minute debate. The yes/no, raise your hand, and 1 sentence answers were dumb. Just ask the question, give them a time limit, and let the candidates go.

As for how the candidates performed, I think Biden did very well. He came across as knowledgeable and personable. Gravel made some good points. At least he had some fire, though he will probably be known as the crazy old guy from now own. He and Kucinich probably had too much time. Obama's charisma showed on the debate stage and it was interesting to see Kucinich and Gravel go after him about being anti-war. Edwards and Clinton all did well enough and didn't hurt themselves at all.

I was disappointed with Richardson. He hogged all the time and every answer had at least 3 or 4 parts before they cut him off. Note to Richardson: we aren't looking for 12 point plans, we are looking for someone to lead based on principles. We can get to the details later on. Was Dodd even there?

Here are my rankings of their performance during the debate...
1. Joe Biden
2. Barack Obama
3. John Edwards
4. Hillary Clinton
5. Mike Gravel
6. Dennis Kucinich
7. Chris Dodd
8. Bill Richardson

4th Google result:http://commoniowan.blogspot.com/search/label/Bill%20Richardson

Finally, and this is specifically why I have been asking you about Richardson's views on labor, I came across this AFL/CIO website as the fifth Google result:

As U.N. ambassador under Pres. Bill Clinton, Richardson represented the administration’s view that free trade could ultimately be a positive thing for the country. In a speech at the City of Denver’s Annual Free Trade Dinner,

“Richardson warned …against the threat of pacifism in the face of global opportunities and challenges, and emphasized the growing importance of free trade, both to Americans and the world at large….'We must be willing to embrace, not selfishly evade, the responsibilities and obligations that the imperative of American leadership entails,' Ambassador Richardson told the several hundred guests. To do so, 'we must do more to seize the opportunity and the limitless possibilities that free trade and global engagement represents for the American people.' ” (Richardson’s remarks, 5/19/98)

But Richardson supports stronger enforcements for wage disparity and worker and environmental protection.

"On the pending free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, Richardson said, 'I'm a free trader. But I think free trade agreements have to have stronger enforcements in three areas: wage disparity, worker protection and environmental protection.' He said he would only support the pending trade deals if they contain stronger enforcement provisions in those areas." (Miami Herald, 2/26/07)

5th Google result: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/issues_trade.cfm

While this AFL/CIO discussion of Richardson is balanced, it is less favorable than the discussions of all the other Democrats (and less favorable than the discussion of some Republicans' views). I think you have a positive view of Richardson and have offered a good defense of his views. I certainly thought you were a better source than the anti-Richardson nut that was my second Google result.

[sandnsea]

30. Supports stronger protections, thank you!

Exactly what I was looking for. As I said, trade is more than for or against NAFTA. Thanks for adding the missing piece. Richardson is the same on trade as most Democrats, except Kucinich who wants to pull out of all the trade agreements and the WTO. Glad that's cleared up.



"But Richardson supports stronger enforcements for wage disparity and worker and environmental protection.

'On the pending free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, Richardson said, 'I'm a free trader. But I think free trade agreements have to have stronger enforcements in three areas: wage disparity, worker protection and environmental protection.' He said he would only support the pending trade deals if they contain stronger enforcement provisions in those areas.' (Miami Herald, 2/26/07)"

[Tejanocrat]

31. But the AFL/CIO gives every other Democratic candidate (and some Republicans) strong praise:

Joe Biden (D)

Biden has voted for some trade agreements, but he has steadfastly voted against recent bad agreements covering Central America, Oman, the Dominican Republic, Singapore and Chile. (The Times Union, 8/2/05; S. 3569, 6/29/06; S. 1307, 6/30/05; H.R. 2739, 7/31/03; H.R. 2738, 7/31/03)

Biden also has been fighting to retain manufacturing jobs in Delaware by working with other officials to keep Chrysler’s Newark plant open and save 2,100 jobs. He has lobbied Chrysler to keep the plant open, meeting with Chrysler officials and writing a letter on the plant’s behalf, and has proposed legislation to help make the plant, and Chrysler, more competitive. Biden’s legislation includes $500 million for research and development of advanced battery technology for hybrid vehicles and a raise on the cap of the number of hybrid vehicles that would be eligible for consumer tax credits.

“We have to be out there moving like the devil to give them a competitive capability," Biden said. The Detroit News reported that Biden said “there aren’t many blue-collar jobs that provide a good standard of living. ‘I think the industry has had a real wake-up call. But we have to help them on health care and a national energy policy and they have to start thinking of the next decade and not the quarter or there's no way out for them.’” (The News Journal, 2/18/07, 2/9/07; Detroit News, 1/8/07)

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)

Clinton voted against CAFTA and an unfair trade agreement with the Dominican Republic, but she voted for bad trade agreements with Oman, Singapore and Chile. (S. 3569, 6/29/06; S. 1307, 6/30/05; H.R. 2739, 7/31/03; H.R. 2738, 7/31/03)

At the 2006 UAW legislative conference, Clinton discussed the importance of labor standards in trade agreements and why she voted against CAFTA:

"…ne of the reasons I voted against CAFTA is that it retreated from advances we were beginning to make at the end of the 1990s. We should never ever enter into a labor agreement in the 21st century that does not have labor and environmental standards in trade. Because if we don’t have trade agreements that lift the bottom up, we will see a race to the bottom.

"And that means we’ve got to enforce the trade agreements that are already on the books, something that this administration refuses to do. That is why we cannot grant Thailand access to the U.S. auto market. That would be just like admitting that we’re dying and would just speed the suicide.

"This makes no sense at all. I believe in trade. But I believe in trade where it’s not only on a level playing field but where we are lifting up the world not driving the American worker and the American standard of living down." (UAW Legislative Policy Conference, 2/8/06)

At the same conference, she talked about the importance of retaining manufacturing jobs in the United States:

“You know, we are in the position we find ourselves today: where we are losing good paying jobs, where wages are stagnant, where people are losing health care and pension security, and where we have a government that wants to undo the work of the 20th century…And it just reinforced, for me, that whatever is wrong with American manufacturing can be fixed by doing what is right with American manufacturing and putting people in charge who know how to do that.

"We have competitive advantages that nobody in the world has. We have a strong, flexible, hard-working, experienced workforce. We just have to unleash you to be able to be competitive. We have a real commitment to innovation, but we don’t get any support from our government on that front. We have elected officials who are willing to stand up and form a consensus about how to enhance manufacturing." (UAW Legislative Policy Conference, 2/8/06)

Because of the damage to our manufacturing sector, she said in New Hampshire:

"…here is a sense among many that, after years of forward momentum, the country's progress has begun reversing. This is especially true for middle-class workers and people once employed in the manufacturing industry. 'They are running in place, but they feel like they are falling behind,' she said." (Rutland Herald, 2/12/07; Video: Keene, N.H., town hall, 2/11/07)

Chris Dodd (D)

Dodd has voted against recent bad trade agreements including CAFTA and trade agreements with Oman, Dominican Republic, Singapore and Chile. (H.R. 3045, 7/28/05; S. 3569, 6/29/06; S. 1307, 6/30/05; H.R. 2739, 7/31/03; H.R. 2738, 7/31/03)

In 2002, he offered an amendment to Fast Track trade authority legislation requiring U.S. trade negotiators to seek workers’ rights standards and enforcement provisions in future agreements. (H.R. 3009, motion to kill amendment passed 5/16/02)

Dodd met with members of the Machinists union to discuss the economy, job exporting and ways to strengthen the defense and aerospace industries. He also has said he “wants to overhaul parts of the Defense Production Act (DPA) to protect industries and jobs that are vital to national security….Dodd said the manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy "is hemorrhaging, plain and simple—including jobs in defense manufacturing." (Senate website, 5/16/06; American Economic Alert, 2/2/07)

John Edwards (D)

Edwards opposes a proposed trade deal with South Korea, which he says would be bad for the U.S. auto industry, and wants to see real labor standards in future trade agreements.

"We need trade that works for American workers, which means there need to be real labor standards, real environmental standards…."(Associated Press, 4/22/07)

As a U.S. senator, Edwards voted against bad trade agreements with Singapore and Chile.He also supported an amendment to Fast Track trade authority legislation to require U.S. trade negotiators to seek workers’ rights standards and enforcement provisions in future trade agreements, equal to those negotiated in the U.S.-Jordan agreement. (H.R. 2739, 7/31/03; H.R. 2738, 7/31/03; H.R. 3009, 5/16/02)

Unions, Edwards says, made manufacturing jobs good jobs and calls "organized labor the nation's ‘greatest anti-poverty movement.’" (AP, 9/4/06)

Mike Gravel (D)

NAFTA has been a "disaster," according to Gravel:

"NAFTA has been a disaster for the working class of both the U.S. and Mexico and has been a godsend for corporations. A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that through 2004 over 1,000,000 U.S. jobs were lost as a result of NAFTA, a third of them manufacturing jobs. In Mexico, 1.3 million farm workers lost their jobs in the same period. This has led to a wave of immigrant workers looking for work in the U.S. job market.

"Major structural changes must be made to NAFTA in order to restore lost jobs. Reforming unfair trade policies will stimulate job growth on both sides of the border and allow Mexican workers to remain in their motherland. We must make fair trade a priority if we are to rebuild the American middle class." (Campaign website; E-mail interview with Mike Gravel)

Dennis Kucinich (D)

Kucinich is a vocal opponent of unfair trade policies and job exporting.

"I have traveled across America. And I have seen the effects of agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA: padlocked gates of abandoned factories, grass growing in parking lots of places where workers used to make steel, used to make washing machines, used to make textiles, used to make machine parts.

"Free trade has meant freedom for the American worker to stand in the unemployment line while their jobs were traded away. So-called free trade has brought broken dreams, broken homes, broken hearts to the American manufacturing worker. Trade without equity is tyranny. Trade without economic justice is theft. Trade without integrity, without workers' rights, without human rights, without environmental principles is not worthy of a free people." (Kucinich in the final House CAFTA debate, 7/27/05)

Kucinich advocates the end of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization to protect workers and the environment.

"The exodus of jobs from our shores and the "race to the bottom" for workers around the world is an obvious result of NAFTA and the WTO, both of which make it impossible to place taxes or tariffs on outsourced work. The search for countries where workers are unrepresented and environmental rules are lax must end. NAFTA, WTO, 'Fast Track' legislation, and the Free Trade Area of the Americas must be rejected and replaced with Fair Trade policies in which bilateral trade agreements are negotiated to provide for living wages for workers and environmental safeguards." (Campaign website)

Barack Obama (D)

Obama voted against CAFTA but for the Oman Free Trade Agreement. (H.R. 3045, 7/28/05; S. 3569, 6/29/06)

He said he opposed CAFTA because workers are not getting help dealing with the negative effects of the corporate-driven global economy.

"I wish I could vote in favor of CAFTA. In the end, I believe that expanding trade and breaking down barriers between countries is good for our economy and for our security, for American consumers and American workers.…I meet these workers all across Illinois, workers whose jobs moved to Mexico or China and are now competing with their own children for jobs that pay 7 bucks an hour. In town meetings and union halls, I've tried to tell these workers the truth—that these jobs aren't coming back, that globalization is here to stay and that they will have to train more and learn more to get the new jobs of tomorrow. But when they wonder how they will get this training and this education, when they ask what they will do about their health-care bills and their lower wages and the general sense of financial insecurity that seems to grow with each passing day, I cannot look them in the eyes and tell them that their government is doing a single thing about these problems. That is why I won't vote for CAFTA." (Press release, 6/30/05)

Bill Richardson (D)

As U.N. ambassador under Pres. Bill Clinton, Richardson represented the administration’s view that free trade could ultimately be a positive thing for the country. In a speech at the City of Denver’s Annual Free Trade Dinner,

“Richardson warned …against the threat of passivism in the face of global opportunities and challenges, and emphasized the growing importance of free trade, both to Americans and the world at large….'We must be willing to embrace, not selfishly evade, the responsibilities and obligations that the imperative of American leadership entails,' Ambassador Richardson told the several hundred guests. To do so, 'we must do more to seize the opportunity and the limitless possibilities that free trade and global engagement represents for the American people.' ” (Richardson’s remarks, 5/19/98)

But Richardson supports stronger enforcements for wage disparity and worker and environmental protection.

"On the pending free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, Richardson said, 'I'm a free trader. But I think free trade agreements have to have stronger enforcements in three areas: wage disparity, worker protection and environmental protection.' He said he would only support the pending trade deals if they contain stronger enforcement provisions in those areas." (Miami Herald, 2/26/07)

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/issues_trade.cfm

If you think this is a fair guide, I will go by it. Thanks for your patience.

[sandnsea]

34. It's added info

Everybody has an agenda, it's important to get info from a variety of sources, compare what's said where. I'm glad Richardson supports some changes to trade. At least he doesn't sound like Lieberman.

[Tejanocrat]

35. You hit the nail on the head. Thanks again. When you say "everybody has an agenda" I was just trying

find out what labor's agenda was and how the various candidates were regarded by labor (by which I mean SEIU, AFL/CIO, teamsters etc.).

[Warpy]

6. They're all moderate (right of center) in different ways

Both Clinton and Richardson are fiscal moderates, meaning they're staunch believers in free trade without fair trade and generally against the right of workers to organize. In addition, Richard's record says tax cuts to the rich help the economy, but that tax cuts to the poor should be offset by (ta da) tax hikes on the poor.

The difference is that Richardson's positions on a few things like medical pot and gay marriage make him downright radical compared to the rest of the field. Both have good records on social issues.

Clinton's downfall will be her staunch support of Bush's War.

Biden has been better at labor issues, which is why he's got so much union support. Alas, he too has drunk from the free trade Koolaid barrel.

The question of "who's more moderate than whom?" is comparing apples to oranges and always will be. No one candidate will please everybody.

[sandnsea]

13. Richardson is fair on labor

He just signed a labor bill, I can't remember if it was card check for sure. But he's got a better record on labor than one would expect. The labor legislation was the first time I even considered giving him a second look.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/4919/1/243

[Czolgosz]

16. If labor was a big issue for you, I'd've thought you'd be less inclined toward pro-NAFTA Richardson

and more inclined toward pro-labor Edwards (I know you don't like him. I'm just surprised that you see labor issues as important and yet favor Richardson over Edwards):

But for those who stuck around to hear Edwards speak, his concrete progressive proposals coupled with a passionate and eloquent message won many converts on the Convention floor – including possibly myself.... With a campaign that has focused on poverty and workers’ rights, Edwards has picked up substantial support among labor unions.... Edwards was the only candidate besides Bill Richardson (who spoke later) to mention the genocide in Darfur, the only candidate to focus on the gap between rich and poor, the only to acknowledge the problem of race in America, and while everyone else talked about universal health care, Edwards was the only serious candidate to talk about single-payer.... Edwards spoke forcefully about poverty in America, and listed the most comprehensive economic justice agenda of any candidate – starting, he said, with a national living wage. “If you can join the Republican Party by signing a card,” said Edwards, “every worker should be able to join a union by signing a card. We ought to ban the permanent replacement of scab workers.”... He suggested requiring every employer to provide health care or else create a fund – and give Americans free choices on what health care system to get. “And that may end up being single-payer,” he said. Edwards said his plan will cost $90-120 billion a year, “and I can pay for it by getting rid of George Bush’s tax cut.”.

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Edwards_Gains_Most_Converts_at_State_Party_Convention_4461.html

[sandnsea]

17. Don't like Edwards??

Where'd you get that idea? Because I do think people with wealth should be more responsible with their spending choices?? I think that about ALL Dem leaders.

I simply added info on Richardson. He has been better to labor than I expected. People deserve to know the whole picture when making their choices. I'm leery of Richardson more because of the 2004 election than I am NAFTA. I also don't blame all our labor problems on trade, it's a lot more complicated than that. It's possible Richardson supports labor, environmental and human rights agreements IN the trade bills. If so, then I'm willing to listen and look at what he has to say.

[seasat]

8. They'll all run moderate in the general election

Most run will run more to the left for the primary and to the center for general. Right now Richardson is probably the closest to the middle. He's running to the right of the rest of the candidates on some issues. However, on social issues, he has a record that is pretty liberal.

I disagree with some assertions that Richardson is pro-tax cuts for the rich. He said when he cut the top rate for NM that it wasn't done as a matter of principle but as a matter of competition. The surrounding states had much lower rates and it was a factor in attracting businesses that wanted to move to midwestern states. He was deputy whip in the house in the early nineties and was credited with helping get Bill Clinton's tax increase on the top rates through the house. He also cut the lowest rate in NM, removed sales taxes on medical and food, and initiated an earned income tax credit for NM.

Richardson is very pro-balanced budget. If he beats the odds and becomes our next president, he'll probably let some of the Shrub Inc tax cuts expire to pay for programs like his universal health insurance plan. Since these tax cuts have an expiration date, he can claim that he didn't actually raise taxes because these cuts were never intended to be permanent.

Where he is conservative is on violent crime sentencing and guns. That would make him a real strong candidate against Repugs.

Biden is more conservative on banking and corporate regulations. Hillary can sometimes lean conservative on some social issues but it probably to thwart the Repug point that she is too liberal. If had to rank them, I'd put Richardson and Biden tied for the most moderate (depending on the issue) and Hillary behind them. If I was to put records of what they supported in the past ten years in the mix, I'd have to include Edwards up there with/or near Richardson and Biden.

[seasat]

14. Rasmussen ranks candidates on whether con, mod, or liberal.

This is interesting for the top three:

Among Democrats, Clinton is seen as politically moderate by 40%, liberal by 37% and conservative by 19%.

The numbers among Democrats for Obama are 39% moderate, 39% liberal, and 12% conservative.

Edwards is viewed by 46% of Democrats as politically moderate. Thirty percent (30%) say liberal and 13% conservative.

They give more information in the general matchups. Hillary and Clark are ranked at 52% liberal by the total population sample. If we scale the numbers from the general population removing the "no opinion samples" we get:


Scaled Liberal Moderate Conservative
Biden 48 44 8
Clark 54 34 12
Hillary 55 31 14
Edwards 44 42 14
Obama 49 39 17
Richardson 26 64 9

Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel were not polled on leanings.

Kinda interesting how the general population percieves our candidates versus us on DU.

[Czolgosz]

15. I think Hillary's high "liberal" identification is due to Rush constantly attacking her as a liberal

I think Richardson's low numbers for either liberal or conservative are due to the unfamiliarity of many with his record.

As for Obama's high conservative rating, it's a complete mystery to me. He's not Dennis Kucinich liberal, but he's certainly on the left half of the field. Perhaps it is somewhat influenced by his book, The Audacity of Hope, which takes some swipes at New Deal Democrats, but I wouldn't think that many people would be familiar with the book so I have no real explanation.

[polichick]

33. True, about the "liberal" branding by people like Rush.

Meanwhile, conservatives are supposedly contributing to Hillary's campaign because they think Reps will lose in 08 and they see her as the least liberal Dem.

Sometimes it seems people see Obama as conservative just because of his haircut!

[wyldwolf]

21. And people on DU keep telling me Rasmussen is the #1 most reliable poll

[bklyncowgirl]

20. Richardson's a mixed bag--reminds me a bit of Howard Dean

Foreign Policy: Mainstream to liberal
He has one of the strongest positions on the Iraq War which would make him appeal to those of us on the left as does his diplomatic approach to world affairs.

Crime & Guns: Conservative (with considerable appeal to libertarians)
He is pro-gun rights and also pro-death penalty which are to the right of most Democrats.

Economic Isssues: Mainstream to conservative Democrat.
He is a deficit hawk but does not want to raise taxes. He was strongly pro NAFTA but having seen the results now says he favors labor and environmental right negotiated into any future trade agreements.
As a governor, he has done everything he can to lure corporations to his state including tax breaks and other favors--I see this as a mainstream Democratic position and something that any governor ends up doing if he or she wants to be a success in our current environment but if you are strongly anti-corporate then you see this as conservative corporate sellout.

Social Issues: Mainstream to liberal Democrat
He is pro-choice and pro-stem cell research. He is pro-civil unions and opposes Don't Ask Don't Tell. He signed a bill to legalize medicinal use of marijuana appealing to liberals and libertarians alike.

Environmental Issues: Mainstream to liberal Democrat
He is strongly pro environment and has done a considerable amount to promote alternative fuels in New Mexico appealing to mainstream and liberal Democrats.

This mix of issues reminds me very much of Howard Dean--another antiwar deficit hawk. Where he differs from Dean is that his less confrontational attitude make people think that he is more conservative than he is whereas many people thought that Dean was more liberal than he was. Richardson is DLC but parts company from them on international issues and may be moving away from their positions on trade.

I find him an interesting candidate and if he can find his voice, he might be a strong performer in parts of the country that usually reject Democrats.

[polichick]

27. Thanks for the summary!

I agree that Richardson could be a strong performer ~ he may be the one Dem who can win for three other very practical reasons too: He's not black, not a woman, and he can carry those western states we need.

(Unfortunately, it's still true that some men won't vote for a woman, and some whites won't vote for a black. Could be costly for Dems to ignore those facts.)

[bklyncowgirl]

28. Of course the guy's Hispanic and some people won't vote for a Hispanic

Of course he has an Anglo last name which may be an asset with the none too with it bigot set.

[polichick]

32. Being Hispanic might get him more votes than he'd lose.

Hispanics are very loyal ~ look how Richardson stuck by Gonzales. My point in mentioning the female and black factors is that we can't just think about who we like the best, but ultimately who can beat the Rep. It's nice to be idealistic and hope that people will rise above bigotry, but we need to be strategic enough to win.

[illinoisprogressive]

25. I see Hillary as far to the right. Richardson and Biden are moderate

[Tejanocrat]

36. HRC votes more progressively than her Sunday morning talk show comments would suggest.