Edwards on Clinton and NAFTA. Why Clinton is the corporate candidate.

[JDPriestly]

Sorry if this is a dupe.

Today, at a media availability following a meeting with SEIU nurses at St. Rose Hospital in Henderson, Nevada, Senator John Edwards made the following statement regarding Senator Clinton’s response to a question on NAFTA in last night’s Democratic debate:

"Last night's debate was important because it showed distinctions between the candidates on issues that really matter to Americans. One moment from the debate stuck with me – when Senator Clinton was asked about NAFTA and she tried to joke about charts and laugh about it.

"For the one million Americans who lost their jobs because of NAFTA, this isn't a laughing matter. And for me, this isn't about charts – it's very personal. I grew up in a mill town, and today in hundreds of towns just like Robbins, people's lives hang in the balance because of bad trade agreements. When that mill closed down, it meant less food on the table, not being able to pay for your home or your health care, and financial hardships that were devastating for families.

"One of the most important choices for Democrats in this election is whether we're going to continue to pay lip service to workers while we put the profits of big multinational corporations first, or if we're finally going to show some backbone and strength and stand up for American workers."

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071116-clinton-laughing-off-nafta/

[wyldwolf]

1. Edwards again shows why he is in third and barely first tier

[CoffeeCat]

4. Actually, Edwards has surged in Iowa...

I've seen two polls that have him in second place, just
a few points behind Hillary.

Hillary's numbers have been on the decline in Iowa.

It doesn't help when she comes into the state and leads
speeches in which questions are planeted. Many find
her disingenuous and overly political in the first place.
Her behavior solidifies and magnifies many of the misgivings
that people have about her and her honesty.

Furthermore, Hillary hired hundreds of staffers to descend on
Iowa and she's got loads of tv ads. Edwards barely has any
and his polls are improving, while Hillary declines.

His message is resonating with people.

[wyldwolf]

no he hasn't. Show me those polls

[CoffeeCat]

11. Hillary has slid in Iowa AND New Hampshire...

Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead in Iowa has fallen seven points over the past few weeks. This is consistent with the six-point slide measured in New Hampshire.

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll of the Iowa Democratic Caucus for 2008 finds Clinton on top with support from 29% of Likely Caucus Participants. That’s down from 33% in mid-October.

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is supported by 25% and Illinois Senator Barack Obama attracts 24% of the Likely Caucus participants. For both men, those figures reflect a three-percentage point gain.

Edwards now attracts 26% support from men while Clinton and Obama each earn the support from 24%. In the previous survey, Clinton had a four-point advantage over Edwards among male voters. Among women, Clinton is still on top, but her share of the women’s vote has declined from 39% in mid-October until now.
(more)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/iowa/democratic_iowa_caucus

[wyldwolf]

15. "I've seen two polls" Next?

[CoffeeCat]

18. What?

You don't know how to use The Google?

;)

While you're relaxing and playing on the Internets--and I'm
doing all of the leg work here, do you care to comment
on the first poll?

Any thoughts?

I'll be back with that poll...stay tuned campers!

[wyldwolf]

20. are you hard of hearing or do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Don't you realize the burden of proof is on you?

[CoffeeCat]

36. I assumed you were aware of the polls...

Because you're on DU and obviously you're paying attention to
politics--I assumed you knew about Hillary sliding a bit in
Iowa and NH--and Edwards picking up a few points in Iowa.

I didn't really want to look up the polls again, because I'm
tired. But I did...so there ya go.

:)

[wyldwolf]

66. so you're still going to try to wiggle away without answering?

[CoffeeCat]

72. No, I'm not wiggling away...

I posted about the slide--which I have read about in many articles over
the past couple of days.

You asked for the polls, and I was happy to do that. However, I was
really tired and I'm trying to pack an entire family for Disney World.

You're absolutely right though...if I post something about two polls
I should be prepared to post those polls. I assumed you had the same
information I did, but that was a misguided assumption.

[wyldwolf]

74. you said you'd seen two polls. You showed one.

The other does not demonstrate a slide. Further, two other polls show NO slide for Clinton and no surge for Edwards:

http://www.kcci.com/news/14606593/detail.html
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/iadem8-712.html

[CoffeeCat]

76. I have posted two polls that show HILLARY'S SLIDE...

The Rasmussen and CBS/NYTimes polls both show declines.

The story that is paired with the Rasmussen poll begins
with, "Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead in Iowa has fallen seven points over the past few weeks. This is consistent with the six-point slide measured in New Hampshire."

The second poll---the one about which you are asking (CBS/NYT) shows Hillary at 29 percent.
If you look at her polling history---and you can see these on the wiki link that Creek posted--
she was polling in the mid 30's not too long ago. Hillary's Rasmussen polls several weeks ago,
clearly show her in the mid-30's--and Edwards/Obama trailing farther behind. That gap
has now closed significantly.

:) I told you that I had two polls, and there they are.

Can I go home now, or do I have to stay after school even longer?

[wyldwolf]

79. no, you posted ONE poll that showed a Hillary decline. Anyone reading the thread sees that

The NYT/CBS polls you quoted shows no decline. Further, without the wiki entry someone else provided (that dubunks another of your claims) you had no idea the poll showed a decline.

[CoffeeCat]

81. I know she's in a decline...because it's all over the news!

I've been watching Hillary's polls for months.

How can you draw the conclusion that without the Wiki entry I "had no idea
the poll showed a decline"?

I've been watching her numbers and also polls for Edwards and Obama.

I'm in Iowa and closely watching...the Wiki reference was mentioned
because it was part of the discussion.

The Wiki polls clearly show Hillary polling as high as 34. Now
she's at around 29 in the Rasmussen and CBS/NYTimes polls.

My work here is done! :)

[wyldwolf]

84. ..which is why you tried to stretch two polls to fit in with what you've heard on the news.

[CoffeeCat]

87. No, I read the Rasmussen poll first....

...and that poll sparked my interest.

I then read various news articles---that also revealed Hillary's slippage. Some of the
articles referenced the Rasmussen poll, other articles referenced another poll.
There's a slew of these articles out there right now.

I remembered two separate polls revealing her decline and improvement
for Edwards--as I read about Hillary's decline.

That's when I posted that information.

You asked me to post the two polls, so I tried to find the articles that
I read.

As I've said--if these polls are not sufficient for you--it's ok
and we can agree to disagree.

[CoffeeCat]

78. I'm not wiggling...

...but I do know how to cha cha!

I posted the two polls...didn't you see them?

1.) Rasmussen and 2.) CBS/NYTimes

[wyldwolf]

80. sure you are. You stated you'd seen two polls showing a decline. Only one you posted showed that

[CoffeeCat]

82. Hillary's decline in the second poll......................

Hillary's decline in the second poll I referenced (NYT/CBS) is based
on the fact that she sits around 29 percent now. However, if you
look at the stats from her polls within the past several weeks--she
was polling higher and as high as 34.

I feel that her current 29---when compared with her high of 34--reveals
a decline.

The second poll (Rasmussen) leads with, "Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead in Iowa has fallen seven points over the past few weeks. This is consistent with the six-point slide measured in New Hampshire."

I would say that she is--at the very least--trending downward.

If that's not good enough for you--that's totally fine.

We'll just have to shake hands and agree to disagree.

:)

[wyldwolf]

83. at the time you posted the poll, you had no idea...

..but it still doesn't show a surge for anyone else.

[CoffeeCat]

85. I did know that Hillary was declining in the polls....

...when I posted my initial post.

I saw two polls showing a decline.

I posted about them. You asked for references.

I gave you two polls.

The news media has been reporting her recent decline.

I bet when I return from Disney World, she will have slipped
even further. I don't have any links to my own opinion, but
I will wager you a pair of Mickey Mouse ears that Hillary
will have slipped a bit more---and other Dem candidates will
have ticked up a bit.

[wyldwolf]

86. you knew in one poll for sure, you didn't know in the other, and she isn't in two more... plus..

...the Edwards surge you mentioned?

[CoffeeCat]

88. I read many articles about Hillary's decline....

I must have read for an hour.

I initially read the Rasmussen Poll. That's what sparked all
of the reading for me. When I saw the Rasmussen poll, I called over
my husband and he said, "Interesante". I then looked on the network front
pages, as well as CNN and other blogs to see what was up.

I found several articles reporting her decline. As I said,
some of the articles referenced the Rasmussen poll. Other
articles referenced another poll.

When I sit down to leisurely read about politics, I am not
in the frame of mind that I'm going to be put on the stand
and later asked to produce my references.

HOwever, I was happy to try to re-trace my steps and find
the polls and the articles. I mentioned them and you
wanted to see the polls. That's totally understandable.

[creeksneakers2]

28. Ring up Iowa here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

Somebody in post #11 is math challenged. It says she fell 7 points from 33% to 29%. That's four.

29% is around what she's been getting for months.

[CoffeeCat]

33. Here's the second poll showing Hillary's decline...

CBS/NYTimes Poll

In Iowa, the Democratic contest is knotted up. Among likely caucus-goers, Clinton came out on top with 25 percent support, but she was trailed closely by Edwards at 23 percent, and Obama at 22 percent. With a margin of error of 4 percentage points, there is no clear leader. Trailing behind was Bill Richardson, at 12 percent, with all other candidates in single digits.

----

Clearly, Hillary has lost some points, according to this CBS/NYTimes Poll.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:lHzIObvDi6AJ:www.newsandpolicy.com/news/2007/11/cbsnew-york-times-poll-surprise-mike-huckabee-stat-1.html+A+CBS/New+York+Times+Iowa+voters&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[asdjrocky]

65. Just give up man.

These people, these Hill-Nippers, will not believe the Truth staring them in the face. I've tried. It's hopeless. When Edwards is in the White house, they'll still be saying HRC won.

Pathetic.

[wyldwolf]

68. yeah, he should, because he can't make his point.

[CoffeeCat]

73. My point was that...

I've seen two polls showing Hillary's decline and the increase of
Edwards' and Obama's polls.

I posted the two polls.

I do admit---and apologies all around, friends---that my messages
were a bit discombobulated.

However, I posted two of the many polls that are out there, and
hopefully that will suffice.

If not, that's too bad--because I will be hob-knobbing with Goofy,
Nemo and Cinderella within a few hours, and I ain't got time for
additional due dilligence. :)

[wyldwolf]

75. you didn't make your point

I've seen two polls showing Hillary's decline and the increase of
Edwards' and Obama's polls.

You showed one poll showing that. The other poll did not show that. Further, I showed two recent polls with no Clinton slide and no Edwards surge.

[Andy823]

94. Words of wisdom

I too have tried and tried, but for some odd reason the "truth" just seems to bounce off them, no matter what kind of proof you give them.

I agree, when Edwards wins, then maybe they will see what we have been trying to tell them! :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

67. where does the CBS/NYT Poll show a decline?

It shows where she currently stands but give no historical pattern of her polling. :shrug:

[CoffeeCat]

89. As I said, Hillary's decline in the second poll....

(NYTimes/CBS) is based on her hovering around the lower- to mid-30's
and peaking at 34.

If that isn't good enough for you, that's ok.

The Rasmussen poll really is a zinger though, isn't it?

"Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead in Iowa has fallen seven points over the past few weeks. This is consistent with the six-point slide measured in New Hampshire."

I apologize for my lack of clarity in my initial postings.

I gotta run...

Have a terrific holiday! :)

[wyldwolf]

14. .

[tired_old_fireman]

7. What is the deal with all these types of comments?

He's desperate
He's throwing mud
His campaign is over, etc.

No one seems to want to address the issues.

[wyldwolf]

9. how about the OP's charge has been debunked on DU several times AND...

..Edwards knows he's lying about this.

[creeksneakers2]

13. What issues?

They accuse Hillary of corruption with no evidence at all other than the fact that she gets donations. With very few exceptions, politicians get donations or they don't get elected. If the politician is honest, and by all the actions Hillary has taken she's shown that she is, that money only buys access. Nobody owns Hillary.

How can I discuss that with people who just keep repeating "corporate" over and over and won't debate the facts?

Edwards is a mud throwing finger pointing lying hypocrite. I'd be happy to debate that. And yes, he'll lose. He's already defined himself as the mud throwing hypocrite. The press loves nasty sound bites about Hillary and that's all they'll want from Edwards from now on.

[tired_old_fireman]

21. Who accused her of corruption?

[creeksneakers2]

25. Edwards does all the time

That's why he got booed the other night.

[earthlover]

48. Oh please...! He got booed BEFORE he barely even got started in his remarks.

He got booed because Hillary supporters in the audience were rude as hell and interrupted him.

I noticed that the supporters of the other candidates were not as rude...in fact, I don't think a single one of them booed any of the other candidates. This is something I have come to expect from Hillary supporters. At least some of them.

Sad thing is they actually think they are helping her.

[creeksneakers2]

54. Edwards got a cheer for his stand against corruption

That was just before he was booed. He wasn't booed until he talked about corporate Democrats and called out Hillary.

Edwards was cheered lots of times. Kucinich was booed for calling Edwards a trial lawyer. If the crowd was all Hillary supporters, why did they boo when Edwards was attacked?

All of the candidates got lots of cheers. The only pattern was that personal attacks were booed. That's going to happen to Edwards all the time, wherever he goes. They asked Edwards about it on the Sunday talk shows today.

His supporters can't see that so they have to invent conspiracy theories about Hillary stacking the audience.

[earthlover]

71. Watch the debate again!

Both Obama and Edwards were booed at the beginnings of what they were trying to say. Not after they had said something. These booers were not responding to what they had said because they hadn't said it yet!

I didn't say the entire crowd was Hillary supporters. There were supporters from each of the candidates. What is noteworthy, however, is that the followers of Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, and Dodd did NOT boo. Hillary supporters, however, did. That speaks a LOT, more about her supporters than anyone else.

[JDPriestly]

56. Edwards wants to clean up D.C.

He is correct, and he is emphasizing what is likely to be the best issue Democrats have in 2008.

It is curious to me that Hillary is reacting so defensively on this instead of building on Edwards' concerns about this issue. She is making a huge mistake in characterizing campaigning on the corruption issue as "mud-slinging." The Democratic candidate in 2008, hopefully Edwards, is going to need to use this issue against his or her Republican opponents in 2008. Hillary should be silent or support Edwards on this issue. She is making it very difficult for the candidate in 2008, regardless of who it will be, to use this issue against Republicans without being accused of "mud-slinging." This is the stupidest campaign move that Hillary has made thus far.

Besides, as Edwards explained this morning on CBS, he has not called Hillary "corrupt." He has accused her of accepting donations from corporate lobbyists. Duhh. She does. She is just trying to change the subject by accusing Edwards of "mud-slinging." Her defensiveness reminds me of the Gary Hart campaign. That was long ago, however, if you recall, Gary Hart was accused of being a womanizer. He denied the accusation vociferously and thereby challenged the press to follow him around and catch him at womanizing. They did and they did, and the result was a very clear photo of Gary Hart with a fair young maiden on his knee. The photo ended his presidential bid. Hillary, thou doth protest too much. . . . Don't be surprised if some intrepid reporter out to make a name starts investigating her every donation. Pulitzers have been won for the likes of that. Hillary is asking for trouble.

I like Edwards' strong stand on corruption. Corruption is behind most of the failures of the Bush administration. Corruption is bankrupting our country. The corruption issue is about New Orleans, Halliburton, Blackwater, Giuliani, Kerik, Abramov, Cunningham, Rove, Gonzales, Valerie Plame. We need a candidate who will speak out about corruption. Corruption is the hallmark of decadent societies. Edwards is right to speak out on this issue.

Hillary should watch what she says about corruption during this primary campaign. What she says now could come back to haunt the Democratic candidate in 2008, whoever that will be.

[earthlover]

47. I guess you mean standing up for the working stiffs instead of the corporate giants?

[wyldwolf]

69. haha! No, I mean making a claim that isn't true.

[JackORoses]

97. Edwards is simply stating a fact. Hillary supports Corporations over People.

When questioned over NAFTA she says it needs looking into, somebody get her a blue-ribbon commision.

Yet, she never mentions her 6 years on the Board of Wal-Mart leading up to the '92 Election and the role this plays in relation to NAFTA.

How about that, Wylie??

[Cameron27]

2. After he tried to make a joke out of

Kucinich's China trade deal question, he has the nerve to talk about Clinton laughing about labor issues. That's rich.

[1932]

8. Actually, Kucinich was making the joke (about products liability and Ewards being a trial lawyer).

The only thing Edwards said was "cute" in response to Kucinich's joke.

[Cameron27]

16. Oh no, Dennis wasn't making a joke

about product liability. He was dead serious, and he was furious when Edwards called it cute. The camera panned to his face, and it was unmistakable.

[inthebrain]

17. He wasn't joking

He was serious.

He said Edwards should know better because he's a trial lawyer. Edwards responded "Cute, I don't know what being a trial lawyer has anything to with it."

To which Kucinich responded, "Product liability"

[1932]

19. Kucinich got laughs twice in that exchange and I think it's a stretch to say that Edwards was making

a joke of it.

One of these should be the You Tube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEkHr-fvoN4

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gEkHr-fvoN4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gEkHr-fvoN4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Cameron27]

22. It was worse than making it a joke,

he was smug and condescending to a legit question. cute

[1932]

23. I disagree. The link to the video is in my previous post for anyone who cares to judge for themself.

[Cameron27]

26. I watched the debate here, with other DUers,

and no one thought it was a joke. I replayed the entire debate 3 times, so I know exactly what I saw.

[1932]

29. I just watched the video two minutes ago. Kooch said "trial laywer." Audience lauged.

Edwards smiled and said, "I don't know what that has to do with it." Kooch said "product liability." Audience laughed. Edwards said "cute."

Kooch got the laughs. Not sure Edwards was making a joke.

[Cameron27]

31. The audience was laughing at John

but Dennis did not intend for his question to be taken as a joke. Edwards always smiles when he lobs off a smug retort. We're not going to agree, but I have to say that you're the only person I've seen posting here, who took that exchange the way you describe it.

[1932]

34. Anyone can watch it for his or her self.

Here's the link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEkHr-fvoN4

Edwards is not making a joke about NAFTA, which is the claim above.

[Cameron27]

37. I stand by what I said.

This is about the exchange with Dennis, and that video shows exactly how John tried to diss Kucinich ... with a smile on his face.

[slipslidingaway]

41. Agree, Edwards wanted to dismiss the issue, and Dennis, with

his 'Cute Dennis' remark. There were more Ohs and Ahs from the audience, did Dennis really say that? and then some chuckles/laughter.

Dennis was dead serious about unsafe products flooding our market, not to mention lost jobs, wages and increased deficits.

[creeksneakers2]

30. Edwards mocked Kucinich

I remember Wolf having to ask a second time to get Edwards to respond to the substance of what Kucinich said. Edwards belittled Kucinich two ways.

Edit
After looking at the video - it actually took three times for Wolf to get Edwards to say anything about the question at all.

[slipslidingaway]

35. Kucinich was not making a joke, why would Dennis make a joke

about unsafe products coming into our country? Edwards was trying to dismiss the issue just as Clinton did with the NAFTA question, yet the Edwards campaign has now released a video of Clinton when Edwards tried to use a similar tactic.

[Double T]

3. The clintons and the corporations are one. If YOU deny it, you're a fool.

The clintons have a lot in common with the bushes, specially when it comes to being PRO-NAFTA. If YOU think the clintons are on YOUR SIDE, guess again unless you're a filthy rich corrupt elitist corporate criminal. Thanks John Edwards for once again showing HRC for what she really is; politician dodging important questions.

[CoffeeCat]

5. Hillary's response to Edwards ...

...telling the truth was laughable.

Edwards talked about her voting with Bush and Cheney on Kyl/Lieberman.

Which she did.

Then he talked about how Hillary defends a system that is corrupt, rigged
and run by the corporations.

Which it is.

Her response is to whine and say that Edwards is smearing her with a play
right out of the Republican handbook.

You just gotta laugh. Since when is calling out warmongering and corporate
corruption a "play right out of the Republican handbook"???

Hillary clearly can't defend her own behavior.

[earthlover]

51. Hillary sounds like her supporters here! Any criticism of her means Republican talk pt

[OhioChick]

10. Good Points/Post. n/t

[creeksneakers2]

24. Edwards and Hillary have the same positions on NAFTA

If Edwards was so upset over NAFTA, why did he vote to let China in the WTO? China is far more of a job threat here than Mexico is.

Of course, its not corporate when John Edwards does it.

[amandabeech]

50. Edwards thinks that China, as a major economy, should be in the WTO.

However, being in the WTO carries obligations, and China made some specific promises, including floating their currency, which they simply have not lived up to.

Edwards wants to call China on its obligations--to enforce the law.

That may not be enough, but you've got to go there before you kick them out or leave yourself.

BTW, I thought that MFN for China was a bad idea. I thought that it would be worse than NAFTA because the Chinese wouldn't live up to any promise that they made. They are the Middle Kingdom and we are the Barbarians, after all.

Still, I'll vote for Edwards in the primary.

[maddiejoan]

43. Clinton has been on my side as a NY Senator

I have every reason to believe she'll be on my side WHEN she's President.

[OHdem10]

6. Watched J Imeldt,, GE the other night on C. Rose--

He was telling of some his accomplishments. GE's Inroads in Trade
with China was one of these. He now has 40% Company Businesses in
China. The Ration 60/40 in favor of US will reverse in the next
few years. His Goal is to have only40% in US and 60% in China.

When we are in near or very close to 3rd World status, at least
John Edwards tried and for that I will be grateful.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. I just don't get it.

What makes these people so sure that their companies won't get nationalized when they are set up in countries that are politically, econonically, and philosophically opposed to us?

[JDPriestly]

57. Thanks. You are so right.

[slipslidingaway]

27. Edwards says his vote on China trade was a mistake and

was dismissive of Kucinich "Cute, Cute Dennis!"

The Edwards campaign has now put together this video speaking of lost jobs and the increased trade gap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb8rxgc-YQA

Edwards said he knew people would be hurt from the China trade bill, Kucinich did not think it was funny when answering the question of unsafe products from China, in this case toys, during the debate. Knowing Edwards' background and bringing up the issue of product liability by Kucinich is also not something that should be dismissed in a joking matter by Edwards.

Jobs lost to China, increased trade deficit with China, potentially dangerous products to people and animals???

If Edwards does not have a clean record on this trade issue maybe he should not be attacking others.

:think:

[OHdem10]

38. Are you saying no Senator can admit a mistake and take

a different position which he/she believes is better for the
country.

Just like the War, Most voted for free trade at some point.
The Economists, Ex Vice Chairmen of FEd Reserve, Ex Secretaries
of Treasury have said this trade thing is going south.
To me it is rather goofy, if Edwards or any other Senator
does not say---Stop---Let us sort this thing out.

Of course, Since Corporations and Business run the country,
the easier route is keep mum and let them Corp. and Business
continue on their merry way. The Investor Class gets richer
and richer, we are losing the middle class and poor just ge
poorer. This is the American Way?????

[creeksneakers2]

39. Why does Edwards allow himself to change and act like

a saint but go all the way back to '93 to go after Hillary and call her corrupt for doing the same things he did?

Because Edwards changed from a more serious pol into a lying finger pointing hypocrite.

[slipslidingaway]

52. Go back and read exactly who supported the China Trade bill.

It was not the little guy, labor unions, human rights or environmental organizations, it was big business, and more Republicans voted for the bill than Democrats.

This was known at the time the bill was voted on, so again people should look at which side a candidate supported when it mattered.

That's what I am saying.

Senator Wellstone was one of the few Democrats in the Senate to stand up for the people, the vote in the House was much closer.


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/19/pntr.vote.hfr/index.html

"I believe that we will deeply regret this stampede to pass this legislation and the way in which we have taken all the human rights, religious freedom, right to organize, all of those concerns and we just put them in parenthesis, put them in brackets, as if they don't exist," said Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minnesota. Other opponents worried that the U.S. would be unable to influence Beijing over human rights concerns without a yearly vote on trade."

[JDPriestly]

59. Right. Most everyone has voted for some "free trade."

I want to know where the candidates stand on this issue now. Obama voted for the Peru trade deal as did Hillary. Edwards is critical of it. I think we should have a moratorium on these trade deals and stop the economic bleeding from America to other countries. With the decline in the dollar, there is going to be a reverse brain with the best American minds moving to China and India to compete for Yen and rupee. The situatin is appalling. Edwards is the only candidate other than Kucinich to deal with this issue at all.

[JDPriestly]

58. Edwards has promised to renegotiate the existing trade agreements

including NAFTA. At least that is my understanding of his stand on trade. Hillary is still a pro -"free trade" person. I disagree with her trade policy stance. It hurts America. Nobody realized when NAFTA was passed just how much it would hurt. Hillary needs to take a clear stance against trade with China and against NAFTA.

[slipslidingaway]

90. When Edwards had the chance to stand up for worker's rights

and vote no on the China Trade bill he voted yes. I'm glad to hear that he now says it was a mistake and would renegotiate the agreement, yet once again damage has already been done.

Beyond what he voted for I find the idea of him attacking others on similar positions to be telling.

Biden and Dodd both voted for the bill as well, maybe they are smarter about not using the free trade issue to attack others as they know their records might be questioned???

That's what I would do if my record showed I voted against labor groups etc.

Why Edwards uses issues against others when his positions will then be called into question is beyond me.

It does not seem the wise thing to do and as I said above, is even more telling.

:shrug:

[JDPriestly]

92. Which candidate do you back?

I think Kucinich is the only one with a "pure" record on this. He is great, but he takes such a ribbing and has no experience in a national race. Have you read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine?

[slipslidingaway]

93. Kucinich and just started reading the "The Shock Doctrine"

I did not pay attention to Kucinich in 2004 for two reasons, he was 'unelectable' plus the primary in our state was very late, it is now in February.

Instead of hoping that people will vote our interests, even though they have not always in the past, I'm voting for someone who has taken a stand when it mattered. So I am giving more weight to what they have done as opposed to what they say they will do.

:shrug:

[JDPriestly]

95. I like Edwards, but I also like Kucinich.

I was impressed that Kucinich spoke on the issue of the School of the Americas. That takes real courage. We have no business sponsoring or teaching torture. We have no business using torture. Whatever happened to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do the right-wingers want others to torture them? I don't think so. So we should not be doing it to others.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. Thank God That Edwards Fought NAFTA Tooth And Nail!

What? He didn't fight tooth and nail? Well, at least he voted against it.

You say he voted *for* it?

Oh dear.

[1932]

53. You think Edwards voted for NAFTA??? Oh, man.

Here we go again.

[MannyGoldstein]

70. I'm Wrong - You're Right

It was permanent "free" trade status for China that he voted for. As NAFTA was voted on when Edwards was not in the Senate, he could not have voted for it - but he is on record as previously being in favor of it. From 2004;

”I believe that NAFTA should exist,” Mr. Edwards told editors and reporters of The New York Times at a meeting yesterday in New York, as he sought endorsements heading into next Tuesday’s primary. ”I think NAFTA is important — it is an important part of our global economy, an important part of our trade relations.”

[1932]

96. Did you know that "permanent" means it has to be voted on every year?

Do you know that Adam Nagourney wrote those words you italicized?

[creeksneakers2]

40. I've been wondering

what did John Edwards do about all those terrible corporate pig farms that are polluting North Carolina?

[Cameron27]

42. I've been wondering

and emailed his campaign to ask why he stated that he doesn't track his bundlers and thus, doesn't have the data to reveal anything about who's donating to his campaign in that way.

[creeksneakers2]

44. I can guess why

its because Edwards takes the money he pretends to scorn. No way a campaign doesn't know who their big bundlers are and how much they gave.

[Cameron27]

45. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me.

You don't get to talk about corporate Democrats, or attack someone for taking special interest money, and then have the audacity to say that you don't track your own bundled money.

[creeksneakers2]

49. Me too n/t

[JDPriestly]

61. As I said in an earlier post, accusing Edwards of "mud-slinging"

because he is raising the corruption issue is Hillary's biggest mistake thus far. The Democratic candidate is going to need to raise this issue in the 2008 campaign. If Hillary and Giuliani are the candidates, Hillary is going to have her own words thrown back at her when she starts discussing Giuliania's corruption. Corruption is the best issue we have against the Republicans for 2008. Hillary should join Edwards in condemning it. The pharmaceutical companies virtually wrote the Medicare prescription drug bill. That is a huge example of corruption: big corporations writing the legislation that governs their conduct. Another example of abominable corruption is big corporations nominating the people who will serve on the federal agencies that oversee them. Ken Lay is an example. There are other examples" Abramof, Cunningham, the Katrina aftermath, the money given to religious organizations that they use to proselytize. The list goes on and on. Hillary is hurting the chances of the Democratic candidate in 2008 by characterizing the word "corruption" as mud-slinging.

[Cameron27]

62. I think John should tend to his own business

before he insinuates others are corporate Democrats or that they're compromised by special interest groups. When you set yourself above everyone else on issues of corruption, then you need 100% transparency in your own donations, whether it's bundled money, or millions of dollars in campaign costs, saved by criss-crossing the country in your buddies corporate jets. You can't say that you're not holier than thou, and when in fact you're acting holier than thou. It just doesn't wash.

He will be called out for this in the GE.

[JDPriestly]

63. I repeat the content of my post.

Hillary should join Edwards in condemning the corruption in D.C. That is going to be the winning issue in 2008 against the Republican corruption machine. It is absolutely stupid of her to react defensively, to bristle up on this as she is. She should be agreeing with Edwards and making corruption a big issue on her side. She needs to own this issue. Whoever the Democratic candidate is will be using it next year against the likes of Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee or whoever the Republican candidate is. I cannot understand why Hillary is bristling on this issue. Your response to my post, by the way, is not relevant to my post.

[Cameron27]

64. John can own this issue

when he cleans the windows on his own glass house. No one knows who he may be 'beholden' to, since he won't release any information on the money that's been bundled for him.

[JDPriestly]

60. Actually, I believe that Edwards addressed this issue in

one of his speeches in Iowa. It just isn't a topic that has come up in the national debates. He spoke specifically about the problems in N. C. with the pig farms. I listen to a lot of videos on Edwards' website. If you go and listen to him, you will find it.

[Louis J Sheehan]

46. Corporate Democrats

I learned with Rendell here in Pennsylvania that a "corporate" democrat is almost as bad as a republican ... the big difference is that they aren't as capable at ripping the citizens off.

-- Louis J Sheehan

[AmBlue]

55. ...

[William769]

77. This is comming from Edwards?

Now thats funny! :rofl:

[SaveElmer]

91. And Edwards flip flops yet again....

I guess if he didn't it would probably stand out more...