Primary Pundit by Michael McCord

To recount: The Edwards’ campaign in New Hampshire released a policy statement calling on “ ‘smart and safe’ trade policies that will benefit working and middle class families instead of just big multinational corporations.” There was a definite Granite State focus -- “Corporation-first trade policies have hit New Hampshire families hard,” said Edwards. “The Granite State has lost over 25,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001, and has suffered the fastest increase in childhood poverty in the nation. We need new trade policies in America that put workers, wages and families first. My main measure of a trade deal is simple - after considering the impact on jobs, wages and prices, will most families be better off?”

So far so good but nothing remarkable in that -- with the exception of mentioning the word poverty -- it’s a safe campaign hit for candidates of either party...especially when the “multinational corporations” remain mostly an unnamed abstraction. With the exception of Dick Cheney, I mean who’s against fair trade and good wages.

But then on the same day in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Edwards came out a firing about NAFTA that was, according to the AP story, was a total sell out of workers and “written by insiders in all three countries” in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

“For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities,” Edwards said in Iowa. “Instead, too many of these agreements have cost jobs and devastated towns and communities across this country.”

Edwards didn’t mention Bill Clinton by name but he didn’t have to -- nor did he have to mention Hillary Clinton whom he has accused of taking too much corporate campaign dough.

According to the AP story, Mark Penn, one of Clinton’s policy gurus, responded with a non-denial denial by saying it was so much campaign whining by a candidate trailing Clinton in the polls and desiring to attack her. Oddly, Penn mentioned nothing about the substance of Edwards’ argument. So I have sent a query to the Clinton folks asking them where does Hillary Clinton stand on NAFTA today, what modifications would she make...and has it been a success? I will post their response when I get it...

Meanwhile, tonight’s AFL-CIO debate should be interesting because it could play to Edwards’ born-again populism. Maybe not thunderbolts but watch for some fireworks.

UPDATE 1
The response I received from the Clinton campaign was a pair of statements regarding her vote against CAFTA in 2005 (the free trade agreement with Central and South American countries) and her assessment of NAFTA to the blogosphere at the last week's YearlyKos conference in Chicago.

CAFTA: “My vote to oppose DR-CAFTA is one taken with great difficulty. I have heard strong arguments both for and against from many New Yorkers who have a stake in the agreement and I have weighed them seriously. Segments of the New York economy would benefit from this agreement, but at the end of the day, I cannot support an agreement that fails to include adequate labor standards and is a step backward in the development of bipartisan support for international trade.” This is from a floor statement she made on CAFTA on June 30, 2005.

NAFTA: "NAFTA - you know I have said that NAFTA did not realize the benefits that it was promised for a number of reasons. In fact as a Senator from NewYork, I issued a report that talked about all the problems that business people and farmers had in NY getting their products into Canada. This is not just about you know Mexico, this is about the tripartite relationship. So I think we have to generally have smarter trade agreements that not only have labor and environmental standards, which I fully support, but really have an ongoing evaluation of the impact of trade agreements. That's why I have legislation to have the analysis of what actually has happened compared to what was promised both unintended and intended consequences be part of the ongoing monitoring of trade agreements. And I do think we've got to find ways to work with our neighbors in the hemisphere more closely, including trying to think of ways we can stimulate job creation and economic development to the south which I think is a win win if we can figure out how to do it." Sen. Clinton made this statement at the YearlyKos convention in Chicago this weekend.