by Jason George
DERRY, N.H. – What's got five letters and is bad for America, according to Sen. John Edwards?
No, it's not Oprah – it's NAFTA, which marked its 16th anniversary today, a date Edwards chose to chastise Sen. Hillary Clinton for previously praising the trade agreement.
"This is not an anniversary we should celebrate," he said before heavily union audiences both here and at a previous stop in Concord.
"It cost us over a million jobs and she'll have to carry that burden herself, in trying to convince people that she's now changed her view."
Edwards said NAFTA should be retained but "reworked," with stringent environmental and labor standards, and a better understanding of how it will impact American jobs. In her defense, Clinton's current position isn't too different than Edwards', and she has called for a moratorium on new trade deals, including expanding NAFTA, which her husband signed in December 1993.
While Edwards tried to keep the focus on the economy, he was asked throughout the day what he thought about tomorrow's highly anticipated arrival of Oprah and Obama, who end their three-state swing in Manchester.
He did his best to downplay its significance.
"I think that most people vote on the basis of the candidates themselves," he said, adding that celebrities are used "just to get people to show up."
Not that he's above it: "As you know we've had a number of stars who have been campaigning with me," mentioning Bonnie Raitt and others to be announced.
Maybe Dr. Phil?
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Maybe Dr. Phil?
Not possible. According to our contributions expert, Bruce, a $1,000 contribution makes you a life long partisan operative. In this case DR. Phil's %1,000 to the RNC would classify him as a Republican. We, on the other hand, feel that the controversy that follows every Republican (that and that the man grew up near an oil field in Texas) is enough to classify DR. Phil as a Republican. Dr Phil would be a great engrossment for Rudy, and a great addition to this team; Dr Phil can help him with his many issues.
Posted by: Sally Jesse Raphael | December 8, 2007 6:33 PM
Edwards is so right. NAFTA has hurt American workers. The jobs all left America for other countries, and it did nothing to slow illegal immigration as was promised in discussions re NAFTA. Workers' rights and working conditions are lowered with NAFTA and other trade agreements. Bill and Hill pushed for NAFTA and WTO. Clinton did not care about human rights then. Hillary was part of this, as she claimes that the Clinton presidency is what has given her the "experience" to be our next pres. Bad. America usually gets the short end of the stick in all trade agreements. Together, Bush and Clinton have pushed for too many trade agreements--bad for American workers. And, bad for the environment because there are less EPAs in lesser developed countries. Big business loves less EPAs. This is because big business can then legally sh*t where they make their mon$y, and not be held accountable for air, land and water pollution.
Edwards has been against NAFTA. It needs to be discussed and revised. I trust Edwards. He is the one who can help us now.
Posted by: Vivian | December 8, 2007 7:54 PM
Your gang stalking blurb is getting old. Not sure what it has to do with the current topic, either.
Edwards has my vote.
Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | December 8, 2007 7:55 PM
"In all three countries, it has hurt workers and families while helping corporate insiders." This is especially true here in Mexico where corporate profits have risen under NAFTA but wages have not.
In fact, new higher NAFTA export quotas of American corn to Mexico has made it unprofitable to grow, sell and export corn from here. The result is more failed farms, more flight to the US to work to support families back home and more hate fodder for Rovian politicians who are demonizing Mexicans for their political gain.
Posted by: Roy, Chiapas Mexico | December 9, 2007 9:36 AM
Edwards is appealing to pure ignorance here, as any qualified economist could explain.
I'm glad he's headed for the political trash bin.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | December 9, 2007 10:40 AM
"Edwards is appealing to pure ignorance here, as any qualified economist could explain. I'm glad he's headed for the political trash bin."
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | December 9, 2007 10:40 AM
Just what this country needs. The opinion of a "qualified economist" from Canada. Who asked you, John?
Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | December 9, 2007 3:44 PM