This is also something Edwards did when he was running against John Kerry, pointing out in 2004 he didn't support NAFTA.
Edwards often reminds audiences he opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, while Kerry voted to pass it -- setting in motion new economic forces that labor leaders believe have cost Americans jobs.
But as Kerry is quick to point out, Edwards never had to vote on NAFTA; he was still working as a lawyer then. And during his five years in the Senate, Edwards has been more flexible on trade than his rhetoric suggests: In 2000, he supported solidifying trade relations with China, swayed by technology, furniture, textile and tobacco firms in his home state of North Carolina who sought to sell their products to Chinese consumers. His North Carolina GOP colleague, Republican Senator Jesse Helms, opposed it.
Two years later, Edwards initially backed giving President Bush broad "fast-track" powers to negotiate future trade agreements. Only when a provision protecting the textile industry was stripped out did Edwards oppose it.
Yesterday, as a war of words over trade practices heated up on the campaign trail, Edwards described trade as a "moral issue" during a speech in New York.
Noting that US firms have sought intellectual property rights abroad, Edwards said: "We're asking that human rights be taken just as seriously."
The Kerry campaign fired back almost immediately. In an e-mail labeling Edwards "Mr. Johnny Come Lately on Trade," the Kerry campaign pointed out that Edwards did not highlight trade in a major economic speech last year. A separate Kerry memo accused Edwards of changing his mind four times on fast-track, noting that Edwards "voted FOR the China trade deal, even while acknowledging that he thought jobs would be lost."
If it didn't work to beat John Kerry, chances are this as a campaign tactic is not going to work to beat Clinton...
No comments:
Post a Comment