Hillary Clinton had a chance to do one of two things on the Peru Free Trade Agreement. She could announce her opposition to the proposal, or she could do what Wall Street demanded.

CLINTON ON TRADE: I’M AS AWFUL AS OBAMA…

Clinton went with Wall Street. On the same day that a majority of House Democrats voted against the Peru FTA, the senator from New York endorsed the current economic-policy priority of the Bush administration.

In so doing, Clinton confirmed that the only thing more important to her than securing her lead in the race for the Democratic nod is keeping the likely financiers of her fall campaign happy, and Clinton joined Illinois Senator Obama in supporting the trade deal.

Edwards opposes! 
 

In a few moments, I will sign three agreements that will complete our negotiations with Mexico and Canada to create a North American Free Trade Agreement. In the coming months, I will submit this pact to Congress for approval. It will be a hard fight, and I expect to be there with all of you every step of the way. We will make our case as hard and as well as we can. And though the fight will be difficult, I deeply believe we will win. And I’d like to tell you why: first of all, because NAFTA means jobs American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.

– Former President Bill Clinton speech on NAFTA, Sept. 13, 1993

Well, that didn’t work out so well for us, did it? In fact, third party presidential candidate Ross Perot was more accurate when he described NAFTA as a “giant sucking sound.” So what’s up with the Peru Free Trade Agreement currently being pushed through Congress? Is it more of the same?