Clinton’s Trade Secrets.

“As she campaigns now, Clinton says, ‘I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning.’ But the White House records confirm that this is not true. Her statement is, to be precise, a lie. When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar — a put-in-boldface-type “L-I-A-R” liar.” Shame on you, Hillary Clinton? The Nation‘s John Nichols argues Sen. Clinton’s credibility is in the tank after ABC News discovers that, contrary to her more recent statements, she was shilling for NAFTA quite a bit back in 1993. (By the way, Nichols is not alone in this assessment of Sen. Clinton.) Moreover, it seems venerable Davos boogier David Gergen helped enable her lying about the record by conveniently forgetting that he emceed a private pro-NAFTA event held by Hillary.

FWIW, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has offered the most plausible reckoning of Clinton’s NAFTA view so far: She was never against NAFTA, per se, only that the timing might interfere with her health care fiefdom. Update: Clinton and NAFTA, Youtubed.

Blame Canada.

“‘He said someone from Clinton’s campaign is telling the Embassy to take it with a grain of salt,’ said one participant in the conversation. The source added, ‘someone called us and told us not to worry.’” As I’m sure y’all know, one of the late-term factors redounding against Obama in Ohio was Goolsbeegate, where it seemed one of Obama’s top economic advisers had suggested to the Canadian government that the Senator’s rhetoric on NAFTA was just political hot air. Senators McCain and Clinton, of course, ran with it. (This has caused a political uproar in Canada, as the leak seemed an attempt by the right-leaning Canadian government to help out McCain.) Well, now it turns out that, not only is there less to the Goolsbee story than first appears (Canadian officials sought him out before Super Tuesday, not the reverse, as reported), but that it was Sen. Clinton’s campaign actually making overtures to the Canadians on the subject of NAFTA.

Charming. Somehow, with Ohio come and gone, I doubt this side of the story will have much in the way of legs. But, if you needed any further indication at this late date that Sen. Clinton can be a tremendous hypocrite at times, just look to our friends to the North.

1.4 Trillion, and Rising.

“Today’s American system values upheaval; it’s been a while since we’ve seen too much of it. But Americans who lived through the Depression knew the pain real disruption can bring. Today’s Chinese, looking back on their country’s last century, know, too. With a lack of tragic imagination, Americans have drifted into an arrangement that is comfortable while it lasts, and could last for a while more. But not much longer.” The Atlantic‘s James Fallows examines the unstable financial codependence between China and the United States, and how it could all too easily unravel. “Lawrence Summers calls today’s arrangement ‘the balance of financial terror,’ and says that it is flawed in the same way that the ‘mutually assured destruction’ of the Cold War era was…With allowances for hyperbole, something similar applies to the dollar standoff. China can’t afford to stop feeding dollars to Americans, because China’s own dollar holdings would be devastated if it did. As long as that logic holds, the system works. As soon as it doesn’t, we have a big problem.” Update: Make that 1.53 trillion.

The Teddy Bears’ Picnic.

By way of Follow Me Here, the chief economist at Morgan Stanley warns private audiences that, in his opinion, the US is headed for economic “Armageddon.” “In a nutshell, Roach’s argument is that America’s record trade deficit means the dollar will keep falling. To keep foreigners buying T-bills and prevent a resulting rise in inflation, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan will be forced to raise interest rates further and faster than he wants. The result: U.S. consumers, who are in debt up to their eyeballs, will get pounded.”

Faith-based Currency.

The dollar tanking? No problemo for this administration, who see a weak dollar as key to offsetting our ballooning trade deficits. “The unsettling worry, however, is what could happen if foreigners suddenly lost interest in holding dollar-denominated investments. The outward rush from U.S. stock and bond markets could send stock prices crashing and interest rates soaring.” Well, at least my college loan debt isn’t in Euros.

But what about the politics of cynicism and misanthropy?

As it turns out, I was able to make it to the John Edwards event on campus this morning, and, all in all, I’d give him a B+. He both read and rushed through the first half of his remarks, which involved some new formulation of his trade policy (more on that in a second), and I found his opening lines particularly ham-handed and speechwriterly. “I know y’all have been waiting for a Son of the South to come to NYC…A-Rod,” he said (and I’m paraphrasing.) “Well, I’m not A-Rod, but Wisconsin proved one thing: I can close!” Um, ok, but A-Rod is a shortstop and all, not a closer.

Anyway, nitpicking aside, Edwards improved measurably once he put the paper down and got into the rhythm of his “Two Americas” stump speech, which he’d clearly delivered many times. There were moments, however, when he definitely could have embellished his standard schtick, given the crowd. Edwards talked about how he was a lonely, legal David often going up and winning cases against a Goliath-sized team of corporate lawyers, a biographical stat which probably plays great in the Heartland. It went flat here, though, perhaps because the many law students in the auditorium seemed confused by his remarks: But we want to be those well-paid corporate shills!

Still, Edwards came off extremely polished and personable, and he definitely got the crowd on his side, even when he was blindsided by a sneak “Campaign on AIDS!” protest on the dais behind him. Several members of the VIP crowd unveiled red-ribbon shirts and began chanting right in the middle of his biographical portion (In fact, I could’ve sworn it was right after he gave the “son of a millworker” line, which was a clever signal to choose, if nothing else.) Edwards gave them a moment, asked the crowd to applaud the “activism of these young people,” calmly told a heckler he’d address their point after finishing his bio, and then said a few positive words about fighting AIDS at home and abroad (A critical world issue to be sure, but not a particularly controversial one in this day and age…c’mon, y’all, this isn’t 1988. And why try to derail a candidate who is politically sympathetic to your cause, particularly when Karl Rove is across town?) At any rate, no harm no foul for Team Edwards: He navigated this potentially rocky shoal extremely successfully, although I presume some advance guy or gal was given the serious what-for soon thereafter.

As for the trade stuff, I liked where he was going at first, but he eventually seem to fall back on the fair trade side of the usual dichotomy. As I see it, the problem isn’t free trade itself per se as much as the loss of American jobs, as well as the ugly spectacle of corporations firing tons of US workers only to turn right around and offer up a fat dividend. Edwards obliquely mentioned this formulation, then fell back on tax breaks for “good” corporations and the trouble with NAFTA. My feeling is, if you want to stop this kind of behavior, there needs to be more stick and less carrot. Hit business where it hurts: Tax the heck out of (or even, God forbid, disallow) corporate dividends that occur in the same fiscal year as the downsizing of X number of American jobs. Simply put, if you can’t afford to pay your workers anymore, you damn well shouldn’t be paying dividends to stockholders. Edwards came close to saying thus, but then fell back into the old free trade/fair trade rut, which to my mind is a bit like shouting into the wind. If you want to change corporate behavior, focus on corporate behavior…don’t blame the increasingly irreversible trend of globalization.

At any rate, all in all Edwards came off quite well, although not as inspiring or Clintonesque as I would’ve originally liked. He’s definitely got a great future in the party and in American politics, and he’d no doubt make a solid contender in this election season against the likes of Dubya (or Dick Cheney.)

Twisting the Knife.

As expected, Dubya is forced to capitulate on his earlier steel protectionism. “Employing relatively untested powers, the eight-year-old World Trade Organization authorized European and Asian nations to devise retaliatory tariffs against the United States, just 11 months before a presidential election. Not surprisingly, the Europeans pulled out an electoral map and proudly announced they would single out products made in the states Mr. Bush most needs to win a second term.” Clever, clever.

Rough Trade.

So, unless Dubya capitulates to the WTO, it looks like his botched protectionist ploy for steel state votes is going to result in an all-out trade war with the EU. Nice going, y’all…exactly the type of leadership we’ve come to expect from the Bushies. My bet is they back down – After all, Florida orange-growers are a juicier segment of the electorate than West Virginia steelmakers.

The Riddle of Steel.

Not unlike most of the policies articulated by this administration, Dubya’s protectionist steel tariff has backfired in every way possible. “The strategizing was ‘too clever by half,’ [Bruce] Bartlett, the [conservative] economist, said. ‘It presupposed that nobody was watching what we were doing, and it presupposed that our credibility was of no importance.’” Sound familiar? But, hey, give credit where credit is due…under the Bushies, the rich are getting richer.

Fratboy Kissinger, Dean Acheson?

What happened to free trade under Dubya? According to this article, it appears Bush prefers the frat trade approach — help your buddies, stiff everyone else. Also in TNR, political scientist Daniel Drezner examines Dean’s foreign policy, and finds more rigorous thinking than critics have given him credit for.