A Teachable Moment

On Saturday, a blogger asked Hillary Clinton about NAFTA, and she gave a wishy-washy "we'll have to study it" answer. Two days later, John Edwards attacks NAFTA in a speech about fair trade.

"The trade policies of President Bush have devastated towns and communities all across America. But let's be clear about something this isn't just his doing. 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. Instead, too many of these agreements have cost us jobs and devastated many of our towns."

Edwards goes on to argue in his speech that NAFTA was "written by insiders in all three countries" -- a move that the Associated Press interprets as a direct critique of former President Clinton's leadership. While this may be an over-interpretation -- how can Edwards criticize NAFTA without criticizing Bill? -- he's obviously using Bill Clinton-style 1990s centrism as a foil, something which now puts him at odds with not one, but two, Clintons. It's an intriguing move, given Bill's popularity with the Dem primary electorate, but Camp Edwards appears to be banking on the fact that some primary voters will associate NAFTA with the D.C. Dem establishment that Edwards, and now to some extent Obama, is running against.

Edwards has now come full-circle, offering his critique of politics as usual explicitly in the terms of regular people vs. DC insiders. It's exactly the kind of insiderism on display in today's awful WaPo op-ed from DLC acolytes Harold Ford and Martin O'Malley that Edwards is attacking. He is expressly waging an inside vs. outside war. That's what the focus on lobbyist money is all about. And it's very resonant. The question is whether you can build a coalition with that critique, given that it will be blocked access at every turn.