One might expect the National Review and Wall Street Journal to point out that the top two Democratic presidential candidates are lying to the American people about their real position on trade. But would the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times be as daring? Judge for yourself.
From the Washington Post:
Does Mr. Obama really believe [that the Colombian government supports violence against unions]? Does Ms. Clinton really believe a newly elected president should adhere to a year-old timetable for troop withdrawal, regardless of circumstances? Are they each unaware of the real statistics on NAFTA’s effects? Voters are left to wonder, and to ponder which would be worse: that the candidates are sincere and misguided or are insincere and lacking the courage to speak honestly.
From the Los Angeles Times:
Hillary Rodham Clinton has just been stung by the same bug that zapped her Democratic opponent last month: While the candidates were sending one message about free trade, their campaign strategists were sending another. This brings up two disturbing possibilities. Either Clinton and Barack Obama secretly favor free trade but are pandering to blue-collar voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania by pretending they don’t, or they actually believe their anti-trade rhetoric and simply employed campaign advisors who weren’t on the same page. It’s tough to figure out which is worse, but it will be even tougher for the candidates to escape from the corner they’ve painted themselves into if one of them ends up in the White House.
