Throwing Their Wait Around

So, what else is new? The leading Democratic-presidential contenders are thrusting ahead full steam trying to outdo one another, to impress that fickle (for Clinton) electorate that they're the person of the future (hello, Obama) to lead their country. Each contradicts the other, punishingly finding fault with one another's promises, although truth to tell, they echo one another in content.

Senator Obama appears to have elevated the debate to an elegant, almost spiritual promissory note that has enraptured his audience. Senator Clinton appears increasingly to pale in comparison with her opponent in elevating the discourse beyond the practical to the Elysian Fields of Faith; in self, in country, in the future; above all, in Obama!

She is struggling to recover the upper hand. He, not at all smug, but quite convinced of his superior lead - as who will now disavow its reality? - continues to counter all her efforts at persuading the public that it is she, with her experience, her dauntless vision, her commitment and love of country who will offer the best opportunities for America's near future.

Barak Obama's lead, his charismatic performances that have elevated him in the esteem of his countrymen - at all levels of society, across religious, ideological and class strata - reaching far outside the confines of his own country's borders, to transfix and fascinate Europeans, Africans, Asians, could have him coasting at this juncture, but still he issues those unforgettably opaque yet transcendent messages.

Oops, they're coming down to earth a trifle. Settling on yet another topic, geared to reflect the concerns of the latest home audience. Hillary Clinton is now on record as threatening - promising? - to haul the U.S. out of the North American Free Trade Agreement. It always lingered there in the background for her party, and now it's out there, front and centre. Wait: Senator Obama is echoing her.

They're both chiming it together: NAFTA is dead, unless Mexico and Canada agree to greater concessions availing American interests in "strengthening labour and environmental standards". Wot!! Labour unions struggling to maintain themselves in the United States have the faintest representation of any country in the developed world, so what's up there? And since the U.S. refused to ratify Kyoto what environmental standards do they mean?

Words, words. It all comes down to protectionism, and if the Democrats exemplify anything it's protectionist imperatives hoisted against the devilish plans of their neighbours to do their utmost to pull the trade wool over American eyes. As if. As though any country entering into a free trade deal - any trade deal - with the United States would ever come away with the upper hand.

Said Mrs. Clinton: "I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate. I have said we will renegotiate NAFTA and you would have to say to Canada and Mexico 'That's what we are going to do." Said Mr. Obama: "We should use the hammer of a potential opt-out to force Canada and Mexico to reopen trade talks." Did they consult beforehand?

Shameless opportunists, both. Appealing to the voters in a state claiming to have lost jobs to NAFTA, while knowing full well that most other states of the union have realized a real boost in their economies thanks to NAFTA. Knowing full well that Mexico and Canada dance to the tune of America's demands which often enough overturn agreed-upon NAFTA rules.

Truth is, the suspense is killing them. Will their dreams of presidential power come to fruition? They haven't all that long to wait, after all. And of course there's always the disgusting possibility that their Republican rival John McCain will receive the ultimate nod, and they'll be a highly-regarded historical footnote.

Good to try another time, though; at least one of them.

Time out.