For all the philosophical and ideological differences between John Edwards and his chief rivals--differences that I discuss here, here, and here--he still needs specific, charged issues with which to draw contrasts.

And he has them: trade and Iran.

On trade, the differences between Edwards and his rivals might not be immediately clear, because they sometimes sound alike. (They all sound like Edwards.) They criticize NAFTA and claim to support fair trade. But the Peru Trade Pact, which Congress will soon consider, gives us a chance to see how deep their committment to fair trade runs.

For Obama, not far. He says he will vote for the Peru deal because it contains labor and environmental standards. But, as Edwards says in his statement opposing the deal, "[W]orker rights are no stronger than George Bush's willingness to enforce them." All of Big Business (and the DLC) hailed the deal, because they know the standards are toothless--a fact that Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donahue has openly discussed. Says Nathan Newman:

"...[T]he one thing that has come out of the announcement of the trade deal between Dem leadership and Bush is an admission by US corporate leadership that US law does not meet minimum international human rights standards, as embodied by the International Labor Organization (ILO)

No environmental group, small business organization, or major union supports the deal. The AFL-CIO says it "fails to adequately address issues related to the outsourcing of U.S. jobs and the ability of foreign corporations to challenge U.S. law," and Change to Win says it "fails to address how to protect U.S. jobs or create new ones, undermines our prevailing wage and Buy America laws, and hands foreign firms operating here more privileges over U.S. companies." And as it bad as this deal would be for American workers, it would be devastating for Peruvian farmers, who would be forced to compete against heavily subsidized American farmers. It's so threatening that "four million workers and small-scale Peruvian farmers went on strike this summer to protest the impact that the FTA would have on rural communities there."

The Peru deal will force Hillary to choose between the base, which sees the lie of "free" trade, and the Establishment, which in united in its support for "free" trade. If she remains true to her corporate form, she will support the deal, but even if pressure from Edwards forces her to oppose it, she won't be able to match his committment to fair trade. To do so would be to become a different person.

In his statement, Edwards announced his opposition to not only the Peru deal but also to the three other deals worked out in secret negotiations between Congressional Democrats and the Bush Administration. Bush, he says, is trying to "expand the NAFTA approach to Peru, Panama, South Korean, and Columbia." Edwards, drawing a line in the sand, says Congress must first take care of workers:

Congress should not pass further trade deals without first taking steps to address the stagnant wages and insecurity caused by globalization. Congress needs to adopt universal health care, reform the tax code, strengthen unions, and expand and renew trade adjustment assistance.

The press release is probably the stongest pro-fair trade statement ever put out by a viable presidential contender. As such, it could represent a turning point in both the debate about trade and the primary race. The corporate press usually doesn't talk about trade except to bemoan "protectionism," but it's an issue of visceral importance to voters, and it has a way of asserting itself in political races. The wounds left by NATFA are still bleeding. Trade became a big issue in the 2004 Democratic primary, and with clear differences emerging, it will again.

Iran has already become a big issue, with Bush-Cheney just itching to drop freedom on Tehran. On any given day, the candidates sound similar notes on Iran. They all advocate mulitateral diplomacy while leaving "all options on the table" (because it's considered weak to rule out nuclear holocaust.) But back in February in a statement that should have received more attention, Edwards said he was open to a non-agression treaty with Iran. And now, with Hillary's vote for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, the differences are even more stark.

The bill, drafted by AIPAC and sponsored by neocons of the highest order, "designates Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization" and explicity links the war in Iraq to Iran. Forget mission creep; it allows for war creep by providing Bush legal and political cover for an invasion of Iran. Obama opposed Kyl-Lieberman, but having missed the vote and waited hours to state his position (hours that included the last debate), he's less credible on this issue than Edwards, who went after her immediately. As he said in the last debate and surely will in tonight's:

I voted for this war in Iraq, and I was wrong to vote for this war. And I accept responsibility for that. Senator Clinton also voted for this war.

We learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran.

It strikes me as amazing that Hillary would cast a prowar in the middle of the race for the Democratic nomination. It demonstrates that she doesn't think the base can or will stop her; indeed, her backers told the New York Times that she's already moved into general election mode.

But she may have gotten too hawkish too soon. In a clear sign that she's worried about this issue, she sent out a mailer in Iowa that claimed that her vote for Kyl-Lieberman was a vote "for stepped up diplomacy," which is like calling a punch a hug. Edwards rightly ridiculed this explanation and has released a series of statements blasting Clinton for aiding Bush's campaign for a new war. "If you give this president an inch,"Edwards says,"he will take a mile - and launch a war."

Hillary is enlisting Wes Clark to try to claim that black is white, but she won't be able to hide from this vote. No less a shaper of conventional opinion than Tim Russert is comparing Kyl-Liebeman to the 2002 vote authorizing military action against Iraq. Edwards is criticizing Hillary for the vote as he campaigns in the early states, and it's turning out to be a soundbite friendly issue, easily framed and understood.

I hear the skeptics: the race in all-important Iowa won't turn on these issues. Perhaps not: other things are probably more important: organization, the strength of the candidates, local issues. But if Edwards wins Iowa the differences on these issues, and others, will loom large. That's one of the reasons Hillary is campaigning so hard in Iowa. The last thing she wants is to get caught in a race against Edwards. The Progressive Populist Insurgent v. The Hawkish Corporate Tool of the Establishment. Nope, she can't have that.