Many economists and a number of leaders in the Democratic Party continue to utter words of caution regarding Senators Obama and Clinton's increasingly protectionist stances on international trade.  In addition to concerns that re-negotiating previous trade deals could harm the economy, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that this behavior could have significant diplomatic and security ramifications as well.

In other words, it's hard to make nicey-nice with the global community when you are stiffing it on trade. Ask Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who clearly tuned into the Ohio Democratic debate long enough to catch Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton threatening to withdraw from Nafta unless his country rolled over for their new demands. "[They] should recognize that Nafta benefits the U.S. tremendously. Those who speak of it as helpful to [just the] Canadian and Mexican economies are missing the point," he responded, and not lovingly.

There is, too, the question of Democratic economic leadership. Texas Democrat Henry Cuellar recently hosted Mrs. Clinton on the streets of Laredo. He said he explained to her the city was the largest inland port in the South. Trade has transformed his district's border communities -- dropping double-digit employment and curbing rampant poverty. "My philosophy is simple: trade between the United States and other countries is good. You export, you create jobs, you build relationships," says Mr. Cuellar, who was the first Democrat to endorse the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and one of just 15 to vote for it.

Mr. Cuellar, who is a Mrs. Clinton supporter, says he remains comfortable with what she's asking for in a renegotiated Nafta. (If she'd said "six months after becoming president, I'm just going to opt out, then that would worry me," he explains.) He, too, remains hopeful that the national debate will cool once the primary is over. He warns that while it might be tempting to "demagogue" trade in the short term, Democrats will have to perform on the economy if they want a lasting run in office. Remaining strong on trade is "about both the prosperity of the nation, and the prosperity of the Democratic Party," he says.

Trade is essential to America's economic growth.  Bashing NAFTA may be good politics in a Democrat primary, but it's hard to see how protectionism will be a vote-getter come November.

The Economist is beginning to question the cost of liberal health insurance mandates.  Even without these mandates, government Medicare spending is expected to double in the next decade, making a significant expansion of government support for these mandates all but unfeasible.

Look beyond Massachusetts to California, where the uninsured make up a bigger share of the population, and the theoretical advantages of an insurance mandate meet the hard realities of tight budgets. The staggering cost to the state was a big reason that Arnold Schwarzenegger's ambitious plan to extend universal health coverage with help from a mandate recently collapsed.

Government control of health care always ends the same way - higher taxes and rationed care.

The New York Times is reporting on the continued discontent with the nation's fastest-growing union, the SEIU.  As fallout continues from a top official's departure over what he calls "an overly zealous focus on growth," the union has committed to spending all of its political resources - some $31 million - on helping Senator Obama become President.

Mr. Rosselli said rank-and-file workers should be given maximum say in determining contracts, which often results in their calling for maximum increases in pay and benefits. That, he said, would attract new members.

But the Stern camp said it was important to give up some short-term gains in exchange for employer concessions that make it easier to organize nonunion workers.

Another pro-union, anti-worker policy of the SEIU is to take away a worker's right to secret ballot elections when organizing, and instead going to a system of "card checks" that merely requires a majority of workers to sign a card to authorize a union.  The worker's signature would be made public to their employer, the union organizers, and their co-workers.  Of course, such a system would subject workers to intimidation from union organizers and tilt the playing field toward the unions.  Senator Obama would be outraged if anyone suggest we scrap a secret ballot for president.  However, given SEIU's $31 million in political support for Mr. Obama (who previously railed against the union's involvement in the election - when their support was for Sen. Edwards), we wonder whether he will stand up for the rights of individual workers.  Somehow we doubt it.