The Dem presidential candidates are debating trade.  The Republican top tier is not.  Because they are self-described "free traders," they have nothing to debate - end of story.  Duncan Hunter is very good on reforming trade, basing his reasons on economic and national defense grounds.  Ron Paul is also good, basing his reasons on sovereignty.  Huckabee promotes "fair trade," but I don't know yet what that means. 

Edwards full statement in opposition of the Peru FTA was issued October 27, 2007.  It's pretty good:

Today I am announcing my opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration and being considered for approval by Congress. Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in Congress, labor organizations and fair trade advocates to embed international labor standards into the Agreement, what resulted were references to general principles and not specific standards. And the Agreement still replicates and in fact expands all of the other most damaging aspects of past trade agreements. In short, this agreement does not meet my standard of putting American workers and communities first, ahead of the interests of the big multinational corporations, which for too long have rigged our trade policies for themselves and against American families.

[...]

Right now, President Bush is pushing to expand this NAFTA approach to four more countries. He has signed agreements with Peru, Panama, Korea and even Colombia, where since 1991, in this tiny country, there have been over 2100 documented cases of trade unionists being assassinated, 72 in 2006 alone.

All of these agreements replicate these terrible features of NAFTA:

All of these agreements provide the expansive investor rights that literally create incentives to relocate U.S. jobs overseas;
All of these agreements limit our ability to inspect imported food - even as the International Trade Commission projects that these pacts will result in a new flood of imported food;
All of these agreements allow foreign corporations operating here to attack our environmental, health and even local zoning laws in foreign tribunals to demand our tax dollars in compensation if following our laws undermines their expected profits.
All of these agreements even limit how we can spend our own tax dollars. These deals ban many Buy America and other similar policies. Instead of your tax dollars going to support American workers, these agreements take away one the few opportunities the government has to directly create jobs here.
But these four proposed agreements actually go even further than NAFTA.

For instance, these deals give those foreign corporations who get contracts to rebuild our nation's bridges and highways or to operate mines or cut timber on U.S. federal land special privileges superior to the treatment of U.S. firms. U.S. firms have to meet our laws, but in contrast, these agreements let foreign corporations operating within the United States who have a gripe about their contract terms drag the U.S. government into foreign tribunals stacked with their own lawyers acting as 'judges.'

[...]

Buried deep in the 800-page text of the Peru FTA are ambiguous provisions that could allow U.S. banks to demand compensation if Peru reverses its disastrous social security privatization. That's right, the Peru FTA could lock in the misery facing millions of the elderly and ill in that extremely poor country all to ensure U.S. firms can profit on what should be a government service available to all in the first place.

The Peru, Panama and Colombia agreements are also projected to displace millions of peasant farmers. This would be a major human tragedy.

Maytag's world headquarters was in Newton, Iowa.  The plant there closed this year.  It had several hundred employees in this town of 15,000.  

Clinton was recently there, and said, after persistent questioning:

Trade is a positive for America but I don't believe in giving away and getting nothing in return. 

Edwards:

"These trade agreements have lost us millions of jobs and we had trade policy that is not beneficial to working, middle-class Americans ... It only benefited big multinational corporations," Edwards said in an interview on Monday.

Chris Petersen, President, Iowa Farmers Union

“Who should benefit most from the farm bill, Wall Street, or Rural America?”

 

Matt Russell, Chair of Iowa Network of Community Agriculture;

“Public Policy puts yoke to wagon.”

Fred Kirshenmann, Distinguished Fellow at the Leopold Center;

“The time when we ignore soil quality while producing large crops with cheap energy is coming to an end.”

“Diversified farms have comparative advantage to restore and maintain human capital”.

Paul Willis, Manager, Niman Ranch:

“People are looking for quality in their food supply.”

 John Crabtree, Development and Outreach Officer, Center for Rural Affairs;

“The statement, ‘larger farms are more cost effective than small farms’ is a lie.”

 Jerry Rosman, Interim Director, Iowa Organic Association;

“80-90% of organic soybean imports come from China, and the US imports half of it’s total need of organic soybeans.”

David Osterberg, Executive Director, Iowa Policy Project;

“Are there community benefits from large CAFOs? Our research says no. Are there good jobs associated with wind power development? Yes there are.”

 Aaron Woolf, Director, Mosaic Films Incorporated;

“I grew corn for one year in Green County Iowa, I farmed for one year. But I have been eating for 43 years.”

 John Campbell, United Steelworkers;

“ A hungry man has but one fault, but a well fed man has many.”...

“There are two ghettos, one rural and one urban.”...

“Firestone is now losing business because the Chinese have started building tractor tires.”

  Here are some quotes from the day, in order of appearance (read more):