Did someone just say "free trade? "

The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement is quickly and unjustly becoming the Democrats ' favorite whipping boy, which should upset all Americans -- particularly those in Wisconsin.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are competing to see who can criticize free trade the most as they pander for working-class votes in the drawn-out Democratic primary. Unfortunately, though their hearts are in the right place, their minds aren 't.

Normally, there is understandable opposition to free trade agreements from workers unable to compete with cheap, foreign labor. This is one of the chief arguments against the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico.

But anyone who looks carefully at the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement should realize it 's a good idea.

This agreement will actually level the playing field in favor of U.S. workers. For Colombia, which already enjoys low tariffs on their exports to the United States, the agreement would simply create a permanent extension of the status quo.

On the other hand, U.S. goods now face tariffs of up to 35 percent in Colombia. Passing this trade agreement would immediately lower 80 percent of these tariffs on U.S. consumer and industrial exports entering Colombia.

Considering the United States is likely entering a recession, increased business for our companies -- which is exactly what this trade agreement would bring -- could only help our country, not hurt it.

Furthermore, under the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, "U.S. farm products that will benefit from improved market access include pork, beef, corn, poultry, rice, fruits and vegetables, processed products, and dairy products, " according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

Corn? Beef? Dairy products?

Which state could possibly benefit from the increased sale of these goods?

Wisconsin has a keen interest in seeing this trade agreement succeed. We need to lobby our elected officials to counteract the misguided opposition to this trade deal that is emanating from both the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, recently issued a statement opposing the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. He is reluctant to deepen trade relations with a country in which union workers are often targeted for violence, much of which is supposedly perpetrated "by the armed forces and paramilitary organizations with ties to elected officials close to [Colombian President Alvaro] Uribe. "

This ignores the fact that Columbia is still a violent, poor country. And according to a recent article in The Economist, "Colombian union members get killed at a lower rate than the population at large. " If we really want to help Colombian union workers, limiting their country 's trade possibilities is not the way to do it.

More importantly, not once in his statement did Sweeney mention the impact of the trade agreement on American workers. That 's because he 's struggling to figure out a way to put some negative spin on what is in reality a great trade deal.

Unfortunately, conventional wisdom dictates that union leaders have to be opposed to free trade agreements, no matter what.

But if I were an American union worker, I 'd want better job security and increased demand for my products -- not more political rhetoric.

Arnold is graduating this spring with a journalism degree from UW-Madison. He is the State Journal editorial page intern this semester; darnold@madison.com.