Photo: realjameso16 (flickr)/ marcn (flickr)

Only two questions on global poverty have ever been asked in the history of modern presidential debates. Two. That's less than 1 percent of all questions asked.

A significant amount of the first debate — which was supposed to focus solely on foreign policy — was devoted to the economic crisis. Yet even in the 60-odd minutes spent discussing international issues, noticeably absent was any reference to how the candidates would address global poverty.

In response, the ONE campaign is renewing its effort to have debate moderators ask the candidates what they plan to do to fight global poverty. The ONE campaign delivered 103,000 signatures to Jim Lehrer before the first debate — to no avail — and now plan to deliver 150,000 signatures to Tom Brokaw before next Tuesday's debate. (Myspace users can submit questions directly to Brokaw for consideration.)

One billion people live on under $1 a day — the definition of extreme poverty. Every year 10 million children die from preventable poverty-related malnutrition and infections. Over 850 million people in the world are undernourished.

Surely it's in our national interest to help alleviate extreme poverty. Let's hope the candidates are forced to address it.

Photo: Hattie Page (flickr)

Conventional wisdom says that America's standing in the world will go up — maybe even way up — if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is elected president. We'd sign multilateral global-warming treaties, seek advice from allies once again … maybe even accept an invitation to tea from Iran.

But the world is likely to respond to a Clinton or Obama presidency with only tepid applause if the two contenders continue spouting "dangerous and ill-informed" trade rhetoric, argues Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria.

In the magazine's March 10th issue, the influential columnist slapped the wrists of both Democratic contenders for promoting protectionist policies. All the talk about renegotiating Nafta, he says, has people in Latin America and India worried that one of their favored paths to greater economic growth — free trade and open markets — is about to close down.

"For a struggling farmer in Kenya," says Zakaria, in a not-so-subtle reference to Obama's roots, "access to world markets is far more important than foreign aid or U.N. programs."

The concern from abroad is real. The Economist, for example, recently warned readers to get ready for "grumpy isolationism."

But Zakaria, a left-of-center globalist, represents the concern emanating from what you might call the free-trade wing of the Democratic Party. (Online comments on his Newsweek piece include: "I'm an Obama supporter, but his crazy anti-trade talk is worrisome.") These were the New Democrats who cheered when Bill Clinton's 1993 push for Nafta seemed to finally rid the party of its longheld protectionist plank — and who hung their heads when his wife repudiated the pact in Ohio. (Obama largely followed suit, leading The New Republic's Josh Patanick to bemoan Obama's "disappointing" shift on trade. Matt Cooper of Portfolio.com labeled both Obama and Clinton "phony populists.")

Perhaps it's not surprising to see the candidates try to nuance — or, in Clinton's case, outright disown — their previous pro-trade statements. But it's worth watching how the eventual winner chooses to frame the issue this fall, and whether they can find, as Zakaria recommends, "a way to speak about the pain of globalization" while acknowledging its benefits.

One way may be to emphasize how trade can reliably advance America's stated aim to lift millions abroad out of extreme poverty. Surely the candidates can argue that America can both create good jobs and open our markets to products like cotton from Mali. Such a move would not only lend a hand to poor African farmers, but also help us climb back into the world's good graces.