I've been asked in comments for my opinion about the approaches of McCain and Obama to the Korea-U.S. FTA.
McCain has endorsed the FTA with Korea. He has a pro-trade voting record in Congress and has expressed his strong support for liberal trading rules. (McCain on Trade)
However, he will have a challenge getting the Korea agreement through a Democratic Congress in which many members don't like the agreement and have little incentive to cooperate with him and give him a success. The Democrats are likely to continue to control Congress after the elections.
Obama has repeatedly said that he is opposed to the agreement in its current form (Clinton and Obama Follow Edwards on Trade; Obama's Opposition to the FTA With Korea; Obama Says "No" to KORUS FTA, Again). His statements in the Democratic primary campaign were often skeptical of past trade agreements.
He has pointed to several general concerns with the Korea-U.S. FTA: (a) the auto provisions, (b) inadequate labor and environmental provisions, (c) Korean failure to liberalize rice; (d) In February he was concerned about beef. The beef agreement from this spring may have addressed this concern. He has also expressed concern over inadequate domestic legislation to protect people who lose their jobs or can only find lower paying jobs because of trade.
Obama has made a number of general statements in favor of freer trade and people I respect think that the rhetoric he used when he was fighting Clinton for the Democratic nomination in the U.S. mid-West may not reflect his ultimate stance (Obama on Trade: An In-depth look; Obama, The Optimist on Trade).
I hope they're right, but I'm still agnostic. It's too easy to make statements in favor of something in general, but to find reasons to oppose specific instances of it. His record in Congress is short and I don't think it is very encouraging (How Have Clinton, McCain, and Obama Been Voting on Trade Issues?; Cato Institute Report on Obama's Trade and Subsidy Votes). As President he will represent a much wider range of interests than he did as Senator from Illinois; this does mean the Congressional voting record may have limitations as a tool for predicting Presidential actions.
I don't expect much progress on the Korea-U.S. FTA for at least a year after he takes office. If Obama were to push the Korean agreement he might be in a better position to get progress from a Democratic Congress than McCain would be.
However, he has made very specific and high profile statements against the agreement in its current form. He may want to renegotiate elements of the agreement before taking it to Congress. If so, he may want to get some sort of trade promotion authority ("Fast Track") negotiating authority from Congress first.
Alternatively, if he was interested, he might be able to get Korean agreement to joint letters "clarifying" labor and environmental understandings in the actual agreement, and complement the agreement with domestic legislation giving Detroit things it would like. That might make it possible to get passage without renegotiation.
But this seems unlikely to me. Even if he had a strong interest in the agreement, Obama may have other priorities - potentially health reform and climate change legislation. I also suspect he has more interest in domestic reform than in international agreements and issues. Finally, my guess is that the initial Democratic trade focus will be on: (a) legislation to create more benefits for persons displaced by trade, and (b) passage of new fast track legislation revamped to build in Democratic interests in labor, environmental, and investment provisions. Here, by the way, is a draft of the Democratic party's trade platform.