Hillary’s lame “stand” on TPP: Good things are good, and bad things are bad!

[Cheese Sandwich]

Where does Hillary Clinton stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

This CNN headline sums it up nicely: “Hillary Clinton takes a stand on trade – kind of.” Mmhmm. Here is the kinda-sorta stand that Hillary Clinton has taken on the 12-nation Pacific Rim trade deal being laboriously negotiated: it should be Good, not Bad. If it is a Good trade deal, Hillary Clinton will support it. If, contrastingly, it is Bad, then Hillary Clinton will not support the Bad trade deal. If TPP is incomplete by the time would-be President Hillary Clinton takes office, then she would use her power to make it Good, because she is a Fighter.

It is indeed a “stand.” She is standing out of the way of taking a firm position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Or in other words: she is “dodging” the question.

She said Sunday in Iowa she believes that the administration should listen to Democratic members of Congress to try to strike a better deal.

At a rally in Iowa, Clinton said that if the president can’t come to terms with Pelosi, there should be no deal. “Here’s what I think should happen now,” Clinton said. “The president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers, to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible and if we don’t get it, there should be no deal.”

Clinton said she wants to “find out what’s in it and make it as good as it can be,” and pushed for more transparency “so the American people can actually see what will be in a finalized deal.”

I’m not sure that this is what Democratic members of Congress are telling the president right now, that he needs to improve it and win stronger protections and blah blah blah.They’re telling him that they don’t believe the Trans-Pacific Partnership is salvageable, and they’re using the legislative procedures available to them to block it. Perhaps there was once a point where a significant number of congressional Democrats were willing to hear out the president on TPP. That window passed when Obama took up the strategy of blowing off Democratic critics and linking arms with the likes of Rep. Paul Ryan to push through Trade Promotion Authority — a.k.a. “fast track,” which would allow Congress to vote up or down on the final agreement but not to amend or filibuster it.
...

more: http://www.salon.com/2015/06/15/hillarys_lame_stand_on_tpp_good_things_are_good_and_bad_things_are_bad/

[4139]

1. "45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes "

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/

[roguevalley]

7. she wants to 'incentivize' businesses to do better with wages. then they can

make bigger profits. She can't help herself. She likes money first. Remember when they were broke? I don't either.

[Dems to Win]

2. Agree with everything in the article

I'm very frustrated with the lack of straight talk from our presumed nominee.

[0rganism]

3. she wants to “find out what’s in it"

that right there is a big chunk of the problem.

the secrecy surrounding these deals only reinforces the (justified) belief that a lot of people (and places and things) are going to get screwed over by the TPP.

if showing the details to affected citizens is undesirable, then maybe, just maybe, it's a lousy deal.

i for one hope HRC can use a bit of her considerable clout to get more of the TPP out in the open.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. I kinda, sorta, maybe, like it. Or, maybe, kinda, sorta, don't like it.

And, I kinda, sorta, maybe, made a kinda, sorta, maybe, made decision about it. And, that decision is kinda, sorta, maybe, final....someday.

[Cheese Sandwich]

5. She's really missing the whole point on it.

People are just against the way these trade deals are designed by corporations to benefit the wealthy owners. There's no democracy in it. It can't be fixed or saved because it's rotten to the core.

[Buns_of_Fire]

6. A definitive position -- one way or the other -- would gain a lot more respect

from unwashed and unrich heathens like me than the current "weathervane" approach.

Naturally, that would lead to the next question -- "Why?" -- which shouldn't be a problem for anyone who's thought about it. People around here have both positions, and seem to have no problem defending them.

I could even accept a "No, BUT..." or a "Yes, IF...".

But someone campaigning for President can't be coy about this kind of stuff. They're all asking for my vote, I'm asking for some answers. And I'm not about to vote for the Unknown Politician.

[Cheese Sandwich]

8. I like and respect Hillary a lot so it saddens me to see her fail so hard

Democrats and liberals lose a lot of respect by being wishy washy.

Not by being too radical. Just failure to take a stand. The general population sees through it.

Hillary's obfuscation in a case like this just makes the whole democratic party look bad. She's in the spotlight and the leading candidate by far. She would easily be able to help kill the TPP but she can't because she serves corporate money and power.

This is a major leadership FAIL. It's sad to see Hillary embarrass the Democratic party and all Americans with this lame rhetoric.

[NewSystemNeeded]

9. All you working class people who might lose their jobs to TPP need to shut up

with your blue-collar-hourly-wage privilege.