HRC on the TPP: Hedging and essentially a whole lot of nothing

She should say what TPP really is: consumer society wanting cheap goods from Asia.

I'm not entirely sure why she doesn't go there. Possibly not to insult the millennials who will vote for her. As they use their iPhones or Samsung phones built by literal slave labor. Good old modern consumerism. Would it be that she pointed out how TPP is a stop-gap and that automation is taking over in the next decade or so and that a living wage is literally necessary to keep the country from failing.

But nah. It's pretty low level stuff, mostly stuff in the Democratic Party platform for decades (hello kindergarten reform, lol, Bill Clinton, of all people, ran on that shit, in the '70s!).

Clinton would blow me away if she actually talked about why TPP is being sought (geopolitical reasons to box in China and Russia). The policy wonks don't give a shit about jobs. They care about cheap goods from Asia.

As far as "leading" on "TPP." TPP has been in the works since likely Bush. The American population wants cheap Asian goods. So it gets it. The idea is, OK, we buy cheap goods, at least make sure the producers agree to environmental and labor constraints. So we can sleep at night. Because as it stands now 15 year olds are making our iPads.

The TPP really is very favorable to a large number of corporations over a wide field. Enough has been leaked to confirm that.

Thus making it entirely geopolitical. It's about cheap goods, it has nothing to do with jobs. American people want their cheap slave labor goods.

property rights and much, much more.

And you seem to be blaming this on the American people. I'd place the lion's share of the blame elsewhere.

I don't see it happening. The American people don't care.

Here's for some hope, but it's not coming.

the President. That is why when Bush did this, it failed. Even Repubs were not willing to go that far.

People here seem to think this is about Obama. It is not.

He won't be president forever, will they whine when they watch say, Jeb Bush negotiating in secret Net Neutrality eg?

I hope not, because their support for this is what will help sell out our democracy and if it passes, which I hope it does not, Congress will be powerless to stop a Paul Ryan who sponsored this bill btw, from negotiating on behalf of the Working Class ALONE, in secret.

I can't believe i am seeing any support for this here on DU.

I think she means that if we don't do this, China will lead on a deal with many of these nations and that will imperil us.

It's the China boogyman.

China uses soft power to get what it wants, unlike us and our bully tactics. Yes it's probably about China but if you think about it why do we send everything to China to be made (including military parts) and then get worried they might use them, and economics, against us? None of this makes any sense to me.

For now. It isn't dramatically expanding its military for nothing.

Preying on the fears and insecurities of the like of Obama and HRC. All those corporate toadies scurrying around getting whatever they can while the self-deluded "Titans" sell us down the river out of fear.

Yep, fear and loathing.

It was on already and will be repeated later. It's titled something like, "China, friend or foe." I think he made a statement about Europe already protesting some of China's moves.

the middle and working classes.

She doesn't lead. She is disingenuous and she triangulates- much as I hate using that word.

It's funny, she couldn't even commit to saying "we should walk away" from any trade deal that doesn't meet her totally nebulous, ill-defined criteria... no, but.... we should be willing to wallk away.

Whether or not we would ACTUALLY walk away is another, actual, decision or position and as such will not be touched with anything resembling a 10 foot pole by this campaign..

however, it is crucial that we be WILLING to.

I didn't notice the use of the word "willing".

It's discouraging. I also find it despicable. I wish I didn't, but there I am. I have nothing but contempt for this sort of mealy mouthed shit.

She should be honest and tell us why she supports it.

to the effect that the banksters are "not worried" regardless of her rhetoric. Sorry, can't find the link--need more coffee.

Another bold defender of the status quo, economically speaking.

Reminds me of my 10 years working for the Democratic state house caucus, a major part of which was fine combing the draft legislation prepared by various national lobbying groups, aka ALEC, so I could point out to the caucus what the proposed legislation would really do, and how a single word or phrase, oh-so-cleverly, slyly and deceptively inserted, would basically gut the superficial purpose of the legislation.

As Bill was fond of saying, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Honesty? Transparency? Abraham Lincoln wept!

Trade agreements should protect jobs, and not just make more money for the 1% or provide a dodge for polluters. Her first test may (or may not) be met by the current version of the TPP, but it's a good metric.

Hillary's insight into security is also very important and must come from her experience. She has seen companies like Haliburton sell technology to Iran (for example). She has seen trade policies (energy, rare earth, etc., etc.) where the best interest of the US was subverted by big companies and policies that wanted bigger profits. Heck, Iran-contra was the big example of completely illegal wheeling and dealing.

Obama and other US lawmakers should use this type of test before signing off on any trade agreements. I don't think that Obama has announced such a policy.

Of course, we don't know if she will get a chance to impose a better policy than seems to be in place right now. Anyone who has a crystal ball about what Hillary or others will do should play the stock market or buy lottery tickets. I haven't seen a lot of future-telling about political candidates that played out. Usually some things they say happen, some don't, and everything becomes dependent on the circumstances of history that occur while they are in office.

An example of someone who was smart, stuck to his principles, and still got rolled over by unforeseen events was Jimmy Carter.

^B^R^A^V^O ^H^I^L^L^A^R^Y for a clear statement that we can all understand about trade agreements without going into a bunch of mumbo-jumbo!

Her statement is disingenuous.It is not leading. It is not being a champion for working people. She is aware that changing the agreement at this point is nigh on impossible. Why? I explain that in the OP. This isn't debatable. It's not maybe. And we know what is in three critical chapters, we have information about both content and process. We know exactly who the 600+ people/entities who had input into the TPP through the USTR are.

Look, I'm not going to argue with you. Believe what you want to believe. I've actually read the leaks and researched in depth, and I can tell when someone is simply going to believe in their candidate because they can't bear not to.

I do believe that popular policies and pressure will sway politicians. I also think that there are clear differences between Democrats and Republicans, especially the current version of far-right repubs.

If there are announced policies and tests, then reporters and voters have a chance, not a guarantee, to hold politicians accountable. Obama's TPP was bought and paid for years ago, and he did not put TPP on his front line list of plans and promises for public consumption. Now that the TPP has been revealed, it may or may not get through. We'll see. At least there is some scrutiny and open debate.

Hillary provided a specific policy statement. If you think she's lying, then you can hold her to her word if she is elected. Just like the media love to do with all their fact checks and scoreboards. I simply said that I agree with the policy, and I have not seen Obama come out against the TPP which is obviously contrary to the policy as Hillary stated it. The policy was meant as a simple overview, not a deep analysis of all the details.

I also have looked as some of the TPP draft, and many of us see some issues that are being argued now. Regardless, it is a great idea for a candidate to put forward a "platform plank" as a position statement that most people can understand. If you don't believe a candidate - then "those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still". OTOH, if you like the policy then apply it to all. It's the first trade statement of this campaign that makes sense that any candidate has openly espoused. That's a good way to create a campaign.

I recommend you read this: http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Summarized here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html

The study was based on data from 1981 to 2002, mind you, and this is the money quote:

"When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact on public policy."

BTW, I'm a social science researcher.

Obviously, the TPP is under pressure now. I was part of the movement to get 18 year-olds the vote and get rid of the draft! Anti-war protests at the time (not economic issues) were based on moral beliefs as much as anything in the 60's and 70's. We shut down Vietnam, and I'm glad we did. We improved things for women and minorities, and we need to do more. We have equal marriage sweeping the country. We can deal with Wall Street if people vote.

I'm familiar with that your cited study, but that's a phenomenon that has come and gone in the last few decades of American history that did not have to happen. Maybe people are figuring out the influence of big money and corporations? Obama got elected! Over Romney if I recall correctly. Pure economics failed that time.

Some of us see evidence that even with big bucks supporting them, Bush and friends did not win or would certainly have lost if not for ELECTION manipulation. If Gore or Kerry were President, then Citizen's United, Iraq, etc. would not even have happened?!? The Princeton study is history dependent, but not proof that is the way it has to be.

My original premise was that sometimes unpredictable history drives things along. While candidates can take pre-election positions (which we may or may not agree with), we have to elect on values and ability to make decisions consistent with our party, not simply on a promise or donor list.

Then we have to work like hell to influence whoever is in office to make good choices. Fracking, TPP, and smaller military budgets are typical examples. When people don't speak up, we get stupid results.

So far, Hillary seems to be listening to Warren and the populace (on issues like TPP). She has begun general policy statements. The one listed in this OP is one that I agree with...

is what happened in the 60s. At that time, the middle class was powerful, the rich and corporations relatively less so. That middle class was the anomaly, not what we have today. The era was so turbulent because so many felt empowered, I think, and weren't struggling just to keep food on the table. African-Americans, women, students, environmentalists fer gawd's sake--everybody wanted a seat at the table...and TPTB took note, and have been working to destroy the middle class ever since.

Now, on social matters that don't cost the rich anything our politicians can be and are more responsive to the public. Otherwise we are on our own.

the middle class was powerful in the 60's and 70's, but most were WWII vets, some racists, and some serious war hawks from decades of the cold war and Korea. Even then, there were archaic laws and powerful conservative politicians.

The changes occurred because of a very loud subset of "hippies", students, minority activists like MLK, liberal musicians (lots of them), and women gaining power.

Even today, there are lot of reasons that the country (and the world) could take back our governments from the bankers. I admit I see is too much apathy, but I'm optimistic. Maybe climate change? Maybe women's rights? Something needs to spark the change.

that a student can go to school and support him/herself by waiting tables, that to me indicates a strong middle class. If a minimum wage job was enough to keep a family of three afloat (as Elizabeth Warren has described when referring to her own family) that indicates a strong middle class. When a blue-collar worker can make the modern equivalent of $50/hour in a car factory, that's a strong middle class, no matter what that person's political persuasion. When the bottom rungs are not so low, and the top rungs are not out of reach, and there are steps in between, that demonstrates to me a strong middle class. "Middle-class" does not necessarily mean middle-aged, or middle-American. It means having a large enough pool of people who are not so desperate to make ends meet that they have the leisure time to worry about the fate of their fellow men, and the fate of the world.

The secret Powell Memo (1971) was written to and for the Chamber of Commerce, urging businesses to get more involved in the political process, and laying out a roadmap for gaining influence over the culture through colleges and universities, the media, churches, whatever. It was all about facing the challenges posed by the (perceived) subversives of the day--commies, hippies, socialists, i.e. those activists we remember and revere. The point is, it was a top-down, authoritarian approach, deliberately targeting people power. And it worked.

Almost since that time, and certainly for the last 35 years, power and money have flowed to the top. The middle class is gone, and so is our chance to make big changes through the political system. IMO. I remain hopeful, but not about politics. A paradigm shift in outlook is needed; maybe climate catastrophe will do it, but we are running out of time. One thing I know we don't need, is another brave defender of the status quo.

My parents were children in the depression with no middle class. Many were starving and living on what they could grow. No health care, SS, or even much education. They voted in ways to control Wall Street and we could do it again.

My great grandparents fought in the civil war, lost everything, farmed and spent a generation recovering from zero. They used government whenever they could in the late 1800's to rebuild including real public education through HS.

The GI Bill educated my parents and much of my family so they took advantage of the new middle class (so I could grow up as a hippie), but our current economic inequality has happened before, and even within the memory of some who are still alive.

Reagan was the beginning of rise of our current economic problems, but just after WWII the industrial complex figured out they could keep a war going constantly and it would be profitable, so they set out to buy politicians who would keep the military in every corner of the world.

At any rate, the word is getting out about inequality. If enough people vote, it will change quickly. I don't see enough real social concern yet, but maybe it's around the corner. I don't doubt that Hillary, Obama, and Warren all agree the current status quo is wrong - but they can't wave a wand and change it. Only a motivated public can really do that.

if anyone was listening. They aren't. I just don't see a political solution: if our most recent economic crash wasn't enough to spark real change in our political class, I don't know what will. We voted in 2008 for "ways to control Wall Street" and what did we get? Sure President Obama did a good job, sure the Democrats in congress had an uphill fight, but they still didn't institute real, transformational change, which is what we needed. Instead they put bandaids on sucking chest wounds, and more to the point, didn't aspire to do more. IMO that is why the party suffered such a shellacking in 2010, and again in 2014. Obama won in 2012 because the country as a whole is not as insane as the right, but I think a generational political opportunity has come and gone.

Our current economic inequality is standard (although not quite to this extent) for American, and world history, not an anomaly. A strong middle class is a very rare thing, it has happened 3 times in history: after the Black Death wiped out a third of the population of Europe, the price of labor went way up and with it the political power of the new middle class. That the Renaissance followed was surely just a coincidence.... The second time a middle class rose was during the early years of settlement of the American colonies: "free" land once again gave rise to a middle class, and we know what followed there. And then in the convulsions following the Great Depression and World War II policies were put in place, here and elsewhere, that allowed the middle class to grow once again (I think it was partly a loss of manpower leading to higher wages, but more a fear of socialism / fascism which inspired leaders to give the working class a stake in the economy).

The general pessimism, characterized by 'the malaise speech', largely a hangover of the accelerating geographic realignment of the American economy (big city insolvencies, such as the Big Apples brush with bankruptcy) and the failure of the ERA to make it's ratification deadline took a toll and made way for the rise of the Moral Majority and the r's southern strategy which basically exploited every difficulty as evidence of the failures of northeastern liberal policy (itself cast in a language to ignite old north-south conflict) that had nothing to do with Carter's principles.

In the last years of his presidency the inability to favorably resolve the crises in Iran, to shake off the second round of oil shocks in less than a decade that resulted from them, and the inability to successfully resolve the embassy hostage taking (subverted by republican back-dealing) ushered in Reagan.

Same lie, different president...

Good, then insist the TPP says, if ! million new jobs aren't created in the USA in 2 years then we will consider the agreement null and void.

No more hoping for change,

cementing corporate hegemony?

specifics, as it would violate security protocols.....so I wouldn't expect specifics until the agreement is wrapped up and released prior to the vote.

She's got to walk carefully. ....she can't reveal certain info, but she's definitely going support passage.....the agreement is too important as a counter to Russia and China.

You asked why trade deals should strengthen national security? Well, why do them if they don't?

It's all about Russia and China.

What would be brave is if Clinton explained it in clear terms. Get her PR people to figure out an explanation that people can consume.

Expect nothing but a quiet passage in congress (100% there will not be a SOPA / net neutrality style protest of it by the population) and Clinton saying something like "if it's not good enough we'll renegotiate."

that she supports it- as she surely does.

"Why do you support it?" And she can't answer that until the agreement is presented.

She can't discuss confidential and secret information she learned as SoS....and she isn't going to discuss specifics until she can legally do so.

That's the bill that's actually before Congress now. She could state whether she supports imposing those constraints on the process of Congressional consideration of the eventual agreement.

The TPP itself, let alone the TPA, will almost certainly have been decided one way or the other by the time of the next Inauguration. Nevertheless, it's reasonable to ask candidates to state their positions. It gives an insight into what they would do if elected. It's more of an insight that merely knowing that they're in favor of good jobs and opposed to weakening our national security.

HRC can't reveal the TPP.....so they've been attacking her about fast track.....


Of course never mentioning that in 2002 she voted down fast track. It's interesting that you want her to stake out a position.....but candidates, who will be voting? Have you spent time demanding Rand Paul stake out a position?

"Have you spent time demanding Rand Paul stake out a position?"

Uh, no, I haven't, for two very obvious reasons. First, I don't give a damn what Rand Paul thinks. This thread is about Hillary Clinton's position. If you're concerned about Rand Paul's position, you should address that subject in a new OP.

Second, if I ever do want to know what he or any other sitting member of Congress thinks, I can find out when the vote occurs.

Clinton has chosen to issue a statement that contains inoffensively vague support for good jobs and national security but that doesn't address the bill that Congress will actually vote on (the TPA bill). I pointed out that omission.

Incidentally, speaking of inoffensively vague, Clinton's statement is so generic that it could just as easily have come from Rand Paul. I don't expect him or anyone else to come out against good jobs or national security. Some of us Democrats are looking for leaders who take the fight to the conservatives instead of contenting themselves with pablum.

How does Hillary stand on the secrecy of the TPP? Does she call for the lifting of the veil?

As for Rand Paul's stance, it seems he is for it when he isn't against it and wants President Obama to hurry it up but probably is against fast tracking it. But I will worry about the Democratic and liberal stance on the TPP and let you worry about how the Republicans feel about it.

Did you know the details of the Iran deal?

You can read about the pending bill here and in other news reports. I'll bet that Hillary Clinton has even better access to information about it than I do.

This particular dispute will be resolved will before January 20, 2017, but she could give us some indication about what she would do as President by disclosing whether she supports or opposes this bill. There are prominent Democrats on both sides of the dispute, so it's a good test, going beyond the obvious positions (such as support for reproductive rights) that almost all major Democrats take.

refraining from comment.

I tend to not have the Washington Examiner set my agenda.

And that came from the Administration. There was no official disclosure of details from the government about the TPP.

From the little I know about it, I'm totally opposed to it because there's a likelihood that our health care system will come under attack and our market will be flooded with crap that normally would be banned here but isn't banned in markets like the US that has much lower safety standards than us.

The secrecy makes me really uncomfortable. Here's an article from a prominent consumer rights organisation about the concerns (from an Australian perspective) about the TPP...

https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/articles/tpp-secretly-trading-away-your-rights

And this bit is the one that concerns me most:

The absurd, incessant insistence by her mouthpieces that we don't already know what she stands for. As though the record didn't exist. And as though it's mean or unfair to arrive at the only sensible conclusion that is possible based on the combination of the corporate record and an insulting, carefully-crafted statement like this.

It's like a weird psychology experiment, an attempt to create a national, willfully shared delusion that 2+2 just might equal five.

Such utter contempt by corporate politicians toward Americans. Such breathtaking condescension, to treat voters as though we were blithering idiots incapable of forming conclusions from evidence.

but then he is a man....


O`Malley adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Write New Rules for the Global Economy

The rise of global markets has undermined the ability of national governments to control their own economies. The answer is neither global laissez faire nor protectionism but a Third Way: New international rules and institutions to ensure that globalization goes hand in hand with higher living standards, basic worker rights, and environmental protection. U.S. leadership is crucial in building a rules-based global trading system as well as international structures that enhance worker rights and the environment without killing trade. For example, instead of restricting trade, we should negotiate specific multilateral accords to deal with specific environmental threats.

First, Martin O'Malley has expressly come out against the TPP:



(from "Martin O'Malley pitches populism in New Hampshire", April 2, 2015)

O'Malley's opposition to TPP is clear. Note, however, that O'Malley didn't say that Clinton supports it. O'Malley is not endorsing the reporter's characterization of his position as one "where he differs" from Clinton. The reporter may be making an assumption based on Clinton's role in the initial stages of the TPP negotiation.

When I posted this information in another thread on Thursday, I added, "I personally don't know what Clinton's position is." The beef in the current thread is that, even after reading her statement (or her spokesperson's statement) on the subject, we still don't know.

Yes, O'Malley and Clinton differ in their genders. They also differ in the clarity and forthrightness of their positions on the TPP. You can't get around that latter difference by pointing to the former.

Second, the quotation on which you're relying proves nothing. You're presumably relying on this page, which asserts (without citation) that O'Malley adopted a manifesto dated August 1, 2000. I find it plausible to read that he favored "international structures that enhance worker rights and the environment without killing trade." Some years later, he has evidently applied that standard to the specific agreement that's emerging from the TPP negotiations, and he has concluded that the agreement does not meet his criteria.

Does Hillary Clinton think that it meets her criteria? Some of us would like to know.

Third, it's worth noting that the bill now actually before Congress is for fast track, which would facilitate the TPP. Martin O'Malley has come out against fast track. Here again, he and Hillary Clinton are not being treated differently because of sexism; they're being treated differently because one is joining the fight on the side of progressives and the other is, for the moment at least, remaining silent.

when SHE says the same things that he has said in the past about Free Trade...OH that's horrible....she is evil I tell ya! Coincidence? I think not!

You try to depict these two politicians as saying "the same things" and thereby ascribe different reactions to sexism.

Try to understand the difference:
* In the past, Martin O'Malley has said things about trade policy. In April 2015, he has applied his general standards to the specific issues of 2015 and has told us his positions -- against fast track and against TPP.
* In the past, Hillary Clinton has said things about trade policy. In April 2015, she has (so far at least) failed to apply her general standards to the specific issues of 2015 and has (so far at least) failed to tell us her positions.

You're right that the different reactions to these politicians is not coincidence. But it's also not sexism. Many DUers are progressives who see boldness coming from Elizabeth Warren (female) and Martin O'Malley (male), and who see too much timidity and equivocation coming from Barack Obama (male) and Hillary Clinton (female). Most of us don't see either of the latter two as evil, so you can put away that straw man; most of us voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and will vote for Clinton in 2016 if she's the Democratic nominee. Nevertheless, we value the politicians who fight for what we believe in, and we continue to hope that Hillary Clinton will come in off the sidelines and fight alongside them in opposition to the TPP.

Like for example at the AFL - CIO 2007 debate in Chicago

Skip to 18:18

Hillary: "NAFTA was a MISTAKE"



I won't be voting for hrc, even if she somehow weasels into the nomination. No Sale- No Way. When it comes to war, corporations and wall street she "represents" everything I oppose.

makes it questionable, and why should should criticize the "fast-tracking" of this agreement. What are they trying to hide by just pushing it through without any amendments that may be necessary to protect workers.

Past trade agreements have hurt American workers. Why should they take the word of some of the proponents that this one is different? The track record of those telling us to trust us, has not been very good

Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!)

Bob Dylan

Each Party (country) shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory...

Put in plain English, the above paragraph means that signatory countries renounce their right to favor the domestic ownership and control of the lands, waters, and other productive assets and services essential to the lives and well-being of their people.

strongly against Fast Tracking it?? That's all she needed to speak about. That Fast Tracking is not the way to go.

In its history, since the 70s fast tracking has only been granted ONE TIME. So it's not like it's being too radical to simply say what nearly all Dems and even many Republicans have said for decades, 'this isn't the way a Democracy works'.

No wonder they don't want primaries.

In November 2012, the then-secretary of state declared that “we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. ... This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-trade-deal-flip-flop-she-praised-trans-pacific-partnership-now-hedges-1887195

The Chinese are going to love it! They will be pirating and defying copyright laws at an all new level! This deal helps Wall Street and people that already have more money then they can ever spend.

Oh well...America is seeing it's middle class shrink so it is time to create new middle classes around the world to exploit and steal from!

She and Obama know this deal is pure crap for the labor force. It won't meet those two standards that HRC say it must pass first. Oh well...we should all just wait until the damage is done and we can't do anything about it.

There's no there there.

if anyone asked me about what the TPP should be, it would be exactly what Hillary said. Should I run?