Hillary Clinton was Never Going to Support TPP

[portlander23]

Hillary Clinton was Never Going to Support TPP
MSNBC
Isaac-Davy Aronson

For labor unions and the base of the Democratic Party, TPP is not just one issue among many. It is the issue. Very few Democrats in Congress support the deal, or any free trade deal for that matter. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, asked if he would support TPP, said, “The answer is not only no, but hell no.”

In other words, there was no way Hillary Clinton could ever support it. It would be like a Republican presidential candidate endorsing Obamacare. He or she would be applauded in some quarters for principled nobility, but the nobility would be suicidal. Hillary Clinton decide that TPP was not the hill she wanted to die on. How you feel about Secretary Clinton’s decision probably has more to do with your feelings about Hillary Clinton and politics in general than about TPP.

What is odd, given that she and her staff must have known for months she would have to oppose TPP, is what a poor job she is doing explaining her position. As Vox’s Timothy B. Lee points out, her explanation makes no sense.

Given that the White House spin on the final deal is so good, why come out against it now? Why not wait until the text is released and then claim the fine print leads her to reject it? Why choose two reasons two oppose it that ring so hollow? On other issues, including gay marriage, Clinton has claimed a genuine evolution in thinking. Why not say she used to support TPP but after traveling the country and listening to Democratic voters, she has decided she cannot support it after all?

Being a politician and making decisions on the basis of politics is not inherently a bad thing. Many Clinton supporters see her willingness to accede to political realities as evidence of her acumen and ability to win and to get things done. But unions and progressives may wonder why Hillary Clinton is not making more of an effort to telegraph that she is a genuine ally.

That's one theory.

Related:

Vox: Hillary Clinton's flip-flop on the TPP makes no sense

Common Dreams: Flipping on TPP, Hillary Clinton Proves Chameleon-Like on Corporate Trade

Cillizza: Clinton’s opposition to TPP is a sign of how worried she is about Sanders

[Major Hogwash]

1. Proving once again, Hillary has no vision for the future of the world.

TPP will not only benefit the member nations of that agreement, but it will benefit many of the countries not included in it.

It's sad that so many people have wasted so much time arguing with President Obama about this trade agreement.
I don't understand why they think their opinion is so much more important than his.

If they would only stop and think about the conditions of the world as it is now that lead to this agreement, and then project just a decade in to the future, it is obvious to see that there was no other choice, but to enter into an agreement such as this one.
Is it a perfect trade agreement?
No.
Can it be amended?
Yes.
Can the United States drop out of the agreement if things go sour in the near future?
Yes.
And if things go sour in the near future, and the United States does drop out of this trade agreement, does that mean it was a bad agreement to begin with?
No.
Things change, and President Obama was smart enough to keep that in mind when drafting this trade agreement.

Will a trade agreement like this one help to prevent a war in the future?
Perhaps, it is a good start over the never ending struggle for limited resources.

[zalinda]

2. Yes, and

NAFTA and H1-B visas worked out so well for us.

Z

[Major Hogwash]

4. You're talking about jobs.

I'm talking about wars.

Two completely different things.

[sheshe2]

5. Good thoughtful post.

I may not agree on the Hillary part. Common Dreams, Vox, Cillizza.

It's sad that so many people have wasted so much time arguing with President Obama about this trade agreement.
I don't understand why they think their opinion is so much more important than his.

Yet a good post, thanks, Major Hogwash.

Late, gotta go.

[Art_from_Ark]

6. I know a former Japanese agriculture minister who disagrees strongly with your assertion

Sure, TPP will be a boon for certain corporations and insiders, but it will not do anything positive for the average citizen in member nations.

[eridani]

7. TPP is for the 1% everywhere, and against the 99% everywhere n/t

[demwing]

9. "I don't understand why they think their opinion is so much more important than his. "

and I don't understand why you think their opinion is so much less important than his.

[RiverLover]

10. So I guess you don't believe the TPP a possible “final blow to manufacturing in America" like unions

......Now, keep everything else about today’s situation the same. Having been agreed to in Atlanta on Monday by the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations, the TPP has drawn the ire of just about every major labor union in the country.

United Steelworkers’ President Leo Gerard has predicted the pact could deal a “final blow to manufacturing in America.”

His counterpart at the Communications Workers of America, Chris Shelton, has called it “a bad deal for working families and communities … a corporate dream but a nightmare for those of us on Main Street.”

Leading legal experts and economist Joseph Stigltiz express their “grave concern” about its penchant for extra-legal judicial channels, while Paul Krugman (a “lukewarm opponent”) pragmatically explains that “the big beneficiaries” of the TPP “are likely to be pharma companies and firms that want to sue governments.”....

http://wagingnonviolence.org/2015/10/tpp-trade-deal-shows-green-groups-cant-work-vacuum/

[JaneyVee]

11. She said it doesn't meet her high bar.

So she's not completely against it, just this negotiation of it.

[jeff47]

12. Sad is pretending history just started today.

We've seen this story before with NAFTA, CAFTA and lots of other "trade" agreements.

All of them "can be amended!!" The US can "drop out!!" of all of them.

And none of them have been amended to reduce the damage they cause to the "little people". And the US has dropped out of none of them.

There is zero reason to buy the line you are trying to sell about TPP, because history did not start today.

Especially because the TPP does jack shit about trade. We already have "free trade" agreements with about 80% of the GDP covered by the TPP. Japan would add another 12%, but the average tariff with Japan is 1% - utterly dwarfed by currency fluctuation. So the TPP gives us "access" to some very small markets, none of which have high tariffs now.

The TPP is about exporting capital from the US. Right now, investing capital in the US is much safer than investing it overseas. The TPP is an attempt to make those investments safer, so that more capital will be spent outside of the US. That way when they build a new factory in Myanmar to exploit slave labor, the capitalists have less worry about losing their investment.

[antigop]

3. Why isn't she telegraphing that she is an ally? BECAUSE SHE'S NOT AN ALLY!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702780.html

When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. . . . We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."

[Doctor_J]

8. except for the forty five times she did support it

What a crock