General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Forget the DU created issues. How does Hillary not have an opinion on TPP? [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I'm addressing the dissatisfaction arising from Clinton's ducking the issue.
Put aside the subject you raise -- the extent to which this TPA is similar to or different from past such bills. Also put aside the argument that, even if it's identical to what's been in place since FDR, that doesn't mean we have to continue the past procedure if we now conclude it was a mistake.
My point is that Clinton could easily say, "This bill implements trade authority that every President since FDR has had. I think it's a good way to handle proposed international trade agreements, so I urge the House to approve the bill." I wouldn't agree with her, but at least I'd know where she stood. Of course, she could also come out against it. As it is, with regard to this major current issue in public policy, I know more about the stances taken by you and several other DUers than I do about Clinton's -- yet she's the one running for President.
With regard to ISDS, I pointed out that Clinton had mentioned it as a subject of concern. Here again, she could say that she'll oppose TPP because it obviously will include ISDS, or she could say that we have ISDS in place now so it's not a basis for rejecting TPP. She's done neither. Instead, she's voiced vague concern about ISDS, so as not to cost herself votes among those of us who consider it a big negative, but she's refrained from saying it's a TPP deal-breaker, so as not to cost herself votes among people who agree with you that it isn't a big negative.
That kind of caginess is the standard political wisdom for how a candidate should act with a big lead in the polls. It does, however, leave her legitimately open to the charge of trying to work both sides of the street.