Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 04:43 AM Jun 2015

Hillary Clinton Promotes the TPP in Singapore 11-17-2012



A few days before, she was promoting it in Australia

http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200565.htm

Thank you. First, let me say what a great pleasure it is to visit Adelaide and South Australia for the first time. I'm proud to be the first Secretary of State ever to do so. And the others did not know what they were missing. Adelaide is, from our perspective, one of the great, critical industrial centers in the world, the heart of Australia's defense manufacturing, and a place where American and Australian companies work in close partnership every day.

This city, this place showcases two of the strongest elements of the U.S.-Australia relationship: our security alliance, and our economic ties. I want to thank Rod Equid and AWD Alliance for hosting us. I want to thank Senator Wang, Penny, thank you for being here, back home for you. And I want to thank the Premier. Premier Weatherill has been a very great visionary when it comes to understanding the partnership, the public-private partnership that is essential for advanced manufacturing to be successful, not only here in Australia, but around the world.

Techport, this world-class maritime industrial hub is where you can see the future of the Royal Australian Navy being built, including the next generation of Air Warfare Destroyers. Now, this work is obviously critical to Australia's continued defense, your ability to provide security for yourselves and throughout the region, and to maintain and advance your role as a global force for peace and stability.

Now, these are goals that the United States shares with Australia, and we are deeply committed to your continued security. We are proud to work with Australia across a range of regional and global security challenges, including standing shoulder to shoulder in Afghanistan and fighting piracy together in the Horn of Africa. So I am greatly impressed by the work being done here to keep Australia strong at home and abroad and very proud of the role that American companies are playing in this effort.

In 2011 alone, U.S. military sales to Australia came to nearly $4 billion making Australia one of our top defense trading partners. And that partnership just received a major boost. Your parliament passed the bill to implement the Defense, Trade, and Cooperation Treaty between our two countries, which the Governor-General assented to this week.

Our leaders signed this treaty back in 2007. The United States Senate passed it in 2010, and now that it has passed your parliament, U.S. and Australian forces will be able to cooperate even more closely and swiftly for our mutual defense. They will be building on a strong foundation. American defense manufacturers are helping to modernize Australia's defense forces through programs like the Joint Strike Fighter project, the Growler upgrades to your Super Hornets, Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and P-8 anti-submarine warfare aircraft, C-17 and C-27 transport aircraft, MH-60 helicopters for your navy, and the AEGIS weapons systems for you new Air Warfare Destroyers built right here.

But this is a two-way street, because Australian defense manufacturers in turn are contributing to our U.S. defense projects. I just saw the turrets that are manufactured and then exported to the United States for us to be using in our defense. We're also working with you and getting your help in our littoral combat ships. So this is a mutual partnership where we both look out for each other, and we both benefit.

But I want to emphasize that all the work happening here at Techport Australia and at other manufacturing hubs across both our countries is not only about defense and security as important as that is. It's about jobs. It's about trade and investment. It's about putting people to work, and I see some of the high-skilled workers here in front of me.

Now, this economic relationship is just as vital to both of our nations' continued strength as our defense partnership, because in today's world, power is increasingly measured and exercised in economic terms. So it is critical that Australia and the United States keep seeking every opportunity to increase trade and investment between us, to build economic partnerships, to share innovation and technological advances so we can continue not only to lead in the global economy, but more importantly to provide a rising standard of living to the hardworking people in both our countries.

We're on the right path. Since the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement entered into force seven years ago, bilateral trade and investment between our countries has steadily increased, and we're very proud to be Australia's third largest trade partner and your leading investment partner. Now, sometimes it may not always be reflected in the press, but American investment is the biggest source of investment in Australia.

American firms have $136 billion in direct investment in Australia ranging across many industries, including Chevron's gas projects off the cost of Western Australia, and I heard a lot about that in Perth yesterday, or the IBM data centers across Australia, or Boeing, GE, Citigroup, Exxon Mobile, dozens of other American companies whose names I have seen both here in Adelaide and in Perth and of course in Melbourne and Sydney and Canberra on previous visits.

Australia is also a growing market for growing exports even as we welcome more trade from you. In fact, our exports to Australia jumped more than 40 percent between 2009 and 2011 raising from under 20 billion to more than 27 billion, and in the first nine months of this year, they're up another 20 percent. President Obama set a goal of doubling U.S. exports within five years, and we've seen extraordinary progress in our relationship with Australia.

So it's fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. 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.

That's key, because we know from experience, and of course research proves it, that respecting workers' rights leads to positive long-term economic outcomes, better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions. And including everybody in that, those who have been previously left out of the formal economy will help build a strong middle class, not only here in Australia or in our country, but across Asia. And that will be good for us.

If we do this right, and that's what we're trying to do, then globalization, which is inevitable, can become a race to the top with rising standards of living and more broadly shared prosperity. Now, this is what I call jobs diplomacy, and that's what I've been focused on in part as Secretary of State. And that's one of the reasons that I wanted to come here to Adelaide and come to this impressive facility.

But for me, and I think for most Americans, it's not only about security, and it's not only about our economy. So let me close with a word about our alliance. These last three days have reinforced for me the indispensability of the U.S.-Australia partnership, indispensible to our shared prosperity, yes, and to our shared security for sure, but also indispensible for our shared values. We are cooperating everywhere together, in businesses, in shipbuilding, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the atolls of the Pacific to the thriving cities of Asia.

But I know there are some who present a false choice, that Australia needs to choose between its longstanding ties to the United States and its emerging links with China. Well, that kind of zero-sum thinking only leads to negative-sum results. We support Australia having strong, multifaceted ties with every nation in the Asia Pacific, indeed in the world, including China just as we seek the same. And I have said repeatedly the Pacific is big enough for all of us.

But for both of us, the U.S.-Australia alliance is not a matter of calculation or cost-benefit analysis, though the benefits are clear. It is much deeper than that. It is in our DNA. It is rooted in shared history and shared struggles to overcome adversity and build a better future for ourselves, our families, and future generations. We are not fair-weather friends. We've been there for each other for decades, and we will keep being there to deliver greater security, greater prosperity, greater opportunity, and the chance for all Australians and Americans alike to live up to our God-given potential in this, the Pacific century. God bless you. And God bless Australia and our relationship forever. Thank you. (Applause.)


60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary Clinton Promotes the TPP in Singapore 11-17-2012 (Original Post) BrotherIvan Jun 2015 OP
In fairness her job as SoS was to promote current US policy Recursion Jun 2015 #1
That is not the point BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #2
What is the point? That we want to promote environmental and labor regulations with trade agreements Recursion Jun 2015 #3
Then she should be clear about that BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #5
And US foreign policy is usually reprehensible and ethically void. Scootaloo Jun 2015 #6
+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Jun 2015 #10
We've had some decent Secretaries of State in the past Art_from_Ark Jun 2015 #18
This should be an OP. Le Taz Hot Jun 2015 #44
That's a very lame excuse. It's the SOS's job to Exilednight Jun 2015 #12
+1 BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #14
Yep. Pretty much rpannier Jun 2015 #25
In fairness, she wrote a book saying the same thing after she was SoS. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2015 #32
If she didn't agree with the policy or thought it bad she could have stepped down. cui bono Jun 2015 #55
Well, at least she wasn't pandering... RufusTFirefly Jun 2015 #4
Hillary Clinton didn't resign; she promoted the TPP Sienna86 Jun 2015 #7
Yep, and now ... crickets instead of even talkin' bout the TPP...Go Bernie! drynberg Jun 2015 #13
Yet now she's on the fence regarding the "gold standard" of trade deals. How can one trust her? Scuba Jun 2015 #8
This sort of campaigning might have worked in the days before the internet BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #9
...! KoKo Jun 2015 #37
Have you noticed the difference in her delivering this speech and the one she gave Saturday madokie Jun 2015 #17
New world order, rah rah rah! Enthusiast Jun 2015 #11
The rich are different BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #15
There We Have It - Proof Positive - American Workers Be Damned cantbeserious Jun 2015 #16
More Negative attacks,,,,,,, geeez Cryptoad Jun 2015 #19
Yes people, Hillary's *own* *words* are now negative attacks Fumesucker Jun 2015 #20
Glad you finaly realized Cryptoad Jun 2015 #22
Hillary's extensive record of public service cannot be spoken of? Fumesucker Jun 2015 #23
You still don't get,,,,, Cryptoad Jun 2015 #30
How is it being spun? It's a video of her speaking. cui bono Jun 2015 #56
Keep it up Cryptoad Jun 2015 #59
It is until you bring it up madokie Jun 2015 #40
Oh,,,, it is not happenstance Cryptoad Jun 2015 #60
Her memoir was released 370 days ago. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #29
Thank You rpannier Jun 2015 #28
You should really stop conflating criticism of Hillary's policies with "negative attacks". djean111 Jun 2015 #31
+1 L0oniX Jun 2015 #36
There is no commentary in the OP BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #42
Are you saying her position on the TPP is a net negative for her? grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #47
Everybody knows why this was posted Cryptoad Jun 2015 #50
You don't seem to understand what was posted. cui bono Jun 2015 #57
Im voting for Bernie,,, Cryptoad Jun 2015 #58
. stonecutter357 Jun 2015 #21
She was for it 2 months ago !! Seperate what she does & says, on Trade . orpupilofnature57 Jun 2015 #24
She sounds more like a defense secretary than a diplomat. Jesus Malverde Jun 2015 #26
And remember when both HRC & Obama played us in 2008 re: NAFTA RiverLover Jun 2015 #27
Indeed ...and she is still playing some gullible Dems for fools. L0oniX Jun 2015 #34
Thanks for the Video...and reminding us of Goolsbee Comment which was posted on DU KoKo Jun 2015 #39
So she was for it before she was against ...uhm er undecided about it. L0oniX Jun 2015 #33
Singapore needs no pitch to sell them TPP, Singapore is one of the 4 originating signatory nations Bluenorthwest Jun 2015 #35
Singapore is a dictatorship, is it not? grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #48
Sooner or later Hillary will have to come out of her bubble and start answering questions Autumn Jun 2015 #38
I thought for sure it would end with the "kickoff" BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #45
"This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #41
Yes BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #43
See? Le Taz Hot Jun 2015 #46
Most definitely BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #49
Who says Hillary can't stake out a clear unequivocating position? pa28 Jun 2015 #51
TPP is not for me ! CTBlueboy Jun 2015 #52
I see..the Secretary of State promoted a policy of the Administration she worked for. brooklynite Jun 2015 #53
Yes, you see what you want, she takes more responsibility for being 1st Lady orpupilofnature57 Jun 2015 #54

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
1. In fairness her job as SoS was to promote current US policy
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 04:48 AM
Jun 2015

Not "make US policy as she would prefer it".

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
3. What is the point? That we want to promote environmental and labor regulations with trade agreements
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 04:51 AM
Jun 2015

rather than let China set the world lowest-common-denominator?



I personally don't think there's much doubt where Hillary stands on the TPP on substance, I just don't think her statements as Secretary of State (where it was her job to promote it) are great evidence of them.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
6. And US foreign policy is usually reprehensible and ethically void.
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 05:18 AM
Jun 2015

So we come to a question, when we look at the people who are tasked with promoting policy that is openly destructive to vast swathes of the world.

is there a breaking point? a moment where the person in that position has to make a decision between being an ethical, decent person... and "doing the job"? Very likely. How many Secretaries of State have favored ethics and tendered their resignation when policy demand they promote something ethically repugnant?

To my knowledge, none. There is a deep level of sociopathy that seems necessary to hold the position. Where you can facilitate the giving of US weapons and "experts" to a bloody despot who then uses them to crush people seeking democratic reform, knowing full well that his police enjoy raping female protesters without batting an eye. Where you can stare at men and women getting chopped to pieces and say "not our problem." Where you look an interviewer in the eye and say half a million dead children are "worth it" to prove a point. Where you can hold hands and share dinner with a guy who is, right at that moment, conducting mass executions of political opponents, holding mass trials in absentia, all with foregone death penalties. Where you can sit in front of the United nations and with a straight face, lie about anthrax with a bottle of craft glitter and the need to annihilate another nation. Wehre you can pat yourself on the back for spewing napalm on villages and leaving a trail of coups and mass-murdering juntas in your wake.

Now, I know, international politics is a nasty place and there are no saints. This sort of job, and thesort of people who can do it effectively are probably necessary, as much as i wish they weren't.

But they should never bee in charge of any nation.

Never.

Not Kerry, not Clinton, not Rice, not Powell, not Albright, not Christopher, none of them.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
18. We've had some decent Secretaries of State in the past
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 06:34 AM
Jun 2015

George C. Marshall, who won a Nobel Prize for the Marshall Plan
Cordell Hull, who won a Nobel Prize for helping to establish the United Nations
Cyrus Vance, who "approached foreign policy with an emphasis on negotiation over conflict and a special interest in arms reduction."
Even Ed Muskie was a pretty decent SoS, although he only held the position for just a few months.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
12. That's a very lame excuse. It's the SOS's job to
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 05:54 AM
Jun 2015

Also advise the president on foreign policy decisions and to defy the president if the policy is horrific enough.

I never gave Powell a free pass because he was just doing what Bush told him to do, and I am not giving Hillary a free pass on this.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
14. +1
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 06:05 AM
Jun 2015

Also, when one reads the transcript of her remarks, the idea that she would be lying is even more disturbing. Not sure this argument helps.

rpannier

(24,335 posts)
25. Yep. Pretty much
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 07:11 AM
Jun 2015

If she had taken a position against the President people would have been upset at that

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
55. If she didn't agree with the policy or thought it bad she could have stepped down.
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 02:53 AM
Jun 2015

That's what someone with the conviction of their beliefs would do. Since she didn't, she either believes in the TPP or she doesn't stand by her own principles. That shows a lack of integrity and that is not someone who should be president.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
4. Well, at least she wasn't pandering...
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 04:53 AM
Jun 2015
But for both of us, the U.S.-Australia alliance is not a matter of calculation or cost-benefit analysis, though the benefits are clear. It is much deeper than that. It is in our DNA. It is rooted in shared history and shared struggles to overcome adversity and build a better future for ourselves, our families, and future generations. We are not fair-weather friends. We've been there for each other for decades, and we will keep being there to deliver greater security, greater prosperity, greater opportunity, and the chance for all Australians and Americans alike to live up to our God-given potential in this, the Pacific century. God bless you. And God bless Australia and our relationship forever. Thank you.


madokie

(51,076 posts)
17. Have you noticed the difference in her delivering this speech and the one she gave Saturday
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 06:14 AM
Jun 2015

I'm scared of her, more so now than before.

Not because of the difference in her speechifying but in the fact here she is for the TPP and not willing to admit that as a candidate.

I do believe that Obama knows full well that anything he is for will not see the light of day and anything he is against they will try to force feed him. I keep coming back to the cuts to SS he so skillfully put a stop too as an example

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
20. Yes people, Hillary's *own* *words* are now negative attacks
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 06:45 AM
Jun 2015

After all it's been more than *two* *whole* *years* and Hillary's position on the TPP has changed completely evolved since then.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
22. Glad you finaly realized
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 06:51 AM
Jun 2015

that distortion of the truth is just a bad a lie. Try promoting Bern's Positive attributes

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
23. Hillary's extensive record of public service cannot be spoken of?
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 07:04 AM
Jun 2015

I thought Hillary's resume was her strong point?

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
30. You still don't get,,,,,
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 08:33 AM
Jun 2015

it not her service record,,,,, it is manner in how its being spun........ stick to the positive stuff to say about Bernie...... negative attacks on HRC is not helping.?

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
56. How is it being spun? It's a video of her speaking.
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 02:58 AM
Jun 2015

And if you believe it's being spun, then refute the spin.

Seems to me you are simply complaining that there is something negative about Hillary. Well, tough luck. The people need to know these things in order to decide or affirm their choice of candidates.

madokie

(51,076 posts)
40. It is until you bring it up
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 12:27 PM
Jun 2015

once you do, this is the kind of crap you get in response.
After watching this I'm pretty damn sure I'll have to hold my nose to vote for her. Of which I will because I'm a yellow dog democrat
Now I realize that much of the shit thrown Obama's way these last 6.5 years has come from Hillary supporters in 08, and I don't think its only here at du either, its every where

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
29. Her memoir was released 370 days ago.
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 08:04 AM
Jun 2015

That's not even two dog years.

Her memoir speaks glowingly about TPP.

Evolved my butt.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
31. You should really stop conflating criticism of Hillary's policies with "negative attacks".
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 09:00 AM
Jun 2015

That's not what was meant by not doing negative campaigning. If an OP about Bernie voting on a "REPREHENSIBLE!!!!!" piece of legislation can be duplicated multiple times, then it is okay, and even, I would think, expected by actual campaigners, to criticize Hillary's record. No one here is bringing up personal stuff.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
42. There is no commentary in the OP
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 12:36 PM
Jun 2015

There is NO attack. There is a video of her speaking and a transcript of her own remarks. That is as plain truth as you can get. If her own words are an attack, then you have no confidence in your candidate. That is why all the talk here about mean Bernie supporters is just crying wolf.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
50. Everybody knows why this was posted
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 03:57 PM
Jun 2015

It only hurts Bernie's cause ,,,,, if yall are determined to defeat Bernie, keep it up!

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
57. You don't seem to understand what was posted.
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 03:01 AM
Jun 2015

You think it's just spin, it's not. It's her own words. What is wrong with posting that? You don't think people should know what she thinks?

And why do you consider her giving a speech negative? What's wrong with it? And if you think it's so negative that posting it is taken as an attack by you, then why are you presumably supporting her?

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
58. Im voting for Bernie,,,
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 06:28 AM
Jun 2015

and yall's endless negative attacks of HRC are going to defeat him. The focus needs to be on what Bernie is doing right not what HRC is doing wrong.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
27. And remember when both HRC & Obama played us in 2008 re: NAFTA
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 07:13 AM
Jun 2015

and how it needed to be renegotiated?



...Both Clinton and then-Sen. Barack Obama made suckers out of progressive primary voters when it came to trade issues in the 2008 election. Each promised to renegotiate NAFTA if they became president. This was a big deal ahead of the Ohio primary, where trade agreements have served the working-class economy poorly.

Clinton won the primary safely thanks in part to “NAFTAgate.” In the days ahead of the vote, you see, a Canadian government memo leaked, revealing a meeting Obama campaign economist Austan Goolsbee conducted with a Canadian government official. Goolsbee reassured the Canadians that Obama’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric was just for the sake of “political positioning,” and that they had no reason to worry otherwise. The Obama campaign tried to deny the story, but that didn’t work so well.

The kicker here is that a couple days after Clinton won the primary, a report came out that Clinton’s team had told the Canadians more or less the same thing: that Clinton’s rhetoric about wanting to renegotiate NAFTA should be taken “with a grain of salt.”

As we know, Obama became president of the United States and appointed Clinton his secretary of state. The two of them combined spent approximately zero seconds working to renegotiate NAFTA, but they did push forward on new, bigger, more opaque trade agreements....

Hillary is playing progressives for fools: Why you shouldn’t believe her populist talk on trade

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
39. Thanks for the Video...and reminding us of Goolsbee Comment which was posted on DU
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 11:00 AM
Jun 2015

and many of us were pretty angry about what we thought was a sneaky betrayal.


Goolsbee reassured the Canadians that Obama’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric was just for the sake of “political positioning,” and that they had no reason to worry otherwise. The Obama campaign tried to deny the story, but that didn’t work so well.

The kicker here is that a couple days after Clinton won the primary, a report came out that Clinton’s team had told the Canadians more or less the same thing: that Clinton’s rhetoric about wanting to renegotiate NAFTA should be taken “with a grain of salt.”
 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
35. Singapore needs no pitch to sell them TPP, Singapore is one of the 4 originating signatory nations
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 10:48 AM
Jun 2015

which initiated TPP talks in 2005, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile and Brunei. She sure was not promoting it to Singapore, as Singapore promoted it to us. They were in for 3 years before the US entered the talks.

Autumn

(45,120 posts)
38. Sooner or later Hillary will have to come out of her bubble and start answering questions
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 10:59 AM
Jun 2015

and not just questions from a select few. When she does she will tank, like she did in 08. If you want to be the leader of the free world you have to have courage to take on current issues head on. She's not doing that, and it will cost her. And us in the long run. The way I see it this time, her goal is the White House and a historical legacy. To do what has to be done for the good of the people is going to require some hard choices and this Hillary is too timid this time around, and too much of a hawk. I supported her to the bitter end last time and I still maintain that there is not a bit of difference between her and Obama.

Where we find ourselves now, Bernie Sanders is what we need at this time.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
45. I thought for sure it would end with the "kickoff"
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 12:43 PM
Jun 2015

I was shocked to see the campaign is still trying to keep her out of the press, acknowledging that the candidate herself is a liability. A candidate for president who can't take questions??? A candidate with so many scandals she has to hide? A candidate whose poll numbers tank whenever people see her speak extemporaneously? That is shocking to me. I have no idea what their game plan is to get to the finish line, but I really hope they keep it up. It is giving the voters ample time to get to know the other candidates.

 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
41. "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 12:35 PM
Jun 2015

of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field."

So, she does have a position. Her campaign is lying when she says she doesn't.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
43. Yes
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 12:39 PM
Jun 2015

She wrote the same thing in her book. I have no idea why she would run from her own positions, but it is a terrible strategy.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
46. See?
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 12:46 PM
Jun 2015

It's shit like this that makes her a TERRIBLE candidate. She has a long history of flip-flopping and advocating/denouncing issues based on something the latest focus group came up with. She CAN'T run from this stuff. In the age of cell phones and YouTube and social media you just can't hide this shit and it's going to keep coming. And it's not even the General Election yet. Yes, she CAN lose the General. Yes, she most certainly can.

Bernie Sander, however . . .

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
49. Most definitely
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 12:53 PM
Jun 2015

The argument that "only Hillary can beat a Republican" is fast becoming just the opposite. The campaign is visibly awful at dealing with issues and hopes to just put out some feel good stuff and everyone cheers. It is a ticking time bomb for the general.

Hillboosters on DU think that by shouting down all facts and demanding compliance to cheerleading only, it makes all of this go away. Even in this post, which has no commentary whatsoever, it is being labeled "bashing" and "spin". Merely *her own words* are considered "hating".

pa28

(6,145 posts)
51. Who says Hillary can't stake out a clear unequivocating position?
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 04:26 PM
Jun 2015

She leaves no doubt of her support whatsoever in this speech.

 

CTBlueboy

(154 posts)
52. TPP is not for me !
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 04:26 PM
Jun 2015

That pesky Youtube always video archiving let me download this video in case it disappears

 

orpupilofnature57

(15,472 posts)
54. Yes, you see what you want, she takes more responsibility for being 1st Lady
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 05:14 PM
Jun 2015

Last edited Mon Jun 15, 2015, 05:47 PM - Edit history (1)

than any aspect of her Elected & Appointed positions .

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Hillary Clinton Promotes ...