45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes (TPP)

[Man from Pickens]

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

That should clear up any remaining confusion as to where she stands on the issue.

You can replace the time you spent trying to figure out her position by considering why she can't give a straight answer to the question.

[AtomicKitten]

1. It's really an inferred opposition, weasel words for more wiggle room.

It's good enough for her supporters, though, in spite of the fact that she participated in writing it, gave speeches promoting it, and referred to it as the Gold Standard of trade deals.

For the rest of us it's:

[Bonobo]

2. That GIF....

If bitterly funny and blisteringly accurate had a baby, and that baby was a GIF, that would be it.

[AtomicKitten]

3. it gives context to the logo

in a spectacularly accurate way

[Man from Pickens]

50. LOLariffic!

if a picture is worth a thousand words, an animated GIF is worth 200,000

[SoapBox]

11. Uhhh...which way to the Hospital?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

However, America is gonna need to know because if these pacts pass, we're gonna be mighty sick!

[glinda]

79. ha! I know!

[MissDeeds]

31. Perfect

[KoKo]

49. ......!

Oh My...!

[Aerows]

75. That says it all!

[Cheese Sandwich]

4. 45 times Clinton pushed for trade bill that she is still pushing by looking for ways to save it

That would probably be a better title

[William769]

5. Damn I wished people knew how Government worked.

Ok, here's a quick lesson, Secretary means a cabinet position. Your job is to do the bidding of the President. Are you with me so far? let me repeat it again for you, Secretary means a cabinet position. Your job is to do the bidding of the President.

If you need any more help on how our Government works, please don't hesitate to ask. I will be more than glad to help you out.

[AtomicKitten]

6. Oh shit. Better not tell that to the interested industry & lobbyists

.... that "donated" millions to the Clinton Foundation - wink wink nudge nudge.

[F4lconF16]

8. Um.

So either she was Obama's lackey and nothing she did in her role as SOS was her own, or the huge treaty she personally pushed, wrote about, and lobbied for a minimum of 45 times was hers. That's a huge part of what she did as SOS; if that isn't hers, than literally nothing she did as SOS was hers. You don't get to pick and choose which "accomplishments" are attributed to her.

Please. Clinton is far more intelligent and independent for me to believe she was just following orders--which, I will note, she didn't have to do. She could have either resigned or made her opinion known at the time, and since then. She certainly hasn't.

Now, I'm no fan of Clinton, but to be honest, I can't say I really give a crap about our elites other than how their decisions affect my community. So I'm biased against them all, not her, before you accuse me of Hillary Hate (tm).

She supports the damn thing. You all are trying too hard.

[leftofcool]

16. Re you kidding me?????????????????????

"Please. Clinton is far more intelligent and independent for me to believe she was just following orders--which, I will note, she didn't have to do."


Do you mind if I cut and paste your statement so I can zip it off in an email? I have a friend who is a high school political science teacher who absolutely needs to see this.

[F4lconF16]

19. Yeah no problem.

Glad I'm not the only one up at this hour.

[djean111]

24. Oh, hey, I am perfectly willing to believe that all she did was follow orders,

and was really in the job for making contacts and piling up frequent flyer miles.

[BainsBane]

57. The Constitution specifies the role of the Secretary of State

Duties of the Secretary of State


January 20, 2009
Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy. The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States.

Created in 1789 by the Congress as the successor to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of State is the senior executive Department of the U.S. Government. The Secretary of State’s duties relating to foreign affairs have not changed significantly since then, but they have become far more complex as international commitments multiplied. These duties -- the activities and responsibilities of the State Department -- include the following:

Serves as the President's principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
Administers the Department of State;
Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

In addition, the Secretary of State retains domestic responsibilities that Congress entrusted to the State Department in 1789. These include the custody of the Great Seal of the United States, the preparation of certain presidential proclamations, the publication of treaties and international acts as well as the official record of the foreign relations of the United States, and the custody of certain original treaties and international agreements. The Secretary also serves as the channel of communication between the Federal Government and the States on the extradition of fugitives to or from foreign countries.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm

[William769]

58. And look at all the shit I caught for saying what I said.

Some people just can't admit when they are wrong.

[F4lconF16]

63. See response 9.

She wasn't forced. Why are you defending her on this, BB? (Genuine question, not meant as an attack)

[cui bono]

9. Damn I wish some people knew how integrity and principles worked.

Ok, here's a quick lesson, both integrity and principles mean believing in and standing up for what you know/believe is right. To do that you have to have conviction of your beliefs and refuse to participate in policy that goes against what you think is the right thing to do. Are you with me so far? Let me repeat it again for you. Both integrity and principles mean believing in and standing up for what you know/believe is right. To do that you have to have conviction of your beliefs and refuse to participate in policy that goes against what you think is the right thing to do.

If you need any more help about what it means to have integrity and principles, please don't hesitate to ask. I will be more than glad to help you out.

[LondonReign2]

34. +1

Integrity: That's for other candidates

[Autumn]

37. I think it's adorable how people think that this game has never been played before.

[William769]

59. I think it's sad when people can't admit they are wrong and move on

Or at least try to learn from their mistakes. Throwing deflection tactics makes it even worse. Buy hey, what ever floats your boat.

[Autumn]

62. My boat floats just fine William, I or no one else need worry about that.

People can worry about their own boats.

[Exilednight]

15. You really don't know how government works.

[leftofcool]

18. Wonder if we can get a civics 101 class started?

[BreakfastClub]

20. Exactly. She was working for Obama at the time. Every single one

of those quotes were during her tenure as SoS. Good Lord...What are these people going to do if Hillary is the nominee? Drop out of the party??

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. Her memoir was released 372 days ago. How many days since she's been SoS?

C'mon... help a poor schlep out here.

[madokie]

46. Hey bro'

wrong op to get that help.
I really used to think more highly of her than I do today. Maybes its the meds I'm on now but I'm beginning to think something smells
I think we need to be for Americans first in any and everything we do as a country, a party and as individuals.

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. You are correct, Sir.

Hope life is treating you well today!

[madokie]

55. Same to you

I'm having a bout with old mans disease (bronchitis) but I'm finally on the mend
I wish we could send some of this rain you guys way. Its wetter than all get outs around here. The lakes are full. Lake fort Gibson is like 26 feet over flood stage and holding. Lot of water running over the flood gates of Hudson. Its a mess.
When I was stationed at Warner Springs SERE school we used to go up to Big Bear and hang out. Those were the days, party hardy. Hell I didn't really know what partying was then if the truth was known. I was still a few years away from getting the hang of that, being from LG and all.
If I see any of the folks I'll give them a hi for you. It brought a big ass Good smile to Duggie the last time I did. It showed me all I need to see
Peace

[m-lekktor]

29. "She was just following orders!1"

[jeff47]

33. Was she "just following orders" when she wrote her book after she was SoS?

Also, people with deeply held principles do not violate them because their boss tells them to. They say "no". And either resign or are fired.

So if Clinton was "just following orders", then she doesn't particularly care. Would you prefer that argument?

[leveymg]

38. Guess what, Obama's Cabinet was not a command and control organization. Particularly for Hillary.

She had her own agenda as SoS, and she pushed it - in the case of her cause to regime change Syria and to use Islamist militias and arms from Libya to do that, she and Petraeus pushed much further that Obama was ready to go. As a result, the General was unceremoniously Seven Days in Mayed, and the President graciously accepted Madam Secretary's resignation at the beginning of the second term.

As for TPP, that didn't seem to be much of an issue until a Wikileaks copy was made public in January of this year. Hillary didn't seem to have problems with terms that were being negotiated during her tenure as SOS, and there still is no indication that she has opposition to substantive issues, such as Investor-State Disputes, secrecy, and FastTrack.

[frylock]

66. So she was conscripted as SoS?

Please tell me how government works, please? I'm just a stupid and gullible progressive.

[William769]

67. Remember you said it, I didn't

But this post lays out perfectly what everyone here is denying. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6846424 Have fun with it.

[frylock]

68. So if she didn't agree with what she was asked to do, she had the opportunity to leave?

Am I correct in my assessment?

[William769]

69. Like I said have fun spinning this.

[frylock]

70. But I thought this was a Civics 101 lesson?

I had a lot of fun exposing your nonsense.

[backscatter712]

73. As one person put it, she could have resigned.

But that would take two things:

1. Disagreement with President Obama's TPP agenda.

2. Integrity.

[Indepatriot]

7. Look, this weekend she made it perfectly clear......oh, wait, nevermind...

[pnwmom]

10. The treaty has been changing over time, so the only position that matters now

is how she feels about the current document.

How could she give a "straight answer" when the document has been changing over time? It sounds to me that she was hoping there would be changes that would let her support it, but she hasn't seen them yet.

[Fearless]

12. So you're saying that her position is evolving over time?

And this classified document... that isn't available to the public...

You've seen this document?

You've seen changes made to it that turn it INTO a pro-big business / anti-American bill?

And it's only after such that Hillary decided she was against it?

[pnwmom]

13. I don't have to have seen the document to know that, over the last few years,

it has been under negotiation among many countries. That is a fact.

And I didn't say that there were changes that turned it INTO a pro-big business bill. I said that the document has been in flux, and Obama's negotiators are having an influence on it. So are many others.

[leftofcool]

17. I am pretty sure this is one of those hopeless things, ya know?

You need only read the entire thread again to see that we need to have a civics 101 class held here on DU.

[jeff47]

40. If it wasn't pro-big business when she said it was good in her book

how would she know that there have been changes, and so she opposes it now?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. If that's true, then she should be able to easily explain

exactly what provisions she liked in the past that disappeared from the current ones, and what provisions were added that turned her away from it now. I'm not going to hold my breath that she'll be able to do either.

[tularetom]

14. Well, we really aren't sure she opposes it are we?

Her spokestooge Podesta says her position on trade is "clear", and she herself says she's been for trade deals and she's been against them.

What she said about the TPP the other day was, if it's a "good deal" she's for it and if it's a "bad deal" she's against it but she doesn't know which it is because all the details haven't been made public. But if it's a bad deal she'll change it because she's a "fighter".

[RiverLover]

30. This is true! Like most issues, she's on the fence to keep options open & not tick anyone off

Before the election.

The opposite of being a fighter. But so long as she repeats that she is a fighter over & over, the hope is people will believe despite the lack of supportive evidence.

[Scuba]

21. It almost makes one suspect that Secretary Clinton will say whatever she thinks her audience wants.

[LondonReign2]

35. Did she put on a fake southern accent again?

[Scuba]

42. Southern accents just ooze sincerity, don't they?

[LondonReign2]

56. It may be that her comments came across as unclear because she was in such haste

from being under sniper fire.

[Orsino]

22. When did Sec. Clinton start opposing it? n/t

[bigwillq]

28. Yesterday.

[Autumn]

36. Next week?

Or next month. It really doesn't matter. We already know she supports it.

[FlatBaroque]

23. So far the funniest thing to come out of this is...

Clinton: "Work with Pelosi"
White House: "Pelosi no longer part of the negotiations"

[pangaia]

26. These replies sound like the blind leading the blind.

I don't have a clue, as a Buddhist monk once said, "what is what."

[yallerdawg]

32. See - here is the dog whistle!

"Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes."

This is the media-driven conflict and destructive meme - the red meat for the haters and 'anyone buts.'

If a rational, open-minded, fair person looks through all 45 'quotes' they will plainly see Hillary is promoting a positive aspirational progressive partnership with a number of countries for the benefit of our combined futures. She repeatedly promotes enforceable labor standards, worker rights, environmental standards, women's rights, and American jobs and security as a condition of support for TPP!

But who is actually going to look at 45 'quotes'? Or look at the context or the full discussion?

She did not "write" the TPP trade deal. She did not ever sign off on a finalized TPP trade deal. She continually points out TPP is being negotiated, and we should see the TPP deal before we say yes or no on it.

And see? It doesn't matter what answer Hillary gives. Any answer will fit the negative narrative the media and the haters want to create.

No -she's a flip-flopper.

Yes - she's a right-wing corporatist Turd Way DINO.

"Lets reserve judgment until we see what is actually in the finalized agreement" -this OP and thread.

[jeff47]

41. Uh, she wrote a book, you know.

And in Hard Choices, she said the TPP was "the gold standard" of trade treaties. AKA, she liked it and agreed with it.

Now, she has kinda sorta said that it may not be the best thing ever.

That's a wee bit different of a position than "the gold standard".

This is the media-driven conflict and destructive meme - the red meat for the haters and 'anyone buts.'

If someone is going to claim Clinton is a good choice because of her track record, then every part of her track record is in the campaign. Not just her 2016 campaign speeches.

Thanks to the long history of politicians of both parties lying in campaigns, we have to turn to their track records to see what they really believe. That isn't a "gotcha" or "media-driven conflict". It's basic due diligence.

[yallerdawg]

43. "Basic due diligence?"

I have "Hard Choices" right here in front of me. This is a big book, 632 pages counting index.

In the index, under "Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), 77-78, 254" Only these pages.

Out of all this material, these are the only citations in the book!

"China: Uncharted Waters" pgs. 77-78:

(pg. 77) One of our most important tools for engaging with Vietnam was a proposed new trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property. As President Obama explained, the goal of the TPP negotiations is to establish "a high standard, enforceable, meaningful trade agreement" that "is going to be incredibly powerful for American companies who, up until this point, have often been locked out of those markets." It was also important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field. And it was a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia.

(cont'd on pg. 78) Our country has learned the hard way over the past several decades that globalization and the expansion of international trade brings costs as well as benefits. On the 2008 campaign trail, both then-Senator Obama and I had promised to pursue smarter, fairer trade agreements. Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. It's safe to say that the TPP won't be perfect -- no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be -- but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers.

Vietnam also stood to gain a lot from this deal -- the TPP would cover a third of world trade -- so its leaders were willing to make some reforms to reach an agreement. As negotiations gained momentum, other countries in the region felt the same way. The TPP became the signature economic pillar of our strategy in Asia, demonstrating the benefits of a rule-based order and greater cooperation with the United States. (end of TPP citation)

"Latin America: Democrats and Demagogues" pg. 254:

So we worked hard to improve and ratify trade agreements with Columbia and Panama and encouraged Canada and the group of countries that became known as the Pacific Alliance -- Mexico, Columbia, Peru, and Chile -- all open-market democracies driving toward a more prosperous future to join negotiations with Asian nations on TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Aliance stood in stark contrast to Venezuea, with its more authoritarian policies and state-controlled economy.

Due diligence?

Where is the reference to "the gold standard of trade treaties" so often cited as being in her book?

Where indeed? Actually, not in her book.

Remarks at Techport Australia

Let us also include this entire TPP reference:

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.

This all supports the unpopular narrative that Hillary still has the same position on TPP she has always had -- a reasonable desire to reserve judgment until we can see the best final draft of the negotiations.

Same thing President Obama has said over and over.

[jeff47]

45. So you actually quote her saying it's "The Gold Standard", and claim she has no position.

Seriously?

Does that amount of cognitive dissonance hurt?

[yallerdawg]

51. Well, you got me.

And you got those 3 words, no context, no qualifications.

Everything I have seen indicates she has consistently had the same position.

You see what you want -- and you won't have any cognitive dissonance. I really do understand.

Carry on !

[jeff47]

53. You think I needed to re-quote the context you quoted.

Or did you not quote enough context?

Or do you call things you think are mediocre "the gold standard"? "This potato salad tastes OK. It's kinda good, but not quite right. Therefore, it is the gold standard in potato salad".

Or do you call things you have no position on "the gold standard"? "I've not heard anything about him. But he's the gold standard"

[okasha]

71. This sort of thing is becoming rather common.

There's one person claiming to have seen a post that never existed, and here we have three words lifted entirely out of their context and distorted.

It's desperation talking.

[yallerdawg]

72. Two old sayings.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

"A kicked dog howls loudest."

There is no communication here. Why do we bother?

[okasha]

74. True.

But if the horse doesn't drink, you know something's wrong with him. A horse is a sensible creature and usually accepts help readily.

[DanTex]

64. Exactly. But way too subtle for the Hillary bashing crowd.

[yallerdawg]

77. I agree.

Apparently, the entire argument has to be one sentence or a few words. And then masses of commenters echo.

It just seems a shame to let them have free rein over GD.

There may be people who think DU is informative and factual. You know, first timers?

What they do need to know -- facts may inform opinions, but opinions do not make facts.

What Chris Matthews always attributes to Senator Moynihan: "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts."

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

39. Remember, Bill pretended to oppose "free" trade with China in 1992

Even famously called the policy "coddling dictators" in his DNC speech.

Then, as soon as he was in office, he did a 180 and was was all about continuing to give the Beijing butchers most-favored nation status (this, only three years after the Tiananmen Square massacre). In a few years, he would push to give them this status permanently, ending the annual debate on coddling the dictators. Even changed the name to "nomalized trade relations," to try to hide his sell-out to the GOP and corporate money.

So, no matter what Hillary says on trade, do not trust the Clintons. Their word is utterly meaningless on the issue and they'll stab labor in the back, first chance they get.

[madokie]

44. I can't wait to get to vote for her

NOT
Who can, why would anyone want too? I don't get it. What does she bring to the table except more of the same. Is that all we want, is to continue wallowing in the mud of life we allowed the rich and corporations to thrust us into? I think this is what complacency has brought us more that what we allowed.
In my opinion anyway

[jeff47]

47. Mushy non-positions allow people to project their own positions on to her.

For example, Clinton saying she supports "A living wage" lets a supporter project "she supports $15/hour" onto her, if they want $15/hour. Or $10/hr if they want that. Or whatever calculation the supporter wants to determine "living wage".

It's part of the calculus of DLC-style campaigns. Take no firm positions so that as broad a group as possible can believe you agree with them.

It's exciting when a candidate agrees with everything you want. The problems come when the candidate doesn't actually agree, and so they do not do what you projected onto them. See: Almost anyone disappointed about Obama.

[madokie]

48. yup

I get it

[still_one]

54. Actually, Elizabeth Warren is NOT against the trade bill, she is against the fast track authority,

and that changes or amendments cannot be done.

Similar to the stance Nancy Pelosi took, and what Hillary followed with

[Oilwellian]

60. Wrong

Ms. Warren has been one of Obama's most vocal critics of the TPP.

"I've read Obama's trade deal and we have a right to be concerned."

"The TPP is bad for business."

Elizabeth Warren WP opinion piece: "One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next. Maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments. If you’re a lawyer looking to maintain or attract high-paying corporate clients, how likely are you to rule against those corporations when it’s your turn in the judge’s seat?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html

I'd say there's a little more to Senator Warren's opposition to the Bill than just Fast Track Authority.

[still_one]

61. I am relating what her office told me when I called them several months ago

[DanTex]

65. I hate to state the obvious, but the TPP is and has been a work in progress.

She's clearly been in favor of some kind of TPP, provided that there are strong environmental and labor standards. In fact, that's been her consistent position about free trade throughout her career. And, yes, obviously she was pushing to make sure that TPP was the kind of progressive agreement that would benefit all parties.

The question is whether the current form of TPP meets those criteria.

[Thinkingabout]

76. Since she doesn't have a vote in TPP it really doesn't matter if she is for or against TPP.

[Evergreen Emerald]

78. It is interesting to me that people will believe Cnn's interpretation

In nearly every statement I read she talked of negotiations and protecting workers and/or the environment.

Cnn spins it in a negative light and everyone just buys it.