45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes

[Autumn]

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

Washington (CNN)Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, seems reluctant to take a firm position on an issue dividing her party: whether President Obama should have fast-track trading authority for the immense trade deal he has been negotiating, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. With some progressive voters eyeing her with some skepticism, and facing a challenge (such as it is) from candidates on her left, she is being advised to tack in that direction.

President Obama has been pushing hard for the deal, while Democrats in the House of Representatives on Friday revolted and voted against a key part of the legislation. One told me, "there was a very strong concern about the lost jobs and growing income inequality," adding, pointedly: "Ms. Clinton should take notice."

She clearly did. After first dodging the issue, on Sunday in Iowa, Clinton said that "the President should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with (House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers, to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible. And if we don't get it, there should be no deal."

Let's turn lemons into lemonade

[cantbeserious]

1. Facts - A Terrible Thing To Waste - A Terrible Fate To Embrace

eom

[Autumn]

2. Facts are so inconvenient. I thought # 8 was just so...

adorable

8. September 8, 2012: Remarks at APEC CEO Summit
"That means pushing governments to support high-standard trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to drop harmful protectionist policies. It means playing by the rules, respecting workers, and opening doors qualified women. And most of all, it means doing what you do best: build, hire, and grow.

high-standard trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership

[Lizzie Poppet]

3. And she can waterski!

[Gman]

4. BFD

Who knows how much of that is even true

[Autumn]

5. Looks like 45 BFDs to me

[madfloridian]

6. How I feel about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026652856

[Autumn]

7. You nailed it with that OP.

You nailed it right to the fucking wall.

[L0oniX]

26. Kicking that one again.

[NanceGreggs]

8. One major problem.

Hillary could not "have pushed the trade bill she now opposes" because the bill as it now stands did not exist on the dates cited in the article when she was allegedly "pushing it".

It would be correct to say that she was for "a trade bill" - but she certainly wasn't "pushing" something that was still being negotiated, being that she had no way of knowing what the finalized agreement would consist of.

In addition, I have seen nothing from her that would qualify as "opposing" this trade agreement. She has stated that Democrats in Congress have expressed their concerns about its impact.

The article states: "Here are 45 instances when she approvingly invoked the trade bill about which she is now expressing concerns ..."

Again she could not have been "approvingly invoking" a trade bill that didn't exist. In addition, the title says it is a bill "she now opposes".

Commenting that Pelosi and others are "expressing concerns" and HRC "opposing" something are two different things.

Shoddy "journalism", to say the least. But considering the source, I am not surprised.

[madfloridian]

9. Which sources do you consider acceptable? Not a huge Jake Tapper fan myself...

but overall he doesn't do as sorry a job as so many others in the news.

[NanceGreggs]

10. I don't take anything associated with CNN seriously.

They once were a fantastic source of news. But those days ended a very long time ago.

To say that "Tapper doesn't do as sorry a job as so many others" doesn't fill one with confidence as to his credibility.

[madfloridian]

12. Well I ask because I don't TV news enough to get a handle on things.

I read news online and research and make my decisions that way.

[NanceGreggs]

13. Good thinking - wise move.

It's really quite the shame that CNN has gone the way it has. I remember a time when we had CNN on the TV all day long when we were at home - knowing that if there was late-breaking news or a developing story, we would be aware of the facts immediately.

Boy, are those days gone forever. CNN became what my husband and I referred to as "ABT" - meaning "put on ANYTHING BUT THIS!"

[Autumn]

11. I'm inclined to think that much of what's in it now has been in it

for some time since many Democrats that have seen it have come out strong against it. IMO there certainly are some aspects of the trade bill that did exist when she was "pushing it". Quite a bit of it has been leaked, some of it very troubling, even while she was SOS Most journalism is rather shoddy anymore.

[NanceGreggs]

18. The Democrats (and everyone else) who have seen it ...

... have no way of knowing "what's been in it for some time" and what has been removed, altered, changed, etc., over time. Neither do we.

To say there are certainly some things in the finalized bill that were there when HRC was "pushing it" is a moot point, given that we don't know what was in it then and what made its way into the final version. So unless one can unequivocally say, "THIS was in it at the time HRC was speaking in its favour" - which no one can - it is pointless to try and specify what she might have approved of what she didn't.

The fact that "many Democrats have come out strongly against it" doesn't mean it's anything that "has been in it for some time". What they are objecting to may have been there from day one, or may have been negotiated on the last day. Again, we have no way of knowing.

As for "leaks", I take them with a grain of salt - always. They cannot be verified, ergo they are useless.

But we can agree that "most journalism is shoddy". Sadly, the vast majority of those identified as "journalists" these days are writing to an agenda - whether it be their own agenda in terms of political beliefs or leanings, or the agenda of the organization they work for.

[Autumn]

19. I think that's a big ass problem.

If as you say the Democrats that we the people have elected to represent us "have no way of knowing "what's been in it for some time" and what has been removed, altered, changed, etc., over time. and Neither do we." Then that trade bill has no business being pushed by a Democratic President and SOS and should be open to the people for discussion. The Democrats that I have respect for have been against this almost from the beginning, their opinion has not changed, that I do know. Anyway I'm off for dinner, have a nice evening.

[NanceGreggs]

20. You're not making any sense.

Congress will be voting on what the final agreement is. What difference does it make what was in drafts of the agreement while it was being negotiated, and before it was finalized?

Do you think it should be agreed to or defeated based on what is NOT in it? Do you think it should be voted on based on what coulda been, shoulda been, maybe once was instead of what it IS in its final form?

"The Democrats that I have respect for have been against this almost from the beginning." If that's the case, then they have been against a trade agreement per se, and not against this particular agreement - being as they didn't know what it contained - and therefore could not have been objecting to anything specific.

International trade treaties have always been negotiated in secret. And part of the reason for that is that things ARE changed, altered, modified - even thrown out completely - as the negotiation process proceeds.

When you sign a contract, do you agree to it based on what's in the contract you're signing - or based on what somebody might have suggested be in the contract but ISN'T THERE?

Honestly, you're not making any sense when you talk about Democrats - or anyone else - needing to know how long things have been in the agreement, and what has been removed. If the Dems find certain provisions objectionable, what difference does it make when those provisions were included? The timing of such things is of NO relevance whatsoever - it is the finalized agreement that will be voted on, not WHEN a particular provision was negotiated or included.

Anyway, enjoy your dinner and have a nice evening yourself.

[Autumn]

21. Nice twist nance n/t

[NanceGreggs]

23. How is that a "twist"?

I merely reiterated what you yourself stated.

[L0oniX]

27. Enjoy this.

[NanceGreggs]

29. Thanks for the link.

I still don't understand what this has to do with the claim that HRC was "pushing" the current trade treaty at times when it didn't yet exist.

According to the article cited in the OP, "45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes."

Again, the obvious question: How could she have been "pushing" a trade bill that didn't exist at the time she was allegedly "pushing it"?

She could have been "pushing" the IDEA of such a trade agreement - but unless she is prescient, she couldn't have been pushing the specific agreement that is now about to be voted on, because it wasn't yet finalized at the times the author of the article has cited she was "pushing it".

[L0oniX]

34. "pushing" the IDEA of such a trade agreement is what I believe it was however doing that...

could have inspired money interests to contribute to her ...campaigns.

[NanceGreggs]

35. Oh, I see.

Pushing the "idea" of a trade agreement was wrong - regardless of what that trade agreement might entail, good or bad - and doing so "could have" inspired money interests to contribute to her.

Yeah, okay - it's ALL clear to me now. No one should ever be for ANY trade agreements, and one should avoid anything that "could" invite contributions to a campaign.

Got it.

[L0oniX]

36. You can trust rich people to make decisions in your best interest all you want.

[NanceGreggs]

37. Actually ...

I do not judge a person's trustworthiness based on their net worth. A penniless man is no less likely to lie to you than a millionaire - or tell you the truth.

This concept (which seems to have taken hold on DU of late) that people are to be assessed based on their finances is, IMHO, rather ridiculous.

But getting back to the subject of the OP - how did HRC "push" a trade agreement that didn't exist at the time she allegedly "pushed it"?

[pnwmom]

14. She was hoping the final bill would be better than it turned out to be. I'm glad she revised

her position based on the bill that apparently exists now.

[Autumn]

15. I just read an article in GD that says she has come out against 'fast-track'

and if she were still a US senator, she would not vote for such presidential power. I don't think that's a revising of her position on the TPP that apparently exists now.

[L0oniX]

24. I'm sure the fence sitting will come to an end on this ...eventually.

Mean while that post from Bill Moyers points out the money paid to Hillary from those that stand to gain the most from TPP.

[Autumn]

25. Yeah I was just reading that. Excellent article.

[ucrdem]

16. It's a moving target but it changed dramatically when TAA got voted down last Friday.

That's where it lost her support.

[glinda]

17. It is such a heart break to feel I cannot vote for her.

Her record speaks for itself. I cannot....

[Scuba]

22. How can one trust her?

[Maedhros]

28. When did she come out in opposition to it? [n/t]

[Autumn]

30. I think she has said a bit here and there, she did come out against

'fast-track' according to an article I read earlier in GD, don't have the link though.

[Cheese Sandwich]

31. I don't think she came out against it

Instead she said try to modify it to save it.

That was the whole making lemons from lemonade thing.

[X_Digger]

32. Well, first she said she'd have to read it and get back to ya..

.. then it became, "if it's a bad deal, I'll be against it.." (kind of a non-opposition opposition).

And now that the wind is starting to change, it's "I'm not sure about this..".

[Doctor_J]

33. some things take more time than others to be "evolved" on

She evolved on gay marriage in 2008 or so. The president evolved on a public option for healthcare in 2009. Be grateful she's open to new things at her age! Do you really want someone like Sanders who has rigidly supported gay rights for fifty years??? No I say!!!

[Enthusiast]

38. Imported lemons.