How radical.

The excuses made for Clinton on this are farcical.

It's not unusual to want to read specifics before taking a position on specific policy. She said she has concerns. It's not as if she can avoid this issue all the way to the White House. She will most definitely at some point have to take a firm position.

...and other candidates have taken positions, too.

She knows at least as much as any of them do.

After Friday's vote, we know where most people stand, on at least part of the issue... but not HRC. How would she have voted on Friday? Beats me. But I can tell you how her competitors would have voted.

Or, they're voting for a process that you don't like because you don't trust Congress to do it's job when the treaty IS negotiated?

After Friday's vote, we know where most people stand, on at least part of the issue.

HRC hasn't given us even that much.

As for: "voting for a process that you don't like" --

Note that I have not mentioned my own position on any of it (TPA, TPP, TTIP). My point has noting to do with whether I am in favor of any of these things or not. The point is only that, while other Democratic and Republican candidates (as well as representatives in Congress) have taken positions, she has taken none, despite probably knowing more about it than just about anyone.

you have no frickin' idea what you're talking about if you don't think it's been negotiated yet. Do you know how many rounds of negotiations there have been? Do you know which issues have been dealt with and which remain unresolved? No. You do not.

She seems to be doing a rather good job of that.

Are you saying the cannot at least give an example of something that would be, to quote Dr. Phil, a "drop dead deal-breaker" a condition she would say is 100% unacceptable. She was Secretary of State, if she cannot or does not have enough background to find a condition that she could at least say "hell no" to, then what sort of negotiating skills does she actually have?

That I fact, though you seem very invested in denying it.

Your characterization of "glowing terms" simply more bile from RW talking points.

International Business Times:

In November 2012, the then-secretary of state declared that “we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. ... 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.”

Her statements have been consistent.

Yet, previously as secretary of state, Clinton called the Trans-Pacific Partnership the "gold standard in trade agreements." In her second memoir, Hard Choices, released in 2014, Clinton lauded the deal, saying it "would link markets throughout Asia and the americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property." She even said it was "important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field." She also called it "a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia."

As I said, the bullshit is all yours. every last bit. I don't lie. I don't blather on if I don't know.

Kudos to Sen. Warren for her unambiguous statement: "Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system would be a bad deal. If a final TPP agreement includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement, the only winners will be multinational corporations." 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

If only Hillary Clinton had taken the opportunity to make a similar stand. But, she didn't. That means, by the time there's a final up or down vote, it will be too late to remove the offending section. As I said, this is the kind of leadership we've come to expect of Hillary on economic issues.

gusting to 20. Tonight there will be a cold front arriving from the east, winds expected to be around 22 mph, dropping to 5 mph by 6 am.

we could ALL read it. Bernie wrote a piece for the Huffington Post in which he condemns it (and presumably he has read at least portions of it as a sitting member of Congress):

Sen. Bernie Sanders
Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont

The TPP Must Be Defeated
Posted: 05/21/2015 10:29 am EDT

Congress is now debating fast track legislation that will pave the way for the disastrous Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) unfettered free trade agreement. At a time when our middle class is disappearing and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider, this anti-worker legislation must be defeated. Here are four reasons why.

First, the TPP follows in the footsteps of failed trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China, and the South Korea Free Trade agreement. Over and over again, supporters of these agreements told us that they would create jobs. Over and over again, they have been proven dead wrong.

Since 2001, nearly 60,000 manufacturing plants in this country have been shut down and we have lost over 4.7 million decent paying manufacturing jobs. NAFTA has led to the loss of nearly 700,000 jobs. PNTR with China has led to the loss of 2.7 million jobs. Our trade agreement with South Korea has led to the loss of about 75,000 jobs. While bad trade agreements are not the only reason why manufacturing jobs in the U.S. have declined, they are an important factor ...

More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/the-tpp-must-be-defeated_b_7352166.html

History is prologue.

And food supply

Damn, that whole Fellowship thing is worse than I thought.

oath obligation her to withhold a position on it.

Please stop making that false claim. It's not true and you know it's not true.

She will say "Obama voted for it, I was just a helpless employee at the time, but if you voted for me in 2008, I could gotya a better deal.:

Too little, too late ain't gonna cut it.

Why in the world would anyone think this candidate is capable of leading this Nation? This issue is of CRITICAL importance to each and every one of us, and this candidate won't take a public stand on it?

Not acceptable.

I mean, it's what truly built this country. And besides, they only want the best for their slaves...and peons...and low-lifes and...trash.

She takes her position by default.

a corporate politician. Who woulda thunk?

What difference does it make?

Ever worked for a corporation who is not doing well? You don't get paid well, benefits get cut or removed, you have to do more for less, etc. Most people do better when they company they work for does better. And, most people are smart enough to realize that.

Some just gripe about how bad they have it. But, they whine when they think their job might get sent overseas.

I get some folks are never going to be happy.

And corporations are not all bad -- Sanders campaign corporation for example, the Red Cross, Sierra Club, etc.

You sound like Mittens--corporations are people too my friend! (interesting Freudian slip btw: "Ever worked for a corporation who is not doing well?&quot You know full well which corporations the majority of us find objectionable, and why: the massive ones in general and multinationals in particular who rewrite laws and tilt "playing fields" nationally and/or worldwide for their own benefit. They may be doing "well" for themselves, as business entities, but they sure is shit don't have a shred of social conscience, or an understanding of social responsibility. They don't give a crap about their employees, society in general, the environment; only their own bottom line. In a soft labor market (practically a given in a global economy) big corporations can screw their workers with impunity--if anyone gets too demanding they just pack up and move--and get a "business expense" tax deduction for doing it.

It's like the tired old conservative talking point that the government should be run like a business, when in fact the goals of the two organizations are antithetical. Most people on this board are smart enough to understand that.

You might not like some of the things the do, but most people would like to work for them because of the pay, benefits, security, opportunities, etc.

Seriously, there are no guarantees in life. But a big, diversified company is more likely to survive and pay better than one on the verge of bankruptcy.

Lose your job while working at a big company than a small or medium sized one.

I have a nephew who worked for Masco industries in their cabinet division. They went from 12 warehouses in production and supply down to two, and those two warehouses layed off 3/4ths of their employees. That is just one division of a $43 billion a year company.

I darn sure don't, and haven't.

The Chicago Tribune in my late 20s. I took odd jobs writing features and side columns for different publications. These jobs supported me while I worked on my masters degrees in business and economics.

I am currently self employed as a consultant, but I also have two full time jobs where the work I do often overlaps. There have been times where I have collected two paychecks from the same employer, one as an employee and the other as a consultant to the same organization.

where their needs change. You make yourself diverse, and a free-lancer/consultant for several organizations.

I get some people can't, or won't, do that for a lot of reasons. That's why we need to have a guaranteed income, training assistance, etc. But, trying to circle the wagons and protect jobs here ain't the way to go. At best, it is a short-term solution, and we will fail in the long-term.

Forty years ago a blue-collar worker could support a family with a single income, not now: the pay, benefits, security and opportunities have eroded and many of the jobs have simply gone away. It started slowly, but the trickle has long since become a flood.

but the horror show you highlight didn't start happening until after NAFTA.

Maybe you'd share the corporation's name.

where people might want to know her position on an issue before voting.

And it is totally inappropriate to talk about now. Except when she wrote Hard Choices. Then it was appropriate. But even re-stating her position from her own book would be terribly inappropriate.

It's well over a year away.

Or perhaps there's already a campaign...That she specifically announced existed.

it was not a smart move at all. It was a rather cynical approach to campaigning and one need
not be sophisticated regarding politics to see through it.

If she agrees with Obama she should say so and if she doesn't she should say so. Stop with the dancing around the issues already.

She can't come out in favor of it because she would tick off the unions and people who work for a living.

She can't come out against it because she would tick off Wall Street and her corporate donors.

She doesn't want to tip her hand as to whom she would really be working for, if elected. (Hint: it's not us.)

I still see the same person who voted for the Iraq War Resolution because she was too afraid to oppose the chimperor.

I must see where people make that claim at least a dozen times every day, but I have yet to see any instance where she showed any toughness at all or actually "fought" for anything except those things that would benefit the 1% and/or the pentagon.

Gertrude Stein would describe Ms Clinton as truly the "Oakland" of candidates. There really is no there there.

at which point I will claim credit for having played a crucial fundamental role without which the treaty may not have come into existence

but for now, no comment

40% of Washington State's jobs are tied to international trade. A trade agreement would be excellent for us---depending on what is in it.

We need a trade agreement to level the playing field for US. So, to automatically reject a trade agreement, having no idea what is in it other than innuendo and distortion is ignorant and knee jerk.

Clinton has stated time and again that she has supported trade agreements in the past, and opposed them in the past. The content is key.

The superficial bullshit posted on this sight attacking Clinton is ridiculous.

I just read a post where people are livid because of an interview NPR did with Sanders. I have to laugh. Clinton goes through that very thing every day, and not just from journalists, but democrats who should know better.

But hey, keep up with those transparent excuses

She has been consistent in saying that a global trade agreement would level the playing field and if negotiated would build strong protections for workers and the environment.

Your distortion of her statement is as bad as Fox News.

... that this corporate-authored Republican-wet-dream piece of shit legislation will "build strong protections for workers and the environment" I'm surprised you can spell "the".

I know you are gnawing at the bit to attack Clinton, but you may want to get it right before you embarrass yourself with these type of attack-posts.

Read Clinton's whole statement. No where did she say it would only be negotiated by republicans. She said if negotiated--(depends on what's in it)--it would build strong protections for workers and the environment.

Dang...where have I wondered into? Is this FR?

... shits about Clinton, I have already said I will never vote for her a zillion times. I just take issue with anyone pushing the bald-faced lie that the TPP is about worker protection. It is not.

bald-faced distortions made in an effort to push a distorted view of Clinton.

.... repeal of Glass-Stegall, the biggest regulatory mis-step in banking history, thanks Bill and Hill,
the Commodity Futures Modernization Act - thank Bill and Hill for greasing the skids for the crash of 2008,
the Telecommunication Act - thanks Bill and Hill for allowing the news media consolidate into 6 major players, all spouting the same corporate message
NAFTA - thank Bill and Hill for THAT clusterfuck
the end of Welfare as we Know It - thanks Bill and Hill, someone had to do something about all those welfare queens

And those are just the easy ones. No one has to lie to put HRC in a bad light, she belongs there.

Hillary is being persecuted because people want to know what she thinks about this issue.

As to trade bill? What trade bill - neither NAFTA or this bill is about trading products internationally. It is about corporate profits and corporate power. Everything that has been leaked shows that. And if it is so good - why do we not get to read it? Why doesn't Hillary call for openness on this bill? Others have.

It is what makes the job so challenging. Negotiating without knowing what you are negotiating over.

Oh, she did come out of favor of it in Hard Choices. But that's a book, so she could support it without knowing what's in it. Or something.

for quite awhile, and the negotiations are continuing. So, the question is what is she allowed to disclose? And, what agreements has she made with the President regarding what she should say regarding TPP?

Clearly the agreement would be radically different after 2 more years of negotiation.

About the specific details in treaty itself? Nothing. Yay classifying things that should be public!

But she can give her opinion on the treaty. And already did in her book. So why can't she say any more now?

Her spokesweasel excuses her silence on TPA by dismissing the dispute as "skirmishes around the process" -- while everyone on both sides is lobbying feverishly on TPA because both sides know that it's absolutely crucial.

Her spokesweasel also pretends she knows nothing about TPP and will know nothing until a final text is released -- even though late-stage drafts have been leaked (and not denied) and even though she was Secretary of State during much of the negotiation process. If Clinton actually has "no idea what is in it" then she's a monumental idiot. I think the more likely interpretation is that she's very smart, she knows the publicly available information about it, she has additional inside information, she has a pretty good idea what is in it, and she just thinks its politically advantageous to lie low.

Remember Bosnia and sniper fire ???

Her excuse, she misspoke.

Why did she have to evolve on equality for all ? (same sex marriage)

Why does she support continuous wars and invasions.

Why does she pal around with Henry Kissinger ?

Why does she support trade deals that devastate workers in this country

and the countries we trade with ?

Why is she all of a sudden parroting many things that Bernie has been

saying for 25 years ?

seat on Walmart's board. She sure as heck isn't going to anything for workers NOW.

And FDR !!

"...it was debated and voted upon."

??

union question now "Which side are you on?"

Hillary Clinton, Morgan Stanley and TPP: A free trade triumvirate?


As pressure increases for 2016 presidential contender Hillary Clinton to say where she stands on the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, her ties to avid TPP supporters won’t escape notice.

One glaring example: A linked trifecta consisting of the TPP, the mega-investment firm Morgan Stanley, and the Clinton family that involves campaign contributions, former members of Bill Clinton’s administration and large donations to the Clintons’ foundation.

Morgan Stanley is one of many U.S. companies supporting the TPP. It’s a member of the U.S. Business Coalition for TPP, and since 2013 the firm has lobbied on issues pertaining to the agreement. According to reports filed by the company and its lobbyists, Morgan Stanley spent $4.04 million in 2013, $4.82 million in 2014 and $530,000 in 2015 (thus far) lobbying on a slew of issues, including TPP. Lobbying disclosure rules don’t require a breakdown of how much is spent on any particular matter, so it’s impossible to know exactly how much of Morgan Stanley’s budget was devoted to the pending deal.

Morgan Stanley’s role in the Clinton orbit is multifaceted. Thomas R. Nides, the firm’s current vice president, was deputy secretary of state for management under Clinton and is considered a close confidant, though he won’t be taking up a formal role in her 2016 campaign. Nides was also Morgan Stanley’s chief operating and administrative officer prior to joining the State Department, and served as chief-of-staff to former U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor in the 1990s.

Then there are two prominent alumni of former President Bill Clinton’s administration who serve on Morgan Stanley’s board of directors: Erskine Bowles (its lead director) and Laura Tyson.


Bowles, a fiscal hawk known for his 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan with former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), served as administrator of the Small Business Administration and as Clinton’s chief-of-staff. He also sits on the board of directors at Facebook, another member of the U.S. Business Coalition for TPP.

According to lobbying reports, Facebook spent $1.48 million in 2013, $9.34 million in 2014 and $2.44 million in 2015 (thus far); trade issues, including “free trade agreements” and “trade promotion authority,” were prominent on the reports.

Tyson, for her part, was Bill Clinton’s first chair of the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), and in March, Tyson — a longtime University of California at Berkeley professor — sent a letter to Congress that she wrote with other former CEA chairs advocating in favor of the TPP and trade promotion authority.

Tyson supported Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign, and was far from the only person tied to Morgan Stanley to do so. In fact, over the course of Hilary Clinton’s political career — two successful Senate campaigns and a failed presidential bid — she has received more than $543,000 from the company’s PAC and employees, making it her sixth biggest donor.

Morgan Stanley has also been a generous supporter of the Clintons’ foundation work.

In September 2014, Morgan Stanley announced that it, along with the Local Initiatives Support Corp. (LISC) and CDC Small Business Finance, had made a “$25 million Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) Commitment to Action for an expansion of the Job Creation and Community Revitalization Fund.”

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/05/hillary-clinton-morgan-stanley-and-tpp-a-free-trade-triumvirate/

I'm sure he's grateful.

benefactors have on her is so strong that she's going to try to get away with no comment on TAA or TPA, and hope it blows over by the time the election arrives. I already was thinking that she didn't officially start her campaign until yesterday because she was hoping that the TAA/TPA votes would have been done and gone by the time declaration date rolled around, and she could just claim that it was a done deal, done by somebody else, and she had other work to do.

at this stage in the primary process for pure and cynical political calculation.

It does no good to be "against it" only when nothing can be done to stop it but hope the TeaPubliKlans start caring about the welfare of workers, protecting the environment, and seriously regulating multinational corporations rather than ceding and abetting their dominion over the Earth, particularly when away from the immediacy of the election were strongly in favor and we're an architect of the whole thing.

None are so blind as those who willingly and eagerly gouge out their own eyes to avoid seeing.

It's dishonest.

we all look up to.

TPA will greatly strengthen her administration in her first term, it is frustrating that she refuses to advocate for it and have President Obama's back.

She missed the moral argument against the Iraq War and now the moral arguments against free trade deals that have decimated America's manufacturing and labor pool.

This proves to me that she's still Wall Street's and Big Business's backup prostitute. Rethugs are their preferred choice.

there isn't any more. She is easily the most phony, handled , marketed candidate in history. She is afaraid to make a move until she knows which way the wind blows....pathetic.


How could anyone think she should be president?

glad to see her step out there like this, not

first must see the way the wind blows

Last edited Sun Jun 14, 2015, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)

At least she's being honest. She'll go wherever the wind blows. Hilary: the "whatever!" Candidate

ehhh?

This statement eased my preconceived notions of her Not at All!

Next week?

eom

"You have to pass the bill
to find out what is in it."--- Nancy Pelosi

Why is it so hard to say yes or no ? She's either for TPP or against it !

Why does everything have to be so calculated !

and you wonder why those on the left have a hard time believing her