... some in the left.

If she said the wrong thing, the same folks would still be angry.

Might be a pattern there.

most issues. That doesn't make me angry, it makes me happy that she has admitted it. Because her supporters were angry when anyone made that observation, which she now herself confirms.

her anything but wrong for the job she is asking for.

Now go ahead and post another 'snarky' remark to show us why you support your candidate, to convince we are wrong not to support her.

I guess it's hard to do thus the resort to old, jaded internet generated snark.

I otoh, can, do and will show why I support MY candidate and have no need to resort to lame drive by meaningless comments.

why are they not upset that she is straying from her centrist stand on some of them?


Cult of personality, anyone?

and they are chuckling contentedly.

Folks who don't pay attention and won't remember the flip flop this far out when they get to the polls.

know better than that. Bernie has the best record on trade, Hillary's got a record which leans slightly more toward free trade than Bernie but not by any great leaps. Among the candidates we have now, three were in Congress to vote on CAFTA, Hillary and Bernie were no votes, Chafee a yes vote.

Hillary has standards on trade policy, they are not as high as Bernie's but they are well considered and many people who are not into the whole 'catch phrase and release' sort of politics will see her lack of support as a very strong sign that the bill is a piece of shit, because if it was just flawed she might go along with it. But if she says no, it sucks eggs deluxe.

So a person who has voted against trade agreements for specific reasons is again opposed to a trade agreement for specific reasons. I don't want her to be the nominee, but I'm far too ethical to call that flip flopping. She voted against the big one when she was in the Senate, as did Bernie, while 8 Democrats and Lincoln Chafee all voted for it. She's obviously not the most free trade loving Democrat in our Senate now, nor then nor is she the most free trade loving candidate we have running.

That statement is NOT saying that trade is bad, and that actual trade agreements between nations are bad.

But these huge package deals that go far beyond the specifics of actual trade, and which are negotiated in secret and presented in a "vote fast and take it or leave it" manner -- those suck. Especially when they are such "one size fits all" straitjackets among many different nations.

They limit the ability of nation to pass and enforce civil laws that "violate the terms of trade" (i.e. the Corporate Imperitive). They grease the wheels for outsourcing, sweatshops and other undermining of workers here and abroad.

They impose a "neo-liberal (conservative) agenda on all nations.

Unless the TPP somehow is a complete 180-degree change of course from all of its predecessors, it's another brick in the wall of MFN, WTO,NAFTA etc. agreements that have undermined the American economy (and distorted the need for actual sustainable forms of economic development in other nations) and imposed a Multinational Corporate Agenda in the world.

It's almost like she's not as conservative as some people reflexively claim.

They really do think we are stupid.