and it all favors the oligarchs. Hillary is one of them. The oligarchs run everything, but apparently Bernie has a way around that. So the oligarchs are scared of Bernie, as they well should be. The oligarchs are perfectly aware that Bernie has The Magic that will bring them down. The voters have no say anyway, as it is "Kabuki Theater." But yet the voters do have a say if they vote for Bernie. Somehow, this is magically true. Bernie is the One. He has let the oligarchs run things all these years, but now that he is getting older, he suddenly cares and will use his Magic.

It doesn't matter.

The media is pushing for her... Reality, is the media pretty much hates her.
Hillary is right wing, reality is right wingers think she is a left wing socialist whom they hate with a passion and are fearful of getting elected.
Polls are good and non corrupt when Bernie has a good showing, Polls are bad and corrupted when Hillary has a good showing.
Bernie's evolutions are good, Hillary's evolution on anything is BAD BAD BAD and means she is a flip flopper with no principles.
Bernie is so real he doesn't need to prepare for debates, even when he loses. Hillary bad for preparing for debates.

They got all the bases covered. Their principles are intact they believe.... ha!

Clinton won the debate and most of the media pointed out the obvious for a couple of days means....only that.

It's absurd. First, they wanted Hillary to oppose TPP before it was even finalized. And now they want her to wait until the full final draft is released to the public before taking a position.

The only common denominator here is Hillary hating.

...the administration becomes a credible source on TPP for critics?

I think her timing was disingenuous conveniently one week before the debate. Also, she could have come out against fast track.

...and it's not unheard of for these pols to network. How hard would it be for Hillary to just ask a former colleague what's in the bill? How can anyone believe she's isn't privy to the details, or, at least, an operating outline of the provisions?

I don't know of anyone who opposes TPP but supports Hillary.

leaks and some info from members of Congress long before this which is why MOST people made up their minds long ago. White House says no info given to anyone.

...I think it's ridiculous for the WH to claim she couldn't know what's in the trade pact.

Is the WH now a credible source concerning the TPP?

her.

Perhaps now she can explain how she got that information just days before the debate.

Otherwise she had the same info millions of people already had, eg, on the Environment, on the threat to Net Neutrality eg. That info alone should have caused her to oppose it. It didn't.

Not to mention all the other info we had from leaks.

Eg, the fact that Mega Corps can undermine our long fought for domestic laws, on the environment, on Labor eg. The reason why every Union in the country opposes it.

On what was already known, she didn't need new info to oppose it. We know enough. But she says that wasn't what changed her mind. It should have.

WH says nothing new was released. Talk to them.

but now feels it doesn't measure up.

new info. WH says she didn't.

I think her opposition now is based mostly on politics because the majority of Democratic primary activists are against it.

The fact is that she did say in 2012 that it was the gold standard -- not that she hoped it would be. I would believe her more had she said that while in 2012, she thought it was the best that we could get and better than past trade agreements ... after spending the last 3 years out of the fast pace of being SoS, speaking only to people in power, she recognized that though what she said then had been true ... it was not good enough. (Advantage - no distortion of what was already on the record.)

I assume that in 2012, she hoped that the deal would have been negotiated and passed before this point. Then, if it were unpopular -- it was Obama's, Jack Lew's and Kerry's inability to raise to the level she set. Now, the real problem is that the vote will likely be around February 2016. Her opposition could well be a factor in defeating it.

THAT, actually does make her opposition a big deal. She, as the likely Presidential nominee - along with every other Democratic candidate (assuming Biden does not enter - I admit to not knowing Chaffee's position)- will be arguing against this. Is it possible that there are Congressmen or Senators up for reelection that would be inclined to support the President who won't because of the danger of a primary challenger QUOTING HILLARY CLINTON opposing them?

I know that a lot has been leaked - but leaking being what it is, we do not KNOW that the leaks are what is in the final agreement. We do know that the drug companies are unhappy -- a sign that we might actually like those provisions more than what is in other trade bills. To me trade bills are exceptionally important. They do and will impact the number and quality of jobs in the US. However, it is very hard to separate the impact of globalization, which happens with or without trade bills, from the impact of the trade bills themselves. Given that we can not stop globalization, it may be that the best trade bills can do is to set some higher standards globally.

One real question when this agreement comes to a vote will be whether it improves the status quo or not. If it makes the situation worse, it is a no brainer - defeat it. However, what if it marginally (or more) improves our ability to improve the quality of life both here and internationally? Do we want it voted down or passed? If voted down, do we really have the expectation that a President Sanders, President Clinton, President Biden or ones I refuse to list with the word President before their name will have people in their administration's negotiate that are better? Would the US or the world be better if we cancelled all trade agreements?

One other point that should be made is that TPP was the linchpin of what was one of Clinton's top accomplishment as Secretary of State - the pivot to Asia. With her now opposing that agreement, where does that leave this? (I suspect polling must have REALLY showed TPP being a huge negative in the primaries -- and foreign policy rarely determining elections.)