Hillary Offers Wait and See Statement on TPP

[bigtree]

Alex Seitz-Wald @aseitzwald · 9m 9 minutes ago
Here's full Clinton statement on TPP/TPA, from @NickMerrill:




Alex Seitz-Wald @aseitzwald
And @SenSanders: “My strong hope is that Secretary Clinton...will make it clear that the Trans-Pacific Partnership should be rejected."

Alex Seitz-Wald @aseitzwald
@GovernorOMalley on TPP/TPA: "We must stop entering into bad trade deals – bad trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership."

[kelly1mm]

1. Is it just me or did she not say if she supports the TPP or not? The other two

(O'Malley and Sanders) made their positions clear. I find it troubling that Senator Clinton did/could not.

[bigtree]

3. you're reading that right

...she sounds much like Democrats in the Senate looking for cover to support the agreement; or, less likely imo, room to bail if the wind blows the opposite direction.

[Thinkingabout]

2. I think we should first learn what is in the TPP before giving opinions.

It just may be the best deal ever and to declare death panels before we know is in the treaty would be responding as the GOP does, crying without knowing why we are crying about.

[HereSince1628]

4. Due to the bad history the default should be opposition until we know what's in it.

The bloody thing has purposefully been kept away from the people, some say because if the people knew they'd object.

Based on leaks and rumors, I think creating scores of conflict resolution panels composed of unelected CEOs makes the agreement seem unfriendly to labor &environment based on the history of CEO positions on labor and environment.

We end up pressured into a 'be loyal or be a traitor' to Obama mode, which reveals nothing other than being pushed to support it for reasons other than what is in it.

[Thinkingabout]

10. Have your opinion, i choose to wait until the official release happens.

[GoneFishin]

33. Hint : The rich people who know what's in it like it. They are keeping it secret from

the rest of us. You think they are keeping it secret because they are going to give it to us for a birthday present and they don't want to ruin the surprise?

[hifiguy]

40. There was a link here on DU to comments by some

Democratic senators who had seen this abomination, and it is apparently enough to scare the hair off a gorilla judging by their expressed thoughts.

After NAFTA the default position for ANY progressive on these sorts of scams should be NO, NAy, NEVER. Anything that the tenth-percenters want this badly is by definition a massive hosing of the ordinary working populace.

[GoneFishin]

46. Yep. I agree. And also, anything the Republicans want bad enough to cooperate

with Barack Obama has got to horrifying.

[Thinkingabout]

45. Oh yeah, probably getting paid to keep the information from you.

[cui bono]

87. Obama is keeping the information from us. He's had secret meetings. Go watch the Sherrod Brown

video. If you care about/like democracy you'll rec the thread. Both of them!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776689

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017259622

[bigtree]

5. if you don't know what's being proposed, you're really not paying attention

...nonetheless, the details will come out and you (and Hillary) will be left to decide whether to believe this agreement is for the corporations or for the people.

From my perspective, she's hoping the Senate Dems provide enough fig leaves for her to support it under these subjective terms she's outlined. It will be a matter for her of interpreting whether it 'strengthens national security,' 'raises wages,' 'creates jobs,' 'cracks down on currency manipulation,' improves labor rights', 'protects the environment,' 'promotes transparency,' along with 'opening new markets for small businesses overseas.'

That's a tall order for what's been outlined in the draft proposal which Sanders and others have been privy to, so far, as the terms under negotiation.

[Thinkingabout]

15. I am paying attention, some say there are leaks, I take this to mean exactly it is a leak.

I also find the leaks are "backing up" the death panel conclusion before the leak. I still choose to make my opinion after the official treaty is released.

[cui bono]

88. Yeah, when it's too late. That's a tired and lazy excuse you've got there. Go do the research.

Claiming it's just leaks is lazy and complete and utter bullshit.

Go watch the Sherrod Brown video. He's a senator and he's not being told enough about it and only being given 12 hours heads up on a for a hearing on it. His staff is not able to view it. I gave you the links in a different post. Why do you think that is? Surely it's not because it's such a wonderful piece of work no one will dislike any of it. Come on. Get serious. Why are you always defending the TPP?

@SenSherrodBrown
12 hours notice for hearing, secret meetings, staff not able to view #TPP. How is this democracy?

Democracy is about the people's voices being heard. How can we be heard when POTUS has secret meetings and refuses to let us know what's going on? What ever happened to a govt of, by and for the people?

[cali]

90. sorry, the leaks have been verified by multiple sources

[Thinkingabout]

98. When negotiating there are proposals and counter proposals, ergo a leak today may not

Be true tomorrow. What is wrong with me having the option of making a decision when the final wording is available just as others have have made with the leaks?

[HereSince1628]

20. The thing has 25 -chapters-, we've seen nothing like all of it.

We are supposed to treat it like the PATRIOT ACT was treated by congress...just give approval, hand wet bar of soap to international corporate leadership and take what comes next.

That seems entirely back assward

[PowerToThePeople]

23. i know

20$ Minimum wage
Universal health care
Drastic emissions reductions
Thousands of other really good things.
...

[GoneFishin]

35. And free cake and ice cream for everyone.

[Faryn Balyncd]

31. How about waiting to see what is in the TPP before surrendering the right to amend,

as well as surrendering the right to filibuster, not only the TPP, but also any "trade" agreement which may be proposed by whoever happens to be president for the next 6 years.

And how about waiting to see what will be in the TPP before we vote to require a supermajority to remove any future "trade" agreement that might be proposed within the next 6 years from the Fast Track process.

The entire objective of the Fast Track process is to manipulate Congressional "trade agreement" skeptics into surrendering their leverage on this and future "trade" agreements BEFORE THEY KNOW WHAT'S IN THEM.

Yes, let's find out what corporate interests manage to get negotiated.

But let's not give away our leverage to amend, correct, or defeat bad deals, before the deals are presented to Congress and the American people

[krishnarama]

34. The very fact that TPP remains a "secret"

is the reason TPP should not be voted through without examining exactly what the screwjobs are.

And believe me, there will be many. Hillary is showing that she cannot be trusted to deal with the people's needs (which TPP defeats).

[Phlem]

55. Welcome to DU!

Believe it or not you said something very basic that some members can't comprehend. It can be like talking to a brick wall sometimes but don't let that deter you from being here. There's great knowledge and really good people here. I hope you enjoy.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

60. Some "champion" Hillary is, always hedging her bets, afraid to take a principled stand like Elizabeth, Bernie, or Martin...

Leaders need to lead, or get the fuck out of the way.

[sabrina 1]

68. Which is why she and every democrat should be voting AGAINST FAST TRACKING IT. How the hell can we

'wait' until it's a DONE DEAL to decide if it's good or bad? THAT IS TOO LATE!

Put it before Congress. Make it public BEFORE it gets passed.

Is there something not clear about what they are doing?

THAT is why Bernie, Warren, O'Malley and a majority of people who actually CARE about the people of this country AND the Democratic process WANT TO SEE WHAT'S IN IT.l

Sometimes I wonder if we don't deserve to go all the way down into the abyss before we finally, too late, wake up.

Btw, when Bush was doing exactly this in 2007, trying to Fast Track a Trade Agreement, did you oppose him or decide to 'wait and see' what 'is in it' before objecting to the Fast Tracking which would have prevented you from seeing what was in it before it passed?

[cascadiance]

93. I wonder what stockholders felt about trusting heads of Enron and Arthur Anderson in their day...

... to do the right thing to protect their money and the company that eventually went downhill and had these corporate leaders just protecting their own hides and screwing everyone else.

I think we're in a way just like that situation where we are trusting corporate entities to write some TPP bill in secret and that it will be the best for all of us, and not just best for them! That's BS and anyone who supports this notion is likely a corrupt entity in this mess or just plain STUPID!

[cherokeeprogressive]

70. Fucking exactly right. When do you think we should start learning what's in it?

[Scootaloo]

80. Tell me, thinkingabout

When was the last time that a bunch of rich politicians from many nations getting together behind locked doors to talk money with a lot of rich corporate spokespeople turned out really well for the people outside those doors?

'Cause i'm pretty good at history, and i'm struggling on this one.

[delrem]

81. Do you believe that Hillary Clinton doesn't know what's in the TPP?

Wow. You have quite some imagination, if so.

[cascadiance]

92. Exactly! If she was selling this treaty as SOS to other countries and doesn't NOW know what's in it?

Is THAT the kind of person we want running our country?

[delrem]

94. So: she knows what's in it. n/t

[F4lconF16]

6. I am tired of "national security"

At this point it's just a way to mean feeding power and money to the MIC.

[Koinos]

7. Wait and See?

I'm not sure what she has to wait and see about, since this deal does in fact give, in her own words, "special rights to corporations at the expense of workers and consumers." Should we wait and see if opening the barn doors will allow the horses to get away? Or should we anticipate good or bad consequences before they happen or anticipate harm to workers and consumers before a bill is passed? What remedies will workers and consumers have, once this deal has been made? Doesn't TPP preclude normal remedies and appeals?

[delrem]

83. "Should we wait and see if opening the barn doors will allow the horses to get away?"

beautiful line.

[bunnies]

8. *punt*

Way to be a champion.

[Cosmic Kitten]

12. +1 LOL

[WillyT]

13. LOL !!!

[Koinos]

16. Champion

The champion of everyday multinational corporations. They need love too, I suppose.

[bunnies]

19. Hey!

They're people too ya know! Welcome to DU.

[Koinos]

24. Corporate People

O'Malley said he doesn't believe corporations are people. How can he be so mean to corporations?

Thanks for the welcome, bunnies!

[morningfog]

17. That champion line is one that will no doubt keep on giving.

[bunnies]

21. Indeed.

Im embracing it.

[AtomicKitten]

37. lol

Last edited Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:47 PM - Edit history (1)

[winter is coming]

47. ...

[DanTex]

9. Seems reasonable to me. What's the problem here?

[morningfog]

14. The question is why can't Hillary say whether se supports it or not?

O'Malley and Sanders and most others are able to at least say whether they support or oppose it.

[DanTex]

18. Probably because she's more pro-free-trade than either of those two.

She thinks that TPP might be a good thing if it has the labor, environmental, currency manipulation, etc. protections that she talks about. Since TPP's not complete, she doesn't know if that is the case.

[delrem]

86. Hillary Clinton knows what's in the TPP.

You can't seriously believe otherwise. She was Obama's SOS up to 2 years ago, and there's no way that she doesn't know what's in it.

If you can't accept that kind of bedrock fact, what can you accept?

[4139]

11. Leaders lead, and Triangulators amorphously equivocate

[hifiguy]

48. Eschew obfuscation.

[4139]

53. Forswears succinctness

[geek tragedy]

22. Meh. I can see why some are very concerned about it, but I don't think it's unreasonable

for someone to wait until after negotiations and terms are finalized to address the substance of the TPP.

[Koinos]

29. Terms of TPP

Bernie Sanders, whom I trust and who is in a position to know, has already seen enough to be horrified and outraged.

I suppose we need more leaks to reveal more secret terms of "corporate rights" that "negotiating partners" do not want revealed to American citizens and members of Congress. Why take a close look if we can "fast track" (sarcasm)?

We "average" American real people will never know the final "terms" until they have already caused us collective irreparable pain and suffering. Many of the terms are (or were) to be kept secret for years.

[Hoyt]

30. You'll know the terms well before Congress votes.

Why continue spreading that?

[Koinos]

65. Even Senate Democrats Can't Get the Information

Even Senate Democrats aren't getting the information they need to make an informed decision. Otherwise, why are Senator Sherrod Brown and others "fuming over the 'fast-track' trade deal," according to this article in the National Journal:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-finance-committee/senate-democrats-are-fuming-over-the-fast-track-trade-deal-20150417

It appears that President Obama and Republican leaders are keeping many democrats in the dark and attempting to "fast track" the fast track deal.

It is important to understand what "fast track" means with regard to this trade authorization.

[Hoyt]

67. Did you even read the modified FT legislation that is about to be enacted. You are weeks behind.

You should really catch up before posting more misinformation.

[sabrina 1]

76. Yes, I did. A few concessions due to the immense opposition to this. No way satisfactory. Thankfully

that is how our Dem Reps see it also. And to even get those concessions, it took HUGE public opposition, which was so intense they finally HAD to concede a few small things, and it is still an abomination. But they fought hard against it. Why? If it's so great why are they not ITCHING to show it to us??

And there are things in there we won't even know about for FOUR YEARS.

Hard to believe we are where we are in this country right now.

I blame those on both sides who refuse to speak out when their team is in power.

But that is how the powerful, wealthy puppeteers like it. That way they always get to screw the working class, no matter who is in power.

[Hoyt]

79. There is nothing in the final draft that might be presented to Congress that you won't know about.

You really need to quit spreading that junk.

The only thing marked as classified for 4 years are the negotiation documents where government trade reps from each country made comments on what they might be willing to do, what they had to have, etc.

Any final document to be presented to each state's govermnment was not subject to that, obvious to everyone but the folks spreading the misinformation (or outright lying).

[sabrina 1]

84. So we are being lied to by all of our Democratic Representatives and what we have already seen is

okay with you.

I know who I believe, you go right ahead and support secret government if you wish, I am so glad you are in a very tiny minority on this.

[Hoyt]

85. The 4 year classification bull is at best misinterpretation of facts, at worst, an outright

lie that they know most people will accept out of laziness, or contempt for Obama who they think is selling them into slavery or something.

[sabrina 1]

89. Do you know who is sponsoring this bill? And where are you getting your information? I'm getting

the impression from reading your comments that you have done zero research into this issue.

Eg, you just said that the '4 year classification is bull'. I don't really know where to begin with that.

Let me ask you something, are you okay with Congress giving up its right to negotiate on behalf of the American people, and handing over that responsibility to the WH? Let's say eg, we get a President Jeb Bush? What provisions are in this bill to ensure that 'President Bush' will not bring nations with horrific human rights practices into this coalition of Trade Partners? Do you KNOW?

While you may 'trust' this President with such enormous power, there is the reality that we will have a Republican in the WH at some point? Will you trust eg, a Paul Ryan with this kind of outrageous power, over Congress, over all of us?

This is NAFTA on steroids.

And btw, what is different about the TPP and Bush's Trade Bill from 2007?

Thnnk about this. Republicans are the ones who will get this passed IF it passes.

Republicans would have passed Bush's bill, but we had a majority back then and were able to stop it.

So iow, most who are going to support Obama will be Republicans.

That ought to tell you something.

Oh and Paul Ryan is one of the sponsors of this Bill.

I guess President Obama trusts Paul Ryan with income equality, freedom of the Internet, Environmental protections, and American jobs that pay a livable wage not to mention, women's rights etc.

[Hoyt]

99. Obama holds most of the cards. If the agreement is not good, he doesn't submit it to Congress.

Congress can vote it down if it wants. They could also threaten to vote it down if some things aren't changed.

Honestly, the idea of Congress negotiating with a bunch of other countries over something this complicated, is laughable.

Can you imagine Congress negotiating with Iran over nukes?

If Paul Ryan gets in office, the people are stupid, but that is what they want.

If the TPP requires certain environmental and worker standards, any nation wishing to join in would have follow those.

I trust Obama to do what is right for our future. I hope the people are smart enough to evaluate it.

[sabrina 1]

71. Did you support Bush when he wanted to fast track his Trade Agreement in 2007?

Same exact scenario. Same exact arguments FOR IT, it's almost like someone wrote a script for these Trade Agreements, each one getting worse as time passes, for the American people.

So, where did you stand then? Did you argue 'let him Fast Track it, we will get to see it later'?? Just curious.

[Hoyt]

72. I trust Obama, not bush or his brother.

[sabrina 1]

74. Do you know what's in the TPP? Republicans trusted Bush. We slammed them for being blind to

things, like that Trade Agreement which wasn't nearly as bad as this one from the little we know already.

So you think people should blindly support major policies without knowing a thing about them, depending on their party affiliation, there should be no need for a politician to explain to us what they are doing, 'just trust me'?

Btw, did you support Obama's promise to be the 'most Transparent Administration ever'? And if so, why did you support a Transparent Administration?

[Hoyt]

75. I know plenty about it, you could too if you'd do some research.

The TPP is plenty transparent considering its nature, although I admit it's hard to get accurate info wading through all the people spreading bull to increase support for their organization, donations, membership, readership or disrespect for Obama.

[sabrina 1]

78. Are you serious? Then please, fill us in. We have been trying to get that information for several

years now.

Members of the Trade Commission apparently don't know what you know.

What I do know came from Whistle Blower leaks. And it is FRIGHTENING for anyone who cares about our sovereignty and our environment.

And after years of refusing to even allow the Chair of the Trade Commission to even take a peek at it, and with HUGE pressure from all over the country AND from legislators in some of the other 11 nations, not to mention Dems and Repubs alike, they were forced to delay this 'fast tracking' of a SECRET TRADE DEAL.

They allowed a few members of Congress to peek at a few pages.

So where did YOU get the information even Congress cannot get? Convince me we are ALL worrying about nothing.

I have done immense research on this. But that is hard to do when something is SECRET. Thanks to Wikileaks we at least know a couple of things, but nowhere near enough.

Eg, do you know that we won't have a clue about a whole of things in there for FOUR YEARS after it is passed?

You TRUST Corporations to do what is best for you, really? Foreign Corporations? You must not have been keeping up with the Longshoremen and what these agreements have done to them.

[Hoyt]

82. Most of it has been released.. And the modified Fast-Track proposal from yesterday says you will

have the entire document 60 days before Obama submits it to Congress.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/business/obama-trade-legislation-fast-track-authority-trans-pacific-partnership.html?referrer=


Most critics won't read that either, but they'll still gripe about not having it.

[Teamster Jeff]

41. Terms to be kept secret for 4 years after passage or end of negotiations to be exact

[hifiguy]

43. Reason enough to beat it to death with an ax

and drop it down a well on the back 40.

[Teamster Jeff]

44. Yes, it's toxic and they know it! nm

[Hoyt]

51. The 4 years applies to NEGOTIATING documents. Besides that image shows even that is not "secret."

Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2015, 03:11 AM - Edit history (1)

The NEGOTIATING documents are not the same as the final document that all 12 states' governments will have to approve.

[krishnarama]

36. It's called triangulation.

That's what Third Wayers do.

I'd rather wait for someone who has the ability to defeat Clinton and be the true flagbearer of the Democratic Party.

Progressives issues won 2014. We need progressives running at all levels.

[Rex]

25. Amazing how the TPP is turning into a golden turd!

They all want it, but nobody wants it!

[hrmjustin]

26. i wish the progressive caucus's plan would get more play in the media.

As I said I am not a fan of TTP.

I think her response is reasonable.

[winter is coming]

49. And I wish you'd lose the image of Hillary's logo sodomizing the GOP elephant.

I cringe every time I see it.

[hrmjustin]

50. Ok.

[winter is coming]

56. Thank you. That's much better. n/t

[hrmjustin]

57. Good.

[demmiblue]

58. Thank you, as well.

I found it disturbing, but didn't want to say anything because I thought I would be accused of making something out of nothing.

[hrmjustin]

59. No problem.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. I commend you.

[hrmjustin]

63. Thank you.

[Jim Lane]

105. I agree about the elephant image. Thanks for changing it.

While we're commenting on atmospherics that don't relate to substantive policies, I'll mention that I think Clinton's official Secretary of State portrait isn't a good image. Her smile looks forced and insincere. The photo in your sig line seems more natural and makes her look better -- it's a good choice.

[hrmjustin]

106. Ok.

[Hoyt]

27. Good to see a Democrat wanting to see the final document before passing judgement.

Too many are just playing politics with it right now.

[polichick]

28. Bernie just kicked the sorry butts of BO and HRC re TPP on Big Ed's show.

[Thinkingabout]

52. Perhaps Bernie looked into the eyes of the leaker and saw the soul of TPP.

Bernie is running on nothing, kicking butts of others. When you are negotiating the information changes from day to day. Even Union Negotiators knows this, one day there is a proposal on the table and then tomorrow it may be a counter offer. This is why when with union contracts the final contract is the one voted and if the final is not the one in which is voted then somebody is lying.

[sabrina 1]

69. Did you support Bush fasting tracking a trade agreement in 2007? You know, trying to push it

through before anyone knew what was in it? Remember that? I do. Just curious, where did you stand back then on Secret Trade Agreements being pushed through by Fast Tracking it?

There is an alarming history to this.

Bernie is a Senator. I wondered how long it would take before we saw all of our good Dems being trashed here.

There is NO counter offer or back and forth about this. This is going to be a DONE DEAL and THEN we will see the horror of what has passed.

THAT is why it has been so 'secret'.

Because, as some of our Dems have stated, 'if the people knew what was in it they would oppose it'.

What is more important to you? A politician or this country's working class, its environment, its internet freedom etc.

We KNOW thanks to Wikileaks, that this horror of an agreement will give Foreign Corps control over our LAWS on the environment and on internet freedom. And that's only a tiny part of what has been leaked.

It's hard to give up on a politician you have had faith in for years. But today after years of supporting him, I have had to do that, because he has failed us on this. This country means way more to me than one politician.

So, where were you when this exact same scenario occurred under Bush?

[Hoyt]

73. I trust Obama. Those who support him can read this thing in a few days.

Those that don't won't read it anyway.

Bernie is a good man, but he's running for Prez and trying to find something that sticks. If Obama gets what he's trying to with the final draft TPP, Sanders' foray will be over.

[ucrdem]

77. That's about the size of it.

If it's a bad deal, it won't get signed, and if it's a good deal and miraculously arrives at Obama's desk intact, nobody will want to talk about it.

[boston bean]

32. Can you provide a link to some

Newspaper or press release that reflects the info in that first tweet.

TIA.

[tammywammy]

38. Here:

Likewise, Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders urged Clinton to reject the TPP.

"My strong hope is that Secretary Clinton and all candidates, Republicans and Democrats, will make it clear that the Trans-Pacific Partnership should be rejected and that we must develop trade policies that benefit working families, not just Wall Street and multi-national corporations," Sanders said in a statement.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/17/politics/hillary-clinton-democrats-trade-2016/

[boston bean]

39. Thank you.

[bigtree]

64. another

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/04/17/clinton-trade-fast-track-obama-gop/

[hifiguy]

42. I am sure she is intense consultations with her owners at Goldman

on how to finesse this and make a public statement without saying anything.

[peace13]

54. You go girl!

I'll love you to the end!

[hay rick]

61. Wait and see...

is also Hillary's position on NAFTA. Hillary claims her two tests are good jobs and national security. So if exports create 1 good job for every 2 jobs that imports take away she can support it. National security is a bogus test. Since virtually all trade agreements have a negligible effect on national security that gives her a big, patriotic-sounding reason to support TPP.

It looks to me like Hillary is on the wrong side of this issue and doesn't want to admit it yet as that will give folks time and impetus to unite against her candidacy. I think her real concern is that she sees TPP as a choice between the financial support of moneyed interests that support TPP and the grassroots, activist base that opposes TPP. I expect her to follow the money and hope that activists remain stuck in "the lesser evil" quandary and still give her at least tepid support.

[OhioChick]

66. "She’s (HRC) also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554

Interesting read.

[Koinos]

101. She doesn't have to wait and see.

I guess that means she doesn't have to wait and see what is in the deal, since she was a key negotiator between corporations and countries in the process. She is not an innocent or clueless onlooker, to be sure.

[cascadiance]

91. So we prefer non-decisive candidates over decisive ones on issues like this for our president? HUH?

What kind of leadership is that?

She missed out and opportunity to show that she's a leader to represent the base and reject this crap that the base doesn't want.

She also missed out on a means to demonstrate her leadership when she just chose to quietly move all of her email to a private server, instead of making a public issue with the problems she had with government infrastructure mail servers that had her feel the need to move this mail off the servers at the time she did it so that these problems could be addressed and fixed. THAT is what I'd expect a real leader to do. Not to secretly do things that just basically subject herself to a lot of speculative criticism by the opposition which is to be expected the way she did things, even if she had good reasons for moving mail in this fashion.

Trying to call herself a "progressive" as if she's just running a corporate advertising campaign of building a lot of stylish alphabet letters, and other glossy junk that has no substance isn't going to win over the base and convince them that she has substance.

The base is tired of style over substance. They learned the hard way that "Hope and Change" wasn't defined well enough to explain what Obama would eventually do (or NOT do) for all of us when he was actually asked to back up his nebulous words with actions.

[LuvLoogie]

95. The ball is in congress' court

They can either abdicate their right and responsibility to review and amend or hold fast and expose the language of the pact. Ours is a representative government. The executive is further bound by the ramifications of Citizens United. And Hillary Clinton is a private citizen.

[cali]

96. She is running for the highest office. Sorry, the private citizen stuff doesn't wash. It's the

flimsiest of fig leaves.

She is demonstrating no courage. She is giving lie to her claim that she want's to be a champion.


This is NOT leadership. It's pathetic.

[LuvLoogie]

97. She has no vote

and she cannot influence the Pact's course through review and passage or denial. Omalley and Sanders can. Warren can. They aren't running for President.

The President asked for increased war powers to fight ISIS. Congress denied it.
The President is asking for fast track authority. It is up to congress to abdicate their power.

Ron Wyden is playing the same position he played in the politics of healthcare. He is either a PINO or the foil to draw out Republicans.

What is Ted Cruz' statement on the TPP? Marco Rubio? They are the only others who have committed to running for President.

How would you move your agenda through the current government? Pick any role.

Remember how we thought Net Neutrality was dead? How many questioned why the President didn't give an executive order to allow openly gay persons to serve in the military?

Hillary just said to take a look at the Pact. Your representatives have to decide whether they want to or not.

You don't want Hillary to lead. You want her to make it all better.

[Jim Lane]

100. Clinton could add her name into the fight, just as O'Malley has.

You write:

She has no vote and she cannot influence the Pact's course through review and passage or denial. Omalley and Sanders can. Warren can. They aren't running for President.

Sorry, I don't follow you. O'Malley and Clinton are both private citizens with no vote. They are both prominent, however, and have some power to influence the course of the issue through their public statements.

O'Malley has chosen to use that power in opposition to the TPP and in opposition to fast track. Clinton has chosen not to use that power.

Sanders and Warren are using their prominence and their public offices.

[AuntPatsy]

102. Agree

[LuvLoogie]

104. I'm wrong about O'Malley

in that he too has no vote. But he also has not announced.

Again, you have to ask yourself, who has the power to ratify this Pact, to authorize fast-track.

The writers of this Pact, on behalf of the Plutocracy, want fast-track and its secrecy. The President does. not. have. the. authority. He can ask. He cannot demand, command or assume that authority on his own. With every public slight to the unions in this regard, Labor increases its resolve to oppose. One congress member, once on-board, is now committed to fast-track's defeat.

If Hillary Clinton were to openly and directly oppose Barrack Obama on this, a Washington shit storm would engulf both of them and take the focus off of the footmen in Congress ready to do the Plutocracy's bidding. It is on your representatives.

O'Malley has absolutely nothing to lose and nothing at stake. No relationship with President Obama. Sanders, and Warren have roles and responsibilities.

Look at what happened with congress writing itself a role in the Iran nuclear agreement. The President is going to sign it.

Hillary Clinton was to the left of the President on Health Care. Her statement on TPP is pretty clear.

People say she knows what's in the Pact. "She was Secretary of State!" It is the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that negotiates trade agreements. The U.S. Trade Representative reports to the President--not to the Secretary of State.

[senseandsensibility]

103. Profiles in Courage material.

She's a real leader.