Clinton breaks with Obama, opposes 'fast-track' trade authority as bill heads to Senate

[yallerdawg]

Nah, you don't wanna hear this...doesn't fit the meme.

Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has come out against "fast-track" approval powers sought by the White House that would allow only the Executive Branch to negotiate trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

President Barack Obama, most congressional Republicans, and some Democrats are backing fast-track authority -- officially called Trade Promotion Authority -- which would bar Congress from debating or amending major so-called free trade agreements like the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the United States and the European Union. The US House approved standalone fast-track authority on Thursday, meaning the Senate must now vote.

All votes on the legislation have been close, and it's unclear what way they would go during the Senate vote next week. With her political weight, Clinton was under pressure to speak her opinion on the legislation. She parted ways with Obama, her former boss and Democratic Party standard-bearer, by backing away from support for fast-track authority, telling journalist Jon Ralston that if she were still a US senator, she would not vote for such presidential power.

http://rt.com/usa/268417-clinton-tpp-trade-authority/

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. Hmmmm executive branch only?

No crazy unrelated amendments from the senate or house? Obama would make the deal? Hmmmm, I am rethinking the fast track option.

[djean111]

13. Yes, it would be a pure, streamlined corporate coup. Not good, unless, of course,

one is a Corporatist.

[BainsBane]

41. You do know corporations have as much influence in congress

as they do on the presidency, probably more so. Congress has an approval rating lower than ebola, yet somehow people here have now decided they are their saviors.

I do oppose Fast track and TPP, and called my Senators to say so. However, this notion that congress is somehow less influenced by big money is absurd.

[djean111]

48. Oh, no, I know that Congress is, to a great extent, bought and paid for.

http://economyincrisis.org/content/almost-200-million-donated-to-representatives-to-buy-yea-votes-to-pass-tpa

Many think our government is for sale. However, by taking a look at the facts below provided by the Open Secrets, it is easy to understand where they are coming from. Looking back at Friday the 12th, the House voted on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the controversial bill that gives power to the executive branch to negotiate treaties. TPA limit’s Congress’ ability to better a trade deal by subjecting members of Congress to 90 days of reviewing the trade agreement, prohibiting any amendments on the implementing legislation, and giving them an up or down vote. TPA passed with a mere 219-211 vote with only 218 needed to pass. The real shocker comes from the amount of money each Representative received for a yes vote. In total, $197,869,145 was given to Representatives for a yes vote where as $23,065,231 was given in opposition.

John Boehner (R-OH) received $5.3 million for a “yea” vote and was the highest paid legislator.
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) received $2.4 million for his “yea” vote.
Paul Ryan (R-WI) received $2.4 million for a “yea” vote and came in at the third highest paid legislator.
Pat Tiberi (R-OH) follows Paul Ryan, coming in the fourth spot having received $1.6 million for his “yea” vote.

.......

Where did this kind of money come from? Those in favor of TPA were Security Brokers and Investment Companies who donated a whopping $11.3 million dollars for a “yea” vote. Or big banking companies who donated $10.1 million dollars. In other words, Wall Street hashed out millions and millions of dollars to push for the passage of TPA.

Those numbers are absolutely staggering. Corporations are taking control of what policies are approved or blocked in the U.S. We cannot sit around while corporations decide what is “good” for America or not! This is a democracy, not a plutocracy! Contact your representatives and let them know that you do not want them to vote in favor of TPA!

I just do not think we should be Fast Tracking this piece of corporate takeover. Let the world see it. Let taxpayers see it. Let Congress take some responsibility - and blame - for it. Maybe some more people will wake up and at least recognize that the roses are getting pretty damned smelly. Something that can affect so many of our current laws, and dispose of those laws in the interest of a profit for a relative few, should not be protected and secretive and unchangeable and enabled so that it slides greasily through Washington and into corporate coffers. Coffers in the Caribbean or wherever. I do not think the executive branch should be enabling corporations to challenge laws in secret courts. Period.

[raouldukelives]

50. This is still a democracy in many important ways.

It all boils down to personal responsibility. One does indeed get what one pays for. Thanks to the efforts of Wall St lackeys, with Citizens United, there can be no doubt we live in a time when the more money corporations have, the less democracy those on the bottom rungs will be allowed to receive.

For every person legitimately opposed to those who would deny democracy, opposed to war pigs, famine, racism, exploitation and environmental destruction. There is someone else funding those who turn a blind eye so they may continue to advance the one cause they truly care most about, themselves.

[AngryAmish]

2. This is interesting.

I wonder what Team Obama is going to do for revenge?

[orpupilofnature57]

5. She wouldn't of finally decided unless the think tank OK'd it, that guy

from Monsanto maybe ?

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Only as of late, still wavering two weeks ago, WHO EXPOSED IT EARLY ON ???

[hifiguy]

17. We have always known where Sanders and O'Malley have stood. nt

[MineralMan]

4. This is going to confuse some people.

Truly.

[Autumn]

7. How so?

[djean111]

8. It won't confuse Bernie or O'Malley supporters. Might confuse Hillary supporters or Hillary

campaign contributors, though.

[orpupilofnature57]

11. Not the Sheeple, ambiguous reasoning, like candidate, like supporters . We need to own it or

owe it, " Oh can't we just move on people " .

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. No confusion here... she doesn't oppose TPP, just claims to oppose fast-tracking it.

[Wilms]

30. Makes perfect sense to me.

If she came out earlier, it could have helped dissuade the Dems who eventually signed on.

[djean111]

6. Ooopsie! I bet that Obama and Boehner and Jamie already have the votes they need, and

Hillary is just going for that Lefty Fringe Tea Party vote. But better late than never. Or not.
I am gonna go with history here.

[pa28]

15. Nice window dressing for the campaign now that fast track seems to be a done deal.

I'm supporting the guy who was on the right side of the issue from day one.

[hifiguy]

19. Yep. You don't get points for locking the barn door

after the horse is long gone.

[Kingofalldems]

9. Haters not liking this one.

[m-lekktor]

12. this Hater likes it if true.

I just don't like the RT source.

[orpupilofnature57]

21. I know one person big enough to be sincerely Happy

Bernie Sanders,, and we knew where he stood when he Told us about it, Months ago .

[m-lekktor]

10. but this is from RT, it's Putin propaganda!

lol. SERIOUSLY THOUGH, if this is true, thumbsup to Hillary!

[99Forever]

14. Glad to hear it.

Regardless of her reasons, this is good news.

[TheFarseer]

18. as long as she doesn't actually have a vote

And it will probably pass anyway why not just say what people want to hear?

[djean111]

20. Bingo.

[yallerdawg]

23. You know...

like Sanders and Warren.

[djean111]

24. Sanders and Warren were fighting and speaking out against this while Hillary was

praising the TPP in her book, and in talks she gave while SOS.

[truebluegreen]

26. WTF? Sanders and Warren both have a vote.

So, not like Hillary.

[yallerdawg]

28. Hillary says...

if she were a senator, she would vote against TPA. Just like them.

[99Forever]

31. So, kind of a ...

... "me too," huh?

[yallerdawg]

32. Senator Clinton...

voted against CAFTA.

Don't ever hear much about that, either.

[99Forever]

34. So did Senator Sanders. Senator Warren was not yet a Senator.

What's your point?

[yallerdawg]

36. Seems to be...

a pretty consistent "me too." That's the point.

[99Forever]

37. Not really.

Save it for someone who doesn't remember the difference between Campaign Obama and Office Holder Obama. Neoliberals will play hell trying to run that game again. We're on to them. All of them.

Pretty rhetoric won't cut it this time around.

[truebluegreen]

39. Hillary says a lot of things;

point is in her case there is no way to know.

[davidpdx]

43. I disagree (even as someone who doesn't support her)

Given many of her former colleagues are voting on this I think she could have some sway in terms of talking to them and getting enough of them to vote no.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. She voted against CAFTA when she had an actual vote. 6 of the current Democratic Senators backing

TPA/TPP voted in favor of CAFTA as did current Democratic Candidate Lincoln Chafee.


I have learned that most here are clueless as to the actual voting records of our elected Democrats. That is unfortunate as knowledge is the key to effective activism.

[ucrdem]

25. She's pretty clear on the point per this CNN video

the deal breaker seems to be the loss of TAA and that's a development that's only a week old. So there's no particular change of postition that I can see.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/hillary-clinton-trade-fast-track-authority/

[peacebird]

27. TAA was to be funded by guts to medicare.... No surprise Hillary supported it

[ucrdem]

29. That inane proposal was history even before last week's vote.

But the talking point will live forever on DU I'm afraid. In fact I think that's basically why it was stuck in there -- to be a poison pill to turn Dems against an otherwise widely supported assistance bill.

[peacebird]

33. Pfft.

[ucrdem]

35. I elaborated a bit in an edit

Basically the idea was to make the assistance bill unpalatable to Dems and it worked. But I don't think it was ever a serious proposal. And I didn't mean it personally.

[DonCoquixote]

38. normally, I would say "how Clintonesque"

after all, he knew she woudl stab Obama in the back, again, once the tpp soured, but now she gets to do it early on, much to the delights of the PUMAS.

However, I do not care, and i do not care for the same reason I would not care if a serial killer was the only person who could save the life of my mother or father. No I do not trust her to have morals, but if this means that I get the result I need. fine.

[Jim Lane]

40. I'm OK with hearing it. Better late than never. And it DOES fit the meme.

One of the weaknesses of Clinton's candidacy is the perception among many voters that she lacks genuine conviction but is merely a cynical maneuverer.

O'Malley and Sanders have been out in front for months opposing the TPA. Clinton stayed on the sidelines, waited until after a key Senate vote, then critical action in the House, with her only contribution being to dismiss the TPA as "a process issue" (and, by implication, unimportant). Now she chimes in when the bill is on its way back to the Senate.

Yes, it would fit the meme better if she had continued to equivocate. Instead, she somewhat went against the meme by finally speaking up. I am sincerely glad about that. If the vote in the Senate is close, her statement might help sway a crucial vote or two.

For her equivocation, I would give her a grade of D. Coming out in favor of the bill would have rated an F. Her belated opposition has raised her to a C -- a definite improvement, but definitely still behind those who were right from the start.

[Bonobo]

46. Exactly. +1 nt

[davidpdx]

42. It's about time. I've been saying for weeks...

that this would be one of the best political movies she could make. I hope she puts a little pressure on some of her former colleagues to vote no. She has the ability to help kill this and she should do it.

[aspirant]

44. If Jaime Dimon and Obama

can go inside the Walls of Congress and hustle votes, HRC can too. This should be way more than secret phone calls, what's needed is face to face debates with Senators and reporters.

Hollow rhetoric won't cut it, this rough and tough Hillary has to get involved and mix it up.

[Bonobo]

45. What took her so long? nt

[nationalize the fed]

47. Great to know that RT is now an acceptable source nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. So now that it's a political liability, she'd going to pretend she didn't spend years pushing it?

I don't know if that fits a 'meme', but it certainly is right in line with decades of Clinton triangulation and political expediency.

[yallerdawg]

52. Sanders and Warren both support good trade agreements.

That is what Hillary has said over and over. But we don't hear that, do we?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. The word 'good' means different things to different people.

Sanders and Warren support trade agreements that are 'good' for American workers.

Clinton supports trade agreements that are 'good' for American corporations.

[yallerdawg]

55. There is the 'meme.'

In context, with all the words, not just the selected words, Hillary has always qualified her support for trade exactly like Sanders and Warren and all other Democrats. The American worker, labor standards, environment, currency manipulation...

American capitalist corporations really couldn't care less what Democrats have to say. They do what they do.

They have a political party.

[tularetom]

54. Talk is cheap

And campaign rhetoric is the cheapest talk of all. She holds no office so she doesn't actually have a vote on the thing. Besides, she knows its a done deal anyway, so what she says now has no bearing on the future of the TPP. If she's elected she'll say "Sorry, my hands are tied" and implement it just like she intended to do all along and exactly as her "base" expects her to do.

What she's saying now is just fluff to placate the whackadoodle liberals.

[pampango]

56. She's not going to win friends from any Democrats who did not already support her. But she

probably already knew that.

Maybe she is angling for the mythical "independent and moderate republican" votes in the general since they oppose fast track and TPP more than Democrats do.