Hillary Clinton's Paperback Memoir Deletes Inconvenient Support Of TPP That Was In The Hard Cover Version
from the convenient-deletions dept
I've seen plenty of nonfiction books that add some amount of content in the process from the original hard cover release to the eventual paperback release. But apparently Hillary Clinton went the other direction and conveniently excised all of the stuff about her support of the TPP. It's no secret that, while facing a considerable challenge from Bernie Sanders in the primary contest, Clinton's views of the TPP flip flopped from supporting it to being against it. She did try to explain away the flip flop by saying that it was about the details, but still, if you're going to actually change your position, you should own it. Instead, it looks like Clinton and her campaign are simply trying to rewrite history. The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) first noticed a series of big changes in the paperback edition of Clinton's book, including excising the support of the TPP -- such as two full pages about a conference in El Salvador where she spoke in favor of the agreement.The IBTimes (first link above) has since found even more examples of support of the TPP that was excised from one version of the book to the other, including talking about how the TPP "was important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field." Of course, it's also been kind of comical to see a variety of Republican websites now posting this story and mocking Clinton, considering that Republicans (not Trump, but most of the rest of them) have been the main supporters of the TPP all along. Basically, as with so many of these issues, no one looks good here. Almost no one believes that Clinton's current opposition of the TPP is legitimate. Instead, it's pretty clearly just politically convenient. And attempting to rewrite history to delete those earlier views just looks silly.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: biography, hillary clinton, rewriting history, tpp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's not her fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She's a Clinton. What did you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: She's a Clinton. What did you expect?
The supporters of the democratic party do not care about the means so long as the end justifies it.
If you have to lie, cheat, steal, murder, or corrupt something to get socialism into America... that's fine with them! So long as it makes it here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: She's a Clinton. What did you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: She's a Clinton. What did you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: She's a Clinton. What did you expect?
Ia! Ia!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: She's a Clinton. What did you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: She's a Clinton. What did you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clintoon part Deux
Don't worry folks, if Bamy can't get it through, she will figure out a way to make it happen.
Would not be surprised if Trump would make it happen as well.
Hillary has a lot of people fooled, Trump might be in the same boat, and now we just wait an see what the sheeple of America bring us this voting season.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clintoon part Deux
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is what the left does
Look at Hillary, Gore, John Kerry and others who all claimed to be against going into Iraq. Then do a little search on YouTube to find all the video news clips where they supported it. Revisionist history is right in their playbook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is what the left does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is what the left does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is what the left does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terminology.
Liberalism has to do with liberty, the notion that anyone can do anything they want, minimizing restrictions except in how it infringes upon the rights of others. I should be free to own and shoot guns. I should not be free to own and shoot you with my gun, since it infringes on your right to live. I should also probably respect your need for peace and quiet, hence should shoot my guns away from the neighborhood where I won't bother anyone.
Socialism has to do with a state providing a service rather than a private commercial interest, for example the US armed forces provide for the defense of the United States. We could hire mercenaries (and do, especially when we want them to enact policies unbecoming of a military force associated with a nation) but we do like to tightly regulate our our standing military conducts itself, which is harder to do with private militaries. The same thing is true of other socialized services, e.g. state water and power. It is harder to regulate private assets than state assets, say, in preservation of the environment.
Got it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
spot on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: spot on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: spot on!
Democrat = deception corporate party.
The first step to stopping them, is to stop using their language to describe your experience. We know they are full of crap because there is abundant science that has been published that confirms it. So reference that instead. It isn't left vs. right. It is informed vs. both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is what the left does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correct The Record
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TPP is scheduled for lame duck session
The TPP is scheduled to be passed by the lame duck Congress and signed by the lame-duck President, so that no one who has to run again will have to take the blame for it.
President HRC can continue her fiction that she doesn't support it, and President Trump won't ever get a chance to veto it.
The fact that Google came out in support of TPP means that HRC really does support it.
The "little people" simply don't matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The focus groups didn't support TPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Either that or Amazon is ripping one-off books based on consumer analytics now.
Just like the DNC "had it's grid taken down by Russians hackers because of Trump". As if Russian intelligence needed to do anything more than buy a few G&T's for his long list of conquests.
More likely is the hack was orchestrated on HRC's behalf to instill fear in her constituency of a demographic who wasn't going to vote for her anyway. (people who code) Putin did something similar by blowing up some apartment buildings and blaming his rivals during his first presidential farce.
OH NO! They're taking down the grid! The hackers! Fear them! The world has seen this kind of shit before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God save us from purists.
"Rabble rabble rabble! X is wrong! You should never do X, you evil so-and-so!"
"Okay, I've listened to you guys and now no longer support X."
"You are a terrible person for changing your position!"
I am so sick of this.
You know what? When I'm against a politician's position, I WANT them to change it. And if they think that changing their position will lead to being lambasted for that on TOP of being attacked for their original position - with no credit given for the new position - then what reason could they possibly have to change? And if that's the case, you should admit it as well - you were just arguing so that people would hear how smart you were. Not because you were actually trying to accomplish anything.
I DON'T CARE if in her heart of hearts Clinton believes in the TPP as long as she stands against it. I just DO NOT CARE. Her actions are what are relevant. Yes, editing the book is weird and plays into a certain narrative about clinton, and YES, she would be better served by a forward which said "Hey, the earlier version of the book contained a bunch of info that I don't agree with, so rather than publish a new version of a book that misstates my current positions I've edited it as follows."
But you know what? I just don't care that much. And I'm sick of the Clinton Outrage Brigade which constantly puts me in a position like this, where I'm standing up for a woman that I frankly can't stand, because the attacks on her are so ridiculous.
Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich suggested reviving the House Un-American Activities Commission today. But really. Hillary Clinton Is Not Pure Enough is definitely the fight you need to be fighting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: God save us from purists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: God save us from purists.
It would seem that sentiment is not uncommon among her constituency. Why are you blaming other people for the fact that you are supporting somebody that YOU don't like? Aren't battered women counseled for behavior like that?
The propaganda engine for the demopublican alliance is not separable. Which is really all anyone needs to know, but most refuse to accept for fear of what it means; she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: God save us from purists.
This is the point. It's pretty unbelievable to think that she'll stand against it. She's in favor of not just TPP, but the entire philosophy behind it. Even if, somehow, she actually stands against it, she will continue to support other agreements that are of the same type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: God save us from purists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: God save us from purists.
Nothing wrong with changing your mind. The problem with Clinton is not so much that she is putting forth a changed stance but that she is getting increasingly harder to pin down on anything. She's evasive and weaseling.
Trump, in contrast, states five conflicting stances in a row. He is not even evasive but openly bullshitting people.
Neither is much help in making a decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: God save us from purists.
Take the video of her being against gay marriage. Then a couple of years ago, she's for it - and states that she's always been for it and "stands on her record".
After all that fighting for the TPP, then trying to hide that fact and declare she's against it - doesn't tell me she's really against it. She's for it, but wanting to hide that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: God save us from purists.
Propaganda compensates for voids in actual leadership skills. A disproportionately high volume of it, is indicative of an executive staff that will be insecure and fearful in operational practice. Which historically has led to many bad things.
It doesn't matter if you win. It matters what you win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That convenient censorship again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]