Clinton Friend Admits What Everyone Knows Is True: Clinton Still Supports TPP & Will Back It
from the but-of-course dept
If you've followed the whole TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) thing at all, and/or the Presidential election this year, you probably already know that Hillary Clinton famously flip-flopped on TPP. She was for it, before she was against it (and tried to rewrite history to hide her support of it). Of course, basically everyone recognized that her newfound concerns about TPP were made up, as a response to (at the time) surging support for Bernie Sanders, who was vocally against the agreement. But, of course, as tons of people have been saying all along, everyone expects that after the election she'll magically flip flop back to supporting TPP.But, of course, because we're doing this big elaborate stage play called an election, no one's supposed to admit that's what's happening. Someone apparently forgot to tell that to Terry McAuliffe, current Virginia governor and long term best buddies with the Clintons. On Tuesday, he said what everyone already knows: Clinton will absolutely support the TPP after the election:
“I worry that if we don’t do TPP, at some point China’s going to break the rules -- but Hillary understands this,” he said in an interview after his speech on the main stage at the Democratic National Convention. “Once the election’s over, and we sit down on trade, people understand a couple things we want to fix on it but going forward we got to build a global economy.”And, of course, her Vice Presidential pick Tim Kaine did an even faster flip flop. Last Thursday, before he was announced as the running mate, he spoke out in support of TPP.
Pressed on whether Clinton would turn around and support the trade deal she opposed during the heat of the primary fight against Bernie Sanders, McAuliffe said: “Yes. Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wants fixed.”
"I am having discussions with a lot of groups around Virginia about the treaty itself. I see much in it to like,” Kaine said Thursday during a series of roundtable events in suburban northern Virginia. “I think it's an upgrade of labor standards, I think it's an upgrade of environmental standards. I think it's an upgrade of intellectual property protections."The very next day he was named the VP pick, and suddenly he's against TPP:
Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate, has gone on record saying he cannot support the Trans-Pacific Partnership in its current form— a stance calculated to make him more appealing to supporters of Bernie Sanders who revile the deal.Of course, now that McAuliffe blabbed the not-very-secret strategy of the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates flat out lying... the Clinton campaign went into damage control mode and insisted "nuh-uh, she really is against TPP." They trotted out an "adviser," Gene Sperling to insist there's no flip flop planned:
Kaine spokeswoman Amy Dudley said Saturday that the Virginia Democrat shared his negative views on the trade deal with Clinton this week, confirming a report by The Washington Post. “He agreed with her judgment that it fell short” when it came to protecting wages and national security, a Clinton aide reportedly told the newspaper.
“What she has said is she is against it now, she is against in the lame duck and she’s against it afterwards, and I do believe that when she starts her administration, she is going to want to be focused on unifying Democrats,” he said.Then, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta also stepped up to insist that Clinton would not flip flop after the election:
Of course, the truly amazing thing here? For the longest time, it's been the Republicans who were the driving force on agreements like the TPP, and there was only pressure on getting enough Democrats to support those agreements. Now we have a Republican Presidential candidate who seems to be vehemently against the TPP (though for thoroughly clueless reasons) and a Democratic Presidential candidate who is secretly supporting it. This election season is topsy turvy.
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: donald trump, flip flop, gene sperling, hillary clinton, john podesta, politics, terry mcauliffe, tim kaine, tpp, trade
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Elephant? What elephant? I don't see any elephants in this room."
Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate, has gone on record saying he cannot support the Trans-Pacific Partnership in its current form— a stance calculated to make him more appealing to supporters of Bernie Sanders who revile the deal.
It's a good thing that nothing like, oh I dunno, let's call it 'Fast Track Authority' is in place making it so that 'trade' deals like this are essentially given 'Take it or leave it' status for the next few years(at least), making any tweaks or changes impossible, and all those 'worries' about parts of them utterly meaningless.
Worries about pieces are meaningless unless those worries are enough to torpedo the entire thing, which I really doubt is the case, so this is nothing more than dishonestly trying to have it both ways, appearing to care about the concerns of those against the 'trade' deals while knowing full well the lip service given to those concerns are ultimately completely empty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Activism vs State Sponsered Treaties
That right there folks...
If it's not good enough for government treaties, it's not good for the public. Period. Full stop.
If it's not good enough for congress let alone the public from every country it effects to read, then it's not worth the ink used to print it. Period. Full Stop.
[ 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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."
If a miraculous and amazing number of people voted for a third party, you could get about a quarter to a third of the votes, and spoil the election for the Democrats...
...putting Trump in office, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."
Why not vote third party? Chances are, either one of Bad or Worse will get in, but shouldn't we be sending a message to the powers that be?
Oh wait, Trump is the message to the powers that be, the result of years of "Better Kang than Kodos." If President Trump is the only way to break this vicious cycle, bring him on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."
Do you like nuclear holocaust? Because that's how you get nuclear holocaust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."
we have a much higher chance of nukes flying under cliton than t-rump...
2. BECAUSE of the non-stop t-rump bashing AND concomittant cliton lionization, i am considering voting for him SOLELY to piss off the people who claim i 'owe' MY vote to who THEY claim is the lesser of two evils, but who i consider to be a lessor of true eee-vil...
3. but i will probably do what i did last election and write in ed snowden and chelsea manning, far more qualified by sheer dint of actually posessing a functioning moral compass...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nukes
In fact, years being Secretary of State, she probably understands.
Trump on the other hand is an unstable volcano, and when he decides that he needs retribution, he just wants the biggest club with which to do it. So not only do I think he's going to nuke someone, but he's going to nuke a nation over a slight by one of its officials. Trump is not one for proportional response.
And if he doesn't nuke someone, it's pretty certain he's going to send our nation to war over petty bullshit.
And this is not getting into his policy when he's not wanting to work off some aggression. Either he's going to build a wall, halt immigration and intern Muslim Americans, or he's going to delegate to Pence, which is going to give us another extreme-Conservative Bush era.
Clinton will respond the way presidents typically respond, which is to mass public outcry, or legislative obstruction. Sadly, she'll still let the CIA torture people and bomb Afghani civilians. She'll still let the police murder people with impunity and route minorities into prisons. And she will still overclassify and torture / imprison whistleblowers until they snap and rot.
But she won't nuke anyone.
And I totally can't say the same thing for Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nukes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."
And when I say the same to my Democrat friends, they say "But then Trump will win!"
It's like Schrodinger's Election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Schrodinger's election
Your friends seem to believe you're going to vote as they do, either against Hillary (for the Republicans) or against Trump (for the Democrats).
By voting for a third party, you're not voting against either, but that means that you're not voting against the one you would have voted against, had you chosen to vote against one.
See how that works? We vote defensively in FPTP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."
Why vote party at all? Vote individual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That seems to be what the Bernie or Bust people are doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a choice...
Is it too late to start a "None of the above" campaign?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a choice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a choice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What a choice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What a choice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a choice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a choice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What a choice...
Under those conditions, Trump's promise that Mexico "will pay for the wall" is entirely realistic. Canada? Why not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice journalism Techdirt
Meanwhile, be sure to ignore the story of Trump requesting that a hostile foreign government commit cyber crimes against his political opponent. I guess that's not your beat, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice journalism Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nice journalism Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nice journalism Techdirt
No, I don't own shares in Techdirt and I'm not being paid to shill it, but I do love it. Techdirt is my go-to place for news and views about online life. So yeah, nice journalism, Techdirt. Keep up the great work. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone struck a nerve
Also I notice you didn't spend any time at all mentioning all the other wrongdoing by every other politician on the planet, guess that's 'not your beat, eh?' I mean come now, if you're going to mention the actions/statements of one politician you have to bring up the actions and/or statements of all of them less you be accused of only focusing on one while ignoring the other(s), that's just how it works, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice journalism Techdirt
So... thats your ASSumption, correct? Did you do any actual reporting on that at all? Funny how the proven actions, i.e, flip-flopping you ignore while projecting your OPINION that Trump is "far more likely" to flip.
To set the record right he actually said:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said at a press conference in Doral, Florida, Wednesday morning after the second night of the Democratic convention. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens.”
LOL. It was a joke idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice journalism Techdirt
The article wasn't about Trump. He was mentioned not even by name as sort of a comparative foil.
No one ignored here ignored the "DNC hack". Maybe you ignored everything except this particular article. Which apparently shouldn't exist, or be entirely uncritical of Clinton. This article is about it's subject. It's not a politically-motivated list of reasons to be anti-Clinton.
The facts suck, I know. But some of you Clinton supporters should check yourselves, you aren't doing her any favors. (Not that every dog that's been in this fight hasn't had some truly awful supporters.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice journalism Techdirt
You're buying into the democrat's spin that Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails. He was asking them to RELEASE the 30,000 deleted emails that they would have if they had hacked Clinton's email. The FBI couldn't even find those emails and, according to Clinton, they are mostly about yoga classes and weddings, there is really nothing to worry about if they release them.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice journalism Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama & a Lameduck session is the real issue
There's widespread belief, especially among TPP backers, that Obama will get congress to ram through passing TPP during the lame duck session (after congress doesn't have to worry about the voters wrath for another 2 years), no matter what the results of the election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't vote along party lines at all. Be independent and vote based on individuals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aNYONE, pLEASE?
What is in it for THOSE voting for it??
Really..What are they going to get for making it so that WE LOOSE our rights to Personal protections from Shoddy corp mentality?
They have already CUT quality back to the point you will need to RE-Purchase most products and devices every 5-10 years...and for many smaller devices, EVERY YEAR...
Some times I feel like a RICH person, being able/NEEDING a new car every 5 years..Just get the Old one paid off and TIME for a new car.
What has happened to the IDEA of Quality. We are paying like MOST of this stuff is WORTH SOMETHING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: aNYONE, pLEASE?
The capitalistic system is well and truly broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: aNYONE, pLEASE?
They are selling out the country. soon they will NOT have ajob.
Shadowrun, here we come..
Many States have sold out, by declaring that SOME corps arent TAXED..
its Stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need a Kaine mutiny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If she comes out backing TPP, she will hand the election to trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If she is in favor of TPP, as seems to be the case, the public will only find out for sure once it's too late to change their vote and it reaches the point of 'Roll over and take it' vs 'Mass protests in hopes that the politicians pay attention to the will of the public.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If she comes out backing TPP, she will hand the election to trump.
I think you missed the point. No one thinks she'll support TPP *before* the election. It's *after* that she'll switch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hillary was against it, before she was for it
She will not go after the rich because she has enriched herself to the tune of $150 million, most of which she got peddling influence while in the State Dept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hillary was against it, before she was for it
True, but very little of that (only your prediction of tyranny really) is specific to Hillary. It applies equally to nearly every politician, at least above the local level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.
One further point, Terry McAuliffe is himself highly expendable. As Prince Hal says to his old crony Falstaff, at the end of Henry IV: "Old man, I know thee not!" The "Friend of Hal" promptly finds himself in jail.
Hilary has been presenting herself mostly as the "Anti-Trump," the one who is not crazy, the one who does not brag about her connections with foreign dictators, etc. However, in Hillary's younger and more enthusiastic days, circa 1992, she liked to compare herself to Eleanor Roosevelt. Once she has disposed of Trump, I think she will pursue traditional Democratic objectives, such as National Health Insurance. To do that, she will need the votes of the Trumpers. Under the American system of checks and balances, you need something like 80% popular support to actually do anything. Beyond this kind of traditional policy, the big unavoidable problem is going to be what to do about the Mexicans. Mexico is much nearer than China, and cannot be dealt with at arm's length.
The Republican Party has experienced a catastrophe of the same order that it experienced in 1932. The people who voted for Trump are not going to go back to voting for someone like Mitt Romney. One implication is that businessmen no longer have a political home. For some time, politicians will be acting on businessmen, and not the other way around. Politicians will be competing with each of the others to see who can push the businessmen around more. The spectacle of Democratic and Republican legislators bidding to denounce the drug monopolist Martin Skrelli was a portent of things to come. Intelligent businessmen will be scrambling to revamp their production processes, to become less reliant on imports or cheap labor. Of course, they will have to do this without raising prices. Those that succeed will have a competitive advantage, as trade barriers become more stringent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.
You need the support of a majority of both houses of Congress (or sometimes a supermajority). The public doesn't get any input between elections. Very few issues have 80% popular support, and I would guess most of those are not being acted upon because Congress isn't interested (eg campaign finance reform, gun control).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.
To take gun control, there are whole regions of the country whre having a gun is normal, where taxicab drivers and shopkeepers talk about getting their annual deer. You might get 90% for gun control in Berkeley, California, but that is not typical of the country as a whole. If you want federal gun control, you have to find a way to structure it in terms which makes sense to a deer hunter somewhere in Tennessee. Sucessful legislation is usually based around finding a compromise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. To "do anything", by which I assume you mean pass something into law, you need greater than 50% support in the Senate and House, and the President. The public has no say. So where does this 80% come from, or are you talking about something totally unrelated?
If you want federal gun control, you have to find a way to structure it in terms which makes sense to a deer hunter somewhere in Tennessee.
There are gun control measures, such as universal background checks, that are favored by a majority of the public, a majority of Republicans, and a majority of gun owners. Yet they cannot get through Congress. If Congress only cared about representing their constituents, this would not happen. Gun control is just one example, there are others where Congress will not act despite the will of the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their reign of terror is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Their reign of terror is over.
Trump is the one that's planning on forcing the inner city to the work farms to do all the jobs that illegals are doing right now.
Or he may just force our prison population to do all that work for free and put our inner city kids straight from adolescence into prison.
We do that a lot already.
The steps to a holocaust are small and the gradient shallow. What frightens me is how little trump supporters care for Trump's policies. This isn't a send-a-message-to Washington vote. This is the guy in charge for at least four years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No ones listening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]