Hillary Clinton on the TPP. It's gonna help women and migrant workers.

[NYC_SKP]

Promises, promises...

"Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy"

Cut in at the right moment here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=460&v=i7Iq8pyIT84

Full transcript here: http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200664.htm

Later in the same clip, Secretary Clinton on privatization (doesn't like publicly run enterprises)

And finally, the resurgence of state capitalism: a challenge at once economic and strategic. Now, state-owned or state-supported enterprises are not necessarily problematic in all cases. But they do often lack the transparency and accountability that come with private boards and investors.

Supporters: Are you sure you know your candidate?

[leveymg]

1. And, it will do wonders for trade lawyers. Poor sods need all of our help.

[Marr]

2. God, I can't stand that neoliberal bullshit-- 'help build China's middle class and balance the

world's economy'.

They've been spewing that garbage for 20 years, at least. It's just a flowery way to say, 'drive American wages down to the level of those we exploit elsewhere'. Multinational corporations are never out to 'help build a middle class'-- just the opposite, in fact.

[upaloopa]

3. If the trade deal is completed before Jan 2017

does it matter what Hillary said some time ago? If it does not happen does it really matter what Hillary said some time ago?
Better tell us what Obama is doing.
Hillary is not in elected office she can't effect TPP today.

[Marr]

5. Of course it matters.

It describes her economic views.

[cali]

6. Yes she can effect the TPP today- as any number of pundits, dems and activists

have noted.

She is the most influential dem outside of the President and her coming out for or against it would sway votes. No doubt about it.

[NYC_SKP]

10. She's cutting the next series of deals right now.

Running for president takes money.

Other countries' economies have LOTS of money and they have a vested interest in seeing the "right person" become elected.

And there are now ways to funnel foreign money into domestic national campaigns.

That's a problem Hillary is going to "fix" by golly.

Right after she gets elected.

[jeff47]

23. When the primary argument for Clinton is her lengthy track record

then yes, it matters what Clinton said some time ago. That is her track record.

[upaloopa]

26. From now until Nov 2016 there will be all kinds

of these threads yet she will still be on the ballot and I believe she will be our next President.

[jeff47]

28. Yes, it's so bothersome when people actually examine the track record you are running on. (nt)

[NCTraveler]

4. She is an extremely public person.

Most all of her supporters know exactly who she is. One of the most vetted people in the world. By far.

[bigwillq]

7. Mr. and Mrs. Nafta:

Please go away.

[TheNutcracker]

9. Ditto

[hifiguy]

27. +1

[hobbit709]

8. Want to buy a bridge? I got a great deal on one.

[brooklynite]

11. UNREC

You're providing a video that's three years old, and asserting that 1) it's still her general position (as opposed to, say, the position of the President she was working for) and 2) it specifically relates to a position on TPP.

[NYC_SKP]

12. If your point is that she easily changes to suit the situation and lacks a principled solid ethic...

...then your point is well taken.

She can change position at will, as it suits her.

Fine for a private citizen, I suppose.

For a leader, it's sucks.

[brooklynite]

14. I assume Elizabeth Warren could just as easily become a Republican again?

She changed her position on Party affiliation, so clearly it just suited her at the time?

[ChiciB1]

17. IMO, Warren Actually SOUNDS & ACTS Like A Democrat!

At least the Democratic Party I joined and have belonged to all my life!

OTH, DLC doesn't make my socks go up and down and can only HOPE our apparent nominee has really changed or is willing to change her mind. She's trying very hard to "sound" sincere, but color me cynical... I've stopped buying many things these days because my budget can't afford it!

[brooklynite]

21. If you can't bring yourself to vote for her, don't worry...there are plenty of Democrats who will.

She starts with the 18 million votes she got in 2008, and unless you can explain how Bernie Sanders becomes more popular than Barack Obama was, I'd give her 2 million more.

[ChiciB1]

24. Never Said I WOULDN'T Vote For Her...

I voted for Obama 2x's myself. I know what's at stake and I'm not one who throws my vote away... EVER! Doesn't mean I have to like it, but I WILL support Bernie until then! Already donated money to him even though I have limited funds. Just wanted to show my support and let others see that he's able to raise money. I SERIOUSLY doubt he'll ever get close the millions and millions he needs which is a VERY SAD statement about our elections, but it's all about the money anyway IMO.

Yeah, my Country Right Or Wrong! Just seems "we the people" get chump change!

[Exilednight]

30. There's no leadership in holding your finger up to

See which way the political winds are blowing before making a decision. How do you consider that leadership?

[HassleCat]

13. No Surprise

Clinton is not exactly a progressive. Her husband supported NAFTA.

[NYC_SKP]

15. "Promise of Economic Statecraft", the title of the clip is kind of disturbing.

Between support for the TPP and that other excerpt I provided, the slam on what she called "state capitalism":

And finally, the resurgence of state capitalism: a challenge at once economic and strategic. Now, state-owned or state-supported enterprises are not necessarily problematic in all cases. But they do often lack the transparency and accountability that come with private boards and investors.

I suppose by that standard, CalTrans and Social Security and the US Navy should be abolished and privatized, for greater transparency and accountability.

Good Grief.

[HassleCat]

18. Maybe Backward

I guess lack of transparency would be a problem when we're speaking of the CIA's corporations it uses for money laundering. Other than that, I don't see how privately held companies are brilliantly transparent. This seems to be a statement that plays to the misconception that we are subject to random maltreatment by a secret cabal of faceless government bureaucrats, while private companies zealously strive to provide us with the finest goods and services at the lowest cost.

[sabrina 1]

16. Scary stuff, it sounds like we rule the world. Who put US in charge of China's Middle Class

and what about OUR Middle Class?

Really, who do they think they are kidding.

Bernie!! All I can say once again is 'thank you for running'.

We so need a total change of leadership right now.

[NYC_SKP]

19. Scarier still, the part where she bashes "State Capitalism" -- need to privatize things, ya know!

She is "concerned" about a resurgence around the globe of "State Capitalism" (things like food support, road building, the army, social security):

Here's a chunk of the transcript.

And finally, the resurgence of state capitalism: a challenge at once economic and strategic.

Now, state-owned or state-supported enterprises are not necessarily problematic in all cases.

But they do often lack the transparency and accountability that come with private boards and investors.

And then, diplomatic challenges arise when states abuse their economic advantage to bully their neighbors or box out competitors, like when we see countries cut off gas flows in the middle of winter over a political disagreement.

So, the State Department, working with seven other U.S. Government agencies, launched a comprehensive study on state capitalism.

And in the coming weeks, we should see a final report with detailed recommendations for how we engage on the challenges posed.

sabrina1: Am I imagining all this, or are millions of voters still in love with this privatizing corporate candidate???

:wowzer:

[sabrina 1]

22. I'd like someone who is a supporter of Clinton to explain to me how these

policies differ in any significant way from Republican/Heritage Foundation privatize everything, policies that Dems have fought against for so long.

Imo, we are at a crisis point now and we have a chance to change course. The only question is, 'will they let us'?

Support for Bernie will have to be overwhelming to counter the expected campaign that is probably already in progress, to stop him.

This really is going to be an historical battle. Between the people and the corporations.

[NYC_SKP]

25. From this exchange and the context, she must be batting for the major energy companies.

In parentheses are my comments:

The fourth and final area we are focused on is making sure America's diplomats and development experts have all the skills and support they need to actually implement economic statecraft. (economic statecraft, what a sickening term) So, we are focused on recruiting, retaining, and rewarding the most talented people we can find. I appointed the State Department's first-ever chief economist. And I combined our work on energy, the environment, and economics under a single under secretary position to maximize synergy and cooperation. We are ramping up our training curriculum for economic officers, and developing new tools and incentives to help them do their jobs. Now, these kinds of changes unfold over years, but they show a commitment to match our practices to our priorities. And they will help hard-wire economic statecraft into American foreign policy.

Now, let me offer three quick examples that really show the intersection of economics and security. Let's start with cyber theft. Now, most countries outlaw breaking into the headquarters of a company to steal proprietary information. Yet when it comes to cyber theft of that same material, many look the other way or even encourage it. This is more than just bad international behavior. It is bad economics. If we set a precedent that cyber theft is acceptable, everyone will eventually suffer. So I named the State Department's first coordinator for cyber issues, and we are advancing concerted strategies to address these really legitimate and troubling concerns.

Next, on energy. We know energy can be a source of healthy competition, with countries racing to develop new technologies and renewables. But it can also be a source of conflict, fueling corruption and instability. (We had better step in and help, I wonder how we can do that?) And how the world uses energy is a key factor as to whether we will finally address the threat of climate change. So we have created at the State Department a new Bureau of Energy Resources, and made this issue a priority in our diplomacy.

And finally, the resurgence of state capitalism (Oooh, State capitalism, scarey!): a challenge at once economic and strategic. Now, state-owned or state-supported enterprises are not necessarily problematic in all cases. But they do often lack the transparency and accountability that come with private boards and investors. (So, we need to bring in energy companies with private boards and investors, Clinton knows a few of these people, she can help!) And then, diplomatic challenges arise when states abuse their economic advantage to bully their neighbors or box out competitors, like when we see countries cut off gas flows in the middle of winter over a political disagreement. So, the State Department, working with seven other U.S. Government agencies, launched a comprehensive study on state capitalism. And in the coming weeks, we should see a final report with detailed recommendations for how we engage on the challenges posed.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200664.htm

[Orsino]

20. Well, I had hopes she was taking her time in coming up with a way to oppose TPP.

But I guess the fix is in.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. She's right, you know.

Many members of the Walton clan are women.

And furthermore, anyone who migrates from Laos or Cambodia to Vietnam would be much more likely to get a job.