David Ignatius on TPP, HRC, and Warren

[MBS]

Something here probably to make everyone mad (Ignatius criticizes both Clinton and Warren, and supports Obama's stance on the TPP). Yes, I shuddered at the citation of "centrist" study mid-way through. .I nevertheless found the article thought-provoking.
Presumably, Hillary will eventually offer her thoughts on these issues in due time, but I nevertheless think that Ignatius raises some good points here.
Presuming that she's our Democratic nominee, I want HRC to be the strongest possible candidate for us. So I hope she heeds some of Ignatius' comments about caution and leadership as she conducts her campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/time-for-candidate-clinton-to-step-up-on-trade/2015/05/14/8f5a97d0-fa81-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html

President Obama, so often cool and cautious in his language, gave a full-throated roar on trade last week, saying that Sen.?Elizabeth Warren was “ absolutely wrong ” in her criticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and that “her arguments don’t stand the test of fact and scrutiny .” I think Obama is right about the TPP, but there’s a larger point here about leadership. Governing is a contact sport. Presidents don’t accomplish great deeds without fighting for them. Often, that includes confronting rebellious members of their own party. And Obama’s tough stance seemed to have succeeded Thursday, as the Senate overcame a Democratic revolt and passed key bills to enable the TPP. Modern presidents, from Lyndon Johnson to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton, have won big legislative victories when they similarly played political hardball. That’s something Obama has learned late in his presidency, but this toughness is visible now on issues that matter to his legacy, such as the Iran nuclear deal, Cuba and free trade. He’s ready to roll opponents, even if they’re his friends. Which raises a question: What does Hillary Clinton believe about the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Iran nuclear deal? . . .

The progressive rebellion against Obama on the TPP is mystifying, not least because the factual basis for challenging the deal seems so thin. Labor is arguing that the agreement will be a job-sucking repeat of the North American Free Trade Agreement. But the TPP would actually fix many of the weak labor and environmental provisions of NAFTA, imposing tougher standards for Canada and Mexico as well as the other signatories of the 12-nation agreement. . . .An alternative future, in which the TPP fails and China writes the rules for its Asian trading partners, would effectively mean “non-existent or watered down labor standards,” he wrote.
Warren’s stance, too, is puzzling. She has focused on the TPP’s use of an arcane mediation provision known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or ISDS. Though it has been part of investment agreements for decades, Warren claims ISDS gives “a special break to giant corporations.” But a recent study by Gary Clyde Hufbauer for the Peterson Institute for International Economics noted that firms have won only 29 percent of arbitrations under a system similar to ISDS that the World Bank has used since 1996.

But it’s Clinton’s rope-a-dope approach to the TPP that deserves most attention, because it highlights her vulnerability as a candidate. Her caution conveys the sense that she’s running because she wants to get elected, rather than as the exponent of a set of beliefs. Critics have argued that Clinton, similarly, sought to play by a special set of rules in her use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state and in the Clinton Foundation’s harvest of contributions from foreigners. “I’ve run my last election,” Obama said a week ago. “The only reason I do something is because I think it’s good for American workers and the American people and the American economy.” Clinton is still running, but she could take a political lesson from Obama. She needs to be a fighter. Avoiding the issues will only reinforce the sense that she is a hollow candidate. She should be taking credit for the good provisions in the TPP, not hedging her bets. She may be ready to run, but is she ready to lead?

[djean111]

1. Oh, what a precise evaluation -

Her caution conveys the sense that she’s running because she wants to get elected, rather than as the exponent of a set of beliefs.

To me, that spells things out correctly, indeed.

[MBS]

3. yup, that's my concern, too. n/t

[Hoyt]

2. Well I guess his stance on TPP will make him persona non grata round these parts.

"The progressive rebellion against Obama on the TPP is mystifying, not least because the factual basis for challenging the deal seems so thin. Labor is arguing that the agreement will be a job-sucking repeat of the North American Free Trade Agreement. But the TPP would actually fix many of the weak labor and environmental provisions of NAFTA, imposing tougher standards for Canada and Mexico as well as the other signatories of the 12-nation agreement."

"Warren’s stance, too, is puzzling. She has focused on the TPP’s use of an arcane mediation provision known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or ISDS. Though it has been part of investment agreements for decades, Warren claims ISDS gives “a special break to giant corporations.” But a recent study by Gary Clyde Hufbauer for the Peterson Institute for International Economics noted that firms have won only 29 percent of arbitrations under a system similar to ISDS that the World Bank has used since 1996."

[leftofcool]

5. Sure will.

[Hoyt]

6. He'll be called a corporate tool, supporter of oligarchy, against labor, and worse.

[leftofcool]

8. All in the same sentence.

[djean111]

10. Last time I looked, everybody has a right to have an opinion on the TPP.

The constant Thought Police hectoring does not work in the least. And, you know, we just have to endure the results, we do not get to vote Yes or No, and it has been clear for some time that most of the elected officials in Washington dance to a corporate tune, once they get there. Why not just sit back and gloat? Obama does not need our good opinion any more, you know.

[Hoyt]

11. Where have I said you don't deserve an opinion. Don't agree, but I'm glad you are still here.

I suspect we agree on a lot of other things.

[djean111]

14. I am waiting to see what is in the TPP.

I do not take your word for it being wondrous, especially since you have said that yes, Americans will lose jobs and make less money, because we deserve it after what we did in Vietnam. So I don't think that our idea of what is "good" is the same - or who the "good" is for.
I think you steer the conversation to country vs country, or countries in general, when the bigger story (after all trade has only five or six chapters out of twenty-eight or twenty-nine) is the corporate giveaways and hold over us all.

I also think it disingenuous to say oh, we will be able to read it - yes, after it is determined that nothing can be changed. I think the Fast Track, especially when the agreement seems to overstep the bounds of just trade, puts too much power into the hands of a president who sides with Wall Street and corporations. Having Jamie Dimon whip was the last straw for me, for the president. All I can do now is refuse to support anyone who supports the TPP, if it is as bad as has been leaked. And I will decide for myself what i think is bad. Besides, what is one small liberal vote? I understand that liberal/progressive votes are pretty much meaningless!

I suspect we do not agree on many things of substance.

[GeorgeGist]

15. Only 29% says the Peterson Institute.

Damn he must think his readers are stupid.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Posted to for later. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

7. The country is not ready to be led

To steal an old Bill Maher line, Santa Claus is the only ideal candidate for too many Americans. Mess up from their POV on one of their issues and they push the trap door button on you. That's not just on the right, either. You can't lead foot stampers anywhere.

Hillary can very often be too mushy, but, on this one, I think she's playing it pretty smart. Opposition to the TPP is irrationally white hot on the left, but most Americans aren't even thinking about it. It would surprise me if she wasn't aligned with Obama on this one and isn't waiting for amendments to the deal that will help at least some of the furor to die down before she makes her views clear.

[MBS]

12. I do agree that she has good strategic reason to wait a bit before commenting.

And I love your first paragraph - thanks:

To steal an old Bill Maher line, Santa Claus is the only ideal candidate for too many Americans. Mess up from their POV on one of their issues and they push the trap door button on you. That's not just on the right, either. You can't lead foot stampers anywhere.

[newfie11]

9. Once, we the little people, are a allowed to see the TPP

We will know who to believe. At this point it doesnt matter. It's clear we have no say in it.

[marym625]

13. The question then becomes,

If the deal is such a peach to US workers, and it will be revealed as soon as the TPA debate is over, what is the harm in allowing the contents to become public now?

The only reason to withhold until the straight up or down vote is to hide things that we know we won't like. If it is all just gravy, bring it out in the open.

Sorry, but 29% is 29% too many.

We already know that NAFTA does preclude the US from regulating US banks. What Canada is doing is exactly what Warren warned us about. Just because Treasury says Canada is wrong doesn't make it true.

On the subject of former SoS Clinton and her silence, we have no choice but to believe that the last thing she said, publicly, about the TPP, is what she still believes. Though she has changed her mind before when previous stances have become harmful to her moving ahead, without apology I might add, until she says something to change it, she is a champion of the TPP. Her silence equals cowardice.