General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: HRC was critical of TPP before it was cool [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In fact, right in this thread we see three count 'em three different Hillary stances, for maximum campaign appeal:
* For the voters (and, especially, campaign contributors) who like the TPP, we have Hillary of Adelaide, who called it "the gold standard" for trade agreements.
* For the voters who dislike the TPP, we have Hillary of the book (see the OP), who has been critical of TPP since even before it was cool.
I'll note in passing that some candidates and prospective candidates take the novel approach of opposing the TPP by saying that they are against the TPP, and also against fast-tracking it. Clinton, although allegedly so ahead of the curve in opposition, doesn't do it that way, and instead contents herself with bold calls to "increase prosperity" and the like. The reason is that to come right out and oppose it would conflict with the third Hillary:
* For the voters who don't want to try to follow the details of a hugely complex debate, and/or who are suspicious of MNCs but who want to trust Obama, we have Hillary of the fog, who, despite the extensive published (and undenied) leaks and despite her multiyear service as the nation's top foreign policy officer, just doesn't know enough about this international agreement to say anything about it, or at least not anything that might alienate anyone.
Even if you find the position of Hillary of the fog to be plausible, as far as the TPP itself goes, she does have a related problem that's harder to rationalize away: fast track. You can look at the wealth of available information about the TPP and nevertheless choose to disagree with the elected officials and NGOs that have come out against it. In that vein, you can choose to argue that supporting or opposing the TPP "before reading the finalized agreement is premature." The problem is that the finalized text of TPA (the fast-track bill) is available to be read right this minute. (Do you want to read it? It's S.995 and here's the full text, courtesy of THOMAS, the Library of Congress's legislative information website.)
That particular bill will almost certainly have passed or failed well before January 20, 2017, but a candidate who wanted to give us an idea of how he or she would govern could certainly address a major current issue and say Yea or Nay.