HRC restates her opinion on TPP

[cascadiance]

107. And if there are things "still being negotiated" that she doesn't like, then would she support TPA?

If the TPP is not a "done deal" yet the way she's describing it, and she doesn't like parts of what appear to be in it, then shouldn't it be logical that she should NOT want the TPA to pass?

And by the way, the TPP COULD pass without the TPA, it just would be practically harder, especially if it has a lot of CRAP that people don't like that congress people don't want to attach their names to, even if a lot of campaign money is attached to passing it.

If it is so good for us, then we shouldn't be too worried about passing TPA NOW, and either pass it later AFTER the TPP is finally drafted in final form where pols like Hillary can say whether they like it or don't like it, or just pass the TPP by itself under regular congressional rules if it is so good for us.

The bottom line is that Hillary wants to get credit for "having reservations" about it, but not take ownership of either encouraging a future congress of hers to take actions based on those reservations to publicly say whether they should pass or not pass TPA. Which tells me that either:

a) she is trying to avoid making any firm commitments to the public, and by being quiet anticipates that it will pass the way her corporate backers want it to, or
b) she doesn't really care that these things that she "has reservations on" are a part of the TPP and get passed with it.

Either a or b tells me that she doesn't really care about working for the interests of us and communicating with us what she wants to happen. If she really cares about these "reservations" the way she's trying to say here, then she should say that unless these issues are resolved to her liking before the TPA is put to the House for a vote, that she would recommend that the House vote it down. Then we can know that if she supports or doesn't support the TPA, that she supports what's in the TPP in total or not, and have that as a metric to judge her by as a candidate. Right now we have just a lot of ambiguity (by DESIGN in my book!).