Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
43. "Basic due diligence?"
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 12:40 PM
Jun 2015

I have "Hard Choices" right here in front of me. This is a big book, 632 pages counting index.

In the index, under "Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), 77-78, 254" Only these pages.

Out of all this material, these are the only citations in the book!

"China: Uncharted Waters" pgs. 77-78:

(pg. 77) One of our most important tools for engaging with Vietnam was a proposed new trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property. As President Obama explained, the goal of the TPP negotiations is to establish "a high standard, enforceable, meaningful trade agreement" that "is going to be incredibly powerful for American companies who, up until this point, have often been locked out of those markets." It was also important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field. And it was a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia.

(cont'd on pg. 78) Our country has learned the hard way over the past several decades that globalization and the expansion of international trade brings costs as well as benefits. On the 2008 campaign trail, both then-Senator Obama and I had promised to pursue smarter, fairer trade agreements. Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. It's safe to say that the TPP won't be perfect -- no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be -- but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers.

Vietnam also stood to gain a lot from this deal -- the TPP would cover a third of world trade -- so its leaders were willing to make some reforms to reach an agreement. As negotiations gained momentum, other countries in the region felt the same way. The TPP became the signature economic pillar of our strategy in Asia, demonstrating the benefits of a rule-based order and greater cooperation with the United States. (end of TPP citation)

"Latin America: Democrats and Demagogues" pg. 254:

So we worked hard to improve and ratify trade agreements with Columbia and Panama and encouraged Canada and the group of countries that became known as the Pacific Alliance -- Mexico, Columbia, Peru, and Chile -- all open-market democracies driving toward a more prosperous future to join negotiations with Asian nations on TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Aliance stood in stark contrast to Venezuea, with its more authoritarian policies and state-controlled economy.


Due diligence?

Where is the reference to "the gold standard of trade treaties" so often cited as being in her book?

Where indeed? Actually, not in her book.

Remarks at Techport Australia

Let us also include this entire TPP reference:

So it's fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.

That's key, because we know from experience, and of course research proves it, that respecting workers' rights leads to positive long-term economic outcomes, better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions. And including everybody in that, those who have been previously left out of the formal economy will help build a strong middle class, not only here in Australia or in our country, but across Asia. And that will be good for us.

If we do this right, and that's what we're trying to do, then globalization, which is inevitable, can become a race to the top with rising standards of living and more broadly shared prosperity. Now, this is what I call jobs diplomacy, and that's what I've been focused on in part as Secretary of State. And that's one of the reasons that I wanted to come here to Adelaide and come to this impressive facility.


This all supports the unpopular narrative that Hillary still has the same position on TPP she has always had -- a reasonable desire to reserve judgment until we can see the best final draft of the negotiations.

Same thing President Obama has said over and over.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It's really an inferred opposition, weasel words for more wiggle room. AtomicKitten Jun 2015 #1
That GIF.... Bonobo Jun 2015 #2
it gives context to the logo AtomicKitten Jun 2015 #3
LOLariffic! Man from Pickens Jun 2015 #50
Uhhh...which way to the Hospital? SoapBox Jun 2015 #11
ha! I know! glinda Jun 2015 #79
Perfect MissDeeds Jun 2015 #31
......! KoKo Jun 2015 #49
That says it all! Aerows Jun 2015 #75
45 times Clinton pushed for trade bill that she is still pushing by looking for ways to save it Cheese Sandwich Jun 2015 #4
Damn I wished people knew how Government worked. William769 Jun 2015 #5
Oh shit. Better not tell that to the interested industry & lobbyists AtomicKitten Jun 2015 #6
Um. F4lconF16 Jun 2015 #8
Re you kidding me????????????????????? leftofcool Jun 2015 #16
Yeah no problem. F4lconF16 Jun 2015 #19
Oh, hey, I am perfectly willing to believe that all she did was follow orders, djean111 Jun 2015 #24
The Constitution specifies the role of the Secretary of State BainsBane Jun 2015 #57
And look at all the shit I caught for saying what I said. William769 Jun 2015 #58
See response 9. F4lconF16 Jun 2015 #63
Damn I wish some people knew how integrity and principles worked. cui bono Jun 2015 #9
+1 LondonReign2 Jun 2015 #34
I think it's adorable how people think that this game has never been played before. Autumn Jun 2015 #37
I think it's sad when people can't admit they are wrong and move on William769 Jun 2015 #59
My boat floats just fine William, I or no one else need worry about that. Autumn Jun 2015 #62
You really don't know how government works. Exilednight Jun 2015 #15
Wonder if we can get a civics 101 class started? leftofcool Jun 2015 #18
Exactly. She was working for Obama at the time. Every single one BreakfastClub Jun 2015 #20
Her memoir was released 372 days ago. How many days since she's been SoS? cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #25
Hey bro' madokie Jun 2015 #46
You are correct, Sir. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #52
Same to you madokie Jun 2015 #55
"She was just following orders!1" m-lekktor Jun 2015 #29
Was she "just following orders" when she wrote her book after she was SoS? jeff47 Jun 2015 #33
Guess what, Obama's Cabinet was not a command and control organization. Particularly for Hillary. leveymg Jun 2015 #38
So she was conscripted as SoS? frylock Jun 2015 #66
Remember you said it, I didn't William769 Jun 2015 #67
So if she didn't agree with what she was asked to do, she had the opportunity to leave? frylock Jun 2015 #68
Like I said have fun spinning this. William769 Jun 2015 #69
But I thought this was a Civics 101 lesson? frylock Jun 2015 #70
As one person put it, she could have resigned. backscatter712 Jun 2015 #73
Look, this weekend she made it perfectly clear......oh, wait, nevermind... Indepatriot Jun 2015 #7
The treaty has been changing over time, so the only position that matters now pnwmom Jun 2015 #10
So you're saying that her position is evolving over time? Fearless Jun 2015 #12
I don't have to have seen the document to know that, over the last few years, pnwmom Jun 2015 #13
I am pretty sure this is one of those hopeless things, ya know? leftofcool Jun 2015 #17
If it wasn't pro-big business when she said it was good in her book jeff47 Jun 2015 #40
If that's true, then she should be able to easily explain Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2015 #27
Well, we really aren't sure she opposes it are we? tularetom Jun 2015 #14
This is true! Like most issues, she's on the fence to keep options open & not tick anyone off RiverLover Jun 2015 #30
It almost makes one suspect that Secretary Clinton will say whatever she thinks her audience wants. Scuba Jun 2015 #21
Did she put on a fake southern accent again? LondonReign2 Jun 2015 #35
Southern accents just ooze sincerity, don't they? Scuba Jun 2015 #42
It may be that her comments came across as unclear because she was in such haste LondonReign2 Jun 2015 #56
When did Sec. Clinton start opposing it? n/t Orsino Jun 2015 #22
Yesterday. bigwillq Jun 2015 #28
Next week? Autumn Jun 2015 #36
So far the funniest thing to come out of this is... FlatBaroque Jun 2015 #23
These replies sound like the blind leading the blind. pangaia Jun 2015 #26
See - here is the dog whistle! yallerdawg Jun 2015 #32
Uh, she wrote a book, you know. jeff47 Jun 2015 #41
"Basic due diligence?" yallerdawg Jun 2015 #43
So you actually quote her saying it's "The Gold Standard", and claim she has no position. jeff47 Jun 2015 #45
Well, you got me. yallerdawg Jun 2015 #51
You think I needed to re-quote the context you quoted. jeff47 Jun 2015 #53
This sort of thing is becoming rather common. okasha Jun 2015 #71
Two old sayings. yallerdawg Jun 2015 #72
True. okasha Jun 2015 #74
Exactly. But way too subtle for the Hillary bashing crowd. DanTex Jun 2015 #64
I agree. yallerdawg Jun 2015 #77
Remember, Bill pretended to oppose "free" trade with China in 1992 Adenoid_Hynkel Jun 2015 #39
I can't wait to get to vote for her madokie Jun 2015 #44
Mushy non-positions allow people to project their own positions on to her. jeff47 Jun 2015 #47
yup madokie Jun 2015 #48
Actually, Elizabeth Warren is NOT against the trade bill, she is against the fast track authority, still_one Jun 2015 #54
Wrong Oilwellian Jun 2015 #60
I am relating what her office told me when I called them several months ago still_one Jun 2015 #61
I hate to state the obvious, but the TPP is and has been a work in progress. DanTex Jun 2015 #65
Since she doesn't have a vote in TPP it really doesn't matter if she is for or against TPP. Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #76
It is interesting to me that people will believe Cnn's interpretation Evergreen Emerald Jun 2015 #78
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»45 times Secretary Clinto...»Reply #43