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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
18. Her differing viewpoints are confusing. Here's a time line to help sort it out~
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 08:00 AM
Jan 2016
....snip flip-flopping from 1993-2008...

2010:
"First, let me underscore President Obama's and my commitment to the Free Trade Agreement. We are going to continue to work to obtain the votes in the Congress to be able to pass it. We think it's strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States. And I return very invigorated ... to begin a very intensive effort to try to obtain the votes to get the Free Trade Agreement finally ratified." (June 11, 2010: On RCN Television. She also flew her husband in for dinner in Bogota, Colombia, with key players. Bill Clinton has always been in favor; his foundation has taken money from people with business interests there, as reported and written about in a forthcoming book by Peter Schweizer.)

2011:
"Getting this done together sends a powerful message that America and Korea are partners for the long-term and that America is fully embracing its role as a Pacific power. ... I want to state as strongly as I can how committed the Obama Administration is to passing the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement this year. ... This is a priority for me, for President Obama and for the entire administration. We are determined to get it done, and I believe we will." (April 16, 2011: In a talk to a business group in Seoul, South Korea.)

2012:
"We need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. ... 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." (Nov. 15, 2012: Comments in Australia.)

2014:
"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. ... 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." (From her second memoir, Hard Choices.)

2015:
"Hillary Clinton believes that any new trade measure has to pass two tests. First, it should put us in a position to protect American workers, raise wages and create more good jobs at home. Second, it must also strengthen our national security. We should be willing to walk away from any outcome that falls short of these tests. The goal is greater prosperity and security for American families, not trade for trade's sake."

Specifically regarding TPP: "She will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down on currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and health, promote transparency and open new opportunities for our small businesses to export overseas."

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade


She Is all in for the TPP in my opinion. She did play a major role in writing it after all. She worked very hard for big businesses globally while serving as "our" SoS.

Hillary Clinton is very aware of the advantages of being Hillary Clinton, and didn’t seek permission when she not-so-subtly encroached on the Commerce Department’s turf to install herself as the government’s highest-ranking business lobbyist. On her scores of overseas trips—at 956,733 miles and 401 days on the road, she is the most-traveled secretary of state—she’s made pitching U.S. companies part of her routine.

Clinton has directed a lot of her attention to opening new markets for the U.S. in the developing world, where China is establishing a significant presence. Chinese companies have poured capital into poor regions of Africa where foreign aid from Washington once gave the U.S. leverage. In resource-rich countries such as Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, U.S. companies have recently lost major contracts to state-subsidized Chinese outfits.

In the global economic order that emerged after World War II, the U.S. and its allies took American dominance for granted. They “did not envision China as the second-biggest economy in the world,” Clinton says. She doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with China’s desire to extend its reach. “I don’t hold that against them,” she says. “I just hold it against us if we’re not out there pushing back.”

She’s pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China’s shadow. She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors. The State Department even has had limited success in prying open Chinese markets to U.S. companies. In 2011, after extensive haggling with U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke, the Chinese government allowed Titanic 3D and other Hollywood movies to be shown in Beijing theaters. And that same year, after talks with Clinton, the Chinese relaxed so-called indigenous innovation rules that kept U.S. companies from competing for government technology contracts there. “Not that they would ever admit that the Americans—that the secretary—said this, and therefore [they] changed,” says Clinton, who’s been careful not to brag too loudly about these deals. “A lot of this you cannot claim, because then you kind of force the people on the other side to lose face.”

For U.S. companies overseas, a personal appeal from Clinton opens doors and unravels red tape....

Hillary Clinton's Business Legacy at the State Department
Kicked, recommended and bookmarked. Uncle Joe Jan 2016 #1
You're welcome, thought it was worth reading. John Poet Jan 2016 #3
It was an excellent and most enlightening read on what was happening behind the doors. Uncle Joe Jan 2016 #4
Yes... how anyone can vote for Hillary based on what we now know about her Neocon ways is beyond me! InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2016 #26
Neocons have an actual governing philsophy foul as it might be Fumesucker Jan 2016 #2
Well said... which is precisely why we need a REAL progressive as our candidate... InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2016 #27
+1 cui bono Jan 2016 #43
K&R Paka Jan 2016 #5
THIS IS WHY HILLARY CAN NOT BE PRESIDENT! ENOUGH DAMNED WARS!!!!! tecelote Jan 2016 #6
Hillary voters are wedded to her for reasons I cannot even begin to understand... good luck changin their minds. InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2016 #29
Yep, they are a harder sell than my Republican friends, canoeist52 Jan 2016 #31
The worst thing Bush did was invade Iraq, something for which Hillary advocated. Democrats condemned merrily Jan 2016 #7
Not this democrat pengu Jan 2016 #16
Perfect Cross-Post. tecelote Jan 2016 #8
NOW we know how Barack was pushed "behind the scenes". John Poet Jan 2016 #9
Not news to me... suspected all along. Hillary is dangerous and must be defeated. InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2016 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2016 #33
Perfect cross-post is right. Thank you. RedCappedBandit Jan 2016 #24
Whenever Hillary speaks about the Middle East, she sounds just like any neocon Repug. reformist2 Jan 2016 #10
I wish I could rec this twice. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #11
"we have given them the gift of freedom" jesus that is vile. nt m-lekktor Jan 2016 #14
I bet you can. msanthrope Jan 2016 #30
Struck a nerve, eh? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #42
Apparently, yours. nt msanthrope Jan 2016 #52
The death and destruction we brought to Iraq being referred to as a "gift"? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #53
I think the nerve I struck was not so lofty. nt msanthrope Jan 2016 #56
More projection. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #57
I have nothing to say to you about the Iraq war. Believe it. nt msanthrope Jan 2016 #58
That's been obvious from the start. Good, we're done here. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #59
I have nothing to say to *you.* msanthrope Jan 2016 #62
Then why do you keep replying to *me*? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #63
You're in the wrong thread. libdem4life Jan 2016 #60
Yes.....as you joined this site 11 years after I did, please, continue msanthrope Jan 2016 #61
And that means exactly what? But I'm flattered you looked me up. n/t libdem4life Jan 2016 #64
it means I'm laughing at your authoritarianism. nt msanthrope Jan 2016 #65
So, I took another look...and stand by my post. Sorry you find it authoritarian. libdem4life Jan 2016 #66
Ugh, utterly repulsive farleftlib Jan 2016 #39
Gave them the freedom to walk around their bombed out infrastructure cui bono Jan 2016 #44
Raw sewage running down the streets, hospitals in ruins. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #45
So ejbr Jan 2016 #12
Considering her support of all the "free trade" policies and treaties John Poet Jan 2016 #13
Her differing viewpoints are confusing. Here's a time line to help sort it out~ RiverLover Jan 2016 #18
! ejbr Jan 2016 #19
Wow! Great post. tecelote Jan 2016 #21
Need a bookmark function for replies! pinebox Jan 2016 #34
Good post. n/t cui bono Jan 2016 #46
Thank you, RiverLover. senz Jan 2016 #48
It makes me a bit nauseous thinking of all the people who do trust her. Who only look at how RiverLover Jan 2016 #50
We should oppose HRC's neocon foreign policy. Innocent lives are at stake. Vattel Jan 2016 #15
K&R Mbrow Jan 2016 #17
Great article nyabingi Jan 2016 #20
Clinton Campaign caught in another LIE: Martin Eden Jan 2016 #22
Kick & Rec Agony Jan 2016 #23
I liked it when Bernie Sanders said in the last debate that he wants normalization Eric J in MN Jan 2016 #25
I liked it that this was debunked two posts before you made it. (nt) jeff47 Jan 2016 #35
Here is his entire answer in the last debate Eric J in MN Jan 2016 #36
This time, read the last paragraph. jeff47 Jan 2016 #37
He wants to 'move as aggressively as we can to normalize relations with Iran' Eric J in MN Jan 2016 #38
Which means at some, undefined point in the future, whereas your post jeff47 Jan 2016 #40
Bernie has a very clear Madmiddle Jan 2016 #28
I approached the 2008 election fully prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton. summerschild Jan 2016 #41
There's a striking absence of Hillary-policy defenders John Poet Jan 2016 #47
K&R This is an amazing thread. senz Jan 2016 #49
I've followed Robert Parry's work for years Oilwellian Jan 2016 #51
Hillary is a huge NEOCON amborin Jan 2016 #54
K&R&B. eom Betty Karlson Jan 2016 #55
K & R AzDar Jan 2016 #67
HILLARY is what went wrong with Obama's foreign policy. John Poet Jan 2016 #68
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary Seeks NEO-CON She...»Reply #18