Hillary Clinton comes out against the TPP?

Looks like someone felt the Bern:

As Clinton said, in part:

I have said from the very beginning that we had to have a trade agreement that would create good American jobs, raise wages and advance our national security. And I still believe that’s the high bar we have to meet. I have been trying to learn as much as I can about the agreement, but I’m worried. I’m worried about currency manipulation not being part of the agreement. We’ve lost American jobs to the manipulations that countries — particularly in Asia — have engaged in. I’m worried that the pharmaceutical companies may have gotten more benefits, and patients and consumers fewer. I think that there are still a lot of unanswered questions, but, for me, it really comes down to those three points that I made, and the fact that we’ve learned a lot about trade agreements in the past years. Sometimes they look great on paper. I know when President Obama came into office he inherited a trade agreement with South Korea. I along with other members of the Cabinet pushed hard to get a better agreement — we think we made improvements. Now, looking back on it, it doesn’t have the results we thought it would have in terms of access to the markets, exports, etc…What I know about [TPP] today, as of today — I am not in favor of what I have learned about it.

For reference, CNN’s compiled 45 times Hillary Clinton said nice things about TPP — touting its as the “gold standard” of trade agreements and at times actively taking credit for its progress. And that list doesn’t even include the shout-out she gave the pact in her memoir:

Also, it seems as though Clinton’s campaign has settled on a party line with respect to reconciling her opposition to TPP with her husband’s ownership of NAFTA: It looked great on paper. This sorta-but-not-really concession allows her to say she’s learned from the negative side effects brought on by the agreement without admitting that the agreement itself was a mistake. This new agreement, though, definitely is. She knows better now. She’s a good progressive. Trust her.

And here’s the thing: It’s really too early to say for sure, one way or the other, whether the TPP is good or bad. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical, but the details of the deal haven’t been released to the public. So not only has Clinton turned a transparently political 180 on the TPP in an attempt to triangulate her way out of an attack from the progressive base, she’s done so before she could possibly claim to know if the bad parts of the deal are outweighed by any good that happens to be in there as well.

Not a good look.

Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

36 Responses to “Hillary Clinton comes out against the TPP?”

  1. RMGH says:

    Oh brother. I’m a democrat and a women. I’m even a local district leader in NY where Hillary served as Senator. I would dearly love to see a women in the Oval Office. But Hillary is totally insincere. Nailing her on issues is like pinning jello to a wall – impossible. She’s interested in power for the sake of power, not stewardship. We need a statesman (person) not a political hack.

  2. Zorba says:

    You know what? Everyone who has any kind of question or disagreement with Obama is not a racist. Everyone who has any kind of question or disagreement with Israel is not an anti-Semite.
    And everyone who has any kind of question or disagreement with Hillary Clinton is not anti-woman.
    Support her or don’t support her, but Hillary is a strong woman and doesn’t need you to come riding in on your white horse trying to defend her with specious arguments. She can take care of herself.

  3. Dan Thompson says:

    On 2nd thought, you might want to go with a prescription tranquilizer. Sorry about your issue. Hope good things happen for you. That is all.

  4. goulo says:

    Either your reading comprehension and reasoning skills are terrible, or you’re a troll.

    You come in and repeatedly call us “anti-woman” “woman haters”, and then you repeatedly assert that people are offended because of some disagreement about Clinton? Sheesh. Clueless or trolling. And you still give no response to the question why a bunch of “woman haters” support various other women.

    And get over yourself. Try some wine. Such excellent advice, thanks.

  5. Dan Thompson says:

    And I just need to remember that there are some people who criticize others even when they do something they approve of. Get over yourself. Everyone who disagrees with you isn’t a troll. Try some wine.

  6. goulo says:

    No, I just need to remember next time that it’s pointless talking to you, since you merely troll and accuse people of “woman hating” with no evidence, and you refuse to answer questions or back up your nonsensical claims, and you are apparently unable to imagine that people might have objections to Hillary Clinton that are not motivated by her being a woman.

  7. Dan Thompson says:

    You need a chill pill.

  8. goulo says:

    Man, you are really disingenuous. I don’t take offense at disagreement.

    I’m surprised you think you can casually accuse me of being an “anti-woman” “woman hater”, and that this wouldn’t offend me, though.

    And of course I accept that there are those like you who think she would be an excellent president. Why wouldn’t I? Did I ever say otherwise? I also accept that you support her without accusing you of supporting her only because she’s a woman, unlike you, who are unwilling to reciprocate the courtesy and accept that there are those who don’t think she’s be a good president. Instead you repeatedly insist that the only explanation must be that we are “anti-woman” “woman haters”. Quite hypocritical of you.

    I would appreciate it if instead of making up outrageous bullshit about the motives of people you don’t even know, you would actually answer the questions which you keep ignoring.

    How do you explain that “woman haters” support other women politicians, including presidential candidate Jill Stein?

    And do you similarly think that anyone who criticizes Obama is a racist black hater? Do you notice the similarity with your assertions about the motives of people who criticize Hillary Clinton?

  9. nicho says:

    Well, it turns out that the Chinese, Russians, and assorted other characters were rooting around in her email servers for three months. So, I’m sure we’ll find out more about her shenanigans.

  10. Dan Thompson says:

    Sorry that you take offense at disagreement. I’ve just seen too much irrational hatred of Ms Clinton, much of it from the left, to think much of it has any cause except that they just don’t like her. You’ll just have to accept that there are those, like me, who think she will make an excellent executive.

  11. Bill_Perdue says:

    I think they were typical of the racism of many liberals.

    Here, from Counterpunch is another example of liberal racism written with a kick. “Bernie Sanders’ Top Five Race Problems: The Unbearable Whiteness of Nominal Nordic Socialism” http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie_sanders_five_race_problems

  12. Bill_Perdue says:

    Democrats are always evolving in terms of that fakery they use to hide their racist, pro-war, union busting agendas but always devolving in terms of their real politics. Over time they become more, not less, reactionary. Obama and the Clintons, for instance, are to the right of where Nixon was on the environment, entitlements and unions. Their biggest similarity was on the question of wars. The left – composed of the US civilian and military anti-war movement, the international anti-war movement and the the Vietnamese themselves – kicked the Americans out of Vietnam. That hasn’t happened yet in the Mideast.

    Republicans are much more open and honest about being reactionary than Democrats and and they don’t bother to do as much rebranding.

  13. goulo says:

    What? Are you not a regular reader here or what?

    You’re off in your own evidence-free hallucinatory dreamland if you think this site is not harshly criticizing the Republican candidates more than Hillary Clinton. Look over the last few dozen posts and count how many are about Clinton and how many are about Republicans.

    I think you’re right that Bernie Sanders is indeed more popular at this site. (I don’t know of any other Democrat male or female running for president this time who’s gotten any attention here.) But if you think this is because Sanders is male and Clinton is female, I don’t know what to say, other than that it seems like you’re either grasping at straws or trolling. You’ve presented NO evidence or argument for it; you just assert that the “extreme left” “hates women” (which is a pretty bizarre [sic] assertion, considering leftwingers are generally more interested in supporting women’s rights like abortion rights, ERA, etc than rightwingers).

    It’s pretty obvious to me that if the sexes of Clinton and Sanders were reversed, Clinton would STILL be getting more criticism because of things Clinton has DONE than Sanders. Have you actually read the content of the criticisms, or do you just automatically think “They are criticizing Clinton – clearly it is because They Hate Women!”…?

    Are you one of those people who similarly says anyone who criticizes Obama for anything, e.g. drone killings, NSA surveillance, Guantanamo still functioning, etc, must be a racist who hates black people? Your rhetoric about Clinton is the same principle.

    And you’re still sidestepping the question of why many “extreme left” people support OTHER women, including voting for Jill Stein for president. Why would “women-haters” vote for a woman like Jill Stein for president, if women-hating is the reason they oppose Clinton for president?

  14. Dan Thompson says:

    It’s not socially acceptable to publicly put down candidates because they are female, so not even the cretins on the right do that. What is bazaar is the reaction of people on the extreme left who are far more critical of Ms Clinton than they are of Republicans. Find any Democratic male running for office who is subjected to the vitriol that is thrown at Ms Clinton and you might have a point. Good luck.

  15. 2karmanot says:

    Hilary is evolving….that is, until elected.

  16. nicho says:

    Obama still has a score to settle from her crypto-racist attacks in 2008.

  17. nicho says:

    That’s because on any issue she both does and doesn’t. She hems, haws, hedges. Even this statement today is fraught with escape clauses. “As of today,” “based on what I know.” As someone else said elsewhere — Hillary has more positions than the Kama Sutra.

  18. nicho says:

    Clinton was actually a rather mediocre senator — and a disaster as SecState, despite her ghost-written hagiography.

  19. nicho says:

    Woman haters? Ah — the stench of desperation from the faltering Clinton campaign.

  20. goulo says:

    What “anti-women propaganda” are you talking about? Can you actually cite anything from this blog which is bashing Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman? As far as I can tell, this is simply some bizarre delusion on your part.

    And you totally sidestepped the question of why this site does not bash all women; if it’s so “anti-women”, why is that? You seem to be now suggesting that the “women hating” only applies when the woman is running for president ….? That doesn’t hold water, since various posters at this site voted for Jill Stein for president in 2012.

    Please provide evidence that any criticism of Hillary Clinton here is motivated by “woman-hating” among the “extreme left”.

  21. Dan Thompson says:

    Like Warren, Clinton was an extremely popular senator from a northeastern state, a state where they take a more progressive attitude towards women and are less susceptible to anti-women propaganda. When Warren runs for president, let me know how that works out.

  22. Indigo says:


  23. Rachael Ridlon says:

    Work at Home~Follow this guide to make $97/hour…I just purchased themselves a McLaren F1 when I got my check for $19993 this past 4 weeks and just over 17 thousand lass month . this is really the nicest-work Ive had . I began this 10-months ago and straight away started making more than $97… p/h .learn the facts here now .
    ➤➤➤➤ http://GoogleCyberTechHomeJobsEmploymentCaptain/get/chance/top…. ✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱

  24. goulo says:

    I doubt that premise (that she’d be criticized for anything and everything that she does) in the first place.

    But supposing it’s true, do you seriously think the “extreme left” criticizes her because they hate women? You sincerely think that if Hilary’s history were exactly what it is, except that she were male instead of female, that none of these criticisms would be raised?

    And if the “extreme left” “hates women”, why did so many support e.g. Elizabeth Warren? (You can find various positive articles about her at americablog.com.)

    You’re really grasping at straws and stooping to absurd insult by saying that left-wing criticism of Hilary is motivated by “hating women”.

  25. Dan Thompson says:

    She’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. Pick an issue. Same story. There is absolutely nothing she could do or say that wouldn’t be criticized by those on the extreme left.

  26. goulo says:

    “woman haters”? Seriously? Sheesh. Your comment is ridiculous.
    As if americablog has never pointed out the hypocrisy of any male politicians?

  27. trinu says:

    That’s right, all this criticism must be because she has a vagina. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that she was Secretary of State for a good chunk of the negotiotiations and therefore played a key role in shaping the deal. That’s why everyone here has questioned Elizabeth Warren’s sincerety in opposing the deal.

  28. Dan Thompson says:

    There is no position or time to take a position that will satisfy all the woman haters who criticize her endlessly when they darn well wouldn’t treat a man the same way. Just call her a b*tch and get it over with, then we don’t have to play word games.

  29. trinu says:

    He pollsters almost certainly told her how dangerous it would be NOT to take a stand against it. Hillary is corrupt and dishonest, not stupid.

  30. nicho says:

    The big problem is that she takes a stand only when it’s safe – when her pollsters, handlers, and focus groups tell her it’s OK. Hillary — always a day late and a dollar short. We need a leader, not a follower.

  31. FLL says:

    Your post has a good compilation of Hillary’s past support of TPP, Jon. We need to be able to refer to that during the coming year… you know… just in case Hillary implies that she is less hypocritical and pandering than other candidates.

  32. Dan Thompson says:

    Or………..maybe she just changed her opinion of the agreement and made it public. Yeah, that’s the simpler possibility of the two. Even when she does something people want done, she gets criticized by those same people. After a while, it’s apparent who has the real problem.

  33. BeccaM says:

    Maybe Clinton keyed in on the currency manipulation, but the bigger problem was the loss of national sovereignty in the favor of multi-national corporations being able to bring lawsuits against any legislation deemed to negatively impact their profits.

    This included environmental protections, consumer protections, and more. Plus, as usual, it was guaranteed to transfer still more jobs away from the U.S. — and it wasn’t due to currency manipulation.

  34. nicho says:

    Next: Hillary takes bold stand, opposes slavery.

  35. Indigo says:

    Somebody finally pushed the controversy button.This is going to be fun.

  36. Bill_Perdue says:

    This means a deeper rift and more fighting between the Obama regime and the Clinton Klan. How far will Obama go to get a bit of revenge. Stay tuned as the stomach turns.

    As for BS his response is based on the massive rejection of TPP by the left. As Democrats, he and HRH HRC are free to join genuine leftists in opposing TPP.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS