What HRC risks by supporting the TPP

[cali]

As she has maintained silence on the TPP and fast track, it's fair to assume, from her support in the past, that she still supports it. She has had ample opportunity since leaving the SD, to say that she does not. I suspect she is waiting until after the vote on the TPA, to comment.


HRC risks losing potential Union endorsements. She risks losing endorsements from groups like the Sierra Club. She risks alienating democratic activists, many of whom are strongly opposed to it. Most Unions will simply not endorse a candidate who supports the TPP. At best, they won't make an endorsement of anyone during the primaries, but they may endorse someone who is against it.

[Faryn Balyncd]

1. K and R

[MannyGoldstein]

2. "Who the @#$% else ya gonna vote for, chumps?!"

The Third-Way battle cry.

She'll mumble something about it being not quite the agreement she'd like to see.

[cali]

4. I don't think that will cut it with Unions or some influential environmental groups

You and I don't agree on a lot, but I think her response will be similar to what you suggest- that and promises to improve it.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. I may be wrong, but I suspect that we agree on most issues

I think it's more a matter of style.

[BKH70041]

5. And if they did, why not?

"If Hillary is the nominee, we will vote for her; slow decline is preferable to quick decline."

I got this quote from another forum written by someone you know very well. A vote is a vote, whether you like casting it or not.

[TDale313]

8. Unions provide a lot more than just their individual members' votes

Often they provide logistical support, volunteers, and donations for campaigns. If you think they'll get anywhere near the support for a candidate who supports this as they would for one who doesn't, you're just wrong.

[BKH70041]

9. And risk the greater evil winning?

My, wouldn't that be something.

[Faryn Balyncd]

3. CWA: The Fast Track bill introduced yesterday fails all the tests Sen Wyden said were critical:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026523441


You are absolutely correct that union members will be alienated.

[morningfog]

6. She'll let us in on her position when the wind stops blosing and the dust settles.

And the issue has been focus-grouped.

[Orsino]

7. All of us. She's risking all of us. n/t

[rhett o rick]

10. I think she has already made her decision on whether she sides with unions or Goldman-Sachs.

[nationalize the fed]

11. Wall Street is where the money is

The traitors that passed the other "free trade" agreements like NAFTA knew that selling out US manufacturing would cripple unions, but they did it anyway.

So both parties go to Wall street for their money fix. Lip service to Unions-but they've been gutted.

We all might get a circus act where the TPP passes by 60 or 61 (like the heritage foundation insurance scam) but pass it will. Because DC gets what it wants. And it no longer cares about Unions- because there's no more manufacturing. It was brilliant- for the 1%.

[dirtydickcheney]

12. I keep saying and will continue to say....

She's not going to win the presidency and the Democratic Party needs to nominate a true Democrat if they want to win the Presidency in 2016.

When the voting choice is Republican vs. Republican-Lite always results in the true Republican winning.

Nominate accordingly.

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. I keep saying and will continue to say...

Oh yes she will!

[cali]

14. Back to the subject of the OP

Unions like the AFL-CIO will not endorse her in the primaries if she continues supporting the TPP.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. But she can expect more big money from the corporations if she endorses it.

While saying that she wants campaign finance reform.

[cali]

16. Yeah, but she'll take a hit if Unions endorse a challenger

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. As well she should.

What I'm expecting from her is a lot of coyness. Like, "It has its faults but we can fix them as we enjoy the benefits."

Call me cynical.

[cascadiance]

19. Speaking against it now is a RARE opportunity to show action to back up one's words...

... when people lately have been so used to having people not live up to what they are saying they'd do in their campaigns that has lead to so much disappointment when elected politicians turn their backs on what they've promised the electorate they'd do.

If she's speak up now if she truly stands with so many of us that don't want this and by doing so helped lead the charge in getting it voted down, that would show ACTIONS that we could support and encourage many of us to believe that she might have had a true change of heart to lead our country in to a newer direction it needs instead of what her family and so many other corporate influenced democrats and republicans have been doing in recent years.

She's wasting it as far as I'm concerned. She had a great opportunity with the timing of her announcement and the timing of this fast track bill getting out of committee this week to take this *action* and she's chosen so far not to do so, which in effect provides ample proof that her actions DO NOT support her words, or that her words will not really be defining what she is going to do when elected president.