Hillary misrepresented her past support for the TPP during the debate

[markpkessinger]

In the debate last night, Hillary said:

You know, take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans.

No, Hillary, you said it was the gold standard, not that you "hoped it would become" the gold standard! From the transcript of Remarks at Technet Australia, November 12, 2012, found on the Department of State's website:

"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. "

Note the absence of any language about future hopes of what the TPP would become. Many of the most controversial aspects of the TPP were leaked in November of 2013. Now, is it possible that ALL of the controversial provisions were inserted between the time she left her job as Secretary of State on February 1, 2013, and the date on which Wikileaks obtained parts of a working draft of the document? Sure, it's possible. Almost anything is possible. But these are significant provisions we are talking about, so it isn't bloody likely! And note the vagary of her (now purported) objection: "it didn't meet my standards." What the hell does that mean? It tells us absolutely nothing about WHICH provisions she opposes and why -- and that is critically important information.

It just further erodes my capacity to trust her.

[JDPriestly]

1. K&R.

[thesquanderer]

2. Yeah, she fudged a few things.

But you know, that's Hillary.

Still, I wouldn't feel bad about voting for her in November if she's the nominee. As "typical politicians" go, she's still pretty good. I thought she did well last night overall.

Still voting for BS in the primary, though.

[Ino]

3. Lying is a sport to Hillary...

Here are a few other questionable stories from the debate...

...literally, President Obama and I were hunting for the Chinese, going throughout this huge convention center, because we knew we had to get them to agree to something. Because there will be no effective efforts against climate change unless China and India join with the rest of the world. They told us they'd left for the airport; we found out they were having a secret meeting. We marched up, we broke in, we said, "We've been looking all over for you. Let's sit down and talk about what we need to do."

I represented Wall Street, as a senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007 - before the big crash that we had - and I basically said, "cut it out! Quit foreclosing on homes! Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors." I took on the Bush administration for the same thing.

Both of these tales stink like dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia.

[retrowire]

7. "literally, President Obama and I were hunting for the Chinese"

that line is the gift that keeps on giving. I can't stop laughing at that phrasing. lmao

That said, I agree with your post as well.

This kind of bullshittery, this kind of sensationalism...

I don't want that in our next president.

[karynnj]

18. It is strange that she now disowns TPP, which she did work on, calls the disastrous Copenhagen

a success. I assume she hopes people will connect the 2015 pact with China with the agreement that she speaks of in 2009. In fact, here is a link to Mother Jones on how much a disappointment that summit was - http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/10/hillary-clinton-climate-change-debate-copenhagen At the end of Obama's first term, the common wisdom within the administration was that there was not likely to be much diplomatic opportunity because of how at odds China and other countries were with the US. If China could not be moved, there was little hope for Paris 2015 -- and Lima (this year) was a success only because of the US/China pact.

Though this was a success of Obama/Kerry and others in the second term - not HRC - it is true that Podesta, who is important in HRC's campaign was one of many people involved in pinning down details in that pact. Where that is important is that if Obama/Kerry/Todd Stern and anyone else who works on Paris 2015 succeed in making Paris 2015 the success that Copenhagen could have been, Clinton would have someone very good to continue this work in 2017 if she is elected. (Podesta is also credited with the plan that uses executive orders to address climate change domestically because passing anything through Congress was impossible.)

Where Al Gore and John Kerry both have decades long records on working against climate change, this was not an issue that interested Hillary Clinton anywhere near as much. Even in the debate, she refers to working on this since 2009! What she can claim are efforts that did matter like helping many impoverished people in countries like India get clean burning stoves - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/09/147488.htm This DOES help cut emissions directly while improving quality of life. This - not climate change diplomacy may be her real contribution and I really don't get why she did not use this wonderful program rather than the Copenhagen failure. (She has a hard time competing against O'Malley on inspiring on this issue - though as can be seen by O'Malley's numbers, this issue will not drive many voters.)

TPP, on the other hand, was the linchpin to her "tilt to Asia". This was clearly intended to be her shining accomplishment. It is interesting that it was former Senator Webb who spoke at least a few times of that effort -- arguing he was for it before Obama. It is ironic that - at least from some very cautious, before he knows the details comments, Paul Krugman has suggested that it might be significantly better than earlier trade deals. If that ends up being true, HRC may well by being against it kill the chances that a "better" trade bill passes - if the Republicans vote against it as not favorable enough to corporations - especially the drug companies.

The vote on the bill - I think happens in February 2016. Unfortunately right in the middle of the primary season. (This should be something seriously decided based on whether it improves the status quo or not -- not on politics. None of the candidates waited to understand the provisions before they all - following either long term positions or political considerations rejected it. )

[moondust]

4. Moreover,

45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes

[CorporatistNation]

5. Ask Madame Secretary...

Why Lori Wallach of Public Citizen knew EVERYTHING about the TPP, TPIP and she was somehow in the darkkk.... When she had been "pumping" what is really less a Trade Agreement and more a transition for the potential member nations to a CORPORATE constitutional form of government. It is laughable for the Secretary of State to feign contemplation when it is so palpable and raw that she is purely a "tool" who will never shy aware from the position that is most timely relative to being politically expedient and of direct benefit to enhancing her position. As a "principled" politician Hillary would on her best day never be capable of spelling the word much less adhering to its meaning.

[retrowire]

6. Tread lightly,

I was just accused of simple minded, black and white, right winger thought for not accepting her explanations as is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251682637

*facepalm*

[Bread and Circus]

12. I have noticed the circular self supported reasoning of the Hillary crowd here in DU

Step 1 convince yourself Hillary is presumptive nominee
Step 2 equate all criticisms of presumptive nominee with being pro Republican anti Democratic Party
Step 3 Rinse
Step 4 Repeat

Sadly it's a really manipulative way to stifle debate. It truncates any challenge to the presumptive nominee because any challenge is not just deemed a challenge to the nominee but the party itself.

The subtext to what I read here is "shut up about Hillary or you will hurt our chances in Novemeber 2016".

It's not an honest debate.

[retrowire]

13. yes, paid informants come to mind...

agents spread about to sow disinformation and discourage positive reform.

I never thought I'd sound so paranoid, but I've witnessed these things in truth.

the media trying to control the outcome of the debate against the peoples will and such...

this is exhausting stuff, but its extremely important.

[Jim Lane]

8. I really hope the media will press her on this.

"Comparing the version you praised back then with the version you condemn now, what was changed?"

As you say, it's possible that she can produce some kind of rational explanation. It is a very long and complex agreement, and the additional three years of negotiating presumably did effect some changes.

OTOH, if all she can say is along the lines of "11 years in the earlier draft was changed to 12 years in the final," then she's not going to have much credibility in asserting that it was changes in the agreement, rather than political expediency, that caused her to make a complete U-turn.

[TheKentuckian]

9. There will be little pressing unless she is the nominee

at which point it will look like she is playing Arkansas and Kentucky circa mid 90's one on 10.

[Jim Lane]

10. I'm usually cynical but maybe there's room for some optimism here.

Anderson Cooper's first question to her on Tuesday night was a decent exposition of the charge of political expediency against her.

True, getting into the details about the provisions of the TPP would require the media to dig deeper than they usually do. Still, both Sanders and O'Malley have made a lot of noise about trade issues (TPP and fast track). To some extent, the media respond to the agenda set by the candidates. In addition, Obama will be sending the proposal to Congress, so the issue will be attracting much more attention than it otherwise would. The timing isn't good for Clinton. This is an issue on which she's vulnerable, and the odds are that it will be a hot topic just as we're moving into the primary season.

[TheKentuckian]

15. Possibly

[Bread and Circus]

11. It's a lot easier to seem polished when you don't let the truth stand in your way.

I really mean that and not just in politics. The truth is often dirty and messy and complicated. It is often easier to come off as confident, smooth, and polished if you ignore the real truth and offer some alternate recount of circumstances that sounds better if you don't tell the truth.

I personally think this is one of Hillary Clintons and many many politicians keys to success is that they can ignore the truth very easily and say whatever sounds good at the time. Good politicians are often good liars. We all know that. Being slick is a good thing when it comes to politics because most people emotionally prefer an easy lie over an ugly truth.

[yallerdawg]

14. Do you know what "sets the gold standard" means?

"Gold standard" is a benchmark - "something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged."

From what she said at Techport Australia, "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," she is, in context, pointing out TPP has the highest standards ever proposed!

Her next sentence is this speech clarifies the status of TPP at the time, and what she expects from a finalized version: "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."

Followed by:

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.

Key words we could be focusing on:

"Respecting worker's rights."
"Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions."
"Build a strong middle class, not only here in Australia or in our country, but across Asia."
"Globalization, which is inevitable, can become a race to the top with rising standards of living and more
broadly shared prosperity."
"That is what I call jobs diplomacy, and that's what I've been focused on in part as Secretary of State."

What Hillary said at the debate is consistent with what she has said all along.

This is about trust. The relentless rightwing machine parsing out words to support a meme 3 decades old now, a character assassination which is appalling to find on a Democratic website.

We should know better. Some of us do.

[Divernan]

16. Excellent spin - she should have consulted w/you pre-debate.

Love to chat more but must dash. Have suddenly found myself under sniper fire!

INCOMING!

[markpkessinger]

17. When one is making a sales pitch . . .

. . . one emphasizes those aspects of the thing she is selling that she thinks will make it most appealing to her potential buyer, and de-emphasizes those aspects of it that the buyer might find less appealing.