Hillary Clinton may
have set a new standard in transparency this week – meaning her transparent
attempt to pander to the left-wing of her party.
Clinton’s announced
opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement may score her
some points with pro-labor progressives but, given her outspoken support for
TPP in the past, the former secretary of state suffered a huge setback in the
area that dogs her campaign the most – whether she is genuine and truthful.
are taking a ride in the rumble seat while she flirts with Bernie Sanders
supporters who are driving her campaign motivations. In fact, this is a flip-flop of such magnitude that CNN has
compiled 45 instances from 2009-13 when Clinton spoke out in favor of the
emerging TPP.“… As members of the Obama administration can attest,
Clinton was one of the leading drivers of the TPP when Secretary of State,”
wrote CNN’s Jake Tapper.
TPP once was ‘gold standard’
Read” blog, they’re also pointing out the obvious:
“This flip-flop isn’t
believable at all. For starters, there was the time as secretary of state when
she said TPP ‘sets the gold standard in trade
agreements.’ In her book, “Hard Choices” (which she sent
out to all the GOP candidates this week), she called TPP ‘the signature economic pillar’
of the Obama administration’s strategy in Asia.
“… And because this
opposition is so unbelievable, it feeds every negative stereotype about her —
despite the short-term political benefits.”
Congress for the 12-nation trade agreement.
At Vox, they’re pointing out that Clinton’s flip, beyond the crassness
involved, doesn’t pass muster as a policy stand.
She
cited two specific objections to the TPP: It doesn’t have language dealing with
currency manipulation, and it has provisions that favor big drug companies over
patients.
Pro-pharma claim doesn’t fly
to Vox, “There are two ways that Clinton’s professed concern over an
excessively pro-pharma deal rings hollow. One is that — unlike currency
manipulation — this is an issue where Clinton speaking up earlier could have
made a difference in the negotiations. Instead, Clinton at the time carefully avoided addressing the substance of the TPP’s
drug provisions.
Second, the final version of the TPP wound up being less friendly to big
drug companies than the version US negotiators proposed. If Clinton was
concerned about the TPP being too friendly to big drug companies, the final
version should have made her more, not less, comfortable, than the ‘gold
standard’ version she once praised.”
As
for currency manipulation, that was never a serious subject of debate during
the negotiations because the 11 other nations involved suspected that the topic
would cause the entire agreement to collapse.
“Members
of Congress from across the political spectrum have urged the White House
to make currency manipulation an issue in the TPP
negotiations,” Vox reported.
“The Obama administration has flatly
refused these requests. And they’ve had a fairly persuasive argument, too:
Foreign governments won’t go for it. Countries around the world see control
over currency as a core part of national sovereignty. If the US had taken a
hard line on the issue, it likely would have simply derailed the negotiations.”
