Clinton Friend Admits What Everyone Knows Is True: Clinton Still Supports TPP & Will Back It

from the but-of-course dept

If you’ve followed the whole TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) thing at all, and/or the Presidential election this year, you probably already know that Hillary Clinton famously flip-flopped on TPP. She was for it, before she was against it (and tried to rewrite history to hide her support of it). Of course, basically everyone recognized that her newfound concerns about TPP were made up, as a response to (at the time) surging support for Bernie Sanders, who was vocally against the agreement. But, of course, as tons of people have been saying all along, everyone expects that after the election she’ll magically flip flop back to supporting TPP.

But, of course, because we’re doing this big elaborate stage play called an election, no one’s supposed to admit that’s what’s happening. Someone apparently forgot to tell that to Terry McAuliffe, current Virginia governor and long term best buddies with the Clintons. On Tuesday, he said what everyone already knows: Clinton will absolutely support the TPP after the election:

?I worry that if we don?t do TPP, at some point China?s going to break the rules — but Hillary understands this,? he said in an interview after his speech on the main stage at the Democratic National Convention. ?Once the election?s over, and we sit down on trade, people understand a couple things we want to fix on it but going forward we got to build a global economy.?

Pressed on whether Clinton would turn around and support the trade deal she opposed during the heat of the primary fight against Bernie Sanders, McAuliffe said: ?Yes. Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wants fixed.?

And, of course, her Vice Presidential pick Tim Kaine did an even faster flip flop. Last Thursday, before he was announced as the running mate, he spoke out in support of TPP.

“I am having discussions with a lot of groups around Virginia about the treaty itself. I see much in it to like,? Kaine said Thursday during a series of roundtable events in suburban northern Virginia. ?I think it’s an upgrade of labor standards, I think it’s an upgrade of environmental standards. I think it’s an upgrade of intellectual property protections.”

The very next day he was named the VP pick, and suddenly he’s against TPP:

Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s running mate, has gone on record saying he cannot support the Trans-Pacific Partnership in its current form? a stance calculated to make him more appealing to supporters of Bernie Sanders who revile the deal.

Kaine spokeswoman Amy Dudley said Saturday that the Virginia Democrat shared his negative views on the trade deal with Clinton this week, confirming a report by The Washington Post. ?He agreed with her judgment that it fell short? when it came to protecting wages and national security, a Clinton aide reportedly told the newspaper.

Of course, now that McAuliffe blabbed the not-very-secret strategy of the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates flat out lying… the Clinton campaign went into damage control mode and insisted “nuh-uh, she really is against TPP.” They trotted out an “adviser,” Gene Sperling to insist there’s no flip flop planned:

?What she has said is she is against it now, she is against in the lame duck and she?s against it afterwards, and I do believe that when she starts her administration, she is going to want to be focused on unifying Democrats,? he said.

Then, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta also stepped up to insist that Clinton would not flip flop after the election:

Keep those links handy, folks, because after the election they may be useful. I’m posting that Podesta tweet as a screenshot, in case it magically disappears from Twitter…

Of course, the truly amazing thing here? For the longest time, it’s been the Republicans who were the driving force on agreements like the TPP, and there was only pressure on getting enough Democrats to support those agreements. Now we have a Republican Presidential candidate who seems to be vehemently against the TPP (though for thoroughly clueless reasons) and a Democratic Presidential candidate who is secretly supporting it. This election season is topsy turvy.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Clinton Friend Admits What Everyone Knows Is True: Clinton Still Supports TPP & Will Back It”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

"Elephant? What elephant? I don't see any elephants in this room."

“Yes. Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wants fixed.”

Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s running mate, has gone on record saying he cannot support the Trans-Pacific Partnership in its current form— a stance calculated to make him more appealing to supporters of Bernie Sanders who revile the deal.

It’s a good thing that nothing like, oh I dunno, let’s call it ‘Fast Track Authority’ is in place making it so that ‘trade’ deals like this are essentially given ‘Take it or leave it’ status for the next few years(at least), making any tweaks or changes impossible, and all those ‘worries’ about parts of them utterly meaningless.

Worries about pieces are meaningless unless those worries are enough to torpedo the entire thing, which I really doubt is the case, so this is nothing more than dishonestly trying to have it both ways, appearing to care about the concerns of those against the ‘trade’ deals while knowing full well the lip service given to those concerns are ultimately completely empty.

MakeItATreatyOrNoDeal says:

Corporate Activism vs State Sponsered Treaties

If the content of the TPP were as good and acceptable for trade, why doesn’t it rise to the level of a formal treaty?

That right there folks…

If it’s not good enough for government treaties, it’s not good for the public. Period. Full stop.

If it’s not good enough for congress let alone the public from every country it effects to read, then it’s not worth the ink used to print it. Period. Full Stop.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."

…for extremely huge values of enough.

If a miraculous and amazing number of people voted for a third party, you could get about a quarter to a third of the votes, and spoil the election for the Democrats…

…putting Trump in office, of course.

Wendy Cockcroft (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."

Or you could spoil the election for Trump, putting Hillary in office. People are so concerned about keeping Tweedledumber out they’re prepared to let Tweedledumb in.

Why not vote third party? Chances are, either one of Bad or Worse will get in, but shouldn’t we be sending a message to the powers that be?

Oh wait, Trump is the message to the powers that be, the result of years of “Better Kang than Kodos.” If President Trump is the only way to break this vicious cycle, bring him on.

Almost Anonymous (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."

“Oh wait, Trump is the message to the powers that be, the result of years of “Better Kang than Kodos.” If President Trump is the only way to break this vicious cycle, bring him on.”

Do you like nuclear holocaust? Because that’s how you get nuclear holocaust.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."

  1. i am betting dollars to donut holes that u
    we have a much higher chance of nukes flying under cliton than t-rump…
    2. BECAUSE of the non-stop t-rump bashing AND concomittant cliton lionization, i am considering voting for him SOLELY to piss off the people who claim i ‘owe’ MY vote to who THEY claim is the lesser of two evils, but who i consider to be a lessor of true eee-vil…
    3. but i will probably do what i did last election and write in ed snowden and chelsea manning, far more qualified by sheer dint of actually posessing a functioning moral compass…
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Nukes

Hillary Clinton may be a crook and an imbecile when it comes to technology, but she’s pragmatic. She’s not going to nuke anyone because she’ll actually listen to the military advisors why we don’t nuke people.

In fact, years being Secretary of State, she probably understands.

Trump on the other hand is an unstable volcano, and when he decides that he needs retribution, he just wants the biggest club with which to do it. So not only do I think he’s going to nuke someone, but he’s going to nuke a nation over a slight by one of its officials. Trump is not one for proportional response.

And if he doesn’t nuke someone, it’s pretty certain he’s going to send our nation to war over petty bullshit.

And this is not getting into his policy when he’s not wanting to work off some aggression. Either he’s going to build a wall, halt immigration and intern Muslim Americans, or he’s going to delegate to Pence, which is going to give us another extreme-Conservative Bush era.

Clinton will respond the way presidents typically respond, which is to mass public outcry, or legislative obstruction. Sadly, she’ll still let the CIA torture people and bomb Afghani civilians. She’ll still let the police murder people with impunity and route minorities into prisons. And she will still overclassify and torture / imprison whistleblowers until they snap and rot.

But she won’t nuke anyone.

And I totally can’t say the same thing for Trump.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Nukes

There is basically no oversight outside the military for launching nuclear weapons. So if we elect Trump, we’re relying on a narcissist world leader with the attention span of a kindergartener to keep his cool enough to not nuke anyone for at least four years. Or for the military to disobey an order from the commander in chief if he does decide to push the button. This ought to be enough to keep him out of office, but then there have been a lot of things that ought to have been enough to end his run.

aethercowboy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."

It’s funny, because when I tell my Republican friends my support of a Third Party Candidate(!) they say: “But then Clinton will win!”

And when I say the same to my Democrat friends, they say “But then Trump will win!”

It’s like Schrodinger’s Election.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Schrodinger's election

That’s exactly what it is. We won’t know who gets elected until we observe it, though not due to quantum indeterminacy but due to the chaos of large-scale social dynamics. No-one knows until after the fact who the lucky butterfly is that chooses between floods or drought.

Your friends seem to believe you’re going to vote as they do, either against Hillary (for the Republicans) or against Trump (for the Democrats).

By voting for a third party, you’re not voting against either, but that means that you’re not voting against the one you would have voted against, had you chosen to vote against one.

See how that works? We vote defensively in FPTP.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: What a choice...

When Trump talks about money sent to other countries, keep in mind that it’s often conditional: The money must be used to buy goods from American defense contractors. The American tax payers aren’t so much subsidizing other countries as they’re subsidizing politically connected American corporations.

Under those conditions, Trump’s promise that Mexico “will pay for the wall” is entirely realistic. Canada? Why not.

mjm1138 (profile) says:

Nice journalism Techdirt

Wow, apparently you now have special insight into “what everyone knows is true”, and special insight into the Clinton’s relationship with McAuliffe. No need to do any actual reporting at all! I doubt very much that Trump “opposes” TPP in any meaningful sense (as in, in the sense that he could tell you even one provision of the agreement). I’d say he’s far more likely to “flip” on it if elected. But yes, let’s trash Clinton because McAuliffe is an idiot.

Meanwhile, be sure to ignore the story of Trump requesting that a hostile foreign government commit cyber crimes against his political opponent. I guess that’s not your beat, eh?

Wendy Cockcroft (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re: Nice journalism Techdirt

I’ve found more useful, in-depth reporting here in TD on the issues that matter to me than anywhere else. I’m not exaggerating: on legislation, FTAs, copyright and IPR, and on freedom of speech issues Mike and the team do a great job of collating and explaining what’s happening in a way I can understand. Mashable is pretty good, CNet’s not too bad, Wired is okay and Ars Technica is good in places (when they’re not hosting ignorant op-eds in the name of being fair and balanced — don’t get me started!), but TD beats them all hands down, not just for the actual reporting but also for the informative comments section.

No, I don’t own shares in Techdirt and I’m not being paid to shill it, but I do love it. Techdirt is my go-to place for news and views about online life. So yeah, nice journalism, Techdirt. Keep up the great work. 🙂

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Someone struck a nerve

Do you have any actual argument for why he’s wrong beyond ‘McAuliffe is an idiot’, or is that it? She and her running mate were both for TPP before and then changed their mind, the latter almost literally overnight, and people are supposed to believe that they’re telling the truth now, when it’s most politically expedient to be against it, as opposed to before, when it wasn’t as likely to cost them votes?

Also I notice you didn’t spend any time at all mentioning all the other wrongdoing by every other politician on the planet, guess that’s ‘not your beat, eh?’ I mean come now, if you’re going to mention the actions/statements of one politician you have to bring up the actions and/or statements of all of them less you be accused of only focusing on one while ignoring the other(s), that’s just how it works, right?

I.T. Guy says:

Re: Nice journalism Techdirt

“I’d say he’s far more likely to “flip” on it if elected”
So… thats your ASSumption, correct? Did you do any actual reporting on that at all? Funny how the proven actions, i.e, flip-flopping you ignore while projecting your OPINION that Trump is “far more likely” to flip.

To set the record right he actually said:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said at a press conference in Doral, Florida, Wednesday morning after the second night of the Democratic convention. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens.”

LOL. It was a joke idiot.

orbitalinsertion (profile) says:

Re: Nice journalism Techdirt

We don’t “special insight”. We only need the long, long record on who has been pro-TPP. (And other, similar gems. And pro-fast track, and pro-secrecy, and completely misrepresenting what are in these “trade” deals…)

The article wasn’t about Trump. He was mentioned not even by name as sort of a comparative foil.

No one ignored here ignored the “DNC hack”. Maybe you ignored everything except this particular article. Which apparently shouldn’t exist, or be entirely uncritical of Clinton. This article is about it’s subject. It’s not a politically-motivated list of reasons to be anti-Clinton.

The facts suck, I know. But some of you Clinton supporters should check yourselves, you aren’t doing her any favors. (Not that every dog that’s been in this fight hasn’t had some truly awful supporters.)

Teamchaos (profile) says:

Re: Nice journalism Techdirt

You’re buying into the democrat’s spin that Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton’s emails. He was asking them to RELEASE the 30,000 deleted emails that they would have if they had hacked Clinton’s email. The FBI couldn’t even find those emails and, according to Clinton, they are mostly about yoga classes and weddings, there is really nothing to worry about if they release them.


Anonymous Coward says:

Obama & a Lameduck session is the real issue

The real issue right now with TPP getting passed against the will of the voters isn’t the next president. It’s Obama and the Lame duck session of congress.

There’s widespread belief, especially among TPP backers, that Obama will get congress to ram through passing TPP during the lame duck session (after congress doesn’t have to worry about the voters wrath for another 2 years), no matter what the results of the election.

ECA (profile) says:


I have a BIG question about TPP and All the rest of the TRADE AGREEMENTS..

What is in it for THOSE voting for it??
Really..What are they going to get for making it so that WE LOOSE our rights to Personal protections from Shoddy corp mentality?

They have already CUT quality back to the point you will need to RE-Purchase most products and devices every 5-10 years…and for many smaller devices, EVERY YEAR…

Some times I feel like a RICH person, being able/NEEDING a new car every 5 years..Just get the Old one paid off and TIME for a new car.

What has happened to the IDEA of Quality. We are paying like MOST of this stuff is WORTH SOMETHING.

That One Guy (profile) says:


‘Funny’ thing about elections and promises, once the former is over with there’s nothing stopping someone from completely ignoring the latter.

If she is in favor of TPP, as seems to be the case, the public will only find out for sure once it’s too late to change their vote and it reaches the point of ‘Roll over and take it’ vs ‘Mass protests in hopes that the politicians pay attention to the will of the public.’

Anonymous Coward says:

Hillary was against it, before she was for it

If people don’t realize by now that Hillary will do or say whatever she needs to do or say to get her way at any given moment, then there isn’t much hope for them. She will say whatever she has to say to get elected. Once elected she will become a tyrant.

She will not go after the rich because she has enriched herself to the tune of $150 million, most of which she got peddling influence while in the State Dept.

Andrew D. Todd (user link) says:

Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.

I think the only “religious” belief Hillary Clinton has, is in getting elected, and then getting re-elected. Beyond that, I suppose she has ambitions for Chelsea. Once Hilary understood that TPP could be a campaign issue, she dropped it like a hot potato, and scooted backwards, in the most undignified possible fashion. Once elected, she will continue to be governed by expediency. Politicians take bribes over issues they think are unimportant, things which they think are not campaign issues. In their world votes are more important than money, and translating money into votes is highly problematic. Even if Trump loses the election, the “Trumpers” are not going to go away. Hilary will always be trying to cajole them into supporting some measure or other, and TPP will be expendable. She is not going to waste energy trying to push through something which has been rejected by ninety percent of the voters.

One further point, Terry McAuliffe is himself highly expendable. As Prince Hal says to his old crony Falstaff, at the end of Henry IV: “Old man, I know thee not!” The “Friend of Hal” promptly finds himself in jail.

Hilary has been presenting herself mostly as the “Anti-Trump,” the one who is not crazy, the one who does not brag about her connections with foreign dictators, etc. However, in Hillary’s younger and more enthusiastic days, circa 1992, she liked to compare herself to Eleanor Roosevelt. Once she has disposed of Trump, I think she will pursue traditional Democratic objectives, such as National Health Insurance. To do that, she will need the votes of the Trumpers. Under the American system of checks and balances, you need something like 80% popular support to actually do anything. Beyond this kind of traditional policy, the big unavoidable problem is going to be what to do about the Mexicans. Mexico is much nearer than China, and cannot be dealt with at arm’s length.

The Republican Party has experienced a catastrophe of the same order that it experienced in 1932. The people who voted for Trump are not going to go back to voting for someone like Mitt Romney. One implication is that businessmen no longer have a political home. For some time, politicians will be acting on businessmen, and not the other way around. Politicians will be competing with each of the others to see who can push the businessmen around more. The spectacle of Democratic and Republican legislators bidding to denounce the drug monopolist Martin Skrelli was a portent of things to come. Intelligent businessmen will be scrambling to revamp their production processes, to become less reliant on imports or cheap labor. Of course, they will have to do this without raising prices. Those that succeed will have a competitive advantage, as trade barriers become more stringent.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.

Under the American system of checks and balances, you need something like 80% popular support to actually do anything.

You need the support of a majority of both houses of Congress (or sometimes a supermajority). The public doesn’t get any input between elections. Very few issues have 80% popular support, and I would guess most of those are not being acted upon because Congress isn’t interested (eg campaign finance reform, gun control).

Andrew D. Todd (user link) says:

Re: Re: Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.

Well, the electorate for the President (who can veto a law) is not quite the same as the electorate for the Senate, which, in turn, is not precisely the same as the electorate for the House of Representatives, which is not the same as the selection procedure for the Supreme Court (which can find a law unconstitutional). You have a requirement for four different kinds of majority, under different rules, and eighty percent of the underlying public is about right. If you want to be more precise, you could build a computer simulation model.

To take gun control, there are whole regions of the country whre having a gun is normal, where taxicab drivers and shopkeepers talk about getting their annual deer. You might get 90% for gun control in Berkeley, California, but that is not typical of the country as a whole. If you want federal gun control, you have to find a way to structure it in terms which makes sense to a deer hunter somewhere in Tennessee. Sucessful legislation is usually based around finding a compromise.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.

You have a requirement for four different kinds of majority, under different rules, and eighty percent of the underlying public is about right.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. To “do anything”, by which I assume you mean pass something into law, you need greater than 50% support in the Senate and House, and the President. The public has no say. So where does this 80% come from, or are you talking about something totally unrelated?

If you want federal gun control, you have to find a way to structure it in terms which makes sense to a deer hunter somewhere in Tennessee.

There are gun control measures, such as universal background checks, that are favored by a majority of the public, a majority of Republicans, and a majority of gun owners. Yet they cannot get through Congress. If Congress only cared about representing their constituents, this would not happen. Gun control is just one example, there are others where Congress will not act despite the will of the people.

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.

I think he’s saying that in order to have sufficient majorities for an issue in a sufficient mix of the Senate, the House, the Presidency (by way of the Presidential electorate), and the Supreme Court, the percentage of the total population which you need to have support that issue is probably around 80%.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.

That still sounds unlikely. Did the ACA have 80% public support? I don’t think it was even 50%. SOPA would have passed in the complete absence of any public support at all. It was only massive public outcry that defeated it. Saying that issues with around 80% public support get passed and those without don’t is an oversimplification at best, and flat out wrong at worst.

andrew longprong says:

Their reign of terror is over.

Crooked Traitorous Hitlery Clinton is never going to be President and in 2017 Crooked Hitlery, Mentally Insane, Nancy Pelosi, Susan Powers, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Barrack Osama as well as many other Criminally Traitorous treasonous war mongering murdering parasites in Washington as well as Congress responsible for destabilizing other countries and murdering millions of people in Will be prosecuted for their Crimes and Will Spend the rest of their life in Prison, Make no mistakes about it, its going to happen , they know it and they dread it and as soon as the American people understand it, more power to you.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Their reign of terror is over.

The problem with voting against Hillary is voting in Trump. And the problem with voting against Trump is voting in Hillary.

Trump is the one that’s planning on forcing the inner city to the work farms to do all the jobs that illegals are doing right now.

Or he may just force our prison population to do all that work for free and put our inner city kids straight from adolescence into prison.

We do that a lot already.

The steps to a holocaust are small and the gradient shallow. What frightens me is how little trump supporters care for Trump’s policies. This isn’t a send-a-message-to Washington vote. This is the guy in charge for at least four years.

speedy gonzalas says:

No ones listening.

America is now a country of liars and cowards, retard and mentally ill individuals ,welfare recipient, bums and nobodies of importance with a lack of a real education and the mentality of a stone vomit dribble and the corporate presstitute media reports it. Washington has Failed, The Presstitute Media has Failed, Their Shills have Failed, Their Propaganda has Failed, their agenda has failed, no one believes a word they say and no one watches or listens to their lies. All they have left is themselves,a small group of cowards who understand no one listens or views their lies and all they do is compete in a BS competition between themselves and in the end all they have done is paint a giant target on their back.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...