Home | About | Donate

Does Clinton Really Oppose TPP? There Is A Test For That


Does Clinton Really Oppose TPP? There Is A Test For That

Dave Johnson

Many people have come to believe politicians say what they need to say to win, and then turn on them. If Hillary Clinton wants to win the Democratic nomination and inspire people to vote for her in the general election, she must find ways to overcome this voter skepticism.

There is one test that, if she passes it, could convince voters that Clinton is on their side. It involves what Clinton does over the next few months to prove that she meant it when she came out in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal a few weeks ago.


If Americans want change they are not going to find it in Hillary. She has always been a corporatist. Do you really think she is actually going to change? Bernie Sanders is consistent in his policies and we can count on him. We need to stop the TPP. It will destroy this country. #Flush the TPP and #Feel the Bern.
And do not accept excuses on why Bernie can't make it.
Tell the nonbelievers to inform 10 people and he can make it. Union leaders may be supporting HRC but the members are not. They can think for themselves.


Well Dave Johnson, none of this is going to happen. There will be no such action by Clinton. Certainly you understand this!

So, what's Plan B going to be?


Clinton would have never addressed TPP if Sanders had not forced her to. Her opposition to TPP solely focused on it "not being the gold standard agreement" it was when she was working on it, which means that a minor inconsequential tweak to TPP and it will magically re-enter gold standard territory and she will be promoting it as zealously as Obama is.

NAFTA, WTO and a host of other Clinton giveaways to corporations have furnished the Clintons an eight figure annual ($17 million in 2013 alone) corporate speaking fee income since 2001. Hillary will do nothing that harms that goose that lays the golden eggs.


The sad thing is that everyone I know who says they support Bernie Sanders also say that if he doesn't win the nomination, we have to vote for Hillary... because the alternative would be so much worse!


Next time you hear that line, request that they tell you exactly WHAT will be worse if Hillary was to lose the November election. Please let us know what they say since most of us really don't know.


The look captured in the accompanying photo of HC speaks volumes: condescending, smug, smarmy, and pseudo-patriotic...not unlike those of several opposing KlownKarKandidates. She speaks out of both sides of her mouth and will say what is needed to get what she (and her high dollar supporters) wants. Not trustworthy...look at her voting record in the Senate for instance.

Oh, she would not "pass the test on the TPP"...


It is a great shame that we live in a society where an article like this can be written and accepted.
An election that depends on the vagaries of some smarmy, oily candidate to believe in something or not, to mean it or not, to be able to be trusted or not, is not an election. It is a crapshoot or worse. The American way of electing politicians stinks to the core and this article shows why.
I have just published a book on Amazon called The Endgame of Politics which discusses a vastly superior way of handling elections. Get rid of them! Get rid of representatives. Technological progress has eliminated the need for representatives, the corrupt core of contemporary political life. Get behind a completely different way of running our society. Or do you think nothing can ever change because: (fill in the blank): 1. Bernie can't win so don't vote for him, 2. We can't change anything so why even try.


Hillary is not against the TPP. The TPP is one of her goals. Pay no attention to what she says.

I am to the point where I am ready to call their bluff and vote for a filthy Republican.

We will get perpetual war either way.


Dear Mr. Johnson,

You have answered your own question as posed in the title to your article, "Does Clinton Really Oppose the TPP? There is a Test for That."

Does she oppose the TPP? Clearly not. The first part of the test was given when negotiations began some years ago. Clinton supported it from the beginning and not only actively supported and promoted it with her words, but in her actions, which included giving preference to large multi-national corporations in resource deals over which the State Dept. held the sole power of approval. She declined to approve the Keystone Pipeline, but quietly approved so many thousands of miles of other pipeline deals for the oil and natural gas giants that the Keystone is now completely irrelevant to the industry. She furthermore supported Monsanto specifically while Sec. of State, going so far as to threaten the EU with sanctions if they refused to grant Monsanto access to agricultural resources within the EU. If you think this is irrelevant, I would remind you that companies like Monsanto and the fossil fuel corporations are the primary beneficiaries of the TPP and the TTIP. She failed part one of the test.

The second part of test was given when portions of the text were leaked about two years ago. At that point, several members of Congress began to speak out and certainly the alternative media was presenting the alarming details clearly. She chose not to comment, aside from her continued SUPPORT for this deal. She failed part two of the test.

The third part of the test was denunciation (or not) of Fast-tracking the trade authority. You yourself point out in this article that she failed to speak up during the Fast-track debate. ["Candidate Clinton was silent during the debate of 'fast track' trade promotion authority, which greased the skids to make the passage of TPP much easier..."] She failed part three of the test.

The fourth part of the test is currently taking place. You ask, "What is Clinton willing to actually do to stop TPP?" and "Will she actively and boldly lobby against TPP?" as though these were actions to be taken, or not, in some misty, distant future. In fact, there are specific guidelines in the Fast-track authority with regards to timing on the vote for approval of the TPP in Congress; the clock started ticking the moment the text was released to Congress and the public. Which, in case you miss my point, has already happened. Right now, the US trade negotiator is working with Congressional committees to prepare his list of which US laws will have to changed to conform to the TPP, should Congress approve the deal. Right now, Congress has a limited number of days to fully examine the text before their vote. Unless they decide to alter the guidelines and hold another vote on a new fast-track, it would appear that they have at most 90 days to consider the deal before voting on the TPP itself. If Clinton is going to speak up and "actively and boldly lobby against TPP", she needs to be doing it right now, not at some hypothetical future date. The day is NOW. She is not "boldly" or "actively" (or even half-heartedly) doing anything about it. She is currently, right this minute, failing part four of the test.

I understand that other events have (conveniently) over-shadowed talk about the TPP: ISIS, mass-shootings, Syria, etc. Media attention to these events do not, however, alter the fact that Congress is going to very soon be taking a vote on the trade deal. Clinton has no intention of speaking out robustly against the TPP in the meantime. I know this because she isn't doing so right now.

  • Teri

And may I add in passing that it is quite preposterous for you to refer to any of Hillary's ideas or positions as "progressive"? She is a neoliberal, disaster capitalist whose economic ideas to "help rebuild the middle class" consist of a few pathetic and meaningless tax alterations that affect pretty much nothing in reality. She doesn't even support a restoration of Glass-Steagall, for God's sake, which would be the most basic of beginnings. She wants a US-imposed no-fly zone over Syria and insists that the democratically elected al Assad must go; I can only assume that she didn't get enough blood-letting fun out of ruining Libya. She has already sworn her undying allegiance to Israel in every matter, should she become president, and the last I heard, Israel is a nation distinctly NOT the USA. We might want to consider how we'd feel about a prospective president swearing that s/he'd look out for Iran's interests above our own as a comparison.

In any case, I find the amount of space you devote in this article to how Clinton can sway and convince the voters to give her a shot at the White House to be a form of the false-choices politicking that we ought to be fighting rather than endorsing. The suggestion you are not so subtly making in the overall tone of your article, although you seem to be unaware of it, is that Clinton needs to make some more of those fake promises (i.e., lies) all politicians make in order to "convince the voters" (i.e., lie to them) that she will do things she has no intention of doing (i.e., she lied). Which, ironically, is exactly the sort of crass political maneuvering you so decry in your opening paragraphs. Hillary Clinton has been threatening Russia, China, and Iran for over six years. She giggled and made jokes about nuking Iran while Secretary of State. As far as this voter can discern, that is the only subject about which she has told the truth: I believe that she would invade or go to war with any or all of these countries and will do so at the earliest opportunity if elected president. Anything she says about any other subject is utter bullshit.


Absolutely superb take-down of Clinton, and of Johnson's absurd-even-if-sincere POV. Thanks for bringing your well-developed knowledge and analysis, and please share more.


I have a question about this, one which I would love to hear addressed directly to Sanders. Quite a number of voters, especially the young ones, have said that they will write his name on the ballot in the general election even if he has not won the primaries and is not the Democratic nominee. However, Sanders has said from the beginning of his campaign that should he lose the primary, he will support whomever the Democratic nominee is and that, furthermore, he would decline to run as an independent in that case. If he were elected in the general via write-in, would he be willing to serve? His repeated statements that he will support "the nominee" suggest otherwise. Has anyone specifically asked him this question? And if so, what was his answer?

I rather suspect that if Sanders loses the primary, he will announce that he does not want people writing his name in. But I'd like to know if anyone has asked him this yet.


HTC loves all trade pacts. You know that.

Go Bernie.


please, if Bernie doesn't get it, write him in or vote Stein.


Not around here. :O) we'll either write in Bernie or vote Jill, for the most part.