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.
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.