By RaeLynn Ricarte: Should it really come as any surprise that Hillary Clinton changed her stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal — and then tried to downplay her level of involvement as secretary of state?
After all, she told moderator Anderson Cooper during last week’s debate for Democratic presidential candidates that her views are “rooted in her values and experience.”
Let’s take a look at that background, shall we?
After supporting the trade deal that she helped negotiate as Secretary and referred to as the “gold standard” dozens of times, Clinton is now trying to curry favor with labor unions in opposition so she’s against it.
One of her stated reasons for the change of mind makes no sense. She has expressed worry there are not enough safeguards against “currency manipulation,” even though these provisions were in place when she originally gave the agreement strong praise.
But that’s only the icing on the cake for a woman who will say and do anything to be in a position of power.
In 2008, when it was in her best political interests, Clinton was against federal “blanket rules” on guns. This week she admitted at a New Hampshire town hall that gun confiscation was “worth looking into.”
For those who haven’t yet heard that news, Clinton was asked by a voter: “Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away, tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. In one year they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?”
Clinton replied that it should be considered on the national level, “if that could be arranged.”
And that, folks, is why NRA members and legal gun owners fight any move to pare back their Second Amendment rights. They know what the real agenda of gun control advocates is and they fear where it will lead.
Clinton originally thought the undercover videos of Planned Parenthood staffers discussing the sale of baby organs were “disturbing” (actually, illegal is a word that comes to mind). However, within 48 hours, she was a stalwart defender of the tactics employed by the nation’s largest abortion provider and against any type of an investigation.
And then there is the tap dance that Clinton has been doing around use of a private email server to conduct classified business as secretary. She has also been less than forthcoming about her role (I’m being nice) in the Benghazi disaster that left four Americans dead and the lie she spread that the attack was caused by “inflammatory (anti-Muslim) material posted on the Internet.”
When the truth came out later that Islamic militants had launched the attack against the Libyan embassy, and Clinton was pressed to explain her lie, she became exasperated enough to say: “What difference does it make?”
Probably not much to a person who has spent most of her political life fighting one corruption scandal after another.
By Mark B. Gibson: That Hillary Clinton would suddenly — arbitrarily — flip her stand on the Tran-Pacific Partnership trade deal is no surprise, despite the fact that she helped negotiate the deal as secretary of state and frequently praised it as a “gold standard” among trade deals.
Presidential candidate Clinton wants to win the Democrat primary, and bashing the deal will get her more votes.
Since she isn't in Congress, and she isn't the president, she can hold buckle-and-thong to her new stand and being unable to vote or sign the deal, her opposition today is meaningless.
Why not flip, and pick up votes among the labor Democrats? What does surprise me is that her “flip” is unlikely to lead to a “flop.”
Are voters in the Democratic Party truly foolish enough to take her “flip” as a principled stand against trade agreements and reward her with their votes?
Given that “flip flopping” is a long-time — and successful — practice for both parties, the likely answer to the above question is “Yes.” I'm not sure what it says about voters, but it certainly paints politics in a poor light.
Perhaps the problem is, as noted at the start of this Crosstalk, her statement that her views on issues are “rooted in her values and experience.” It's a common statement and has been front and center since Newt Gingrich ushered in his new Congress way back when I was a kid.
Personal values — as opposed to character traits — are a poor thing on which to base the selection of a president.
Clinton appears to set much greater personal value on power and wealth than sticking to her belief in a “gold standard” trade deal.
She isn't the first, of course. Republicans have been riding “personal values” ever since Gingrich charged into Congress on the “moral majority” abortion horse, and have a whole herd of moral issues in their current stable: abortion, same-sex marriage, anti-immigration, religion. All make for great vote-getting issues.
None of which address what appears to me to be a rapidly approaching “perfect storm” of crisis here in the U.S., issues like not having a budget, not addressing long-term debt, the approaching failure of our Social Security system, increased internal displacement of the poor (we call it homelessness), hunger (we call it food insecurity), a crumbling infrastructure and increased drought, flooding and storms.
To get back to Clinton, if she were to read this article and take the national stage to declare her support for personal character, as opposed to personal values, I still wouldn't vote for her. (With the possible exception of a Clinton—Trump runoff... or maybe a Clinton—“Stuff happens” Bush runoff...)
No declaration of character is going to change my view of her. Her statement on values did have an element of truth, after all. Experience matters.
My experience with Clinton includes her flip- flop, and I hope she flops.
Commented