HuffPo is reporting that Hillary Clinton spoke about TPP with the press today, which should lessen the concerns many here have had about her not expressing an opinion on the controversial trade deal.
Unsurprisingly, she has concerns about it.
And also as expected, she hasn't seen the whole treaty and doesn't want to comment on it until she reviews the final deal.
Since it is currently illegal for Clinton to see drafts of the agreement, her comments suggest she will not be weighing in on trade policy until well after Congress has decided whether to grant Obama powers to expedite its passage. Although Clinton helped craft parts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership during her tenure as secretary of state, the extreme secrecy conditions Obama has imposed on the pact with 11 other nations bar her from viewing it.
One of many objections Democrats (including Hillary) have to the trade deal is something called "Investor State Dispute Settlements" which allow foreign corporations to challenge domestic laws (over labor, environment, etc).
As Hillary said in her book, Hard Choices:
We should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia.
The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors."
Clinton told reporters in New Hampshire that she's worried the standards will not be tough enough or enforceable, and that other provisions need to be reviewed:
I have concerns about currency manipulation, which has been a big problem in the impact our companies and workers. I have concerns about the investor settlement dispute mechanism allowing them to challenge health and environmental and labor provisions."
Clinton's objections are the same ones that Bernie Sanders has had, the same ones that most Democrats have had.
For those who would like to dig deeper on her trade votes as Senator, the best place I've found is surprisingly, the Cato Institute, which rates her as an "interventionist", IOW, she doesn't support "free trade".
http://www.cato.org/...