As Clinton kicks off her 2016 presidential run, she has made her trade policies known without the need to say a word
This past Saturday, in her first major speech to kick off her 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton called for a new era of shared prosperity in America and told thousands at a presidential campaign rally Saturday that workers can trust her to fight for them.
No surprise really, it’s a message every Democratic candidate must convey in order to have a shot at the big prize. She did a great job of explaining what the economic problems are, but said nothing about how she would fix it. As with most candidates, it’s hard to trust anyone when speeches are inconclusive and answers are not forthcoming.
It’s clear from her past that when it comes to foreign policy, the former first lady and secretary of state had a bit of a hawkish stance when it came to Iraq and Libya. On the other hand, Clinton’s history on domestic policy is a little more confusing.
We all remember her bold attempt to bring universal healthcare to the United States during her first term as First Lady. Admirable to be sure, but it was soon followed by years of her husband gutting welfare and deregulating Wall Street. This is not to say Hillary would follow in Bill’s footsteps, however she has still made no indication that she would not.
For instance, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), along with the TTIP and Tisa, will drive economic policy for years to come. These trade deals are essentially written by corporations for corporations. Depending which side of the fence you stand on in this matter, it exposes the truth of whether a politician truly supports workers or the corporate interests that get them elected.
So far Hillary Clinton has refused to answer the TPP question or the fast track authority Obama has tried and failed to pass through Congress. For a democrat who’s trying to shed her “Wall Street’s Girl” image, she’s doing a lousy job.
Clinton stated yesterday that “the president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with Nancy Pelosi.” Clinton still danced around the questions, but at least she called for more transparency “so the American people can actually see what will be in a finalized deal.” So far Clinton has only said she would vote in favor of any trade deal deemed to be good for American workers (which was supposed to be all of them to date).
By refusing to answer the questions outright, she still providing us with answers. What did you think when Gov. Scott Walker refused to answer whether he believes in evolution? How about when Republicans refuse to answer whether they believe man-made climate change is real? I have to ask why would you cop-out unless you’re hiding something? Perhaps the answers vary depending on who’s asking the questions.
“I frankly don’t understand how you could be a major candidate for president of the United States – Hillary Clinton, or anybody else – and not have an opinion on that issue,” – Bernie Sanders.
Sarcasm aside, Bernie is right. It’s clear Clinton doesn’t want to bite the Wall Street hands that feed her just yet. Even though the primaries don’t officially get started for months, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would consider voting for a candidate who refuses to take an official stance out of fear of losing money or voters. It’s chicken shit politics at its best.
There are candidates out there (on both sides) unafraid to demonstrate where they stand and that leads to what I find frustrating most of all. You have Hillary Clinton, the democratic frontrunner with a mixed message keeping her mouth shut while the media begs her to speak. On the other hand you have a well-grounded candidate like Bernie Sanders whose policies have been well known for years, but his voice is still begging to be heard.
For better or worse, break the silence Hillary. You’re not fooling anyone.