H/T to Watts Up With That for the image of the election season

One thing the Wikileaks emails from John Podesta clearly show is that Hillary takes positions to get elected. Outside her need to be POTUS, she has nothing but a facade for her “public face”, and nothing but greed for her “private face”.

Take TPP, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This globalist cash-cow will do to America what NAFTA did: move many good American jobs overseas and force us to by more foreign made goods. One of the hits on Clinton is that she is a closet TPP supporter and is only pretending to oppose it in order to get elected. That old two-faced thing again.

Trump has nailed her a few times about her flip-flops on NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement):

“She supported (the North American Free Trade Agreement), and she supported China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization — another one of her husband’s colossal mistakes. She supported the job-killing trade deal with South Korea. She supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

This is largely accurate, but it’s worth noting that Clinton no longer supports NAFTA or TPP, nor is it clear that the South Korean deal is a job-killer.

But did Clinton REALLY change her support? One email suggests any change in position is complete theatrics. Let’s break this down:

 On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, Nikki Budzinski  <nbudzinski@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:

Hi Robby and John

I participated in the strategy meeting today around TPP and opposition roll out. I wanted to share with you my additional thoughts coming out of this meeting. First, I’m very glad HRC has gotten to the oppose position, this will be very helpful with mobilization on the ground and support within labor during and after this primary.

The timing question for the roll out came up and I am wanted you to know I voiced my support for waiting for disclosure of the full document before HRC states her opposition on the issue. Here is my reasoning:

It is a year ago, as Clinton heads into the primaries. She has decided to opposed TPP, but there are some issues on when to come out of the closet (so to speak). It is in the discussion of these issues we discover Hillary really is not opposing TPP on any policy grounds.  She just needs some cover for her public face flip-flop:

1. Waiting until she can say she’s reviewed the language in the agreement is consistent with where her position has been and why she’s waited this long to weigh in. We don’t have the language yet or much documentation to fall back that she will be able to credibly say she reviewed and then therefore weighed in on. If she weighs in now, without viewing the document, some in labor might wonder why she didn’t just say she opposed earlier? (Sander’s polling, blah, blah,) It might make her position appear more political then what they’ll accuse her of anyways.

Emphasis mine. Right out of the gate we see her decision to oppose TPP was political, and her cover story (that she reviewed the language in the legislation and realized she could not support) is complete fiction. She clearly decided before the language was finalized or public.

So why is she “pretending” to have read this mythical language and now opposes TPP? Her campaign needs ignorant/naive labor to support her and vote for her:

2. It will not make a significant difference in capitalizing politically with labor if we do this tomorrow or three weeks from now, as long as we get to opposition.

Since I am not a Hillary fan, her lying through her teeth is no skin off my back. But if you are part of the labor unions, you should have your head examined if you think Hillary is serious on TPP!

Tags: 2016 Election, Clinton, TPP