Hillary Clinton began a meandering 4-minute section of her already worn out stump speech with the following words:
“There’s a lot of discussion right now about the potential Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, and I want to tell you what I think needs to be in that agreement…”
Clinton then spent the next four minutes talking in vague generalities about a trade deal that she advocated for when she served as Secretary of State. To wit:
“Now here’s what I think should happen now: in order to get a deal that meets these high standards, the President should listen to and work with his allies in congress, starting with Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns about the impact a weak agreement would have on our workers, to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible. And if we don’t get it, there should be no deal.”
That’s a lot of words that basically can be summed up as: President Obama should work hard to pass a good trade deal.
What exactly motivated Clinton’s speech writers to claim she was going to tell us what she thinks should be in the agreement when she delivered no plan at all?