that needs saying on the issue?

Now that she is running for office, just come out and say it. No more wishy washy.

Hillary is for health care reform in the form of the ACA. Bernie wants universal health care.
Hillary hasn't said a whole lot about student loans. Bernie wants Community Colleges and Technical Colleges to be free.
Hillary hasn't said a whole lot about prison reform. Bernie wants to end prisons for profit and not put non-violent drug offenders in prison to begin with.
Hillary didn't use her position as SOS to talk about the bloated MIC. Bernie has said that our MIC has taken up too many of our resources and that money should have been spent on domestic infrastructure.
Hillary talks about family values without real specifics. Bernie outlines areas where families are failed by the government and how they need more vacation time and more maternal and paternal leave.
There are a lot more ways, but these are the ones just off the top of my head.

For someone to say there is not much difference between Hillary and Bernie are seriously deluded.

Medicare for all single-payer health insurance, break up the big banks, restore consumer protections to student loans, tax Wall Street, lift the cap on the payroll tax to fund social security for a long time... etc.

Loads of differences.

If I change my mind and you agreed with me before I did then you automatically changed your mind too?

Rep. Pelosi and Pres. Obama worked together to get the best deal possible, exactly what Sec. Clinton wanted.

Even Sec. Clinton can't flip on this one without it being seen as a flip. She got exactly what she said she wanted.

Just more Bernie folks making up shit

but I just couldn't see a straight answer. And we know where she DID stand, airc she called the TPP the 'gold standard of trade agreements'. Apparently she changed her mind or she wouldn't have suggested what she did re Pelosi.

First, Hillary has been clear that she has supported some trade agreements and not others. She has clearly stated that she won't support a trade agreement that costs American jobs.

The only thing that has passed is fast track authority for the President to complete a trade agreement. That trade agreement is not finished yet. We all know there are issues (like world courts that supersede US law, countries with slave labor and no unions, currency manipulation, etc.). Now, the TPP that is presented may or may not fix those problems.

Yes, the President can still work with Pelosi (on anyone else) to fix, change, or add to the TPP before it is put up for a vote before the Congress. That vote has not happened yet.

It is a large and complex trade agreement. I personally like some parts of the agreement, and don't like other parts - and that's only the parts that have been leaked. We don't even know really what's in it, except for the rumors.

You may want to find out as much as we can about the proposed TPP. This was an interesting discussion, including one person who is in the room doing the authorship of the TPP:

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-06-16/what-the-proposed-pacific-trade-deal-could-mean-for-u-s-jobs

Bashing Hillary and casting aspersions that aren't true only create battles on DU without anyone changing their mind. If you don't like TPP - fine. Personally, I think Bernie's automatic opposition to the TPP is simplistic. Maybe we should tell Obama to have a more open process, and maybe fast track authority is a bad idea, but the final TPP is still unknown.

Meanwhile Pelosi voted for fast track partially as part of a deal to get training for displaced American workers (in theory, that was the promise). We'll see if it happens. Pelosi still has reservations about the TPP, and she still could vote against the final product.

Senate and with actual votes she voted for some and against others, notably against CAFTA. Her actual voting record is far better than Lincoln Chafee on trade, in terms of other candidates. In terms of current Democratic Senators, of the 13 who just voted for TPA, 6 were in office to vote on CAFTA and they all voted yes, as did Chafee as a Republican.

To spin it favorably to Hillary I would say she is highly demanding on trade agreements, selective and detail oriented. To put it less favorably I could say she wavers, tests the waters or something like that, but the entire stance that she's a Free Trade Warrior is just not factual. We have several of those in the Democratic Party and she's never been one.

It's a simple question. It's tiresome having to perpetually parse through her evasions to find some hint of her position. Why won't she just be forthright about it, one way or the other?

nothing is simple about a 1000 page trade agreement that isn't even finished. Some parts are bad, others may be good.

Hillary is giving the correct answer. She will see what the final agreement is, and support it or not if it's good for the US.

Obama thinks it's good. We all agree that we don't want to loose American jobs. There are other things in the TPP though.

For example, many drugs are produced overseas. Some have been poorly made. The TPP holds some drug manufacturers to higher quality standards. Of course, the generics may be fewer, but it's a compromise that may be good for the drugs in your corner drugstore.

There are LOTS of issues in the TPP besides American jobs vs. overseas jobs.

Demanding a "yes" or "no" is not an answer. Asking the Congress and President to negotiate a good agreement (which is what Hillary has done) is the answer.

That is forthright, it makes sense, and is simple.

union eg, were furious over the passage of fast track authority and were all over Social Media yesterday explaining what it will do to their profession.

All Democrats should have voted 'no' on this travesty. No Democracy should operate in secret, we don't know what's in it, yet these elected officials are supposed to represent US. They are handing over Congress' Constitutional duty to LEGISLATE on behalf of the people to the Executive Branch, a furthering of Bush's policy of the Unitary Executive, something we were screaming about when HE tried to Fast Track HIS trade bill in 2007.

Someone explain to me why anyone would have opposed it when Bush tried it, and why Dems defeated it then, but support it NOW.

I read the objections made by Dems re Bush's effort. I remember the outrage from Dems at the time. And the irony is, we were planning to WIN the WH at that time and had a pretty good chance, yet did not want Fast Tracking which would have given the powers to the Next President, Obama.

So what is different now? People flip flopping is confusing to me. Why was it bad then and tolerable now?

Did you listen to the radio interview including a person who is actually part of the authorship?

This trade agreement is 90% similar to the other 20 trade agreements in place now. Some people like the Korean agreement, others don't. How much has been in the media about the KTA? What was good, what was bad? The Korean agreement gets rid of tariffs so that more US goods can (in theory) be sold competitively in Asia. Did that work? I don't know since it started in 2012, but that's the kind of thing that might be good for the US since other countries put large tariffs on goods from the US. There is also a class of non-tariff barriers that cause problems. You have to look at details, not react to wild claims by paid shills.

You should read a few of the recent ones like Korea (not old ones like NAFTA):

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements

We all agree there are PARTS that have been LEAKED that unions and liberals are opposed to in the imaginary TPP. Most people question if "fast track" may be a bad idea. Of course, over the next year Obama is now free to negotiate something that the GOP hates and they can't stop him!!! All that Congress gets now is an up or down vote. No amendments. Would you rather Obama or Bush doing that negotiation?

Hillary has NEVER flip-flopped. She has always looked at the details of a particular trade agreement, decided if it was good or bad, and voted for or against it. It's not possible to know what will be in the final TPP now, but the objections have been voiced: World Court, currency manipulation, labor rights, etc. If Obama is smart, he will "fix" the TPP before it's presented to Congress or risk that it will be voted down!! What's so hard about that?

Hillary is taking an appropriate view - the US should negotiate the best deal they can get, and then vote on it when it's put on the table. If you are automatically "against" all trade agreements, you are throwing out "the baby with the bath water". Some trade agreements are good for US workers.

If you think the US should be a country with tariffs, VAT's, currency manipulation (actually the US does manipulate the value of the dollar in the world's view), or some other system like they have in Japan or Finland (like Bernie seems to adhere to), then we need an entirely new Congress. Working with the system we have means trade agreements that support the US economy in some way. There will always be winners and losers!!

I worked in a SC textile mill in the 70s (and so did some of my family from the previous generation). I also picked tobacco on a GA farm in the early 60s. Times have changed! Partially because of trade agreements like NAFTA. The textile industry lost many jobs to Asia, but SC has lots of new international companies like BMW, Michelin, and Beneteau. Some people lost, others gained. I could not tell you for sure if the overall agreements were "good" or "bad" without asking if you lost a job or got a new job??

on our behalf? I KNOW what was in the leaks, and that is what I referenced as the reason why this should not pass.

I guess you didn't bother to read it.

NO DEMOCRACY should operate in secret.

And we KNOW how bad NAFTA and CAFTA have been for American workers.

I noticed you didn't answer my question re why it was bad when Bush did it and why now it's tolerable to some Dems.

Thankfully a MAJORITY OF DEMS OPPOSED IT.

But a minority, including the President, joined Republicans to get it done, for the Corporations.

So now Corps WRITE OUR LAWS.

This may be illegal according to some Constitutional Lawyers. Corporations are NOT authorized to write our laws.

First, did you object with other trade agreements were negotiated "in secret" by Democratic Presidents? Maybe it's time to get rid of fast track, but that's a different question. I never heard any Democrats complaining over the last TWENTY trade agreements to fast track with a few exceptions, like NAFTA. Certainly, it is a controversy.

It is NOT a secret (as Hillary said) if Obama will get with Pelosi (the Democratic leader) and include Congress in the negotiation.

Was NAFTA bad, it depends on who you ask. Some progressives don't think it was bad:

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neither-miracle-nor-disaster

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/u-s-economy-since-nafta-18-charts/

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/

http://www.ttgconsultants.com/articles/freetrade.html

Democrats only opposed the fast track IN ORDER TO FORCE THE GOP TO CONSIDER TAA (TRADE ASSISTANCE). Once the TAA was put on the table in a separate bill, the Democrats quit their opposition to fast track. It was not opposition to TPP, but inclusion of the trade assistance that passed fast track.

Yes, corporations have too much influence in Congress. It's been that way for a hundred years. In order to fix that, we need a new Supreme Court, getting rid of grerrymandering, and more unions members who can fight back. A path to citizenship (proposed by Hillary) will immediately destroy the GOP's gerrymandering, because those 20 million new voters will be mostly Democrats and they are not in the census as "black", so the GOP districts will be undermined. SMART!!!

The Democrats need a progressive version of ALEC. There is such a thing, but it's not effective so far.

She would not support it. She is a corporist.