By Jonah Goldberg
Hillary Clinton revealed on Wednesday that she opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, providing just the latest evidence that she is little more than political ambition wrapped in a pantsuit.
Pay attention to the press coverage, because it’s fascinating: Nobody takes Clinton at her word. I’m not just referring to her conservative critics.
Slate’s Jim Newell asks, “Will anyone find Clinton’s position convincing?” The question is purely rhetorical.
The article is headlined “Hillary Clinton Comes Out Against TPP, at Least Until the Democratic Convention.”
“Yes, Hillary Clinton’s new opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord cleans up something she needed to do before next week’s first Democratic debate. And, yes, it puts pressure on Vice President Joe Biden getting into the race (because he’d be on the only major candidate in support of TPP). But make no mistake: This flip-flop isn’t believable at all.”
Clinton had long touted TPP as “the gold standard” of trade deals. A tally by CNN in June found at least 45 instances where she had plumped, praised, pushed or otherwise promoted the agreement.
In fact, finding evidence that Clinton operates this way is like looking for evidence that fire is hot. In 2008, when it was in her interest, Clinton was against federal “blanket rules” on guns; now she’s making extra-constitutional gun-grabbing the centerpiece of her campaign (at least this week, while a recent mass murder is still fresh in our memories).
But all of this misses what I find so fascinating. With most of these examples, it’s almost impossible to find someone who takes what Clinton says or does at face value. If you’re not on her payroll, or auditioning to get on it one day, or just painfully naive, you simply start from the assumption that Clinton is unencumbered by any principles that might prove inconvenient to her political ambitions.
No wonder she’s running scared from a socialist.
READ all of Jonah Goldberg’s comments from the New York Post here .