Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
I think Obama is right about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but there's a larger point here about leadership.Obama's tough stance seemed to have succeeded Thursday, as the Senate overcame a Democratic revolt and passed key bills to enable the Trans-Pacific Partnership.Which raises a question: What does Hillary Clinton believe about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the Iran nuclear deal?The progressive rebellion against Obama on the Trans-Pacific Partnership is mystifying, not least because the factual basis for challenging the deal seems so thin.The Trans-Pacific Partnership would actually fix many of the weak labor and environmental provisions of NAFTA, imposing tougher standards for Canada and Mexico as well as the other signatories of the 12-nation agreement.An alternative future, in which the Trans-Pacific Partnership fails and China writes the rules for its Asian trading partners, would effectively mean "nonexistent or watered-down labor standards," he wrote.It's Clinton's rope-a-dope approach to the Trans-Pacific Partnership that deserves most attention, because it highlights her vulnerability as a candidate.Clinton is still running, but she could take a political lesson from Obama.
U.S. should focus on supporting Lebanon
Betrayal of Kurds sickens U.S. soldiers
Trump is ignoring arms control
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE