When you can "trade" a 36K worker for a 2K worker -- you can make a real 'killing' -- damn the crititics torpedoes.

Things are heating up in the industrial Midwest, a region decimated by “free trade” policies of current and prior Administrations. Their very real needs have been neglected for decades. I know, I’m one of the “economic refugees” who had to pull up my Midwestern roots, and head elsewhere.

It is in this battle ground that Candidate Clinton is making a bold new promise, to the hard-pressed, under-employed workers of the area:

The Clinton-Sanders trade war

by Eric Bradner, CNN — March 5, 2016

[...] Friday, Clinton said that her approach is based on more than ideology. "When it comes to trade deals, here's my standard : I won't support any agreement unless it helps create good jobs and higher wages for American workers and protects our national security," she said. "I need to be able to look into the eyes of any hard-working American anywhere in our country and say this deal will help raise your income."

Sounds heart-felt and sincere. So sincere in fact there was no need to bother those weary workers with the pro-Trade audiences, that Hillary Clinton has “entertained” in the last few years:

Groups lobbying on trade paid Hillary Clinton $2.5M in speaking fees

by Julianna Goldman, CBS News — May 18, 2015

[...] According to the disclosures released by the campaign on Friday evening, the former secretary of state earned at least $2.7 million from speeches at companies backing the trade promotion authority (TPA) that President Obama has been seeking in order to "fast track" approval of trade deals. While that's a fraction of the $25 million Bill and Hillary Clinton earned from paid speeches from January 2014 to present, they nonetheless open the presidential candidate to criticism. [...] A number of Clinton's appearances before the organizations lobbying on trade were among her most lucrative speeches. Clinton earned $335,000 from Qualcomm for a speech in San Diego on October 14, 2014; $335,000 from the Biotechnology Industry Organization on June 25, 2014; and $325,000 from Cisco Systems for a speech in Las Vegas on August 28, 2014. According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, both tech companies lobbied in support of TPA in 2014 and 2015. They're also members of the Trade Benefits America Coalition, which in November 2014 sent a letter to congressional leaders saying, "As members of the Trade Benefits America Coalition, we write to urge passage of bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation this year....Congressional action on TPA is needed to help ensure high-standard outcomes in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, which the United States and 11 other Asia-Pacific countries are striving to complete." That letter was also signed by General Electric and Xerox, companies that paid Hillary Clinton to give speeches in 2014. Clinton earned $225,000 from GE on January 6, 2014 and $225,000 from Xerox Corporation on March 18, 2014. In total, she earned at least $1.4 million from companies signing that letter . [...]

Taking millions from Out-sourcers will in no way effect her ability to Stop all this Oursourcing — unless American workers income increases from such a Deal. Just trust her. (Pay no attention to that Trade deal with China, please.)

Candidate Clinton Voted for this result. Candidate Sanders did not.

Meanwhile for his part Candidate Sanders is trying to remind Midwestern Voters, that he has always stood with them against Trade Deals — not just when he needs their votes:

Bernie Sanders cites momentum going into Michigan primary

by S.A. Miller - The Washington Times — March 6, 2016

[...] [Sanders] said trade policies supported by Mrs. Clinton, including the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement that was signed by her husband, President Bill Clinton, and most-favored nation trading partner status granted to China [PNTR], have “decimated communities all over Michigan, all over Illinois, all over Ohio.” “ I have helped lead the opposition to here disastrous trade agreements . Secretary Clinton, by and large, has supported them all. It’s going to give us a lot of momentum here in the Midwest,” he said. [...]

The Clinton-Sanders trade war

by Eric Bradner, CNN — March 5, 2016

[...] Clinton's history, Sanders argues, is clear. "The real question is was she right to support NAFTA? Was she right to support permanent normal trade relations with China? The answer is, she was very, very wrong and millions of families around this country have been suffering as a result of those disastrous trade agreements," Sanders said Thursday in Lansing, Michigan. He added: "These trade agreements were pushed and written to a significant degree by corporate America for corporate America and the results are clear. We're not talking about some academic debate here. The results are clear when you look at Detroit, you look at Flint, you look at my own state of Vermont. We have lost thousands and thousands of decent-paying jobs." [...]

Funny thing about those “sincere promises” — they’re just so easy to make, depending on the circumstances of the day … Clinton to Indian Audience: ‘Outsourcing has Benefited Many Parts of Our Country’

by geebeebee —

[...] [Member of the] Audience [in India]: Good morning ma’am, I’m also a part of the youth advisory council of the US government. So I have [inaudible] questions the first one is: with the possible cut down on outsourcing, [inaudible] protectionism, and [inaudible, will you do anything] about the jobs? And uhh Host: Okay let’s take one question at a time so we can get other people to respond. Clinton: So you’re talking about outsourcing from the United States to India? Outsourcing from the United States to India? Well you know it’s been going on for many years now, and it’s part of our economic relationship with India , and I think that there are advantages with it that have certainly benefited many parts of our country and there are disadvantages that go to the need to, you know improve the job skills of our own people and create a better economic environment, so it’s, like anything it’s, you know, got pluses and minuses. x YouTube Video

Was Secretary Clinton employing her new ‘outsourcing standard’ there: "I need to be able to look into the eyes of any hard-working American anywhere in our country and say this deal will help raise your income" ???

Was she thinking of that standard, when she was explaining the “Pros and Cons” of Outsourcing, to one of America’s main beneficiaries of Outsourcing?

You know the need ‘benefit’ for Americans to improve our skills, so we can compete with the those overseas workers, quite anxious to takeover our jobs, for well less than half the pay?

This is what the ‘Race to the Bottom’ is all about. Midwesterners have experienced it first-hand, for years.

That’s a funny ‘new’ way of looking the “American workers” in the eye — no matter where they might actually reside. She feels ‘their’ pain alright. Her multi-national sponsors demand it.