O'Malley sounds like a Progressive advocate to me. Check out his direct and straight-forward answers, the good Governor recently gave NPR:
Transcript: NPR's Full Interview With Martin O'Malley
npr.org -- April 20, 2015
[... Q: ] You have said in recent days that you oppose the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that would tie a dozen nations, including the United States into free trade. What's wrong with that?
O’Malley: "Yeah, I do oppose it. What's wrong with it is first and foremost that we're not allowed to read it before representatives vote on it. What's wrong with it is that right now what we should be doing are things that make our economy stronger here at home. And that's my concern, that the Trans-Pacific Partnership, this deal, is a race to the bottom, a chasing of lower wages abroad. And I believe that that does nothing to help us build a stronger economy here at home."
[...]
[Q: ] Your understanding is that it is a completely secret deal even at the time that it's for an up or down vote?
O’Malley: "Yeah, I mean, I think they're doing some briefings of some members of Congress. But the notion that all of us get to read it as Americans is not accurate. I mean, that's the purpose of fast track. I mean it's almost like the notion that they've got to pass it before somebody actually reads it and sees what's involved in it. And I'm opposed to it. I think we kid ourselves when we think that somehow by chasing, I mean look, we have the ability, let me say this another way. We have the ability right now in the world to market our commodities, to market our products, to market our services abroad. I have led trade delegations as a governor all around the world. But what this deal does with its strange tribunals that allow corporations, U.S. corporations to sue the United States to avoid regulations and protections of the environment or work standards and other things. I think is bizarre."
[...]
O’Malley: "I'm not opposed to free trade if it's fair trade. But I am opposed to bad trade deals. I have supported some trade deals in the past myself. I've supported the Korean trade deal. And that one had protections for workers, protections for wages, protections for the environment and it was entered into with the people of South Korea who are our friends and are very much a stable democracy in this world that understands a stronger middle class is a universal cause. But I'm opposed to this one. And I don't believe that it's in the best interest of our country and the very fact that they're not willing to share this openly with all of us would indicate that there's something fishy here in Denmark."
Something smells fishy in the neo-corporate Democratic Party too.
And even the hardly-progressive Politifact agrees with O'Malley, especially on his main points:
Martin O'Malley says Congress won't see Pacific trade deal before they vote on it
by Louis Jacobson, politifact.com -- April 23rd,
So in a strict sense, what O’Malley said is wrong. When lawmakers vote on the actual Trans-Pacific Partnership -- the second vote -- they will indeed have the full details of what the deal entails. The confusion enters because when Congress casts the first vote -- the one currently on Congress’ agenda, to empower Obama to strike the deal -- they won’t yet know the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
That’s the way the process was designed to work. Congress votes first to authorize the negotiations, and then votes a second time -- weeks, months or even years later -- on whether to approve the agreement produced by the negotiations it authorized.
[...]
O’Malley "believes that Congress and the American people should be able to read the agreement before Congress votes on giving away their authority -- our authority -- to change it," his staff said in a statement to PolitiFact. "The deal will not be made public until after fast track is approved -- and then at that point, there can be no changes. That leaves the general public in the dark."
O’Malley does have a point that transparency has been lacking so far.
[...]
Hat-Tip to MenWithGuts for digging up this once-important Touchstone link:
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
whitehouse.gov
My Administration [Obama] is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. [...]
Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information.
[...]
Transparency and Openness -- It used to be what made the Dems worth believing ... the Party worth fighting for. The Party we knew,
was fighting for us.
But what used to be some "essential tenants" of that trustworthy democracy, apparently no longer matter, especially when it comes to seeking the "advice and consent" of today's under-employed, taken-for-granted citizenry.
It's good to see that some potential candidates, are not inclined to make those mistakes. Because they'd much rather be speaking the plain Truth instead, ... rather be Working for the Workers here at home, first and foremost.
And with all-well-deserved Transparency.