Play Facebook 
 
 Twitter 
 
 Embed Hillary Clinton breaks from Obama on Pacific trade deal 2:20 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog 
 
 First Read is a morning briefing from Meet the Press and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter. 
 
 Why Clinton’s flip-flop on trade is so unbelievable 
 
 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. For starters, there was the time as secretary of state when she said TPP “sets the gold standard in trade agreements.” In her book, “Hard Choices” (which she sent out to all the GOP candidates), she called TPP “the signature economic pillar” of the Obama administration’s strategy in Asia. And then there’s the wiggle room she left for herself, as well as the fact that she hasn’t even fully reviewed the trade accord because it’s not public yet. “I’m continuing to learn about the details of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership, including looking hard at what’s in there to crack down on currency manipulation, which kills American jobs, and to make sure we’re not putting the interests of drug companies ahead of patients and consumers. But based on what I know so far, I can’t support this agreement,” she said in her statement yesterday. And because this opposition is so unbelievable, it feeds every negative stereotype about her -- despite the short-term political benefits. 
 
 Why Hillary flipped: to protect her left flank 
 
 So why did Clinton flip? It was all about protecting her left flank. As one of us wrote yesterday, Clinton’s newfound opposition to TPP protects her against Bernie Sanders’ challenge (especially before Tuesday’s debate; it helps solidify her support with organized labor; and it makes Biden the only Democrat in favor of the accord (if he gets into the race). But we want to focus on the point about organized labor. As AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka said on “Meet the Press” last month about Clinton and TPP: “I think if she doesn't take a position on TPP, then you can say she's looking for our vote. If she does take a position on TPP, then she's looking for our support. And the difference is, if you get my vote, I come out on Election Day and I pull the lever. If you've got my support, I get up at 7:00 in the morning, I stuffed 200 envelopes, I make seven calls, I go knock on a few doors, and I get my neighbors all excited about voting for her as well.” 
 
 And why the reversal didn’t do the Obama administration any favors 
 
 Here’s a final point we want to make about Clinton’s new opposition to TPP: It doesn’t do the Obama administration any favors, that’s for sure. Obama and his team face a situation where the entire Democratic '16 field (for now) opposes the TPP accord, which won't make it easier to twist Democratic arms to get congressional ratification. (In fact, it’s the opposite of the situation around the Iran deal, where the party’s ’16 contenders and much of the base SUPPORTED the Iran deal.) This time, the Obama White House will have to get much of its support from Republicans -- just like it did in winning fast-track authority earlier this year. And as House Ways & Means Chairman Paul Ryan suggested on “MTP Daily” yesterday, House Republicans might have some concerns about the TPP accord. There’s still plenty of time to go, but the Obama administration will start the ratification process on shaky ground. 
 
 House Republicans hold their conference election for speaker 
 
 As NBC’s Alex Moe reports, House Republicans will hold their conference-wide election for speaker today (though the full floor vote for both Democrats and Republicans won’t occur until Oct. 29). Here’s today schedule, per Moe: At 8:00 am ET, the House GOP conference will hold a special meeting for all three candidates for speaker -- Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Chairman Jason Chaffetz, and Rep. Daniel Webster -- to address the full conference because during the actual voting session candidates are NOT permitted to address colleagues. Then, at noon ET, the House GOP conference will vote for speaker. To win, a candidate must secure 50% + 1. If no one gets this on the first ballot, the top two candidates move on to a second ballot. It is widely speculated that McCarthy will win on the first ballot so this could go rather quickly. And Moe says that we should have a result around 1:30 pm ET. But the big question is what happens on Oct. 29. If all members are voting, Moe adds, 218 votes are required to elect a Speaker on the floor which means McCarthy can only lose 29 votes that day to win. 
 
 But would Boehner need to stick around longer than he wants? 
 
 Yet there are two questions to ask: One, if he wins, just how strong (or weak) of a position is McCarthy in -- and how will that affect the business that Congress needs to do later this year? “What was supposed to be a relatively smooth ascension for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has been rocked by his own gaffes, outsider challengers and the threat of an unprecedented floor fight that could undermine efforts to avoid a government shutdown and a historic default on the national debt before the year's end,” Talking Points Memo writes. Two, does a weakened McCarthy mean that outgoing Speaker John Boehner might need to stick around longer than he wants? (He’s supposed to step down on Oct. 30.) As Fox News’ Chad Pergram writes, “What happens if Republicans can’t agree on a Speaker? ‘I’ve never seen anything quite like this,’ murmured one senior House Republican aide. ‘I don’t know how this is going to work out.’ ‘I wouldn't be surprised if we don't get a Speaker until the next Congress,’ predicted one Republican lawmaker who asked to not be identified.” 
 
 On Rubio’s missed Senate votes 
 
 Two days into Jeb Bush and his campaign leaning heavily into Rubio missed Senate votes, we can say the scrutiny can gotten under Rubio’s skin a bit. And if anything, Team Bush is trying to make the case that Rubio is a man in a hurry -- without any real governing accomplishments. But will the missed Senate votes themselves be a major long-term problem for Rubio? We have our doubts. After all, Rubio has already announced he’s leaving the Senate no matter what come 2016 (he’s not running for re-election). 
 
 Click here to sign up for First Read emails. Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone. Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @carrienbcnews ||||| Hillary Clinton discusses the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement during an interview with PBS News Hour. Clinton sides with progressives against Obama trade deal Her stance puts her in stark opposition with the White House — and Vice President Joe Biden, who could still challenge her in the coming days — once again. 
 
 Hillary Clinton went further than ever before to distance herself from President Barack Obama, coming out against a Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement that she worked to support as a member of his administration. 
 
 “As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it,” the 2016 candidate said just days before the first Democratic debate, where she will face liberal rivals Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley. “I don’t believe it’s going to meet the high bar I have set." 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 By coming out against the deal, Clinton sides with labor unions and appeals to primary voters in a tightening presidential race. But her opposition now worries some supporters who said they fear Clinton could be pushed too far left in a primary and become vulnerable in a general election. 
 
 "I think if Hillary Clinton were not running for president, she'd probably support the thing," a Democratic operative and Clinton ally said. 
 
 "I worry about it on two points,” the person added. “One, that she will be accused of pandering, and two, that there is a general election constituency to think of." 
 
 Some Democratic operatives argued that her decision was a no-brainer for a presidential candidate because the only people who care about TPP as a litmus-test voting issue are those opposed to it. 
 
 But her stance puts her once again in stark opposition with the White House — and Vice President Joe Biden, who could still challenge her in the coming days. Indeed, the list of breaks from her former boss has grown in recent weeks. 
 
 After months of refusing to answer questions about the Keystone XL pipeline — which is still under White House review — Clinton came out against its construction for environmental reasons in September. Shortly thereafter, she announced her opposition to the so-called Cadillac tax on expensive health care benefits that is part of the Affordable Care Act. 
 
 Clinton also pledged to go further than the White House on immigration reform and gun control regulations — other domestic policy issues that align her with the liberals pressuring her. 
 
 She has also weighed in from the opposite side, advocating for the administration to impose a no-fly zone in Syria. 
 
 It’s a striking string of disagreements with Obama, capped by discord today that has been brewing ever since she announced her candidacy in April. But the White House was not surprised by Wednesday’s development: Clinton's staff gave the administration a heads up today, according to a White House official. 
 
 "I'm continuing to learn about the details of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership, including looking hard at what's in there to crack down on currency manipulation, which kills American jobs, and to make sure we're not putting the interests of drug companies ahead of patients and consumers. But based on what I know so far, I can't support this agreement," Clinton said in a statement Wednesday afternoon. 
 
 Her decision won her praise from progressive groups, including Democracy for America, but criticism from moderate Democrats with ties to Clinton. 
 
 "Secretary Clinton has pledged to run a campaign to do one thing above all: restore middle class prosperity. But there is no path to middle class prosperity without opening the doors to the vast Asian market, and there is no way to do that without the TPP Agreement,” said former Clinton administration official Jonathan Cowan, now president of the moderate Third Way think tank. 
 
 Labor leaders and Clinton’s opponents have been eager to have her on their side, but her hesitance to weigh in had also given hope to supporters of the deal. 
 
 In Clinton's 2014 book, "Hard Choices," she acknowledged that an agreement would be "important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field. And it was a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia." 
 
 Still, she warned in the memoir, "Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. It's safe to say that the TPP won't be perfect — no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be — but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers." 
 
 O'Malley, for one, immediately weighed in, pointing to Clinton's shift. 
 
 "Wow! What a reversal! I was against the Trans-Pacific Partnership months, and months ago," he told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute in Washington on Wednesday shortly after the news of Clinton's stance broke. 
 
 "I believe we need to stop stumbling backwards into bad deals and Secretary Clinton can justify her own reversal of opinion on this, but I didn't have one opinion eight months ago and switch that opinion on the eve of the debates." 
 
 In her Wednesday statement, Clinton pinned part of the blame for her switch on Congressional Republicans. 
 
 "We can’t look at this in a vacuum," she said. "Years of Republican obstruction at home have weakened U.S. competitiveness and made it harder for Americans who lose jobs and pay because of trade to get back on their feet." ||||| Tim Kaine's support of the TPP is not sitting well with some liberal groups. | Getty Kaine pick draws mixed reviews from liberals While Wall Street lobbyists rejoice, progressive groups are less than thrilled. 
 
 Hillary Clinton’s unveiling of Tim Kaine as her vice presidential pick was greeted by mixed reactions from liberal groups on Friday night. But one constituency breathed a sigh of relief: Wall Street. 
 
 While some praised his consistent support of labor and women’s rights, several progressive organizations were quick to criticize Clinton's newly minted running mate, urging the Democratic ticket to adopt a more “populist” stance on trade and financial regulation. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 “The mood of the country is a populist one,” said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of Progressive Change Campaign Committee, in a statement emailed minutes after Kaine was announced. “Unfortunately, since Tim Kaine voted to fast track the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Republicans now have a new opening to attack Democrats on this economic populist issue.” 
 
 Taylor said that Clinton, who supported the 11-country Pacific trade pact as secretary of state before reversing her stance last fall, has opened up a line of attack from Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has ripped such agreements as "bad deals" for the United States. 
 
 "As we saw in Donald Trump’s speech last night, Republicans will run hard against Democrats on trade this year,” Taylor said. “Clinton should push the White House to take TPP off the table in a lame duck Congress in order to avoid this vice presidential pick allowing Donald Trump to outflank her on this key issue." 
 
 According to a report in the Huffington Post, Kaine has told Clinton he now opposes the TPP, though he praised the agreement as recently as Thursday. 
 
 The PCCC's criticism comes after another progressive group, Democracy for America, denounced Kaine in a pre-emptive strike issued before Clinton even announced her pick. 
 
 “It should be disqualifying for any potential Democratic vice presidential candidate to be part of a lobbyist-driven effort to help banks dodge consumer protection standards and regulations designed to prevent banks from destroying our economy,” the group’s executive director Charles Chamberlain said in a statement Thursday, referencing a letter Kaine signed urging the Federal Reserve to consider easing regulations on regional banks. 
 
 Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, who backed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, was among those on the left who expressed disappointment with the decision, tweeting: “Att’n Hillary campaign: It’s not Trump who’ll beat u. It’s the people who are going to stay home.” 
 
 While most mainstream groups seemed happy with the choice of Kaine, the risk, some Democratic operatives said, was that Clinton might have just re-opened a rift with the left wing of the party that Trump could exploit. 
 
 “The risk with picking Kaine isn’t about Clinton thumbing her nose to the Bernie Bros, it’s about losing the Rust Belt (where anti-trade and anti-Wall St. sentiment is high),” a Democratic strategist with ties to the region told POLITICO in an email. “Between the Ohio and PA polls and the Brexit vote, this seems like it could be a big risk.” 
 
 Prominent labor groups, however, met the Kaine announcement with open arms. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka praised Kaine’s “strong record on workers’ issues” while the SEIU vouched for the senator’s labor bona fides, saying in a statement: “We know what is in Tim Kaine’s heart.” 
 
 Despite his personal opposition to abortion, Kaine also received strong approval from several women’s rights groups, including the National Organization for Women (NOW), which hailed the senator as a "proven leader" who as vice president would "work to break down the barriers that hold women and marginalized communities back.” 
 
 “The combination of Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine stands in sharp contrast to the turn-back-the-clock, step up the war on women platform of Donald Trump and Mike Pence,” NOW President Terry O'Neill said in a statement. “Women know this is the most important election in a generation, and we also know that we have a steadfast advocate in Tim Kaine.” 
 
 Stephanie Schriock, the influential head of Emily’s List, tweeted, “The strongest ticket for women and families just got even stronger.” 
 
 As if to head off potential criticism, the Clinton campaign cast Kaine as a progressive in its statements on Friday. In an email to supporters explaining her decision, Clinton described Kaine as “a lifelong fighter for progressive causes.” 
 
 And Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon tweeted out a list of Kaine’s ratings from several progressive groups -- all of which have larger followings than either the PCCC or DFA. 
 
 Kaine's ratings from key progressive groups: 
 
 Brady Campaign 100% 
 
 Human Rights Campaign 100% 
 
 Planned Parenthood 100% 
 
 AFL CIO 96% 
 
 NAACP 96% — Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) July 23, 2016 
 
 Wall Street lobbyists, meanwhile, reacted with relief to the Kaine selection on Friday, not because the senator is particularly soft on financial reform but because his name is not Elizabeth Warren. 
 
 “He has demonstrated some interest in banking issues as evidenced by last week’s letter,” one of the top Wall Street lobbyists in Washington emailed POLITICO, referring to the letter to the Fed that Kaine signed. “He's a sign of Hillary being Hippocratic in her pick -- he does no harm. Time will tell if progressives show real angst or if it’s just fringe groups.” 
 
 The lobbyist added that a Warren pick, while never viewed as likely, would have “split the Street” between Clinton and Trump. Now industry cash is likely to keep flowing to Clinton. 
 
 Another lobbyist who had feared for weeks that the Massachusetts senator might be chosen said that Kaine was “certainly more level-headed and substantive than others considered.” 
 
 Dennis Kelleher, CEO of financial reform group Better Markets, said that Kaine was “not going to fire anyone up, but smart safe choice of a really well liked, high-quality guy with good values. He’ll have some work to do on the key issues, but I believe he'll do it effectively and win over those who have doubts or concerns.” 
 
 Authors:
– Hillary Clinton on Wednesday came out against a major trade deal supported by the White House known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, even though she supported it in its early stages as secretary of state and later praised it in a memoir. An honest change of heart? An NBC political analysis has a much different take: "This flip-flop isn't believable at all." It's all about "protecting her left flank" against Bernie Sanders and gaining favor with organized labor. Clinton says she made her decision based on new details about the TPP, but the NBC post says her newfound "opposition is so unbelievable, it feeds every negative stereotype about her—despite the short-term political benefits." One of those stereotypes? That she puts polls ahead of policy. At Vox, Ezra Klein writes that Clinton has provided critics with plenty of fodder on that front over the years. In this case, "knowing Clinton's record, her advisers, and her past comments about the deal, it's hard to believe Clinton really opposes the TPP deal." So, yes, she might gain ground with the left, but these types of "convenient policy changes" undermine her greatest strength: "that she's an extraordinary policy mind who understands these issues better than her challengers, and so can be trusted to make better decisions on them." Click for the full NBC post, or for Klein's full post.)