text: In 2008, Hillary Clinton was running against an inexperienced, untested young senator named Barack Obama. Clinton was known as one of the most serious policy wonks to ever run for president, and her network included most of the Democratic Party's top policy staff, many of whom had worked directly for her or her husband. 
   
   But somehow, much of the Democratic policy establishment ended up supporting Obama. No one doubted that Clinton knew policy inside and out; they doubted that she would make the right calls in the face of public pressure. 
   
   The Iraq War loomed largest here, but a smaller, though still important moment was when Hillary Clinton proposed suspending the federal gas tax for the summer travel season. Economists hate this sort of policy pander: It encourages people to use more gas, robs the highway trust fund of revenue that needs to be raised some other way, and ends up raising gas prices because of increased demand. 
   
   But it polls well. And Clinton, who knows better, signed on to it. So did John McCain. But Obama didn't. He slammed the proposal as "short-term, quick-fix" thinking, and said, "This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election." 
   
   Policy wonks agreed, and Clinton faced a storm of criticism for her pander. She was reduced to protesting, "I’m not going to put my lot in with economists," which didn't endear her to economists — or to anyone who actually does want policymakers to listen to economists when designing tax policy. 
   
   Obama had his struggles with policy opportunism, too — notably, when he left the individual mandate out of his health-care plan, which led to a lot of health policy experts preferring Clinton (Obama ultimately flip-flopped on the issue in office). But it was moments like the Iraq War and the gas tax that helped Obama win over much of a Democratic policy establishment that had no reason to trust him. 
   
   Clinton keeps taking positions that are ... hard to believe 
   
   Of late, Clinton is again looking like the kind of candidate who puts polls in front of policy. 
   
   First, she came out against Obamacare's Cadillac tax — a policy that enjoys wide support among health economists. Clinton knows the problems of the massive deduction for employer-provided health insurance well; decades ago, her health-care plan wiped out the tax code's preference for employer-based health care, and in 2008 she had a smaller, more targeted, version of the Cadillac tax in her proposal. 
   
   I want to be clear here. Lots of people oppose the Cadillac tax, and for lots of reasons. What I have trouble believing is that Clinton and her policy advisers really think the Cadillac tax is a bad idea. Her past policies embrace its theory, her past advisers helped pass it into law, and virtually everyone who spends their days thinking about how to control health-care costs considers it one of Obamacare's most promising provisions. 
   
   On Wednesday, Clinton came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, saying that she's concerned with the provisions around pharmaceuticals and the absence of provisions around currency manipulation. But as Tim Lee notes, Clinton strongly supported early versions of the deal — she called the TPP "the gold standard in trade agreements" — that were worse on pharmaceuticals and identical on currency manipulation. 
   
   Good grief, the architect of "the pivot to Asia" opposes TPP? In her book she praised the deal! pic.twitter.com/9XDiv0btzM — Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) October 7, 2015 
   
   Again, the argument here isn't that there aren't reasons to oppose the TPP, but rather that knowing Clinton's record, her advisers, and her past comments about the deal, it's hard to believe Clinton really opposes the TPP deal. 
   
   Something of the same could be said for the Keystone XL pipeline. Clinton's initial take on the pipeline was positive, and then she said she wouldn't take a position until she was president, and then she finally came out against it. I'm a bit more inclined here to credit Clinton's position as authentic — she's a climate hawk, and while my sense is she thinks both sides make too big a deal over Keystone, I can see her leaning against it — but it's not exactly a bold, polls-be-damned approach to the issue. 
   
   Opposing these policies may not even be good politics 
   
   Clinton's reputation as a policy wonk is sterling; it's common to talk to Democratic (and, in some cases, Republican) staffers who tell you that they've never briefed a politician as sharp and informed as she is. 
   
   But Clinton's reputation as a policymaker is iffier — her critics can rattle off a long list of important decisions, ranging from the Iraq War to the bankruptcy bill, where they think she was swayed by polls or interest groups. 
   
   Clinton, of course, isn't just a policymaker — she's a politician, and particularly when it comes to reading polls and managing interest groups, she's a good one. Her vulnerability in the Democratic primary comes from the left, and to keep liberal challengers from gaining support, she needs to hold union support. Coming out against the TPP and the Cadillac tax is a great way to win over unions. 
   
   But it's not a great way for Clinton to show she's willing to make some unpopular decisions if they lead to better policy — and that has political benefits that don't show up in narrow issue polls. 
   
   I don't truly know what's in Clinton's heart — perhaps I'm wrong, and despite all evidence to the contrary, she holds all these positions deeply — but as a close reader of her record, I'm not convinced that Clinton, in office, wouldn't support policies like the Cadillac tax or negotiate trade deals like the TPP. And as someone trying to understand Clinton's likely governing philosophy, it's unnerving. 
   
   And this is a broader problem for Clinton. Her political weakness, fairly or not, is that the voters and the media — or maybe it's the media and, thus, the voters — have decided that she's unusually poll-tested and calculating, even for a politician. Politically convenient policy changes don't help, and they cut against what should be her greatest asset: 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. 
   
   For more thoughts on Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign check out Vox's new podcast, "The Weeds" featuring Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias and Sarah Kliff. You can listen on Soundcloud and subscribe to new episodes on iTunes. ||||| In 2008, Hillary Clinton was running against an inexperienced, untested young senator named Barack Obama. Clinton was known as one of the most serious policy wonks to ever run for president, and her network included most of the Democratic Party's top policy staff, many of whom had worked directly for her or her husband. 
   
   But somehow, much of the Democratic policy establishment ended up supporting Obama. No one doubted that Clinton knew policy inside and out; they doubted that she would make the right calls in the face of public pressure. 
   
   The Iraq War loomed largest here, but a smaller, though still important moment was when Hillary Clinton proposed suspending the federal gas tax for the summer travel season. Economists hate this sort of policy pander: It encourages people to use more gas, robs the highway trust fund of revenue that needs to be raised some other way, and ends up raising gas prices because of increased demand. 
   
   But it polls well. And Clinton, who knows better, signed on to it. So did John McCain. But Obama didn't. He slammed the proposal as "short-term, quick-fix" thinking, and said, "This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election." 
   
   Policy wonks agreed, and Clinton faced a storm of criticism for her pander. She was reduced to protesting, "I’m not going to put my lot in with economists," which didn't endear her to economists — or to anyone who actually does want policymakers to listen to economists when designing tax policy. 
   
   Obama had his struggles with policy opportunism, too — notably, when he left the individual mandate out of his health-care plan, which led to a lot of health policy experts preferring Clinton (Obama ultimately flip-flopped on the issue in office). But it was moments like the Iraq War and the gas tax that helped Obama win over much of a Democratic policy establishment that had no reason to trust him. 
   
   Clinton keeps taking positions that are ... hard to believe 
   
   Of late, Clinton is again looking like the kind of candidate who puts polls in front of policy. 
   
   First, she came out against Obamacare's Cadillac tax — a policy that enjoys wide support among health economists. Clinton knows the problems of the massive deduction for employer-provided health insurance well; decades ago, her health-care plan wiped out the tax code's preference for employer-based health care, and in 2008 she had a smaller, more targeted, version of the Cadillac tax in her proposal. 
   
   I want to be clear here. Lots of people oppose the Cadillac tax, and for lots of reasons. What I have trouble believing is that Clinton and her policy advisers really think the Cadillac tax is a bad idea. Her past policies embrace its theory, her past advisers helped pass it into law, and virtually everyone who spends their days thinking about how to control health-care costs considers it one of Obamacare's most promising provisions. 
   
   On Wednesday, Clinton came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, saying that she's concerned with the provisions around pharmaceuticals and the absence of provisions around currency manipulation. But as Tim Lee notes, Clinton strongly supported early versions of the deal — she called the TPP "the gold standard in trade agreements" — that were worse on pharmaceuticals and identical on currency manipulation. 
   
   Good grief, the architect of "the pivot to Asia" opposes TPP? In her book she praised the deal! pic.twitter.com/9XDiv0btzM — Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) October 7, 2015 
   
   Again, the argument here isn't that there aren't reasons to oppose the TPP, but rather that knowing Clinton's record, her advisers, and her past comments about the deal, it's hard to believe Clinton really opposes the TPP deal. 
   
   Something of the same could be said for the Keystone XL pipeline. Clinton's initial take on the pipeline was positive, and then she said she wouldn't take a position until she was president, and then she finally came out against it. I'm a bit more inclined here to credit Clinton's position as authentic — she's a climate hawk, and while my sense is she thinks both sides make too big a deal over Keystone, I can see her leaning against it — but it's not exactly a bold, polls-be-damned approach to the issue. 
   
   Opposing these policies may not even be good politics 
   
   Clinton's reputation as a policy wonk is sterling; it's common to talk to Democratic (and, in some cases, Republican) staffers who tell you that they've never briefed a politician as sharp and informed as she is. 
   
   But Clinton's reputation as a policymaker is iffier — her critics can rattle off a long list of important decisions, ranging from the Iraq War to the bankruptcy bill, where they think she was swayed by polls or interest groups. 
   
   Clinton, of course, isn't just a policymaker — she's a politician, and particularly when it comes to reading polls and managing interest groups, she's a good one. Her vulnerability in the Democratic primary comes from the left, and to keep liberal challengers from gaining support, she needs to hold union support. Coming out against the TPP and the Cadillac tax is a great way to win over unions. 
   
   But it's not a great way for Clinton to show she's willing to make some unpopular decisions if they lead to better policy — and that has political benefits that don't show up in narrow issue polls. 
   
   I don't truly know what's in Clinton's heart — perhaps I'm wrong, and despite all evidence to the contrary, she holds all these positions deeply — but as a close reader of her record, I'm not convinced that Clinton, in office, wouldn't support policies like the Cadillac tax or negotiate trade deals like the TPP. And as someone trying to understand Clinton's likely governing philosophy, it's unnerving. 
   
   And this is a broader problem for Clinton. Her political weakness, fairly or not, is that the voters and the media — or maybe it's the media and, thus, the voters — have decided that she's unusually poll-tested and calculating, even for a politician. Politically convenient policy changes don't help, and they cut against what should be her greatest asset: 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. 
   
   For more thoughts on Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign check out Vox's new podcast, "The Weeds" featuring Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias and Sarah Kliff. You can listen on Soundcloud and subscribe to new episodes on iTunes. ||||| 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
target: – 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.)