Subject: Re: Follow up from press on trade
From: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
To: Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Cc: Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:23:05 -0400

John and I were just laughing about this very on-the-nose headline from
Politico:

Hillary Clinton threads needle on trade deal
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-threads-needle-on-trade-deal-117097.html?hp=r1_4>

By Annie Karni <http://www.politico.com/reporters/AnnieKarni.html>

4/17/15 5:50 PM EDT

Under pressure to stake out a position on the controversial trade deal
reached by congressional leaders, Hillary Clinton’s campaign put down its
first marker on Friday, saying she “will be watching closely” to see how
the deal affects currency, labor rights and environmental concerns — but
she stopped short of supporting the deal.

“Hillary Clinton believes that any new trade measure has to pass two tests:
First, it should put us in a position to protect American workers, raise
wages and create more good jobs at home,” spokesman Nick Merrill said in a
statement. “Second, it must also strengthen our national security. We
should be willing to walk away from any outcome that falls short of these
tests. The goal is greater prosperity and security for American families,
not trade for trade’s sake.”

Stating a position on the issue requires some major needle-threading for
Clinton as she kicks off her presidential campaign. The statement released
Friday managed to offend few, but satisfy fewer who want answers on where
she will end up on the issue.

Labor leaders whose support she will need in her campaign strongly oppose
the pact, as does the progressive wing of her party.

But opposing the legislation would pit her against President Barack Obama —
who is pushing just as hard to institute trade proposals in his final 19
months in office — and could open Clinton up to attacks that she is guided
by political winds: as secretary of state, she supported the Trans-Pacific
Partnership free trade agreement negotiations.

“Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a
benchmark for future agreements — and grow to serve as a platform for
broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the
Asia-Pacific,” Clinton wrote in Foreign Policy magazine in 2011.

The U.S., Japan and 10 other countries are still in the throes of
negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which is expected to
be the largest trade deal in history covering more than 40 percent of
global GDP. Countries are negotiating everything from tariff reductions to
labor and environment rules.

In what could be seen as a break from Obama’s stance on the TPP talks,
Clinton’s statement says she will be tracking how an agreement deals with
currency manipulation. The Obama administration is opposed to including
currency rules in the TPP pact.

Clinton “will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down
on currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and
health, promote transparency, and open new opportunities for our small
businesses to export overseas,” Merrill said in the statement. “As she
warned in her book, Hard Choices, we shouldn’t be giving special rights to
corporations at the expense of workers and consumers.”

Clinton’s statement left her options open, but her critics jumped in.

Her possible challenger in the Democratic primary, former Maryland Gov.
Martin O’Malley, sent out an email to supporters Friday strongly denouncing
the deal. “We must stop entering into bad trade deals that hurt middle
class wages and ship middle class jobs overseas,” he wrote. “And we
certainly shouldn’t be fast tracking failed deals.”

His spokeswoman Lis Smith blasted out his comments on the trade bill after
Clinton made her own, saying “no hedging here.”

The right-wing America Rising PAC also saw an opening, and accused Clinton
of pandering to the left.

“Proving once again that she’ll say or do anything to win an election,
Hillary Clinton is backing off her effusive praise of President Obama’s
trade deal in order to curry favor with the far left-wing of her party,”
said Jeff Bechdel, communications director for the America Rising PAC.

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> All makes sense and no need to go back to her.
>
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Ok
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 17, 2015, at 6:08 PM, John Podesta <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Rather than "that's the true concern", why don't we say because it's the
> substance of the agreement and its effect on everyday Americans that's
> critical. Agree with Dan's  point.
>
> JP
> --Sent from my iPad--
> [email-masked]
> For scheduling: [email-masked]
>
> On Apr 17, 2015, at 6:01 PM, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> I might add in there somewhere that "she laid out her tests," or words to
> that effect
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Talked with Jake.  We think we should say that her focus is on TPP
>> because that's the true concern, bill was dropped yesterday and we are
>> taking a look at it.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Apr 17, 2015, at 5:30 PM, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm for the second,
>> >
>> > JP
>> > --Sent from my iPad--
>> > [email-masked]
>> > For scheduling: [email-masked]
>> >
>> >> On Apr 17, 2015, at 5:08 PM, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We seem to have 2 options if we're not going to (grudgingly) support.
>> >>
>> >> Say its procedural and we're not weighing in.    Grin and bear it
>> through incoming.
>> >>
>> >> Say we're studying and then oppose next week (giving White House time).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Apr 17, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Being asked by wapo and Bloomberg what her specific view on TPA is.
>> >>>
>> >>> Should we deploy the answer that the bill is a procedural matter for
>> >>> Senate to resolve?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>
>