Hillary Clinton’s refusal to take a clear stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation trade deal the White House concluded negotiations on Monday, is making things awkward for the Democratic presidential front-runner’s liberal allies, most of whom oppose the trade deal.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who endorsed Clinton’s presidential bid in April, told reporters Monday that all Democratic presidential candidates should oppose the deal. But when asked if that meant that Clinton should not be the nominee unless she opposes the trade deal, DeLauro declined to go that far.
“I would just tell you that she spoke about the agreement [and said] that we need to have an agreement that didn’t hurt working families,” DeLauro told the Washington Examiner. “So, you know, there is now an agreement and, as my colleague Rep. Mary Kaptur, D-Ohio, has said, each one of our presidential candidates should be opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.”
Other Democratic lawmakers in the same press conference, Kaptur, Rep. Brad Sherman of California, Dan Kildee of Michigan and Paul Tonko of New York, declined to specifically say that Clinton must oppose the deal, although they all said the deal would be disastrous for U.S. workers and the economy.
The Democratic front-runner has steadfastly refused to state whether she opposes or supports the deal, despite pressure from liberals opposed to it. She has offered some critical comments and indicated that the final terms must address liberal groups’ concerns, but has held off on taking a clear position.
That has created a problem for liberal groups who oppose the deal and are pushing Congress to reject it. Clinton’s decision could swing some undecided Democrats either way, so they want her support. At the same time, trade critics are loathe to create turmoil for the candidate, who many expect eventually will get the presidential nod. That has created awkward situations.
The Pacific trade deal was one of the main topics during a private meeting she had with the AFL-CIO’s executive council in July involving the labor federation’s presidential nomination. After the meeting, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka issued a statement saying that it would not make an endorsement until much later in the primary.
President Obama sees the 12-nation agreement’s passage as crucial to his trade agenda and has pushed Congress to back the deal. Liberal groups oppose it, arguing it will accelerate outsourcing of jobs and damage the economy.
Clinton has a complicated history with international trade. Her husband, Bill Clinton, signed the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement in 1994. As Obama’s secretary of state, she was involved in the negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
If Clinton opposes the deal, she would break with the administration and risks looking disloyal to the president’s fans. If she supports the deal, she risks alienating many potential allies at a time when she is trying to fend off a strong primary challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who does oppose the deal.
Her general response has been to rhetorically ally herself with liberal groups but at the same time argue that she needed to examine the final draft of the deal before taking a position. Now that the negotiations have been concluded, pressure to do that likely will increase.
“Enough people have been harmed that I think this is going to pivot deeply into the presidential race. I welcome that,” Kaptur said. “I credit those candidates who are taking it into the fight for the presidency. It belongs there.”
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misidentified the home state of Rep. Rosa DeLauro. The Washington Examiner regrets the error.
