Subject: Re: one chain on DOMA
From: Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
To: Robby Mook <[email-masked]>
Cc: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>, Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>, Maya Harris <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Sally Marx <[email-masked]>, Dominic Lowell <[email-masked]>, Teddy Goff <[email-masked]>, Xochitl Hinojosa <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Karen Finney <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Heather Stone <[email-masked]>, Amanda Renteria <
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:07:57 -0400

Last line should read "wink-wink walkback", by which I mean a statement
that doesnt technically disavow HRC's debunked theory, but that our LGBT
allies will nevertheless view as a mea culpa.
On Oct 25, 2015 9:05 PM, "Brian Fallon" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Yes, if we want to be in the story. Keep in mind: the story will suck
> regardless. But I would just say we should use it as the vehicle for giving
> a statement that reads as a walkback, even as HRC will never approve a true
> walkback, and then we circulate the story to our LGBT friends so they see
> that both they humbled us with a bad story and we highlight our statement
> giving a win-win walkback, and we move on.
> On Oct 25, 2015 9:01 PM, "Robby Mook" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Do we need to get back to Huffpo tonight?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Here is what we have: Huffington post is doing a story tomorrow "fact
>> checking" the idea that there was a push for a constitutional amendment in
>> 1996, as HRC claimed was true. The piece will essentially say there was
>> not, and will quote Rosen's tweet and Evan Wolfson saying this was not true
>> and was hardly a basis for DOMA to be signed by WJC.
>>
>> Xochitl has also gotten an inquiry from the Blade.
>>
>> In addition to this, Socarides tells us he heard from NYT on this, though
>> the campaign has not, so we do not know what he is referring to. I would
>> not be surptised, however, if activists we're pitching this.
>>
>> All that said, I do not think a statement from HRC is warranted simply
>> based on these inquiries. Indeed, I think a statement from her likely
>> attracts more coverage than just these inquiries and also could give the
>> appearance that we are responding to Bernie at JJ, rather than clarifying
>> our own remarks to Maddow. I missed the beginning of tbe conf call this
>> afternoon on thia, but i had assumed we were preparing an HRC statement
>> less for HuffPo and more because that is what political thought was needed
>> to quell the LGBT backlash.
>>
>> If that is not the case, then for my purposes, I would just propose a
>> spokesman statement that accounts for Dan's point (that she will not
>> disavow her theory about the constitutional amendment) but also addresses
>> the community's outrage over the idea that we might be trying to justify
>> support for the law in 96 by saying something like, "Regardless of the
>> differing motives that led to the passage of DOMA, none were justifiable
>> since, as both Hillary and President clinton have said, the law was clearly
>> discriminatory."
>> I'm not sure anyone has asked. We would put it out there.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 7:53 PM, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry to be late to this but what outlets have made the statement request
>> and what is the deadline?
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Dominic Lowell <
>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>> Amanda and I tried to address Tony and Dan's points -- as well as Karen
>>> who pointed out the context is bigger than just Maddow -- while taking into
>>> account the concerns of our cabinet. Below is what we landed on. Appreciate
>>> feedback.
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> On Friday, and in many instances previously, I was asked about my
>>> position on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I appreciate that people
>>> have differing views of the DOMA situation [other word?] in 1996. The
>>> environment for gays and lesbians was different then and there were
>>> struggles about the best paths to take. That is common in all social change
>>> movements. I have been very open that my own views have evolved over the
>>> years.
>>>
>>> I hope the important thing is that we are now moving forward toward
>>> justice, together.
>>> In 2013, I added my voice in support of marriage equality “personally
>>> and as a matter of policy and law.”  As I said then, LGBT Americans are
>>> full and equal citizens and they deserve the full and equal rights of
>>> citizenship.  Like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over
>>> time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our
>>> nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights, and the
>>> guiding principles of my faith. That’s why, as a Senator, I pushed for laws
>>> that would extend protections to the LGBT community in the workplace and
>>> that would make violence towards LGBT individuals a hate crime. And as
>>> Secretary of State, I put LGBT rights on the global agenda and told the
>>> world that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.”
>>>  In my speech last night in Iowa, I didn’t look back to the America of the
>>> past, I looked forward to the America we need to build together.  I pledged
>>> to fight for LGBT Americans who, despite all our progress, in many places
>>> can still get married on Saturday and fired on Monday just because of who
>>> they are and who they love.  In this campaign and as President, I will keep
>>> fighting for equality and opportunity for every American.
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Amanda Renteria <
>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The hope is to squash the story bc it's not going away.
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Kristina Schake <
>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What do we actually have to do here?  I'm not sure a statement will
>>>> help us.  Do we need to response to the Huffington Post?  Is that the main
>>>> request?
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Amanda Renteria <
>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What about broadening the perspectives at that time?
>>>>> Acknowledging there were a lot of diff views vs she was wrong. ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And also for awareness for everyone to have, attached are HRC’s
>>>>> comments on DOMA Carter from my team put together.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Dan Schwerin [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 6:56 PM
>>>>> *To:* Amanda Renteria <[email-masked]>
>>>>> *Cc:* Dominic Lowell <[email-masked]>; Karen Finney <
>>>>> [email-masked]>; Maya Harris <[email-masked]>;
>>>>> Heather Stone <[email-masked]>; Robby Mook <
>>>>> [email-masked]>; Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>;
>>>>> Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>; Brian Fallon <
>>>>> [email-masked]>; Kristina Schake <
>>>>> [email-masked]>; Marlon Marshall <
>>>>> [email-masked]>; Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>;
>>>>> Brynne Craig <[email-masked]>; Sally Marx <
>>>>> [email-masked]>; Teddy Goff <[email-masked]>;
>>>>> John Podesta <[email-masked]>; Christina Reynolds <
>>>>> [email-masked]>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: one chain on DOMA
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think everyone agrees we shouldn't restate her argument. Question is
>>>>> whether she's going to agree to explicitly disavow it. And I doubt it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Amanda Renteria <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no way we have friends to back us up on her interpretation.
>>>>> This is a major problem if we revisit her argument like this.  It's better
>>>>> to do nothing than to re-state this although she is going to get a question
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Working w Dominic now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Dan Schwerin <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not saying double down or ever say it again. I'm just saying that
>>>>> she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her
>>>>> husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate
>>>>> evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking
>>>>> stance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Dominic Lowell <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jumping on a call with the kitchen cabinet now to give them an update.
>>>>> Will turn to this ASAP.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The most recent Blade article has Elizabeth Birch quoted as saying
>>>>> there was no amendment threat in 1996. Hilary Rosen has already tweeted the
>>>>> same. I'll ask on the call, but my sense is that there aren't many friends
>>>>> who will back us up on the point. That's why I'm urging us to back off as
>>>>> much as we can there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd welcome specific edits. I'm fine not mentioning WJC if that's
>>>>> problematic, but my two cents is that you're not going to get her to
>>>>> disavow her explanation about the constitutional amendment and this
>>>>> exercise will be most effective if it provides some context and then goes
>>>>> on offense.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Karen Finney <[email-masked]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If the criticism is that she has said before and reiterated on Friday
>>>>> then hit by Bernie yesterday is t that the context?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Dominic Lowell <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, on phone so focused more on overall thoughts than line edits.
>>>>> Can call you directly if any of this is unclear. Sending to all so people
>>>>> can react, push back, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I originally flagged HRC's Maddow remarks as potentially problematic
>>>>> in part because her wording closely linked her to two unfavorable policies
>>>>> of the past even as no one in the community was asking her to "own" them.
>>>>> Given that, my recommendation would be to make this statement about just
>>>>> her, her evolution, and her record -- not bring in WJC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Relatedly, if we release a statement tonight, it will very clearly be
>>>>> in response to the Maddow interview. To the extent we can, I advocate for
>>>>> owning that so that we can clean this up completely, rightly position her
>>>>> as a champion of LGBT issues, and make sure we move on from any discussion
>>>>> of looming amendments or her being involved in passing either DADT or DOMA.
>>>>> Without getting into the weeds, can we say that the broader point is that
>>>>> the country is in a different place now on LGBT issues -- and thank
>>>>> goodness it is -- and that she's so happy each policy has been placed in
>>>>> the dustbin of history?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Last thought: I have raised this a few times to a smaller number of
>>>>> people on this thread but will flag this for the larger group as well. At
>>>>> Keene State College, she specifically cited friends playing a part in her
>>>>> evolution, which we echo here. That's fine, IMO, and quite believable. But
>>>>> if I were a reporter and wanted to keep the evolution story alive, I would
>>>>> start asking which friends she was talking to and ask us to provide them.
>>>>> Not a problem per se, but I think it is worth flagging now so we aren't
>>>>> caught by surprise later.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a little long, but see what you think. Tried to 1) place this
>>>>> in a context of 'asked and answered,' 2) point to how they've both
>>>>> forthrightly explained their evolution, 3) cite her positive LGBT record,
>>>>> 4) get in a little dig at Sanders for being so backwards looking.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> STATEMENT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In 2013, when the Supreme Court was considering whether to uphold the
>>>>> Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Bill and I explained publicly how and why
>>>>> we became strong supporters of marriage equality.  Bill, who signed DOMA
>>>>> nearly twenty years ago after an overwhelming vote in Congress, called the
>>>>> law a discriminatory vestige of a less tolerant America and urged the Court
>>>>> to strike it down. I added my voice in support of marriage equality
>>>>> “personally and as a matter of policy and law.”  As I said then, LGBT
>>>>> Americans are full and equal citizens and they deserve the full and equal
>>>>> rights of citizenship.  Like so many others, my personal views have been
>>>>> shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience
>>>>> representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human
>>>>> rights, and the guiding principles of my faith.  That’s why, as a Senator,
>>>>> I pushed for laws that would extend protections to the LGBT community in
>>>>> the workplace and that would make violence towards LGBT individuals a hate
>>>>> crime. And as Secretary of State, I put LGBT rights on the global agenda
>>>>> and told the world that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are
>>>>> gay rights.”  In my speech last night in Iowa, I didn’t look back to the
>>>>> America of the past, I looked forward to the America we need to build
>>>>> together.  I pledged to fight for LGBT Americans who, despite all our
>>>>> progress, in many places can still get married on Saturday and fired on
>>>>> Monday just because of who they are and who they love.  In this campaign
>>>>> and as President, I will keep fighting for equality and opportunity for
>>>>> every American.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Dominic Lowell <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +Amanda's work account.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Maya Harris <[email-masked]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From Richard:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I was asked on Friday about the Defense of Marriage Act in an
>>>>> interview on MSNBC, I've checked with people who were involved then to make
>>>>> sure I had all my facts right. It turns out I was mistaken and the effort
>>>>> to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage came some
>>>>> years later.  The larger point I was trying to make about DOMA, however, is
>>>>> still true. It was neither proposed nor supported by anyone in the Clinton
>>>>> administration at the time. It was an effort by the Republicans in Congress
>>>>> to distract attention from the real issues facing the country by using gay
>>>>> marriage, which had very little support then, as a wedge issue in the
>>>>> election. The legislation passed by overwhelming veto-proof margins in both
>>>>> houses of Congress and President Clinton signed it with serious
>>>>> reservations he expressed at the time. Luckily the country has evolved way
>>>>> beyond this in the last 20 years and most Americans, including the Supreme
>>>>> Court, now embrace LGBT equality. We are a better country for it. Although
>>>>> there is much work that remains, and I'm eager to help advance the day when
>>>>> we are all truly equal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Dominic Lowell <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> + JP's personal email
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is what Gautam put together to be helpful:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'm not my husband. I understand why he believed that was the right
>>>>> thing to do at the time, but obviously I wish it had gone differently.
>>>>> Look, we've all come along way since the 90s and I'm proud to have been a
>>>>> part of an Administration that has made it possible for gay troops to serve
>>>>> openly and loving gay couples to get married. I'm also proud of MY record
>>>>> as Secretary of State. I think the community knows I will be the ally they
>>>>> deserve."
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This WJC op-Ed may be helpful:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-clinton-its-time-to-overturn-doma/2013/03/07/fc184408-8747-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill Clinton: It’s time to overturn DOMA
>>>>>
>>>>> *The writer is the 42nd president of the United States.*
>>>>>
>>>>> *I*n 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was
>>>>> only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union
>>>>> was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but
>>>>> some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling
>>>>> with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a
>>>>> bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to
>>>>> the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that
>>>>> its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment
>>>>> banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or
>>>>> more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed
>>>>> by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.
>>>>>
>>>>> On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court
>>>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2012/12/07/the-supreme-court-takes-up-doma/>,
>>>>> and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles
>>>>> of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is
>>>>> therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I
>>>>> have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in
>>>>> fact, incompatible with our Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man
>>>>> and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and
>>>>> the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand
>>>>> federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among
>>>>> other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid
>>>>> leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health
>>>>> and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes,
>>>>> contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in
>>>>> committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I signed the bill, I included a statement
>>>>> <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/clinton.html> with
>>>>> the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the
>>>>> fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to
>>>>> provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know
>>>>> now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law
>>>>> is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are still a young country, and many of our landmark civil rights
>>>>> decisions are fresh enough that the voices of their champions still echo,
>>>>> even as the world that preceded them becomes less and less familiar. We
>>>>> have yet to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, but a society
>>>>> that denied women the vote would seem to us now not unusual or
>>>>> old-fashioned but alien. I believe that in 2013 DOMA and opposition to
>>>>> marriage equality are vestiges of just such an unfamiliar society.
>>>>>
>>>>> Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to
>>>>> recognize the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times
>>>>> lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values.
>>>>> One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President
>>>>> Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question
>>>>> we face today: “It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can we
>>>>> all do better <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29503>?’
>>>>> ”
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer is of course and always yes. In that spirit, I join with
>>>>> the Obama administration, the petitioner Edith Windsor
>>>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/edie-windsors-fight-for-same-sex-marriage-rights-continues-even-after-partners-death/2012/07/19/gJQARguhwW_story.html>,
>>>>> and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this
>>>>> struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of
>>>>> Marriage Act.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Kate Offerdahl <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all - we are going to do 4:30.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Those here at the Hilton can take the call from the staff room.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Call-In: 718-441-3763, no pin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Heather Stone <[email-masked]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Looping in Kate. She is going to get it scheduled.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> All times are good for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Heather Stone <[email-masked]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like tony can do 4:15?  Can others? If not I could do anytime
>>>>> before 5:15 or after 6.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding Dominic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree--let's get our people on a call and push back
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also tied up for next few hours @ finance stuff. But let's get
>>>>> this moving.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jake Sullivan <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding Tony, who recalls this from ’08 when she made a similar
>>>>> argument.  We did not turn up much to support idea that alternative was a
>>>>> constitutional amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also adding Schwerin.  I think we should pull her statements around
>>>>> the time she embraced marriage equality and place greatest emphasis on the
>>>>> fact that she fully acknowledges that she evolved.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m on calls next two hours but Maya has my proxy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Jennifer Palmieri [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 3:46 PM
>>>>> *To:* Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>; John Podesta <
>>>>> [email-masked]>; Robby Mook <[email-masked]>;
>>>>> Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>; Maya Harris <
>>>>> [email-masked]>; Jake Sullivan <
>>>>> [email-masked]>; Marlon Marshall <
>>>>> [email-masked]>; Heather Stone <
>>>>> [email-masked]>
>>>>> *Subject:* one chain on DOMA
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Think all of us are getting incoming from friends in LGBT community
>>>>> about DOMA comments.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HuffPo has reached out to us.  I heard from Socarides that NYT was
>>>>> doing something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no understanding of the issue – but clear this has a head of
>>>>> steam.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian can put a statement out, but policy and political need to tell
>>>>> us what you want us to do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would suggest a conference call with relevant parties for how we are
>>>>> going to handle all around – press, groups, politics.   I have a bad
>>>>> schedule for rest of day and may not be able to  be on such a call but
>>>>> don’t think I am needed.   We just need guidance and then on political end
>>>>> think we need a plan for how to hose down anxious friends.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Dominic Lowell
>>>>>
>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>>>>
>>>>> 661.364.5186
>>>>>
>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Dominic Lowell
>>>>>
>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>>>>
>>>>> 661.364.5186
>>>>>
>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Dominic Lowell
>>>>>
>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>>>>
>>>>> 661.364.5186
>>>>>
>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Dominic Lowell
>>>>>
>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>>>>
>>>>> 661.364.5186
>>>>>
>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Dominic Lowell
>>>>>
>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>>>>
>>>>> 661.364.5186
>>>>>
>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Dominic Lowell
>>>>>
>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>>>>
>>>>> 661.364.5186
>>>>>
>>>>> [email-masked]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <HRC DOMA.DOCX>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kristina Schake | Communications
>>>> Hillary for America
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dominic Lowell
>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>>> 661.364.5186
>>> [email-masked]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Kristina Schake | Communications
>> Hillary for America
>>
>>
>>