Subject: RE: Energy infrastructure fact sheet & KXL oped
From: Christina Reynolds <[email-masked]>
To: "Margolis, Jim" <[email-masked]>, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>
Cc: Nikki Budzinski <[email-masked]>, Kristina Costa <[email-masked]>, Joel Benenson <[email-masked]>, Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>, Speech Drafts <[email-masked]>, Approvals Account <[email-masked]>, Trevor Houser <[email-masked]>, Ben Kobren <[email-masked]>, Pete Ogden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 20:37:20 -0400
List-Id: <speechdrafts.hillaryclinton.com>

Adding Robby.

*From:* [email-masked] [mailto:
[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Margolis, Jim
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 8, 2015 7:48 PM
*To:* Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
*Cc:* Nikki Budzinski <[email-masked]>; Kristina Costa <
[email-masked]>; Joel Benenson <[email-masked]>; Tony Carrk
<[email-masked]>; Speech Drafts <[email-masked]>;
Approvals Account <[email-masked]>; Trevor Houser <
[email-masked]>; Ben Kobren <[email-masked]>; Pete Ogden <
[email-masked]>
*Subject:* Re: Energy infrastructure fact sheet & KXL oped

This has been bothering me as well.

We repeatedly said we couldn't do this and then launch an op Ed without
much explanation.

Is Brian's suggestion possible?

Jim Margolis

Sent from my iPhone.

Please excuse typos.

On Sep 8, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]> wrote:

I know it is late in the game and we have gone round and round on edits on
the oped, but just throwing this out there:

Given that we just offered an apology on emails that some reporters think
happened "on a dime" after months of resistance, do we worry that
publishing an oped that leans this aggressively into our newfound position
on Keystone will be greeted cynically and perhaps as part of some
manufactured attempt to project sincerity?

I think we could seem consistent with our past statements about not wanting
to get ahead of POTUS on Keystone if her position merely leaked out of the
labor meeting. That would seem like a private comment that she didn't
intend to become public -- to an unfriendly audience, no less -- and so it
might achieve the same effect of getting her on the record on this issue,
but with less perception that she is putting a finger to the wind. I just
worry that announcing our position so fulsomely in an oped amounts to
leading with our chin and will inspire loud cries of hypocrisy from
reporters.

Perhaps we could just issue an infrastructure fact sheet, acting like that
was our planned announcement, and rely on the Keystone to leak, either
organically or with an assist from us.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Nikki Budzinski <
[email-masked]> wrote:

Yes, correct to Joel's comment.  Thank you.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Kristina Costa <[email-masked]>
wrote:

You mean on Joel's comment, Nikki? Agree bc we said "point towards" as the
State EIS climate impact of the pipeline would set a very low bar to hold
ourselves to for all other future projects.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Nikki Budzinski <
[email-masked]> wrote:

I would prefer language a little less bold from the labor perspective.  I
worry it will be interpreted to reflect on similar future projects.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Joel Benenson <[email-masked]> wrote:

I don't like saying points us to an energy future.

Isn't it simply: keystone xl puts our economy, our country, and our global
climate at risk.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 8, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Tony Carrk <[email-masked]> wrote:

Good here as long as policy is.

*From:* [email-masked] [mailto:
[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Kristina Costa
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 8, 2015 4:53 PM
*To:* Joel Benenson <[email-masked]>
*Cc:* Speech Drafts <[email-masked]>; Approvals Account <
[email-masked]>; Nikki Budzinski <
[email-masked]>; Trevor Houser <[email-masked]>; Ben
Kobren <[email-masked]>; Pete Ogden <[email-masked]>
*Subject:* Re: Energy infrastructure fact sheet & KXL oped

Any further edits or comments from this group before sending the package
forward to the book? Thanks all.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Kristina Costa <[email-masked]>
wrote:

How about we invert it and cut the additional detail. Can you live with
that?

Keystone XL points us toward an energy future that puts the United States
and our global climate at even greater risk. But building clean, secure,
and affordable North American energy future is bigger than Keystone XL or
any other single project.

We can make the United States the global leader in the fight against
climate change and the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. That’s
why today I am announcing a comprehensive strategy to modernize American
energy infrastructure and forge a new partnership with Canada and Mexico to
cut carbon pollution across the continent and combat climate change,
unleashing billions in investment, delivering reliable and affordable
energy, protecting the health of our families and communities, and creating
good-paying jobs and careers.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Joel Benenson <[email-masked]> wrote:

I understand the point. But right now you don’t have any sound bite that
elevates her position and all that will get picked up is that she’s opposed
to keystone.

The clean energy superpower phrase is in the final clause of a
single-sentence 60-word paragraph.   We have to have a single big idea that
encapsulates her vision on this and link it to our country’s future.   The
clean energy superpower is her line;  leading the world in running our
homes, factories, offices and schools on clean energy is a big idea ….

I’m worried that if we don’t have something like that we are light on her
core values and beliefs on this issue and we are missing those, she risks
looking very political, especially on this.

*From:* [email-masked] [mailto:
[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Kristina Costa
*Sent:* Monday, September 07, 2015 7:48 PM
*To:* Joel Benenson
*Cc:* Speech Drafts; Approvals Account; Nikki Budzinski; Trevor Houser; Ben
Kobren; Pete Ogden
*Subject:* Re: Energy infrastructure fact sheet & KXL oped

Recirculating both the fact sheet and op-ed reflecting edits and comments
from Jake, Nikki, and Joel. In answer to research: changed 20 to 40, and
Trevor can provide calculations based on EIA data, if reporters need it, on
the Mexico/Canada trade point. It isn't written up neatly in one place
online, unfortunately.

Joel, we pumped up the climate impacts but in discussing with Jake decided
we do still need to address why she's making her position known, when she
has previously said she will wait for the President to make a decision.
Added a line about wanting to let voters know where she stands, and added a
more expansive graf about making the US the leader in fighting climate
change and becoming a clean energy superpower. Nipped and tucked elsewhere
to keep the word count down.

Knowing we are still working out rollout timing - comms, policy, political,
do you clear these to go forward to the book?

Thanks all.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Joel Benenson <[email-masked]> wrote:

Sure you have these stats, on cities, but just in case:

http://www.environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/shining-cities-0

*From:* [email-masked] [mailto:
[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Kristina Costa
*Sent:* Monday, September 07, 2015 9:39 AM
*To:* Speech Drafts; Approvals Account; Nikki Budzinski; Trevor Houser; Ben
Kobren; Pete Ogden
*Subject:* Energy infrastructure fact sheet & KXL oped

Team,

Attaching a draft HRC op-ed which uses opposition to KXL as a pivot to talk
about a plan for broad investment in modernizing our energy infrastructure
and forging a climate compact between the US, Mexico, and Canada. These
versions reflect initial edits and comments from the policy team, JDP, and
Nikki.

The current thinking is to have HRC address this in her meeting with the
building trades on Wednesday and roll out the fact sheet and op-ed in
conjunction with that. Please send edits and clearances from comms, policy,
research, and political to me, Trevor, Ben, and Pete no later than *10 am
tomorrow* so we can get this to HRC with plenty of time for her review and
clearance.

Thanks,

Kristina

-- 

Nikki Budzinski

Labor Outreach Director

Hillary for America

646-854-1442 (direct)

-- 

Nikki Budzinski

Labor Outreach Director

Hillary for America

646-854-1442 (direct)

This email is intended only for the named addressee. It may contain
information that is confidential/private, legally privileged, or
copyright-protected, and you should handle it accordingly. If you are not
the intended recipient, you do not have legal rights to retain, copy, or
distribute this email or its contents, and should promptly delete the email
and all electronic copies in your system; do not retain copies in any
media. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
promptly. Thank you.