Subject: Re: Favreau
From: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
To: Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>
Cc: John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:52:20 -0500

I just sent around a draft that tries out some new "it doesn't add up"
language so that might be worth looking at and discussing. And I think Jake
may have talked to H about some of this as well.

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Just re- read this note from Jon.
>
> It reaffirms my concern with relying on argument that his plans don't add
> up as contrast.  It's the kind of argument that makes his argument stronger
> - his supporters will draw energy from her saying what he wants isn't real
> or can't add up.
>
> I think arguing that you can't be a single issue candidate and showing his
> ideas are bad is better terrain.  Single issue reinforces a strength of
> HRC's (her ability to do all part is the job).  Doesn't add up reinforces a
> negative view of her (she's part of the establishment and won't ever
> accomplish kind of change we need).
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 18, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> Sharing this advice from Favreau, for what it's worth.  As you know, much
> of this is very much in line with my own thinking over the past several
> months. And I'd say he raises useful cautions about not letting our
> "breaking barriers" message become a recitation of interest groups or isms,
> and not letting "the math doesn't add up" critique turn her into a wet
> blanket.  That said, I think he's undervaluing the importance of keeping a
> strong economic thrust at the heart of our message... anyway, food for
> thought.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From:* Jon Favreau <[email-masked]>
> *Date:* February 18, 2016 at 1:34:04 PM EST
> *Subject:* *Hillary *
>
> Very scattered thoughts, starting with a few things I've read and seen
> that made me think "Ah, this should be her message":
>
> 1. The awesome DREAMer video you guys put out
>
> 2. The race speech
>
> 3. This David Brooks column (I know, I know, I'll go kill myself):
> http://nyti.ms/1KTjYqJ
>
> 4. The Love and Kindness story
>
> Her most important job right now is to inspire people, and generate
> enthusiasm. And she will not succeed by playing the pragmatist to Bernie's
> idealist. No young person - no any person - who isn't the most committed
> voter will head out to the polls or knock on doors for someone who tells
> them that they should have more realistic expectations for what politics
> can achieve (even though they should!). In 2008, we would purposely bait
> her into playing the wet blanket so we could turn around and whack her for
> it. The line from the New Hampshire primary night speech, "In the unlikely
> story of America, there has never been anything false about hope" was a
> direct retort to Hillary's line about Obama "giving everyone false hopes."
> And it was devastating.
>
> Far more effective has been what she's been doing recently - saying that
> Bernie is a single issue voter and that there are a lot more issues at
> stake than Wall Street. This idea that class is the only divide and
> economic issues are all that matter is a very white male centric view of
> the world (a Bernie Bro view, if you will). It also reminds me of the
> hilarious joke that Brian Buetler keeps making every time some asshole says
> something horribly racist about Obama or sexist about Hillary or prejudice
> about immigrants and Muslims - oh, let's not blame them, they're just
> economically anxious.
>
> People are of course economically anxious, and Bernie is tapping into that
> very well. But that's only half the equation. They're also being told to
> blame other groups for all their problems - blacks, gays, immigrants,
> Muslims, women, political correctness, etc. Fighting that intolerance and
> divisiveness is just as important as fighting inequality - arguably more so
> in this election because Trump has made it the defining issue. And she is
> way better equipped and qualified to make that argument than Bernie is.
> That's true because she's a woman. That's true because she was America's
> chief diplomat. That's true because she's fought for these issues her
> entire life.
>
> As far back as Audacity of Hope, Obama often talked about our ability to
> coexist peacefully in a shrinking world as a central challenge of the 21st
> century. Bill Clinton used to talk about interdependence on one another as
> our central mission.
>
> Hillary can pick up the mantle here in a very inspiring way. She just has
> to tweak it and be careful that it doesn't sound like she's listing off
> interest groups - here's my black speech, here's my Latino policy, here's
> my woman's event, etc. She needs to combine her policies with her record
> with a vision of the country and the world where we're stronger together
> than we are divided against each other. That's different than "stronger
> together than we are on our own," which would be more of a Bernie/Obama '12
> message that's all about right-wing economics. This is an evolution of that
> message that's primarily a response to the intolerance and bigotry of Trump
> and the right.
>
> She should be talking about love and kindness. She should be talking about
> mutual respect and tolerance. She should be talking about rebuilding the
> bonds of community and rebuilding friendships, not just between nations,
> but between people all over the world. Not just compassion for compassion's
> sake - but because we're stronger when we're pulling together' when
> everyone feels like they're part of the team.
>
> It reminds me of one of my favorite passages from any speech - Cuomo's 84
> convention address:
>
> "It's an old story. It's as old as our history. The difference between
> Democrats and Republicans has always been measured in courage and
> confidence. The Republicans -- The Republicans believe that the wagon train
> will not make it to the frontier unless some of the old, some of the young,
> some of the weak are left behind by the side of the trail. "The strong" --
> "The strong," they tell us, "will inherit the land."
>
> We Democrats believe in something else. We democrats believe that we can
> make it all the way with the whole family intact, and we have more than
> once. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to
> lift this nation from its knees -- wagon train after wagon train -- to new
> frontiers of education, housing, peace; the whole family aboard, constantly
> reaching out to extend and enlarge that family; lifting them up into the
> wagon on the way; blacks and Hispanics, and people of every ethnic group,
> and native Americans -- all those struggling to build their families and
> claim some small share of America. For nearly 50 years we carried them all
> to new levels of comfort, and security, and dignity, even affluence. And
> remember this, some of us in this room today are here only because this
> nation had that kind of confidence. And it would be wrong to forget that."
>
> Who better to deliver that message than First Lady-turned-Secretary of
> State who could become America's first female president?
>
>
>