Subject: Re: Trade Statement
From: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
To: Robby Mook <[email-masked]>
Cc: Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>, Marlon Marshall <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:23:18 -0400

Here's a shorter version:

Hillary believes that any new trade measure has to pass two tests: First,
does it put us in a position to protect American workers, raise wages and
create more good jobs at home? Second, does it 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. Hillary will be watching
closely to see what is being done to crack down on currency manipulation,
improve labor rights, protect the environment, and open new opportunities
for our small businesses to export overseas.  As she warned in her book,
Hard Choices, we shouldn’t be giving special rights to corporations at the
expense of workers and consumers.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Robby Mook <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Two thoughts:
> 1) I wouldn't mention prior support.  I only see downside to that.
> 2) I would just do the first paragraph--or just add a sentence onto it
> about the enviro, labor stuff.  I think it's a bit longer than it needs to
> be right now.
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>> One thought: do we need a sentence acknowledging her prior support for
>> TPP?
>>
>> Hillary has been on record in favor of an outcome that meets both these
>> tests.  But we should be willing to walk away from an outcome that falls
>> short.
>>
>> Or Robby is that a problem?
>>
>> On Apr 16, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> How does this look to everyone?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hillary believes that any new trade measure has to pass two tests: First,
>> does it put us in a position to protect American workers, raise wages and
>> create more good jobs at home? Second, does it 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hillary will be watching closely to see the result of a number of pivotal
>> questions yet to be decided, including what is being done to crack down on
>> currency manipulation and unfair competition by state-owned enterprises; to
>> improve labor rights and protect the environment, public health, and access
>> to life-saving medicines; and to open new opportunities for our family
>> farms and small businesses to export their products and services overseas.
>> And, as Hillary warned in her book, Hard Choices, we shouldn’t be giving
>> special rights to corporations at the expense of workers and consumers.
>> Getting these things right will go a long way toward ensuring that trade
>> will be a net plus for everyday Americans.
>>
>>
>