Subject: Re: Trade Statement
From: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
To: Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>
Cc: Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Marlon Marshall <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:13:06 -0400

Do we need to run by HRC or are we good?

On Apr 16, 2015, at 11:54 PM, Marlon Marshall <[email-masked]>
wrote:

How is this going out?  Just want to be ready to do labor calls

On Apr 16, 2015, at 11:53 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
[email-masked]> wrote:

Right

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 16, 2015, at 11:10 PM, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:

This works.  Tomorrow am at this point, right?

On Apr 16, 2015, at 10:45 PM, Robby Mook <[email-masked]> wrote:

Are we shipping out tonight or tomorrow am?

On Apr 16, 2015, at 10:42 PM, John Podesta <[email-masked]> wrote:

I'm good.
On Apr 16, 2015 10:23 PM, "Dan Schwerin" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>