Subject: Re: HRC @ VA JJ
From: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
To: Joel Benenson <[email-masked]>
Cc: Mandy Grunwald <[email-masked]>, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>, Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>, Oren Shur <[email-masked]>, Marlon Marshall <[email-masked]>, Brynne Craig <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Maya Harris <[email-masked]>, Jim Margolis <[email-masked]>, John Anzalone <[email-masked]>, David Binder <David
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:25:58 -0400

Thanks Joel. Curious what others think about the politics line. Could
easily cut. But I included it because I felt she needed a little
inoculation/explanation for why we're shifting from a pretty high-minded
discussion to some hard-hitting contrast.
"Future business" is a Bill Clinton thing, but that too we could easily
lose.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joel Benenson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  Dan,
>
> Don’t understand the line on p 8 about “America is a gift, but it’s a gift
> that must be earned by every generation.”
>
>
>
> It comes right after talking about 9 people being murdered.  That seems
> like an odd transition.
>
>
>
> Also not sure about teeing up the discussion of leaders and choices with
> the graf about politics.
>
>
>
> Why not just go from . .. . toward dignity. Toward the future.  And it is
> especially up to our leaders and the choices we make about how govern
> ourselves and how live up to the core values and promises we make to each
> other as a Americans.  -- Americans – living in the most diverse place on
> earth.
>
>
>
> Over the past week or two……
>
> Does that work?
>
>
>
> Not sure about the “future business line”    --- alternative --  We need
> to build the America of tomorrow, not yesterday.  But our Republican
> friends are stuck in the past.
>
>
>
>
>
> You can also use “out of touch and stuck in the past” if she’s more
> comfortable with that than with “out of touch and out of date”  -- either
> works.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Dan Schwerin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2015 3:00 PM
> *To:* Joel Benenson; Mandy Grunwald
> *Cc:* Robby Mook; Jennifer Palmieri; Kristina Schake; John Podesta; Brian
> Fallon; Tony Carrk; Oren Shur; Marlon Marshall; Brynne Craig; Jake
> Sullivan; Maya Harris; Jim Margolis; John Anzalone; David Binder; Christina
> Reynolds; Amanda Renteria; Huma Abedin
> *Subject:* Re: HRC @ VA JJ
>
>
>
> Team, I've re-written this speech in light of today's Supreme Court
> ruling. Have tried to capture some of the feel of this day, with
> celebration in the morning and grief in the afternoon, and what it all
> means for the work we have to do in this country (and what's so wrong with
> the Republicans).  See what you think.
>
> Thanks
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Dan Schwerin <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Thanks all for the feedback. Also touched base with HRC on this. Attached
> is a new draft.  She did not want to call out individual Republicans by
> name so that's gone, but have tried to punch up a few places and, as Mandy
> suggested, stay focused on core critique.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Joel Benenson <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> Also, I think we have turned around the "measure of success riff" in a way
> that misses the point and dilutes impact.
>
> The point is our current measures of success are wrong or misplaced so we
> have to talk about the ones she sees as what they should be and they should
> come first.
>
> The measure of our success should be be how many families can get ahead
> and stay ahead, not how much CEOs are paid. The measure of our success
> should be how much wages are rising for workers who companies succeed, not
> how much bigger the bonuses get for those at the top.
>
> Stuff like that
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 2015, at 10:37 PM, Mandy Grunwald <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > Dan,
> >
> > There's lots of good stuff here but I think our critique of the
> Republicans has to come from a more consistent point of view, so we make a
> clear argument.
> >
> > Our fundamental contrast is that Republicans would rip away the progress
> we've made on the economy by returning to failed top down economics and are
> out of touch/stuck in the past on social issues.
> >
> > So, for example on health care, I wouldn't say they "had a bad day
> yesterday" - which is a political lens or "they should stop creating
> problems and start solving them ".  I'd focus on the fact they're still
> trying to fight the progress we've made, and repeal the Affordable Care
> Act...50 votes, 2 Supreme Court decisions and they still want to return to
> the days of....
> >
> > Hope this is helpful.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Mandy
> >
> > Mandy Grunwald
> > Grunwald Communications
> > 202 973-9400
> >
> >
> >> On Jun 25, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Team, we checked in with Gov. McAuliffe and he's hoping that tomorrow
> HRC will talk about 1) Health care, 2) guns, 3) all the progress they're
> making in VA; 4) why she's running or President.  That's what I've done in
> the attached draft, along with a fair amount of GOP contrast. See what you
> think -- especially all you McAuliffe alumni out there.
> >> Thanks
> >> Dan
> >> <2015-06-25 Virginia JJ 9pm.docx>
>
>
>
>
>