Subject: RE: UPDATE -- new outline
From: David Binder <[email-masked]>
To: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>, Mandy Grunwald <[email-masked]>, Jim <[email-masked]>, Joel Benenson <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Huma Abedin <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, Oren Shur <[email-masked]>, John Anzalone <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:49:29 -0800

I think this looks good, Dan.  A couple of minor thoughts:

a.       Mention college affordability in 3b

b.      Not sure she should mention that she is only one with right temperament (as opposed to surrogates doing this on her behalf)

c.       Would drop Republicans from stand ground at the end, just so that it doesn’t contradict the getting things done message,  would keep stand ground focused on special interest,

From: Dan Schwerin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 1:30 PM
To: Mandy Grunwald <[email-masked]>; Jim <[email-masked]>; Joel Benenson <[email-masked]>; John Podesta <[email-masked]>; Huma Abedin <[email-masked]>; Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>; Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>; Robby Mook <[email-masked]>; Oren Shur <[email-masked]>; John Anzalone <[email-masked]>; David Binder <[email-masked]>
Subject: UPDATE -- new outline

Circling back around with everyone for an update.  After further discussions here this morning, folks came to two conclusions: First, that we should back off the explicit revolution language because it will get us into a fight we don't want; second, that we need to give her a full argument and a new speech, not a brief insert.  We then sketched out the attached outline.  I'm going to fill in some of the language with the goal of getting her a more robust document later this afternoon (although still an outline).  Could everyone take a look and weigh in now on the direction and argument?  And I'll recirculate before sending to her in a couple hours?
Thanks very much.
Dan