This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

Re: Race Speech Update

thanks for the summary Dan. When we started the day, Minyon really liked the idea and the concept of the speech. She still does but is questioning the timing and thinks there is also a chance it gets lost with everything else happening. And she thinks this could be a good speech as HRC prepares for March 1 and 15 states. I also just learned that Sanders is doing an identical civil rights meeting on Thursday. I just talked to HRC and she is also persuaded by these points and would prefer to have a good outline and briefing points she can use to answer questions in all the AA media is about to start doing. So unless someone wants to push for this, we want to have NO speech on Tuesday. Separately as some of us have discussed, really worried about this event in Chicago and we need to decide if keeping it as is is the right decision On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Dan Schwerin <dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com > wrote: > I wanted to update everyone on where we are with this speech. > > 1) We had good conversations with WJC and HRC about what a speech like > this could cover and Megan is working right now on a draft. Basic outline: > Have to break all the barriers... even if we broke up the banks, there > would still be problem of systemic racism... we can't take black voters and > their concerns for granted or show up just before an election and try to > get religion, we need a sustained, comprehensive commitment... this has > been a cause of HRC's life... sometimes we get the balance wrong, very > briefly go through some of the lessons learned from the '90s... key is what > do we do now and HRC has a robust breaking every barrier agenda that > includes criminal justice but also education, opportunity, housing, voting > rights, etc. Both WJC and HRC were quite clear that this shouldn't be a > big mea culpa, but WJC also said we shouldn't try to defend the > indefensible. > > 2) Tonight, in a gut check conversation with Minyon, she raised some tough > questions about the wisdom of doing this speech this week. Its possible > that we would unintentionally end up elevating questions that aren't yet > being widely asked and introduce new damaging information, especially super > predator, to a lot more voters. If media interviews go badly this week, we > could reassess. But if they go well, and if we think we can get through > South Carolina without stirring this pot, maybe we should skip the speech. > > 3) Talking with Jake and Maya tonight, we are mostly persuaded by these > concerns. We wonder whether we might have more luck driving the Supreme > Court issue hard over the next few days instead, surf that news cycle as a > progressive champion, and have the benefit of avoiding going to Chicago in > a criminal justice space. Minyon and Huma were going to continue talking > with John Lewis and HRC on the road to get their sense. > > 4) One relevant factor might be whether we have any data from SC about > erosion. If we're slipping fast, maybe it's worth rolling the dice and > doing the speech. If we're holding relatively steady, maybe we see if we > can ride this out without doing the speech. >