Download raw source

Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.88.12 with SMTP id m12csp616007lfb; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:01:05 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.28.3.134 with SMTP id 128mr5100310wmd.92.1454018465020; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:01:05 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: <philm@neomailbox.ch> Received: from s2.neomailbox.net ([5.148.176.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x10si17878404wjx.150.2016.01.28.14.01.04 for <john.podesta@gmail.com> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:01:04 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning philm@neomailbox.ch does not designate 5.148.176.60 as permitted sender) client-ip=5.148.176.60; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning philm@neomailbox.ch does not designate 5.148.176.60 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=philm@neomailbox.ch Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:00:54 -0800 Subject: Identified a flaw in Bernie's campaign: he is (effectively) saying he's better than Obama From: Philip Munger <philm@neomailbox.ch> To: Sara Latham <slatham@hillaryclinton.com> CC: john.podesta@gmail.com Message-ID: <D2CFCDBF.14D913%philm@neomailbox.ch> Thread-Topic: Identified a flaw in Bernie's campaign: he is (effectively) saying he's better than Obama Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3536834464_5937875" --B_3536834464_5937875 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable John, (Sara, please see that this gets to him, thanks.) I ran this by the person I consider the smartest person in the Obama world (who was KEY to his re-election, and unfortunately doesn't work for you=8A), and he thought this was very important. I won't name him here. The below couldn't come from your campaign because of HRC's vulnerabilities= , but maybe from a friendly journalist or op-ed writer? Think about this. Bernie says he will only take small dollar donations. That's fine for the primary. Let's say he spends $200 million and keeps up with Hillary. Then he gets into the general, and let's give him, generously $400,000,000 in small dollar donations. He needs a "social revolution" with millions coming out, especially young voters who are hard and expensive to turn out. How is he going to beat a $2 billion Republican machine? He is either going to have to take the big money from the Democratic machine, or lose. If he betrays his principles, he loses enthusiasm and followers. It's a Hobson's choice. Here is the punch line. Barack Obama, a squeaky clean candidate who has had no scandals and who no one thinks is owned by special interests (the worse you can say is he makes too many concessions to them, or hires too many people from wall street), thought, in 2008, even with the wind at his back (Republican-caused financial crisis and unpopular war), decided to leave th= e limited public finance system and raise a billion dollars. Same in 2012. So, and here's where Hillary comes in. Dear Bernie, are you saying you are a better, smarter candidate than Barack Obama and his apparatus (new organizing, registration, data, turn out operations?). Are you saying the enthusiasm you have generated is greater than Barack Obama, or that you are a greater revolutionary? Are you saying Barack Obama was corrupt when he decided he needed a billion to beat the Republican machine? Get real Bernie. Best, Philip --B_3536834464_5937875 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: s= pace; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size:= 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>John,</div><div><br></div><d= iv>(Sara, please see that this gets to him, thanks.)</div><div>I ran this by= the person I consider the smartest person in the Obama world (who was KEY t= o his re-election, and unfortunately doesn't work for you…), and he th= ought this was very important. I won't name him here.</div><div><br></div><d= iv>The below couldn't come from your campaign because of HRC's vulnerabiliti= es, but maybe from a friendly journalist or op-ed writer?</div><div><br></di= v><div>Think about this. Bernie says he will only take small dollar donation= s. That's fine for the primary. Let's say he spends $200 million and keeps u= p with Hillary. Then he gets into the general, and let's give him, generousl= y $400,000,000 in small dollar donations. He needs a "social revolution" wit= h millions coming out, especially young voters who are hard and expensive to= turn out. How is he going to beat a $2 billion Republican machine? He is ei= ther going to have to take the big money from the Democratic machine, or los= e. If he betrays his principles, he loses enthusiasm and followers. It's a H= obson's choice.</div><div><br></div><div>Here is the punch line. Barack Obam= a, a squeaky clean candidate who has had no scandals and who no one thinks i= s owned by special interests (the worse you can say is he makes too many con= cessions to them, or hires too many people from wall street), thought, in 20= 08, even with the wind at his back (Republican-caused financial crisis and u= npopular war), decided to leave the limited public finance system and raise = a billion dollars. Same in 2012.</div><div><br></div><div>So, and here's whe= re Hillary comes in. </div><div><br></div><div>Dear Bernie, are you say= ing you are a better, smarter candidate than Barack Obama and his apparatus = (new organizing, registration, data, turn out operations?). Are you saying t= he enthusiasm you have generated is greater than Barack Obama, or that you a= re a greater revolutionary? Are you saying Barack Obama was corrupt when he = decided he needed a billion to beat the Republican machine? Get real Bernie.= </div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Philip</div><div><br></div></body>= </html> --B_3536834464_5937875--