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

RE: DRAFT: TPP statement

From:jbenenson@bsgco.com To: arenteria@hillaryclinton.com, gruncom@aol.com CC: john@algpolling.com, dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com, speechdrafts@hillaryclinton.com Date: 2015-10-06 23:39 Subject: RE: DRAFT: TPP statement

Amanda, et al I get this. But the reality is HRC is more pro trade than anti and trying to turn her into something she is not could reinforce our negative around authenticity. This is an agreement that she pushed for and largely advocated for. That it fails to meet her very specific criteria seems to be the best territory to me. I think Mandy’s comment below hits the right tone here and the consistency piece around dispute resolution is important. Joel I'm more for leaning into her core message about being "for the worker". not quite as policy focused. we have to say that for the Hill and WH and I get it, but would love to see some soft stuff about what's going on with the real people/workers today and at this moment in time, we need something better. On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:24 PM, 'Mandy Grunwald' via Speech Drafts <speechdrafts@hillaryclinton.com<mailto:speechdrafts@hillaryclinton.com>> wrote: I agree with Anzo. This is so full of compliments, I can barely tell that HRC is opposing the deal. I can imagine a salute at the start, but not on each provision we are supposedly opposing. Also, I think we need a sound bite that has some oomph. I don't know if you want to reference her gold standard remarks, something like, "I had hoped would become the gold standard for trade deals that actually help the American worker, but I'm afraid this one doesn't deserve a medal." Also, I think it's important to emphasize consistency where we can. On the ISDS provision, it would be helpful to remind people what she wrote in her book two years ago. And maybe use that language as a rebuke to this deal -- something like "this doesn't achieve the level and fair playing field I had hoped for. There are still too many special favors." Or something like that. We should be focused on ending currency manipulation, environmental destruction, and miserable working conditions in developing countries, as well as harmonizing regulations with the EU. And we should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia. The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors. Mandy Grunwald Grunwald Communications 202 973-9400<tel:202%20973-9400> ----- Again, I am sensitive to the tough position you are in crafting this. ________________________________ -- Amanda Renteria National Political Director Hillary for America #Hillary2016 650-868-1188 (c) Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/renteriaforcongress> or Twitter<https://twitter.com/AmandaRenteria>