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

Re: Elizabeth Warren

From:cheryl.mills@gmail.com To: dschwerin@hrcoffice.com CC: Jake.Sullivan@gmail.com, robbymook@gmail.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, pir@hrcoffice.com, nmerrill@hrcoffice.com Date: 2015-01-08 02:40 Subject: Re: Elizabeth Warren

can anyone say goldberg? On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Dan Schwerin <dschwerin@hrcoffice.com> wrote: > Dan Geldon, the Warren aide I met with yesterday, emailed about this > story and said "found the WSJ's write-up if you've seen it to be > extraordinarily aggressive on their part. She didn't say anything about > economic metrics (along the lines we discussed yesterday) that she hasn't > been saying for years, never criticized the Secretary by name or even in a > veiled way, etc. -- they took a lot of liberties with their interpretation. > " > > > From: Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 11:36 PM > To: Jake Sullivan <Jake.Sullivan@gmail.com>, Dan <dschwerin@hrcoffice.com>, > Robby Mook <robbymook@gmail.com>, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>, > Philippe Reines <pir@hrcoffice.com>, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com> > Subject: Fwd: FW: Elizabeth Warren > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <lynn@elrothschild.com> > Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 7:15 PM > Subject: FW: Elizabeth Warren > To: "Cheryl Mills (cheryl.mills@gmail.com)" <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> > > > > > I think this blog overstates what Warren was doing, but we need to craft > the economic message for Hillary so that Warren's common inaccurate > conclusions are addressed. Xoxo Lynn > > > > > http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/07/warren-throws-four-punchs-at-the-clintons/ > > > > Sen. *Elizabeth Warren* professes that she is not running for president, > but her Wednesday speech to a major labor conference is loaded with > not-terribly-veiled references to *Hillary Clinton* and attacks on *Bill > Clinton*'s record as president. > > The Massachusetts Democrat's prepared remarks to the AFL-CIO's National > Summit on Wages in Washington are a lesson in progressive economic theory. > In this retelling, landmark free trade deals and banking deregulation boost > the fortunes of the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class. > > Criticism of the Clintons is threaded throughout Ms. Warren's remarks. > Most comes in the form of a liberal critique of Mr. Clinton's economic > record, but there is one significant shot at Mrs. Clinton as well. > > Of course, Ms. Warren has insisted she isn't running for president but has > couched it in the present tense, most recently *last month when she > refused to rule out a run during an interview with NPR* > <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/15/elizabeth-warren-again-i-am-not-running-for-president/> > . > > Washington Wire found at least four instances in Ms. Warren's Wednesday > speech in which she takes political shots at the Clintons. > > *The Wal-Mart > <http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=WMT> WMT +1.48% > <http://blogs.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=WMT?mod=inlineTicker> dog-whistle*: > "Corporate profits and GDP are up. But if you work at Wal-Mart, and you are > paid so little that you still need food stamps to put groceries on the > table, what does more money in stockholders' pockets and an uptick in GDP > do for you?" > > Wal-Mart is a regular bogeyman for Big Labor, but it is also a > particularly tough attack for Mrs. Clinton to echo, since she served on the > retailer's board of directors for six years when her husband was the > Arkansas governor. The tie was regularly brought up by supporters of Mrs. > Clinton's opponents during the 2008 presidential primary campaign and > remains well remembered in Iowa, where *several Democrats raised it > unprompted during interviews last week* > <http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-iowa-democrats-slow-to-rally-around-hillary-clinton-1420418121> > . > > "Even though they don't exist anymore, her connections to Wal-Mart, those > don't sit well," said Jennifer Herrington, the Democratic Party chairwoman > in Page County. "People still talk about it. The sense is that not much has > really changed." > > *Bill Clinton was just as bad as the Republicans*: "Pretty much the whole > Republican Party - and, if we're going to be honest, too many Democrats - > talked about the evils of 'big government' and called for deregulation. It > sounded good, but it was really about tying the hands of regulators and > turning loose big banks and giant international corporations to do whatever > they wanted to do." > > Part of the Hillary Clinton argument is that her husband's presidency > presided over the economic growth of the 1990s. But here Ms. Warren takes > direct aim at Mr. Clinton's record on deregulation and harkens back to his *1996 > State of the Union address and its signature line* > <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=53091>, "The era of big > government is over." > > *NAFTA was a bad deal*: "Look at the choices Washington has made, the > choices that have left America's middle class in a deep hole... The choice to > sign trade pacts and tax deals that let subsidized manufacturers around the > globe sell here in America while good American jobs get shipped overseas." > > Labor has long been sour on free-trade agreements, and Mr. Obama during > the 2008 campaign said he would renegotiate it, though that never happened. *Mrs. > Clinton at the time also said she would seek a better NAFTA deal with > Canada and Mexico* > <http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB120459602445109371?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy&mg=reno64-wsj>, > but it becomes politically difficult for her to offer substantive critiques > of her husband's White House record. > > *Mr. Clinton wasn't good for the middle class*: "So who got the increase > in income over the last 32 years? One hundred percent of it went to the top > 1%. All of the new money earned in this economy over the past generation -- > all that growth in the GDP -- went to the top. All of it." > > Here Ms. Warren makes a potent argument that Mr. Clinton - and by > association, Mrs. Clinton - had the same results for the middle class as > Republican presidents. By tying the records of the Reagan, Clinton, Obama > and two Bush administrations together, Ms. Warren paints herself as the > outside-the-system crusader her supporters want her to be. > >