Re: From The Washington Post: The Fix: How Hillary Clinton can correct the biggest mistake she made in 2008

From:john.podesta@gmail.com To: robbymook@gmail.com CC: cheryl.mills@gmail.com Date: 2014-03-22 23:56 Subject: Re: From The Washington Post: The Fix: How Hillary Clinton can correct the biggest mistake she made in 2008

I am in total agreement with Robby's first point in this chain. One caveat--gender will be a big field and volunteer motivator, but won't close the deal. JP --Sent from my iPad-- john.podesta@gmail.com For scheduling: eryn.sepp@gmail.com > On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:29 PM, robbymook@gmail.com wrote: > > Just need a third party spoiler and we'll be all set! > I think the chatterers will dissect and criticize whatever she chooses to do but it's going to be so important that the research drive it. I often felt in 08 that the research was being used to back up a premise instead of genuinely find the right target. > >> On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> WJC redux of 1992 >> >> cdm >> >>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:07 PM, robbymook@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> The research coming should really help on this. I think her experience is part of the story since the research showed people see it as a strength but my guess is the key will be establishing her as a champion for the middle class and someone who can get the economy working for average people--and that will be shaped in contrast to her opponent. >>> But the research will tell. >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think the real challenge is that this likely will be a time when people want experience and we got so burned by that narrative we won't go back to it even though it might be right for now. >>>> >>>> cdm >>>> >>>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 8:49 PM, robbymook@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> And I completely disagree with it! I think Cilliza is totally missing the mark (as usual if you ask me!) >>>>> In fact, I think running on her gender would be the SAME mistake as 2008, ie having a message at odds with what voters ultimately want. She ran on experience when voters wanted change...and sure there was plenty of data in marks polls with voters saying her experience appealed to them. But that was missing the larger point--voters wanted change. >>>>> Same deal here--lots of people are going to say it would be neat for a woman to be president but that doesn't mean that's actually WHY they will vote for her. That's likely to be how she will handle the economy and relate to the middle class. >>>>> It's also risky because injecting gender makes her candidacy about HER and not the voters and making their lives better. >>>>> That said I would not be surprised if this is a powerful message for donor and activist engagement (vs persuadable voters). >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 8:30 PM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Interesting how hard this narrative is being pushed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A friend shared this article with you from The Washington Post: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Embrace being a woman running for president.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://wapo.st/1dbwtNo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cdm