The Long, Tortured Process Behind a Hillary Tweet

Contained within the 2,000 emails released Friday by WikiLeaks is a chain of correspondence illustrating the sclerotic — and at times even comic — nature of Hillary Clinton’s leave-nothing-to-chance campaign.

In the Donald Trump campaign, if something needs to be said on Twitter, the candidate, himself, simply grabs the closest internet-connected device and blasts it out. At any time of the day or night, it seems.

“Love hitting him back. Will defer to the policy experts on which one, but I like mixing it up when we have the high ground.”

A single tweet from Sen. Marco Rubio on July 31 last year, however, sparked deliberations among a gaggle of Clinton aides over how to respond, discussions that lasted more than six hours.

Rubio’s attack was fairly mild by the standards of the 2016 race. He hit the then-Democratic front-runner over President Obama’s decision to normalize diplomatic relations with Cuba: “After Clinton’s failed ‘reset’ with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, now she wants to do a ‘reset’ with Castro. She is making another mistake.”

Jeremy Massey, an aide in the campaign’s research department, noticed the Rubio tweet and alerted campaign staff at 10:31 a.m.

“Here we go…” wrote Dan Schwerin, the campaign’s director of speechwriting.

Senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan looped two more aides into the discussion, bringing the total to 10.

“John, did you have in mind having HRC hit back, or campaign?” he asked campaign Chairman John Podesta.

Podesta responded, “I’m good with either. Whatever is faster.”

But neither was fast. They were just getting started at Clinton headquarters.

Sullivan offered a suggestion: “Perhaps an HRC tweet along the lines of: Those who seek to lead our country should focus on the future, not try to pull us back to the past.  Embargo hasn’t worked for 50+ years. Let’s try something new.”

Foreign policy adviser Lauren Rosenberger wrote that she liked Sullivan’s suggestion but pitched another option: “@marcorubio I’m for the Cuban people. Time to stop helping the Castros through failed policies. Going back to those would be the mistake.”

[lz_third_party align=center includes=”https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/627124174495055872″]

Christina Reynolds, the deputy communications director, shared her thoughts.

“Love hitting him back,” she wrote. “Will defer to the policy experts on which one, but I like mixing it up when we have the high ground.”

Schwerin wrote that he liked including Rubio’s Twitter handle in the tweet. “.@marcorubio you’ve got it backwards: Engagement isn’t a gift to the Castros — it’s a threat to the Castros. Embargo hasn’t worked for 50+ years. Cuban people deserve better.”

Director of Content and Creative Lauren Peterson suggested “replying directly with no period before the @ — people will see this and it will get pickup.”

She also argued that the tweet needed to be shortened; “here’s my attempt: @marcorubio <https://twitter.com/marcorubio> That’s backwards—engagement’s a threat to the Castros, not a gift. Embargo hasn’t worked for 50 yrs. Cuban ppl deserve better -H.”

At 3:40 p.m., more than five hours after the original internal email, Reynolds asked, “Is this happening?”

Responded Sullivan, “I hope so! Can we get it going?”

Peterson replied, “Will nudge the approvals chain right now.”

Finally, at 4:59 p.m., seven hours and 29 minutes after Rubio’s tweet hit cyberspace, Clinton’s “rapid” response team was ready. The Democratic candidate tweeted her reply to Rubio. For the record, it read: “@marcorubio You’ve got it backwards: Engagement is a threat to the Castros, not a gift. Embargo hasn’t worked for 50+ years. -H.”

Beyond the absurdity of such a bureaucratic and careful approach to responding to a tweet, the emails reveal another truth about the Clinton campaign — it was clearly worried about the telegenic, young senator from Florida. Reynolds gushed over his speechmaking talents in a report to the campaign following Rubio’s campaign announcement in April of last year.

[lz_third_party align=center includes=”https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/627237070268964864″]

“He gives a good speech, and sounded much more reasonable, populist and accessible than much of the rest of the GOP field,” she wrote. “Felt more like an inspiring Democratic speech than a GOP candidate, outside of foreign policy, repealing Obamacare and choice. Lots of references to ‘our generation’ (I.e. Him and younger voters) vs. ‘their generation’ (them being us, Jeb, his opponents, Washington).”

Reynolds added that she assumed “we’re sticking to leaving Rubio response to the DNC, but wanted to flag for anyone who didn’t get the watch,” before summarizing the high points from the speech.

[lz_related_box id=”221523″]

A Clinton aide forwarded a response from the Democratic National Committee attacking Rubio’s policy as “a repeat of the tired Republican playbook.” Rubio would “turn back the clock for women, for young people, for Latinos, and for the middle class.”

The reference to hurting Latinos is ironic because it was Rubio’s flirtation with immigration reform that played one of the largest roles in preventing him from winning the Republican nomination.

In early 2015, long before it became clear that Trump would be the Republican nominee, the Clinton campaign kept tabs on other potential threats. During a discussion about former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s “right to rise” speech in Detroit in February of that year, longtime Clinton confidante Mandy Grunwald wrote, “Very little in this speech that HRC wouldn’t say.”

Democratic pollster Pet Brodnitz concurred.

“Agree – the test will be when he gets to offering solutions,” he wrote. “That’s where he will probably be on weaker ground.”

Of course, Bush’s campaign never gained traction.