Slashdot Mirror


Google's Schmidt Drew Up Draft Plan For Clinton In 2014 (itwire.com)

New submitter troublemaker_23 writes: Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google's parent company Alphabet, submitted a detailed draft to a key Clinton aide on April 15, 2014, outlining his ideas for a possible run for the presidency and stressing that "The key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them." The ideas, in an email released by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, were sent to Cheryl Mills, former deputy White House counsel to Bill Clinton. Mills forwarded it to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, campaign manager Robby Mook and Barack Obama's 2012 campaign manager David Plouffe. The email is one of a trove from Podesta's gmail account that was obtained by WikiLeaks. About two weeks prior to this, Podesta wrote to Mook that he had met Schmidt and that he (Schmidt) was keen to be the "top outside adviser." In the April 15, 2014 email, Schmidt emphasized that what he was putting forward was a draft, writing, "Here are some comments and observations based on what we saw in the 2012 campaign. If we get started soon, we will be in a very strong position to execute well for 2016." It was titled "Notes for a 2016 Democratic campaign." He divided his comments into categories such as size, structure and timing; location; the pieces of a campaign; the rules; and what he called the key things. With regard to size, structure and timing, Schmidt wrote: "Let's assume a total budget of about US$1.5 billion, with more than 5000 paid employees and million(s) of volunteers. The entire start-up ceases operation four days after 8 November 2016." As to location, he did not like the idea of using Washington DC as a base and was keen on low-paid workers. "The campaign headquarters will have about a thousand people, mostly young and hard-working and enthusiastic. It's important to have a very large hiring pool (such as Chicago or NYC) from which to choose enthusiastic, smart and low-paid permanent employees," he wrote. "DC is a poor choice as it's full of distractions and interruptions. Moving the location from DC elsewhere guarantees visitors have taken the time to travel and to help."

6 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. and yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    And yet when you get down to it, it's always the progressives and liberals who turn violent when they don't get their way.

    Every time.

    1. Re:and yet... by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

      [citation needed]
      (Good fucking luck with that.)

      Environmentalists? ALF? ELF? Sea Shepard? Earth First? Well that's a start. Then we can move onto the political groups. FLQ, Weather underground(WUO), more modern stuff like Antifa, BLM, to just name a few. Then we can get into the various flavors of the anarchist groups that put those claims. Then there's the agent provocateur stuff, that if you've been paying attention to in the current US election...which has come from "arms reach" liberal organizations. Haven't even touched on the ones in Europe that are still all over the place. FYI: They're all left-wing groups, they've all at one point claimed some form of progressive identity or liberal identity. They've all had directly or indirectly funding from big name progressive or liberal or communist groups or people who claim those identities directly. We'll leave the non-affiliated individuals like the crazy lady who tried to firebomb a group of pro-life protesters outside an abortion clinic out of it though, just to make it easy.

      Good enough?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:and yet... by ausekilis · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree that the GOP has had piss poor leadership for decades. The latest batch of in-breds in particular seem to be so far out of touch with today's society it's almost like they've been living in a GOP bio-dome fed propaganda for 20 years before they are allowed to step up to a podium.

      However, they most certainly don't "just go with the opposition". Congress has managed to do far less since 2011 due to all of the infighting. Have you not seen the headlines about the Republican house trying to cut funding to the Democratic majority FCC? What about the Republican house trying their damnedest to pass laws that have side-notes to cut funding to Obamacare?

      "If it's something Obama supports, we must stop it!" has been the GOP mantra for 8 years now.

  2. Re:Like fear of the brown people... by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unfortunately for people like AmiMoJo (and most on this website), they have never really had fear, or economic uncertainty. If you are a lower/middle class person in the UK, you are fearful of unchecked immigration as it affects you and your family directly. The SJW just chant "racism" but it is about economics, not racism. People are scared, and they should be scared. AmiMojo hasn't been scared yet, but he might if things get bad enough.

  3. Re:This is a good thing. by smallfries · · Score: 2, Informative

    You've proven his point quite well. Thank you.

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  4. Re:This is a good thing. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just FYI, the anti-abortion position is not about controlling the bodies of women. It is about stopping murder. And the pro-abortion position is not about freedom for the bodies of women, it is about murder too.

    See, for example, the pro-abortion camp's reaction to a proposal in Italy not long ago to replace third trimester abortions with surgical delivery, incubation, and when successful, adoption. I'll give you a hint, the pro-abortion camp was absolutely fucking outraged that anyone would suggest that we try to end a pregnancy (freedom for the mother's body) without killing the baby.

    If you don't believe me, find one of your pro-abortion friends and ask them what they think of the idea. If they haven't heard of it before, you'll get to enjoy several seconds of stunned silence while their brains reboot, followed by angry sputtering (from most of them; a few think it is a great idea).

    And you are absolutely right about conservativism. It is dead, though the corpse hasn't stopped twitching yet. Reagan's amnesty was the fatal blow, though Kennedy's immigration reform in 1965 was already festering badly by then and would certainly have finished the job unaided, eventually, and if left untreated. Amnesty '86 all but assured that whites would, within a generation, start to develop racial awareness and then a national identity in the generation that followed. (Note: The generations in question are roughly, Gen-X and Millennial. Also note that nation is not a synonym of country.) Once upon a time, it was possible to view libertarianism as the destination that conservatism wanted to take us towards. Now both the road and the end are closed, and a new right is forming, one that the left will find much less easy to push around.

    We truly are blessed to live in such amazing times.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?