WikiLeaks Just Revealed Mainstream Media Works Directly With

WikiLeaks Just Revealed Mainstream Media Works Directly With

Postby admin » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:34 pm

WikiLeaks Just Revealed Mainstream Media Works Directly With Hillary, DNC
by Carey Wedler at theantimedia.org
July 25th, 2016
hqanon

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Wikileaks’ Friday leak of nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails reveals many nefarious activities. In light of new evidence the DNC intentionally sabotaged Bernie Sanders while DNC staffersmocked him, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party continue to be hit with embarrassing revelations.

One of the most damning findings of the leak is the fact Clinton and the DNC have worked closely with, manipulated, and bullied media outlets.

One email revealed Politico reporter Ken Vogel sent an article discussing the DNC to the DNC before he sent it to his editors. Vogel attached his story in an email titled, “per agreement… any thoughts appreciated,” sent April 30, 2016, to Mark Paustenbach, Deputy Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee.

The article, which appeared to criticize, or at least examine, Clinton and the DNC’s fundraising tactics, was forwarded by Paustenbach to Luis Miranda, Communications Director at Democratic National Committee.

“Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it. Let me know if you see anything that’s missing and I’ll push back,” Paustenbach wrote. The conflict of interest apparent when a journalist — one who is supposed to be questioning the DNC — allows the DNC access and input to that very investigation can hardly be understated.

But first-look deals with journalists who are supposed to be criticizing those in power are not the only media revelations of Wikileaks’ latest leak.

Another email, titled “WaPo Party,” revealed the Washington Post held an “unlisted” fundraiser with the DNC.“They aren’t going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors,” wrote Anu Rangappa, Senior Advisor for General Election Strategies for the DNC, in September of last year. Jordan Kaplan, National Finance Director for the DNC, replied, “Great – we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.”

Ironically, in November of last year, the Washington Post published an in-depth investigation into the Clinton money machine. The article, entitled, “41 Years. $3 Billion. Inside the Clinton donor network,” questioned the huge flow of cash the Clintons have cultivated over the years. At other points, it marveled at their abilities to rake in so much funding. At no point did it disclose the Post’s fundraiser for Hillary.

In February of this year, the Washington Post published an article entitled, “Democratic Party fundraising effort helps Clinton find new donors, too.”

The article highlighted Clinton’s success attracting low-level donors, and though it acknowledged her access to big money, it ultimately painted her as moving the party forward. Campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin, who was also involved with managing Vogel’s Politico article, was quoted in the article:

“‘Republicans are spending record amounts trying to beat Democrats, and we want to ensure that the Democratic nominee and candidates up and down the ballot are backed by a strong party with the resources needed to win,’ said campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin.”

The Post also cited platitudes from Clinton, herself.

In yet another brazen instance revealed by the Wikileaks data dump, Debbie Wasserman Schultz attempted to silence MSNBC Morning Joe anchor Mika Brzezinski after the anchor criticized her, particularly for alleged unfairness to the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Citing a Breitbart article detailing Brzezinski’s criticisms, DNC employee Kate Houghton notified Wasserman Schultz of the bad press.

“On Wednesday, MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ co-host Mika Brzezinski called for DNC Chair Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) to ‘step down’ over her handling of this year’s Democratic presidential primary. After playing a clip of Wasserman Schultz, Brzezinski said, ‘This has been very poorly handled from the start. It has been unfair, and they haven’t taken him seriously, and it starts, quite frankly, with the person that we just heard speaking. It just does.’ Brzezinski added of Wasserman Schultz, ‘She should step down,’” read theBreitbart article, as copied and pasted into Houghton’s email to Wasserman Schultz.

Wasserman Schultz forwarded Houghton’s email to Miranda, adding, “This is the LAST straw. Please call Phil a Griffin. This is outrageous. She needs to apologize.”

Phil A. Griffin is the president of MSNBC, and Wasserman Schultz ultimately went to him herself. Miranda contacted Chuck Todd of MSNBC — whom Wasserman Schultz also evidently contacted to complain.

“Hey Chuck,” Miranda wrote. “Per our conversation earlier today, I’d appreciate it if you passed along the following to the Morning Joe team. I understand Joe and Mika will say whatever they’re going to say in terms of opinion, but at a minimum they should consider the facts on some of the key allegations they’re making.”

Miranda proceeded to share a list of talking points regarding fundraising and allegations of voter fraud at the Democratic caucus in Nevada.

“Let me know if there’s anything else I can provide,” Miranda concluded.

Earlier this year, MSNBC was revealed to employ multiple guest pundits who regularly complimented Hillary Clinton. The corporate news outlet failed to disclose the pundits were also consultants for firms working for the Clinton campaign. Further, as the Intercept reported last year, “The top fundraisers for Clinton include lobbyists who serve the parent companies of CNN and MSNBC.” Such relationships likely demonstrate why Wasserman felt obliged to contact the president of one of the biggest media outlets in the United States to pressure them to change their coverage of her. These close ties denote nearly the opposite of a “free press” intended to provide a balance to the narratives of those in power.

In another instance, though no particular media outlet appears to be involved, the DNC discussed crafting narratives against Bernie Sanders. One narrative attempted to cast his campaign as sloppy and disorganized. Another sought to paint him as an atheist to alienate Christians in the South.

While the revelations are new in regard to the DNC’s attempts to manipulate and work with the media, they are painfully old when it comes to Clinton. Last year, emails were released from 2011 that showed Clinton’s State Department planted questions for a “60 Minutes” interview with Julian Assange. As then-Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Philip Crowley, wrote in an email to Clinton:

“60 Minutes assures me that they raised a number of questions and concerns we planted with them during the course of the interview.”

Suggesting the interview would not be embarrassing to Clinton or the State Department, he added, “We will be prepared to respond to the narrative Assange presents during the program.”

In truth, those paying attention are already aware Clinton is the quintessential candidate of big money, corruption, and manipulation. Many likely already know of the media’s biases in her favor.

But the Wikileaks revelations confirm the fears of Americans who continue to learn their “democracy” is a sham. They provide the concrete, gritty details to prove it. These leaked emails, then, fundamentally serve as an opportunity to witness the machinations of men and women attempting to run the show from behind the curtain — and to, hopefully, hold them accountable.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27519
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: WikiLeaks Just Revealed Mainstream Media Works Directly

Postby admin » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:35 pm

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/134

Re: NYT | Econ Story

From:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com
To: jbenenson@bsgco.com, robbymook2015@gmail.com
Date: 2015-02-06 23:33 Subject:
Re: NYT | Econ Story

Here's what I sent them, with one line added at their request of something we'd previously sent off the record. New line is in brackets.

Expanding opportunities for hardworking Americans so that families can get ahead has been a constant fight she has waged in every job she's held. [She has a record of bringing people together to solve big problems, while also putting a real premium on accountability]. You heard it from her last fall when she was campaigning for Democrats all over the country and repeatedly laid out the challenges many Americans still face as our economy makes gains. She’s casting a wide net, talking to a wide range of people on a wide range of specific topics. There's no red X on a calendar somewhere, but make no mistake, if she runs, she will present solutions to our toughest challenges, she will take nothing for granted, and she will fight for every vote."

On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:00 PM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com> wrote:

Looks like the NYT is getting close to closing their story. After our conversation yesterday, I think it makes the most sense to just repurpose what we have the Journal a week ago. I think it makes sense for us to be in this story, but no need to mix it up or complicate things. Same message, different paper.

I'd like to send this this evening, let us know if disagree on approach.

"Expanding opportunities for hardworking Americans so that families can get ahead has been a constant fight she has waged in every job she's held. You heard it from her last fall when she was campaigning for Democrats all over the country and repeatedly laid out the challenges many Americans still face as our economy makes gains. She’s casting a wide net, talking to a wide range of people on a wide range of specific topics. There's no red X on a calendar somewhere, but make no mistake, if she runs, she will present solutions to our toughest challenges, she will take nothing for granted, and she will fight for every vote."

On Feb 6, 2015, at 12:18 PM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com> wrote:

I’m passing along a document that came from one of our friends, written for and sent directly to Amy Chozick for this NYT piece she’s working on. Gives you a sense of what we’re all up against!

From: "jbenenson@bsgco.com<mailto:jbenenson@bsgco.com>" <jbenenson@bsgco.com<mailto:jbenenson@bsgco.com>>
Date: Monday, February 2, 2015 at 10:27 AM

To: Robby Mook <robbymook2015@gmail.com<mailto:robbymook2015@gmail.com>>

Cc: Mandy Grunwald <gruncom@aol.com<mailto:gruncom@aol.com>>, NSM <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com<mailto:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com>>, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com<mailto:cheryl.mills@gmail.com>>, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com<mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com>>, Jacob Sullivan <Jake.sullivan@gmail.com<mailto:Jake.sullivan@gmail.com>>, Philippe Reines <pir@hrcoffice.com<mailto:pir@hrcoffice.com>>, Huma Abedin <huma@hrcoffice.com<mailto:huma@hrcoffice.com>>, Dan Schwerin <dschwerin@hrcoffice.com<mailto:dschwerin@hrcoffice.com>>, Jim Margolis <Jim.Margolis@gmmb.com<mailto:Jim.Margolis@gmmb.com>>, "john@algpolling.com<mailto:john@algpolling.com>" <john@algpolling.com<mailto:john@algpolling.com>>, "cmills@cdmillsgroup.com<mailto:cmills@cdmillsgroup.com>" <cmills@cdmillsgroup.com<mailto:cmills@cdmillsgroup.com>>, Jennifer Palmieri <jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com<mailto:jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com>>, Kristina Schake <kristinakschake@gmail.com<mailto:kristinakschake@gmail.com>>

Subject: Re: NYT & WSJ | Econ Stories

Mandy is right. We keep emphasizing that the most significant pain point for people is that the belief the decked is stacked against them in favor of this at the top. And they're not wrong.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 2, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Robby Mook <robbymook2015@gmail.com<mailto:robbymook2015@gmail.com>> wrote:

Agree

On Feb 2, 2015, at 9:41 AM, Mandy Grunwald <gruncom@aol.com<mailto:gruncom@aol.com>> wrote:

I think this piece turned out well.

But when we define our goals, we have to be clear that we are concerned with helping people who are getting crushed by rising costs and stagnant incomes, not that we're worried about offending high income groups (our donors). My guess is that this sentence will cause us some problems on the left. One of Mrs. Clinton’s broader goals is to develop ways to address economic anxiety without sounding like a combative populist or demonizing high-income groups, said a person familiar with her thinking.

Mandy Grunwald
Grunwald Communications
202 973-9400

-----Original Message-----

From: Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com<mailto:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com>>

To: Joel Benenson <jbenenson@bsgco.com<mailto:jbenenson@bsgco.com>>; Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com<mailto:cheryl.mills@gmail.com>>

Cc: Mandy Grunwald <gruncom@aol.com<mailto:gruncom@aol.com>>; Robby Mook <robbymook2015@gmail.com<mailto:robbymook2015@gmail.com>>; John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com<mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com>>; Jake Sullivan <jake.sullivan@gmail.com<mailto:jake.sullivan@gmail.com>>; Philippe Reines <pir@hrcoffice.com<mailto:pir@hrcoffice.com>>; Huma Abedin <huma@hrcoffice.com<mailto:huma@hrcoffice.com>>; Dan Schwerin <dschwerin@hrcoffice.com<mailto:dschwerin@hrcoffice.com>>; Jim Margolis <Jim.Margolis@gmmb.com<mailto:Jim.Margolis@gmmb.com>>; John Anzalone <john@algpolling.com<mailto:john@algpolling.com>>; Cheryl Mills <cmills@cdmillsgroup.com<mailto:cmills@cdmillsgroup.com>>; Jennifer Palmieri <jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com<mailto:jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com>>; Kristina Schake <kristinakschake@gmail.com<mailto:kristinakschake@gmail.com>>

Sent: Sun, Feb 1, 2015 11:38 pm

Subject: Re: NYT & WSJ | Econ Stories

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-con ... 1422837490

Clinton Consults to Define Economic Pitch
By Peter Nicholas

Hillary Clinton <http://topics.wsj.com/person/C/Hillary-Clinton/6344> has been consulting with an array of economists and academics—including liberal Joseph Stiglitz, former Fed chairman Paul Volcker and new faces outside the traditional orbit of Democratic policy experts—as she prepares for a likely presidential campaign that would make sluggish wage growth and middle-class prosperity a central focus. One of Mrs. Clinton’s broader goals is to develop ways to address economic anxiety without sounding like a combative populist or demonizing high-income groups, said a person familiar with her thinking. It isn’t clear whether that particular question has come up in the meetings she has been having with various policy experts. She has been using the meetings to prepare herself for a possible campaign, ground herself in the issues and tease out fresh approaches to stubborn domestic and foreign policy problems, people familiar with the matter said.

As the former secretary of state keeps a low public profile ahead of announcing her near-certain candidacy, the meetings offer clues to which issues she believes merit attention and whose advice she values. Many, but not all, participants served in Bill Clinton ’s administration; others are distinguished primarily by expertise in subjects that are certain to be front-and-center in the 2016 presidential race. Some of the meetings had the feeling of a high-octane faculty symposium and lasted for hours, say people familiar with the sessions. Pen and pad in hand, Mrs. Clinton typically has gone around the room to ask for ideas, offering comments now and then and inviting participants to make suggestions down the road. In December, Mrs. Clinton presided over a meeting at a midtown Manhattan hotel that focused on middle-class Americans feeling pinched by slow wage growth.

Among those attending: Mr. Volcker, the architect of the “Volcker Rule,” a regulatory measure barring banks from making risky bets with their own money; Jonathan Cowan, co-founder of the centrist think tank Third Way, which has been critical of some of the populist rhetoric coming from the Democrats’ liberal wing; and Alan Blinder <http://topics.wsj.com/person/B/Alan-Blinder/4> , a Princeton professor and former Fed vice chairman and economics adviser to Mr. Clinton.

Also at the meeting, according to people familiar with it, were Robert Hormats, who worked in the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure and was a former vice chairman of Goldman Sachs; Richard Ravitch <http://topics.wsj.com/person/R/Richard-Ravitch/5985> , a former Democratic lieutenant governor in New York, who helped New York City avert bankruptcy during a fiscal crisis in the 1970s; and Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist and proponent of ideas to shore up Americans’ retirement savings. The Clinton team has asked her to help evaluate various policy ideas.

The participants examined a range of ideas to boost economic security, such as tax cuts for the middle class, expanded access to prekindergarten education and new ways to pay for improvements to roads and tunnels, said people familiar with the session.

“One major focus of the meeting was the miserable recent performance of wages in general and middle-class wages in particular, and what if anything the government can do about that,” said Mr. Blinder.

Bernard Schwartz, a longtime Democratic donor and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, was among those who helped arrange the meeting, said people familiar with the session. Mr. Schwartz is a former chairman of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. Mrs. Clinton also has consulted with Mr. Stiglitz, a former economic adviser to Bill Clinton and author of a book about the perils of economic inequality.

The policy interests of some participants point to the issues Mrs. Clinton is likely to prioritize, notably the financial pressures faced by middle-class families. Prospective Republican presidential candidates also are talking about shoring up the middle class and, in some cases, narrowing the wage gap in America—a sign that those topics will be flashpoints in the general election.

Mrs. Clinton is the overwhelming front-runner for the Democratic nomination, but some liberals would like to see her challenged by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren <http://topics.wsj.com/person/W/Elizabeth-Warren/8131> (D., Mass.), a populist firebrand who has described the American economic system as “rigged” in favor of the wealthy. Ms. Warren has said she won’t run. In targeting income inequality, Mrs. Clinton would address a substantive issue facing the country while also making inroads with Ms. Warren’s liberal followers.

Mrs. Clinton also has held foreign policy meetings in New York and Washington. A New York meeting in the summer was a “tour” of global hot spots, among them the war in Syria and Russia’s incursions into Ukraine, according to people familiar with what took place.

Mrs. Clinton asked for a diagnosis of the problem and a “strategic” view of how the U.S. should act, one person familiar with the meeting said.

Those who attended included Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who worked under both Republican presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush; David Rothkopf, author of a new book on foreign policy-making in the George W. Bush and Obama <http://topics.wsj.com/person/O/Obama/4328> administrations; and Dennis Ross, a diplomat with many years of experience in the Middle East peace negotiations.

More informally, Mrs. Clinton has also spoken to trusted Democratic confidants about appointments to high-level positions in her campaign, should she decide to run.

A campaign apparatus is already taking shape. John Podesta, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, is likely to become a senior adviser to the campaign, while two Obama campaign veterans, pollster Joel Benenson and media adviser Jim Margolis, are expected to take top positions on Mrs. Clinton’s campaign team, people familiar with the matter said.

“She’s casting a wide net, talking to a wide range of people on a wide range of specific topics” said Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. “Make no mistake, if she runs, she will present solutions to our toughest challenges, she will take nothing for granted, and she will fight for every vote.”

On Feb 1, 2015, at 6:54 PM, Nick Merrill < nmerrill@hrcoffice.com<mailto:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com>> wrote:

Ran the quote past HRC and she asked (with no prompting) that “average” come out. So here’s what I shipped off to Peter Nicholas at the Journal. AS for the NYT, looks like it won’t run for a few days if not next Sunday, so will circle back on that as it develops.

Thanks again to all for the feedback.

Go Seahawks!

"Expanding opportunities for hardworking Americans so that families can get ahead has been a constant fight she has waged in every job she's held. You heard it from her last fall when she was campaigning for Democrats all over the country and repeatedly laid out the challenges many Americans still face as our economy makes gains. She’s casting a wide net, talking to a wide range of people on a wide range of specific topics. There's no red X on a calendar somewhere, but make no mistake, if she runs, she will present solutions to our toughest challenges, she will take nothing for granted, and she will fight for every vote. ”

From: Joel Benenson < jbenenson@bsgco.com<mailto:jbenenson@bsgco.com>> Date: Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM T

o: Cheryl Mills < cheryl.mills@gmail.com<mailto:cheryl.mills@gmail.com>>

Cc: NSM < nmerrill@hrcoffice.com<mailto:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com>>, Mandy Grunwald < gruncom@aol.com<mailto:gruncom@aol.com>>, Robby Mook < robbymook2015@gmail.com<mailto:robbymook2015@gmail.com>>, John Podesta < john.podesta@gmail.com<mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com>>, Jacob Sullivan < Jake.sullivan@gmail.com<mailto:Jake.sullivan@gmail.com>>, Philippe Reines < pir@hrcoffice.com<mailto:pir@hrcoffice.com>>, Huma Abedin < huma@hrcoffice.com<mailto:huma@hrcoffice.com>>, Dan Schwerin < dschwerin@hrcoffice.com<mailto:dschwerin@hrcoffice.com>>, Jim Margolis < Jim.Margolis@gmmb.com<mailto:Jim.Margolis@gmmb.com>>, John Anzalone < john@algpolling.com<mailto:john@algpolling.com>>, Cheryl Mills < cmills@cdmillsgroup.com<mailto:cmills@cdmillsgroup.com>>, Jennifer Palmieri < jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com<mailto:jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com>>, Kristina Schake < kristinakschake@gmail.com<mailto:kristinakschake@gmail.com>>

Subject: RE: NYT & WSJ | Econ Stories

Definitely

From: Cheryl Mills [mailto:cheryl.mills@gmail.com]

Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 5:35 PM

To: Joel Benenson Cc: Nick Merrill; Mandy Grunwald; Robby Mook; John Podesta; Jake Sullivan; Philippe Reines; Huma Abedin; Dan Schwerin; Jim Margolis; John Anzalone; Cheryl Mills; Jennifer Palmieri; Kristina Schake

Subject: Re: NYT & WSJ | Econ Stories

can we test every day americans next time?

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Joel Benenson <jbenenson@bsgco.com<mailto:jbenenson@bsgco.com>> wrote:

When we tested deck is stacked against “average Americans, with too many breaks for those at the top” vs. Gov regs and rules hurging biz and stopping them from creating jobs – by 49-41 among all voters and 56-33 with our MOR (middle of the road voters) . I think it’s how they see themselves in this environment, which remains their big pain point that she is fighting to fix.

For the moment it also creates a slight language difference with POTUS – not a big deal but a nuance.
Joel

From: Cheryl Mills [mailto:cheryl.mills@gmail.com<mailto:cheryl.mills@gmail.com>]

Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 5:22 PM

To: Nick Merrill

Cc: Joel Benenson; Mandy Grunwald; Robby Mook; John Podesta; Jake Sullivan; Philippe Reines; Huma Abedin; Dan Schwerin; Jim Margolis; John Anzalone; Cheryl Mills; Jennifer Palmieri; Kristina Schake

Subject: Re: NYT & WSJ | Econ Stories

Looks good. I think you can take out average and still communicate you mean folks in middle with "hardworking" (who likes to be average?)

if average is important I might use everyday.

cdm

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com<mailto:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com>> wrote:

Great, thank you.

Robby to your point about letting her speak for herself, I¹ve been reminding people that they should be careful to acknowledge that this is part of a process. She laid out challenges that we face in the midterms, and now she¹s thinking through how we would address them should she run. Will reinforce that when I circle back with these guys today.

Here¹s the quote again incorporating peoples¹ thoughts. John Anzalone, I think Joel addressed what you were trying to get at so I left his edits as is, but let me know if you think we¹re missing anything. Otherwise will push this in the next little while. Thanks all.

"Expanding opportunities for average hardworking Americans so that they and their families can get ahead has been a constant fight she has waged in every job she's held. You heard it from her last fall when she was campaigning for Democrats all over the country and repeatedly laid out the challenges many Americans still face as our economy makes gains. She's casting a wide net, talking to a wide range of people on a range of specific topics. There's no red X on a calendar somewhere, but make no mistake, if she runs, she will present solutions to our toughest challenges, she will take nothing for granted, and she will fight for every vote."

> On 2/1/15, 4:05 PM, "Joel Benenson" <jbenenson@bsgco.com<mailto:jbenenson@bsgco.com>> wrote:

> > Yes. > >

-----Original Message----- >

From: Mandy Grunwald [mailto:gruncom@aol.com<mailto:gruncom@aol.com>] >

Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 4:05 PM >

To: Robby Mook >

Cc: Joel Benenson; Nick Merrill; John Podesta; Jake Sullivan; Philippe > Reines; Cheryl Mills; Huma Abedin; Dan Schwerin; Jim Margolis; John > Anzalone; Cheryl Mills; Jennifer Palmieri; Kristina Schake >

Subject: Re: NYT & WSJ | Econ Stories

> > I like it too. > >

There's a word missing toward the end. I assume it should say "...she > will present SOLUTIONS to our toughest challenges..." > >

Thx > >

Mandy Grunwald >
Grunwald Communications >
202 973-9400<tel:202%20973-9400> > > >>

On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:39 PM, Robby Mook <robbymook2015@gmail.com<mailto:robbymook2015@gmail.com>> wrote:

>> >> Adding Jenn and Kristina >>

Joel I agree w your edits. In particular I want to avoid any >> expectations around how big or bold her ideas will be.

>> Nick I'm sure you're already doing this but I also would push hard on >> background that we can't judge a candidate who has yet to announce--give >> her a chance to speak for herself. I know that's impossible but worth >> trying to get them to acknowledge that she's not a candidate and this is >> all speculation.

>> >> >>> On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Joel Benenson <jbenenson@bsgco.com<mailto:jbenenson@bsgco.com>> wrote:

>>> >>> Thanks Nick. >>> >>>

Going for a little more conversational here with this: >>> >>>

"Expanding opportunities for average hardworking Americans so that >>> they and their families can get ahead has been a constant fight she has >>> waged in every job she's held. You heard it from her last fall when >>> she was campaigning for Democrats all over the country and repeatedly >>> laid out the challenges many Americans still face as our economy makes >>> gains. She's casting a wide net, talking to a wide range of people on >>> a range of specific topics. There's no red X on a calendar somewhere, >>> but make no mistake, if she runs, she will present to our toughest >>> challenges and she will take nothing for granted and she will fight >>> for every vote."

>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>

From: Nick Merrill [mailto:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com<mailto:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com>] >>>

Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 2:46 PM >>>

To: John Podesta; Jake Sullivan; Philippe Reines; Robby Mook; Cheryl >>> Mills; Huma Abedin; Dan Schwerin; Jim Margolis; John Anzalone; Mandy >>> Grunwald; Cheryl Mills; Joel Benenson >>>

Subject: NYT & WSJ | Econ Stories >>> >>>

As I mentioned on our call on Thursday, both the WSJ and the NYT are >>> working on stories about how HRC might approach economic policy issues >>> as a candidate. Both will have a dose of personnel name-gaming, and >>> I've spoken to both to steer them towards progressive names, which they >>> seem to both have on their own.

>>> >>> I want to give both stories something on the record that addresses the >>> core of the story, but also speaks some of the things we all felt >>> needed a little proactive addressing, like inevitability and timing.

>>> >>> On the inevitability question, John I tried to stick to the language >>> you suggested, though I did take the liberty of striking the word >>> "idiot."

>>> >>> "Increasing access to opportunity and fighting for upward mobility has >>> been an uninterrupted pursuit of hers in every job she's held. You >>> heard it from her on the campaign trail last fall, where she laid out >>> the challenges we face. She's casting a wide net, talking to a wide >>> range of people on a range of specific topics. There's no red X on a >>> calendar somewhere, but make no mistake, if she runs, she will take >>> nothing for granted, she'll present bold ideas, and she will fight for >>> every vote." >>> >>>

Feedback welcome, but I'd like to ship this later today. >>> >>>

Nick

<Rothschild Econ Doc for Chozick.pdf>
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 27519
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Wikileaks

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron