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

Re: HRC

A helpful reminder that there was a spate of coverage in 2008 around time of income tax releases where pundits questioned whether her wealth would hurt her with voters. And we also had to combat stories about WJC income by pointing out how many free speeches and speeches benefiting charitable causes he made. It could be true that few if any couples have helped raise more funds for more different causes than the Clintons. (Plus they are historically more generous than most in the percentage of income they personally donate to charity). On Sunday, June 29, 2014, Huma Abedin <Huma@clintonemail.com> wrote: > Thanks Roy. As Always, appreciate your thoughts. > She got herself into the money conversation unfortunately with Diane > Sawyer (dead broke) and then again with the Gaurdian (not truly well off) > but she fixed it as best as she could with PBS/Gwen Ifill (not about me but > about people who have real struggles). > See news below: > > *Most Believe Hillary Clinton Can Relate to Average Americans, Poll > Finds (NBC News)* > By Mark Murray > June 29, 2014 > *NBC News* > > Fifty-five percent of Americans say that Hillary Clinton can relate to > and understand the problems of average citizens as well as other > presidential candidates can, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street > Journal/Annenberg poll. > > By comparison, 37 percent of respondents disagreed, saying she can’t > relate as well as other candidates can. These numbers come after Hillary > Clinton declared that she and her husband were “dead broke” after leaving > the White House in 2001. > > “We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” she > said to ABC News, answering a question about the six-figure payments she > and her husband command when giving paid speeches. > > Bill Clinton has defended his wife, telling NBC News’ David Gregory: > “She’s not out of touch, and she advocated and worked as a senator for > things that were good for ordinary people. And before that, all her life – > and the people asking her questions should put this into some sort of > context – I remember when we were in law school, she was out trying to get > legal assistance for poor people. I remember she was working on trying, > believing in paid leave for pregnant mothers in the 1970s.” > > In a PBS interview, Hillary Clinton expressed regrets over her “dead > broke” comments. “Well, I shouldn’t have said the five or so words that I > said. But my inartful use of those few words doesn’t change who I am, what > I’ve stood for my entire life, what I stand for today.” > > “Bill and I have had terrific opportunities, both of us, you know, have > worked hard,” she said. “But we’ve been grateful for everything that we’ve > been able to achieve, and sadly that’s just not true for most Americans > today.” > > The NBC/WSJ/Annenberg poll was conducted June 26-28 of 592 adults, and > it has a margin of error of plus-minus 5.1 percentage points. > ------------------------------ > *From:* Roy Spence [Roy.Spence@gsdm.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Roy.Spence@gsdm.com');>] > *Sent:* Saturday, June 28, 2014 11:26 PM > *To:* PIR > *Cc:* Minyon Moore; Margaret Williams; Huma Abedin; cheryl.mills@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cheryl.mills@gmail.com');>; Judy Trabulsi; > jake.sullivan@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jake.sullivan@gmail.com');>; > john.podesta@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','john.podesta@gmail.com');>; > capriciamarshall@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','capriciamarshall@gmail.com');>; > mw@griffinwilliams.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mw@griffinwilliams.com');>; > jkennedy2006@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jkennedy2006@gmail.com');>; > nmerrill.hrco@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nmerrill.hrco@gmail.com');> > *Subject:* Re: HRC > > Hi dear ones..sorry for length .My clear choice. Neither change nor > continuity.but The different way. The new way. HRC declares the old way of > building partisanships flying the special interest flags. Is the root cause > of America becoming the Status Quo. Nation where we as a nation are weak > and a victim of change. No when we are our best. We are a nation of doers > and dreamers. Builders and architects of the future we do not predict or > fall victim of the future. We create the future. > > She champions with clear vision and grit. We will build not the > partisans ships. But rather the Ship of State flying the American Dream > flag > > HRC champions 3 to 5 max. Game changing ideals Declaring not on my > watch will the miracle of America be held hostage. To the politics of > political cronyism on both sides. > > HRC has a once in a lifetime to declare. I am in it to unleash the > entrepreneurial energy of the America spirit. > > Where no one is to good and everyone is good enough where our > government. Is inspired by the core ideal. That our people have better > ideas than our politicians > > Net. I am running to insure that what was. Is not the road map of what > can be. Has a leader that knows it is not about us anymore. But about them > the new and Next generation. And that America. Will be the noble and > courageous nation for the core ideals that when we are our best. We create > the future. And we are called. To champion freedom and a way of life. Where > we shall not rest till everyone everywhere has the god given right to live > up to his or her full potential. > > Net net HRC becomes the Means to a noble new beginning . Not the the hero > but the great enabler of the new dreamers of next Sorry for the the long > thought love and hugs to all > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 28, 2014, at 8:01 PM, "PIR" <preines.hrco@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','preines.hrco@gmail.com');>> wrote: > > Two things I thought everyone might find interesting that are getting > missed in the noise: attached is a piece running in *The New Republic* > this week, one of the more insightful pieces of late that puts the > landscape into far more context than you usually see, ties together a lot > of things that are currently only being discussed in isolation of each > other. The second is below, it's by someone I otherwise find to > be insufferable, but it's a smart piece on the "3rd Term Curse" that takes > a closer look at the instances where someone has tried to succeed their own > party after two terms, and why they won or lost. > > > *Hillary Clinton’s Truly Hard Choice: Change Or Continuity?* > > *By Fareed Zakaria* > > *The Washington Post* > > *June 26, 2014* > > Hillary Clinton’s problem is not her money. Despite the media flurry > over a couple of awkward remarks she made, most people will understand her > situation pretty quickly — she wasn’t born rich but has become very rich — > and are unlikely to hold it against her. Mitt Romney did not lose the last > election because of his wealth. Hispanics and Asians did not vote against > him in record numbers because he was a successful businessman. Clinton’s > great challenge will be to decide whether she represents change or > continuity. > > > > Clinton will make history in a big and dramatic way if she is elected — as > the first woman president. But she will make history in a smaller, more > complicated sense as well. She would join just three other non-incumbents > since 1900 to win the White House after their party had been in power for > eight years. She would be the first to win who was not the vice president > or the clear protégé of the incumbent president. > > > > The examples will clarify. Since 1900, the three were William Howard Taft, > Herbert Hoover and George H.W. Bush. Six others tried and lost: James Cox, > Adlai Stevenson, Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, Al Gore and John McCain. > Interestingly, even the three successful ones had only one term as > president. > > > > A caveat: Beware of any grand pronouncements about the presidency because > in statistical terms there have not been enough examples, and if you vary > the criteria, you can always find an interesting pattern. The Republican > Party broke almost every rule between 1861 and 1933, during which it held > the presidency for 52 of the 72 years. > > > > But the challenge for Clinton can be seen through the prism of her > predecessors — should she run on change or continuity? The three who won > all pledged to extend the president’s policies. They also ran in economic > good times with popular presidents. That’s not always a guarantee, of > course. Cox promised to be “a million percent” behind Woodrow Wilson’s > policies, but since Wilson was by then wildly unpopular for his signature > policy, the League of Nations, Cox received the most resounding drubbing > (in the popular vote) in history. > > > > > > Some of the candidates had an easier time distancing themselves from > unpopular presidents. McCain was clearly a rival and opponent of George W. > Bush. Stevenson was very different from Harry Truman, but he was, in > effect, asking for not a third term for the Democrats but a sixth term — > after 20 years of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Truman. Shortly before the > 1952 election, Stevenson wrote to the Oregon Journal that “the thesis ‘time > for a change’ is the principal obstacle ahead” for his campaign. After all, > if the country wants change, it will probably vote for the other party. > “It’s time for a change” was Dwight Eisenhower’s official campaign slogan > in 1952. > > > > The most awkward circumstance has been for vice presidents trying to > distance themselves from their bosses. Humphrey tried mightily to explain > that he was different from Lyndon Johnson without criticizing the latter. > “One does not repudiate his family in order to establish his own identity,” > he would say. Gore faced the same problem in 2000, though many believe that > he should not have tried to distance himself so much from a popular > president who had presided over good times. As Michael Kinsley noted, > Gore’s often fiery and populist campaign seemed to have as its slogan: > “You’ve never had it so good, and I’m mad as hell about it.” > > > > Today the country is in a slow recovery and President Obama’s approval > ratings are low. This might suggest that the best course would be for > Clinton to distance herself from her former boss. But Obamacare and other > policies of this president are very popular among many Democratic groups. > Again, the three people in her shoes who won all ran on continuity. > > > > Clinton’s recent memoir suggests that she has not yet made up her mind as > to what course she will follow. The book is a carefully calibrated mixture > of praise and criticism, loyalty and voice, such that she can plausibly go > in whatever direction she chooses. > > > > The world today is different. And Clinton is in a unique position, > especially if she can truly mobilize women voters. But history suggests > that choosing change or continuity will truly be her hard choice. > > > > ### > > > > > > > > > <Noam Scheiber.pdf> > > ————————————————————— > This e-mail is intended only for the named person or entity to which it is > addressed and contains valuable business information that is proprietary, > privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you > received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution > or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us > immediately of the error via email to disclaimerinquiries@gsdm.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','disclaimerinquiries@gsdm.com');> and please > delete the email from your system, retaining no copies in any media. We > appreciate your cooperation. > ----------gsdm.legal.disclaimer.03242011 >