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

RE: 2016 GOP HIT - HILLARY CLINTON

From:creynolds@hillaryclinton.com To: jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, jp66@hillaryclinton.com, esepp@hillaryclinton.com, mfisher@hillaryclinton.com Date: 2015-06-19 18:10 Subject: RE: 2016 GOP HIT - HILLARY CLINTON

Quick flag—Dan wanted to take out honor killings, as he said research shows that those are more of a cultural than a religious thing: STATEMENT FROM JOHN PODESTA Hillary Clinton has spoken out for decades against extremists who pervert the world’s great religions to justify brutality against women and girls. That is what Republicans are attacking her for. ISIS claims their religious faith justifies forcing Yazidi women in Iraq into sexual slavery. Does Governor Bush think we should respect that practice? The Taliban torture women in Afghanistan in the name of their twisted version of Islam. Does Governor Jindal think that is acceptable? What about forced marriages or throwing acid in women’s faces? If Republicans think standing up to these atrocities is part of Hillary Clinton’s progressive agenda, we are proud to agree. As a woman of faith herself, she won’t hesitate to condemn those who distort religious beliefs to justify barbaric actions. Such distortions are a grave affront to both the girls and women who being persecuted, as well as the religions these barbarians attempt to use as cover for these heinous acts. * John - Jindal and Jeb hit her again in faith. So I think we should do the statement from you as a salvo. See latest version below. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: * Latest version below and attached: STATEMENT FROM JOHN PODESTA Hillary Clinton has spoken out for decades against extremists who pervert the world’s great religions to justify brutality against women and girls. That is what Republicans are attacking her for. ISIS claims their religious faith justifies forcing Yazidi women in Iraq into sexual slavery. Does Governor Bush think we should respect that practice? The Taliban torture women in Afghanistan in the name of their twisted version of Islam. Does Governor Jindal think that is acceptable? What about forced marriages, honor killings, throwing acid in women’s faces? If Republicans think standing up to these atrocities is part of Hillary Clinton’s progressive agenda, we are proud to agree. As a woman of faith herself, she won’t hesitate to condemn those who distort religious beliefs to justify barbaric actions. Such distortions are a grave affront to both the girls and women who being persecuted, as well as the religions these barbarians attempt to use as cover for these heinous acts. * Jindal hit her on it today, too. Given that development, consensus in Brooklyn is that we put the John statement out today. We can lay out the argument, get on the record, get our allies to back us up on Twitter and then pick the battle back up next week - assuming that we don't get a lot of response today. Christina - would you send the John statement back around so folks can see latest? We thought we would give the statement to Rosie Gray of Buzzfeed first. She covers the republicans - think she will be more sympathetic to our argument than one of our reporters. What do folks think of this approach? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Joel Benenson <jbenenson@bsgco.com> wrote: Agree. * Agree 100%. Seems more impactful if it's one issue - women. Sent from my iPhoneb On Jun 17, 2015, at 10:57 PM, Jennifer Palmieri < jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: So my take on this issue is that our John response turns the attack into offense for us because we use it to show Bush as anti-women. If we mix another issue into the response that is related to religion, that seems to be fighting on their turf. On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Mandy Grunwald <gruncom@aol.com> wrote: Do we want the Podesta statement to say something about Bush attacking the Pope because he doesn't believe in politicizing faith and then politicizing faith to attack Hillary? Mandy Grunwald Grunwald Communications 202 973-9400 On Jun 17, 2015, at 10:21 PM, Adrienne Elrod <aelrod@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: Our external friends are ready to go and we will activate once we have green light !! Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 9:46 PM, Kristina Schake <kschake@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: Copying in Adrienne too. Jen let us know when HRC approves this plan and we can figure out the implementation and timing. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: agree with all that. I think we should have Albright, Boxer, others all teed up to go on tv, etc.. Maybe we put John's statement on Medium and HFA website, tweet it and line up our DC women leaders' groups set to tweet and share. On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Margolis, Jim <Jim.Margolis@gmmb.com> wrote: I guess next best thing. Sorry the line about her faith. Still would want others to amplify and to use social if she's willing. Jim Margolis Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos. On Jun 17, 2015, at 8:42 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: HRC does not want to do the response herself. What about a written statement from John? HRC is sleeping now but Huma and I think she would go for that. Played around with Dan's language and turned into a statement from John - see attached. On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Christina Reynolds < creynolds@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: Interesting that the AP story from Jeb’s event talks about religion, but not the HRC hit. *Bush in Iowa: 'I don't think we should politicize our faith'* <http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:d22fc92d8b354f2e991bc617fec0c5b9> *AP | Thomas Beaumont and Catherine Lucey * WASHINGTON, Iowa (AP) — Jeb Bush cautioned against blending politics and religion Wednesday, signaling he will not necessarily heed the pope or pander to social conservatives in Iowa in his policy agenda for the Republican presidential nomination. "I don't think we should politicize our faith," he said, speaking in a state where evangelical Christians wield significant political influence. "I think religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting into the political realm." His comments came on the eve of an encyclical by Pope Francis that is expected to endorse the scientific view that human activity contributes to climate change — a conclusion challenged by many Republicans and several of the party's candidates for president. Bush, who converted to Catholicism, suggested he will not be beholden to a faith-driven policy agenda wherever it comes from because his religion is a personal beacon, not a political roadmap. "I go to church to have my faith nourished, to have my faith challenged," the former Florida governor told reporters after the outdoor meeting with about 75 eastern Iowa Republicans in the backyard of a local supporter. "That's why I go to Mass. I don't go to Mass for economic policy or for things in politics." On the coming encyclical, he said he would read and reflect on it. "I think Pope Francis is an extraordinary leader of a church whose teachings I try to follow, and it doesn't need to get any more complicated than that," Bush said. "But I think it's better to solve this in the political realm." Bush has said he accepts the scientific premise that the climate is changing and believes that examining the causes should be a priority. But he's contended that the science is not clear on how much global warming comes from human activity. Bush, on his first visit to Iowa as a declared candidate, was asked at a public event what he would do to put God in public life. He sidestepped somewhat, saying he would more broadly promote the defense of religious liberty. "The next president needs to establish religious freedom as one of the first freedoms," he said. Daniel Wright, a 32-year-old electronics salesman from eastern Iowa, said Bush was unafraid of the question, which impressed him, but he felt he dodged it. "Specifically, I was talking about God, not religion collectively, from a Christian point of view," Wright said. "I would have loved to have kept the question on God and not religion as a whole." It was a rapid introduction to Iowa caucus politics for Bush, whose positions on immigration and education have raised questions among some on the right about whether he's conservative enough. He's been reaching out to influential Christian conservatives for months but has spent less time in Iowa than some other leading rivals. Iowa Christian conservative groups have already held gatherings for activists where presidential prospects have spoken, though Bush has not. Some candidates also aggressively court pastors, who can be influential among parishioners, especially in evangelically conservative northwest Iowa. It's a segment of Republican primary voters that is also influential in parts of South Carolina, where Bush travels Thursday. At least eight candidates have confirmed they plan to participate in the July conference of the Iowa Family Leader, a Christian-based policy group. Bush has not attended any such events, although he went to an Iowa agricultural policy conference and the Iowa Republican Party's spring dinner last month. The past two caucus winners were former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2008, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum in 2012, both of whom heavily courted evangelical Christians. * * Defer to comms but that won't turn it into a fight we want. If we have say 20 prominent women willing to sign a letter and release it that might work Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Karen Finney <kfinney@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: What about turning in to an op-Ed from someone like Albright? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Joel Benenson <jbenenson@bsgco.com> wrote: He will keep saying it. * HRC latest thinking is not to say anything. Feels wrong the more she thinks about it. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Joel Benenson <jbenenson@bsgco.com> wrote: Just my opinion but I would lean toward her saying it as opposed to a statement. I'll defer to comms but I think if we respond this will be the news of the day and i wild think it's better if it comes from her mouth. If comms/press think we get as much from statement or at least get to drive story and it is clear we are attacking not responding Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Christina Reynolds < creynolds@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: Should we be exploring other ways to do it? Just a statement? A quick pull aside with the pooler? Or are we laying low on this for now? * No. She did not want to do in charleston. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Robby Mook <re47@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: All the more reason in my mind to push back today. Palmieri--are we locked in on your end? On Jun 17, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Mandy Grunwald <gruncom@aol.com> wrote: Total distortion. *Mandy Grunwald* *Grunwald Communications* *202 973-9400 <202%20973-9400>* ----- This is an escalation from his original statement Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Tony Carrk < tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: And also, here is what Bush actually said today: And that's what's missing right now. In fact, Hillary Clinton said something about a month ago that was just striking to me. Because I've given this a lot of thought and I'm deeply troubled about not just Christian persecution in around the world, but also now this belief that if you believe in God or I'm a Catholic and I'm informed by my faith on a lot of things that somehow you just got to get over it. And she said something to the effect of if your religious beliefs comes in conflict with a woman's right to choose or something or some other social issue you just got to get over it. Well I respect people who may not agree with my views. I'm not judgmental. I'm not here to say I'm righteous and therefore you're not. 12:03 But we're now at a point where people who do have faith and it guides their decisions, that somehow they need us to keep it in a lock box somewhere. Keep it at home and you can't go act on it. And I think that is where we take our stand. I think people of faith have created a better country, a more loving place where people act on their faith to deal with children that are abandoned and abused, to deal with the homeless, to deal with people that are just getting out of prison. If you look at the plight of people, you'll generally find that people acting on their faith on in the front lines of trying to help because that's the definition of their success and their compassion as people. And so we do need to restore this in a way that's not judgmental, not intolerant, all the stuff that many people that don't have faith accuse people of faith of having. There should be in a big country like ours enough space for everybody. * I know we are still discussing whether to do the hit today or not, but for awareness, we pulled her record for standing up for women around the world as secretary of state Hillary Worked To Empower Women At The State Department And Around The World *Hillary Clinton Elevated The State Department’s Office Of Global Women’s Issues By Appointing Its First-Ever Ambassador-At-Large. *“One of the first things I did as Secretary was to elevate the Office of Global Women’s Issues by appointing the first ever Ambassador at Large to take the lead on identifying concrete ways the United States could work to secure the human rights of women worldwide. We see this as a moral imperative and a high-reward political, economic, and security strategy.” [Hillary Clinton remarks on “Making Human Rights a Human Reality,” 12/6/12 <http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/12/201618.htm>] *Hillary Clinton “Placed Women’s Rights And Needs On The Agenda At International Conferences, On Trips, And Throughout The State Department Itself.” *“Clinton and her handpicked ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues, Melanne Verveer, placed women’s rights and needs on the agenda at international conferences, on trips, and throughout the State Department itself. Clinton institutionalized this way of conducting foreign policy in 2010 in a first-time ‘quadrennial review’ that mentioned women more than 100 times, followed by a March 2012 directive billed as the department’s first-ever guidance to embassies and bureaus on how to advance the ‘strategic imperative’ of gender equality.” [National Journal, 3/21/13 <http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/hillary-clinton-s-global-feminist-legacy-20130321> ] *Hillary Clinton Teamed Up With Other Countries To “Break Down Barriers To Women’s Political And Economic Empowerment.” *“President Obama issued a challenge before the United Nations General Assembly in September 2011 to break down barriers to women’s political and economic empowerment. […] In response to this challenge, on September 24, 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched the Equal Futures Partnership on behalf of the United States along with 12 other founding members.” [Equal Futures Partnership face sheet, WhiteHouse.gov, 9/24/12 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/24/fact-sheet-equal-futures-partnership-expand-women-s-political-and-econom> ] *Hillary Clinton Developed The First-Ever U.S. National Action Plan On Women, Peace, and Security To “Advance Women’s Participation In Making And Keeping Peace Around The World.” *“In the U.S. government, former secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been the staunchest ally to women in Afghanistan, who have been anxious about her departure for years. As America’s top diplomat, Clinton was able to develop the first-ever U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security–a five-point initiative designed to advance women’s participation in making and keeping the peace around the world.” [MSNBC, 2/15/13 <http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/afghan-women-worry-who-will-protect-our-righ> ] *Planned Parenthood: Hillary Clinton Left “An Incredible Policy Framework For Promoting Women’s Rights.” *“Secretary Clinton left an incredible policy framework for promoting women’s rights — under her leadership, the State Department issued numerous policies that aim to ensure women’s rights are a top priority throughout our foreign policy, from the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, to the USAID Policy Guidance on Promoting Gender Equality to the United States Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally. […] As Clinton said in an interview with Andrea Mitchell this week about her leadership on women’s health and rights, ‘I do value it as part of my legacy because I think it’s commonsense. If we don’t pay attention to the lives and roles of women, we will pay a price.’” [Planned Parenthood, 2/1/13 <http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections-politics/blog/hillary-clintons-legacy-women-and-girls-goes/> ] *Gail Collins: Hillary Clinton Worked To Ensure U.S. Diplomacy Would Promote Women’s Empowerment “Many Secretaries Down The Line.” *A Gail Collins column in the New York Times stated, “At State, she’s dug deep into the bureaucracy, trying to ensure that American diplomacy will be promoting women’s empowerment many secretaries down the line. ‘We’ve created some positions,’ Clinton said, making a list. ‘We have embedded it in the quadrennial diplomacy and development review process...’ That’s the thing about Hillary Clinton. Most famous woman in the world, but still a sucker for the quadrennial diplomacy and development review process.” [Gail Collins, New York Times, 11/10/12 <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/collins-hillarys-next-move.html?pagewanted=all> ] *Pam Platt: With Hillary Clinton “At The Helm” Of The State Department, “Women Were Regarded, Not Disregarded.” *According to Courier-Journal editorial director Pam Platt, “For four years, with her at the helm of State, women were regarded, not disregarded. And if that isn’t a spectacular achievement, I don’t know what is. As she exits the national stage for a while and for whatever comes next for her, I think we need to thank her for moving the needle, at least a little, for women and children throughout the world. I also think we need to take a lesson from her example of being there - in a place, in a moment, in a context - in our own lives and in the lives of others. And to know that each of us has the capacity to spread our tiny time pills, too, no title necessary.” [Pam Platt, Courier-Journal, 2/10/13 <http://archive.courier-journal.com/article/20130210/COLUMNISTS10/302100029/Pam-Platt-Hillary-Clinton-s-legacy-will-show-over-time> ] Hillary Led International Efforts To Combat Gender-Based Violence And Discrimination *Hillary Clinton Took The Lead In Passing A UN Resolution Aimed At Combating Sexual Violence In Conflict Areas.* “More than 60 countries, led by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asked the United Nations on Wednesday to appoint a special envoy for a global fight against the rape of women and children during war. The U.N. Security Council, chaired by Clinton because the United States holds the revolving presidency, unanimously passed a resolution in a bid to stop sexual violence during conflicts and to end impunity.” [Reuters, 9/30/09 <http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/30/us-women-un-idUSTRE58T6EB20090930> ] *Hillary Clinton’s State Department Launched The “First U.S. Strategy To Prevent And Respond To Gender-Based Violence Globally.”* “Because so much violence against women and girls takes place within their homes and communities, and often in the form of harmful traditional practices like female genital mutilation and so-called ‘honor crimes,’ we’ve launched the first U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally.” [Hillary Clinton remarks on “Making Human Rights a Human Reality,” 12/6/12 <http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/12/201618.htm>] *Hillary Clinton Applauded The Efforts Of Malala Yousafzai “And The Millions Of Other Girls And Women Who Are Risking Their Lives To Get An Education.” *“Hillary Clinton honored Malala Yousafzai Monday at a UNESCO event in Paris on International Human Rights Day. […] ‘Today, we stand together with Malala and the millions of other girls and women who are risking their lives to get an education,” Clinton said via video message. “Girls with secondary schooling are far less likely to become child brides. They are more likely to earn better incomes when they begin working. They will have smaller families, and their children will be healthier.’” [MSNBC, 12/10/12 <http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/honoring-malala-clinton-says-its-time-cl> ] *Hillary Clinton Rebuked Saudi Arabia For Its Ban On Women Drivers And Publicly Applauded The Efforts Of “Brave” Saudi Women Who Drove In Protest. *“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today voiced her support for a group of women in Saudi Arabia who last week defied their nation's ban on women drivers. Clinton said that the U.S. has expressed its disapproval of the driving ban to ‘the highest level of the Saudi government,’ but she stressed that last week's demonstrations were not spurred by any U.S. involvement. […] ‘This is about Saudi women themselves, they have joined together, they are acting on behalf of their own rights,’ she said. ‘This is not about the United States, it is about the women of Saudi Arabia. And what these women are doing is brave, and what they are seeking is right. But the effort belongs to them.’” [CBS News, 6/21/11 <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-saudi-women-drivers-brave/>] *Hillary Clinton Intervened To Stop A Child Marriage In Saudi Arabia.* “In her memoir, ‘Hard Choices,’ Mrs. Clinton tells of quietly intervening when Saudi Arabian courts refused a mother’s pleas to block the marriage of her 8-year-old daughter to a 50-year-old man. ‘Fix this on your own, and I won’t say a word,” she recalled telling the Saudis. A new judge, she wrote, quickly approved the divorce.” [New York Times, 3/8/15 <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-faces-test-of-record-aiding-women.html> ] *Hillary Clinton’s State Department Worked Actively To Address The Issue Of Gender-Biased Sex Selection. *The State Department’s “Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally,” stated, “The Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI) regularly coordinates with other Department of State bureaus and United States Government agencies on issues including child marriage, female genital mutilation/cutting, ‘honor’ related crimes, girls’ access to education, gender biased sex selection, discriminatory treatment of widows, sexual violence in conflict, and intimate partner violence, among many others.” [“United States Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally,” U.S. Department of State, August 2012 <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/196468.pdf>] * Talked to Amanda, NALEO not the right audience for a number of reasons incl not an issue discussed openly. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 2:17 PM, Margolis, Jim <Jim.Margolis@gmmb.com> wrote: Good point in ISIS. This is one where she has to be strong, with the message internalized. That doesn’t seem like a stretch to me given her history. I also like that we have a second hit tomorrow on the Trump/extreme stuff that’s more on point for that audience. So I like moving on it today if she’s comfortable. Even if the audience response is more muted. * I agree that's the message for NALEO but I'd love to do this women/faith hit today. *Mandy Grunwald* *Grunwald Communications* *202 973-9400 <202%20973-9400>* ----- I think we should just be clear about exactly what news we want to make. Personally, I think branding the GOP as bigoted and extreme is more in line with our bigger picture, long term goals, so I would favor sticking with asking why they didn't speak out against what trump. On Jun 17, 2015, at 1:54 PM, Jennifer Palmieri < jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: Plus Huma. Talked this over with our SC director. I think we should do this at NALEO rather than Charleston. 1) the first time HRC directly responds in person to Jeb, she really has to nail it and he crowd needs to respond well. I don't think he crowd is going to get it in Charleston. Think there is an easier way to build it into NALEO. 2) We should also make sure we have women lined up to defend her when we do this and don't feel like we'd be ready to do that this afternoon, but could be tomorrow. 3) I talked this over with John and he made good point that we need to work to get this into the Muslim space - meaning that we need to make clear that she is talking about groups like Boko Haram that prevent Islam to use as cover for barbaric practices. So think our language needs work to make that clear - like specifically name check groups that do these kinds of practices so it is clear who we are talking about. Maybe do a "catalog of sins," as Mandy calls it. 4) For all these reasons, I would wait and do this tomorrow. I get NALEO is not amazing place to do this either, but better. And we can give her some time to internalize the language. Since press has not really picked up on the hit, I think we have a day to wait, but would not let it go beyond Thursday. Thoughts? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Tony Carrk < tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: We will share her record of speaking out on these issues shortly Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Dan Schwerin < dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: Here's what we've come up with as a response to Jeb (with full document attached): I’m proud to have spoken out for decades on behalf of women and girls around the world who face brutality and oppression just because of their gender. Yet on the first two days of his campaign, Jeb Bush is attacking me because I said that religion should never be a justification for violence against women anywhere in the world. Does he think genital mutilation and forced marriages are ever acceptable? Does he think domestic violence anywhere is ever acceptable? Does he think genocide and rape against women and girls are ever acceptable? Does he think any faith ever makes any of these abuses acceptable? I am a woman of faith and I don’t -- and I won’t stop speaking out. On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Christina Reynolds < creynolds@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: And digital On Jun 17, 2015, at 12:57 PM, Karen Finney < kfinney@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: +Fallon Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Christina Reynolds < creynolds@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: Looping in Dan, who has been working on some language on this. Also, an FYI, Politifact will be weighing in soon. * All, Wanted to share the background doc we have put together that includes: 1 – Bush’s attack 2- Context for HRC quote 3 – Joan Walsh column/pushback 4 – Some background that religious organizations are exempt from the contraception requirement in the ACA Please let us know if you have any questions, Tony * +Kristina. On Jun 17, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Lily Adams <ladams@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: I think the next step question is - if reporters here do not pick up on this here, do we want to engage proactively. My position is that we wouldn't want to elevate this hit in Iowa if it wasn't necessary to rebut but open to hearing from you all. On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Christina Reynolds < creynolds@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: Sounds good. And feel free to work around the Walsh piece—it lays it out as well as anything we’re going to get. * Matt and I don't have a problem with this going national first. We can get a quote from a few women leaders in Iowa in response if we want to engage directly but there isn't a walsh-type columnist in Iowa that would be able to do this right just with a pitch. If you all get something written nationally then we will push it around in state. That work for folks? On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Christina Reynolds < creynolds@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: Flagging that Jeb hit her again on the religious point. Lily, see below for a great Joan Walsh piece that lays out why this is crap. Tony, do you all have the background in one place on both this and the Little Sisters issue? Are there any women in Iowa who might be willing to push back on this—she was talking about some pretty horrible things here. And more importantly, what is Iowa’s take on raising the volume on this in Iowa, or would you like it to happen on a more national level? We can get supportive women groups to push back on it—or we can do it from here, but want to get Team Iowa’s view on it landing in Iowa first. http://www.salon.com/2015/06/16/jeb%E2%80%99s_slimy_new_hillary_attack_the_anti_religion_smear_the_media_is_letting_him_get_away_with/ Jeb’s slimy new Hillary attack: The “anti-religion” smear the media is letting him get away with When Jeb Bush claimed Hillary Clinton said that if religious Americans oppose progressive policies, their religious beliefs “have to be changed,” in his campaign kickoff speech Monday, I assumed he was misrepresenting his Democratic rival, and that the media would point it out. But he got in the hilarious juvenile “That’s what she said!” joke, and that’s all reporters talked about. In fact Bush pulled that small quote from Clinton’s inspiring “Women in the World” speech in April – and in doing so, shamelessly distorted its meaning. And he got his slur from the far right: Glenn Beck’s The Blaze <http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/04/27/hillary-clinton-says-religious-beliefs-have-to-be-changed-on-abortion-heres-why-thats-ironic/> and Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller <http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/23/hillary-on-abortion-deep-seated-cultural-codes-religious-beliefs-and-structural-biases-have-to-be-changed/> tried to make the case that Clinton’s words applied to domestic disputes over abortion and contraception at the time – but nobody fell for it, because it was such a silly claim. So far, Bush has gotten away with it. But he shouldn’t. Clinton was talking about countries where girls don’t go to high school, where domestic violence is legal, where high maternal mortality rates are tolerated. And she did say: “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.” Look at those four words in the context of her speech. Here’s what Clinton said: Yes, we’ve nearly closed the global gender gap in primary school, but secondary school remains out of reach for so many girls around the world. Yes, we’ve increased the number of countries prohibiting domestic violence, but still more than half the nations in the world have no such laws on the books, and an estimated one in three women still experience violence. Yes, we’ve cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls at every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century, and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States. So does Jeb Bush object to any or all of that? Is he against closing the gender gap in education in the developing world? (In the U.S., women outpace men in educational attainment, so Clinton clearly wasn’t talking about this country.) Is he for domestic violence (the same is true; we have those laws here)? Does he oppose efforts to cut the maternal mortality rate? What, exactly, is objectionable in what Clinton said? Bush, of course, put Clinton’s words in an entirely different context: the domestic battle over the “conscience clause” in the Affordable Care Act, and the larger clash over so-called “religious freedom” laws around marriage equality. And here’s what he said: These have been rough years for religious charities and their right of conscience. And the leading Democratic candidate recently hinted of more trouble to come. Secretary Clinton insists that when the progressive agenda encounters religious beliefs to the contrary, those beliefs, quote, “have to be changed.” That’s what she said, and I guess we should at least thank her for the warning. “That’s what she said.” Nyuk-nyuk. Bush went on to hit the high point of his speech, his defense of the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns who have objected to using the conscience clause in the ACA that would let them refuse to provide contraception to employees. Now remember: there *is* a conscience clause that lets religious charities out of the contraception mandate. Some feminist groups weren’t happy about its addition to the law. But the Little Sisters sued the federal government claiming that even having to exercise that option – signing a paper attesting to their religious objection to the law – infringes their religious freedom, and might open the door to a third party providing contraception. (The government says it doesn’t.) Bush ignored all that, of course, and delivered this applause line: “It comes down to a choice between the Little Sisters and Big Brother, and I’m going with the Sisters.” It got him a huge ovation, though I thought it was dangerous for him to bring up the notion of “Big Brother,” given that his own big brother’s failed presidency haunts his campaign. But back to the point: Hillary Clinton didn’t suggest that the religious beliefs of the Little Sisters of the Poor, or anyone else, “have to be changed.” Bush knows that. And he got away with the blatant misrepresentation of her views, until now. Just like he got away with claiming last week that the unwed mother-shaming Scarlet Letter law Florida adopted while he was governor <http://www.salon.com/2015/06/11/jeb%E2%80%99s_pathetic_%E2%80%9Cshame%E2%80%9D_defense_all_that_talk_about_marginalizing_single_moms_was_really_directed_at_men/> was actually designed to increase child support collection. Since it only applied to cases where unmarried mothers were giving up children for adoption, it had absolutely nothing to do with child support. Bush either lied, or didn’t care enough to remember one of the most controversial policy debates of his tenure. So far, though, the only mainstream criticism of Bush’s campaign holds that it’s “joyless <http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/jeb-bush-embarks-on-least-joyful-campaign-ever#.xfnKGJ1j7D>.” I agree with that assessment, but that’s the least of it. Bush does seem like he’s playing the self-sacrificing grownup running a reluctant campaign made necessary by the juveniles in his party, and that dynasty in the other party. Watch him use his large war chest to try to joylessly destroy all of them in the weeks to come. * * *Gov. Jeb Bush*, Washington, IA 6/17/15 .@JebBush - @HillaryClinton said if your religious beliefs come in conflict with a woman's right to choose, you have to get over it. https://twitter.com/SamanthaJoRoth/status/611191470389747712 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HRCRR" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hrcrr+unsubscribe@hillaryclinton.com. To post to this group, send email to hrcrr@hillaryclinton.com. -- Lily Adams Iowa Communications Director Hillary for America c: 202-368-4013 -- Lily Adams Iowa Communications Director Hillary for America c: 202-368-4013 <2015-06-17 Trident Technical College - 1pm.docx> This email is intended only for the named addressee. It may contain information that is confidential/private, legally privileged, or copyright-protected, and you should handle it accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, you do not have legal rights to retain, copy, or distribute this email or its contents, and should promptly delete the email and all electronic copies i\STATEMENT FROM JOHN PODESTA Hillary Clinton has spoken out for decades against extremists who pervert the world’s great religions to justify brutality against women and girls. That is what Jeb Bush[Republicans] is attacking her for. ISIS claims their religious faith justifies forcing Yazidi women in Iraq into sexual slavery. Does Governor Bush think we should respect that practice? The Taliban torture women in Afghanistan in the name of their twisted version of Islam. Does Governor Bush/Republicans think that is acceptable? What about forced marriages, honor killings, throwing acid in women’s faces? If Governor Bush thinks standing up to these atrocities is part of Hillary Clinton’s progressive agenda, we are proud to agree. As a woman of faith herself, she won’t hesitate to condemn those who distort religious beliefs to justify barbaric actions. Such distortions are a grave affront to both the girls and women who being persecuted, as well as the religions these barbarians atSTATEMENT FROM JOHN PODESTA Hillary Clinton has spoken out for decades against extremists who pervert the world’s great religions to justify brutality against women and girls. That is what Jeb Bush[Republicans] is attacking her for. ISIS claims their religious faith justifies forcing Yazidi women in Iraq into sexual slavery. Does Governor Bush think we should respect that practice? The Taliban torture women in Afghanistan in the name of their twisted version of Islam. Does Governor Bush/Republicans think that is acceptable? What about forced marriages, honor killings, throwing acid in women’s faces? If Governor Bush thinks standing up to these atrocities is part of Hillary Clinton’s progressive agenda, we are proud to agree. As a woman of faith herself, she won’t hesitate to condemn those who distort religious beliefs to justify barbaric actions. Such distortions are a grave affront to both the girls and women who being persecuted, as well as the religions these barbarians attempt to use use as cover for these heinous acts. tempt to use use as cover for these heinous acts. n your system; do not retain copies in any media. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender promptly. Thank you. <JDP 061715.docx> This email is intended only for the named addressee. It may contain information that is confidential/private, legally privileged, or copyright-protected, and you should handle it accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, you do not have legal rights to retain, copy, or distribute this email or its contents, and should promptly delete the email and all electronic copies in your system; do not retain copies in any media. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender promptly. Thank you.