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

Re: Messaging Memo for 9:30am Call

From:robbymook@gmail.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com CC: nmerrill@hrcoffice.com, cheryl.mills@gmail.com, jake.sullivan@gmail.com, pir@hrcoffice.com Date: 2014-10-28 22:21 Subject: Re: Messaging Memo for 9:30am Call

So I gave more thought to the question of how she answers questions about her speeches and it was honestly harder than I thought. We all agree she should "own" it and be genuine, but explaining that it made financial sense or how it contributed to the endowment can lead to a dangerous downward spiral about money. It's also hard to say she was doing it as part of an outreach effort because then she's saying she reached out to those who could pay...and you get into a back-and-forth about what quantity of time was paid vs not paid. For that reason, I think (a) the speeches shouldn't be brought up proactively in any way that invites attention and (b) I think any answer needs to ultimately pivot onto offense. I wanted to reach a better conclusion, but I'm stumped. Would love it if someone has something better. Some thoughts on language below--I tried two frames for this and centered it around presumed partisanship in the coming months (I left it vague as to whether that's around budget or CIR, etc): *OPTION ONE: Middle Class* While I am obviously spending a lot of time thinking about my future, anyone who has ever known me knows that I like to stay busy. I’ve never wanted to stop working. Partisans will always criticize me for whatever I do – including giving speeches. They just want to have a conversation about anything other than their actual policies. These are the same people spending another month creating gridlock that makes progress on critical issues like education or infrastructure jobs impossible. [Perhaps get into "what matters is what I've been saying to every audience I speak to--that we need to get this country working again for the middle class"...my only flag here is that I'd want a researcher to confirm that this won't invite unhelpful questions]. *OPTION TWO: Republican Attacks* While I am obviously spending a lot of time thinking about my future, anyone who has ever known me knows that I like to stay busy. I’ve never wanted to stop working. But its not surprising that some very partisan groups are always going to attack me for just about anything. That’s part of what is wrong with Washington – that we’re in a constant cycle of overwhelmingly negative campaigns before a campaign even begins. Its one of the impediments to consensus in Washington. And the costs of that gridlock aren’t just theatrics in Washington – its middle class families who can’t afford education because Washington isn’t doing enough to keep college affordable or the construction workers who is between jobs because Congress can’t even agree on previously bipartisan priorities like funding highways. *Q&A* Do you have any concerns about the optics of giving paid speeches where you’re being paid more in one hour than the annual income of most Americans? I’m not surprised that there are some of the more partisan groups and politicians in Washington who would attack me for just about anything – including giving speeches. But the truth is that when it comes to income inequality and helping the middle class, there are partisan extremists who would rather talk about anything other than policies. They’re spending another month creating gridlock that makes progress on critical issues like education or infrastructure jobs impossible. On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:28 AM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote: > 2 catches: > I think we need I to be clearer that there will be no decision in 2014 so > the hounds can go back to the kennel. > I don't like what's best for me preceding what's best for the country. I > like a formulation that's more like what's in the best interest of the > country or to channel Roy Spence, what's the promise of America and can I > help deliver it. > > JP > --Sent from my iPad-- > john.podesta@gmail.com > For scheduling: eryn.sepp@gmail.com > > > On Oct 25, 2014, at 11:12 PM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Attached please find a memo that Philippe and I put together that we > think > > captures our conversation last weekend on a beginning frame for how to > > position HRC, ourselves, and our surrogates following Election Day, along > > with some of our ideas on how to execute. > > > > Talk to you all in the morning. > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > On 10/22/14, 11:19 AM, "Joanne Laszczych" <jlaszczych@cdmillsGroup.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Call is confirmed for 9:30am EDT on Sunday, 10/26. > >> > >> Please use: > >> > >> Dial i: 1-530-881-1000 > >> Code: 742374# > >> > >> ----- > >> From: Cheryl Mills [mailto:cheryl.mills@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:24 AM > >> To: Jake Sullivan > >> Cc: Philippe Reines; Nicholas S Merrill; John Podesta; Robby Mook; > Joanne > >> Laszczych > >> Subject: Re: Follow - up Call > >> > >> Does 930am work better for folks then? > >> > >> cdm > >> > >>> On Oct 21, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Jake Sullivan <jake.sullivan@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> I'll be on a flight and could do 930 (Robby and I were skedded to speak > >>> then) > >>> > >>>> On Oct 21, 2014, at 8:17 PM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear all > >>>> > >>>> Can you advise Joanne if a call at 9am Sunday will work for a follow > >>>> up call? > >>>> > >>>> Best. > >>>> > >>>> cdm > > > > <Memo 11.5.docx> >