Subject: 2016 GOP HIT on HRC
From: "Hendricks, Lauren" <[email-masked]>
To: Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Brinster, Jeremy" <[email-masked]>, "Crystal, Andy" <[email-masked]>, "Dillon, Lauren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 08:17:49 -0700

America Rising PAC Tweet
5/13/16 11:16 AM
Read Here<https://twitter.com/AmericaRising/status/731140746854567937>
.@HillaryClinton<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/> Receives Another Backhanded Endorsement, This Time From The @latimes<https://twitter.com/latimes/> bit.ly/1TaKtvF<https://t.co/OUfloAZXSi> pic.twitter.com/s9QDzNM34v<https://t.co/s9QDzNM34v>
More Britney GIFs:
Clinton Receives Another Backhanded Endorsement<https://www.americarisingpac.org/clinton-receives-another-backhanded-endorsement/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=20160513_ARPAC-p-clintonbackhandedendorsement_twitter&utm_content=ARPAC>

If a presidential candidate receives an endorsement from a newspaper's editorial board, but the headline starts with "for all her faults," you know the actual endorsement will not be very positive. That's the situation Hillary Clinton faces,once again<https://www.americarisingpac.org/serious-missteps-terrible-judgment-dismissive-ed-boards-clinton/>, with her endorsement from the Los Angeles Times<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-democratic-presidential-endorsement-20160426-story.html>.

The endorsement starts by highlighting how much more difficult the Democratic primary has been for Clinton than what many expected in 2015. According to the Los Angeles Times analysis this is largely because of Clinton's myriad number of vulnerabilities:

"His passionate excoriation of a 'rigged economy' and his call for a sweeping political revolution energized millions of Americans, especially young voters, and he put Clinton on the defensive about her ties to Wall Street, her support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the trade policies of her husband's Bill Clinton's administration."

Even in a paragraph where the Los Angeles Times explicitly says they are endorsing Clinton they can't help themselves from reminding readers of her "penchant for secrecy," her many flip-flops, and her inauthenticity:

"By contrast, Clinton, for all her faults - and they range from a penchant for secrecy to a willingness to modify her positions to suit the popular mood to a less-restrained view of the use of military force than we are entirely comfortable with - is vastly better prepared than Sanders for the presidency. She has The Times' endorsement in the June 7 California Democratic primary. Clinton may seem inauthentic to some or to lack that drink-a-beer-with-me quality that voters often look for in a candidate."

The endorsement also devotes a whole paragraph to two of Clinton's biggest vulnerabilities: the FBI investigation into her email server and her secret big-money speeches. Needless to say they are not very kind to Clinton's conduct on either issue:

"Clinton's campaign has been dogged from the start by issues related to transparency. Take the question of what Sanders called those 'damn emails' - official messages Clinton sent and received on a private email server while secretary of State. It seems unlikely that she is in danger of criminal prosecution, but the fact that the FBI is investigating at all is embarrassing. The same self-defeating resistance to disclosure is evident in Clinton's stubborn refusal to release the contents of speeches she delivered while out of public office to Goldman Sachs and other corporate audiences."

Yes, she might be winning the Democratic primary, but the Los Angeles Times editorial perfectly spells out the problems voters have with her and issues that will continue to dog her in the general election.

Lauren Hendricks