Subject: RE: Hillary Clinton to Jewish donors: I’ll be better for Israel than Obama - POLITICO
From: Christina Reynolds <[email-masked]>
To: Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Cc: Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>, Oren Shur <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 14:48:13 -0400

Right, but if we wanted to have a reporter cover the Israel support now, a
leak of the letter could probably get written.

Otherwise, we can work around the Israel support for reporters covering
Iran.

*From:* Jake Sullivan [mailto:[email-masked]]
*Sent:* Friday, July 3, 2015 2:44 PM
*To:* Christina Reynolds
*Cc:* Robby Mook; Dan Schwerin; Oren Shur; John Podesta; Nick Merrill
*Subject:* Re: Hillary Clinton to Jewish donors: I’ll be better for Israel
than Obama - POLITICO

We have a two pager I'm getting clearance from her on.  That is what we
have to ship around.

On Jul 3, 2015, at 12:17 PM, Christina Reynolds <
[email-masked]> wrote:

We could either get a donor to leak it or just give it to a reporter if we
want to get it out there. I'm semi-surprised it's not out yet.

On Jul 3, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Robby Mook <[email-masked]> wrote:

Do we need to push it harder over the next few days?  Get something
written?  I feel like we're going to want something to point to. Or maybe
even just content on the website?

On Jul 3, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
wrote:

That's basically the goal of the BDS letter.

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Robby Mook <[email-masked]> wrote:

I was just thinking: has she made a clear statement on Israel yet?  I get
this question from donors all the time.  Does she need to state her
principles on Israel before Iran?  Or do both at the same time?

On Jul 3, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Oren Shur <[email-masked]> wrote:

This article seems to make the case for the Mook approach - clear, direct
and principled.

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

*From:* Ian Sams <[email-masked]>
*Date:* July 3, 2015 at 9:31:09 AM EDT
*To:* Clips <[email-masked]>
*Subject:* *Hillary Clinton to Jewish donors: I’ll be better for Israel
than Obama - POLITICO*

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-jewish-donors-israel-119705.html
Hillary Clinton to Jewish donors: I’ll be better for Israel than Obama

But the former secretary of state is sending mixed signals on the
president's Iran deal.

By Kenneth P. Vogel <http://www.politico.com/reporters/KennethPVogel.html>
 and Tarini Parti <http://www.politico.com/reporters/TariniParti.html>

7/3/15 6:33 AM EDT

Updated 7/3/15 6:33 AM EDT

Hillary Clinton is privately signaling to wealthy Jewish donors that — no
matter the result of the Iranian nuclear negotiations
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/iran-nuclear-talks-geneva-john-kerry-5-things-to-watch-119482.html>
— she will be a better friend to Israel than President Barack Obama.

But, even as donors increasingly push Clinton on the subject in private,
they have emerged with sometimes widely varying interpretations about
whether she would support a prospective deal, according to interviews with
more than 10 influential donors and fundraising operatives.

*Story Continued Below*

Clinton’s private responses in some ways resemble a foreign policy
Rorschach test; donors who see a deal as important to world peace have come
away thinking that Clinton shares their perspective, but so, too, do donors
who oppose any prospective agreement as compromising Israeli security.

Publicly, she’s expressed support
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/clinton-on-iran-deal-diplomacy-deserves-a-chance-to-succeed-116646.html>
for the negotiating process, which she secretly initiated
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-secret-iran-man-116647.html>
during her time as secretary of state, but has also said “no
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/14/hillary-clinton-iran_n_5323991.html>
deal is better than a bad
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/14/hillary-clinton-iran_n_5323991.html>
deal
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/14/hillary-clinton-iran_n_5323991.html>
.”

With the talks heading into the home stretch in
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/iran-nuclear-talks-extended-119584.html>
Vienna
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/iran-nuclear-talks-extended-119584.html>,
the issue is emerging as an early test for Clinton’s presidential campaign.
She’s already struggling to balance two of her biggest strengths as a
candidate — her deep foreign policy track record and her vaunted
fundraising ability — and that balance could become even trickier if
there’s a deal.

“Whatever way you go, there will be some people who won’t like it,” said
Sarah Kovner, a prominent New York donor
<http://politicalpartytime.org/party/38482/> who is a leading bundler for
Clinton’s campaign and worked in Bill Clinton’s presidential
administration. “You can’t have everybody with you. You’ve got to do what
you think is right for the country.”

The negotiations are of intense interest for some Jewish donors whose
political giving is animated by their support for Israel. They’re being
counted on by Clinton’s allies to donate huge sums for a campaign and a
pair of supportive super PACs that, taken together, are expected to raise
$2 billion or more.

Clinton’s campaign rejected any suggestion that she’s trying to have it
both ways on Iran.

“Her support for the negotiating process and touting support for Israel are
not contradictory,” said Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill. “A strong deal is
good for Israel in her view.”

And several people who’ve heard her address the issue say the fact that
different people can come away with such different interpretations is a
testament to her nuanced approach to the issue and her skill as a
politician, rather than any vacillation on the subject.

“That’s just smart politics,” said one donor who supports the negotiations
and recently talked to her about them. “Because, right now, you have the
freedom to say all those things, so why would you commit and box yourself
in until you saw what the deal was?”

Clinton recently told another pro-deal donor that she was “very supportive
of the negotiating process,” the donor recalled, while a third funder said
she boasted of her role in starting the talks. “So it seemed like she was
supporting it,” recalled the funder.

And, at a Manhattan fundraiser last week featuring a largely Jewish group
of donors, Clinton defended Obama against charges he had weakened the
U.S.-Israel relationship, asserting that such criticism stemmed from a
“perception” problem, according to a donor who was present. But she also
suggested that if she were elected president she could correct that problem
and bring the two nations closer.

“Diplomacy is all about personal relationships, and I’ve got my own
relationships,” she said, referencing her two-decade association with
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an ardent opponent of the Iran
deal and, occasionally, of Obama. Clinton even cited her rapport with
former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, who last week published
a book that was brutally critical of the Obama administration and was timed
for release to try to stymie the Iran
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/michael-oren-new-book-obama-iran-deal-119317.html>
deal
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/michael-oren-new-book-obama-iran-deal-119317.html>.
“I know Michael well, but I haven’t read the book,” she said.

At a fundraiser last month at the Long Island home of Democratic donor Jay
Jacobs, Clinton was asked by an Orthodox rabbi about threats to Israel’s
security. “She did stress in no uncertain terms her full and fervent
support of the state of Israel and the defense of the state of Israel,”
recalled Jacobs. “And the people in the audience who heard it seemed to be
comfortable with her answer.”

Likewise, donors at a different New York fundraiser seemed to fully accept
her answer to a slightly different question about the U.S. interest in the
deal, said billionaire hedge fund manager Marc Lasry, a leading Clinton
donor. “She said ‘I’m going to do what’s in the best interest of the U.S.,’
and that was the end of it,” Lasry said.

Dan Berger, a Philadelphia lawyer and major Democratic donor who supports
the framework of a deal, cautioned that the interests of the U.S. and
Israel, “although close, are not identical. It might not be in the best
interest of American Jews, but it’s got to be in the best interest of the
majority of the people.” He urged Jewish donors “to take a step back and
look at the complexity and judge the agreement based on its merits,”
adding: “I’d hope Hillary would judge it based on its merits and not on
political support.”

Lasry rejected the suggestion that Clinton would even consider the
fundraising implications when assessing any deal.

But Clinton’s senior foreign policy advisers have briefed interested
wealthy donors on both the negotiations over the deal and its prospects for
congressional approval, according to one donor who recently talked to a top
Clinton aide.

“It’s a tricky issue for her,” said the donor who was briefed, arguing that
Jewish donors who oppose a deal and favor military intervention in Iran
“are going to put her in a box.”

Clinton’s allies are carefully monitoring the sensitivities of a handful of
hawkish Democratic mega-donors for signs that the Iran talks may be
influencing their willingness to write million-dollar super PAC checks.
Chief among that group is billionaire Hollywood entrepreneur Haim Saban,
who sources say has spoken multiple times with Clinton and her top aides
about the deal.

In April, he strongly suggested
<http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/239091-saban-hints-clinton-opposes-the-iran-deal>
that Clinton opposed the deal. “I know where she stands, but I can’t talk
about it,” Saban told an Israeli television news channel, adding under
questioning, “She has an opinion, a very well-defined opinion. And in any
case, everything that she thinks and everything she has done and will do
will always be for the good of Israel. We don’t need to worry about this.”

He soon backtracked, saying “I
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/top-pro-israel-donor-unsure-of-clintons-position-on-iran-deal/>
have no idea
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/top-pro-israel-donor-unsure-of-clintons-position-on-iran-deal/>
what Hillary thinks about the Iran deal.”

And multiple prominent Jewish donors who joined Saban at a White House
meeting
<http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/238669-obama-pleads-with-jewish-groups-to-back-iran-deal>
with Obama in April to discuss the Iran negotiations said Saban expressed
open-mindedness about supporting the deal, though one participant suggested
his opinion shouldn’t hold as much weight as those of foreign policy
professionals.

“Haim Saban is a very smart businessman who has a tremendous amount of love
for the Clintons, but I don’t think he is the most sophisticated policy
analyst that there is,” said the donor.

Saban’s representatives did not respond to questions about his interactions
with Clinton.

But on Thursday, POLITICO reported
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/soros-helps-pro-clinton-super-pacs-to-20-million-haul-119669.html?ml=po>
that he donated $2 million this year to a super PAC supporting her
presidential campaign, which Democratic finance sources interpreted as a
sign that Saban’s financial support will not be conditioned on Clinton
taking a certain stance on the Iran deal.

Steve Rabinowitz, a Democratic consultant who worked in the Clinton White
House and was a co-founder of Jewish Americans Ready for Hillary, argued
that the Iran deal isn’t going to be a deciding issue for either donors or
voters.

“Do people in my community talk about the Iran deal? Sure. But is it
affecting their support for Hillary Clinton? No,” he said. “Iran certainly
will — and already has — become a talking point, but it will not move three
votes or $3.”

Clinton has the potential to bring along donors like Saban who might have
been skeptical of negotiating with Iran, argued the Long Island donor
Jacobs. “Hillary has a lot of credibility and support in the Jewish
community. It’s broad and deep. People understand that she has fought and
has been there as an advocate,” he said. “So when she speaks on the issue,
there will be more people in the Jewish community who have perhaps unfairly
not appreciated President Obama’s support who will at least give her view a
more open-minded assessment.”

If Clinton backs any eventual deal, its proponents will be under pressure
to step up their giving — both to the Clinton super PACs and to pro-deal
groups — because she is likely to come under heavy fire from deep-pocketed
groups
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/14-million-ad-buy-targets-obamas-iran-deal-119353.html>
that oppose the deal.

“If there’s a deal, and she comes out in favor of it, you can be sure there
will be a great deal of fire trained on her,” said Noah Pollak, the
executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel. The conservative
group has worked to rally opposition to the talks and this week began
airing an ad
<http://www.timesofisrael.com/influential-ny-senator-urged-to-tip-balance-in-iran-talks/>
pressuring New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is considered a key
vote on the deal, to oppose it.

The left-leaning Israel advocacy group J Street, which has worked to build
support for the deal, is expected to come to the defense of supporters,
including potentially Clinton, though on some issues, the group’s members
regard her as too hawkish for their tastes.

“For people who speak on these Middle East issues on which we have strong
positions, we come to their support and defense on those issues, regardless
of party, regardless of candidacy,” said Victor A Kovner, a Democratic
donor who chairs J Street’s PAC.

Kovner, like his wife, Sarah Kovner, is backing Clinton, and said he has
communicated his support for a deal to the candidate.

“She is familiar with my view, but she has a lot of supporters and advisers
on both sides of this question — around the nation, both within the Jewish
community and beyond the Jewish community.”
Authors:

View Comments

--

Ian Sams

(423) 915-6592