WASHINGTON, D.C. — Hillary Clinton’s campaign made it perfectly clear that this entire election is a big battle over the Supreme Court and Obamacare, according to the Wikileaks’ dump of John Podesta’s emails.
Hillary Clinton friend and informal adviser Neera Tanden wrote to campaign colleagues about “King v. Burwell,” the big case about whether or not Obamacare is constitutional, which progressives were concerned about.
The Hillary Clinton campaign took its cue from Tanden, the president of the left-wing Center for American Progress. Here’s part of an email that Tanden sent to top Clinton campaign officials and former State Department officials:
oops!
I mentioned this to John some time back, but think it’s a bit more current now. It is most likely that this decision has already been made by the Court, but on the off chance that history is repeating itself, then it’s possible they are still deciding (last time, seems like Roberts went from striking the mandate to supporting it in the weeks before). As Jennifer will remember, it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring Roberts off. In this case, I’m not arguing that Hillary spend a lot of time attacking the Court. I do think it would be very helpful to all of our interest in a decision affirming the law, for Roberts and perhaps Kennedy to see negative political consequences to ruling against the government. Therefore, I think it would be helpful to have a story of how progressives and Hillary would make the Supreme Court an election issue (which would be a ready argument for liberals) if the Court rules against the government. It’s not that you wish that happens. But that would be the necessary consequence of a negative decision…the Court itself would become a hugely important political issue. At CAP Action, we can get that story started. But kinda rests on you guys to make it stick. What do you think? If you want to proceed, we should move soon. Let me know thoughts. And I’m happy to discuss.
Neera
“I’m into it but defer to Jen on this one,” said Jake Sullivan, the apparent subordinate of Jen Palmieri.
“And to clarify, the candidate wouldn’t have to do anything. I think we could move the story with just a nod from the campaign on the strategy,” Tanden said.
“Adding Brian Fallon and Christina,” Palmieri said. “She has already been making this an issue. Not sure how in depth you are suggesting but seems like this should be manageable.”
“I will talk to our team. But my thought is you guys could even just affirm on background or something. I haven’t seen what she’s said so maybe we have enough to work with on that,” Tanden said.
“Neera, I can give folks the nod if you want to direct whoever you guys pitch to me,” said Brian Fallon, swooping in to save the day.
“Great will report back later today or tomorrow,” Nanden said.
Jen Palmieri has infamously struggled with her ability to control the campaign’s messaging. Breitbart News reported:
At November’s Democratic debate in Des Moines, Clinton said that taking Wall Street cash after 9/11 was “a way to rebuke the terrorists” because Wall Street, located in Clinton’s adoptive state of New York, was targeted by Osama bin Laden.
In the Spin Room after that debate, Clinton surrogate Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee continued to use the 9/11 talking point as Clinton communications director Jen Palmieri tried to stop it.
“I’m glad you brought this up. She did not use it as a justification for Wall Street donations,” Palmieri told Breitbart News, denying that the campaign has a 9/11 talking point.
“Sounds like maybe I need to,” Palmieri said when asked if she would try to rein in surrogates like Jackson-Lee who were using the talking point. “I wasn’t aware of that.”
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.