Mediaboss Marketing

Hillary Clinton is really drinking in New York Citys post-coronavirus atmosphere.

The former secretary of state was seen using two hands to down a big glass of white wine at a posh Upper East Side restaurant Tuesday evening.

Clinton was enjoying her beverage as she waited at Fleming by Le Bilboquet on 62nd Street near Madison Avenue for her hubby, Bill, and some pals, including rocker Stings wife, Trudie Styler, to arrive.

The 73-year-old former Democratic presidential nominee got to the chic eatery with a team of Secret Service protection around 6:30 p.m., and didnt wait long before her ex-president hubby showed up and took a few selfies with fans before sitting down at their table, according to the Daily Mail.

The former president was dressed in a blue suit with a checkered button-down shirtand no tie, while his wife wore a three-quarter-length striped coat.

The two were filmed chatting and laughing with a brunette woman and a young man in glasses before Styler, 67, arrived.

At one point, a waiter snapped a group photo, though Hillary apparently didnt want to be in it, a bystander told the Mail.

Other photos showed the party engaged in a lively conversation during their meal, with Styler, who married the British rocker in 1992, at one point leaning her head on Bills shoulder.

Well-wishers descended on the Clintons when they left around 9 p.m., according to the report.

The former secretary of state, who was the only one in a mask, was seen taking a selfie with a fan before she and Bill got into a car together.

The chic eatery made waves in 2019, when staffers there told The Post that they were required to Google any unknown guests and make sure they were rich or famous enough to grace the dining room.

Aside from the Clintons, celebrities who have dined there include Paul McCartney, Robert De Niro and Ivanka Trump.

See the rest here:
Bill and Hillary Clinton spotted at posh NYC restaurant with friends - New York Post

Kanye West tried to get tough with Tyson Beckford in 2018, according to the model at a black-tie gala attended by Hillary Clinton and Oprah Winfrey.

It all started when Beckford, 50, accused Wests then-wife Kim Kardashian of getting plastic surgery and criticized her on social media about it.

Beckford eventually ran into West, 43, at Ralph Laurens 50th anniversary party, where Beckford revealed he tried to get tough with me.

I was standing in the middle of Oprah Winfrey and Hillary Clinton. He was on the other side of the table, and when I tried to make eye-contact with him, he wouldnt look at me, Beckford recalled on the Instagram show Lets Go Live! with Sharon Carpenter.

He claims West, instead, sent one of his minions to follow him to the bathroom to talk to him, but the male model told the goon, I suggest you get out of this bathroom before I wipe you all over the wall.

West eventually called him out in an Instagram video two weeks later according to Beckford, who suggested he was too afraid to approach him in person at the Ralph Lauren event.

Im like, You did not want no smoke. I had on my tuxedo. I would have undone my tie and got into it if you wanted to, but you didnt. I think you didnt realize how big I was, he said.

Kim and Kanye have since divorced and even though Beckford is exposing the incident now, he wishes them well.

Theyre going through some hard times right now. My whole energy is positive, he concluded.

It would not have been Beckfords first bout of celebrity fisticuffs over a woman.

In 2016, Page Six reported that Beckford had an ugly exchange at a Manhattan nightclub with DJ Ruckus who had recently started dating his ex, Shanina Shaik and then chased the DJ several blocks on his motorcycle.

When they arrived at Ruckus condo building, sources told us, Tyson [got] off his bike, still with his helmet on and [started] confronting Ruckus, and then they went back and forth until the doorman called the cops.

Reps did not comment.

See the rest here:
Tyson Beckford: Kanye West tried to get tough with me over Kim Kardashian - Page Six

On Monday The New York Times put Arkansas politics where it belonged. We were on the front page. We had national implications.

A national political correspondent named Jonathan Martin had parachuted into what he described--and it's the truth--as an uncommon place always peculiar, and still so, for playing above its weight limit in politics.

In 1992, we exported to the nation what Massachusetts couldn't produce, meaning a neo-electable Democratic president. Bill Clinton had honed his skills in our little laboratory of democracy. He'd necessarily found a way in our culture to finesse his unpopular liberal instincts. National Republicans didn't quite know what to do with a Southern Democrat who didn't give the game away.

Since then, people from Arkansas originally or partly--Mike Huckabee, Wes Clark and Hillary Clinton--have run semi-seriously or very seriously for president.

Now the players and party have changed dramatically, owing to an anti-Obama, pro-Trump wholesale Republican takeover occurring over a dozen wild years. But, as The Times said, Gov. Asa Hutchinson and U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton may soon be running into each other more in Iowa, site of the first presidential caucuses of 2024, than Arkansas--Hutchinson to advance a less-angry, more center-leaning Republican Party leaving Trumpism behind, and Cotton scowling through his own mean-spirited right-wingness both tied to Donald Trump and independent of him.

For full Trumpism, as The Times explained, Sarah Huckabee Sanders is likely to be the next governor representing the insurrection.

The Times produced a detail and a couple of quotations I envied.

I had assumed but not known that Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, also running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, had pleaded with Trump not to endorse Sanders, but to let her fight a fair fight of two competing Trump puppets. He paid her no mind. His bed with Sanders had been made.

Hutchinson, usually cautious, seemed to let his hair down a little to The Times' reporter. He said of the state's business behemoths who are worried about right-wing cultural warring by Republican state legislators: "They've [Walmart, Tyson] got to recruit people to this state, and this makes it harder for them. And there's many in the base of the state party that just don't care. They would rather fight the cultural war and pay the price in terms of growth."

Then, of Sanders having forced resume-rich Tim Griffin out of the Republican governor's race, Hutchinson said, perhaps dismissing much substance to Sanders, or at least to her campaign essence, "It shows you the power of media and personality."

Martin quoted Sanders only from a terse text. She's in coasting-to-victory mode, and live interviews with serious reporters are speed bumps best avoided. "I take nothing for granted," she texted.

The rest of us can take for granted that she'll speak in safe clich.

Altogether, this was a splendid take on our politically rich little province, worthy of the nation's finest newspaper. I'd like to have read only three more paragraphs.

One would have been that Arkansas has long had an affinity for populist-seeming demagogues like Trump. Jeff Davis, Orval Faubus and Tommy Robinson come to mind. Clinton's greatest gift to the state was plying his skills to deny the governorship to Robinson in the late '80s and early '90s. Or maybe credit ought to go to left-leaners who crossed over into a small Republican primary to take out Robinson early in 1990. Either way, Trump is, in Arkansas, a mere imitation.

The second additional paragraph would have called attention to the fact that an exhaustive piece capturing the state's current political environment had not mentioned a Democrat or needed to do so. That's because the Democratic Party is comatose here, not on its own local account but because of the toxicity of national liberal positions. It is arguable that the state is pro-Trump only second and that its first instinct is to recoil against national Democrats on abortion, guns, "socialism," the "cancel culture" and the rest.

The third would have been to make the point that, for all the discussion of a Trump-loyal/Trump-resistant competition in Arkansas Republican politics, there isn't much of one. A recent poll of favorable-unfavorable ratings showed that the two most popular politicians in Arkansas by far are Trump and Sanders, and that Hutchinson has flipped upside down abruptly, from prevailing approval to prevailing disapproval, presumably for daring to cross Trumpism.

It all somehow reminds me of a renowned Church of Christ revivalist preacher who came through our family's little congregation in a summer of my childhood, quoting some scripture that included the words "no hope," then slowly repeating those words, droning over and over, until people were ready to walk the aisle and improve his marketing numbers just to get him to stop.

Maybe someday Arkansas will walk the aisle. As former Republican House Speaker Davy Carter told The Times, "I'm convinced that, even in Arkansas, Trump and Trumpism is a slow-sinking ship."

John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, is a member of the Arkansas Writers' Hall of Fame. Email him at jbrummett@arkansasonline.com. Read his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.

Read more here:
OPINION | JOHN BRUMMETT: Where Trumpism's fate lies - Arkansas Online

There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos, said Texas politician Jim Hightower. His comment is humorous, and may be accurate as far as Texas highways are concerned, but it misses the mark when it comes to American politics.

In truth, the middle of the road or political center, if you will is where people come together to get things done. Its where deadlocks are broken.

Centrists once determined the fate of big issues. Ronald Reagan inspired Republicans with his conservative principles, but also made deals with Democrats to get his programs passed. More Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights bill proposed by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson.

Today, few members of Congress operate from the middle. If more did, its likely reasonable compromises could be reached on numerous issues such as infrastructure and immigration.

The partisan gap is widening and each side is increasingly militant. Instant communications, social media, 24/7 news and uninformed punditry, together with a deluge of organized money, deepens the divide. Campaign cash isnt raised online by talking about common ground, its raised by painting the opposition as evil.

There is nothing wrong with Democrats and Republicans battling over legitimate policy differences thats the way democracy works. But each side now makes eradication of the other its priority. When individuals in Congress work with colleagues from across the aisle to find practical solutions, theyre attacked as sellouts, fundraising spigots are cut off to them and primary election challenges are threatened.

Though middle ground is hard to find in Washington, its alive and well among voters across the nation. A recent poll for The Economist finds that 28% of voters consider themselves independents thats equivalent to 45 million votes, a healthy chunk of the American electorate thats not aligned with either party.

Voters are tired of polarized politics. They want an alternative vision. A Gallup poll, conducted earlier this year, showed that 62% of the nations voters think the two major parties do such a poor job that a third party is needed. Thats a stinging rebuke.

Both parties have become reliant on base turnout to win elections, and that makes campaigns less about persuading undecided and cross-pressured voters and more about pushing reliable partisans to the polls. Some analysts and consultants have concluded that voters in the middle dont much matter. The truth is that they do matter; independents, in fact, elected the last two presidents.

In 2020, Joe Biden and Donald Trump each received near-unanimous support (94%) from their partys voters. But, according to exit polling, independents went for Biden by a wide 54-41% margin. In the critical state of Georgia, for example, Biden won by a mere two-tenths of a point and did it by carrying independents by nine points.

In 2016, independents went for Trump by four points over Hillary Clinton. Trump won the critical state of Michigan that year by only two-tenths of a point and did it by carrying independents by 16 points.

In 1992, Ross Perot was one of the few independent candidates in history to run a presidential campaign from the center. Though he lost, he received an impressive 19% of the vote. Whats forgotten is that his voters didnt go away, they became the swing vote in the next midterm election; they handed control of Congress to the GOP in an upset of historic magnitude.

Political labels independent, centrist and moderate are often used interchangeably and incorrectly. Technically, theyre neither the same nor mutually exclusive. Independent is a partisan position and centrist is an ideological position. Moderation is a temperament; politicians are usually viewed as moderates because of their tone, not their voting records.

Regardless of labels, which are built on shifting sands anyway, most voters are not rigid ideologues or lockstep partisans. Theyre cross-pressured. They dont follow a party line on issues and are sometimes more motivated by candidate qualifications and personalities. In 2016, for instance, 18% disliked both Trump and Clinton. They were cross-pressured and they broke for Trump in the end.

While tens of millions of voters still stand in the middle of the political spectrum, there are fewer leaders in the halls of Congress who represent them. Thats a bigger problem than dead armadillos.

Ron Faucheux is a nonpartisan political analyst and publisher of LunchtimePolitics.com, a newsletter on polls. He lives in New Orleans.

See the original post here:
Ron Faucheux: The death of the political center in America is exaggerated - The Advocate

This week brought news that the U.S. attorney in Brooklyn, New York, is investigating whether Ukrainian officials used Rudy Giuliani to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.

We have known for a while that the neighboring U.S. attorney in Manhattan is investigating Giuliani for potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. In April, the FBI conducted searches at Giulianis home and office as part of that investigation in the Southern District of New York. The newly disclosed probe in the Eastern District of New York appears to view Giuliani not as a target but as a pawn.

The newly disclosed probe in the Eastern District of New York appears to view Giuliani not as a target but as a pawn.

The New York Times reported the investigation is focused on suspected efforts by Ukrainian officials to spread unsupported claims of corruption against then-candidate Joe Biden through channels that included Giuliani, who was serving as then-President Donald Trumps personal attorney. Giuliani traveled to Ukraine in 2019 and met with officials as part of his effort to obtain disparaging information about Biden. The Times says Giuliani continued to "vouch" for Andriy Derkach, a Ukrainian member of parliament, even after Trumps Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Derkach for election interference and accused him of being an active Russian agent.

While the reporting indicates the new investigation focuses on efforts to sway the November election in favor of Trump, it should not be seen as a partisan effort by Bidens Justice Department. In fact, the investigation reportedly began in the waning months of the Trump administration.

Regardless of which candidate may have benefitted from such an attack, any effort by a foreign government to alter the outcome of an election is an unwelcome intrusion on our democracy. American voters should decide the outcome of American elections.

Efforts to interfere in the outcome of a democratic election are extremely serious. They can help elect candidates based on skewed perceptions created by a hostile foreign adversary to advance the adversarys own purposes. Foreign agents manipulate voters into forming opinions by pushing content designed to elicit an emotional negative response or to spread lies that will harm a candidates reputation.

Special counsel Robert Mueller alleged that the goal of Russia in its 2016 attack on our election was to spread "distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general." In other words, foreign adversaries are attacking democracy itself. This kind of activity is sometimes referred to as election meddling, but that term tends to minimize the damage it inflicts. We should use the term that Mueller alleged the Russians themselves used: information warfare.

As foreign adversaries increase their efforts to use disinformation to dupe voters, criminal prosecution can be an important weapon to defend the integrity of our elections. One sometimes overlooked contribution Mueller and his team made was their indictment against Russian officials for election interference. Sometimes the significance of these charges is lost in the commotion surrounding Trumps claims of partisan witch hunts, but they provide a playbook for prosecutors to combat election attacks.

In that case, Mueller and his team used an interesting legal theory. The indictment alleged that the Internet Research Agency and others conspired to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission and the departments of Justice and State.

The Russian operatives did so by using social media platforms to pose as American activists. The indictment lays out that they pretended to support issues and groups across the political spectrum the Black Lives Matter movement, border security, Christian voters, Muslim groups and political parties and organizations in Texas and Tennessee.

Their efforts promoted Trump and disparaged his political opponent, Hillary Clinton, the indictment said. Their posts sought to suppress Black voters from casting ballots and to encourage voting for third-party candidates. They also used false U.S. personas to communicate with unwitting Americans to spread disinformation and even to organize campaign rallies.

Because the United States has no extradition treaty with Russia, the Internet Research Agency has not appeared in court to face the charges, which remain pending.

What these efforts had in common was their deceit. And it is deceit that prosecutors often focus on when charging various types of fraud. By spending money on advertising and campaign rallies without reporting it to the FEC, the indictment alleged, the defendants had conspired to defraud the United States by interfering with the work of that agency. Similarly, it alleged they interfered with the work of the Department of Justice, with whom agents of foreign entities must register before engaging in political activity. The perpetrators did not reveal their foreign origins, of course, because posing as Americans was the key to success of the scheme.

Now, we may see a similar theory at work in the Brooklyn investigation. If Derkach or other Ukrainians were using Giuliani as a conduit to spread disinformation to influence the U.S. government or the media to sway the election, then they may be guilty of the same offenses Mueller alleged the Internet Research Agency committed. The evidence may show that they violated FARA by acting as unregistered foreign agents seeking to influence the outcome of the election, or they may have conspired to interfere with the FECs administration of laws to prevent foreign influence in elections by using Giuliani as their front man.

During the Cold War, communists used the term useful idiot to describe people who could be used to spread propaganda. Maybe the new term should be Giuliani.

More:
Biden's Ukraine election probe focuses on Rudy Giuliani. But not how you think. - MSNBC