Mediaboss Marketing

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) In an article by Hillary Clinton that was published Monday (Oct. 12) in Foreign Affairs, the former secretary of state argued that the U.S. is gravely unprepared for a range of 21st-century threats.

In her article entitled A National Security Reckoning: How Washington Should Think About Power, Clinton stated that the U.S. has been unable to bolster its national security and has failed to consider an approach that encompasses a wide range of threats, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, insurgencies, cyberattacks, viruses, carbon emissions, online propaganda, and shifting supply chains.

She argued that the U.S. must modernize its defense capabilities by moving away from costly legacy weapons systems built for a world that no longer exists. She also said the nation should focus more on domestic renewal, which involves supporting domestic innovation and bolstering strategically important industries and supply chains.

These dual strategies, she wrote, are mutually reinforcing. Modernizing the military would free up billions of dollars that could be invested at home in advanced manufacturing and R&D, she said.

This move, Clinton remarked, would help the U.S. compete with its rivals and prepare for non-traditional threats such as climate change and future pandemics. Furthermore, she said that it will assuage some of the economic woes caused by budget cuts at the Pentagon, adding that integrating foreign and domestic policy in this way will be an effective strategy for America to regain its foothold in an uncertain world.

The Pentagon is at risk of being caught unprepared for the very different demands of competing with China, Clinton warned.

She noted that powerful players in the Pentagon, Congress, and the private sector have built careers doing things the same way. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, she wrote.

Clinton stressed that the Pentagon must adapt to a strategic landscape vastly different from the one it faced during the Cold War or the War on Terror. She also noted that new technologies such as artificial intelligence have rendered many old systems obsolete and created opportunities that no country has yet mastered but many are seeking.

Clinton stated that while the American military has been fighting costly wars in the Middle East, China has been investing in cost-effective anti-access/area-denial weapons, such as anti-ship ballistic missiles, which pose a threat to U.S. aircraft carriers.

She suggested that a renewed commitment to diplomacy would strengthen the U.S. military position. Additionally, Clinton warned that the U.S. should not be lulled into a false sense of security by its continuing firepower advantage or the fact that its defense budget remains orders of magnitude larger than Beijings.

She said that Chinas advances have become a new type of asymmetric threat, which means that Americas air and sea superiority in the Indo-Pacific region is no longer ensured.

Deep savings over the next decade can and should be found by retiring legacy weapons systems, Clinton wrote. She stated that the U.S. should significantly reduce its reliance on aging intercontinental ballistic missiles, pursue a newer and fewer approach to modernization, and revive the arms control diplomacy that the Trump administration scrapped.

In terms of domestic renewal, Clinton recommended that the country pursue a plan similar to the one proposed by former Vice President Joe Biden to invest US$700 billion in innovation and manufacturing and impose stronger Buy American provisions. This, she believes, will help boost domestic production in key sectors, such as the steel, robotics, and biotechnology industries, which in turn will assist in reshoring sensitive supply chains and expanding strategic stockpiles of essential goods.

Massive new investments in advanced manufacturing and R&D will be costly, Clinton acknowledged, but she stressed that they are necessary for the nation's long-term economic and security interests. She added that military modernization and domestic renewal must be simultaneous in order to bring advanced manufacturing and R&D to the places most affected by defense cuts.

Clinton concluded by saying that if done properly, the U.S. can minimize the economic damage and maximize its ability to compete with China and prepare for future challenges.

Read more:
Hillary Clinton addresses current threats to US in Foreign Affairs article - Taiwan News

Friday's Late Show with Stephen Colbert featured the castof The West Wing,and this clipincludesRichard Schiff's revelation that Hillary Clinton used to write fan mail to the show including one specifically to criticize him.

Schiff said he got a letter in his trailer weeks after an episode where Toby Ziegler solved Social Security which said "thank you so much for tackling this very difficult issue. Here are ten reasons why your plan won't work... Signed, Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Sorkin immediately asked "Did you write back and tell her I didn't write that episode, I had left the show already?"Sorkin's concern about his status in the eyes of Hillary Clinton makes us wonder if that Sports Night storyline where Dan Rydell embarrasses himself in front of her didn't come from some kind of personal experience.

Here are more clips from this episode also featuring Martin Sheen, Allison Janney, and Bradley Whitford,including Colbert comparing President Bartlet to his polar opposite Donald Trump, discussing Sterling K. Brown stepping into the role of the late John Spencer, Janney recounting her audition story, andthe cast naming their favorite episodes.

The HBO Max event A West Wing Special to Benefit When We All Votepremieres on October 15. Sorkin insists it's a benefit,not "a reunion show."

People are discussing The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in our forums. Join the conversation.

Andy Hunsaker has a head full of sitcom gags and nerd-genre lore, and can be followed @AndyHunsakerif you're into that sort of thing.

View post:
Richard Schiff Reveals Hillary Clinton Wrote Fan Mail to The West Wing - PRIMETIMER

The role of first lady of the United States is one of the most visible public positions in the world. From the moment votes are counted, and often during campaigning in the preceding months, the spouse of a newly elected president is thrust into the spotlight, where she remains for the duration of his term.

Throughout history, we've witnessed the breadth and depth of scrutiny withstood by the women who have so far held the position. From her mannerisms, to her physical attributes, to the way she chooses to dress, the first lady is thoroughly examined by the public, the media and those surrounding her on the political stage. And this is even before people begin assessing the work she is expected to carry out as an unpaid, unofficial public servant.

Many a first lady has felt the warm glow of public adoration, only to have it quickly flicker out when it is decided that she does not fit the image created for her.

Image, in this case, isn't just about clothing and looks, but also a more nuanced notion of the impression she's thought to give off. It's an air around her that is made of both physical and personal traits. And a number of first ladies have fallen victim to aspects of their image that have been both celebrated and weaponized, depending on the onlooking crowd.

As a black woman, too, I knew I'd be criticized if I was perceived as being showy and high end, and I'd be criticized also if I was too casual.

Michelle Obama

When Americans elected their first Black president in 2008, the country's first Black first lady Michelle Obama was, to many adoring fans, a symbol of hope, opportunity and change. Girls and women around the world looked up to this smart, determined woman from Chicago's South Side who now lived in America's most famous house.

Michelle Obama poses for her official portrait in the Blue Room of the White House in February 2009. Credit: Joyce N. Boghosian/The White House/Getty Images

But her critics had a different take on her conviction and strength of character, and they were not afraid to make their often racist and sexist ideas known. On the campaign trail she was labeled "angry," and her love and loyalty for America was questioned.

During the first few months of the Obama presidency her preference for sleeveless looks also drew extraordinary criticism. It was a phenomenon recalled by Robin Givhan, a Pulitzer Prize-winning fashion editor and critic-at-large for the Washington Post, during an interview for "First Ladies."

"People zeroed in on her arms because they were not the arms of a fragile damsel who was White," she said in the episode about Obama. "Non-White Americans have for years looked at a White first lady and were still able to say that she represented them. But I think it becomes a much more challenging thing for some White Americans to look at a Black first lady and see themselves in her. Instead, they simply saw her as an alien."

Jackie Kennedy on inauguration day in 1961. Credit: Leonard McCombe/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images

And as journalist Evan Thomas notes during an interview for the CNN series, she "was the perfect prize of the WASP establishment."

"She also knew that the Kennedy family was using her," Thomas added. "She once said, 'the family treats me like, like a thing. Like an asset. Like Rhode Island.'"

The designer behind Jackie Kennedy's iconic pillbox hat Credit: CNN Films/Halston

Complex legacies

If history had played out differently, Jackie Kennedy's legacy might have been reduced to the story of a pretty object with a flair for interior design (she dedicated much of her time in the White House to renovating the official residence). Tragically, however, she had the opportunity to show the world what she was made of on the day of her husband's assassination. Hours after President Kennedy was shot beside her, she made a powerful decision: to face the public again in the same blood-stained pink dress she had worn during the attack, famously telling her staff, "I want them to see what they've done to Jack."

President John F. Kennedy and his wife Jackie on November 22, 1963, just after their arrival at the airport for the fateful drive through Dallas. Credit: Art Rickerby/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images

It was a catastrophic moment in American history. And it was also a devastating example of the power of clothing: A dress can send a message.

In Michelle Obama's memoir "Becoming," the former first lady reveals the lengths she went to when styling herself for public appearances, finding it impossible not to look across the room at her husband: "I sighed sometimes, watching Barack pull the same dark suit out of his closet and head off to work without even needing a comb," she wrote. "His biggest fashion consideration for a public moment was whether to have his suit jacket on or off. Tie or no tie?"

She also discussed the particular challenges she faced as an African American. "As a black woman, too, I knew I'd be criticized if I was perceived as being showy and high end, and I'd be criticized also if I was too casual. So I mixed it up. I'd match a high-end Michael Kors skirt with a T-shirt from Gap. I wore something from Target one day and Diane von Furstenberg the next."

She knew society wouldn't bend for her. So, in a move that was at once inspiring and saddening, she bent to fit society.

"For me, my choices were simply a way to use my curious relationship with the public gaze to boost a diverse set of up-and-comers," she wrote.

As a woman running for President, I liked the visual cue that I was different from the men but also familiar.

Hillary Clinton

Like Jackie Kennedy, Michelle Obama took the fact that she was being scrutinized and itemized for everything she wore and used it to her advantage. This, arguably limited power remains one of the ways that women in politics can make a statement without saying a word.

'First Ladies': Reagan's inauguration was 'very Hollywood' Credit: AFP/AFP/Getty Images

Conflicting expectations

Nancy Reagan was seen as a relic of old Hollywood when she entered the White House. The inauguration celebrations in 1981 were, by all accounts, lavish and glitzy affairs. Around 700 private jets flew into the city that weekend, and Reagan's gown -- a white beaded one-shouldered sheath of lace over silk satin, made by high-society couturier James Galanos -- was a show-stopper.

She and her husband, President Ronald Reagan, were both former actors who had met in Los Angeles in the 1940s, and their love for each other was like that of the silver screen. Her critics initially mocked the adoring way she looked at her husband, calling it "the gaze," and she was seen as too wifely, too 1950s, too concerned with frills and the finer things in life, which seemed at odds with a country plunging into recession.

Nancy and Ronald Reagan arrive at the inaugural ball in the Washington Hilton on January 21, 1985. Credit: Ira Schwarz/AP

But, through the course of her husband's eight-year presidency she proved herself to be more than the outdated embodiment of a wealthy suburban wife. According to their son, Ron Reagan, who features in the documentary series, she wanted the President "to be the frontman, and she wanted to be the producer/director behind the scenes."

It was, perhaps, a precursor to the Clintons half-jokingly campaigning under the slogan "buy one get one free." Indeed, it's well-documented that Hillary Clinton often felt the scorn of the American public, due in part to her career-woman image. Ironically, while Reagan was criticized for being a 1950s housewife, Clinton was told she wasn't domesticated enough.

Hillary and Bill Clinton leave the White House after the Democratic Business Leaders event in September 1998. Credit: David Hume Kennerly/Archive Photos/Getty Images

Her aggressors painted her as being too strong to stand back and let her politician husband call the shots and too weak to walk away when he was unfaithful.

Hillary Clinton greets supporters during a rally in Cincinnati, Ohio, for her 2016 presidential run. Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

She took her signature look on the road again during her 2016 presidential campaign. In her book "What Happened" she explained: "As a woman running for President, I liked the visual cue that I was different from the men but also familiar."

The tactic didn't pay off. Throughout one of the ugliest elections in US history, Clinton would come under repeated fire. This time she wasn't charismatic enough, she was shady, she was "a liar."

But was the biggest issue, actually, the same one as always? Once again, her image didn't fit the mold -- because the president was supposed to be a man.

Watch CNN Original Series "First Ladies" Sundays at 10 p.m. ET.

Read more:
The weaponization of a first lady's image - CNN

Donald Trumps 2016 surprise victory had the proverbial thousand fathers: a uniquely unpopular Democratic nominee in Hillary Clinton, Russian interference, his supposedly insurmountable personal and political liabilities which smoothed the way for protest votes and an electric connection with his white, non-college-educated base. He also got a historic October surprise when then-FBI Director James Comey announced 11 days before the election that the agency had reopened an investigation into Clintons emailing habits. The investigation went nowhere but gave Trump a critical late boost.

Fast-forward four years and Trump once again lags in the polls, but by a larger margin. Thus, he is apparently trying to rerun the 2016 campaign: hes focusing on the same voters who narrowly elected him four years ago, rather than trying to expand his coalition and, unable to gain much traction against former Vice President Joe Biden, hes trying to revive the Clinton email controversy.

And hes repeatedly tried to produce a new Comey-esque moment to scramble the polls at the last minute without any success to date. He and his team have ginned up multiple investigations of his political adversaries, promised a pre-election Covid vaccine and, just this week, tried once again to make Bidens son, Hunter, a campaign issue. But, one after the other, these would-be game-changers have fizzled and flopped.

The most recent example was a breathless and credulous New York Post story alleging that a laptop left by an unknown man at a Delaware repair shop and, conveniently, never picked up has emails supposedly investigated by the FBI from Hunter Biden offering to introduce his father to an executive with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. The fact that the Post got the story from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and Trump 2016 campaign chairman Steve Bannon, currently out on bail after his arrest on charges that he misappropriated funds that donors intended to help build the wall with Mexico, hardly augments its credibility.

That the bizarre story then also dovetails with a known, active Russian disinformation operation and that it attempts to resurrect the spurious claims that the president already once tried to trump up getting himself impeached in the process also mitigates against its believability. Both Twitter and Facebook deemed the story so suspicious that they took the unprecedented step of limiting the ability of users to share it which, again, was published by an actual, if Murdoch-owned, newspaper.

If stray emails on a random laptop that just had to be investigated by the FBI sounds familiar, it should: Comeys 2016 October surprise was the result of the FBIs unrelated investigation into the laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, whose then-wife was a Clinton aide. (Theres also a salacious sex angle to the latest laptop story as well all the better to sell it with.)

You really cant, I guess, teach an old dog new tricks.

The other attempts to contrive last-minute bombshells are also proving to be duds everywhere but the right-wing echo chamber in which Trump and his campaign have long cosseted themselves. Remember unmasking? Unless youre a Trump fan or a real trivia buff, you probably dont, but it was the Republican-grown scandal that Obama administration officials asking for the identities of specific Americans whose names were blacked out of intelligence reports was untoward. Attorney General William Barr tapped federal prosecutor John Bash in May to investigate the practice one of several Justice Department investigations aimed at finding proof for Trumps conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation.

Bash retired from Justice last week, quietly wrapping up his investigation with no charges. The department has so far declined to release the results of Bashs work, though people familiar with his findings say they would likely disappoint conservatives who have tried to paint the unmasking of names a common practice in government to help understand classified documents as a political conspiracy, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

Bashs nothing-burger comes on the heels of news that another one of Trumps pet investigations is not going to yield fruit before the election. In May 2019, Barr had selected U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation, looking for some wrongdoing to discredit it. Now Barr is reportedly telling Republicans that Durham wont release anything before the election and Trump, hoping for vindication or at least a talking point he can pass of as it, is pissed. Unless Bill Barr indicts these people for crimes ... then well get little satisfaction, unless I win, he said. Because I wont forget it.

Four years later, and he still wants to lock her up.

With the Justice Department a dry well, Trump has apparently dragooned the intelligence community toward the same ends. Late last month, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassified unconfirmed intelligence related to Russia, Clinton and the 2016 presidential campaign in an apparent effort to bolster Trumps wish to relitigate that race. You saw what happened today with Hillary Clinton, where it was a whole big con job, Trump said in his first debate against Biden, a shorthand reference which no doubt thrilled Fox News viewers and confused everyone else.

The presidents debate comments were, for the rest of us, another esoteric digression to Hillary-stalking when there are more important matters at hand like the pandemic which has now killed more than 217,000 Americans and infected nearly 8 million. There too, Trump has pinned his hopes for re-election, if not for actually beating the virus on an October game-changer in the form of a vaccine. The pandemic is the dominant election issue and voters have overwhelmingly rejected Trumps laissez-faire approach to it, so he needs some sort of government success to validate his approach and turn the race around.

Hence his repeated (and likely baseless) assertion that vaccines are coming momentarily and his efforts to get the Food and Drug Administration to relax their safety protocols to allow an early release of a vaccine, which they rebuffed last week, telling manufacturers to monitor patients in clinical trials for two months.

With the FDA commissioner now also refusing to alter the language of the approval process in response to political pressure from the White House to show progress, Trumps vaccine talk has evolved into vague pronouncements about having received a cure during his sojourn at Walter Reed. They call them therapeutic, but to me it wasnt just therapeutic, it made me better, Trump said upon returning to the White House. I call that a cure. To paraphrase the Holiday Inn commercial, hes not a doctor but he did stay at a first-rate hospital, so he figures that makes him an expert.

To be clear, this is still the year 2020: its not a question of whether there will be an October surprise but rather how many surprising, and indeed horrifying, things can happen in October. But Trumps ham-handed attempts to tailor them to help his political fortunes are, like so much else he does, flopping so far.

And for him, the size of his polling deficit halfway through October speaks to a largely settled view among voters about his tenure. That view is not one likely to be swung by a startling late-game revelation about Clinton or even Hunter Biden even if he could get any of his trial balloons to float.

Related:

Read the rest here:
Trump wants another October surprise. His efforts to manufacture one are ham-handed. - NBC News

WASHINGTON Hillary Clinton said in a new interview that Joe Biden should not concede the 2020 presidential election under any circumstances," anticipating issues that could prolong knowing the final outcome.

Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is, Clinton said in an interview with her former communications director Jennifer Palmieri for Showtime's The Circus, which released a clip Tuesday.

The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee predicted that among several scenarios, Republicans are going to try to mess up absentee balloting so that they could get a potentially narrow advantage in the Electoral College.

We've got to have a massive legal operation, I know the Biden campaign is working on that, she said. We have to have poll workers, and I urge people, who are able, to be a poll worker. We have to have our own teams of people to counter the force of intimidation that the Republicans and Trump are going to put outside polling places. This is a big organizational challenge, but at least we know more about what they're going to do.

Clinton said she thinks that the only way Trump could win re-election is by either suppressing or stopping voting, or outright intimidating people into feeling that they have to go with the strong guy to stand up against all these threats that Trump is going to gin up to scare people.

She also suggested that Biden should be more aggressive in his fight against Trump.

I loved hearing Joe Biden talking about bringing people together and leading us into the light, she said about the former vice presidents speech at the Democratic National Convention last week. But, you know, it's a battle and fear is really powerful.

Trump, for his part, has been saying for months that massive fraud will occur in the election because of widespread mail-in voting, which Democrats are pushing for to expand access to ballots during the coronavirus pandemic.

Ahead of the second night of the Republican National Convention on Tuesday, Trump tweeted, 80 Million Unsolicited Ballots are impossible for election centers to tabulate accurately. The Democrats know this better than anyone else. The fraud and abuse will be an embarrassment to our Country. Hopefully the Courts will stop this scam!

Rebecca Shabad is a congressional reporter for NBC News, based in Washington.

Read more:
Hillary Clinton says Biden should not concede the election ...