Mediaboss Marketing

The 2022 midterm elections are still ten months away, but Democrats already have reason to be concerned about their presidential ticket in 2024 namely, over the fact that none of the potential candidates have the stature to win a general election, nor the experience to lead when in office.

President Joe Biden realistically will not seek a second term due to his age, and Kamala Harris is less popular than any other vice president in recent history. Even if Harris herself was slightly more viable, the Biden Administrations unpopularity has become a millstone around Democrats neck, and she would inevitably be tainted by the administrations political baggage.

Indeed, voters are turning on the Biden presidency: Republicans now lead in the 2022 generic vote for Congress; and in a hypothetical Trump-Biden rematch, 48 percent of voters say they would back Trump, compared with 45 percent for Biden.

Assuming Harris will not be the default nominee, we can expect that a drawn-out primary process will ensue in which progressives and moderates duke it out in a contest that further exposes the partys deep divisions. Other Democrats that could potentially win such a primarylike Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigiegmay be relatively stronger than Harris, though not much.

There is only one potential solution, which Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently suggested could happen: bring back Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton would offer Democrats a new approach that is separate and apart from the Biden Administration. She would also likely sweep in a primary race, allowing the party to quickly coalesce around one candidate.

Admittedly, a Clinton candidacy is unlikely to occur. However, the fact that it is even being discussed reflects the degree to which the Democrats have moved away from their traditional positioning, and how extreme the partys positions have become in international and domestic affairs.

That being said, the Biden Administration has three major problems that a Clinton candidacy could remedy.

First: their foreign policy. The administration either does not have a coherent foreign policy strategy, or their approach has failed.

In August, the world watched the U.S. botch the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, which led to Taliban militants with ties to transnational terrorist groups seizing control of the country. The Biden Administration still has not articulated a strategy to deal with the wide-ranging fallout from Afghanistannamely, how to confront the militaristic aggression exhibited by China and Russia, two autocratic nations emboldened by the U.S.s strategic failure.

Second: the administrations rudderless domestic policyespecially following the failed effort to pass Bidens Build Back Better plan before the end of the year. To that end, majorities of voters disapprove of Bidens handling of major domestic issuesincluding the economy (53 percent) and immigration (56 percent), per a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll.

The third problema biproduct of the first twois President Bidens deteriorating overall approval rating, which now stands at just 43 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove, per Politico/Morning Consult.

Bidens overall decline is largely attributable to a drop among Independent voters. Though Biden won Independents handily in 2020, just 33 percent of Independents now approve of the job Biden is doing, while 59 percent disapprove.

In light of these three major problems, only a pivot to Hillary Clintonas desperate a move as that may becan save the party from evisceration in the midterms and a potential wipe out in 2024.

This would begin with Biden forcing a resignation from Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and elevating Clinton to the position. If appointed, she would become the frontrunner for 2024 in the event that Biden does not seek a second term.

In terms of addressing the first problem Ive identified; Clinton represents a clear new direction in foreign policy.

If past is precedent, Clinton would be tougher on China for their undemocratic actions toward Taiwan and Hong Kong, and for their human rights abuses against religious minorities. As Secretary of State, Clinton spear-headed the Obama Administrations pivot to Asia, and made it known early on that the U.S. would not sit by as China took aggressive actions in the South China Sea.

With regard to the Middle East, though Clinton has voiced skepticism about the Iranians, she was more cautious in her approach to the Iran Nuclear Deal than the president she served under.

On domestic policy, Clinton has one primary advantage: she would be able to create distance between herself and the letdowns of the Biden-Harris Administration, while still offering experience.

And in light of the controversy surrounding the abortion bans in Texas and Mississippi, Clinton could be uniquely positioned to excite groups of Democratic and Independent female voters. She has throughout her career championed womens rights, and of course, was the first women to be the presidential nominee of a major political party.

To be sure, I am well-aware that Hillary Clinton lost an election she should not have.

In retrospect, that was most likely the result of the October Surprise of FBI Director James Comey reopening the investigation into her email server. Some will say it had more to do with Russias interference, others will point to her campaigns lack of an economic message.

Clinton remains ambitious, outspoken, and convinced that but for Comeys intervention that she would have won the 2016 electionand she may well be right.

Thus, with the correct messaging, one could argue that Clinton has the stature, the positions, and the record that Democrats need.

If we are to have a foreign policy that is respected around the world and Democratic leadership at home that is a clear break from the Biden Administration, at this point, there is no clear alternative.

Douglas Schoen is a longtime Democratic political consultant.

Read more:
Democrats are on the decline could Hillary Clinton save them? - The Pasadena Star-News

Human rights are womens rights and womens rights are human rights, Hillary Clinton said at the 1995 UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing.

Her words were reaffirmed at the Hillary Rodham Clinton Awards, an annual awards ceremony held on campus that recognizes and celebrates women who have advanced global peace and security. The event included remarks from Hillary Clinton and President John J. DeGioia, as well as Melanne Verveer, former U.S. ambassador-at-large for global womens issues and current executive director for the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS).

The 2021 awardees hail from around the worldMexico, Russia, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, and Chinaand focus their work on a wide range of issues affecting women, from climate change to ending child marriage. Despite facing resistance and threats from authorities, they continue to pioneer womens rights activism in their countries and fields of expertise.

Awardee Marina Pisklakova Parker from Russia created the first hotline for reporting domestic abuse in Russia, an issue often disregarded by Russian authorities. Palwasha Hassan from Afghanistan pioneered the first womens legal support organization in Afghanistan, Roazana, and continues to advocate for womens access to education while in exile in the U.S.

Following the awards ceremony, Verveer led a discussion with the recipients, during which they reminisced about the 1995 conference and the impact it had on their work and on the larger context of gender equality.

The conference itself was a turning point in both the definition and the fight for gender equality, Clinton said.

Awardee Patricia Espinosa of Mexico, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), added, Beijing was a change in my view, Beijing was a change in human history. I think we really need to see it in this bigger dimension.

Clinton and Verveer extended gratitude and recognition to womens rights activists in Afghanistan in particularincluding Hassan, director of The Afghan Womens Educational Center.

I especially want to recognize and celebrate an especially courageous group of women: women from Afghanistan, Verveer said. We and others have been working to help evacuate them and will continue to support them and their resettlement.

Georgetown and GIWPS have been active in responding to the crisis in Afghanistan by helping the evacuation efforts of women activists through the GIWPS-launched Protect Afghan Women project established last summer. The initiative supports Afghan women whose lives are in imminent danger through a donations-based emergency fund. Georgetown also co-founded the U.S.-Afghan Womens Council (USAWC), a non-partisan public-private partnership bringing different stakeholders together to support Afghan women and girls education, health care, economic empowerment, and leadership, in 2002.

Following the event, Clinton visited Lauinger Librarys fifth floor exhibition highlighting the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women, which includes 85 artifacts gathered by Verveer from the conferences time. Students gathered around the library hoping to catch a glimpse of Clinton as she left the building.

For many Georgetown students, attending the event and seeing an influential political figure like Clinton was an incredible opportunity to engage with global issues they care deeply about.

I love being able to attend these events where I get to relate them with what Im learning in my classes, in the news, and with what Im doing outside of academics, Elisabeth Koch (SFS 24) said.

Koch also emphasized her appreciation of Clinton and the awardees acknowledgement of the long-term action still needed to improve gender equality worldwide. Among the long-term goals Clinton and the awardees emphasized were the inclusion of women in climate change negotiations and the creation of a global treaty that addresses domestic violence.

We have a lot at stake and we need women leaders from every corner of the globe to continue to speak up, to stand out, and yes, to seek power, Clinton said.

Here is the original post:
Hillary Clinton awards women leaders advancing peace and security - The Georgetown Voice

Hillary Clinton has urged the Democratic Party to be clear eyed about what wins elections, ahead of next years potentially defining midterms.

The former presidential candidates warning appears to be aimed squarely at the progressive wing of the party, which has grown in size and influence over the past few years.

Speaking to MSNBCs Willie Geist, Ms Clinton asserted that the Democrats need candidates who are capable of winning in purple states, in order to have a Congress that will get things done.

The splintering of the Democrats has been especially apparent of late, with President Joe Bidens Build Back Better legislation coming under fire from centrists like Joe Manchin.

For the partys establishment figures, Ms Clinton included, concerns remain over the growing influence of The Squad a group of progressive representatives whose support amongst young people is well documented.

Leading members of the group include Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, who are already two of the most well-known Democrats in Washington.

Cuatro congresistas demcratas de color conocidas como 'The Squad' han ayudado a inflar las filas de progresistas en la Cmara de Representantes de Estados Unidos.

(Getty Images)

For Ms Clinton, however, who lost the 2016 Presidential election to Donald Trump, the party has to be mindful of its overall strategy heading into next years midterms.

I think that it is a time for some careful thinking about what wins elections, and not just in deep blue districts where a Democrat and a liberal Democrat or so-called progressive Democrat is going to win, the 74-year-old stated.

Regarding the current state of the Democratic party, she added:Weve got to be very clear eyed about what its going to take to hold the House and the Senate in 2022.

And to win the electoral college because also Republicans are doing everything they can to create an environment in which winning the Electoral College, even narrowly the way Joe Biden did, will be out of reach for Democrats.

With Joe Bidens current approval rating consistently hovering below 50 per cent, the GOP is expected to make huge gains in both houses next year.

With this in mind, the former secretary of state has emphasised the importance of trying to keep and maybe even add to the partys narrow majority in the House of Congress.

Nothing is going to get done if you dont have a Democratic majority in the House. Our majority in the Senate comes from people who can win in not just blue states and hold those wins ... but can win in more purpleish states, she said.

Winning the midterms in 2022, while crucial, very much depends upon the Democratic party rallying to form a compelling and coherent message to voters.

Nevertheless, the partys clear lack of unity over domestic issues, including the Presidents $1 trillion infrastructure bill, does nothing but shine a light on existing divisions.

See the rest here:
Hillary Clinton warns progressive 'Squad' will tank Democrats in the midterms - The Independent

Dec. 31The year 2021 was supposed to be a "return to normalcy," to borrow a phrase from Warren G. Harding's presidential campaign a century ago.

It hardly lived up to its billing.

The rhetoric of emergency, crisis, and imminent doom has dominated American life since about 11 p.m. on Nov. 8, 2016, when it was clear Donald Trump would win the presidency over Hillary Clinton. The tension of constant crisis defined the next three years; in 2020, it seemed to hit a breaking point.

Coronavirus. George Floyd. Elections. Crisis upon crisis. Emergency upon emergency.

Then, on the evening of Nov. 3, 2020, an exhale. Normalcy, in the person of perhaps the most established and, well, normal politician of the last few generations, seemed to have returned. But no. Frivolous lawsuits. Cynical allegations of fraud. An insurrection. The crisis had only deepened. The seemingly impossible had happened: the brief occupation of the citadel of American democracy by a mob. What else was now possible?

Read more Blade editorials

Blessedly, the pace of events slowed after that day. The tension has been relieved again, at least a bit. But there can be no doubt, as 2021 ends, that it was a year dominated by a sense of emergency.

Donald Trump the ghost of elections past, and, perhaps, yet to come still commands constant and breathless coverage, from cable news to late night. The fraternity of coronavirus variants alpha, delta, omicron is like the list of hurricane names: catchy but menacing, perfect for tweets and news scrolls. Talk of war over Ukraine or Taiwan, sometimes with dread but too often with a certain excitement, is mainstream.

Yes, we are living in extraordinary times. Yes, there are new and ongoing dangers to confront medically, politically, internationally. But there is another danger more subtle but deeply corrosive that we should note at the end of another abnormal year: the development of an addiction to crisis.

Story continues

Emergencies are frightening. Emergencies are exciting. Emergencies make us feel like we're experiencing something truly important, like our decisions and our very lives matter on a broad and historic scale. They are all the more alluring in times like our own, marked by boredom, alienation, and doubt about the meaning of anything at all.

Even so, we must break the spell: States of emergency can become at least as dangerous as the emergencies that trigger them. Settling into a permanent state of emergency in sentiment and rhetoric, if not officially puts the foundation of our political order at risk.

We aren't there yet, to be sure, but no addict plans to overdose.

We must face our challenges head on, while resisting sensationalism and fear-mongering. With every New Year that comes and goes under the cloud of crisis, we become more numb to the feeling of perpetual emergency.

Average Americans will decide whether 2022 will be another year of crisis. Are we ready to return to normalcy or, rather, to accept a new normalcy? Or maybe we're happier with constant crisis, always looking for the next emergency, waiting excitedly for the one that finally ends it all.

Go here to see the original:
Editorial: The return to normalcy that wasn't - Yahoo News

As 2022 is kicking off, America nears the first anniversary of Joe Bidens presidency. Following the tenures ambitious start, the last few months witnessed some serious tumult around the overall health of the United States economy, the administrations handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the tense debate around Bidens opus magnum the $1.7 trillion Build Back Better infrastructure legislation plan.

But even as the Democrats ability to maintain undivided power after the 2022 midterm elections can raise doubts, the partys prevailing view of crypto has become more consolidated than ever. The incumbent presidents party will be setting the tone of the regulatory discussion for at least three more years, so a thorough look at the fundamental premises and potential directions of its emerging crypto stance is in order.

The path that mainstream Democrat thinking on crypto has traveled over the last three years is perfectly captured by an anecdote featuring two crypto-related public statements made by a Clinton. One is by the 42nd U.S. president, Bill Clinton, then 72, who said at Ripples Swell Conference in October 2018 that the "permutations and possibilities" of blockchain were "staggeringly great.

Three years later, speaking at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Singapore, Bills wife and ex-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, though calling the cryptocurrencies an interesting technology, warned about their power to undermine the U.S. dollar and destabilize nations perhaps starting with small ones but going much larger.

This startling difference in opinion within the power couple reflects the recent evolution of the Democratic party, itself from a third way, business, tech and finance-friendly centrism of its 1990s generation to the newfound statism with a heavy emphasis on redistributional justice and big government projects. By current standards, the former first lady sounded rather balanced in comparison to her party comrade Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has famously lashed out at the crypto market after the volatility outburst in early September:

Warren berated crypto on numerous occasions, calling it a fourth-rate alternative to real currency that is unsuitable as a medium of exchange; a lousy investment, that has no consumer protection; and a tool that makes many illegal activities easier.

The negative sentiment is largely shared by Senator Sherrod Brown, which is arguably even more unsettling given his status as chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Browns opening statements at Congress hearings have never been amicable towards crypto. Their overall spirit can be summarized in the introduction that opened the July hearing entitled Cryptocurrencies: What are they good for?

Brown blamed the cottage industry of decentralized financial schemes for an attempt to create a parallel financial system with no rules, no oversight, and no limits, calling it a shady, diffuse network of online funny money, with nothing democratic or transparent about it. The lawmaker repeatedly rejected the notion that crypto could be an alternative to legacy money last time at a December Congress hearing:

Its not all dark, though. One figure that represents a more moderate, if not pragmatic approach to crypto Congresswoman Maxime Waters would also play a major role in any future outcome for the industry. As a chairwoman of the House Committee on Financial Services, she initiated the Digital Assets Working Group of Democratic Members with a mission to ensure responsible innovation in the cryptocurrency and digital asset space and meet with leading regulators, advocates, and other experts on how these novel products and services are reshaping our financial system.

Related: Lines in the sand: US Congress is bringing partisan politics to crypto

Sen. Waters has publicly recognized that Americans are increasingly making financial decisions using digital assets every day, and affirmed that her Committee will explore the promise of digital assets in providing faster payments, instantaneous settlements and lower transaction fees for remittances.

The good news is that underneath the redoubtable oratory, there is a keyword: regulation. It is clear, at this point, that a China-style total war on crypto isnt an option in the U.S. Therefore, what drives the heated activity of congressional committees and federal agencies in recent months is a clear intention of the Democratic establishment to sort out the rules of the game before the next presidential election.

Part of this effort of the Biden administration is the launch of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, a superhero team composed of the SEC, CFTC, OCC, FDIC and Federal Reserve System executives, with the secretary of the Treasury Department leading the group.

So far, the key product of the Working Group is a 26-page report on stablecoins, which advises Congress to designate some stablecoin-related activities such as payment, clearing and settlement as systemically important (which would inevitably lead to a tighter oversight) and limit stablecoin issuance to insured depository institutions, i.e., banks.

As in the pre-Biden era, the main problem lies with the core classification of digital assets. The PWG report failed to propose a novel interpretation and give precedence to a single regulatory body, thus perpetuating a situation where a variety of regulators oversee different types of crypto-related activity.

In October, Rostin Behnam, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a member of the Democratic Party, claimed that as much as 60% of digital assets can be classified as commodities, which amounts to proposing that the agency become the lead U.S. cryptocurrency regulator. He also further stated that his agency, as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission, would likely need a regulatory structure for both securities and commodities. How exactly that would help the ongoing patchwork approach to regulation is still a mystery.

There are several reasons to believe that the largely proclamatory activity of 2021 will be followed up by some real action in the following year. The first is the general idealistic mindset of U.S. Democrats. For example, the drive to aggressively regulate Big Tech is part and parcel of this mindset.

While President Barack Obama and some regulators worked alongside Google and Twitter to facilitate the growth of internet businesses, Joe Bidens administration came to power amid the wave of popular anxiety over international cyberattacks, personal data leaks, Metas crisis mismanagement and the overall outsize influence on the political process accumulated by tech goliaths.

While Meta and Google have been fighting federal and state regulators in courts over allegations of anticompetitive conduct for a while, Bidens team also pledged to hold tech companies to account for toxic speech they host and strengthen policing anti-competitive practices.

However, in 2021, we havent witnessed any significant policy steps in this direction. Neither of the two major legislative proposals Amy Klobuchars bill, which would bar big tech platforms from favoring their own products and services, and a bill by House Democrats that seeks to remove some protections afforded tech companies by Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act has become law.

The second reason behind the Democratic rush to put crypto within the regulatory perimeter is pragmatic: The Biden administration and its allies on Capitol Hill need money. Bidens first-term agenda relies heavily on ambitious Roosveltian infrastructure projects. While the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act managed to get bipartisan support and was signed into law on November 5, the Build Back Better Act, which now hangs by a thread after Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin had announced his opposition to the current draft, would cost nearly $2 trillion.

By some estimates, should it make it to the presidents desk, the spending program would increase the deficit by $360 billion over 10 years, making it urgent to raise more tax revenue. This is what makes a thriving crypto industry an important battlefield for Democrats, who see the possibility of harvesting some cash from it and an urgency to prevent tax evasion via digital tools.

Theres no doubt that the Biden administration will continue to pursue a strict regulatory agenda in 2022. We will see more Congressional hearings next year, but even more consequential negotiations will be taking place behind closed doors, where Democrats will have to finally decide whether the SEC, CFTC or any other body should dominate crypto oversight. Despite Sharrod Browns recent with or without Congress remarks, it is also hard to believe that Republicans will let their opponents single-handedly decide the fate of the industry.

See more here:
How the Democratic Party didnt stop worrying and fearing crypto in 2021 - Cointelegraph