Mediaboss Marketing

A quote caught my eye (and others' eyes) over the weekend. It was from Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, and it was about how Democrats move forward with a new slogan A Better Deal and new policies.

When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you dont blame other things Comey, Russia you blame yourself, Schumer (D-N.Y.) told The Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe and David Weigel. So what did we do wrong? People didnt know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.

I certainly read that as a not-so-veiled shot at Hillary Clinton, who has spent plenty of time blaming things not named Hillary Clintonsince November 2016 for her election defeat. Fox News went so far as to say: Schumer tells Clinton 'blame yourself.'"And, notably, it comes from none other than Clinton's former New York colleague in the Senate.

Others disagreed, believing it was a more general statement about the party. Some even pointed to Schumer's use of the we personal pronoun in the second part of the quote suggesting that he was talking about the party as a whole and not Clinton specifically.

Here's what I think we can say for sure: Regardless of whether this quote was aimed at Clinton, she's definitely on the receiving end. It's undeniably a rebuke of her choice of public statements since the 2016 election, and it shows how some Democrats believe Clinton's decision to continue re-litigating things something she apparently plans to do at length in a forthcoming book is going to make it tougher for her party to move forward.

Clinton has offered a number of reasons for her loss, including Russia's hacking, James B. Comey's late disclosure of newly discovered Clinton emails,misogyny and debate questions. Clinton has said she takes absolute personal responsibility for her loss, but her repeated claims that she was the target of unfair and nefarious attacks suggest otherwise.

Anytime you write about Clinton making these excuses, her defenders are quick to pounce. It's possible that Russia did, in fact, tip the scales, they argue! FiveThirtyEight has done an analysis that suggests Comeyprobably did lose the election for her! And you can certainly make a credible case for either; we'll simply never be able to know for sure, because it would require psychoanalyzing millions of people in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin about something that happened months ago.

The point is that it's kind of neither here nor there at this juncture especially when it comes to Democrats' efforts to climb out of their historically deep hole in Congress and in the states. And Schumer's comments show exactly how fruitful an exercise he believes all of that is in the meantime.

Irrespective of whether he was sending a message to Clinton and her defenders, they should consider it a commentary on her and their unwillingness to let go of the 2016 election and the many ways in which they feelthey were wronged. Regardless of those feelings, Schumer seems to be arguing that the fact the Democrats were even in a position to lose to the most unpopular president-elect in modern history is an indictment of them. He doesn't want the party to continue trying to rely on how unpopular Trump is moving forward, and looking backward makes it more difficult to dothat.

That's a message that can't help but be about his former colleaguefrom New York.

Read the rest here:
Chuck Schumer's shot at Hillary Clinton? - Washington Post

Today's Highlight in History:

On July 26, 2016, Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated for president by a major political party at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

On this date:

In 1775, the Continental Congress established a Post Office and appointed Benjamin Franklin its Postmaster-General.

In 1788, New York became the 11th state to ratify the U.S. Constitution.

In 1847, the western African country of Liberia, founded by freed American slaves, declared its independence.

In 1887, the artificial language Esperanto, intended as a universal form of communication, was published by its creator, Dr. L.L. Zamenhof.

In 1908, U.S. Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte ordered creation of a force of special agents that was a forerunner of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In 1945, the Potsdam Declaration warned Imperial Japan to unconditionally surrender, or face "prompt and utter destruction." Winston Churchill resigned as Britain's prime minister after his Conservatives were soundly defeated by the Labour Party; Clement Attlee succeeded him.

In 1947, President Harry S. Truman signed the National Security Act, which reorganized America's armed forces as the National Military Establishment and created the Central Intelligence Agency.

In 1952, Argentina's first lady, Eva Peron, died in Buenos Aires at age 33. King Farouk I of Egypt abdicated in the wake of a coup led by Gamal Abdel Nasser.

In 1971, Apollo 15 was launched from Cape Kennedy on America's fourth successful manned mission to the moon.

In 1986, Islamic radicals in Lebanon released the Rev. Lawrence Martin Jenco, an American hostage held for nearly 19 months. American statesman W. Averell Harriman died in Yorktown Heights, New York, at age 94.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In 1992, singer Mary Wells died in Los Angeles at age 49.

Originally posted here:
Today in history: Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated for president by a major political party. - Shelby Star

NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

CNN's John Avlon: 'Hatred of Hillary Clinton Uniting Trump Coalition' NewsBusters (press release) (blog) During a Tuesday panel discussion on CNN, John Avlon -- editor-in-chief of the liberal Daily Beast website and a CNN political analyst -- claimed that with all the turmoil surrounding GOP President Donald Trump, the only thing that unites his ...

Continued here:
CNN's John Avlon: 'Hatred of Hillary Clinton Uniting Trump Coalition' - NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

Which makes what Schumer said about Clinton over the weekend all the more intriguing.

Gauntlet thrown.

Remember that Clinton has laid her defeat in the 2016 election directly at the feet of Russia's meddling -- via a series of hacked emails -- and then-FBI Director James Comey's decision to re-open the investigation into Clinton's private email server.

Schumer's comments to the Post are a direct rebuke of the idea that Clinton has pushed since the election: That she lost because of factors entirely beyond her control, not because of any flaw in her as a candidate or in the message she ran on. (It was "Stronger Together," in case you forgot.)

Schumer is arguing that Clinton lost because she ran a campaign devoid of any real message other than "I'm not Donald Trump." Schumer is also saying that if the Democratic Party wants to succeed in future elections, Democrats need to understand they didn't lose the White House because of Russia and Comey alone.

Neither candidate was at all well-regarded by the electorate. Trump was viewed favorably by 38% of people and Clinton by an only slightly better 43%. What the election came down to was this: Voters wanted change and viewed Trump as the candidate of change. Of the four in 10 voters who said a candidate who could "bring about needed change" was the most important trait for them, Trump won 82% to 14%. That's the entire election.

That Schumer would be willing to slam Clinton's campaign -- and her defense of that campaign -- also speaks to the fact that most Democrats want to move beyond the former secretary of state and the 2016 election. It may be in Clinton's interest to re-litigate the election to ensure she isn't blamed, but most Democrats trying to win reelection (or election) next November want to put her campaign far in their rear-view mirror. (Remember that 10 Senate Democrats are seeking reelection in states Trump won last fall.)

The problem with Schumer's attempt to get beyond the 2016 election is that Democrats remain largely leaderless in the aftermath of an election that no one in the party thought they would lose. Schumer is simply not a well-known enough figure nationally to speak for the party. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is too unpopular among anyone outside of the Democratic base to be that person. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are prominent but cancel one another out somewhat as they both seek to be the leader of the liberal wing of the party. Former Vice President Joe Biden is in the background even as he makes clear a 2020 bid is an option. Former President Barack Obama seems very conscious of not injecting himself into every debate involving his successor.

All of which means Clinton continues to fill that leadership vacuum with a message much more focused on reshaping her own personal narrative than re-positioning her party to persuade voters in 2018.

Excerpt from:
Chuck Schumer just threw Hillary Clinton under the bus - CNN

Donald Trumps brand-new communications director got a glimpse of the challenge he faces this weekend. As Anthony Scaramucci toured the Sunday shows, promising a new era of better relations and positive vibes, his boss was firing off his most active string of Twitter complaints in some time, taking shots at Democrats, Republicans, the press, James Comey, Robert Mueller, andfor the second time in less than a weekhis own attorney general:

The presidents choice of words to describe Attorney General Jeff Sessions is bizarre, though the condescending mockery matches the tone he often uses for adversaries. To paraphrase Trump, somebodys doing the beleaguering, and that person is Trump himself, who railed at Sessions during an interview with The New York Times last week, saying he wished he hadnt appointed him, and that Sessionss decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation was unfair to Trump.

The demand for a closer look at Hillary Clinton, however, is more significant, and appeared in several other weekend missives:

As Trumps troubles deepenas they continue to do, both politically and legallyhe and his defenders have ever more frequently invoked Hillary Clinton as an excuse and a distraction. The more partisan precincts of Fox News, for example, continue to hammer away at Clintons emails, or to bury Trump-related news under buzzy headlines about the defeated Democratic presidential candidate. Conservative media has also tried to elevate an example of apparent inappropriate Democratic conversations with the Ukrainian government to the level of the Russia investigation; my colleague Uri Friedman parses that comparison here. On Monday, former Representative Jason Chaffetz strangely asked why Congress was questioning Jared Kushner, a top Trump campaign official who met with Russian nationals, and not Chelsea Clinton for Benghazi, an incident that occurred when the Clinton daughter was not working at the State Department, and which has also been extensively investigated. (The best guess is that Chaffetz is referring to emails Hillary Clinton sent her daughter around the time of the attack.)

This is a familiar rhetorical technique called whataboutism: Any flaw or critique is parried by pointing to some other individuals own sins, imagined or real, equal or worse. The technique is a logical fallacy, since one persons crimes do not excuse anyone elses. Even if Clinton ought to be investigated, that doesnt get Trump off the hook.

When Will President Trump Fire Robert Mueller?

But Trumps Clinton whataboutism is perplexing for two big reasons, both of which boil down to the fact that he is president of the United States. First, he evinces no understanding of why his situation as commander in chief is different from that of a defeated candidate. Second, his messaging ignores the fact that as president he is the boss of the attorney general and Justice Department.

Why does Trump get more attention than Clinton? Because hes president, of course, but also because the allegations against him are new. Every time I write about Trump these days, I receive an email or several demanding to know why Im not reporting on the uranium case. The answer is that I did: In early 2015, I wrote about the uranium as well as the broader ethical challenges of the Clinton Foundation and the miasma of scandals hovering over Clintons candidacy. One reason that the press is paying less attention to these matters is simply that they were already covered in details, years ago.

Of course its also relevant that Clinton is now a private citizen, following her loss to Trump. Trump cant stop invoking his victory in November 2016, but he also seems unwilling to reckon with the consequences of it. For example: The president of the United States receives much more scrutiny than failed candidates. That doesnt mean that allegations against people who are not the president should not be investigated (beware double-whataboutism, a rhetorical tactic that should be left to professionalsor, even better, no one), but allegations against the president and his aides are also far more important because Trump is currently the nations chief executive and in a position of great power. This seems almost too obvious to state, and yet it is the most fundamental response to Trumps complaints.

In enumerating the things that he feels ought to be investigated, Trump mentions her deleted emails, the uranium deal, the Russia reset, and her speeches, for which Clinton and her husband Bill received hundreds of thousands of dollars. But the emails were extensively investigated by the FBI, the director of which delivered a report that was stingingly critical of Clinton but also said there was no basis for criminal charges. Some analysts, including Nate Silver, believe that Director James Comeys October 28 letter briefly reopening the investigation handed the election to Trump. Trump ought to know this, since his administration cited Comeys overly public handing of the Clinton scandal as a reason for firing him, only for the president to then change his story and say he fired Comey over the Russia investigation. (The changing and badly incomplete stories offered by Trump and his son are another reason theres so much focus on Russia.)

Cleared of a criminal investigation, Hillarys emails, Russia reset, and speeches are all political sins, rather than legal ones. (Trump has misrepresented the uranium case in his public statements.) The U.S. system is designed to handle political and errors of judgment: It puts candidates to a vote. This works both ways. The president, unlike his aides, is exempt from background checks, on the basis that the American people have deemed him fit to view sensitive information. Voters rendered their verdict on Clintons decisions by not electing her. Thats the outcome Trump wanted, and yet he cant seem to accept it.

But heres the truly confusing part of this: If Trump wants the Justice Department to investigate Clinton, all he has to do is order that. Even before his recent lash-out at Sessions, Trump has been publicly critical of the Justice Departments legal strategy in defending his travel ban (even as he repeatedly undercuts the lawyers with public statements). Not only that, but hed be fulfilling one of his frequent campaign promises. As a candidate, Trump repeatedly said hed investigate Clintons alleged crimes and to lock her up.

Robert Mueller, the special counsel, is not, as far as is known, pursuing an investigation into Clintons emailsalthough, as my colleague Adam Serwer notes, Mueller is entitled to look at more or less anything he likes. But Trump is sending mixed messages, as he has also tried to force Mueller into a narrow investigation using public threats.

Theres no reason Trump couldnt instruct the Justice Department broadly to investigate any of these mattersalthough doing so might be politically disastrous. It would look like reprisal against a political rival, especially given the previous FBI investigation clearing Clinton; it would be a transparent stab at distracting from his own problems; and it might create a domino effect of problems at the Justice Department.

Start with Sessions. The root of Trumps fury at Sessions is that he recused himself from Russia investigations. Sessions also pledged, during his Senate confirmation hearings, to recuse himself from any Clinton-related investigations, given his rhetoric about her during the campaign. Trumps statements about Sessions have left the inescapable impression that the president wants to force Sessions out, though he reportedly rejected a resignation offer in June, and Sessions said last week he has no intention to resign now. Nonetheless, Mike Allen reports that Trump is considering sacking Sessions in favor of Rudy Giuliani, another former campaign surrogate. A Giuliani confirmation hearing, especially following a Sessions firing, could be explosive, and Giuliani would likely face pressure to also recuse himself from a Clinton decision.

Trump could go to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, though his relationship with Rosenstein is even worse. In the same interview in which he bashed Sessions, Trump (incorrectly) claimed that Rosenstein was a Democrat from Baltimore no one knew. In fact, hes a Bethesda Republican who Trump nominated as deputy attorney general. But if the president instructed Rosenstein to open an obviously politically motivated investigation, he might refuse, and either resign or force Trump to fire him. Then the country would be sliding into Saturday Night Massacre territory, the same scenario that would likely happen if (or when) Trump attempts to fire Mueller.

Firing Sessions, much less Rosenstein, would probably be a political catastrophe for the White House. Yet Trump fired Comey, even though the political risks were great. At the moment, that gamble doesnt seem to have paid off, since the firing led directly to Muellers appointment as special counsel.

Any such attempt to launch an investigation assumes that Trump really cares about Clintons alleged misdeeds, which is not necessarily the case. Part of this is simply Trumps instinctive tendency, outlined by Peter Beinart last week, to compare himself to others. More than anything, however it seems to represent Trumps need for a foil. Trump prospered as a politician because he was an underdog. He made his name falsely impugning President Obamas citizenship. He rose through the crowded Republican field by first attacking Jeb Bush and then relentlessly mowing down the rest of his rivalsLiddle Marco, Lyin Ted, and the rest. Trump then used the same maneuver during the general-election campaign, playing himself against Clinton.

Now, however, he is no longer an underdog, and he is no longer an outsider. As president of the United States, he is the ultimate insider. The Democratic Party is adrift and largely leaderless, but in a perverse way that makes Trumps messaging harder, since he has no one to use as a foil. The president has at times attacked Senator Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Elizabeth Warren, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama. But none of these has taken the place that Obama and Clinton once filled for him. Its lonely at the top, and even worse, theres no one else to make fun of up there.

See the original post:
But What About Hillary Clinton? - The Atlantic