Mediaboss Marketing

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at a fundraiser for the Elijah Cummings Youth Program in Israel in Baltimore, Monday, June 5, 2017.

You've seen the headlines, begging Joe Biden to just give it up and get out of our faces already. "Dems want Joe Biden to leave spotlight," says The Hill. "Dear Joe Biden, please stop talking about 2016," says a USA Today columnist. "Joe Biden is back. Should Democrats be worried?" asks The New Republic. "Can Joe Biden please go quietly into the night?" asks a column in Vanity Fair. A Daily News columnist begins his missive with, "Hey, Joe Biden, shut the f--- up and go away already." Folks sure do hate that guy. And all he did was give a couple of commencement speeches and an interview or two.

OK, you've probably guessed: Joe Biden wasn't the subject of all those headlines. In fact, when the former vice president has made noises suggesting he still yearns to sit in the Oval Office, reporters treat it as at worst the understandable desires of a beloved uncle who may have lost a step or two, and at best a tantalizing possibilitydespite the fact that Biden ran for president twice, and could barely have performed worse if he had punched out the mayors of Des Moines and Dixville Notch on national television.

No, the target of all that anger and contempt is Hillary Clinton, who has dared to be seen in public on a few occasions since last November, violating some unwritten rule that says that unsuccessful presidential candidates must never be heard from again.

Or to be more precise, it was a rule that didn't exist until Hillary Clinton came along.

The problem isn't just that Clinton has the temerity to show her face, it's also what she says. One writer after another has been incensed that when Clinton is asked about why the 2016 election came out the way it did, she fails to perform a ritual of self-abasement with sufficient enthusiasm so we can all stand back and enjoy her humiliation. What she does say is that the ultimate responsibility lies with her and she made plenty of mistakes, but she also notes that had James Comey not rushed to publicly declare 11 days before the election that he was examining some emails that might be related to herleading to a collective orgasm on the part of the mainstream mediashe would probably be president. That happens to be true, but she's not allowed to say it. Nothing short of her crying out, "Yes, I'm the worst! I deserve every ounce of your hatred!" will do.

So let's be clear about this. If you don't like Hillary Clinton, that's fine. If you want to disagree with the substance of something she says in her occasional public appearances, that's fine, too. But if seeing an article about her giving a relatively anodyne commencement speech makes you seethe with rage and demand that she go away forevermore, you're the one with the problem.

This is the point where I have to note that she was an imperfect candidate who made mistakes, just like every candidate who ever ran for anything. I'd also note that I have written many critical things about her over the years. But that has nothing to do with the malignant loathing that continues to get poured upon her every time a word passes her lips. And yes, that hatred still matters, because it tells us how powerful a force misogyny continues to be in our politics. Given that there are at least four Democratic women senators who could run for president in 2020 (Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, and Kamala Harris), we'll be dealing with issues around gender and power in the next election, too.

Am I arguing that all criticism of Clinton is only disguised sexism? Of course not. But saying that the particular brand of venom Clinton inspires (even from many liberals) can be divorced from questions about gender is like saying that Republicans and the media were so consumed with the matter of her emails for no reason other than their deep concern for IT security.

Entire books have been written about the myriad ways the backlash against feminism was projected onto Clinton; if you want something more concise, I'd recommend this excellent segment from Samantha Bee, who notes that at every stage of her career Clinton was told to suppress her authentic self (cut your hair, take your husband's name, apologize for speaking your mind, don't make it seem like you have a strong role in his administration) until she was finally told that she wasn't authentic enough to be elected president. Once again, Clinton is being told she's doing it wrong, being held to standards demanded of none of the men who came before her.

Other losing candidates have made different choices about how public they wanted to be after their loss, but I can't recall a single one who was told so emphatically by so many people to keep his damn mouth shut. Part of what makes this so unfortunate is that Clinton probably has a lot of interesting things to say, if she chose to say them. As New York magazine's Rebecca Traister (who has reported extensively on Clinton) told me in an email, "Hillary Clinton is not like every other candidate ever to run for president. She is the only woman in American history to have been a major party nominee for president, to have run in, to have lost, to have won the popular vote in, an American presidential election. That makes her a crucial historic figure, and one whowhile she is still alive and her memories of her experiences and perspectives remain freshSHOULD be talking about what she's just experienced."

Now maybe you still don't want to hear what she has to say; if so, you're free to ignore her. But don't complain that with a few public comments she's stealing the spotlight from somebody. It's 2017there's no shortage of spotlight to go around. No one can say, "I'd love to start working toward running for president, but all the attention Hillary Clinton gets just makes it impossible!" Every politician has a hundred different ways they can get attention or get their message out to the public, and nothing Clinton does or doesn't do will affect them one bit.

And don't tell me that Clinton is somehow keeping Democrats from having a robust debate about which direction their party should go in the future. Nobody's voice will be heard less because of her. Perhaps you think that the party should reject her incrementalism and her focus on practicalities when a more sweeping vision might be more effective. Perhaps you think it needs to forge a new identity built around younger leaders. That's terrificnobody's stopping you or anyone else from making your case. Clinton is not holding you back.

So why are so many people so angry at her now? For many of the same reasons they've been angry at her over her entire career. And you know what? That's something I'd be interested to hear her perspective on.

Read this article:
Everybody Needs to Stop Telling Hillary Clinton to Shut Up - The American Prospect

The Democratic Party is stuck in a moment that it cant get out of. That moment is 2:30 a.m. on November 9, 2016, when Donald J. Trump took to the podium at the Hilton Midtown in Manhattan to deliver his victory speech, having just won the presidency of the United States. Since then, Democrats have been reliving the shock that was the day before, aware they have to most past the trauma of a devastating loss but unable or unwilling to do so.

Seven months later, they remain stunned, their questions ultimately focused on a fundamental inability to explain how they could blow a 50-point late-fourth-quarter lead, in a contest that had them holding every advantage. If "she-didnt-campaign-in-Wisconsin" became a popular refrain in the days and weeks after the election, it is only because people needed some means to explain away the inexplicable.

Since then, other explanations have emerged, including from Hillary R. Clinton herself. They suggest that even as the political class begins to look to 2018, much of the Democratic establishment remains stuck in 2016.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

The latest round of recrimination came from Van Jones, the CNN commentator who was previously a green energy adviser to President Obama. Speaking in Chicago on Saturday, he harshly criticized the Clinton campaign of squandering its $1.2 billion war chest.

"The Hillary Clinton campaign did not spend their money on white workers, and they did not spend it on people of color, Jones said according to The Hill. They spent it on themselves. They spent it on themselves, let's be honest."

Jones seemed to be exploding the debate over which demographic Clinton had failed to attract: What is it the Midwestern whites whod voted for her husband Bill in 92 and 96, or the racially diverse millennials who went for her onetime rival Obama in 08?

Neither, Jones said at the outset of his remarks: "This is the stupidest false choice I've ever heard," he said to loud applause.

They took a billion dollars, a billion dollars, a billion dollars, and set it on fire, and called it a campaign!" He continued, A billion dollars for consultants. A billion dollars for pollsters. A billion dollars for a data operation, that was run by data dummies who couldn't figure out that maybe people in Michigan needed to be organized."

Joness diatribe may have been a dig at her young campaign manager Robby Mook, who reportedly rejected investing more money in the upper Midwest, where the famed Democratic firewall collapsed on Nov. 8, paving the way for a Trump victory.

Did the Clinton campaign waste the enormous amount of money it raised? Yes, but only because the efforts of any losing campaign seem wasteful after the fact. If you wake up with a hangover, youre bound to lament the choices you made the night before. Did I really need that seventh bacon-tini?

More substantively, it is true that Clintons campaign was an expensive enterprise, especially when compared to Trumps threadbare operation, which was largely predicated on free press coverage for his daily outrages.

For example, in early 2016, Clinton reportedly spent more than $700,000 in one quarter on polls; in an earlier quarter of 2015, shed spent $1.9 million, vastly more than any other candidate of either party. During the summer before the general election, she was spending $500,000 per day on television ads, while Trump was shelling out nothing for the same.

Hillary Clinton speaks to the Childrens Defense Fund in Washington, November 16, 2016. Reuters

Clinton has her own ideas about why she lost, and these have nothing to do with resource allocation. As she has been more vocal about her views on the election, many observers have noticed a lack of contrition on her part, a willingness to blame anyone but herself.

For example, at a tech conference in California in May, Clinton blamed the Democratic National Committee: It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it, she said.

A former data director for the DNC answered on Twitter with the following rebuke: DNC data folks: todays accusations are fucking bullshit, and I hope you understand the good you did despite that nonsense.

Many have marvelled at Clintons ability to manufacture excuses. The right-wing Washington Times, for example, noted in an editorial that Clinton had come up with nearly 20 reasons for her loss, including Facebook, Twitter, the Russians, the Democratic National Committee, racism, misogyny, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, voter suppression, The New York Times, Steve Bannon, Google, and the media.

The Rev. Al Sharpton had his own ideas on why theres no President Clinton today: Her mistake was she did not mobilize in the black community, he said last month. Though according to a much-discussed New York Times op-ed by Mark Lilla, she actually lost because shed too often slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop.

The unceasing relitigation of Novembers election isnt likely to help Democrats in 2018, which they hope will be a wave election that allows them to retake the House of Representatives. If there are lessons to be learned, they plainly havent learned them yet. That Democrats are still pointing fingers and picking at scabs a half-year after the polls closed is a sign of just how lost the party is, torn between competing nodes seemingly unable to reconcile their differences.

Of course, it doesnt help that President Trump continues to gloat over his victory in the election, routinely tweaking Clinton on Twitter, in a manner many consider unbecoming of a president. Crooked Hillary Clinton now blames everybody but herself, refuses to say she was a terrible candidate, he said in a May 31st tweet. Hits Facebook & even Dems & DNC.

Visit link:
Van Jones, Hillary Clinton and the Disastrous Democratic Blame Game - Newsweek

Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonFormer assistant FBI director rips Comey: Not a strong enough person to be FBI director US Navy commissions USS Gabrielle Giffords Van Jones: Clinton campaign set a billion dollars 'on fire' MORE penned a letter to Teen Vogue contributor Lauren Duca encouraging the 26-year-old blogger and columnist to "continue writing and speaking out."

"As we know all too well, the Internet is not a friendly place for women, especially those who aren't afraid to speak their minds and challenge established systems of power," Clinton wrote. "And so I applaud you, and hope you will continue writing and speaking out. Your voice is so important."

"Thank you, @HillaryClinton. For this, and for everything. I promise to keep fighting (right after I'm done sobbing)," she tweeted.

Thank you, @HillaryClinton. For this, and for everything. I promise to keep fighting (right after I'm done sobbing). pic.twitter.com/3trk8yav2p

Duca garnered attention in December after Teen Vogue published a scathing opinion piece she authored accusing President Trump of actively deceiving and manipulating American voters.

She also bitterly sparred on the air with Fox News host Tucker Carlson in December, calling him a "partisan hack." Carlson, in turn, told Duca that she "should stick to the thigh-high boots.

The Fox News host later said he shouldn't have "lost control and snapped at her," though he also called her "not very impressive."

In January, news that controversial former pharmaceutical CEO Martin Shkreli, a self-declared Trump backer, was harassing Duca on Twitter gained traction. Shkreli has since been suspended from the social media site.

Read the rest here:
Hillary Clinton writes to Teen Vogue contributor: 'The Internet is not a friendly place for women' - The Hill

Attention race car drivers: The Whitaker Speedway has re-opened. Since the traffic calming experiment is complete, the racing is back to normal.

The narrative that leaving the Paris climate agreement wont impact jobs isnt relevant. Getting out of a bad treaty that was purely political is the relevant thing to do.

Enough with the extra innings and unearned runs. When will the three-strikes rule ever apply to Alderman Tony Thomas? He needs to be stopped short.

Make America covfefe again!

When will the recall petition for Tony Thomas be ready and where can I sign it? Totally serious!

Kudos again, Savannah Morning News, for your commentary on Sunday, June 4, regarding Van Johnson and Tony Thomas. You go, Savannah Morning News. Great commentary. Keep up the good work.

God is a Republican. Mainly just think of what the Democrats believe in and then youll know he is a Republican.

I wonder if Van Johnson would be so forgiving if it had been his mother or sister that Tony Thomas used that profanity toward?

I think its time Hillary Clinton closed the book on the election. She may not believe this, but she is embarrassing herself.

Can Mosquito Control please come spray all of the islands? Its really bad out here. Weve called them a lot and they just wont do anything. We really would appreciate it.

This is to the person who found my Belks package at Belks and did not turn it in but kept it: I hope you can live with your conscience. May God be with you.

Not only have the American people turned their back on God, a lot of them have turned their back on America. Its really a shame. Ive been hoping our country would get turned back around.

View original post here:
Vox Populi: 'I think it's time Hillary Clinton closed the book on the election.' - Savannah Morning News

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Saturday, June 10, 2017, 7:00 AM

While the James Comey drama was unfolding in Washington D.C. Thursday, presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton opted for a Broadway play.

The former Secretary of State was spotted at the Brooks Atkinson Theatre, where she watched Sara Bareilles perform in Waitress -- a role the actress will hand over to Betsy Wolfe after her Sunday performance. The star and the politico share a special bond -- Bareilles hit song Brave topped Clinton's campaign play list last year.

Were told that Waitress producer Fran Weissler, whos a longtime friend of Clintons, brought the former First Lady to the show, then escorted her backstage after the performance. Thats where she met Bareilles, starlet Cate Elefante, and the show's writer, Jessie Nelson.

The entire cast knew Clinton was in the audience, and Bareilles said backstage that she was hoping Clinton would find the show funny.

Sen. John McCain clarifies bumbling statements in Comey hearing

I have it on good authority that she did, Clinton assured her.

Were told that Clinton also commented on how great the theater smelled. That aroma comes courtesy of a convection oven that is baking a pie as the audience enters.

With Brian Niemietz

Read more:
Hillary Clinton and Sara Bareilles say goodbye to Broadway - New York Daily News