Mediaboss Marketing

This article originally appeared at The American Prospect. Subscribe here.

Youve 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.

Okay, youve probably guessed: Joe Biden wasnt 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 didnt exist until Hillary Clinton came along.

The problem isnt just that Clinton has the temerity to show her face, its 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 her leading to a collective orgasm on the part of the mainstream media she would probably be president. That happens to be true, but shes not allowed to say it. Nothing short of her crying out, Yes, Im the worst! I deserve every ounce of your hatred! will do.

So lets be clear about this. If you dont like Hillary Clinton, thats fine. If you want to disagree with the substance of something she says in her occasional public appearances, thats 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, youre 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. Id 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), well 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, Id 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 husbands name, apologize for speaking your mind, dont make it seem like you have a strong role in his administration) until she was finally told that she wasnt authentic enough to be elected president. Once again, Clinton is being told shes 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 cant 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 magazines 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 who while she is still alive and her memories of her experiences and perspectives remain fresh SHOULD be talking about what shes just experienced.

Now maybe you still dont want to hear what she has to say; if so, youre free to ignore her. But dont complain that with a few public comments shes stealing the spotlight from somebody. Its 2017 theres no shortage of spotlight to go around. No one can say, Id 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 doesnt do will affect them one bit.

And dont tell me that Clinton is somehow keeping Democrats from having a robust debate about which direction their party should go in the future. Nobodys 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. Thats terrific nobodys 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 theyve been angry at her over her entire career. And you know what? Thats something Id be interested to hear her perspective on.

View post:
Everybody Needs To Stop Telling Hillary Clinton To Shut Up - HuffPost

Getty Images

BY: Charles Fain Lehman June 15, 2017 12:03 pm

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night comparedherself favorably to comic and movie heroine Wonder Womanduring a videoappearance at a glitzyBeverly Hills awards show.

Clinton appeared in a 95-second video on behalf of actress Elizabeth Banks, a friend and supporter of Clinton who was being honored at theWomen in Film Los Angeles' Crystal + Lucy Awards. Banks was set to receive theCrystal Award for Excellence in Film, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

"On and off the screen, your commitment to lifting up women directors, producers, writers, composers, and executives has made such a difference," Clinton said of Banks.

Clinton also name dropped the recently released movie Wonder Woman, which has garnered praise for its positive depiction of a female lead.

"Now I haven't seen WonderWoman yet, but I'm going to!" Clinton said in her message. "In part because it's directed by the fabulous Patty Jenkins."

"But something tells me that a movie about a strong, powerful woman fighting to savethe world from a massive international disaster is right up my alley," the two-time failed presidential candidate added, comparing her battle against Donald Trump to the Wonder Woman character.

Watch Clinton's full remarks below.

Continue reading here:
Hillary Clinton Compares Herself to Wonder Woman - Washington Free Beacon

In a video earlier this week, Hillary Clinton seemed to compare herself, or at the very least her values, to Wonder Woman and Im just not sure what in the fresh hell she could possibly be talking about.

Something tells me that a movie about a strong, powerful woman fighting to save the world from a massive international disaster is right up my alley, Hillary Clinton said in the 95-second video message at the Women in Film Los Angeles Crystal + Lucy Awards on Tuesday night in Beverly Hills.

Now, Hillary Clinton certainly did have a pretty high opinion of herself and her abilities during her presidential campaign Why arent I 50 points ahead?! but I guess Im just shocked to see that shes maintained it after such a humiliating defeat.

In all fairness, Clinton very well may not have written this herself, but even her bold delivery of it displays just such a substantial lack of self awareness. How is she a strong, powerful woman? And just what on earth is she fighting for? Who is she saving? Hell, Ill even take it a step further: Who or what is she even trying to save, except for maybe her own face by blaming everyone but herself for her humiliating defeat?

Hillary Clinton lost an electionand now spends half her time trying to take down other people including the DNC, which tried so hard to nurse her ailing campaign that it wound up catching some of the sickness itself by blaming them for it, and the other half just hangin out in the damn woods. Is she planting a bunch of trees in the woods? Is that what this is about? Shes fighting for trees? I dont understand.

When I think about a hero, I generally think of someone who, at the very least, has a suggestion or two for how to make things better, and not someone who sits around whining about how unfair the past was. I mean, Im no self-help expert, but I do follow enough Millennial women on Instagram to know that theres not a single inspirational meme out there that suggests the way for a winning future is to moan and groan about your current circumstances.

Sorry, but strong women dont blame everyone but themselves for their failures. No, thats a sign of weakness needing a cop-out because you just cant bear to face the pain that might come with critical self-examination, even though that critical self-examination is the only way you can learn how to do a better job of fighting for what you claim to care about in the future.

Katherine Timpf is a reporter for National Review Online.

Continued here:
Why Is Hillary Clinton Comparing Herself to Wonder Woman? - National Review

When Hillary Clinton joined Instagram in June of 2015, her first post was a rack of suit jackets in a hopeful array of cardinal red, bright white and cobalt blue. Given everything that has happened to the poor gal since, the caption, which read, Hard choices, conveys more than your ordinary sartorial dilemma. Instead, it trumpets something both patriotic and revolutionary though bottomless. Therein lies the rub: She forgot to put on her pants. By cutting herself off at the waist, Ms. Clinton confused (or delighted) a body politic still accustomed to the patriarchal synecdoche of skirts for girls. This costume fail basically kickstarted the trajectory from her choice to wear the pants to the colossus that became Pantsuit Nation. The only problem okay, one of the problems was that it didnt work.

The question of how do you dress if you want to play the leader of the free world and you also happen to have genitals on the inside of yourbody is one that Kemal Harris happens to consider as often as Hillary Clinton does. (Note: some spoilers may follow.) The more Harris became known for designing Claire Underwoods (Robin Wright) stunning wardrobe on House of Cards,the more often she was asked about Hillary Clintons signature costume. Though Harris was understandably baffled by the the fashion worlds obsession with Clintons pantsuits, asking Vanity Fair, Cant we just wear whatever we want, what she may or may not have recognized with that question was that Clintons ensemble was more than a deliberate choice. It was as made up as Clintonherself. Whats more, at that point, Hillary Clinton might as well have been an adversary to Frank Underwood.

The revelation that 1993 also saw its first-ever woman in pants on the senate floor, Carol Moseley Braun the first African-American woman elected to the Senate also helped Harris to understand, if not the impetus behind this choice, then the bold statement it made for a female in a position of political power. As Claires character evolved, Harris reconsidered the pencil-skirts-and-dresses policy that she had honed to perfection in seasons 3 and 4. Enter the misunderstood, man-repelling trouser, only somewhat redux.

We never did a full Hillary, Harris admits. To have success in a mans world you dont have to dress like a man. Claire will never fully lose the pencil skirt, but it was great to bring in a lot more trousers.

Harris began designing Robin Wrights costumes for House of Cards in season 3 she favors Ralph Lauren, Michael Kors, Derek Lam, Altuzarra, Burberry, Armani and Equipment. (Who wouldnt?) A third of the clothes she uses come courtesy of Barneys and Bergdorfs; the others from the designers themselves. If Harris cant find the exact look, she sketches, designs and custom-produces the jacket, blouse or suit herself, using a dressform with Wrights exact dimensions that watches over Harriss New York studio like a talisman. This mannequin is also used to tailor everything to Wrights exact proportions, or to make subtle changes to the clothes, such as adding belts or buttons or shortening sleeves.

Since Harris had been working with Wright as her red-carpet stylist (she also styles Zosia Mamet, Kate McKinnon and Alexis Bledel), the move from combing some very high-end racks and thinking, this is so Claire, to being Claire Underwoods sole designer was a no-brainer. As a New Yorker, Harris also understood David Finchers muted aesthetic no bright light, no primary colors. She immediately caught on to the practical constraints of designing costumes versus the one-and-done of everyday styling, carefully reading scripts to familiarize herself with the storyline as well as the tone of a scene, or, famously, if Claire is going to be playing beer pong in an evening gown. (They borrowed three silver evening gowns from Ralph Lauren for the state dinner and subsequent beer pong scene in season 3).

In season 3, Claire was the first lady, so she and Frank were the total power-hungry couple, Harris tells me. I hate to use the term arm candy, but she stepped into that role. I used a lot of forties-inspired apparel. Season 4 is a shedding of the skin. She reconnects with her mom and sheds tears for the first time ever. She wears tweed and boots. Also this was the first time I put her in pants. It was after her moms passing, which was meaningful because her mom was this Southern belle.

The New York Times recently drew a comparison between Claire Underwood and Melania Trump, asserting that the latter drew some of her style cues from the first lady of Netflix. This assertion seems somewhat specious. At first glance, both wardrobes originate from the couture floor at Bergdorfs, yet one is meant to convey power where the other is about publicly evolving toward propriety. Its tantamount to comparing Michelle Obama to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Okay, both Michelle and Jackie are prominent women married to young presidents and both wear clothes, but, lets face it, the similarities end there. Jackie favored Dior, Givenchy and Chanel until the country got on her case for lavish spending and she hired Oleg Cassini. Meanwhile, Michelle Obama wore J. Crew cardigans, gave conservatives tsuris with her bare arms and put Canadian designer Jason Wu on the map. In other words, leave Melania out of this. Shes a mannequin.

The correlation between Claire and Hilz has more to do with calculated costumery and the opportune donning of the power pants. For Hillaryit seemed to be about second-wave feminism and appearing sexless. She even wore pants to Bills inauguration. Though, so did Ivanka to her dads (Oscar de la Renta), so who knows? How does one intimidate yet still be accessible? Since we cant exhume Eva Pern to ask her advice we can only watch Madonna as Evita singing, I came from the people, they need to adore me, so Christian Dior me from my head to my toes the next best thing is to hire an expert stylist who understands the importance of the ensemble as conveyor of character, AKA brand. Each look is honed for intense public scrutiny, including running gear. To lose this influence, even for a moment, is to drop character. To overdo it is death.

In season 5, Claires intent is bloody, bold and resolute. She might as well be the Cersei Lannister of Washington, minus the poopy shame walk. To convey this rapaciousness and single-pointed focus, Harris chose a lot of militaristic details, such as an array of buttons endlessly marching up the front of Wrights toned, tight tummy like so many foot soldiers. The Harris-designed navy and light-blue dress with the buttons in episode 5 is an absolute show-stopper. The high crewneck suggests a dont-fuck-with-me capability that also somehow manages to beckon. Harris also puts Claire in a fair amount of trousers, yet she pairs them with either a Ralph Lauren blouse or a Derek Lam turtleneck to lend the overall look a more feminine feel. Unlike what Kate McKinnon called Hillarys hard, tan business shoe on SNL, Claires Christian Louboutin, Manolo Blahnik and Christian Dior heels are still impossibly high.

Whats more, theres something about Robin Wrights figure and expressionless face thats disarming. Her whole mien feels more unattainable than the $51,500 Dolce & Gabbana jacket Melania wore in Sicily. In contrast, Hilary looks like a schlepper, but maybe thats the point. Unlike Nancy Reagans red Adolfo suit or Jackie Kennedys infamous pink Chanel suit, or Kellyanne Conways red-white-and-blue showstopper, Hillarys pantsuits were supposed to be the ultimate accoutrement for the nations hard-hitting grandma, a part she has been playing since her glory days at Wellesley.

Claire Underwood is aspirational, Harris says. A huge part of her identity is untouchable. Its used to intimidate and disarm and its very effective, but shes also a fictional character. She has a full staff thats tailoring and dry cleaning her clothes. You cant run around the city in those heels!

Of course, Claire Underwood never wears a pantsuit in which the jacket and trousers match. They tried for a hot minute but it didnt work. While Claires seduction beguiles, Hillarys hits you over the head with all the subtlety of a cast-iron skillet. The semiotics are at once obvious while the message is mixed: Whatever mishegas went on in that there Oval, Hillary sat in the residence like Penelope, weaving her skirts into pants as she waited for the exact moment to slap those suckers on and clomp her way into the presidency. Meanwhile, Claire Underwoods elegantly tailored slacks portend dark victory. Both women are fictional characters in costumes; only one fiction continues to work.

See the original post:
Who wears the pants? Claire Underwood, Hillary Clinton and the fiction of being a fashionable first lady - Salon

WASHINGTON With the Russia probe moving closer to Donald Trump himself, the president appears to long for the simpler times of last years presidential campaign, when he didnt have to shoulder the nation's scrutiny on his own.

Why is that Hillary Clintons family and Dems dealings with Russia are not looked at, but my non-dealings are? President Trump tweeted Thursday, after the Washington Post and later NBC News reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is now investigating whether the president attempted to obstruct justice in the FBI's investigation.

Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, 'bleached' emails, & had husband meet w/AG days before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction? Trump added.

Furthering the sense of 2016 dj vu, a Clinton campaign Twitter account dedicated to "setting the facts straight," responded to one of the president's tweets with a "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" GIF and a series of question marks.

The account had not tweeted since November 7.

In response to reports that Trump is facing a criminal investigation, Mark Corallo, spokesman for Trump's personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, said in a statement, "The FBI leak of information regarding the president is outrageous, inexcusable, and illegal."

On Friday morning, Trump tweeted that there's no proof he has done anything wrong, despite months of hearings and investigations.

Meanwhile, Trump has revived attacks on his general election opponent multiple times since taking office.

In late March, as the House Intelligence Committee was thrown into turmoil after it was revealed that chairman Devin Nunes appeared to have coordinated with the White House he was supposed to be overseeing, Trump asked a similar question about Clinton.

Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, he tweeted in March, adding in a second message, Trump Russia story is a hoax.

Related: Trump Decries Witch Hunt After Report That Mueller Is Investigating Him

And in February, three days after former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigned and two days after The New York Times ran a blockbuster story about Trump campaign aides reported ties to Russia, the president used a news conference to try to divert attention to his old foe.

We had Hillary Clinton try and do a reset. We had Hillary Clinton give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in our country, he said, repeating a statement Politifact rated mostly false. "Nobody talks about that."

"By the way, it would be great if we could get along with Russia, just so you understand that. Now tomorrow, youll say Donald Trump wants to get along with Russia, this is terrible. Its not terrible; its good, Trump added.

Here is the original post:
Trump Lashes Out at Hillary Clinton as Russia Probe Turns to Him - NBCNews.com