Mediaboss Marketing

On Sunday, following Emmanuel Macrons decisive victory in the French presidential election, Hillary Clinton posted a congratulatory tweet. But thats not all. In addition to applauding Macron, Clinton made a subtle jab at the media, writing of Macrons win, Defeat to those interfering w/ democracy. (But the media says I cant talk about that).

Clinton is most likely referencing comments shes recently made about her own bid for the presidency, suggesting Russian interference played a role in her unprecedented loss. Some outlets criticized Clinton for her comments. For instance,The Guardian was quick to point out Clinton took absolute personal responsibility for the loss, only to then blame Russian hackers and FBI Director James Comey for issuing a damning letter a mere days before the November 8 vote. And as CNNs SE Cupp wrote,

Remember, she takes absolute personal responsibility. But ... who could argue that it's very difficult to succeed a two-term president of your own party? Seriously, Democrats haven't done it since, Lord knows, like the 1820s or '30s, so she's not making excuses but, you guys, take her word for it: It was basically impossible for her to win.

Social media users blasted Clinton for a different reason altogether, poking fun at her for saying, Im back to being an activist citizen and part of the resistance. Clearly, not everyone was buying her new revolutionary persona:

Its worth noting, however, that Clinton isnt the only presidential candidate to deal with Russian interference. Similarly, just days before the French elections final round of voting, security analysts said theyd found evidence of Russian interference, telling Reutersthat Russian hackers had compromised Macrons campaign emails. Whether you criticize Clinton for blaming Russian interference or see her statements as completely valid, the FBIs ongoing investigation into Russias involvement during the 2016 presidential campaign should speak volumes.

Excerpt from:
Hillary Clinton Gets Sassy In A Tweet About The New French President - GOOD Magazine

Hillary Clinton, here in New York on May 3, is the subject of Curtis Sittenfeld's new novel.(Photo: Astrid Stawiarz/Getty)

Curtis Sittenfeld, whose best-selling 2008 novel American Wifefictionalized the life of Laura Bush,is now turning her sharp eye to Hillary Clinton.

Penguin Random House announced Monday that Sittenfeld'suntitled novel will be told from the point of view of Hillary Rodham, in which she turns down marriage proposals from Bill Clinton(as she did in real life), then ultimately turns him down once and for all. The book will imagine how Rodhams life spins out from there.

Random House spokeswoman Theresa Zoro said the novel about the former first lady, Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate is not likely to hit stores before 2019.

Author Curtis Sittenfeld.(Photo: Josephine Sittenfeld)

In American Wife, the character inspired by Bush, the former first lady,was called Alice Blackwell. The novel became popular among book clubs. Sittenfelds other best sellers include Prep and 2016s Eligible, a modern take on Jane Austens classic Pride and Prejudice.

News of Sittenfeld's Hillary book comes, coincidentally, the same day publishers Knopf and Little, Brown jointly announced that former President Bill Clinton is teaming up with mega-selling author James Patterson on a book. The President Is Missing, a thrillerset in the highest corridors of power, will be released in June 2018.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is writing a book, filled with quotations she has collected for decades, that will reflect on her life and the presidentialelection. Its due in September from Simon & Schuster.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2po4XDv

More here:
New novel asks: What if Hillary had never married Bill Clinton? - USA TODAY

CREDIT: Fox News screengrab

It was easy to forget the Senate hearing on Monday featuring former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was supposed to be about Russias meddling in the election.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) got things started with a line of questioning that echoed Trump talking points about unmaskinga talking point rooted in Trump supporters desire to defend the presidents baseless accusation that President Obama wiretapped him.

The unmasking claims have been thoroughly debunked. Last month, both Republican and Democratic sources told multiple news outlets that the intelligence communitys conduct with regard to the intelligence reports in question was normal and appropriate.

Republican senators who followed Graham took things even further afield. Instead of asking about Russian meddling, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) grilled Yates about her decision not to enforce President Trumps Muslim bana decision that resulted in Trump firing her on January 30.

Later, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) spent time asking Clapper about Hillary Clintons emails.

Cruz eventually returned to the topic of the Muslim ban, prompting Yates to give him a lesson in constitutional law.

There was more talk about the Muslim ban to come. Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-LA) conducted a mansplaining clinic while grilling Yates about the reasoning she used to determine the Muslim ban is unconstitutionala judgment that has since been vindicated by numerous federal courts that have come to the same conclusion.

Kennedy later expressed confusion about the difference between classified and unclassified information, prompting laughter from the audience.

Cornyn and Cruz reportedly left the hearing before it ended. Neither of them asked a single question about the purported topic of the hearing.

While it makes for good Fox News fodder, the conduct of Republicans during Mondays hearing only strengthens the case that Congress isnt equipped to conduct a fair, thorough investigation into Russian meddling. Democratic senators Dick Durbin (IL) and Amy Klobuchar (MN) both called for such an independent investigation during the hearing.

Read the original here:
Republicans use Russia hearing to defend Trump, talk about Hillary Clinton's emails - ThinkProgress

I once wrote a column in praise of competence. The object of my admiration was Walter Mondale, then running for president against Ronald Reagan. The presidents message was that it was morning again in America. Mondales message was that he was competent. He lost 49 states. He was Hillary Clinton even before she was.

The comparison is apt and sad. It came jumping out at me as I read Shattered, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes new account of how Clinton managed to lose to Donald Trump, a man for whom the word competent is about as fitting as humble. She did it, the two tell us, by assembling a huge and unwieldy campaign apparatus, fixating on data and not, unfortunately, on retail politics, and not being able to adequately explain her use of a private email server, a historically trivial matter that came to symbolize her failings as a politician. She seemed inaccessible.

But Clintons great failing, the book not to mention the election itself makes clear, was her inability to fashion a message. She knew why she was running for president: It was her turn. But she could not say that. She could not merely say that she was prepared, a walking briefing book. Policies coursed through her body like blood cells. She knew everything. She was, in the famous formulation of Isaiah Berlin, a fox. Trump was a hedgehog. He knew just one thing: why he wanted to be president.

Shattered is a cliche-clogged slog in itself. The authors made a deal with sources within Clintons campaign to not write anything until after the election and to treat what they learned on background meaning, the sources would not be named. This leads to a heavy drizzle of the words source or sources and, after a while, a certain resistance on the part of the reader: Who are these people? Even banalities are privileged: It was a very hard 10 days, a source says about some very hard days.

The other word that keeps coming at you is message. Clinton did not have one, and the search for a message preoccupied her staff. Oddly, and fatally, Clinton left it up to them to articulate why she was running. As a mental exercise, I tried to come up with a message myself: Hillary Clinton because shes not Trump, is the best I could do. As it turned out, she could do no better.

Bernie Sanders, in contrast, knew why he was running and his supporters knew it, too. He was something of a biblical figure. He wanted to smite the big banks and put some Wall Street heads on the end of a pike. It was, in his own way, a position paper.

As for Trump, he was going to make America great again never mind that he did not have a clue as to how. He had the unassailable confidence of the ignorant, unburdened by knowledge and complexity. He was successful, but lets not make too much of it. He drew three inside straights in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and won them all by margin-of-error numbers. As he was at birth, he was lucky.

When I wrote about Mondale, I felt sorry for the guy. I liked him. Hes smart and has a refreshing sense of humor. Whatever my feelings for him were, the camera did not agree. It showed a cold and somewhat distant Midwestern archetype. The same with Clinton. Ive had a few private moments with her and found her to be as her aides will always tell you fresh, irreverent and funny. She gets the joke. Alas, on TV none of that came through, as if she was hiding from the camera lest it reveal too much.

Clintons search for a message occupies much of Shattered. It is a sad trek because she was an oxymoron: a familiar figure who was seeking to appear fresh and, as she herself acknowledged, a politician with no gift for politics. I know that I engender bad reactions from people, and I always have, Allen and Parnes quote her as telling an aide. There are some people in whom I bring out the worst. I know that about myself, and I dont know why that is. But it is.

In the end, Hillary Clinton had it right. She was stuck with herself. It was good enough for most voters, but not for enough of them in those three key states. She lost and a fool won. That, to us, ought to be the message.

Read the original post:
Cohen: Walter Mondale, the original Hillary Clinton - The Mercury News

Former secretary of stateHillary Clinton came out swinging against the media on Sunday.

In a tweet congratulating Emmanuel Macronon winning the election in France despite a last-minute hacking attackagainst his campaign Clinton wrote:

Clinton was referencing criticism she received last week after an interview in which she took absolute responsibility for her surprise election loss in 2016, but also blamed a combination of interference byRussiaand the FBI.

I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comeys letter on October 28th and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off, Clinton said. And the evidence for that intervening event is, I think, compelling, persuasive.

Last week, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com said Clinton was right, at least about the Comey part.

Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28, Silver wrote.

Read the original post:
Hillary Clinton Rips Hackers, Blasts Media In A Single Tweet - Huffington post (press release) (blog)