Mediaboss Marketing

If you thought Hillary Clintons handling of her email fiasco was puzzling, youre not alone. Even President Obama was befuddled by the way his former adversary handled the situation, noting that it reminded him of how he beat her in the 2008 primaries. In the new book by The Hills Amie Parnes and Sidewires Jonathan Allen, Shattered: Inside Hillary Clintons Doomed Campaign, released today details what should have been a winnable election for the career politician thatturned into an abject nightmare over largely avoidablemistakes.

For starters, the book details how Obama was at a loss for why Clinton, who had been his secretary of state, would set up what turned out to be an unauthorized and unsecure server to conduct all of her official business. It was a breach of government protocol concerning the collection and preservation of all electronic communications. Moreover, it did present a possible national security risk that drew the attention of the FBI. The second thing that perplexed him was how she handled it(via The Hill):

Clinton's actions, according to Parnes and Allen, reminded Obama of some of the qualities that helped him win the Democratic primary in 2008. The book also includes an anecdote from July 2016 when Clinton and Obama traveled aboard Air Force One to their first joint campaign rally. FBI Director James Comey said on the same day as the event that he would not recommend charges against Clinton over her use of the private server.

Despite what Clintonites might think, this was a story. A presidential candidate, and member of one of the most successful and ruthless political machines, might have compromised national security and mishandled classified information with this homebrew server. Ensuring that the opposite occurs while in office is at the core of the presidential oath. The Clintons didnt seem to care, nor were they going to admit that they did something wrong (via USA Today):

You know who did care? Voters. Young people flocked to her primary opponent Bernie Sanders in droves and her appalling deficit on trust and honesty because of this email fiasco killed her on character issues. The damage was irreparable. No one really found her likable, relatable, or authentic. She had no economic message. Her campaign shunned white working class voters, who turned out for Donald Trump en masse. She may have had a resume, but Hillary Clinton as president was never going to happen. Still, political introspection eludes Clinton.

The former first lady and now two-time presidential loser attended the liberal Women in the World Summit earlier this month, where she says that misogyny, Russia, FBI Director James Comey, and Wikileaks were the top four reasons for her defeat. CNN commentator Kirsten Powers aptly noted that something is missing here: Hillary Clinton. She was the top of the ticket, though she bore no responsibility for the most shocking loss in American political history? Powers mentioned how this isnt helpful in moving on from this stinging defeat.

Well, Russias impact on the election through propaganda through state-funded media and the deployment of social media trolls wasnt really a factor in tilting the election. The emergence of fake news also didnt play a pivotal role; Facebook also said that these stories didnt sway the election. Regarding FBI Director Comey, he wanted to detail the level of Russian interference in an op-ed last summer, the Obama White House stopped him. Moreover, the FBI was only involved because Clinton engaged in setting up a private email system for official use that (again) befuddled key members of the party, like the leader of the DemocratsPresident Obama. Misogyny was really not at issue since 52 percent of white women (and 62 percent of white working class women) voted for Trump. Yes, liberals learned the hard way your race, gender, ethnicity, or religion does not peg you to a certain political ideology or party. The notion of a womens voting bloc voting in unison, especially when a woman is on a major ticket, proved to be a myth. The Democratic National Security server hacks could have been mitigated if they had better security measures, like the ones installed at the Republican National Committee. As for Podesta, wellyou can blame an IT staffers typo in an email for opening the floodgates on that treasure trove. Still, there were other campaign decisions from Clinton and her staff that helped kill her presidential hopes (via NYT):

[]

Shattered underscores Clintons difficulty in articulating a rationale for her campaign (other than that she was not Donald Trump). And it suggests that a tendency to value loyalty over competence resulted in a lumbering, bureaucratic operation in which staff members were reluctant to speak truth to power, and competing tribes sowed confusion, angst and infighting.

[]

Despite years of post-mortems, the authors observe, Clintons management style hadnt really changed since her 2008 loss of the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama: Her teams convoluted power structure encouraged the denizens of Hillaryland to care more about their standing with her, or their future job opportunities, than getting her elected.

[]

As described in Shattered, Clintons campaign manager, Robby Mook who centered the Clinton operation on data analytics (information about voters, given to him by number crunchers) as opposed to more old-fashioned methods of polling, knocking on doors and trying to persuade undecideds made one strategic mistake after another, but was kept on by Clinton, despite her own misgivings.

Mook had made the near-fatal mistakes of underestimating Sanders and investing almost nothing early in the back end of the primary calendar, Parnes and Allen write, and the campaign seemed to learn little from Clintons early struggles. For instance, her loss in the Michigan primary in March highlighted the problems that would pursue her in the general election populism was on the rise in the Rust Belt, and she was not connecting with working-class white voters and yet it resulted in few palpable adjustments.

[]

In chronicling these missteps, Shattered creates a picture of a shockingly inept campaign hobbled by hubris and unforced errors, and haunted by a sense of self-pity and doom, summed up in one Clinton aides mantra throughout the campaign: Were not allowed to have nice things.

The email is one of the many parts of the iceberg that sunk the Clinton ship, withits public disclosure and the botched handling of it (remember the cloth remark?)prompting the former first lady toeventually go dark on press conference for almost a year, proved to be a harbinger of things to come. The lack of reaching out to white working class voters, which often causes consternation among the more progressive and diversity-obsessed members of the Left, was on the minds of some staffers and nothing changed. Its a major tweak that could have tilted the election. Trump won these folks by a three-to-one margin, if it were two-to-one2016 might have ended differently. Still, the data showed that the Democratic base was large enough to shun these voters, who number in the tens of millions. In all, some members of Team Clinton saw the torpedo coming at them, they tried to warn upper management, and their decision was to go full steam ahead into it. The handling of the email server proved to be emblematic of how this campaign was runright into the ground.

Last Note: Let's not forget thatObama hademailed Clinton using a pseudonym dating back to 2012. The Obama White House said theyknew of Clinton's private server, and that the president did correspond with her on that address,but added that henever knew it was used for official use.In 2015, the yearThe New York Timesfirst reported on the server,Obama said hefound that out about the arrangement in the news. So, what was with the pseudonym, then?

Read this article:
'Political Malpractice': Obama Couldn't Understand Clinton's Handling Of Her Email Fiasco - Townhall

Shortly after the 2008 election, President Obamas soon-to-be chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, infamously declared, You never let a serious crisis go to waste.

He elaborated: What I mean by that (is) its an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

Disasters, such as the September 2008 financial crisis, were thus seen as opportunities. Out of the chaos, a shell-shocked public might at last be ready to accept more state regulation of the economy and far greater deficit spending. Indeed, the national debt doubled in the eight years following the 2008 crisis.

During the 2008 campaign, gas prices at one point averaged over $4 a gallon. Then-candidate Obama reacted by pushing a green agenda as if the cash-strapped but skeptical public could be pushed into alternative energy agendas.

Obama mocked then-Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palins prescient advice to drill, baby, drill as if Palins endorsement of new technologies such as fracking and horizontal drilling could never ensure consumers plentiful fuel.

Instead, in September 2008, Steven Chu, who would go on to become Obamas secretary of energy, told the Wall Street Journal that, Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.

In other words, if gas prices were to reach $9 or $10 a gallon, angry Americans would at last be forced to seek alternatives to their gas-powered cars, such as taking the bus or using even higher-priced alternative fuels.

When up for re-election in 2012, President Obama doubled down on his belief that gas was destined to get costlier: And you know we cant just drill our way to lower gas prices.

Yet even as Obama spoke, U.S. frackers were upping the supply and reducing the cost of gas despite efforts by the Obama administration to deny new oil drilling permits on federal lands.

U.S oil production roughly doubled from 2008 to 2015. And by 2017, the old bogeyman of peak oil production had been put to rest, as the U.S. became nearly self-sufficient in fossil fuel production.

Viewing the world in apocalyptic terms was also useful during the California drought.

In March 2016, even as the four-year drought was over and California precipitation had returned to normal, Gov. Jerry Brown was still harping on the connection between climate change and near-permanent drought.

We are running out of time because its not raining, Brown melodramatically warned. This is a serious matter were experiencing in California, as kind of a foretaste.

Foretaste to what, exactly?

In 2017, it rained and snowed even more than it had during a normal year of precipitation in 2016.

Currently, a drenched Californias challenge is not theoretical global warming, but the more mundane issue of long-neglected dam maintenance that threatens to undermine overfull reservoirs.

Brown had seen the drought as a means of achieving the aim of regimenting Californians to readjust their lifestyles in ways deemed environmentally correct. The state refused to begin work on new reservoirs, aqueducts and canals to be ready for the inevitable end of the drought, even though in its some 120 years of accurate record keeping California had likely never experienced more than a four-year continuous drought.

And it did not this time around either.

Instead, state officials saw the drought as useful to implement permanent water rationing, to idle farm acreage, and to divert irrigation water to environmental agendas.

Well before this years full spring snowmelt, over 50 million acre-feet of water has already cascaded out to sea (liberated, in green terms). The lost freshwater was greater than the capacity of all existing (and now nearly full) man-made reservoirs in the state, and its loss will make it harder to deal with the next inevitable drought

No matter: Progressive narratives insisted that man-caused carbon releases prompted not only record heat and drought, but within a few subsequent months also record coolness and precipitation.

And in Alice in Wonderland fashion, just as drilling was supposedly no cure for oil shortages, building reservoirs was no remedy for water scarcity.

In the same manner, neglecting the maintenance and building of roads in California created a transportation crisis. Until recently, the preferred solution to the states road mayhem and gridlock wasnt more freeway construction but instead high-speed rail as if substandard streets and highways would force millions of frustrated drivers to use expensive state-owned mass transit.

These days, shortages of credit, water, oil or adequate roads are no longer seen as age-old challenges to a tragic human existence. Instead of overcoming them with courage, ingenuity, technology and scientific breakthroughs, they are seen as existential teachable moments.

Read the original here:
Hanson: The downside of Obama's apocalyptic progressivism - The Mercury News

Alyssa Mastromonaco sits with President Barack Obama aboard Air Force One in 2012. Mastromonaco served as the president's director of scheduling and advance from 2009 until 2011, then became his deputy chief of staff for operations from 2011 until 2014. Pete Souza/The White House hide caption

Alyssa Mastromonaco sits with President Barack Obama aboard Air Force One in 2012. Mastromonaco served as the president's director of scheduling and advance from 2009 until 2011, then became his deputy chief of staff for operations from 2011 until 2014.

Former Obama staffer Alyssa Mastromonaco is well acquainted with the privilege and sleeplessness of working in the White House: "I basically ran on adrenaline, almost, for six years," she says.

Mastromonaco began as President Obama's director of scheduling and advance, then became his deputy chief of staff for operations. Her responsibilities ran the gamut from overseeing the confirmation process for Cabinet secretaries to managing the president's daily schedule and foreign travel.

Mastromonaco remembers boarding Air Force One for the first time as a "humbling, awe-inspiring" experience. "There is nothing like walking off the steps of Air Force One," she says. "You always feel so proud. ... The reception, too, of other people in countries, when they see that beautiful blue and white plane, it always gives you goose bumps."

But, she adds, the presidential plane wasn't always the most comfortable way to travel especially on overnight flights. "There aren't beds for us on Air Force One," Mastromonaco says. "We had those Snuggies that you buy on QVC and we would sleep on the floor ... and then you'd get up and everybody shares two bathrooms."

Though Mastromonaco loved her work for the president, the unrelenting pace took a toll on her. In 2014, she decided to move on. Now an executive at A&E Networks, Mastromonaco revisits her White House years in a new memoir, Who Thought This Was a Good Idea?

On being available at all hours

You always had to be available. When I became deputy chief of staff, [I] got a secure communications system that was in my bedroom, made it quite warm, because there was an actual server next to your bed and my apartment was not that big, but you could always be reached. Sometimes at 3 o'clock in the morning the red phone rings and it's the situation room and something's happened. ... I could never say I was off, ever.

On getting briefed about how to prepare for a national emergency situation

Oddly, it was very reassuring. When you sit down with the folks who again, from administration to administration, keep this process alive and have this information, you sit down and they brief you and you're like, "Oh wow, if something happens, actually everybody does know what to do. ... I can't believe I'm seeing what would happen if a nuclear missile was launched from X and how long it would take to get here and what happens," but it is comforting to see that these processes are pretty well socialized. Everybody knows them.

On protecting the president from threats, especially with modern technology

A lot of people, of course, compared us to President Clinton and how President Clinton got out more and he did these sort of sweeping, beautiful events like at the Grand Canyon when he would sign bills, and what people didn't realize is that not only is Barack Obama the first African-American president, he was a post-9/11 president, which is a totally different beast, and also it was the first presidency that was completely within the age of social media. ...

When people talk about the uptick of threats that the Secret Service would report, so much of that was because of the advent of Facebook and Twitter. It was easier to make the threats for people to count.

So when we were first getting started, none of us wanted to ever put anyone at unnecessary risk. ... But for us, there were a lot of grand ideas that people had; one of them was having him do an event on the Triborough Bridge [in New York] and I knew that there was no way on earth that the Secret Service was going to allow that. ... It's just such a different world. Technology is so different. You can detonate a bomb with a cellphone; we know that now.

On knowing that it was time to leave her job

By about the end of 2012 I was in my office with [political strategist] David Plouffe and I was typing while I was talking to him, because I can do that, and he said, "Alyssa what are you doing?" I'm like, "What do you mean?" He's like, "None of the words on your computer screen are words." I looked and it was just gibberish, basically. I realized that I wasn't quite right, that something was off. ...

It turned out they gave me a gross neurological exam that I was basically functioning sort of on like 50 percent of my capacity and that I was very sleep-deprived. ... It was a sign that I was probably coming to the end of my time and that I was so lucky to have had such incredible experiences, but maybe it was time for someone with fresh legs to take over and have the same experiences that I did. ...

I prided myself on being creative and being an "idea machine," and my ideas just weren't flowing. I was becoming the person who sat at the table and when someone had an idea, I'd be the one who said, "We did that, it didn't work. We did that in 2011." It was like I had too much memory, I had been there too long, and so I decided it was time for me to go, because I wanted to leave on a high note. ... I was glad to decide on my own terms it was time to go, and it was a really nice send-off.

Radio producers Sam Briger and Heidi Saman and Web producers Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Beth Novey contributed to this story.

View post:
'I Basically Ran On Adrenaline': A Staffer Remembers Obama's ... - NPR

A fake news story popular on many suspect sites that says Malia Obama was expelled from Harvard University is fake.

A story that appeared on scads of blogs claiming former President Barack Obamas eldest daughter Malia was kicked out of Harvard University is fake news.

"Breaking: Malia Obama expelled from Harvard," read the headline on an April 10, 2017, post on TheNewYorkEvening.com, a known fake news website. The same post appears almost word for word on plenty of other websites, too.

Facebook users flagged the story as possibly being bogus, as part of the social media sites efforts to curtail fake news in users news feeds.

The post said Harvard chancellor Malcolm Little said Malia, 18, "was caught in a Boston hotel lounge vaping marijuana with friends." The schools strict drug policy meant she was out, the article read, and the Obama family was considering filing a discrimination suit.

Again, this story is fake, because there havent been any reports that Malia Obama was kicked out. But the post does acknowledge something that would make expulsion difficult she isnt going to school there yet.

The White House announced in 2016 after she was accepted that Malia Obama would take a gap year before enrolling in the fall of 2017. What has she been up to since then? Things a teen with a year off would do, probably, like hang out with boys in Manhattan.

As for the posts other details, Harvard does prohibit drugs and alcohol on campus, where current students would face penalties (expelling the former first daughter seems unlikely in any event). Harvard doesnt have a chancellor, it has a president, and her name is Drew Gilpin Faust.

More importantly, the post originally appeared April 9 on TheLastLineOfDefense.org. The parody website has been the source of several fake news stories that weve previously checked.

TheLastLineOfDefense.org fabricates posts keyed to topics designed to inflame conservatives. The articles quite often end up being passed around on multiple websites, often without an indication that they are fake.

TheLastLineOfDefense.org doesnt immediately indicate that any of its stories are fake, but its About Us link notes that "all articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney."

Point being, Malia wasnt caught smoking weed in a Boston hotel, and didnt get booted from a school she isnt even attending yet. Dont expect to see her having to settle for Brown anytime soon.

We rate this statement Pants On Fire!

Share the Facts

2017-04-19 20:33:46 UTC

6

1

7

Pants on Fire

"Malia Obama expelled from Harvard."

in Internet posts

Monday, April 10, 2017

2017-04-10

Read more:
Fake story wrong about Malia Obama being expelled from Harvard for marijuana use - PolitiFact (blog)

In his drive to dismantle President Barack Obamas regulatory legacy, President Trump has signed executive orders with great fanfare and breathed life into a once-obscure law to nullify numerous Obama-era regulations.

But his administration is also using a third tactic: Going to court to stop federal judges from ruling on a broad array of regulations that are being challenged by Trumps own conservative allies.

These cases were filed long before the election. Now, Trump administration officials, eager to flip the government position, want judges to put the cases on hold and give federal agencies time to revise or shrink the Obama-era regulatory regime.

Trump officials are also asking judges to keep any existing stays in place so that the contested regulations do not go into effect while the new administration considers its deregulatory strategy.

Much is at stake. The Environmental Protection Agency persuaded an appeals court to give it a chance to revise existing limits on street-level smog. The EPA also wants a court to let it rewrite the Clean Power Plan that Obama showcased at the 2015 Paris climate conference. And the Justice Department has sought to review a Department of Health and Human Services regulation that prohibits health-care providers from discriminating against people on the basis of gender identity, sex stereotyping or the termination of a pregnancy.

The legal strategy is a critical part of the administrations battle to reverse rules enacted in the final years of Obamas tenure.

[How Trump is rolling back Obamas legacy]

For the Trump administration, getting the regulations back for reconsideration is also the surest way to stave off court rulings especially those from liberal-leaning benches that could hinder its ability to unwind rules adopted by the previous administration.

If the courts uphold the previous administration, you still have the discretion to change things, but youve lost the argument that you were forced to do it or that the previous administration exceeded legal bounds, said Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard University. He said that if Trump officials were confident the courts would rule against the Obama rules, you wouldnt see them trying to hold cases in abeyance.

While some presidents including Obama have used this legal tactic in the past, Trump has expanded on the strategy.

When Obama took office, his administration asked federal courts to hold in abeyance at least half a dozen cases regarding EPA regulations and permits, saying it needed more time to decide whether to defend, revoke or revise the matters.

This time, however, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is calling on courts to send back rules that he had sought to overturn while serving as Oklahomas attorney general before taking up his current post two months ago.

The Trump team is trying a shortcut, said David Doniger, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council who has been a leading defender of the Clean Power Plan. He said that because the Supreme Court has issued a stay in the power plan case, the Trump administration could effectively kill the plan with a prolonged reconsideration without going through the established guidelines for undoing a rule.

A tactic used before

But administration backers note that Democrats and Republicans alike have deployed this legal strategy.

This is actually pretty routine, Jeffrey R. Holmstead, a lawyer at the Bracewell law and lobbying firm and an EPA official under President George W. Bush, said in an email. When the Obama Administration [officials] took office, there were a number of Bush Administration rules being challenged that they didnt want to defend.

Lawyers on both sides say fundamental principles are at stake. Before Trumps election, lawyers for the states challenging the Clean Power Plan said that basic federalism meant that the federal government cannot compel states to undertake potentially costly energy programs. But lawyers for environmental groups say legislation adopted by Congress gives the federal government the power and obligation to set limits on emissions from power plants while paying attention to states rights in designing plans to carry that out.

Some liberals have used federalist arguments to block Trump initiatives, such as the Trump administrations efforts to compel cities to implement immigration laws by threatening to cut their federal funding.

In some cases, the Trump administration has made a court case moot, such as when the Justice and Education departments rescinded guidance that informed school districts that they had to accommodate students access to facilities based on their chosen gender identities.

In another case, the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on April 4 for more time to respond to a lawsuit challenging the HHS regulation on health-care providers and discrimination.

The rule reflects the previous administrations interpretation of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and was challenged by five states as well as several religious groups who said it represented federal overreach and should have included a carve-out for religiously affiliated medical providers.

A federal judge in Texas stopped two provisions of the rule, pertaining to gender identity and the termination of a pregnancy, from taking effect Jan. 1, while other aspects of it were allowed to go forward.

Certainly, asking for additional time can be a very strong signal that the administration intends to change course on the subject of litigation, said Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign. Thats very concerning to us.

The most frequent use of the strategy involves Obama-era environmental regulations.

[Trump signs order to dismantle core of Obamas environmental record]

The Clean Power Plan court battle is one of the highest-profile cases. The plan was issued by the Obama administration EPA on Aug. 3, 2015. A group of 28 states led by Pruitt sued to block the plan, and that case has been argued before a full 10-member panel of the liberal-leaning U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On Feb. 9, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a stay preventing the plan from going into effect while it makes its way through the appeals court.

Now the EPA wants the appellate court to hand the regulation back without ruling on it.

Theyve filed a motion asking the ten-judge panel to hold the case in abeyance i.e., put it in the deep freeze and thus not to issue its decision, until the Administration is done with its multi-year review and rulemaking, Doniger said. Theyre saying whatever you do, dont decide anything.

Deadlines spur action

Pressing deadlines have pushed the administration to take action.

On April 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the EPAs request to delay a long-scheduled April 19 hearing in cases challenging standards used to limit ground-level ozone, which is formed when emissions from industrial facilities and vehicles interact with sunlight and is linked to lung and heart ailments, including asthma.

We are thankful to the court for granting our motion to postpone oral argument, said EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said in an email, adding that it would allow the agency to ensure the rules broad implications ... in light of President Trumps pro-growth agenda.

The EPA has also asked a three-judge appeals court panel to hold in abeyance a challenge to the agencys rules that new power plants meet carbon dioxide emissions standards. A Trump executive order directs the EPA to rewrite that standard. Oral arguments scheduled for April 17 have been postponed.

The EPA rule designed to stop the pollution of tributaries of major rivers is in the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The Obama administration already filed a brief in the case, a roughly 170-page defense of the law and science that it said justified the rule. The case was postponed because the Supreme Court wanted to rule on a narrow jurisdictional issue. Here, too, the Trump EPA wants to review and rescind or revise the rule.

The Interior Department indicated in court filings in mid-March that it planned to withdraw a 2015 rule restricting hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands, which had been stayed in court; less than two weeks later, Trump issued an executive order calling for the rule to be rewritten.

While some departments, such as the EPA and Interior, have asked the courts to return contested rules to them so they can take a second look, others including the Labor Department, which still does not have a secretary in place have not.

Many business officials, who have challenged some of the Obama-era rules, said they support the new administration reclaiming the regulations.

If the courts rule in favor of the rule that was issued [under Obama], it would be allowed to go into effect, said Dan Bosch, senior manager of regulatory policy for the National Federation of Independent Business, in an interview.

Bosch noted that not only would his groups members have to start spending money to comply with the existing rule, but also, at that point, its a lot harder to make it go away.

David Weil, who headed the Labor Departments wage and hour division under Obama, said in an interview that he hoped the legal challenge to the federal overtime rule continued because he believed it will be upheld. That rule, which was issued last year, is subject to a nationwide injunction.

I do feel very confident in the regulation, said Weil, now a Boston University professor of management. It was a responsible use of our regulatory authority.

juliet.eilperin@washpost.com

steven.mufson@washpost.com

View post:
Trump officials turn to courts to block Obama-era legacy - Washington Post