Mediaboss Marketing

Clinton speaks with Nicholas Kristof at the Women in the World Summit on April 6th.

By Drew Angerer/Getty Images.

With Donald Trump busy spreading havoc around the worldmost recently tweeting about James Comeys testimony, or feeding into the crisis over Qatarits reasonable to ask who can be bothered to gripe about Hillary Clinton. But I can. One makes the time. Or maybe one doesnt, but in a two-party system theres only one alternative to the party of Trump, and the role of Clinton in that party is therefore important.

Lately, it has been increasing. Hillary has been making high-profile public appearances and started talking frankly about her distaste for Trump and her dismay over the people and things that cost her the election. She has even founded a PAC called Onward Together, a 501(c)(4) that will advance progressive values. Whether we like it or not, the Clintons are back in the game. Its up to the rest of us to figure out if we approve.

Just about everything we do lends itself to a generous or hostile interpretation. Our friends think we feed the poor because we have genuine compassion, and our enemies think we do so because we want to look good. The benign take on motives isnt always closest to the truth, but its the better bet. (On the occasions that Ive had an inside view of something in the glare of the press, those with the darkest take on it have usually been wrong.) Ive been tough on Chelsea Clintonhard not to bebut Hillary Clinton has a much higher accomplishment-to-self-regard ratio. So why not start generously?

Lets posit that Hillary Clinton loves America and wants the best for it, whatever the merits of her ideas. That comes out even in small ways. When Sid Blumenthal sent Hillary a strategy e-mail headed Because I like to waste my time, she responded, And because you care about our country. You may see sanctimony there, but I for one see something heartfelt. When comedian Zach Galifianakis asked her if she would flee to one of the arctics if Trump won, she responded, I would stay in the United States. I would try to prevent him from destroying the United States. As no one doubted she would. The Clintons may be slippery, but they dont flee. Theyre far likelier to go for a Yeltsin-on-the-tank moment if its offered. (Of course, in keeping with the rule of generous and hostile interpretations, some dismiss Boris Yeltsins heroism that day as grandstanding.)

Like her husband, Hillary also has a resilience that is superhuman. Most of us would find it impossible to live with special prosecutors and countless enemies plotting our downfall, but Bill and Hillary just keep going. Al Gore never seemed to recover from losing in 2000, and he went dark for a long time. But Hillary Clinton is already back in the arena and swinging fists.

In an ideal world, former candidates and presidents would maintain a dignified silence about their rivals or successors, as most past ones have done, but Donald Trump has changed cultural expectations. He observes few niceties, and he lacks restraint or dignity. Expectations of worthy behavior from Clinton under the circumstances amount to expectations of unilateral disarmament. Whats more, Clinton talks to countless people who are looking to her for resolve and encouragement and leadership. How can she let them down and go silent?

Or so one could argue.

But we cant stay friendly to Hillary forever. Theres a fine lineor maybe not even so fine a linebetween boosting morale and monopolizing the spotlight. One reason Bill Clinton was able to make a name for himself decades ago was that previous candidates had the grace to get out of the way. Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis werent trying to place themselves at center stage during the campaign of 1992. The Clintons, by contrast, kept sticking around. When it comes to power, and a few other things, they cant control their urges. As a friend of mine recently wrote to me in an e-mail, They both had to be president?

Even the name of Clintons PAC has a presumptuous ring to it. When someone has driven a bus off the road and hurled passengers out of their seats, its a bad time for the driver to stagger back to the wheel and call out Onward together! Onward, fine. Together, maybe not.

All of this would be easier to take if Hillary were on a crusade for a distinctive cause, in the manner of Bernie Sanders or Pat Buchanan or Jesse Jackson or Ross Perot. But when she offers her take on the world, she speaks in clichs and vague generalities like progress versus turning back the clock. Such teleological smugness (to which Barack Obama was likewise prone) doesnt just attract the ire of conservatives; liberals can get miffed, too. Is progress on the side of expanding NATO or the opposite? Is it on the side of greater National Security Agency surveillance or of less? Is it in favor of immigration amnesty or high-tech border security? We all want to move forward, but maybe were not all facing Hillarys way.

Even without a clear cause to illuminate them, Hillarys beliefs could have been sharpened a lot just by explaining what, in hindsight, she felt Bill got right or wrong in his presidency. But she never offered up such a critique, nor, oddly, did anyone really press her to do so. Throwing open our markets to China as much as we didthat looked wiser back then. So did deregulating the financial industry. So did pushing for three-strikes laws. So did the bailout of Mexico. So did focusing on deficit reduction. So did high levels of immigration. So did humanitarian interventions in the former Yugoslavia. So did welfare reform. Bills calls, like all big calls, were controversial, but they were far more justifiable in light of the data we had at the time. But what about with the data we have now?

Negotiating a different landscape requires the Democratic Party to return to some basic questions. Times have changed. America is no longer a lone hyperpower triumphing amid squabbles about same-sex marriage. Were an overstretched empire fighting about fundamental questions of economy and national identity. The Clintons see that, sort of, but theyre stuck in time. Worse, their network, which is vast and powerful and heavily dependent on them, is stuck in time, too. Precisely when those on the left ought to be negotiating todays fault lines and creating new coalitions, Democrats are getting dragged back into last years fights and letting personal loyalties drown out thoughts about core principles. The indefatigability of the Clintons isnt just a nuisance but a hindrance.

We cant expect them to accept this, of course. Psychologist Martin Seligman, author of Learned Optimism, has famously observed that optimists tend to do better in life but exhibit more delusion. They tend to attribute failure to changing external factors rather than enduring internal qualities, blaming outside causes, not themselves. Hillarywho has been pinning her defeat on Comey and Vladimir Putin and the Democratic National Committee and Wikileaks and a thousand Russian agents and high expectations and the press and sexism and voter suppression and, for all I know, static clingis a major optimist. Thats great for persistence and mental well-being. Shes ready to keep driving the bus. But its not so great for knowing when to quit. Thats where the passengers come in.

PreviousNext

Photograph by Justin Bishop.

Photograph by Justin Bishop.

Photograph by Justin Bishop.

Photograph by Justin Bishop.

Photograph by Justin Bishop.

Photograph by Justin Bishop.

Photograph by Justin Bishop.

Photograph by Justin Bishop.

Photograph by Justin Bishop.

Photograph by Justin Bishop.

Photograph by Justin Bishop.

Photograph by Justin Bishop.

The rest is here:
Can Hillary Clinton Please Go Quietly into the Night? - Vanity Fair

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff June 9, 2017 4:12 pm

Washington Free Beacon contributing editor Daniel Halper on Friday joined Fox Business host Neil Cavuto todiscuss the media's lack ofcoverage of former FBI Director James Comey's testimony about Loretta Lynch, who served as attorney general during the Obama administration.

The conversation touched on Bill Clinton's private tarmac meeting with Lynch last Julyin the midst of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, leading Halper to say that the42nd president could "easily" be blamed for his wife's election loss in November.

Cavutobegan the segment by playing a clip of Comey testifying Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee onhis conversations with Lynch.

"We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to have to testify and talk publicly about it," Comey said, referring to the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. "And I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation?"

"And she said, Yes, but don't call it that; call it a matter,'" Comey continued. "And I said, Why would I do that?' And she said, Just call it a matter.'"

Halper said that Lynch's conversation was an "astonishing revelation" and that the Obama administration got off with little to no criticism.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, " Halper said. "In fact, Hillary Clinton was a cabinet official when she was using the emails, so the whole thing sort ofbecause she was a candidate, the criticism landed on her squarely, but really it should have landed on [Barack Obama] himself for allowing a cabinet member to do and conduct such conduct."

Cavuto asked what the Obama administration's role was in the Russia investigation and the Clinton email probe.

"It seems like you could blame President Obama for nothandling the Russia thing correctly to begin with, not putting attention on it, not condemning it initially and sort of just letting it simmer."

Halper then said that Bill Clinton could also be blamed for Clinton's election loss last year because "Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac."

"They like to blame Comey for the loss, but you could easily blame Bill Clinton for the loss if you're going to go down that road, because Bill Clinton put himself in that position with Lynch," Halper said.

"I think you could squarely blame Obama for Hillary Clintonlosing or Bill Clinton for Hillary Clinton losing very, very convincingly, or at least just as convincingly you couldyou know, all the other factors that Hillary Clinton has found to blame," Halper said.

View post:
Halper: Bill Clinton Could 'Easily' Be Blamed for Hillary Clinton's Election Loss - Washington Free Beacon

36

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

As we know all too well, the internet is not a friendly place for women," Clinton wrote.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Lauren Duca accepts an award on stage at the The 9th Annual Shorty Awards on April 23, 2017 in New York City.(Photo: Dave Kotinsky, Getty Images for Shorty Awards)

Journalist Lauren Duca received aletter from an unlikely reader whoencouragedthe writerto continuewriting and said, Your voice is so important.

Who was that reader?Hillary Clinton.

As we know all too well, the internet is not a friendly place for women, especially those who arent afraid to speak their minds and challenge established systems of power, Clinton wrote.

Duca, who made headlines last year for writing a Teen Vogue opinion piece that said then-President-elect Trump was gaslighting America,on Fridaypostedthe letter on Twitter, thanking the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee for her words.

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

She also noted her mother had been sitting on the letter for a month before sending it to her.

In December,Teen Vogueran Duca's piece that argued Trump was gaslighting America, actively manipulatingpeople to the point where they question their own sanity. The fiery opinion piece received widespread attention, leadingDuca tosparwith Fox News Tucker Carlson about her story and coverage of Donald Trump and first daughter Ivanka Trump.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2sM84Z0

Read the original:
Journalist gets letter of support from Hillary Clinton: 'Your voice is so important' - USA TODAY

Getty Images

BY: Paul Crookston June 8, 2017 8:02 pm

Hillary Clinton went against the advice of security experts by continuing to use an unsecured BlackBerry smartphone while serving as secretary of state, new documents reveal.

Clinton was made aware that "unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerablein any setting," but nevertheless persisted in using her phone, Judicial Watch reported Thursday. The conservative watchdog group obtained an email in which Clinton spoke openly about retaining her phone contrary to counsel.

"Against the advice of the security hawks, I still do carry my berry but am prohibited from using it in my office, where I spend most of my time when I'm not on a plane or in a no coverage' country," Clinton wrote in an email.

Judicial Watch submitted the email record as evidence to the U.S. District Court. The organization obtained the record through a court order as part of the ongoing case Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of State.

Judicial Watch has now counted 433 pertinent emails that Clinton did not provide to the State Department. Clinton had said in sworn declaration that she believed that she had turned over all emails that could have been "federal records."

"Mrs. Clinton seemingly ignored the advice of security hawks' and violated numerous laws related to the handling of classified material and government documents," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. "The State Department sat on this document for 18 months.It is a smoking gun that shows why she must beheld accountable under criminal and civil law."

Clinton's personal "clintonemail.com" system was at the center of the FBI investigation into her potential mishandling of classified information. Judicial Watch has submitted an interrogatory into why she continued using a BlackBerry phone after she was advised not to do so.

Read the original post:
New Documents: Hillary Clinton Ignored 'Security Hawks' to Use 'Highly Vulnerable' BlackBerry - Washington Free Beacon

Is Hillary Clinton on the verge of a meltdown?

On the heels of reports that many Democrats arent exactly thrilled with the idea of her running for president again, the former First Lady last week launched a bizarre attack on the Democratic National Committee, suggesting that it had sabotaged her 2016 campaign by failing to set up a top-notch data operation to help her identify and trackkey voter groups, especially in the swing states.

Clinton claimed that the DNC data operation was so inept and underfunded, that she had to contribute her own campaign money just to keep it going.

Its only the latest excuse that Clinton has invented to try to explain how she got beaten last fall, and its left many Democrats apoplectic.

Fucking bullshit, is how Andrew Therriault, the former director of DNC data operations, reacted in a tweet after learning of Clintons comments. In fact, there was plenty of data available showing that none of the key Rust Belt States she ended up losing, including Pennsylvania and Michigan were safe but Clintons campaign simply ignored that data on the assumption that they knew the landscape better, he noted.

Clintons comments come after news reports have circulated that many Democrats are growing leery of Clintons recent efforts to declare herself the leader of the resistance to Trumps presidency.

In a press conference several weeks ago, Clinton described her plans to gin up grassroots protest against Trump domestic and foreign policies. Many analysts saw it as a transparent attempt to boost her prospects for yet another bid for the Democratic Party nomination in 2020.

Clinton, though widely criticized for two disastrous White House bids in 2008 and 2006, seems desperate to get back in the political game by any means possible.

Back in February, her allies floated the idea that she might run for Mayor of New York. The current Democratic mayor, Bill De Blasio, was seen as facing tough re-election prospects due to a corruption scandal.

But a poll taken among New Yorkers found overwhelming opposition to the idea. And DeBlasio no longer appears so vulnerable.

The DNCs Therriault has deleted his angry tweets about Clinton but other Democrats close to the DNC have begun weighing in.

Most have indirectly supported Therriault noting that the DNC data operation helped power Democrats to a razor-thin victory in the governors race in North Carolina last November.

In an interview with the Hill newspaper, Tom Bonier, the CEO of TargetSmart, a data firm that works with many Democratic clients, defended the DNCs 2016 efforts as the most robust data operation the DNC has ever seen.

Bonier also noted in a series of tweets that, the Clinton team was using DNC data throughout the primary. If it was that bad, they knew that for two years but did nothing.

Much of the DNCs data operation traces its root to Barack Obamas two successful presidential campaigns. Obama pioneered methods of organizing campaign volunteers and of identifying voter niches by election district that vastly overshadowed the GOPs own field operation. These advanced techniques supported by social media were widely credited with having propelled Obama over John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012

Clinton was supposed to have inherited these methods and some of the personnel that proved so instrumental to Obama. Any many Democrats hoped that inheritance would allow Clinton to overcome the kind of clunky and disorganized field operations that doomed her own campaign in 2008.

But party insiders say that it was hard to teach the old Clinton dog new Obama tricks.

The data are merely the raw ingredients, argues John Hanger a Democratic campaign consultant. [Its] the chef that decides what to do with them.

And the chef, Clintons campaign team, was simply not up to the job.

Few Democratic officials seem willing to speak out publicly against a third Clinton bid for the presidency. The DNCs recently elected chair, Tom Perez, is a staunch Clinton loyalist. He was rumored to have been one of two Hispanic candidates to be vetted as her possible running mate in 2016.

When asked directly, Perez and others, including Clintons former campaign manager Robby Mook, seem to welcome the idea of her running again.

But Clintons comments and her public demeanor are beginning to raise eyebrows.

During her recent Wellesley commencement address she broke into a prolonged coughing fit much like previous ones that have raised concerns about the state of her health and her ability to survive the stresses of the presidency were she to be elected. And just as baffling was her dress. Wearing a black beret, Clinton seemed to be channeling the ghost of Monica Lewinsky, the former white House intern whose affair with Bill Clinton led to his impeachment in the House, and which tarnished the campaign of his chosen successor, Al Gore.

Lewinsky was notorious for wearing a nearly identical black beret during her many appearances at campaign events where she often hugged the former president.

Clinton, of course, once famously dismissed Lewinsky as a narcissistic loony-toon.

But some of the former First Ladys angry and disappointed critics whove grown tired of her non-stop grandstanding and finger-pointing are beginning to wonder if shes suffering from a similar syndrome

See original here:
Hillary Clinton's Latest Excuse For Losing Has Some Dems Questioning Her Mental Health - The Daily Caller