Mediaboss Marketing

It seems that Hillary Clinton is following in her nephew's footsteps as a model. The former presidential candidate has been spotted modeling a pair of pink heels from pop superstar Katy Perry's new shoeline.

According to the Katy Perry Collection website, the shoe Clinton is wearing is a suede pump with a 3.5-inch heel with sparkling stars and moons inside.The heel aptly named 'The Hillary' comes in a seafoam green, and a trendy millennial pink which Clinton can be seen graciously modeling on Instagram.

The shoe is definitely fitting for a strong lady like Clinton who reached for the stars last year during her presidential campaign. Although the outcome didn't quite turn out as expected, Clinton set a precedent for future women to continue breaking through the 'glass ceiling.'

(Screenshot: Katy Perry Collections)

It should come to no surprise that Clinton chose to wear Perry's heel considering the two women actually have a pretty solid relationship. Not only do the duo share the same birthday, but the singerendorsed the former presidential candidate during her campaign.

Clinton is really well-known for her fabulous array of pantsuits, all in different colors. What many may not know is that Clinton's sense of style is a statement pink heels and all.

Clinton' wardrobe falls under a specific fashion style born in the late 70s known aspower dressing. The style helps empower women to establish their authority in professional and political settings that are normally dominated by men.

Former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was one of the first women to incorporate a black "power suit" in order to present a professional, yet commanding persona. Claiming that her style was "never flashy, just appropriate," Thatcher was at the forefront of the style that forced mento take women in the workforce seriously.

Since then, the style has gone through different stages of evolution. Women like Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton are considered to be new faces of the fashion style since they incorporated dresses, gowns, and most importantly, bright colors.

During an interview withTelegraph, Nina McLemore, the designer behind Clinton's pantsuits explained that Clinton's wardrobe is inspired by the power dressing style.

McLemore is a firm believer that someone's confidence level can be linked to their appearance and sense of style. She said:

"Women from a very early stage in their careers need to think about dressing to succeed. Dressing in a way that the people in power see you as someone who is serious about her career and wants to be sitting at that top table.

It means the clothes you wear also can send that message of 'Im a positive person which is much more challenging for men in grey suits to project, short of resorting to a novelty tie."

The colors of Clinton's pantsuits also play a strong role in the powerful image she projects. McLemore, the designer behind Clinton's pantsuits explained why she chooses such vibrant colors. She said:

"Color can change your attractiveness entirely and how people see you. What a woman wants is skin that has a pink touch to it, not grey or yellow which is what black does.

I've given many talks to law and accounting firms. I walk in and 70-80% of the people are in black, so of course they don't stand out."

While Clinton's pantsuits help project a powerful and professional image, the pink heels are the icing on the cake.

The millennial pink shoethat Perry describes as a "Power Pump," has not only been trending for quite some time, but it also pushes the definition of power dressing.

Millennial pink first showed up in 2012 as a toned-down, pastel Barbie Pink. The term was coined in 2016 since the color was beginning to overtake the closets of many millennial women.

Since then, the colorhas been seen in different ad campaigns, makeup, and hairstyles.

Pink is often seen as a feminine color (although that wasn't always the case). By wearing and promoting this particular color and shoe, both Perry and Clinton two powerful women in their respective careers are essentially giving femininity some amazing girl power.

This is further supported by Perry'sown personal hyper-feminine and tongue-in-cheek style which inspired her entire show collection. When someone puts on one of her shoes, Perry wants them to feel just as frilly yetempowered as she does when she dresses up.

According to the website:

"Katy Perry's vision, eye for detail and cheeky spirit give her footwear collection a distinct personality. Inspired by Katy's travels, humor and extraordinary imagination, the footwear reflect her whimsical approach towards life."

If you want to get Clinton's heels, or perhaps something a little different that stays true toPerry's style, definitely be sure to check out the collection.

Read More ->Starbucks Adds The Sensational 'Pink Drink' To Its Official Menu

More here:
Hillary Clinton's Millennial Pink Heel & The Art Of Power Dressing - Konbini US

It is difficult to tally how many conversations I have had with someone making extreme, paranoid and hateful remarks about Hillary Clinton. Often the accusers eyes open wide, spittle begins to form at the corner of his lips, and he declares that the worlds greatest monster is the former senator and secretary of state.

Once in a bar, two acquaintances rambled at torturous length about the email scandal. They had no clue what the then-presidential candidate had plotted with her private server, but they knew it was diabolical. No evidence is necessary if the suspect is Hillary Clinton a villain who rivals Professor Moriarty and Saddam Hussein.

My simple questions regarding Clintons exoneration bythe Justice Department, internal State Department review and FBI report made it painfully clear that if these two men were not obsessed with a minor email storage procedure, they would find another reason to cast Clinton into the fires of hell. First on the fringes of the right wing and eventually the general population, Americanssince the early 1990s have condemned the woman for unprovableoffense uponunverifiable innuendo. It is likely that no modern public figure has faced greater hostility, slander and scrutiny.

A close friend of mine, whomI immensely admire, enthusiastically supported Sen. Bernie Sanders in the presidential primary, but was reticent to vote for Clinton. She is deceitful by default, he said. The problem with adopting an absolute position is that it creates circular logic. If Hillary Clinton is incapable of telling the truth, then every statement she utters is a lie. The axiom eliminates the need for investigation of thoughtful evaluation. The case is closed before it opens.

Susan Bordo, a Pulitzer Prize nominee and feminist literary critic, interrogates the American media and political discourse in her new book, The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, with the hope of discovering how and why the flawed but largely noble political figure became the subject of such widespread scorn that survey respondents have consistently found her less trustworthy than her 2016 opponent, Donald Trump, a compulsive liar and snake oil-soaked con man.

The result is an important but incomplete examination of the strange political life of Hillary Clinton. Bordo has provided an interpretively annotated campaign narrative, re-creating the horror show of 2016 almost week by week. Due to no fault of Bordo, who writes in an accessible and enjoyable style,the reading experience is as sickening as ingesting medicine meant to induce vomiting because we know how awfully the story ends.

Bordo sharpens her focus most clearly and closely on sexism, exposing how gender stereotypes, misogynistic assumptions and chauvinistic typecasting have made it nearly impossible for Clinton or her supporters to influence, much less control, public perceptions about her ideology and candidacy.

In the 1990s, Bordo reminds readers, commentators objected to Clinton, calling her Lady Macbeth of Little Rock and an aspiring philosopher queen. Critics abhorred her radical feminism, believing she was an unsympathetic moralist. In 2016 she was cartoonishly amoral. Forthe far left or hard right, she didnt seem to possess any redeeming virtues and appeared to be a self-serving elitist who counted Clinton cash, to quote the title of a best-selling book, while watching Americans die in Benghazi and her Wall Street friends liquidate middle class wealth.

Millions of Americans also believe without awareness of cognitive dissonance, Clinton is a master manipulator of the political pair of aces the womans card and victim card andsimultaneously an enabler of her husbands adulterous affairs.

The incoherence of Clinton hatred becomes more decipherable when Bordo cites polling data demonstrating that in 2015 Americans routinely ranked least trustworthy alongside Clinton, Carly Fiorina an obscure Republican candidate with no prior experience in politics. A recent poll, not yet available when Bordo took to writing, has showedthat any Democrat but Elizabeth Warren would currently defeat Donald Trump in an election. Can anyone guess what Clinton, Fiorina and Warren have in common?

Bordo explores familiar territory when she illustrates her feminist thesis with powerful examples aboutmisperception. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both appeared as if their jugulars would explode mid-speech as they bellowed at rallies, their faces turning red, but only Clinton faced relentless mockery and criticism for her shrill and loud delivery.

Many Americans, committed to nothing but blindness, still insist that sexism played no role in the outcome of the 2016 presidential race. Thats even with the knowledge that 13women accused Donald Trump of sexual harassment and assault, after leaked footage of his boastsof similar criminal behavior, failed to resonate with the same power as questions surrounding Clintons email decisions and habits as secretary of state.

Bordo deftly handles the email issue to cast her story with identifiable culprits responsible for the destruction of Hillary Clinton. James Comey, a chronic abuser of his power and the hideously perfect personification of the FBIs right-wing culture, is the head snake, but there are other important characters slithering around the wreckage.

Bernie Sanders, the progressive revivalist and faith healer, began his campaign with the famous exhortation, Enough with the damn emails, but soon began castigating Clinton as a counterfeit progressive firmly resting underneath a manhole of Wall Street. With clever, roundabout phrasing, he would find a way to pair the word integrity with the email triviality and to reference the popular classification of Clinton as lesser of two evils. The Sanders doctrine, assigning authenticity to him alone, was not something his religiously fervent supporters would soon forget. It did not help that, for reasons of ego or something else as yet unexplained, Sanders stayed in the race long after it was all but impossible for him to win.

Various members of the media contributed to the destruction. Bordo makes the most of a Harvard University study of the primary showing that even aside from the email scandal, 84 percent of the television news coverage of the Clinton campaign was negative, compared with43 percent for Trumps and 17 percent for Sanders.

The avalanche of attacks on Clinton followed the mass medias fixation on, what Daniel Boorstin, called pseudo-events. A pseudo-event, Bordo writes, is something that acquires authority not because it is accurate, but simply because the media has reported it, repeated, exaggerated it, replayed it, and made a mantra of it.

The most absurd pseudo-event, among many possibilities, was the serious discussion regarding Clintons health after she almost collapsed during a spell with pneumonia. Speculation that Clinton was near death dominated social media, while media outlets asked what Clinton was hiding. As of the time of this writing, Hillary Clinton is still alive.

The existence of Hillary Clinton is objectionable to many Americans. In a strange and self-serving review of The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, Sarah Jones, the social media editor at the New Republic, accuses Susan Borno of canonizing and infantilizing Clinton before mawkishly defending millennials who refused to support the Democratic nominee for president.

Jones is correct that Bordo undermines her credibility by entirely ignoring the failures, errors and injurious decisions of the Clinton campaign, but the crucial choice is one of emphasis. In telling the story of Donald Trumps defeat of Hillary Clinton, and in attempting to explain an outspoken buffoon and bigots rise to the office of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy, is it really best to focus on how Clinton should have spent more time in Wisconsin? Jones actually devotes attention tohow Clinton supported raising the minimum wage to $12, while Sanders went for the full $15. The $3 difference will surely comfort elderly people, who mayno longer receive Meal on Wheels services, and the poor teenagers who, thanks to Trump,may not be able toapply for Pell grants for college.

It is on the matter of accountability for the suicidal populism of the American people that Bordo also fails.The entire time I spent reading The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, I kept asking, but why? Why did so many people especially men believe all the smears and fall for all the tricks against Clinton? The power of propaganda is awe-inspiring, and the influence of the mediocre mass media is immeasurable, but there are flaws of character and intelligence among large swaths of the general publicrendering people susceptible to the allure of pseudo-event reporting.

Gore Vidal recalled a private conversation he had with Hillary Clinton whenhe asked her why so many people, especially the most ignorant of the population, to use his words, straight white men, hate her. She laughed, and with a jocular delivery answered, I remind them of their ex-wives. Vidal added that Clinton has a sardonic sense of humor much too witty and sharp for the American people.

Bordo approaches Vidals depth of insight when she wonders if the young women who despise Clinton do so because she reminds them of their mothers. Bordotosses out this gem and pulls it back after only a paragraph, like a rock band playing a few seconds of a classic riff only to abandon the song altogether.

It is easy to undress Comey for his obvious and odious misdeeds, just as it is straightforward business to ridicule the mainstream television media for sexist reportage. The real task awaiting the bold writer is to inspect a large percentage of the American people for the deformities and defects of intellect that would allow them to select Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. In this same population, large numbers disbelieve evolutionary biology but support the torture of terrorismsuspects.

During one of my conversations with a rabid opponent of Lucifer I mean, Hillary I noticed that he used the exact same language to bash and brand the politician as he did to insult his wife. I told him I was appalled by the language he used to describe his spouse, but never followed up on the Clinton connection.

I have a feeling that the real story behind the destruction of Hillary Clinton is visible at that intersection.

Visit link:
Hillary hatred, exposed: What drives America's never-ending case against Clinton - Salon

As fate would have it, Hillary Clinton spoke at last month's Hillary Rodham Clinton Awards for Advancing Women in Peace and Security, where she emphasized the importance of peace, of women and of women in peace.

"When women participate in peacekeeping peacemaking we are all safer and more secure," said Ms. Clinton, who boasted of "evidence-based" research that backs up this claim.

And she's right. Including women in the peacemaking process is often a valuable way of securing peace in war-torn countries.

But she also got in what was seen as a partisan shot at the Trump administration. At one point she began a sentence by saying, "Studies show ..." and then interrupted herself: "Here I go again talking about research, evidence and facts."

The crowd laughed, cheered and loudly applauded for a while, proving that there's nothing like working out your best material with a friendly audience. Ms. Clinton laughed at her supposedly very funny joke, too.

She also said, "Before anybody jumps to any conclusions, I will state clearly: Women are not inherently more peaceful than men. That is a stereotype. That belongs in the alternative reality."

Again, if you don't get the joke, the reference to "alternative reality" is apparently a jab at Kellyanne Conway, who once said something silly about "alternative facts."

But here's what I think is funny: Ms. Clinton's wrong. She's the one peddling an alternative reality.

Yeah, there's a stereotype that women are inherently more peaceful than men but, as a generalization (which is what stereotypes are) it's true.

This is an evidence-based conclusion backed by a great many studies.

In 2015, according to the FBI, 7,549 men were arrested for murder and non-negligent manslaughter. Only 984 women were. Men were four times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes and 10 times more likely to be arrested for illegal possession of a weapon.

It's not just in America. Disproportionate male aggression is a human universal, appearing all over the world and across thousands of years. "In almost every society men are the ones who are overwhelmingly involved in wars, in all kinds of intergroup aggressions and intragroup homicide," writes Dorian Fortuna at Psychology Today. Men "mobilize themselves in armies of violent fans, in criminal gangs, in bands of thugs, etc. These observations are as old as the world and have allowed us to create a clear distinction between male and female sexes regarding their predisposition to violence."

"Throughout history," reports The Economist magazine, "men have killed men roughly 97 times more often than women have killed women."

The male inclination for violence has a lot to do with testosterone, which is most plentiful in young men who, in their natural habitat, fought other males to impress women. (You can head down to Fort Lauderdale during Spring Break to document this phenomenon yourself.)

Steven Pinker writes in "The Better Angels of Our Nature," his sweeping history of violence, that "to the extent that the problem of violence is a problem of young, unmarried, lawless men competing for dominance, whether directly or on behalf of a leader, then violence really is a problem of there being too much testosterone in the world."

Interestingly, one of the things that is most likely to make men less violent is getting married, proving that Ms. Clinton is right when she says that women have a pacifying effect. What public policies should flow from all this is a topic for another day.

What's annoying about Ms. Clinton's cheap partisan preening isn't simply that she's wrong (and I suspect she knows it). It's that she is perpetuating an infuriating tendency of liberals today to claim science is always on their side.

There's a decidedly undemocratic flavor to this kind of argument. Patrick Moynihan famously said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. Liberals want to turn that on its head and claim that their opinions are facts and anyone who disagrees isn't merely voicing a bad opinion but it somehow living in alternative reality or "denying" science. It's the secular version of claiming that God is on your side.

Ms. Clinton is peddling stale, corporate feminism as settled science in part because she's pandering to a friendly audience, but also because she's too lazy to shed her own alternate reality.

Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review. His email is goldbergcolumn@gmail.com. Twitter: @JonahNRO.

Continued here:
Hillary Clinton's alternative facts - Baltimore Sun

New York Times

Hillary Clinton's Loss New York Times It's sad to read that Hillary Clinton is still blaming others for her loss five months after the presidential election. She cited misogyny, release of her campaign emails and the F.B.I. investigation into the use of her private email server as among ... Hillary Clintons Back, and Shes Speaking for the MajorityDaily Beast Powers: Hillary Clinton Blames Everybody But Herself For LossRealClearPolitics Flashing Back to 2015 and Hillary Clinton's Presidential AnnouncementNewsweek Washington Times -The Hill -POLITICO Magazine all 137 news articles »

Read the original here:
Hillary Clinton's Loss - New York Times

Hillary Clinton pauses during an interview with Nicholas Kristof at the Women in the World Summit on April 6 in New York. Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Every day, the incoherence deepens: Hes going to cover everyone, but hes going to push 24 million people off their health insurance. Hes going to wipe out the debt, but his tax cuts and spending spree will add trillions to it. Hes never going to intervene in Syria, but he just did. Hes going to get Mexico to pay for a big, beautiful wall, but he isnt. China is a currency manipulator, but it isnt. The media is the enemy of the people, but he is on the phone with them every five minutes and cant stop watching CNN and reading the New York Times. Hes going to be a tightwad with taxpayers money, unlike Obama, but his personal travel expenses are on track to be eight times more than his predecessors. Hes going to work relentlessly for the American people but he spends half his days watching cable news. Weve got to be very, very tough in foreign affairs, but when he sees dead babies on TV, he immediately calls General Mattis and lobs 59 Tomahawk missiles. He has a secret plan to defeat ISIS, but pursues Obamas strategy instead. He is for the forgotten men and women of America, but his tax plan which is itself changing all the time benefits the superrich and depends on removing health insurance for the working poor. He wants to be friends with Russia, but he doesnt. Hes going to challenge Chinas policy on Taiwan, but he isnt. He is against crony capitalism, but he is for it. Hes going to keep the focus on America, but just upped the ante in Yemen and Afghanistan. Hes a deal-maker, but he cannot make deals even with his own party. Hes a great manager, but his White House is consumed with in-fighting and he cannot staff his own administration. Hes a populist who stacks his cabinet with Goldman Sachs alums. Hes going to pressure China to take on North Korea, but after listening for ten minutes to Chinas dictator, he changes his mind.

I could go on. You can try to argue that Trump has simply pivoted to the center, like so many other presidents before him. But the statements he has made in just the last six months, and the policies he has pursued for the last three, have gyrated so wildly, have so little consistency, and make so little sense that there is no assurance that in another three months, he wont be back where he started, or somewhere even more clusterfucked.

What on earth is the point of trying to understand him when there is nothing to understand? Calling him a liar is true enough, but liars have some cognitive grip on reality, and he doesnt. Liars remember what they have said before. His brain is a neural Etch A Sketch. He doesnt speak, we realize; he emits random noises. He refuses to take responsibility for anything. He can accuse his predecessor and Obamas national security adviser of crimes, and provide no evidence for either. He has no strategy beyond the next 24 hours, no guiding philosophy, no politics, no consistency at all just whatever makes him feel good about himself this second. He therefore believes whatever bizarre nonfact he can instantly cook up in his addled head, or whatever the last person who spoke to him said. He makes Chauncey Gardiner look like Abraham Lincoln. Occams razor points us to the obvious: He has absolutely no idea what hes doing. Which is reassuring and still terrifying all at once.

Ive done what I could in this space to avoid the subject of Hillary Clinton. I dont want to be the perennial turd in the punchbowl. Id hoped wed finally seen the last of that name in public life its been a long quarter of a century and that we could all move on. Alas, no. Her daughter (angels and ministers of grace defend us) seems to be positioning herself for a political career. And Clinton herself duly emerged last week for a fawning, rapturous reception at the Women in the World conference in New York City. It simply amazes me the hold this family still has on the Democratic Party and on liberals in general. The most popular question that came from interviewer Nick Kristofs social-media outreach, for example, was: Are you doing okay? Heres Michelle Goldberg: I find myself wondering at odd times of the day and night: How is Hillary? Is she going to be all right? Seriously, can you imagine anyone wondering the same after Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis or John Kerry blew elections?

And everywhere you see not an excoriation of one of the worst campaigns in recent history, leading to the Trump nightmare, but an attempt to blame anyone or anything but Clinton herself for the epic fail. It wasnt Clintons fault, were told. It never is. It was the voters those ungrateful, deplorable know-nothings! Their sexism defeated her (despite a majority of white women voting for Trump). A wave of misogyny defeated her (ditto). James Comey is to blame. Bernie Sanderss campaign because it highlighted her enmeshment with Wall Street, her brain-dead interventionism and her rapacious money-grubbing since she left the State Department was the problem. Millennial feminists were guilty as well, for not seeing what an amazing crusader for their cause this candidate was. And this, of course, is how Clinton sees it as well: She wasnt responsible for her own campaign her staffers were. As a new book on her campaign notes, after Clinton lost the Michigan primary to Sanders, The blame belonged to her campaign team, she believed, for failing to hone her message, energize important constituencies, and take care of business in getting voters to the polls. So by the time the general-election campaign came round, theyd fix that and win Michigan, right?

Let us review the facts: Clinton had the backing of the entire Democratic establishment, including the president (his biggest mistake in eight years by far), and was even married to the last, popular Democratic president. As in 2008, when she managed to lose to a neophyte whose middle name was Hussein, everything was stacked in her favor. In fact, the Clintons so intimidated other potential candidates and donors, she had the nomination all but wrapped up before she even started. And yet she was so bad a candidate, she still only managed to squeak through in the primaries against an elderly, stopped-clock socialist who wasnt even in her party, and who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. She ran with a popular Democratic incumbent president in the White House in a growing economy. She had the extra allure of possibly breaking a glass ceiling that with any other female candidate would have been as inspiring as the election of the first black president. In the general election, she was running against a malevolent buffoon with no political experience, with a deeply divided party behind him, and whose negatives were stratospheric. She outspent him by almost two-to-one. Her convention was far more impressive than his. The demographics favored her. And yet she still managed to lose!

But but but her deluded fans insist, she won the popular vote! But thats precisely my point. Any candidate who can win the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and still manage to lose the Electoral College by 304 to 227 is so profoundly incompetent, so miserably useless as a politician, she should be drummed out of the party under a welter of derision. Compare her electoral college result with Al Gores, who also won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College: 271 to 266. For that matter, compare hers with John Kerrys, who lost the popular vote by 1.5 percent 286 to 241. She couldnt even find a halfway-decent speechwriter for her convention speech. The week before the election, she was campaigning in Arizona, for Petes sake. And she took off chunks of the summer, fundraising (at one point, in the swing states of Fire Island and Provincetown). Whenever she gave a speech, you could hear the air sucking out of the room minutes after she started. In the middle of an election campaign, she dismissed half of the Republican voters as deplorable. She lost Wisconsin, which she didnt visit once. I could go on.

And so I find myself wondering at odd times of the day and night: Why is Trump in the White House? And then I remember. Hillary Clinton put him there.

*

Do you know the real reason Dr. Dao was so brutally tackled and thrown off that United flight? It was all about white supremacy. I mean, what isnt these days? That idea is from the New Republic. Yes, the cops seemed to be African-American, as the author concedes, so the white-versus-minority paradigm is a little off. Yes, this has happened before to many people with no discernible racial or gender pattern. Yes, there is an obvious alternative explanation: The seats from which passengers were forcibly removed were randomly assigned. New York published a similar piece, which argued that the incident was just another example of Trumps border-and-immigration-enforcement policies toward suspected illegal immigrants of color. That no federal cops were involved and there is no actual evidence at all of police harassment of Asian-Americans is irrelevant its all racism, all the time, everywhere in everything.

Its easy to mock this reductionism, I know, but it reflects something a little deeper. Asian-Americans, like Jews, are indeed a problem for the social-justice brigade. I mean, how on earth have both ethnic groups done so well in such a profoundly racist society? How have bigoted white people allowed these minorities to do so well even to the point of earning more, on average, than whites? Asian-Americans, for example, have been subject to some of the most brutal oppression, racial hatred, and open discrimination over the years. In the late 19th century, as most worked in hard labor, they were subject to lynchings and violence across the American West and laws that prohibited their employment. They were banned from immigrating to the U.S. in 1924. Japanese-American citizens were forced into internment camps during the Second World War, and subjected to hideous, racist propaganda after Pearl Harbor. Yet, today, Asian-Americans are among the most prosperous, well-educated, and successful ethnic groups in America. What gives? It couldnt possibly be that they maintained solid two-parent family structures, had social networks that looked after one another, placed enormous emphasis on education and hard work, and thereby turned false, negative stereotypes into true, positive ones, could it? It couldnt be that all whites are not racists or that the American dream still lives?

What the San Bernardino Shooters Facebook Page Reveals About Domestic Violence

Trump Gleefully Recalls the Beautiful Chocolate Cake He Ate While Bombing Syria

Bill OReilly Is Going on Vacation. Will His Show Return?

Sheila Abdus-Salaam, First African-American Judge in New Yorks Top Court, Found Dead in Hudson River

Democrats turned the tables on Trump by making continuation of Obamacare insurer subsidies a must-pass item in must-pass spending legislation.

The developer, who calls himself the Turkish Trump, said hell work with a different hotel company.

[T]hose tweetstorms and Facebook posts causes millions of people to tune in.

How the party learned that the only thing it really disliked about Dubya was his inclusiveness.

Rather than blaming her for running an abysmal campaign and putting Trump in the White House.

While he once promoted hacked DNC emails, now he thinks WikiLeaks is a non-state hostile intelligence service abetted by the likes of Russia.

Officials pushed back on a report that said the U.S. is considering a preemptive strike, but its unclear how Trump might respond.

The Trump administration wants to know if there are any federal agencies Americans think are unnecessary and they mean any agency.

H.R. McMaster is reportedly pressing his colleagues to consider sending up to 50,000 ground troops to fight ISIS.

The proposal fulfills a Justin Trudeau campaign promise.

There hasnt ever been anything like it in Georgia politics, with $14 million spent so far $5 million by Jon Ossoff.

The 22,000-pound bomb was dropped on ISIS tunnels in Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia is engineering a famine in Yemen with our governments help. We could stop them right now if we wanted to.

The bill barely passed in the Senate last month.

The most effective check on President Trumps worst instincts may be his familys desire to subordinate public policy to the needs of their brand.

The strike was supposed to be on ISIS forces, but it hit fighters from the Syrian Democratic Forces instead.

The United Airlines incident occurred within a disturbing context of increased hate directed at Asian-Americans.

The airline is doing everything it can to engender some good will.

I dont want people to get hurt, but he will kill Obamacare, threatens president.

The man who oversaw the bailout in 2008 is not optimistic about the banking industry under President Donald Trump.

Original post:
Why Do Democrats Feel Sorry for Hillary Clinton? - New York Magazine