Mediaboss Marketing

EW.com

Samantha Bee to Hillary Clinton: 'It should have been you' EW.com As Donald Trump approaches his 100th day as president, Samantha Bee is more convinced than ever that Hillary Clinton should be the one sitting in the Oval Office. The Full Frontal host saluted the former senator and secretary of state Wednesday while ... Nicola Sturgeon poses with beaten presidential candidate Hillary Clinton after the pair met in USThe Scottish Sun all 34 news articles »

See more here:
Samantha Bee to Hillary Clinton: 'It should have been you' - EW.com

Mark Kennedy, Ap Entertainment Writer

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reacts after being asked if she planned on running for office again during the Women in the World Summit at Lincoln Center in New York, Thursday, April 6, 2017.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reacts after being asked if she planned on running for office again during the Women in the World Summit at Lincoln Center in New York, Thursday, April 6, 2017.

Hillary Clinton attends 'War Paint' musical on Broadway

NEW YORK (AP) The new musical "War Paint," about two powerful women, had another one in the audience Thursday.

Hillary Clinton, with longtime top aide Huma Abedin, attended opening night of the show about cosmetics titans Helena Rubinstein and Elizabeth Arden, who were fierce competitors as they defined beauty in the 20th century. It stars Patti LuPone and Christine Ebersole.

Clinton has been a frequent visitor to Broadway, catching the musicals "In Transit" and "The Color Purple."

"War Paint" was inspired by the book of the same title by Lindy Woodhead, and the documentary "The Powder & the Glory" by Ann Carol Grossman and Arnie Reisman.

LATEST TRENDING VIDEOS: Story continues below

The show has a story by Doug Wright, songs by composer Scott Frankel and lyricist Michael Korie, choreography by Christopher Gattelli and direction by Michael Greif.

Go here to read the rest:
Hillary Clinton attends 'War Paint' musical on Broadway - SFGate

Hillary Clinton on Thursday narrowed down the "determinative" reasons for her 2016 presidential loss to two factors: FBI Director James Comey and WikiLeaks.

During an appearance at the eighth annual Women in the World Summit in New York City, Clinton said her team and supporters have been spending time "trying to piece it all together" referring to why she lost to President Trump.

She noted that there were "lots of contributing factors" and said her campaign and she herself "certainly could have done better."

"Certainly misogyny played a role," Clinton noted. "That just has to be admitted."

But, she narrowed it down to two incidents, which notably were outside of her control, that struck the killing blow to her campaign.

"I think it is fair to say that the outside intervention, the combination of the Comey letter on Oct. 28th, WikiLeaks which played a much bigger role than I think many people understand yet, had the determinative effect," Clinton said.

It's unclear what Clinton meant when she said people don't yet understand the full scope of WikiLeaks' impact when it released stolen documents from Democratic officials including her campaign chairman John Podesta, but Clinton did seem to hint that more will be brought to light when the book she is writing gets published.

The other incident Clinton referred to was Comey's decision to reopen an investigation into Clinton's emails, just days before the Nov. 8 election. The case was again closed on Nov. 6, but critics lamented that there was irreparable damage done to the Democratic candidate's image and swayed some people who cast early votes.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Derek Kan is general manager for Lyft's Southern California region.

04/06/17 9:41 PM

Clinton also took aim at Russia for its interference in the election. Earlier in the program she said it was her preference that an independent, nonpartisan perform the probe.

See original here:
Hillary Clinton blames Comey and WikiLeaks as 'determinative' factors behind her 2016 loss - Washington Examiner

Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonOvernight Defense: Trump edges toward military action in Syria | Clinton wants US to hit Syrian airfields | Tillerson sees no role for Assad Clinton: U.S. should take out Syrian airfields Clinton: 'Misogyny played a role' in 2016 MORE has all but ruled out returning to her familys foundation, three sources close to the former Democratic nominee tell The Hill.

The former Democratic presidential nominee has indicated to confidants and associates that she more than likely wont be returning to the Clinton Foundation, which drew headlines in the 2016 election cycle for possible conflicts of interest.

Shes taking a look at her life and wants to try some different things, said one ally who has spoken to Clinton in recent weeks. Shes not tying herself to something thats always been an option. She wants to figure out what she wants to do.

One thing the former presidential nominee wants to do is figure out how she can best use her voice for the benefit of the Democratic Party, sources say.

Clinton took an active role in the familys foundation after leaving the State Department in 2013, working on early childhood development and other issues involving women and girls.

I am thrilled to fully join this remarkable organization that [former President] Bill [Clinton] started a dozen years ago, and to call it my home for the work I will be doing, she said in remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative in 2013.

At the same time, in 2013, the foundation changed its name to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton left the organization before launching her bid for the White House.

The former secretary of State hasnt formally told aides at the New York-based foundation about her plans.

Asked about Clintons next steps, the Clinton Foundation referred calls to her office, as they have done since she left the foundation two years ago. A spokesman for the former secretary of State could not be reached on Tuesday.

Still, those familiar with Clintons immediate future say that just because she wont take an active role in the organization doesnt mean she wont give occasional foundation-related speeches or participate in its programs.

Everyone knows theyll have access to her whenever they need her, the confidant said. This has really become President Clinton and Chelseas thing.

Hillary Clintons likely decision comes on the heels of months of negative press about the potential conflicts of interest between the foundation and Clinton. The storylines along with the controversy surrounding her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of State created headaches for the nominee.

Bill ClintonBill ClintonGOP triggers 'nuclear option,' gutting filibuster in Gorsuch fight Walkers welfare reform makes Wisconsin model for the nation Hillary Clinton unlikely to return to family foundation MORE spent months defending the organization he built in his post-presidency life, and he sought to prove that the foundation was above board and transparent on interactions with Hillary Clinton.

But emails released by WikiLeaks during the tail end of the election cycle showed that campaign advisers were worried about potential conflicts including one Clinton Global Initiative event in Morocco.

Moroccos king had agreed to give $12 million to the foundation if Hillary Clinton attended the event. Clinton who had already launched a presidential bid ultimately decided not to attend.

But campaign officials felt as though the foundation might hurt their candidate in the long term.

Do they plan to do big events next year? Robby Mook, Clintons campaign manager, wrote in a 2015 email to campaign chairman John Podesta, after Clinton launched her bid for the White House. Possible for those to be smaller and lower key in 16?

On the other end of the vast Clinton universe, supporters of the foundation were angry that the campaign hadnt done a better job of explaining the good work it does around the world.

Its too early to tell what impact, if any, the 2016 campaign and Clintons loss has had on the foundation. But officials at the foundation point to their recent expansion of programs, including one in the San Diego area aimed at helping low-income youth.

In February, as part of a 2016 annual report, Bill Clinton wrote to supporters, Despite the political season and unprecedented attacks that were misleading or outright false, the Clinton Foundation continued its good work in the United States and around the world.

I am very grateful to our staff, leadership, and board, and to our donors both large and small, new and longstanding, for keeping our focus on how we can solve problems and seize opportunities to improve more lives, the former president said.

For now, Hillary Clinton is focused on her upcoming book, which she is writing with two campaign speechwriters: Dan Schwerin who also helped write the former secretary of States 2014 book, Hard Choices and Megan Rooney.

She is also scheduled for several speeches, including a commencement speech in May at her alma mater, Wellesley College.

In an interview Tuesday on CBS This Morning, Chelsea Clinton was asked what her mothers plans might look like in the coming months.

Shes focused, thankfully, on her grandchildren, the former first daughter said. Shes focused on what she can do to help support work that shes been engaged in for longer than Ive been alive, around children, around women, around families.

Read more:
Hillary Clinton unlikely to return to family foundation - The Hill

In fact, Destruction reads more like an exercise in public relations. Clinton is not a representative of the establishment, Bordo argues, but has consistently been a progressive. If conservatives hadnt vilified her in the 90sif Bernie Sanders hadnt run against hershe would have defeated Donald Trump.

Its a fragile argument that relies heavily on scapegoats. Chief among them are Millennials. Young women disliked Clinton, Bordo argues, because they werent around for the GOPs character assassination of her in the 90s, and did not realize how unfairly she had often been portrayedor understand the sexism she had to overcome. They hadnt experienced a decade of culture wars in which feminists efforts to bring histories of gender and race struggle into the educational curriculum were reduced to a species of political correctness, she insists. They didnt witness the complicated story of how the 1994 crime bill came to be passed or the origins of the super-predator label (not coined by Hillary and not referring to black youth, but rather to powerful, older drug dealers).

This is interesting language. Bordo does not attribute the crime bill to Bill Clinton; its as if this legislation appeared out of the void. And though Bordo is right that Hillary Clinton did not coin the term superpredator, she doesnt mention that Clinton certainly did use it to refer to children. Via Politifact, heres Clintons full quote: We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredatorsno conscience, no empathy.

Bordos revisionism is evident in her fixation on Bernie Sanders. According to Bordo, Sanders unfairly maligned Clinton for her establishment tendencies. Bordo does not acknowledge, however, that Clinton campaigned as a pragmatic realist and consciously sought the support of conservative defectors from the GOP, while Sanders ran as a more idealistic democratic socialist. This conflicts with Bordos portrayal of the candidate as a true leftist.

So do Clintons policies. Bordo insists that Clinton supported universal health care in 2016, which is only partly accurate. Clinton supported Medicaid expansion and the public option, but these policies arent as expansive as Sanderss commitment to Medicare for All. On the federal minimum wage, welfare, and foreign policy, she sat to Sanderss right. She supported a $12 minimum wage, with the small proviso that cities should be able to raise it higher if they choose. And she had a long-standing record of support for American military intervention abroada tough sell to young voters jaded by endless war. These are facts Bordo chooses to ignore.

Bordo commits the same error in her treatment of the Monica Lewinsky affair. Lewinsky, she writes, has steadfastly insisted that there was nothing abusive (or even disrespectful) about Bill Clintons behavior. This misconstrues Lewinskys statements. In a 2014 piece for Vanity Fair, Lewinsky called the relationship consensual but also wrote, My boss took advantage of me. These assertions arent contradictory; many women could apply the same language to their own experiences. But Bordo twists Lewinskys words in order to cast both Clintons as victims of a rabid press. In reality, both retained substantial influence and privilege while Lewinsky suffered lasting vilification. Power protects itself. Bordo, who teaches gender studies, must know this.

But shes uninterested in interrogating the implications of Clintons power. Her argument that Clinton is a consistent progressive cant survive the admission that Clinton has made many missteps in her long career and has had to own, as she put it herself, many hard choices. Its incompatible with the fiction shes created: Hillary-the-revolutionary, to counter Hillary-the-establishment-elitist. The result is incoherent. Clinton is either a uniquely qualified candidate, or an easy target for uninformed millennials. She cant be both.

In the process of canonizing Clinton, Bordo infantilizes her. As first lady, Clinton obviously did not pass the crime bill or welfare reform, but she publicly supported both. Was she Bills puppet? Thats an unlikely role for an intelligent and accomplished woman. We should instead assume that Clinton said what she said because she believed it. Opinions change, but if would-be presidents choose to evolve they must expect to do so in public. Voters were right to question her about her old statements. They werent wrong to find her wanting. They were forming their opinions of the candidates by learning about their political commitments. Bordo does not.

But Bordos book is useful in one sense. It crystallizes an emerging tendency in liberal discourse: the notion that critics of Hillary Clinton are either trolls or naive children. Bordo makes much of Bernie Brosloud, male Sanders supporters who, she says, harassed Clinton supporters at rallies and abused female reporters on Twitter. The examples she cites are certainly rude (one allegedly called a Clinton supporter a lying shitbag) but this is a thin argument weakened further by her revisionism. She slams Sanders himself for his uncharacteristically mild response to the tweets. He never criticized the misogyny in their attacks on Clinton, she writes. This is flatly inaccurate: Sanders called them disgusting and told the press, Look, anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist things iswe dont want them. I dont want them.

To Bordo, rude Twitter users prove Sanderss inadequate commitment to the left. Bordo never asks if her one-sided framing is evidence that she lives in a bubble, and what a telling oversight. Female Sanders supporters would have told her that Clinton backers are also guilty of online harassmentand that the label Bernie Bro has been deployed to erase the very existence of left-wing women, drowning out valid critiques of Clintons platform. Its red-baiting by another name.

Millennials are not children, either. Ranging in age from 18 to 35, many recall Clintons tenures as senator, 2008 candidate, and secretary of state with clarity. Many fought in the Iraq War she supported. Others demanded marriage equality long before her political evolution on that matter. Still more struggled to afford education and health care while she cast herself as the great pragmatist in 2016: Single-payer health care, she told voters, will never, ever come to pass. Nevertheless, most millennials voted for her last November. If this does not satisfy the nations Susan Bordos, they are not to blame.

Bordos objection seems to be that anyone opposed Clinton at all, even from the left. What she does not graspand is seemingly not interested in graspingis that Clintons critics from the left were not opposing a caricature of her as some kind of right-wing political operator. We opposed Clinton-the-hawk and Clinton-the-means-tester. Our objection was about politics, not personality. Similarly, we do not reject the feminism of Bordo and Clinton because of its ideological rigidity, as Bordo suggests. We reject it because it is insufficient. America was not already great. Our lives are proof.

Destruction offers no real lessons for Democrats. Its a hagiography, written to soothe a smarting party. That is precisely why they must ignore it: There is no path forward that does not account for past mistakes. Hillary Clintons destruction was at least partly her own making, and if Democrats want to start winning elections its time they saw the truth.

Continue reading here:
The Deification of Hillary Clinton - New Republic