Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama turn down ‘Dancing With the Stars’ – Washington Post

A former first ladys to-do list usually includes a lucrative book deal, continued charitable works and a few (or more) paid speaking engagements. Whats not on the agenda? A reality competition show. At least for Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.

According to Us Weekly, both Clinton, who stretched her rsum after her years in the White House to include the Senate, the State Department and two bids for the U.S. presidency, and Obama turned down offers from ABCs Dancing With the Stars, which premieres a new season on March 20. The popular dance competition that pairs amateur two-steppers with the pros asked the former first ladies and got concretenos in response, according to a source with knowledge of season 24sproduction plans.

The 69-year-old Clinton, who has been spotted after her election loss hiking, attending Broadway shows and rallying fellow Democrats, isnt exactly known for her sweet dance moves. Rememberwhen she dabbed on The Ellen DeGeneres Show? Just, no. But to be fair, that debate shimmy did win over some hearts and minds.

For her part, Obama has had much better luck on the floor, making busting a move a regular part of her agenda as first lady. No one can forget Obamas wildly popular dance-off with late night host Jimmy Fallon featured inThe Evolution of Mom Dancing parts one and deux. But the former first lady did swing and miss with that Turnip for What video.

In the end, themirror ball trophy (and potential viral humiliation) clearly wasnt a big enough draw for either Clinton or Obama to scrap their post-politics plans for a scheduleof grueling rehearsals in Hollywood followed by weeklyjudgement. Past winners of Dancing With the Stars include former boy-bander Drew Lachey, country music singer Kellie Pickler, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air star Alfonso Ribeiro and, most recently, Olympic gold medalist LaurieHernandez.

Here is the original post:
Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama turn down 'Dancing With the Stars' - Washington Post

Perez doesn’t rule out a Hillary Clinton run for the presidency in 2020 – Washington Examiner

New Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez didn't rule out a Hillary Clinton run for the presidency in 2020 on Sunday.

Perez, speaking on ABC, was asked about Clinton's continued political statements in the wake of her 2016 defeat to President Trump, including just before the vote for the new DNC chairman Saturday. He said she can run if she wants.

"Everyone who wants to run should run," he said of the 2020 Democratic primary. "And, I'm confident we're going to have a robust field of candidates."

Perez wasn't much focused on the presidential race Sunday morning, instead touting a win in a special election for the Delaware State Senate Saturday night. That election could have swung the balance of power in the state's upper chamber, but the Democratic candidate won a convincing victory.

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

Sorry, there was a problem processing your email signup. Please try again later.

Processing...

Thank you for signing up for Washington Examiner News Alerts. You should receive your first alert soon!

Perez said that's the kind of race he's going to be worried about in the future.

"We need an every-ZIP-code strategy," he said. "We need to redefine the role of the DNC so that we're helping to elect people from the school board to the Senate."

He emphasized that the party leadership was united and that he planned to use Rep. Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Democrat who finished in second in the race for DNC chair, as a partner going forward.

Ellison was seen as the pick of the progressive wing of the party and many progressives were upset about his defeat on Saturday. Perez said he and Ellison are very much alike in their values systems and they'll try to make the DNC better reflect those viewpoints.

"When we lead with our values, we win, and that's what we're going to do," he said.

Also from the Washington Examiner

"I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy," Bush said.

02/27/17 8:44 AM

See the original post:
Perez doesn't rule out a Hillary Clinton run for the presidency in 2020 - Washington Examiner

Quora Question: Why Did Democrats Lose a Third Term? – Newsweek

Quora Questions are part of a partnership between NewsweekandQuora, through which we'll be posting relevant and interesting answers from Quora contributors throughout the week. Read more about the partnershiphere.

Answer from William Murphy, professor of American history:

If Obama did a really good job as president, why did Hillary lose? Ive been working on some stuff about the election that I havent finished fleshing out yet, and this question is ultimately asking why Clinton lost, which is the same thing as asking why Trump won, and both of those are really complex questions that take a lot of time to answer. I hope to be able to offer my own thoughts on this, in detail, for those who want to read it at some point in the future, if I can ever get it all down in a way that makes sense.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

So this question is tying Obama to Clinton, and asking why Clinton lost if Obama was a good president. The implication here seems to be that if Obama really was a good president, Clinton would have won. And yet I dont think those two questions are particularly related, for a number of reasons. In no particular order Im going to list some of the reasons why, as I believe, Clintons performance in the election was not a reflection of Obamas job performance as president.

In general, it is difficult for one party to hold on to the presidency for more than two terms in modern times. I will confess that before the election I was skeptical about this bit of conventional political wisdom, and expressed my skepticism in some answers I wrote about the campaign. But basically, since the adoption of term limits on the presidency in the early 1950s, the same party has won three consecutive terms exactly once: the Republicans in 1980, 1984 and 1988. Thats it. Now, before the election I thought the data on this was a little thin that there were too many events that could lead us to that conclusion but might have been short-term aberrations that led to one party losing control of the White House when it otherwise might have retained it, like the Democrats and the Vietnam War in 1968 causing them to lose the presidency after two terms, or Republicans and the legacy of Watergate in 1976 causing them to lose the presidency after two terms. In short, I thought there werent enough normal elections to prove this point, that voters tend not to keep the same party in power for more than two terms, even when the incumbent president is popular. Bill Clinton left office with a 60% approval rating, but his successor was a Republican (and even if we allow for the madness of the 2000 election being an unusual circumstance, that election should not have been that close based on Clintons popularity.) This election seems to me to be another convincing point of evidence behind the argument that winning three terms in a row is a very difficult proposition in modern American politics.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrive at Yangon International airport, Myanmar, November 19, 2012. Paula Bronstein/Getty Images

Clinton was a unique candidate with unique liabilities. Most of the time, presidential candidates begin as largely unknown figures. Very few people knew much about Obama before he declared his candidacy in 2007. Thats the way it normally worksAmericans get to know their candidates during the campaign. This campaign was different, because both Clinton and Trump were extremely well known well before they ran. Clinton had been in the public spotlight for much of the last 30 years. She was a deeply polarizing figure for whom many Americans had very strong feelingseither positively or negativelysince well before this campaign. So voters on both sides were strongly influenced by their pre-existing feelings about Clinton. The election was not so much about how voters felt about Obama (as it might have been if the Democratic candidate was less well known at the outset) and more about how they felt about Clinton.

Clintons email scandal was a weight around her candidacy unlike anything weve seen in recent American politics. That Democrats had to make arguments for why their candidate should NOT be indicted is the clearest evidence that Clintons personal liabilities influenced the election in ways that went well beyond Obamas record as president. There were a lot of people who believed that Clintons email scandal revealed a pattern of bad judgement, a sense of entitlement, a willingness by the Clintons to ignore the rules or act as though they did not apply to them. I had a conversation with one of my students just before the election who made exactly this argument to me that Clinton was someone who acted like she was above the law, and the email scandal was just the worst example. Im neither validating nor contradicting this argument; the point is that a lot of people were looking at Clinton in ways they probably would not have looked at just about any other candidate.

Clintons campaign strategy was to focus on Trumps unfitness for office, rather than on what she or the Democratic party could do for the country. She didnt run on Obamas record. She ran on not being Donald Trump. Given her own liabilities, this was a less effective strategy than she probably hoped.

And with all that, she still won the popular vote by about 3 million votes. There are a lot and I mean a lot of other reasons we could point to in order to explain the outcome of the election. I havent even begun to mention the things Trump did right and he did do some important things that contributed to his win. The question here is focused on whether Clintons defeat is a repudiation of Obama. Id argue there were enough factors working against Clinton (some of which were absolutely her own fault) that had nothing to do with Obama that can provide a clear explanation of her defeat. So Clintons loss is not an effective measure of Obamas success or failure as a President.

If Obama did a really good job as President, why did Hillary lose? originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.

More questions:

Visit link:
Quora Question: Why Did Democrats Lose a Third Term? - Newsweek

Piers Morgan compares La La Land’s Oscars defeat to Hillary Clinton – The Independent

Piers Morgan might have routinely slammed Hollywood award shows as indulgent, self-congratulatory Trump hate-ins but he still makes sure he live-tweets the Oscars.

In true Morgan fashion, the editor-at-large of the US MailOnline, who regularly refers to President Donald Trump as a friend, has somehow found a way to compare Hollywoods biggest blunder in decades to the defeat ofHillary Clinton.

In case you missed it, the Oscar for Best Picture was mistakenly handed to La La Land after the award presenters read out the wrong winner. In reality, Barry Jenkins Moonlight, the underdog which was snubbed at the BAFTAs, was bestowed with the accolade.

The Good Morning Britain presenter quipped that like Mr Trumps Democat rival, La La Land had won the popular vote.

Mr Trump gained nearly three million fewer votes than Ms Clinton. Moreover, the margin of 2.86 million ballots was the biggest popular vote disparity in US history for a candidate who has gone on to become President, a good deal greater than the 544,000-vote gap between George W Bush and Al Gore in 2000.

Morgan dubbed the announcement fake news and relished in sharing a CNN tweet saying La La Land had won.

How on earth can you have the wrong card for Best Picture? What a pathetic, toe-curling farce. #oscars the controversial columnist bitterly asked.

Morgan, who first met Mr Trump on the first series of his Celebrity Apprentice, has delighted in standing up for President Trump in the face of criticism. Just recently, Australian comedian Jim Jefferies told Morgan to f*ck off on primetime TV for outrightly refusing to call President Trump's hard-line immigration ban a "Muslim ban".

Others on Twitter drew attention to the parallels between La La Land's loss and that of Ms Clinton, with one saying it is a "really, really bad time for the 'Establishment frontrunner'".

While the Oscars cock-up was initially thought to be the fault of presenters Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty, it appears the responsibility lies with a crew member to ensure the correct envelopes make it onto the stage.

In the end, La La Land wound up having a slightly disappointing night, ceasing to pick up many of the technical awards it was expected to, however, the film did pick up Best Director, Best Actress and Cinematography. On the other hand,Moonlightnot only got the night's biggest award but also nabbed Best Supporting actor for Mahershala Ali and theOriginal Screenplay prize.

See the rest here:
Piers Morgan compares La La Land's Oscars defeat to Hillary Clinton - The Independent

Arkansas lawmaker wants to rename Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport – Washington Examiner

A Republican lawmaker in Arkansas wants to remove the names of Bill and Hillary Clinton from Little Rock's airport.

State Sen. Jason Rapert says some pilots are not happy about flying into Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport, and that the name of a former president who was impeached for having sexual relations with an intern should be removed, according to the Associated Press.

It's not clear what the bill's prospects are, but Republicans are in charge of both the legislature and the governor's office.

Rapert noted that other women have accused Clinton of sexual harassment and should not have to be reminded of it should they visit the facility. "How would you feel if you had to walk through that airport?" Rapert asked.

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

Sorry, there was a problem processing your email signup. Please try again later.

Processing...

Thank you for signing up for Washington Examiner News Alerts. You should receive your first alert soon!

Clinton served as Arkansas governor for nearly 12 years before becoming president in 1993. The airport was renamed for the Clintons after having been named for decades after Arkansas National Guard Capt. George Geyer Adams, a longtime Little Rock councilman killed in the line of duty in 1937.

"Political friends of the Clintons decided to strip his honor," Rapert said.

Link:
Arkansas lawmaker wants to rename Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport - Washington Examiner