Mediaboss Marketing

Shallow and craven.

Two words often used to describe the very worst of the cable news punditry that shifts positions when it is politically expedient for ones agenda. For example, consider Tucker Carlsons response to Brit Humes suggestion last night that James Comeys handling of the Hillary Clinton email affair was terribly unfair.

Mr. Carlson would like for us to believe that he also was upset by how unfairly Comey was toHillary, who notably released a letter just days before a general election that, some believe, may have been a tipping point whichled to her losing the election.

But it wasnt just the way that Comey treated Hillary, Carlson also said the reaction of Republicans (at the time) was distasteful, saying you saw Republicans taking pleasure and at the time and I thought that was wrong. He then added you shouldnt have an FBI director weighing in like that

So brave.

Is Tucker Carlson the transcendent figure that can cross the bitter partisan divide that so ails our nation? Maybe. Or perhaps hes just full of it.

Take a look at how Carlson reacted to the Comey letter the day after it was released in an interview with Washington Times columnist and former Mediaite Loser of the Day Charles Hurt below. Midway through the interview, Carlson mocks his fellow journalists (namely David Gregory) for focusing not on Hillary, and how she got us here in this moment of chaos, but how they unfairly blame Comey for doing his job. Huh.

So to recap. Last night Carlson claimed that Comey treated Hillary unfair, and that he thought GOP schadenfreude was bad. But back in October, he thought it absurd that the media would focus on Comeys treatment of Hillary instead of blaming Ms. Clinton for a moment of chaos.

Watch the clips above and below, courtesy of Fox News.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

The rest is here:
Tucker Carlson Felt Really Bad About Comey's Treatment of Hillary Clinton; Archives Reveal Otherwise - Mediaite

Even in politics, the rich get richer. Take President Trump.

Fresh off a big victory with the Housepassage of an ObamaCare repeal, Trump is also getting lucky again in his enemies. Hillary Clinton is baaack and ready to rumble.

Politico reportsshe is launching a new group to raise money for the resistance to Trumps presidency. The group will be called Onward Together, and Clinton is said to be meeting with donors to form a board of directors.

Her cadre of unemployed hangers-on must be thrilled to have a new slush fund, but most Dems are probably thinking, Havent we suffered enough?

With the party demoralized and divided, and holding the fewest number of elected seats in a century, Clintons return will likely prolong the misery. While shes a media magnet, shes also a political dead end, having lost two presidential runs and ceded the future to the Bernie Sanders socialist wing.

Its hard to imagine her as the partys savior, yet, instead of going away quietly, shell be competing with its candidates for money and attention. Anything she gets will come at the expense of new leaders and ideas.

To continue reading Michael Goodwin's column in the New York Post, click here.

Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist.

The rest is here:
Michael Goodwin: Hillary Clinton will run again in 2020 - Fox News

On Sunday, following Emmanuel Macrons decisive victory in the French presidential election, Hillary Clinton posted a congratulatory tweet. But thats not all. In addition to applauding Macron, Clinton made a subtle jab at the media, writing of Macrons win, Defeat to those interfering w/ democracy. (But the media says I cant talk about that).

Clinton is most likely referencing comments shes recently made about her own bid for the presidency, suggesting Russian interference played a role in her unprecedented loss. Some outlets criticized Clinton for her comments. For instance,The Guardian was quick to point out Clinton took absolute personal responsibility for the loss, only to then blame Russian hackers and FBI Director James Comey for issuing a damning letter a mere days before the November 8 vote. And as CNNs SE Cupp wrote,

Remember, she takes absolute personal responsibility. But ... who could argue that it's very difficult to succeed a two-term president of your own party? Seriously, Democrats haven't done it since, Lord knows, like the 1820s or '30s, so she's not making excuses but, you guys, take her word for it: It was basically impossible for her to win.

Social media users blasted Clinton for a different reason altogether, poking fun at her for saying, Im back to being an activist citizen and part of the resistance. Clearly, not everyone was buying her new revolutionary persona:

Its worth noting, however, that Clinton isnt the only presidential candidate to deal with Russian interference. Similarly, just days before the French elections final round of voting, security analysts said theyd found evidence of Russian interference, telling Reutersthat Russian hackers had compromised Macrons campaign emails. Whether you criticize Clinton for blaming Russian interference or see her statements as completely valid, the FBIs ongoing investigation into Russias involvement during the 2016 presidential campaign should speak volumes.

Excerpt from:
Hillary Clinton Gets Sassy In A Tweet About The New French President - GOOD Magazine

Hillary Clinton, here in New York on May 3, is the subject of Curtis Sittenfeld's new novel.(Photo: Astrid Stawiarz/Getty)

Curtis Sittenfeld, whose best-selling 2008 novel American Wifefictionalized the life of Laura Bush,is now turning her sharp eye to Hillary Clinton.

Penguin Random House announced Monday that Sittenfeld'suntitled novel will be told from the point of view of Hillary Rodham, in which she turns down marriage proposals from Bill Clinton(as she did in real life), then ultimately turns him down once and for all. The book will imagine how Rodhams life spins out from there.

Random House spokeswoman Theresa Zoro said the novel about the former first lady, Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate is not likely to hit stores before 2019.

Author Curtis Sittenfeld.(Photo: Josephine Sittenfeld)

In American Wife, the character inspired by Bush, the former first lady,was called Alice Blackwell. The novel became popular among book clubs. Sittenfelds other best sellers include Prep and 2016s Eligible, a modern take on Jane Austens classic Pride and Prejudice.

News of Sittenfeld's Hillary book comes, coincidentally, the same day publishers Knopf and Little, Brown jointly announced that former President Bill Clinton is teaming up with mega-selling author James Patterson on a book. The President Is Missing, a thrillerset in the highest corridors of power, will be released in June 2018.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is writing a book, filled with quotations she has collected for decades, that will reflect on her life and the presidentialelection. Its due in September from Simon & Schuster.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2po4XDv

More here:
New novel asks: What if Hillary had never married Bill Clinton? - USA TODAY

I once wrote a column in praise of competence. The object of my admiration was Walter Mondale, then running for president against Ronald Reagan. The presidents message was that it was morning again in America. Mondales message was that he was competent. He lost 49 states. He was Hillary Clinton even before she was.

The comparison is apt and sad. It came jumping out at me as I read Shattered, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes new account of how Clinton managed to lose to Donald Trump, a man for whom the word competent is about as fitting as humble. She did it, the two tell us, by assembling a huge and unwieldy campaign apparatus, fixating on data and not, unfortunately, on retail politics, and not being able to adequately explain her use of a private email server, a historically trivial matter that came to symbolize her failings as a politician. She seemed inaccessible.

But Clintons great failing, the book not to mention the election itself makes clear, was her inability to fashion a message. She knew why she was running for president: It was her turn. But she could not say that. She could not merely say that she was prepared, a walking briefing book. Policies coursed through her body like blood cells. She knew everything. She was, in the famous formulation of Isaiah Berlin, a fox. Trump was a hedgehog. He knew just one thing: why he wanted to be president.

Shattered is a cliche-clogged slog in itself. The authors made a deal with sources within Clintons campaign to not write anything until after the election and to treat what they learned on background meaning, the sources would not be named. This leads to a heavy drizzle of the words source or sources and, after a while, a certain resistance on the part of the reader: Who are these people? Even banalities are privileged: It was a very hard 10 days, a source says about some very hard days.

The other word that keeps coming at you is message. Clinton did not have one, and the search for a message preoccupied her staff. Oddly, and fatally, Clinton left it up to them to articulate why she was running. As a mental exercise, I tried to come up with a message myself: Hillary Clinton because shes not Trump, is the best I could do. As it turned out, she could do no better.

Bernie Sanders, in contrast, knew why he was running and his supporters knew it, too. He was something of a biblical figure. He wanted to smite the big banks and put some Wall Street heads on the end of a pike. It was, in his own way, a position paper.

As for Trump, he was going to make America great again never mind that he did not have a clue as to how. He had the unassailable confidence of the ignorant, unburdened by knowledge and complexity. He was successful, but lets not make too much of it. He drew three inside straights in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and won them all by margin-of-error numbers. As he was at birth, he was lucky.

When I wrote about Mondale, I felt sorry for the guy. I liked him. Hes smart and has a refreshing sense of humor. Whatever my feelings for him were, the camera did not agree. It showed a cold and somewhat distant Midwestern archetype. The same with Clinton. Ive had a few private moments with her and found her to be as her aides will always tell you fresh, irreverent and funny. She gets the joke. Alas, on TV none of that came through, as if she was hiding from the camera lest it reveal too much.

Clintons search for a message occupies much of Shattered. It is a sad trek because she was an oxymoron: a familiar figure who was seeking to appear fresh and, as she herself acknowledged, a politician with no gift for politics. I know that I engender bad reactions from people, and I always have, Allen and Parnes quote her as telling an aide. There are some people in whom I bring out the worst. I know that about myself, and I dont know why that is. But it is.

In the end, Hillary Clinton had it right. She was stuck with herself. It was good enough for most voters, but not for enough of them in those three key states. She lost and a fool won. That, to us, ought to be the message.

Read the original post:
Cohen: Walter Mondale, the original Hillary Clinton - The Mercury News