Mediaboss Marketing

Hillary Clinton - Kitchen
Hillary Clinton Political ads.

By: Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics

The rest is here:
Hillary Clinton - Kitchen - Video

Hillary Clinton - Dreams Familly

By: Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics

See the article here:
Hillary Clinton - Dreams Familly - Video

An actual Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Rodham Clinton match-up seems unlikely, but a new Web ad by the conservative super PAC American Crossroads proves that Warren, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, might just be a potent weapon for Republicans to use against Clinton come 2016.

Called "Rigged," the ad uses Warren's voice to criticize Clinton for taking money from foreign governments for her family foundation.Powerful interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their favor. The power of well-funded special interests tilts our democracy away from the people and toward the powerful, Warren says, as images of Clinton meeting with Middle Eastern leaders appear on screen. "The power of well-funded special interests tilts our democracy away from the people and toward the powerful." Ominous music is included, natch.

What makes the ad so effective is Warren's voice; nobody on the political scene right now is better at populist messaging than Warren, which is why progressives are so eager for her to run for president.

It's a smart way to turn Clinton's tenure as secretary of state and her charity work into a liability, which will be central to the Republican strategy against Clinton. I've written before about how Clinton's vast record is both an opportunity and a challenge, and this ad speaks to that in some ways -- she wears a few hats in the ad as government official, head of a charitable organization and enemy of progressives.

So, whom does it help and hurt the most? Well, it certainly helps Warren, as it crystallizes her role as the best person to make the case against Clinton, even if she does it just from her Senate seat. Of course, Clinton is working like heck to keep that criticism to a minimum, including a huddle at her house late last year.

Aside from Warren, framing Clinton as in the pocket of foreign interests is a win for Republicans -- if they can make it stick. It muddles her record at State, hurting her experience argument. Progressives probably won't jump ship and vote for the Republican nominee, of course, but showing Clinton as just another politician blunts her claim to being a different kind of candidate with a different kind of resume. Rather than being someone who has taken on the old-boys network, she comes across as overly political -- an image of her that is the least appealing to the 2016 electorate.

This ad from conservative PAC American Crossroads uses the voice of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to criticize Hillary Clinton for taking money from "foreign governments for her family foundation." (American Crossroads via YouTube)

Nia-Malika Henderson is a political reporter for The Fix.

See the article here:
How Elizabeth Warren might be Republicans best weapon ...

There's a funny exchange in HBO's Veep when Selina Meyeraka Julia Louis-Dreyfus is trying to decide how to frame her position on abortion as she makes a White House run. A male aide suggests that she preface whatever position she has with the phrase "as a woman" in order to wrap her policy position in identity politics. "No, no, no, I can't identify as a woman! People can't know that," she says. "Men hate that. And women who hate women hate that, which, I believe, is most women."

This is the sitcom version of Hillary Clinton's dilemma as she readies her 2016 presidential bid. The difficulty of that balancing act was apparent Tuesday when Clinton spoke before a group of people who are very much her base: well-heeled, mostly white, women.

She came onstage and left as "I'm Every Woman," blasted from the speakers. She joked about her weight: "You can tell I am not doing Fitbit. Do I really want something telling me I should do what I know what I should do?" She cheered Patricia Arquette's Oscars equal-pay speech, and declared that it's time to "crack every glass ceiling." And she quoted Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright when she said that there is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women.

There was also this:

It was all I-am-woman-hear-me-roar, a seeming foreshadow of her campaign themes -- and a striking contrast to the messaging of her last presidential campaign. Clinton, the conventional wisdom goes, is embracing the historic nature of her would-be run this time around, going where she didn't go in 2008 until the very end.

That approach -- or at least the belief that it will be her planned approach -- has drawn criticism from people like possible 2016 foil Carly Fiorina, who said she expects that Clinton will unfortunately play the gender card over and over again.

Yet, it's not clear, at least so far that Clinton actually plans to do that.

Sure, many of her speeches have been about women, but those speeches have come in front of audiences of all women. Blasting Chaka Khan's anthem and talking about Albright is a kind of situation-specific code switching that doesn't necessarily tell us if or how Clinton will "play the gender card."

A piece by Emily Schultheis at National Journal called "Clinton's 2016 Gender Play," lays out Clinton's strategy:

Already, recent words and actions hint at the ways she'll bring gender into the 2016 campaignby talking about issues like pay equity, affordable child care, and paid family leave, referencing her past work for women and children, and gushing about her new granddaughter.

Visit link:
The Fix: Hillary Clinton plays the gender card (even when she doesnt)

Tech journalist Kara Swisher asked a telling question during her sit-downon Tuesday with the now all-but-certain2016 contender,Hillary Clinton."Why do you think we need awoman president?"

Clinton didn't take the bait. "Speaking hypothetically?" she said, to laughs from the audience. Then she went on to say, "I think whoever it is or should be, we need to make sure that all the talent in our country is represented."

Swisher tried again, posingthe question another way: "But will there be a different president, being a woman?"This time, Clinton talked about what female senators had achieved, saying these examples showed howwomen bring different experiences to bear on policy. She also describeddinners that she and other women in the Senatehad together, which she said involved plentyofoffers to help each other. "It was what you would hope your elected officials would do together."

Her answer may not have included any big announcements, but it was revealing all the same. Clinton didn'texplicitly saythat a femalepresident would bring the kind of qualitiesconsensus-driven, compassionate, helpful, nurturing that we typicallyassociate with female leaders. But she overtly hinted at them, talking about how womenon both sides of the aisle worked together, how she's built relationships and how she hoped, if she ran, that she could bringred and blue Washington into a "nice warm purple space."

Much has been made already of howClinton's remarksoutlinedwhat her campaign may havein store. In this,the first of several speechescentered on women's issues, shefocusedon shifting an economy that "still seems to be operating like it's 1955" to one that works "for everyone." Sheembraced familyissues such as equal pay, child care and paid leave. She's positioning herself asfar more comfortable now than in 2008 with her gendered roles, such as nurturing grandmotherandhistoric feminist first.

YetClinton'sshift isn't just a sign of the country's increasingly welcome approach to feminism or thecurrentzeitgeist aroundwomen's issues.It's also a sign she'slikely realizedthat not displayingstereotypical female leadership qualities is just as risky as embracingthem.

It's an unfortunate truth, but a real one. While the definition of good leadership has begun to change to one that's more participatory and cooperative, yearsof research have shown that people tend to associate leadership with qualities that are stereotypicallymasculine, likebeing aggressive, dominant and competitive. The challenge for womenis that people have traditionally expectedleaders to behave this way; yet at the same time, they also expect women to exhibit supposedly feminine characteristics.

This means thatwhen women show "feminine" traits, they're not seen as much as leaders. But when women display "masculine" traits, they're not playing to type something academics call "role incongruity." The rest of us know thisas thedouble bind.

Clinton's expected candidacy will be the ultimate test of how strong that double bind remains. However adept Clinton ends up beingat courting middle-class voters on issueslike child care and equal pay (those arefamily issues, after all,not just women's ones), and however powerful her message of cracking "every last glass ceiling" may be to professional women, voters will also be evaluating howthey think she will lead, not just what they think she will do.

If Clinton truly embraces a leadership style during the campaign ofcollaboration, consensus and warmthyet stilllosesthe election, it couldshow that risks remainfor women to do so. But if she wears it proudly and wins, that could demonstrate how much thetraditional definition of leadership has finally changed.

Go here to see the original:
On Leadership: How a Hillary Clinton campaign could reshape what leadership looks like