Mediaboss Marketing

The foundation launched by former President Bill Clinton more than a decade ago has battled HIV and AIDS in Africa, educated millions of children and fed the poor and hungry around the globe. It also has the potential to become a political risk for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she moves toward a second presidential campaign.

The former secretary of state has struggled with some recent bad headlines over large donations given to the foundation by foreign governments in the past two years, and the $200 million-plus the organization has raised since 2013, ahead of her anticipated White House campaign.

Republicans contend that foreign governments donating to a foundation led by a potential U.S. president creates unacceptable conflicts of interests. Also, the involvement of big money reinforces a long-standing narrative pushed by the GOP of the Clintons as a couple who frequently mix business and politics.

"Unless Hillary Clinton immediately reinstates the ban on foreign countries giving to her foundation and returns the millions of dollars these governments have already donated, she's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent," said the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus. "The American people are not about to elect a president in Hillary Clinton who could expose them to the demands of foreign governments because they dumped massive sums of cash into her foundation."

The foundation, which is scheduled to hold events in Morocco and Greece this spring, defended its financial support and addressed how it might function if Clinton runs for president. If she seeks office again, something taken as a given by most, the foundation said it would ensure its policies and practices are "appropriate, just as we did when she served as secretary of state."

In 2009, when Clinton became President Barack Obama's chief diplomat, the foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments. The fundraising involving non-U.S. entities resumed in 2013, after she left his administration.

The Wall Street Journal last week reported the foundation had received money in 2014 from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman and others. The Washington Post reported the charity has raised nearly $2 billion since the former president started it in 2001. About one-third of its donations of $1 million or more come from foreign governments or non-U.S. entities, the newspaper found.

Democrats say the Clintons can defend their work at the foundation because of its track record and history of tackling some of the world's biggest problems, from AIDS and clean water to hunger, educational opportunities and the protection of endangered wildlife.

"The foundation has done amazing work," said Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, a Democrat who campaigned with Bill Clinton last year. "It has been a unifying force in our national affairs and in our international affairs."

They also note that the foundation voluntarily discloses its donors nonprofits are not required to do and say there is no evidence the Clintons have used it to enrich themselves. Nearly 90 percent of the foundation's money goes toward its programming.

Read this article:
For Clinton, Her Family Foundation May Pose Campaign Risks

Astrid Riecken/TMS Seth Bringman, communications director of Ready For Hillary, looks at a campaign poster from the 2008 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton which hangs on the wall of the Ready For HIllary headquarters in Rosslyn, VA., February 20, 2014.

Is Hillary Rodham Clinton a McDonalds Big Mac or a Chipotle burrito bowl? A can of Bud or a bottle of Blue Moon? JCPenney or J. Crew?

As she readies her second presidential campaign, Clinton has recruited consumer marketing specialists onto her team of trusted political advisers. Their job is to help imagine Hillary 5.0 the rebranding of a first lady turned senator turned failed presidential candidate turned secretary of state turned likely 2016 Democratic presidential nominee.

Clinton and her image-makers are sketching ways to refresh the well-established Hillary brand for tomorrows marketplace. In their mission to present voters with a winning picture of the likely candidate, no detail is too big or too small from her economic opportunity agenda to the design of the H in her future campaign logo.

Its exactly the same as selling an iPhone or a soft drink or a cereal, said Peter Sealey, a longtime corporate marketing strategist. She needs to use everything a brand has: a dominant color, a logo, a symbol. ... The symbol of a Mercedes is a three-pointed star. The symbol of Coca-Cola is the contour bottle. The symbol of McDonalds is the golden arches. What is Hillarys symbol?

Clintons challenge is unique. Unlike potential Republican challengers of relatively middling fame who are introducing themselves to a national audience for the first time, Clinton is almost universally recognized. Love her or loathe her, potential voters know who she is after more than two decades in public life.

Or they think they know.

As Clinton and her advisers conceptualize her 2016 image, her own history shows the potential for peril.

In politics, authenticity can be a powerful trait, and it is one that sometimes has escaped Clinton. In her 2008 presidential campaign, despite some raw displays of emotion, she often came across as overly programmed.

In 2016, a challenge for Clinton will be adapting to the political moment with a fresh image while remaining true to her settled identity. Look at Budweiser, said a former campaign adviser to President Obama, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly. Thats what Hillary Clinton is. Shes not a microbrew. Shes one of the biggest, most powerful brands ever in the country, and recognizing that is important.

Read more here:
The making of Hillary 5.0: Marketing wizards help reimagine Clinton brand

"Ready for Hillary", a super PAC urging the former Secretary of State to run for president, tweeted the hashtag #askhermore Sunday night before the Oscars. It's part of a campaign supported by actresses like Reese Witherspoon and Lena Dunham for reporters to ask more than "who are you wearing?" on the red carpet.

The campaigncomes on the heels of a re-energized conversation about sexism in Hollywood following revelations from last year's Sony Pictures hack that female actresses were in manyinstances paid less than their male counterparts.

On E!, Ryan Seacrest seemed to have gotten the message, asking the "who-are-you-wearing" question throughout the night without actually using those exact words in that exact order, and promptly following it up with a similar question for the man.("Who designed your dress?" he asked Chrissy Teigen before asking her husband, John Legend, what he was wearing). E! also got rid of the mani-cam.

While asking actresses questions about things other than fashion is something weshould do a lot more of (why wouldn't you ask everyoneon the Golden Globes red carpet last month what they thought about the Sony hack that happened just weeks before?!?), it'snot just a question that's completely based in sexism; it's a big part of the fashion industry.

"You might say that awards season is as important, if not even more important, to fashion brands as it is to the entertainment companies that are honored in these ceremonies like the Oscars,"Howard Hogan, an attorney and partner in the Washington, D.C.,-based firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "A favorable review for an Oscar gown can be make or break for the designers who outfit them."

Red carpet fashion can involve contracts and money changing hands. Los Angeles Times reporter Booth Moore tweeted that if we really want to get rid of "who are you wearing," we need to get rid of fashion brands paying actresses to wear their clothes. Without that, the question might not go away. During the 2010 Oscars, Ryan Seacrestabstained from asking about fashion andwas criticized by some in the fashion press, and now five years later, and he's back to asking thosequestion again.

But in politics, where politiciansdon't have to sign contracts aboutwhat wear, this campaign is still good news for female candidates. It shows there's a growing interest in ensuring reporters, whether on the red carpet or in Iowa,treat men and women equally.

Hunter Schwarz covers the intersection of politics and pop culture for the Washington Post

Read the original post:
Hillary Clinton and the #askhermore Oscar campaign

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks on Smart Power: Security Through Inclusive Leadership at Georgetown University in Washington Dec. 3, 2014. Family foundation may pose a threat to her anticipated 2016 presidential campaign. Photo by Kevin Lamarque/REUTERS.

WASHINGTON The foundation launched by former President Bill Clinton more than a decade ago has battled HIV and AIDS in Africa, educated millions of children and fed the poor and hungry around the globe. It also has the potential to become a political risk for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she moves toward a second presidential campaign.

The former secretary of state has struggled with some recent bad headlines over large donations given to the foundation by foreign governments in the past two years, and the $200 million-plus the organization has raised since 2013, ahead of her anticipated White House campaign.

Republicans contend that foreign governments donating to a foundation led by a potential U.S. president creates unacceptable conflicts of interests. Also, the involvement of big money reinforces a long-standing narrative pushed by the GOP of the Clintons as a couple who frequently mix business and politics.

Unless Hillary Clinton immediately reinstates the ban on foreign countries giving to her foundation and returns the millions of dollars these governments have already donated, shes setting an incredibly dangerous precedent, said the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus. The American people are not about to elect a president in Hillary Clinton who could expose them to the demands of foreign governments because they dumped massive sums of cash into her foundation.

The foundation, which is scheduled to hold events in Morocco and Greece this spring, defended its financial support and addressed how it might function if Clinton runs for president. If she seeks office again, something taken as a given by most, the foundation said it would ensure its policies and practices are appropriate, just as we did when she served as secretary of state.

In 2009, when Clinton became President Barack Obamas chief diplomat, the foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments. The fundraising involving non-U.S. entities resumed in 2013, after she left the his administration.

The Wall Street Journal last week reported the foundation had received money in 2014 from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman and others. The Washington Post reported the charity has raised nearly $2 billion since the former president started it in 2001. About one-third of its donations of $1 million or more come from foreign governments or non-U.S. entities, the newspaper found.

Democrats say the Clintons can defend their work at the foundation because of its track record and history of tackling some of the worlds biggest problems, from AIDS and clean water to hunger, educational opportunities and the protection of endangered wildlife.

They also note that the foundation voluntarily discloses its donors nonprofits are not required to do and say there is no evidence the Clintons have used it to enrich themselves. Nearly 90 percent of the foundations money goes toward its programming.

Visit link:
Clinton family foundation may pose political risk for campaign

By KEN THOMAS Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The foundation launched by former President Bill Clinton more than a decade ago has battled HIV and AIDS in Africa, educated millions of children and fed the poor and hungry around the globe. It also has the potential to become a political risk for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she moves toward a second presidential campaign.

The former secretary of state has struggled with some recent bad headlines over large donations given to the foundation by foreign governments in the past two years, and the $200 million-plus the organization has raised since 2013, ahead of her anticipated White House campaign.

Republicans contend that foreign governments donating to a foundation led by a potential U.S. president creates unacceptable conflicts of interests. Also, the involvement of big money reinforces a long-standing narrative pushed by the GOP of the Clintons as a couple who frequently mix business and politics.

"Unless Hillary Clinton immediately reinstates the ban on foreign countries giving to her foundation and returns the millions of dollars these governments have already donated, she's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent," said the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus. "The American people are not about to elect a president in Hillary Clinton who could expose them to the demands of foreign governments because they dumped massive sums of cash into her foundation."

The foundation, which is scheduled to hold events in Morocco and Greece this spring, defended its financial support and addressed how it might function if Clinton runs for president. If she seeks office again, something taken as a given by most, the foundation said it would ensure its policies and practices are "appropriate, just as we did when she served as secretary of state."

In 2009, when Clinton became President Barack Obama's chief diplomat, the foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments. The fundraising involving non-U.S. entities resumed in 2013, after she left his administration.

The Wall Street Journal last week reported the foundation had received money in 2014 from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman and others. The Washington Post reported the charity has raised nearly $2 billion since the former president started it in 2001. About one-third of its donations of $1 million or more come from foreign governments or non-U.S. entities, the newspaper found.

Democrats say the Clintons can defend their work at the foundation because of its track record and history of tackling some of the world's biggest problems, from AIDS and clean water to hunger, educational opportunities and the protection of endangered wildlife.

"The foundation has done amazing work," said Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, a Democrat who campaigned with Bill Clinton last year. "It has been a unifying force in our national affairs and in our international affairs."

See original here:
Foundation cash could pose Hillary Clinton campaign risks - Quincy Herald-Whig | Illinois & Missouri News, Sports