Mediaboss Marketing

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

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.

Continued here:
Hillary Clinton plays the gender card (even when she doesnt)

It's no secret that Hillary Clinton badly wants the approval of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (and the liberal wing of the party she represents) in advance of the former Secretary of State's near-certain 2016 bid. There was themeeting between the two at Clinton's DC house back in December and the various rhetorical bows Clinton has made to Warren's populist rhetoric over the past few months.

Given that recent history, what Warren had to say about Clinton during an appearance on Al Sharpton's MSNBC show Tuesday night has to be disappointing to Clintonworld. Here's the exchange:

Sharpton: A lot of progressives have questions about whether she'll [Hillary Clinton] be a progressive warrior. what would you say to them?

Warren: You know, I think that's what we gotta see. I want to hear what she wants to run on and what she says she wants to do. that's what campaigns are supposed to be about.

Um, ok. If you look up the definition of "lukewarm," you find Warren's statement. She could have very easily said: "Look, Hillary Clinton and I have had a lot of good conversations lately and I am convinced that she will fight for the progressive principles that we both hold dear." But, she didn't say that. And there's a reason why not: Because, at least at the moment, Warren doesn't believe it.

Of course, there's a difference in politics between not being all that convinced in private and making clear you are not all that convinced in public. Warren chose the latter approach, likely because she wants to make sure the Clinton people know that she won't be a pushover. Warren quite clearly wants to remain apart from the ardent Clinton supporters in order to ensure that some of her policy priorities -- particularly a tough and aggressive approach to Wall Street -- are reflected in Clinton's campaign.

That stance doesn't mean Warren is itching to run against Clinton. (I still don't think she is.) But, it does mean that Warren, at least in the near term, may be Republicans' best friend -- providing all sorts of fodder for the GOP as they try to make the case that Clinton isn't really what the Democratic party wants.

Chris Cillizza writes The Fix, a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House.

Follow this link:
The Fix: Elizabeth Warrens answer on Hillary Clintons liberal credentials wasnt convincing at all

Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP Photo Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks during a keynote address at the Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women, Feb. 24, 2015, in Santa Clara, Calif.

SANTA CLARA, Calif. Declaring this the time to crack every last glass ceiling, Hillary Rodham Clinton advocated forcefully here Tuesday for greater economic mobility for women and said she hopes to lead a divided nation into a warm purple space of compromise.

Clintons appearance before 5,000 female leaders in the heart of Silicon Valleys technology industry left no doubt that she would run for president again. The overwhelming favorite for the 2016 Democratic nomination, Clinton said that she would announce her campaign in good time and that she was nearly finished checking off her pre-campaign to-do list.

She previewed themes of economic fairness and gender equality that are expected to form the heart of her pitch to voters, test-driving a stump speech in which she wove together economic statistics and personal anecdotes to call for a 21st-century economy for 21st-century families.

We have to restore economic growth with rising wages for the vast majority of Americans, and we have to restore trust and cooperation within our political system so that we can act like the great country we are, said Clinton, a former secretary of state.

Central to her message was pay equity for women. Clinton singled out Oscar-winning actress Patricia Arquette for her advocacy during the Academy Awards telecast Sunday night.

We all cheered at Patricia Arquettes speech at the Oscars because shes right, Clinton said. Its time to have wage equality once and for all.

Clinton lamented that too many Americans feel the ground shifting under their feet. Wages for middle-class workers have been stagnant, she said, while executive pay continues to rise.

In so many ways, our economy still seems to be operating like its 1955, Clinton said. She added, If we want to find our balance again, we have to figure out how to make this new economy work for everyone.

Clintons speech, followed by a question-and-answer session with tech columnist Kara Swisher, was a paid appearance at Lead On, Watermarks Silicon Valley Conference for Women, where tickets sold for $245. Organizers did not disclose her fee, but Clintons typical rate for West Coast speeches is $250,000 to $300,000.

More:
Hillary Clinton previews 2016, says its time to crack every last glass ceiling

Poutine vs Hillary Clinton : l #39;agressivit inverse des USA.

By: Nre Constant

Read the original:
Poutine vs Hillary Clinton : l'agressivit inverse des USA. - Video