Mediaboss Marketing

Breaking News! UFO Sightings President Bill Clinton Hillary Investigate UFOs! Washington DC 2013!
Breaking News! Did President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton Investigate The UFO Phenomenon? Incredible Insight Watch Entire Hearing visit F*@kin Krazy Man..Flew over us, making a very weird...

By: UFO Sightings 2015

See more here:
Breaking News! UFO Sightings President Bill Clinton & Hillary Investigate UFOs! Washington DC 2013! - Video

Not only is she running, but we have a very good idea of what it will look like.

Hillary Clinton is in the final stages of planning a presidential campaign that is likely to launch in early April, and has made decisions on most top posts, according to numerous Democrats in close contact with the Clintons and their aides.

Story Continued Below

Campaign advisers say the likelihood of a campaign, long at 98 percent (she never really hesitated, according to one person close to her), went to 100 percent right after Christmas, when Clinton approved a preliminary budget and several key hires.

Most of the top slots have been decided, with one notable exception: communications director, a job that is now the subject of intense lobbying and jockeying by some of the biggest names in Democratic politics. One top contender is White House Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, who is close to likely campaign chairman John Podesta.

Numerous lessons from Clintons failed 08 campaign are being baked into the 2016 plan, including a determination to improve relations with the press or, at the very least, to have a good cop role to help her get off on a better foot with the journalists who will help shape her image.

Reflecting other lessons learned, the campaign is being planned with more of a big-tent mentality, as one adviser put it. And Bill Clinton is being integrated from the start, after feeling isolated from parts of her campaign against Barack Obama.

One component of Hillary Clintons emerging strategy involves quietly but aggressively courting key endorsers from the left, who could help increase progressives comfort level and take the wind out of a potential challenge. Two top targets: Robert Reich, the economist and former Labor secretary for her husband, and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the civil-rights icon. In December, she won public endorsements from Howard Dean and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).

Bill Clinton is already deeply engaged in the campaign, warning that Jeb Bush is a real threat, while New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is probably just a sideshow.

The former president got a heads-up from the camp of President George H.W. Bush a few days before Jeb Bush made his surprise Facebook announcement in December that he would actively explore a campaign. The two former presidents have developed a friendly bond, partly because of their work together on earthquake relief for Haiti.

More here:
Inside Hillary Clinton's 2016 plan

Hillary Clintons liabilities have been endlessly chewed over by the punditocracy:

Shes too tied to Wall Street. Out of step with the Democratic left. Prone to dead broke mistakes. Hardly a fresh face. Another Clinton. Benghazi.

But theres one question that hasnt been discussed lately. Indeed, it seemed to have been written off as a non-issue. But it popped up in a largely overlooked part of a Washington Post/ABC poll:

Nearly one-quarter of Republicans surveyed, 24 percent, say the fact that Hillary would be the first female president makes them less likely to vote for her. Only 8 percent say they would be more likely.

Think about that for a moment. Those Republicans are telling pollsters that they are simply not comfortable with the idea of a woman in the Oval Office.

Were at the point where this sort of thing doesnt even get discussed in polite company. Yes, women are underrepresented in Congress, and yes, many states like New York and California have never had a female governor, and yes, many cities like New York and L.A. have never had a female mayor. But if Germany has Angela Merkel and Britain had Margaret Thatcher, wont America eventually take that step?

Even Sarah Palin, while hinting at her own desires about 2016, told ABC the other day:America has had enough of seeing thatsign on the Oval Office door saying No Girls Allowed.

Clinton, after all, has already played on the world stage, both as first lady and secretary of State. And while she ran almost as a gender-neutral candidate in 2008, shes made clear that this time shell cast herself as a trailblazer who can shatter the ultimate glass ceiling.

Its obviously fair to talk about how Hillary could pull a stronger-than-usual womens vote, just as Barack Obama drew record support from blacks. In the poll, 40 percent of Democrats say Hillarys gender makes them more likely to vote for her (while two-thirds say it makes no difference).

So is the potential downside fair game for discussion as well?

See the original post here:
The gender factor: Is that actually an obstacle for Hillary Clinton?

With the necessary caveat up front -- it is very, very, very, very early -- 2016 is shaping up to be an awful lot like 2012, not 2008: a Democrat facing no real opposition who will sit back and watch an eccentric mixture of Republicans battle it out for the right to be on the ballot in November. Unlike 2012, though, that's not great news for Democrats.

First the big (non-)news: Hey, Hillary Clinton is going to run for president. Who knew? There are few likely presidential candidates with better pedigrees for the position than Clinton. She has White House experience (arguably more useful White House experience than Vice President Biden), she has been in the Senate, she has been secretary of state. It's not as though this is a surprise, of course. Everyone knows all of this. Everyone knows everything about Hillary Clinton, from her favorite style of outfit (pantsuit) to her default posture on international issues (hawkish-ish) to her mannerisms, staffers and family members.

Therein lies the risk. For a Republican to win in 2016, he or she needs to surmount one bar: be better than Hillary Clinton. And it's not clear, from a political standpoint, that this is a very high bar.

Campaign theory often suggests that competitive primaries in one party and a clear path in the other serves the latter party. After all, the competitive primary party spends months tearing its candidates apart, while the other gets to simply sit back and cash checks. But consider the last time there was an open presidential contest on each side. Sen. John McCain of Arizona (relatively) quickly locked up the Republican nomination; Barack Obama and Clinton battled for months (thanks, in part, to Clinton's refusal to acknowledge the inevitable). So much hand-wringing over the damage done to the party! But the end result was a romp.

That election is instructive in other ways, too. What more do we know about Clinton now than we did then? She was leading by a healthy margin that year (although not as healthy as she does now), only to be overtaken by Obama as the primaries approached. A clear reason why: He was exciting. There's a benefit to being a political blank slate, as Obama was: Voters can inscribe whatever motivations or philosophies they see fit. But there's more benefit to being someone people get excited about. This was partly McCain's (and Mitt Romney's) problem. Who, really, was terribly excited about either? McCain's campaign got a jolt with the introduction of Sarah Palin, but that . . . offered mixed benefits.

But, you're thinking, the Republicans lost in 2012, the race to which you're comparing this one! And, yes, your close reading has been rewarded with an insight. The problem with assuming that 2016 will therefore see a Republican loss is that Obama and Clinton are very different candidates -- and it's possible (although not certain) that the GOP will pick someone with a bit more panache than McCain or Romney this time around. That's really the question. Can, say, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) survive the gauntlet (and his last name) to compel independents in a general? Can former Florida governor Jeb Bush overcome his name problems and engage voters? Or Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) or Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) or Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker or [list continues for 1,600 names]? Republican voters tend to be, well, conservative in their choices, but it's certainly possible that someone electrifying could emerge -- or be sculpted -- over the next 12 months.

Which brings us back to a core Clinton problem: energy. No, commenters and people on Twitter, the best president is not the one who has the best ability to invigorate voters. But this is, you may have noticed, a key component of how we pick presidents in an age so thoroughly saturated with marketing. And Clinton, although not without vocal supporters, seems continuously unlikely to be the most energizing candidate. "Ready for Hillary" often seemed less like a grass-roots push born of uncontainable excitement than a sharp strategy from some political consultants looking to align with a winning candidate early in the process. At her book-signing in New York last June, the refrain from those who bought "Hard Choices" was commonly, "Well, she might be president." And those who bought the book were in the stark minority.

How will she overcome this? Reinvent herself, a la Romney in 2012 and Romney in 2016? Learn how to say "secretary of state" in other, more interesting-sounding languages? Clinton is what she is, which serves her very well for locking up the Democratic primary. Then what?

Clinton has a huge head start in the race to 2016. But without the jolt of a primary, the pace will continue: slow, steady, deliberate. Meanwhile, the Republicans are doing their best to breed a jackrabbit.

Philip Bump writes about politics for The Fix. He is based in New York City.

Read the original:
The Fix: What, exactly, is Hillary Clintons strategy to get voters excited about her candidacy?

With the necessary caveat up front -- it is very, very, very, very early -- 2016 is shaping up to be an awful lot like 2012, not 2008: a Democrat facing no real opposition who will sit back and watch an eccentric mixture of Republicans battle it out for the right to be on the ballot in November. Unlike 2012, though, that's not great news for Democrats.

First the big (non-)news: Hey, Hillary Clinton is going to run for president. Who knew? There are few likely presidential candidates with better pedigrees for the position than Clinton. She has White House experience (arguably more useful White House experience than Vice President Biden), she has been in the Senate, she has been secretary of state. It's not as though this is a surprise, of course. Everyone knows all of this. Everyone knows everything about Hillary Clinton, from her favorite style of outfit (pantsuit) to her default posture on international issues (hawkish-ish) to her mannerisms, staffers and family members.

Therein lies the risk. For a Republican to win in 2016, he or she needs to surmount one bar: be better than Hillary Clinton. And it's not clear, from a political standpoint, that this is a very high bar.

Campaign theory often suggests that competitive primaries in one party and a clear path in the other serves the latter party. After all, the competitive primary party spends months tearing its candidates apart, while the other gets to simply sit back and cash checks. But consider the last time there was an open presidential contest on each side. Sen. John McCain of Arizona (relatively) quickly locked up the Republican nomination; Barack Obama and Clinton battled for months (thanks, in part, to Clinton's refusal to acknowledge the inevitable). So much hand-wringing over the damage done to the party! But the end result was a romp.

That election is instructive in other ways, too. What more do we know about Clinton now than we did then? She was leading by a healthy margin that year (although not as healthy as she does now), only to be overtaken by Obama as the primaries approached. A clear reason why: He was exciting. There's a benefit to being a political blank slate, as Obama was: Voters can inscribe whatever motivations or philosophies they see fit. But there's more benefit to being someone people get excited about. This was partly McCain's (and Mitt Romney's) problem. Who, really, was terribly excited about either? McCain's campaign got a jolt with the introduction of Sarah Palin, but that . . . offered mixed benefits.

But, you're thinking, the Republicans lost in 2012, the race to which you're comparing this one! And, yes, your close reading has been rewarded with an insight. The problem with assuming that 2016 will therefore see a Republican loss is that Obama and Clinton are very different candidates -- and it's possible (although not certain) that the GOP will pick someone with a bit more panache than McCain or Romney this time around. That's really the question. Can, say, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) survive the gauntlet (and his last name) to compel independents in a general? Can former Florida governor Jeb Bush overcome his name problems and engage voters? Or Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) or Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) or Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker or [list continues for 1,600 names]? Republican voters tend to be, well, conservative in their choices, but it's certainly possible that someone electrifying could emerge -- or be sculpted -- over the next 12 months.

Which brings us back to a core Clinton problem: energy. No, commenters and people on Twitter, the best president is not the one who has the best ability to invigorate voters. But this is, you may have noticed, a key component of how we pick presidents in an age so thoroughly saturated with marketing. And Clinton, although not without vocal supporters, seems continuously unlikely to be the most energizing candidate. "Ready for Hillary" often seemed less like a grass-roots push born of uncontainable excitement than a sharp strategy from some political consultants looking to align with a winning candidate early in the process. At her book-signing in New York last June, the refrain from those who bought "Hard Choices" was commonly, "Well, she might be president." And those who bought the book were in the stark minority.

How will she overcome this? Reinvent herself, a la Romney in 2012 and Romney in 2016? Learn how to say "secretary of state" in other, more interesting-sounding languages? Clinton is what she is, which serves her very well for locking up the Democratic primary. Then what?

Clinton has a huge head start in the race to 2016. But without the jolt of a primary, the pace will continue: slow, steady, deliberate. Meanwhile, the Republicans are doing their best to breed a jackrabbit.

Philip Bump writes about politics for The Fix. He is based in New York City.

Original post:
What, exactly, is Hillary Clintons strategy to get voters excited about her candidacy?