The Republican presidential nomination race has previously devolved to the level of an elementary school playground (penis-measuring in a national debate), and has now risen to at least high school (if not a college frat house) with the vicious battle going on between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz over who can insult each other's wives the most.
The Washington Post published today a shockingly critical article questioning why EMILY's List is spending big to defeat a progressive Democrat. Really? Of course EMILY's List is spending big to elect a progressive, pro-choice Democratic woman. Duh. That is exactly its mission.
Another takeaway from the interview (which has been mentioned by numerous commentators already) is that it's still quite unclear how a Trump presidency would work in practice. Trump continues to have a hard time explaining how he'd implement his ideas. On other occasions, he doesn't really answer questions. The Donald is, quite frankly, drowning in vagaries and obfuscation.
Our elite class loves to explain to laid-off workers why their woes are their own fault. They don't have a college degree. They should have started their own companies. They're on drugs. They're too fat or lazy or dim to quickly adapt. Trump beckons... "There will be so many jobs." "It will be beautiful."
If Mr. Trump wants to address media organizations that "write purposely negative and horrible, false articles" then the law is already established as to his rights to do that.
I have never been so proud of my journalism profession in my life! Several hundred reporters, diplomats, and politicians celebrated the release and re...
If we were to be honest, we would describe Mr. Trump as a reflection of ourselves; not only of those who agree with his statements, both openly and behind closed doors, but of the apathy of those in all parties who know better and refuse to speak up.
History has shown that Americans will, and have, accepted unlikeable leaders, when individuals possess exceptional talent. But in 2016, likeability, not talent, may be the most important attribute going, because it insures amnesty for insults, snarky come-backs and wild accusations.
Since the new year, much of the Clinton campaign coverage has revolved around trying to detail her weaknesses, stitching together scenarios where she would fail, and just generally bemoaning what an awful campaign she was supposedly running.
For some strange reason, many American citizens today seem to believe that because an individual may have come from a privileged background or a 'political' family, they should either have a right to attain elected office or will naturally do a better job than someone who isn't 'privileged' or part of a political dynasty.
I am not defending Hillary Clinton. That is something she can do for herself -- or not. What concerns me is the creation of a bogus standard, one that is unattainable in both the private and public realm, and one which ironically invites lying and misrepresentation.
The Washington Post and Jonathan Capehart seem to be unwilling to accept the evidence and refuse to admit that they were wrong. They did not update the article. They did not admit their mistake.
Those of us that prefer Uber to the other alternatives hope we are wrong about the negative impact of the logo and brand changes. From the market reaction so far and a deeper understanding how human brains process logos and brands, I don't think we are.
Media message received: Clinton is loud and cantankerous! But it's not just awkward gender stereotypes that are in play these days. It's a much larger pattern of thumb-on-the-scale coverage and commentary. Just look at what seemed to be the press' insatiable appetite to frame Clinton's Iowa caucus win last week as an unnerving loss.
We have serious doubts that we'll see Trump at any future debates -- after all, if he can blow them off with impunity, why would he subject himself to them in the first place?
After Bernie Sanders said his religious beliefs were nondenominational, it took 48 hours for a major news outlet, the Washington Post, to question whether Bernie Sanders could win a general election with his unconventional religious affiliation.