The recently minted presidential candidate, sporting a navy blue sweater and an American-flag-themed scarf, was all smiles as she walked down the streets of the town of 1,500 alongside her husband.
Swarmed by media and hundreds local residents, Hillary and Bill Clinton simply smiled and waved as they marched with hundreds of others in the parade, stopping occasionally for selfies and photos with supporters sporting “Chappaqua for Hillary” shirts and “Ready for Hillary” posters.
A new essay by Julie Zuckerbrod describes how an old law championed by Hillary in her days as first lady is still helping unite needy children with loving parents to make happy new families today.
But the road leading up was long and rough for the brothers, who had lingered in the system and been separated numerous times in foster care. Had it not been for the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), a law that then–First Lady Hillary Clinton worked across the aisle to build support for in Congress, their adoption might not have been possible.
Both Karen and Edwina grew up in large, close-knit families, and they knew from the start that they wanted to adopt a group of siblings out of foster care. But finding them proved difficult. Many states have long backlogs of children in foster care, but Karen and Edwina had a difficult time using state websites to find children waiting to be adopted. Thanks in part to the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which helps facilitate adoptions across state lines, Karen and Edwina were able to look beyond their home state of Georgia when they were ready to adopt.
Karen and Edwina searched extensively across the country. After months of looking and applying, they were matched with four brothers from Texas. It took them only seconds to confirm that they wanted to adopt these brothers, but they had to wait for the boys to accept….
Thanks to the ASFA, they had access to health care coverage and support services, which eased some of the financial burden. Therefore, instead of focusing on the stress of how to make ends meet, they were able to spend time time getting to know their children and nurture the loving, caring family Karen and Edwina knew they were meant to be.
Politico caught up with advertizing gurus Sid Myers and Lloyd Wright from the team that produced political ads for LBJ in his fight against Barry Goldwater in 1964. They had a lot of advice about how the lessons of that day could be used to produce messages against this year’s extremely risky and attention-seeking Republican candidate Donald Trump.
Sid: Trump doesn’t “speak his mind”; he speaks what his mind thinks will get him the most votes, wherever that may be.
Lloyd: He says what he thinks people want to hear, and he can change it — and does change it — often. And that leaves him vulnerable to illustrating, actually, his egomania and pandering. I view him almost as a con artist, and that’s how he cons people: if they are of an opinion that he says he believes, they don’t seem to question the substance of what he says.
Robert: Part of Goldwater’s demise was that he wouldn't backtrack; he would double-down on his crazier statements. And now that it’s time for the general election, Trump is trying to moderate his image and soften it a little bit. Goldwater made it easy for you in that he didn't try to change his position as much as Trump presumably will. So if you’re Hillary, how do you respond to that?
Lloyd: I’m thinking of our“Confessions of a Republican” spot, which was 4 minutes long. It basically took something Goldwater said once and then later said the exact opposite. Then we asked the question “Did he mean that when he said it, or did he mean it when he said, ‘I didn't mean it like that?’”
In this slow news period as we wait for the two parties’ political conventions to take place this summer, the news has been filled with all kinds of pointless chatter. Many pieces are not worth a glance, but I did think one interview in the Washington Post of Kelly Dittmar and Julie Dolan had a few interesting points about gender stereotypes in our society and the effect in the political sphere.
THE FIX: Do voters expect female candidates to be more honest than male ones?
DITTMAR: Research on gender stereotypes has shown that women are often perceived as more honest than their male counterparts. For example, a 2014 Pew poll found that 34 percent of respondents believe that women in high-level political offices are better than men at being honest and ethical, while just 3 percent see men as better on the same traits.
These perceptions can be advantageous to women. Some research, like Kathleen Dolan’s 2004 book, [“Voting for Women”] has found that voters most concerned about honesty in government were more likely to vote for women candidates. [Editor’s note: Kathleen Dolan and Julie Dolan are not related.] Political consultants I spoke with in my book talked about women’s “virtue advantage” as beneficial in crafting female candidates’ images and messages. However, opponents — especially men — who are aware of that advantage are quick to develop strategies to eliminate it, raising questions about women’s honesty and integrity whenever given the chance. Those attacks may be more effective against women than men because women are held to a higher standard on honesty and ethics. In other words, since voters are more likely to expect women to be honest, the penalty to women for appearing dishonest may be greater than it is for men.
It truly is remarkable that we are going to require a careful, methodical approach to fight the media and expose to the American public what a thoroughly dishonest and incompetent candidate Donald Trump is this year. But I am absolutely thrilled that Hillary Clinton and the team she has assembled has what it takes to do it.