6 Comments
User's avatar
Judith Ferster's avatar

They are too corporate and too AIPAC

Judith Ferster

Gregg Barak's avatar

Another gem CT. Best articulation I've read or heard so far about this DP leadership moment.

Peter MacMonagle's avatar

We have a gerontocracy. We need action not "I am concerned and we will look into it."

Irina Kogan's avatar

Sure, but also what about Jeffries -- is that a case of mental gerontocracy?

Irina Kogan's avatar

This truly resonates. It's a great start that van Hollen has stepped up. And I cannot imagine how having Jeffries as Speaker will be good (or even neutral) for the party's ability to fight for real change. I was surprised to read David Dayen at "American Prospect" critiquing "activists" trying to change leadership (specifically Jeffries) because apparently we no longer live in the Pelosi era when leadership was top-down. There may be a grain of truth in there, but I still overwhelmingly think that Jeffries is just such a huge non-starter for any kind of transformational change. The latter would require strong leadership even at the level of rhetoric and persuasion, and Jeffries couldn't do that if his life depended on it. I also don't understand why more people are not promoting Saikat Chakrabarti's efforts on Twitter to recruit Ayanna Pressley...

John DeSana's avatar

Different subject, i take exception to this ". The Party needs to make sure life is affordable enough for people to not only survive, but thrive." What metrics indicate the USA is not the nation where more people thrive than any other nation?