New DNC chair

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

I have always thought Ellison is an interesting politician with some attractive ideas, but I don't know if the optics are great for this selection. I also think his more centrist stance toward Israel could be problematic. Right or wrong, AIPAC is a huge lobby that has traditionally supported Democrats. IMHO, one of the more important things Congressional Democrats need to do is try to salvage the Iran Deal. They need AIPAC to at least not try to derail these efforts.

And there's no getting around the fact that Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion. It's not right, but it's reality. I've posted before, a lot of the criticism of Clinton was not right or fair, but the bad optics her (and the party) in the end.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

I have always thought Ellison is an interesting politician with some attractive ideas, but I don't know if the optics are great for this selection. I also think his more centrist stance toward Israel could be problematic. Right or wrong, AIPAC is a huge lobby that has traditionally supported Democrats. IMHO, one of the more important things Congressional Democrats need to do is try to salvage the Iran Deal. They need AIPAC to at least not try to derail these efforts.

And there's no getting around the fact that Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion. It's not right, but it's reality. I've posted before, a lot of the criticism of Clinton was not right or fair, but the bad optics her (and the party) in the end.

I don't think it is fair, or even wise, to compare an individual's religion to another's person's private email server, family foundation that takes millions in foreign donations, or highly-paid private speeches to the finance industry. Clinton's bad optics generally were a result of her own bad decisions. In the case of Ellison, the factors you site are ones that Democrats should uphold rather than consider "bad".

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear Harry Reid will be available, come January.

Joy!

At least Reid knows how to assemble the nuts and bolts to build a working political machine. That, more than anything is what is needed now. That said, the Democrats have to stop worshiping on the altar of constituency group politics so much.

I'm sure Reid is not interested but he built quite a machine in Nevada. That is the goal.

Reid has endorsed Ellison. Ellison has been endorsed by Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren.

Why? What in Ellison's background makes him the best person for the job? I can't imagine a more controversial pick from the perspective of the average voter.

Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

The Clinton's didn't install DWS. Obama did that. So you mean these people also want a break from Obama's way of doing things, too.

Jennifer Granholm was my choice. She took herself out of contention, saying she believes we need someone who represents the new face of the Democrats. By this she means a person of color.

I'd prefer Tom Perez. Ellison is a needlessly controversial pick and I think a full-time chair is preferable.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

I have always thought Ellison is an interesting politician with some attractive ideas, but I don't know if the optics are great for this selection. I also think his more centrist stance toward Israel could be problematic. Right or wrong, AIPAC is a huge lobby that has traditionally supported Democrats. IMHO, one of the more important things Congressional Democrats need to do is try to salvage the Iran Deal. They need AIPAC to at least not try to derail these efforts.

And there's no getting around the fact that Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion. It's not right, but it's reality. I've posted before, a lot of the criticism of Clinton was not right or fair, but the bad optics her (and the party) in the end.

I don't think it is fair, or even wise, to compare an individual's religion to another's person's private email server, family foundation that takes millions in foreign donations, or highly-paid private speeches to the finance industry. Clinton's bad optics generally were a result of her own bad decisions. In the case of Ellison, the factors you site are ones that Democrats should uphold rather than consider "bad".

Not the poster you are referring to, but I have seen criticism only of Ellison's own speeches and writings, not his religion.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

I have always thought Ellison is an interesting politician with some attractive ideas, but I don't know if the optics are great for this selection. I also think his more centrist stance toward Israel could be problematic. Right or wrong, AIPAC is a huge lobby that has traditionally supported Democrats. IMHO, one of the more important things Congressional Democrats need to do is try to salvage the Iran Deal. They need AIPAC to at least not try to derail these efforts.

And there's no getting around the fact that Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion. It's not right, but it's reality. I've posted before, a lot of the criticism of Clinton was not right or fair, but the bad optics her (and the party) in the end.

I don't think it is fair, or even wise, to compare an individual's religion to another's person's private email server, family foundation that takes millions in foreign donations, or highly-paid private speeches to the finance industry. Clinton's bad optics generally were a result of her own bad decisions. In the case of Ellison, the factors you site are ones that Democrats should uphold rather than consider "bad".

Not the poster you are referring to, but I have seen criticism only of Ellison's own speeches and writings, not his religion.

The poster to whom I replied wrote "Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion".

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

I have always thought Ellison is an interesting politician with some attractive ideas, but I don't know if the optics are great for this selection. I also think his more centrist stance toward Israel could be problematic. Right or wrong, AIPAC is a huge lobby that has traditionally supported Democrats. IMHO, one of the more important things Congressional Democrats need to do is try to salvage the Iran Deal. They need AIPAC to at least not try to derail these efforts.

And there's no getting around the fact that Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion. It's not right, but it's reality. I've posted before, a lot of the criticism of Clinton was not right or fair, but the bad optics her (and the party) in the end.

I don't think it is fair, or even wise, to compare an individual's religion to another's person's private email server, family foundation that takes millions in foreign donations, or highly-paid private speeches to the finance industry. Clinton's bad optics generally were a result of her own bad decisions. In the case of Ellison, the factors you site are ones that Democrats should uphold rather than consider "bad".

Not the poster you are referring to, but I have seen criticism only of Ellison's own speeches and writings, not his religion.

The poster to whom I replied wrote "Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion".

Yes -- I tend to overlook anything with "cuz" in it. That's not what most criticisms of him rest on, though.

Ellison is saying he might resign from Congress to take this post. That puzzles me. He is valuable in Congress and there are many good candidates for DNC chair.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

I have always thought Ellison is an interesting politician with some attractive ideas, but I don't know if the optics are great for this selection. I also think his more centrist stance toward Israel could be problematic. Right or wrong, AIPAC is a huge lobby that has traditionally supported Democrats. IMHO, one of the more important things Congressional Democrats need to do is try to salvage the Iran Deal. They need AIPAC to at least not try to derail these efforts.

And there's no getting around the fact that Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion. It's not right, but it's reality. I've posted before, a lot of the criticism of Clinton was not right or fair, but the bad optics her (and the party) in the end.

I don't think it is fair, or even wise, to compare an individual's religion to another's person's private email server, family foundation that takes millions in foreign donations, or highly-paid private speeches to the finance industry. Clinton's bad optics generally were a result of her own bad decisions. In the case of Ellison, the factors you site are ones that Democrats should uphold rather than consider "bad".

Not the poster you are referring to, but I have seen criticism only of Ellison's own speeches and writings, not his religion.

The poster to whom I replied wrote "Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion".

That was me, and I don't agree with the assessment as I've stated many times. I'm just relaying information I've heard from other people. "Controversial" doesn't have to mean true; it just means people have mixed feelings. That said, to me his stance on Israel is more problematic from a political standpoint...even though I don't personally think it's a bad stance to take. And to me, his religion is irrelevant (maybe even attractive since it's an important statement IMHO).

I could be completely wrong, and obviously the DNC doesn't care what I think. But optics are not about reality, they're about perception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes -- I tend to overlook anything with "cuz" in it. That's not what most criticisms of him rest on, though.

Ellison is saying he might resign from Congress to take this post. That puzzles me. He is valuable in Congress and there are many good candidates for DNC chair.

I'm the cuz poster. I agree with your assessment of Ellison being very valuable in Congress. Sorry if my typing with shorthand on a web forum means you don't care read my opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes -- I tend to overlook anything with "cuz" in it. That's not what most criticisms of him rest on, though.

Ellison is saying he might resign from Congress to take this post. That puzzles me. He is valuable in Congress and there are many good candidates for DNC chair.

I'm the cuz poster. I agree with your assessment of Ellison being very valuable in Congress. Sorry if my typing with shorthand on a web forum means you don't care read my opinions.

I was joking, really. It's weird to me that Ellison would even consider giving up his seat for this. Either he thinks he's some kind of Democratic Messiah or he's maneuvering. His hand isn't that strong, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

I have always thought Ellison is an interesting politician with some attractive ideas, but I don't know if the optics are great for this selection. I also think his more centrist stance toward Israel could be problematic. Right or wrong, AIPAC is a huge lobby that has traditionally supported Democrats. IMHO, one of the more important things Congressional Democrats need to do is try to salvage the Iran Deal. They need AIPAC to at least not try to derail these efforts.

And there's no getting around the fact that Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion. It's not right, but it's reality. I've posted before, a lot of the criticism of Clinton was not right or fair, but the bad optics her (and the party) in the end.

I don't think it is fair, or even wise, to compare an individual's religion to another's person's private email server, family foundation that takes millions in foreign donations, or highly-paid private speeches to the finance industry. Clinton's bad optics generally were a result of her own bad decisions. In the case of Ellison, the factors you site are ones that Democrats should uphold rather than consider "bad".

Not the poster you are referring to, but I have seen criticism only of Ellison's own speeches and writings, not his religion.

Same here. Plus, his former Farrakhan association is still concerning.

[Anonymous]

Being charismatic isn't really a necessary qualification for the job. What is Ellison's specific experience with party building? It doesn't seem he has any, but I'd love to hear about it if he does.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear Harry Reid will be available, come January.

Joy!

At least Reid knows how to assemble the nuts and bolts to build a working political machine. That, more than anything is what is needed now. That said, the Democrats have to stop worshiping on the altar of constituency group politics so much.

I'm sure Reid is not interested but he built quite a machine in Nevada. That is the goal.

Reid has endorsed Ellison. Ellison has been endorsed by Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren.

I don't really care who has endorsed him. Why should he have the job?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear Harry Reid will be available, come January.

Joy!

At least Reid knows how to assemble the nuts and bolts to build a working political machine. That, more than anything is what is needed now. That said, the Democrats have to stop worshiping on the altar of constituency group politics so much.

I'm sure Reid is not interested but he built quite a machine in Nevada. That is the goal.

Reid has endorsed Ellison. Ellison has been endorsed by Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren.

Why? What in Ellison's background makes him the best person for the job? I can't imagine a more controversial pick from the perspective of the average voter.

Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

What exactly has the progressive caucus accomplished? They don't seem particularly skilled in getting progressives elected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear Harry Reid will be available, come January.

Joy!

At least Reid knows how to assemble the nuts and bolts to build a working political machine. That, more than anything is what is needed now. That said, the Democrats have to stop worshiping on the altar of constituency group politics so much.

I'm sure Reid is not interested but he built quite a machine in Nevada. That is the goal.

Reid has endorsed Ellison. Ellison has been endorsed by Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren.

I don't really care who has endorsed him. Why should he have the job?

Silence.

[Anonymous]

Ellison isn't looking good since the 2010 speech surfaced. The election isn't until February. More candidates will enter the race, and that's a good thing.