New DNC chair

[Anonymous]

TLDR.

Go Ellison!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.

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

Ellison's religion is fine. His race is fine.

His past association with a bigoted advocate of racial separatism is not fine. And Ellison's refusal to unequivocally condemn Farakhan's bigoted teachings is completely unacceptable.

I think Ellison's rejection of the Nation of Islam and condemnation of Farakhan is pretty unequivocal here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Ds-8NoJgE1TkhUOVpKbE1lam9hbjJYdm8xb0pEcmZrSnN3/preview

Perhaps, but it doesn't really matter. It took me a long time to accept the fact that perception is reality (especially in a 'post truth' world where most people get their 'news' from Facebook). It would take Trump and his supporters about a nanosecond to spread 'the truth that the mainstream press won't tell you' - Ellison is a radical Muslim supporter of Farrakahn. Why do we need that baggage? There are other qualified candidates out there who would not be a distraction. Personally, I'd love to see Howard Dean in the role, but there are certainly other people who could do the job. I just do not get why the Democratic hierarchy insists on supporting a guy who not only potentially alienates the average American voter but who alienates a lot of centrist Democratic voters (like me) as well.

For one thing, the hardcore Trump/Breitbart crowd already think that Obama/Pelosi/Liberals whatever are the devil. So it does not matter what they think of us.
Second, the DNC chair is a pretty obscure position for anyone but political junkies like us- it's not like they are putting Ellison out as a candidate.
I would worry about the substance, but not about the optics, for this particular position.

[Anonymous]

And an extremist leftie is going to help Dems regains power because...Sanders says so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And an extremist leftie is going to help Dems regains power because...Sanders says so?

Exactly! There is nothing wrong with the current message; we just need more people to hear and adopt it.