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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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".

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.