Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Responds to Comments from Claire McCaskill: 'Pretty Disappointing'

[Trumpocalypse]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Responds to Comments from Claire McCaskill: ‘Pretty Disappointing’

Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded today after comments about her from outgoing Democratic senator Claire McCaskill.

McCaskill gave an interview to CNN this week wherein she said Republican lawmakers privately admit President Donald Trump is “nuts,” but she also made news in questioning why Ocasio-Cortez is “the thing” and “a bright and shiny new object” for Democrats.

....
Ocasio-Cortez responded on Twitter today, calling McCaskill’s comments “disappointing” and saying what Republicans admit in private means nothing:

https://www.mediaite.com/online/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-responds-to-comments-from-claire-mccaskill-pretty-disappointing/

[SMC22307]

5. Claire's?

Why do you think so?

[lunatica]

7. Who's age?

[Arkansas Granny]

18. Her age? I hope you don't mean that the way it sounded.

[NurseJackie]

82. It appears so.

Sad.

[marble falls]

83. I think she was referring to a lack of seasoning. As in 'rookie mistake'. I hope so ...

at any rate.

Edit: OOOPs did I ever miss that one. Ageism is always wrong.



Whatever AOC needs to accomplish she's going to do well.

[walkingman]

2. Disappointed in McCaskill myself

Ocasio-Cortez got it right. What the GOP says in private means nothing nor do those that are leaving. The Dems had better understand that acting like Republican Lite is not what the American people want......anymore. Time to speak out and do something different before the country is no longer recognizable.

[Joe941]

8. Yup.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

9. Me too!!

[Autumn]

14. We will be hearing how wrong AOC is shortly.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

85. As sure as the sun comes up tomorrow... so glad AOC doesn't take shit from anybody.

Such an inspiration!!

[moonscape]

27. It means more than nothing....

If they didn't think he was nuts it would mean a much higher climb. They might be at a tipping point like it was with Nixon when finally those who supported him publicly acted on what they believed privately.

[erronis]

79. I wonder how the repugs can act if they admit their faults. Mea culpas? Retiring?

Maybe pretend switching parties? Maybe pretend being closeted "moderates" who want to make good?

I think any repug that spent more than 1 year supporting the agenda of turtleneck, lyan, dump should just go back to selling used cars. And as always, buyer BEWARE!

[Power 2 the People]

28. +1000

[SMC22307]

200. Exactly. They got their tax cuts, are stacking the courts...

and are coming for SS and Medicare. The Democratic-controlled House and Democratic-minority Senate better act like a HUGE blue wall.

[brush]

3. AOC should confer with fellow newbie Rep. llhan Omar of Minn.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11599246

The repugs are the ones to go after.

[George II]

58. Yes, or Sharice Davids, or Jahana Hayes, or Ayanna Pressley, or Deb Haaland....

....all of whom are newly elected WOC entering Congress next week. We haven't seen ANY of them attack their fellow Democrats. They're probably too busy learning how to work with others in Congress to get things done, not dwell on and react to every perceived negative word directed their way.

[0rganism]

16. not as far as I can tell

seems more like she's saying that McCaskille's giving Republicans too much credence regarding what they say to her privately and using it as a jumping off point to attack the incoming Democrats. perhaps inadvertantly.

apparently there's ambiguity. what did AOC say that might cause you to think she was calling Sen. McCaskille a Republican? cos that would be disappointing in a couple different ways.

[womanofthehills]

62. What is really disappointing is McCaskill backing Trump on the wall

What's with that?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

86. Seriously... very disappointing.

[demmiblue]

6. She is not allowed to speak her truth, doncha know?!

If she does, the Fox news types have hissy fits (or try to create divisions among Dems). I think she scares them, honestly.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

84. IKR!!

[EffieBlack]

93. Is she the only one permitted to "speak her truth"?

While, God forbid, anyone else speak THEIR truth if it in any way conflicts with hers?

[irisblue]

10. Here are the 2 tweets from AOC I found on her timeline regarding McCaskell

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) Tweeted:
Not sure why fmr Sen. McCaskill keeps going on TV to call me a “thing” and “shiny object,” but it’s pretty disappointing.

McCaskill promised she’d “100% back Trump up” on his anti-immigrant rhetoric & lost. In MO, almost all progressive ballot issues won. https://t.co/53qKvnr8KG

Link to tweet

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) Tweeted:
In fact, I actually went to Missouri after my primary. I met w Ferguson activists + progressive organizers.

A conservative even came to embed at one of our rallies there. You can tell she was inspired + struggled w/ Fox News bc our message resonated:
https://t.co/P0ywHxhC4V

Link to tweet

[irisblue]

13. Oops, forgot the 3rd one

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) Tweeted:
I’m also not sure why McCaskill is covering for the GOP by saying they “secretly think Trump is nuts”.

Nobody cares. Trump is melting down our institutions and inciting division between people. At any time GOP could have checked him and choose not to.

They’re accomplices.

Link to tweet

[George II]

19. "Covering up for trump"? REALLY? Is that how she interprets that comment by McCaskill?

I suspect that Cortez didn't watch the entire CNN interview.

[Trumpocalypse]

21. Actually she said

covering for the GOP, not Trump. If you’re going to criticize her at least do it based on the truth.

[George II]

22. Whatever. She should be more concerned with what the republicans are doing and....

....planning and what's going on in the House than a Senator who probably will never be in the Senate chamber again.

[Trumpocalypse]

24. She has the right to respond

McCaskill started it. Why is she bashing an up and coming woman in the party?

[George II]

39. Once again - watch the interview!!!!!

[Trumpocalypse]

49. I did

and McCaskill was very harsh when she didn’t need to be.

[TeamPooka]

156. "Whatever" is what people say when caught misquoting or getting their facts wrong. So adorable.

[George II]

162. The "whatever" was that a minor "misquote" was trump vs. GOP. Same thing in the big picture.

Yes, adorable isn't it?

[TeamPooka]

164. Details matter. Those who think they don't and brush them off are not people I consider serious to a

debate.

[George II]

172. Whatever.

[Cha]

57. That's insulting.. accusing Claire of ".. covering up for

gop.. " which in essence is trump.

[Blaukraut]

25. AOC is 100% correct with those 3 tweets.

McCaskill pandered to voters she was never going to get and really IS covering for her soon-to-be former GOP colleagues. What they say in private means nothing if they can't back it up with actions.

[disillusioned73]

210. Pandered is quite.... generous,

since she is a former now.. I can straight up call it what it was - BIGOTED. and she still lost - gee I wonder why.. now she can go join the party she really represents, since she was so pro-WALL, anti-immigrant..

[Raven123]

11. Her statement confuses me

McCaskill was an early enthusiastic supporter of Obama. Yet I don't recall that support based on specific policy differences between him and others. She thought he was the right person for the moment. Sounds close to a "bright shiny object" statement to me.

It just seems to me that she is commenting a lot on the power of personality and I don't get it.

[LakeArenal]

12. Well, Claire....

AOC is new and shiny. As you once were.
Disappointing? Sore grapes from an old established vine.

[irisblue]

15. And that vineyard keeper wasn't able to prevent her own state Dem Party from disarray

McCaskell was unable to slow her state party splintering.

[George II]

17. Why does she insist on bashing a long serving public servant and Senator who will be....

....out of office in a few days?

Aren't there enough republicans to pick fights with?

I suggest she, and anyone else who feels that Senator McCaskill are out of line, watch the entire CNN interview and the context in which she made those comments.

By the way, McCaskill doesn't "keep going on TV", she had ONE interview! The fact that CNN has run it more than once isn't McCaskill's doing.

I also suggest that all incoming Democratic members of Congress pay attention to the job at hand and not dwell on a few innocuous comments by an outgoing Senator or anyone else. This is the major leagues now.

PS - I see that she and Justice Democrats have also been on a tirade on twitter today bashing Pelosi, too.

[Trumpocalypse]

20. Why was McCaskill bashing on her?

Seems fairly petty.

[George II]

23. As I've pointed out several times, people should watch the entire CNN interview, not just excerpts..

...that some are dwelling on. It was an extensive interview and she was only responding to questions posed by the interviewer. She wasn't "bashing on her" at all.

Reminds me of the Tammy Duckworth interview several months ago, she answered a somewhat leading question and got attacked for it.

It's beginning to look like no Democrats are safe from "petty" criticism. We've got more important things to worry about next year than parsing every single interview by OUR Democrats.

I think Cortez should take a deep breath and look at what all the Democrats she's been attacking lately have accomplished in their political career (Pelosi, Duckworth, McCaskill, Gillibrand, etc.). When she's close to equaling their accomplishments she can go after them. Until then?

[Trumpocalypse]

26. McCaskill could have been nicer

in her reply. AOC has every right to respond. Making excuses for McCaskill while slamming AOC is a double standard.

[George II]

29. Watch the interview.

And McCaskill has a long distinguished career in public service spanning about four decades. Cortez hasn't even been sworn in yet.

What's she going to do once the republicans start on her? I said about a month or so ago, the best thing she could do is sit down and have a heart to heart talk with Hillary Clinton. She could learn quite a bit from her.

[USALiberal]

31. Sour grapes from McCaskill. Jealous of her success. nt

[George II]

33. Not at all. Once again, watch the interview......

....I'm sure McCaskill doesn't care a whit about "her success".

McCaskill was a ground breaker in Missouri. She was the first Democrat elected to the Senate in almost forty years AND the first (and only) woman elected to the Senate from Missouri.

Nothing for her to be jealous of whatsoever.

[Trumpocalypse]

50. People did watch it

So that is no defense of McCaskill.

[womanofthehills]

61. McCaskill also is 100% behind Trump on border control & stopping caravan

Total opposite of AOC who wants to abolish ICE. Maybe, McCaskill is jealous that AOC is from a liberal state and does not have to repress what she really believes like McCaskill has to do with all the conservatives in her state. AOL can tell it as she sees it, Claire could never do that in Missouri.

[R B Garr]

110. Trump accused Democrats in those states of being for "open

borders, SOCIALISM, and crime”. That’s what Claire was up against, but your analysis is that she is just jealous of other women,

It looks like the latest wave of socialists might have done her in. edit: Claire was right in pointing this out. Thanks, Claire.

[George II]

115. I seriously doubt that McCaskill is "jealous" of anyone, man or woman. She's a political pioneer...

...in the state of Missouri.

The first Democrat elected to the Senate since 1980 (38 years)
The first WOMAN elected to the Senate from Missouri

Some people could learn a lot about Senator McCaskill if they ever bothered.

[EffieBlack]

118. AOC hasn't even been sworn in, yet her fan club is convinced everyone wants to be her ...

Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2018, 12:32 PM - Edit history (2)

I hope she learns not to listen to them and doesn’t let them goad her into being a celebrity instead of a serious legislator.

[George II]

130. It's frightening how little some of the people associated with her (and Justice Democrats) know....

....I saw on twitter this morning from Waleed Shahid, the Communications Director of Justice Democrats. Saikat Chakrabarti (her chief of staff) retweeted it. I guess they slept through their class when they taught about the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment to the Constitution?

Link to tweet

[EffieBlack]

140. Hunh?

On edit - I think this was supposed to be a joke.

[melman]

147. Yes it is amazing how little some people know

Like how to read things on the internet and figure out their meaning in context.

A good way to do that on twitter would be to read the whole thread, but barring that one could at least endeavor to understand the meaning of the first tweet in an exchange. This will help work out the meaning of the second. Hopefully.


And the very least one could do is realize when they see the 'aliens' guy it's a pretty good clue it's a joke.

[George II]

165. The tweet said this:

"Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans imposed a tax on slaveowners and the resulting market forces led slavery to be abolished."

It's a simple, definitive statement. If I misread it I'm sure you can explain what it really states - c'mon melman, give it a shot, okay?

I'm also sure that the six hundred thousand Union and Confederate troops who died in the Civil War would disagree with that tweet had they not be killed.

[melman]

178. Sorry

If it's not beyond obvious that the point was that that didn't happen...then there's really not much one could explain.


but this might help at least a bit https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

[George II]

187. I'm sure Waleed Shahid sent you an email telling you he was being sarcastic.

[Demsrule86]

207. She is going to face primary in two years in my opinion.

[R B Garr]

129. Yes, it's a petty thing to say that someone is "jealous" when

an evil ogre in the WH with a bully pulpit is targeting you with evil propaganda about socialists. It’s a silly default to try and claim a woman is just jealous. Shameful and wrong.

[George II]

132. Since the primary in June these Democrats have been attacked:

Joseph Crowley (falsely accused of "mounting a 3rd party candidacy&quot
Tammy Duckworth
Kirsten Gillibrand
Andrew Cuomo
Nancy Pelosi - a number of times, most recently Friday
Claire McCaskill

Here's the list of republicans that have been attacked:

[R B Garr]

142. Wow, that is a disgusting trend, no excuse for it. It has

gotten us nowhere, edit /-attack Republicans instead!

There is a noticeable trend to normalize this, and it’s also noticeable that those who dish it out can’t take it when they are rightfully questioned.

[disillusioned73]

211. Thanks Claire??? wtf

for what, running a bigoted campaign & still losing???

Gee, thanks for the memories...

Oh, & please don't try & spin - theres video..

[R B Garr]

213. I said thanks to Claire for being honest that not every district/state of the country

is 80% Democratic. Thanks to Claire for her wins in a deep red state. Thanks to Claire for not being manipulated into the one-size-fits-all mantras lately that didn't even win in very progressive California and that Vermont also rejected.

Thanks Claire.

[disillusioned73]

214. I say, thanks Claire...

for showing your true self before leaving office;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=rM6hVO53STY

Crazy Democrats??

[R B Garr]

215. Sorry, but your concern over her Democrats comment

looks contrived since the socialist folks say negative things about Democrats regularly, and far worse. I remember we were supposed to believe that nonstop criticism was “helping”.

Oh, and thanks to Claire for addressing that not all of the country is like Vermont or an 80% Democratic district in New York.

[disillusioned73]

216. Reminder - She lost cause she was a faux D..

good day...

[R B Garr]

217. Reminder: That one-size-fits-all policy strategy failed in very

progressive California and even Vermont has rejected them, so your comment about Missouri is laughable and looks like wishful thinking...

[EffieBlack]

35. She has every right to respond, but if she responds to everything she sees as a criticism

She's going to wear herself out.

[Jake Stern]

89. If she can't handle criticism from someone in her own party

what is she going to do when the Republicans and their endless money machine finally open up with both proverbial barrels?

Compared to how they've treated other Dem politicians, the GOP really seems to be giving AOC the kid-glove treatment.

[dansolo]

124. She has that one thing in common with Trump

She feels the need to respond and attack against every perceived slight. She appears to be easily baited to respond, and Republicans will start to use that against her.

[womanofthehills]

40. Agreed, and what's with McCaskill's backing Trump on caravan - so disappointing

So we have AOC going down to the border and wanting to abolish ICE and then we have McCaskill going down to the border and wanting a wall.

McCaskill backs Trump on caravan

She affirmed that she backs the president “100 percent” when it comes to preventing the entry of a caravan of asylum-seekers and migrants marching toward the U.S.

“I do not want our borders overrun. And I support the president’s efforts to make sure they’re not,” McCaskill said in the interview.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/claire-mccaskill-trump-missouri_us_5bd8639be4b017e5bfd5ff7d

[Electrical Arc]

80. Because Third Way is a problem

Ignoring the problem does not make it go away.

[stonecutter357]

111. Third Way ! lol

[lapucelle]

201. And now a Republican sits in that seat for the next six years. N/T

[lapucelle]

203. If it were were true that McCaskill were a Republican in Democratic clothing, then by your reasoning

she never would have won any election.

[kstewart33]

94. George, AOC has a mighty thin skin.

If she keeps bashing fellow Democrats, AOC will find Congress is a mighty lonely place.

I wish her well, but I wish she would start focusing on her job and the people to whom she owes her job.

[leftofcool]

137. Isn't that the new thing for incoming Progressives?

Bash as many Democrats as you can in the hopes that people will get the message for 2020 and vote for the Independent who can no longer run on a Democratic ticket?

[George II]

138. Bazinga!

[AlexSFCA]

30. AOC 100% correct. McCaskill failed her exit interview.

She said repubs tell her trump is nuts; she must then name every repub who told her that and exact quote instead of contributing to nothing.

[EffieBlack]

34. Is Ocasio-Cortes going to respond every time she thinks someone has criticized her?

Maybe once she's sworn in and gets down to the work she was elected to do, she'll realize that criticism comes with the job and that she has better and more important things to do than to respond every time she thinks someone has criticized her. Experience will help her develop a thicker skin.

[AlexSFCA]

37. but when you are new you must respond to critisism

as she doesn’t have a body of work yet to defend herself. Besides McCaskill should know better than criticizing a fellow democrat and the future of the party. I wish she instead exposed every gop senator who told her trump was nuts. But she chickened out because she still beleives they deserve respect (of course they don’t). Alexandria has already achieved something - she is the youngest person elected to congress in the US history.

[EffieBlack]

41. No, being new doesn't require responding to every criticism

But being experienced sometimes makes one think they must.

She'll learn ...

[JCanete]

97. no...we've done it the other way. It was a big mistake. We should respond publicly and blisteringly

to republicans, and we should be firm and clear where we stand even with fellow democrats. Screw polite discourse and trying to rise above it, which only cedes ground to republican character assasination and/or entrenched regressive thinking.

[EffieBlack]

101. That's how children and Trump approach crticism

There's a world of difference between "ceding ground to republican character assasination and/or entrenched regressive thinking" and whining about and responding to every comment a public figure thinks is less than flattering.

Hopefully, once she's sworn in, AOC will be too busy to jump down rabbit holes trying to fight off every criticism. If not, and she doesn't show more maturity, savvy and discernment than some of her fans, she'll be in for a rude awakening.

[JCanete]

109. That's how Clinton approached criticism from the right. She let the right take a decade to define

her. You are calling it sensitive and reactionary. That's nonsense. Its not about whether or not the comments are flattering. Its about keeping on message and staying on top of the framing of the argument and the brand.

[EffieBlack]

116. Hillary Clinton didn't lose because she didn't tweet a response to every perceived criticism of her

In fact, one of the reasons she DIDN’T lose was that she DIDN’T take the bait but kept her focus and never forgot that it wasn’t about her but about the people she served.

And don’t forget, Hillary Clinton may not have become president, but she was a hugely successful politician and achieved her success, notwithstanding criticism from the right. Ocasio Cortez can learn a lot from her. Or she can be expend the energy and capital that should be going to learning her craft, representing her constituents and building some legislative accomplishments to tweeting and complaining every time someone’s not nice to her.

[JCanete]

121. I am talking about a way bigger issue than her 2016 election. I'm talking about the baggage she

carried into it. There were way too many people who had been fed all kinds of things about her over the years, that, had she and democrats at large fought back and used a far more confrontational approach that challenged the nonsense being espoused and just how ironic and nonsensical the spouters of that nonsense, the hypocrisies, etc. perhaps some of this grime wouldn't have settled in so deeply.


Now that said, Clinton had a delicate position and a challenging line to tow as a woman putting women on the map in American politics. That comes with all kinds of constraints that would have made fighting back far more challenging and easily used to bash her as one misogynist term or another. But because of her and those who blazed that trail Cortez and others don't have to be shrinking violets on these issues. they can be verbal sparrers. They can bring that fire that would have been framed so negatively in the past and accepted less readily by the public at large and grow their support with it and the support for the ideas they are fighting for. The court of public opinion matters far too much to do this shit quietly in backrooms. That throws away too many of our chips.

[Autumn]

127. I have every book Hillary wrote and she addressed the nonsense in each. Unfortunately the

people who should have heard the truth are not people who bought her books. Can you imagine if she could have been tweeting and answering those lies and smears for the last 20 year where we would be?

[JCanete]

131. Right, a quick response is paramoun....but also turning the tables. Counter-punching is part of the

sport, and whether we're talking appearances on the networks or cable news, or in debates, etc. taking or dodging punches rather than throwing them is a losing battle.

[Autumn]

133. Our side can no longer let the shit that is thrown at them sit and percolate. No matter who

is doing the throwing. They have to hit back hard and some of our younger people are doing just that.

[R B Garr]

192. Again, your analysis fails to incorporate the obvious

and most talked about in the realms of basic news and common knowledge. Clinton had to walk a fine line to accommodate Sanders supporters and try not to alienate them after the smears about her. She couldn’t answer the smears against her in a confrontational approach as was thrown at her. More common sense about avoiding party infighting and prolonged hostile primaries (a basic:genetic observation about politics).

That is the reality of the damage done and how three opposition campaigns were helped by the Russians: Stein, Trump, Sanders. Ignoring the obvious doesn't make it go away.

[moriah]

126. So Claire is to AOC as RWNJs are to Clinton?

Insofar as the right-left, bad-good spectrum?

Yes, the Russians have successfully divided us.

[JCanete]

128. Not at all what I said, and you can look to my original response to see that I made a distinction.

But EffieBlack is talking about AOC responding to criticisms in general, not just to McCaskill so the conversation is all inclusive. Russia has nothing at all to do with this discussion.

[moriah]

134. It does, in that the "AOC is an angel/demon" (whichever theme is pushed) is...

... something bots are amplifying.

Essentially, anything she says, and anything anyone says about her, positive or negative, is being used to divide the Democratic electorate. And the RW attacks both Claire and AOC with glee, along with all of our other politicians on the left. What seems to "stick" when thrown at the wall around Democrats gets ported over to RW memes.

I mainly posted on this thread to stop another jury service to it. I think we're falling for bait when we fight among ourselves.

[EffieBlack]

145. I'm talking about her responding to EVERY criticism

Claire McGasgill's comment about was a small part of a larger interview that most people probably never even saw. By responding to it on Twitter, she not only gave it additional exposure and oxygen, she produced a distraction and provoked a divisive debate within the party.

It's interesting and amusing to me to see AOC's supporters, on the one hand, dismiss and try to silence McGaskill because she's supposedly an irrelevant has-been whose opinion doesn't matter while, on the other, react as if her comments are so damaging and wounding to their heroine that they must rise up to defend her and AOC must fight back to protect herself.

If McGaskill's such a nothing, why should AOC or her supporters give a hoot what she says? And if every comment by a supposedly clueless nobody instigates this kind of focus and reaction from her, she's going to have difficulty finding the time to get anything done in Congresss.

[JCanete]

148. I can't speak to every supporter in the world, but I never said that. Did AOC say she was a nothing?

Also what does trying to silence look like? Do you have examples of this? I'm genuinely asking.

Why you continue to frame a response as reactionary is again, your choice of words on not reflective of the reasons and importance of challenging people to look at certain criticisms or dismissals from a different lens. We SHOULD be having a discussion about policy direction and pragmatism, and it can and should be public. It does no good to attempt to bury these differences. It makes a whole lot more sense having that debate as a party and nation.

There is no evidence I can think of that actually suggests this divides us or makes us weaker. Instead it allows us to more clearly define our choices and our direction to the public. That is a far better way to contrast ourselves against what the GOP is selling.

[EffieBlack]

151. Read through this thread and the responses on AOC's Twitter feed

The answers to your questions like therein ...

[JCanete]

152. except that they don't suggest that I or AOC have accused McCaskill of being irrelevant, so if

she deems this conversation as relevant and important, with a relevant and important Democratic voice who has strong opinions about what direction we should be taking, why is it wise in your opinion to not confront that argument publicly? Again, this is a battle of ideas regarding strategy and policy...regarding appeasing the GOP or fighting against draconian principles. You don't hash that out in the back room and expect to change the hearts and minds of the public.

[EffieBlack]

154. Re-read my post - I didn't say that either AOC or all of her supporters

made such an accusation. But if you read this and other threads or AOC's feed, you will see solid confirmation that my statement is spot on true.

[JCanete]

158. I feel like you glossed over the point of my previous post, which had to do with whether or not AOC

is within entirely reasonable bounds when it comes to challenging McCaskill's perspective in the public eye. My other point was that you can't associate posts of her supporters with either her or me when it comes to debating whether or not McCaskill should be responded to. Neither of us, to my knowledge, said that McCaskill was irrelevant or unimportant.

[EffieBlack]

163. I didn't "gloss over" anything you said nor did I associatr anything with you

I simply clarified my comments after, in my view, you mischaracterized them.

[JCanete]

167. Just to be clear, I didn't discharacterize your words. I know you never said Cortez or myself

characterized McCaskill as being irrelevant. But since I'm only speaking to Cortez's response and not responses in this thread, other people's opinion on the relevance of McCaskill is not a relevant challenge to AOC's decision to respond to McCaskill.

[EffieBlack]

170. You still miss my point

Which is:

Many of the same people who dismiss McGaskill as irrelevant also threw fits that she supposedly "attacked" Ocasio Cortez. If she's so irrelevant, why do they care WHAt she says much less expend so much energy on responding to it?

Further, regardless what her fans think of McGaskill, I think it's a waste of time for Ocasio Cortez to respond to every criticism, including McGaskill's (if you want to call it a criticism since she didn't say anything negative about her). In my opinion, it not only makes her look thin-skinned and immature, it suggests she can be easily baited and distracted and gives the impression that she's more concerned about preserving her own self-image than in actually representing her constituents effectively.

[JCanete]

171. and if she didn't respond maybe she'd look weak and demure. She wasn't drawn in. This is her

wheelhouse. Talking about our direction as a party. McCaskill certainly thought that was a subject worth talking about, blowing smoke about pragmatism while continuing to tap the breaks rather than picking up speed towards making these ideas politically realistic. Its important to have these discussions. This isn't about being thin skinned. You can keep saying it but it won't make it so.

[EffieBlack]

175. There's nothing weak or demure about picking your battles and having the sense not to dignify

every criticism with a response. That's the very essence of strength - as evidenced by more experienced leaders like Obama and Pelosi. Trying to knock down and defend yourself against every criticism is Trumpian tactic that reveals weakness.

And AOC response didn't include any discussion about the direction of the party. It was all about her not liking what McGaskill said about HER and some random thought about McGaskill not being a progressive. She didn't generate a productive discussion - she just blocked and parried at McGaskill.

[JCanete]

183. Yes it did, because it challenges McCaskills alignment with Trumpian policies. I'm with you that

she'd be wise to look before she leaps incase she ends up jumping into a shallow pond, but I can only think of one case where she's entirely misgauged the depth. I don't think this is one of those times, nor do I think that we as a party are weaker in any way for challenging outdated thinking about what is possible and what kind of reaching across the aisle we should be doing.

[EffieBlack]

185. Why does AOC need to "challenge" McGaskill about anything

She'll be a private citizen in 4 days and, at least according to AOC, she's been left behind by the progressive movement.

Maybe instead of focusing on challenging departing Democratic senators, the Member-elect can turn get sights on challenging some Republicans who are actually still in the ring. Refraining from going after McGaskill would have cost her nothing and might have helped her appear to be mature and thoughtful.

As you mentioned, she's already made at least one misstep and she hasn't even taken office yet - she really should make sure she doesn't sabotage herself before she actually accomplishes anything as a Member of Congress.

[George II]

143. Sorry, that's not the way it works in the real world. So just because there is no body of work....

....one should lash out at colleagues?

If that was the case, I would have been fired my first day out of college.

[EffieBlack]

153. Funny how an incoming Member has nothing to learn from a pioneering 2-term Senator because

the newby won her first race and the veteran Senator lost her last one ...

[George II]

160. Not to mention that republicans outnumber Democrats by 44-39% in Missouri, the 14th District....

...is completely the opposite - Democrats outnumber republicans by 86% to 13%.

[EffieBlack]

169. That, too

I hope that she has more sense than to allow herself to be provoked by her fawning, and often politically clueless fans, into believing her own hype.

I suspect she is and will do fine ... But she'll have to tamp down their expectations so they don't become too disillusioned when she actually starts representing her district, legislating and working with others - which might look kind of boring to some folks - and doesn't spend 24-7 satisfying their lust for constant fights, confrontation and daily drama.

[George II]

173. I'm anxious to see her in action representing her district, too.

[womanofthehills]

44. Not thinks - THEY are criticizing her and good for her for defending herself

McCaskill was rude to AOC and also very rude to Elizabeth Warren. Why should McCaskill not be called on it.

[EffieBlack]

46. That was hardly a criticism

But even if she believes it was, she'd better grow a thicker skin if she wants to play in the big leagues.

maybe she can have a conversation with Nancy pelosi and get some tips about how to react to adverse comments.

[womanofthehills]

64. Calling someone an object and a thing is extremely rude. You don't think so??

McCaskill is jealous of AOC's popularity. She even admitted it.

[betsuni]

68. "We always like the new shiny thing -- I benefited from that when I was a candidate... ."

That was President Obama. Michael Moore called Russia and Stormy Danials "shiny keys to distract us." Shiny new object/thing is a common phrase.

[EffieBlack]

70. Thank you!

[betsuni]

73. Thank you too!

[Autumn]

72. Claire used it as an insult. "I'm a little confused why she's the thing,"

Those were her words.

"I'm a little confused why she's the thing,”

Obama said

"We always like the new shiny thing -- I benefited from that when I was a candidate"

Big difference there. Nobody's confused but Claire.

[betsuni]

75. "Calling someone an object and a thing is extremely rude." Was responding to that comment.

Not the OP.

[Autumn]

76. I know you responded to that, and I responded that Claire used that term as an insult.

[EffieBlack]

69. Calling a US senator "jealous" of someone's popularity is even ruder

But, nevertheless, as I said, Ocasio-Cortez needs to grow a thicker skin if she wants to play in the big leagues and be taken seriously. Maybe she can get some advice from Bernie about how to respond being called a "bright shiny object.'

President Obama Calls Bernie Sanders a 'Bright, Shiny Object'
“Bernie [Sanders] came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose,” he said. “I think Hillary came in with the both privilege — and burden — of being perceived as the front-runner. … You’re always looking at the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before — that’s a disadvantage to her." https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-25/president-obama-calls-bernie-sanders-a-bright-shiny-object

Or she can just ask President Obama, who was frequently called a bright shiny object - and much worse - when he first emerged on the national scene and has been called everything but a child of God consistently ever since, but doesn't lower or distract himself tweeting about how disappointing such comments are.

[TeamPooka]

157. In 1992 Bill Clinton and his campaign staff created a War Room to do just that. We have drifted away

from this immediate response PR/marketing tactic over the years but in this modern world of instant communication and social media a fast response to everything is more important than ever when getting progressive messages out to the public.
Every Democratic office holder should be doing this.

[EffieBlack]

159. The CAMPAIGN War Room responded to organized attacks from the Bush campaign and their surrogates

They didn't respond to every criticism, quip, sideswipe or shade from anyone who opened their mouth. And when the campaign was over, thr Clinton team became even more focused and disciplined about what they responded to and when and how they did it, choosing to use most of their time and energy on the substance of their jobs and not assuagi g Clinton's hurt feelings.

And if Twitter had been around had been around then, you can bet Bill Clinton wouldn't have wasted his time tweetibg responses to every criticism about him - and surely wouldn't have considered being called the "shiny new thing" to be worth getting his nose out of joint about.

[TeamPooka]

161. Women don't like to be called "things." It doesn't sound like you understand this point.

[EffieBlack]

166. She wasn't called "a thing."

She was called "the thing," a common term for "big deal."

If you don't understand the difference try swapping out "the thing" in the sentence "I’m a little confused why she’s the thing" with "inanimate object" and then with "a big deal" and see which sentence makes more sense ...

[TheBlackAdder]

186. Only the ones that Republicans and some Duers gloat about.

[EffieBlack]

32. Just let it roll off your back . . .

It's not necessary to respond to every perceived slight or criticism.

[George II]

38. Funny, we never saw Hillary Clinton, who endured a LOT more for decades, act like this.

One needs pretty thick skin to serve in Congress. One doesn't react to every single word that isn't glowing praise, especially from Democrats.

There were more than 60 new Democrats elected to the House and Senate last month. We're only seeing antics like this from one.

Ayanna Pressley is bonding with her fellow Democrats. Sharice Davids is bonding with her fellow Democrats. Jahanna Hayes is bonding with her fellow Democrats. All the others are doing the same.

Cortez? Not so much.

Look at what Katie Hill, another new Congress person from California, did for Pressley with respect to Shirley Chisolm's old office. THAT is how to get along.

[AlexSFCA]

43. And I so wish Hillary woild have sued for defamation years ago

[EffieBlack]

47. Yeah - that would have shown them

The difference is that Hillary never behaved as if all of this was about her. She actually put her head down and focused on her work rather than whining about what people were saying about her

[AlexSFCA]

52. but she represented people

unchallenged, lies become truths to many

[EffieBlack]

55. Whining and suing people would not have changed that

Ocasio Cortez will learn - I hope not the hard way - that she's much better off letting criticism roll off her back instead of appearing to be self-absorbed and thin-skinned.

[EffieBlack]

45. Exactly

And I defy anyone to show that Obama responded to every criticism he received when he first got to the Senate - or thereafter. And he took a lot harsher incoming than simply being referred to as a "shiny new object" - followed by a wish that she "hangs the moon."

[womanofthehills]

48. I like people who fight back - more dems need to do it

Why the f should she take that shit? People will treat you how you allow them to treat you - better to let them know you will not roll over when people post lies about you.

[EffieBlack]

51. Responding to every criticism is not "fighting back"

She needs to pick her battles and whining about what a soon-to-be ex senator said about her shouldn't be one of them.

If she wants to attract and maintain a high-profile, she's going to leave herself open to some comments that aren't all about kissing her butt. She can't have it both ways.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

36. Disappointment seems to be the catch-all feeling since 2016.

We are such a beautiful country and people. We don't deserve this madness in politics. We literally live our government everyday now. Used to be we lived our lives and folks in office took care of us. Now, as if its not enough to worry about the finances, healthcare, our families, and life in general, we have to endure this crapola and are almost forced to keep tuned in bc the stakes are so high.
Things got better after Nixon, but, the damage then didn't feel near what we've experienced the last several hundred days. We are so vulnerable right now. The red testicle is making us so vulnerable PRAYING we get an attack or something so he can use it as a defense for the D's to lay off him. Whip up false patriotism to cover his sorry ass.
Feel like my older years are measured in dog years now. Holiday season and everyday instead of cheer and hope for the new year, it's a kick in the slats . Only thing different is how hard the kick is everyday.
Regardless, here's hoping for a surprisingly good New Year.

[GulfCoast66]

42. Forgotten in this drama is the fact that AOC tried to primary a liberal Democratic Congressman

From Missouri. Someone I think Clair would know well. While certainly her right, she should realize actions like that will get blow back. I hope she is not counting on representatives she tried to primary for support. I hope she represents her district well.

And is she is about to be sworn in as a Democratic Congress member. Is she going to respond to every perceived slight by tweet?

Who does that?

[womanofthehills]

54. People who stand up for themselves

I like that. She has spunk.

[EffieBlack]

60. She's got SPUNK!

I HATE spunk!


(Extra credit to anyone who gets that ...)

[GulfCoast66]

71. Yes sir, Mr. Grant.

Am I right?



Saw the show in reRuns. My parents did not think it age appropriate for an elementary aged kid.

[EffieBlack]

74. You get a gold star

🌟

[kstewart33]

95. Lou Grant to MTM? nt

[Cha]

63. It depends how you stand

up for yourself.

[GulfCoast66]

78. The soon to be ex-senator made the comments in a long interview

The cut which we see aimed at being the most divisive. For that reason.

I personally see that as way different than specifically aimed tweets.

Especially when tweeted by someone who has yet to have a single legislative accomplishment aimed at a respected 2 term senator. Who has many friends in and out her starts delegation.

Even if the Senators comments were meant as an insult, which I don’t believe, a public figure has to learn not to respond to every perceived slight. Otherwise your distractors will continually Fill out the dance card.

Because she is a member of the Democratic Party, if no other reason, and there are others, I hope AOC has a productive, distinguished and long career. It is nice anytime we add a diverse voice. But success in the Congress depends on building trust and coilitions. She is not off to a rousing start.

[Cha]

65. Yes, AOC campaigned

against William Lacy Clay in Missouri District 1.

Glad she failed.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

53. She's new and excited. Plus early 20's. Wow.

I'm w you on the tweets though. (sounds stupid just saying tweets). People hired her for her point of view, but, that type of response can get pretty costly. I'm willing to give her some rope. She seems teachable and intelligent. Pretty heady stuff being a Federal Representative before living even a quarter century.
We all(?) talk too much these days.....but, that's just ME talking.

[EffieBlack]

56. Why aren't the other new Representatives having the same problem?

[Mike Nelson]

59. Well...

… she is the latest thing. How she handles this initial burst of political fame is important. I would respond to questions about McCaskill mildly. I think saying "disappointing" is in that range, if the tone and context seemed okay... I would not initiate any discussion about McCaskill's comments about me, if I were Ocasio-Cortez. It's a waste of Twitter space. I did hear McCaskill say the "nuts" comment... I thought that was good for people to hear.

[womanofthehills]

66. And McCaskill used crazy and Elizabeth Warren in the same sentence

Another thinly veiled statement. I think she is trying to divorce herself from the more progressive women in her party for the benefit of her constituents should she ever run again for Senator or for some other office in her state.

[Mike Nelson]

67. I think that's...

… completely inappropriate. Calling people "crazy" reminds me of The Donald.

[Autumn]

81. She thinks AOC should reach out to the white working-class voters who are rejecting

the Democratic party.

"I hope she also realizes that the parts of the country that are rejecting the Democratic Party, like a whole lot of white working-class voters, need to hear about how their work is going to be respected, and the dignity of their jobs, and how we can really stick to issues that we can actually accomplish something on,”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/422851-mccaskill-on-ocasio-cortez-im-a-little-confused-why-shes-the-thing

[womanofthehills]

88. OMG!! Actually, AOC had very strong support from "white working-class voters"

but I guess a Latina woman needs to be reminded not to forget about those white people.

A former organizer for Bernie Sanders, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez won across the district, carrying Mr. Crowley’s home borough of Queens by a larger margin than she won the Bronx. “She won virtually everywhere,” said Steven Romalewski, a researcher at the Center for Urban Research at the City University of New York Graduate Center, who mapped the results.

Her strongest support came from areas that were not predominantly Hispanic,” Mr. Romalewski said, citing Astoria, where white residents comprise nearly half the population.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/nyregion/ocasio-cortez-crowley-primary-upset.html

[EffieBlack]

90. All white voters aren't working class and white working class voters in NY aren't

necessarily the same as white working class voters in Missouri or elsewhere around the country. In fact, M

Funny how the DU board is inundated with warnings that Dems need to reach out to white working class voters, but when someone makes the same point in an interview in which she mentions Ocasio-Cortez in a completely different context, suddenly that's not only verboten, but it's supposedly an attack on her.

[Autumn]

100. She should reach out to the white working class voters who voted for Trump?

The ones who rejected the Democratic party and gave us Trump? You must have missed all the posts about those voters. Wait... come to think of it, you agreed with that sentiment.
Where did I say that was an attack on her? I just think it's bad fucking advice. YMMV

[EffieBlack]

106. McGaskill didn't say Ocasio Cortez needs to reach out to those people

She said the party needs to.

I, too, have issues with that approach so I don't necessarily agree with McGaskill on this. But I also have an issue with the complaints that McGaskill's take was an attack on Ocasio Cortez.

[Autumn]

108. Claire should have brought that up in an interview about uh.. the Democrats. Instead

of in the middle of talking about AOC? Might have made some sense then. As it is Claire's use of the word she kind of makes it clear who she's giving that advice to.

[EffieBlack]

119. Or maybe Claire is a grown-assed woman who doesn't need to be told when, where and how to speak

Just like Ocasio Cortez ...

[Autumn]

122. Yes go with that. But Claire's use of the word "she" proves you wrong. She was advising AOC,

not the Democratic party like you said she was . Maybe Claire doesn't need to offer advice to someone who won their race. Someone like Ocasio Cortez.

[EffieBlack]

123. And you go with that

Because Ocasio Cortez is too awesome to benefit from advice from anyone who hasn’t achieved the monumental accomplishments she’s notched in her life and political career.

For her sake, I hope Ocasio Cortez has more sense and less hubris than many of her fans have displayed - if not, I hope she enjoys her short-lived political career.

[Autumn]

125. She hasn't even taken her office yet and you are slamming her because she

hasn’t achieved the many monumental accomplishments that Claire McCaskill who has been in office for years, has notched in her life and political career? Okay. I see

[Autumn]

102. Well to be honest I think Claire was talking about the "white working-class voters"

who voted for Trump over the Democratic nominee in 2016. She specifically mentioned those rejecting the Democratic Party and our recent Blue Wave kind of proved that people aren't rejecting the Democratic party.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

77. I'm all in on AOC - she's going to lead us forward.

And I like McCaskill a lot too.

but in this race I'm choosing AOC. I'm with her.

[MrsCoffee]

104. You think it's a race and you have to choose one?

This is why the Russian propaganda machine works so well.

*sigh*

[EffieBlack]

107. SMH

[EndGOPPropaganda]

208. Oh no. If I DID have to choose one, it would be Liz Warren.

But there are a lot of great Dems.
The true enemy here is the right - as long as we unify against them, we're doing ok.
happy new year

[RandiFan1290]

87. Typical

Claire also took a swipe at democratic voters before the election.

[NurseJackie]

91. Claire McCaskill nailed it.

I heard a recent interview McCaskill gave to NPR and she was critical of AOC in that interview as well. I'll definitely miss her. She represented her constituents well.

[EffieBlack]

92. But apparently, only some people are allowed to speak their minds, even if it offends some folk

Claire seems not to be one of them ...

[Trumpocalypse]

96. So McCaskill is allowed to trash AOC

But AOC is not allowed to respond. Please spare us the double standard.

[EffieBlack]

99. If I had written that, you'd be correct. But I didn't.

The double standard belongs to those waxing rhapsodic about Ocasio Cortez saying whatever she thinks about everybody and everything whenever she pleases because her bluntness is another sign of her awesomeness, but everyone else is supposed to hold their tongues and not express an opinion about her because anything short of "There never has been any politician as brilliant, brave and flawless as AOC and there never will be" is an attack on her.

[Trumpocalypse]

105. No one on this thread ever said that.

Why not just discuss the issue honestly.

[R B Garr]

114. Exactly, the double standards are those who insist someone

on the scene for six months — challenging other Democrats, and some in red states —- is the only one who gets a thought platform...

[Mariana]

146. Claire can certainly speak her mind, and she did.

No one has tried to prevent her from doing so at any time. Similarly, everyone else gets to express their opinion of what she says.

[Celerity]

98. Fair reply to that shade thrown. I look forward to AOC being a force for good in the House for

years. Glad to have someone standing up for her beliefs in a bold way.

[Squinch]

103. Oh good. Another avenue for the bots to use to push our buttons and divide us.

[DFW]

135. So it would appear

"what Republicans admit in private means nothing"

She will be singing a different tune when she meets them and has to work with them in close proximity. Reality has a way of affecting people with half a brain, and I'm assuming she has way more than half of one.

[Takket]

112. Ah yes, the circular firing squad.

[TheBlackAdder]

150. Yep. It never fails to consistently deliver. It could be a Law of Political Science.

[Vinca]

117. McCaskill sounds like sour grapes. Very unbecoming.

I remember when Barack Obama could be called a "shiny new object."

[Tarc]

120. AOC does not suffer fools gladly

[BeckyDem]

136. Ocasio-Cortez is the future of the Democratic Party and McCaskill is not.

These types of wins and losses may seem upsetting for some, but they're indicators of the future for our party.

[David__77]

139. I'm glad she responded to McCaskill's comments.

McCaskills comments strike me as quite underhanded.

[samnsara]

141. the tweets are divisive...im sure the convo on both sides was taken out of context....

...pasted back together in a divisive manner and then presented to all of us in social media so we can become even MORE divisive. I for one refuse to read share or comment on these

[Autumn]

144. AOC's tweets are complete and in order, McCaskills exact remarks are on video and in print.

Nothing was cut and pasted back together or taken out of context. That's the great thing about video and social media.

[David__77]

168. I just watched McCaskill. Yuck!

Quite a sight to see, such simmering hostility.

[Autumn]

174. People expecting others to be an ally on demand when they themselves

have no problem talking smack about any person who is on their side that doesn't meet their pure idea of an ally is rank hypocrisy.

[EffieBlack]

176. We are in full agreement here

It's nice to see you finally offer an honest assessment of Ocasio Cortez.

[Autumn]

177. No we are not in agreement on anything. I was in no way offering an assessment of AOC.

Or any elected Democrat for that matter.

[EffieBlack]

179. Of course you wern't

Because different standards apply to her.

Thank you for clarifying that.

[Autumn]

180. Standards? You've confused me. What standards apply to only her?

[Autumn]

188. Do tell what these standards are that only apply to AOC? I'll wait for an answer.

[ucrdem]

189. She gets a pass on primarying Joe Crowley for example.

Was there a reason for that?

[Autumn]

190. Yes there was a reason for it, she wanted the seat, she ran for it and she won it.

That's politics, we don't have lifetime appointments for the House and the Senate. Anyone who qualifies can primary another office holder. They will win or lose depending on the voters, and their campaign. She doesn't need a pass on that but nice try.

[ucrdem]

191. That's called opportunism and is generally deplored. But not in this case. nt

[Autumn]

193. Show me where it's deplored. If the people in his district had wanted Crowley he would have won.

I'll wait right here for you to show me where it's generally deplored, or has never been done. Just because you don't like that AOC won doesn't mean it's deplored.

[ucrdem]

194. It was considerably deplored right here:

"Ocasio-Cortez backs campaign to primary fellow Democrats"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211446185

From this Nov. 17 article:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/17/ocasio-cortez-throws-support-behind-campaign-to-primary-democrats-1000529

Glad I could clear that up for you!

[Autumn]

195. What? About 15 maybe 20 posters? That's not generally. For that matter, how many are

from her district in those threads, complaining about it and finding it deplorable?


gen·er·al·ly
/ˈjen(ə rəlē/Submit
adverb
1.
in most cases; usually.
"the term of a lease is generally 99 years"
synonyms: normally, in general, as a rule, by and large, more often than not, almost always, mainly, mostly, for the most part, predominantly, on the whole; More
2.
in general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions.
"a decade when France was moving generally to the left"
synonyms: overall, in general terms, generally speaking, all in all, broadly, on average, basically, effectively
"popular opinion veers generally to the left"

[ucrdem]

196. You asked, you received, you're welcome!

[ucrdem]

197. p.s. read the Politico comments at the link if you're not convinced. nt

[Autumn]

199. Crowley outspent her drastically and she still won

I would say the voters in that district didn't find AOC primarying Crowley generally deplorable at all

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york-house-district-14

Her 78.2% of the votes to his 6.6%. The Republican got more votes than he did.


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Democrat
110,318 78.2%

Anthony Pappas
Republican
19,202 13.6

Joseph Crowley
Working Families
9,348 6.6

Elizabeth Perri
Conservative
2,254 1.6

[ucrdem]

204. That doesn't change the fact that she primaryed a Democrat. nt

[Autumn]

205. She had every right to primary him. It was his seat to lose and he did just that. nt

[womanofthehills]

206. Crowley outspent her 18 to 1 - he raised 3 million to her $600,000

and the race was not even close.

[Autumn]

198. I didn't get nothing because your links prove nothing. But nice try.

[David__77]

181. I wouldn't see a problem with above board criticism.

This is something quite different from that.

[Autumn]

182. Yes it is and it borders on insulting.

[Celerity]

184. +100

[Trumpocalypse]

149. But you did read

and comment.

[EffieBlack]

155. But this is a comment based on what you read.

So ...

[disillusioned73]

209. This was such an easy issue...

yet, the media keeps its pro-corporate.. anti-progressive narrative alive..

Why are people that LOST elections being asked for advice???..

[MrGrieves]

212. infighting seems like just the thing the GOP would like

infighting seems like just the thing the GOP would like for us to engage in. Seems to me that there is room for differing opinions and ideas inside of our party. People who have been in the party for some time wpuld do well to remember that. Also people should remember that it sometimes takes time to change an entire party’s direction to be more aggressively in your favor. That’s the fighting part of being a fighter. It isn’t just showing up and making a declaration.