Uncommitted movement leader reminds senile Democrats why they lost. - eviltoast

During negotiations with the DNC and the Harris campaign, we were repeatedly told by interlocutors that Harris couldn’t meet any of our basic requests (a policy shift from Biden, a Palestinian speaker at the DNC, a statement distinguishing herself from Trump on Israel, or even a meeting with Michigan families who lost loved ones to Israeli bombs) because of AIPAC-aligned politicians like Fetterman, who might take to TV, rile up suburban white and Jewish voters, and fracture the party’s coalition in a swing state.

That political calculus alienated a key voting bloc, although likely not large enough to have shifted the ultimate election outcomes, that should be part of a durable Democratic majority. But few will ever be held accountable for that choice.

A Fetterman staffer condemning Uncommitted for not advocating for Palestinians ‘the right way’ is like an arsonist scolding the fire department for using the wrong hose.

Source

  • Doomsider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    This was my thoughts all along. By condemning the genocide they would have lost more votes than gained. It sucks that politicians have to choose votes over morality (the ones that actually have morality). The system is definitely broken.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      DNC loyalists keep saying this, and it continues to be pure cope. The Biden admin did not begrudgingly support the genocide (or, as you euphemistically put it “fail to condemn”) because of some realpolitik consideration - though it would still be unforgivable if they had - they actively supported it because it was an administration filled with rabid Zionists at the highest level, and they enthusiastically agree with Israel. The fact that they couched it in vague, non-committal platitudes rather than being blunt about their fanatical zionism WAS the concession to realpolitik. Notice that Bill Clinton - who is at a point in his life where he doesn’t care that much about political appearances - spoke on behalf of the Harris campaign, he didn’t bother to sugar coat their complete agreement with the most extremist brand of fascist Zionism.

      The actual example of the amoral voter placating position is what Trump ended up taking: still ultimately supporting the overall settler colonial project of Israel, but forcibly pulling on the leash of the more viscerally bloodthirsty elements like Netanyahu, and making them keep the carnage at the more publicly acceptable levels they were at pre October 7th.