AOC was on fire.
Hadley Duvall was amazing.
Kamala Harris continues a slow and steady climb in the polls - now more than three points ahead of Trump, and leading in enough states to give her a 278-260 majority (though some of those are very narrow leads).
I surprised myself by staying up and watching to the end. Pretty good in general, but then again, I *would* say that. Biden was pretty good. An appropriate send off. It was a relief to not feel like I was sitting on pins and needles noting every "gaffe" or verbal stumble.
I liked the overall tenor. Of the speakers I heard, I thought Warnock the best. It did run long.
The fact checking stuff is hilarious, just several media figures with their asses fully waving in the air.
"Biden said Trump had the largest debt increase for any four year term- MISLEADING! Obama had a larger increase over his eight year term!"
"They played a video of Trump where he said women who get abortions should be punished- FALSE! Trump later walked back the statement!"
"Biden claimed Trump would not accept the result of a fair election- FALSE! Trump only said that he'd win if the election is fair, he didn't say anything about not accepting if he loses!"
I am seriously only lightly paraphrasing the fact checks here.
The Glen Kessler fact-check in the Washington Post is a remarkable document. It's just one fuckup after another. This one isn't the worst, but it struck me as interesting:
He quotes Hillary Clinton:
"She [Kamala Harris] won't be sending love letters to dictators."
Kessler acknowledges this bit of background:
In 2018, Trump said of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un: "We fell in love, okay? No, really, he wrote me beautiful letters, and they're great letters. We fell in love."
Trump, Kessler says, described these letters as "love letters."
But he says the factuality of this is "in the eye of the beholder" because ... because ... because ... Kessler literally doesn't say why some beholder would object to Hillary's statement.
You're left to guess that maybe Kessler is questioning Hillary's statement because it wasn't Trump who sent the letters.
But if we're going to be hyper-literal this way, it ought to be noted that Hillary never claimed that Trump sent such letters -- just that Harris wouldn't.
This is what passes for fact-checking nowadays.
The Post's Amy Gardner is being screen-shotted as having said this:
"Donald Trump says he will refuse to accept the election result if he loses again," Biden said. But that's not true. Trump just hasn't said he would accept. And he has previously said that the only way he loses is if the Democrats cheat."
But nobody is linking the original, and it doesn't appear to exist on the Post website. I wonder if the Post was shamed into taking it down -- or if someone was engaging in a parody that skated a little too close to the kind of crap these people actually write.
Fact checkers are just opinion columnists who don't understand what a fact is. At least opinion columnists know they're not dealing in facts.
6, 7: yeah, I can't find the thread about it in TFA, but I know I've gone on a rant at some point about how fact-checking has become a joke. It's disappointing but not too surprising if there's also a partisan slant to it, or it's got even worse in the Trump era. I vaguely remember that rant might have been in the Bush years, not sure. How innocent we all were then.
Here's the latest I saw. It's wild that of all the politicians to decide "well if he says so you have to believe him" they chose Donald Fucking Trump.
"Biden said Trump wants to cut Medicare.
Mostly False.
When he was president, Trump released annual budgets that proposed cutting Medicare but he has repeatedly pledged throughout the 2024 presidential campaign that he will not cut the program."
8: I'm not convinced that all of the "facts" are so clear cut. I'm sure that there was a lot of economic theory that was embedded in "facts" that used to be trotted out about the deficit.
Those fucking shitweasels want to not change Medicare for the old fucks now, but cut-off younger people like me.
My favorite Trump fact check is the bleach one because it's hard not to sound like a fool nitpicking the "drinking" claim and the real statement is no less insane. Though I guess treating a respiratory disease with bleach to the lungs maybe has more basis than bleach to the stomach. Checkmate, liberals!
So it turns out that the bit I quoted in 6 was cleaned up, and apparently instead of talking about "eye of the beholder," the original said this:
Clinton is making a bit of a leap to suggest that Trump has written "love letters" to dictators.
Who will fact-check the fact-checkers?
13: Dilute bleach baths are a legit treatment for eczema.
12: That's kind of Amy Finkelstein's position. Medicaid for All with no co-pays for necessary services. She feels Medicare is simultaneously too stingy (too much financial risk to the patient) and too generous in its benefits.
Surprisingly stayed up for the whole 2nd night (ok did doze off briefly during Barack's, a reflection on me not him ...).
Quite nice. The Milwaukee troll was pretty good.
C-Span has helpfully broken out the individual speeches so you can go back and cherry-pick:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?537639-1/democratic-national-convention-day-2
There are so many of them. I shouldn't be surprised, but it's funny seeing my family griping about the ones they want to see not being on yet. We're near the end of an extended family gathering but most of us are liberal and interested in politics, and when someone really well-known like Obama is on, most of the family is around the TV. When a Maryland Senate candidate or Harris' stepson is on, the more politically-interested people are running back and forth every five minutes.
I broke during the GWBush administration and can no longer listen to any politician, even ones I like, giving a speach. I reflexively turn it off. Even AOC, I tried for a minute and nope. OK, exception for Bernie. I'll listen to him. Probably a psychologist could tell me why my reaction is so strong. I like the reports from others on who was great, though.
or a speech. I can't listen to those either.
Me neither, basically. Maybe a state of the union address, but not a campaign speech. I kinda like debates, though, provided they're not too stressful.
BTW, following up on 9 and problems with fact-checking, I found that rant I mentioned. Here is the OP it was in reference to, and here is my comment itself. It was in 2012. DuckDuckGo is better for this sort of thing than Google.
19: Bernie was kind of boring this time. Too much of a laundry list. Michelle Obama was really good.
There's obviously dome kind of message discipline and unifying theme.
Obama described Trump/Vance weird -but more than just weird, dangerous. Nancy Pelosi said almost the exact same thing a couple of weeks ago, maybe while talking to Ezra Klein?
I'm pretty sure she's planning to step aside in 2026 but wants CA to have a Senior leader in Congress and knows she can raise more money when she's on the ballot.
20. 21: Usually me as well, so am surprised I'm doing it this time.
9: 6, 7: yeah, I can't find the thread about it in TFA, but I know I've gone on a rant at some point about how fact-checking has become a joke.
Yes. This time it is being particularly egregious. Very much 'look at the big brain on Brad' stuff'.
Could it have been way back in 2008? The Dem primary debate in Philly is when I first really recall noting how irrelevant and weirds it was, ABC put on a real stinker of a debate* (flag pins, and Rev. Wright "loving his country" and other BS) and the fact check was all of this type of trivia.
*I thought that Journolist was formed partially in response to the debate. but apparently it had started a year earlier.
29: Ah, did not notice that. And had forgotten the whole thing that prompted it.
I was going to watch the convention if Taylor Swift shows up, but I guess that's not going to happen.
Unsuitable for the convention, but Philip Glass at 87 is pretty good.
28. Trump claimed her endorsement, and she hasn't responded (which honestly is kind of shitty, imo)
I mean she only just today made a statement about the terror plot at her shows two weeks ago.
"Let me be very clear: I am not going to speak about something publicly if I think doing so might provoke those who would want to harm the fans who come to my shows. In cases like this one, 'silence' is actually showing restraint, and waiting to express yourself at a time when it's right to. My priority was finishing our European tour safely, and it is with great relief that I can say we did that."
Sounds like she's got real problems to deal with and no time for engaging with Trump's social media bullshit.
22, 25, 27: I'm pretty sure there's another thread but I'm not finding it. I think search indexes aren't keeping really old pages from really obscure websites for some reason.
Ah, I was thinking of this thread. But I apparently made a similar comment to my post in that thread in a later thread. I just remembered using the phrase "concept of fact" before.
No Palestinian-American speaker at the DNC. For shame.
Ajay will appreciate this I'm sure https://x.com/minnpost/status/1705720130871717966?s=46&t=nbIfRG4OrIZbaPkDOwkgxQ
DNC also being held in the county with the largest Palestinian-American population in the US
37: I do indeed. Walz is truly the Dad-Avatar of America.
Let's hope that, like his hero, he will soon be astounded shortly after midnight by catching sight of an enormous wave.
No Palestinian-American speaker at the DNC. For shame.
Look, you do understand that the DNC is the largest single event in the entire Democratic presidential campaign, right? You know that's what it's for?
And you do understand that the I/P issue is incredibly divisive in the US? Like, lots of people in the US have very strong views on each side? Even in - especially in - the Democratic Party itself, and its voters?
I'm asking because, if you do actually understand these... why would you want the Democrats to put a Palestinian-American speaker on stage at the DNC? It's not even like they're a particularly reliable Democratic supporter group!
They aren't going to put a drag queen up on stage either. Not because they hate drag queens, not because drag queens aren't a Dem constituency (they're much more of a Dem constituency than Palestinians, I would guess), but because this is a campaign event and sensible political parties don't do things at campaign events that would alienate big chunks of your voter base.
Maybe they should get this guy, who's publicly written that he hates the Democrats and he's going to vote for a third party in November, and lots of other Palestinian-Americans are going to do the same? He'd be a great guy to have up on stage at the DNC.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/17/as-a-palestinian-american-i-cant-vote-for-joe-biden-any-more-and-i-am-not-alone
I mean, what are the possible outcomes here?
Outcome 1. The DNC platforms Ahmed al-Hypothetical, a respected member of the Palestinian-American community. He stands up and says how much he disapproves of Biden's and Harris's stance on I/P, and adds that he personally won't be voting Democrat unless Harris changes her position. HARRIS CAMPAIGN IN CHAOS AS DNC SPEAKER CALLS FOR THIRD-PARTY VOTE.
Outcome 2. Ahmed al-Hypothetical stands up and says he backs Harris 100% on I/P and immediately gets vast amounts of shit thrown at him by all his fellow Arab-Americans who disagree very strongly with him. HARRIS CAMPAIGN IN CHAOS AS ARAB-AMERICANS DISOWN "UNCLE TOM" DNC SPEAKER.
Outcome 3. Ahmed al-Hypothetical stands up and gives a speech entirely about free school lunches or high-speed rail or something that weirdly doesn't mention I/P at all.
A drag queen, really now?
And they had the parents of an Israeli-American hostage speak. They could go with a vetted speech by a Democrat like Georgia State Representative Ruwa Romman, and there are others. Palestinians are seen as less than human which is the problem here.
Ta-Nehisi Coates says it well https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/dnc-2024-palestine-israel
No Ahmed al-Hypothetical necessary, there are real human beings who could do it such as the one I named.
It's a genuinely hard problem. There is what can be called without absurdity a genocide going on (that is, I'm not comfortable saying what does or does not qualify as genocide, but there are respected experts calling it that) against Palestinians, and no one in control of either US party is committed to doing everything necessary to bring it to a halt, which is beyond shameful. It is completely reasonable for anyone concerned about Palestinians, which should be everyone, to want the Democrats to signal support for them, even if it's costly.
On the other hand, you're completely right that it would be costly -- making the issue more salient might easily be significantly detrimental to Harris's chances of victory, particularly if activist promises that a Palestinian speaker would be completely supportive of the Harris ticket break down in practice(which does seem plausible to me). And I think Palestinians are much likelier to be better off if Harris wins than Trump wins, so not making trouble right now is probably their best option. But telling people who are being massacred "Shhh, trust us, we might be able to help you out so long as no one notices us doing it," is an absurdly hard sell.
When you net it all out, I have no idea. If I were running the DNC, I probably wouldn't schedule a Palestinian speaker -- I'd be singlemindedly working for the greatest chance of victory for the ticket. But Palestinians pushing for it seem completely reasonable to me.
They could go with a vetted speech by a Democrat like Georgia State Representative Ruwa Romman
Ruwa Romman has not endorsed Harris as candidate, and is speaking in exactly one hour's time at an event held by the Uncommitted movement, which is explicitly opposed to appointing Harris as a candidate and is advocating for people not to vote for Harris in the general election.
Would she really be a good person to invite to speak at an event whose sole purpose is to appoint Harris as a candidate?
I believe she indicated that she would endorse Harris if a P-A speaker were to be scheduled
Yeah, and she said she'd endorse Harris if Harris called for an immediate ceasefire, then Harris did exactly that.
Who do you have in mind who:
1. Has fully endorsed Harris
2. Is willing to give a campaign speech talking about how much better Harrisbis on Palestine than Trump.
Cause that's the job assignment! If no one wants it, then there's your reason.
Does Harris want a unified party or not? Snubbing a Palistinian-American speaker indicates not. And that's what she'll get.
A Palestinian speaker who doesn't do 50 doesn't unify the party, it further divides it.
The pro-Palestine voice at this convention was AOC, and she nailed it.
51: I don't think a unified party on this issue is possible. I think the morally decent position, foregrounding Palestinian concerns, is wildly divisive. Which sends me around in a circle -- doing the morally decent thing by foregrounding Palestinian issues seems likely to me to make Palestinians worse off.
AOC held her fire on Palestine and is taking a lot of criticism for it.
They should have booked Rashida Tlaib.
One speaker at a crowded convention and a story that spends half a day in the news cycle is not "forgrounding" the Palestinian issue. Its showing a disaffected faction of the party that they are included and that their voice will be heard.
It's not foregrounding the issue if there's nothing newsworthy about the speech. But I don't think that's likely. Like, I'm sure there is some Palestinian-American speaker out there who would give a boring, anodyne speech that supports Harris and doesn't raise anything contentious around Israel's actions in Palestine and toward Palestinians, but what would be the point of that? I can't imagine anyone being mollified by it.
It's also a hook for the journalists who are just dying to write Democrats in Disarray stories. 'One speaker at a crowded convention' isn't a relevant measure of the downside potential.
Speaking of divisive issues, what is up with the front pagers and commenters at LG M? The front pagers clearly enjoy poking a hornets nest, but never have I seen so many angry Biden supporters. I can understand having different risk calculations on replacing Biden vs. not and therefore coming down on different sides of the issue. But clearly what is likely the best possible outcome happened and I don't get why so many commenters are so upset.
There have been a number of mentions of the Gaza war, and calls for a ceasefire, and they seem to have been reasonably well received by delegates. Not with overwhelming enthusiasm, though, because during the processes for selecting delegates, advocates for Palestine organized for their absence from the body rather than presence in it.
58 I don't read LGM, but really, there are Biden dead-enders? The switch seems to be going great.
I thought the pressure to drop out was unseemly, but the revitalization of the campaign seems undeniable.
58 I was going to post something about that here. I think someone else may have mentioned it too.
Let me once again recommend the Ta-Nehisi Coates piece I posted above
during the processes for selecting delegates, advocates for Palestine organized for their absence from the body rather than presence in it.
By which you mean, the delegates were overwelmingly drawn from Biden supporters because there was never a proper primary?
60.2 it went better than I could have ever imagined it would
58: Well, for one thing Loomis wrote in a front-page posting something along the lines of "I was right about ditching Biden and I'm going to rub the community's noses in it like you rub a puppy's nose in shit to teach it not to poop in the house."
I kinda quit reading when the front-pagers were pounding the drum to ditch Biden because it seemed to me that they were deep into step two of an underpants gnomes plan. Now it seems they are saying -- some more than others -- we were right all along to try to draw the inside card for a straight flush, works every time, didn't we tell you idiots.
Btw she's already endorsed Harris https://x.com/ruwa4georgia/status/1826467839852544403?s=46&t=nbIfRG4OrIZbaPkDOwkgxQ
60: There are people who were pointing out the potential downsides to ditching Biden, whom it pleases the front-pages at LGM to call "Biden dead-enders."
The big mystery is why Harris's approval has shot up after the switch. Like I understand that Biden's disapproval was real, and that his unpopularity was dragging down the ticket, but Harris's approval was really low too! So what happened? Did people just treat Harris as a proxy for Biden before she was running and now they don't? Was it the change in press coverage?
On August 5th she hadn't: https://x.com/jacobkornbluh/status/1820665510561796343?s=46&t=YPDlhKIAkz6frSdUpGBO_g
Is there a later statement you're referring to, or are you relying solely on the linked tweet which says that her proposed speech would have advocated unity behind Harris? Because there's wiggle room there.
I'm not sure you can say "always," I'm not sure there's every been this dramatic and this sudden a shift in opinion on a politician (excluding stuff like 9/11 where the cause is obvious).
64
Sure it's obvious Loomis likes being purposefully inflammatory. But there is absolutely a vibe that Biden was utterly betrayed by those who should be loyal to him and the vitriol towards Pelosi and Obama is off the charts. Or an attitude that people who wanted Biden to step down hated him all along. There's also a strange insistence that we can't know Biden wouldn't be doing as well as Harris.
In July we had two bad choices, a riskier one with a higher upside and a potentially higher downside. We chose that one and had the best possible outcome imaginable. I don't get why so many people are still upset about this.
I was a vocal defender of Biden on the left and mostly dismissed the age thing as Republican ratfucking. Then I watched the debate and was horrified. The aftermath only reinforced that sense. Grandpa drove the car through the supermarket window and it was time to take away the keys. I think Biden is one of the best presidents of my lifetime but it's clear he's not up to the job of campaigning against Trump and deserves a nice retirement.
62 As I mentioned at the time, I was a delegate to our state convention to select people to send to Chicago, and we did have the woman who had organized the uncommitted effort here. She didn't get a seat in Chicago, but it was close, and I think she would have won a seat if she'd tried even just a little harder at basic politics. I talked to her about it afterwards, and she didn't really want to go to Chicago anyway, so her goal -- to talk to a roomful of Dems about Gaza -- was met. Twice, because she got to run in two different delegate categories. I honestly think I was more disappointed that she lost than she was. I haven't reached out to her in the last month, but would guess that she feels differently about that now.
I don't assume that my general experience here was much different from what went on all around the country. Delegate positions basically just lying there on the floor, waiting to be picked up. At the time, it looked like the convention would be a snoozefest, a resume entry for individual delegates, a chance to visit an interesting city. For pro-Palestinian activists, though, it would never have been just a resume entry, and always an opportunity to be vocal in the room. Or to join an outside demonstration wearing credentials. I think, though, that the lure of strategic absence was just too strong.
There's like 5000 State Senators, it's pretty unusual for one of them to get a convention slot. If you want to argue that a very low profile person should get a spot, you'd want to do it on the basis that they already have a track record of being an effective advocate for the campaign. That's certainly not Romman!
67
Few people really pay attention or care about the VP, so until she was running she was a proxy for Biden. Also the only other thing most people knew about her was that she had a lackluster primary campaign in 2019/2020. I wasn't that enthused about her until she became the nominee and knocked it out of the park (I didn't dislike her, I just didn't actively like her. She was sort of "generic Democrat" for me). It also helps that she is youthful, energetic, joyous, and coherent next to the other people running. Finally, it's refreshing that she seems much more interested in Republican punching than most mainstream Democratic candidates. When they go low, she kicks them in the throat.
There was also an odd dribble of "Kamala is hopeless and absurd" stories throughout the last four years -- the coconut tree jokes and so on. I'm not sure if they were being pushed in any organized way for any real reason, but it was out there and I think they kind of stuck because a VP isn't really visible enough to dispel a bad impression. And then when the spotlight turned on her and she wasn't stupid or incoherent, I think that negative bubble popped very suddenly and completely.
Anyway, if you want to take the "uncommitted" approach, that's your right, but then you don't get to speak at the DNC. The whole thing is just so dumb.
65: that post is ten hours old. Two days ago, she hadn't endorsed https://www.salon.com/2024/08/21/help-us-help-you-uncommitted-delegates-plead-for-kamala-harris-commitment-to-stop-the-bombs/
And if she has now endorsed Harris in the absence of a commitment from Harris to support an arms embargo, that is a colossal U-turn by Romman and a betrayal of her supporters.
It is also worth noting that, for the huge majority of the electorate, Palestine is not a very important issue. On a list of the fifteen top policy concerns for Democratic voters, it ranks... well, it isn't there. It's below inflation, health care, drug use, immigration, the deficit, gun violence, education, climate change, racism, terrorism, unemployment and the deteriorating state of road bridges.
It isn't the top foreign policy concern. It isn't even in the top ten foreign policy concerns. It's thirteenth, behind (among others) North Korea, nuclear non-proliferation, and policy regarding artificial intelligence. (It is slightly ahead of "Supporting Israel".)
That doesn't mean that anyone is wrong to take it seriously. It just means that Americans for whom Israel/Palestine is the most important foreign policy issue of the day, or the most important political issue of the day full stop, need to be aware that, in this respect, they are very unusual Americans, and they should be prepared for most people who are broadly on their side not to share their priorities, including people who decide schedules for conventions.
IIRC, we talked about this a year or two ago. Someone mentioned that the VP wasn't doing anything, and I went and looked at her schedule, and she was traveling and speaking to groups all over the country. These trips made local press, and sometimes maybe even a mention in the national press, but the national political reporters weren't interested in her. The gatekeepers basically kept the gate. Which didn't matter because as long as Biden was running for re-election, no one needed to care about the VP.
Shouldn't Trump take the opportunity of RFK Jr dropping out to dump JD and make Kennedy his VP? It would be as close to the QAnon prophecy as could plausibly happen!
71 "But there is absolutely a vibe that Biden was utterly betrayed by those who should be loyal to him and the vitriol towards Pelosi and Obama is off the charts."
I don't read far enough into the comments to encounter this sort of thing. If I read comments at all, it's usually like the first 20 or so, unless I'm really interested in the topic.
Not sure that I can be arsed to go back and look, but I do not recall that the people pushing hardest to dump Biden were then immediately saying and Harris must be the nominee. That's why I said they were wandering around in part two of underpants gnomes.
This is the sort of thing I'm remembering: https://x.com/musktilldawn/status/1545570069132050432?s=46&t=YPDlhKIAkz6frSdUpGBO_g
It's a tweet saying "Today is my last day as the guy who spins Kamala Harris around 25 times before pushing her into the room for her interviews. It has been an incredible opportunity and I'm sad to leave it." Followed by another saying "I'll never forget the first time her handlers looked at me and said "really jostle her" before she had to appear on CNN. I hate to get too loud on my soapbox but they replaced my well paying job with a robot that smacks her over the head with a rod."
They're just from some rando, but I saw a lot of things like that over the last four years.
Or feed roadkill bear to Vance on live TV.
There are people for whom vitriol towards Pelosi and Obama is off the charts is a default condition. I'm glad that the internet provides them with voids to shout into; God knows what they'd be doing otherwise.
I think the Kamala bump is almost entirely a manifestation of massive relief. People watched the debate and thought "we're actually fucked," so when Biden dropped out, people were thrilled about that and having Kamala seem like she knew what she was doing, and having Walz be a normal person who actually scores points against Republicans has mainline Democrats giddy.
81: Yeah, I wasn't a Biden-dead-ender, and I've been delighted with the switch to Harris, but before the switch happened I both thought that people were dishonestly exaggerating Biden's incapacity, and were underrating the potential for complete disaster if the party tried to pull off a speed-dating primary.
I was right about ditching Biden and I'm going to rub the community's noses in it like you rub a puppy's nose in shit to teach it not to poop in the house.
Good lord, is this how you house-train your dogs?
IMO JMM is right to call it Thunderdomism. It was always obvious to me that it was definitely going to be a disaster, and I've been impressed by how well the transition was managed. One wonders how long before Biden actually dropped out that he decided to drop out. Or at least had people gaming out a contingency plan.
On I/P, I'm with LB. And would just add that, as with a lot of contemporary issues, the decision to be made is terrible because the underlying facts are terrible--you can't change them no matter what you decide. And those underlying facts are that Democrats in general and some of their biggest donors in particular either don't care or actively support the genocide.
Two months ago, there was an at-least-basically-OK incumbent president intending to run again and no serious challenger from within the party. This has happened many times in the past and when it does, the nomination isn't really a contest. Then he stepped aside and endorsed his VP, and she got the delegates she needed informally pledged in something like 2 days. People can disagree about whether that needed to happen - I viewed Biden as the least bad option right up to the day he announced he was ending his campaign, and was horrified when it happened, because it's almost unprecedented - but I don't think they can reasonably disagree about how well it happened.
I think this is relevant to both discussions going on here. This is part (although not all) of why Harris is doing so well at the moment. This also hurts a cause that's choosing to call itself Uncommitted. There wasn't a serious uncommitted movement among Republicans in 2004 or 2020, or Democrats in 1996 or 2012. If this Palestinian-American movement was founded in that roughly 48-hour window between Biden ending his campaign and Harris getting the delegates she needed, that's bad luck. If not, then it sounds like they didn't really want to be on the stage to begin with.
Further to 78, I figured that she was working to build enthusiasm among Black voters, which does not excite national political reporters but is crucial for turnout.
89
The Obama bros pointed out that until Biden actually dropped out he had to appear 100% committed to stay in. My guess is he made the decision several weeks before he made the announcement and orchestrated it with Harris and others behind the scenes. My guess (based on nothing) is he decided before the RNC and waited until right after to blunt their momentum like a good ratfucker would. I'm beyond excited that the Dems learned how to shoot ratfuck straight and now the Republicans are the ones who've tied their shoelaces together.
88: Ask Erik Loomis, he's the one I was paraphrasing.
Good lord, is this how you house-train your dogs?
No -- as many commenters pointed out.
There wasn't a serious uncommitted movement among Republicans in 2004 or 2020, or Democrats in 1996 or 2012
In 2012, if my arithmetic is correct, there were 158 uncommitted delegates at the DNC, compared to only 36 this year. Michigan produced 20 uncommitted delegates in 2012 and only 2 this year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommitted_(voting_option)
is this how you house-train your dogs
My father tried doing it to a cat once. It did not go well.
If you want advanced cat training, try to get them to poop in the toilet.
In July we had two bad choices, a riskier one with a higher upside and a potentially higher downside. We chose that one and had the best possible outcome imaginable. I don't get why so many people are still upset about this.
I think the whole argument Biden offered evidence for a basic political truth -- the only way to have a group large enough to accomplish something is to include people that have strong disagreements. By the end I had been convinced that it was probably better for Biden to give up the campaign (if and only if Harris was the intended replacement) but I didn't say much because I was so annoyed by many of the people arguing for Biden to quit.
Biden was the target of a lot of unfair and insulting comments, and I would totally understand if he's pissed about that. I also think it ended up working out as well as one could possibly hope.
Supporting Israel is popular in the U.S. What, 67%, in a country where a 3% advantage is a landslide? This is a case of "you go to war with the electorate you have", unfortunately. I don't know how one fixes this short of Netanyahu losing power and/or all the relevant players having different preferences than they in fact have.
I am probably an outlier but the fact that Pelosi pushed for Biden to drop out made me a lot more OK with it. She knows how to count.
I was always super impressed by the Charles Mingus cat-toilet-training method, until I read something else saying his cats just shit all over his place.
I was never convinced that Biden was to old to be president or to campaign. I was eventually convinced that the people who decided he was had done enough damage to his cause that it was fruitless to go back.
We attempted it, with previous cats. It was going well until the backsplash got to them and caused revolt. Pun intended.
Also I think Pelosi was being ridiculously irresponsible in pushing for an open convention, and I remain convinced that, overall, she has been a very bad leader for the Democrats.
91.2 the uncommitted movement started well before anyone was even talking about Biden dropping out. It was a shot at trying to move the needle on I/P
102 yeah, wether or not he was too old (and I think he was) he was gutshot at that point. He had to go.
Eh, I regret 91 more for the flippancy than for any factual inaccuracy about the frequency/success of uncommitted movements. I agree with LB overall about the issue.
103: Try it with a German toilet. There's only water at one end and there's a big shelf that just holds your poo dry until you flush.
104 I think Pelosi understood it had to be Harris but she kept her hands clear until there was an indisputable consensus
Yeah. I will never know, but I think well of Pelosi generally, and I kind of wonder if "well, I wanted a brokered convention but it seems the groundswell of support behind our vigorous and beloved VP has defeated me. Curses" was theater to keep the switch from looking shady.
But I'm making up stories there.
Pelosi's public comments were the ones that rattled me, because as has been noted here, she knows how to count votes better than most. If the stories that have since come out are true, that Biden's people had not polled swing states in like three weeks after the debate, then he was being poorly served by people who should have been loyal to him -- loyal enough to bring bad news.
I think the immediate endorsements were the price Biden extracted for dropping out, and good for him. And also a sign that he is still up to the maneuvering required in the business. As if the prisoner exchange wasn't enough in that department. The guy the Germans gave up is a BFD here, and Scholz would not have done it for anyone else.
People were invoking the specter of Woodrow Wilson, ffs, and calling folks who said Biden was still up to the job "enablers." It was kinda unhinged.
And to be quite honest, playing footsie with letting Trump win looks to me like Palestinians trying to prove Abba Eban right.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it always seemed to me that people like Ezra Klein have to understand politics well enough to know there was no way there was going to be an open convention. I figured it had to be just a way to avoid the possibility of being blamed for any defeat.
110
Yeah I think all the actual Democratic politicians were lined up behind Harris but didn't want it to look quite so obvious ahead of time. The only ones who really wanted a thunderdome primary were the NYTimes/NYMag hacks.
104: I think Pelosi is a fantastic legislative leader; she seems very good at riding herd on Congress, whipping votes, counting heads, etc. I don't think her political instincts are that good; I don't think she's good at campaigning outside the narrow confines of Northern California politics or coming up with a unifying national message; and she's been incredibly bad about fostering and promoting younger talent. But if she didn't have the strengths she does have, she wouldn't have gotten ACA passed.
111
Yeah. I will never know, but I think well of Pelosi generally, and I kind of wonder if [there] was theater to keep the switch from looking shady.
Fuck that. No offense, LB, but anyone actually saying that there was anything shady about the switch has more brain worms than RFK, junior or senior. There probably should have been consideration about whether a contested convention would have been good for the party or country in, like, early 2023. (Maybe there was and we don't know about it.) In the summer of 2024, the party leadership was correctly focused on winning, which a brokered convention wouldn't have helped.
Part of me wants to say there was a mini-primary, Harris just won it rapidly and conclusively.
I agree that there wasn't anything shady about it, but the NYT was crouched like a leopard to find some vulnerability to attack. If Pelosi had been publicly lined up behind Harris from the beginning, I think they would have been savage about characterizing it as a backroom deal.
You know what would be nice but is apparently too much to ask for? Some indication that a Harris administration will follow the (Leahy) law.
What do you envision as the space between that and an arms embargo on Israel? I understand completely why it should happen, but it's not a nice little good government thing that is being withheld for no reason, it's the central issue.
American guns and bombs not going to support an ongoing genocide is the value here. I don't care if its called an embargo, or if its called "enforcing existing laws."
The Leahy Law has nothing to do with an embargo on arms sales; it's about provision of assistance (in the form of both training and equipment) to foreign military units. Interestingly, it's applied at a unit level, not a national level.
So if the law were to be fully applied, the US could continue to provide arms to Israel, just by imposing the condition that none of those arms are to go to any of the units on its list. (And of course Israel could continue to buy as many US arms as it liked and provide them to whichever IDF units it felt like.)
My sense is that units actively engaged in Gaza would pretty much all fall under the umbrella of "actively violating the law of war" or whatever the standard is. (Have I looked into this on a unit by unit basis? I have not.) I had forgotten the distinction between "giving arms to disqualified units" and "selling arms that will be used by disqualified units," though. Which leaves me not knowing if we even are violating the Leahey Law.
I mean, I agree that we shouldn't be giving military aid to Israel (not sure on an arms embargo). But I also understand that in a democracy you don't get massively unpopular policies just because they're good. By all means advocate for it, but you don't get to have a speaker at the DNC criticize the ticket.
Cutting off military aid to Israel is no longer massively unpopular among Democrats. Republican don't like it, but who cares what they think?
125: There's also an exclusion: the law doesn't apply if members of the unit commit HR violations but their government then takes adequate steps to bring them to justice. The question of whether that is happening or not is left up to the Secretaries of State and Defense.
121 An arms embargo would be great but it's a non-starter. This would finally impose some consequences on a country which has been far too used to acting with impunity for far too long while committing horrific war crimes and would constitute actual pressure that could force them to agree to the terms of a ceasefire (and bring the hostages home). Biden has refused to actually use any real pressure at all.
124 this would be monitored of course and there would be further consequences if they attempted to evade it like that. We've done this with many other countries including those friiendly to the US.
People who want to win the presidential and various congressional elections. If we lose all the Republicans (a given) and any substantial part of the Dems, we lose. Popular among Dems isn't enough.
Cutting off military aid to Israel is no longer massively unpopular among Democrats.
What's the actual polling figure, out of curiosity?
I don't know the polling, but based on vibes.... last week I went to hear a candidate for Congress speak and his washy washy "not do anything to constrain Israel" policy truly did not go over well with the assembled crowd of mostly normie dems.
A State Department official resigned back in March because the consensus among State humanitarian law experts was that war crimes were being committed and the Leahy law should come into effect but they were being overruled by Blinken.
I don't hold out much hope that Israel will genuinely investigate abuses, this is a country where people I rooted for the right to rape detainees and were supported at the highest levels of government.
BTW, a Save the Children delegation just returned from Israel and is reporting that children are being raped. Apart from being vile in and of itself not for the first time do I ask how tf is this serving American interests?
I rooted s/b rioted
Stupid autocorrect
133: I think this is one of those extremely hard to poll issues, because very few people support genocide, they just disbelieve in it (in a sense I would think of as often culpable but sincere) And lots of people who believe that a world-historical crime is happening also "support Israel" in the sense that they think Israelis in Israel should lead long happy lives, their government should just stop committing war crimes and human rights violations, and Palestinians should also lead long happy lives (a group I fall roughly into. We admittedly don't have a clear, realistic policy program).
So you can get any any answer you want depending on what question you ask.
85 is exactly what I felt so much so that I gave money to a presidential campaign for the first time in my life with the added relief that Harris might actually end the ongoing genocide
134: God knows I am not confident that the US or the Biden Administration is doing the right thing. My very poorly founded beliefs are first that stopping the flow of US arms to Israel isn't going to directly stop or slow the killing. Israel is a country with a lot of industry and a big economy, and they're killing poor people trapped in what has become an abbatoir; they can make or buy sufficient weapons for the purpose without us. It'd be a gesture rather than anything that would save lives.
And second that we're trying to broker a cease fire, which would save lives, but that if the genocidal lunatics running Israel now think our total loyalty is slipping, there's no hope of getting them to listen. Does this seem to be working? No. But I haven't got better ideas.
138 they are heavily dependent on US weapons and especially munitions (like 2,000 lb bombs which should never have been used in such a densely populated area in the first place). IDF generals have said if the US tap is shut off that's it.
To the second point surely a credible threat like a commitment to enforce the Leahy law would have a better chance at getting them to change course than what Biden has done which is nothing.
139: I'm not sure what "that's it" means in context, but I don't believe that cutting off US arms would lead to an end to the slaughter. Why would it, and who are you relying on?
Does "cut off" mean stop giving them weapons for free or ban them from purchasing them from American companies? It seems implausible to me that Israel can't afford to buy the weapons they're using. It's a pretty rich country.
Either way, Israel is generally a major arms exporter. Even if they couldn't buy US arms, it seems unlikely they couldn't manage.
Or indeed make them. Israel actually exports precision-guided bombs.
And I hate quibbling like this: what's happening is an evil nightmare. I just don't see what we do that stops it. Stopping the flow of US arms is a gesture, but I don't think it has a meaningful effect.
Is the Biden administration doing nothing? They haven't done anything that effectively stopped the killing, but I believe they're trying through diplomatic channels. That's not enough, but what else is there?
Right. All it takes for Israel to starve a city to death is a few snipers and the aid worker's itinerary.
The administration's endless granting of good faith at least in public is grotesque to watch.
I think putting an end to Israel's diplomatic cover would be huge. Even threatening to do that can be persuasive. Cutting off arms - even in some limited context - makes that a credible threat.
Speaking of, my parents' cat just had its arm cut off.
140 I'm relying on a lot of reporting in US and Israeli print media but I can't find the quote from the IDF general now. We give them 3.3 billion US a year in military aid alone. Israeli's military industry primarily makes weapons platforms, they don't make a lot of heavy ordnance for which they are primarily dependent on the US. They also get white phosphorus from the US which they have been using in violation of LOAC.
Biden has done next to nothing but pretty please plead with Netanyahu, remember the red line regarding Rafah? Look at pictures of Rafah now. Israel has been panicked enough about losing US military aid when we briefly sanctioned the Netzah Yehuda battalion for crimes against humanity (among them murdering an American citizen no less) but they were quickly walked back. They're clearly worried. It's one of the most powerful levers we have and we should use it, we don't even need to go full on arms embargo. Just apply the fucking law. There's also the immorality of aiding and abetting an ongoing genocide using US weapons as well as it acting against US interests in the region and the world.
The cat - who is an exceptionally affectionate, sweet, beautiful creature - has some ailment that is not good, that is progressive. So the cat stopped using its arm, and then the vet said that the arm was diseased enough that it needed to be amputated.
It's not cancer - it's something obscure enough that my mom has trouble recalling the name.
I knew a cat like that. Her name was Bob but we called her "Tripod"
There was someone recently who called a similar cat Yardstick.
A couple of links with non-existent sourcing suggest Barry is more right than wrong about Israel's reliance on the US for munitions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68737412
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/09/does-israel-need-more-us-arms-for-a-rafah-offensive
The time to have moderated Israel's response was at the outset, when it could have been done privately and diplomatically. (And I do think it could have been done.) Now it would be a public relations crisis for any American administration.
There was a piece in Slate by Aymann Ismail that crystalized my thinking on the Democratic politics of Palestine. Ismail does some fine reporting on the view of folks who are understandably appalled by the Biden administration's stance.
Ismail quotes Abed Hammoud, a founding member of the Arab American Political Action Committee:
"Let's assume my nonvote for Biden is a vote for Trump automatically. That indirect vote for Trump brings a guy into office who I don't know what he will do. At the worst, he will be nasty toward us here, like he was in the past. And we can fight him within the law. I cannot fight Joe Biden when he stands with Israel," he said.
There's a lot of similar stuff in Ismail's story.
I've got a great deal of sympathy for anti-Democratic Palestinians, where I've got zero sympathy for anti-Democratic Leftists. But in the end, they present the same political problem: There is no way for the Democratic Party to satisfy their key demands in this moment.
Hammoud's stance is a recapitulation of the intractable nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict itself: There is an entirely understandable belief among Palestinians and other Arabs that there is literally no possible outcome that is worse than the current situation. This is the kind of thinking that leads to Hamas flying gliders into Israel, and to American Palestinians welcoming a Trump administration.
If anyone thinks that I am unsympathetically comparing US Palestinian Trump voters to Hamas terrorists, my actual view would turn that formulation around: I am sympathetic to the Hamas view that appalling terrorism is their only viable choice. I think -- given their legitimate victimization and the political and historical trajectory of the situation over a period of decades -- Hamas might be making the tactically correct choice.
Maybe terrorism and Trump really are the best available choices. I won't support either thing, but I am fully aware that my motivation here is in large part a result of my comfortable distance from the conflict.
Was it the change in press coverage?
You look at the NYT for the 20 days before he dropped out and the 20 days after. Beforehand, the top of the front page practically every day was: Biden is a mess. Afterward, again almost every day on the top of the front page, was some variation on: Harris is a genius.
And I'm being literal and serious when I say "on the top of the front page" and "almost every day" Biden got a brief reprieve when that kid grazed Trump's ear. And it wasn't just the regular media beating up on Biden -- LGM and other new media sources were close to unanimous also.
There is no question that the press coverage was a huge factor. The interesting question is: Did the press coverage reflect something important about objective reality.
I'm right around evenly torn between "opinion polls aside, sometimes politicians should do the right thing even if it's not safe or easy, and at least one unambiguously right thing the Democrats should do is stop helping the Israeli army" and "we're 30,000 votes in two or three swing states away from an administration that would be much worse for the Palestinians and literal actual fascism, Democrats should forget about anything that doesn't help them get elected."
Obviously the current situation sucks for Palestinians, anyone who primarily cares about them, and anyone who thinks that more exposure to the issue at the DNC would be good. I don't have anything too encouraging to say to them, other than "the Democrats are the lesser of two evils on this, and the chance that they'll get better after the election is higher than the chance that the Republicans will." Is there a moral imperative to engage in activism about it at the DNC anyway? Does said activism make it more likely that Democrats will get better after the election? Does said activism make it more likely that they'll win the election? I don't know.
160 cont'd: I'm pretty sure the answer to the third question is "no." But the first two questions are trickier.
If people like Abed Hammoud succeed in getting Trump back into power - Trump of the Muslim ban, of the primise to deport pro-Palestine protesters, Trump who calls Netanyahu almost every week and who literally has a West Bank settlement named after him - they deserve everything that's coming to them. It is tragic that lots of innocent non-moronic Arab Americans will suffer as well, but Hammoud will have earned his place.
they deserve everything that's coming to them
I think "deserve" is a hard word here. But yeah, what would be coming to them is predictable enough, and I certainly agree with you on the correct political choice for US Palestinians.
Still, there's an inevitable logic to this sort of downward nihilistic spiral. Hamas, too, absolutely understood the grave consequences of its attack and chose to do it anyway. The Ismail piece (you can read it in incognito mode) provided a real window for me into how that kind of desperation feels.
they deserve everything that's coming to them
I think "deserve" is a hard word here. But yeah, what would be coming to them is predictable enough, and I certainly agree with you on the correct political choice for US Palestinians.
Still, there's an inevitable logic to this sort of downward nihilistic spiral. Hamas, too, absolutely understood the grave consequences of its attack and chose to do it anyway. The Ismail piece (you can read it in incognito mode) provided a real window for me into how that kind of desperation feels.
Hamas might be making the tactically correct choice.
Wow. I guess I'm mildly curious to hear the details of how you think it's going well. (Thinking back, maybe you do have a bit of a "heighten the contradictions!" streak, but I'd never really fixed on it before.) I do not think Hamas is making the tactically correct choice.
"Hamas, too, absolutely understood the grave consequences of its attack and chose to do it anyway."
It's far from obvious to me that this is true. I think it is much more likely that Hamas thought it was sparking a general war against Israel, involving Hezbollah and Iran, which would lead to Israel's defeat and possibly even destruction. I think they miscalculated hugely, as that sort of person tends to do. Remember that fanatics in bunkers surrounded by terrified henchmen don't always have the best strategic awareness, and Sinwar has been living in a bunker for many years.
166: I'm mildly curious to hear the details of how you think it's going well.
I don't think that's a proper characterization of my point. Maybe a better question to ask is: How do I think that the Hamas attack advanced the goals of the organization?
I answer that question above. I say I don't think that. But I also acknowledge that I am open to the possibility that I am wrong.
The Palestinians have been in an increasingly desperate position for decades. Taking the long view, the one-state solution -- a single Jewish state -- claims more real estate every year -- and gains more international legitimacy. Hamas rightly understands that the Palestinian people are backed into a desperate corner.
Israel's progress in international relations has been suspended (think Saudi Arabia) and even reversed. On balance, the US is still going to be pro-Israel, but the tenor of the conversation here and in Europe has noticeably become more favorable to the people of Gaza and the Palestinians in general.
From the point of view of Hamas, was it worth it? I'd say no. The view of Israelis has become significantly more pro-genocide -- but on the other hand, there has long been a strong pro-genocide streak in Israel. Netanyahu was no accident. And the position of Netanyahu and his party is considerably more tenuous than it would have been absent the attack.
Did Hamas really not understand the fury that their attack would generate in Israel? I doubt that. In the end, I think their calculation was flawed, but it wasn't ridiculous.
Hamas thought it was sparking a general war against Israel, involving Hezbollah and Iran
I share your optimism that this isn't going to happen, but it was a near thing -- and Israel isn't out of the woods yet.
I agree that it is hard to know how the DNC should handle this. I would be inclined to give them a short speaking slot early in the evening based on yhe te t I saw. Hardly a big platform. Ans apparently Jonathan Chait agrees with me (which makes me strongly doubt it's wisdom...)
It's insanely late to be asking for a speaking slot. Like if you wanted a speaking slot the time to start making the case for it was weeks ago! The whole thing makes no sense.
I'm not particularly interested in defending the administration policy on I/P here, I'm defending the idea of a convention which should be: a) planed ahead of time, b) feature people who have publicly endorsed the candidate in advance, and c) are dedicated to making the case for the candidate and not criticizing the candidate. Asking for a slot on like Wednesday when you're uncommitted is so stupid that you have to assume they only did it because they knew it's too late to get a yes.
On non I/P stuff at the convention, the NYT comes through like troopers on the Gus Ealz thing. Subhed:
The 17-year-old's tearful support for his father, Gov. Tim Walz, inspired a hashtag (#ThatsMyDad) and partisan bickering on social media.
The "partisan bickering" in question was people lashing back at the likes of Ann Coulter and Dinesh D'souza mocking the kid. It was a bit of NYT headline malpractice as most of the article is a decent summary of his appearance and background. But then they have this paragraph which is as fucked up as the subhed:
But in more conservative spheres online, some Trump supporters posted split-screen images of Gus in tears alongside more stoic ones of Barron Trump, the former president's youngest son, with one social media user calling Gus "an example of what is wrong with this country." Politico reported on Thursday that the conservative commentator Ann Coulter posted and deleted a message on X that described Gus as "weird," the term that Mr. Walz has used to disparage Mr. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance. (Ms. Coulter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
(And apparently Coulter actually deleted the tweet.)
They are so morally lost.
The one partial exception when you're allowed to bring up your own issues here and there and not make the whole thing about the candidate is when you're a losing primary candidate who just got like 40% of the vote, and even then you're still required to give an enthusiastic endorsement.
171: All of that is correct. But I think an insignificant slot amongst the hordes of short speeches including various Rs is a gracious concession. "Did not even let a Palestinian speak" will be something We'll hear for the rest of my life.
ISTM that US leverage with Israel goes up a whole lot on November 6, 2024.
But, It is done now. Not the biggest thing, but unfortunately germane to some in my immediate circle. (I may be being influenced unduly by that.)
174: Right, the goal from the beginning was the sabotage the Democrats, this request is just one more attempt at that, which unfortunately has been more effective than some of their other attempts. But that's what it is, intentional sabotage, it's not a good faith request. A good faith request would have been made weeks ago.
I'm generally sympathetic to the Upetgi party line in this thread, and I don't suppose I will factually dispute 177, but I don't actually think the conduct of the dissenters has meaningfully detracted from the convention and the general Democratic momentum -- and I don't think it was intended to. The Bernie dissent in 2016 was probably less trivial, but it was still trivial.
Tonight being comparatively sucky so far. Leon Panetta? The sketchy sheriff?
And I get. zi'm not the audience.
To be fair, Panetta better than I expected.
I can't fathom that I'm actually watching, however.
I really love mushrooms with chicken and pancetta.
In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they'd be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they'd be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.
If your overarching goal is to get a speaking slot at the DNC, you probably shouldn't set up an "Uncommitted Movement" that routinely accuses Democratic leaders of genocide. Bad strategy with an unsurprising result.
The thing about believing that a genocide is occurring in Gaza is that every ask you make is so small relative to the gravity of the genocide. The "bare minimum" that was outrageously not offered can ratchet up all the way to invading Israel to end the war. Once you have it what's the big deal about a vetted speech from a token Palestinian-American? The bare minimum is actually an immediate arms embargo.
Most Pennsylvania polls call me and I'm drunk.
Seriously, don't be reassured by any Pennsylvania polls. I'm the youngest white man who answers phone calls from unknown numbers and I do all polls giving only liberal answers and then say I'm a moderate.
168: ah okay. "I think . . . Hamas might be making the tactically correct choice" seemed like a stronger claim than "How do I think that the Hamas attack advanced the goals of the organization? . . . I don't think that. But I also acknowledge that I am open to the possibility that I am wrong." The rest of the comment is familiar terrain, so I don't think I have any more questions, but thank you for clarifying your position.
158 an entirely understandable belief among Palestinians and other Arabs that there is literally no possible outcome that is worse than the current situation
Boy howdy has reading Russian and Central European history cured me of that notion. It can always get worse.
187: Has Andy Kim got a cousin or something?
an entirely understandable belief among Palestinians and other Arabs that there is literally no possible outcome that is worse than the current situation
I mean, Syria is right there, guys. Yes, no doubt it was bad living in Gaza and having to go through checkpoints to get to your job in Israel, and having the occasional Israeli army raid at night in your neighbourhood. But look at Aleppo.
It's insanely late to be asking for a speaking slot. Like if you wanted a speaking slot the time to start making the case for it was weeks ago!
They did about a month ago and kept getting no for an answer hence the sit in.
Right, the goal from the beginning was the sabotage the Democrats, this request is just one more attempt at that,
This is complete bullshit which you would know if you bothered to actually read anything about it.
There is an entirely understandable belief among Palestinians and other Arabs that there is literally no possible outcome that is worse than the current situation.
I've been reading about the situation for a very long time and know many Palestinians and Arabs and I do not find this to be the case at all. They are keenly aware that it can always get worse.
Some of you here are treating Palestinian-Americans like they're some sort of Fifth Column. It's not a good look. These are Democrats, btw. I think this is pretty good and she should have been allowed to give this speech:
Anyway what's done is done, CC is right in 175. Now to put this fascist narcissist to bed.
If your overarching goal is to get a speaking slot at the DNC, you probably shouldn't set up an "Uncommitted Movement" that routinely accuses Democratic leaders of genocide.
And that is so crap at getting people to vote "Uncommitted" that there were five times as many uncommitted delegates at the last similar DNC, which didn't have an Uncommitted movement.
That is really an impressive degree of failure.
Some of you here are treating Palestinian-Americans like they're some sort of Fifth Column. It's not a good look.
No, I'm not, and this kind of indirect criticism is not good. You should name the people you're accusing.
Well I didn't have you in mind, ajay.
Because people clearly need a reminder, US aid to Israel was 4.5% of their GDP in 1991 and is now 0.5%: http://www.unfogged.com/archives/comments_18556.html#2183701
Also, as I happened to find this, the Unfogged thread on the 2012 Presidential Erection!
http://www.unfogged.com/archives/comments_12554.html
I don't pro-Palestine activists (which is not at all the same group as Palestinian-Americans, though of course there's overlap) are a 5th column, I think they're Lucy with the football.
I think they're Lucy with the football.
Above I compared them to the Leftier-than-thou Freddie de Boer types -- and I think you have identified the place where they are comparable. But I think it also has to be acknowledged that they are serious-minded people with real grievances.
They are keenly aware that it can always get worse.
Yeah, we're talking about different "theys." When you suit up with that glider or talk about how Trump and Biden are equivalent on Palestine, you're failing to recognize - or ignoring - the ways things can get worse.
But I also think that distant observers like me have to remind ourselves how bad things actually are. Hamas isn't just responding to what is happening on the ground today, nor is it even reacting to what has happened over 70 years. Hamas and its sympathizers recognize a clear trajectory for the future that they want to interrupt, and they haven't got a lot of options.
I'm sure there are plenty of serious-minded people, but a lot of them (say the ones harassing AOC on the street) are not.
The time to have moderated Israel's response was at the outset, when it could have been done privately and diplomatically. (And I do think it could have been done.) Now it would be a public relations crisis for any American administration.
I am very skeptical that a private, diplomatic approach would have changed anything in the first couple of weeks after October 7th; and I'm fairly skeptical that it would have worked at any point. I think it's fairly clear that Biden has been trying to apply diplomatic pressure and failing -- in part because Netanyahu would prefer to see Trump win and in part because Netanyahu has personal reason to escalate the war (to stay in power).
A good faith request would have been made weeks ago.
What I'm reading is
"[U]ncommitted" delegates had been asking the party for a speaking slot for nearly two months and the Democratic National Committee didn't officially say no until yesterday, it seems like fitting in a speaker might have been on the table.
From that link
The 30 Uncommitted delegates selected Tanya Haj-Hassan, a pediatric intensive care physician who spent time in Gaza's hospitals, as their preferred speaker.
"I am not a politician," Haj-Hassan said. "I'm not even an activist--my life prior to this year has been spent primarily doing clinical work." But the "complete destruction of human life" she saw in Gaza--and the awareness that the destruction is made possible thanks to US funds and US weapons--has made Haj-Hassan determined to speak.
From the AP.
The negotiations stalled late Wednesday when leaders with the Uncommitted National Movement say a Democratic National Committee official called and delivered a firm response: "The answer is no."
...
According to Alawieh, the "Uncommitted" movement provided a number of potential Palestinian Americans who could speak at the convention, including Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman.
more.
In an interview, Romman called herself a safe, last resort. "If an elected official in a swing state who is Palestinian cannot make it on that stage nobody else can," she told Mother Jones.
Below, you can find the speech Romman wants to give. Uncommitted says it was open to multiple speakers. Rep. Romman and Uncommitted organizers both confirmed that this was the speech she was planning to give if allowed for a potential 2-minute speaking slot. Uncommitted said they were open to the speech being edited and vetted. They said the DNC did not ask to see the speech.
"We prepped the speech," Romman told Mother Jones. "We don't know why the campaign said no. We literally have no feedback. We are in the dark."
That, obviously, reflects their side of the story, but it sounds like they were trying to negotiate in good faith. I think it's not a simple request; it's not surprising that the DNC ultimately said "no" but it is disappointing.
Well I didn't have you in mind, ajay.
You should say who you did have in mind.
Ok I admit I had misunderstood the timing. But there's a weird conflation going on here between an "uncommitted" speaker (which is a weird thing to ask for, you have to commit if you want to speak!) and a Palestinian-American speaker. What you want is a committed Palestinian-American!
That said, the idea that Romman is a "safe" choice seems crazy to me though. Wasn't she retweeting people who made death threats towards Harris like last week? Look at her Oct 7 statement. The NYTimes would absolutely roast Harris for having her as a speaker.
You should say who you did have in mind.
This is one of the many curses of Internet commentary. There was a discussion upthread here of the LGM front-pagers and the arguments to which they were responding -- and those alleged arguments were nearly invisible to me.
Were there actual Biden dead-enders arguing that he would have done just as well as Harris today? Maybe! But absent attribution to an actual person's argument, it's hard to know what is being rebutted. (My experience of those threads certainly was more similar to that of Doug than LT Lurker or the LGM front-pagers.)
BTW, not clear to me that there will be a convention "bounce" in the polls; I think they were pretty well pre-bounced.
It continues to gut me that it is even close. And I also realize that that is the most unhelpful and even hurtful stance. But holy fuck, the guy keeps talking about fleeing to Venezuela if he loses. And a million other things.
NickS: I am a bit suspicious of that story. Uncommitted has been around for a while, but it's notable that there's no sign they were asking for a speaker slot before early August. The link that says "had been asking for a speaker slot for nearly two months" goes to a Mother Jones story from August 1. That in turn links to another one from 19 July, which goes into detail about the Uncommitted movement and what they want - "To win back their votes, a candidate would need to call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and a cessation of arms shipments to Israel."
That's all they're after. There's no mention in July of them wanting a speaker slot at the convention as well.
I don't know. Maybe there is an actual source from before August in which they say they're asking for a speaker slot. But all we've got at the moment is them saying now "we asked for a speaker slot a month ago" or "nearly two months ago". That's a bit different.
I guess my thing about Palestine and the convention is that I've got no important gripes with anyone. Activists advocate, and they often don't get speaking slots. And then they complain about it to reporters. That's all okay with me.
By my reckoning, everybody of significance in this narrative is acting honorably and behaving just the way they should -- except Hamas and Likud and those goofballs in Michigan talking about how Trump really isn't all that bad. We'll see if the Michigan people fall in line when the time comes.
there's no sign they were asking for a speaker slot before early August
I feel confident that Upetgi's analysis of this is correct: Had they been allowed a speaker, they would have wanted a different speaker, or a different speech, or a different time slot or whatever.
I mean, their logic is hard to deny: They're talking about genocide here. In the end, making anything other than maximalist demands would be a failure to acknowledge the gravity of the situation. But in the meantime, making minimalist demands shows how unreasonable it is that their demands are being denied.
Honestly the flippancy in evidence in 210.2 is one of the vilest things I've ever read here. Go fuck yourself.
I might soften "go fuck yourself" to "drop the subject": pf, I get that you're thinking hard about the issues in a hard-thinking way, but you're also pulling a series of straw men out of your own navel, and no one actually needs more analysis of this topic with less knowledge, facts, and specifics. Enough.
213,thanks lk, tbf I'm just back from the pub and pretty drunk and was wondering if I'd gone over the top
NickS: I am a bit suspicious of that story. Uncommitted has been around for a while, but it's notable that there's no sign they were asking for a speaker slot before early August.
I'm not sure. Reading this pro-Palestinian article makes the timeline less clear.
The Uncommitted Movement, the antiwar, pro-Palestinian action that placed second to Joe Biden in this spring's discarded primaries, had spent weeks trying to move the convention, both in matters of symbol and substance, against the U.S.-armed slaughter in Gaza. In the end, their efforts had boiled down to one extremely achievable ask: to give a Palestinian-American -- any Palestinian-American -- or a doctor who had witnessed the suffering at the hands of the Israeli military a brief speaking slot, at any time during the four-day-long national pep rally.
...
Support for this fairly minor request grew steadily throughout the week, echoed by Democratic Party stalwarts from the United Auto Workers to at least 11 members of Congress to Mandy Patinkin. Alana Zeitchik, an Israeli-American writer who had six members of her family kidnapped by Hamas on Oct. 7, posted: "a Palestinian American voice deserves to be heard on that stage." In a last-ditch effort, one of the proposed speakers, Georgia state representative Ruwa Romman pre-published her speech at Mother Jones on Thursday morning: an emphatic, almost aggressively non-confrontational endorsement of the Harris-Walz ticket that does not even mention the State of Israel or the Israeli military, calls for the freeing of both Israeli and Palestinian hostages, and avoids all potentially "divisive" terms like ethnic cleansing or genocide.
Right up until prime time yesterday, the movement and its allies held out hope. As filler block after filler block passed -- DJ breaks, a drum line, Adam Kinzinger -- I felt certain the party would relent. Maybe this was all just a show, I thought; a way of emphasizing that what would have been an exceedingly symbolic gesture had indeed come at some internal political cost.
It seems likely that there had been some discussion of a speaking spot, but that framing makes it sound like it was one of many topics of discussion which took on additional focus in the last weeks.
210 perfectly accurate and not deserving of an expletive. But of course there's a genocide going on, so it's actually morally depraved NOT to be terribly offended by it.
210 perfectly accurate and not deserving of an expletive. But of course there's a genocide going on, so it's actually morally depraved NOT to be terribly offended by it.
I hope activists for Palestine go ahead and bird dog Kamala Harris for the rest of the election. I don't think it will effect the election, but she richly deserves it, and I think that its important that the party pay a price for their ongoing support for genocide.
I was super into the Kamala vibes as of a couple days ago, but that ended with day 4 of the convention. I can see now that we are in for more of the same. Fuck the Democratic establishment and their bad-faith bullshit.
Spike: if you don't think it will affect the election, in what way will they be paying a price?
219: Presumably the price paid will be their conscience. I think spike is describing a scenario in which people on the campaign know that the protesters are morally justified (as Biden said, they have a point) and the protests create a remainder of the horrible conditions in Gaza without becoming a major campaign issue.
"If you'd let me go on stage, I would have told everyone to vote for you because it's a necessary step towards creating a path to justice for Palestinians in general and Gaza in particular, and would have 100% meant it. Since you didn't let me go on stage, I'm going to spend 2 months telling everyone that as a matter of principle I'm not going to vote for you.'
vs
'I wish you'd seen a way to let me onstage at the convention, but I'll be doing everything I can to get you elected. And once you're in office, we're going to have to have a serious discussion about a path towards justice.'
221: yes, exactly. This is how you do it. You say "Electing Kamala Harris is the single best hope we have for peace in the Middle East. Donald Trump's own ambassador to Israel says he will support the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza. Kamala Harris is publicly committed to a ceasefire and to the establishment of a Palestinian state." (All of which is actually true.) "Every time Kamala Harris has a campaign event, if there is a single Palestinian-American within 100 miles of that event who isn't bedridden or a toddler, that Palestinian-American will be out delivering leaflets and canvassing for Kamala Harris. We are going to make the middle-aged black church ladies of Georgia look like the Federalist Society. We are going to get Kamala Harris into the White House if we have to sell our kidneys to do it.
"And then, once she's there, we will have that discussion."
The alternative is saying "I don't care if we harm Harris's chances of election. The most important thing is to punish the Democratic party" which I don't think is a very wise or productive course to take.
I hope activists for Palestine go ahead and bird dog Kamala Harris for the rest of the election. I don't think it will effect the election, but she richly deserves it, and I think that its important that the party pay a price for their ongoing support for genocide
No to this. I think it's time (past time?) for pro-Palestinian advocates within the Democratic party to change tactics. I'm not at all interested in making Democrats pay a price if that means the slightest chance of Trump winning. I am interested in changing policy and there are more effective ways to do that.
224 and 225: Agree. What do you suggest?
I was drunk when I wrote that and I stand behind most of it though not necessarily all of it.
But seriously: tell me a better option for the pro-Palestinian/anti-war movement at this time? In addition to the ongoing genocide, there is a stupid-ass missile war escalating in the Levant right now. Are movement leaders really expected to respond to all this by crawling into a hole and disappearing until after November? That's not a realistic ask.
Not to derail the I/P discussion, but since this is the politics thread...I just got polled by the McCormick campaign for Senate here in PA.
It was clearly a really well-funded poll, because the questions were scrupulously designed and the flow made sense. They asked for me by my full legal name, which means they must be polling based off of voter registration records combined with private data (they called my cell).
There wasn't anything really new in the poll, but after the usual throat-clearing questions they tested a bunch of anti-Casey messaging. Major themes:
- Anti-China garbage
- Border security
- Cut prices/inflation
- Criiiiiiiime
- Kamala Harris wants to destroy the energy industry in PA and Bob Casey approves of her
They really leaned hard on the China stuff, with at least four separate attack messages they are testing. As usual there was a lot of stuff about the "Chinese Communist Party" as well.
I answered their questions, but I also told them that Casey had voted for the massive border security bill that Republicans opposed, that senators don't have much control over prices,* that they were being dishonest about rising crime in Pennsylvania cities because murders are down 38% in Philadelphia this year, and that their anti-Chinese messaging is racist and offensive and ignores how many Chinese Americans** live in Pennsylvania.
*Although, funnily enough, Casey just sent me a newsletter about cuts to Medicare drug prices. But that level of nuance doesn't matter in a Favorable/Unfavorable political poll.
**Many of whom do in fact dislike the current Chinese government, but the reality is that a senator fearmongering about "China" does nothing to help their concerns and just stirs up vigilante anti-Chinese violence here in the US.
After all the questions, the thing that confounded the survey-taker the most was my lack of television access (broadcast, digital, etc.).
I have gotten those for other candidates. I keep answering because I feel it does them good to see all their arguments rejected.
Jokes about Boomers aside, I'm well aware that I'm a member of Trump's strongest demographic (except in terms of education).
Jokes aside? Who even are you and what have you done with Moby?
I've been on the other thread because this one was depressing.
But I've been reading too many people on Reddit complaining about "Boomers" with videos that show that the "Boomers" are really 50-somethings.
Why are the Kennedy '24 people still out with their banner on an I-80 overpass? Did nobody tell them?
Apparently, RFK Jr lost of Secret Service protection by withdrawing, so maybe he quit so that he could go back to picking up dead animals.