@wokkamile

However, I do not see her as very intelligent or very articulate. Not yet, anyway. I see her as someone with a huge ego who piggybacks on what she thinks are the applause issues and trumpets them. There is, IMO, an important place for that and a good use for that in this country, where the message is so homogenized. However, so far, she has not yet backed up her applause lines.

No one needs high intelligence to recognize that "Medicare for All" is currently an applause line for the left, especially for those who don't think very much about it. Those who do think beyond applause lines know that a bill title means less than nothing: see the "Patriot" Act. Or, for that matter, see the "Affordable" Care Act.

But, for a national legislator to tout M4All while having not a single specific, not even as Alligator Ed pointed out downthread, resurrecting HR 676? Not smart.

This tweet about a pay increase for people already being compensated at a BASE of $174,000, plus more perqs than anyone can shake a stick,plus titles, media fawning, etc. mentioned in the same breath as disdained and disrespected minimum wage workers? Not smart. (Too much like Hillary's tone deaf comparison of being a Democratic US Senator in a Republican majority Senate to a plantation for my taste.) Claiming an increase $4500 a year is necessary to stave off corruption by our public servants, such as she is? Not smart.

As far as alienating people whose votes you will need if you expect to actually accomplish something, it's fine, if it accomplishes something beyond seeking more applause for oneself. Otherwise, it's merely counter-productive and a potential obstacle to accomplishing something in the future. Also, not smart. (I thought my prior post had made the distinction between pissing off gratuituously and pissing off purposefully, but perhaps not.)

JMO

As my prior post stated, I am trying to avoid knee jerking in either direction. But, I am skeptical, and with good reason, I think. So, far, I certainly cannot divide the Democratic Party into pre-AOC and post-AOC. As far as Obama, most of us thought he talked a good game, too, until we saw that he actually delivered on next to nothing good.

Again, only time will tell.

#4.1 speakership election just the other day. There were mostly candidates to Pelosi's right running. I don't recall a major candidate to her left, and if s/he existed, there was no serious organized public movement for that opponent to be elected.

Even the co-chair of the Dem Progressive Caucus, Rep Jayapal, early on announced her support to re-elect NP. That was as clear a signal as any that there would be no true progressive challenge, that NP would regain her job.

AOC easily is one of the most dynamic, charismatic, articulate and intelligent Dem House members that we've seen in decades. There are many issues, long neglected, which need immediate attention and so she has much to comment on. As there has been a muted and weak show of leadership by Dems and the old guard in Congress, I find it not unsurprising that a young member with great ability would step up to speak out.

And who cares if she ruffles some feathers. Some feather-ruffling has long been needed. Many of us are sick and tired of wimpy Dems giving away the store on issues just to be able to say they can work with their colleagues across the aisle. The feeble pre-AOC status quo is what got us Obama and his weak tea policies.

@dkmich @dkmich

relatively unknown politician, maintaining near total radio silence.

Yet, she is the freshman House member whose name is most familiar to me. (Much as Obama was once the name most familiar to me among freshman US senators. Hell, media was proclaiming him a wunderkind and Presidential timber WHILE he was making the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (that speech often being the way that the Democratic Party signals its choice of future Presidents).

I did not notice it during live coverage--but I was still a Democrat then. However, a year or two ago, I saw videotape of "news" anchors on all the "major" networks cut away from the speech itself to make that kind of remark, FOX News being a possible exception.

During the 2015-16, with Hillary at nearly 100% name recognition and Bernie far below that, media was barely reporting on Bernie, who was only one of two candidates for the Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party who had support worth mentioning. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people were waiting on line for hours in state after state to attend his rallies.

When NPR was challenged on its lack of coverage, its ombudsman replied that Bernie had done nothing newsworthy and, if and when he did, NPR would cover it!

Excuse me, but for the last century and a half, all our Presidents have been either Democrat or Republican. And you have two people running for the Democratic nomination. So, anything either of them does during the primary campaign is "newsworthy," whether it's Hillary passing out in public or Bernie getting something like six thousand in OVERFLOW at rallies in LA and Boston while Hillary was doing her best to hide from everyone but big donors(and the public was cooperating by staying away from her events in droves).

BTW, if I were Bernie and I saw Pelosi walking toward me while a a camera was in the room, I'd excuse myself from whatever I was doing at the moment and head for the men's rest room. He suffered enough from being at Hillary's side.

#4.1 #4.1

No pictures of Bernie and Pelosi posing together. I don't trust AOC and beginning to like her less and less. She insults our intelligence and leaves the same bad taste Warren leaves in my mouth.

@Alligator Ed

Great point about at least having HR 676 in her back pocket in case anyone asked/pressed for specifics--which frankly should have been an easy one to predict.

#4.1 She is cunning but not as smart as she thinks she is. She and her campaign manager somehow got $1M from the Justice Democrats (a misleading organization bearing only 1 precondition). She gets inordinate press coverage--why? Her "proposals" are half-crazy. No M4A support--why didn't she revive the Conyer's bill at least or promote a plan of her own?

She doesn't want to. That's why. She is a scheming phony is is smart in some ways but her hypocrisy is easily evident for those who look for it.

@Dr. John Carpenter

comments, too.

Well, she has accomplished gratuituously pissing off some House members she may need in the future.

She's also been scolded by The View for not taking a breath and learning where the House cloak room is before mouthing off. (Whoopi Goldberg, with nods and agreement from the others around the table.) However, I consider that a plus. If anyone overrates themselves, it's the "ladies of The View thinking they have all the political knowledge they need to mouth off about politics on national television. However, they do have lots of fans, esp. in the NY area where the votes AOC needs for re-election are located.

#4.1 has she actually accomplished anything yet? The amount of fawning press she gets with nothing behind it sets off my BS detector hugely. I think your post nails it.