assuming they follow through (yes, I know that nothing can happen yet).

The party will have to decide whether that's the side it's on or not.

The corporate far right controls the M$M narrative. There are few Democrats who can change the narrative. Occasio-Cortez is one of those gifted people who can change the narrative. Nancy Pelosi can do it just by calling a press conference. This is why the Putin/Trump/GOP is attacking AOC, she is breaking up old right wing talking points. She has a gift. Democrats don't have to agree with all of her agenda, but let's as a group, not use right wing talking points and say that Democrats have a problem with her. God bless her, what she is doing is causing us to debate issues, that's not a problem. We Democrats have prided ourselves in having a big tent, let's not start having purity tests. You go girl.

Unlike the GOP, we can have more than one side, and all of ours are rational.

I think it is important for leaders to engage the public on complex issues and explain them as much as possible. But there are extremely complex topics on which the "general public" should be cautious about trying to do their "own analysis". One can challenge a leader on outcomes, or even make them address other well established critics. But Limbaugh is not a "well establish critic". Neither is that guy on the internet with a blog saying we never landed on the moon. And anyone that starts a sentence with "I'm not a scientist but..." should probably just sit down and listen.

AOC's job will become being that person that is the "go between" for the people, and the experts.

Some here react to her tweets as if they're the target audience. I don't know whether AOC is particularly self-conscious about what she posts, but she will have quite a following among younger people and others who aren't necessarily familiar with the ins and outs of Congress, how things work, what problems and oddities a newcomer might identify etc.

There have long been complaints that Democrats aren't proactive (and aggressive) enough in general messaging, so this could be a bonus. Will she always be on message? Not to everyone's taste, that's for sure.

You go girl, it's not just young people who like her, I'm 71.

She reminds me of a young Scottish National Party politician you may have heard of - Mhairi Black.

She has the same sass, the same sort of incredulity at the arcane way our political systems work (or more often don't), the same ability to shrug off verbal assaults from adversaries, the same sort of appeal and similar left-wing credentials, to the extent that many among the SNP's (self-selected) arch-enemies in the UK Labour Party resent that she should be "one of them" rather than an activist in the party she's chosen.

Can I point to any legislative successes Mhairi Black has had? No. Our current system hasn't allowed that.

Is she a powerful and worthwhile voice? Hell, yes.

Helping previously uninvolved people feel they understand something and that "progressive" is a good word can be very positive because it's a first step to caring enough to vote. How they're influenced to vote once on their feet is another question.

Some of those she's associated with are very concerning to me, but right now she's helping redefine the differences between progressive liberalism and anti-government conservatism that right-wing propagandists have spent decades obscuring and lying about.

I remember the 1990s when the right succeeded in making "liberal" sound like a dirty word to most, immoral, anti-family values, etc., even to many naturally liberal but ignorant people. So then, of course, many liberals tried calling themselves "progressives" instead, and the right made progressive a dirty word. Now she's helping cut through that noxious Kool-Aid so younger people like her can realize there are real differences, if not entirely what they are.

I seriously worry about those hostile groups she's involved with and how she will characterize her colleagues in future because, like the Republicans, Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress also want to purge them (even though most are strongly liberal and overwhelmingly progressive) and replace these democratically elected reps with their choices. Needless to say, scarcely a commitment to democracy, liberalism OR protecting progressivism in government.

But she's getting a whole new view of Democrats and congress, so we'll see who she turns out to be -- and whether she parts ways with those men who've ridden her coattails into the center of power. On scanning her own tweets since entering office, she's gotten blow-back on attacking Democrats and is now mostly attacking what the right is up to and focusing new enthusiasm on what have always been Democratic ideals and solutions. So far mostly to the good.

I don't agree with that. The job of these leaders is to explain, in layman terms, the "complex" topics they are talking about and will affect the people.

Nothing needs to be complex and out of reach to everyone, we all pay for their jobs, then lets have the information in a way everyone can understand because if that doesn't happen you will have the pundits explaining things anyway they want to and that is how misinformation comes about.

Would anyone like to have Lou Dobss explain anything to them? He is a hack for the republicans, or Hannity?

I like AOC and I think she is starting to wake up a lot of Democrats, she has already created panic on the repubs...I have not seen anything from the republican attacks that she has not bettered, they always loose when they attack her.

who've never voted or affiliated with a party, or whose affiliation and understanding have been so weak that a few lies directed to their attention caused them to turn away. A disastrous number of those actually believed the massive blizzard of lies that Democrats were corrupt in 2016, and that failure of understanding tipped the nation to the intensely corrupt white nationalist party.

As for "complex," it helps greatly that Republican policies have become so extreme. Most people don't need complex explanations to understand that congress gutting labor laws and Social Security and Trump locking terrified children in cages is not what they want.

Now the trick will be getting more left-leaners who've never bothered to say no to evil before off their asses on November 2, 2020. Encouragingly, more young people than ever before did just that last November, way UP to 31% of those eligible -- almost a third!

Guessing maybe a deliberate policy of cruelty to children, and perhaps loss of the promise of affordable college and increase in minimum wages, frightening climate change crises?, had something to do with that, but all have been raised in a national miasma of lies about who and what Democrats are that they haven't shaken off. A lot more "waking up" needed.

To research the issues, and make them more understandable to the non-specialist.

to all people.

Things like Ted talks and the Internet are great ways to present complex subjects to people in a way TV can't do.

When a subject is papered over as "too complex," I've found that it usually means someone in a position of power doesn't want the hoi polloi to be looking too closely into something. And the reason for that is that it's something that's filching money out of people's pockets or out of the public treasury for the personal benefit of the person who says it's too complex.

And dismissing something as "not feasible" can also be a cover.

Last edited Tue Jan 15, 2019, 02:00 PM - Edit history (1)

Any young Congresswoman who regularly puts arrogant, patriarchal, asshats in their place—be they donkeys or pachyderms—has my support. I must say that I’ve suffered politicians and pundits rolling out that “ignorant layperson” horseshit since I was old enough to read and ready to understand. I love her fire and honesty; what a sweet refrain she offers from the polished turds consistently rolling off political tongues like so many road apples appearing under a horses tail.

of what AOC means for Democrats.

THE CORPORATE FAR RIGHT CONTROLS THE M$M narrative. Let's use the wall as an example. The narrative is that maybe Democrats should give Trump money for a wall in return for something for DACA, etc. The narrative is that Democrats at one time were in favor of a wall/fencing and the Dems are only against a wall now because Trump wants one. That's basically 90% of what I'm hearing from cable news.

The narrative should be about people talking about the issue of having a wall/fence. Is it cost effective, would it even work? It hasn't been designed by engineers only by manufacturers. There are places where a wall is impossible to build. 1/4 of the boundary is the Rio Grande river which means we will be giving land to Mexico because the wall will be built inland. The wall will have environmental, flooding issues. The majority of the ranchers and land owners along the border don't want a wall. When Bush pushed it people sued and fought in court to stop the government from taking their land.

This is just one example of the importance of who controls the narrative.

One last time, AOL has the ability to change the right wing narrative to a narrative that is factual and benefits Americans. Rant off.

First, the media is conservative, and corporate controlled. Everything that we hear should be filtered through that.

just listen to the Republicans on just about any issue.

And for Trump as well.