At her best, Marisa DeFranco was a distinction, not a difference. Running a campaign with a budget miniscule budget, and no reliable political advice is difficult in the best of times. Running a vanity campaign often leads to self-destructive actions that cause collateral damage to the party, its goals, and the prospective nominee.
Remeber Ed O’Reilly giving credence to Swift Boat propaganda? Meet Marisa DeFranco, enabler of the Brown/Herald -generated campaign against Elizabeth Warren’s heritage. The Springfield Republican interviewed DeFranco. Aside from the paper’s keeping the non-issue alive, there’s not much to the article. There’s not much to DeFranco either who says what “differentiates her from Warren, a Harvard Law School professor, is her “real world experience” as an immigration lawyer.” Wow.
Marisa DeFranco, a Massachusetts Senate candidate, is criticizing her Democratic primary rival Elizabeth Warren for Warren’s inability to handle questions about her Native American ancestry.
“The problem for me is the campaign’s lack of ability to have a clear and consistent message about this issue,” DeFranco told MassLive.com. “They didn’t get in front of it when it first broke. They had several different responses.”
DeFranco’s confederate was on BMG not long ago calling for a debate. I said nothing, but many agreed that she had earned it. This interview shows that she’s not ready for prime-time. In fact, she’s not ready for anything but the Green Party, the only party that will ever accept her.
Wow, so now we learn that the recipes that Elizabeth Warren contributed to that Native American cookbook, where she identified herself as “Cherokee” and said these were family recipes passed down to her from her Cherokee ancestors, are PLAGAIRIZED from the New York Times and Better Homes and Gardens!!!! She even kept the same wording!
Wow, fellas…
Hey, if you don’t like DeFranco, maybe someone should put in a call to Mike Capuano or Alan Khazei.
But find another thread or make your own. The topic is DeFranco, not Warren.
It’s not fair to criticize DeFranco for the article’s emphasis on the Warren flame-out. It’s the story of the day, and how DeFranco responds is part of the story. She certainly shouldn’t be ignoring it, right? That’d be lame, she needs to show she’s the real deal and knows how to throw a knockout punch when the opponent is reeling. I’m sure she wants to be given a chance to introduce herself to voters and get her own story out there. But that’ll have to wait a for more news cycles. She’s a credible candidate though, she’s got the signatures and campaign staff and supporters, she’s got positions and ideas, she’s got the drive. Plus, she’s not a Harvard professor.
Marissa DeFranco is trying to promote her ability to be a better campaigner than Elizabeth Warren but this is a poor play. If politics is to be her cool, she should just play out her hand and make herself know to the Party at large. She also needs more state wide experience to be a real contender. She is not using her opportunities wisely since she does have a decent message. She is just not ready yet for prime time.
if she knew what she was doing when talking to the Republican or just getting played. In party politics, party comes before personal ambition.
As far as I know, she has received almost no coverage in Western Massachusetts. She seems to have made some appearances at truly peripheral events, but out here in Progressive Land, she’s the invisible woman.
I don’t know her, but I wasn’t badly disposed to her. Until now.
Just one question for don’t-get-cute and the venerable Mr. Carr:
What was your response to Scott Brown’s verbatim use of Elizabeth Dole’s personal statement both in a speech to students and on his official senate website?
And spare us the technical error story. Technical errors don’t replace names. And in the speech to students? Did his aides accidentally replace the speech he had worked on with hers? And he didn’t seem to notice because…?
Maybe he was too busy thinking about shooting hoops.
I don’t expect speeches to be written by the politician, we all know there are people called “speechwriters” who write the speech. And I know what it is like to make a website, it is ALWAYS done by starting from something close and going in and changing the things that need to be changed. And, when designing a page, you need content to get the page to look right, so they kept the old content. I bet they intended to replace it with something real later, but they dropped the ball. I doubt Brown had much to do with making the website or writing the blurbs, and I can guarantee you that he didn’t say, “hmm, I’ll just take Dole’s old one and change a few things.” It was a bad mistake though, but typical of way web developers work. The web team should have removed the old content completely and written brand new stuff, and he should have looked at it more carefully. I’ve made bad mistakes putting stuff up on the web that I didn’t catch til well after going live, so forgetting to finish things and shoddy error checking is very understandable to me. For example, I spelled plagairism wrong in the title of my comment. I didn’t intentionally do that.
In this case, Warren herself clearly submitted recipes she knew came from newspapers very recently, and were not Cherokee, and not passed down to her from her family, as being exactly that. She’s a fraud, and she just assumed that no one would ever find out.
…A bigoted sexist fraud. We found that out a long time ago…
But you’ve long been the beneficiary of Democrats largeness of heart and willingness to put up with your childish bullshit in the name of honest discussion and thoughtful argumentation. You’ve been given opportunity after opportunity to raise your game and instead you just lower your sights and spew your venom. Go away.
the ridiculous thing is that reporters keep asking her this question. Every interview I’ve seen shows it to be the first question out of their mouths. I think she’s been doing a great job of deflecting it by saying it’s E Warren’s and Harvard’s problem to deal with. Maybe she’s getting sick of the question. I’ve seen cases where far too much of the interview is dedicated to it.
I think it would be a great idea if Elizabeth Warren and/or her campaign request a 30 minute interview with some news organization and dedicate the entire 30 minutes to talking about it. Answer ever question with detailed information and finally put the whole thing to rest.
I’m sick of hearing about it.
like “Marisa DeFranco says Elizabeth Warren lacks a ‘clear and consistent message’ on Native American ancestry,” you’ve ended up attacking Warren. As a member of the party, you can’t give the paper a chance to say that kind of thing. You may be fighting for a nomination, but you can’t damage the chances of your party in winning the election.
Not knowing what there is with the heritage issue, it’s hard to say what the Warren campaign should do. It’s certainly weird.
I’m sick of the issue too. It’s purely political. Aside from campaigning, it doesn’t matter at all. But this is politics. This is a campaign, and how it plays out matters.
And DeFranco has helped breathe life into it for her campaign which has nothing to offer.
how is it that Elizabeth Warren and her campaign have allowed this question to continue on and on and on and on. It’s much easier to blame Marisa DeFranco than it is to blame Elizabeth Warren and her campaign. So have at it, because this is just beyond ridiculous. If you think Marisa DeFranco’s campaign has nothing to offer then you haven’t been listening. Which is fine, if don’t want to listen then don’t, but her stand on the issues is very compelling and I’m glad her voice is in the race. Too bad it’s getting drowned out by this Native American heritage nonsense.
Honestly, I’m shocked that anyone would stand by her.
That’s of DeFranco’s own doing. She decided to make this her campaign.
If you want to believe that Marisa DeFranco is seeking out media attention to talk about this Native American heritage/Elizabeth Warren issue than go ahead and believe it.
Marisa DeFranco could have answered media inquiries about this with something along the lines of “I am in this campaign to address issues of substance. Next question?”
Fanning the flames of crude racist and sexist innuendo started by the Scott Brown campaign and its supporters demeans Ms. DeFranco. It also stands in stark contrast to the courtesy and respect Ms. Warren has shown Ms. DeFranco and her campaign from the beginning.
about it. She just got 11,000 signatures to get on the ballot, a HUGE undertaking, and all the press wants to talk about is Elizabeth Warren and her heritage issues with Harvard. Can you imagine how frustrated Marisa must be? Maybe she is just trying to give them something so they will move on and start talking about her signature success and the issues she is running on. Now she’s being called a clown by BMGers and threatened with boos at the convention. Looks like we will have a divided party afterall and again.
Ms. DeFranco is in the race because she asserts she is the more qualified candidate. Such questions come with the territory, don’t they?
The Scott Brown campaign pumps the press with a constant barrage of innuendo in order to keep those questions coming. Ms. DeFranco’s job is know how to deflect them and to do so.
If the party is divided, it will be because Ms. DeFranco allows herself to be lured into implied attacks on the leading Democratic candidate. Ms. DeFranco is the only person who can stop that (surely the Brown campaign will not). She should have done so, and she did not.
she seems to have difficulty putting to bed press questions about another candidate.
hm
Warren handled this nothing issue badly.
Mind, what proof have I that DeFranco would do it better?
handled it badly is that there is more embarassing stuff there.
There is also a Globe story about DeFranco criticizing Warren’s response. She’s doing more than criticizing her response, though, when she says “come on, you have to look like a person of color.” That’s criticizing Warren for calling herself a minority all those years.
Here’s more:
At the convention, I’ll be voting against her getting on the primary ballot.
is exactly the sort of thing that totally turns off most of the activist base. if they hear about it. Which is DeFranco’s first hurdle (ballot access).
How much does anyone want to bet me that if she’s denied access by not getting her 15%, that it was some sort of insider conspiracy to keep her off?
Huge huge #fail. I hate that it confirms something I thought might be the case about her tone…that it wasn’t just “surface” bad tone, but ran deeper. Sigh.
but loses in the general because the Brown campaign drags up all the barbs you have thrown at her, you will declare mea culpa?
The chance of DeFranco winning the primary is like the chance of Obama carrying Texas. If that happens, I’ll expect streets paved of gold and angels to show up with my lunch order.
that Defranco manages a win, I’d back her, and I very highly doubt a comment on a blog is going to be dredged up ANYwhere. However, I stand by my comment in that I have had a problem with her tone for months, and this only reinforces that. I would expect better of her. I can’t demand excellence from my Dem primary candidates?
Funny, I thought that’s what the supporters of DeFranco were demanding from Warren…
at how many activists and independents get turned off by remarks such as yours. If you don’t need them, fine.
a blogger is somewhat of an activist.
DeFranco is a clown.
Here we go with the childish name calling again.
from her supporters on BMG actually reinforce what I think of her.
And frankly, as I’ve stated, she’s not ready for prime time NOT because of her issues but because she is a poor advocate for them (ie how she comes across). I’ve said that a million times. But we’re not playing tiddlywinks here. This is for keeps – on a statewide race for one of the biggest offices you can get elected to from a state, for some of the biggest stakes we’ve ever seen.
Forgive me for not wanting to come to a gun battle with a spoon.
from people such as you, some of us feel compelled to say something in her defense.
and being defensive, are two different things.
Sometimes it isn’t your time. And sometimes the fact that most of the state’s prominent and not so prominent activists aren’t on your side is for a reason.
I’m sick of hearing about vast Dem party conspiracies.
“ready for prime time” is what a candidate does when backed into a corner, not when they are ahead.
not Elizabeth Warren.
Harvard is not an issue.
She either knows she is helping Scott Brown keep this non-issue alive, or she doesn’t. Both alternatives hurt her.
DeFranco’s quote is specifically regarding Harvard’s choice to list Warren as a minority, NOT about Warren’s self-declaration. Her criticism was leveled at Harvard.
I’ll assume that your distortion of intent was accidental, not deliberate.
and the quote has nothing to do with Harvard’s decision to use this for their own gain. If DeFranco had said that, I would give her 3 cheers.
But now I know who to call if I ever need an immigration lawyer.
You wrote, at 2:56p, pretty much exactly what liveandletlive wrote at 10:16a this morning — “She was talking about Harvard”.
WRONG. She was talking about a Scott Brown turd.
She should have been talking about issues. She’s either intentionally betraying the Democratic Party by helping the Scott Brown campaign, or she’s utterly incompetent, or both.
The context of the story shows DeFranco talking about Harvard, not Warren’s personal statements.
Look, I get that Ms. DeFranco was “talking about Harvard”.
That’s the point.
Is “Harvard” an issue in this campaign? Is “talking about Harvard” going to advance progressive values, create jobs, address the wealth imbalance, or anything else constructive?
NO!
The act of “talking about Harvard” was itself helping Scott Brown try to breathe life into this non-issue. ANY qualified candidate for national office should know this. If Ms. DeFranco didn’t realize how her “talking about Harvard” would help Scott Brown, she is incompetent. If she did realize it, and went on the record with these statements anyway, then she’s intentionally betrayed a fellow Democrat (and every Democratic voter).
She should know better.
the comment above by whosmindingdemint, who asserted that DeFranco was talking about Warren.
If DeFranco had introduced the topic of Harvard, you might have a case. She didn’t. Anything she says in answer to a reporter’s question on the topic will be interpreted by Warren supporters as help for Scott Brown. This strikes me as grasping at straws.
It doesn’t matter who introduced the topic.
She should have pivoted the gotcha question back to her message. That’s basic press management. She failed.
but having since revisited the Globe story, I see where she took a swipe at Harvard. None of this is particularly helpful to the effort. If DeFranco has a better way to run Warren’s campaign, then by all means jump in, but she needs to shut down her campaign first.
Merely saying she won’t let Brown define her isn’t enough.
DeFranco said she believes the fact that the controversy over Warren’s heritage has lasted for three weeks shows a problem with Warren’s campaign. “We need a Democratic nominee who’s able to define herself first and foremost before the Republican GOP machine comes after you and defines the candidate for her,” DeFranco said. “I will not let Scott Brown define me.”
I was wrong there. I now concur with mizjones below that she was specifically referring to Harvard calling her a “person of color” and not criticizing Warren for using that phrase. That phrase was Harvard’s description (or perhaps that Fordham writer’s) not Warren’s.
Hey, don’t get cute, I’m just curious: does Fehrnstrom pay you with a check or direct deposit? As a general rule, direct deposit is the much more convenient option, unless your spouse tends to the family checkbook, in which case he or she will know precisely how much you’re paid to be a faceless-douche bag-attack poodle. Even still, such disclosure probably still beats standing in line at the bank on Fridays.
.
So I listened to her interview.
Defranco made four claims about her being a better candidate:
1. She has a jobs plan; Warren does not.
2. She is for single payer healthcare. Warren has not taken a position.
3. She is a fighter; Warren has only been a fighter while an employee of the executive branch on a six figure salary.
4. She works with “real” people. Warren does not.
The first two just make me roll my eyes, and, yes, they remind me of Ed Reilly running not for Senate but to be the Senate. Yes, yes, yes, we really need an FDR-style jobs plans (Defranco’s phrase) and single payer, but getting stuff like that through Congress is another matter. The plans of very junior Senators are insignificant given the Republican-Conservadem alliance that prevents such stuff.
The stuff about her being a fighter and Warren not is, frankly, politically moronic and ridiculously ungracious. Is consumer protection really such a small matter? A better tack for the Defranco campaign might be that Warren has done great stuff that she supports, she would advocate for Warren to head the new agency, but she Defranco would make the better Senator for such and such reasons. She is minimizing an important progressive accomplishment for some kind of political gain. Not admirable.
The working with “real” people stuff is likewise unimpressive. Is she saying that someone who works in customer service might be even more qualified than she is? After all, customer service representatives deal with even more real people. This is also something where I’d prefer to be shown rather than told. Did I feel from this interview that Defranco could connect with voters — as opposed to clients? No, I didn’t.
In short, I don’t see what she’s contributing to the campaign.
It’s been a while since our LeftAhead podcast interview with Warren, but as I recall she did say she is for single payer, ultimately. That said, she’s not going to waste her first bit of political capital on it, either, I’d wager.
Frankly, I think single payer is going to have to start with the states, then states coming together to form regional single payer, before we EVER see it happen on the federal level. As much as I hate that, one Senate race is SOOOO not going to come close to changing that dynamic.
RE the rest of your comment, spot on.
I did not know what Warren had said or not said about single payer. I was only reporting DeFranco’s comments.
Sadly, I think you are right about the road to getting single payer.
is falling so far short of what most people in our country need that suggesting DeFranco for the Green party can be interpreted as a compliment.
I guess if you think that the issues of jobs, health care funding, and avoidance of war are too daunting to tackle aggressively, with vision, then a candidate who offers bland adjustments to the status quo will do just fine.
It is ironic that the Democratic party still revers the bold initiatives of FDR and LBJ but sniffs at a candidate who dares to suggest similar boldness today.
I applaud Ms. DeFranco for advocating for the bold initiatives of FDR and LBJ. As I’ve written upthread, her comments about the heritage (non-)issue reek. They reek of the stench of self-interest, incompetence, or both.
Any loyal, competent candidate would have graciously and swiftly knocked down the stupid “heritage” question and stayed on-message.
DeFranco is not taking any position on the “heritage” question. It is not her job to defend Warren. Warren, who has the inside information, is in a better position to defend her own heritage claims anyway. The only criticism leveled by DeFranco at Warren has been Warren’s slowness in getting in front of the heritage questions. Criticizing an opponent’s campaign tactic sounds like fair game to me.
defend Warren from Republican attacks. If she can’t bring herself to do that, then her job is to say nothing.
Instead, because she’s either misguided or terribly naive, she helped give life to the story by commenting on the way it was handled. That legitimizes the issue. Talking about the way a non-issue like this is handled is always used as a way to legitimize it. When a Democratic opponent does this, it takes on more legitimacy.
If you’re loyal to your party, you don’t do that, particularly when you don’t have a shot at the nomination.
I’ll be at the convention and she won’t get on the ballot with my vote. She’ll be lucky if she doesn’t get booed.
I will give up on the Democratic Party of Massachusetts. You do not boo valuable Democrats, and seriously, you do not boo anyone who gets up on that stage. If Marisa DeFranco gets booed at the convention it will be proof positive that the party has lost it’s marbles completely and it serves no purpose to support it anymore.
where I’m coming from with her statements on the heritage question.
n/t
If you want a party where no single person is allowed to dislike your favorite candidate, the Democratic Party is not the one for you.
Neither is the Republican Party, for that matter.
but calling them a clown and threatening with hostility at the convention is beyond anything that I want to be involved with. Grow up.
The above line is not a threat. It is an observation about how the Convention is likely to respond.
And yes, with Warren getting much more air time and having two or more orders of magnitude more funding than DeFranco, Ms DeFranco’s chances of gaining the nomination are not that much better than yours or mine. So it is thoroughly legitimate to wonder about DeFranco’s effect on the extremely likely nominee.
These are evaluations that adults with a grip are likely to make.
…just how many of DeFranco’s supporters on this site will be convention delegates. Any of the DeFranco camp care to let me know?
I’m sniffing at her manner in displaying her views.
Which makes me cringe. If it makes me, a person who largely agrees with her, cringe, I hate to see what she’d do on statewide debates to the average voter.
Sorry, it’s just true.
Let me guarantee you one thing: booing will be the least of DeFranco’s problems at the convention. I know plenty of people who are ready to throw rotten grapefruit at her during her speech.
Please throw them away now.
Please do not take them to the Democratic Convention.
And whatever you do, please do not throw them at Senate candidates. It’s rude, counterproductive, and smelly.
grapefruit at DeFranco? I can imagine her getting booed, though I wouldn’t be one to do it.
I will vote against her getting on the ballot. Even if Warren people ask otherwise?
From loumandarini:
Do you have a license to carry concealed citrus?
Or are you upset to see me at the podium?
on student loan interest rates.
you don’t throw the leading democratic candidate under the bus on an issue as stupid as this one either. But since Ms DeFranco has made Brown so very happy, I suggest you both leave. Now.
When I am for a long shot candidate (or, well, one that winds up not winning) I pick ones that I NEVER have to feel defensive about. The fact that DeFranco supporters on this thread are defensive about things means she has already failed.
I never had to defend the words or actions, for instance, of state Sen. Jamie Eldridge when he was running for Meehan’s seat. I was proud of him every moment, and he is as progressive as any pol I know, including DeFranco. He was as distinctively for these issues, and yet he managed to state that, and put sunlight between him and his opponents in the primary, without this sort of crap.
When the tone becomes one of being defensive, you’ve already lost. And you won’t gain more people on your side by being so.
I have been giving this advice for months…and no one is listening from the DeFranco camp. Their loss, as I meant it (and still do) as an objective evaluation as to why I feel she is not the right candidate for a general against Brown. I am not being mean – I am giving an honest opinion that she would do well to pay attention to, because if I am thinking it, so are others.
liveandletlive,
Let me guarantee you one thing: booing will be the least of DeFranco’s problems at the convention. I know plenty of people who are ready to throw rotten grapefruit at her during her speech.
These comments on the Native American stuff are way, way beyond the pale, totally unncessary and consummately unhelpful to the singular overarching issue in this election: replacing Scott Brown. I’m not at all sorry to the sanctimonious DeFranco supporters on this message board, but your candidate isn’t going to win the primary. You’re trying to catch soap bubbles and you’re going nowhere.
Unfortunately, DeFranco’s comments on the Native American stuff are part and parcel of the way she and her supporters speak about everything. There is a high-handed, sanctimonious streak to the DeFranco crowed. Marisa and her supporters want to lecture people about how the Democratic Party is somehow “settling” for Elizabeth Warren — as it to suggest that this genuine progressive hero is some kind of warmed over Evan Bayh. It’s absolute, untrammeled madness of a type that makes me angry enough to punch a wall. I genuinely cannot believe that this butterfly-chasing band of ne’er do wells is really going to do this.
So, the only answer I can come up with is this: DeFranco needs to be crushed. I’ll gladly pay out of my own pocket to make several hundred copies of the Globe article to hand out on the floor of the State Convention so that delegates can see what a sore, poisonous assassin they might put on the ballot.
This is complete nuttiness and, to borrow a line from Diane Keaton in Godfather II: “This all must end.” DeFranco needs to go. Plain and simple. No 15%. Not now. Not ever.
which the conspiracy-theorists on this thread grabbed onto, you hit on one thing – sanctimonious. That is a great word for it. Defined:
“Making a show of being morally superior to other people.”
Also this: “Marisa and her supporters want to lecture people about how the Democratic Party is somehow “settling” for Elizabeth Warren — as it to suggest that this genuine progressive hero is some kind of warmed over Evan Bayh.”
Precisely.
This is a HUGE obstacle to getting people on your side, including voters but especially activists. Those who go out of their way to produce bad blood in a primary this way, do it at their own peril. Maybe it’s more her supporters (on this thread or others) and not the candidate, but some of the things she’s said also rub me the same wrong way.
And this thread has tied it – I will also not be voting for DeFranco on a second ballot or however it’s done now (I can’t keep track).
Please read some of your own comments and consider how you would feel if they were leveled at you or your candidate. You have become a broken record of epithets.
You can call standing up for DeFranco “defensive”, I call it standing up for a strong, smart candidate. For all your concern about “tone”, I will throw that one back at you. “Not ready for prime time”, “uncouth”, and “strident” are terms you have used, sometimes multiple times, to describe DeFranco. If this is what you would call a good tone, I say thanks for the suggestions.
Don’t flatter yourself. It’s not about tone. It’s about substance. And it’s about who’s ready to take the fight to Brown in the fall and who isn’t.
These Native American comments reveal a naive, self-promoting peacock who doesn’t have enough self-awareness to realize the terrible damage she’s doing to the issues she proclaims to care about with this course of action.
And, by the way, you’ll know when I start with the epithets. You’ve only been served the salad course.
Lynne’s tone is that of a committed Democratic activist, who’s sick to death of your candidate and of you, her supporters here at BMG. I don’t blame her a bit for feeling the way she does.
Before Elizabeth Warren entered the race, I attended an info session for senate candidates – Marisa was invited, but she was a no-call, no-show. Setti Warren, Bob DiMaissi and Herb Robinson did show up – we waited for your candidate, but eventually we gave up and got started without her.
I’ve mentioned on other threads how she failed to get in touch with me, a committed Democratic activist with massive reach in southern Worcester county, even though I met her at several events, gave her my contact info, called her, emailed her and contacted her through Facebook. While her positions on the issues are admirable, she just doesn’t seem to be a very good candidate, and this incident cements that opinion in my mind.
Why isn’t she here at BMG, engaging those of us who will be at the convention? Why has her campaign not called me? I’m a delegate, she needs my vote, and she has my contact info!
“OH NOES!!! STOP THE PRESSES! SHE CALLED HER STRIDENT! BURN HER!”
Wow, really? really? You can dish it out but you can’t take it? Well, that pretty much sums up my whole problem with your candidate. ~rolls eyes~
If you have not won me, you have not won a lot of people. I’m not that hard to win. I like good strong progressives, and I like candidates with class and ability to communicate our Dem message clearly and with aplomb. While that is a fairly tall order, there are a lot of pols I very much respect in our state that fit this bill. DeFranco is not one of them, and one of the reasons is this sort of conspiracy-theory-driven defensiveness, which you keep and keep and keep on exhibiting.
PS Not sure I used uncouth, ever. But if I did in another thread from a while back, and you are following my comments so closely as to bring other comments from weeks ago that no one but Google remembers, YOU ARE PROVING MY POINT. Defensive. ‘Nuff said, goodnight.
From loumandarini:
“I think this is a serious security issue handed out by a Warren supporter.”
Only a desperate, defensive supporter would even say this!! OMFG.
‘Tis come to this…
d-bag
Rotten grapefruits, tomatoes, cabbages and turnips will be confiscated…
liveandletlive, yeah, good for you. Why don’t you all sit and circle with the other DeFranco supporters and talk about how pure you are and how Marisa will be your savior?
Bunch of brain-dead simps following an even bigger brain-dead simp. Christ, at least Jill Stein wasn’t the human equivalent of a Brillo Pad.
Nuff said
.
Are you really telling people to stay “classy” here after your unremitting sanctimony these last several months? People here at sick to death of you for a reason: you’re trapped in a cocoon of your own self-righteousness.
,
have spirited arguments here. And sometimes insult each other, but this isn’t how we talk to each other here.
When I’m wrong, I admit it. I’ll refrain from that tone going forward.
nt
times myself.
not a d-bag
Don’t mean to rescuscitate a moribund thread, but I was out of state attending to an ailing parent. All’s well in that regard, but have to say that a week away from FB, BMG, etc can do the soul some good. And restore some perspective.
Mark, I believe I may have been that “DeFranco confederate” you cited as promoting the idea of a debate (I prefer “supporter” to “confederate,” with its overtone of sinister conspiracies; but the label made me smile. That said, I stopped huddling in dark alleyways with the MDF campaign a while back). I’d still like to see one; but I adamantly do not want a debate that hinges on campaign strategies and the personal foibles of candidates, nor on the performance of campaign teams (on which count MDF would get crushed anyway, which really made me wonder about the advisability of this recent remark of hers. Pots and kettles and all that).
Let me repeat: I only want a debate because more than a few of MY key issues are NOT being discussed by either EW or SB. As in at all. I don’t give a damn about either candidate’s personal life, past, personality (outside of electability), or political future. Contra lou, I hardy consider MDF a “savior.” Kind of a cheap shot, that, and utterly inaccurate). I DO care about education reform (especially when it’s regressive), climate change, drone warfare, overseas military bases, Iran (Warren made it clear she she” really not to up to speed on that issue whatsoever) millions of drug users locked up in private prisons, the “Secure Communities Act, corporate bankrolling of campaigns, and agriculture. That stuff that has so many so disappointed in Obama. (Someone pointed out that a Consumer Protection Agency is mighty important. It’s about #10 on my list.) I’m not suggesting that Warren is in any way on the wrong side on these issues; could well be that she has many good things to say; maybe her positions would blow me away. I just want to hear them. And so would a hell of a lot of other folks I know, and I’m unconvinced that political expediency is best served by silence in at least a few cases here. When Mark states that “There’s not much to DeFranco either who says what `differentiates her from Warren, a Harvard Law School professor, is her “`real world experience’” as an immigration lawyer,” he’s only half right: true, that distinction doesn’t mean much. But even a cursory review of the two candidates’ web sites, their responses to various organizations’ endorsement questionnaires, and their stated positions in debates reveal very sharp and clear differences. I won’t bore you by enumerating the list I’ve catalogued previously, but they’re there, all right, and to pretend otherwise is disingenous. Why not respect those differences and bang away at DeFranco’s positions?
To the the specific point: this erstwhile supporter has no problem in admitting that I found MDF’s comments … let me just say, uh, “unhelpful.” Never mind Warren; they were unhelpful to the speaker. When a candidate doesn’t get much press, what she does get has to be used judiciously, to his/her best advantage, has to fire up her [potential] supporters and win some new friends. Talking about this in-crediby stupid subject (and in any vein and from any perspective) did not fire me up. Quite the opposite: it has nothing to do with my issues; I certainly didn’t repost it anywwhere; and to be honest, I, uh, hoped maybe no one would notice. OK? There seems to be some sense on here that DeFranco supporters are members of an angry cult. Not a bit. Not in my case, anyway. I agree 100% with somvervilletom: “Marisa DeFranco could have answered media inquiries about this with something along the lines of `I am in this campaign to address issues of substance. Next question?’”
So, yeah, she made a mistake. This MDF supporter is willing to admit it. So can we can the sanctinomy/defensive charges, at least until we see the same level of harsh criticism levelled at some of Warren’s genuinely dumb statements by her own supporters?
True also that I haven’t hidden my disappointment with Warren, starting with her refusal to directly answer the question about Occupy in Dewey Square. A minor issue to you, a huge one to me–we all have our peculiar loyalties. But I also believe I’ve given credit where it’s due–where Warren has come out strong, and courageously, on issues of some moment, I’ve been cheered and said so. Which is why comments like this are so disappointing:
If you really want to lose any number of progressive activists who aren’t particularly thrilled with the direction the Democratic Party has taken over the past several decades, but who are nonetheless pledged to work and work hard on behalf of our nominees and elected officials, then, sure, maintain this kind of rhetoric. johnt001 is “sick to death” of MDF supporters; to loumandarini, we’re all “brain dead.” Sheesh. Really had to count to 100 a few times and not respond in kind. Maybe you should organize a Party purge, seeing as how deeply visceral you feel about us?
I spend more time than I should in less partisan fora debating the “don’t vote at all or don’t vote mainstream Party” types, and I assure you, their numbers are growing. Lynne claims that “this [intraparty criticism] is exactly the sort of thing that totally turns off most of the activist base.” While I agree (wincing) with many of her other criticisms in this and previous threads, I could not disagree more with this statement–we are losing our activist base, and in droves, because we too often give wholehearted support to centrists, diss the butterfly-chasers as hopelessly naive, celebrate lucre-gathering capacity above all else, and tell any mild idealists (who do in fact ultimately recognize the need for pragmatism!) that they belong with the Greens. Well, put it that way, and that’s exactly what you’ll get; and then you’ll complain later than the Greens are spoiling the party. That’s a sure way to continue thinning our own ranks, and it makes it damn near impossible to do my own evangelizing among the heathen (it kills me to see such ardent anti-Democratic sensibility among folks I respect–and I want them in the fold! But if they’re going to be told they’re stupid, naive, etc, well…). I’m pretty thick-skinned, but flinging BS insults like that around really rankled.
In short, folks, candidates are fair game–I have zero problem with calling a candidate, even mine, “not ready for prime time” and “strident”–they’re considered judgments, not name-calling–but I really don’t know what you think you’re gaining by flinging lowbrow invective at another candidates’ supporters. I feel, reading this thread, rather like I have when posting on RMG! I don’t mind it personally (true, “brain dead” kinda rankles), but I’m seeing the political effects daily.
Mea culpa: I did once inadvertently suggest that Warren supporters may not have done their due diligence–it came off differently than I’d intended, I was dead wrong, and I apologized herein, though my words were rather less offensive than what’s being bandied around this thread, where the supporters of an insurgent canddiate themselves are being held up to mockery. But speaking of thin-skinned, there has been a demonstrable sensibility, from day one, here and elsewhere, that any challenge to Progressive (by whose definition? not mine) Hero Warren is heretical, and challenges to many of her own statements (Occupy, Iran) have an unfortunate tendency to remain unaddressed by her sycoph–err, supporters (sorry, just joking there). Rather than calling DeFranco supporters “sanctimonious”--AND, too, rather than MDF supporters engaging in conspiracy-mongering of their own, along with displaying overmuch bitterness!!–I’d much prefer debate here, AND between EW and MDF, to focus on those specifics.
A little late for that, I guess. So it goes.
Let me end with a plea. I’m not going to bother encouraging any delegates hereon to cast their vote for Marisa. But when you’re in Springfield, try to leave this misdemeanor aside, attend to the substance of Marisa’s remarks, and stand up and applaud when you hear something you like. If Marisa has done some small damage in creating diviseness in dredging up this insipid issue, no fear–she’ll pay it with loss of support. Don’t make the same mistake and create more division by booing or sitting on your hands. Those folks who got her her signatures are a force you want as your allies come the election–Lynne’s comment about turning off activists cuts both ways. Sure, there are some who will be bitter and remain antagonistic–but don’t tarnish us all with the same brush. Marisa showed some toughness in hanging in, and that’s no small thing. Consider, no matter how you plan to vote, paying a solid, and SOLIDLY progressive candidate, some tribute for her passion (and intelligence [if not political acumen]–contra loumandarini and his “braindead simp,” Marisa has actually thought long and deeply about any number of issues.)
I actually hope that Marisa stays engaged and runs again (for a different office). And I hope she’s read these various threads, because a smart candidate doesn’t simply smart at criticism, but takes valuable critiques to heart, and god knows many of your remarks have been spot on; I’ve winced over and again reading them, but we profit best from those who point out our flaws, not pat us on the back. I believe Lynne when she says “I have been giving this advice for months…and no one is listening from the DeFranco camp. Their loss, as I meant it (and still do) as an objective evaluation as to why I feel she is not the right candidate for a general against Brown. I am not being mean – I am giving an honest opinion that she would do well to pay attention to, because if I am thinking it, so are others” (my criticism of Warren comes from a similiar sensibility–“so are others”; we’re both right and frankly we need each other). She’s relatively new to the field, perhaps guilty of a touch of a hubris and sanctimony–but we learn from our mistakes, and she may be a better candidate in the future for it.
That’s all. That and my sincere best wishes for a happy and unified, or at least non-acrominous, convention no matter what the outcome of the pre-primary vote.
P. S. Send those grapefruits, turnips, and cabbages to Occupy Boston. They’ll make for a soup.