The Next DNC Chair: TOM PEREZ WINS, makes Ellison deputy chair

[Blue3]

Josh Earnest says Obama will not endorse a candidate.

Even though he basically has in Perez...

I love Obama, but he needs to butt out of this DNC race.

[BuckeyeNut]

Buttgieg has the endorsement of Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, for what little that's worth. lol

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

You are in a setting in which most of us care about opposing antisemitism but also don't believe that there is any credible evidence that Keith Ellison is an antisemite. There's an easy way to resolve this: Show us that Keith Ellison has done antisemitic things.

Instead, you are taking a claim that ought to be treated seriously and treating it as the equivalent of a playground taunt. It is  wrong, it disgusts me, and I know that you can do better than that.

You know, I have to say, I read some more about this and it looks like most of the stuff Ellison said was in 1989 or 1990.  I still think that Perez is a better pick, but I'm much less invested in this race now.  Mea Culpa

[Green Line]

#Estoyconél

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

You are in a setting in which most of us care about opposing antisemitism but also don't believe that there is any credible evidence that Keith Ellison is an antisemite. There's an easy way to resolve this: Show us that Keith Ellison has done antisemitic things.

Instead, you are taking a claim that ought to be treated seriously and treating it as the equivalent of a playground taunt. It is  wrong, it disgusts me, and I know that you can do better than that.

You know, I have to say, I read some more about this and it looks like most of the stuff Ellison said was in 1989 or 1990.  I still think that Perez is a better pick, but I'm much less invested in this race now.  Mea Culpa

Weren't you a #NeverHillary Democrat in the campaign? I can't imagine why anyone who isn't a Hillary hack would think Perez is a genuinely good choice (as opposed to the lesser evil).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

You are in a setting in which most of us care about opposing antisemitism but also don't believe that there is any credible evidence that Keith Ellison is an antisemite. There's an easy way to resolve this: Show us that Keith Ellison has done antisemitic things.

Instead, you are taking a claim that ought to be treated seriously and treating it as the equivalent of a playground taunt. It is  wrong, it disgusts me, and I know that you can do better than that.

You know, I have to say, I read some more about this and it looks like most of the stuff Ellison said was in 1989 or 1990.  I still think that Perez is a better pick, but I'm much less invested in this race now.  Mea Culpa

Weren't you a #NeverHillary Democrat in the campaign? I can't imagine why anyone who isn't a Hillary hack would think Perez is a genuinely good choice (as opposed to the lesser evil).

I came around a week or two before the RNC, actually.  I really don't like Hillary, but she was far better than Trump.  And that's exactly how I see Perez: the lesser of two evils.  Neither would be a good Chairman IMO, but I think Perez is at least a better choice from the fundraising perspective which is a key part of the job (DNC chairs have little influence over party policy positions).  I'd rather Ellison stay in the House and try to move up in leadership, it seems like a much better fit.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

You are in a setting in which most of us care about opposing antisemitism but also don't believe that there is any credible evidence that Keith Ellison is an antisemite. There's an easy way to resolve this: Show us that Keith Ellison has done antisemitic things.

Instead, you are taking a claim that ought to be treated seriously and treating it as the equivalent of a playground taunt. It is  wrong, it disgusts me, and I know that you can do better than that.

You know, I have to say, I read some more about this and it looks like most of the stuff Ellison said was in 1989 or 1990.  I still think that Perez is a better pick, but I'm much less invested in this race now.  Mea Culpa

Weren't you a #NeverHillary Democrat in the campaign? I can't imagine why anyone who isn't a Hillary hack would think Perez is a genuinely good choice (as opposed to the lesser evil).

I came around a week or two before the RNC, actually.  I really don't like Hillary, but she was far better than Trump.  And that's exactly how I see Perez: the lesser of two evils.  Neither would be a good Chairman IMO, but I think Perez is at least a better choice from the fundraising perspective which is a key part of the job (DNC chairs have little influence over party policy positions).  I'd rather Ellison stay in the House and try to move up in leadership, it seems like a much better fit.

Perez may be semi-progressive, but that really begs the question of why he's running if Ellison is in the race as well. The answer, to me, is only three things:

- He's running as a progressive who's a "don't let Bernie Sanders get his way" option for centrists.
- He's running as a "safe choice" after the accusations against Ellison surfaced.
- He's trying to stay relevant if he decides to run for governor of Maryland in 2018 or 2022.

Perez may be semi-progressive, but I've frankly seen nothing but vague statements about "vision" when it comes to his campaign. Compared to Ellison, who's coming out with plenty of promises, he's weaksauce.

[The Other Castro]

Info on the DNC Chair candidate forums:

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

You are in a setting in which most of us care about opposing antisemitism but also don't believe that there is any credible evidence that Keith Ellison is an antisemite. There's an easy way to resolve this: Show us that Keith Ellison has done antisemitic things.

Instead, you are taking a claim that ought to be treated seriously and treating it as the equivalent of a playground taunt. It is  wrong, it disgusts me, and I know that you can do better than that.

You know, I have to say, I read some more about this and it looks like most of the stuff Ellison said was in 1989 or 1990.  I still think that Perez is a better pick, but I'm much less invested in this race now.  Mea Culpa

Weren't you a #NeverHillary Democrat in the campaign? I can't imagine why anyone who isn't a Hillary hack would think Perez is a genuinely good choice (as opposed to the lesser evil).

I came around a week or two before the RNC, actually.  I really don't like Hillary, but she was far better than Trump.  And that's exactly how I see Perez: the lesser of two evils.  Neither would be a good Chairman IMO, but I think Perez is at least a better choice from the fundraising perspective which is a key part of the job (DNC chairs have little influence over party policy positions).  I'd rather Ellison stay in the House and try to move up in leadership, it seems like a much better fit.

Perez may be semi-progressive, but that really begs the question of why he's running if Ellison is in the race as well. The answer, to me, is only three things:

- He's running as a progressive who's a "don't let Bernie Sanders get his way" option for centrists.
- He's running as a "safe choice" after the accusations against Ellison surfaced.
- He's trying to stay relevant if he decides to run for governor of Maryland in 2018 or 2022.

Perez may be semi-progressive, but I've frankly seen nothing but vague statements about "vision" when it comes to his campaign. Compared to Ellison, who's coming out with plenty of promises, he's weaksauce.

And Ellison's vision is what, exactly?  You can't really argue Perez or Ellison being anything to the table on that front.

[The Other Castro]

DNC Forum Moderators:

Phoenix - Jon Ralston
Houston - Evan Smith
Detroit - Ron Fournier
Baltimore - April Ryan

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Excellent editorial:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/why-tom-perez-strong-competitor-against-keith-ellison-democratic-party

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The forums will be televised, I assume?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm going to have point out that it's highly ironic that someone with the username "Malcolm X" bashed Ellison for alleged antisemitism and his association with the Nation of Islam. It's really comical that Malcolm X has been white-washed to the point where most people can have a respect or admiration for him when he was an immensely inflammatory character.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm going to have point out that it's highly ironic that someone with the username "Malcolm X" bashed Ellison for alleged antisemitism and his association with the Nation of Islam. It's really comical that Malcolm X has been white-washed to the point where most people can have a respect or admiration for him when he was an immensely inflammatory character.

Actually, I just kept my username as random names, words, phrases, etc involving the letter X ("Malcolm X," "Malcolm Xavier," "Mr. X," "Plain Old X," "X," "X is Tywinning," "Senator X," etc, etc), but thanks for playing  It's pointless and kinda stupid, but I liked it all the same and that's what matters.  "Malcolm X" just happened to be the one I had when I got tired of changing my username every few months.  

However, while we're on the subject of Malcolm X, I might as well respond to your attempt at playing "gotcha."  What I respect most about Malcolm X is his ability to transform himself and critically re-examine his core beliefs in a way that few of us ever seriously attempt even once, much less repeatedly over the course of our lives.  Malcolm X transformed himself from a common criminal into a self-educated, charismatic leader with a remarkable (bordering on stupid) level of fearlessness and an undeniably sincere belief in the theological and political views for which he advocated.  It is possible to both admire his ability to transform himself so dramatically – to essentially rebuild himself as a human being from the bottom up – and at the same time abhor the anti-Semitic, racist cult to which he belonged for quite awhile.  It's not like he's either a savior or a monster, that's far too simplistic.  

That's the funny thing about people: they are often complex and don't always fit perfectly into the little one-dimensional boxes folks like yourself are always trying to shove them into.  A person can be great in one way, but terrible in another.  Martin Luther King cheated on his wife, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great civil rights leader just as the fact that he was a great civil rights leader doesn't change the fact that he cheated on his wife.  By the same token, O.J. Simpson was and always will be one of the greatest football players who ever lived...but all that means is that he was an incredible football player.  It doesn't change the fact that he's also a murdering low-life, both can be true.  It's not entirely your fault that you seem to have such a hard time with this concept though, it's human nature to be uncomfortable with ambiguities and plenty of folks are just like you are far more comfortable simply pretending they don't exist.  But I digress, we were talking about Malcolm X.  

Malcolm X did not truly become a great man until after his Hajj (where he seems to have had an epiphany from seeing Muslims of all colors praying together and getting along just fine) and his break with the Nation of Islam.  After he returned from his Hajj, he no longer preached hatred the way he once had and truly became one of the most important civil rights leaders of his time rather than simply a boogeyman for white suburbia to get all stirred up about.  Again, we see a man who was constantly evolving as a human being and willing to fearlessly challenge his own pre-existing beliefs, even setting them aside when he saw that they were wrong.  

As for the Nation of Islam, he broke with them over Elijah Muhammad's affairs and efforts to silence the women he'd been sleeping with as well as Muhammed's refusal to support his calls for the Nation of Islam to work with other civil rights groups, African-American elected officials, and other religious organizations (particularly in regard to the issue of police brutality, something Elijah Muhammed and much of the rest of the NoI leadership refused to join Malcolm X in vocally condemning).  While Malcolm X was part of a cult for some time, the sincerity of his views and his ability to critically examine his own worldview likely made such a break inevitable.  It was only a matter of time before he realized that there was a rotting core of hate and hypocrisy at the center of the Nation of Islam.  Had Malcolm X not been murdered, he would've no doubt gone on to become an even greater man and certainly a far more influential one.  

Like many people, there was a great deal to admire and praise about him, but he also held some truly horrible views during an important part of his life.  In the end, whether you look at him as a man who repeatedly transcended himself until he became a truly great man whose life was cut tragically short, as a demagogue whose sole contribution to society was the hatred he once preached, or as something in between these two extremes, one cannot deny that he was a remarkable and very complex man who had a truly rare ability and willingness to constantly rebuild himself from the bottom-up (for better or worse) by fearlessly challenging his own core values and beliefs about the world in away most people are afraid to ever truly attempt once, much less three or four times.  I think that's pretty admirable, but that's just me.

Of course, I wouldn't want Malcolm X to be chairman of the DNC either

[Gass3268]

Thanks for posting that Mother Jones article X. I am still supporting Ellison, but I won't be upset if Perez wins. Democrats have two very good choices. Hoping that one of the other 3 candidates (NH Chair, SC Chair, South Bend mayor) running could maybe get convinced to run for Vice Chair.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Excellent editorial:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/why-tom-perez-strong-competitor-against-keith-ellison-democratic-party

Mother Jones is a mouth piece for the Democratic establishment now. If Obama picked him well then of course he must be OK

[The Other Castro]

Alex Seitz-Wald ‏@aseitzwald
Format for Phoenix DNC Chair forum: 2 min opening statements, then moderator @RalstonReports admins Qs from DNC members + public, per doc.

[Gass3268]

Excellent editorial:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/why-tom-perez-strong-competitor-against-keith-ellison-democratic-party

Mother Jones is a mouth piece for the Democratic establishment now. If Obama picked him well then of course he must be OK

lol

[The Other Castro]

There will also be a debate on January 18.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

wow I must have touched a nerve.

I observed something that was highly ironic, you don't have to justify your choice of username; you could call yourself Stalin, who cares honestly.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

wow I must have touched a nerve.

I observed something that was highly ironic, you don't have to justify your choice of username; you could call yourself Stalin, who cares honestly.

Not really, I just gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you might be interested in having an intelligent conversation for once.  Also there's nothing ironic about the username, but you'd already know that if you'd actually read my post.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Excellent editorial:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/why-tom-perez-strong-competitor-against-keith-ellison-democratic-party

What a garbage piece. If there's no real difference between Perez and Ellison, why did Perez jump into the race in the first place?

It's clear that the Obama/Hillary wing wants to influence the direction of the party on their way out the door, and frankly at a time when the head of the DNC should be guiding a pretty strong operation in all 50 states, you need the opposite of a party hack.

[OneJ]

There will also be a debate on January 18.

I'll look out for that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There will also be a debate on January 18.

I'll look out for that.

I wonder if Donna Brazile will be leaking questions to her favorable candidate.

[The Other Castro]

Oh I didn't even notice this but the debate will be at GW. Like with the Paul Ryan town hall, I'll post if I've been selected/asked to provide a question.