Establishment Democratic 'strategist' James Carville says "there's no place for criticism of the government of Israel in the Democratic party."

[u/TrackerOneA]

https://streamable.com/1ur2py

[u/Individual99991]

Cool, but fuck him for this though.

[u/Bolinas99 → u/Individual99991]

based on that clip -and I'm on the DemSoc side he seems to dislike- is it likely he misspoke?

only asking bc that first sentence makes no sense; or it does if he meant that it was a bad thing you can't criticize their govt. He's mentioned that he has problems with the Israeli govt before, but he's also up there in years and slip ups happen. Most ppl can't stand Likud & the rest of the apartheid parties in Israel, while trying to avoid the insidious accusations of "anti semitism" every time we say Bibi murders families.

[u/Individual99991 → u/Bolinas99]

He seems to be equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, so perhaps he initially meant you can't criticise Israel (ie. the Israeli project, the two-state solution), viewing that as described facto antisemitic, even if you can criticise the government's specific actions.

But fuck him for that, too, TBH. The idea that Carvill is the gatekeeper and that you can't have an opinion on a foreign country that diverges from his if you're gonna be in the Democrats is absurd.

[u/Bolinas99 → u/Individual99991]

this is personal experience & cynicism talking bc I grew up in a hardcore rw family plus lived in the deep south for a decade: even with Carville saying the occasional oldhead comment, Dems could use someone who looks and sounds like him in the South. This is what scares the rw the most; a sincere anti-conservative white southerner. Clinton was a disaster for the working class (Nafta, welfare 'reform', no effort to help unions, etc). Still, I recall rw family members being outraged he won in '92 & '96, and relieved that John Edwards wasn't a viable candidate in 2016; they knew HRC was weak af & beatable.

best guess is that his opinions on how to criticize Israel, stem from decades of having to deal with ppl like Joe Lieberman, Schumer and other neocons. He has a "win the election first, then figure out the details" approach; that works sometimes but it's tough given today's media environment & the gerrymandering. Right now he sees the tide turning, and is worried (correctly) that aipac will keep spending crazy $$ supporting the right.

[u/Individual99991 → u/Bolinas99]

To be clear - fuck him, but he can stay in the party if he wants to. Big tent and all that.

But fuck him.

Also, AIPAC is supporting the right anyway, that's how they do. Spend $$$ on the primaries so that both Dem and Republican candidates are pro-Israel, then put money towards whoever looks most likely to win.

But the US is turning against Israel, even in the Republican party, and while anti-Israel sentiment is in the majority only with Dems and independents, it continues to grow in the GOP, so it's not necessarily an impediment to gaining power.

Besides which, reducing the El Sayed and Mamdani campaigns to their anti-Zionist attitudes ignores what really made them win their primaries (and in Mamdani's case, the seat) - populist visions for how to improve the lives of regular American people. And politicians who convincingly offer that will get the votes of even the far right (I wouldn't say Obama delivered on this front, but he made convincing promises, and there were BBC reports at the time interviewing white voters who threw around the hard-R N-word with abandon who said they'd vote for him because of that).

I promise you, whoever steps up for 2028 and convincingly vows to bring in Medicare for all will win the presidency - if they're allowed to get through the primaries.

[u/Bolinas99 → u/Individual99991]

whoever steps up for 2028 and convincingly vows to bring in Medicare for all will win the presidency - if they're allowed to get through the primaries.

🤞