

Fwiw, I have a theory about AOC: I admit, I was way into her cult of personality a few years ago, and I know a lot of people either still are or have snapped the other way.
I think on January 6th she got a big taste of what being a Malcolm X or a Che Guevara really means. She’s talked about getting trapped in the capital in Katie Porter’s office, and I think after surviving what she expected was her own assassination by a fascist mob at 30 she realized that she wasn’t really as down with the revolutionary life as she thought.
Which I can forgive. I don’t blame her. She’s not the cold-blooded badass we’d hoped for, and that’s okay.
She’s a good member of congress, but we’re going to have to look elsewhere for the future leader we thought she might be.







You’re right.
And if we take a step further in this direction, we can see that this article… is fake.
It’s not real. If you read it carefully, it’s a case study in media manipulation.
The article starts by quoting Henry Cuellar, who is a long-time corporate Democrat wildly out of step with the party. He isn’t representative.
After that, it repeatedly asserts the will of unnamed moderates, with a few unattributed quotes.
Once it’s built up some momentum it presents quotes in which people say things that don’t actually substantiate the article’s premise, but frame it to imply that they did. Consider this one:
An editor could put this in an article headlined “Centrists Argue Against Impeachment” or “Centrists Begin Plans for Trump’s Impeachment”. The absence of context and choice of quote is selected to allow it to be used to imply agreement with the author’s premise, regardless of the subject’s intent.
But where things really get absurd is around the 26th paragraph, when the article includes a long quote from Sam Forester, who just won back a Trump +9 district:
This quote appears in the context that moderate Democrats are concerned that too much action is a political risk. The quote directly contradicts the article’s premise, but to get around this they present him as a “populist” and imply he’s part of the left flank, even though he’s exactly the kind of rural, red-state working class Democrat that will control whether they keep the house in two years.
The obvious conclusion is that the author, Sarah Ferris, was told to write an article that promotes a conflict narrative that supports CNN’s business and pro-corporate, insider-friendly posture. Facts were irrelevant.