Kamala Harris praises Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

and therefore trying to court various constituencies.

Whoppi (someone with zero legislative experience), an entertainer worried about ratings, says something negative about AOC = "Yup. Good point. Makes sense."

Harris (someone with a good deal of legislative experience) says something positive about AOC = "Well, she's a politician trying to get people to like here. Nothing to see here. Move on."

It's almost as if this is about something you don't like about AOC and not about what anyone who knows the job has to say about the job AOC is doing.

What Whoopi said wasn't "negative." It was certainly constructive criticism, but it was not "negative."
It was advice. You can argue it is incorrect advice, feel free, but it was nothing more than that.
I happen to think it was good advice. None of that has anything to do with "negative."

Second, Yes, motivations matter and one should be aware of possible motivations when evaluating what someone says.

So, Whoopi, a known liberal, has an opinion. That opinion could be wrong, but there's no evidence she has any motivation other than expressing an opinion.

Sen Harris, also a known liberal, also has an opinion. That opinion could also be wrong, but we also know she has a desire to run for President, and we know AOC represents a block of voters that are important in the primary. So there is in fact a possible motivation to her saying what she said.

See, this isn't hard.

is pretty important advice to anyone starting something they haven't done before.

That doesn't mean they can't contribute, nor does it mean they don't have good ideas.

It does mean that they should recognize there are elements they simply don't understand and when it's something as complicated as Congress, one is better served coming in ready to soak up information as opposed to coming in and instantly thinking you know what should be changed and how and how quickly.

I suspect ANY criticism would be viewed by you and others as "negative" though so this is a bit of a pointless exercise by me.

Only Whoopi's yesterday.

no one has ever admonished a newly-elected CongressMAN to shut up and learn HIS job.

At least no one here has provided an example of it.

Interesting.

Yes. They both have opinions. One is a ridiculously gifted entertainer (interesting that you don't note her need for ratings when you discuss her motivations and say there is "no evidence she has any motivation." Um, ratings. Oh, and she hates paying taxes. You know, the thing AOC wants to raise. But yeah, no evidence of motivation. Yup. Yup. Sure. Sure). The other has experience in the job AOC is actually doing. But you go with the entertainer who needs ratings to keep her job and hates taxes.

It isn't that hard. You just made the clearly wrong choice.

Yeah, I find Whoopi's opinion the type of advice normally given to someone who is new to something but is excited about changing it based on their current understanding of said endeavor.

I am pretty sure Whoopi is not saying things "for ratings' given she, ya know, already has "the ratings" and is pretty well known for saying what she thinks without filters. I'm also pretty sure taxes are irrelevant to what she is saying in this incident because she said more than just "sit back" she talked about "pooping" on other people. There's a context there you appear to be ignoring.

Regardless, as I said to the other person who responded, there is clearly a cohort primed to take any criticism of AOC as negative as possible, and that's fine, feel free, but I feel fairly confident at the end of the day, that some criticism of her is valid, and that, if she's worthy of being a leader, she will take that criticism into account and adjust as needed, if needed, and where needed...and if she's not, she won't.

Because that's what good leaders do. Whether she is or not, is well in the future to be seen.

Tell Obama to sit down and shut up when he was elected to the Senate or became president?

When Obama started pitching the ACA did any of you say Obama should just sit back and learn the job?
Do they say that of ANY man elected to office?
Some new members of Congress have far more controversial ideas than a tax rate from the Reagan economic policy era.

Sorry, AOC has a rock solid education, ran an pitch perfect campaign in which she defeated her opponents by double digits and small speaking mistakes aside, has held her own against all those “experienced people”. She was on Maddow yesterday and I was very impressed with how she handled herself.

Plus, before I ever quoted Whoopi I would do a little background on her previous statements. She has said some incredibly controversial things and gone off half-cocked in the past.
Whoopi should take a little of her own advice.

why do you think that is?

Do you think maybe it's because Obama came in with a certain sense of working with others and didn't immediately come in guns ablazing at his own side?

Apparently not, you think it's a male/female thing. Well, sorry, I don't. There are several outspoken women in Congress besides her who have not attracted the same attention or the same advice. Kamala Harris didn't come in with a ton of experience per se, but IMO she's light years more impressive and proven and she came in a manner that hasn't engendered the same reaction despite being both fairly far left and a woman who takes a back seat to no one. There are other examples.

AOC did not run a pitch perfect campaign. She certainly was way more hard-working than the incumbent who took his office for granted and got stung by doing so. She out-worked him. Which is good for her. Work ethic is important and beating your opponent by outworking them is something to be applauded and proud of.

But she didn't have some sort of amazing new way of campaigning. she hasn't figured out some new way. She caught an old guy resting on his laurels and beat him.

She's proven very little and I am sorry if I need to see a little bit more than you do before I consider her to have become a leader or someone who is at the forefront. Certainly there is potential there. At this point, that's it.

We need to stop adjusting the intelligence of people because of what they do, I have met people of all levels and I am always impressed at how intelligent many of them are, I always wonder why some of them did not go for academics, etc...

The fact that she is an entertainer does not make her an ignorant, and I am not suggesting you said that, but she is entitled to her opinion as well, and we can not only be happy when we agree with what they say, it is ok for all of us to not agree with something someone like Whoopi says, but no reason to crucify her. Do I agree with what she said? No. Like you I don't agree at all, I think that what AOC is doing is correct, she may need to be more diplomatic at times, and that just to avoid opening a door for republicans who are only looking for things they can criticize and make noise about instead of legislating. I would advise her to make sure she thinks twice how she says things, and again, just because the repubs have her on their sight, she is their target right now. Lets face it, every time a young intelligent woman comes along in the political scene, it threatens repubs more than anything else, that is what happened to Hillary and the repubs relentless attacks through the years have not stopped.

I don't suggest for AOC to cave in, NEVER!, but she needs to play the game right to make sure she gives repubs no leverage.

No doubt about it.

But when she says on thing and Harris says something else about the job AOC is doing, I think it just makes sense to go with what Harris is saying.

And, yes, she'll smooth out the rough edges as she goes about her career, but I would agree that sitting back isn't needed in what she wants to accomplish.

is never an effective logical technique, and it's exactly what you are doing.

but the argument you are making ain't that far off from what I believe Whoopi was trying to convey.
you just said it with more nuance and complexity that writing it down on a message board allows vice an oral statement on a TV show.
But I would propose to you that if Whoopie read that, she'd agree with most of it.

Put another way, my read of what Whoopie was saying was slow it down a bit, recognize that your words and actions have impact, and think through when you need to go 100 percent full speed in the limelight, and when you need to sit back and work behind the scenes...when you need to publicly criticize, and when you need to privately exhort...and yes, make sure you have a full understanding of how things work before you go all in on something.

And no, no man, woman, or anyone has a full knowledge of how Congress works the first month they are there, don't care how smart they are.

Her conservative bosses pay her to dispense this type of advise on their channel. I don’t watch the View but I’ll bet that none of the personalities have views that stray very far to the left.

The View and watching Meghan McCain jump in with her "gotcha" questions reinforced the irrelevance of that show. It was good to see Sen. Harris praising the newly minted Congresswoman though.

Meghan is a lightweight.

AOC is doing great work. She has the capacity to be bold, especially when new, that’s when you can try anything - before people try to shut you down- she can plead ignorance and shake shit up. I hope she goes and goes and goes and never stops. I hope she brings fear into the hearts of Republicans and I hope she is President when she turns 35.

Then she went and spoiled it by ...talking, without a script. I find her to be inarticulate and uninformed in her role on The View. And I have no doubt that young AOC knows the issues about which she speaks better than Whoopi.

That's got to knock her down a few pegs around here.

Sometimes it's like bizarro DU.

improves my view of Harris though.

Really like her. Good news about her today. First the most progressive senator. Now this.

Harris, responding to a question whether Cortez's socialist ideas might splinter the party, says that new ideas should be looked at, etc. Whoopi was speaking about Cortez's criticisms of existing representatives' past work and such. Two different things. A person can propose new ideas without criticizing the people that having been doing the hard work to get bills passed in the past. Of course new ideas from "fresh blood" are always good for a company or government or political body.

You do have a point, probably not the one you intended, as Harris did not discuss Ocasio-Cortez’s poop.

A reality check is appreciated.

And clearly an expert spin doctor. Congrats!!

Life has a way providing experience we learn by trial and success not trial and error. I celebrate this young persons enthusiasm let her develop.

interview with Rachel, I felt like I was looking at this country's 2nd female President. I have a pretty good idea who that first one might be!!

to Sen. Kamala Harris!

This could be very exciting for Democrats!

...those praises aren't front page news.

Before I'm told to start a thread on any of them, I don't see that one member of the House/Senate praising another from the same party to be noteworthy enough to make a big deal about it. It happens every day and many times a day.

She was just on Jake Tapper and was praising others, including Joe Biden who she may be running against in 2020 and who also voted in favor of school busing decades ago (Kamala Harris was a product of school busing in the Oakland area).

That's simply known as working with one's own colleagues to get a job done.

On the other hand, I haven't seen her criticizing members of her own party. Read your highlighted quote and the other quotes there - anything about criticizing members of the party being "good for the party" or "good for the country"?

Either we embrace it or not is worthy of debate. but time IS running short. we live in minority rule.

This is how a leader leads.