AOC has a bigger twitter following than anyone else in the House; she's up there with the big-time senators:
@AOC- 4.39 million@SpeakerPelosi- 2.61 million@BernieSanders- 9.32 million@SenSanders- 8.38 million@SenWarren- 5.07 million@ewarren- 2.63 million@CoryBooker- 4.26 million@TedCruz- 3.35 million@SenTedCruz- 1.24 million@Kamala Harris- 2.71 million@RandPaul- 2.49 million@SenSchumer- 1.81 million@SenGillibrand- 1.42 million
And no one even heard of her a year ago! The rest of these people have been building up their following for years-- if not decades! And until two days ago she had never appeared on any of the Sunday talk shows. This week she was a guest on ABC's The Week. I doubt Pelosi's office recommended her-- and I'm certain they won't recommend her again. David Axelrod would though:So what upset Pelosi and her clique?1- "I think that we have a very real risk of losing the presidency to Donald Trump if we do not have a presidential candidate that is fighting for true transformational change in the lives of working people in the United States. I think that if we elect a president on half-measures that the American people don't quite understand-- the agenda of a president, you know, that says we're fighting for higher wages but we don't want a $15 minimum wage, fighting for education but we don't want to make colleges tuition-free, fighting for women's rights, et cetera, but we don't want to go all the way with that, then I think we have a very real risk of losing the presidency."2- She called impeaching the dangerous criminal in the White House a "constitutional responsibility."3- She answered affirmatively when asked if progressive Democrats are frustrated with Pelosi. "I think it's quite real," she said. "I believe that there is a very real animus and desire to make sure that we are-- that-- that we are holding this president to account."4- "I'm excited to be introducing a repeal of the Hyde Amendment via amendment-- we'll see where it goes-- for incarcerated women and the maternal and reproductive health care of incarcerated women is-- it should be guaranteed as it is with all women in the United States. And so I think it really depends-- and that's really what the Hyde Amendment is about."I hope you'll watch the whole segment (above) but here are a couple of key excerpts:
JONATHAN KARL: Essentially you have 41 freshman Democrats that are in seats that were held by Republicans. And from everything I've seen, virtually all of them-- these are your majority-makers, all of them oppose moving forward with impeachment.AOC: I would disagree with that assessment. I think that some of these dynamics are changing. I would very much not say all of them are opposed to impeachment. I think many of them are extraordinarily concerned about the misconduct coming out. You have to look at the process. There is opening an impeachment inquiry and then there's the impeachment vote itself. There may be some that are out on the impeachment vote itself, but I think that there is a growing sentiment even among many of these frontliners, as we call them, swing district Democrats that think we should at least open an inquiry and look into the abundance of evidence, 10 counts of obstruction of justice, four with rock-solid evidence, we have violations of the emoluments clause.We need to at least open an inquiry so that we can look at what is going on. And that is what opening an-- an impeachment inquiry means....I think what we really need right now is a presidential candidate that is going to fight for the well being of working-class Americans and all Americans. And I think that he [Sanders] does that excellently. I think his policies do that excellently. I believe Senator Warren's policies do that excellently. And I think that that's really what we need to be looking for in terms of the agenda.And when we talk about the agenda, for me, that agenda means the right to health care. It means a $15 minimum wage pegged to inflation. It means making sure that we can make college accessible to all people including public colleges, vocational schools, and community colleges. It means having a foreign policy that's focused on peace-building and stability. And that is what I'm looking for, really, in a candidate for the United States presidency.KARL: So, do you believe the Democrats will lose to Donald Trump if they don't nominate somebody who is, in your mind, a true progressive along the lines you just described?AOC: Well, I think that we have a very real risk of losing the presidency to Donald Trump if we do not have a presidential candidate that is fighting for true transformational change in the lives of working people in the United States. I think that if we elect a president on half-measures that the American people don't quite understand the agenda of a president, you know, a president that says we're fighting for higher wages but we don't want a $15 minimum wage, fighting for education but we don't to make colleges tuition-free, fighting for women's rights, et cetera, but we don't want to go all the way with that, then I think we have a very real risk of losing the presidency....KARL: OK. Unfortunately, we're almost out of time but I got a couple of quick ones I want to get to. First, you have suggested that an economic system that has billionaires is immoral. So let me just ask you, if you had a true progressive program put in place, would Jeff Bezos still be a billionaire five, 10 years from now?AOC: I think I spend less time thinking about Jeff Bezos and I think more time thinking about Amazon warehouse workers. I think about the outcomes that I want for those folks. So whether Jeff Bezos is a billionaire or not is less of my concern than if your average Amazon worker is making a living wage, if they have guaranteed health care and if they can send their kids to college tuition-free. And if that's the case and Jeff Bezos is still a billionaire, that's one thing. But if his being a billionaire is predicated on paying people starvation wages and stripping them of their ability to access health care, and also if his ability to be a billionaire is predicated on the fact that his workers take food stamps, so I'm paying for him to be a billionaire...KARL: And do you think that's why he's a billionaire, because he pays his workers starvation wages and...AOC: I think it's certainly a part of the equation when you have a very large work force and you underpay every single person and then you also participate in-- you know, in taking billions of dollars of government subsidies, I think that could be part of it. But, if he's willing to give up all of his government subsidies, if we're willing to charge fair taxes, if we're willing to pay people living wage, send people to college tuition-free, guarantee everyone health care and he's still a billionaire, then, well, that's a fight we can have another day.
She held back on Biden, although it was obvious she isn't supporting him for the nomination. One of her own supporters-- Cenk Uygur-- was less reticent when he was interviewed over the weekend. He warned Democrats: "Don’t make the same mistake we made in 2016. All of the media told you that Hillary Clinton was the more electable candidate. The polls showed the opposite but the media said, 'No, don’t believe your lying eyes, believe in my alternative facts instead.' And we were right and they were wrong."He worries that the Democrats will nominate a status quo elitist like Hillary-- in other words: Biden. "Do not make that same mistake. Vote for a progressive who says, 'I’m going to fight for you.'"
