The media image of Zohran Mamdani
has never been about Zohran Mamdani. Assorted YOUTUBERS took marching
orders from Democratic Socialists of America. There were other DSAers
running to be the Democratic Party's candidate for NYC mayor -- the very
qualified Brad Lander among them -- but the party leaders -- or big
mouths -- wanted Zohran.
You'll need to ask them why?
It
was cute, recently, watching an MSNBCer on air last week try to state
that he didn't care one way or the other re: Zohran and was just
reporting. To his credit, he hadn't (mis)used MSNBC broadcast time to
pimp Zohran but so many had, so many MSNBCers had used their posts to
promote Zohran during the primary that they're all tarred and feathered
as guilty in the minds of most paying actual attention.
Right
after the primary, when he was the presumed winner, Jen Psaki, for
example, had him on her bad program and she fluffed and made a complete
idiot out of herself. Was she trying to come off like she had a crush
on him? We thought she was happy with her husband Greg.
But
what we identified even more was MSNBCers were doing what they'd done
back in 2014, they were playing Norman Maine as they acted out A STAR IS
BORN.
In 2014, they did
that with Wendy Davis. For a few weeks, Wendy looked like she might be
the next governor of Texas. And then MSNBC and others got a hold of her
-- or her image -- and turned into a star, a media star, someone who
gets airtime and press and make overs and -- Well anything and
everything that a politician doesn't need.
You don't vote for a star, you vote for someone who's going to work for you.
Some
people are that stupid -- that's how you get all the media work to turn Wendy Davis into a celebrity. Some people are even more stupid. George HW
Bush, for example, would be an example of more stupid. Dan Quayle,
despite Poppy Bush's being bowled over by Quayle's alleged good looks,
had no political future. Being on the ticket with Poppy was supposed to
be some form of debutante coming out ball for Quayle. The ball ended
way too soon for Dan because when Bush bowed out of elected office, that
it was for Quayle as well.
So that would be the more stupid.
The 'just stupid'? They try to create political stars without realizing what they're doing.
As
a general rule, a political star is always going to fail on the
Democratic Party side. As a group, the left really doesn't get taken in
for the most part.
The
exception would be 2008 with Barack Obama but, remember, a lot of that
was wives-of. A NEWSWEEK wife, for example, really put the magazine in
place.
It's really
something to reflect on how bad the pre-primary coverage was; however,
it is especially appalling to watch the post-primary coverage.
They do realize this is an important race, right?
Not
for NYC. NYC survived Rudy G, they can survive anything. Doubt us?
Their current mayor is a crook who cut a deal with The Convicted Felon
in the Oval Office. And still NYC thrives.
But this is important because of DSA's hopes and dreams.
They really believe that they have a shot, in 2028, at the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is who they're betting on.
It's a strange bet if you dig deep.
AOC
was first elected to Congress in 2018 when she won 78.1% of the vote.
She was re-elected (applause) in 2020 with 71.6% of the vote (huh?).
Then came 2022 and she won re-election with . . . 70.6% of the vote.
And last November, she again won re-election but her percentage of the
vote fell to 68.9%. In each election, she's won so far; however, her
percentage of voters has shrunk with each election as well -- from the
high of 78.1% down to 68.9%. Does that really say: AOC On The Rise?
(For
the record, if AOC is the party's presidential nominee, we'll be voting
for her. We'll be voting for whomever the nominee is.)
Far beyond AOC herself -- like some voters, the DSA has soured on her with the passing of time, especially the Kshama
Sawant segment of DSA which can't stop ripping AOC apart online -- the
DSA sees 2028 as their moment. They've never had a moment before.
Never come close. But hooking onto AOC's charisma (and AOC does have
charisma, probably the most since Barack in 2008), they know, is going
to deliver them a moment, deliver them power, finally allow them to take
over the Democratic Party from within, and possibly even cleary up
their combination skin.
Are those starry eyed dreams preventing them from grasping how important Zohran is?
AOC's
path to the nomination gets a whole lot harder if Zohran can't seal the
deal. If NYC can't elect a Socialist as mayor, many observers will see
that as evidence that the country cannot either. And as they jawbone
about this over and over, it would become a self-fulfilling promise.
"We can fight that!" screams the DSA. To which we reply: When have you ever gotten the media right?
Margaret
Sullivan, for example, is now at THE GUARDIAN. She's a columnist. She
was a public editor at THE NEW YORK TIMES. It was not a good fit for
her or the paper and they did away with the public editor a year after
she left the paper. We all need to keep that in mind when reading her
latest column "Is the New York Times trying to wreck Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral bid?"
The
editorial board of THE NEW YORK TIMES did not support Zohran in the
primary. That's needed information. However, has Margaret forgotten
the wall between editorial-opinion and actual reporting? Is she saying
that it's gone at THE TIMES?
That
would require concrete and there's nothing concrete about her nonsense
post ('column') for THE GUARDIAN that would be an embarrassment if it
showed up in a high school newspaper. Sullivan typed:
A recent New York Times news story immediately drew fire from readers – and for very good reason.
Headlined
“Mamdani Identified as Asian and African American on College
Application,” the article centered on Zohran Mamdani, the candidate for
New York City mayor who drew national attention recently with his
stunning win in the Democratic primary election.
Its
gist was that as a high school senior in New York City, Mamdani – who
was born in Uganda and is of Indian descent – checked a couple of
different boxes about race when applying for admission to Columbia
University.
So what, you might ask. Why is this even a story, you might also ask.
No, Margaret, we wouldn't ask that because we're not as stupid as you are.
He is not Black.
Yes, that matters.
Senator
Elizabeth Warren wrongly claimed to be of Native American heritage.
When corrected on that, she stated her family had believed that and that
is what she was told as a child. "Pocahontas" is the main name people
use to mock her -- to this day, to mock her. They mocked her with it in
2020 when she ran in the Democratic Party's presidential primary.
Did you miss that, Margaret?
Rachel Dolezal -- did you miss her too? The woman who pretended to be Black? When she was outed as White, she lost everything.
He's not Black.
It's
cute the way Margaret lies and whores -- cute and embarrassing, that
column was beneath her -- to try to act as though an 18 year old isn't
an adult. "High school senior"! It's a pity she couldn't use "intern,"
right, to harken back to an earlier media effort to play someone as younger than they actually were.
He
was 18 years old and he knew he wasn't Black. He lied and he lied to
take advantage of race in a college admission. He wanted into Columbia -- infamous to this day
for the "Scottish African-American" professor (if you don't know her,
you don't know Columbia).
More to the point, Margaret, it wasn't that long ago. He's only 33 today. That was 15 years ago.
Again, he was an adult. Again, he lied.
Elizabeth
Warren probably didn't lie but she's crucified to this day. They say
she lied, they say she lied in order to get advantages in eductation and
employment.
But Margaret wants you to believe that it doesn't matter that Zohran lied?
Not only does it matter but it also goes to a non-inquisitive press that this issue only came out after the primary.
Back
to Jen Psaki, she wasted MSNBC's time and Zohran's time with her giddy
segment that should have instead drilled down on what Zorhan stood for.
That was the moment.
She blew it. She blew it as a journalist and she blew it as a supporter of Zohran.
People
wanted to know who he was. This was the real roll out. And Jen didn't
do journalism and she wasn't even effective as a campaign surrogate.
When Jen should have been serious and focused and talking policy, the media narrative was already being created: Zohran eats strangely. Zohran is not Christian. Zohran . . .
Day after day that pops up in the media and is amplified non-stop.
And idiots in the media and the DSA don't know what the hell to do.
We're not trying to tank Zohran, we are trying to tell the people supporting him that you need to do better.
At this point, he is different. At this point, you're wasting time arguing that he's not different.
And you're wasting time thinking you can sell him as conventional.
Suppose
all you ever had for breakfast was onion rolls. Then one day, in walks a
bagel! You'd say, 'Ugh, what's that?' Until you tried it!
That's my problem == I'm a bagel on a plate full of onion rolls.
Does
no one recognize that? FUNNY GIRL was not only a Broadway success in
its original run, it was also a success in its recent revival. It was a
huge film, in fact, it was the number one box office hit of 1968. The
musical regularly airs on TCM. (We're ignoring the four albums -- all
of which charted -- because the bagel monologue is not on any of
them.)
Suppose
all you ever had for breakfast was onion rolls. Then one day, in walks a bagel! You'd say, 'Ugh, what's that?' Until you tried it!
That's my problem -- I'm a bagel on a plate full of onion rolls.
Zohran supporters, you've waited too late to control the image created. He can't be normalized.
But
if you'd leave your limited perceptions, you'd grasp that different it
is okay, that different can stand out and that sometimes people want
different more than anything else.
That might be his path to victory.
