I don’t buy the “he’s a centrist” line for a second. Sherrill and Spanberger both claimed to be moderates. They aren’t. Also, Ossoff is Jewish, and that’s a deal breaker for the DSA wing of the Democrats.
I could see a detente with Ossoff and El-Sayed sharing a stage in Michigan in 2028 if he wins (I’m hoping he’s been chastened a bit with Piker’s “The Jews are asking for it” remarks; wishful thinking more likely)
Oh, I’m not saying El-Sayed would be VP, I’m just saying he’d get behind Ossoff if Ossoff got the Dem nod in ‘28, and would campaign with him.
Lots of things would need to happen, among them AES winning his race and using his first two years to show he’s not an extremist, just a fighter. I don’t put a huge probability on it, just speculating.
I have a hard time trusting any current Dem who presents as moderate. There are too many instances of them doing so only to go full woke once in office (Biden) or just pretending to be suddenly moderate once on the campaign trail without actually saying how or why they've changed (Harris and very soon AOC).
I can see Josh Shapiro or Mark Kelly having the balls to actually stand up to the progressives, but I'm not sure I'd bet on it either.
Call me a Doubting Thomas. I'll believe in the moderate Democrat once I see one in a prominent national office, in the spotlight, stare down the mindless horde and tell them to kick rocks.
I'm having a hard time with your suggestion that Biden was "full woke" as president. He was extremely supportive of police, asking and receiving large increases for federal support for police and repeatedly stressing his administration's support of local police. He was highly supportive of Israel, particularly after October 7, when he was the most visible world leader by Netanyahu's side. In such respects he was adopting positions entirely counter to the "woke" agenda.
It is true that he was a supporter of "Green New Deal" style legislation, but that is not "woke," although it has been carelessly lumped into the "woke" basket by some on the Right. Support for the conversion to renewable energy sources is part of a different basket of environmental positions that dates back many decades. He also adopted strong anti-monopoly positions; again, a tradition neither associated with "woke." The recent rise of anti-oligarchic politics among Democrats is an expansion of a position that the Party has stressed since the Reagan era.
I'm not saying Biden was "anti-woke." There are aspects of the "woke" agenda that Biden did adopt. He supported DEI and he expanded accommodations for trans people in various ways. But in no way was he "full woke," and he was by and large villainized by the DSA-style wing of the Left.
Hating Israel wasn't a requisite of the woke crowd until October 8, 2023.
But Biden was woke in many other ways, especially in his constant demonization of anything right of far Left in public discourse. Like so many progressives, he became an expert at hysterics. Biden called Georgia's election integrity law "jim Crowe 2.0" because that appeased the progressive hysteria of day, refered to "Transgender genocide" on several occasions, insisted on his VP being a woman of color (which eventually led to 2024's disasterous and highly avoidable loss to Trump), claimed his "green" legislation would stave off environmental disaster (while just funneling money to Dem-aligned interest groups) and gave the supreme court the middle finger with his executive-led student loan forgiveness (again to Dem-aligned individuals).
I am starting to see that this lens of how people behave on a spectrum leaves out their decision making, both political and policy. Ultimately we need to elect people able to make decisions from a moral and strategic place.
The narrative I see in comments like this is that we believe people are hiding who they are (which we all do) and we are trying to discern their true colors. That they are merely a vessel for our values.
When I shift from spectrum/true colors thinking I see politics in a new manner
Sorry but I have to agree with several of the previous commenters. In the last 15 years or so, I've yet to observe any Democrat who, while running as a "centrist" or "moderate", actually performs as a centrist or moderate when elected. With a single exception of the senator from Pennsylvania, these "moderate" Democrats consistently support the party line with their votes. Fool me once...
Is Ossoff soft on women's rights to their own sports and prisons, and against "gender medicine" for children and adolescents? It is very hard to pin political candidates on this. Dems are avoiding transparency on these issues and I know a lot of women who will not vote Democrat until they come to their senses about their allegiance to this cult. Please advise.
Ossoff's main concern on the Left is that he is Jewish. In a national race, that could be a primary deal-breaker.
On the Right, will he be another rubber-stamp partisan? His record is mixed here; he's no Fetterman. Of course, one could say the same about Collins and MAGA, just in the other direction. But gubernatorial candidate Geoff Duncan's sudden reassessment of his previous stock GOP positions when he became a Democrat is the kind of stuff that turns as many people off outside the party as it does to turn them on inside the party.
He is a formidable retail politician. His bashing of Musk and Soros in the same breath was a clever move. I would like to know how much money he is receiving from Soros though, directly or indirectly.
Two big things helping the Dems in GA: 1) A lot of the quality GOP candidates seem to be waiting on the sideline until Trump is out of the picture (e.g,, Kemp) and 2) Metro Atlanta becoming a magnet for progressive PMC types. #2 seems to be a megatrend, #1 will only last as long as MAGA does, and there seems to be no MAGA heir apparent (no, not Vance).
Trump is not running in 2028 guys. He can't and won't for numerous reasons. I know this disappoints all with TDS but that is the truth. So, now what? Gonna have to wait for after 2026 to see who you guys can start banging on.
Democrats haven't been with working people since FDR. Been a long long time and doesn't even look close to turning around soon, Democrats are the party of social causes, whatever that really means? More like a protestant (yes, I know he's Jewish) self-righteous, moralistic, holier than thou look. This guy is just another political hack.
Well…meh. The Democrats are turning into what they loathed 15 or 20 years ago: an extremist mob. Woe betide anyone who says even a single hurty word. Things have reached a point where we use the word “centrist” to describe people who support men in women’s sports and places, surgical mutilation and drugs to treat mental illness in children, and want to stop supporting Israel.
This is insane.
And I have to be ask: what, exactly, does it mean to “stand up to Trump?” So far, all I’ve seen is histrionics.
If the Dems want a leader who can actually win national elections and unite the country, they need someone who recognizes that a job needs to be done and gets down to doing it. And by “job,” I mean running the country to benefit us all as best as possible. We haven’t had a government interested in doing that in a very long time.
"[Trump] is literally closing rural clinics and hospitals to cut taxes for George Soros and Elon Musk." -- right Jon, obviously Trump and Soros are peas in a pod.
In other news, I hope centrists note the #metoo hypocrisy of Democrats/liberals going after Natalie Harp; does anyone believe that if she took flak from Republicans while working for Biden, the press wouldn't be surrounding her with Metoo shielding?
Ossoff paired Soros with Musk, not Trump. Trump's policies shift national wealth into the pockets of the super-rich regardless of their party. Ossoff's point in including Soros was to show that Trump has governed on behalf his fellow billionaires without regard to their politics, and at the expense of ordinary Americans without regard to their politics.
This is what moderates of any political party do. They focus on the common ground that Americans share across factional divides.
As for Ms. Harp, I think Democratic politicians would have been disturbed and pushed back strongly to the White House if anything like this had occurred in Biden's case. It is so unlike Biden in character that it would have set off the alarms that should have been set off about his increasing senility. The Harp/Trump relationship is not just about an older male and a younger woman; it is about a narcissist philanderer and an idolator. The comparison you want is with Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky. The Democrats piled on Clinton appropriately (pre-#MeToo), but they badly failed to protect Lewinsky. Again, a situation quite different from the current one (but reflecting poorly on the Democrats of the mid-1990s).
You are either disingenuous or misinterpreting my points. For Ossoff to criticize Soros is to bite the hand that feeds him, though no one could for a moment truly believe Soros will cut him off. And my point about Harp and the press relates to the how the legacy/mainstream media are savaging a powerful woman -- not something they would have done to a Biden aide.
Ossoff's comment about Natalie revealed more about his character, than years in office.
Every US Presdient has a "bodyman". They accompany Presidents nearly everywhere, but the bathroom and the bedroom. These are highly sought after jobs, that normally bring great, lucrative employment opportunities, after they end. They are historically men, because Presidents, thus far, have been male. Had Obama chosen a women, he would have been hailed in the Press for months, for opening the coveted position to females.
Instead Ossoff, so politically desperate to distract from his "elephant in the room", picks on a 37 year single woman, who survived Stage 4 cancer. What a guy! Are the physically challenged children of Reps next in Ossoff's game plan?
CNN, a few weeks ago, noted the quiet part out loud, on the air. Nepo baby Ossoff is the least "obvious" Dem Jewish candidate. Their words, not mine. The comment was so offensive I assumed I heard it wrong, until I replayed the segment. No matter how disgusting, the observation by Dem leaning pundits, said it all. As did the lack of outrage by the Press or other Dems. Imagine the same comment directed at a Black or Hispanic candidate.
The vast majority of Dems have no idea Ossoff is Jewish. When they learn, unless he fancies a midlife conversion to Islam or Catholicism, his Presidential aspirations are in dead in the water. The irony is the General Election would be a far easier hurdle, than wildly antisemitic Dem Primary voters.
Ronda, I share your frustration with how uncivil our politics have become, but there is plenty of blame to go around for that. Even if you don't think Trump is the cause of this development, he and the people around him have opened the floodgates to incivility and personal attacks. Trump famously mocked a mentally handicapped reporter live on TV, has treated female reporters terribly, and has routinely called Democrats "evil" and "the enemy within" (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-democrats-enemies-within-rcna175628). His VP and likely successor has also called Democrats "terrible people" (https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-vp-attacks-democrats-terrible-135941565.html). These are their own citizens they're talking about!
Point is, I'd love for our politics to focus on disagreements about ideas rather than personal attacks, but neither party's hands are clean. (That goes for the growing antisemitism, too: https://x.com/davidshor/status/1888287606942625864)
I'm in no way defending Trump, who is indefensible. And there is certainly blame to go around including Biden, who seemed nearly genetically programed to repeatedly mention Reps are racists, on any day he actually spoke to the Press.
Lincoln fought a Civil War over slavery, and never referred to Southerners as racists in the way Biden routinely reminded the world, Reps were the real threat to the planet, not Putin, Xi or a nuclear Iran. Biden saw mythical Rep White Supremacists behind every US tree, and felt compelled to repeatedly warn Americans. The Press simply ignored it, and then forgot the rants, while Trump's tirades are magnified and take on historical importance.
My point is, everyone in the West knows the phrase "women and children first" because the West, and nations that share our values, treat women and children differently than the other 80% of the planet. Woman are not chattel. They are protected equals. Children are not labor or things to be abused.
No side has clean hands, but "Trump did it" is a lousy excuse and one that will carry less weight everyday. While Dems and Trump supporters are both reluctant to admit it, for all practical purposes, Trump is done, with the exception of Iran.
The elections, will be followed by the holidays. The new Dem House will begin Impeachment the day they are sworn in, and keep at it, until Trump exits the WH the final time. The bottom line is, I expected far better from Ossoff. I was wrong.
Yep, I agree that Biden often did not acquit himself well in that regard. I would also note, as I mentioned to another commenter, that I'm not making a "which side started it" argument or suggesting Democrats don't have agency and are merely reacting to or mirroring the right. It's more that there's enough blame to go around, and I have seen plenty of people outraged at Ossoff's remark who have turned a blind eye to far worse from politicians whom they support. I'd love it if we got away from that altogether. (And my broader point in the piece was that, regardless of what one thinks about the moral element of his quip, Trump's circle knows it was politically effective.)
I'm not making a "which side started it" argument or suggesting Democrats don't have agency and are merely reacting to or mirroring the right. My point is that it's not just Democrats who traffic in personal attacks or antisemitism, and folks should be careful when throwing stones from glass houses. We tend to see the worst in our opponents but turn a blind eye to the bad behavior on our own "side."
I find Ossoff lumping Musk and Soros together fascinating. To my ear, it avoids antisemitic tropes associated with Soros (that the left has when it bleats “AIPAC” like a deranged version of the duck on commercials).
Come to think of it, is he lumping in Soros because of campaign donations? I was thinking it was “two ultra-rich guys”. If so, that’s even more ballsy, calling out your “own” rich donors.
I’m a Reform Jew from the Reformiest Jews (confirmed at Temple Emanu-El on Fifth Avenue in NYC), so on the one hand I’m glad Ossoff can be Jewish without requiring the more devout aspects that Shapiro contains (but doesn’t really lead with), or that Lieberman fully lead with 26 years ago. On the other hand, Democrats seem to be backsliding in how they view Jewishness that I find really unsettling. Neither Ossoff nor Shapiro are doing a bit in how they live their lives, but the whole Harris campaign debacle in vetting Shapiro, and the lack of any true disavowing of his treatment, lingers.
“Combative centrism” is an attractive formula, but the centrism cannot be confined to Medicare for All, court-packing and defunding the police while culturally contentious issues are quietly excluded from the accounting.
I am a centrist Democrat, a gay man and a Biden- and Harris-voter. I support the freedom of people who believe they belong to the opposite sex or no sex to live without harassment or discrimination. But I do not believe that gender identity changes a person’s sex, that males belong in female athletic competition, or that every intervention described as “gender-affirming care” should be placed beyond scrutiny—especially where children are concerned.
Ossoff has supported the Equality Act’s elevation of gender identity in federal law, endorsed legal recognition of self-defined nonbinary identities, and repeatedly voted against measures intended to preserve female school sports on the basis of sex. He may have defensible objections to the wording or federal reach of particular Republican bills, but he has not offered a centrist alternative that protects female competition, preserves legitimate single-sex provisions or acknowledges the growing medical controversy surrounding pediatric transition.
That does not make Ossoff an extremist, much less negate his moderation elsewhere. But it does reveal a significant omission in the case for his “combative centrism.” Gender-identity ideology is one of the clearest examples of the Democratic Party adopting positions that are unpopular, difficult to defend and injurious to its broader coalition. A politician who follows party orthodoxy on these questions without serious qualification should not receive an unqualified centrist designation merely because he has broken with the left on an older and more familiar list of issues.
Thanks for your comment, Ollie. I should be clear: I didn’t say I believe Ossoff is definitely a centrist—in fact I mention that he holds some views that will appeal more to progressives than moderates—but rather that it seems he is attempting to embrace “combative centrism.” Very few Dems today are (or are running as) true centrists. So I use that term to mean that he is shifting toward the center, even though he is still to the left of the country. But I appreciate that that may not be clear in the piece.
And I took care to point out that he is on the 20% side of key 80–20 issues, specifically the ones you mention. He is taking some of the right steps to position himself closer to the middle of the electorate than other Democrats, but there is still plenty of fodder for Republicans to attack him with. (For what it’s worth, he rejected that full list of trendy positions I mentioned in the piece all the way back in 2020, so this isn’t just a new development. But I agree with you that rejecting excesses of one’s side =/= being a moderate.)
Your analysis of Ossoff is thoughtful in many respects, but the final paragraph deserves considerably more scrutiny—not because the question of antisemitism is irrelevant, but because of the premise embedded in the language used to frame it.
You write that Ossoff’s “Jewish identity” may become a political “liability” as Democratic attitudes toward Israel sour.
But why should his being Jewish be described as an “identity,” rather than simply a fact about who he is? More importantly, why is Jewishness itself placed on the liability side of the political equation?
There is an important distinction here.
A politician’s position on Israel is a political position. It can be debated, criticized, supported, or rejected. Jewishness is not a policy position. Conflating the two—even indirectly—risks reproducing the very framework the article is attempting to diagnose.
If antisemitic voters, activists, or factions are prepared to penalize a candidate because he is Jewish, then the relevant political fact is not that his Jewishness has somehow become a liability. The relevant fact is that antisemitism is creating the liability.
That distinction matters enormously.
Otherwise, the language subtly transfers the burden from the prejudice to its target: the Jewish candidate becomes the person whose identity must be assessed, managed, explained, or strategically accommodated because others may react to it with hostility.
That is precisely the kind of normalization that serious political journalism should be careful to avoid.
There is another problem with the framing. Your own evidence regarding Josh Shapiro does not establish that Jewishness itself was the problem. It establishes that a Jewish candidate became the object of hostility from particular political constituencies in a highly polarized debate over Israel and Gaza. Those are not identical propositions.
If the concern is antisemitism, name it directly.
If the concern is opposition to Israeli government policy, call it that.
If the concern is the electoral consequences of a candidate’s position on Israel, analyze those consequences.
But these categories should not be collapsed into one another merely because they intersect politically.
Precision in language is especially important here because Jewishness has historically been transformed from a human characteristic into a political accusation, a test of loyalty, or a supposed electoral liability. That history makes the wording of this paragraph more consequential than it may initially appear.
The question should therefore not be whether Ossoff’s Jewishness will be a liability.
The more revealing question is this:
What does it say about the Democratic Party—and about American political culture more broadly—if being Jewish can once again be treated as something a candidate must calculate as an electoral risk?
Ossoff is a leftist who needs to appease centrists in Georgia. I don’t actually think his Jewishness would hurt him in a primary field; but he’s completely squishy and would completely fold to the far left.
I don’t buy the “he’s a centrist” line for a second. Sherrill and Spanberger both claimed to be moderates. They aren’t. Also, Ossoff is Jewish, and that’s a deal breaker for the DSA wing of the Democrats.
I could see a detente with Ossoff and El-Sayed sharing a stage in Michigan in 2028 if he wins (I’m hoping he’s been chastened a bit with Piker’s “The Jews are asking for it” remarks; wishful thinking more likely)
If he wasn't chastened by the countless things Piker has said before I don't know why this recent comment would suddenly open his eyes.
No candidate who so strongly associates themselves with Piker could ever be a part of a moderate ticket.
Coincidentally: https://x.com/polltracker2024/status/2092957537217708092
Oh, I’m not saying El-Sayed would be VP, I’m just saying he’d get behind Ossoff if Ossoff got the Dem nod in ‘28, and would campaign with him.
Lots of things would need to happen, among them AES winning his race and using his first two years to show he’s not an extremist, just a fighter. I don’t put a huge probability on it, just speculating.
I have a hard time trusting any current Dem who presents as moderate. There are too many instances of them doing so only to go full woke once in office (Biden) or just pretending to be suddenly moderate once on the campaign trail without actually saying how or why they've changed (Harris and very soon AOC).
I can see Josh Shapiro or Mark Kelly having the balls to actually stand up to the progressives, but I'm not sure I'd bet on it either.
Call me a Doubting Thomas. I'll believe in the moderate Democrat once I see one in a prominent national office, in the spotlight, stare down the mindless horde and tell them to kick rocks.
I'm having a hard time with your suggestion that Biden was "full woke" as president. He was extremely supportive of police, asking and receiving large increases for federal support for police and repeatedly stressing his administration's support of local police. He was highly supportive of Israel, particularly after October 7, when he was the most visible world leader by Netanyahu's side. In such respects he was adopting positions entirely counter to the "woke" agenda.
It is true that he was a supporter of "Green New Deal" style legislation, but that is not "woke," although it has been carelessly lumped into the "woke" basket by some on the Right. Support for the conversion to renewable energy sources is part of a different basket of environmental positions that dates back many decades. He also adopted strong anti-monopoly positions; again, a tradition neither associated with "woke." The recent rise of anti-oligarchic politics among Democrats is an expansion of a position that the Party has stressed since the Reagan era.
I'm not saying Biden was "anti-woke." There are aspects of the "woke" agenda that Biden did adopt. He supported DEI and he expanded accommodations for trans people in various ways. But in no way was he "full woke," and he was by and large villainized by the DSA-style wing of the Left.
Hating Israel wasn't a requisite of the woke crowd until October 8, 2023.
But Biden was woke in many other ways, especially in his constant demonization of anything right of far Left in public discourse. Like so many progressives, he became an expert at hysterics. Biden called Georgia's election integrity law "jim Crowe 2.0" because that appeased the progressive hysteria of day, refered to "Transgender genocide" on several occasions, insisted on his VP being a woman of color (which eventually led to 2024's disasterous and highly avoidable loss to Trump), claimed his "green" legislation would stave off environmental disaster (while just funneling money to Dem-aligned interest groups) and gave the supreme court the middle finger with his executive-led student loan forgiveness (again to Dem-aligned individuals).
I am starting to see that this lens of how people behave on a spectrum leaves out their decision making, both political and policy. Ultimately we need to elect people able to make decisions from a moral and strategic place.
The narrative I see in comments like this is that we believe people are hiding who they are (which we all do) and we are trying to discern their true colors. That they are merely a vessel for our values.
When I shift from spectrum/true colors thinking I see politics in a new manner
We all hide who we are? That's a prety big claim, JBB, and I'm not sure I agree or really even know what you're talking about.
And I'm not sure "say what you mean and mean what you say" excludes politicians from being able "to make decisions from a moral and strategic place."
Sorry but I have to agree with several of the previous commenters. In the last 15 years or so, I've yet to observe any Democrat who, while running as a "centrist" or "moderate", actually performs as a centrist or moderate when elected. With a single exception of the senator from Pennsylvania, these "moderate" Democrats consistently support the party line with their votes. Fool me once...
Is Ossoff soft on women's rights to their own sports and prisons, and against "gender medicine" for children and adolescents? It is very hard to pin political candidates on this. Dems are avoiding transparency on these issues and I know a lot of women who will not vote Democrat until they come to their senses about their allegiance to this cult. Please advise.
Sorry, not a “centrist”.
Ossoff's main concern on the Left is that he is Jewish. In a national race, that could be a primary deal-breaker.
On the Right, will he be another rubber-stamp partisan? His record is mixed here; he's no Fetterman. Of course, one could say the same about Collins and MAGA, just in the other direction. But gubernatorial candidate Geoff Duncan's sudden reassessment of his previous stock GOP positions when he became a Democrat is the kind of stuff that turns as many people off outside the party as it does to turn them on inside the party.
He is a formidable retail politician. His bashing of Musk and Soros in the same breath was a clever move. I would like to know how much money he is receiving from Soros though, directly or indirectly.
Two big things helping the Dems in GA: 1) A lot of the quality GOP candidates seem to be waiting on the sideline until Trump is out of the picture (e.g,, Kemp) and 2) Metro Atlanta becoming a magnet for progressive PMC types. #2 seems to be a megatrend, #1 will only last as long as MAGA does, and there seems to be no MAGA heir apparent (no, not Vance).
Not a centrist at all.
Trump is not running in 2028 guys. He can't and won't for numerous reasons. I know this disappoints all with TDS but that is the truth. So, now what? Gonna have to wait for after 2026 to see who you guys can start banging on.
Democrats haven't been with working people since FDR. Been a long long time and doesn't even look close to turning around soon, Democrats are the party of social causes, whatever that really means? More like a protestant (yes, I know he's Jewish) self-righteous, moralistic, holier than thou look. This guy is just another political hack.
Well…meh. The Democrats are turning into what they loathed 15 or 20 years ago: an extremist mob. Woe betide anyone who says even a single hurty word. Things have reached a point where we use the word “centrist” to describe people who support men in women’s sports and places, surgical mutilation and drugs to treat mental illness in children, and want to stop supporting Israel.
This is insane.
And I have to be ask: what, exactly, does it mean to “stand up to Trump?” So far, all I’ve seen is histrionics.
If the Dems want a leader who can actually win national elections and unite the country, they need someone who recognizes that a job needs to be done and gets down to doing it. And by “job,” I mean running the country to benefit us all as best as possible. We haven’t had a government interested in doing that in a very long time.
Yeah- no.
80/20 issues will sink them all
"[Trump] is literally closing rural clinics and hospitals to cut taxes for George Soros and Elon Musk." -- right Jon, obviously Trump and Soros are peas in a pod.
In other news, I hope centrists note the #metoo hypocrisy of Democrats/liberals going after Natalie Harp; does anyone believe that if she took flak from Republicans while working for Biden, the press wouldn't be surrounding her with Metoo shielding?
Ossoff paired Soros with Musk, not Trump. Trump's policies shift national wealth into the pockets of the super-rich regardless of their party. Ossoff's point in including Soros was to show that Trump has governed on behalf his fellow billionaires without regard to their politics, and at the expense of ordinary Americans without regard to their politics.
This is what moderates of any political party do. They focus on the common ground that Americans share across factional divides.
As for Ms. Harp, I think Democratic politicians would have been disturbed and pushed back strongly to the White House if anything like this had occurred in Biden's case. It is so unlike Biden in character that it would have set off the alarms that should have been set off about his increasing senility. The Harp/Trump relationship is not just about an older male and a younger woman; it is about a narcissist philanderer and an idolator. The comparison you want is with Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky. The Democrats piled on Clinton appropriately (pre-#MeToo), but they badly failed to protect Lewinsky. Again, a situation quite different from the current one (but reflecting poorly on the Democrats of the mid-1990s).
You are either disingenuous or misinterpreting my points. For Ossoff to criticize Soros is to bite the hand that feeds him, though no one could for a moment truly believe Soros will cut him off. And my point about Harp and the press relates to the how the legacy/mainstream media are savaging a powerful woman -- not something they would have done to a Biden aide.
Ossoff's comment about Natalie revealed more about his character, than years in office.
Every US Presdient has a "bodyman". They accompany Presidents nearly everywhere, but the bathroom and the bedroom. These are highly sought after jobs, that normally bring great, lucrative employment opportunities, after they end. They are historically men, because Presidents, thus far, have been male. Had Obama chosen a women, he would have been hailed in the Press for months, for opening the coveted position to females.
Instead Ossoff, so politically desperate to distract from his "elephant in the room", picks on a 37 year single woman, who survived Stage 4 cancer. What a guy! Are the physically challenged children of Reps next in Ossoff's game plan?
CNN, a few weeks ago, noted the quiet part out loud, on the air. Nepo baby Ossoff is the least "obvious" Dem Jewish candidate. Their words, not mine. The comment was so offensive I assumed I heard it wrong, until I replayed the segment. No matter how disgusting, the observation by Dem leaning pundits, said it all. As did the lack of outrage by the Press or other Dems. Imagine the same comment directed at a Black or Hispanic candidate.
The vast majority of Dems have no idea Ossoff is Jewish. When they learn, unless he fancies a midlife conversion to Islam or Catholicism, his Presidential aspirations are in dead in the water. The irony is the General Election would be a far easier hurdle, than wildly antisemitic Dem Primary voters.
Ronda, I share your frustration with how uncivil our politics have become, but there is plenty of blame to go around for that. Even if you don't think Trump is the cause of this development, he and the people around him have opened the floodgates to incivility and personal attacks. Trump famously mocked a mentally handicapped reporter live on TV, has treated female reporters terribly, and has routinely called Democrats "evil" and "the enemy within" (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-democrats-enemies-within-rcna175628). His VP and likely successor has also called Democrats "terrible people" (https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-vp-attacks-democrats-terrible-135941565.html). These are their own citizens they're talking about!
A lot of people seem indignant when the "other side" engages in these attacks but have trouble calling it out when it comes from people they support. Of course, I don't know your politics, but I have seen plenty of Trump's supporters express outrage over Ossoff's comments despite giving Trump a pass—or sometimes even cheering him on—whenever he attacks his political opponents in personal terms. This trend is even borne out in some recent survey data: https://www.pewresearch.org/chart/no-apologies-right-are-less-concerned-about-offensive-language-and-embrace-a-brasher-approach-to-politics-than-other-groups/
Point is, I'd love for our politics to focus on disagreements about ideas rather than personal attacks, but neither party's hands are clean. (That goes for the growing antisemitism, too: https://x.com/davidshor/status/1888287606942625864)
I'm in no way defending Trump, who is indefensible. And there is certainly blame to go around including Biden, who seemed nearly genetically programed to repeatedly mention Reps are racists, on any day he actually spoke to the Press.
Lincoln fought a Civil War over slavery, and never referred to Southerners as racists in the way Biden routinely reminded the world, Reps were the real threat to the planet, not Putin, Xi or a nuclear Iran. Biden saw mythical Rep White Supremacists behind every US tree, and felt compelled to repeatedly warn Americans. The Press simply ignored it, and then forgot the rants, while Trump's tirades are magnified and take on historical importance.
My point is, everyone in the West knows the phrase "women and children first" because the West, and nations that share our values, treat women and children differently than the other 80% of the planet. Woman are not chattel. They are protected equals. Children are not labor or things to be abused.
No side has clean hands, but "Trump did it" is a lousy excuse and one that will carry less weight everyday. While Dems and Trump supporters are both reluctant to admit it, for all practical purposes, Trump is done, with the exception of Iran.
The elections, will be followed by the holidays. The new Dem House will begin Impeachment the day they are sworn in, and keep at it, until Trump exits the WH the final time. The bottom line is, I expected far better from Ossoff. I was wrong.
Yep, I agree that Biden often did not acquit himself well in that regard. I would also note, as I mentioned to another commenter, that I'm not making a "which side started it" argument or suggesting Democrats don't have agency and are merely reacting to or mirroring the right. It's more that there's enough blame to go around, and I have seen plenty of people outraged at Ossoff's remark who have turned a blind eye to far worse from politicians whom they support. I'd love it if we got away from that altogether. (And my broader point in the piece was that, regardless of what one thinks about the moral element of his quip, Trump's circle knows it was politically effective.)
I'm not making a "which side started it" argument or suggesting Democrats don't have agency and are merely reacting to or mirroring the right. My point is that it's not just Democrats who traffic in personal attacks or antisemitism, and folks should be careful when throwing stones from glass houses. We tend to see the worst in our opponents but turn a blind eye to the bad behavior on our own "side."
So you can dish it out but can’t take it. Got it. All the guy said was - travel with Natilie. MAGA is insufferable.
what elephant 🐘 are you talking about? I think it’s less about sex than her being a human binkie
Ossoff has said the correct critiques of Netanyahu too, so I’m pretty sure he’d be welcomed by most Dems!
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/08/ossoff-harp-trump-maga/688427/
This might help you become a bit more familiar with the situation.
Jackie Rosen has a better claim to being moderate than Ossoff but she is more obviously Jewish.
Hard to believe that the DSA/Progressive types would support him
I find Ossoff lumping Musk and Soros together fascinating. To my ear, it avoids antisemitic tropes associated with Soros (that the left has when it bleats “AIPAC” like a deranged version of the duck on commercials).
Come to think of it, is he lumping in Soros because of campaign donations? I was thinking it was “two ultra-rich guys”. If so, that’s even more ballsy, calling out your “own” rich donors.
I’m a Reform Jew from the Reformiest Jews (confirmed at Temple Emanu-El on Fifth Avenue in NYC), so on the one hand I’m glad Ossoff can be Jewish without requiring the more devout aspects that Shapiro contains (but doesn’t really lead with), or that Lieberman fully lead with 26 years ago. On the other hand, Democrats seem to be backsliding in how they view Jewishness that I find really unsettling. Neither Ossoff nor Shapiro are doing a bit in how they live their lives, but the whole Harris campaign debacle in vetting Shapiro, and the lack of any true disavowing of his treatment, lingers.
“Combative centrism” is an attractive formula, but the centrism cannot be confined to Medicare for All, court-packing and defunding the police while culturally contentious issues are quietly excluded from the accounting.
I am a centrist Democrat, a gay man and a Biden- and Harris-voter. I support the freedom of people who believe they belong to the opposite sex or no sex to live without harassment or discrimination. But I do not believe that gender identity changes a person’s sex, that males belong in female athletic competition, or that every intervention described as “gender-affirming care” should be placed beyond scrutiny—especially where children are concerned.
Ossoff has supported the Equality Act’s elevation of gender identity in federal law, endorsed legal recognition of self-defined nonbinary identities, and repeatedly voted against measures intended to preserve female school sports on the basis of sex. He may have defensible objections to the wording or federal reach of particular Republican bills, but he has not offered a centrist alternative that protects female competition, preserves legitimate single-sex provisions or acknowledges the growing medical controversy surrounding pediatric transition.
That does not make Ossoff an extremist, much less negate his moderation elsewhere. But it does reveal a significant omission in the case for his “combative centrism.” Gender-identity ideology is one of the clearest examples of the Democratic Party adopting positions that are unpopular, difficult to defend and injurious to its broader coalition. A politician who follows party orthodoxy on these questions without serious qualification should not receive an unqualified centrist designation merely because he has broken with the left on an older and more familiar list of issues.
Thanks for your comment, Ollie. I should be clear: I didn’t say I believe Ossoff is definitely a centrist—in fact I mention that he holds some views that will appeal more to progressives than moderates—but rather that it seems he is attempting to embrace “combative centrism.” Very few Dems today are (or are running as) true centrists. So I use that term to mean that he is shifting toward the center, even though he is still to the left of the country. But I appreciate that that may not be clear in the piece.
And I took care to point out that he is on the 20% side of key 80–20 issues, specifically the ones you mention. He is taking some of the right steps to position himself closer to the middle of the electorate than other Democrats, but there is still plenty of fodder for Republicans to attack him with. (For what it’s worth, he rejected that full list of trendy positions I mentioned in the piece all the way back in 2020, so this isn’t just a new development. But I agree with you that rejecting excesses of one’s side =/= being a moderate.)
Your analysis of Ossoff is thoughtful in many respects, but the final paragraph deserves considerably more scrutiny—not because the question of antisemitism is irrelevant, but because of the premise embedded in the language used to frame it.
You write that Ossoff’s “Jewish identity” may become a political “liability” as Democratic attitudes toward Israel sour.
But why should his being Jewish be described as an “identity,” rather than simply a fact about who he is? More importantly, why is Jewishness itself placed on the liability side of the political equation?
There is an important distinction here.
A politician’s position on Israel is a political position. It can be debated, criticized, supported, or rejected. Jewishness is not a policy position. Conflating the two—even indirectly—risks reproducing the very framework the article is attempting to diagnose.
If antisemitic voters, activists, or factions are prepared to penalize a candidate because he is Jewish, then the relevant political fact is not that his Jewishness has somehow become a liability. The relevant fact is that antisemitism is creating the liability.
That distinction matters enormously.
Otherwise, the language subtly transfers the burden from the prejudice to its target: the Jewish candidate becomes the person whose identity must be assessed, managed, explained, or strategically accommodated because others may react to it with hostility.
That is precisely the kind of normalization that serious political journalism should be careful to avoid.
There is another problem with the framing. Your own evidence regarding Josh Shapiro does not establish that Jewishness itself was the problem. It establishes that a Jewish candidate became the object of hostility from particular political constituencies in a highly polarized debate over Israel and Gaza. Those are not identical propositions.
If the concern is antisemitism, name it directly.
If the concern is opposition to Israeli government policy, call it that.
If the concern is the electoral consequences of a candidate’s position on Israel, analyze those consequences.
But these categories should not be collapsed into one another merely because they intersect politically.
Precision in language is especially important here because Jewishness has historically been transformed from a human characteristic into a political accusation, a test of loyalty, or a supposed electoral liability. That history makes the wording of this paragraph more consequential than it may initially appear.
The question should therefore not be whether Ossoff’s Jewishness will be a liability.
The more revealing question is this:
What does it say about the Democratic Party—and about American political culture more broadly—if being Jewish can once again be treated as something a candidate must calculate as an electoral risk?
That is the elephant in the room.
And it is not Jewishness.
It is antisemitism. ✡️
Ossoff is a leftist who needs to appease centrists in Georgia. I don’t actually think his Jewishness would hurt him in a primary field; but he’s completely squishy and would completely fold to the far left.