This is just me thinking out loud, but AOC"s been a relative shock since she was elected. She's been a shock to the political press (Who still think it's 2005 or in some cases, 1989) because the person she beat in the Dem primary was a high ranking Dem and was expected to succeed Pelosi as speaker. She's a shock to the right wing because she shares the same views as Bernie Sanders and is also a Hispanic woman who is in a role of power, she's definitely a shock to the older folks because she embraces the socialism tag.
She is young, slender, and attractive. Everybody tunes into that, women as much as men. She knows how to market her looks, she has controversial and interesting views, and she is articulate. A branding Grand Slam.
As Jitty said, she also had a message. And they both would have attended because they are elected officials. But what was different about AOC than Maloney? They are both women, they both had political statements on their dresses. Sure, some of this is because AOC knows how to draw attention and use social media quite well. But I think there are very much other issues, such as race and age and income. Not to mention that Maloney had a more traditional, 70s feminist message, and AOC's was more "radical." But even if AOC had the same message as Maloney, she would still have been attacked much more than Maloney. Because of race and age and income. She is young and slender and attractive She is also photogenic (which is a separate ability/talent) She is also brown She is also educated She is also articulate And is also is not angry/emotional I think to say "branding" is unfair to her. I understand the concept for her, but she is more than just a brand. She pushes policy (she had an serious impact on the Biden environmental agenda) beyond what somebody like Cawthorn does (a guy who is all about image and PR).
As long as you stay in your lane no one says anything. Not one single tweet from Glemm about her getting a "30K gift" from the corrupt elites ....
It was meant as a compliment. She is excellent at personal branding, the same as Barack Obama is excellent at giving speeches. Those are both positive and useful attributes.
Yet execution wasn't as described. Plenty of pictures out there with people mask-less inside not eating. Just look up bathroom selfies MET gala and you will find some. One fair question is why did the workers in the gala required to wear a mask ? Weren't they required to provide vaccination status ? I can logically rationalize it since some of them are handling food and drinks for a lot of guests, but the optics are certainly bad. Not that it matters much at this point.
You really can’t figure out why AOC gets attacked more than Maloney? What dress did Maloney wear again? And who is she?
His point was valid. Wear a dress that reads "Tax the Rich," of course you will get attacked. That was the half the purpose of the dress, for AOC to trolll her opponents. The other half was to delight her supporters. Like Fat Donnie, she sells hard to her base. Unlike Fat Donnie, she does so creatively and with panache.
I understand, but I considering that there are guys like Cawthorn in the House who are solely about appearances and none about substance, it can be construed as similar and a negative. I don't want her categorized anywhere near Cawthorn. I'd also put MTG and Boebert in the same "Branding" catigory as Cawthorn. AOC has far more substance than those three will ever have. To me, using "branding" has a negative connotation which detracts from substance. I'm thinking of something like Google, where they had the motto of something like "we're not evil," a clear dig at Microsoft. Yet they are as evil, and likely worse. But they had good "branding." That's all I'm saying. But in thinking about this, I suspect that might have a different meaning for people in the era of Insta and Snap and TicTok.
I'd say cafe au lait. And I bet she's top 3 in number of death threats in Congress. I give her credit for being so out there knowing the amount of Trumpanzee hatred
No, my point is they won't recognize the inherent racism that has led to AOC being attacked since she beat Crowley despite the face the face the Republicans should be worried about the likes of Davids, Porter and McBath more. So she shows up to something like this and tongues are wagging how dare this and that but Maloney is allowed doesn't generate enough hate for Glenn's followers to click on but attacking AOC does so here we go with attacking her. It is why give them no credence. There is no consistency in their objection except that she is a uppity n-word and they can't stand it, like with Obama.
He's an abusive troll who routinely attacks female media figures because it gets him pile ons from his misogynistic followers and outraged liberals who fan the flames for him. That's it. Nothing more sophisticated. Basically the substack version of Piers Morgan As you say, his argumentation makes no sense. I mean he claims to be a leftist, while going on the Fishsticks fascist show, to claim the CIA controls CNN - that's just Alex Jones country. So now this great leftist champion of Bernard is trashing AOC as just another liberal elite fascist. How is he different to his patron Fishsticks again? And that's the size of it. His Fox media hits are the key to him being relevant anymore, so like all the Trumpers, he'll say anything to get his weekly hit.
AOC has 12m twitter followers Maloney has 76k. I mean AOC is a bigger target because she yields more influence on the public. She made herself a lightning rod. She created the therm "the Squad". And I mean, Nancy Pelosi is not brown, she is not young ... and she is picked on constantly by the right with vicious attacks. So this notion that she is being singled out because of her sex, background and color is complete nonsense.
It is NOT complete nonsense and you know it. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has been singled out since the day she won the primary and definitely she was first seated in the House. Your larger points about the actions Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has taken and Rep. Pelosi being attacked are well taken.
As I stated from the moment she won, they attacked her. Her fame is because she has handled it well. She has not done some Cawthorn or MTG level stunts to get attention, they came after her. But let's ignore how we got here and then pretend she brought it upon herself. Because an uppity young brown woman from New York City, isn't gold for conservative angst sellers.