Democrats are no longer trying to ignore Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and have taken to calling him out in public after a week of controversies.
National party leaders for the first time acknowledged Kennedy’s disruptive presidential bid with sharp criticism…
It’s a notable change from their previous approach, in which Democratic leaders and party officials hoped Kennedy would simply fade away on his own.
I don’t know why they would think ignoring him was ever the way to go. Have they learned nothing? I understand the inclination to avoid giving him any extra attention, but ignoring the problem does not make it go away. We’ve seen how radical speech gets attention nowadays.
Then again, nothing democrats say will change the trajectory of his campaign. His followers do not care whether or not what he says is true or anti-semetic so long as it agrees with their world view.
I grieve for our country.
I think the aim is less at changing the minds of the people who have already fallen for this spoiler and help prevent more people for falling down that conspiracy rabbit hole, which could affect the trajectory of his campaign.
Hi @JonEFive! Thanks for submitting. We just recently added rules in our sidebar around submission titles that I encourage you to read. Thank you!
Assuming you meant the part about adding a label. Sorry, I missed that one. Updated the title to what I think should comply.
Thanks for adding a label. We are encouraging people to use them because it was a stated goal when the magazine was solicited for input on community guidelines and rules, but we won’t be like, coming in behind anyone to fact check whether the correct label was applied.
However, you may find this short glossary helpful:
Glossary of terms: Editorials have author bylines that denote a collection of people within a
news organization, such as candidate endorsements from a newspaper’s staff. Opinions have
author bylines from a single (maybe two) writer(s). Analysis is when an author starts with
factually verified current events and reports then explains deeper significance or motivation,
predicts future outcomes, or makes a policy recommendation based on the starting data.Thanks for editing the title!
Specific details on what was wrong would probably help.
The biggest change the new rules involve is that everyone should add a label (news, editorial, opinion, or analysis) at the beginning of their submission’s title.
Ooh, I can get mainstream CNN neoliberal bullshit on the fediverse too! What’s next a Rachel Maddow community where we talk about how great Hillary Clinton and Neera Tanden are?
This comment has nothing to do with the content of the article. You’re posing in a community to discuss politics in general. If you have an issue with any particular point the article makes, feel free to explain.
I personally agree with the perspective that we shouldn’t elect people who make claims about infectious disease which are easily refuted by science.
Kennedy this week drew backlash for asserting without evidence that COVID-19 was “ethnically targeted” — a claim infectious disease and ethics experts refuted. Kennedy was caught on video by a reporter saying Chinese people and Ashkenazi Jews were not targeted as much as other races, including Black and white people.
