New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is hustling to win over left-wing critics who say the progressive leader cares too much about mainstream approval and is too cozy with senior Democrats.
Between the lines: If Ocasio-Cortez’s diplomacy is successful, it could be more difficult for any potential 2028 presidential candidate to run to her left — but moderate Democrats argue it also could make it tougher for her to win a general election.
Despite her recent efforts, some loud voices on the left — including people who have worked closely with her — have gotten under her skin by continuing to question her progressive bona fides.
Zoom in: In recent weeks, Ocasio-Cortez has tried to repair her relationship with Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Many members of the group opposed her support for giving Israel defensive weapons, including the Iron Dome missile system, during the war in Gaza — which she has called a “genocide.”
In July 2024, national DSA leaders withdrew their endorsement of her for the elections that year, arguing that she’d conflated “anti-Zionism with antisemitism and condemned boycotting Zionist institutions,” which the group considered a “deep betrayal.”
The intrigue: AOC also has had a fraught relationship with some progressives who helped launch her political career.
Her first chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, co-founded Justice Democrats, a group that helped Ocasio-Cortez with her insurgent House campaign in 2018. Chakrabarti is running for Congress in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco, but Ocasio-Cortez pointedly hasn’t endorsed him in the June 2 primary.
She’s indicated she believes that some of her early allies on the left have taken too much credit for her upset House victory eight years ago, and she’s distanced herself from them over the years, people familiar with the dynamic told Axios.
You’re right, it’s not just me…it’s everyone. That’s literally what everyone calls them.
I know. I’m not blaming you or criticizing you. I’m not even sure this phenomenon is problematic, and if it is you’re just following everyone else’s lead. I do think it’s worth thinking about, though.
To be honest, I had never thought about it like that, so you’re right…it is interesting. Do you have any theories?
Other than their own campaigns trying to make them more “relatable” by using their first names to promote them, I can’t think of a reason it would become the standard. With Hillary, there’s also the need to distinguish her from her husband, but Kamala doesn’t have that problem.
It smells a little like sexism, like theyre taken more casually than male candidates. But your point about Hillary Clinton is a good one. I don’t know the answer tbh.
The only man I can think of who falls under this phenomenon is Bernie Sanders. In his case it seems like a conscious decision on the part of his campaign.
Both Hillary and Kamala campaigned on “first woman president” messaging and used their first names as part of that messaging. It’s a feature until a man follows suit, then it’s sexist abuse.
Politicians often try to cultivate a more informal or personal persona among voters for the “I’d have a beer with him” factor. In 2004, George W. Bush’s campaign sold bumper stickers that read “W: The President.” Five Star General Dwight D. Eisenhower campaigned under the slogan “I Like Ike.” Heaven forbid we call a woman named Hillary Clinton “Hillary” though. There’s no insult deeper than being called by your unaltered given name.