I started in the Obama White House on day two in 2009. I felt lucky every day to be there, but it was also the hardest job I've ever had, bar none. The pressure was incredible, knowing how much we were trying to do and how badly people needed problems fixed right away.
And as we were coming to the passage of the ACA, in March 2010, I decided it was time to go. I was there for roughly 14 months, and it took quite a bit out of me. And I should note: I had no children or other responsibilities (other than an incontinent beagle).
The 2008 campaign was HARD, but we weren't doing it in the middle of COVID, or against Donald Trump. And when we went to work in the WH, our predecessors left us in decent shape. We weren't figuring out how to govern while managing a pandemic and trying not get each other sick.
I left because I was exhausted. Because I'd done campaigns for my whole life and wanted to take a proper vacation and pay off my debt and so on. It was not a reflection on President Obama, or Rahm, or (even though I gave him enough grief) my boss @danpfeiffer. I was just tired.
I don't know how anyone has lasted a year in the middle of a pandemic, in the midst of a Big Lie and all that we're facing. I'm grateful for everyone that has. But I wish we would just thank them for their great and VERY HARD WORK and stop making it a statement on something else
It's important work, so it probably should be hard and should be high pressure. But why is it we can write think pieces about the big resignation or how people need breaks or are quitting jobs because of the pandemic and then assume it must be different for the White House?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I am proudly going to vote for @ewarren tomorrow and I hope you’ll join me. But it’s a primary and we won’t all agree. This is the time to fight that out. If only we could do that without assuming that people supporting another candidate don’t have the right motives.
We all have our own reasons for picking our candidates and they are all valid. I wish people wouldn’t vote based on a flawed electability narrative or a media narrative that I don’t agree with, but we each get one vote to do with what we will.
When this is all over, I know that I will also proudly vote for the nominee. I’m hoping that’s Warren, but if not, I’ll still be in. Again, that’s a decision for each of us to make, but if we want others to join our candidates when they win, we should start now.
I see that sexism has become the latest issue in the race and could be a focus in tonight's debate. As someone who spends her time helping elect women, I have a few thoughts. Let's see if this thread is more readable than my rants at friends and coworkers...
First, yes, there is sexism in politics. There is sexism in most parts of our society, and campaigns are no exception. Women are often judged differently, face double standards and see their accomplishments diminished. To wit: businessinsider.com/scott-taylor-n…
Research from groups like @BLFF_org shows that women candidates must be both likable AND qualified (while men can be unlikable if he's viewed as qualified). barbaraleefoundation.org/research/likea…
This is the time of year when campaigners and political practitioners are pounding the pavement trying to find their next campaign job and as someone who has done that a lot, I have a few unsolicited thoughts, following last year's thread on resumes. Thread:
First, thank you for your work last cycle. Win or lose, if you worked hard and gave your all for your candidate, you deserve thanks and a vacation and hopefully another great job in campaigns. And those of us who've been there want to help.
I mean it: nearly everyone who has done this before knows how hard it is and wants to be helpful for the crazy souls who want to keep doing the work to make things better. I can't remember asking a friend to meet with a job-seeker who has turned me down.
Here's the thing about a big tent party: we've got progressives (defined by a number of different groups), centrists, Bernie Dems and Blue Dogs. And we've got voters in different districts that support all of them.
But we also share some very important commons beliefs:
We believe that every American should have equal rights and opportunities; that we shouldn't separate families; that we want more Americans to vote, not fewer; that health care should be a priority; and that workers rights should matter more than the profits of big business.
We believe in a free press. We believe Nazis are NOT fine people. We find it easy to call out white supremacists. We think we should do something about a hostile foreign power interfering in our elections--and that something isn't inviting them to the White House.
While we're all waiting on primary results, I'd like to push back against the (misguided) talking point that Democrats either don't have a message or aren't running on the issues.
This criticism is the flip side of the other common talking point--that Democrats are tied to unpopular national views/leaders and can't relate to their districts. Sometimes, we're accused of both, which is particularly fun.
As part of an organization working with candidates across the country and in all different offices, I get a view of a wide variety of campaigns and I can confirm that they are all different, but they all share one common view: They are running to make things better.