If I want to read The Hill or the Center for Effective Lawmaking or whatever center-right think tank makes it to the top of c/politics I would watch MSNBC.
Stop with your “body language expert” tier horseshit and actually criticize these succdems from the left how fucking hard is that.
Why do you say so? It seems pretty clear to me that the minute she brought up that DSA is intersectional they accused her of being an anti-communist. How do you interpret that passage?
To add to the other guys point, throwing in "deprioritizing human rights" as shade to other leftist groups outside the DSA absolutely has anticommunist tones to it.
Edit: And sure she might not be "consciously" doing it as an anticommunist sneaky thing but this has been a long ass trend with her not critically thinking about shit like the human rights propaganda industry and a bunch of other stuff, at some point when all the calls for her to improve has fallen flat and she basically just throws shaded insults back, then you gotta just say "Ok, theres no point in supporting her when she refuses to improve or answer to supporters".
And if you go "harm reduction/shes the best we've got" then nothing will ever make her too bad to support except if she literally becomes a republican so all of this is meaningless anyways.
AOC is gonna say the word tankie this year
There is a big difference between saying that the DSA is intersectional and saying it is intersectional and not class reductionist, as if class analysis and intersectionality are somehow mutually exclusive.
What she said here (or at least how it is portrayed) was basically "we're cool and good, the other leftists are class essentialists who disregard human rights". If the context of the quote is accurate, then what she said was that these things are specific to the DSA, throwing shade against other socialist groups. Not sure if that was the context because I don't follow this shit, but that's what the article seems to be trying to get at, not accuse her of being intersectional.