Here Is the Speech That the Uncommitted Movement Wants to Give at the DNC
Here Is the Speech That the Uncommitted Movement Wants to Give at the DNC
www.motherjones.com
Exclusive: Here is the speech the Uncommitted movement wants to give at the DNC
50 comments
-
-
While I feel strongly that the Palestine people are being systematically erased from the earth I also recognize that there is a real possibility of another trump presidency.
I want to do something for those that are suffering down the street but there's crazy person loose in my own house right now and they're threatening to burn it to the ground.
-
An important take away from this speech is that those two points are not in conflict with each other according to the Uncommitted Movement. Anyone trying to make it seems like supporting Palestinians and supporting Democrats are mutually exclusive does not have the interest of either group at heart.
-
-
Really like the implication people are making here that the DNC clearly does not care about the amount of constituents in the uncommitted group because they think enough voters will vote against Trump.
ie we get genocide either way
yeah I'm so excited to vote this November............
-
With Trump the genocide will continue until all Palestinians in the Gaza strip are dead and the West Bank is annexed. With Harris we get a ceasefire.
I could not be more excited with the option to the stop the genocide.
-
With Harris we get a ceasefire
What makes you think that will happen lol? I think someone here even counted the days it took from Biden dropping out to Harris answering the question over Gaza which was "We will continue to support Israel against foreign threats", ie the same policy as Biden.
She also ignored pretty much all of the protests that occurred at some of her campaign rallies, so I think it's safe to assume nothing will improve.
-
-
-
Your source for a policy position is "many delegates say"? Seriously?
And even that comes with a "but" clause.
Really?
-
The premise of the Uncommitted Movement is to protest in the primary election by voting uncommitted, but not in the general election. It's in the name. Anyone involved in the movement or advocating for it will explain this. It's public knowledge. The goal is to move the Democratic Party to the left on issues related to the Palestinian people.
Still, the war in Gaza remains a flashpoint dividing the Democratic Party. Many of the “uncommitted” delegates say they want Harris to win — but they also want her to listen to the antiwar voters who elected them to the convention.
These aren't mutually exclusive positions. Elected politicians are supposed to listen to their constituents. That's how representative democracy is supposed to work.
Your argument refuses to acknowledge the publicly stated premise of the Uncommitted Movement. It misrepresents or ignores all sources related to the topic. This is disingenuous at best or trolling at worst.
-
lolololol, I finally get it, you have no idea what you're talking about, not just in regards to campaign staff or risk management, but about the actual damned movement! Your entire understanding of literally every point which you've brought up isn't based in reality but rather how you'd like things to be. If it wasn't so depressing it'd be impressive.
I feel dumber for having been in this conversation.
The premise of the Uncommitted Movement is to protest in the primary election by voting uncommitted, but not in the general election. It’s in the name. Anyone involved in the movement or advocating for it will explain this. It’s public knowledge.
Your source is basically "I feel this way!" Like what, you think the word uncommitted actually secretly means committed Democrat voter regardless? Is this the "people are saying" style of fact gathering???
Do you literally not understand that the movement leaders are actively trying to negotiate with the Harris team now? Goodness gracious.
Elected politicians are supposed to listen to their constituents.
You're at the point where you're either purposefully or wildly ignorantly misunderstanding what the word listen means. They're not saying she needs to actively hear what they are saying, they mean it in the sense of "she needs to acquiesce to our demands." That's what listening to our demands/needs means in a political context. Just... Wow kid, wow.
the publicly stated premise
lol, the publicly stated premise that, as far as you've been able to show, only exists in a speech that wasn't given? Neat publicly stated premise.
Good heavens, this is what I get for assuming people are worth engaging with. I mean, the misinformation you're spreading is useful but like, I don't want to be a party to lying to people.
You might look at an interview NPR did with one of the leaders where they have this interesting exchange:
SIMON: I mean, reading between the lines, it sounds as if your support is conditional upon some of your demands being met or reassessing your position.
ALAWIEH: I am an individual. As an individual faced with a binary choice between Trump and Kamala Harris on a ticket, I will circle Kamala Harris. But I'm also a movement leader...
SIMON: Yeah.
ALAWIEH: ...Among movement leaders here. I can't go to those folks and say, hey, I think Vice President Harris will feel differently. They need to see a plan because in this moment, saying thoughts and prayers, saying feelings, does not cut it.
In other words, if Kamala does not change course on Gaza, the uncommitted movement as a movement does not look like it will support her.
I'm pretty done with this.
That being said, it is flattering to see you borrowing my syntax, even though you've used at best/at worst less elegantly it has somewhat improved your style. So that's nice.
-
-
-
I can't imagine a competent campaign manager or DNC staffer who would let this happen.
Sure, the speech as presented isn't bad (though doesn't really help Harris) the nightmare scenario is the speaker deviates (in the name of Palestine/"I thought it was too important to be quiet" etc) and the DNC has to play them off. Imagine how bad that coverage and fallout would be.
Edit: a word
-
The Uncommited Movement endorses Harris in the speech. So it would actually be good for Harris. In fact going off script would be bad for the Uncommitted Movement and Palestinians by the logic provided in their speech.
But in this pain, I’ve also witnessed something profound—a beautiful, multifaith, multiracial, and multigenerational coalition rising from despair within our Democratic Party. For 320 days, we’ve stood together, demanding to enforce our laws on friend and foe alike to reach a ceasefire, end the killing of Palestinians, free all the Israeli and Palestinian hostages, and to begin the difficult work of building a path to collective peace and safety. That’s why we are here—members of this Democratic Party committed to equal rights and dignity for all. What we do here echoes around the world.
The actual Uncommitted Movement sees themselves as an integral part of the Democratic Party. They correctly assert that the Democratic Party is fighting for everyone and that everyone includes the Palestinians. Anyone who can write this speech should know that it is of the utmost importance to stay on script.
By not airing the speech the DNC is leaving Israel's genocide in the Gaza strip to be a wedge issue for bad actors. It falls to the rest of us to assert that this is not the case. There is no other secret speech that needs to be said. Free Palestine and Vote Blue No Matter Who are not statements that are at odds in the general election.
-
Yes, the speech as given is fine (again, not super helpful but not awful) but the risk is the speaker deviates from a speech submitted for DNC approval etc.
Given the protestors outside have signs accusing Democrats of funding genocide it just seems like an unnecessary risk.
As for giving a wedge issue for bad actors, that'll happen regardless of whether one speaker says nice things at the DNC.
In sum, negligible upside with a significant risk this is not a move I, or any rational campaign staffer, would make.
-
-
-
Like Israel, the DNC refuses to acknowledge they exist
-
Biden said the Gaza war protests have a point. There is plenty to criticize about the DNC. This isn't one of those things.
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/20/biden-dnc-gaza-war-protesters-point
"Those protesters out in the street, they have a point. A lot of innocent people are being killed on both sides."
-
50 comments
When the other option is Trump (and Project 2025), anyone "uncommitted" at this point is just trying to hold the rest of us (and the world) hostage. Sorry not sorry.
I cannot respect people who refuse to see the bigger picture. Maybe if/when we ever get rid of the electoral college and elect based on the popular vote then they can indulge their moral purity. Until then, I ask that they join the rest of us in the current reality, join us in compromise to solve the immediate crisis at home, and then present their wish list. Because only one option on the ballot is going to make that wish list even possible.
"Oh, well, the Democrats need to work for my vote". In an ideal world, yes. But the reality is the house is on fire and they're asking the fire department to tap dance before they let them bring out the hoses.
I'm sympathetic to what's happening in Palestine, but I am beyond livid that it's being constantly used as a wedge issue and bargaining chip.
One of the points this speech makes is that the actual Uncommited Movement supports Harris. Palestinians in this movement do not see Israel's genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza strip as a wedge issue to make Democrats lose the election.
Anyone who is using the genocide as such a wedge issue against the Democrats is not acting in the interest of the Palestinian people. As Trump has publicly stated his intention to allow Israel's government to complete their genocide of the Gaza strip. Where as Democrats are actively negotiating for a ceasefire.
The electoral college is exactly why this is such an important issue. There are a lot of Uncommitted voters in the battleground states. If you're really that dedicated to winning and stopping Project 2025, appealing to those voters is critical.
Whatever you wish they'd do, it's their vote, they can see bigger pictures or "smaller pictures" (a.k.a., their family being murdered with US bombs). If this is a crisis, you should be trying to help resolve the smaller pictures of your fellow Democrats so we can all move together on the "bigger picture". Instead you just want to berate them to act how you'd like and say "we'll deal with your family later" (if they're still alive). It's not a "wish list", it's actual people dying. Your priorities are scary but hypothetical. Theirs are happening right now.
Alternately, if you just want to bitch on message boards, then stop pretending like you really care about the crisis of the election, because actually caring is not compatible with "sorry not sorry" (about your dead family).
What pisses me off the most about that is the game of make-believe about Palestine that the wedgies (I think I'll call them that from now on) try to play.
It is 100% understandable and reasonable to be pissed about Israel's treatment of Palestine. It is not OK to pretend it happened for no reason.
The fact of the matter is that the whole situation is an atrocious mess with horrid, horrific behavior by absolute monsters on all sides. To downplay any of it, whether the horrific response by Israel to being attacked, or the horrific attack itself, is to do any serious attempt to address it and cut through the Gordian knot of Middle East problems a disservice.
I've maintained, and continue to maintain, that there's currently no right answer. If Israel collapses, that will be a nightmare the likes of which we haven't seen in a century, so we have to ensure it can defend itself by supplying it weapons. Netanyahu is a madman who wants to commit genocide against the Palestinians and is desperate to hold onto power to avoid prison, so we have to stop supplying Israel with weapons.
See that? Both statements are defensible. Both statements have at least an element of truth. It's fucking complicated. And I don't have the answer.
But you know what I'm 100% certain we shouldn't do? Let Donald fucking Trump get into office to truly fuck things up even more.
Almost nothing happens without reason. That doesn't make the reason an excuse or justify the response. Nothing Hamas did justifies the war Israel has waged. This is like making sure no one forgets that an abuse victim hit their abuser first.
This isn't something that's a possible consequence of stopping their war, so why bring it up unless to try to introduce a false dilemma? This isn't a Gordian knot and we don't need to solve the Middle East. We simply need to stop a genocide being perpetrated with our support and weapons, with the solution you've already acknowledged: "stop supplying them with weapons".
I 100% agree. Anyone at this stage not committed to electing Kamala Harris and defeating Donald Trump is not acting in the interest of anyone except the fascists, that includes Donald Trump, in the short term. In the long term, everyone being dead to genocide and climate change benefits no one.
In the short term, when it comes to the Gaza war, a ceasefire is the solution. The long term solution is the US recognizing Palestine as a nation state and not allowing Israel to be an exception to international law. Achieving this is easier said than done, but it is straightforward.
Israel's current government can collapse in the next election after a ceasefire. This would allow Israel to change course without needing it to be destroyed like Nazi Germany. That assumes of course that the far right coalition that is currently in power doesn't go completely mask off fascist to their own population and seize power by force.
Yes.
edit: typo