The headline is not my opinion, as to Trump getting more votes than Harris suggesting that was "catastrophe." It is Rham Emanual writing, WaPo publishing, final paragraph of spin.
There is defamation by implication, suggesting a fact is such-and-such, even when published as opinion. Up to that point Emanuel argued the Democrats lost because they misjudged the mood of the people - at least a majority of voters' "mood" was to favor Trump over Harris, that being a questionable surrogate for "the mood of a nation" which is curious because a nation is an entity without a mood, so that what he meant was the voting mood of more Trump voters than Harris voters, with moods among non-voters, children, not determined by vote counts.
Read the entire thing. He never says Medicare for All. He never says any concrete factual change needs making. He spins. With "catastrophic" being inappropriate in general for one party's candidate defeating the only other candidate running in a two party trap, in a Presidential election between them where only one can win.
He spins, but clearly implies his party losing is "catastrophe." Trump running an election is, to him, catastrophe, which does have an objective meaning after all.
Get how Rahm opens:
When Donald Trump declared, “I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution,” he was channeling a nation’s fury. The online cheerleading for the killer of a health-care insurance CEO in New York City is just more evidence of this seething, populist anger.
This groundswell of resentment had been simmering for years.In contrast, the Democratic Party has been blind to the rising sea of disillusionment. In today’s America, aspiration and ambition have been supplanted by anger and animosity. Talk about missing the moment.
(With groundswell and rising sea both together, what's left, earth quake or tornado?)
Is "blind" the same as "insultingly indifferent" in your vocabulary? As if "fury" were a new thing, this cycle, not noticed before? As if Bernie was not speaking or being heard?
Get real.
And he does not entirely present it as news to him. As if something discovered after losing Nov. 5. As if Harris were not calling election shots knowing how pissed off people are with Congress having single digit approvals in polls, or low two digit approvals and as if Jan 6 had never happened?
What's reality, what's spin?
More as if he knew it all along but didn't give a shit because he could propagandize and do okay. But that is reading beyond the text, but how could he not know the Democratic Party was running wealthy people against wealthy Republicans? He was a part of that. He was as Inner Party as you can get, and that goes way back into the late 90's when Bubba was running and messing with an intern when he was one of Bill Clinton's insiders.
So, smoke and mirrors and never saying Medicare for All, even while alluding to an insurance CEO being killed presumably because of the death, bankruptcy and mayhem the health industrial complex has rained onto people.
It was not Mother Theresa being gunned down on a sidewalk. Rahm knows the score. Rahm talks around money being the trasactional fuel of politics - two party politics, his party's politics.
..................................................
Mention Medicare for All, sincerely, and have cred, instead? Not on the agenda.
Not unpinning the spin meter off dead zero. Missing from the Tarot deck, missing as well from Rahm's realm of the attainable. The presentable. No, we're not THERE? That's a place we won't go? It could cost us money from those with it, investing in politics.
................................................
But pay attention, we are your friends. We feel your pain.
We -- have your back? From in back?
Trust me. I'm from Chicago Dem historic ways and means.
Sell it all to Bernie. If he listens, I may. Sell it to AOC. Offer her and her ideas something. Beyond feeling her pain. Respect, maybe. Listening, maybe.
And yes, I strongly supported Harris, as not Trump. She had my vote. Locked in from her replacing Biden, who was also not Trump. But Trump got more votes, and I accept it as less than "catastrophic." I accept it as voter judgment with which I disagree, but as determinative over the next four years so how do I live with it, fairly to known voting representative democracy norms? I think I am trying to figure that out without anybody's distracting spin packaged with an unwillingness to say Medicare for All.
___________UPDATE__________
Anybody afraid to say, Medicare for All, or unwilling to for any reason, does not merit being considered to be head of the DNC. Bullshit is as bullshit does. End of story.