re: #159 Pianobuff

I’ve been wondering about this. Since it wasn’t really being covered, why did Van Jones resign anyway? I’ve read lots of opinion on the left that felt this should have been ignored since it wasn’t getting any kind of broad play in the MSM, yet it wasn’t. Any theories why?

Here’s why - from both perspectives:

From the right - because where there’s smoke, there’s fire, and the trooferisms were just the tip of the iceberg. He fell on his sword to avoid further controversy and fallout for the Administration at a bad time.

From the left - he caved to right-wing thuggery. He should have stood his ground. It shows that the Administration can’t play rough and ready with the right-wing.

The truth? Probably a combination of the above - the trooferism was the least of Jones’ problems, and Obama and the WH knew that this could derail Obama’s major policy address this week, even if the media wasn’t covering it - because the chattering classes were talking it up, even if the media wasn’t. Media agenda setting isn’t what it once was - for better and worse. Had it been better, they would have addressed Jones’ radical background more substantively before he was picked to be Obama’s adviser.