And off topic.
Emanuel is the last person to be re-elected Mayor of Chicago in the current political era, and it was after the schools were closed, because, instead of paying attention to decades of old line Democratic political tradition, he and his allies decided to do what was best for the city of Chicago.
He won 55% of the vote in his first run, in which he secured the support of every Democratic party constituency in the city. Even after the school closings, and the installation of red light cameras, also not a popular move, but a huge boost for police and for city revenue, after polls showed his job approval in the high 20% range, he won 56% of the vote. That's after winning four terms in Congress in Illinois district 5, which lies wholly within the city of Chicago, his lowest vote total being his first run, at 67%, his subsequent elections picking up more than 70% of the vote. He was polling in the mid-30% range when he was probing a third shot at being mayor, ten full points ahead of his pre-second term polling and likely would have won in a landslide, given that his opposition likely would have been Paul Vallas, who lost the last election to Brandon Johnson in spite of leading in the polls.
Rahm Emanuel has been at the top of the list of success in Democratic party electoral politics, including helping more Democrats get elected to Congress than anyone else has since 2000. And yes, you make the point of his having adapted and changed his positions at various times and places, which only supports the contention that he knows how to win elections and is not bound by the stubborn insistence on tradition and protocol that cost us the White House and control of Congress this election. And that is exactly why what he has to say is so credible.
So you don't like him. Who really cares about that? So your point is "I don't like Rahm Emanuel, and I don't want to listen to his advice to Democrats but I agree with his advice to Democrats."
= new reply since forum marked as read