Let's go to the videotape. More after the video (Hat Tip: Slone).
Hot Air's Noah Rothman adds:
Though she likely has the best interests of her party at heart, Brzezinski is falling into a trap into which so many of her fellow Democrats find themselves. Far too many on the left have conflated their party’s long-term interests with the near-term concerns of the president.
As I’ve written in prior posts on this subject, Netanyahu is generally well-liked among Americans when compared with other foreign leaders. The subject of Israel, too, does not rouse most Americans to gnash their teeth. As for a “boycott” of Netanyahu’s speech, only a handful of congressional Democrats are committed to shunning the Israeli prime minister in solidarity with the White House. Those Democrats hail from only the most partisan districts in which Democrats are wildly overrepresented. Those liberal legislators will be skipping Netanyahu’s speech not because they are ideologically predisposed to disagree with Israel’s objections to a proposed nuclear accord with Iran, but because they feel they must demonstrate their loyalty to Barack Obama through their actions.
That is the lamentable place in which the Democratic Party finds itself. It is no longer a party of ideas, but a reactionary force dedicated to defending the accomplishments of an earlier generation of progressives against the withering and constant assaults of modernity. It has also become a party of personalities.
How else does one explain this protest against Netanyahu? The left is not professing their fealty to a set of policy goals that a majority on the left believe are best for the nation and the world so much as they are defending the president’s honor against imagined slights committed by the opposition party in Congress. For Democrats like Brzezinski, their opposition to Netanyahu is personal.I don't think Netanyahu is going to cry - or decide to stay home - if, for example, Keith Ellison doesn't show up.