 Actress Alyssa Milano has become increasingly politically engaged over the course of the last couple of years, and she's always been an activist. She's always been an advocate for women's rights, but she started to recently speak out more when it comes to partisan politics and party politics. And it's really difficult to pin down what her core political ideology is because it just seems like she is a team blue rah rah type of individual. In other words, she's no different than all these other pseudo woke celebrities who rest easy as soon as Democrats take power and then they demobilize politically. But the reason why I say that she just seems like another one of these, you know, team politics celebrities is because, I mean, look at the 2018 Kavanaugh hearings when we all saw her in attendance visibly disturbed by his testimony, and she had a sign that said, believe survivors. And she's been a long time proponent of women's rights and the Me Too movement. However, fast forward to 2019 and when all of a sudden someone on her team, Joe Biden is accused of inappropriately touching women like Lucy Flores, well, she's coming to his defense. Now I'm not saying the accusations against Joe Biden and Brett Kavanaugh are one of the same. But what I am saying is that there's obviously a degree of hypocrisy there. And because she is trying to be a figurehead of the left and the Democratic Party, this makes everyone on the collective left look bad. It makes it look like we're a bunch of hypocrites where we have a double standard that we apply, you know, to Republicans, but we're not willing to hold people on our team accountable. Now look, I understand that out of all these pseudo woke celebrities with a net worth of 10 plus million dollars like Alyssa Milano has, there are worse individuals. I mean, Debra Messing, Kathy Griffin, these people are always punching left. Chrissy Teigen is another one that you can add to that list. They're always punching left, not just attacking Bernie Sanders, but attacking his supporters specifically, which is pretty disgusting, pretty egregious. This is rich, explaining one on one, whenever they explain to us that Bernie isn't the candidate who we should be supporting. But nonetheless, I mean, they are destructive. But what Alyssa Milano is trying to do, I almost called her Melissa, is she's actually trying to be constructive. She's trying to say, look, here's some things that we can do to help the Democratic Party win. So rather than trying to tear down the left wing movement and progressives, she's trying to build up the Democratic Party, which, you know, I think makes her better than someone like Kathy Griffin or Debra Messing. With that being said, it's evident that as she gets into political commentary, she doesn't really know what she's talking about. And it's because it's really difficult to gauge what is going to energize the electorate. If you don't talk to normal people, if you have millions of dollars and you are, you know, living in your mansion and you always demobilize politically once Democrats take power. So let me give you an example of something she wrote for the Hill. This is an op-ed that they published. And the title is the key to beating Trump, elect all of the Democratic candidates. So this is what I mean. This is why I say I don't see any core political ideology there. You're going to get a bigger sense of that when we get into the article. She just wants her team to win. So she writes, if we want to get rid of Trump and his administration, we should not focus on electing one candidate. We should elect them all. Imagine this. Vice President Biden is currently leading the field. So let's start there with Biden at the top and the Harris Vice Presidency. We would speak to the majority of Americans who prefer Biden to any other candidate. At the same time, we would bring the perspective of a new generation of leaders to the highest offices in the land. Attorney General Cory Booker could take on the NRA and the racial injustices he so often faced as mayor of Newark. Elizabeth Warren could lead the Department of Education and it would transform our nation for generations. Bernie Sanders playing the role as Secretary of Health and Human Services would ensure every person in America could access health care we could afford. In any administration, Julian Castro's experience as a cabinet secretary and congressman would be the perfect antidote to the Trump regime's border policy as the first Latinx homeland security secretary. But it needed to stop there. New voices like Andrew Yang as the head of the Council of Economic Advisers would bring business acumen and the idea of basic income to the president's ear. Pete Buttigieg applying his lived experience as an LGBTQ service member and executive expertise as a mayor to bear as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be transformative to our nation's heroes. Better or work as chief of staff to the president would guide the nation's most important decisions with compassion and ease. Kirsten Gillibrand as Commerce Secretary. Amy Klobuchar as Agriculture Secretary. Former candidate Jay Inslee bringing environmental issues to the level they deserve as the helm of the Department of Energy. Strong Union supporter Tim Ryan as Secretary of Labor. Treasury Secretary Delaney recently withdrawn congressman and veteran Seth Moulton as Secretary of Defense. Bullock at FEC Bennett as Interior. And how could Michelle Obama say no to the critical role of Secretary of State if this unified group asked her to serve? So this is the dumbest thing I possibly have ever heard. First of all, she has Biden at the top of the ticket based on current polling. OK, fair enough. But then who does she say should be his vice president? The person who's in fourth or fifth place, depending on the poll, Kamala Harris. So what are you doing there? Furthermore, she brings up Michelle Obama but ignored Tulsi Gabbard entirely. Why should Michelle Obama be Secretary of State but not Tulsi Gabbard in this idealistic scenario? I mean, what is the point of this? So there's two glaring issues that I don't know how she didn't think about right away that come to mind. The first is she's literally proposing that we take seven Democrats out of the Senate and put them in the White House, seven out of the Senate. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Bennett. You honestly want to take seven Democrats out of the Senate and risk those seats going to Republicans. Doesn't that seem awful? Shouldn't maintaining the Senate be your top priority if you are team Democrat? So I don't know how she overlooked that, but that's huge. I mean, the scenario where we imagine Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, for example, at the top of the ticket, that in and of itself is an issue because that's two senators being removed. So I don't even know what she was thinking here. Second of all, imagine what a cluster fuck this would be. Imagine all of these ideological opponents in one administration. They would not be efficient. They would get nothing done because in this administration that she's proposing here, you have people all across the ideological spectrum. You have moderate Republicans to leftists. How do you ever expect them to accomplish anything? Now, I get that she'd say, well, you know, Bernie would be the health secretary or whatever the fuck. Elizabeth Warren would be the leader of the Department of Education. But still, if Biden is president, the buck stops with him. They serve at the pleasure of the president. So if you honestly think that all of their views would be implemented, one, that's unrealistic to voters will be even more confused because the goal is to tell voters what the party stands for. Currently, I have no idea what the party stands for, but she actually also proposes that we water down inadvertently. She proposes this the Democratic Party's brand even more because she promotes this idea that the Democratic Party is a big 10 party. And that's great, except the problem is that's making them less electable. Here's what she says about that. The fact of the matter is that these candidates all agree on the what they're generally minor differences are in the how instead of encouraging the cult of personality surrounding each individual candidate reaping the division, this long and damaging primary will. So let's get behind them all. We truly have an embarrassment of riches in our field. We should not be winnowing it. We should be uniting it, pulling their resources and creating a complete ticket that no American could vote against. The Democratic Party is progressive. The Democratic Party is moderate. And like America, the Democratic Party is diverse. This slate of candidates represents the breadth of the American experience and the excitement of new ideas and perspectives. These are desperate times. The heart and soul of our nation is at stake. Our country cannot afford another four years of Donald Trump. Desperate times call for thinking outside the box with Democratic measures. If we want to be Trump, we know whom to elect, all of them. Or we can just keep proceeding with politics as usual and act shocked when he's reelected. How is this different than what Howard Schultz was proposing? Where you have a mixture of Republicans and Democrats in your cabinet, because the ideological differences between Biden and Bernie, for example, are so vast that they are basically from two different parties, right? You could have an entire party dedicated to Bernie's ideology and an entire party dedicated to Joe Biden's ideology. And you might think as a millionaire that these differences between the candidates is insignificant, but that's not actually true. The differences are life and death. Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All proposal stops medical bankruptcies and literal deaths due to a lack of health insurance. Biden's does not. Biden's climate proposal would not meet the IPCC's 12 year deadline and doesn't go nearly far enough, whereas Bernie Sanders does. Biden has voted for virtually every war, whereas Bernie Sanders has been against basically all of them. I mean, this big tent idea in part is why Democrats keep losing because they are ideologically incoherent. I mean, think about this. If you tell me that someone is a Republican, there's a number of policies that I would assume about them that I think would be fairly accurate. First of all, they are probably not going to want to do anything about climate change if they even believe it. They're not going to want to act when it comes to gun legislation. They're going to support repealing the Affordable Care Act, restricting access to abortion. They'll be socially conservative. However, when it comes to Democrats, that can mean a number of things. Maybe they're a neoliberal centrist and they support incremental fixes to health care and education. Maybe they're a leftist and they support Medicare for All and Free College. The point is advocating for a big tent. It just waters down their brand even further. And really what Democrats need to do is acknowledge that we are in a polarized political climate. So trying to pander to the middle isn't going to win you elections. Embrace the polarization, go left, excite the base and that's how you win. This isn't rocket science. You see what Donald Trump does. He throws red meat to the base. They're energized, they're excited and it may be disgusting policies. He may be turning off moderates, but he has the highest approval rating of his own party than any president in recent history. So we need the left wing equivalent to be accomplished within the Democratic Party. But when millionaires like Alyssa Milano say, well, you know, we just need to be welcoming of all political ideologies. Well, that undermines the entire point of a political party. Voters are supposed to be able to attribute certain ideals and policy prescriptions to any one political party. But the fact that you don't really know where any one Democrat stands demonstrates how ideologically incoherent the party has become. And this is largely due to the increased corporatization of the Democratic Party. But when it comes to someone like Alyssa Milano, she doesn't really care about watering down the brand of Democrats. To her, this is a team sport. She cares about her team winning and her interest for American politics probably dissipates once Democrats gain power. And then she just goes out to brunch with all of her rich American oligarch friends. Well, look, here's the thing. If you're going to get involved in political commentary, then what you need to do is step outside of your Hollywood bubble, come down from your ivory tower and actually talk to normal people. And you will see that the left wing base needs to be mobilized. They need to be galvanized and Democrats haven't been doing that. But when you see these races where Democrats fire up the base, they register new voters, that makes them more popular. We are in a polarized time. So again, now is not the time to advocate for this big 10 ideology. That doesn't make sense. And furthermore, saying that we should have an administration with all of the presidential candidates, all what 20 of them, it's just nonsensical. So I mean, Jesus Christ, I appreciate the fact that she's trying to be constructive as opposed to combative like her peers, Kathy Griffin and Deborah Messing. But for the love of God, at least I mean, read something before you write about politics and at least do a little bit of research, talk to normal people. I mean, Jesus Christ, to give them this bad advice, it can potentially be harmful because you are famous and you have a platform. So I don't really know what to say about this. This is what happens. You know, you look like a silly person if you don't really care about policy and you care about your team winning above all else. Politics is not about team sports. That's not about winning and losing. It's about the implementation of policy. I couldn't care less if Republicans won, but then implemented left wing policy proposals like Medicare for all. This is about policy. So I don't care. There's no cult of personalities around all of these candidates. A lot of people may support someone because of their their personality. But when it comes to Bernie Sanders supporters, this is about policy. If Bernie Sanders abandoned his core ideals, I would not support Bernie Sanders because I put policy above personality and anyone who doesn't do that is communicating to you that they are not to be taken seriously and that they are a joke and that, you know, politics to them is the same like sports. You know, you just you pick a team and you stick by that team no matter what. Well, you know, you can do that easily if you're a celebrity and you have millions of dollars. But for normal Americans, we actually have to know about the policy details. Working class people have to worry about how climate change and health care affects them because they can't afford not to. Literally, they cannot afford it.