You mean a current SVP at Amazon?

Is it possible that his current role is defining his response more than one he held at least 3 years ago?

At the risk of making a generalization, it's interesting that political PR firms and/or workers from them tend to get companies in trouble. Recall that Facebook retained a republican PR firm that pushed anti-Soros conspiracies, for example.

Maybe the lesson here is that people who worked in politics/lobbying are not trustworthy and can be a liability to the integrity of your company if you hire them.

> Maybe the lesson here is that people who worked in politics/lobbying are not trustworthy and can be a liability to the integrity of your company if you hire them.

Well, if you give them very high paying jobs at weird companies you control through a few layers of obfuscation, it will look even more like you're paying them for services rendered.

He's an SVP at Amazon... what does being an "Obama-era staffer" have to do with him supporting the company currently paying his paycheck? Not to mention he was Press Secretary for Obama, played literally no role in policy.

The democrats are/were historically the pro-worker party. Yet here we have a major player from a recent administration managing a PR strategy opposing worker organizing efforts. It should make one question whether that party is still run by people who support workers.

"The democrats are/were historically the pro-worker party."

This hasn't been true for a few decades. they are now the party of the well educated professional class.

But he wasn't a "major player" - he was a press secretary. While we can assume he's a Democrat, the role has nothing to do with policy and more-often-than-not is filled by someone who's just good at being a flak jacket. Scaramucci was Trump's Press Secretary - he also worked for the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

Claiming his current worldview is in any way reflective of the Obama Administration is a reach... at best.

Scaramucci was his comms director. Big difference. The position of press secretary is one of the most important in the West Wing (It's been diminished a bit in recent years, but there is absolutely a policy component).

It's part of the strategy of the far left to help push the Democratic Party further left by vilifying anything and everything associated with its party's center.

EDIT: Adding that I really can't see, otherwise, how it's relevant.

Carney stanning for a company trying to frame a black labor organizer with the “not articulate” dog whistle does enough of that work by itself. I don’t think they need any help from the “far left.”

Again, though, it's not really relevant that he worked as Obama's PR guy, right? I have no idea if he's dumb, this interview doesn't suggest so, but here's an interview[0] of him and he's definitely not particularly articulate in it. The concept of the "dog whistle" is pretty ridiculous. It makes it so that you literally can never have a black person be described as inarticulate regardless of reality. It's just another way to control speech.

0: https://youtu.be/15HUGc7R8hw?t=107

Except Carney didn't say that.

>“He’s not smart, or articulate, and to the extent the press wants to focus on us versus him, we will be in a much stronger PR position than simply explaining for the umpteenth time how we’re trying to protect workers,” wrote Amazon General Counsel David Zapolsky in notes from the meeting forwarded widely in the company.

Never said he said it. I said he’s defending a company whose taking this line to discredit Smalls. Go read my post again and Carney’s Twitter feed if you need further clarification.

2008: Obama wins Ad Age's marketeer of the year. https://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marke...

2016: Cambridge Analytica is "the hack of the century" for using the exact same tactics

I mean, yeah, the Obama administration was hardly pro labor.