'Spineless Politics': Senior Democrat Blasts Schumer, Jeffries in Endorsement Drama

Paul Riverbank, 9/16/2025The Democratic Party faces a pivotal moment as internal tensions surface over endorsing progressive mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani in New York City. This rift, exemplified by Sen. Van Hollen's criticism of party leaders and Gov. Hochul's unexpected endorsement, highlights the growing pains of a party wrestling with its identity and future direction.

Let me paint the picture: Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, clinches the mayoral nomination, and suddenly everyone's walking on eggshells. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries – two of New York's heaviest hitters – are doing this elaborate political dance, neither quite ready to jump one way or the other.

Then Chris Van Hollen drops what I'd call a political hand grenade from Iowa (of all places), calling New York Dems "spineless." Now, I've covered politics long enough to know that when a Maryland senator starts throwing bombs at New York leadership, something bigger is brewing.

The response from Jeffries's camp? Pure New York attitude: "Chris Van Who?" It's the kind of dismissive snark that would make a Broadway critic proud, but it masks a deeper anxiety within the party.

What's really caught my attention is Gov. Kathy Hochul's move. Breaking ranks with the establishment, she backed Mamdani in a thoughtful Times piece. Smart play, actually – acknowledging their differences while emphasizing common ground. I've seen plenty of endorsements in my time, but this one reads more like a carefully crafted peace treaty.

Here's what fascinates me: Schumer, usually the master of political timing, seems genuinely uncertain. After meeting Mamdani, he gave us the political equivalent of "it's complicated" – you know, the "good meeting, we'll keep talking" routine. Jeffries, meanwhile, is sticking to his "I'll endorse when I'm ready" stance, which tells us volumes about the calculations happening behind closed doors.

The whole situation reminds me of similar tensions I covered during the Clinton-Sanders fallout, but with a crucial difference – this time it's playing out against the backdrop of critical legislative battles. Democrats are trying to thread the needle on government funding and healthcare while managing this family feud.

Look, I've been covering politics long enough to know that these tensions aren't just about one mayoral race. They're about a party trying to figure out who it wants to be in an increasingly polarized America. The establishment's hesitation isn't just political caution – it's existential uncertainty.

As November creeps closer, Schumer and Jeffries will face mounting pressure to pick a side. But here's the thing: whatever they decide might tell us more about the Democratic Party's future than any policy platform or campaign speech ever could.

The Democratic Party's latest drama in New York City has laid bare a fascinating divide that's been simmering beneath the surface for years. I've watched similar scenarios play out before, but this one's different – it's not just about endorsements, it's about the soul of the party itself.Let me paint the picture: Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, clinches the mayoral nomination, and suddenly everyone's walking on eggshells. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries – two of New York's heaviest hitters – are doing this elaborate political dance, neither quite ready to jump one way or the other.Then Chris Van Hollen drops what I'd call a political hand grenade from Iowa (of all places), calling New York Dems "spineless." Now, I've covered politics long enough to know that when a Maryland senator starts throwing bombs at New York leadership, something bigger is brewing.The response from Jeffries's camp? Pure New York attitude: "Chris Van Who?" It's the kind of dismissive snark that would make a Broadway critic proud, but it masks a deeper anxiety within the party.What's really caught my attention is Gov. Kathy Hochul's move. Breaking ranks with the establishment, she backed Mamdani in a thoughtful Times piece. Smart play, actually – acknowledging their differences while emphasizing common ground. I've seen plenty of endorsements in my time, but this one reads more like a carefully crafted peace treaty.Here's what fascinates me: Schumer, usually the master of political timing, seems genuinely uncertain. After meeting Mamdani, he gave us the political equivalent of "it's complicated" – you know, the "good meeting, we'll keep talking" routine. Jeffries, meanwhile, is sticking to his "I'll endorse when I'm ready" stance, which tells us volumes about the calculations happening behind closed doors.The whole situation reminds me of similar tensions I covered during the Clinton-Sanders fallout, but with a crucial difference – this time it's playing out against the backdrop of critical legislative battles. Democrats are trying to thread the needle on government funding and healthcare while managing this family feud.Look, I've been covering politics long enough to know that these tensions aren't just about one mayoral race. They're about a party trying to figure out who it wants to be in an increasingly polarized America. The establishment's hesitation isn't just political caution – it's existential uncertainty.As November creeps closer, Schumer and Jeffries will face mounting pressure to pick a side. But here's the thing: whatever they decide might tell us more about the Democratic Party's future than any policy platform or campaign speech ever could.