Liberal media turns on giggly AOC over her convenient ‘Woke 1 was crazy’ escape hatch

by DBS Wire

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attempt to bury the left’s most politically radioactive positions under the label “Woke 1” is receiving something she probably did not expect: serious resistance from liberal and progressive media.

The backlash grew Wednesday as Axios described AOC as seeking a political “mulligan” for candidates who embraced positions such as defunding the police during the 2020-era progressive surge.

It also arrived with a rather inconvenient election result. Francesca Hong, the Wisconsin Democratic socialist whose old positions prompted AOC’s “Woke 1 was crazy” remark, narrowly lost Tuesday’s Democratic gubernatorial primary to the more moderate David Crowley. With nearly all precincts reporting, Crowley held approximately 39.9% of the vote to Hong’s 39.4%. Perhaps Wisconsin Democrats decided that “she doesn’t say that anymore” was not quite the airtight defense AOC thought it was.

The controversy began Sunday during AOC’s appearance on ABC’s This Week.

Jonathan Karl asked her about Hong’s old positions, including calls to defund or abolish the police and prisons, along with her memorable demand to “cancel Thanksgiving.”

AOC declined to endorse Hong but urged voters to focus on the candidate’s current campaign.

“My understanding is that Francesca Hong has made clear her present stances to her electorate.”

Then came the laugh line:

“I have a local city councilman that has this saying, ‘Woke 1 was crazy.’”

AOC continued:

“I think that what’s important is that we have to assess what a candidate is saying now.”

The congresswoman was borrowing the phrase from New York City Councilman Chi Ossé, who deployed it after an old statement declaring that “a cis white man should not be the next speaker of the Council” resurfaced.

It is a wonderfully efficient political formula. First, promote ideas. Then, when those ideas become unpopular, call the era crazy. Finally, insist that asking about the past is unfair because voters should judge only the new, carefully focus-grouped version of the candidate. It is less an explanation than a witness-protection program for bad political judgment.

To be fair, AOC did not completely disown the ideas associated with “Woke 1.” She argued that the pandemic and racial unrest had expanded the range of policies Americans were willing to consider.

“Especially during COVID, there was a huge opening of the Overton window.”

She explained:

“The doors were really open in trying to entertain any and every policy that was going to get us to a better place, and I actually think that the discussions that were had in that time were quite fruitful.”

When Karl reminded her that she had personally supported defunding the police, AOC replied:

“I think that during lockdown, of course, rhetoric in that time is not rhetoric that we would use today.”

Notice the careful phrasing. The rhetoric changed. What remains less clear is whether the underlying beliefs changed.

Karl also pointed out that the Democratic Socialists of America’s national platform still endorses abolishing police and prisons. AOC responded that she belongs to the organization’s New York City chapter rather than its national organization and does not agree with every DSA position.

But the national platform remains available for anyone with an internet connection. “Woke 1” may supposedly be over, yet some of its most radical goals remain official socialist policy.

The criticism from conservative outlets was predictable. The more interesting reaction came from publications generally far more sympathetic to AOC’s politics.

In an article titled “The Democrats Can’t Just Laugh Off ‘Woke 1’,” The Atlantic’s Idrees Kahloon argued that AOC’s reluctance to defend the old positions demonstrates how politically “radioactive” they have become.

But he warned that refusing to confront those ideas honestly could allow them to return.

“Ideas never die, but they can go dormant.”

Kahloon continued:

“The unwillingness to extirpate wokeness now may result in its resurgence later.”

He noted that DSA-aligned candidates continue to advance radical policies and warned that the 2028 Democratic presidential primary could resemble the party’s 2020 contest, when candidates competed to move further left.

“Should Ocasio-Cortez become the Democratic candidate for president, she may experience that painful lesson firsthand.”

That presidential reference is no accident. AOC told Karl in the same interview that she had not ruled out a White House campaign. Suddenly, “Woke 1 was crazy” begins sounding less like casual reflection and more like pre-primary cleanup.

CNN’s Aaron Blake took a different approach, arguing that the effort to wave away past statements creates a basic credibility problem.

“Implicit in these arguments is that maybe these politicians didn’t believe what they said in real time—that they were just saying stuff.”

Blake then asked the obvious question:

“Does that also apply to what they’re saying today?”

Exactly.

Voters can forgive a politician who says, “I was wrong, and here is why.” People change their views. Experience can expose weaknesses in ideas that once seemed attractive. But “that rhetoric belonged to another era” is not the same as admitting an error. If candidates once said what activists wanted to hear and now say what general-election voters want to hear, the public is entitled to ask which version represents the truth.

Blake argued:

“It would be better to reward politicians who have the foresight and wisdom to take positions that they actually believe in and can stick to—and can stand the political test of time.”

Imagine that. Politicians who believe what they say. A revolutionary concept, though probably not the kind of revolution the DSA had in mind.

Mother Jones criticized AOC from the opposite direction.

Rather than objecting primarily to the original progressive policies, the outlet worried that AOC was laughing off legitimate social-justice movements in order to appear more moderate and strengthen her national political prospects.

“One can win votes without laughing off progressive discussions.”

The article questioned what AOC’s dismissive tone communicated to supporters who still believed in the activism and racial reckoning of that era.

“In 2026, it’s not enough to repeat the same rhetoric—let alone signal toward going backward.”

So, AOC is now catching fire from both sides.

Centrists and conservatives want her to admit that the old policies were wrong. Progressives want her to stop acting embarrassed by them.

That is what happens when a politician attempts to rebrand an entire ideological period with a giggle.

Vox offered AOC the most sympathetic interpretation, arguing that the progressive movement had evolved toward economic populism and away from the academic, identity-centered language that alienated working-class voters.

But even Vox acknowledged that the underlying ideals remain alive.

“The broad ideals—diversity, equity, a basic sense of fairness—still matter to Democratic voters.”

The article continued:

“What’s changed isn’t who these candidates are—it’s what they choose to lead with.”

And there it is.

The policies may not have disappeared. The sales pitch changed. “Defund the police” becomes “noncarceral public-safety investment.” “Government-run grocery stores” becomes “food affordability.” “Abolish prisons” becomes “transformative justice.” Same ideological house. New coat of paint. Please ignore the old listing photos.

Hong’s Wisconsin loss does not prove that one old Thanksgiving post decided the election. Her contest against Crowley involved money, endorsements, organization, electability and the ideological direction of the Democratic Party. But her history became a major vulnerability.

Hong once wrote:

“Cancel Thanksgiving. Should have done this in 1621.”

She also previously supported defunding or abolishing police before declaring during the closing days of the campaign:

“I’m not defunding the police, not abolishing police. I am serious about public safety.”

Crowley, backed by retiring Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, presented himself as the candidate less likely to hand the governor’s office to Republican Tom Tiffany.

Wisconsin Democrats chose Crowley—barely. That result should concern AOC. If “Woke 1” positions became dangerous even in a Democratic primary, Republicans will certainly use them in November and in any future presidential race.

Axios distilled the problem Wednesday:

“There’s no statute of limitations on unpopular political stands.”

AOC cannot laugh that away. If she believes defunding police was wrong, she should say so plainly. If she still believes in the goal but dislikes the old slogan, voters deserve to know that too.

What she cannot credibly do is declare an entire political era “crazy,” praise its conversations as “fruitful,” retain many of its underlying assumptions and then demand that everyone evaluate only what candidates say today.

The internet remembers. Voters remember. And now even the liberal media remembers.