Are Bernie and Warren finally going to clash?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, that's what it feels like to me because I don't imagine Warren is too far attached from these sorts of decisions. Additionally, there is a certain context in the lack of actual quotations which provides me the feel that they are hiding within subtext. I'm going by the data, its presentation, and distribution.

They toss out a quote, I'd believe it. But they didn't. That is significant.

On the other hand, I don't think Sanders can win. He is too old and will be eviscerated by the GOP. Warren has a much better chance at defeating Trump than Sanders.

 

[Toni]

Yeah, that's what it feels like to me because I don't imagine Warren is too far attached from these sorts of decisions. Additionally, there is a certain context in the lack of actual quotations which provides me the feel that they are hiding within subtext. I'm going by the data, its presentation, and distribution.

They toss out a quote, I'd believe it. But they didn't. That is significant.

On the other hand, I don't think Sanders can win. He is too old and will be eviscerated by the GOP. Warren has a much better chance at defeating Trump than Sanders.

I agree re: Sanders. His age has made him a no-go for me, from 2016 and he's not younger now. As I see more of him, I like him less. But then, as we see more of candidates, we do get to see things we don't like brought forward. I don't think Warren is a perfect candidate, I'm concerned about her age and I'm also worried about how badly she'll be attacked by Trump and his cronies, just as she's being attacked now by Bernie and his bros. I mean, she's repeatedly said that she and Sanders have a lot more in common than differences and that it was something minor--and yet she's being called a snake, a liar, etc. It's pretty disgusting and also telling, imo, that the same sort of fanbois support Sanders as support Trump. I'm afraid that this will be something she must continually fight off or pointedly ignore, even if she's elected. OTOH, I liked Amy Klobuchar more last night and really appreciated her words calling for unity and desire to represent all. At the end, I found it very telling that she alone looked out into the audience and waved, made contact while the others milled about, congratulating one another.

I am honestly not certain that what was supposedly said and then leaked is...significant? I don't think that if it were say, two white dudes talking about some white dude issue of your choice it would even be a blip on anyone's radar.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yeah, that's what it feels like to me because I don't imagine Warren is too far attached from these sorts of decisions. Additionally, there is a certain context in the lack of actual quotations which provides me the feel that they are hiding within subtext. I'm going by the data, its presentation, and distribution.

They toss out a quote, I'd believe it. But they didn't. That is significant.

On the other hand, I don't think Sanders can win. He is too old and will be eviscerated by the GOP. Warren has a much better chance at defeating Trump than Sanders.

I agree re: Sanders.

I am honestly not certain that what was supposedly said and then leaked is...significant? I don't think it would be if it were say, two white dudes.

The timing would also be a significant coincidence if a man said something about another man when the other guy started doing better in the polls.

For example, Trump started rumors about other male candidates when they started gaining in the polls. I have pointed this out before.

It doesn't mean Warren is lying or just like Trump. As I wrote in my previous post "There's a probability that he [Sanders] is lying."

 

[repoman]

One issue is that Trump's rough asshole political style matches his shit personality. So when he pulled hos stunts no one thought less of him. Warren has a lot of respect and goodwill that can be burned. Her base doesn't like Trump stunts. And almost all male candidates can't pull the shit Trump or BoJo does - even though fools like Sargon tried.

Anyway, like always twitter has everything at code red fever pitch and this post is between two women but tweet as intensely.

https://twitter.com/marieberd/status/1217232719198875648

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Of course, the alleged Sanders statement is pretty benign. Nothing I haven't read reported from lots of people in mainstream news. So why is this a big deal?

The big deal is mostly about the media. Did you notice that the CNN moderator asked Bernie if he said it. He flatly stated no, he did not say it and does not believe it, and then immediately the moderator turned to Warren and asked how she felt when he DID say it? Not that he allegedly said it. They aren't even pretending to be unbiased or fair towards Sanders.

What's not so benign is Warren being raked over the coals because someone spoke up and because she confirmed what was said. There's a word for that. A couple of words, actually.

Oh I see. We're back to "believe the 'victim' " and the idea that people should be thought innocent of wild accusations until proved guilty or until there is some evidence, or at least a quote of what the guy said, is still not a thing?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Suppose there had been some damning accusation about Warren from a man: suppose it were leaked that Warren told Buttigeig that perhaps 2020 was the wrong time for the Dems to put forth an openly gay candidate? Or if she had allegedly told Booker or Castro that it wasn’t the right time for a person of color to have the nomination?

Any such allegation would be believed because it is against Warren, a woman who has been loudly and openly attacked by Trump—who has left Sanders alone and who left Booker alone and Castro as well. Curious that Trump has only attacked female candidates—except for Biden.

This is you projecting your own bias again. Why would people given Warren any less benefit of the doubt than Bernie? Because she's female? Bullshit. If Buttigieg or Booker or whoever timed such an accusation against Warren as Warren (or her people) did against Bernie, they'd look just as calculating. If gender entered into it, I bet you it would run in the other direction if any at all.

 

[repoman]

The only charitable excuse would be that Abby Phillip was just going down a question list and did not react and rephrase the question to Warren afters Sanders full denial.

Thinking about it, seems pretty likely.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The only charitable excuse would be that Abby Phillip was just going down a question list and did not react and rephrase the question to Warren.

If this sort of thing happened once towards Bernie, I'd agree and may buy that excuse. But like with Yang (for who there is a hilarious list of these that just never stop happening), Bernie has had this sort of thing directed at him over and over by the establishment media. BTW the latest and funniest one for Yang was that they posted him and Tulsi in some graphic and instead had photos for a random asian guy (Jeff Yang) and Gillibrand for Tulsi. lol

 

[Toni]

Suppose there had been some damning accusation about Warren from a man: suppose it were leaked that Warren told Buttigeig that perhaps 2020 was the wrong time for the Dems to put forth an openly gay candidate? Or if she had allegedly told Booker or Castro that it wasn’t the right time for a person of color to have the nomination?

Any such allegation would be believed because it is against Warren, a woman who has been loudly and openly attacked by Trump—who has left Sanders alone and who left Booker alone and Castro as well. Curious that Trump has only attacked female candidates—except for Biden.

This is you projecting your own bias again. Why would people given Warren any less benefit of the doubt than Bernie? Because she's female? Bullshit. If Buttigieg or Booker or whoever timed such an accusation against Warren as Warren (or her people) did against Bernie, they'd look just as calculating. If gender entered into it, I bet you it would run in the other direction if any at all.

It's my observation. People are attacking Warren, not Sanders, although it's at least equally possible that she's telling the truth and he isn't. And also, given the amount of mistrust and issues within Sanders' campaign re: sexism, racism--it's at least as likely imo that HIS campaign leaked the info as it is that Warren's did.

So why do you think people are giving Warren less a benefit of a doubt than they are Sanders?

Let's be clear: Warren responded to questions asking her about a reported (by anonymous sources) the exchange. And in her remarks, she's calling it trivial and stating that she and Bernie have much more in common than they do differences and saying let's move on.

That sounds very damning exactly how?

Isn't it much more likely that the candidate whose staff is embroiled in a legal battle regarding unionization efforts might have a bone to pick with Sanders? A campaign staff that has for years reported sexism on the part of other senior staff and that Bernie ignored these reports--for years?

Isn't your absolute faith that this is all a smear job against Bernie part of your own bias?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's my observation. People are attacking Warren, not Sanders

You are continuously attacking Sanders. Your house lacks mirrors apparently.

Let's be clear: Warren responded to questions asking her about a reported (by anonymous sources) the exchange. And in her remarks, she's calling it trivial and stating that she and Bernie have much more in common than they do differences and saying let's move on.

Refusing to shake hands with the man is not moving on. And no it clearly isn't that she just doesn't like shaking hands or was tired or whatever other thing you want to make up. She had just shaken hands with Biden before and immediately shakes hands with Buttigieg after.

Isn't your absolute faith that this is all a smear job against Bernie part of your own bias?

I never said I have absolute faith that this is all a smear job. Nice try.

 

[Toni]

You are continuously attacking Sanders. Your house lacks mirrors apparently.

Really? I don't recall attacking Sanders. I did say why I wasn't a fan and listed a number of pretty coherent reasons why I don't want him to be the Dem candidate. None of those were 'attacks.'

Refusing to shake hands with the man is not moving on. And no it clearly isn't that she just doesn't like shaking hands or was tired or whatever other thing you want to make up. She had just shaken hands with Biden before and immediately shakes hands with Buttigieg after.

Yep, she had just shaken hands a couple of times, then spoke with Sanders for a few minutes--obviously she had something in particular to say to him rather than the typical congrats on a job well done that everyone else was engaging in. There was an exchange of some minute or two rather than a few seconds. So? Shouldn't people talk with one another? Is Bernie THAT fragile that he can't handle someone disagreeing with him or speaking with him about an issue? Are his supporters? I didn't see Bernie fall apart. I didn't see Warren fall apart. Two candidates engaged in an actual discussion. Quelle horreur!

Isn't your absolute faith that this is all a smear job against Bernie part of your own bias?

I never said I have absolute faith that this is all a smear job. Nice try.

And I've never said half of the things you attribute to me. So knock it off, ok?

 

[Toni]

The only charitable excuse would be that Abby Phillip was just going down a question list and did not react and rephrase the question to Warren afters Sanders full denial.

Thinking about it, seems pretty likely.

It was my gut feeling, too.

 

[Treedbear]

...
So why do you think people are giving Warren less a benefit of a doubt than they are Sanders?

Let's be clear: Warren responded to questions asking her about a reported (by anonymous sources) the exchange. And in her remarks, she's calling it trivial and stating that she and Bernie have much more in common than they do differences and saying let's move on.

That sounds very damning exactly how?

Isn't it much more likely that the candidate whose staff is embroiled in a legal battle regarding unionization efforts might have a bone to pick with Sanders? A campaign staff that has for years reported sexism on the part of other senior staff and that Bernie ignored these reports--for years?

Isn't your absolute faith that this is all a smear job against Bernie part of your own bias?

My fantasy going into the debate was for Warren and Sanders to be positioned at adjacent podiums and that when the topic came up (even allowing for the likelihood that the moderators would be trying to provoke something between them to increase viewership) that the two of them would brush it aside (a la Sanders dismissing Hillary's "damn emails"), and then they'd both smile and give each other a hug. The issue would have been dropped, it would have said alot about the unity of the progressive movement. and Trump would have been left flat-footed. So that dream was shattered and I'm left not knowing what to think about either of them, or whether this matters at all anyway. But I was left with two impressions. First is that it was quite intentional the way Warren was asked what she thought about Sanders essentially having lied. It was a brazen slap in his face. And second, Warren went out of here way to make a point of not shaking Sanders' hand when he offered it to her. She was making some kind of statement, center stage, with Steyer as the witness just in case Sanders said something stupid. Now I just don't understand what's going on, and I wonder if either of them do. But I think it likely that from the beginning it's been CNN and the corporate news media that want to see a wedge driven between the two because of the threat they pose when united, and that by setting their two campaigns on their heels it leaves Biden as the only viable choice. He happens to be a white guy, but he's just Hillary lite and doesn't stand a chance against Trump. Jeez, I didn't think I had much to say.

 

[Toni]

...
So why do you think people are giving Warren less a benefit of a doubt than they are Sanders?

Let's be clear: Warren responded to questions asking her about a reported (by anonymous sources) the exchange. And in her remarks, she's calling it trivial and stating that she and Bernie have much more in common than they do differences and saying let's move on.

That sounds very damning exactly how?

Isn't it much more likely that the candidate whose staff is embroiled in a legal battle regarding unionization efforts might have a bone to pick with Sanders? A campaign staff that has for years reported sexism on the part of other senior staff and that Bernie ignored these reports--for years?

Isn't your absolute faith that this is all a smear job against Bernie part of your own bias?

My fantasy going into the debate was for Warren and Sanders to be positioned at adjacent podiums and that when the topic came up (even allowing for the likelihood that the moderators would be trying to provoke something between them to increase viewership) that the two of them would brush it aside (a la Sanders dismissing Hillary's "damn emails"), and then they'd both smile and give each other a hug. The issue would have been dropped, it would have said alot about the unity of the progressive movement. and Trump would have been left flat-footed. So that dream was shattered and I'm left not knowing what to think about either of them, or whether this matters at all anyway. But I was left with two impressions. First is that it was quite intentional the way Warren was asked what she thought about Sanders essentially having lied. It was a brazen slap in his face. And second, Warren went out of here way to make a point of not shaking Sanders' hand when he offered it to her. She was making some kind of statement, center stage, with Steyer as the witness just in case Sanders said something stupid. Now I just don't understand what's going on, and I wonder if either of them do. But I think it likely that from the beginning it's been CNN and the corporate news media that want to see a wedge driven between the two because of the threat they pose when united, and that by setting their two campaigns on their heels it leaves Biden as the only viable choice. He happens to be a white guy, but he's just Hillary lite and doesn't stand a chance against Trump. Jeez, I didn't think I had much to say.

I guess I'd just attribute it to anything to drum up ratings rather than any nefarious network strategy for Biden --or anybody.

I confess that I had to go back and look at the Liz didn't shake Bernie's hand thing because I missed it IRT. I was so enjoying watching Klobuchar smiling and waving to the audience and making a connection with THEM. To me, it looked more as though Liz was more focussed on engaging Bernie in some conversation than in avoiding or refusing to shake his hand. But so what if she didn't want to shake his hand. She looked pretty PO'd when he said he didn't say what was claimed--and shocked. I'd have been a little hot under the collar, too. I don't quite get why this is such an enormous deal. Oh, yeah: women aren't supposed to be angry. About anything.

And to be honest: I could care less about any tiff, real or imagined between any of the candidates, unless it detracts from the goal of removing Trump. Which perhaps the trial will do. Doubtful but a girl can dream.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I could care less about any tiff, real or imagined between any of the candidates, unless it detracts from the goal of removing Trump. Which perhaps the trial will do. Doubtful but a girl can dream.

You may if you were with the progressive side of the Democratic party and wanted one of them to win and beat not just Trump but also the rightwing Democrats like Biden and Klobuchar. This hurts both Bernie and Warren. Its Biden who stands to gain from this. Would have been interesting to watch his facial expressions as this was being discussed on the stage.

 

[Toni]

I could care less about any tiff, real or imagined between any of the candidates, unless it detracts from the goal of removing Trump. Which perhaps the trial will do. Doubtful but a girl can dream.

You may if you were with the progressive side of the Democratic party and wanted one of them to win and beat not just Trump but also the rightwing Democrats like Biden and Klobuchar. This hurts both Bernie and Warren. Its Biden who stands to gain from this. Would have been interesting to watch his facial expressions as this was being discussed on the stage.

It only hurts either of them if people decide it’s an issue. I don’t really see it a substantive issue.

If you think that makes me less of a progressive than you—who cannot vote in this election, btw, then I will just have to live with the shame. Which is actually quite easy give how long ago middle school was for me—and you, actually.

I recognize the reality of what the actual job of POTUS involves and how the POTUS works with—not directs-Congress. A progressive POTUS won’t be able to move the political barometer as far left as I’d like. Progressive senators might be able to do more. I do know that half the nation freaked out over a black POTUS and elected Trump. I’m willing to temper my enthusiasm for a progressive POTUS with the recognition that the first priority is to replace Trump and the next is to address climate change and massive income disparities.

 

[Derec]

I think this has mortally wounded Warren's campaign

It only hurts either of them if people decide it’s an issue. I don’t really see it a substantive issue.

Whatever you may think of the merits of Thin Lizzie weaponizing her gender against Bernie, I think this has mortally wounded her campaign.
The only way she could ever hope to win is that she outlasts Bernie. While right now he is doing better in the polls, and I do not see that changing as long as he is healthy, a second major health episode would likely be the end of his campaign, so it could be that she is the last progressive standing.
And what then? I think this issue, and especially Warren's classless behavior after the debate, means that she will not get any singificant number of Bernie voters. And if she doesn't get many of his voters, she doesn't have a snowball's chance in a supernova of winning a 2-way battle against Biden (or maybe Buttigieg?)
So she shot herself and got mortally wounded, but hasn't realized it yet.

Btw, CNN is all inf for Warren. Andrew Cuomo's brother just said, with a straight face, that because Warren is a woman, and a woman said something, we must automatically believe whatever she says.

 

[Toni]

It only hurts either of them if people decide it’s an issue. I don’t really see it a substantive issue.

Whatever you may think of the merits of Thin Lizzie weaponizing her gender against Bernie, I think this has mortally wounded her campaign.
The only way she could ever hope to win is that she outlasts Bernie. While right now he is doing better in the polls, and I do not see that changing as long as he is healthy, a second major health episode would likely be the end of his campaign, so it could be that she is the last progressive standing.
And what then? I think this issue, and especially Warren's classless behavior after the debate, means that she will not get any singificant number of Bernie voters. And if she doesn't get many of his voters, she doesn't have a snowball's chance in a supernova of winning a 2-way battle against Biden (or maybe Buttigieg?)
So she shot herself and got mortally wounded, but hasn't realized it yet.

Wow. She didn’t shake hands with someone—not recoiled, stomped her foot, threw a trash can but instead immediately engaged in a discussion—and she shot down her chances? OMFG—she’s not the one waeponizing her gender.

You and the rest of the Bernie bros are doing it to het—and I’m sure Mayor Peter is next. And why not? That’s exactly what the bros did against Clinton.

There isn’t nearly as much difference between a Trump and Bernie or Trumpsters and the Bros as you’d like to think.

 

[barbos]

I can't speak for other males here but I hate what Warren did, even if she is factually 100% correct. If that was a big deal for her she should have complained and tried to resolve it immediately, not wait for an opportunity to use it against Sanders.

 

[Toni]

I can't speak for other males here but I hate what Warren did, even if she is factually 100% correct. If that was a big deal for her she should have complained and tried to resolve it immediately, not wait for an opportunity to use it against Sanders.

But: she didn’t do anything to Sanders.

Some several persons leaked it. The sources are anonymous. Everybody assumes that the sources are from Warren’s camp. But I think a case could be made that it was Sanders’ staff—there is a history of allegations of sexism within the Sanders campaign.

You know what? I’m fucking sick of women being expected to just shit up when men do bad things to them because it might hurt the man’s reputation and career—and if they don’t, they’re called liars and snakes and it’s a mark against the woman for not keeping quiet about the shitty things the man did.

If Sanders really did tell Warren that he thought a woman couldn’t win in 2020, then he’s wronged her by lying and leaving her to deal with the fallout: she’s distrusted, called names, disbelieved. Where’s the fallout for the guy who started it? You know: the one whose staff thinks there’s a problem
with sexism within the campaign.

That sounds familiar. I’ll bet most women will agree.