I am sure you are quite capable of finding CNN's report on the subject all by yourself.
We may have two different accounts, but Warren knows which one is the truth. And if hers is the truth, she has no obligation to shake hands with someone who tried to pressure her not to run because of her sex and then, in essence, called her a liar. That's the bottom line.Bottom line is, we have two different accounts of a year-old conversation
Well, Warren does have former Clinton staffers on her team. I think the leak to CNN came from them or some other operative in the Sanders campaign.In the CNN post-debate analysis, one pundit said Warren’s team brought up the private convo with Sanders last year to enflame past resentments by certain female Hillary supporters who felt Sanders cost Hillary the election by not campaigning hard enough and downplaying sexism in the primaries and general. It’s a cynical take, but one where you have to ask why team Warren brought it up now when it happened over a year ago. She clearly wanted it addressed in the final debate, and she has slipped in the polls and needs to bolster her numbers going into IA. The person she should have attacked was Biden, but for whatever reason she refuses to take him on and left that to Sanders. Perhaps she’s trying to consolidate progressive support for her by taking out Sanders first, then would go after Biden—idk. But refusing to shake Bernie’s hand afterward wasn’t a good look for progressives.
I'm still convinced that Clinton would have won had it been a normal election without interference by either Russia or Comey, so, I'd say, yes, a woman can win. (Of course, there's the question if Comey would have happened had she not been a woman...)We have a huge problem right in front of our faces with how women are treated as candidates but sadly that fact gets us right back to the question a lot of people, not just Bernie Sanders, bring up about Warren: can a woman really win? Cue @Vagabond to remind us that Hillary Clinton did win the vote in 2016 but unfortunately that doesn't calm concerns that take a toll on Warren's support.
All that campaigning for her must've been a terrible slog for him then because I can still remember how he looked like at the convention when Hillary accepted the nomination - sour, pissy and like he'd rather be anywhere else. I recall thinking of Bernie's childishness at the time: Suck it up, buttercup!Well, Warren does have former Clinton staffers on her team. I think the leak to CNN came from them or some other operative in the Sanders campaign.
This idea that Sanders did not campaign hard enough for Clinton needs to be laid to rest. Sanders campaigned for weeks for Clinton. Campaigned at over 40 different rallies; 3 with her and the remaining were individual rallies across the swing states. Most of the rallies were in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan. This was after the John Podesta emails came out and he lost support from some of his supporters.
In fact, the GOP has succeeded in their PR among their base and loyalists by being untactful and downright disrespectful. It's not like Warren screamed out "you lie!" when Sanders was giving a speech or anything or called him a "nasty man" during the debate when he was talking or stood between two opponents, pointed at them, and then called one a "choker/choke artist" and the other a "basket case and a liar.
I'm for skipping right to the Biden-Klobuchar ticket and going to the fight against Trump. The left can go brawl in a corner somewhere until they are ready to get on with it.I was really hoping that after Super Tuesday it would be clear which progressive was really leading and the other would graciously cede support. Now I’m not at all sure that will happen: all it’s going to do is give us a Biden-Klobochar ticket. Feh.
This.For voters such as @BlueRidge and myself, all of this posturing and debating is moot. The candidate who will run in the general election will be decided by the time we get to vote in a primary. Our votes then are actually more important at state (sorry BR) or local elections than the presidential primary vote. I will vote for whoever the Democrats put forth regardless of whether or not they were my personal pick (which is Warren). Regardless of who the Democratic candidate is, they will be stymied if the Senate remains with a significant majority. Even if they maintain a majority, 51/49 is workable and forces them to work together. So, all the Democrats need to keep the bigger picture in mind just as Republican voters who despised Trump did because they wanted him to do something specific such as stack the courts or alter the tax code to favor his millionaire and billionaire buddies, or abolish Roe v Wade.
Well I think that's crap. Biden may not understand how to do it but it certainly is what he wants to do.Unity is going to be essential and I don’t think Biden or Bernie can or even care to provide that.
All of which gives good reason why Biden might select someone other than Amy Klobuchar to be his running mate if he is nominated. (@BlueRidge beat me to writing on this issue.)I agree with you @rfisher but what happens in the primaries is not just going to impact policy if the Dem is elected but the future alignment of the parties. Warren is right that the party is breaking into two wings; that is the only way Republicans can continue to dominate given their shrinking demographic. Unity is going to be essential and I don’t think Biden or Bernie can or even care to provide that.
If you think Georgia is swing, Stacy Abrams. Debbie Stabenow from Michigan. Sherrod Brown is white but popular on the left. Kirsten S from Arizona. There are more.Is there someone more progressive than Klobuchar who is not a white man in a swing or purple state that Biden could choose?
Stacy Abrams is certainly a possibility though I feel like if its Biden he needs someone with a "ready to step in and be president" kind of image and I don't know if she fits that.If you think Georgia is swing, Stacy Abrams. Debbie Stabenow from Michigan. Sherrod Brown is white but popular on the left. Kirsten S from Arizona. There are more.
Probably true, but since my primary vote is for myself (l voted for HRC both times just so I could say I did), it's up to individual voters to decide how that plays out. If people say "my candidate didn't win so I'm not voting for X" or "I don't like either candidate so I'm not voting at all", then everybody loses because Trump will win. Parties don't unite or split because of the candidate per se, but because their supporters opt not to vote. See Al Gore. Nadar voters took enough from Gore that Bush won. By the same token Peroit split the GOP and Clinton won. A lot of people who voted for Nadar regret that decision. Teddy Kennedy supporters refused to vote for Carter and Reagan won. So, again people should vote in the primary as they see fit, but should swallow that disappointment if the results don't go their way and come November, vote for the Democratic candidate whose name is on the ballot.I agree with you @rfisher but what happens in the primaries is not just going to impact policy if the Dem is elected but the future alignment of the parties. Warren is right that the party is breaking into two wings; that is the only way Republicans can continue to dominate given their shrinking demographic. Unity is going to be essential and I don’t think Biden or Bernie can or even care to provide that.