I still don’t understand the purpose of Elizabeth Warren “letting it be known” that Bernie Sanders told her a woman couldn’t get elected president. If she wasn’t prepared to contradict him to his face and say, “That’s what you said, Bernie” in last night’s debate, why bring it up at all?
The story of Warren and Sanders having a private conversation in 2018 and Bernie saying what she claims he said pretty clearly originated from her campaign, yet her prepared response when asked at the debate brushed it aside and spun off into how Amy Klobuchar and her have never lost an election.
What am I missing?
It may just be a personal thing, but I’m appalled by people who engage in private conversations only to hit the PA system when what was said — between friends — serves their greater purposes. It’s a fundamental violation of “trustworthiness.” If you’re truly a friend, you retain that confidence … no matter what.
Warren’s too-slick by half non-response to being asked (essentially) if Bernie said what she said he said contrasts with Sanders’ response, which was a lot more digestible. Namely, that given Hillary Clinton’s three million popular vote plurality two years earlier, what sort of fool would ever say a woman couldn’t win?
There’s an interesting debate discussion to be had with the various candidates breaking down the particular pitfalls facing: the kinda doddery old professional DC animal, the billionaire(s), the really smart but pretty damn young gay dude, the you-can-smell-the-ambition-through-her-pores Midwestern Mom, the old socialist and the up-from-hard-scrabble-professor … who doesn’t seem as trusted a good friend as her advertised scruples would otherwise suggest.
But we didn’t have THAT debate.
“smell-the-ambition-through-her-pores . . .”
Yes, no doubt of that. But then, one might reflect, is that kind of saturation amibitiousness necessarily a disqualifier?
The study of past elections would yield a mixed verdict.
I’ve never been a fan of Amy’s—quite the opposite.
But . . .
The prospect of an Establishment dark horse—so obscure that the Thugs haven’t had her in their sights, and evidently quite devoid of either personal scandals or any non-conformist political positions or principles—fits a certain kind of electoral logic. I’m sure Sen. Klobuchar has always been running for the White House, just like Norm Coleman was, and I’m equally sure she hadn’t expected to be doing so quite this soon.
Other than her abusive treatment of subordinates and employees—a trait she seems to share with the likes of Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton—she hasn’t left a lot of points of obvious vulnerability. Add to the calculation her status as “most popular politician in important Midwest state” and “obviously female but not easily stereotyped as somehow threatening to men” [which means in plain English: Amy’s cleverer than many other women in politics at diverting attention from the fact that she’s a whole lot smarter than the average male.]
You can grasp why she sees the ideal presidential candidate when she stands in front of a mirror. And the contrast to Trump–and to the ill-starred Hillary Clinton–suggests Amy would be ideal to poach middle-class, middle-of-the-road, not deeply-informed so-called swing voters. She can project the appeal of NOT looking or sounding divisive and/or confrontational. It just might create an “emperor wears no clothes” revelation about Trump, among the kind of poorly-informed citizens who haven’t become Trump zombies but who don’t yet realize the calamity of his usurpation.
oh, one obvious point. when it comes to abusive treatment of subordinates, to the point of outright sadism—Donald Trump truly IS a genius. I can’t see the world’s biggest bully managing to score points against Amy on THAT account.
Me too, I feel the same way… What could possibly have been gained by this? Offending Bernie is the ONLY thing that hurts her chances…
I don’t see why it matters if Bernie said that a woman can’t get elected. Maybe he’s right, at least in terms of this election cycle, and if he is, that says more about the current electorate than it does about Bernie.
My Bay Area-born and raised, progressive, feminist daughter-in-law said the same thing a few weeks ago, and I was surprised she said it, but I told her I thought she might be right. We’re dealing with an electorate that elected Trump (italicize Trump), for goodness sake.
Aside from all of that, you’re right that Warren’s coy unveiling of his statement is unattractive. Nobody likes a tattletale.