If Warren is the frontrunner it's time the media took off the kid gloves

[Otto Lidenbrock]

Look, I understand no democrat is going to bring up the Native American thing. While other candidates had their pasts scrutinised none of them, nor the moderators at the debate questioned her. There's nothing to gain from bringing up a Trump weaponized talking point on our side. However in the GE you can bet the media will once again bring it straight back up to both sides the election.

I've given her due credit for her surge. She's run the best campaign in terms of mobilising supporters and interacting with voters. I think she offers a more credible progressive agenda than Sanders because she spent years as a private citizen studying cases of bankruptcy and law. She probably has a better idea of what is politically viable because of that and of course she helped form the CFPB.

She also has less baggage than Biden.

But that doesn't mean she is the defacto nominee. The fact is she has been treated kinder than other candidates.When Sanders is asked about middle class taxes going up, people sort of mock him for saying "millionaires and billionaires" (or these days just billionaires) are the ones who will have to pay up as a stock answer.

Is Warren's wealth tax any different? Colbert of all people was the one who pressed her more to offer a more developed answer. And please note I said developed, not different. It is better to do it now than when the socialist card gets played out in the GE.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stephen-colbert-desperately-tries-to-get-elizabeth-warren-to-bad-mouth-joe-biden

Another example is from the LGBTQ forum when many people noticed the subtle difference in questioning that she received compared to Kamala Harris.

Link to tweet

Intentional or not it's not a good look for the moderator.

There's the fact she seemed to agree that the 2016 Primaries were rigged. Has anyone asked her about that stance since because it is pretty insulting to the millions more Hillary voters. Sanders doesn't have much goodwill from devout HRC supporters for perpetuating the idea but Warren agreed.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged/index.html

There's the fact she was a registered republican until the age of 47. Not a big deal because part of the 2020 mantra is we can try and flip disenchanted GOP-ers. However considering Joe Biden has his past scrutinised minutely, he could say in the next debate that when he was one of the first senators to endorse Jimmy Carter, Warren voted for the man who pardoned Nixon. That's not a winning point but it's a point that he has been a democrat all his adult life. Sanders gets stick for not being a democrat but he was never a republican.

Don't mistake this post as a takedown of Warren please. I think it's a discussion that at some point is needed because whoever the nominee is will be battered and bruised by the media in the GE campaign. So it's good to get prepared now. It's clear some of the other campaigns have noticed this and now you are seeing some jabs fired her way regarding policy. But ultimately its' the media responsibility to vet the candidates and hold them accountable.

[KPN]

1. The media HAS brought up all of those things about Warren. She has defended all of them publicly.

My perspective is that she is a more an exciting candidate, actually does have relatively little baggage, and is darn good at defending herself and her views, let alone explaining complex issues and solutions in simple, straight-forward language that average people relate to.

[ritapria]

3. I like Warren very much

Elizabeth has run an outstanding campaign ... …. But the fawning media coverage has gotten out of hand ....….Support for all other serious candidates in this race is slowly ebbing away...She is not being tested ...We have no idea if she is up to the task of taking on Trump in the General ....

[BannonsLiver]

15. odd to see Sanders supporters making the case others aren't up to the task.

I’d probably steer clear of those kinds of proclamations in light of recent events. Will leave it at that.

[abqtommy]

4. At this time I'm not concerned about a frontrunner. It's a long time to the election

and the nominee will have my vote. Nearly any Democratic candidate will be an excellent addition to
a Democratic administration, in whatever capacity.

[Sneederbunk]

6. +1

[MaryMagdaline]

5. Media's been sufficiently tough on her

The only crack in her character is the Native American thing. I had a similar embarrassment. Our grandparents told us we were related to an Irish nationalist and told us our grandmother was first cousins with this person. I’ve repeated that story 1000s of times. I even visited his grave in 2017 in Cork.

Not until I joined Ancestry.com did I discover that we were NOT related, or if we are, it’s much more distant than we were told. So, I’ve been spreading a lie my entire life. I told my siblings, so the lie does not get repeated, but I have not told my cousins. It is tantamount to saying that our grandmother was a liar or that her parents lied to her.

On a smaller scale, we were told we were 100% Irish. Either my father was never told that his grandmother was half Scottish or he conveniently did not tell my mother that his Presbyterian grandmother converted when she married his grandfather.

I believe Elizabeth warren was fooled by her family, as I was. Before she declared her NA ancestry, though, she really should have done some checking.

As for being a former republican, I don’t care so much about that. Converts (see my GG mother above) sometimes make the strongest advocates. When Warren saw the light (inherent corruption that holds the poor down) she really, really saw it. My own mother was Republican to the core, voted for Nixon in 1968 and was converted by the Great society and LBJ. She became a Cesar Chavez proponent (no grapes in our house), read Catholic Worker and died a socialist.

Conversion is a good story and one that SELLS.

[thesquanderer]

9. ew: "Before she declared her NA ancestry, though, she really should have done some checking."

Yet you'd told your "story 1000s of times" before you checked. Because most people simply believe what they were brought up to believe, and don't believe they have any reason to doubt it.

I do agree, though, that this remains her achilles heel. Even though Harvard insists she got no special consideration, it is almost certainly the case that she hoped filling out the form that way might get her some. That intent is the problem, not whether or not it succeeded.

Obviously, when you put this up against Trump University, grabbing women by the *****, cheating people out of money owed to them, likely money laundering for Russians, etc. etc. etc. this is nothing, and that's the huge irony of this, that people will use this ONE thing against her considering the panoply of putridness on the other side.

[MaryMagdaline]

14. Agree. I failed to investigate my own history

Before telling it 1000s of times. This is my fault, no one else’s. That is why I both sympathize with her and find fault with her. I told this to a trump voter just yesterday who hates warren but would vote for Biden. Told her I was fooled and many people were fooled by their parents/grandparents and it’s human error, not malicious dishonesty. She somewhat accepted this. Madelyn Albright did not know she was Jewish. John Kerry didn’t know he had Jewish ancestry. We’re all in notice now that our families lie about all kinds of crap.

One little flaw in a Democrat will be exploded into a huge, unforgivable fault. This one plays right into affirmative action fears of the RW. Just as they steadfastly spout untruth that trump got into penn on merit and was first in class, they will say warren got where she is because of affirmative action. WHICH IS TRUE. She got her shot in law school because of affirmative action (like Hamilton whose neighbors and friends sent him to NYC) and she did not throw away her shot! (I, too, profited from affirmative action. I would be nowhere if law schools in the 80s had not made up ground with admitting women). SHE is the one who built her life while having a husband who helped her through school and friends who encouraged her. It fits her narrative that we all help one another.

Alas, Trump’s faults (crimes) count for nothing. Warren, though, is running without fear right now. She is getting better.

[Skya Rhen]

20. In this TV clip, Warren said she has photos proving her ancestry

Link to tweet

[thesquanderer]

21. Actually, she said she had pictures that "reflect her native american heritage"...

...not that they proved her ancestry.

I may have photos or artworks in my house that reflect what I believe to be my heritage. It would not prove my heritage. And I could later find out that my information about my heritage was wrong. There is no contradiction between any of these things.

[Skya Rhen]

23. Lol

[thesquanderer]

24. Well there's a well-reasoned response! (n/t)

[MichMan]

38. Due to some relative having high cheeckbones or something

Not sure how that proves ancestry?

[at140]

51. I have photo's which prove I am descended from

my hero & idol, Sir Issac Newton, who invented calculus, laws of dynamics, gravitational forces, etc. which makes him a true genius.

No wonder I did so well as a mechanical engineer, designing machines which absorb more brutal impact loads than any other machine, including jet airplanes, air hammers, hot forging machines, diesel engines etc. In case anyone is curious, it was cold extrusion machines, which use steel rods upto 2.5" dia X 6" long, and with one big impact between dies made of high strength steel, make the cold steel piece flow like fluid and transform it's shape into a desired form, producing several finished items every minute.

[at140]

53. I really don't care about her ancestry, it makes no difference

what makes difference to me is her agenda, especially stopping big banks and big wall street juggernauts getting bigger and controlling more of people's lives.

[not_the_one]

29. "it is almost certainly the case that she hoped" for special consideration...

She wasn't lying when she filled out the form, she believed it. And she was proud of it. She was NOT trying to get something she didn't deserve, because she believed it to be true.

WTF is wrong with THAT?

We allowed the turd to control the narrative, and all jumped on board.

That says more about US then Elizabeth.

[thesquanderer]

35. AFAIK she never believed she was *mostly* (or even half) Native American.

That being the case, would someone typically claim on a form that they belonged to an ethnic group if they believed they were only 1/4 or 1/8 or less from that group? And from the quote I saw, it was far less than even that, she claimed that affiliation was from her "great, great, great grandmother" which would mean 1/32 or about 3% Native American. Do you think it's likely that someone would normally claim to be of a group when they are 97% not of that group? Do you think Native American is how her family reported themselves to the census? It just all seems so unlikely. If not for hopes of special consideration, maybe she just did it because she thought it was cool, and wanted to embrace that piece of her heritage, small as it may have been. I could see a high schooler doing that, but that, too, seems unlikely for someone 40-ish. Or had she been filling out forms this way her whole life?

As I said, it pales next to Trump's rap sheet, but that doesn't mean it won't be used to attack her.

[MichMan]

39. I never understood why she said that her parents faced discrimination for being Native American

I totally understand how family lore made her want to believe she has much more NA ancestry than she did, and my guess is that she romanticized it as being cool. Don't fault her at all for that.

That being said, I still don't understand why she identified as NA on documents and something else she said didn't make sense to me.

She said multiple times that her grandparents on her dad's side were bitterly opposed to her parents being married due to her mother being NA, so they had to elope. Given that the DNA test showed the Warren had only a small amount of NA ancestry and it went back several generations, why would they have ever thought her mother was NA ?

[Mosby]

12. The fact that she didn't "see the light" until the age of 47

Concerns me. Kinda shows poor judgement.

[BannonsLiver]

16. When is the cut off, birth? 5 years old?

If you aren’t a Dem by puberty forget about it?

[Mosby]

27. Strike a nerve or something?

[BannonsLiver]

30. No but that silly point sure made me laugh.

Thanks for the unintentional comedy.

[Mosby]

43. People rarely change political parties at her age

That's pretty common knowledge, not sure why you don't know that.

[thesquanderer]

22. Then vote for someone else in the primary. But this will not hurt her in the general. Also...

...you might want to rule out anyone who supported the Iraq War resolution... in hindsight, that judgment doesn't look so good (and actually many of us thought it didn't look so good when it was happening, either). And so on... Except for maybe some of those too young to have much of a record, probably every candidate has exhibited poor judgment at some point. So the question might be how many years you have to go back to find something.

[LanternWaste]

48. So people changing and becoming [progressives is poor judgement?

You're certainly adding a lot of weak-sauce to a nothing-burger... which "kinda" illustrates poor judgement as well. How concerning.

[Mosby]

49. I knew I was a liberal by about 10 years old.

How about you?

[Bradshaw3]

18. She ws told she had NA ancestry and the test proved she did

It's a phony issue drummed up by rump. Her percentage of NA blood is enough in some tribes to be on the rolls.

[emmaverybo]

26. She had NA ancestry. Her family narrative proved true. The problem is that she conflated

a many generations ago NA ancestry with “being” NA.

She herself did not have the experience of being a Native American in the world, or a cultural background or recent family history that reflected any part of that ancestry. The reason she did not own any part of being Native American lies in forced assimilation and intermarriage.

That is what her true story testifies to. An ancestor was forced to bury his or her heritage or at least decided not to pass it on to the next generation so as to protect offspring from social, economic, and possibly legal discrimination.

In the 70’s, many concerned white people championed Native American causes. Some identified strongly with a native tradition they had not been a part of but aspired to on a spiritual basis. If they had been told they could have NA ancestry, they often began to think of themselves as being NA.

Some discovered they had no NA ancestry through their own research. Some, like Warren, had the family narrative confirmed.

I highly doubt she could have benefitted from affirmative action as to apply for that one had to
have documentation.

Warren “felt” she was NA—at some level, in some way. Hadn’t her parents or grandparents experienced disapproval of their marriage because of suspected NA “blood” in the lineage of one prospective partner?

As long as she received no benefit, I don’t see her calling herself NA for a faculty directory a problem.

[FloridaBlues]

7. Agree vetting of her policies should be asked and answered esp if wealth tax doesn't pass.

How will all of the money she's counting on doesn't happen. Plan B?

[emmaverybo]

52. Wealth tax won't necessarily cover all her ambitious programs. Wealth tax has not panned out

as the magic, unlimited bank in France, and so the Yellow Jacket protests and an opening for
fascism. The protestors feel they are taxed too much for benefits and have turned on immigrants.
Marie Le Pen, a Trump and Putin favorite, has gained a real foothold.

But most of Warren’s proposals won’t be implemented. She would not even have the time or the
political capital to spend on them even in two terms, even with financing through wealth tax and raising middle class taxes. Given our deficit, she would have to.

She will also have her hands full fending off a Republican attack on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
Security, as they currently exist without expansion and additional money for SS recipients.

[dlk]

8. Fear not

Running for president in the US is a full-contact sport and the gloves will come off soon enough. We are still over a year out from the election, more than enough time for every hard-hitting question in the book.

[BlueMTexpat]

34. This.

You are a sorely needed voice of sanity. Thank you.

[dlk]

40. My pleasure

[thesquanderer]

10. If she wins, it means Dems didn't care much about her history as a Republican...

...and in the general, non-Dems won't care, since they would mostly be either Republicans themselves or people for whom party affiliation is not very important.

This is simply a non-issue for the general.

[Docreed2003]

11. The question I want her to answer is this:

How do you propose to pay for Medicare for All?


It is a question that she has, repeatedly, been able to skirt by without addressing head on. As a physician I recognize daily just how screwed up our healthcare system is in this country, but I don't think any candidate has adequately addressed how meeting the goal of MfA will be paid for, without disrupting the entire system of care we have.

[peggysue2]

36. She's going to have to answer that question at some point

The repeated wiggling around the question that Frank Bruni described as 'cunning and slippery,' (something he found appealing) isn't going to wash in the long-term. And polls indicate that expanding the ACA to include a public option and retaining private insurance for those who want to keep it is far more popular that Medicare for All, which at the moment isn't really a plan, more an idea.

The big hurdle is exactly what you stated: how do you fund it, what will the tax liability look like and is it feasible to pretend this is doable over the short-term without throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

These are reasonable concerns, particularly for people with deadly or chronic conditions in the now. There's a large segment of the population who simply cannot afford a disruption in their current healthcare. And there are others (union members) who will be dead set against giving up their premium healthcare packages--benefits they fought like hell for--for a not-fully-explained promise.

This is a corner into which Elizabeth Warren has painted herself with the quick endorsement of Bernie's plan and her refusal to answer the nitty-gritty questions.

I suspect at some point she's going to back off the full Medicare for All charge and will suggest something more transitional and reasonable. Delaying that action would not be surprising because the howls will be significant from the Left.

It's something she'll need to navigate carefully. And she's smart enough to know that. Any doubts on what backtracking could lead to is exemplified by what happened to Kamala Harris when she stepped it back.

Going to be ugly and tense.

[Docreed2003]

45. +1

[BlueMTexpat]

13. Please provide examples

of this "kid glove treatment" that so concerns you.

[Baclava]

17. The "concern" brigade is out in force today, desperately throwing shade, so obvious, lol

The more people see of her, the more she rises. No wonder they are concerned!

Fight hard!

[Bradshaw3]

19. Yes it is

Which tells us a lot. So many of them are "concerned" about Warren, which is a true tell. They are getting desperate.

[BlueMTexpat]

31. Yes, I've noticed.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

28. Have a read of this article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/03/no-wonder-elizabeth-warren-is-getting-great-press-media-looks-like-her-base/

[BlueMTexpat]

32. What are you saying is wrong with

this?

So, she's getting good press. She has great ideas and she connects with people.

Sounds more like sour grapes to me. Just saying.

Don't worry, the RW smear groups will be out in force soon and we seem to have many of our own "concerned" Dems already.

[blm]

46. Should she be proposing unpopular plans that college-educated women

Wouldn’t like so media could report that instead?

[SleeplessinSoCal]

25. it's not the scrutiny. it's the response.

She is being deprived of her ability to debate her own life. The lout in office deflects by taking down the person or entity that exposes or criticizes - hence "Fake News". So far Warren has been able to create a quiet where there was too much noise.

What we don't know is how fearful corporate media is. It's actually kind of exciting to anticipate her reaction to all the attacks coming her way.

[cwydro]

37. NOBODY is the "de facto nominee."

Warren can handle whatever anyone throws at her.

We’re a long way from a nominee.

[Baclava]

47. The coronation is delayed again? oh noes! lolololol

"Some" around here want this whole burdensome primary voting nonsense to be over with already, I won't say who....

[aikoaiko]

41. What kids gloves? The freakin Boston Globe said she shouldn't even run.

That was so effed up.

[Green Line]

42. The Boston Globe runs a puff piece on her every other day

She told the Mass voters during her senate run that she wouldn’t run for President, there was a poll that showed that the people of Mass overwhelming didn’t want her to run.

[Aaron Pereira]

44. She's going to get hammered on the Native American question.

No sense in denying it but I think she can handle the pressure and put the issue aside. The sooner the better IMO, after that she has very few vulnerabilities.

[TidalWave46]

50. The media is going to do what they feel will bring them profits.

That is known.

This is you taking the gloves off and calling the for the media to do the same.