Warren is killing it on Morning Joe

[Dem4Life1102]

They keep trying to get her to attack Biden but she won’t.

[hlthe2b]

1. She is incredibly smart NOT to attack Biden. To do so will backfire on any who do so.

Most Dems who are terrified of leaving Trump in power, whether they support Biden or not, see such attacks as direct support for Trump and the attacks on Democratic Party/supporters itself.

One can separate one's policies form those of Biden without the direct attacks. THAT is the right way to compete in this primary.

[Cha]

46. Yes, and they actually care about our Country

and our Planet more than editing and altering videos.

[BeckyDem]

2. Credit to her for putting up with that horrid crowd.

[samnsara]

3. ..they all need to think of the VEEP position and Im sure all of them

..will be polite to one another at this point.

[blm]

8. She's not thinking VEEP. She's being herself.

And she doesn’t DO bait-swallowing on these interview shows.

[karynnj]

11. I agree and add it is NOT in her interest to do so - it is a good idea only as a long shot

Last edited Wed Jan 8, 2020, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)

At this point, she is one of three people most likely to become the nominee. As such, she needs to be seen speaking about the good things she will do as President. Appearing positive, exuding energy and sending out calls for people to join her will make her stronger. Obviously, she must answer attacks made on her because to not to that would make her seem weak. Even then, her responses are better when she leads from her strength - facts, intelligence and a clear clarification.

However, Biden has not attacked her, nor have any of his prominent endorsers. At this moment, foreign policy is a big issue and the contrast should be between the rational Obama administration and the chaos of Trump. While Biden was an important member of that administration, any Democratic candidate - including possibly Sanders - will in the general election want to speak of the deep foreign policy bench - many from the Obama administration - who they will call on to take on the challenge of restoring the US on the international stage.

Warren is very uniquely positioned. I think the media for the most part misses that as they create their narrative of "lanes" which helps them simplify the complex choices many voters make. She has the potential to gain many undecided Clinton voters, while also gaining some undecided Sanders 2016 voters. That is probably more likely if she is not seen as attacking either Biden or Sanders.

Thinking of many past primaries, consider how both Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt, the two leading candidates in Iowa a month out before Iowa, both imploded after getting into a series of negative attacks on each other. I think both would still have lost to John Kerry as more people saw and heard him, unless one of them would have so quickly become the frontrunner that he had no chance at being heard.

More than in 2004, there are many of us that want to see a unified, positive Democratic party making a case for leaving the world of chaos where everything can turn on its head with a thoughtless tweet and which is focused on repairing our place in the world, leading the country, the businesses and the world to work against climate change, to repair the holes carved in the social network - including fixing health care availability. The primaries always focus on the relatively narrow differences, but care needs to be taken to point out how unified all the candidates are on basic goals, differing on the way to achieve them.

[BlueMTexpat]

14. Good post, IMO!

[mr_lebowski]

30. +2

[BlueMTexpat]

13. This!

Exactly!

And she will be no one's VEEP.

[Demsrule86]

15. I agree. She needs to stay in the Senate if she doesn't win the nomination. She has a GOP

Governor so we don't want anytime down one in the senate...and she can be very effective there.

[getagrip_already]

27. but the dems have veto proof majorities....

what they did for dukakis was pass a bill that took the power to appoint away from the governor and mandate a special election.

Sure, if coackly is the nominee we will lose the seat, but, I hope we won't make that mistake again. She is just an awful campaigner. Two losses is enough.

[Demsrule86]

31. It doesn't matter...if a GOP could win a governorsip....he /she could win a special election and did

in Obama's term thus dooming the public option...nope she stays in the Senate IMHO. She can get much done. I see no upside to her leaving the Senate. It is going to be very important.

[getagrip_already]

33. the only republicans to win gov or senate recently...

Both ran against coackley. Don't assume any election will go to the gop.

[CTyankee]

50. AND, she's getting mileage out of her statement "I took an oath" when asked about running

for president when she is a sitting senator...how would she handle that? Would she stay on the campaign trail and thus not take part in/vote in the Senate?

[riversedge]

4. Good to hear. thanks for post.

[Happy Hoosier]

5. Good...

I really like her, but when she attacks other Democrats, it gets up my nose. Glad she abandoned that Wine Cave BS too.

[blm]

6. She was attacked for 3months before she joined the fray. She wasn't very

skilled at attacking other Dems as this is her first primary contest.

Funny how people were ok with Warren being hit for 3months and then became so outraged when she finally hit back.

Granted, she is not good at attacking other Dems. I am wary of those in the race who ARE.

[Demsrule86]

16. I do not recall Warren being attacked for four months...

She was always the one the media wanted.

[getagrip_already]

29. she was attacked....

first by trump, then the media piled on. Everything from dna results to healthcare. She was ripped up one side and down the oother, but stayed strong.

That's tough. That's double tough.

[Demsrule86]

32. I thought they meant she was attacked by Democrats...one expects the GOP idiots to attack

but, when we attack our own it is much worse...that didn't even register with me. I completely ignored it.

[getagrip_already]

34. it still hurt her with dems.....

even if it came from republicans at first, the media ran with it. It's all part of the vetting process, but it still has an impact.

[Demsrule86]

44. I honestly didn't pay any attention to this...stupid controversy.

I don't support Warren but not because of that shit. And Biden was constantly attacked before he got in the race...remember Flores? And yet he entered the race as a front runner and has remained so...

[mcar]

7. She was quite good

Mika's attempts to get her to bash Biden failed.

[Demsrule86]

18. I have pretty much turned MSNBC off except for the last hour because of the Biden bashing I see

there...none of them have ever interviewed him either...I only watch MSNBC if something is going on like Trump's fucking war...I am really pissed about it. In fact, I watched Don Lemon last night at first. And the fact she was on again...she has been on before and was on Rachel's a few days ago...is just salt in the wound and after reading this, I deleted every show that taped last night. Fuck them.

[Cha]

47. What was Mika saying, mcar?

Mahalo

[left-of-center2012]

9. Does she still attack Mayor Pete?

[Dem4Life1102]

10. No

He didn't even come up.

[blm]

12. Does he still attack her?

[dsc]

17. you mean when he correctly pointed out that she transferred that evil money to her campaign

and then when she had more money than anyone else said you all shouldn't raise that evil money.

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. umadbro?

[True Blue American]

22. I was impressed with Warren this morning.

I noticed Joe shut up and let her lay out her plan on paying for MFA.

[Demsrule86]

21. That is fair. And I think that is why her numbers declined. Although she seems to have stabilized

in 538's numbers. I will say this and I know I will get some flack...but I do not see how she or Sanders become the nominee with very little AA support. The same is true for Buttigieg. And would we want to nominate someone that a critical component of our party does not support? In the early voting after Trump won, it was Black women who helped enormously win those early elections... they were very important in taking Virginia as well and the midterms. And if you look at the numbers in 19,critical to our win also. I just don't see it happening that either Sanders or Warren win the nomination.

[bigbrother05]

28. Joe has the kind of AA numbers that HRC had at this point in 2008

It wasn't until Obama did well in Iowa and NH that they started shifting and he didn't really take off across the board until after Edwards dropped out ahead of TX.

When you are concerned about turning the WH, you are going to go with a known entity until you get a chance to see others in a real contest. Right now, Joe is the only Dem in the race that can claim a national resume and that's based on being the VP.

[Demsrule86]

35. I don't agree. I see reasons why neither Sanders, Warren or Buttigieg have AA support...

Neither Warren nor Sanders have really interacted and courted the AA part of our party until they ran for the presidency. Sanders in particular has made remarks about identity politics and the idea that economics will improve AA lives and no other sort of help is needed is just false...same for women,Latinos...and other groups. I think AA always liked Obama ...they just wanted to sure he could win...I don't think AA voters particularly like either Warren or Sanders. I have worked with AA folks for GOTV in Cleveland. They are to the right of both Sanders and Warren...moderates. As for Buttigieg, he has never dealt with the police chief thing and he is polling at 0 with AA voters...he will never be the nominee. And I don't see any AA voters saying ...gosh Warren, Sanders, and/or Buttigieg can win so now we can support them...It is not going to happen...and in 2016 AA like both candidates that is not the case in 2020.

[Skya Rhen]

37. As an AA, all I can say is: You. Nailed. It.

[Demsrule86]

38. I live in a diverse area...my neighbors are AA ...when I work campaigns ...they are my fellow

workers...my eyes were opened even more than before when my daughter dated seriously a nice young man of color...I saw first hand how he was treated...I knew it intellectually, but when you see it...so much worse. He was treated like shit and when my youngest got stranded in a broken down car, I was terrified when he went out to help... the police were fine...but even to have to think like that is awful. I can't imagine what it is to be a AA parent and have your kids exposed to this sort of thing...terrifying.

[mr_lebowski]

36. Not gonna get flack from me, agree as per usual ...

I've said it many times ... I 'like' other candidates more than Joe, as a progressive, BUUUUUT ... Eye on the prize, man ... Who can win, what's the how and why behind it? GOT to turn out the AA community, or we lose, that simple.

[left-of-center2012]

24. agreed

[blm]

39. You mean candidates should NEVER stop having big $ fundraisers

because if you decide that those fundraisers are no longer part of your policy going forward then you will be accused of hypocrisy by people who just attacked you on yourMed4All position even though they recently changed their own position away from Med4All?

Is that what you mean?

[dsc]

40. She should have given the money back

Not used to seed her campaign

[blm]

41. Why? Surely Pete camp must be ecstatic that she has limited her fundraising

since the beginning of her campaign so he can reap all that keen cash for not only changing his own position on Med4All but for attacking Warren for being supportive of it. How exciting and lucrative for him. I’m sure he’ll do great things with all that cash.

[dsc]

42. because the money is evil and corrupting according to her

You can't claim the money is evil and corrupting when given to Pete but use the very same kind of money given to yourself to seed your campaign. This is no different at all than Franklin Graham complaining about Clinton's affairs and giving Trump a free pass.

[blm]

43. The money was from her 18 senate campaign raised by party machine

exactly as they do for all Dem senators. This is her first doingitalone campaign without the party.

Would you REALLY prefer that she had no principled stand going through this presidential campaign and was relying on big money donors like others? Because, if she went the way of bigmoney she would be steamrolling over everyone by now with the big moneymen pouring donations into her campaign in addition to their laying off the attacks.

[dsc]

45. I am not the one who says the money is evil and corrupting, she is

but I guess only money given to Pete is evil the money given to her is pure and lovely.

[blm]

48. Exaggerating her comments is a great strategy.

Now, about the hypocrisy of Pete attacking her for Med4All when he shared that position earlier. Nah....forget it. Warren didn’t hit back on his hypocritical attack on her support for Med4All so I won’t.

Goodnight dsc.

[dsc]

51. No he didn't

He was always in favor of a public option that he feels will lead to most people choosing it. The person who changed their position is Warren who now says she would pass a public option immediately and then later do MFA.

[blm]

52. She attached a timeline, dsc. ENORMOUSLY criminal of her.

Pour on the hate.... if you must.


The People's Summit
✔
@pplsummit
· Feb 18, 2018
Replying to @PeteButtigieg @phinatic413
No worries, we understand you're busy.

But you wrote that article 14 years ago as a student at Harvard. I don't think you were a politician 14 years ago.

Can you affirmatively say that we need #MedicareForAll now and that insurance does not belong in healthcare? #SinglePayer

Pete Buttigieg
✔
@PeteButtigieg
Gosh! Okay... I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All, as I do favor any measure that would help get all Americans covered. Now if you'll excuse me, potholes await.

Goodnight.

[dsc]

53. So his timeline bad hers good

and as to the tweet that was back when MFA was being defined as a public option open to all in poll after poll after poll. My problem with Warren is the rank hypocrisy of her attack. Remember this money was raised in her 2018 reelection campaign where she knew she was facing a cream puff. She raised that money knowing it would be available for this campaign, transferred the funds to this campaign, and then attacked Pete, and only Pete, for raising money in the exact, precise same way she did. Oh, and on top of that, she lied about the cost of the win at the fundraiser. I do have a problem with dishonesty and hypocrisy.

[blm]

54. The Dem senate machine has those fundraisers in place.

This is the first primary race she’s run, and the first race she controls. She was RECRUITED by Obama and Reid to run against Brown. She wasn’t a political animal steeped in the business. The Dem party handled it and put the team together for her.

LOL at your assertion that Med4All in 2018 was always about public option.

You can reach for a cover story like that for Pete’s attack on Warren on Med4All, yet show no flexibility or understanding of Warren’s countering on bigmoney fundraisers.

Pretty high horses are being ridden.

[dsc]

56. She was recruited in 2012 the money is from 2018

when she was running against a total cream puff. She knew all of the money she was raising could be given to this campaign. So she went to those oh so evil wine caves, took in that oh so evil money, then transferred that filthy evil money to her campaign to the tune of over $10 million, and only then decided that no one should be able to raise money the way she did. So Pete who ran in a small place, Harris who had real competition (albeit a fellow Democrat), Bullock who ran in a red state and a small one at that, Bennett who ran in a competitive state, and so on none of them should be permitted to raise money only her. If that isn't hypocrisy I don't know what is.

[blm]

57. I get why you need to exaggerate, dsc.

You really have your knives out for her and carving the word hypocrite into her while excusing greater hypocrisies Of Pete’s campaign.

Have at it, dsc. I had enough primary exchanges with you in 2004. If I believed all your malicious exaggerations against Kerry I would have left the Dem party when he became the nominee.

Enjoy your day, dsc.

[dsc]

58. If you want to accuse me of lying then be adult enough to do so

instead of this passive aggressive crap. It is a fact she raised this money in her 2018 race and not her 2012 race. It is a fact she ran against a cream puff. It is a fact she transferred money to this campaign (over $10 million). All of those are facts. You many not like those facts but facts they are. And frankly I would have no problem with any of the above if she weren't now saying that Pete is corrupt for raising money in wine caves and lying (and she is lying) about the price of the wine. In her world, she gets to raise $10 million from rich people putting herself at an advantage that pretty much no one else but Sanders could have had, and then sit back and watch the others struggle to raise money. It is rank hypocrisy. It is no different than the meltdown Belacheck had when an opposing coach used the very same trick he had used in another game. Now, it is one thing to be like Sanders and not raise such money at all which he has pretty much done. It is quite another to raise 8 figures of this money for her Presidential campaign (and she knew this money would be there for this campaign) while a sitting Senator who didn't need it for her reelection and then after the fact tell the rest of the field you shouldn't raise that money.

[blm]

59. I view it as exaggerating, dsc. You maximize if it's against Warren and

minimize wrongs if they are attached to Pete.

And, I will repeat, this is the first primary campaign Warren has ever embarked upon. She went into it under her own decision to not hold bigmoney fundraisers. Democrats needed to make that move sometime. You only attach malice to her decision. Attaching malice to that decision helps you to distort who she is in your assessment of her.

But...Be glad for her decision. Had Warren decided to stick with big money fundraisers she’d be way ahead by now.....tons of dough AND the corporate media shills would be singing her praises instead of spinning every move against her.

[dsc]

60. If she didn't realize she would have money left over after running against that cream puff

then I would have great difficulty with how smart she appears to be otherwise. And, in point of fact she could still return that money today if she chose to. There is nothing whatsoever stopping her campaign from refunding those donations. She is choosing not to.

[blm]

61. And Pete will be explaining why his support for Med4All in 2018

that was unequivocal at the time and NOT described by him at the time as public option, made him right (and not hypocritical at all) to attack Warren on her support for Med4All.

Maximize against Warren.
Minimize for Pete.

Done, dsc. Ymmv.

[Cha]

49. Yes, EW was in the wrong there.. Wine Caves!.. and

didn't come off looking good. Maybe she learned from that?

[blm]

55. Yes, because we now know Warren's a liar, an elitist, a stubborn woman,

a corporate shill, and not even a real democrat.

Thanks to all the campaigns who spent 3months letting us all know what a horrible person this Warren is.

You’ve all shown great honesty and courage by exposing this liar, corporate shill, and fake Dem.

😏



https://www.ft.com/content/01465c4c-1c30-11ea-97df-cc63de1d73f4

.........Mr Buttigieg’s senior adviser, Lis Smith, ....... said on Twitter that if Ms Warren “wants to have a debate about transparency, she can start by opening up the doors to the decades of tax returns she’s hiding from her work as a corporate lawyer — often defending the types of corporate bad actors she now denounces”.

This was not true, but, thanks to Lis Smith for making sure people THOUGHT it was.

[left-of-center2012]

23. "Does he still attack her?"

You mean pointing out how she took BIG money,
and then attacked Pete for his 'wine cave' fund raiser?

[Nitram]

20. She's got my vote.

[not fooled]

25. Super smart and can think on her feet, par excellence

She would make mincemeat of red don in debates. Although I'm sure he would refuse to participate were she the nominee, her skills would do the same to him in day-to-day media coverage.

[guillaumeb]

26. Warren was excellent.

She would be excellent in any actual debate format rather than the television format.