The decline of civility, Democratic version

January 15, 2020 • 1:30 pm

Here’s a short video of Elizabeth Warren refusing to shake Bernie Sanders’s hand after last night’s Democratic debate. Apparently they exchanged some serious words after the declined handshake, but we don’t know what was said.

Regardless, it was over a year ago that Sanders supposedly said that a woman couldn’t be elected President, and I suspect that since then she’s shaken his hand in a debate. That she didn’t do so this time suggests that she’s weaponizing her statement and using it against him. She’s slipped a bit in the polls, and that may explain it.

Yes, it’s politics, and each Democrat has to distinguish themselves from the others. But this isn’t the way to do it. At the very least Democrats should be civil to each other.

91 thoughts on “The decline of civility, Democratic version”

      1. Or the Campaign for Free Galilee (I had to go back to you tube to see which one was missing!)

  3. The more I see of Warren the more I notice things that suggest that she’s got little compunction about taking the low road if there’s a chance it will improve her position. Not unusual for a politician but I thought she was supposed to be different, as in not really a politician.

    1. She was quite nasty to Mayor Pete in the last debate. I think that even if Bernie had said (privately) something about it being difficult for a woman to win this next race agAinst the Orange Moron, it does not mean that he believes that that’s the way it should be. I’m not a huge backer of Bernie but I tend to side with him on this one.

      1. I agree about Warren and the alleged Bernie remark.

        And being nasty to Mayor Pete? That’s one step too far! But more seriously, it doesn’t look good to me. In every debate I watched she was, well, rather annoying in a rude way. Regularly interrupting and talking over others, regularly demanding the floor, regularly talking way past her allotted time.

        I suppose debates like this are a competition for attention and that her aggressiveness was a premeditated tactic. In the debates I’ve watched I think she did manage to garner the most attention, but for me it was negative rather than positive.

        I really was predisposed to like her because I think she has done some very good legislative work. But her debate performances have inspired me to drop her to the bottom of my list.

        1. Warren has always seemed humorless to me, though a good friend who saw her at a town hall in Las Vegas assures me that she’s anything but. She is near or at the bottom of my list, too. I like Pete and Michael Bennet best.

          1. Have you ever seen Bernie Sanders do anything that made you think he has a sense of humor? I’ll be happy to admit I’m wrong but I can’t recall a single funny thing I’ve ever heard from Bernie. OTOH, I have heard some humorous replies from Warren.

          2. Remind me of all the funny things Sanders has said. At the very least I can recall a few witty comebacks from Warren.

          5. What is the moderation thing?
            I have wondered why some of my comments disappear for a while, till I repost it and then there are two.

    2. Agreed. But we Democrats fret too much about this stuff. Chrissake, in 2016 the Republican candidates cast aspersion about the size of each other’s dicks, exchanged racy photos and insults about each other’s wives, spread conspiracy theories about the involvement of one candidate’s father in the JFK assassination, called the sole woman in the race too ugly to elect, and repeatedly called their eventual nominee a bigoted conman. Yet today they’re all that guy’s lackeys, and he’s got 95% support in the Grand Old Party.

      We Dems, OTOH, clutch our pearls over every snit or snub. Politics ain’t beanbag (as Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley used to say). The eventual Democratic nominee needs to toughen up during primary campaign, so that he or she is in fighting trim to climb in the ring and trade blows with Donald Trump.

      1. The Dem that goes up against Trump may have to compare dick sizes in order to win. Perhaps that’s what Bernie was referring to when he said that a woman couldn’t win. 😉

      2. But we Democrats fret too much about this stuff.

        Also, it’s amplified bigly by conservative media and bot army.

        1. You get the feeling that in 2016 they rounded up all the stupid people and made them honorary (but voting) Republicans. How so many can be taken in by that buffoon simply boggles my mind.

        2. Maybe so, but I know it’s peaked at over 90% on a few occasions. Whatever it is, it’s sufficient to cow congressional Republicans from crossing him, for fear of triggering a mean tweet that will result in a primary challenge from an even more reactionary opponent.

          That’s what keeps them in line, not any loyalty to, or love lost on, Donald Trump personally.

        3. I await the day that it is 100% because Trump is the only guy left in the party. (“one is the lonliest number”). *Then* it can fall at a stroke to 0%.

      4. “The eventual Democratic nominee needs to toughen up during primary campaign, so that he or she is in fighting trim to climb in the ring and trade blows with Donald Trump.”

        I’m not sure I agree that the Democratic nominees are in need of toughening up to be able to face Trump. Trump has never done well, in my estimation, in a face to face fair fight at any time in his life, that I have seen. He has always tried hard to avoid face to face confrontations with people who have some knowledge of and respect for facts.

        The problem I see is the variation in how people judge these debates and other confrontations. As I said above I don’t think Trump has ever done well. I’ll go further and say that he has always ranged from comically buffoonish to disgusting asshole and I can’t for the life of me figure out how anyone could find him attractive, admirable, competent or trustworthy.

        But, many people do. That’s the problem. For many people, when they see Trump cramping Hillary’s personal space from behind, stalking her across the stage while grimly staring at her, they put a check for that in their Trump-positive column. That’s beyond fucked up, and beyond reach. It doesn’t matter that the DP nominee be tough enough to handle that kind of grade school play ground bully stuff. Hillary handled it just fine. It doesn’t matter how tough the Democratic nominee is. Anyone left that doesn’t already perceive Trump as a grade A incompetent loser is not going to have their minds changed by any performance on the debate stage.

        Yes, I know. There’s some small but perhaps significant enough to go after on the fence voters. I get that. Given that even at this late date that there assessment of Trump is such that they still have to be convinced to not vote in his favor? I’ve little patience left for them.

        1. I agree that Donald Trump is no great shakes as a debater and that he’s never done well “in a face to face fair fight at any time in his life[.]”

          Thing is, Donald Trump never fights fair. He has the bullying instincts of an alley fighter who’s always looking to kick an opponent when he’s down. He also has no bottom, no route too vile for him to go there.

          The Democratic nominee will need to develop a thick skin to deal with him — and, more importantly, a strategy for how to respond to his vicious, lying attacks without sinking to his level. Kid gloves won’t hack it.

          1. And the reactions of his minions (online, FB) to his most egregious crimes (Ukraine) proves the 5th Avenue Effect to a T.

            And when I point this out to them they sputter and sling BS.

            Nothing, nothing, tRump does will alienate some of these (crazy? stupid? abortion-only voter? gun-only voter? racist?) supporters. Not even the fact that he has done literally nothing for them, aside from Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

          2. So we shouldn’t criticize the DP nominees? We shouldn’t say out loud when we think they’ve made a dick move? Because if none of them make dick moves then the group won’t get acclimated to them? I don’t think there’s any risk of that.

            I may be losing track of things in this exchange. Did you have any particular nominees in mind that need to toughen up, or just the entire group in general?

            Mayor Pete seems sort of the baby of the bunch but all indications are that he handles Trump’s low tactics just fine.

            Warren? She does seem to telegraph indignation.

          5. 100%. Actually Pete’s godliness is the one thing I don’t like about him but I’m hoping it will attract voters.

          7. It won’t. Goddists are delighted with Trump, for inserting dozens of anti-abortion judges into the system, for making it easier for religious groups to access federal funds, and just in general pandering to the religious. For instance, on Tuesday they announced new regulations strengthening protections for religious organizations in schools, and protections for student and teacher prayer. In the process they reversed Obama-era regulations on the subject.

            The thing is, any religious folks who aren’t concerned or in favor of such pandering, were unlikely to be Trump supporters in the first place. So I can’t see how the Mayor’s religious fervor will bring any benefit.

          8. I disagree. I think there’s a huge middle section of the voting population that likes the separation of church and state but still prefers their politicians to be believers. Furthermore, there are bound to be those that voted for Trump in 2016 for his support of Christianity but, now they know him better, won’t vote for him in 2020. They’ll still want to vote for someone who is sincere in their religious beliefs. After 4 years of Trump, they may conclude that character does matter after all.

          9. Me too. I think you could gracefully make Trump look like a chump. Course, Trump supporters would see it quite different from me.

        2. I agree that Donald Trump is no great shakes as a debater and that he’s never done well “in a face to face fair fight at any time in his life[.]”

          Thing is, Donald Trump never fights fair. He has the bullying instincts of an alley fighter who’s always looking to kick an opponent when he’s down. He also has no bottom, no route too vile for him to go there.

          The Democratic nominee will need to develop a thick skin to deal with him — and, more importantly, a strategy for how to respond to his vicious, lying attacks without sinking to his level. Kid gloves won’t hack it.

  4. I don’t support either Sanders or Warren because I think Socialism doesn’t work. Nevertheless, I do think Bernie is sincere and that Warren’s behavior is unseemly.

    1. I’m not sure where socialism doesn’t work, but who’s promoting socialism? Not any Democrats, that’s for sure.

        2. As Clark Glymour reports, in some parts of the US, an art teacher in a high school offering loaner pencils to the students is regarded that way … (See his _Galileo In Pittsburgh_.)

  5. What they said is clearly recorded on the film, and that makes it a rather simple project for lip readers. (I’m not one; but I’ve seen demonstrations that make this example a piece of cake.)

  6. That is pretty funny about socialism. Might do some here a bit of good to read the new book – Tightrope.

    Speaking of politics, isn’t it funny that we have an impeachment in process and a whole political party that does not give a damn. Does not want to see evidence and does not what to know anything. Your tax money at work.

  9. Warren is trying to get ahead as Clinton did last time, trying to rally the woke and their blue checkmark champions on identitarian issues.

    Like last time, it’s a desperate and sketchy attempt by the DNC to curb the enormous momentum behind Sanders, the only candidate that seems to generate enthusiasm.

  10. I have a great deal of respect for Sanders, and nothing in his back-ground would lead me to believe that he would hold or even off-handedly venture such a be-knighted opinion (that no woman could be elected President). Biden, as usual, seemed distressingly wooden. Hell, the whole lot of them did. I’m going to vote for Bloomberg—at least he’s a legitimate billionaire.

    1. We’ve got Sanders on the record in the past saying he thinks a woman CAN be President, so the claim that he’s privately expressed opinions to the contrary invites at least a little scrutiny and incredulity. It’s not an impossible claim by any stretch but where’s the evidence?

      And of course you have the identitarian brigade insisting that to not believe Warren on no evidence is contemptible, but they have no problem calling Bernie a liar when frankly his position has the stronger evidentiary backing so far.

  12. CNN: “Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?”
    SANDERS: “That is correct.”
    CNN: “Sen. Warren, what did you think when senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”

    I am fairly confident that a democratic candidate has already been chosen, and that all the debates and caucuses are just theatrics. I cannot find it now, but I read (wikileaks, maybe?) a couple of months ago that CNN was going to be pushing strong for Warren.
    If 2016 is any guide, CNN and DNC are going to be on the same page through the debate process.

    I like Sanders, although I disagree with most of his political positions. I have to think it is tough on him to come so close but know that they are just not going to let him get the nomination.

    But I hope I am wrong.

    1. I cannot find it now, but I read (wikileaks, maybe?) a couple of months ago that CNN was going to be pushing strong for Warren.

      I think you need to be more specific with an allegation like that, Max. (Plus, wikileaks has devolved to little more than the publicity arm of the Russian propaganda machine.)

      1. I am certainly going to try. It did not seem very likely to me at the time, or I would have saved the page.

        That being said, the “a woman can’t win” allegation was made by CNN, based on anonymous sources who do not claim to have actually witnessed Sanders making the remarks a year ago. The next day, CNN used their own unverified story as a basis for the questions asked of the candidates.
        They did not ask Warren if she remembers him saying it.
        I think it is reasonable to assume that CNN released the allegations on the 13th so that they could bring them up at the debate. If they had asked Warren to verify it, she might have been seen as accusing him, which she surely wishes to avoid. So CNN did not ask.

        In the October 15th debate, CNN gave Warren 23 minutes of speaking time. Sanders got 13. Gabbard was allowed a little over 8 minutes, and CNN cut her off and went to commercial when she confronted Warren.

        As I said, I would rather not be right about this. I don’t want Bernie to get shlonged, as the orange man would say. I will be honest and say that as a Sanders supporter in 2016, I am paying pretty close attention. In such situations, it is easy to find patterns that are not really there.

        1. I, too, supported Bernie in 2016, came out for him the day he announced (although I had no idea at the time that he would make as strong a showing in the primaries as he did). And I was also pissed off about the hose job he got from Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC during the 2016 primary campaign.

          But one needn’t indulge conspiracy theories to understand why that happened. Whatever one thinks of Hillary Clinton, she’s a life-long Democrat (or at least has been since getting over her jejune days as a “Goldwater Girl” in ’64 🙂 ), who’s raised tons of money for the DNC and the DNCC, and shown up all over the country on behalf of Democratic candidates and causes.

          Bernie, OTOH, (although he caucuses with the Democrats) is a registered Independent and out socialist who’s had, at best, an arm’s length relationship with the Democratic Party. As such, it should’ve come as no surprise that many in the DNC saw him as an interloper and, thus, favored Hillary.

          1. Man, that was one rabbit hole you sent me down. Interesting back in 2015 what readers were thinking about the Republican nominees esp. in regards to their stances against reality. I don’t know if Trump was in the race yet, but as far as I could tell there was no mention of him. Ben Goren’s contention was Bush v. Clinton which I think was a common assumption. I liked his mention of Adams’ “lesser lizard fallacy” to describe modern Presidential choices. Maybe we won’t choose a lizard this time…too soon to tell.

    2. You are wrong. I watch CNN quite often and I have yet to see any bias in favor of Elizabeth Warren or any other particular candidate. And how could a candidate be chosen ahead of time when primaries of actual votes that are counted? Sounds like a baseless conspiracy theory to me.

      1. Agreed. I think Bernie said what he’s alleged to have said, but the comment is out of context. I think Warren is pissed off with him for lying, and I don’t blame her. However, because of the way politics is, she’s the one who looks bad even though he’s the one lying. Par for the course these days.

        If you go back to Politico for the 2016 primaries, Trump told the most lies of any candidate; Clinton told the least. In general, the Republicans were worse than the Dems. Despite his reputation, Sanders was right up there telling his fair share of lies and half truths.

        1. I don’t know about Politico’s lie tally specifically but in general they ignore the kind of lie being made. In my experience, most politicians lie by presenting truth selectively, not telling the whole story. They don’t create conspiracy theories or make up lies about their enemies from whole cloth or pass them on from the radical fringes of their party. Sanders is not likely to respond to Warren with “People are telling me that she buys and sells small children.” Trump would.

        2. Looking at Politifact:

          Clinton has 41 mostly false statements, 31 false statements, and 9 pants on fire statements.

          Sanders has 23 mostly false statements, and 18 false statements. He has no pants on fire statements.

          Admittedly this is across multiple campaigns but Sanders isn’t looking all that much worse to me, particularly seen as that list doesn’t include what I would consider Clinton’s most despicable lie in that campaign.

          That would be when she said, “Well, I don’t know where he was when I was trying to get health care in ’93 and ’94, standing up the insurance companies, standing up against the drug companies.” Not just a lie (She wrote him a thankyou note for sponsoring the bill) but also denying credit where due to someone who was a very definite ally in that fight.

          It was essentially sacrificing her ability to be an effective president (As it demonstrated that she would absolutely throw allies under the bus by lying about their records in supporting her policies whenever that became politically convenient) in order to try and win votes during the primary.

          1. I was looking at the figures for ONLY the 2016 campaign. In that campaign there was only one better than her, and that was Ben Carson. However, that was largely because he got out of the race early and there were very few rallies to analyse. Politifact themselves said there weren’t enough data on him to do a proper analysis.

      2. What I mean is not that the whole primary process is a farce, but that there is always a candidate preferred by the party leaders, and they will do what they can to give that candidate the advantage.

        When I read the leaked message about Warren, it seemed unlikely to me as well. Warren was not very prominent at that time. It would have seemed less credible to me had I not seen what happened in 2016.

        HRC had advance access to verbatim copies of questions at the 13 March 2016 CNN debate in Ohio. Released documents seem to show HRC campaign staff working on her answers to the upcoming debate questions in order to fine tune them. A decent breakdown of HRC campaign staff coordinating with media can be found on the Observer:

        https://observer.com/2016/11/mainstream-media-recap-who-colluded-with-the-clinton-campaign/

        I don’t believe that the “when did you stop beating your wife” question last night was coincidence.

        1. I’d like to think the favoritism given HRC by the DNC in 2016 was an anomaly, at least in recent times, but it also wouldn’t surprise me to learn that it is quite common but getting caught is rare. In 2016, it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz that I suspect was so in love with the idea of a woman President, she was willing to put her organization’s thumb on the scale. I suspect we may see the same thing happen once the field is narrowed to one woman and one or two men. As I see it, a woman candidate shouldn’t play the female card to win, just as Obama didn’t play the black card. Voters have less a problem with a woman winning than a woman winning on a women’s rights platform.

          1. I agree that HRC was probably a special case. The Clinton machine had been appointing allies and doing favors for decades. They had people everywhere.
            When it came to the 2016 election, I went for Bernie, even though I hate communism.
            But between HRC and Trump, my reasoning was that if we assume both are equally evil, then Trump would be preferable, if only because HRC could do a lot more damage with her knowledge of the system and all those Clinton appointees who have worked their way up in seniority. Trump, on the other hand, barely had the support of his own party, and all those appointees are still there, leaking his conversations and quietly working against him.
            I was not going to vote for him. But I was less personally worried about Trump than I was HRC.

            But this election, I really doubt that the DNC wants to leave anything up to chance, or the whims of the masses. I suspect there are a lot of very smart people trying to think many moves ahead. That does not mean that the schemes will work as planned. We have some evidence of that.
            But it is always good strategy to try to control all the variables, if possible. Unexpected questions during debates, unscripted interactions with citizens, and new revelations of candidate’s past behavior are the sorts of things that one would want to avoid. I think the identity of the party’s delegate would be one of those as well.
            I do think that if they have the opportunity to control those and other variables without getting into major trouble, they will absolutely do so. The stakes are pretty high, and the risk/reward equation is in their favor.
            Look what happened to DWS. She lost the DNC gig, but that is about it. She is still in congress, and a committee chair.

            I agree about the issue of female candidates. If someone like Ann Richards was running, I think she would be a viable candidate. The assertions of Americans all being racist or sexist or whatever are not supported by much evidence.

  13. The U.S. electoral system’s ability to devote so many months to would-be candidates from the same party (temporarily in Bernie’s case, of course!) ripping each other to pieces in public seems very odd to an outsider.

    My sister, a U.S. citizen living in Oregon, has the additional complaint that by the time she gets to vote in the primaries her favo(u)red candidate(s) have often already been eliminated from the race. I have to admit, it’s hard to find a rationale for this in the internet age when voters across the nation can follow the candidates’ campaigns in real time, regardless of which state they live in.

    1. Our system is archaic, relatively speaking. Flawed and hard to change, fueled by hundreds of billions of dollars, and colliding with the information age.

    2. I find it terrible too. It’s all such a waste of money as well. Politicians are perpetually in election mode, which leaves little time to do the actual work they’re elected to do. I prefer the arrangement of most of the rest of us where campaigning is limited to c. three months before the election, and the parties themselves choose the candidate internally. If the GOP hierarchy had chosen their own candidate, there’s no way Trump would be president.

      I think the primaries often do too much damage to a candidate. Further, that form of campaigning favours a certain personality, which is more likely to be found in men. Men and women displaying the same characteristics are often described very differently as well. E.g. a women id often described as nagging/hectoring/argumentative while a man is more likely to be described as determined in the same situation.

  14. It’s possible that Warren was pissed that Sanders was lying about it (in her view). Regardless, it’s a ridiculous fight that makes the Democrats look petty and silly. We need to be the grownups here.

  15. I’d hoped Elizabeth Warren was better than that but I guess not. This confirms my suspicion that she kept this little nugget under wraps so she could use it just before the important Iowa primary. If it backfires on her she deserves it.

    2. I hope it does backfire. I gave her the benefit of the doubt about her claim of native american heritage, but now I suspect she is much more cunning than I previously assumed.

  16. I started out liking Warren a lot, but always worried that she wasn’t tough enough to stand up to a nasty campaign (for example: weak, dumb response to the Native American controversy). The more I see, the more I think that her disposition could not survive a grueling campaign. This snit with Bernie was stupid and petty. Amy Klobuchar for president. She’s smart and tough and would carry the Midwest.

    2. Yes Charles, that is a pertinent point. Of the ‘swing states’ a disproportionate number appear to be ‘Midwestern’ ones. About any of the Democratic candidates appear indefinitely be better than the incumbent, and Ms Klobuchar not the least of them.

  17. As an American citizen (and at least in part a decendant of the “real” Americans), I thank the god I don’t believe in that I don’t live there anymore.
    In Germany, where I live, everyone who I talk to about American politics just sort of shakes their head… until I remind them what German poltics are like…

  18. Below is a portion of the exchange after Warren made the quip regarding the winning ways of the women candidates:

    SANDERS: Well, just to set the record straight, I defeated an incumbent Republican running for Congress.

    WARREN: When?

    SANDERS: Nineteen-ninety. That’s how I won, beat a republican congressman. Number two…

    WARREN: Thirty years ago.

    SANDERS: … of course, I don’t think there’s any debate up here…

    WARREN: Wasn’t it 30 years ago?

    SANDERS: I beat an incumbent Republican congressman.

    WARREN: And I said I was the only one who’s beaten an incumbent Republican in 30 years.

    It’s either a superb coincidence, or the choice of “30 years” was mathematically staged by Warren to exclude Sanders’ win. I’m guessing it was the latter, and if correct, find the staging of the narrative both silly and deceitfully disturbing.

    2. CNN played a snippet of Warren stepping up to Sanders after the debate to say something like, “You called me a liar on national TV?” Sanders suggested they take it up later in private. Perhaps Warren forgot that there were live microphones around but more likely it was another calculated jab at Sanders. She’s really playing dirty now if that’s the case. She may think it makers her a “fighter” but it sounds pretty desperate to me.

  19. I voted for Amy Klobuchar in your poll.

    IMHO, she is far and away the best candidate for the position.

    Smart, experienced but with out baggage, not to old, liberal enough but not to far left and tough.

    She is more then qualified.

    She would shred Trump in a debate.

    She is very electable.

    Her supporters aren’t fanatics.

    And it’s about time we had a woman president.

    Regardless, I’ll vote Democratic nominee in November.

    If Bernie is the nominee that makes it hard for me. I dislike Trump more so then Bernie, but not by much.

    I could never vote Trump. He is, in fact, a criminal.

    1. Out of the centrists Klobuchar I think is the best option.

      Unlike Biden she entered with actual policies. Biden is making it up as he goes along and it shows.

      She’s also not got the same bad history as him.

      The only issue I really have against her is her treatment of staff. You don’t want, in a high pressure situation, someone who tosses stationary at people or who think making their staff humiliate themselves is good management.

      What you want in a leader is someone who can calm a tough situation down so that their people can work out solutions, not someone who becomes a new source of fear.

      It is important to note here – this bad treatment of staff was revealed by the New York Times, Politico and The Atlantic – these organisations aren’t anti-centrist at all. Further she has long had the highest staff turnover in the Senate, so I’m inclined to believe the reports.

      That said, she’s still probably the centrist who took this campaign the most seriously, she’s actually thought it through and presented real alternative policies rather than just platitudes, so I can definitely see the appeal there.

  20. Since we are on politics…

    I still oddly think Trump will be removed.

    This is a non-scientific opinion but…

    1) The case for obstruction of congress is iron clad.

    2) The case for abuse of power strong and would be perhaps iron clad if but for the obstruction of congress.

    3) Trump is his own worse enemy. I hope he testifies in the trial. He’ll sink his own ship. The fool.

    This is all naive. It’s all about the polls. It’s the polls, stupid! The Republican base has stuck with Trump, regardless of lawlessness. Disgusting.

    3. It’s all about the polls.

      It’s also about the unequal representation in the Senate, that a minority of the country controls a majority of the Senate. Concrete example: the Senators that confirmed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court represent only 44% of the country. The Senators that will protect Trump will likely represent a similar minority.

      I think this inequity is greater than it’s ever been, and that’s one of the reasons the country is currently in such a mess.

      1. A democracy being run by the minority is no longer a democracy. The electoral college and the 2 senator per state rule is archaic and a a severe detriment for a healthy democracy. Now those in power, mainly the GOP, are utterly corrupt and keep their minority power by cheating, lying, swindling, breaking rules and flaunting it all the while.

        When you think about it, a lot of the political problems that the GOP has foisted upon the majority in this country can be blamed on religion…religion and greed. Yep, it poisons everything.

        1. Yes, that structural inequity has mostly been inconsequential so not high on the list of things to address, but now it’s quite significant and consequential and damaging.

          A simple, short term fix would be to simply make Puerto Rico and D.C. states, but that’s just a hack that doesn’t prevent unbalance in the future.

  21. It’s not my country but having Warren as the president would be a pleasure. She’s full of vitality, competence, wisdom, intelligence, empathy, dignity and integrity. So she’s made a few mistakes but so what? Everyone has a little something. I think the free world would breathe a sigh of relief.

  22. Yes, if I could vote, I’d enthusiastically vote for Ms Warren if she were the candidate, or Ms Klobuchar, or Mr Buttigieg or…
    The only ones I’d vote less enthusiastically for are Mr Biden and Mr Sanders. Age is taking it’s toll on Mr Biden, and despite the polls, I doubt he’d defeat Mr Trump. Same for Mr Sanders who appears a grumpy old man, and again I doubt he can gather enough enthusiasm where it matters. But I’d still vote for them.

    1. As another non-American observing from afar, I wonder. Seen from here, both Warren and Sanders carry overtones of Jeremy Corbyn: promising unicorns for everyone while not being honest about how they are to be paid for.

      Mind you, at least Warren and Sanders appear not to be unpatriotic. Corbyn has spent his entire political career supporting the UK’s antagonists, from the Soviet Union to Iran, Hesbollah and the IRA, and opposing NATO and the US. That counted for a lot in the recent general election, because on the whole British working people are pretty patriotic.

Comments are closed.