False Choice. I'll Take both....
WARREN-BOOKER 2020
"Fighting to Heal America"
Paid For by Woke America
I support this message
1
Trump and his ilk must be destroyed, and they must realize that they have been destroyed. Therefore, I'm all for the Warren "type" who will fight a nasty battle. It is really time to "take on the fight", to win, and to do all the goody-goody stuff later.
Not even a mention of Sen. Klobuchar? Strange.
1
The American public want a real President, one who knows how to run a normal functioning government. They are sick and tired of a Malignant Narcissist running a chaotic personal government. They don't more yelling and screaming. Sherrod Brown would make an excellent candidate and President because he is an experienced, professional,and progressive politican.
1
Hey it isn’t an either/ or
We need a fighter / healer
So far all the female candidates are able to wear both hats well .
My hope is ruthless attacks by candidates , against trumps foul mouth and evil policies of chaos; and hit hard.
My other hope is ,the candidates will not turn on each other ,even when goaded to do so ,by media and opposition and trump in all his yellow smegmatic ,gory ,glory!
Be nice !!like in high school ,when you ran for student council.
1
Anyone who believes that it is possible to unite the nation lives in a bubble. Southern Trump supporters who travel to the New York metropolitan area and personally witness the melting pot are appalled and terrified. I have spoken to them. It not only grates against their innate racism. They are truly frightened by what they see. Similarly, my contact with areas and individuals from Trump territories, I am shocked. I know that I could never live in these communities dominated by residents who are openly racist, sexist, science denying, poorly educated citizens.
No candidate can unite America. It is more polarized than perhaps any time other than the Civil War. I lived through the 60's. It was not nearly this bad. We need a fighter. We need minority candidates. We need the most intelligent candidates we can find. But the bottom line must be nominating the candidates best able to defeat Trump.
4
If Democrats truly want to win the privilege of uniting not dividing, healing not irreparably harming this country by moving it forward not back, then they must first do so among themselves. While that, in and of itself is no small task, it will surely determine how soon we can all rid ourselves of the nightmare we've had to endure since 2016. If Republicans have been able to pull that off, albeit for all the wrong reasons, then we must beat them at their own game for all the right reasons.
1
This is a perfect example of opinion masquerading as news. Anyone who has bothered to watch Elizabeth Warren's interview on Rachel Maddow knows that Warren's is a deeply compassionate approach to government. Unlike any of her competitors, however, she has troubled herself to master the facts of the precise ways corporate America has tilted the playing field, as a way to guarantee that those not in the top 1% get properly healed. We need someone like Warren who has troubled herself to master facts and is willing to fight, using those facts, as a way to bring about healing. We hope the Times is not preparing us for a repeat of their condescending and misleading treatment of a true progressive in the upcoming election cycle -- the same treatment they gave Bernie Sanders.
4
Bipartisanship with a Democrat in the White House has been non-existent. As with Obama, Republicans will do everything they can to make the next Democrat president a one-term president. And besides, if a Republican is for it then I'm most likely against it.
1
Why can't have both a fighter and a healer. We need to fighter for are the unjust things and reverse much of what has been wrong lately. Yes a healer to heal along the way sure. It will take much time and effort to repair what has been torn down out of spite and greed.
1
It's February, we have plenty of time. It's entirely possible that we'll get a fighter, a healer, AND a leader in either of these people, or one of the other several that will win.
It's a shame you've wasted this hot take about a year before it's really applicable.
The headline implies that a cholce has to be made. Not so! Any candidate who can beat Trump is going to have to speak fearlessly to power, and also have to be able to pick up the pieces when the unjust structures that put him into power are shattered. This is a classic both-and situation, not a false either-or dichotomy. We must avoid coming to grief on the horns of that particular dilemma.
1
It is all about the fight his time around. We have been compromising since 1980. We need our country back and government to work for the masses and not the elites. Done with trickledown voodoo economics, it failed and miserably.
2
Marianne Williamson is running for president. She is both a fighter and a healer. How come there is so little coverage for her campaign, especially when she has such a large social media following?
How about a winner instead of an idealogue who will scare away moderates and independents.
1
Vague political talk about unity and reconciliation right now is like recommending a band-aid for a gunshot wound. Warren is right. The problems in this country go much deeper than Trump. His side show circus is not the problem. It's a product of real, massive, systemic problems. Fundamental problems with our economy, infrastructure, politics, environment, healthcare, education system. These desperately need to be addressed immediately. We can worry about "healing" later.
2
I care far more about seeing the fractures in this country mended than I do about seeing Trump put in his place. I'm no fan of Trump, and I'm desperately hoping that he does not win a second term, but establishing some semblance of normalcy in this country takes precedence for me.
Regardless of who wins, I think that this election cycle will plant the seeds for the issues that we focus on in the years to come, much like how immigration and healthcare were amplified during the 2016 election. For instance, right now few people outside of Gabbard's libertarian following (who normally vote Republican, ironically) are paying attention to her non-interventionist platform, but I think that it could set the stage for a greater discussion down the line. (I'm also very curious to see how she's received in states where military service is common, which have been solidly red thus far. An appeal to curtailing military intervention could appeal to Trump's base).
1
A totally false dichotomy.
Does Trump promote healing? Is he even open to compromise? Is there any sign of all of accomodation, or even listening to the views of others?
Getting rid of Donald Trump is an overarching imperative for 2020. Healing is not possible until he is gone.
4
I hardly recognize the NYT; after being a reader approx 45 years. I recall when USA Today came out; those wonderful little snippets of *news* delivered under my hotel doors. Now, it seems- I can get a longer version right here:
Dean Baquet- are you listening or just counting the record number of free accounts opened for commenting?
1
I really like Booker. He reminds me of Obama, and I really liked Obama. But different times call for different leaders.
Fighter and/or healer is really not the point.
The people who deliver the following are:
Public Healthcare for all (if insurance companies cannot compete with the government they deserve to go under by the definition of their capitalistic premises). Whatever the government provides congresspeople is good enough for the people and vice versa.
Get rid of Citizens United and the like. Publically financed elections with small donor contributions being the only ones allowed. Cap at 1000 per person is fine.
Wall Street reform: tax algorithm trading, get rid of carried interest.
Progressive taxation of the 1 Percent at higher levels (AOC’s are fine) both for income and wealth.
Kill offshore accounts once and for all.
Free public education K through graduate school.
21 st Century infrastructure: transportation and internet
Free cyber security paid by taxes same way police and military is paid for national security.
Gender Equality.
Environmental Reform to ensure the planet heals and survives!
Let’s have The Times lead the charges.
4
With the election of Trump, we've learned that almost 40% of the electorate has no interest in compromise, facts, honest dialog, or helping our fellow citizens. If you still support Trump after all he's done to divide the country, then you're not someone who can be won over.
The Republican party and it's agenda and leaders (especially Mitch McConnell) are deplorable. They must not just be defeated but crushed.
I have no use for another sweet-talking Democrat who thinks he's going to convince Republicans to work with Democrats. If the Obama years taught us anything it's that Democrats are foolish to expect Republicans to put country and compromise above party and self-interest.
The Republican party as it currently exists needs to be soundly defeated, minimized, marginalized, and made irrelevant. Then Democrats can save the country.
5
@Eric
I agree. Democrats should plow full steam ahead. If conservatives put up a lot of resistance then maybe they'll just have to be forced along, just like they were with abolition and desegregation and women's rights and gay marriage...
1
Both, neither, I don't care: I want a winner. Merciless competitor (a la Michael Jordan); calm but intense leader (a la Derek Jeter); or inspiring tactician (a la Tom Brady) -- doesn't matter to me. Just someone who can beat Trump. Period.
3
@Cal Prof
"Just Win Baby!"
The Dems need to channel some Al Davis in 2020.
2
@Cal Prof
Rather than the rather irrelevant sports analogs how about:
Bernard Sanders for President
Elizabeth Warren for Vice President
With a prenup that says he does not run in 2024.
Hard working, honest, intelligent and highly educated people. With tons of Energy and Good Will.
3
The NYT attacks against the most petty of issues related to the Democrats, now and in 2016, while letting Trump get away with shooting someone on Fifth avenue (or conspiring with the Russians on National TV), makes we wonder if you are putting your own profits ahead of our Democracy and National Security.
3
At least the significant minority of well-informed and progressively ‘woke’ American millennials (and some ‘60s revolutionary Americans) know what they don’t want; which is an Empire-builder, “Empire-thinker”, and deceitful faux-Emperor like Emperor Trumpius, nor do they want another round of self-appointed, self-serving, faux-transformative ‘talkers’, who doen’t have any fight for ‘we the American people’, since we have already had the last ten cycles of ‘least worst voting’ candidates committing to do something and failing to ‘walk anything but a slow walk’ to save our dying democracy, or stop the cancerous ‘growth’ of this ever more obvious Disguised Global Capitalist Empire.
IMHO, many ‘Woke’ Americans may make book on Booker, go with Gillibrand or Gabbard, hustle to Harris, wander toward Warren, bide time with Biden, idle time away with middle of the road independents, or bet on Bernie who opened a Revolutionary run with a two-word truth “Political Revolution” and Beto who could ‘close the deal’ with another two “Against Empire”.
3
Here we go again with the press framing the debate. Having learned nothing in 2016 we are treated to more boxing ring announcer rhetoric... And in this corner we have. I am so sick of the press particularly the NYTs editorial policy. And I wonder do readers here realize that the Times is syndicated nation wide and that it is very influential.
3
Come on. It's too early to be pitting one against the other. There'll be more to choose from and plenty of ink space to debate later. Let's see what pans, people. Like many other dems I'm sure, I have my eye on one particular person but after all we've been through, we deserve fair and balanced coverage.
1
I am getting weary of reading the daily churning of formulaic writing. The news articles are sounding more like a CNN opinion piece and those that don't take on the characteristics of a High School AP journalism class.
I don't know what to call this piece: Quasi-news-opinion-analysis?
"Democrats 2020 Choice?" Which of the millions of Democrats? The few quoted in the article? Who? Who? Who?
3
As we arrive at a point where the current White House occupant could be challenged and defeated by a smart toaster, the Democratic Party appears to be poised to go full McGovern.
So in its hugely successful campaign to maintain minority rule and majority suppression at all levels of government, the Republican Party's ace-in-the-hole continues to be the Democratic Party.
1
Avenging angel works for me.
1
To use the common reference of the GOP being a stern father and the Democrats being a nuturing mother, Daddy is an abusive alcoholic gambling womanizer who has been terrorizing Mommy and the whole family in front of our eyes for decades. What was that groundbreaking Farrah Fawcett movie, The Burning Bed? Yeah. The Burning Bed. Francine Hughes is what we need. Enough of this mealy-mouthed weakness. The GOP is no longer a legitimate political party. It is, at the top, a collection of mass-murdering industrialists and financial pirates, who have used psy-ops to persuade, at the bottom, millions of purposely uneducated workers to align with them out of racism and xenophobia to undermine the very foundations of our nation. Vanquish them.
1
Warren, in my view, is the real deal. But in the current world, I fear her brilliance and hard-nosed manner would turn off the very people the Democratic Party needs to win back, even though, ironically, she is their champion.
Like Warren, Sherrod Brown is the real deal. He has a proven track record of success with those voters mentioned above. He would win those formerly solid Democratic states Trump won. He’d probably win his own Ohio. And he could be competitive in one or two Southern states.
2
Both.
You can't reconcile with ignorance, racism,stupidity and selfishness, you just have to defeat them and defeat them soundly.
Our country has been hijacked by a Republican party that has been bought by moneyed plutocrats to hoodwink poor Americans and upperclass wannabees and then selling them out by delivering tax cuts for the rich and deregulation to industries that are preying on the poor, hollowing out our economy, polluting our air and water and contributing to global warming.
There is no point in trying to reconcile with a party that is so lacking in basic honesty and concern for the majority of the American people.
2
This article has a link to a NYT piece about Elizabeth Warren's impressive and moving presidential announcement in Lawrence, MA (Feb. 9th). But that piece on Warren never ran in our print copy of the NYT. (I scoured the papers yesterday and today for a major article on this important news and am incredulous that there has been none.) There was however today a ginormous portrait photo of the pretty Kamala Harris and a lengthy write-up not worth the reading time. Please wake up, NYT.
1
I would be very glad to vote for a woman or a person of color for president. But unfortunately I'm afraid the only kind of person who can unite the country and get back the Trump voters is a white man, probably from the South. Basically we are looking for Bill Clinton 2.0, but with more moral fiber and no womanizing.
1
They ran a milquetoast, centrist "healer" in Clinton in 2016 and lost "bigly" to a "fighter" in Donald Trump. Given a choice between Diet Republican and Republican, people will always choose a Republican. Trump lost the popular vote by millions but landslided Hillary in the electoral college by turning out the base. Era of thirdway Clintonism is dead. Either one of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would destroy Trump trump (my own preference is for Bernie).
As Rep. Elijah Cummings said, "We are in a fight for the heart and soul of our democracy".
We have to fight this corrupt and immoral administration with everything we've got.
And as a nation, we can't heal until we win this fight.
2
The American Eagle on the crest has two claws, one holding olive branches and the other arrows. All candidates should take a lesson from this: WE want offense and defense, not either or.
All candidates should have a message which includes why they are running, what why are they different. This is the olive branch in the claw.
At the same time, they have to be ready to hurl arrows and thunderbolts at the likes of Trump. They are no one's punching bags.
The voting public can handle the dual messages.
1
I would say the question is actually - do we want someone in the pocket of corporations, such as Cory Booker is with big pharma, or some one who is not. And that's because we need a fighter to stop the corporate control of our democracy. Booker ain't got it.
What a ridiculous proposition. A fighter, for social justice in the form of more equitable taxation, more curbs on monopolistic corporations, more environmental protection, more coverage for those without health insurance--this person is a healer.
How could you think otherwise?
2
You can not heal people who do not think they are sick. So, a "healer" is out. If you want to say that the alternative is a fighter, for the sake of entertainment, then a fighter would be far more appropriate given the times.
There are some obvious situations out there that a true politician could recognize and capitalize on in reality. Most of the minorities have the same problem. It's about jobs. The country is split because some people believe that immigration is what is causing their job losses. These people, sad to say, do not have the facts to back them up, but they really don't care because they are so angry they just want to lash out, and people like Trump come along and lather them up to make them happy, confused, and pleased with their own ignorance.
Someone will figure out a way to attack the problem in a meaningful way that actually unites the disenfranchised, regardless of race, color, or creed. The single issue voters are the real problem. They do not want what is best for the country. They only want what they think is best, and it doesn't have anything much to do with the needs of the country. These people will not respond to a healer or a fighter. They have their issues and need to be forgotten.
The question really should be about what kind of backing does the candidate have. Is it dark money or small donors? Is it corporations or people? Depending on the answer, it would not be hard to figure out where they stand in truth on the policies.
2
We are in a fight for the soul of this nation. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
Healing comes AFTER the fight has been won. We're nowhere near that. We need a fighter.
1
Headline: "Democrats’ 2020 Choice: Do They Want a Fighter or a Healer?"
...I'd like BOTH!
With certain exceptions, (like the propensity to auto-resort to violence...), I'd like to see a Democratic 'terminator' slay these Republican traitor's crime, saturated political careers, circa November 2020!
A tsunami of clean...flowing through the Outhouse at 1600 Pennsylvania Av., Washington, D.C., like the tsunami-videos of '04, washing, out the stains...Gen. Flynn, M. Cohn, R. Gates, P. Manafort, Trumpkins, his imbecilic-family, etc.!
To that end, I reiterate: NO Republican will ever receive my vote!
1
Win first, then heal...
1
Interesting, a choice between “fighter or healer”...eh? Well, here’s some GOOD NEWS: the majority of America IS united! Latest polls show 57-60% of us, DO NOT want Donald re-elected!
And 71% of Americans want abortion rights kept legal.
And....the majority also want Special Counsel Mueller to finish the Investigation into Russia’s attack on our democracy and Donald J Trump!
So...don’t be fooled folks, when the MSM claim that we are a divided nation....nope! Read the polls, we are united!
PS. Donald do us and the Federal workers a favor...resign!
1
Who says Democrats must choose one or the other? One certainly can be a fighter and healer. Gawd how I wish reporters didn't titles then try to fill in the blanks to fit the narrative.
By the look of things; every Democratic candidate will have to be both to cleanse (and rid) the nation of the putrid squalor of Trump Nation.
1
Listening to Stacy Abrams and Bernie Sanders in their responses to Donald Trump's State of the Union speech, To me, Sanders came across more as the warrior while the tone of Abrams speech was more along the lines of the healer. I loved it when Abrams said “The foundation of our moral leadership around the globe is free and fair elections where voters pick their leaders, not where politicians pick their voters. And Sanders' quote from MLK Jr. was perfect for this upcoming election, “This country has socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor”.
On hearing them both out, it seemed to me that Stacy Abrams' emphasis was on what we’re capable of and what we should be doing, while Bernie Sanders attacked what Trump said, and then placed heavy emphasis on what Trump didn’t say - but should have said.
1
I so disagree with the premise of this piece, characterizing “fighters” and “healers” as opposites, and suggesting only the latter are “kindhearted” or “optimistic.” Some people are fighters because their kind hearts care about the people they are fighting for (in this case ordinary Americans) and they are optimistic enough to believe real change is possible. Would any serious student of the Civil Rights era deny that Martin Luther King was both a fighter and a healer? The Republicans try to take away health care from millions of Americans, deny the climate crisis and protect polluters, among other things. They need to be deposed and their agenda reversed in the interest of healing, which means fighting them and their plutocrat sponsors. Elizabeth Warren has always had pragmatic policy ideas. What could be more pragmatic than raising revenues by taxing the very wealthiest Americans, as Warren, Sanders, and AOC have all put forward specific proposals for doing? Decades of contest between pro-corporate, “centrist” Dems vs. increasingly far-right Republicans have only brought us ever worsening inequality. The problems of the U.S. and the world will not be addressed or healed without a fight.
3
Healing can come later. What we need is someone to fight for economic policies that will reverse the widening gap between haves and have-nots in the US, who will expand our Medicare system to provide basic healthcare for people of all ages (allowing private Medicare supplements exactly as we have today), who will protect consumers, who will protect the environment, who will provide a path for immigrants already living lawfully in our country to become citizens, and press for sensible immigration policies. At the moment, I see two candidates, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. I hope the DNCC isn't allowed to put fingers on the scale in the 2020 primaries as they did in 2016.
5
Healer? That's rich. Obama was a healer, and look where it got him.
If the Democrats want to win, they'll run a fighter.
3
Dear New York Times,
How about an Op-ed about how to get rid of the Electoral College?!
2
Personalty I want a fighter. We have been pushed around by the GOP for the last 40 years.
6
Peace? When the Republicans answer for the sabotaging of the peace plan in Vietnam… When they answer for the delayed hostage negotiations in Iran and Iran-Contras… When they answer for impeachment and Ken Starr… Florida in 2000… When they answer for stove pipe lies about WMD’s in Iraq while ignoring Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan… When they answer for Merrick Garland, voter suppression, and gerrymandering… When they answer for colluding with Russian spymasters via the NRA and Trump campaign… When democracy is restored to the republic, and oligarchs are limited to their single vote, then we will have peace, but not a moment before.
5
Please stop NY Times. You're just afraid that someone who really wants to help change our country will actually get elected President. The gravy train for the wealthy and well connected to come to an end. Rather than Cory Booker preaching love and unity it would be more useful to ask why there is such antipathy today not just in our country but in many so called developed countries. The answer is simple, the world has become unbalanced with so few people owning so much of the wealth. Here is America 400 families own more wealth than the bottom 150 million families. Just think about that for a second.
Here's a way to visualize what's been going on in the USA for the past 40 years. You have a pack of hungry dogs, you keep feeding them less and less each day, eventually they turn on each other and start maiming and killing. That's what is happening here and it's the reason Trump was elected.
The NY Times and other newspapers that speak for the establishment need to start being honest about why Americans are so hateful towards each other. About a third of the population has been uninformed enough to believe the lies about "job creators" and how "government is the problem" while the wealthy were robbing us all but blaming it on minorities, the poor, the disadvantaged, the immigrant, the other.
We are at a breaking point and frankly Cory Booker's thoughts and prayers will not put food on anyone's table.
3
We need a fighter AND a healer....Where is Aragorn?
3
Democrats do not have the luxury of playing to the radical fringe: as Yascha Mounk notes in The Atlantic, “25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an ‘exhausted majority.’”
Put simply: hardcore conservatives have about a 3-to-1 ideological advantage over the social justice Left. And Democrats wonder why they can’t win elections by playing to the fringe??
2
I am always hearing that the ideas promoted by the progressive left fringe, such as raising taxes on the rich, expanding Medicare, and protecting the environment, are supported by a majority of Americans. The influence of money in our political system means that government does not really represent the people. I believe most Americans would prefer to have honest elections without vote suppression, another thing on the agenda of us wacky leftists.
1
You have missed the point on Amy Klobuchar. She will be both, and is a legislative workhorse with proven track record of success in getting bills through Congress. And can win the big prize in the General in 2020.
Don't underestimate her in early primaries, especially in neighboring Iowa and small town New Hampshire, where she will quickly become a "known, known."
It's a falacy to think the nation needs either a healer or a fighter. A candidate that puts forward solutions to address the current needs of the nation (rural & metropolitan/all people) and helps to plan a thoughtful longer term vision will be doing both naturally. Pass solid campaign & finance reform and it won't be such a struggle. Another thing that would go a long way to prevent the constant undermining of our laws is to stop bundling a bunch of issues together - like border security & passing budget for everthyting all at once. That's is precisely what this "either / or " mentality gets you.
We need balance. You may think there is disharmony in the Democratic party but the GOP has tossed everything out the window - they are a mess.
1
This is not an either/or proposition, the candidate can fight for what is appropriate, while seeking to heal the rifts that the current adminstration has caused and exacerbated. That candidate would be Amy Klobuchar.
Clearly, Democratic candidates want to cash in on late-stage capitalism while the gettin’ is good. Why else would so many people with nothing original to say be publishing books?
It seems rather unfortunate for the American people that their interests will likely take a back seat to more of the same ego-driven politicking that has prevailed for far too long already. Most of us, I assume, deserve better.
Please, no healing. Strong Democrats must do major surgery. We have a government that is nearly comatose. Major excisions come first. Then common sight must be restored. Infections, and broken parts are priorities.
With corruption of the federal courts, it is likely we are witnessing a squandered century.
Healing? No. No bi-partisanship either. We saw how much respect that had from Mitch and Paul.
4
Sure, Senator Booker’s punchline about the dog was funny, but that just means is he has a good humor writer on his staff. And Big Pharma could easily turn out to be Cory Booker’s Goldman Sachs.
What the Democrats and the country need is a candidate with the energy, leadership qualities, communication skills and above all, intellectual capacity for the Presidency. At this early stage, I favor Senator Warren. She has the potential for greatness.
Some of the other candidates and near candidates worry me. Bernie Sanders promotes ideas well worth considering, but he’ll never be more than a spoiler. Most of us get tired of being screamed at. Kamala Harris surely has potential, but I’m betting that this time around her eye is on the vice-presidency. I’ve always admired Amy Klobuchar, but after her wooden performance announcing her candidacy, reading a speech as though she’d not seen it before, I wonder how well she’d wear as a campaigner.
Let’s just hope this plethora of Democrat wannabees doesn’t hand another election to the Republicans.
Where is that smoke-filled room when you need it!
2
When our country has been steeped in stupor, the prescription is not anybody's lullaby. Elizabeth Warren's brass tacks are precisely what's needed to heal the country.
2
We need a fighter to win the election -- a smart fighter, one who fights the alienating stereotypes and the trite, antagonistic, and misleading messaging of which both parties are capable. In other words, a leader who fights for unity in the interests of a government of laws, not personalities, a government that upholds and expands civil rights and that ensures a healthy populace and economy. Fight for the values that unite and heal us!
1
Very disappointed in this article. Candidates are not one-dimensional, and no, Democrats' choice in 2020 is not between a healer or a fighter. A candidate can be both, but most importantly, we want someone who has a moral compass, a strong work ethic, and the ability to get things done in this morass of a political climate. And someone who has the best interests of this country and our world at heart. And finally, we need a candidate that will win the Electoral College.
Fighters and healers: a very good analysis of the choice facing Democrats -- and all Americans. My question: does it have to be either/or? Maybe we need both -- to fight injustice AND heal the wounds that divide us.
2
Why not both? It's possible to fight against corruption and bullies and also stand for voting rights for all, health care for all and job opportunities for all with a fair playing field. I want both and I see that in my favorite candidate. But I'll vote for whoever wins the Democratic primary to get the most corrupt administration ever out of the people's house.
2
the problem is the low white man theory, as LBJ said "if can convince the lowest white man he is better than the highest black man, you can pick pocket all day long" this is what the Republicans have done for decades, if you are poor, you are poor, poverty knows no color. As the tax season gets underway, the Republican base is getting the message that there is no tax break for them that was promised. We make them realize that they have been had, and that we have solutions. We will not not only heal the wounds but crush the Republicans as well.
1
Bill Clinton won in part because he co-opted most of the Republican talking points in a brilliant strategic shift. This is not going to happen now, with the incandescent anti-Trumpian rage of primary voters (and mainstream news outlets).
2
A winner, who is a fighter and a healer.
2
Democrats have compromised with Republicans for over 40 years now. Every time we do the rich get richer and everyone else suffers.
No more compromises until America has a prosperous and healthy middle class once again.
3
Surely this is a false dichotomy? You can be tough for what you want and still respect others.
As others have said, Obama tried to be a healer and it didnt work.
He had a mandate, he ran on change, and then he blew it.
1
If Dems want to win the WH in 2020 they need to go moderate with their candidate. Going looney left to AOC style rants and Green Dreams is going to hand Trump the WH again. Swing states don't buy that kind of leftist rhetoric. California and New York going from 80% Democrat to 90% doesn't help you. You need swing states. Trump loves that AOC gets the mic all the time.
2
Democrats spent 25 years moving right, while arguing that if they were reasonable, Republicans would be reasonable too, and the country would move forward.
Instead, Republicans rewarded 25 years of Democratic bipartisanship, by moving so far right, we now have the Party of Trump, who would rather compromise with Putin than Democrats.
Look at NAFTA. It was a Republican Bill. Most Democrats were against it, but Clinton twisted arms, got it passed and signed it. Now Republicans as attacking Democrats on NAFTA as if they had nothing to do with it.
The same thing happened with the Republican Heritage Foundation's healthcare law, RomneyCare. As soon as Obama supported it, it became "socialism," and they attacked it for ten years straight.
Anyone that believes that offering Republicans what they ask for will be rewarded with compromise has missed the last quarter of a century. Republicans do not respect nice. They respect power. Until Democrats force Republicans to compromise, they never will.
There are greater evil candidates, lesser evil candidates, and good candidates. If you are not voting for good candidates, you are voting for evil, and evil is what you will get. Trump proves my argument.
Don't be a party of suckers. Fight for Justice.
3
So how many ways are the Democrats going to spilt their party? Good cop on one end, bad cop on the other and a mix of the two in between. How do you build a party platform around that? Destroying Trump is a legitimate political strategy? Peace, love and understanding a party platform? Granted, it's the primaries which will consolidate and eventually birth a Democratic nominee for President, but at what cost to the party? There's too much of a political spectrum to be covered under the Democratic umbrella. Those on the extreme left of the party will never find common policy ground with those on the right. The only unity they have come the end of the day is toppling Donald Trump. To vote for the party candidate on that premise alone, without a thought plan to move America ahead, is dangerous. People would rather deal with the devil they know, than the one that they don't.
1
I've never found the "I'll fight for you!" rhetoric to be persuasive.
2
I adore Cory Booker and have supported his race already. AND I see him as a very tough fighter (the Kavanaugh hearings were just one example of when he can be fierce). Anger sourced in love is tough and can get the job done AND carry a healing message.
I think all of the current candidates will ulitmately help the Dems craft a clear, loving, uplifting and redemptive message that will include fighting when there is a need. (Even Jesus turned over the money tables in the temple).
Isn't it time we all grow up and realize that love can be warm, sweet and kind or it can be fierce and protective. The question all of us should ask ourselves as we engage this campaign is what is someone's anger intended to do--mock and belittle others, maintain power for power's sake, or clear the toxins from an unhealthy system and make room for justice and love to flourish?
2
I don't really care how candidates present themselves. I really only care about the platform at this point. If acting like a "healer" is synonymous with the neoliberal politics of the Clinton era, count me out. I want a left leaning platform that mirrors or expands on Bernie Sanders' ideas.
Who and how any given candidate goes about accomplishing that platform is largely irrelevant. Compassion versus aggression makes no difference. I would just as easily take Booker as I would Warren so long as the platform is uncompromisingly committed and successful.
If we have another election where establishment Democrats reluctantly and halfheartedly embrace popular initiatives, bad things are going to happen in 2020. Remember, no one really cares what the Democratic Party thinks. Party members are a speck on the demographic radar. They can either harness the energy that wins elections or they can continue playing their stupid in-games like they did 2016.
I personally would most support a candidate who advocated open primaries and no super delegates right now. I vote in primaries as an independent. So far, I've been right in calling every general election. When Democrats field their own internal choice, they lose. Democrats should keep that in mind going into 2020.
1
Stop using words like "healing" & "division" since the majority of middle-America does not view the country as fractured in the same way that many on the Left do. Democrats like Ms. Warren view divisiveness in terms of the "haves" and "have nots," all the while being one of the "haves!" Many in middle America view the Warrens of this country as bullies, looking to indoctrinate them into her way of thinking. They are not interested in her clarion call to take on the "big guys." She's had 6-plus years to do that and has achieved very little. Appealing to the liberal base, who are dying to heed her call to arms & relish her proto-socialist thinking, is not enough to unseat our current POTUS. Liberals, like Ms. Warren, who believe they know what's best for EVERYONE, while discounting real concerns of much of the country are doomed to fail. Instead of coming across as understanding and compassionate, any candidate who continues to promise to deliver salvation from the divisiveness that Trump has caused is not going to get elected. Find a way to appeal to the population between the right & left coasts and then you'll have a viable candidacy...and someone who can unseat the disaster that is currently in the oval office!
2
@Jasper Lamar Crabbe The current President sees everything as divisive. He plays only to his base. As a Democrat, I want nothing to do with Trump and his angry racist base. These people are not going to see the light in this life.
@Doug Lowenthal "As a Democrat, I want nothing to do with Trump and his angry racist base." This it in a nutshell Doug. We will lose...there are more of them than us.
1
I want a FIGHTER!
1
Women are both Fighters and Healers all in the same. We need a Woman in this role.
2
Healer? Fighter? How about both?
#KamalaHarris2020
2
It's easy to hear Democratic and Republican voters ask for a fighter. Think pragmatically because you can't win the election without support from the middle.
A fighter will have a harder time with independent voters, especially with Trump being an excellent counter-puncher. A healer who goes above that fray will take away from Trump's noise and earn the vote of someone like me.
1
Given that we can't even agree on reality, I think reconciliations are unlikely. I'm picking a side and going with fighter Elizabeth Warren.
2
Elizabeth Warren is my top choice as long as she will also temper her fighting words with encouragement for why her policies will help the millions who voted out of desperation in 2016.
2
How about a LEADER that more people than just those of one party can rally around and support? Frankly at this point Howard Schultz looks pretty good just because he's an independent instead of a party ideologue from one of the two extremes.
1
Both, with the wisdom and grace to know when to be one or the other.
1
I don’t care about how calmly and softly they speak, but we cannot ignore the elephant in the room and pretend there isn’t a serious problem with inequality.
If any candidate skips over the fact that Trump’s tax cuts were one sided and need to be reversed and rates set higher on the ones who benefited during its time they will be no better than Trump in my eyes.
Focusing on race and gender or what have you as a dividing factor and ignoring the very real and growing wealth and class divisions is something that exists in the political world only. Anecdotally, nobody at my work complains about identity politics or privilege. However, I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard of people talking about bills going up, a 2% raise barely cutting it, and how much an unexpected expense means personal cuts all the while record profits are announced year after year.
2
Why does the choice have to be either or? That's so binary. All of the great healers like Jesus, Gandhi, Archbishop Tutu, Mandela, Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King, Jr., and many more were healers AND fighters. They are the model we need to use as we contemplate the next Democratic presidential candidate. I believe our nation thirsts for such a person to lead us, especially in the wake of the disaster of the current occupant of the White House.
3
I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with the basic narrative of this entire article. It sets up a false dichotomy between tackling the corruption that has engulfed our government and our society, and seeking to "unite a divided country."
These are not mutually exclusive. One reason our country is so divided is because of the cynical tactics utilized by the plutocrats of this country and their (mostly, but certainly not exclusively Republican) political lapdogs.
The entire Neo-liberal project of the past 40 years has rested on distracting the majority of our country with cultural divisiveness while transforming our government into a dysfunctional and corrupt nightmare.
It's no accident that corporate power is so concentrated; that inequality is the worst it's been in almost a century; that our "elected" leaders show so little consideration for the will or needs of the majority of citizens.
Failure to take on these forces was the chief failure of both the Clinton and Obama administrations (never mind the travesties of the Reagan, Bush 1 & 2, and Trump administrations). And in failing to adequately counter these attacks, the "reconcilers" both left this country more divided than before (though, to be fair, that was largely because of the scorched-earth opposition they refused to properly take on).
So don't speak to me of either "uniting" or "confronting," because at this stage of the game, when so much of our country is under attack, we can't have one without the other.
1
DEMS have a dilemma.
Do they go with the things that won them elections locally: feelings, free stuff, down with Trump, identity politics.
Or do they go with things that affect the entire country.
I am telling you, what is important for the LGBT in LA and what is important for the farmer in Ohio are not the same things. I cannot see how feelings and identity politics could tell a farmer their soy will be sold, or how financial stability would play with the socialists.
Remember that Ocasio-Cortez got to the House by winning 86k votes out of a possible 692k votes in her district.
That is about 12% of the vote in her home district. That would not fly on a national election. Outside her district I doubt she could get more than 2% of the national vote.
That is an example. With that in mind, you cannot run on the same platform nationally as you run in a tini district in NYC.
So there is your problem, run with what won local, or run with things that wins national. And the DEMS are so far apart on both ends that I doubt they can win any race at all.
2
I want a fighter. Republicans don't respond to healing unless it is being forced to "heel."
We do not need another conciliator in the White House. "Healing" and "unity" in practice mean placating and appeasing the right. Clinton and Obama went out of their way to advance right-of-center policies and ideas, at the expense of the everyday citizen.
I want to see a fighter and reformer in office, a president who welcomes the hatred of the right and is willing, for a change, to govern on behalf of the dignity and well-being of middle- and working-class people.
1
My vote is for healing.
Haven't we had enough of Trump's belligerence, cruelty, name-calling, division, likely treason?
It's going to be a tall order to unite our deeply divided country that's in even more trouble because of the anger & hate Trump's wantonly promoted.
I look forward to learning more about Corey Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris.
Elizabeth Warren has staked out ground as a "fighter" and is already trying to be in a one on one war with Trump. Count me out. All that does is play into Trump's hands and lowers her to being on his level.
I hope the Democrats are looking for dignity, decency, common sense, inclusion, respect, kindness, a general lowering of the temperature of our public discourse & the ability to embrace all Americans.
Instead of belittling us, fighting with us, haranguing us, lying to us, yelling, threatening, smearing, & generally lighting fires all over our country - which is what we're stuck with now with Trump - let's go for a healer. Someone who indicates they'll respect all of us & work on finding a solution to the damage inflicted by Donald Trump.
What I really don't want is to spend the next 2 years listening to Trump and Elizabeth Warren fight with each other, lob insults back & forth, etc. I also fear that's what we would get with Joe "I want to beat Trump up" Biden. Ugh.
I'm for sanity, calm, hope.
I'm basically for what we got with Barack Obama.
I'm sick of Donald Trump trying to take those things away.
3
The GOP lost its mind and heart decades ago. Until conservatives show they are not; anti-science, anti-people, anti-intellectual, anti-health, anti-despots, anti-environment, anti-justice, anti-Constitutional, I will never want them in my tent. Their regressive policies have been destroying this country to the point that we will not be able to compete in the modern world. They are the ones who need to learn how to get along with others. Tie their hands and shut their mouths until they learn how to behave properly with others. Time to move forward without these people.
1
We live in a country where we have learned to our great dismay that 40% of the population can support the ignorant, incompetent racist and sexual predator, Donald Trump.
These are extremely critical times when our democracy is threatened by Big Lie Fox /Breitbart propaganda, when our electoral system is being suppressed by corrupt Republican voting practices. The chosen Democratic presidential candidate must be able to unify the Democratic Party, demonstrate the capacity to win the support of the majority of American voters and bring people to the polls in numbers great enough to overcome well-programmed GOP election fraud and Russian intervention.
The Democratic Party needs new leadership. Our needs needs a charismatic President who is honest, intelligent, compassionate and capable of unifying the country.
3
This is a senseless question. To heal the country, Trump and everything that brought us to Trump must be crushed.
3
“It is perhaps not an accident that the most confident Democratic tribunes of good feeling are all men, while the party’s sternest warriors are mainly women. In a contest for the presidency, a position traditionally viewed in martial terms, it may be easier for a man of Mr. Biden’s backslapping swagger or Mr. Booker’s athletic stature to show tenderness or vulnerability without fear of appearing weak.”
Give it up, Mr. Burns. Your institutional trappings of gender in politics is about to be redefined. There’s going to be a bevy of men and women, across racial lines, seeking the Democratic nomination, like nothing we’ve witnessed before. It’s not going to be about men appearing sensitive and women appearing strong; Trump has reduced those optics to irrelevancy. It’s going to be about someone articulate who brings stature and respect back to the institution, rather than the personality, of the Presidency.
1
Healer? Fighter? How about a Winner? At this point, Dems don't have one candidate who capable of beating Trump! A concerted effort to find a candidate not so far left of left will be beneficial.
Winston Churchill was for universal healthcare, so by today's standards, that would make him a "radical leftist."
I prefer to join such so-called "excessive" campaigning. I'm a Type 1 diabetic and am dreading how much my insulin will cost, were I to retire early and go for the healthcare reform that has been dismantled and destabilized by the crazies which would be the entire GOP at this point. I'm not even sure why they're referring to themselves as Republicans since Lincoln would be calling Trump a Know-Nothing.
If you support a Know-Nothing that's what you are.
And why should anyone but the willfully ignorant and clueless listen to you if that's what you are, GOP.
1
Booker and Warren will lose to Trump as will Biden and anyone else running against him.
MAGA
I like both these candidates. I yearn for reconciliation. That was Obama’s message and unfortunately we saw how well the GOP responded to that. If we’re seeking actual conciliation and bipartisanship Senator Klobuchar may be the right choice.
Warren’s more populist message reminds me less of grifter Trump and more of the genuinely progressive Teddy Roosevelt. Her plain-spoken message of fairness is easy to grasp and non-elitist. Given her academic bona fides, I trust much of what she says is drawn from fact-based research. She is willing to punch back - but not below the belt. Her message resonates.
We have a lot of really good choices including Harris and the yet to announce Brown. Not a fan of Castro (too green) or Gillibrand (an opportunist).
I only hope the Dems engage in debates over policy and kitchen table issues and engage the middle of the electorate. There is too
Much pandering to the fringes.
Some combination may be in order.
2
For crying out loud, when are some people going to learn that using the term "schizophenia" in the way Ms. Campell does is ignorant and fosters negative stereotyping.
“Honestly, I think there’s a bit of schizophrenia on what our message should be,” Ms. Campbell said.
Yoiu have to be a fighter if you want to take power from Republicans, because they aren't going to give it up willingly, but once you have, you can and should be a healer. Different roles for different times.
2
Republicans did not particularly like Trump but they had no choice given his opposition. If that’s the way Democrats want to run as well good luck. I agree with Trump: we are not a socialist country. If Democrats choose to ostensibly change the name of their party to socialists they will have no chance of winning the next election, regardless of who runs on the Republican ticket.
2
@Confused Arguably we are in part a socialist country, in that we have public education, public transportation, national parks, national military, police, fire services etc. Modern socialism is not communism. Communism is a political and economic system that replaces capitalism. Socialism is political system that balances the worst impulses of capitalism.
Speaking of Democratic Socialists, they are not Democrats proper, but independents who caucus with them. In my view at the moment what we're really lacking right now lands more heavily in the democracy portion of the equation. That said the two are linked because it is the imbalance of wealth that has had the greatest negative impact on our democratic institutions.
1
It doesn't have to be choice IF you pick the right candidate. My choice is Sherrod Brown who knows how to win the blue collar workers who deserted Hillary Clinton in the crucial red, but swing, state of Ohio. Brown is passionate in his pro-worker positions, but not an abrasive, candidate. He's the real-deal, a Midwest populist who Democrats need to win in 2020. He can always use the Vice President slot for someone to be the attack dog. Although I feel that Stacey Abrams might be the ideal running mate. Abrams showed composure, strength and warmth, with no trace of animosity, in giving her rebuttal to Trump's State of the Union speech. I believe they would make a very formidable team who would energize turnout by the Obama coalition and progressives.
5
@Paul Wortman Brown is my choice also. Amy Klobochar also has the intellect and demeanor to be a good president. It appears far too soon for the NYT to begin with these puff pieces about fighters v. healers. This sounds more like the WWF.
2
@Paul Wortman,
As someone who is an "adopted" Ohioan for going on 33 years, hear, hear!
Our fighting got us into this mess. I saw the comments about Obama being a healer and that being ineffective but we have to recall that the fight started long before he got into office. I'm fairly young but I remember increasing polarization since George W. Bush. I thought he was bad but then I remember when adding Sarah Palin to the ticket almost guaranteed a win. I remember the rise of the Tea Party which led to the rise of the Alt Right. It will take more time to really heal the divisions in this country. We should be working to build bridges built on authentic connection. Fighting leads to polarization and Trump is the ultimate symptom of that polarization.
2
As someone who also came of age post-9/11, I wholeheartedly agree.
1
@A.H. The rise of the Tea Party was due to Obamacare being forced on us. It had nothing to do with the alt right.
More healer, less fighter. I'm exhausted.
4
I support my senator, Elizabeth Warren, because she focuses on the structural economic issues that affect most Americans, while trying to avoid the identity issues that divide Americans. She does so with a command of the issues, a commitment to follow through, and compassion for those suffering—all instantly clear to those hearing her call to arms.
Healer-vs-warrior is the wrong dichotomy; it is not applicable to this election cycle. As most voters understand, we are already at war, domestically, and we must fight to win it.
The dichotomy that will decide 2020 for Democrats is identity-vs-economy. Excess of the former—the Virginia imbroglio for example—will sink all hopes for the Democrats. They must hew to the economy, if they hope to attract the broad cross-section of voters needed to win the Electoral College.
20
@Ron Cohen Oh yeah Warren is the answer, she only speaks in headlines never substance. The only thing worse than her ---so far would be Cuomo, I'm an independent so far no interest in the Dems ticket. Shrieking Eagle is not the answer. The Democratic party needs a /statesman-woman with some business experience and one with credentials. And God help us: not another lawyer, career politician, bigot, or the daughter of a flaming alcoholic we need some substance
@Ben
"Shrieking Eagle"? "Bigot?" "The daughter of a flaming alcoholic"? Name-calling is the last refuge of a weak male (like Trump) who feels threatened by strong women. Give it a rest will ya? Go see a shrink. As to substance, you wouldn’t know if it smacked you across the face.
2
@Ron Cohen if the shoe fits wear it there are plenty of smart educated women out there without the baggage. Your compliance and need to get on board the "whining train" are part of the reason we sit here today. I didn't call myself an American Indian I'm simply playing to the song she sings. And the whining alcoholic was her poor me cry during the hearings so just following her line of thinking. Get a grip on yourself.
We need a leader who is unconstrained by debt to donors, willing and able to fight ruthlessly, willing and able to effect the biggest cleanup and overhaul of a post-Trump government, and tender enough to nurse this nation back to racial and economic health. It will take a leader who is steeped in the "Radical King tradition.
---
Things Trump Did While You Weren’t Looking [2019]
https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-3h2
10
Democrats want to drive Trump from office because he’s undoing our liberal government in favor of one that serves a plutocratic oligarchy. He’s also the most unabashedly corrupt President in our history. He’s a disgrace even in his public messaging.
But he is the fever of a very serious malady that threatens our republic. That is the huge minority of the electorate who no longer trust in the rest of the citizenry to respect what seems fundamental to them. So we need a healer to restore our trust in ourselves more than anything.
28
@Casual Observer. Do tell us what corruption you have uncovered?
1
@Casual Observer
It can start with a recommitment to the truth they abandoned a long time ago. They can start by no longer calling us communists, a lie they've tarred us with since the fifties. Until then, you can't have a conversation with someone who's talking to the bogeyman of their own invention, instead of you.
3
@Jackson Did you happen to read about all the investigations going on about his possible Russian money laundering, about his possible knowledge of of Russian interference in the 2016 election, about the possibility that his pro-Russian statements and actions are due to the Kremlin having undue influence over him, about his mixing of his business with government, like his "hotel" in Washington, DC? Or doesn't Fox News mention any of those things?
8
I see we’re still stuck with a child’s idea of what fighting is. And that too many leftish types want to change a few words, then behave just like Trump.
You are what you act like you are.
3
@Robert
Out West they fight fire with fire. That's what works.
1
@Robert
Trump threatens people while hiding behind at least a half-dozen bodyguards.
He demonizes minorities while ingratiating white supremacists - referring to murdous white supremacist thugs as "very nice people" which is why he would be too afraid to invite someone like Heather Hayer's mom to a State of the Union speech.
So what do you call a corrupt birther who is a coward, other than a corrupt birther who is a coward.
1
I want a fighter.
31
I would think the Democrats need both qualities, outspoken toughness and healing in one person. Which eliminates both people you’ve mentioned.
Surely (hopefully, at least), the Warren candidacy won’t have a chance. Way too many well-deserved apologies already. Just another lying loser like Hillary (“We were fires upon...”)
1
I think it’s silly—and maybe even dangerous—if we start seeing “healing” and “fighting” as mutually exclusive goals. I am only one voter and can only speak for myself here, but I know that what I want in my next president is one who will fight—fiercely, passionately—to heal this country. I want someone who is doggedly, fervently determined to take this country’s brokenness and make it more whole, “more perfect.” There is a great yearning for a healer who fights; or put another way, a fighter who heals. We must think beyond the dualism, for that’s what led us to where we are now.
13
Oh. I thought Senator Warren was pretty good on policy. Why does the New York Times perpetuate this toxic falsity about Democratic politics? It serves the interests of the least open and thoughtful of our politicians.
4
The democrats need a winner. Nothing else will do.
10
We won! Three MILLION MORE votes for Mrs. Clinton! IF we didn’t have Russia helping, the archaic Electoral College ....Clinton would have WON!
1
For heavens sake, NYTimes, the two positions are hardly mutually exclusive. Have you learned NOTHING from 2016? Knock off the lame attempts to frame the debate, it is deplorable. Your audience is not like Fox News, but this article is. Shame on you.
41
I vote for crushing Trump and all the Republican corporate stooges. The Democrats have been trying the 'reasonable' approach for more than 10 years now. As a result the Obama administration had a lot of great progress blocked. The Supreme Court is more right wing than it has been in decades. We got someone in the White House who....well, let's try to keep this a decent comment still.
The Gloves have to come Off Now!
14
To win the nomination or the presidency, they must crush Trump. Healing can come later.
8
I would prefer the NYT report the news, not try and shape it. This article defines Warren as the fighter and Booker as the healer. It belongs in the Opinion section.
90
@Rachel
NYT journalists appear to be using the 2016 playbook- and forgetting their readership is a bit too bright not to notice.
1
@Rachel
You are correct. The Times has become very spotty in it's political coverage. Times Editor Dean Baquet needs to emphasize higher editorial standards.
5
How about somebody who can keep the Executive Branch humming efficiently, without a lot of snide commentary from the Chief, and thus letting us go back to not knowing what the President even does from day to day? I don't need to be "healed", and the fighters just leave themselves open for the counter punch, as we've seen specifically with Senator from Massachusetts.
3
Have to fight and win in order to heal.
But make no mistake - GOP will attempt to personally destroy whomever runs against their nominee.
You need to retaliate *1st* against them, otherwise they’ll do to the next Democrat what they did to Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry and Al Gore.
4
Wait !! Cory is the healer ? That's a good one. Elizabeth is a fighter, get out of here !
2
This country needs to be run for the people, by the people. Not for the corporations by the lobbyists. We need a fundamental paradigm shift in how we "do government." Honestly, we need an intervention. I would love to see the NYT cover Marianne Williamson's time in Iowa. She has a 35 year career of helping people solve problems and crises. I believe we need a problem-solver and a peacemaker. @marianne2020
1
cory booker is in the pockets of big pharma.
14
@M. hazeri NYT considers that healing... for the corporations. Which they are big fans of.
1
I want somebody who can do both. But first. The fight
4
Fighter or healer? I don't care if it's a highter or fealer. As long as it's a winner.
5
we want both. we want a healer who will fight, and a fighter who will heal. we want to crush the current administration and the racism, misogyny, graft and corruption it embodies, and replace it with something better
5
After the fiery Trump years and before that the partisanship and increasing nastiness and Washington arrogance, that gave rise to populism generally and Trump particularly, whoever comes next must be a consensus builder and calming unifying leader. Increasing the invective, divisions and emotions can lead to nothing good or positive. Senator Warren's intemperate comments are irresponsible and counterproductive. Trying to outTrump Trump is bad on every level. Senator Brooker is right in that was is needed is a restoration of “grace and decency”. "lockem up" language, be it from Trump or from Warren is abhorrent. Dialog and compromise is what is called for, not "fighting" for personal agendas. Enough of fighting talk please!
2
Both. Fighter and healer. Go Bernie!!!!! Put things right. That will be incredible healing
6
Obama tried to be healer, and brought a bandage to a knife fight.
Republicans used that advantage to slice and dice democracy.
If loyal, decent Americans want to rescue their country from Trump's Russian Republicans, they need to start firing figurative howitzers.
53
@Been There EXACTLY... and that was my only complaint about Obama...
4
Mr. Booker's 'feel good, be good' approach is pap, at best and pandering at worst. We don't need a 'reconciler' when the 45th presidency was stolen with the aid of Russia mating with the greed of the candidate; this is clearly wrong, it's not about 'feelings', it's about the rule of law. That said, Booker might make a good vice, speaking the good word while the policy heft is handled by Senator Warren, a proven policy-maker with actual plans to help the majority of people easily felled by a financial emergency while keeping predatory financial players at bay.
At some point in the Democratic Primary, some astute candidate is going to realize there is little point in trying to "heal" trump supporters back into the Democratic fold when they were never part of the party, to begin with, and they will stop wasting their time.
As a nation we have to admit within our population there is a minority of ignorant, racist, hateful people that only the rule of law can corral.
4
I live in New Jersey and Booker has always struck me as being a a politician that was full of platitudes. I think Trump, who I despise, referred to him as a Hallmark candidate. Unfortunately, that is not far from the truth. When I think of him it is not for sponsoring great legislation but photo ops where he helps little old ladies across the street, rescues a stray dog, helping someone in an auto accident, etc, Your picture perfectly encapsulates who he is. I don't think it will be a Christ like Democrat who takes Trump's down.
7
A third of the country is going to hate whoever it is. You don't have to "fight" them, and go ahead and make the case that your politics/policies will help the non-rich folks therein. But please, whoever it is:
-stand behind your policy (most of it polls pretty great!), don't get mealy-mouthed
-don't listen to the Serious People hacks and their double standards
-publicly "welcome their hatred" when the cynical astroturfed stuff starts rolling in
3
Because it is the Republicans who sow division in this county, fighting them IS the path of reconciliation. Both Booker and Warren are on the same path. Quit trying to define differences that do not exist, NYT.
3
"'Honestly, I think there’s a bit of schizophrenia on what our message should be,' Ms. Campbell said. 'You can be angry and passionate about what’s happened, and also recognize that the task ahead of us is to bring the country together. . .'"
Ms. Campbell, no biggie in the scheme of things--I guess--but please do look up the definition of "schizophrenia." It isn't what you seem to think it is.
3
Love and redemption, huh?
We incarcerate more than any other country, even China with four times our population.
We are awash in guns. Gun deaths are a national disgrace.
The progressive taxes that built the Great American Middle Class have been replaced in every state as well as the federal tax system with regressive taxes that favor the wealthy.
While our infrastructure crumbles, the homeless pile up in our streets.
And the great majority of our nations white Christians have voted for all of the above - and the killing of millions of peasants from S.E. Asia to the Middle East.
And even more, ugly stuff - too much to cover.
No, I want a fighter.
7
"And the 2020 primary, Democratic leaders say, could hinge on whether their voters are more determined to reunite a divided country or to crush Mr. Trump and his party."
First, we must "crush" trump "and his party"!
When the cancer has been excised and trump is behind bars where he belongs, then we can work on reuniting the Divided States of America.
Before healing can commence, you have to stop the hemorrhaging. You can't continue to increase obscene wealth and power of a few and impoverishment of the many yet expect democracy to survive.
3
I want a candidate who can win. Every other trait is subordinate to that.
1
America could start healing only after Trump is no longer president . The Democrats should make removing him from office their one and only goal , preferably before the 2020 elections.
2
If the only people Democrats had to marshal to beat Trump were other Democrats, I'd argue wholeheartedly just for fighting. Last I looked, that wasn't the case.
In 2009, Cory Booker sold his political soul to Michael Bloomberg when he supported him for his 3rd term as mayor of NYC, this time as an independent instead of as Republican as in his first two terms. Bloomberg was running against a well qualified African-American Democrat.
I don't see how Booker can sell himself as a healer of the Democratic Party when he had no problem deserting it to make sure Bloomberg's money went to him and not an opponent. I can understand going against a candidate of your party if you have significant policies difference but not for more venal reasons.
I hope that when the African-American community examines candidates, it remembers Booker selling out one of its own.
2
How I wish this was not starting so early -- such a dreadful process.
That said ... I'm already hearing the "I will never vote for" this will slowly move in the direction of "I'm not sure who" when people are asked closer to the election. They will not tell the truth.
Same as 2016 .... "I will never vote for" means ... I will never vote for. Harris and Booker are in that camp ... Warren is "dead walking" . Booker was not a good mayor of newark -- the current one proves that.
I hope the DEM's wise up.
Elizabeth Warren just made a very important point, in 2 years Donald Trump may not be a free man.
3
To affect any change, the Democrats will need a WINNER, first and foremost. Just in case anyone had forgotten what happened last time winning was taken for granted.
I found the emphasis on Mr. Booker's "physicality" and "athleticism" sexist and bizarre. While it brought to mind Trump's body-stalking Hillary on the floor of the debates, and a fantasy of Mr. Trump coming in a pitiful and out of shape second in a mano-a-mano, let's focus on the issues.
1
I believe you cant reign in a dangerous irrational entity with compassion, but you need to be strong,wise,and stand for the victims and eventually you will experience unity.
Ms.Campbell undersells it but nails it- "Honestly, I think there's a bit of schizophrenia about what our message should be." Deranged schizophrenia seems to be the primary Democratic response to Trump so far. Hopefully they'll pull their act together in time for the election.
We initially need a fighter in the White House. There will be time to heal after an assertive Democratic President has the Republicans on the ropes.
1
Can we stop with the false choices? What we want is someone qualified. Someone who understands how to get things done in Washington. Someone with subject-matter expertise. Someone who can inspire, as well as lead. Someone who is interested in public service, not self-worship.
Booker is an unproven amateur, with intelligence and good looks, but little else. We have tried this recipe before, with mixed results. John F. Kennedy was a disaster as President, getting us into the Viet Nam War, bungling the invasion of Cuba, and encouraging the Russians to test his will in a showdown which brought us to the brink of nuclear war. Only his assassination salvaged his image; finishing out his term certainly would not have. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, with all his faults, was 10 times the President JFK would have ever been.
We did much better with Barack Obama. Although relatively inexperienced, he possessed a prodigious intellect and a real sense of public duty. He committed none of the egregious errors in judgment of JFK; under his watch, the US repaired many relations strained by his predecessor, Little George.
The fact that we got lucky with President Obama is not an endorsement for running the new kids. Warren is, right now, by far the more experienced and serious-minded candidate. Whether, in this day of personal name-calling by the GOP, she can appeal to anyone in states where livestock outnumber people is highly doubtful. But then, possibly no Democrat can.
3
I am leaning toward Warren. As far as I know she is free of money grubbing scandal and truly believes what she says. She would press forward with her ideas after the election, not turn into a Wall Street puppet or get us into even more wars.
17
One with a concrete vision of how to move forward--Warren!
5
I cannot overemphasize the importance of nominating a candidate who can win.
I’m not seeing anything that looks remotely like leadership here. Booker wants to be Obama, part two, but it’s doubtful if Obama himself could pull that off given his record of non-accomplishment. Besides, Hillary already tried that and failed. Warren is finished already; she just doesn’t know it. Her message is radical, weak and the tough-guy look doesn’t fit her at all. If this is the best the Democrats have, get ready for four more years.
Yes, we need healing. But first the abscess needs to be cleaned out and cauterized.
2
Did democracy catch a cold?
Or did someone allow it to be bought and sold?
There is no reason why they can't simultaneously heal and fight.
Most importantly Democrats have to grow w spine.
The headline asks:
Do the Democrats want a fighter or a healer?
Here we go again. We are barely into 2019 and the mainstream media is already giving us another false choice.
Does it always have to be one or the other? The ideal occupant of the White House in Jan. 2021 will need to be those things and a lot more.
What we need is leadership. We need someone who, instead of just fancy speeches and all the right buzzwords, will actually get things done.
Our planet is dying, we are in multiple pointless and expensive wars, millions of our families struggling, thousands are dying from overdoses, children and parents are being separated and put in cages with many hundreds unaccounted for, and our national debt is soaring.
We have multiple serious problems. Let’s stay focused on who is going to be most able to give us genuine leadership and real solutions from day one.
17
@r2d2
"Do the Democrats want a fighter or a healer?"
(fighter or healer is code for man or woman.)
It's not an either-or predicament.
You heal a nation with dismal health statistics by fighting for affordable, comprehensive healthcare.
You heal parts of our country decimated by joblessness and opiod addiction by fighting for good paying jobs, backing unions, and using some of our nation's obscene wealth to spur development.
You heal our crumbling infrastructure by fighting for the money, and the will, to fix it.
You heal our very fragile planet by fighting for renewable energy, environmental stewardship and scientific innovation.
You heal our diminished status on the world stage by fighting for human rights and fighting against banana republic dictators, totalitarians, and Soviet era thugs.
You heal the tremendous burden we put on young people by fighting to make college affordable.
You heal the mistrust of big money in politics by actually jailing financial criminals, rejecting corporate lobbyist money, and protecting consumers.
What is needed to achieve this are big, clear, easily articulated proposals. Trump did this to wild efficacy in 2016 - "wall! tariffs!" - and although it was all lies and bluster, people understood it. But at this stage, all we are reading about is Elizabeth Warren's hand gestures and Cory Booker's hugs.
Let's please have more on policy ideas than on the personality contest. If anyone in this race thinks they are going to either outrage or Kumbaya the voters into defeating Trump, they are sorely mistaken.
14
@Solaris Well you have my vote.
A Fighter. Only 63M Americans elected Trump, just a little over a quarter of eligible voters. And some of those are getting sick of him, have buyer's remorse. A fighter will get those votes, and get more people to the polls who sat out 2016, plus the votes Hillary won. Who cares about the hard core Trump lovers, no Democrat will appeal to them. Plus, you'll have to be fighter to campaign against Trump, because he will surely control the media coverage with his anger and bombast. We want to see someone who can take the fight to him, while articulating a vision of America that will appeal to the most voters.
49
We need a fighter.
We need a candidate and a president who will fight for Medicare for All, who will fight for a green economy, who will fight to get money and its corrupting influence out of our politics once and for all. We need someone like Elizabeth Warren.
I'm sure Booker's message of unity and healing comes from a good place, but this is not the time to grow soft in confronting an atrocity like the Trump administration, or the corrupt Republican party, or to repair the damage done to our nation by predatory corporate entities. We need bold, progressive change and we'll never get it with someone as deep in the pockets of Wall Street and Big Pharma as Cory Booker. He's more likely to bring these corrupting influences to the table in a spirit of "compromise", where the policy results will be watered down and ineffectual at best. No way. We've been doing that for decades and it doesn't work. Save the softness for another time.
The American people are drowning, the middle class is dying, and the planet is being destroyed. We need a real fighter, and real, lasting change. We need Elizabeth Warren.
9
Warren is not electable outside Massachusetts. And I wish I thought folks so much as knew what Medicare for All is.
“A range of blends is already available in the Democratic primary...”
True, this. Yet at last night’s Grammy awards, all Michelle Obama had to do was open her mouth to speak and the decibel level was off the charts. Granted, that is a specific audience, but it was a decidedly Democratic one nonetheless. This country could use a whole lot of what Michelle Obama has to offer right now.
If only she’d run.
1
The author offers what seems a false dichotomy: do Democrats need a 'fighter' or a 'healer'? In my view there can be no genuine healing until Trump and his gang of thieves and fools have been crushed and driven out of our political lives forever.
Do we want a fighter or a healer? Think about your favorite teacher. Both, right? I want both.
2
We certainly can't accuse the Times of bias in this article. One candidate wants to unite us in mutual understanding, and the other wants to destroy the government. Nicely said!
Elizabeth Warren, with her formidable intellect and well thought out, clearly articulated positions, obviously has far too much integrity for either party to be comfortable with her. There can be no question that she means what she says.
Cory Booker has incredible charisma and charm, you come away from him feeling good about yourself, the world, and the future. That he's a New Jersey politician stays off the radar. What are those methods by which he intends to accomplish all this healing? TBA.
Bernie Sanders, still charismatic after all these years, is basically a one-trick pony. Admittedly, it's a really, really great trick.
Kamala Harris, Progressive lite, a former prosecutor, has convictions, we'll see how that unfolds, maybe well.
Amy Klobuchar, Progressive ultra-lite, has more success with non-controversial legislation than with hot button issues. That's likely to continue
Kirsten Gillibrand, as usual, is whatever she thinks you want her to be.
All in all, it looks like a fun ride to the finish. I dont anticipate a first ballot sweep. Am I too optimistic in hoping the NYT will confine its bias to the editorial pages?
5
Combine this religious zealotry with a hateful, xenophobic nationalism and you have fascism, my friends. Here's a quote from Madeline Albright's Fascism: A Warning.
"“With this warning, Mussolini demanded and was given authority to do just about whatever he wanted; but his initial priority, surprisingly, was good government. He knew that citizens were fed up with a bureaucracy that seemed to grow bigger and less efficient each year, so he insisted on daily roll calls in ministry offices and berated employees for arriving late to work or taking long lunches. He initiated a campaign to drenare la palude (“drain the swamp”) by firing more than 35,000 civil servants. He repurposed Fascist gangs to safeguard rail cargo from thieves. He allocated money to build bridges, roads, telephone exchanges, and giant aqueducts that brought water to arid regions. He gave Italy an eight-hour workday, codified insurance benefits for the elderly and disabled, funded prenatal health care clinics, established seventeen hundred summer camps for children, and dealt the Mafia a blow by suspending the jury system and short-circuiting due process. With no jury members to threaten and judges answerable directly to the state, the courts were as incorruptible as they were docile. Contrary to legend, the dictator didn’t quite succeed in making the trains run on time, but he earned bravos for trying.”
― Madeleine K. Albright, Fascism: A Warning
2
It is not about a “fighter or a healer”, another preposterous framing of soundbites as issues by the NYT. It is about concrete common-sense proposals to solve the Country’s major problems, and if the GOP wants to decry them, then to make very clear to all that the GOP are the supine vassals of crazy billionaires.
3
"Crushing President Trump"? No one crushes Trump -- he does the crushing!!!!
1
Another article from the closet republicans urging the Democrats to be nice, lest they make the gop mad.
The demos should listen to and heed the UCLA cheer: U,Cee,Ellllllll,Aye, UCLA Fight Fight Fight.
1
Anyone who fights for the 99 percent will de facto be their healer. False choice.
4
The Democratic nominee quite simply needs to do both. He or she needs to bring us together by ending the divisive, hateful, destructive puppet presidency being controlled by the fossil fuel industry and hedge fund class.
I want a president with a spine, not one being told when to sit and when to bark by his financial masters.
2
As useful as a healer is, no party can survive without a fighter. What would be most helpful is to add a spell caster to the party for battleground control as well. The Orcs are in the keep and the Democrats have still not decided how to proceed, that’s almost as bad as a natural 1.
2
Fighter? Healer? A winner will do.
False choice by the nyt
The gop has done real harm to non whites
This has tinned a fight
Otw that harm will become legislatively permanent
For white men and women there has been no lasting harm so I understand their ambivalence
Leave it to the Times to lay out a false choice for us. Of course you can have both, and the candidate that embodies both most is Tulsi Gabbard.
1
Crush. Then unite.
1
If Democrats have any sense, they will choose a candidate who is qualified in every respect to be the president. A non-qualified or partially-qualified candidate undermines their argument that Trump chaotic presidency is due to him lacking the necessary qualifications to be in the White House.
Both. Fight to WIN, Govern to Heal. It's the only way to recover from this Trump Disaster.
14
It has to lean more towards fighter. As a general political matter people, especially progressives these days, want to know that a candidate is going to fight -- to defend themselves and ultimately if elected for the things that benefit constituents.
You can't have one side singing Kumbaya while the other side is kicking, gouging and shivving. That's reality. Of course you don't sink to their level, but neither can you leave their attacks unanswered in the hopes that voters will reward a turn-the-other-cheek attitude.
And they will have to face the full fury of the finely-honed Republican smear/propaganda/disinformation machine, along with Trump's indisputable talent for name-calling and ridicule. It works; just ask Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, Low-Energy Jeb, Crooked Hillary, etc.
If you want to be a "healer" the only way is to win so you can start reversing the damage being done by this administration. And to win you'd better be ready to fight.
Looking at this from far off, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are politicians with rare integrity who care about the common people. Their whole career shows this. Was dissapointed when Lizzie did not immediately make an early endorsement of Sanders during his run but it must have been difficult for her to come out against a first viable woman candidate. America appears to be sliding towards oligarchy. If I was in the economic 90% of America I would vote for Warren. She would at least fight against the oligarchs on the side of the middle class. Bernie would do so too but his race his run. He should take the role of an elder statesman this time and support Warren. And I am not just saying so because Liz Warren reminds me of Liz Bennet, my fav fictional herione. The middle class of America has been the guarantor of world stability since WW2 , and this declining middle class needs Warren as President. Another trump term would destroy America, another centrist Democrat would just preserve the tilted status quo, only someone like Warren would fight to reverse the tilt. Integrity is in Warren's DNA and that should be the only DNA result Americans should care about.
4
People do not need a fighter or a heeler.They need visionary who can move the country forward and create an image of US(America) in the world as a strong but compassionate country concerned of the one's left behind,world free from wars,free trade ideas and help the world to grow.
1
Can’t a fighter be a unifier as well? The majority of the Trump base isn’t likely to “unify” with the rest of the country. But there are still plenty of voters who feel the sting of his duplicity who will join with a more twenty first century view of governing inclusively. I believe most Americans want a government that truly views all people as equal; that can provide an environment for all to practice their religious or non-religious beliefs in peace and safety; that can view a nearly 300 year old constitution in ways that continually improve our lives rather than committing us forever to the 18th century; that understands that middle class Americans need laws that protect them from the whims of autocrats and plutocrats. We need both a fighter and a unifier to make these goals realities.
3
I haven't heard a Democratic candidate that I would have a problem with. My primary criterion for supporting a candidate will be there she or he can beat Donald Trump.
2
We need both a fighter and ultimately, a uniter. The poison that trump brought forth must be totally eradicated. Failure to do so will allow the hate to simmer, only to reappear at some other time, perhaps with a less flawed spokesman, producing catastrophic end results. Thus, it must be thoroughly crushed and repudiated. However, income inequality which created the sense of hopelessness and injustice that many feel, must be handled through actions, not words. And the actions must be fairly dramatic. Among other things, it means taxing the wealthy and wealth at significantly higher rates, and ending the corrupt power money has on our political system. This will require a strong leader who has the support of the nation, because those who have wielded control for so long will not give it up without a fight. For my money, I would like to see a (liberal) Democratic presidential candidate with a Republican vice presidential candidate as a unity ticket for a "New, New Deal".
14
@j I can see it now. Maybe Vice President Jeff Flake could look very concerned as he cast the tie breaking votes in a split Senate in Mitch McConnells favor so we can all feel good about bipartisanship.
2
@j No, thank you.
1
Let's get our new political euphemisms sorted out right here from the start. "Fighter" means someone who wants to tax the rich like they've never been taxed before. "Healer," like "Moderate," not so much. A cynic might argue that's all our news media political journalism usually amounts to -- a confusingly coded communique that the wealthy might know whom to fear most and the rest of us fight over "identity politics."
2
As a resident of NJ, I can attest that Cory Booker is a very good man. He means well, and is also compromised by the Wall Street and Big Pharma support that has fueled most of his career.
But the real issue I have with this article is the one dimensional way it characterizes both candidates, especially Senator Warren. To call her just someone who wants to "demolish the architecture of his (Trump's) government" is just lame reporting and does a disservice to all of us.
9
I expect the winner will be the one who offers the strongest economic message that most people feel will lift all boats.
Warren may be more obviously anti-Trump. She’s also got a strong background on economic reform. If she can get the message out there that her economic plans are going to be effective and good for the middle class, good for Black voters, and good for the rust belt, being anti-Trump won’t matter.
I don’t know yet that Booker’s platform has that kind of economic strength. I appreciate his call to unity, but a call to good economic reform may be the call that actually creates unity.
1
What's needed is a fearless pure-hearted fighter willing to go all-in for a righteous cause, the People.
The healing will take care of itself because the fact of fighting back - and winning - starts the healing process; it reverses powerlessness, raises morale, and gives hope.
2
There is healing to be done. There is fighting to be done. Many fear Booker's "love and healing" utterances, however, are just political short hand for conveniently caving to the powerful forces that have actually created, and want to perpetuate, Two Americas-- with 1% on top and 99% doing their bidding. This is NOT "healing!" Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, seems ready to reckon with the ugly reality that Booker's political happy talk does not address.
6
@Guernica
Booker may be trying to channel Obama, which does not bode well for his candidacy as this is an entirely new day.
1
After two years of Trump’s angry, divisive, delusional “ tweets” people are ready for civil conversation and are weary of partisans wars.In the real world we work together and live in neighborhoods without great partisan divides. Politics does not occupy every moment of our waking lives.Voters need jobs, education for their children and the assurance of affordable health care. the solutions to these problems do not have to involve “ fighting words “.Cory Booker’s approach would appear to be the most appealing-he has had experience in governing at the local level and is smart- a Rhodes Scholar.We need a conciliator.
1
What I most want to see is a candidate who can be a fighter when they need to, while still embodying a message of unity. I hope we will find our nation's divisions don't run as deep as they appear. If you set aside the most diehard Trump followers (most of whom would sooner vote for an extraterrestrial than for a woman or a black man or in fact any Democrat) and focus on the rest of the electorate, I think you'll find most people support a lot of the same things. Stop the immigration fearmongering. Fix our healthcare system. Make the very wealthy pay their share like they used to. Clean the corruption out of government. Approach the global warming problem with science-based solutions instead of denial. Work toward an economy where hardworking people in full-time jobs can support their families and not be one paycheck away from catastrophe. Protect our air and water from pollution. Strengthen our public schools. Help people who need help.
Warren, as much as I admire her stand, won't make it. Booker might.
Fighters v. Healers
One does not preclude the other.
We're divided enough. Let's not divide and sort the candidates.
I'm looking for the whole person.
2
There is a growing gaggle of Dem candidates who are scheming, praying and soon will be fighting each other to replace "The Donald".
It will be fascinating to see which one can muster the support and the huge amount of cash needed to get past the primaries.
As more and more Democrat candidates over crowd the field, the Republicans will keep salivating over the Democrat's diminishing chances and their desperate hunt for contributions.
While the huge throng of Democratic candidates hope for a Mueller report that will sink Trump's chances, they would be wise to "stop counting chickens" and start raising a mountain of cash to possibly get the job done.
Oh, and a message that will resonate positively with the electorate might also help!.
Booker wants to seen as "pragmatic,bringing people together"? His Spartacus moment at the Kavanaugh hearings indicated otherwise.
1
Messaging is, or should be, the outcome of what you stand for.
Less soaring labels for the archetypes of Healer and Fighter are Centrist and Progressive. If you believe that the country needs marginal change you will appeal to the population that is happy to overlook the extent of what’s wrong with the country and more towards the relief of coming together. Booker is the “Kumbaya candidate”.
If you believe that the country needs massive structural change, you don’t get there by nibbling at the edges. You have to take dramatic actions that are necessary for social justice, environment and the economy. You need a Teddy Roosevelt. And, that’s Elizabeth Warren.
They have both been consistent in following that archetype over the years. Warren has a consistent message for 20 years even scuffling with the centrist corporate friendly Biden in the 2000s. Booker has always been trying to follow Obama’s footsteps.
The danger of being in the center is that you take positions that are intended to appeal to everyone, and in the end either you appeal to no one or you end up not knowing who you are. What gives me pause about Booker is when he lays claim to progressive policies with that Kumbaya message.
Warren has been labeled as too extreme for America. She’s sensibly delineated herself from Bernie (and Justice Dems) by staking herself to be a Capitalist who wants reform.
There may be a time for coming together. We need to level the playing field first. Which might bring us together.
4
Mr. Burns posits a false dichotomy. The raison d'etre of the Warren campaign is not to crush the GOP. Her purpose is to reverse 40 years of economic policy and de-regulation that has favored the top 5% at the expense of everyone else.
Focus on the policy Mr. Burns not the horse race.
4
Here is the problem: Every time the Democrats adopt a reconciling position, the GOP drags the whole political curve further right. It is a losing position to keep being dragged right over election cycles. We see this if we look at the direction the country has move since the time of FDR. Today a Dwight D. Eisenhower would be on the left because that is how far the political bell curve has been dragged to the right.
Like it or not the Democrats must hold and pull back what has been taken over time. And yes, they must put forward a sustainable vision for the country in terms of environment - the existential crisis of our age and own making - and to provide from the great wealth of the few to do what is right for everyone. We are all in this together, and the GOP must not be permitted to drag everyone to the bottom like a dog with a stone around its neck thrown into a lake.
83
@Nicholas Anyone think that the country is going to unite around another left-wing politician and legislature who plan to ram new laws down people throats to control their behavior? Take away their guns, make them pay higher taxes, stunt the economy with red tape, waste government time on silly bathroom regulations, and push, push push identity politics instead of uniting all Americans. That why Trump was elected. Right or wrong, it was a backlash against Obama and a continuance of his policies through Hillary. And now my fully democrat state legislature is proposing that the states electoral college votes be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of how the state voters voted. Now that is astonishing disenfranchisement. Why even bother to vote if it won’t be counted? Why would I ever vote for a democrat?
1
@Nicholas
Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were well to the political right of FDR and LBJ as expected. But Ike and Nixon as well. Bill and Barack were Reagan Democrats.
Both men talked liberal progressive left in rhetoric but practiced corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch xenophobic bigotry. Bill Clinton was the father of black mass incarceration and black mass welfare deformation. Barack Obama was the father of mass deportation and no public option in healthcare.
The Obamas have joined the Clintons in making millions " earned" from their " public service".
2
@baba ganoush
You want to talk about disenfranchisement? OK.
I live in California, where my vote for president counts less than 1/3 of a voter in Wyoming. Electing a president based on nationwide voting is far more democratic.
It may take time, but it is inevitable.
6
How about someone who simply speaks for the middle of the political spectrum and shows up with real solutions to real problems rather than ideologues who vow to unite or fight, but at the end of the day, don't accomplish anything?
@JJ
It's the centrists who never accomplish anything worthwhile. Can't get any change from the same old same old. And no leadership either; they don't challenge or inspire the People.
Centrists are natural born losers, too weak minded and risk-adverse to go all-in. They're the place holders in life, too afraid of losing or being wrong to ever win. All they do is criticize those who try. No one likes them except corporate Democrats.
1
I guess you're looking for "charisma" like that of our current president? Or maybe you want to swing to the other end of the spectrum and vote for the "charismatic" candidates that have surfaced on the left? If all Democrats do that, I can assure you that we'll be stuck with another four years of Trump and more of the inaction we've had for the first two years of his presidency. Charisma and inspiration sound great, but there has to be substance at some point and we're severely lacking in that on both sides at the moment.
Help me out here, Senator Booker. Have some policies i can peruse? Apologies if i've missed them. Although your brand of kumbaya is appealing in it's own way (I'll admit i'm not totally immune), it's going to take a whole lot more than that to get my vote. Vague "positions" aren't going to help much either, especially when Warren is armed to the teeth with well fleshed out policy proposals. Still on her team out of all who declared so far. Relative political oafish notwithstanding.
3
@rtj,
Warren is too liberal to win. For example, Medicare for All is a nice idea in principle, but too many with good private health insurance won't want to give it up for what could become the UK's NHS or the long waits for specialists and the lack of palliative care in parts of Canada. Perhaps a voluntary demonstration project for the uninsured over 55 who pay more for Medicare premiums than those 65+ in Medicare and then evaluation after 5 years. Same with her other proposals.
@Sue McKeown
I'm not a psychic and neither are you, i have no idea who will win and neither do you. I'll vote for who i think best serves my interests, not for whom some random Democrats think best serves their own.
Good grief. The 2020 elections are nearly two years away and the media is asking, "what the people want". They get remarks from a few people and say "democrats" want, "republicans" want and/or "independents" want. It's ridiculous.
The vast majority of us want The Con Don and his Robber Baron brethren OUT of OUR governments at all levels.
WE DO NOT WANT WW3.
WE want good, publicly funded education for our children and grandchildren, affordable housing, to protect OUR environment, safe food and social/financial equity among other things.
Who will help us achieve those things? That is who I will vote for. The media needs to allow "consultants" to "sell" the candidates and start digging into their action backgrounds and core values. If they match mine I'll vote for them.
People voted for George Bush, Jr. and got Dick Cheney/Don Rumsfeld doing his job and sowing destruction on WE THE PEOPLE. Let's not make the same mistake again.
34
I meant to say, "The media needs to STOP allowing consultants to "sell" the candidates and start digging into their action backgrounds and core values."
The advertising agency who represented our major company in the early 80s bragged about the fact that they represented several political candidates in their first foray into politics and all of their candidates won. The agency didn't promote the truth about the candidates. They sold them like any other product or organization. That is their job.
The media's job is to sort out the truth not act as politicians' cheerleaders and/or give them free advertising posing as editorial content.
14
@njglea
Unfortunately there are a whole lot of people out there who base their vote on other criteria: rabble-rousing nationalism combined with a healthy dose of xenophobia, absurd economic promises that ignore reality, and a selection of greatest-hits wedge issues like guns, abortion, etc.
1
@njglea
And no matter who the people vote for, even Obama, they get Goldman Sachs running the treasury.
5
Platitudes about healing and unification may make voters feel better during election season, but without actual changes that result in the average American seeing increased wages and feeling like they are heard in the democratic process, the cycle of extreme partisanship and disunity will continue.
38
@Wesley Rogers
Exactly. I want policies that address problems from politicians, not "healing," whatever that is.
8
Fighter during primaries, with an acknowledgment of the need to heal and then a healer during general election and in office with an effective demonstration of the ability to fight for the well-being of the country and its citizens.
7
The choices are not mutually exclusive. Either will accomplish both.
64
Agree. These are NOT mutually exclusive traits. Ever hear of a protective, nurturing parent, for instance? Yikes.
3
@Steve Martorano
Thanks for your comment: It precisely stated my own thought, i.e., bringing the country together would by definition bury Trumpism.
Creating false dichotomies sells advertising — that's why the media is so good at it.
3
@Steve Martorano
There is only one problem with your argument. The "centrists," keep demanding that you give up fixing the corrupt system, so we can get along with those that corrupt it. Compromising with bad policy, that flies in the face of the Constitution and keeps making most people worse off, and getting rewarded by Republicans with investigations and cries of socialism, is a strategy that has been an utter failure for 25 years. Experience means nothing if you refusr to learn from it.
Republicans repeatedly and loudly say that "compromise is evil and a sign of weakness." They are calling you weak, and telling you they use your commodities against you, and centrists respond with, thank you sir may I have another.
If you would rather compromise with the Party of Trump than your own base, you need to join their party.
Republicans call all of their opponents "socialist." That is their strength and their weakness.
2