Elizabeth Warren Is the Democrats’ Unity Candidate

Her nomination would offer the best hope of bringing together the party’s warring factions.

Comments: 131

  1. Agree 100%. After extensive research of each candidate, I've decided to vote for her. She's brilliant, experienced, compassionate, patient and determined. My dream ticket would be Warren/Abrams.

  2. An endorsement from a columnist at a newspaper that reported that Trump's chances of winning the night before the election were only 15% in not ... well... very reassuring. I think I will do like George Costanza and do just the opposite of what seems like the best thing to do. Or in this case, vote for the opposite of whoever Michelle is endorsing.

  3. I’d like to see a unity candidate too. One who can unify our shared struggle as working people under capitalism. Bernie is that candidate. And no, unlike Warren, I’m not a “capitalist to my bones”. With less than ten years to address the climate crisis, I can’t “believe in markets” anymore.

  4. More wishful thinking by progressives. Nobody I know will vote for a Socialist which is what she is. I am not paying other people's student loans who took them on as adults knowing full well what they were getting into. I cannot support an invasive government that will try to control every aspect of our lives. I do not believe in manipulating our currency which is against international conventions and she advocates that. She has been dishonest about her heritage to gain advantage and she complains about the wealthy when she has over $12 million in assets including a $3 million house in Cambridge and a $1 million condo in DC. Maybe she should give $10 million to people and need to show she is a person of the people. Trump will eat her lunch in an election. We need an electable candidate and no matter how much progressives delude themselves, neither she or Bernie are.

  5. Elizabeth Warren has a screechy voice. She knows what's best for you. She has the body language of Beto, sans table hopping. Does she poll better with men than Hillary did? If not... Now, for the bad stuff. "Her nomination would offer the best hope of bringing together the party’s warring factions." That's true for every candidate. As told by every candidate. "...she’s “bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.” If she can't flip a lot of Trump voters in no-man's-land... "...there’s tremendous resentment of Sanders left over from 2016." Is there any doubt that feeling is mutual and possibly more intense in the Sanders camp? "...as well as the young people Democrats need to turn out en masse." I'm guessing there is an app, that will bring young voters to the polls. While I suspect there is above average interest and intensity among college students, the average high school student would find Trump's message more understandable. "...a registered Democrat who has worked within the party — including in the Obama administration..." She should check with Biden on how well that line plays.

  6. I like Warren but African-American women prefer Biden. Since they could well be the deciding factor in who beats Trump, it's time to make some hard choices in winnowing out the also-rans.

  7. Michelle says that she has "hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary because I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign." She should stick with her instincts of worrying about an appearance of a conflict of interest, because she provides very little substance to her assertion that Warren is the unity candidate and this column looks like it was written by someone in the Warren campaign for all the logic it has Warren the unity candidate is the same woman attacking Sanders, Biden, and Mayor Pete? And who doesn't have a message that resonates with non progressives? Having passionate followers doesn't mean non followers will unite behind her, and considering her standings in the polls there seems to be very little objective evidence to support Michelle's assertion

  8. Bernie isn't even a Democrat, he's an independent! As much as I like his personal style, he will never defeat Trump and he's a divisive figure. He should never have entered the race.

  9. "Many believe he weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary — at one point even threatening a contested convention — and then only halfheartedly rallying his fans behind her when it was over. " from the text of this piece ................halfheartedly? The truth is Bernie campaigned for Hillary more than any other person. And before the 2016 convention, Bernie polled better against Trump than Hillary. If the media and the DNC had treated Sanders fairly, there would now be no President Trump.

  10. No "candidate" will beat Trump - only a true grassroots movement (like Bernie's) will do that. And this is a VERY odd time to promote Warren as unifier since she has not only been bleeding support for a month, but her campaign has just instigated a major divisive sleaze attack on Bernie, who happens right now to be leading. I love many of MG's pieces but she had NO business writing this since her husband is a Warren advisor. (Admitting your conflict of interest doesn't neutralize it.) Bad journalism - including by the NYT - helped create Trump, and if journalists don't find their spine and their ethics, they will help re-elect him.

  11. college loan forgiveness. free college tuition. repairations. some kind of child care credit. medicare for all. if she does win, their are going to be a lot of disappointment

  12. I agree 100%. But I am an educated voter, so I guess I don't count in this discussion. I will add that of the 3, Warren is clearly in the best physical and mental shape. She is physically spry, mentally quick, and the most logical candidate I have ever head. If elected, she has the energy to pick the right team and figure things out. Biden and Sanders are too old. I'll vote for any Democrat, but I don't understand why we want to elect someone pushing 80. The only reason Warren is not considered as strong a contender must be because of gender, which is ridiculous at this point in history. Look at all the major female leaders throughout the world. Why not in the USA? Women now top men in colleges and in the work force. She's a gem and the Democratic Party is losing a golden opportunity if they fail to nominate her.

  13. Warren was a Republican until age 42. She will be Obama 2.0 Talk a great game then govern as a Republican.

  14. @gene Her creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the flack she received from the Obama administration undermines your argument.

  15. At this point in our nation’s history the only valid consideration is to which party the voter assents being hostage. With that sad realization, I have to say Bloomberg is the best shot. His version of noblesse oblige is more palatable than the alternative offered by our present captors - Serf from Stockholm

  16. This idea has been discredited by Warren herself. I will not vote for her and feel she is another stealth corporatist working to lure progressives with good sounding rhetoric that she will not follow through on.

  17. This article is wishful thinking, and the arguments don't hold water. Did Michelle not see the NYT polls showing Warren doing much worse against Trump than Biden and Sanders? Did she not read the accurate NYT piece about Warren supporters who worry that others don't support Warren? The fact is that Warren does really poorly with less educated or affluent white voters, as well as wealthy white men, and African Americans. Bernie does bring more people in to the party, just like her did in Vermont, because he speaks to people who have been forgotten, just as he described in his book. And if there is a fear in certain segments of the democratic electorate to vote for women, don't blame Bernie for that.

  18. Unlike Trump, who fights only for himself, President Elizabeth Warren will fight for all economically, environmentally, and healthcare beleaguered Americans, whether they are part of Trump’s base or not. A president who cares about the good of ALL Americans- wouldn’t that be a change!

  19. Nope, it is Bloomberg. You nominate Mrs. Warren, and we lose in a landslide. The country is not the coast.

  20. Best hope for unifying party? Perhaps. But amongst the worst for unifying the country, which to my mind, is much more important...

  21. All the Democratic candidates have glaring weaknesses, every one of them will have a very difficult task in beating Trump. President Sanders however has the greatest potential to be the 'good anti-Trump' if he did win - a rabble-rousing populist, but without all the lies and with benign policy preferences. The Democratic party is only slightly less rotten than the Republican party, so Sanders rallying the masses to force change against both Democratic and Republican entrenched interests is the only way actual change could potentially happen. It's still far from a sure thing; most likely there just is no hope at all to beat the plutocracy. But Warren would almost surely fail to achieve meaningful change, and the others won't even try.

  22. I view these reports from Politico and other media organizations as a way to throw a knife into the Iowa caucuses and beyond. What better way to upend the otherwise civilized friendship that has existed between Sanders and Warren thru these debates. While I would pick Warren as my top choice, I would not lose a second if Sanders was the nominee. For transparency sake, I would also be fine with my cat, who is far more intelligent than the current occupant. I hope that all the democratic candidates wisely avoid this and future traps to distract them, the media and the voters, keeping their eyes on the prize no matter what rubble is thrown at any of them by the trump organization’s/Republican party’s long tentacles and obscene amounts of money and dirty tricks. Rock on, Michelle.

  23. And here's something you haven't mentioned: she would make an outstanding president. Elizabeth Warren cares 100% about the American people, first and foremost, and doing right by them. And she has the brains and experience to get the job done. If she has the ability to bring the Democrats together to win the nomination and the presidency, just imagine how she might have the ability to bring the American people together as POTUS. Now that's a wonderful dream.

  24. MG, Warren is NOT the climate change voters' choice. She does NOT support putting a price on carbon which is, by far, the most effective greenhouse gas reducing policy available. We need to tax carbon and there are proposals in Congress that would rebate the money to American families. We have to punish fossil fuels, not just subsidize renewables as in the Green New Deal. I say this as a Ph.D. economist who has spent her life in the field of environmental economics. Of the Dems, only Bloomberg and Buttigieg support a carbon price (tax) thus I will be voting for one of them.

  25. Obviously voting is key regardless of whom is the candidate. Any Democrat, Independent, one issue voters, or fence-sitters who stay home or votes for a third party candidate are effectively voting for Trump. The Democratic agenda will have policy outlines that can be influenced further after taking the White House.

  26. Thanks to Michelle for articulating my perceptions on Warren's candidacy pretty accurately. As a member of the middle class and as a Warren volunteer, I found it insulting that the Sanders' campaign would insinuate elitism and that I would just vote for a Democrat no matter what. To ignore or diminish the excitement and support of another female candidate is repugnant and does smell of his halfhearted 'endorsement' of Clinton in 2016. I understand he wants to win a primary and for that, he has to draw differences with other candidates. Maybe if he had more detailed policy proposals and got them on the record in interviews, he could draw differences with Warren on a substantive level. So far, he has not articulated how he would attempt to execute his platform and maybe now that he can be seen as a 'frontrunner', the media will finally hold him to account for that.

  27. Warren and her campaign took a vert unfair shot at Sanders. She has lost her chance with me.

  28. Unity candidate no more. Warren was my strong second choice after Sanders. But her disingenuous attacks this weekend on his campaign's mild electability talking points—when Julian Castro is out making speeches touting the Warren's own electability claims and Sanders' weakness on that score—smacked of hypocrisy and a cheap shot. But the smear about Sanders purportedly saying a woman couldn't win in 2020 smells of desperation and gutter politics. Warren is off my list.

  29. She's smart, savvy, friendly, not scary-angry like Bernie and she's a real Democrat.

  30. I really liked Warren about 5 years ago. But as a candidate I am not at all a fan. She has zero ability to convey how....or really knows what it takes to pass into law any of her plans. She just keeps spewing policies with no actual plan to make it happen. People get caught up in what she promises, but that’s all she is. She’s actually the opposite of the title of your column, and is more divisive than unifying. When she’s at the podium for the debates with the other candidates she never looks at anyone, or takes in the words of anyone else, or smiles. And don’t go there on the double standard sexist thing. She’s as angry and redundant as Bernie. She’s a blamer, not a unifier. She’d be like that as a President too, not really listening, just blaming. Go on the road Michelle to Ohio and listen to people outside your bubble, mainstream Democrats don’t like her or Bernie.

  31. Unifying the Democratic Party is not the goal. If you don’t like the ultimate candidate, what are your choices? None. She can’t win. She is professorial, bookish and not leader material. Cabinet member? Sure. Presidential? No. Unifying? Who cares if she can’t win

  32. It is a sign of the toxicity of the President, and the destructive havoc of 40 years of Republican ascendency, that despite three mad cap years of decline under Trump the Dems have so many fractions and factions.

  33. This article is preposterous. Warren can't get the support of the working class in her own state. She could only unify various subgroups of liberal intellectuals. This legitimate criticism remains unanswered. She'd be a great cabinet pick, imo.

  34. I think Donald Trump is the Democrats' unity candidate. No matter which Democrat gets the nomination, it is Donald Trump who unites all Democrats and most Americans to restore sanity, decency and honor to the presidency. Vote for ADULTS in 2020!

  35. "...there’s tremendous resentment of Sanders left over from 2016. Many believe he weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary — at one point even threatening a contested convention — and then only halfheartedly rallying his fans behind her when it was over." What nonsense! This just continues the stealth attacks on Sanders by the MSM and the NYT. Hilary Clinton lost because she ran a poor campaign, and gave the impression that she was above the "common folk", and many of those folk went and voted for Trump rather than her. And I think it's dishonest of the NYT to foment divisiveness between two candidates that they would rather not see get the nomination. As for Liz being the "unity candidate", while she may be able to attract a lot of support across the spectrum - now that Bernie made former "radical" ideas like MFA and taxing the rich and GND almost mainstream-polls show her NOT drawing in the voters that switched from Obama to Trump. Moreover she doesn't seem to inspire the passion that Sanders (or Yang or Buttigieg) seem to inspire. This is the aspect of her that Sanders campaign was highlighting, and I don't think it's off base. Personally I like Warren a lot, second only to Bernie, and wouldn't be unhappy if she got the nomination. But Trump inspires passion-good and bad-and I believe that's what is needed to beat him. My preference would be that the ticket be Sanders/Warren. I hope that they can avoid attacking one another so that one of them prevails.

  36. My thought is Sanders has as much contempt as Trump does for very smart savvy women they both go into their corners and pout until you can cajole them back out when they don’t get their way.

  37. I agree. She's my choice. But while Democrats appear to be divided, it's because we are so anxious to find a candidate who can beat Trump. Once we have a candidate we'll back them 100%. Very, very few Democrats are going to go third party or sit this election out. I'll vote for Biden's dog if he's the nominee. And help pay for his kibble.

  38. Next time I want to attack a group of people, I'm going to call them "highly educated, affluent people who are going to show up and vote." Oh, snap! How could anyone come back from that? I suppose if you're a Republican, "vote Democrat no matter what" might be considered an attack, I dunno. Certainly not something a Democratic candidate would consider offensive. "...bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party." Hmm. An attack? The "never-Berner" moderates think that all is needed is to win over centrist independents--I don't know how many she wins over, but it's pretty certain she has a few--it's also true that they are not a new base. So the attack is what again? When you call it "pretty mild," that's like calling a no-hitter a "low-scoring game." There was no attack to characterize, neither mild nor severe. For the Warren campaign to consider that anodyne statement an "attack" is ridiculous, thin-skinned and paranoid.

  39. Even if Sen. Sanders didn't say it it has truth to it. Democrats return to eating their own with this shot by Sen, Warren but it is futile. As we experience our first dictator President who adheres to hostile nuclear armed dictators we must remember the last Presidential nominee for President was a woman. Interestingly Seen. Sanders has an even less of a chance as he isn't even a democratic but a socialist whom Trump covets as an ideal opponent. One of them as a VP Candidate with Biden makes more sense. A lot more sense.

  40. From the perspective of this lifelong Democrat, the only thing Warren would unite would be independents and Republicans in a lopsided campaign where she looses in a crushing McGovernesque like fashion.

  41. Just because she admits she has a conflict of interest doesn't mean we should take her word that her conflict of interest isn't shaping her view. OK, she's not going down the Conway rabbit hole but the real unity candidate is Klobuchar. Warren scares people and will be labeled a socialist and worse. She also has a stubborn streak that suggests she knows what is best for everyone. Labeling a far left/progressive candidate a unity candidate is an oxymoron.

  42. @Marty. Yes, Klobuchar is the unity candidate. She's a moderate women from the Midwest. I don't know if she can win the primary, but she could certainly win the general election.

  43. If Warren is nominated, by Election Day, the GOP will have the country believing you can't vote without showing a Harvard Degree and ordering a double latte. Sanders is no alternative. By November 3, he'll be painted as Joe Stalin running for president. This country has been told, for 100 years, that socialism and communism are the same thing. We will simply not elect a far left socialist, declared or de facto, full stop, mic drop.

  44. In the general election in November, I will — as the Twitter hashtag exhorts us — #VoteBlueNoMatterWho. Of course I have my own preferences and concerns regarding the candidates. Bernie is too far left, Biden too old, what happened to Kamala, and so forth. But this election is too important for petty grievances. Trump, Putin, the oligarchs who fund them and the bigots who cheer them MUST be defeated. An emboldened, triumphant, vengeful and corrupt narcissist with a second term might well represent an extinction-level event for democracy and the rule of law. Democrats, Independents and the remaining principled Republicans need to unite this fall for the sake of our republic.

  45. Goldberg makes the best point of her whole piece in her 5th paragraph, where she states she has a conflict of interest and therefore has believed she shouldn’t write much about the primary. She’s right. And she leaves this assertion hanging, never arguing otherwise throughout the article. If only she had followed the wise guidance that she herself professes to believe in — and not written much about this — she could have avoided making the absurd she point that she went on to make. The candidate best suited to unify the Democratic Party is the one who just criticized her friend and ally directly, and revealed discussions that transpired in a private meeting between the two? Where is the logic, Ms. Goldberg? This makes no sense. Neither Sanders nor his volunteers deserve the slightest criticism for stating eminently reasonable opinions about electability. It is just as widely known that (a) Warren’s candidacy so far has struggled to attract working-class supporters and that, also, her run for the presidency will face headwinds of sexism. Neither of these widely perceived facts constitutes criticism of Warren. But she has now dished out direct, hostile criticism at Sanders in alleging that “he told his supporters to trash” her and so on. That Goldberg would violate her principle of staying out of all this due to a conflict of interest, at this time, on this day, to describe Warren as the most unifying candidate, is just ridiculous.

  46. Should she be nominated president Trump will strip her bark. Joe Biden is the only candidate that has a remote chance of winning a general election, and I really don't think he can pull it off. The economy is strong and that is what most people care about most. The president's base is united and will show up at the polls, not so much the democrats.

  47. I proudly gave Ms Warren $50 way back when she first came out as a candidate, which ain't chicken feed for an old retired person. Qualifications, intelligence, sincerity - she's got all of those, but also simply because of her inescapable gender. We need a woman in the White House. It's time.

  48. Can you please tell your husband to tell Elizabeth to make better commercials? These anti-corruption commercials are vague and ring hollow. The focus needs to be on working class.

  49. I am 83. Female. Political junkie. Educated. Many years a Dem, now a registered Ind. Warren is a terrible, horrible representative of where we want to go, those of us who want to be uniters, not dividers. And want to get rid of DJT. She proposes and advocates for unrealistic solutions to our problems, a revolution that is unrealistic in this age of complete exhaustion and depression and extreme partisanship. Not one, either Warren or Sanders, has detailed how the employees of those orgs to be reformed or killed are going to be dispatched professionally. There are so very many details to all of these unrealistic ideas that have yet to be detailed, that I cry for those taken in. Yes, we need reform in absolutely every aspect of our democracy, but this radical way is not the way to do it. We need a man/woman who is practical and can provide unity and healing for at least the next 4 years. Then, and only then, can we move forward on our repairs to our broken systems. We need enlightened, wise, practical men and women to consider, be thoughtful, to listen and compromise. So, having negated all the top four or five, do I have a candidate about whom I'm excited? You bet. Michael Bennet, Senior Senator from Colorado. Take a look, everyone, at his website. He can bring us home to the place where too many years ago we fell off the cliff.

  50. I don't think so..... After people in her campaign came out to say Sanders doesn't think a woman can win the presidency she has turn me against her. That absolutely smacks of desperation. There was no implication of bias, him saying a woman was incapable, rather she couldn't win. She already had to business class against her, no the social democrats and a large slice of progressives are going to turn against her. She is getting close to being done and it will be at her own devices and no one else.

  51. Not after her two attempts to manufacture umbrage with Bernie, she's not. First she tried to claim that a call script, regardless of whom was actually ever responsible, and which was based entirely on factual evidence, was Bernie "trashing" her... And then this thing about Bernie saying a wouldn't couldn't win the race today... Which the Washington Post has already cast doubt on from people who were there (saying Warren broached the subject and Sanders responded that whomever the nominee was, Trump would resort to "Nefarious Tactics." I mean come on! Play victim much? It's such a poor look for any candidate running for president, and less for the one who is dropping like a stone as voters figure out that she really is a me-first politician after all, who will say (and now apparently do) anything to get elected. And where's the strategy here? This does nothing but make her look weak and uninsightful. It also won't help, but only hurt Bernie. So yeah, she just poison pilled the progressives...so we could have Joe Biden? One thing is for sure, she cares a lot more about herself than she does in the future of the progressive movement in this country...

  52. This “middle-aged woman who [is] part of the resistance” is a one-issue voter this time around. My issue is defeating Trump. He is a cancer on our country. I will vote for Warren if she’s the nominee, but she’s not my choice because I don’t believe she can beat Trump. Same goes for Sanders. Like it or not, Warren and Sanders are too far left to bring in moderate Republican voters who are afraid of what their policies will do to their retirement savings, their taxes, and the quality of their healthcare. I don’t think Warren, Sanders (who is and Independent, not a Democrat) or any other Democrat, can win without having broader appeal beyond the left wing of the party. And God help us all if Trump is re-elected.

  53. She suffers from the same disease that brought down Rubio. She answers every question with rote, memorized talking points that deflect the substance of the question. This is especially bad for a candidate with authenticity issues. She’s toast.

  54. Elizabeth Warren has been my choice since I made the first of many small contributions to her campaign as I have never done before. Her ability to identify areas in which public policy is needed if the USA is to become a 21st Century nation and then present a plan for each such policy places her far above all others. The USA is not even close to being a 21st Century nation, as I note often in comments on American failure in these four critical areas: Health care for all, renewable energy, transportation, and its 18th Century system for classifying us Americans, a system the "fatal invention" of racists. As concerns private health insurance in a Universal Health Care system, Sweden has that and this is right now the subject of intense debate. As concerns transportation, I had a comment at Leonhardt yesterday at which 18 people filed replies - never happened before - replies that might help her understand how 18 Americans see or do not see the need for a plan, even there. The final one of the 18 was exceptionally American - "There is no need for public transportation". Thanks Michelle Goldberg. Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com Citizen US SE

  55. Bernie Sanders offers the best chance of not only uniting the party but of winning the election. There is no other candidate who has the same level of passionate and committed supporters as Sanders who will go out to vote - except for trump. So the choice is clear: a progressive populist who can win the election and put our country back on the "right" track or our current deranged circus act also know as trump.

  56. Passionate support, indeed. Bernie even was Putin's second choice. That alone should give anyone's pause.

  57. Eugene McCarthy was a unity candidate and an anti Vietnam war candidate and he got his lunch eaten in 1968.Warren blew it with her medicare for all and we need to come to grips with that. She touted for months she had a plan when she really had a plan that is unworkable and not affordable. It is not about herding the cats of party it should be about beating Trump.Making the party as a whole happy at the expense of the electoral college is ludicrous. What candidate can win in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is the box that need to checked.The autoworkers in Michigan are going to be happy you taking their hard fought healthcare and replacing with medicare for all? Is this the hill we Dems want to die on or do we want to be Trump?How is half of gang of four endorsing Bernie going to help in the purple states?

  58. I’ve been a big Warren fan for a awhile (had high hopes she’d run in 2016) but the events of the past few days have convinced me she has terrible political instincts. Would certainly support her if she were the nominee but whoever’s running her campaign should be sacked.

  59. There’s tremendous resentment in the Bernie camp too. If Bernie hadn't contested the primary there wouldn't have been a primary. Choosing between Clinton and Clinton isn't a choice. Your only choice is Clinton. Moreover, the DNC and established Democratic leaders actively discouraged competition. Their own efforts to run Clinton uncontested is what weakened Clinton, not Sanders. The hacked DNC emails wouldn't have produced a scandal if there wasn't something scandalous in the emails. We're seeing this play out with Sanders now. He said he didn't expect a woman could win an election against Trump. That's not scandalous. That's true. The odds are long. However, I could say a similar thing about Sanders. Trump is absolutely going to plaster him with antisemitism. He did the same thing to Clinton and she isn't even Jewish. It's a hard truth but the statement is true just the same. It's called realpolitik. Aside from a few business moguls, Trump doesn't need to worry about losing the Jewish vote. He only needs to avoid alienating female voters. Hint: Bigotry is a turnoff. However, the true strength behind Sanders supercedes many of his weakness. His true strength is a definitive vision for America. The sausage grinder will chew that vision up. However, at least the idea exists. Everyone else is asking,"What would you like me to do?" Sanders is saying, "This is what we should do." In the age of Trump, this leadership is something we desperately need.

  60. Commentators on here can't seem to decide whether Warren is a "corporatist" or a "socialist." They'll say whatever comes to mind to undermine her candidacy. She believes in capitalism, but also that capitalism needs a "cop" so that wealth accumulation doesn't stay out of control and deregulation doesn't wreck the planet and the humans who inhabit it. What does that make her? A "trustbuster"? A "moderate capitalist"? Why do people thinks she's some kind of extremist?

  61. One what planet is Warren the "unity" candidate. Trump has demonstrated the ability to draw from the middle. He will never draw from the far left. You don't protect your flank by doubling down on part of the party that will vote for a Dem not matter what. It is only in the distorted world of the far left that this argument holds any sway. I know have 1/2 a dozen hard core "traditional" Democrats who have told me that they will Never vote for Trump .... unless Warren is the chosen. They will never admit this outside of their close friends but like many who support Trump, when confronted with pocket book issues vs a far left true believer the voting booth is a private affair.

  62. People need to remember Hillary Clinton. She had very high "negative" ratings and scored very low on "likability" throughout the Primary and never recovered in the General Election. Warren is the same. According to FiveThirtyEight (Dec 13) only 21% of voters view Warren very favorably, whereas 34% view here very unfavorably. That's a -13% difference and it shows that she's actually a very weak candidate to run against Trump.

  63. "I’ve hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary because I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign. " And my guess would be that whoever's husband is consulting for the Biden campaign thinks that Biden will be the great uniter. And whoever's husband is consulting for the Klobuchar campaign thinks that Klobuchar would be the great uniter. It is reasonable to speculate that any of the candidates could energize the base and bring in those on the fringes. But, it is a little more convincing when a speculator doesn't have such a (admittedly) significant conflict of interest.

  64. Attributing Clinton's 2016 loss to Sanders' primary challenge is an epic stretch of political history. Hillary chose to run a general election built around lackluster, stay-the-course strategy, with the subtext that Trump would be worse. It was the perfect formula for a low-enthusiasm contest that failed to recognize there was widespread discontent (across the political spectrum--she failed to put forward any significant policy proposals that would animate enthusiasm in the financially challenged segment of the Democratic base. The truth is that Trump and Clinton were the two LEAST popular, major-party Presidential candidates in modern history. Clinton's feat was losing to the candidate who was even less popular than she was.

  65. Oh Michelle! Unity candidate? Half my Democratic friends will “hold their noses” and vote for Trump if Warren is nominated. And all my independent and undecided Republican friends will too. You can lobby for her, but please don’t confuse that with Warren being a unity candidate.

  66. If you believe that a rising tide should lift ALL boats, then Warren is your candidate. If all you care about is yourself, protecting your interests and your financial well-being, then you have an assortment of Democratic candidates to choose from and maybe one of them suits your needs and wants better. In my lifetime, this country has moved further and further to the right - economically and socially. There has been an extraordinary rise in income and wealth inequality. The economy has dramatically changed which has resulted in a shrinking of the middle class and an increase in the number of people working for wages that are barely life-sustaining. More people today are struggling to have basic necessities, including healthcare. I think it is clear that whatever the Republicans and Democrats have been doing over the past 40+ years, it has not been enough to overcome a downward spiral in economic wellbeing for most Americans. Why and how can this be happening in the wealthiest country the world? Warren gives hope to those who have been left behind and her vision is not egocentric but is open to working with the best people to find the best ideas to achieve a healthier and happier America for everyone. Michelle is right as usual - Warren is the Democrats Unity Candidate and best hope for bringing people together!! I truly believe if she is the next President of the United States, we will go from the worst president to the best president in history.

  67. I couldn't disagree more. Warren may be less divisive than Sanders, but that doesn't mean that she isn't divisive among all voters. In fact, the polls continue to show that her campaign is lagging Biden, Sanders and is close to slipping behind Buttigieg. It started with her unwillingness to answer direct questions on middle class tax increases to pay for M4A, gained steam when her plan was shown to be based on very suspect math that no economist outside of her campaign could replicate, and then snowballed when she backed off her promise to implement M4A immediately if she won. Then she went and totally fumbled the whole Mayor Pete "wine caves" issue and was cowed when confronted with the fact at she accepted corporate donations to bankroll her Senate campaign, then transferring those funds to her Presidential coffers. Perhaps none of this would matter all that much if she were really popular among Democrats, but she isn't. FiveThiryEight only gives her a 12% chance of winning 1/2 of the delegates needed to win the primary, whereas Biden is at 40% and Sanders is at 22%. Finally, comes the much maligned but still important issues of "likability" and "electability". Folks can crow about these concepts at their own peril, but voters don't elect campaigns, they elect Leaders and here Warren lags her peers. She's running NET NEGATIVE on favorability - meaning more people dislike her than like her. That's not going to cut it come November.

  68. As a Sanders supporter who formerly had her as a strong second choice, I and everyone I know feel nothing but absolute disgust for her actions over the last 36 hours. Unity argument is dead as of today.

  69. Not the unity candidate at all. Far, far from it.

  70. The thing that I fear is that even Democrats like Elizabeth Warren are caught up in this fealty to the claim that Suliemani was responsible for killing American soldiers. Trying to keep her self viable by going along with the neo con story line. Sanders is superior on that front.

  71. The USA is not NYC Michelle. People unfortunately vote more on feel and atmospherics more than they do on policies. Clinton could have been a good President but was rejected and similarly Warren would be endlessly trolled and turn off independents. Stop looking inwards and never mind the warring factions of the democratic party. They will vote for a dog with D stencilled on the side. It's the other votes we need to worry about to get the win.

  72. Senior citizen 67 Woman Abortion is a right of all women and the decision is hers to make with a healthcare team and the sperm donor. Caveat: after the first trimester remember you are aborting a fetus fully formed as a human and growing to become a full fledged person at birth if they are lucky. Chances of conception of a person 1 in 600000. Healthcare: is a right. Children and Senior citizens should receive free health care till the grave. Guess that means all of us huh?! Caveat: insurance companies own healthcare and want it to be a privilege. Doctors make enough money not to care if part of the corporate system. Wall St. : keep your wealth but give us housing and food and healthcare and education. There should be no homeless and no mental patients roaming our communities unattended. We need new mental health institutions. Or convert all the useless prisons filled with the poor and addicted and violent. Then pull out the prisoners with brains and rehabilitate them. So which candidate has promises for that list. None. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Voters know this and are just attending the free parties with music and media and candidates begging to be leaders. we have a dictator. We have no law intact We have no congress for voters. We have a machine that produces jobs in the beltway. We watch tv all day if retired. We work all day if middle aged We think we can change the world if we just graduated or moved thru a major event like a new marriage or a new baby

  73. "A Warren candidacy would not force centrist Democrats to make their peace with socialism nor ask young socialists to jettison their dreams of egalitarian economic transformation." What are you saying? You are expecting Warren to cave to status quo incrementalism, with a bit of economic transformation on the side... The time for Real Change is Now. If the status quo, warmongering, Wall Street supporting, Republican-lites try to shove their candidate down our throats, they may have to live with four more years of Trump. Or, maybe they prefer Trump to Sanders... they may simply want to protect their status quo... America desperately needs the integrity, bold ideas, vision and courage of Sanders. Not only does America desperately need his domestic policies to revive the now dead American dream, but America and the world desperately need his foreign policy based on keeping people at the table, talking, disagreeing, but looking for common ground... instead of arming everyone to shoot and bomb each other. A Future To Believe In! President Bernie Sanders!

  74. Finally we learn why the NY Times Op-Ed pages (especially Michelle Goldberg) have been unremitting in their opposition to Bernie Sanders: Goldberg admits that "I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign." Surprise, surprise! Who does Goldberg support? Warren!!! Can you imagine Goldberg's dudgeon if she were to discover that someone, for example AOC, had a financial conflict of interest underlying their support for Bernie? The rest of the Op-Ed is simply ludicrous. We have to rely on Goldberg's word that "in much of the Democratic Party, there’s tremendous resentment of Sanders left over from 2016. Many believe he weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary..." Au contraire, madame Warren supporter! The evidence shows that it was Hillary, aided and abetted by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC, who weakened Bernie by suppressing his campaign and favoring Hillary. In fact, polls showed that Hillary could NOT beat Trump but Bernie could, and there was lots of pressure on Hillary to drop out. I'm sure you would agree, Michelle, that revealing your conflict does not mitigate it. We'll remember this next time you critique others for their conflicts. Goldberg now shares the same boat with the Trump family, accused of pursuing their own interests because they have conflicts. Nothing against Warren: I would vote for her. But, my first choice will be Bernie. And no one in my family works for him.

  75. "She excites the middle-aged women who dominate the Resistance as well as the young people Democrats" Excellent point, particularly the Resistance, it's still out there smoldering, waiting for someone like "Elizabeth" to light that fire. I think the world of her, she has backbone like no other, remember how she stood up to the Wallstreeters and Bankers. She be in a hearing and listening to their blathering about how bad it was. Elizabeth would kill them straight in the eye and say, you belong in jail. I honestly believe any one of the Democratic Candidates can beat Trump. Why, because down deep most voters know he is the wrong person for our Democracy.

  76. Whoops! She's the "Democrats Unity Candidate?"? It hasn't turned out to be great timing for this column... And this is definitely not one of Michelle Goldberg's finer moments.

  77. The "Bernie Bro" is a real thing. He doesn't think much about women and how and why they are still second-class citizens. Nor one way or another about "wokeness" , diversity or minorities. He doesn't like oligarchs, anti-unionism, or forever wars. He is a minority sub-set in the Bernie movement. He stayed home or voted for Trump after his fears of the elite power-brokers in the Democratic establishment and their allies in the media, put their thumbs on the scale for Hillary. I've yet to see or hear a high profile Democratic woman Sanders advocate. Yes , Bernie's support for women's issues (health, equal pay, abortion rights is unassailable. I have no problem voting for him. Warren is expected to provide every single detail of how to pay for Medicare For All, while Bernie gets a free pass for his "honesty" about raising everyone's taxes to fund it. But Warren is "dishonest" and " inauthentic" (a duplicitous, scheming harpie know-it-all). The Republicans, the media and the Bernie-Bros will use her gender against her and tar her with the Hillary brush. And she now makes the mistake of accusing Bernie personally of sexism, for supposedly telling her that a woman is unelectable. The sub-text to this latest drama is the male paranoia over cancellation culture and @Metoo. She'll be accused of "playing the gender card". Instead of the teaching moment America needs about civility, respect and unity --it just got tribal. And that dooms Dem campaigns and candidates.

  78. @John C AOC was a woman last time I checked

  79. Warren is the antidote to Trump. She is the unity candidate for many reasons, one of which is that she is a woman. The many men I know think it's time for a woman president. And many women I know feel the same. It's time for a woman president and Warren is the woman for the job. That's not all: Warren knows that corruption has diseased our democracy. She's the antidote for that too.

  80. She lied about her being a Native American. She lied about her reason for quitting teaching. She lied about her children’s private school education, She lied about taking money from mega corporations and banks. I think she lies even more than Trump. If your criteria is character, she is not a good choice for president.

  81. Once a Republican, astute, piercing, cool-headed, a genuine progressive, Warren seems the only candidate that can neutralize Trump in a debate. I think the others will overshoot or undershoot the mark and feed the current presidents ego or his base's ire.

  82. Elizabeth Warren is the Unity candidate? This woman has attacked more Democratic candidates than any other person running. She attacked Buttigieg for accepting donations from billionaires when she has billionaires funding her campaign. She falsely accused Bernie Sanders of saying a woman can't win during a private convo, breeching their agreement. There are videos showing Bernie saying a woman can win. Warren also falsely claimed to be Native American for decades, filling a slot at Harvard Law that otherwise would have been for a minority. She told a voter her kids went to public school when they attend expensive private schools. She said she was the first nursing mom to take the NJ Bar and more. Warren is not an honest person that can bring people together.

  83. Warren is the unity candidate all right. That left-wing extremist would united independents like me to hold their collective noses and vote for Trump.

  84. Yet here you are. Campaigning for Warren on your employer's Opinion page. It's all good, and I should expect nothing better than for you to promote your self-interests. It's in vogue these days. I don't worry too much about Warren's past embellishments, but if she made this stuff up about Sanders, then your husband should look for new work.

  85. @John - wait, what? Who?

  86. I am a lifelong liberal Democrat and Warren is not my idea of a unity candidate. She's a crusader, a missionary against the evils of big banks, insurance companies, and her all-purpose villain, "billionaires". (Personally, I'm glad Bloomberg and Steyer can toss money at things I believe in.) But Warren just wants to take a sledge hammer to everything she's mad at, and she's mad at everything. How is that the unity candidate?

  87. Thank you, Ms. Goldberg. To cultural misogynists and "electability" doubters (here's looking at you, @NYTimes), please take a look at Rachel Bitecofer's work and the newly published data from FlipNC https://flipnc.org/2018-turnout-analysis, which shows that voter turnout of progressive, infrequent and new voters was the true cause of the blue wave, not finding some moderates who might, just might, vote for a Democrat. And look at Ibram X. Kendi's piece in the Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/other-swing-voter/604474/ to see another things the Dems and pundits are getting wrong. Stop looking for the elusive moderate voter and start looking at who has the best policies, ideas and ferocity to be the change we need. Elizabeth Warren is brilliant, organized, clear eyed, compassionate and well aware of what we need to do to save our democracy and keep the planet habitable for homo sapiens and other living creatures...and she won't waver. She has a good track record of holding folks accountable but also being able to create consensus. And she is not beholden to corporate special interests.

  88. Goldberg is not remembering the salient point of Sanders' efforts in 2016 - above anyone else running, he was the only democrat who was seen as likely to beat Trump. How can you overlook that fact.

  89. "The reason it caused a small uproar is that in much of the Democratic Party, there’s tremendous resentment of Sanders left over from 2016. Many believe he weakened Hillary Clinton by dragging out the primary..." What is left out of this article is the fact that the Democratic Party squelched Bernie out in 2016. And so did the media including the NY Times. The Democratic Party is split between the centrist and leftist sectors. The centrists and monied interests were threatened by Sanders determination to confront corporatists and big money and backed Hillary with a vengeance. In fact the Democrats needed the money she brought in and were frightened to lose it. So they chose Hillary and it worked to some extent. She won the popular vote but not the electoral college and so now we have what we have. But perhaps the charisma of Donald Trump might have been better matched by the charisma of Bernie whose populist agenda is actually real while Trump's is not. Maybe the people are waking up to the fact that the people have been duped by Dems who give voice to genuine concerns but who are stymied by the moneys they depend on. How can you truly support Medicare for All when you depend on money from Big Pharma, the Insurance and Medical industries? How can you support a Green New Deal when you rely on Big Oil to support your campaign? I'm disappointed in this article and in Michele Goldberg for this omission. Let's get real.

  90. My thoughts on Elizabeth Warren are the opposite of this column. While she has many talents and is clearly a person worthy of being president, she is not a unity candidate. Things just appear differently for those of us living outside the progressive echo chamber which this article reflects as well as most of the comments. And I might add my thoughts are basically the same with regard to Bernie Sanders. Progressives are not unity candidates.

  91. I understand it is superficial but I find the cardigan sweaters and school marm persona grating. It seems calculated. I don't know that she can win.

  92. Any Democrat can, and will, win if we turn out and vote for our candidate in historic numbers. I choose Elizabeth Warren as my first choice. I believe she has the ability and ethics to be an excellent president. She understands what blocks fixes in our broken government. I'm heartened by the number of women who ran for president in the Democratic primaries. I am happy that this time the media didn't obsess about what they were wearing and what their hair looked like. That's progress and maybe it's helped many men to consider our women candidates seriously. Bernie is further down my list of choices but I will vote for him if he wins the nomination. I pray that Dems and Independents show up in record numbers and vote against four more years of division and corruption by the Trump regime.

  93. I was fortunate to have met Elizabeth Warren when she was talking to voters around Mass to determine whether to run for the U. S. Senate. I had lived on Manhattan's Upper West Side before retiring to Pittsfield, MA 15 years ago. I was used to qualified politicians such as Rep. Gerrold Nadler and I was taken with Warren's knowledge and genuineness. She knew the issues, had sound ideas and did not sound like a politician. Also, I believe that she has learned from the Pocahontas incident and would hold her own ono-on-one to Trump.

  94. I’d love to see a woman president but not another a la Hillary policy wonk who would be better suited for a cabinet position. I don’t want a woman who apologizes for who she is. (Are you listening Ms. Klobuchar?). Why lie about stupid stuff like being fired, when the records indicate otherwise? Having a plan that doesn’t add up is not a plan! She is a sincere public servant but not presidential. As an independent former Dem, I want someone more pragmatic than pie in the sky progressives who want everything free and are as self righteous in their liberalism as they accuse the conservatives of being. Give me Bloomberg, practical, data driven, executive experience in government and the private sector. I can live without warm and fuzzy. Give me Biden who understands that segregationists, like it or not, are also citizens who are part of our national dialog and therefore have to be spoken to. Our current, cancel culture politics is not working. Ms. Warren and/or Bernie are not going to unify us.

  95. If she represents unity for the democrats, you have my sincerest sympathies.

  96. I understand the appeal of Warren, however, I think she is way too idealistic in terms of what she thinks SHE can make happen. For a while, I got weary of all her "I have a plan for that" platitudes. Something is missing with her that I've yet to put my finger on. In any case, Ms. Goldberg is off track is she sees Warren as the unity candidate ~ and, frankly, given her admission about the work of her husband, probably ought to kept her mouth shut. It is regrettable that the diversity level who the field continues to dwindle, so my preference is that whoever the candidate is that they choose a running mate who is African American.

  97. Warren's responses to claims, denied by Sanders, that he has attacked her supporters and told her a woman cant win in 2020, settles for me her ability to unify. Instead of seeing whether Sanders actually did the former or remembering that he didnt actually tell her that, Warren was off on to attack him. As far as 2016, there are plenty of us lifelong Democrats who held our noses to vote for another Clinton given their records over the previous 30 years. Hillary ran an incompetent campaign against Trump. To blame Sanders for Trump is silly, petty and vindictive. If Dems keep this up, no candidate could win against Trump. As far as Goldberg's conflict of interest, isnt THAT patently clear ?

  98. Slandering Sanders with an obvious distortion is not the behavior of a "unity candidate." The script that was sent out was completely innocuous (and also factually correct), and the notion that he didn't campaign hard enough for Hilary Clinton is absolute bunkum. The only reason Bernie is "despised" by some Democrats is because the corporate wing of the establishment resents him. Who has the real claim to being a victim of injustice here? Clinton, who was a horrendous candidate that couldn't defeat the most absurdly comical and longshot candidate in modern American history? Or Bernie, against whom the DNC fought tooth and nail despite his enormous popularity? The grievances of those who dislike Bernie are beyond absurd. This article also rests on the assumption that Warren is palatable to the young progressive wing of the party, which is incorrect. We will swallow our pride and vote for Warren if we have to, but the crucial ideological differences between her and Bernie are apparent to us. They only seem illusory or unimportant to the pundit class because they don't understand the vision of the movement that supports Bernie. Finally, her political instincts are terrible, her campaign is poorly run, she has made countless unforced errors, and she stands to lose against Trump whereas Bernie actually has a shot. Disappointing but not unexpected take from the Op-Ed page.

  99. Michelle-- I love your column. Your insight and intelligence is much appreciated. But I have a problem with this one: I can't help but wonder if this column is but a platform for blasting out your husband's latest messaging advice to the Warren camp: 'the unity candidate'. If you have a conflict, beyond disclosing it, you should recuse yourself from beating the drum for your husband's client. Just saying.

  100. Amy Klobuchar is smarter, tougher, could rally the Dems better, and she's infinitely more electable. The notion of Warren as a peacemaker seems terribly flawed, especially since she's responsible for much of the conflict. Adopting a victim attitude regarding when Bernie supposedly told her that a woman couldn't get elected president is a sad commentary. Is she that thin skinned?

  101. I disagree. I think Elizabeth Warren has a good heart but she has BAD political instincts and sometimes can just be goofy--that's ok if you are a man, but women aren't allowed. Still a sexist political world! I think Amy Klobachar is the consensus candidate. She is a PROGRESSIVE PRO CHOICE FEMINIST who is sensible and understands first hand the struggles of the working class. When she says she brings people together and can win over Red state voters--she's got the evidence to support her! Her bio (and her husbands) demonstrates that she is a real contender for the votes of every day Americans--a decent and highly intelligent leader who will work to get things done!! Vote Amy!!

  102. About Julian Castro's endorsement, I doubt it was because he though Warren is the best candidate: he's calculating that if any of the leading men win, Democratic identity politics will dictate that a woman will have to be the running mate. So he's placing his bet on the highest polling woman, figuring his chances of getting the #2 spot are better with Warren. Of the male candidates who would be considered for vice president, the same PC imperative would give the advantage to a POC. This narrows the field considerably for Castro, altho it would not be a slam dunk. In case there was any confusion as to what Person of Color really means to Democrats, DNC chair Tom Perez made it clear in a recent interview on msnbc with Al Sharpton: referring to the several debates in 2019, Perez noted that there were two people of color on the stage. POC is just another synonym, like "diverse," for black.

  103. Hmmm, I was scrolling down the top stories at Google and came across this one, just below all the "a woman can't become President" ones. I'm not so sure I'd call it unity.

  104. Now desperate Liz has taken to lying about her rivals, pulling the identity card like she tried to with her deceitful claim to be Native American. No mention was made of how poorly she polls in the swing states compared with the other candidates. Her class and identity warfare is hardly unifying.

  105. Sanders' comments to Warren about a 'woman being unable to win the presidency' are being completely misconstrued by the pundit class. In any rational conversation, especially among podcasters such as Ms. Goldberg, the viability of a female presidential candidate is thoughtfully discussed in regards to a presumably sexist electorate. These pundits should be well aware that this statement is less a reflection on Sanders' personal attitudes towards female presidential candidates, than it is an indictment of the unenlightened masses of America that believe women are unsuitable leaders. Sanders' statement is a practical allusion to a sexist reality - it is not, however, a condemnation of Warren's presidential aspirations singularly because she is a woman. That being said, Warren is smartly playing the gender card to drum up crucial support before the all-important Iowa caucus - which is expert, slippery, dirty politicking. It shows a candidate that is willing to play a more insidious game, which personally I respect. My vote is for Warren.

  106. So glad to see someone come out for Warren. She can win it.

  107. Hard to read this knowing the author’s husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign. Like a judge who needs to recuse her/himself from a case, this doesn’t seem fair.

  108. @A The brazen sense of entitlement, "The usual rules don't apply to me" is downright Trumpian.

  109. I can only suppose that Ms. Goldberg wrote this piece before four anonymous sources who were not even the room accused Bernie Sanders of telling Senator Warren that a woman could never be President in 2018. Warren, strategically, has decided to remain noticeably silent. I am neither a Sanders or a Warren supporter, but a unifying candidate does not traffic in identity politics and innuendo (ie lies). Let’s leave that to the con man in the White House.

  110. "I’ve hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary...." Thanks for this, even though it didn't seem to work.

  111. Goldberg deserves much respect for her truthful intelligent reporting. I was disappointed to see she is making an endorsement of Warren. Polls be damned, in my view, Warren and Biden are unelectable.

  112. "I’ve heard from many people that they’ve never felt as passionate about a candidate as they do about her." I also heard that back in 1972, famed writer Pauline Kael didn't know of a single person who voted for Richard Nixon and was stunned at his victory. Aren't bubbles grand.

  113. Not even close. Sadly she will split the party further and will not be able to bring back those in the middle that voted Republican.

  114. Right on, Michelle!

  115. Warren 2020! Vote Democratic 2020!

  116. Like you, Ms. Goldberg, I have hopes for Warren. But. like you, I fear the push-back against another woman candidate. Perhaps a Biden/Warren ticket would be the best compromise, uniting the centrists and the progressive factions. I'm honestly not a big fan of Biden's but this ticket, if successful, could give Warren four years to prove her worth before the 2024 elections. Also, she knows how to deal with people like McConnell and Graham. People who hold her stand on Medicare for All against her need to remember that to pass such a plan takes a fairly unified Congress. Something not likely to happen in our lifetimes.

  117. The competent, hardworking woman never wins.

  118. I am so sick and tired of Hillary's supporters rolling out the old lie that Bernie Sanders "only halfheartedly rallied his fans behind her when it was over." Bernie Sanders worked his butt off for Hillary Clinton in the general election campaign. He told his supporters to vote for Clinton, and never tired of telling them that. Hillary Clinton's loss was her own fault. She alienated Sanders supporters. She alienated voters. She failed to campaign in swing states. She hoovered up millions from Goldman Sachs and other investment banks in speaking fees before the election. So stop blaming Hillary's loss on Bernie. And while you're talking about anger, don't forget the seething anger of Bernie supporters at the timid, stand-for-nothing Hillary wing of the party.

  119. The first sentence in this article should have noted that the writer’s husband works with the Warren campaign.

  120. Given your conflict of interest, it is questionable whether you should write about Warren at all. But to write and not disclose your conflict until the fourth paragraph is quite duplicitous. The honorable thing to do would be to recluse yourself from any discussion about Warren, and certainly never act as her cheerleader.

  121. “I’ve hesitated to write too much about the Democratic primary because I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign.” That’s good enough for me to stop reading. And you should heed your own words and stop writing about it.

  122. Working people have nothing in common with the NYT or Ms. Goldberg. You can ignore and smear and slam and they are still living paycheck to paycheck, dying from lack of health care and drowning in college debt. They'll vote for someone who'll fight for them. It's Bernie.

  123. Michelle, good points. But the VP candidate has to be a black female - will 2 women do it? Gotta ask.

  124. Michelle, Your article is a little late. Liz Warren just said that Bernie doesn't think a woman couldn't be elected President. I think it is a lie and that Bernie isn't that stupid even if he believed it. Your "unity" candidate has become its nightmare candidate. I liked it best when after she said what Bernie said she replied" I have no Interest in discussing this private meeting any further". She only wanted to say what would keep Bernie from being nominated. She is one cold and calculating woman.

  125. “...middle aged women who dominate the Resistance”. Referring to anti-Trumpsters as the Resistance is insulting to the men and women in France who actually risked their lives fighting Hitler. The subtextual assumption that Trump is equivalent to Hitler reveals the historical ignorance of its claimants. You insult middle aged women.

  126. Unfortunately, American voters do not view competence, intelligence, lots of specific plans for the future as pluses (see Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton). Voters like entertainment; vague attacks on shadowy forces pushing them down and vaguer promises, humorous names given to opponents, funny hats and t-shirts, not someone with specific programs for every issue. Warren, like many of the Democrats running for president is not the fun aunt or crazy uncle, she is that strict school teacher who made you memorize the periodic table.

  127. Elizabeth Warren is the Dems unity candidate. She is the most divisive candidate. America is ever ready for a woman president but not for a divisive woman candidate. It would be like going from frying pan to fire. Why is Warren directing her fire at Bernie? Hillary tried that in 2016 and what was the outcome? Bernie's Democratic supporters stayed home or voted for Jill stein or Trump. Today's debate will give a big boost to the wanna bee nominees of the democratic party and questions on foreign policy of Trump will hopefully get debated, I hope. Identity politics has reached the end of the ropes, the democratic party is hanging on. No African American, no native Americans, no Hispanic and Yang no longer in the debate left, Democratic party as the diverse party is in big trouble with a lot of non whites in the party but no chiefs.

  128. "...I have a conflict of interest — my husband is consulting for Warren’s campaign." You're right Michelle, you shouldn't be writing about the primaries, at least not voicing any opinions. Your bias is implicit.

  129. No, she isn't. She panders endlessly. I fear that she sees it worked for Trump, so she's trying it, too. Her #1 proposal, MfA, went down in flames because Pete Buttigieg called her out on it. Thanks again, Pete! A person as smart as she is must have known she was being disingenuous at best. She's a brazen hypocrite. See cave, wine. (Thanks again, Kathryn & Craig Hall!) Elizabeth is as pure as the driven slush. She voted for Ronald Reagan. Ronald. Reagan. If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her. But I'll need several clothespins to do it. And I think Trump will eat her alive. Sometimes, Elizabeth's voice quavers, you know. You know who can stare people down and whose voice never quavers? You know, fearless? I'm voting for Pete Buttigieg.

  130. Unity candidate. Do you even read the Times reporting? Her campaign has caused the embarrassing spectacle of two old people trying to remember what they actually said in a private meeting over a year ago.

  131. Sorry, but if your husband is working for Warren, you shouldn't be writing this. The Times should have higher standards than this. There's too much conflict of interest in government and business. We don't need it in journalism. You're one of my favorite writers and Warren's my favorite candidate, but fair is fair.