It seems so sad to say, but given the state of misogynist, hyper-nationalist testosterone-fueled nonsense in this country, I'm not sure he's wrong. I watched Hillary Clinton repeatedly savaged by the news media, conservatives, and even people in her own party. Women are clearly held to a standard that men are not, and it makes me wonder if the country really is ready to elect a woman. One might make the same case for a black president. Barack Obama was elected, but it resulted in 8 straight years of unified resistance from the Right, and a continuing effort by them to eradicate every trace of his accomplishments and legacy, something I have not seen attempted in past presidencies.
6
WHERE is the statement Warren released? I don't see it linked anywhere.
4
Warren lied about being Native American. What makes you think she didn’t lie about the alleged Sanders remark?
10
The gender card shows up as a "Hail Mary." Somehow, it seems appropriate. It isn't much, but the Warren campaign was dropping like a rock and it's all she had.
8
here we have another example of how the democrats are handing the election to (t)Rump and the republicans.
4
I don’t believe her. Why now? It seems a low blow to try to hurt him and it cannot, of course, be verified. It makes me now NOT want to vote for her.
6
Will the Times treat Sanders the same way they treated him in 2016? I hope not.
6
Don't know if he said this or not, but who cares. Everyone has their right to an opinion, and should have the ability to have a private discussion with another. Guess that's no longer expected.
If he said he didn't think a woman could win, that doesn't mean he hates women, thinks women are lesser, or anything else. It means he looks at the voters and thinks a woman cannot win. He could easily be wrong, but his opinion doesn't cast negativity on Warren or any other woman. Since when can we not have opinions, even if they are not PC? Oh, right. I live in the 21st century where only one opinion is right/accurate/truth and everyone else is stupid, a racist/misogynist, or both.
14
The meeting between Sanders and Warren is more evidence of an ever-present misogyny Sanders is guilty of. And it has a history. Let's not forget what his election team so vigorously swept under the rug when it surfaced, Sanders downplaying complaints by women staff members during his 2016 primary run of the unequal treatment they received versus how men were treasted. Quite simply, for Bernie Sanders women's issues are non-starters.
An Opinion piece running in The Guardian a year ago said as much:
Why Vote for Sanders when you can have Elizabeth Warren instead?' Moira Donegan The Guardian, 20 Feb. 2019
287
@merc Your accusations are simply untrue. To call Sanders a misogynist is really wild. He has supported women's issues for his entire political career: choice, the ERA, equal pay, the VIolence Against Women Act,
Sanders did not "sweep under the rug" the complaints from women on his campaign staff. To the contrary, he addressed it systematically: he instituted a whole new reporting policy for harassment and misconduct, and his staff now has a union contract that mandates pay equity. This isn't sweeping under the rug. It's addressing the issue head on.
Let's also not pretend that issues of unequal treatment were unique to Sanders. Clinton protected a top advisor in her '08 campaign who was accused of multiple counts of harassment. Harris had similar issues with a close advisor in her campaign, who had to resign. This doesn't excuse Bernie's '16 campaign, but it is a systemic issue in politics, not just a problem caused by a somehow misogynist Bernie and his mythical "Bernie bros."
309
Thanks for saying this. It needs to be said. Just look at the Bernie interview in this same issue of the Times and how strongly he speaks out for women and against misogyny. He also reiterates what his campaign has done to make sure that the incidents that may have happened in 2016 to not reoccur.
109
This is a flimsy and intellectually dishonest claim of yours that Sanders has some misogyny to him. This is the kind of 2016 re-hashed bitterness better left in 2016.
100
Bernie Bros absolutely resented that a woman won the nomination in 2016 and did everything they could to undermine her. They are the reason we have trump.
Looks like history is repeating itself.
85
@CP Please don’t blame us Independents, Millennials and Progressives for Clinton’s loss. Her Hubris did that all by herself, even though we were blackmailed into voting for her. Never again.
46
@CP:
"Bernie Bros absolutely resented that a woman won the nomination in 2016 and did everything they could to undermine her. They are the reason we have trump."
No, Hillary took her win for granted, she ran to Trump's right on several issues during the general election, and she clearly didn't care two bits about average citizens.
Hillary elected Trump.
44
@CP Who are all these ~bernie bros~ I keep hearing so much about? Do you actually know any such people personally? Does anybody who continues to perpetuate the narrative?
Was there resentment that Clinton won the primary? Absolutely. Was it because she was a woman rather than a member of the political establishment whose "time it was"? Or perhaps it was because the DNC started attacking Sanders as soon as they felt sufficiently threatened?
Also, how about instead of wasting time assigning blame for the loss of an election that took place three years ago, you instead spend time volunteering for your preferred candidate ahead of an election that can still be won?
30
“Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by three million votes in 2016.”
Senator Sanders, Hillary Clinton beat you by four million primary votes but that didn’t stop you from misleading your supporters in claiming you were unjustly denied the nomination from a political party you really don’t even belong to.
And as for your claim that you would never personally attack a fellow democrat, only their record, you had your surrogates do that for you last time.
I still remember your wife Jane saying (lying) on television just before the convention that Hillary was about to be indicted to try to damage her when you were still trying to deny reality and convince the delegates to switch their votes to you. You can’t get much closer to home than that.
And your supporters fervently believe that you are the most honest politician that ever lived. Just another cult if you ask me.
56
His response should be, "I think Senator Warren would be a fabulous president."
3
1. Only one of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren has a well-recorded history of lying big.
2. Why bring up this after several months now?
3. Perhaps Bernie made a more nuanced point such as "Just being a woman is not enough to win" and Warren generalized it broadly to hurt him.
3
I think this is a nothing burger. This is about a private meeting more than a year ago and supposedly what Warren told someone Sanders told her. Ever play telephone? Sanders could have expressed his widely shared opinion about the unfair difficulty women face in politics and against Trump and the GOP in particular, and those thoughts could have transformed to what was reported - where no one has lied. The big question is what to do going forward. I think they should both make statements that they may not remember the exact words exactly but they both agree on the role women play and should play in politics. that they would each support each other or whoever the nominee is, and. inspite of the unfair obstacles women face, a women could win the Presidency. One more thing, sorry but I detect, perhaps wrongly, misogyny in those commentators attacking Warren and supporting Sanders.
5
Two dignified candidates of integrity disagree on the semantics of a private conversation. Both support gender equality, as shown by their actions as well as words.
This is a non-issue, but trolls will run with it because they've nothing else to exploit.
9
"Progressives will win in 2020, but only if we don’t let the corporate wing or Trump divide us."
A fitting end to an article explicitly designed to divide the progressive vote in 2020.
5
Too bad it's being interpreted the way it is. Nobody is claiming he said he hoped a woman couldn't win. For someone to say in 2018, that a woman wouldn't be able to beat Trump, would have been a debatable analysis of the political scene, but not necessarily an expression of misogyny at all. And to say something once in conversation isn't the same as making it a foundational part of your politics.
But now they are this close to accusing each other of lying. Maybe the strategy is, they have been getting along so well, they both decided it was time for them to have a fight in public, just to show people that they have to pick sides in this race. Seems too bad, but... what's the opposite of "politics makes strange bedfellows?"
3
Another outrage over nothing. Assuming Sanders actually said this to Warren, it was simply an opinion. He wasn't saying he didn't think a woman should be President, or that a woman isn't equipped to be President. He merely expressed a view I've seen expressed in the comment sections of this paper, by liberals, that a woman can't break through that ceiling because of misogyny, outmoded religious beliefs and the like. He said it to her face to face in a private moment, not in campaign speeches. After every minor story the comments are full of people expressing how "this" has changed their mind about a candidate, making a complete character judgement from one comment. Opinions so easily swayed is why candidates keep changing their message, walking back remarks and ideas, after which they're pilloried for campaigning by poll results. We're doomed in 2020.
2
Warren has already made a very upbeat, respectful statment addressing this issue. So get over it!!! FEEL THE BERN, and both Warren and Sanders are united in defeating Trump/Pence!
2
What campaign has not had this kind of stuff?
It looks like the assignment of blame in a false forced choice falls along gender stereotypes; e.g., that women are sneakier, less direct, less honest, more deceitful than men - even when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Don't think Warren is perfect? Don't vote for her. Feel betrayed because of an article with vague attribution? Vote for Steyerberg.
Along these lines, note that women whistleblowers are treated much more harshly than male ones. Women have revealed some of the worst corporate and govt malfeasance, so why are they slammed harder than men for protecting us all?
Also consider the timing and placement of this article. Both candidates could tell you about the MSM chicanery, esp. Bernie Sanders and thousands of readers who saw him excised by major outlets until it was too late.
Wherever the remark came from, neither candidate should be held responsible for something an overzealous aide might do. Recall in 2016 Bernie's "bro's" were frequently cited for sexism and extreme behavior. In one case, Bernie first denied it, then apologized and said those staffers would be fired.
Warren made it clear on the evening news that she and Bernie have too much in common to entertain the question at the debate. But the media can hardly wait! Blood! Yummy! And Bernie's side did not come back with "Did too!" Isn't that enough? Let the best candidate win.
2
Sanders should look Warren in the eye tonight and say, "Liz, we have been friends and allies for many years. Do you know me to be a feminist and a consistent, strong advocate on issues of critical importance to women in this country?"
When Warren hems, dodges, and finally concedes, "Yes, Bernie, I do," he should kindly ask her to then stop spreading maliiious lies to the contrary.
3
It's likely that Sanders said something to the effect that being a woman alone is not enough to win and that one needs a good track record of being honest, truthful (wink! wink!), and standing with middle class for workers' issues. Warren is using his statement out of context by generalizing to all women, and doing so deliberately. She has a track record of big, bold lies.
4
For The NY Times to play this stupid spat so prominently makes me wonder why?
Bernie said it, OK - so what? Bernie is entitled to his opinion, especially in a one-on-one conversation.
Bernie didn't say it, OK - so what? Who brought the story to the attention of the world? Senator Warren? Could anyone listening to another individual construe what was said differently than what was intended? Happens every day - scratch that, happens all the time.
Childish.
10
It's really problematic that the NYT is condemning Warren for confirming this story (calling it a "salvo" -- was she supposed to lie in order to keep things comfortable for Sanders?) and basically shrugging off Sanders's underlying comment.
7
As a woman I can say that this kind of discourse and attack does Democrats or voters NO good. Tell your "staff" to zip it, Liz.
10
So Bernie tried and tried and tried to get Warren to run for President in 2016 , then had this meeting where Warren spoke glowingly about Bernie for a year until she miraculously had this new memory of the discussion.
11
I don't like that this is happening, and based on some of the comments below, it sounds like it's not clear who started this, and who said what. If Warren started it, then shame on her. We don't need this. It is counterproductive to everything Dems want to achieve this year. With that being said, I do think that Bernie let her take all the heat about paying for Medicare for all. She is the one who laid out an actual plan. Bernie has dodged the question, conveniently saying he won't discuss it. And, he tends to dodge questions about specifics on most proposals. Don't get me wrong; I will vote blue no matter who, and would be happy with either Warren, Sanders, or Biden in the White House. If Warren said it, she was wrong, but Bernie is no saint.
3
Yes I’m sure Bernie said that a woman can’t win under current circumstances. In that he maybe right.
4
I feel like the news is responsible for inflating this possible comment by Bernie into a an issue... dont you all have enough headlines with Trump as president to have to try to create discord among the democratic candidates where it was not previously? If Bernie said he thought a woman cant win the presidency - well, i am a woman, and i am not sure a woman can win (yet) either. There is still a glass ceiling to break, still a lot of barriers, sexism, and misogyny in our society. It doesnt mean Bernie thinks women are unqualified or that he thinks Elizabeth in particular wouldnt make a fantastic president - if he said it at all, (and he might have, i would wager even Warren has thought it), it was as a commentary of the sad state of our world, not a commentary on the fitness of women for presidency.. shame on the press for making this statement into front page news!
4
Sorry but if he said it, he's right. It's just not time, not yet...
2
Several Republican controlled states have purged hundreds of thousands of people off the registration list such as Georgia where Stacey Abrams is from and court challenges are currently ongoing...My advice to fellow Americans is if you live in a state where Republicans won, you had better check and recheck again to see if you have been taken off the voter registration list. It's happening in Texas, GA, Wisconsin, etc.
5
I do not believe that he said this in the way that it is stated he did - even if he did say something like this. Over the last 7 years - past biases and slights against Bernie clearly exhibited by NYT, WP make this seem just like more of the same.
The mainstream Dem party leaders do not want him to succeed. Everything points to the news outlets being in bed with the mainstream Dem party in an effort to thwart Bernie and to thwart the popular choice
4
I believe Bernie said this, and I wish he had not denied it if he did. That being said, Warren's leaking a private discussion regarding the "realpolitik" of winning the presidency is concerning.
Bernie said that he doesn't think a woman can win this year. He did not say that a woman was not qualified, that a woman would do a poor job, or that a woman should not be president. Framed differently, I'm sure a lot of people criticizing him would agree with him. For example, if he said "Because of the sexism in this country, I think a woman will have a harder time winning than a man," who would disagree with him? Of course it is going to be harder for a woman to win regardless of how qualified she is.
I don't think it's impossible, but I do think women have an unfairly uphill battle in politics, particularly this year.
12
Suppose for the moment that he actually said it. If you believe something to be true that, in a perfect world, wouldn't be true, are you now not supposed to say it. Denying people the opportunity to speak about inconvenient truths is not a way to fix things. Unless we are all supposed to just go along with the global warming deniers.
4
Sadly, Elizabeth's descent into personality-based politics was hinted at with her "wine cave" criticism of the last debate. While Bernie may have said he did not believe a woman could win the presidency, it may have simply been a moment of candor -- not deprecation...
Elizabeth might want to stick to the "high road", else she may become what she isn't... The democratic nomination may not be "Loch Lomand", but road taken shapes the candidate that gets there...
5
If you don’t want factionalism, why are you bringing up this point for all to ponder?!
Just quietly prove him wrong, if you don’t want divisions in the party!
5
Nice try Liz, but you are done.
11
I believe Bernie said this, but I think Warren shouldn't have brought it up. Why? Because I like BOTH of them. I believe BOTH of them could be POTUS/VP. Either way. If Bernie doesn't get the nod I would would vote for Warren and hope he was her VP and vice versa.
I would vote for any of the top Democratic candidates. I would actually like to see Bernie and Warren as a TEAM ticket too.
6
Even if Bernie did express an opinion that a woman couldn’t beat trump in 2020, I don’t believe for one minute he’s biased against women and to spout this from Warren...one has to wonder why she decided to steep in the mud? These two have always been my favorites and what all this seems to me is the media and establishment doing their inane best to undermine two candidates that have good chance to win...two candidates for the people.
6
"Warren Says Sanders Told Her a Woman Could Not Win the Presidency"
Sadly, Sanders may be correct, if for no other reason than Russian election meddling continues unabated, and it was a major cause of Clinton losing in 2016. Of course, Republican gerrymandering and their own active election interference added to the installation of the worst president in this nation's history.
I'm for Biden. I'm for Warren. I'm for Buttigieg. I'm for Klobuchar. I'm for Bernie. I'm for a bucket of sand placed on the Oval Office desk. I care not one thing, about their policies and promises, only that someone—anyone—trounces phony president Trump and sends him back to wherever he crawled up from.
4
Sounds like Elizabeth Warren has made another deal with the DNC. Remember the ridiculous "contract" that Bernie would not sign?
5
@linda
Yes. She made that back in August with her "revival" not "revolution" backroom exchanges. Since then she was granted positive press coverage and, with that, a sizable bump in popularity. But alas, it wasn't enough and the people are seeing through this. We learned from 2016.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-democrats.html
3
After the untrue claim of trashing Warren was made why didn’t Warren personally call her good friend Bernie to verify before responding publicly? The claim was debunked. See Rational National on YouTube among others.
3
This is Sanders Bernie Bros trying to get rid of the competition. I'm supporting Warren. She will smash Trump in debates and the election.
6
Yeah, the Bernie Bros are at it again.
Elizabeth Warren has my vote and she's going to be a fabulous president. At last...a qualified candidate.
5
At this point, to reestablish her credibility, Warren needs to publicly identify whoever leaked the conversation and fire them from her campaign. Otherwise it looks like she authorized the leak, which perhaps she did.
11
@Karen Maybe Sanders leaked it.
3
@jaco Bernie is not a misogynist. He has always been supportive of women's rights.
4
why does Warren have to do anything? Men don't have to DO anything. Bernie is known to dodge difficult questions and no one is telling him he has to stop and answer the question. Jeez, the double standard here is as bad as the republlicans!
1
American corporate news media has taken a definite negative stance towards Bernie Sanders,
However biased and self-serving American corporate news media is, I believe that they are making a mistake misconstruing Bernie and what he represents. They continue to frantically come up with a neo-liberal substitute candidate that they are more comfortable with, rather than to take seriously Americans’ need for a radical change in politics. If they manage to accomplish this, Americans will respond by losing hope, and refuse to vote.
The downswing is that Trump will win again. And if this happens Trump’s “insane” policy changes, which currently has everyone shaking their heads, will start to form into a scenario that is horrible, but actually makes ominous sense. Trump isn’t a fool for pulling out troops from the Kurdish territories. He is just supporting his “new base” – instead of the Nazi fascists of the US, he is now joining forces with the same forces worldwide: Duarte in the Philippines, Bolcenaro in Brazil, Putin, MBS, Erdogon.
By that time, thinking that Bernie Saunders and Elizabeth Warren were ever a threat to democracy and capitalism will seem a sad and bitter joke.
10
Do I hear the jello gently hitting the fan, for our party?
4
This is why, I think, Elizabeth Warren will not win: in her campaign, she brings up the most tedious, petty issues. This is just a stupid irrelevant issue in the scheme of things. What was the point of this? Maybe, too, why Trump will be re-elected if these gossipy junk tactics continues.
9
C'mon Liz, feel the Bern.
4
Who needs Trumps lies and smears against Bernie Sanders when we have the corporate media to do his work for him.
12
This exchange coming up at just this moment smacks of Republican undermining of the two leading candidates of the Democrats. Thing is — of what importance is it, if any? Thousands, I dare say millions of us have asked the same question, held the same or opposing opinion, and of what significance is it? NONE!
Stop wasting the time and attention of readers with this noting to look at story. It belongs on page 10.
6
Who cares? Historically he is 100% correct. If he believes that a woman can not win in 2020 he is entitled to believe that. We have yet to see a woman get the nomination again... But if you think about who stands to gain by this information being leaked out? Either Warren leaked true information that Bernie said or she is lying and leaking private info. Either way its a low blow. "Bernie said a woman can't win." Warren probably can't.
5
He said, she said.
Sure does sound like a childish back-and-forth.
Sadly, we all say many kinds of things and no one should be judge too harshly by what they may or may not have uttered. We all have weaknesses and it's about time to consider that flaws, including lying and talking stupidly, is a human condition.
2
Well, when two people are in a private conversation, and two people recall things differently, there is no way to really know what was said.
However, it would make a great deal of sense to me that Warren and Sanders met to feel out each other's positions during which Sanders may have said exactly what he said he said, "What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could."
And, between friends, if he even stated that a woman might have trouble winning in that climate (even if his goal was for her to drop out to give him a better chance), it's not necessarily sexist to point that out. (Look how many democrats are ONLY concerned about beating Trump!!) As their policies are similar, it would make sense that one's potential votes would go to the other should one drop out.
Yet a woman, even hearing a slight hint from a man that she would face difficulty winning could feel harmful and be construed--even misconstrued--as a sexist attack.
The timing bothers me, combined with the fact that Warren said she'd keep the conversation private but then came out and stated regarding Bernie that "I thought a woman could win; he disagreed," particularly since she provided absolutely no other context.
I feel like her staffers thought they'd take a shot at Bernie, and Warren decided to back her staffers. However, the idea that Bernie would think a woman can't win the presidency doesn't make sense to me.
9
So obviously an attempt to stir something up between 2 top candidates. And the fact that so many Bernie supporters are quick to blame Warren just kind of shows you. It's a cult of personality and Bernie does no wrong. The right thing to do is apologize for any rogue volunteer or staffer actions and set the record straight. Instead, they accuse Warren of playing the woman card. That's sexist.
4
this is garbage -- and it plays straight into the unrelenting behavior republicans win against dems: we can't keep it together, we are more concerned with PCness as our vote is possibly split by unsubstantiated stories. did you notice that both camps declined to comment? Consider if the story were flipped and Warren charged Bernie: 'no one will elect a "crazy socialist" -- and yet, here we are engrossed by high school antics so close to the Iowa Caucasus, while Bernie and Warren are serious contenders for the Dem nomination. this story erodes our base and is fodder for opponents. wake up dems, leaning republicans, and independents before we reboot a crucial mistake of the 2016 election!
9
Since pundits say the same thing, along with Amy Klobuchar, remind me again why this is controversial? I would say he stated the obvious.
Could the NYT be trying to knock off both progressives with one story?
Both Sanders and Warren are ahead of Biden in the polls, folks. Stay calm, progressives and stay united.
12
Whether Sanders said a woman couldn’t win the election or not is inmaterial. HE IS CORRECT. We Anericans still live in a male chauvanist society.
Look at the foolish insensitivity prevalent among men regarding abortion even in the face of necessity to a woman’s heath and long term survival.
Look at the ongoing ignorant male prejudice against Hillary Clinton.
4
If there's anyone out there who still doubts that Elizabeth Warren is a desperately ambitious liar and fraud, her latest gambit--floating a poorly sourced rumor that Sanders claimed a woman could not win the presidency in 2020 (courtesy of the Berniephobes at CNN)--should put their doubts to rest. The report, which immediately sparked prominent headlines elsewhere and gained traction on social media, is the kind of irresponsible journalism designed to sow division and little more.
7
I think this little drama hurts both campaigns. It's my unproven impression that some in the Warren campaign thought it advantageous to strike at the competition Sanders represents by leaking this element of the Warren/Sanders meeting. It makes Sanders look bad for obvious reasons. However, it also makes Warren look bad because she didn't take the high road and keep what was supposed to be an amicable tete-a-tete private. Her ambivalent confirmation statement attempts to say that Sanders did make the comment (thus striking a blow) but that they are still "friends and allies" (thus not taking responsibility for striking the blow). I am a supporter of both Sanders and Warren with a preference for Warren but I don't like the way she has done this at all. And if she didn't approve of it then someone got a little too clever for themselves and hurt both camps in the process. And now I will stop before I go off into conspiracy land. And frankly, I think it is one thing to feel a woman could not win against Trump (though I disagree with that) and quite another to say a woman couldn't do the job of being the president (which is downright wrong and much more offensive) and is not what Sanders apparently said.
4
Where have I read so many of these exact comments before? Oh yeah, yesterday. Bernie's tea rolls are really out on this one.
4
Do you really think this is newsworthy? Please media, stop trying to distract from the important issues. Stop trying to pick a fight over nothing. Really, who cares? IF he said it, it is his opinion. Any of the top four candidates are 1000% better than the incompetent criminal in the white house. We must stay united in the effort to get Democratic candidates in office and repair the damage done to our institutions.
6
No, he didn’t.
4
Voting preference.
Before the Warren Smear.
1. Sanders
2. Warren
3. Yang
After the Warren smear.
1. Sanders
2. Yang
Warren Never
4
I'm no great fan of Bernie Sanders and in fact believe him to be a great liability to the Democrats this year when beating Trump matters more than anything--and perhaps more than anything ever has in what may turn out to be one of the most fatal elections in American history
Even so, fellow Americans, all poor Bernie Sanders did was to let his lips utter one of those fact most frustrating to feminists and mysterious even to those who aren't, namely, that women voters continue to be much more likely to vote for a man than a man is to vote for a woman. I didn't create this fact and certainly wouldn't celebrate it if the American people were ever blessed with a woman President as brilliant and valuable as Angela Merkel--whose massive greatness as compared with his naturally attracted the malice of Donald J. Trump.
Meanwhile, why don't we take a lesson from black voters who have proved that their trust in Joe Biden is much more important to them than the racial or sexual identity of a candidate? That is a lesson the Democratic Party would be utterly stupid to ignore this critical year.
2
I hate it when Mom and Dad fight.
2
So someone is lying; my first instinct is to go back to someone who also lied on college admissions forms......
8
Again the news media reveals its predatory character, it just can't restrain itself. So its editors decide to move on the non-story that they have no way of proving, no way of knowing the fact pattern/context. Not to mention the absolute fact that many Democrats male and female are genuinely concerned about what they see as a valid gender issue. And anyone familiar with the NYTs knows gender issues are something they can't resist flogging at every opportunity.
Vote Blue No Matter who — United We Stand, Divided we fail.
5
I'm sorry to have to say that Elizabeth Warren is a LIAR. Coincides with her 180 on other important issues, at the behest of Corporate Dems. Is she also secretly taking new bribes from big money? I guess she's no better than they are. I won't give her another dime.
4
This is ridiculous. We're not allowed to have an opinion as to whether a woman, a gay man, an old guy or whatever can win the 2020 presidential election? Or worse, we can have an opinion but can't express it?
If Democrats can't extricate themselves from this identity politics trap they put themselves in, they'll lose. Or am I not allowed to say that?
9
@hark..Republican white Christians males are not playing identity politics?
1
@hark So, to you, if a man has an opinion about whether a woman, etc. can win, that's not identity politics whereas a woman responding to the question of whether she can win is engaging "identity politics"?
Am I allowed to say that using the term "identity politics" is a way of saying that anything that affects women or people of color or other marginalized groups is not worth discussing?
Shame on you NYTimes. Sanders didn’t say a woman shouldn’t win, did he? And shame on the Warren camp (and Warren herself?) for letting the lie live and breathe for this long. It really is a discredit to her and only serves the interests of the bigger lie that Democrats are in disarray, and that Sanders is a wacko radical (which he is not of course).
8
Classic Warren: Don't understand what's happening, then get very self-righteous and accusatory about it. I am no fan of Bernie, but trying to bill him as sexist is nuts.
7
I keep thinking about the context in which it may have been said. For instance, I suspect most of us ask ourselves on a regular basis if the voters in key states are progressive enough to vote for a woman (despite HRC winning the popular vote). That may have been the context in which the remark may have been made.
When I read comments by readers on network TV news sites I shudder at the grotesque level of hostility expressed about Nancy Pelosi and other prominent women. It reminds me of how sexist the US politics can be, as compared to other nations with similar cultures.
5
Bernie thinks it's his turn this year, as does Biden. All the others are spoilers. Probably true. What would the poll numbers be if it were a match-up between Sanders and Biden?
1
How is this reported conversation between Sanders and Warren any different than those at home? I've heard any number of progressive friends discount a woman's electability--many of them women. It's likely Sanders expressed the same thoughts. What a tempest in a teapot.
9
Regardless of what Sanders said to Warren, the fact is a woman, Hilliary Clinton, won the majority of the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election. It is important to recognize the reason she was not seated as the 45th President is because of the undemocratic process, the electoral college, used in the U.S. to select a president.
2
I was for Bernie but voted for Hillary in 2016, so I'm not a Bernie supporter who refused to vote democratic after he lost (fairly or unfairly) the nomination. This is why I am alarmed at the vehement attacks against Warren in this scuffle. She is a fine candidate with so much to offer as a leader. Our two truly progressive candidates need to refrain from attacking each other. It only gives the moderate candidates ammunition. Tonight watch Pete find a way to use this to his advantage. The man who couldn't manage his police force as mayor let alone manage the country.
4
@Mary Magee
I wonder if a presidential campaign using two anonymous innocuous events to go on an attack with every media source and fundraise off said smears within hours has something to do with the hard feelings?!
Two little nothings that just happened a day before the last debate and a couple weeks before the first votes.
Two unsupported gaffs(?) that are being used by a slipping campaign against a front running one.
Yet you wonder at the vehement response, while not acknowledging the same from the other side that has weaponized two anonymous sourced nothings.
Agreed, it does hurt both and offers amusement and ammo to other campaigns. It was a stupid gambit to go nuclear on two little things said everyday by everyone and even amongst themselves.
2
These precisely-timed tricks are not likely to work this time. We've learned. Sure, the debate right before the all-important Iowa caucuses will now be flooded (suddenly and again) with "the gender issue" in order to derail the candidate most likely to progressively reform America (who happens to be male). But too many people are wise to what happened last time (and the consequences that followed) to be manipulated again by the political and media establishment. Only a candidate with deep popular support within the democratic party and, more importantly, across the American voting public will beat Donald Trump. At this point, this is again only Bernie Sanders.
8
Assuming this is true (which I dont believe it is), why did Warren wait until now - many months later - to bring this up? seems like a cheap ploy on behalf of Warren.
5
As with so many complex interactions portrayed in the media, this one doesn't escape being oversimplified to death. Bernie saw Hillary lose an unlosable election against Trump. From whatever context we've got, it's clear that he said this relative to his own loss and Hillary's subsequent failure.
Elizabeth Warren had to fight against systems designed to defeat her. She succeeded against Geithner, and went on to represent the voiceless without hesitation or fear.
We've seen how women are denigrated with a unique brand of across-the-aisle misogyny. Taking what Bernie said out of context is short-sighted. Anger directed at Elizabeth for saying it is just more mistrust of a powerful, skilled, wise and confident woman.
Elizabeth Warren going public and revealing someone's opinion that was exchanged in a private conversation?
This says more about Elizabeth Warren than it does about Bernie Sanders. A candidate who is willing to betray private political discussions to advance their own political position - This is Trumpian.
Elizabeth Warren stated in public as fact for years that she was American Indian and used it for political gain - a lie, not an opinion. Want to hold her to that?
We thought she was better.
6
There’s no way he said this. Why would Bernie, who’s been so consistent in what he’s been saying his whole career suddenly change his view. There are videos from 30 years ago of him saying women should and can run for President. The media is trying to divide progressives. We need to ignore it. They are probably scared because Bernie is ahead in so many states and Warren is 2nd in Iowa. Don’t let them divide us.
9
Trivial but it raises a lot of emotional reactions because all women have heard this in their own lives and don’t like it. Sanders is a tad too careless with his words, talking without considering well how it comes across. He likely just meant that the voting public may be less willing to vote for a woman over a man based upon history, but it sounds like based upon perceived qualifications.
1
After the Clinton debacle, I thought the electorate would have to spin through an election cycle or two before a woman would be a credible candidate for president too. Clinton was an awkward campaigner, too eager to please all sides in stating her positions, going from dove to hawk & back again. She wore her ambition, more than that, her deep need & desire for the office on her sleeve. What she wanted so badly eluded her grasp, as these things often do.
Now Warren shouldn’t be telling on Sanders what he said in a private conversation. She’s implying that he doesn’t think highly enough of women to run. If that is so, say it more directly. I’d like more context for the remark.
1
Biden is the only candidate that has a chance. A vote for Sanders or Warren (and I like both) is a waste because neither will win the Presidency.
2
I would vote for Mickey Mouse instead of trump.The powers worried about their money have initiated yet another hit piece against 2 candidates that are working for all Americans.I trust both of them,and know this will be put to rest at the debates tonight.Thank you to you both.Let's get back to unifying our forces against everything that is hurting our country,staring with trump.
4
Aside from CNN, no other major news outlet believes this. The Washington Post reported more specifically about what was said behind closed doors, and even Nate Silver chimed in at the ridiculousness of this accusation. The best thing about Sanders is he's one of the few, if any, politicians with track record of integrity, honesty, and consistency. He's the only politician whose record is strengthened, not weakened, by an old interview of video. That Warren is accusing one of the most feminist politicians in Washington of sexism - mind you about something said nearly two years ago that she decided to sit on and release at an opportune moment - shows that while she may not have been behind this scheme, she's choosing to go along with it for whatever reasons she deems necessary.
9
@Mike She dismissed it as "punditry," and I don't think the two accounts are contradictory. The media is making this into something it's not.
@Law Feminist
"The media is making this into something it's not."
No, one presidential campaign, it's candidate. it's surrogates and their supporters have weaponized it to the media and started fundraising off said "not somethings" within hours. Two anonymous innocuous events, two days before the last debate, a couple weeks before the first votes are cast; by a slipping campaign against a front running one.
It's not "just the media" making this into something it's not; is it.
These were political hits.
4
1. This private meeting between Warren and Sanders took place in 2018. Why is Warren bringing it up now through her staff who were not at the meeting?
2. Warren's account is general and vague:
"I thought a woman could win; he disagreed,” she said. “I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further." So Warren/her staff bring it up now but don't want to discuss it any further at this point??
3. It is important to know Bernie's exact words and statement in this regard. Because, as reported by Warren's staff, this does not sound like what Bernie would say to Warren (or any Democratic woman candidate) in a 1-on-1 meeting.
The timing for this disclosure looks bad. One of these 2 is not telling the entire truth. But relative to Trump, Bernie, Warren--or any of these Democratic presidential candidates left standing--would be a million times better as president than Donald J. Trump.
Move on Democrats to climate change, more rising inequality, foreign policy repair....
3
She said; he said. I will vote for whomever can beat Trump. So far I see nobody who can. When, oh when, will the Democrats learn to unite the way Republicans do? We are beset by our own bickering yet again.
5
@Eggs & Oatmeal Best comment here. I wish this had been a NYT Pick so more people would see it, and hopefully, think about it.
1
This is the sort of attack that tells me Warren can't beat Trump, however true may or may not be. She is going to try to win based on her own logic and not the insanity that is the Berniecrat or Trumpite. She also has already shown to be vulnerable to the stigma of dishonesty, little surprised she went this route thinking it would be effective. I had high hopes for her candidacy, now kind of just feeling disappointed with all of these unforced errors on the Native American ethnicity issue, medicare for all, and just being incompetent in tactics in general.
2
@Jason
Unfortunately, Warren has terrible political instincts. Her releasing the DNA test was one of the worst blunders I have seen by any politician in my lifetime. This leak of a private conversation is the second.
4
IF - and that's a big IF - he said this at a private meeting between the two of them back in 2018, why does she mention it only NOW?
4
Sad to see Warren and/or her surrogates resort to attacks and lies against Sanders, simply because she is falling in the polls. Predictable that the MSM would inflate the criticisms against Bernie. Limousine liberals and the DNC are terrified that neither Warren or Biden can defeat Sanders. They would prefer another Trump victory.
4
After making monthly donations to Warrens campaign via Act Blue, I stopped donating to Ms Warrens fund raising efforts when on more then one occasion, one of her younger staff members became aggressive in a email exchange claiming I needed to donate more money, more money, more money... One can only donate what they can afford when living on retirement benefits... That said, I no longer support Warren...
3
When I read comments below that Bernie cost Hillary the election I realize Trump may win again. Let's put it straight.
Hillary cost Hillary the election and it's time to think forward.
6
I saw this morning on the news, that someone brought up something Sanders said and flashed a news clip of him saying something, from the looks of the clip, back in the 70s, maybe 60s when he had long hair. How ridiculous to bring stuff up from maybe 45 years ago. I cannot understand why someone would want to go into politics.
2
A woman has a better chance of being elected President than a man who's spent his entire career calling himself a "socialist" and refusing to join either of the two political parties that is America's system.
3
Coordinated assault, brought to you by Main Stream Media one day before the debate.
Stay tuned for more Bernie Bashing in the days leading up the caucus, the machine is only just getting started.
4
The irony of all of the noise in the wake of this unfortunate event between these two candidates is that one is receiving the benefit of the doubt, while the other is called a liar, playing dirty, and "shooting herself in the foot." The double standard here only furthers the whole point of the rumor, true or not. The idea that a women could be president, but not THAT women because of reason A, B, C, D. Why is it that Bernie is automatically the victim of a smear campaign and there is no question that he didn't say this, but some believe so vehemently that Warren is coming after Bernie in a smear attack with this incident. The arguments are pretty tired, and although I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, I won't put up with him black balling another candidate like he did in 2016 by throwing a hissy fit because he didn't win.
2
Well, I'm disappointed but not surprised that Elizabeth Warren would do this to Bernie at this moment in the race. After all, she threw her support behind HRC last time when Bernie was a much better fit with her world view because she expected to be chosen as VP. And then HRC threw her under the bus and chose Tim Kaine. I would bet any money she is now banking on being VP to Joe Biden. Watch and see.
At a time when the two most progressive candidates are both doing well why would she do this? They need to stick together. One last, but important thing, we have a record of Bernie Sanders and his beliefs going back 30 years and he has never wavered. During some of that time, Elizabeth Warren was working for multinational corporations. So I guess this is just more of the same.
10
And she was a member of the GOP until 1996. I wonder if Warren ever spoke out against rampant sexism/misogyny when she was part of the rotten Republican Party? I never heard a peep from her during Clarence Thomas’ sordid Supreme Court confirmation hearing. And I don’t remember her ever speaking up for Professor Anita Hill. Guess she was just too busy advancing her own academic career.
3
Even if you believe Warren 100%, despite ample evidence over decades of Bernie advocating for female candidates when it was unpopular and personally urging Warren to run in 2015, these accusations coming less than 3 weeks before the most important nominating contest of a private conversation that happened in 2018 is nothing but a concerted effort to smear Sanders.
This does nothing but divide the progressive movement unnecessarily and help both Biden, Trump, and the corporate elite. I am appalled that the Warren campaign is taking on this divisive strategy.
15
Regarding this 2018 one on one meeting Warren previously said, “Bernie and I had a private dinner, and my view is that dinner stays private.” This made sense from the simple practical point that there wasn't a third party who could confirm anything said in the meeting. Now in the heat of the 2020 election Warren makes this damaging statement of what Sanders allegedly said in the meeting. In my opinion this says it all. You can't trust that Warren will keep her word. I could never trust her.
14
Had Bernie endorsed Hillary Clinton early in the last election cycle we might indeed have a remarkably effective woman president today. He tried, however, to move the agenda so far to the left that the majority balked. Indeed, a significant percentage of Bernie supporters voted Trump, similar to Ralph Nader helping George Bush win. Politics is a continuum, if one goes too far in one direction he or she will emerge at the extremes of the other party.
6
So you agreed with the DNC and Hillary that primaries are merely displays of solidarity with the choices made for us by other means than a democratic process. That sounds like North Korean, Russian or Chinese politics to me, don’t you think?
4
@Chris Anderson
Well, I just presented an example, I witnessed at my little 2016 caucus. There sat one lone man, a teacher, in support of Bernie, as his wife had suffered a seriously health issue and he could see his medical bankruptcy on the wall. There sat Hillary supporters doing absolutely nothing to prevent it. Mr. Sanders is not too extreme.
5
The Sanders script is absolutely not "sending out volunteers to trash" Warren, and that she would characterize it that way diminishes my opinion of her.
What the script says is that Warren would be a weak general election candidate because all her supporters are reliable Democrats, while Sanders has lots of support from people who are otherwise disaffected from politics. Since the candidate with the most votes wins the general election, this type of analysis matters. Warren supporters can argue that she is actually the most inspirational candidate, given her hours-long selfie line, etc.
Nothing about this "trashes" Warren. It just is a pragmatic argument for why people who prioritize general election victory might want to throw their support to Sanders. Huge difference.
If you recall, Sanders only ran in 2016 after he failed to recruit Warren to run. I suspect that in 2018, Sanders was merely observing that the electorate had demonstrated extreme sexism is electing the historically unqualified Trump over the most accomplished and prepared candidate in the history of the country. I too fear that American sexism will harm the candidacy of any Democratic woman nominee. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't be thrilled to the core to have Warren elected president.
19
We already lost one election because of Bernie in 2016. And we will lose again in 2020 because neither Bernie nor Warren will get the more moderate votes needed to win. So we are left with either Biden getting us over the finish line or -- if he stumbles and Bloomberg doesn't catch fire on Super Tuesday -- we have another four years of Trump. What a sad state of affairs!
3
If Bernie had been the Dem nominee we would not have Trump
4
@MEW111
Hillary cost Hillary the election - not Bernie.
If we Dems don't move on, Trump will will again
5
@MEW111
It's not so sad, at all. You should just try seeing that nominating the moderate candidate, Clinton, over the progressive one, Sanders, likely cost us that election. Just try seeing it another way.... Do you really believe Sanders would have done worse than Hillary against Trump? Did you know that poll after poll since 2015 indicated that Bernie Sanders was far more popular than Hillary (both absolutely and relative to Trump) across the country's voting population? Are you aware that only 1/4 of the voting population are democrats? And about 1/2 are independents and non-affiliated - and Bernie is again very popular with them (in contrast to establishment Democrats, including Warren).
3
I smell misogyny brewing with this story. It worms its way into campaigns and I’m sick and tired of it! To both Sanders’ and Warrens’ campaigns: Let this go. Get a grip. We have a bone fide maniac in the White House. That’s our only fight.
7
@Hortencia
It's got nothing to do with misogyny. It's about derailing the leading candidate, who is deeply anti-establishment (by his opponent and the media establishment). The timing of this tells it all.
3
Much ado about nothing.
Such low class drivel.
This is all just more chaos stirred up by Trump's
campaign.
The American people decide who the democratic nominee is, not Bernie Sanders (or Elizabeth Warren).
The Dems need to ignore these in fighting propaganda soundbites and keep their focus on eviscerating Donald Trump.
6
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/sanders-warren-fight/index.html
"…It is stomach churning," said Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers…
"…If it continues, I'll pick up the phone and call both of them…
When she calls, they better pick up from their end...
Mike ghosted her – now he’s been standing in the corner of her assistant principal's office, for the several years since…
Because it appears to be the extremely sad and awful truth, it is not unreasonable to think that the USA will not elect a women. Or, a muslim, jew, atheist, LGBTQ, etc, or another african American. At not any time soon. HOPE I AM WRONG.
4
I'm just so sick of baby boomers fighting dirty.
2
@Joelle ~ I am a "boomer" and I don't fight dirty, nor do I encourage it. Your statement, while it may be unintentional, lumps all baby boomers in the same boat. Please don't do that.
5
The President and his American flag lapel-pin sycophants are backed by Russia whose trolls condemn and amplify the opposition's front runner for being a socialist and sexist?
This is a house of mirrors.
Alice and the hooka smoking caterpillar couldn't have dreamed this up.
3
Democratic candidates, please stop bickering.
You look pathetic and are giving plenty of ammunitions to trump and the gop.
Enough is enough. Just get over being childish !
3
THIS IS FRONT PAGE NEWS????
He said it or he didn't; who cares!! Get back to policy, we need a win.
10
Hearsay? Slander? Libel*?
Just look at who "contributed" to the article!
*Of course, NYTimes v. Sullivan precludes that, but c'mon, NYTimes: this sort of "gotcha" reporting is to be expected from the other rags in your neighborhood, not from "the grey lady" of journalism....
12
Circular firing squad.
3
Based on quotes in the article from both Warren and Sanders, it doesn't sound like these candidates are actually in conflict over this. Rather, it's being blown out of proportion by staff / NYT to generate the appearance of conflict, for attention. When the media lowers itself to pushing this type of hollow narrative (knowing that most people only read headlines and opening paragraphs), they risk pointless damage.
More specifically, there's a difference between a scenario in which Sanders might've speculated honestly in private about whether or not a woman can win right now in the US (something I -- a feminist, HRC fan, and Warren supporter -- am not yet certain of myself after 2016) and a scenario in which he might've said one _cannot_ win, say, with intent to intimidate. There is an even _bigger_ difference between the former scenarios and one in which he might've said one _should_ not win, but this doesn't seem to be remotely what was said. I suspect it was the first scenario. Either way, it's not clear to me why such a big deal is being made of the exchange or who (other than perhaps Trump) benefits.
16
@M.
Biden and Buttigieg (neither of whom will be chained to their Senate desks during the impeachment trial) benefit.
Amy Klobuchar (who will be stuck at the trial along with Sanders and Warren) is taking the shrapnel of the message that a 'woman can't win' just as she is starting to move significantly higher in the polls.
This whole thing feels so staged. I am quite sure that Bernie's comment, whatever he actually said, has been taken out of context and blown up into much
more than it is, in our hypersensitive pc environment.
Clearly this 'private conversation' isn't. What does that say about which party initially shared what (allegedly) was said ?
2
Why is the onus on Warren and her campaign? She responded very diplomatically.
6
@Cecelia Lynch Not positive. But I bet that legions will say it's because she's a woman.
2
The claim that a woman cannot win the election is *not* by itself misogynistic. Period. If someone claimed in 1900 that an African American could not win the presidency, this would *not* by itself be racist either. Of course one could intend to communicate something evil with either of these claims. But there is no reason whatsoever to suspect such intentions of Bernie. To date no one has given even a remotely compelling argument that Bernie is a sexist.
(And I say all of these things under the assumption that "Bernie disagreed [about whether a woman could win]" is a fair gloss of what he said. None of us knows this to be true.)
12
Senator Warren's childlike behavior at a comment about electability of women to the office of POTUS, should make all of her supporters consider how she will react to an encounter with Trump.
11
@Jim don’t you see how sexist your comment is?
1
It's clear from her past that Elizabeth Warren would lie about the time of day if it would buy her a vote.
11
Really, he said that in 2018 and she has not bothered to say anything about it until now? This further adds to some of her other less creditable statements.
9
The meeting/dinner between Sanders and Warren in December 2018 was a private one, with the understanding that nothing said there would leave the room, in order to encourage a candid conversation. And they were the only two people in the room, according the NYT. Therefore, only Warren could have told the CNN source(s) about the statement that Sanders supposedly made about a woman's chances to win the presidency. This is a profoundly unethical act on the part of Warren, and a flagrant breach of confidentiality by her. I am in disbelief that she stooped so low.
9
More than half of white women voted for Trump instead of Hillary in 2016. Millions of women who voted against a woman, on top of the millions of men who will never accept a woman in power. Is it really biased to conclude that America is disinclined to elect a woman for President? This is a horrible reality that needs to change, but God help you if you call yourself a liberal and state a logical projection of the facts.
2
@Christopher Well, to be fair, they're both abysmal national candidates.
Warren has a track record that suggests that she is a chronic lier.Bernie was never caught in a lie.
Warren even when doesn't say an out an out lie manipulates the story to her advantage.Opportunist to the extreme.Remember the darling of many mislead, by her, progressives endorsed Hillary in 2016 .Some opportunist.
5
In 1988 Sanders said a woman could be president. In 2016, The Hill reported "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won't rule out a presidential bid if no other liberal candidate steps up to run — but suggested Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) could fit the bill." It doesn't pass the smell test to say Sanders didn't think a woman could be president. This is just a variant on the "Bernie Bro" trope that is utterly belied by Sanders huge support by women. And read this article showing Sanders long term support for women's rights. https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-feminist-president/
11
@Cassandra
I agree. I am not a Sanders supporter as I disagree wholeheartedly with his politics. However, he has a very long public history that has proven him to be one of the most decent and honorable individuals in politics, and from what I have read he is the same person in private as he is in public. I find it unbelievable that he is some closet sexist.
3
@Cassandra I voted for Sanders in 2016. There was misogyny to go around, not from Sanders, but certainly from some of his supporters. I don't think the accounts are contradictory or reflective of anyone's strength as a candidate. Warren dismissed it as punditry, not sexism. Who benefits? Mayo Pete and Biden. Would giving either of those two an edge be better than letting this go?
2
And Warren was so horribly offended by the remark that she sat on it for a year until just before Iowa.
You’re gonna do it again, aren’t you, Democrats? I don’t know why The Donald thinks he needs Putin when he already has you lot to run against.
7
In this age of micro-aggressions, politically correct policing and sound bite politics, it makes sense that we're even giving this the time of day. Leave the guy alone! He's the purist, no-nonsense candidate out there! We're already re-paving the road for what the DNC did to him 4 years ago.
2
Which of the two are playing the "sexist" card, or are they both Jokers? Hardly anyone, regardless of political stripe, believes a woman cannot win the presidency, certainly not enough to make a difference at the ballot box. Hillary didn't win, but her experience disproved the prejudice that a woman cannot win a presidential election. If Sanders and Warren must squabble, it should be about something that makes a difference to the voters, not this silly middle school yard behavior.
2
Why is this a story? Warren thinks the country is ready for a woman president, Bernie disagrees. Now let's discuss mountains and molehills.
3
Get a grip, people. Remember how the normal workings and strategizing of the DNC was manufactured into a scandal, way back in 2016? Fool me once,....
3
My my...dissent among the democrats. When the going gets tough, the tough get going.
Bernie was a feminist while Liz was still a Republican.
12
Bernie admits he said at the meeting: “Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who will weaponize whatever he can.” That can be interpreted as "a woman can't win."
That was also before AOC rejuvenated his campaign after he had a heart attack. Maybe his thinking has changed.
1
@Ed
Please stop mansplaining what Liz heard
1
@Jay The two accounts are not contradictory. I was once told by a client that he thought I was excellent but his adversary would think he was weak for being represented by a woman. People say things like this rather blithely, without realizing the way it can be interpreted. I believe them both and want to move on from this.
This is a mess likely to harm both candidates.
This second or third version of the story is better than the initial one, in which paragraph one stated the allegation as fact, attributed to anonymous sources.
Either the NYT has been played or Warren is the favored candidate.
Or both.
2
To all who are justifying Bernie's comments as him merely stating the reality of our times - is that what was not being said in 2008 about Obama that a black man can't win the general election?
Disappointing that most (white men) and some (white) women here with internalized misogyny are saying that about Warren now.
Go Warren!!!
Pathetic smear campaign by Warren.
11
Oh just stop! Oooo, the deep state Dems are coming for him! These Senator Sanders acolytes almost as bad as the Trump backers and they cannot deny that they ARE the reason we have that man in office.
Bernie backers have the most sensitive of skins, perceiving slights that don't exist, constantly claiming that everyone is out to get Bernie. Not to mention the nastiness of many of the Bernie bots-- just hit up Reddit sometime and the stuff on there is similar to the kind of comments Trump backers make about Pelosi, et al. You don't hear about Warren surrogates saying horrifying things about Senator Sanders.
Focus on his policies, stop the nonsense, and leave Senator Warren alone; she's left him alone. She hasn't mentioned he had a heart attack (which is quite a serious thing) so quiet down! Senator Sander's problem is that Senator Warren puts out the substance ($$) for her policy ideas--some of which are similar to Senator Sanders--while he lacks the details for the highfalutin plans of which he speaks.
We need to get rid of Trump, eyes on the prize, guys!
3
I would say that a woman could win the Presidency. Just not when Trump is running opposed to her. Of all the candidates that will be on stage tonight none of them have the integrity of Donald Trump. I was fine with Elizabeth until the lie about being native American came to fruition. Hillary really did a dis-service to all women wanting to break through the glass ceiling. I can't believe people still show up to listen to her complain about losing. Maybe Bernie and Elizabeth could run on the same ticket together?
2
Sadly, at least one woman couldn't win the presidency, hence our current urgency.
If any woman can it's Warren, but I'm still with Bernie. The country is ready for someone to really shake things up which he will do more than anyone will.
Warren, you could get my vote you had a plan to harness the country to really push your ideas through. You won't do it by playing by the polite rules of part politics.
3
Are we seriously spending time in one more headline grabbing debate about a comment made and probably misconstrued that has no real significance on electing a president that actually deserves and is capable of holding the Office of President? I’m not sure a woman is electable in 2020 either and I marched with sisters and brothers in Washington in 2017 and voted for Hillary. Please reread that statement. Electable is not a synonym for capable. But that isn’t the point! Mr. Sanders, adding four more years of free public education to a system that breeds inequity from the first day of preschool or the lack thereof is not a solution. Ms. Warren, the sheer magnitude of our government bureaucracy leaping into organizing a public health care plan without taking smaller steps to arrive there is frightening. Those are the kind of issues we should be talking about as informed and questioning citizens. And those are the issues we need to talk about with our on the fence neighbors. Call me naively crazy, but I don’t think any of the democratic candidates remaining or gone from the debate stage are guilty of racial or gender bias. Shame on the would be puppeteers behind the campaign and media scenes, whoever they may be, who brought this into the spotlight. Shame on the candidates for keeping it there and shame on us if we let it take the place of considering real issues.
5
This story is pretty transparently an attempt to throw a wrench into the Sanders campaign’s momentum. What I find interesting is how hesitant and ambivalent Warren’s statement was. She says look this is what I heard, it’s not a big deal, I don’t want to talk about it anymore, Bernie’s a friend, let’s move on. Her heart doesn’t seem to be in this Sanders smear. It makes me wonder if she hasn’t just taken the bad advice of a campaign advisor, and is now regretting it.
4
There’s no way Bernie Sanders said that, period, much less to Elizabeth Warren. She must be reading a lot into and misinterpreting something he did say, or her memory is faulty. This is much ado about nothing in any case. I want to hear about the issues and how to defeat Trump.
6
@EJS
Believe all women EJS!!!
2
I'm skeptical Sanders would have said to anyone, least of all Warren, that he didn't think a woman could win. This diminishes Warren in my eyes.
9
@Diane
This definitely diminishes Warren. It would make sense that Sanders offered a frank assessment of the political climate in the context of discussing Warren's possible run with her.
Now it appears she is so delicate that she was offended by these hard truths.
3
I believe Bernie's side of this story. He has a sincerity which I believe Warren lacks. Of course, the corporate media likes nothing better than to see that a Progressive never becomes president. and it is working hard to do just that. It happened in 2016, and if the media has its way, Bernie will be destroyed again.
5
Articles, such as this, which are intended to smear and sow discord among progressives without any journalistic integrity, is exactly why people are showing greater lack of trust, and more animus towards, the main stream media.
The facts on this issue are very clear:
1) four anonymous sources (not on record) said they heard something about Bernie saying women can't win, but none of them were actually in the room when he said it.
2) Bernie has historically voiced that he is FOR woman running for president. C-SPAN in 1988 and when he was talking to a class in 1987 are two examples. It is uncharacteristic for him to have said this now, and even more dubious when we have to base the accusation solely on "he-said" "she-said".
3) The Warren campaign used an unofficial slack document --that was promptly removed my administrators of the Sanders chat -- to say that Sanders campaign volunteers were "talking trash" about her. The contents said:
[Warren's base] were more “highly-educated, more affluent people” and say that she was “bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”
Closer scrutiny reveals that this isn't really "talking trash". There is no malicious intent here. If anything, it is trying to distinguish between their two camps. But be that as it may, the Sander's campaign didn't even use the script to begin with. Politico chose to report on it.
Warren used to be my second choice.
These smear pieces on the Sander's campaign are very distasteful.
10
Whether he said it or implied it is pointless. Truth is SHE is not the woman who would win against Trump... he’s already got her number, and Kamala Harris dropped out. Biden is a good man, but too old school with his ideas. Warren’s ideas largely come from Bernie. Bernie has been consistent with his ideas and message since the 60’s.
Bernie is your best bet to have the freedom of the USA coupled with the social safety net of countries like Canada and Norway, socialism isn’t communism - the world has never seen a democratic socialist Government. There aren’t too many people to make it work, how much money is spent killing people, that could be better spent helping people.
5
Minus the mushrooms, Bernie followers remind me of all of the patchouli wearing, Grateful Dead fans of my youth. They are blind disciples of a utopian vision. The man talks a good game but how on earth will he ever produce results in the current political ecosphere? The simple answer is, he won’t! He cannot possibly pay for his ambitious platform without raising taxes substantially on the middle class...period. Anyone who thinks otherwise either doesn’t care about facts or simply has their head in the sand. Any thinking person should be wary about supporting Sen. Sanders. Notice that whenever he is asked about funding for his ideas he always digresses and blames corporate America and Wall Street banks. It’s his go-to line. Give us answers Bernie. Don’t get me wrong, I like his ideas but NOT without a clear-cut plan to fund them. Further, and I know this as fact because I have THINKING friends who personify it, Sanders supporters gave the election to trump in 2016. That’s right, through their hatred of HRC, they either didn’t vote, voted for Stein or, god forbid, voted for trump. This time, Democrats MUST unite as a front and in unison and solidarity regardless of the nominee. Otherwise, trump 2.1 is a foregone conclusion.
Peace
3
Your argument is that efforts to political attack Biden, like Clinton, that question his policies will weaken him in his general election run against Trump..Any dissenting opinions should be quelched. All bow down now, lay flowers at his feet and anoint Joe Biden or suffer the consequences. Great strategy!! Might have elected Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton....!!
2
@Lindsey E. Reese - Notice I said “unison and solidarity regardless of the nominee”. Believe me, if Sen. Sanders is that nominee I’ll be sporting Bernie bumper-stickers, knocking on doors and banging my gong for his ultimate victory on 11/3/2020. Peace
The Warren campaign is not looking too good right now. First the poorly thought out Medicare for All plan and then attempts to backtrack, now this sniping at Sanders. This kind of poor judgement does not look good for me in a Presidential candidate.
Of course the mainstream press does not care for Sanders, so this kind of poorly supported story is not that surprising.
5
@Robert kennedy
When did Bernie laid out a well thought out plan? and Bernie's disciple AOC's green deal? My 8 year old can lay out better plans to tackle global warming than her.
Seriously?
This isn’t journalism. This is creating a story where none exists. If the conversation reported took place, so what? You don’t have to be sexist to doubt whether a woman can be elected President in America. I’m a woman and I doubt it. Not because I don’t think a woman is capable of the job but because American culture has sexism engrained in every institution and even a large number of women have internalized it. No mystery or surprise there. Women are the mainstays of the Catholic Church, the paradigm sexist institution. If Warren and Sanders had the reported discussion it sounds like what Warren said, they disagreed on a debatable point and let’s move on. It sounds to me like they were having a discussion on Democrat strategy and how to go forward - which is what the top candidates should be doing.
5
@Jay Wow, Jay. You might want to go back and read my actual comment before you accuse me of "internalised misogyny" based on what you THINK I said.
Yes your daughter can be anything she wants to be. And yes, someday we will have an American President who is a woman. I merely have some doubts about the willingness of many Americans currently to vote for a woman.
Likewise, your example about other countries ignores the facts. Most female (and male for that matter) heads of state either inherit their title in a monarchy or are otherwise appointed to the position, not elected by general suffrage. Margaret Thatcher in Britain, Indira Gandhi in India, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, Benazir Bhuto of Pakistan, etc., became heads of state in parliamentary systems where the electorate votes for the Party, not the person.
There have been women elected to President in popular votes - in the Philippines, in Liberia, etc., but they are still unfortunately the more rare exceptions.
As an aside, religion has nothing to do with what I was saying other than to give an example of how some women support essentially patriarchal systems against their best self interests.
You might wish to refrain from commenting until you've reread a comment. You may also want to learn a little bit more about the history and political systems of other countries before you make sweeping statements. I only add these suggestions since you felt free to tell me what I "should" do.
1
@SDM
Every major religion - Christians (protestant, catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist) dominated country has elected women head of states. Please don't let your internalized misogyny be the Warren or other women's shortcoming. I have a daughter who I tell she can be anything she wants to be. You should do the same!
People say Sanders is too old to be president. On that point I don't think so. But his ideas are too old to be president in 2020. The time of a woman being elected president arrived in 2016. Hillary Clinton won the election by 3-4 million votes (!) but lost in the antiquated electoral college. And beating the old socialist drum went out of style by the late 1940's. Now the two protoliberals are not playing nice with each other any more or at least their staff is not. At the end of the day a moderate ticket of Biden and Globachar will defeat Trump as most Americans want a return to the pre-2017 normalcy with responsible leadership and ethics and erase the pollution Trump and his venal lackeys have laid on the presidential office.
1
This is a new low for Elizabeth Warren, who is apparently getting desperate. Bernie is on record repeatedly for decades as saying he thinks a woman could be president, and has been a champion for women's rights. He, in fact, did a lot to support Hillary's campaign against Trump in the last presidential election, even though she treated him so badly in the primary. Maybe even more disturbing is how the media is covering this, and how so many people are willing to believe Warren's ridiculous and petty charge.
5
There is no substantive problem with his alleged comment. If he did make it, he was expressing an opinion about the outside world, not his own interior thoughts. That opinion is legitimate, whether or not true. In context, he would obviously have been referring to 2020, not "now and forever".
There is a huge cosmetic problem, if true, but that is another story entirely. It derives from the heightened sensitivity of a large portion of the distaff side of the electorate. What puzzles me is that the women most likely to be offended are already in her camp. Who else does she win over?
The conversation did or didn't happen two years ago. Move on! That was then this is now. Beating Trump should be the premise of any conversation whenever possible.
I solemnly pledge to vote for any sane adult in 2020.
1
He’s right, at least where Warren is concerned. Clinton put Trump in the Oval Office; Warren will help keep him there.
5
Warren plays the woman card just like another deplorably poor candidate - Hilllary.
Warren's problems are her policies. For example forgiving student debt? Why reward those created the problem the irresponsible borrowers and even more responsbile the irresponsible schools? Oh yeah Warren earned a cool half million a year for teaching one class. No way she would take the schools to task.
4
What Sanders said and what Warren heard could be as different as night and day.
However this is the type of rumor that the internet trolls love to run with in order to stir you know what, that way it makes the other side look good.
1
Moderate Republican here. Don’t eat your “young.” Plays right into the hands of the Trumpkins. Knock it off. This is the type of thing that taken together with misleading “wine cave” comments and the like, is going to lead us to a certain portion of the Democratic voting bloc taking its ball and going home - giving us four more years of he whose name shall not be spoken. Don’t repeat 2016. And although I have a personal reason for wanting to see a Democratic win in 2020, my overriding desire is to see a return to comity and sanity. Again: who can win? It’s neither Warren nor Sanders. Too progressive for this moment. They’re Cabinet material. Pete? As a veteran, I like him, and his time is coming. Absolutely Cabinet material. But please - the only person I can see mounting a successful challenge that will attract disaffected Republicans like me is Biden. I live in a closed primary state and I’m even considering changing my party registration so I can vote Democrat in the primary. I guess the question is whether you want us or not.
1
This is taken out of context:
"Responding to the leaked script, Ms. Warren said that Mr. Sanders had been “sending his volunteers out to trash me.”"
She didn't pronounce it as fact. After learning from a reporter about the script, she said she was disappointed to learn that he was sending his volunteers out to trash her.
So Bernie denied he said this. Well, what was he supposed to have answered here? Of course he denied it. He certainly couldn't have admitted it.
Now, as for Liz, not responding is the best of any number of responses she could give. Anything she says will be construed against her. From all the negativity in the comments here, hardly anyone is prepared to believe her version of the conversation.
And judging from these comments, it appears voters are quick to give Bernie the benefit of the doubt, but not Liz.
Now, from Bernie's "track record" in 2016, I am not convinced he will gladly support the nominee, if the nominee is a woman. And the fact that he trashed Hillary so badly leads me to think that Liz is to be believed here.
565
@Orion Clemens
Bernie campaigned for Hillary pretty tirelessly after she won the nomination over him.
375
@Orion Clemens
Warren hasn’t said it, not publicly anyway.
And it would make no sense for Sanders to say it then or now.
93
@Orion Clemens
Liz not responding will absolutely blow up when she's asked about this point blank on stage on television. You can't say "no comment" then, it makes you look guilty and Nixonian. Clearly this was not thought out.
Also, if he's really this awful evil sexist who said this, why praise him for the following year, why build up his profile. Why wait until you're sinking fast in the polls in a desperate gamble to pick up some steam. It reads less a person upset by sexism then an opportunist cynically weaponizing accusations for your own benefit. Either way this sort of campaigning doesn't look good.
129
My wife and I have had two long briefings in recent days about canvassing and calling for Bernie Sanders. We were explicitly told by staff NOT to make negative comments about any other candidates and in fact never to argue with them. I believe this is a blatant attempt to harm Sanders and to throw shade on his growing movement. Judging from the other comments at this website, I think it is backfiring badly.
1096
@Ralph Moss
I hope you're right. This so totally smacks of a media hit job, straight from establishment democratic party operatives/proxies. The timing is just too perfect... and CNN is hosting tomorrow's debate? So like, what are they gonna do, smack down Bernie if he tries to address this nonsense?
56
@Ralph Moss - congrats sounds like you are operating at a very high level within the campaign and I'm sure they would have sought your approval before making any disparaging comments. Hopefully they'll invite you to the campfire - Bernie just ain't gonna make it and he is out of touch as proven by this comment.
11
@Ralph Moss
Well, the memo printed here is an official one from Sander's campaign. Even one of his staff told Real Clear Politics that it could never go out to the volunteers without his OK.
It was never intended to go public but now it has.
Of course, he denies it.
But Warren knows that it is fact and so does his campaign.
Bernie has not had any pushback until recently.
It will get much worse the closer he gets to a nomination.
There is no way in the world that a Democratic Socialist who calls for a Revolution will be permitted to be the Dem nominee.
We would lose to Trump in a landslide and that is not going to happen.
16
Wow. Warren is really shooting herself in the foot here. What we need is a candidate with integrity, one who won't play dirty to get ahead.
I lost all respect for Clinton because it was obvious she would lie to gain advantage. I didn't think Warren was like that, but now I'm not sure. I really hope she comes out soon and repudiates this.
444
@SC
Trust the NYT on this story I don't they hate Warren and they hate Sanders. They support Biden, Amy and of course Mayor Pete. Why does she have to prove that this story isn't true. If you don't trust Warren then you never did.
Really Hillary was bad but she wasn't insane like Trump and his loving GOP Russians. Trump lies about everything and he is getting us into a war. Trump is a bigot and we need not to let the NYT divide us for the promotion of their own chosen candidate
29
@SC That seems to be a bad joke, not to vote for Cliton because her truthfulness is questionable but then vote for Trump, who doesn't seem to know what to word truthful even means.
A German candidate for one persuaded his party that a woman wouldn't win the election, hence they chose him instead of Merkel, they lost that election. She eventually became cadidate 4 years later, and was reelected 3 times.
24
@SC You seem awfully easy to convince that a woman is lying even when it is clearly not to her advantage to do so.
20
All of a sudden, just before the next debate, the Warren campaign is slinging mud. The other day they said he had trashed her, today he’s saying something else, so out of character. The Dems don’t need this.If Roger Stone wasn’t in prison, I’d say he was behind this.
198
@DavidJ Just because Roger Stone is in prison, doesn't mean his fingerprints aren't on this, or anything else.
14
@DavidJ This seems to be more of a David Brock move. Who is he working for?
6
@DavidJ Sanders and Warren, are both threats to the DNC money wing. Especially Sanders as he’s polling so well. This almost seems a leaked stunt to shake Iowa voters towards Biden. Even Obama has said he’d do all he could to prevent a Sanders candidacy (though he will support whoever is nominated).
8
I’m sure Sanders didn’t say this. Warren, however, may have interpreted it this way. Especially when Sanders is surging back into the lead, her “belief” could be politically convenient. Warren is capable of this kind of artifice. Sanders isn’t.
469
@DSD
She backed Clinton and not Bernie for her career. She is very capable of doing this.
40
@DSD
Didn't she claim she was of Native American ancestry once upon a time ?
It turned out to be 'factually' true according to DNA search, but in such a small percentage that it was for all practical purposes a kind of Pinocchio-esque thing.
27
@Tim Kane
Warren said what she said based on family lore. Lots of Americans hear the same thing from their parents or grandparents including me. I even had details such as a connection to Sam Houston’s troops in the Texas Independence war. Turns out the claim was false but I didn’t know that til a DNA ancestry test came back. When Warren said what she said, it predated the availability of commercial DNA ancestry tests. Coming from Oklahoma where American Indian tribes were tragically relocated makes me think her belief was very understandable.
24
I think this is a Mike Bloomberg dirty trick - getting the authentic Democratic candidates to attack each other!
But it doesn't really matter as Mike Bloomberg will use his great personal wealth to defeat both Bernie and Liz and never again will our politics be the same.
4
The leader sets the tone for the campaign. One has to wonder where the so-called “Bernie Bros” get their regressive and sexist views, which have been widely reported. Add in some residual antipathy for his female opponent in 2016. If any Democratic candidate could have said such a thing, it sounds like Sanders.
23
@El Jefe this is misinformation. His majority of supporters are women under 35. Nice try RuSsIa!
3
I would say Liz has a little bit of a problem with the truth. She puts on official documents that she is "Native American" (not "mixed race" -- Native American) because her mother told her an unverified story about her grandmother, on the campaign trail she repeats over and over again the story that she got into law because she was fired from her teaching job for being pregnant until strong evidence is uncovered that she was never fired and she was always planning to switch professions, and now she wants to get victim points because Bernie Sanders supposedly told her that a woman can't win. I'll tell you this -- SHE'S not going to win.
37
Senator Warren has sullied herself. When the pressure is on, people show their true colors. Playing this card--and falsely, no less--will leave a stain on her record.
179
@Dave Even if it is true (which I don't believe it to be), the timing is sure interesting. Holding this card to play only when Sanders surges past her in the polls speaks volumes about Warren's campaign and character. Play the victim when it stand to benefit you. Shame on Elizabeth Warren.
22
Misinformation. Here it comes ... It just makes us donate to his campaign again. Thank you.
16
@Dave
Perhaps not too surprising from someone who once supported both Nixon and Reagan.
11
Neither can a senator with a meager record of legislative accomplishments and a penchant for dealing too aggressively with people asking legitimate questions about how he accomplishes his political agenda. And how can he convince enough of the nation to elect him as POTUS over Mr. Trump. Personally, his own and his supporters' bluster is a losing strategy. Worse, it could further divide the nation if that's possible.
26
@AGold:
"and a penchant for dealing too aggressively with people asking legitimate questions about how he accomplishes his political agenda."
And you still don't know what an FT tax is I see.
5
If ever there was a time for journalists to either be transparent, or pass on reporting a story this was it.
Two people familiar with the conversation? Hmmm. I wonder who they worked for? Possibly a campaign sinking under self-inflicted wounds? That's probably not relevant though, right?
Seriously, what is the journalistic justification for giving Elizabeth Warren's staff anonymity to hurl unsupported charges in the heat of a primary battle?
I suppose most readers are smart enough to look to motives and figure out who is speaking with forked tongues.
53
@Philboyd Why not the same thinking about Trump ?
@Mary That's a good point, Mary. I'll add to my comment: "Donald Trump lies even more than Elizabeth Warren." Hmmm. Somehow that wasn't as satisfying as you suggest it should have been.
4
@Mary
Trump has over 15,000 lies to his "credit" at present. If you have attended one of his rallies, what you heard was 67% lies. Did you believe them?
2
This claim makes Warren seem even more duplicitous than I previously thought. Reminds me of Hillary’s hypocrisy in saying, ‘Democrats don’t attack Democrats on healthcare’, and then going at Bernie’s progressive agenda that millions of Americans desperately need, are dying for in fact, hammer and tongs to block it. Next, Warren will be saying Medicare for All is pie in the sky!
So Warren is not only copying Bernie’s agenda, but not until it suited her to use it, but is now stooping to attempted character assassination? Bernie wouldn’t say that. I’ve been to listen to Bernie in person for years. Bernie is my president. Warren just knocked herself out from my wanting her for VP.
23
Y'know it looks pretty bad to release this kind of info a year after it happens and right before Iowa. Looks like Liz is getting desperate.
23
@Morgan I think it looks like her campaign trying to get even for Bernie's campaign volunteers trying to poach her supporters.
1
They should be discussing how neither of them can win the election and how to identify and develop progressive candidates with broad enough appeal to win.
5
I've got $20 that says Warren has former HRC campaign aids on her staff. This is just irresponsible.
16
I seriously doubt this. Frankly it’s absurd that the man who was actively trying to get Warren to run in 2016 would somehow say women can’t win seems far fetched. Bernie has been honest with his past record and is not afraid to admit when he’s wrong (see: last debate admitting Barbara Lee was right to not vote for the 2001 AUMF, and he was wrong to support it).
That Warren would stay silent on these accusations against a long time friend when he has come out strongly denying it does not speak well to her character.
It’s shameful, and honestly, I’ve lost a lot of respect for Sen. Warren.
22
This is obviously a desperate attempt by the mainstream media and Warren's flailing campaign to smear Bernie Sanders because he's leading in Iowa with only three weeks before voting. And it's kind of obvious.
791
@Jason I don't think it actually BENEFITS Warren: the only person who really comes out ahead is Donald Trump.
This is exactly the sort of dirty-tricks campaign they love. Eventually it turns out the sources were not credible, but by then the damage is done.
61
@Jason no, it's "obviously" a desperate attempt by the letters X, I, S and M to get more exposure in the national press, in a play to reach the top of the race for alphabetic frequency and supremacy.
My point is attributing authorship when you know knowing about it directly is mighty Trump of you.
I donate to both Sanders and Warren. I can say: IF Sanders said this, without knowing further context, it would be disappointing. What would be more disappointing is if a single comment - in any context - put a wedge between the only two candidates talking seriously about deviating moderately from the middle, wishy-washy path of Democrats, and the radical path of the current Republican establishment
16
@Jason
Something has to speak truth that Sanders is a fraud and cannot represent democrats.
17
I am not concerned about this at all. What I am concerned about is that if Bernie were elected and had a House and Senate that gave him everything he wanted (Green New Deal bigger than the defense budget, free healthcare, free college, huge increase in income tax and capital gain tax rates), the US economy would be destroyed in four years.
3
What a made up tempest in a teapot. Bernie’s right, I don’t think a woman will win in 2020 either, and I’m a big supporter of Amy Klobuchar who would make a better president than Elizabeth Warren. Why Warren chose this gambit is puzzling and makes me question her judgement even more.
11
@MDR
I agree, this is wild. From someone who supported her off and on, in an undecided stew. I’m still shaking my head. Just, wow!
2
A majority of white women voted against Hillary Clinton in 2016. The polls had not predicted that would happen and there is every reason to be concerned about what it might indicate for 2020. Instead of attacking Sanders for wondering about the strength of support for a female President, there needs to be honest discussion of hidden biases among women (and men) against a female president. Remember that while polling is open usually voting is done by hidden ballot.
6
@paul
Warren back-pedaled on M4A, throwing up red flags all over the place, especially when she refused to endorse Sanders last go around.
Using a tried, tested and true Trump tactic of sowing greater division for the sake of division, is probably not Warren's smartest political move.
Particularly in the context of democratic nomination that is predicated upon a categorical repudiation of Trump and his brand of politics in the first place.
3
Truth is that only Bernie Sanders has fighting chance against Trump but that is not what democratic establishment wants.
7
While that statement may be false, if she's the nominee and she loses to Donald Trump, that'll be 2 women from the Democratic party in a row. If that sequence of events comes to pass, it'll be the death knell for Democratic, female presidential candidates for a long time to come.
3
I don't know who said what to whom, but I think Warren has to stop using scorched-earth tactics against fellow Democrats. She did it to Buttigieg regarding fundraising in the last "debate" and now she's done it to Sanders. It matters far less to me WHICH Democrat defeats trump than that A Democrat wins. Eyes on the prize, Liz.
6
As an independent, I was desperately hoping the Democrats would put forth a candidate that could beat Trump. Instead, they eat their own, throw each under the bus, and their campaigns are based on the policy of mutually assured destruction.
5
I guess it could be true he said that. But, with someone like Warren whose credibility is, well, not so good, could she just be making it up because she is fading away? It is one way to get back on the front page. She is pretty close to being the next drop out and needs some attention. Once you can't trust someone to tell the truth it is hard to believe anything they say.
3
Former governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell said in 2016 that Pennsylvania would never vote for a woman president. He understood the deep misogyny held by working class white men AND women. I don’t like to hear this but I think it is true and also explains why white women voted more for Trump than Clinton. A white woman can’t win- not yet.
Any dem will do for me- I will vote blue no matter who. Turnout is the key. Folks gotta show up and vote.
3
Regardless of the "he said, she said", I must say I find it debasing that Warren's campaign would resort to eleventh hour mud slinging with unverified claims. Her integrity has already been called into question in the past, and this move is not representative of the candidate for unity she has tried to establish herself as.
6
It's not that Warren can'twin, or that Clinton couldn't win. Or that any woman can't win. It's just that Putin doesn't want them to win. He and his hackers will continue to make it look close while handing 2020 to Trump. Unless, of course, the Senate does the right thing and impeaches him.
1
Putin does not have any influence over my vote.
2
@PE
No Margo, not influence on your vote, but perhaps the machines that tally the votes. Mandate a hand count and paper ballot back-up.
what was the context of this remark? what surrounding sentences, in what tone of voice? I am hugely disappointed by Warren's cherry picking desperation. It does not speak well for her judgment, or reliability. I'm not a Sanders fan by a long shot, so this is not a partisan comment. But what is wrong with Warren that she has descended into this Trumplike warp?
6
Wow! Just looking for some headline grabbing action?
Last night on Hardball, the stumbling-over-his-own-rapid-fire hype, Chris Matthews grinned like a kid watching a food fight and said, "I love a good fight."
I am quite sure that this meeting included a pragmatic discussion about the importance of beating the unfit, unethical, dishonest incumbent. I can imagine that this pragmatic discussion included serious questions about whether Trump's misogyny and the sexism of the political right would make it hard for a woman to win. I can imagine that Sanders said that it might be difficult.
This is categorically different that saying Warren couldn't win, or that women shouldn't run, or that a woman should not be president.
This does not merit the front page attention it is receiving.
2
I just turned 18, and this will be the first election that I will vote in. Over the past few years, I have volunteered on both Warren and Sanders campaigns. There are really nice people in both camps, and this whole thing is just sad to see.
That being said, this seems like a targetted attack on Sanders. Warren's allegation is backed up by shaky evidence at best, and her official statement was a wordy dance. One of the two anonymous witnesses now directly contradicts the "he told me that a woman can't win the White House" narrative (Washington Post reporting). Bernie's statement was clear, concise, and, when viewed in the context of all his past statements and actions (dating back to the 1980s), is totally believable. Sanders literally encouraged Warren to run for the nomination in 2016.
Bernie: be yourself. Stick to the issues. Don't get bogged down. When they go low, we go high.
110
@Jackson
"Shaky evidence at best" They were the only two people in the room. AND they were talking about THIS election which democrats, republicans and others have said the same thing - they don't think a woman can win against trump. Honestly it doesn't matter to this woman because of all the people and articles I have read even in the NY times saying this same thing. I support Warren but will gladly support Bernie if he is the nominee. I don't care if he said it or not. It's a stupid argument. If Warren's staffers started it to try and under mine Bernie then she needs to deal with those staffers.
10
@Jackson "Warren's allegation is backed up by shaky evidence at best..."
They were alone in the room. She reports that it happened. What shaky evidence are you talking about? Honestly, you sound like the Republicans during Brett Kavanaugh's trial.
6
@Jackson First, I really appreciate that you are paying close attention to the primary, and I hope your peers are as well. You have a very important role to play in this election!
Second, I would encourage you to talk to some women of all ages about how "your gender will be used against you in [x] situation" might be heard as "a woman cannot/should not do [x]." Also ask them if they have personal knowledge of an instance in which a woman decrying sexism has ever worked to her benefit, and who else would benefit from some pot-stirring. I would also encourage you to consider whether people might say something in different privately than they would publicly.
From my own perspective, I don't think the accounts are contradictory, and Ms. Warren dismissed the comment as "punditry," suggesting that she doesn't think it reflects Mr. Sanders's values. To be perfectly frank, this seems to me like someone's attempt to make both look bad, when in reality, it is no reflection on either candidate.
I'm really glad you're thinking about this reasonably, and I hope you'll keep asking hard questions of the people you admire.
2
My cousin ( a woman ) also said a woman can not win in our country.
32 Senators just voted to take away womens rights. They refused to make equal pay a law.
I am a woman.
I understand Berni's comments, unfortunately, he may be right & Warren took his comment the wrong way.
Only in America would an 80-year-old man with dementia be in first place for POTUS & a public servant like Cory Booker kicked to the curb!
4
@Philly Burbs Is that not what people were saying about Obama in 2008 that a black man can't win the general election?
@Philly Burbs
Wouldn’t Bernie & Booker rock!
Wow. The Bernie Bro vibe in these comments is strong. A lot of people blaming the woman for something that was said by a man. She’s the one slinging mud? Look, I am from Vermont (originally). Bernie was my senator for years. I have personally met him long before any of this band wagon ever kicked off. I have voted for him more times than almost all of his supporters have. I would agree that he is not a misogynist. But I would also say that his supporters continue to display a bit of ugliness when it comes to his defense. Warren herself didn’t raise this and she is purposely trying to not make it into more than it is. But the outrage from Bernie and his staff, telling her she must refute this”lie” that was not a lie made this a bigger issue. I love Bernie but his supporters scare me in the same way that Trumps’s supporters scare me and this event and these comments have brought that all rushing back.
2
Your comment contains a sense of following the script of a failed and vindictive campaign? Since Warren doesn’t have the good character to speak up on the suspicious timing and dubious accuracy of this claim, she herself is displaying bad judgement, unworthy character and untrustworthiness all in one go. Unfortunate all around. Warren will still make a great advisor to the president though. And I was so hoping we would have a true public servant of good character and judgement .woman. president in my lifetime... Alas. Bernie2020
2
I quit facebook due to HRC supporter's (friends of mine) relentless slanders that Bernie, and those supporting him, are sexist "Bros." The vitriol from HRC supporters was intense. I voted for Bernie in the primary, for HRC in the election.
I've been torn between Sanders and Warren. I've contributed to both campaigns. But I sincerely believe Warren has twisted Bernie's words. So once again I'm thinking, " I want a woman president but maybe not this woman."
This is a sad day.
15
Strange that if the remark was made in private in December of 2018, why is it first now becoming a story in January 2020?
Either Sanders is lying or Warren is lying. One of them is.
I guess when folks get desperate and begin to panic, they do and say harmful and hurtful things.
The difference here is that one of these two knuckleheads are trying to persuade the American voter - based on a lie.
Good grief - haven't we had enough of lies and shaded truths long enough with the other guy already in office? Must this similar road be traveled again?
This is exactly the kind of politics that turns my stomach. I want to hear and read about the issues they plan to tackle, not how they verbally are tackling each other with insults and innuendos.
Please stop and focus on the campaign Bernie and Liz.
Don't think for a New York minute that Trump isn't loving this discord. Democrats should be bonding together to fight TRUMP, not each other.
5
He is more than entitled to his opinion and why are people making such a fuss. He did not say that as a woman she is unfit, just that woman could not win. PS. IMO neither could win nor do I like their give-away policies.
2
I think it's possible for a woman to beat DT, however it would have to be someone who plays his game but better. I don't think Sanders was sexist to say that, and both candidates need to shut up and move on now.
2
Who cares what one or the other said a year ago? If Warren decided not to make a big deal of it why is the media? Surely there are more important things to talk about.
1
Why is this a "thing"? And why is the news media making it out like Bernie spewed some vitriolic, misogynistic nonsense? Based on Warren's account, it appears the comment was made in passing during a private conversation.
I'm a woman, I voted for Hillary Clinton, and I still have repeatedly said to friends that I'm not sure the country is ready to elect a female President.
2
I'm a Warren supporter, but I just don't get the angle on this. Every Democrat is ostensibly on the same side, so why poison the well like this? Whether we like it or not, the concern that sexism could sink a Warren campaign is real. I have a similar worry that homophobia could sink a Buttigeg campaign and I'm a gay man. Does vocalizing that concern make me homophobic?
Every dollar Warren and Sanders spend fighting each other is a dollar not spent fighting Trump. I'm assuming Sanders did say this, but I imagine his reasoning was that he didn't think it was a good idea to expend so much energy fighting for a potentially lost cause. I don't think he's right, but it isn't a meritless argument. Though coming from the man who fought tooth and nail against the overwhelming front runner last primary, the argument is so rich Bernie ought to have a stump speech denouncing it.
1
In talking about the 2020 election, my husband and wondered out loud - could a woman win, could a black person win, could a gay man win. These things were important considerations because our top priority was defeating Donald Trump.
I guess we are not ‘woke’ but ‘woke’ isn’t what wins elections in a country where Trump’s approval rating rarely goes below 40%.
I probably wasn’t going to vote for Sanders in the primaries anyway (could a Socialist Jew win?). I was considering Warren - but I won’t now. I don’t like what she’s doing here. Trump will run a nasty campaign against Democrats- let’s not help him and do it to ourselves.
4
Why are you fomenting a non-existent dispute? He did not say that. He does not think that way. Warren's camp may be grasping at straws but you are blowing it way out of proportion. If you think one single Bernie Sanders supporter will switch sides because of this you have another think coming.
2
@Ann Jorgensen Don't we #BelieveAllWomen?
1
This bolsters my choice of Warren over Sanders.
Such nonsense. Maybe he did. Maybe she misheard. Maybe it was taken out of context. Maybe it was hyperbole. Maybe maybe maybe.
Let's get to real issues and stop this bickering.
4
Of course Bernie Sanders made that remark. Don't forget there was harassment and sexism at his campaign headquarters in 2016, and his response to that was that he was too busy campaigning on the road. That's why he won't get my vote. Bernie bros are bullies
Maybe it was taken out of context and he said a woman couldn't win in 2020 because he was going to win and he is not a woman.
1
Yesterday, the Attorney General of the United States filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to NOT make a final decision until AFTER the November elections regarding his party’s longstanding efforts to gut the ACA and deny millions of Americans vital healthcare. More rank partisanship by the Trump/ Republicans at the expense of citizens, families, children, BABIES.
Yet, this likely instance of poor judgement from the mouth of Bernie’s is what the NYT deems a top story! Again, stop with the false equivalency while our air, health, water, and democracy is being trashed by Trump, Inc.
3
You don't have to be misogynistic or sexist to think a woman in this current election, running against Trump, can't become president. You just have to think that much of the voting population wouldn't vote for a woman.
I have often debated with family and close friends, would this country elect a woman for president seeing the way they reacted to Clinton? I personally would love to have a female president, but what about the rest of the country?
It's crazy that this tiny little story from over a year ago has people calling Warren a liar and Bernie a misogynist. Clearly Trump's daily antics haven't diluted the little dramas of the democratic party.
2
@Jen
Hillary nearly won it despite being an establishment candidate.
"What about the rest of the country?" The rest of the country voted for Obama when probably saying the same thing that a black man can't win the general election.
Hmm. So Sanders is a Bond villain who outlines his evil plan in a monologue directly to his opponent, for like, absolutely no reason whatsoever. And Warren's campaign was so horribly disturbed by this blatant misogyny that they waited over a year to mention it publicly, just two weeks before Iowa.
Yeah, this sounds totally psychologically realistic to me.
10
Democrats! Do not let this split you.
What’s more important is that the Republicans DO NOT believe that a WOMAN can win the presidency!
I believe, (from the very beginning) that ONLY a woman can beat Trump. Trump can hurl insults at a man but not a woman in the same fashion. Trumps history with women is not good. He demeans them. They are nothing but sexual objects to him.
Concentrate on beating the Republicans! Not each other.
3
@PC
Yes, Obama beat a white man in 2008, Hillary nearly won it. I don't understand the lack of confidence in Warren among us.
Stop it! This is not the time for petty middle school gripes.
1
He may be right. Many countries in the democratic west have had women leaders, and they are still intact. The US however is different. Much more conservative, more religious and less educated.
On the other hand virtually the same reasoning applies to the chance of a "democratic socialist" winning the Presidency. And that applies even though Sanders is certainly not a socialist and in most other western countries would barely merit the label of "liberal". Such is the nature of the conservatism of the country that he is just about seen as radical when in other countries he would be no more than a run of theill center left candidate.
@Allan Tanny
Are you saying that the US is less educated and less liberal than Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Argentina, Bolivia, Indonesia.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_and_appointed_female_heads_of_state_and_government
Don't project your misogyny on others. That's what Trump does.
Bloomberg or Buttigieg please. Make that Bloomberg.
Of course, a woman can win. Even with all of her baggage, Hillary Clinton would have won if it hadn't for the stupidity of James Comey. Plus, Hillary took WI, PA, and MI for granted, a colossal mistake. A woman can win, I'm just not sure that woman is Elizabeth Warren.
This would never happen to Mike Pence.
If Warren is telling the truth, why would she not say so until now? Didn't the country have a right to know all this while that another sitting senator is a sexist like Al Franken? To take her side, you'd have to believe that dishonesty is nowhere to be found in her DNA.
If Sanders is telling the truth, why did he not show grace to Brett Kavanaugh, who was also subject to a Hail Mary accusation? Why is he so content to go down in history as the one common roadblock to the only viable Democratic female candidates for POTUS? To take his side, you'd have to believe that he would never be so cliched as to reap what he has sown.
Most importantly, why did this article not consult Janie, who heard the whole thing from Timmy, who sits behind her in math class? Word is he intercepted a note between Mary and Sally, which details the whole sordid scandal, but it's being held back because it also reveals one of them has a crush on Jimmy. If someone would break into the teacher's lounge and get the note back from Mrs. Crabtree's purse, all will become clear.
These. These are you candidates.
5
“In my view a woman could be elected president of the United States. The real issue is: whose side are you on? Are you on the side of workers and poor people or are you on the side of Big Money and corporations.”
Bernie Sanders, 1988
17
Not surprising that Warren has put the boxing gloves on just as Bernie has surged in the polls. This shows her true character. (As did her lying about being native American to further her career) Not sure if Bernie said something about a woman chances at winning the presidency but since we have never had a female president it wouldn't be out of line for anyone to point out that voters somehow have a problem voting a woman into the presidency. This is the obvious truth. If I say so and so is racist it doesn't make me racist. She may not be out and out lying about his statement but she is misconstruing it (as is the press). What was once a benign comment can become a monster if one tries hard enough. And she is desperate. Why else would she choose to spin this a year after their conversation? Elizabeth Warren I once thought you had a shred of integrity but no longer.
10
Party unity is critical. Warren and Sanders need to meet and agree on what was said. (My guess: Sanders opined that a woman would face an uphill battle against the sexist pig in chief and when repeated to Warren staffers they interpreted it as Sanders having said a woman couldn't win.) Then they need to issue a joint statement, and if called for Warren needs to reprimand any staffer that misquoted her description of the meeting.
The worst thing for Warren to do is nothing; it will be seen as her taking political advantage of the accusation against Sanders. trump's strategists are revelling.
6
Ugghhh... I hope this controversy, whether true or not, is put to rest at the debate tommorow night. All democratic candidates need to be united together to defeat Trump no matter which candidate wins in the end.
On the other hand, if this issue is not cleared up by the starting of the debate, the debate will see a bump in ratings for sure, haha. = P
1
Warren's willingness to go low is truly telling. I don't want a president who chooses to play this way. For the longest time I was a fan, but no longer. Bernie wins me over time and again. Really tired of cheap shots like this and saddened that an intelligent person would settle for this. A real shame.
14
More nonsense from Warren, where does it end? In addition to her hating on people with wealth. Her wealth is ok of course.
4
Saying a woman “could” not win the presidency is different than saying “should” not. Regardless, I don’t know which side to believe, which is a whole other problem.
2
I say this as a feminist and a long-time fan of Warren: Democrats should not run another woman against Trump. Let's not be naive of this political climate. A woman, no matter who the candidate, will still suffer biases and an uphill climb. Why should we choose a candidate with a disadvantage when the stakes are so high?
It's not like there aren't other great choices. Bernie does, in fact, win over independents and bring people to the polls who don't normally go. Warren does not. He has credentials with people of color. Warren does not. Bernie has a reputation of being no-nonsense, authentic, and genuine. Warren would have to build that in the general.
I'd rather have the strongest of two progressive candidates run against Trump. Let's no forget he is a shameless man who will have no qualms about stirring the sexist pot.
2
You're giving way too much white space to this item.
We don't need this goofy he said she said stuff. I think most people recognize that women have a harder task when working towards higher office, management positions, etc.
Please, let's move on to substance.
13
The Bernie apologists are out in force on this comment thread. Anybody remember how he withheld data from the Clinton campaign that might have swung the election in her favor?
5
How is Bernie Sanders Warren's "leading liberal rival"? In what world is Joe Biden not a liberal?
1
That was her Kamala Harris bussing moment.
Bloomberg is looking better each day.
3
@R.A.
Agree. Except that, in context, it's busing, not bussing.
1
The absolutist assertions of Sanders’ perfection, the attacks on and negations of his rivals’ supporters (“red state Democrats”, anyone?), the idolatrous declarations of “love” for any politician, and the weird way his supporters see themselves on a first name basis with “Bernie” are Trumpist-level creepy and betray a lack of basic reason that I can never support.
1
I have read several pages of these comments, many which are in defense of Bernie Sanders.
Today, we have a cult leader as president.
Is our choice in November going to be between two cult leaders?
5
Warren says to Bernie: “I can make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters.”
Bernie responds: “Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who will weaponize whatever he can.”
Warren interprets this as “a woman can’t win.”
Booker would interpret this as "a black man can't win."
It is a miscommunication between two sides.
Both Warren and Sanders need to tone down the rhetoric and recognize they are fighting for the same goals. Too much is at stake.
7
This is not "news fit to print."
If I were Ruler of the Universe and could appoint anyone president of the US, it would be Warren, but I've said in discussions with friends that I feel doubtful that a woman can win the presidency. This is not some amazing insight or prejudice. It's just that none ever have before. And that I've talked to people who flat out said they won't vote for a woman. But I've never heard anyone flat out say they won't vote for a man. So it's really just stating the obvious that it's much more of an uphill battle. A giant DUH really.
This is not a story. The media breathlessly reporting on it at all makes me roll my eyes in disgust. But that it's on the NYT front page? Ridiculous.
4
@Leah
Why are women so timid about electing one of their own? Trump won because he was different and very interesting. This was obvious with the media coverage. It is like the old elevator test with Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Who would you most want with you in a stuck elevator? Not Liz or Bernie or Joe or Pete or Mike or Tom; all Boring! Find a great woman not from politics, like Oprah, and you will have The excitement to win. It is not male/female or color/white thing, it is the best and most compelling candidate. She isn't running.
I don’t understand the controversy about the comment. How is it offensive?
3
Well, if a woman can't win, neither can an elderly Jewish man who just had a heart attack, and who comes from a very white state with few electoral votes.
Oh, and he's not a democrat either.
Nice guy with some good ideas, but it ain't gonna happen.
10
This is pretty trivial in my view. I am a Warren supporter, but I know that in this country a woman candidate may surely face an uphill battle. Others in my circle have similar views. Misogyny is alive and well in the United States; so gender and race are going to be a concern. For Sanders to have acknowledged the vitriol Warren will face as a woman (I've heard people say they can't stand her, she's a know it all) is hardly surprising. Of course none of that means Warren shouldn't be the candidate or that we shouldn't do everything in our power to help her get elected.
11
If Biden doesn’t stop campaigning when Bernie and Elizabeth are locked in, not campaigning, with the Impeachment Trial, then we know why Pelosi held onto the Impeachment Articles until now. Pelosi is doing whatever she can to support Joe Biden.
4
So what, I think woman, myself included know that a woman cannot be elected in this country. Trumps election proved it, as does the continued subtle and not so subtle treatment of all woman candidates.
This country is falling backwards, we were never as forward thinking as we like to pretend. Still no ERA!
Bernie is not my first choice but he spoke the truth.
4
The fact that she hasn’t said anything reinforces that this is her idea of political strategy to beat Bernie and just like Clinton’s ultimately failed strategy, and it has only hurt her, instead of give her the edge she is obviously desperate for right now. Warren might make a great political advisor, but she is proving, with bad judgment and untrustworthiness, she isn’t who we want or need for president. Bernie2020
4
I'm sure there is more to it. Like maybe Warren actually said she thought a woman was the best chance to win in light of DJT and the #metoo, which was a popular punditry notion at the time. Maybe Sanders refuted that notion that the Dem candidate had to be a woman. That is far different from saying a woman can't win.
3
I’d much rather read articles on these candidates’ policies and plans. I wish the media would stop amplifying this meaningless, low-level bickering. Please write an article about the differences between the Warren and Sanders climate change plans instead.
6
If anything, Elizabeth Warren has been consistent in using identity politics to advance her careers. Fundamentally this is incompatible with being an advocate for the working poor.
7
With regard to Bernie's alleged private comment that a woman couldn't win, the dispute between the candidates might be a matter of interpretation. If Bernie said that Donald Trump will run a sexist campaign (which he definitely will if the nominee is a woman), Warren might have taken that as an opinion that she as a woman couldn't win.
With regard to the call script that Politico released, several hours after this article was published, the NYT published a report that Russians recently hacked the Ukrainian company Burisma looking for the dirt on Biden that Trump has demanded. Security experts have pointed out that the Russian hackers could create inflammatory, campaign-ending "dirt" that they could then serendipitously "find." I cannot help wondering whether a Russian mole or even a Trump campaign mole generated the call script as a way to divide Democrats and induce their supporters to stay home in November. Democrats need to be really, really careful.
2
This doesn’t warrant space in the news. Also, makes me even more reluctant to vote for Warren. Playing ‘the card’ is not a good look when seeking the highest office in the land.
3
Really Senator Warren? Given that it was a private one-on-one meeting, even the 'original leak by staffers' means you told them. Wether or not Senator Sanders said what you claim is made irrelevant to me by the fact that it was a private meeting.
What is the point of this? Basically, to hurt Senator Sanders. He can deny all he wants, but he cannot prove anything.
This is a low blow, and in my book, enough to disqualify Senator Warren. Very unfortunate.
ps: nope, not a Sanders fan either. Yang 2020.
5
As far as I’m concerned, it would have been entirely astute of Bernie and Elizabeth to discuss gender in the context of electability as they considered their runs. This isn’t a “story” worth anyone’s attention. We all know there are people, Dems among them, that take gender into account when considering leadership. It’s a sad fact. For these two candidates in a private meeting, to ignore an undertone of sexism that is virtually everywhere in our country from our schools to our churches to our movie making industry, would have been idealistically foolish on both their parts. I’m a Dem and a feminist and I say to Bernie and Elizabeth’s staff, “Knock it off. Fight clean” and to respectable media covering their relationship, “Stick to substantive differences.”
6
Warren’s opening argument against Sanders: he’s sexist.
It is very interesting that this is the thing she opened with. Why does she think this is the most important thing to argue about Sanders, especially when all there is his word against hers? Why doesn’t she have anything better?
4
Very interesting that at least according to a majority of the comments here, Sanders is believed while Warren is not. Cannot tell if it is because of the ever relentless Sanders supporters, or you know, the sexism. Perhaps it is both.
3
@MMB. Agree. I was thinking that for some of us, it’s also believable that Sen Sanders said this, or very nearly this, based a lot on how the “Bernie base” comes off. Rampant reports of misogyny.
1
Warren claims Sanders said this in the context of stating political realities for a 2020 female candidate. He may be right or wrong but it’s not sexist to state what many view as real issues to overcome. I think a woman has much more electability than a phony Democrat and self proclaimed Socialist with a paper thin congressional voting record.
Four more years of Trump. Ah! the addiction of power! Folks will do anything to attain power.
2
Next they will be throwing the kitchen sink at each other. Trump must be loving this. Sanders can't prove he didn't say and she can't prove he did. This sounds so like kindergarten it is amazing these seniors are playing it.
5
So what if he said this? That doesn’t mean that his personal belief is that a woman shouldn’t be president. It could simply be a statement regarding patriarchy and sexism as they play in elections. That would also explain his objection, this is being weaponized as if he said a woman shouldn’t be president. That is a very different thing and isn’t even on the table. This is a low in the conversation.
10
Well, I just switched my vote from Warren to Sanders.
9
Warren will still make a good advisor because she’s intelligent. Unfortunately, she has proven she is untrustworthy, has questionable character as shown by her not jumping in to clear this strategic misstep up and clearly has bad judgement, like supporting Clinton’s fighting against every progressive policy last election, which makes her incapable of being the president we need. Bernie2020
2
Here is the problem. These Democrat contenders focus far more on defeating Trump, than on promising and working with diligence on improving life in the US.
1
Gee, what a coincidence. Sanders in the lead in Iowa and Warren not doing as well there. Odd that she drops this bombshell a few weeks before the primary and the day before the debate. This is petty and painful to watch.
9
Exactly. If this happened in 2018, why did she keep in her back pocket for all this time? Even if Sanders is a tool for saying it, this is nothing more than a political ‘Hail Mary’ that most voters ought to see right through.
2
My takeaway from Sanders' handling of his rivalry with Clinton in 2016 was that he was shady and dishonest, assigning unpleasant dirty work to underlings and presenting himself as a maligned innocent whenever scandal broke. This fits that narrative all too well.
Having said that, once all the dust has cleared, I am voting for the Democrat who comes out on top, no matter who it is. During the primary, you should rally behind the one who most inspires you, but once the party picks its candidate, unless you love what our fearless leader is doing, you vote blue. At least this time.
9
Bernie's fans are too smart to fall for news like this.
4
Couple of days before the debate this drops? Most people resent being played for jerks but that seems to escape some folks. Something said in 2018 all of sudden drops when you drop in the polls? I wonder how much time tonight is going to be spent on this in the debate? I am waiting for someone to drop Warren saying men will never understand women. Give us all a break and tell us how you can beat Trump and spare us the He say She say minutia.
5
Welcome back, Cambridge Analytica 2.0.
5
The Bernie is a Democrat ruse is tiresome. He's an Independent Socialist, in other words a man without a platform. He has not paid a dime for his use of the Democratic party's election apparatus.
7
I honestly don't see why everyone is aghast at this remark. I am a feminist and Warren supporter - and I can easily see myself saying this right now. (And I have.) There is a difference between "cannot win" and "should not win." Sexism is rampant in our culture and in our politics, which is why we haven't seen a woman as president yet. I also said that very same thing in Massachusetts, just before Warren became our first female Senator. The old boys club is strong, but that does not mean giving up and going with a lesser candidate. It means fighting harder. (Hence all of Warren's "fighting" and "persisting.") Many folks worried that a black person could not win in 2012. And it's probably also hard to imagine that a gay person or a democratic socialist or octagenarian could win now. But all bets are off on who "can win" these days. Did we ever think a serial liar, egomaniac, and payer off of porn stars could win? Look where we are, tell it like it is, and then be part of creating a new reality. I may be a Warren supporter, but I'm pretty sure Sanders will be right there fighting with us if Warren is the candidate. Please, everyone, stop being idiotic about this comment.
14
@paulakai Quick correction - I should have said "Many folks worried that a black person could not win in 2008," not 2012. By 2012 we were all believers.
1
Warren should be shown the comments appearing here. Ignoring the pro-Bernie ones, the remainder will show her the mistake this was.
2
While Trump is destroying this country, democrats and liberals are once again obsessing over identity politics and and getting offended by some perceived gender or racial slight. This is why democrats and liberals lose. Trump will get reelected, republicans will win the Senate and perhaps House seats. Independent and moderate voters we need in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, states we need at a minimum for 270 electoral votes, don't really care about this nonsense.
And this is all moot because even if Warren or Sanders win the presidency, the Senate will likely remain republican. So none of their agenda, or any democratic one, will ever see the light of day.
Right now, it pains me to say that the democratic nominee will be irrelevant because Trump will be reelected. Instead of with the idiotic impeachment attempt, an exercise in futility, democrats should have simply held oversight hearings to let the subpoenas play out in court. Trump will be acquitted and "exonerated". Democrats simply don't match the politically shrewd and ruthless republican playbook. A majority of independents oppose removing Trump. We can't win without independent voters. The math is really simple if you can count.
2
@dba: It’s not the Democrats who are obsessing, it’s the media who indulge in sensationalism again and whip up a nothing burger to humongous proportions.
1
Two 'first-of-alls.' The headline is looking for a fight. This is a non-story. That statement, made or not, doesn't mean a woman candidate and Warren in particular wouldn't, couldn't and especially shouldn't win the presidency. Lots of factors go into the decision of 'who you gonna vote for,' and gender is one of those factors.
We will never know, but wouldn't it be interesting to know exactly how many voters did not vote for Hillary for one reason only; Gender? (Yeah, yeah. and Versy Vicey).
4
Enough with the hearsay and sexism talk. Yes, it is hard for a woman to be elected President in the United States as the record shows, so Mr. Sanders is not way off anyway. If anything, your paper hammering Hillary Clinton about her email server-emails where everything was nothing is worse. Furthermore, she was found NOT guilty of anything including the uranium deal and you are not affording her a FRONT page story about the justice department findings and a serious apology.
7
Anyway, none of them will be the nominee. They are destroying each other for the far left democrats, wich will result as Biden victory.
2
The corporate media has been trying with all its might to destroy Bernie's campaign. The playbook is old, and we just saw it work its ugly magic in Britain with the fake anti-Semitism claims against Corbyn.
If Bernie were not Jewish, all his thoughtful analysis of Israel would be taken out of context and he would be out there as an anti-Semite.
Hillary tried the sexism ploy- even using Gloria Steinem as a surrogate to accuse young women volunteering for Bernie of only working on the campaign to meet cute guys. The truth is the truth- Bernie is the real humanist, progressive deal.
4
Why all the infighting? Just pick someone that will beat Trump and make the USA respectable again!
5
What? Elizabeth Warren lying, no she has no track record of that.
5
Persist, Senator Warren, and perhaps win the vice presidency under and 80 year old commander in chief.
1
While Democrats play these stupid games with gender and race thrown in, the Republicans might win the presidency this year. I fear another 4 years of Trump in terms of both domestic and international stability. It is a tragedy that we are unable to come up with better candidates. The only reasonable ones are Amy Klobuchar and Mike Bloomberg.
2
Sanders and his campaign is very misogynistic. His supporters are even crazier! Try posting any comment disagreeing with Sanders online and Bernie bros will attack you mercilessly. There is not a lot of difference between Sanders supporters and Trump supporters except for a few Russian hackers. I hope Biden wins the nomination to lead the country as there is major void in leadership.
6
@Wolfgang I couldn't have said it better!
So, one of these two is a liar. And it's probably Bernie. His drive for power only increases as his time grows shorter. More importantly, he shows incredibly bad judgement here. First he makes the mistake of telling Warren a woman can't win, then he straight out lies about it to avoid a backlash. It's almost Trumpian.
7
There is:
1) I don’t believe a woman can win.
2) The American people are so sexist and petty that it’s statistically not possible a woman can win, etc.
3) etc
Inflection matters
3
Well she knows she lost and has to come up with something.
Bye Elizabeth. Way to go out like Hillary.
6
Warren is finished as a candidate to which I say so long GOPer in Dems cloak. Based upon Warren's behaviors and actions over the past two years, Warren is a weak, petty person and would be eaten alive by a divided Congress and world leaders.
If Sanders did make the comment Sanders spoke the truth, a truth many Americans are saying. But it was so long ago the comment is irrelevant and is not news worthy. It is not surprising the misandrist feminists are harping on it. In a political war you use anything that might harm your opponent. And heaven knows US voters are going to vote based upon what their Party Boss says instead of seeking the truth.
3
I sincerely doubt Warren thinks Sanders is sexist, so bringing this up (even if that is what she thinks what he said) seems like a desperate move that will do nothing to strengthen her campaign but continue the slow degradation of the Democrats while the real risk in the Oval office continues to stare gleefully.
6
This is a type of “identity” card that Warren is playing.
Similar to her assertion of Native American ancestry.
5
I'm for Sanders. I believe Warren that he said this, and will strongly support her if she's the nominee.
That said, they need to resolve this openly and amicably now, or both of them are finished. I believe Warren that Sanders said this. Bad, Bernie. But what did he mean by it? Many progressives are privately worried that sexism will hold Warren back. Saying a woman absolutely "cannot" win the presidency in a private conversation is plain wrong. But was this a sin or a dumb mistake?
This election should be decided over public issues, not private hubris. Embittered, divided progressive camps will not win this nomination or the general election.
89
@Chris
Both of them are already finished due to their own policies. Democrats missed the great opportunity of hoisting Amy Klobuchar to the top.
2
@Chris In 1988 Sanders said a woman could be president. In 2016, The Hill reported "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won't rule out a presidential bid if no other liberal candidate steps up to run — but suggested Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) could fit the bill." It doesn't pass the smell test to say Sanders didn't think a woman could be president. This is just a variant on the "Bernie Bro" trope that is utterly belied by Sanders huge support by women.
11
@Chris Sanders has a 40 year history in public life of telling the truth and support of women. Warren has been caught in several instances that can most charitably be called "creative spin."Plus the way this "leaked" out is pretty obviously a planned political operation on the eve of the last debate before a primary Warren needs to win to survive.
I'm not a political supporter of either but since "creative spin" is a known tool in Ms. Warren's professional and political toolbox, it's not surprising that Bernie is more credible here. Frankly, this stunt reinforces misgivings I and probably other voters already had with respect to Warren - not because she's a woman but because she has a history of playing fast and loose with the truth in order to advance her career.
8
This just reinforces my view that if Sanders is the nominee, I will not vote for him and, thus, will not vote in the election.
3
Sounds like one of them is lying.
Context is everything. If Sanders opined that the misogynistic views of a portion of American voters in the Trump era would work against a female candidate, that has a different meaning than overtly stating that a woman cannot win the presidency. Warren has to clarify what was said before the debate - it’s no longer a private conversation.
9
In the battle between the two self styled progressives, I tend to favor Warren, slightly over Bernie. I think she would actually get more of the progressive agenda they share done. Bernies advantages are that he does appeal to and excite younger voters, and, after Hillary’s defeat, he will definitely benefit from the perception among some voters that a man has a better chance of beating Trump. Non of this means Warren can’t win. But if they don’t handle these issues maturely, they will only end up helping re-elect Trump. I expect in tonites debate they will.
2
I will just stick to the title here.
"I don't think a woman could win the presidency" could just be a reflection on the political situation in the U.S. where a woman could never win the presidency.
If so, I don't see why it is bad for Sanders. If it's true, US has to look themselves and solve their complexes.
2
Maybe he does feel that way, maybe he did say it, maybe it's true. As badly as I want Bernie to be president, he has a similar dilemma. I'm not sure a socialist can be elected president either.
2
Great. Another salvo in the Democrats' circular firing squad. Nov 2020 is the most consequential election since 1856, and the DNC has concocted a nominating process based on meaningless debates that makes a deep discussion of issues impossible and does more to alienate voters than anything else.
If Trump is returned to office, you can kiss the planet goodbye.
3
This is an instance where they’ve wrecked each other’s candidacy. Neither come out looking good, and that only elevates Biden. The only solution now is a Warren-Sanders ticket which is the political equivalent of a non-diversified portfolio.
1
1. It is generally true that when pols wail about a NYT story, the story is true.
2. It isn’t fun watching the devotees of St. Bernie try to wish away the fact that their guy is a pol, and always has been.
3. It is no fun at all to see that some followers of St. Bernie would rather see the likes of Trump re-elected than Warren or Biden.
In fact, it’s pretty disgusting. Makes you wonder who—and what—they really support.
3
Trump will have four more years if the democrats have anything to do with it.
5
I’m surprised she didn’t accuse him of saying a Native American couldn’t be President.
Maybe she is over that lie.
4
Anonymously sourced story prmpts both candidates to comment, and both comment temperately. Why have the media whipped this into a frenzy? And why has the Times covered it as if it’s a big deal? It’s nothing. One request: learn from your mistakes in covering the 2016 campaign and the first year of his presidency. The Times was very slow to call him a liar. This time around, I hope it will be out in front in calling out the muschief chaos-makers and the muschief-makers. Don’t take the bait. Using language like “apparently caught off guard” for something as insignificant as this is melodramatic and just stirs the pot. Two people had a private conversation ages ago and a staffer learns about it now and is surprised? Of course! Please slow down, step back, and call a molehill a molehill.
4
No. It might have been warren mumbling in his peculiarly distinctive accent , but in fact, it was me who said "no woman would win this time around."
I also said that Bernie Sanders would not win,and that he's the equivalent of a NYC former mayor, crossed with a Kennedy democrat from 1968.(no NYC former mayor ever became President)
In retrospect, we might have avoided most of all the current difficulties had LBJ had the guts he claimed to have, and had run for his second term in 1968. Nixon would have had litttle chance against Johnson, then. Instead- almost everyone now thinks it was Nixon who ended the Vietnam War, by halting bombing Hanoi and starting the Paris peace talks-it wasn';t-it was LBJ-
a Democrat, who already had the nomination sewn up and could have crushed the GOP like a Germ-like a small cockroach.
We need not repeat the errors of yesteryear, and instead hold the nation together by admitting that too many issues need to be viewed from both sides of the table.
"No woman will win the coming election-unless, "as I said-"there is a nuclear or biological holocaust killing all males over 17 years of age. . ."
Are the Russians back with fake information to discredit the two leading Democratic candidates?
4
to make a strategic comment is not diminishing women, or any woman.
this is a waste of time and media attention.
5
I have no idea. I don't. So, I will not log in.
1
Dirty games of the Dems have begun. Is Warren making up things about what Bernie said? Would not be the first time that Warren has made things up, to get ahead. It is an undeniable fact that there has been not a single woman president of the USA but to say that a woman cannot therefore be the president of USA ever would be ridiculous and yes it would objectionable. I don't like any of the socialist policies of Bernie and while I think he could live to 100 with his brand new stents, I don't think he deserves to be president but I will not question his honesty in comparison to Warren.
Being the most likely to win the Iowa caucus, Bernie should be ready to be brutally and falsely attacked. He was kniefed by the Hillary campaign in 2016 and a page from the Hillary book could easily be taken by Warren. With Biden way behind will be next to attack Bernie. I have yet to see the same generation that is at Biden's rallies as those for Bernie's. So Biden is blowing his own thorn, but all his talk of beating his rivals like a drum will not come true.
3
Please say something, Elizabeth. You’re the only one who can stop the swirl of speculation. We can’t afford to be divisive over petty campaign maneuvering— there is simply too much at risk.
2
She letting her staff who, by the way weren’t at the meeting, to do her lying for her. She has now lost all the respect I once had for her!
1
The fact that she hasn’t said anything tells me this is her idea of political strategy to beat Bernie and just like Clinton’s ultimately failed strategy, it hurt her to lie about Bernie instead of gave her the edge she is obviously desperate for right now. Warren might make a great political advisor, but she is proving, with bad judgment and untrustworthiness, she isn’t who we want or need for president.
1
@Aileen Delaney she did make a statement yesterday on this. Was that not enough of this nonsense? She gave the context of the discussion, said there was a difference of opinions, and said it basically was no big deal and that she wants to not dwell on this and get to work with Bernie on all the issues they agree on. Why are people repeatedly saying she has not said anything in response when she has? Are you looking for her to say more?
You can't complain about how Trump's disregard for the truth has completely degraded our political discourse and then turn around and run obviously garbage stories like this.
2
That is about as trivial as it goes.
5
Such nonsense. This is why we can’t have nice things.
6
What happened to believe women?
1
I dream every day of a woman president but Warren is proving with bad judgement and untrustworthiness, that sadly, Warren is not the first woman president of the United States. She’ll make a great advisor and supporting Senator, though.
1
Who cares? What difference does it make if he said a woman can't win-- he may be right. And he didn't say a woman shouldn't win. So...?
This is the kind of nonsense that is going to hand the Presidency right back to the current man-child in chief.
11
When Warren disclosed her DNA showing negligible Native Americans ancestry after previously claiming herself on the “Minority Law Teacher” list as Native American at UPenn, I thought she was out. Surprised she’s still in and now with another, likely, false claim.
7
Is Warren trying to lose votes if she wins the nomination? I’m not a Bernie supporter, but this seems like a desperate move. This is bad politics on the part of the Warren campaign. It’s kind of pathetic.
5
I smell desperation by the Warren campaign and those still carrying a torch for Hillary.
As his polling continues to improve the knives of the Obama and Clinton partisans have come out more and more.
This way at the debate instead of issues it will be he said, she said.
Circular firing squad.
6
Since when is expressing a plausible opinion in private conversation scandalous?
5
I have to say I was just warming to Warren until she pulled this stunt.
3
Interesting how they spill the tea right before the debate. Fake news? The timing is suspect.
9
Read and move on: “Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by three million votes in 2016.”
1
So, the most corrupt, immoral and un-American president in history is on the verge of bringing this country to the brink of ruin, and 2 leading democratic candidates are bashing each other over who is best qualified to arrange the deck chairs on the Trumptanic.
We are doomed.
Warren is a proven liar... let that sink in. A proven liar. She lied about who she was for decades, her very genetic identity, to take advantage of all the goodwill and favoritism that would come her way in doing so. She exploited the system for her professional advantage... her ardent supporters would explain that away, a misguided mistake, and that she didn’t benefit from it anyways... also lies. She is not to be trusted, her campaign is not to be trusted, her supporters are cognitively dissonant at best and hypocrites at worst... once again we seeing ugly ambition of Elizabeth Warren compromising her morals. I wont vote for her if she wins the primary unless she says this accusation is false... No more rewarding politicians for identity politics slander. Draw a line in the sand. The Times would be wise to as well. They may be driving this division to keep Trump in the White House as its been good for business...
9
Best to be skeptical whenever an article starts with "Warren Says..."
- Warren says she's Native American
- Warren says she lost teaching job for being a new mom
- Warren says her kids went to public schools
- Warren says 'you didn't build that'
Etc.
3
A country that can elect a young black guy, and then a character like Trump, can elect anyone who isn't dead. We'll even help people like Vladimir Putin work around the restrictions.
1
A woman actually did "win" in 2016, but she was cheated out of it by Russian hackers, James Comey and Trump/ campaign taking help from foreigners.
3
That would be a laughable statement if it weren’t simply repeating a destructive, inaccurate narrative. Clinton lost to the worst candidate, despite every possible advantage the DNC could throw her way, possibly because she was attempting to lead for personal reasons. True leadership is more selfless than that. True leadership is true service to those one leads. Bernie embodies true service. #NotMeUs
2
Really? with everything of real importance, why is this news? come on NYT, the world and our country cannot afford drumming up a silly fight over nothing right now. who cares? Let's focus on real issues, not school yard banter equal to trump tweets.
10
Sanders is rising in the polls, so this was predictable and predicted. This conversation occurred over a year ago and almost by magic, only now do we learn that Sanders is a terrible misogynist.
The most charitable interpretation is that it was a misunderstanding— Sanders said that Trump would use misogynistic tactics and Warren thought he was saying she couldn’t win. It wouldn’t actually make sense fo Sanders to say that even if he was dumb enough to believe it. But as he pointed out, Clinton won the popular vote.
As for the earlier Sanders “ attack”, people have been talking about the electability of all the candidates for months now and one commonly sees claims from Bernie foes that he couldn’t win, but someone else could, yet we are all supposed to be shocked by it when a Sanders staffer makes this argument. Sorry, but this is silly. And hypocritical. Actually, it’s politics as usual.
Warren is my second choice. If she gets the nomination I will enthusiastically support her against Trump. But it will be in spite of this nonsense.
4
A woman can win when she forgets she is a woman and stops using gender card.
5
Why did she wait until now to reveal this? Could it be that her lead is slipping and she needs to throw out some dirt at her main rival?
6
@Jackie
Agreed – the timing seems suspicious...
Michele Obama always preached "going high".
Warren is taking the low road with this.
16
So what. Prove him wrong, Ms. Warren.
2
Bernie is being Bernie and again showing his egotism, misogyny, and refusal to acknowledge stuff he or his staff have said. I sure am not voting for him ever. He’s accomplished nothing in the Senate. He’s a spoiler who helped elect Trump. He is leading a cult. He needs to retire.
4
Yes he is all of those things if you ignore everything he has said and done for 40 years. Every progressive policy in the public discourse is a direct result of Bernie Sanders pushing them to the forefront.
Rather than dismiss his popularity as a cult, and risk playing the deplorable card again, perhaps it’s worth investigating why he appeals to so many people. It’s rare to see a politician who tells the truth, and advocates for the little people. Even rarer, he doesn’t take corporate money. Where did everyone else get that idea from, because everyone else did prior to him.
The 2016 spoiler role many like to lay on him is just another lazy excuse (hello Russia) to make excuses for a poor candidate. Her hubris and entitlement embodied by her decision to avoid campaigning in Wisconsin and was confused as to why she lost it.
Looking forward to see how the “blue no matter who” vote and if they will be able to admit to themselves they are the ones who will elect trump again.
4
In a one-on-one race between honest truth and sexy lies, lies won by a country mile. Afterwards, truth tried to explain that lies had cheated but was declared too boring to be of interest.
1
This story is a lot of bilge solely designed to throw shade on Sanders and split progressives. It’s just a lot of junk. The Times and rest of the establishment media can’t stand him for a very simple reason: he will win and they don’t want to pay more in taxes. They are all wealthy by any standard and hey why pay more? They can’t find anything shady to use against him - not for want of trying - so they create nonsense controversy to flummox the dumbed down electorate they helped create. It’s called Closet Republicanism and when it comes to Bernie the Times might as well be run by Rupert Murdoch.
14
@Ignatz Farquad I love the Times but I agree....the wealthy establishment doesn’t want a progressive, it makes sense they’ll do all they can to undercut Sanders (and happily take out Warren at the same time) even if he’s the best candidate to beat Trump.
4
We have Trump for a president, and NYT is bickering over a single comment by Sanders? This is the type of reporting that will drag us down. Please focus on more important issues. Focus on actual important issues, and not tearing down Democrats. Our goal should be beating Trump, and not inner-party bickering over things that really don't matter: This is exactly one of those things.
Report in a way that doesn't create rifts over nothing. Ultimately Trump is president, and that's the biggest problem we face.
9
He said . . . she said . . . .
I say: I’m voting for Joe.
3
Bernie Sanders has a track record that speaks for itself. I can't help but feel this is a desperite, dirty attack against the new frontrunner - and that it will backfire.
9
We don't need this.
The Democratic circular firing squad is a time-honored activity.
Now we have anonymous sources, along with, no-I-didn't / yes-you-did.
And as if that weren't enough, it again pits Sanders against a woman Senator, previously a lawyer, running for president. Sounds almost like one if those Fisa reports.
Stop it now!
5
No one seriously believes this. The haters are getting desperate.
Bernie 2020
12
So what?
American history tells Elizabeth Warren the same thing that she alleges Bernie Sanders told her.
The nations with the most Muslim- Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh- had/ have female heads of state/government.
All of the English speaking nations can make a similar claim.
The first woman American President won't be 70+ year old Harvard Professor Pocahontas. Warren already foolishly fell for Trump's tweeting and speaking nicknames and slurs tar trap caricature techniques.
4
Bernie is a 100% correct.
4
"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won't rule out a presidential bid if no other liberal candidate steps up to run — but suggested Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) could fit the bill."
- "Bernie Sanders Won't Rule Out Presidential Bid, Touts Elizabeth Warren." The Hill, Nov. 18, 2013.
15
Election does bring out the worst in people and before you know it you’d picking between a misogynistic old white guy and a Native American woman that loves to play the gender card. Maybe Trump will be the lesser of two evil this time. LOL
Warren should have just said the quote was misattributed and I doubt Sanders would follow up. Now that she embraced this supposed quote she is going to ride it to the end. It doesn’t help her that even Trump isn’t that delusional to forget what happened in 2016.
3
Let’s put it this way: If Bernie beats Biden for the nomination—he’s already knocked out Warren—ALL Dem women, including Jill Biden, much less Warren and Hillary, “will have no choice” but to come out for Bernie. If they don’t, they will deserve to have their abortion rights taken away for the next forty years, as Trump’s courts most certainly will do.
5
There are two men rubbing their hands in glee tonight.
One is President Trump.
The other is former Vice President Biden.
4
Warren will lose and it will have nothing to do with her gender but rather all because she, like the corporate democrats, all talk out of both sides of their mouths.
Remember when she refused to admit on stage that Medicare for all would cause taxes to increase ?
It is this assumption that the electorate is too dumb for the truth that will be the downfall of her campaign.
Bernie answered that it will increase taxes but you won’t pay premiums. And the attention did not dwell on his statement but rather her fear to state the factually obvious to voters.
4
If he said it is he wrong? Should we risk it now with so much at stake? It's time be nothing less than pragmatic. And yes, I am a woman saying that.
11
There are two indisputable facts about this: One or the other is lying about a private conversation unrelated to a policy difference. The other fact is that this dispute will result in a diminished turnout in the November race if either secures the nomination as both have their loyal supporters. Perhaps third, this conversation, whatever was said or not said, should have remained private. Slinging mud ends up on both faces.
12
This does not help me with Warren who I already find has a chip on her shoulder. So what if Bernie did say that? It is not necessarily sexist --people want to jump on that bandwagon. It could be a fact, like saying women don't get paid as much as men. It is not saying he wouldn't support a woman or he doesn't think a woman could do a great job as president. There's a difference.
14
I have read the entire "script" from Politico and it goes against common volunteer caller practices. I have phone banked for both Democrats and Republican candidates for many years, since the 1992 election. No campaign in my entire experience has ever offered a script that is intended to persuade a voter. Calling is only intended to do two things: increase turnout among supporters by offering information about voting and for polling and information gathering. If this script is indeed authentic, it is certainly an abbirition planted by someone going rogue on the ground who is either highly incompetent or is a sabotaur in the campaign.
If you are a volunteer in the Sanders campaign and you see a script like this, tell the person handing it to get out of the HQ. Their services are no longer required.
As far as the recent news about the comment, I will not respond to that, but still support Sanders as a woman.
11
"Ms. Warren’s advisers insisted that she had no intention of making this private meeting a public spectacle."
Really Ms. Warren?
A little late for that sentiment now, isn't it?
22
Wasn't that suppose to be a between you and me moment? There's a good chance blood will be on someone's hands for this. Bloomberg's stock just went up.
4
Bernie might have said Clinton can not win the Presidential race but he would never say that a women could not. Warren made a deal with the devil to get the nomination but now without Sanders constituents, neither progressives will win. I’m shocked that she lower herself to this degree; she has destroyed the movement.
* we needs to work on the climate crisis and m4a. She has just elected Trump, again.
8
My fantasy is that tonight during the debate live on air-Sanders and Warren make a joint announcement that they’re joining forces together as a non-stoppable progressive wing and that no matter who gets the nomination they will be each other‘s vice president and destroy Trump and the GOP in 2020. Start forming your cabinet progressives there’s a lot of work to undo and do!
Make my American dream a reality instead of a reality show!
9
@CJ
I used to hope that, too, but I’m not so sure anymore.
Once this was in the press both Bernie and Warren has to comment. Warren was in a no win situation. The Bernie campaign had already called her staff liars and if she denied that the comment was made she’d be doing that as well so she told the truth. Of course, when there is a “he said - she said debate” we know who comes out ahead. As shown by the many comments here. But I believe Warren and the Bernie Bots are out in full force. Warren won’t be bullied and will stand up to this. She’s got my vote.
1
@Bernice K
She could have said, "I support Sanders should he be nominated, and I know he would support me should I. Let's work together and not against each other! Let's put this behind us!"
Then the story goes away. She did ~not~ have to support the staffers who leaked this because they did something bad and in fact, bad for her.
2
If it walks like a cult and quacks like a cult, it's a cult. Unfortunately, so many of Sen. Sanders' supporters are downright Trumpian with their incessant need to shield him from all criticism, no matter how legitimate. I have seen countless of his supporters accusing credible news outlets like the Times and CNN of fabricating this story. I have seen his supporters accuse Warren of lying, an accusation reminiscent of Kavanaugh defenders accusing Dr. Blasey-Ford of lying.
The prime directive of "defend the leader at all costs" just goes to show that Bernieism is the left wing side of the dirty populist coin that is Trumpism.
As you all practice petty things, here's some food for thought;
During Trump's initial campaign back around 2016, his people held negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. It was written that the talks were with an ethnic Russian Mayor of a city in eastern Ukraine adjacent to the Russian border. Since learning of it, I've wondered if it was intended as a safe house, or just now, as quid pro quo for election help.
Since Trump's telephone Conversation with another Television actor turned President of Ukraine, the news has been saturated with Trump's claims of wrongdoing by Biden in....Ukraine. Is it a diversion?
So tell me Sanders and Warren; why are you fighting petty demeaning ridiculous fights? Shouldn't you be opposing Trump and Republicans, not each other?
Hard to imagine this not backfiring for Warren. A he-said-she-said about Bernie being rude? What voter does Warren imagine she will convince? She’d be better off running a 5k and patting her strong heart
5
She said he said a she can't win.
Does it matter?
3
Just as well...Sanders and Warren, both seem like very weak candidates in my humble opinion.
Little wonder now why Pelosi is having a melt-down and throwing everything including the kitchen sink onto the WH lawn.
“You both are progressive champs & our movement needs to see you working together to defeat your corporate Dem opponents — not attack each other,” the group tweeted.
Significantly, Sanders has NOT attacked Warren, and has not planted hit pieces about her two days in a row via Politico.
6
The media has opposed Sanders for years. The media is just another money grubbing entity of of the plutocracy that rules our country.
Trump is correct when he says fake media, except as it relates to him.
4
Anyone who has followed Bernie Sanders long career and knows his record, knows this is nonsense.
16
Sanders was the first one to come right out and tell America and the world that our president is racist and a misogynist, before the media, itself, began to use stronger language about him. These unnamed sources are Warren staffers and it is quite telling that Warren hasn't taken the leadership step of coming forward, telling the truth, and then firing those staffers. Some friend she is! The question Warren asked in her home was what Sanders thought of a woman candidate. He told her how disgusting Trump would be. Hasn't Trump already been disgusting to Warren for the last 3 years? He called her Pocahontas. How did Warren deal with it? She went and got herself DNA-tested and then appropriated that sliver of Native heritage to, what, placate Trump?
Not coming out immediately to put the record straight on a longtime friend, supporter, and competitor only makes Warren look bad, using her staff to wage a dirty war.
Not classy. Very poor judgment and taste.
15
One of the things which might help our political discourse is if unions didn’t have to vote as blocks. In my little caucus in 2016, one lone teacher, whose wife had been seriously hurt, supported Bernie. The rest were supporting Hillary which served to bankrupt him.
2
The New York Post would have been proud to have published this article. Great reporting, NYT. I may start reading alternative publications for election information if you keep this up.
10
Seems the Bernie folks are apoplectic at the very idea that he should be called out for saying something that, let’s face it, he probably said. Frankly, as a Hillary supporter, contributor and voter who watched this country elect a total fool and ogre rather than elect a woman, I might agree with him. Left or Right, America doesn’t admit to its prejudices. Instead we make excuses and demonize the other side- especially when it speaks the truth. Maybe in 50 or 100 years we will catch up with much of the rest of the world and seriously consider a woman candidate, measured by the same standards we apply to men.
6
@Isadore Huss And this is exactly why we need the conversation. This ideology is toxic to our country and its future. It needs to be debated out in the open, the sexist slurs exposed for what they are. We need not wait another day, let alone century.
Will the Times print a series based on the plentiful research into the stereotypes and gendered insults that are employed against women, even as we enter the 21st century?
This article is depressing to read and disturbing. If Warren or her campaign stooped this low it is a sign of desperation. She can now be assured if she gets the nomination Sanders most loyal supporters will never vote for her out of spite.
10
@Rit Your conclusion comes right out of the playbook to smear the Senator with sexist slurs. Keywords: desperate, spite.
Let's turn the smear around, shall we? How immature of you.
Let's have a real conversation about attitudes toward others in this 21st century, and how those attitudes are reflected in our policies.
1
Doesn't sound like Bernie.
Doesn't sound like Elizabeth.
Won't help either of them.
16
If he said it, he's right. And it's something I've been saying for a long time. Perhaps as a VP, but not as a headline. At this time, the US (and Canada) just will not do it...and it would be suicide for the Democrats (unfortunately!)
5
It was ludicrous to think that Bernie was a millionaire, since he consistently railed against millionaires and billionaires. But then when, lo and behold, he turned out to be a millionaire after all, he quietly amended his rant against millionaires and went only after the billionaires.
Judging by his sour unhelpfulness to the 2016 Democratic nominee, who just happened also to be a woman, until he could no longer avoid campaigning for her, I am inclined to believe Liz on this one.
6
So the democratic candidates are starting to act like Trump; you said this, no I didn't, yes you did! Stop denigrating each other; we have had enough of that type of behavior the last 4 plus years.
4
Warren claims Sanders said it but refuses to discuss the rest of the conversation, only the part that damages Sanders? Something rotten in Denmark?
13
Great, we now have a controversy which will benefit Trump and the GOP no matter how this plays out.
Bernie says one thing, Liz says another, who do you believe, Bernie or Liz?
(Before answering remember that what Trump really wants is for you to choose sides here, and then call the candidate you haven't chosen a liar, and then vilify any who dare to disagree with you).
3
Who cares! Really we're going to get bent out of shape over he said she said while Trump still sits in office along with his administration and supporters saying much worse every day!?
Let's have them talk about real issues instead.
5
If Senator Sanders said this to Senator Warren it clearly does not mean he said a woman should not run nor does it mean he said a woman should not be president.
Sexism is far more pervasive in America than racism. Our constitution was amended to allow black men to vote before we amended it to allow women the same opportunity.
Since only Sanders and Warren were in the room, it seems like Warren took aim at Sanders with a handful of mud. On the other hand, don't put it past both pols to have started this kerfuffle because the Dems are debating Tuesday night.
We live in very cynical times.
6
It's a close race and rumors are circulating. If Bernie had an opinion on whether a woman can win in 2020 so be it. More importantly, that meeting was supposed to be private, but apparently it wasnt. Warren's integrity is being tested here.
6
How quickly some of the commentators here have forgotten the last Republican primaries that led to the devastating win in the electoral college for Trump. Loosing the popular vote by 3 million.
They were a disgusting spectacle with no ideas just vile accusations, insults, hate, weakness of character and lies.
This is politics and the Democrats will choose the best candidate, they all possess a dignity that most Republicans could never understand.
3
Whichever staff member "leaked" this did a lot of damage to both candidates. If this unfocused, juvenile bickering isn't resolved ASAP, I may vote for Biden.
2
I hear the sound of breaking rice bowls. The media knows exactly what they're doing here - this kind of pot stirring hurts both Liz & Bernie, the enemies of the centrist cabal that will lose to DJT.
15
Much ado about nothing. If Sanders actually said that, so what? He wasn’t being misogynistic, he was stating what he believed was the truth in the political environment at the time. Warren’s reaction was immature and petty. I struggle to get on board with either of them as it is, but this just pushed me further away from Warren, who will now be irrevocably seen as thin-skinned and overreactive, like Trump. Only Democrats could lose this election. Only Democrats.
8
Can anyone give a reason why being 80 at election time and now still in recovery from a heart attack, Sanders is a credible candidate?
5
The real issue is that both of them are increasingly desperate politicians that hope their campaigns will garner the type of slavish and unquestioning support that achieves the mission of getting elected by any means necessary. The fact that either of them would suggest that a staff member would have done anything wrong at their own discretion is indeed the problem. Should we trust a candidate that says things like that to run a country? Like Trump, Bernie definitely does not know or associate with all the right people. And Bernie's attacks on others in the field, including Warren, as an elitist or a non-viable female candidate makes me question how this far left fringe of the American electorate is at all different from the far right insane and often violent supporters of the Trump provoked and led right wing. I feel threatened by both of their supporters. Neither of them are leading us to a revolution that I have any interest in being part of. They both fail to realize in their competitive zeal to win that there are already tens of millions of Americans suffering with severe emotional and financial and spiritual consequences of the last dramatic swing of the political pendulum. Yet they both consider it fair game to belittle people of color and moderates and others as fearful people incapable of having the ability to make decisions that are not in our own best interests if they are not meeting their preconceptions of what we need. All this winning or all this degradation?
3
Why are men afraid of woman? Can we not see they have not had much power over the years. If Bernie's campaign workers made this statement they have contribute to the myth we have perpetrated over the years. Both should turn down the rhetoric and quit accusing each other.
1
What I should say as a lawyer this is triple hearsay. Regular hearsay is not even admissible in court.
You have Warren relating this to anonymous sources, who related it to a journalist, who does not disclose said anonymous sources, but is interpreting their interpretation.
Warren has since, after being silent, said this is what happened.
9
Warren is a brilliant and sly politician who knows how to play the game. I might have considered voting for her with little expectation that, if elected, she could do anything. Now I will not. Sanders was a supporter of women's rights while she was still a Republican.
20
There’s no way Bernie would’ve said this. This is a desperate attempt made by a 4th place (and slipping) candidate to take away votes from the 1st or 2nd place candidate.
11
Senator Warren has not told the truth about her personal life, so why would anyone believe she would tell the truth about Bernie Sanders?
The recent charges she is making about Bernie Sanders are not credible. I have volunteered in the Bernie Sanders campaign since August. The focus of his campaign has always been on the issues, never on things like this. As for polls, the focus has been to change the polls, not to look at them.
I would have supported Elizabeth Warren if she ran in 2016, but I have been disappointed in her campagn in 2020. First she waffled on Medicare for All and now this. These are cheap shots meant to arrouse sympathy for a mistreated woman who has been losing ground in the polls for the last two months. Presss stunts like this are no way to defeat Donald Trump.
12
Warren might well have been favored by Sanders as a vice-president prior to this but, unless she comes clean on this, it is unlikely.
4
For me, competence and experience are key, which is why I voted for Hillary in 2016 in the general election against 45. I really thought we had moved beyond considering gender in leadership in this country. As a millennial who watched the likes of RBG and other women become trailblazers while growing up in DC, I was devastated. At the presidential level, it seems to me that the problem is with American society, as evidenced by several comments here saying women can’t win because of that underlying trend. Until that majority and often unspoken attitude changes for most Americans, a man will be the American President, though I certainly hope that changes in my lifetime. Look at what happened in the House in 2018 and look at the number of women running currently!! That’s a start and I try to remain optimistic. Germany and New Zealand have no problem with women as their leaders. I have watched Chancellor Merkel for close to 15 years now in awe.
5
My husband and I wondered the same thing. In an election where the most important thing is beating Trump, every question like this is important. “Can a woman beat him?” “Can a gay man beat him?” Of course you ask these questions.
I’m sorry Warren is making a big deal about this. It shows desperation and makes me think twice about voting for her.
20
I have felt a good portion of Trump votes in 2016 were misogynistic. There are many women hating men as there are many feminists who disdain men. These two scornful groups creat a negative feedback loop and cancelling effect except for the fact that the women haters reside in the critical swing states and cause the spillover in the Electoral College. So, as base and raw as it may sound , or perhaps the context was wholly reasonable, Bernie had a point in the current electoral atmosphere
3
Warren is clearly desperate. This reflects so poorly on her. The more visible she is, the more I learn about her, the less I respect and like her.
17
If an anonymous staffer first related this nugget of information to a reporter then how did the staffer learn the supposed utterance if the purported meeting between Warren and Sanders was ‘one-to-one’ ? This would infer that Warren relayed the substance and a quote of her private conversation to others. Bad politics for sure as a senator among senators. She will not be trusted in her official role by her peers.
7
Nancy Pelosi should hold off on allowing Iowa to hold is caucuses until she is sure it will be fair. This would include sworn testimony from both Bernie and Liz.
6
Maybe Bernie said that, maybe he didn't, but the states that Trump took in 2016 a large number do believe a woman's place is in the home, which was a factor in Clinton's defeat. However, will there be enough people soured on Trump to change their mind?
@Ellwood Nonnemacher
Yet as Sanders pointed out, Clinton won the popular vote.
@Al M unfortunately not in the states that decide the election
1
It is hard to believe that Warren would make such a mistake as to mention this even if Sanders actually said it (which is possible,but unlikely). She gains nothing and loses much. While it is still likely true that a similarly-qualified woman will have a harder time beating a similarly-qualified man because of the level of misogyny in the current American culture, it is self-defeating to use this as an attack point an opponent who has a similar policy program.
10
Throughout the years there is video of Bernie speaking against pretty much
Everything and anything that limits the human condition, including wars and women’s rights. He has been genuinely open and honest. This “conversation” should have been revealed at the time it occurred if it actually went along those lines. Suspicious and sad that Warren pulls this out of nowhere now.
13
Here we are about to go into the Iowa caucuses and we are faced with the 'truth' dilemma. How does one discern the truth? Wasn't that the challenge, rather, isn't that the challenge we are currently facing every single day with Trump in the White House? I wish Warren would have said, 'I don't believe it. I know Bernie and he wouldn't sanction this. Let's fact-check this.' And I wish Bernie would have said, 'If a volunteer has gone against the Sanders campaign code of conduct which is to never disparage other candidates, they are out.' But the same goes for Warren. It just brings me to tears that already the two progressives are fighting each other instead of the corporate mind-set and Trump.
4
I would not be surprised if Sanders has said this. HIs previous campaign did a great job of rolling over the last woman candidate after she won the nomination. And for those Sanders enthusiasts that may protest, his campaign did not wind down after the convention, Sanders hung on after Clinton became the nominee. By the time he was done bashing her and ended his campaign it was a matter of too little too late.
6
For the life of me, I don't understand why it is taboo to be worried that a woman can't win - my wife and I say things like that in our discussions. I don't favor Sanders but this is certainly a topic likely to come up in serious discussions. Of course it can be countered by HRCs much larger popular vote in 2016, but it is a consideration.
8
Oh, who cares. Let’s get on with it and beat Trump!!
12
According to NYT: "Warren Says Sanders Told Her a Woman Could Not Win the Presidency".... in my opinion this can only be a misrepresentation by the NYT or by Warren. If the latter... she just alienated a few millions voters...
16
I'm not happy about it, and thought humanity would be further along by 2020, but I have to say I see big obstacles not just for Sanders vis à vis sexism, but for many of the democratic candidates: homophobia, racism, and just plain old ignorance are alive and well in America. Am I now exercising my own homophobia and bigotry just by making such an observation? Sanders mentioning sexism in a conversation to Warren is not automatically a man telling a woman she can't run. Since when was it "woke" to ignore the elephants in the room?
13
I think Warren is holding the gun in the circle firing squad. She aimed at Pete, now Bernie. It makes me like her less. She seems desperate and untrustworthy. I had thought better of her.
20
The definition of a circular firing squad is EVERYONE holds and fires gun simultaneously inside the circle. Not one gun holder shooting at associated rivals.
1
Historians have discovered that we change the narrative in our heads to suit how we write and read our personal stories.
We find this out whenever we try to match our stories to fixed events or dates.
My guess is that nebulous remarks were interpreted by Warren this way because it fits her and most females sense of resentment.
But I doubt Sanders said or meant it because there is no evidence in the record of him ever being the slightest sexist.
Warren's staff then heard something from her and it motivated them and then Warren had to back them -- and herself up.
But it's a low blow, a dog whistle and only casts shade on both candidates.
Please bury this.
Because we have a common enemy who, by comparison, makes this look like a piece of lint.
The traitor in the White House making America even worse.
10
Of course he did. There is no doubt in my mind that that is exactly what he said. Why else does anyone think he came out of obscurity to run against Hillary? One of the reasons was because he thought he could win over a female candidate.
Does anyone really think he would have attacked a male candidate for giving speeches to Wall Street firms like he did Hillary? Not in a million years.
He painted her as some sort of corporate Witch just for doing what Obama has been doing ever since he left office.
And then it almost killed him to withdraw after she soundly beat him..he hung on till the very last minute and then campaigned for her like he was being forced to.
You hear him even mention Obama giving highly paid speeches to Wall Street firms? Hmm...must have ceased being important for some reason.
He landed all over her BECAUSE she was a woman earning pay the same way a lot of male politicians had been for many years.
5
@Bodyman
Sanders had been complaining about people taking big money from Wall St starting with his 1st campaign. Hillary was the only person slamming Obama after he got the nomination instead of her. Everyone else fell in line. BTW Sanders was an independent then.
5
Wall Street owns both parties.
2
Honestly...I don't care. I really don't. This pointless fighting needs to stop already and the Democrats need to motivate voters, desperately.
9
Egads! They’re starting to turn on each other!
This is what happens when candidates begin campaigning too early. We have two candidates with very similarplatforms, Only one can win.
I assume that Sanders will come out the winner in this match up,
6
We know nothing of the context, the words used...
Possibly Sanders was noting gloomily what so many believe: that the USA electorate is sexist, that sexsm was a significant factor in Clinton's loss. He was certainly not saying he feels a woman should not win or that women should not run.
Was this -- whatever was said -- said sternly in the context of strategy-building as a warning, as a suggestion that she withdraw? Or was it simply an expression of despair in a rambling personal exchange?
And it's not clear to me that she actually did make this 'accusation'. From this reading it may be an outburst by an overzealous and naive staff member, a comment seized by a press hungry for scandal. Warren's passion and forthrightness sometimes derails her: is that what's happened here?
One thing is clear to me: this is not what it is made out to be. As readers we want to be certain, we want the truth: the urgency of that desire often rushes us to judgment. Human relations are too complex and subtly nuanced to support any black/white analysis here.
10
I frankly don't care. If he said this in the context of Trump weaponizing sexism and this precluding a woman being elected, he's probably right. What I care a whole lot more about is him throwing his weight behind WHOEVER the candidate might be as soon as possible, if he isn't the candidate. His failure to do this contributed to Trump's victory in a big way.
Btw one of the comments said they felt he was being given the benefit of the doubt in a way Warren wasn't. I think that's true.
4
We all knew it was coming: the commencement of a smear campaign, after it became clear that Bernie was a strong and real contender for the democratic nomination. This article has spurred me, a woman, to make yet another, in fact my fourth donation to the Bernie Sanders Campaign. And I will be phone banking soon also. The idea that Warren, in pursuit of the highest position of power in the whole country, thinks her ploy of depicting herself as a victim here is convincing, is laughable. She herself laid into Mayor Pete for his wine cave. Where was her "unity" there? Oh yeah. This isn't about unity. This is about ideas and leadership. It is also about beating Trump. Which only Bernie can do. Also, he has an amazing record on issues like maternity leave and equal pay. Bernie for the win. I'm galvanized by this pathetic attack on him.
19
It sounds to me like the one who’s getting desperate is Warren.
20
Tempest in a teapot. The Warren campaign must be getting nervous & s pulling out anything it thinks will smear Bernie. The Warren glow was beginning to come off for me; now its completely off. Don't play the "woman" card, Sen. Warren. It won't help you here & it certainly won't help you again Trump.
10
I think we can take Sanders at his word: “Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by three million votes in 2016.”
It is patently obvious to anyone with a pulse that a woman can win the presidency, and that a woman can beat Donald Trump, unfavorable electoral dynamics or not. The substantial popular victory in the last popular vote by Hilary Clinton -- not only a woman, but one of the most politically polarizing figures of the modern era -- is proof of this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that even Donald Trump himself, that great crusader against reality, is not so out of touch with simple facts as to deny this in the categorical manner in which Sanders is accused of having done so. If he, like other mysognyists, trembles and rages at the idea of a woman in the oval office, he does so all the more now because even he well knows it's antything but impossible.
I am confident in Sanders's feminist bona fides. But that's not why I'm sure he didn't say this. I'm sure he didn't say it because after 2016 it's as dumb as saying that an African American cannot be elected president. And "dumb" is among the few nasty names I've yet to have heard Sanders called.
This is just so, so implausible that it leaves credulity behind. Is Warren's team really so inept at playing dirty they couldn't at least make up something that makes sense?
11
Democrats already see Bernie as THE spoiler candidate of 2016. Sad to see the same type of troll trash talk coming from his supporters this time around one again. In order to be an effective President you need allies. Bernie is the disruptor and encourages disruption. it's not that difficult to see why Sanders supporters jumped to Trump. it's not about progressive policies as much as it is burning the house down. "Feel the burn?"
3
The Democrats may have to swallow some sad truths about this country to win the next election. Based on disturbing numbers of white women that went for Trump in 2016, it's pretty clear that a successful woman remains as much or more of a threat to other (white) women as a unrepentant misogynist. I see parallels in the Trump presidency and abusive relationships, in that the longer Trump remains in the Oval Office, the more he resembles the abusive husband that women can't leave - until it's too late. I genuinely hope they do "leave him," as he is home-wrecker and world-wrecker.
However, in view of this, I can easily see Mr. Sanders expressing doubt at a female candidate's ability to defeat Trump in the next election. In any event, context is supreme. I'm sure what Sander's said was not a broadside at women generally but reflected his gloomy view of a woman's chance to win the next election, not as any long-term forecast. I also cannot see Elizabeth Warren trying to make hay out of the event. Both are too fine and too honest for that nonsense.
2
With so much at stake, I don’t understand your politics, where people on the same side spend millions of dollars and fight each other. Wouldn’t it advance your cause and move you closer to a 2020 win if you chose your primary candidate and running mate amicably and took the fight to the opposition?
168
It is part of the American syndrome I label- Surfeit of Ambition. Not wholly unique to US but relatively more abundant couple with the streak of individualism inherent too.
10
@Down under: Sure, but you seem to be ignoring the ego factor. These people are not just in the fight to advance their political goals; they want to win for themselves. It's all about ego. Sanders has no chance of passing any significant legislation if he gets elected, because he isn't a member of a major party and his agenda is way to the left of the mass of the American electorate. He should've stood aside and supported Warren or somebody else. But ego trumps all.
7
@Down under
Because we are a large country where controversy generates profits. It is in the economic best interest of our media to keep the public not so much informed as on edge. They are terrible at providing unbiased reporting on policy, but great at the horse race angle. For example, Gore was by far the better candidate in 2000, but the NYT focused on what Gore was wearing (a brown suit! Gasp!) than on comparing their policy proposals. Bush was put in office and that changed the trajectory of the country.
9
As a Warren admirer who supported her efforts to rein in financial markets from before the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, I am distressed at her poor political judgment so far. A lack of good political instinct is what explains her descent in the polls, not what Bernie's supporters say. Even if Bernie said that a women couldn't win in 2020, that hardly makes him sexist; I have heard many former Hillary supporters bitterly say the same thing. Still, I'd be surprised he said any such thing, after he urged her to run in 2016! Warren's comment reeks of an unprincipled attack.
It is also false to claim Bernie's supporters are "trashing" her by telling people (again, denied by the Sanders campaign) that her voters so far are restricted to the white and well off. It's just reality and, in no way, a smear! Her claim that "factionalism" is what cost the election in 2016 smacks of hillaryism. I hate sexism, which is detrimental to us all, but weaponizing the gender card is also despicable. Bernie's supporters sometimes go over the top, which is bad, but this latest salvo by Senator Warren will make it much, much harder to create the unity she claims to want in 2020. This is so sad, since I am absolutely convinced that both candidates are in this fight to make America a truly better country!
12
This bickering is exactly what the Republicans want us to do.
Let it go. Why are we even chatting about it?
6
With this childish behavior amplified exponentially by the internet, is it any wonder the best of our leaders want no part our national politics?
5
Who cares if he said that? They’re friends. We all speculate on these things with our friends. Media, there are more significant events to cover. Stop making friction out of nothing. Ridiculous. I’m for Bernie and will vote for Warren if she ultimately gets the nomination.
6
Reporting on the hearsay more than a year after this happened in private and just in time for the first primaries? Ignoring a long public record? I am not a Sanders fan, but neither am I a fool. Desperate Times call for desperate measures - I am canceling my subscription after more than 10 year.
9
I don’t think a woman could win the presidency over Donald Trump now and for a long time after Trump, because of Donald Trump. Nominating a woman would send Trump’s followers over the edge and drive them to the polls in hordes. The women in that crowd would be as virulent as the men.
The opposite of Donald Trump isn’t a woman. It’s a good man.
3
This kind of story says a lot more about the media than it does about either of these two candidates.
15
There is nothing like enthusiastic unseasoned supporters to sink a campaign.
Whether or not it was campaign strategy to slam Warren, it seems to have taken place.
The other party is the party of dirty deeds. Every supporter of every candidate remember that
This Iowa Caucus, N.H. primary model is antique, it might need updating.
Perhaps the truth lies in between: A woman can win the popular vote but not the Electoral College, based on the disproportionate power of the flyover conservative states. Perhaps Sanders had said this, although now we will never have proof of this.
2
As much as I dislike Bernie, I'd also have to say that Warren has shown a willingness to lie over all manner of things in order to gain an advantage(her ethnicity, tales of discrimination while pregnant etc). I wasn't present when the supposed meeting took place but I truly doubt it went down as Warren suggests it did.
11
They should make peace. The nation will benefit. It is what good people do and we desperately need more good people no matter what happens next.
1
Ambition always beats honesty and integrity for those with no core.
Of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, only one has consistently misrepresented themself over decades for personal advantage.
But that’s a minor detail to ‘progressives’ as the end always justifies the means.
7
Senator Warren is feeling the same Bern that
Secretary of State Clinton did. Crabby Bernie sure know how to woo the female vote.
5
What if Bernie is the nominee and during the presidential campaign Trump said that he had once a private meeting with Bernie Sanders in which Bernie admitted that he wanted to make of America the New Soviet Union (NSU) and take all the money from "honest billionaires" for himself so that he could build a private Disneyland and a waterfall? There was 3 witnesses, they were not in the room but they overheard it. They won't come forward but these people exist, they are very very close to the President and all this is true!...
Two cheap shots from Warren to Sanders in couple of days. Are we now gona see articles about how Sanders is attaking other Democrats, like he did in 2016?
5
A woman can absolutely win the Presidency. It's just not going to be Elizabeth Warren.
44
@John
Funny how so many people say:
"A woman can win the presidency -- just not [insert name of any woman currently making a viable run for it]."
23
@Naomi I was dying to vote for HRC for president my entire life. And then I looked at her record and what she herself said and did to Bernie and the policies she didn’t want for the American people, her utter distain for half the country instead of trying to unite us, like Bernie. No, not Clinton and now, not Warren. Sadly.
22
@Lilly This article is attempting to sow dissent between progressives. Don't believe everything you read in this newspaper; their agenda is "moderate."
I'm for Bernie AND Warren, period.
10
I've learned a couple of things. One is that during a campaign the media and politicians pay close attention to what other journalists and politicians have to say while the voters are not paying attention and won't until shortly before the election. Another thing is that in a world like Ukraine was until recently, and maybe still is, politicians will say one thing in public and do something else in private. So Biden goes to Ukraine and loudly and publicly tells corrupt Ukrainians to stop doing what they are doing. In private, though, would not corrupt politicians in Ukraine be well aware that Joe Biden's son is being paid $50,000 per month to be on the board of a corrupt company at a time when not many American workers, let alone Ukrainian workers, would hope to make $50,000 in 12 months? Would they not take this as a sign that Biden's public words are not to be taken seriously and that they are free to carry on with business as usual? So now we have people in Warren's camp, who remain anonymous (and why does the media grant anonymity to political actors who are clearly spreading lies, or else why do they do it?) bringing up something that happened in a private meeting that happened over a year ago with only Sanders and Warren in the room. This from a political candidate who claimed to have Native American ancestry until she got caught. Why?
8
Jim, Trump costs taxpayers $50,000 a minute during each of his golf trips. Trump and family are using the presidency to line their own pockets. This is obviously an attempt by outside sources trying to disrupt the Democratic Party and all of the great candidates running. This has Putin and Trump’s fingers all over it.
12
@Jim Linnane
Biden should step aside for his and his son’s enormous indiscretion. And it should be a warning to Trump and his children, as well as to the many of companies who place know-nothing’s on their boards.
2
I believe Bernie Sanders. He's a person of integrity.
Warren should have a harsh talking to with her staffers if they're behind this effort to smear Bernie.
If Warren herself knew about this or is behind this, she should know it won't work. Sanders supports support him because of his honesty and integrity. Bernie has been decent and civil to all the other candidates.
There is zero chance Bernie is smearing Warren behind her back or discouraging her to her face.
Senator Warren, this is sad.
19
Neither Sanders nor Warren can beat Trump. This election is too important to nominate an advocate of bigger government and higher taxes. BIDEN '020
5
@Richard Ralph
Biden generates about as much enthusiasm as watching grass grow.
11
Bernie was only in the 2016 race because he couldn’t convince Warren to run. Warren once again proving she’s just like every other establishment dem.
15
@Casey S
That makes no sense. And you're arguing about paint samples while the house is burning down.
7
It only makes sense if you see this as the oligarchy protecting obscene levels of dynastic wealth.
6
@Naomi
It’s literally the truth, whether or not it makes any “sense” to you is immaterial.
2
Always revealing what candidates are willing to say-leak-do when they are down in the polls and Election Day gets near
15
"Massachusetts and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Mr. Sanders said that he did not think a woman could win the presidency, according to two people familiar with the discussion."
Now that Elizabeth Warren is losing it appears she is trying to re-hash private conversations from over a year ago. She really has no integrity at all. We also saw what little integrity she has on her debate attacks against Mayor Pete.
11
@JoeyReader
All candidates attack each other, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. It's a contest. But women are much more harshly judged for it.
Clinton was constantly accused of "lack of integrity," despite continual investigations coming up 100% empty.
Getting tired of this. The double standard may often be unconscious, but it clearly exists.
14
Warren's ethics are beginning to show.
She is willing offer whatever it takes to win a vote.
I for one will vote against Elizabeth, whatever that may mean. I like the mayor best but I'd vote for Biden but if those options are taken off the table, I will vote Republican Party line..
People need to do their homework on Warren, she is too divisive, very expensive and she just can't stomach Capitaiiism. Not sure who she thinks is paying taxes but it lcertainly isn't the Government, Elizabeth who promotes free puppies and tuition forgiveness for all.
What about those whoe paid their way, do we give them a tax credit? Oh well, maybe when tesla's tax assistance is warnout...
3
This was among the comments, but might be good to highlight. For those Bernie and/or Warren supporters out there, for those like myself who have donated to both and think they should jointly address this 'news' story--send them an email. Onward.
The last time a white man won a popular vote for president was 2004. The GOP is 1 for 7 in those contests since 1992.
Meanwhile, the past three popular votes were handily carried pretty handily by an African American man and a woman.
The electoral college has twice been a devastating obstacle and setback. But it can't stave off what is demographically inevitable. The increasingly diverse American electorate has shown growing support for candidates who look like us and hold our values-- for offices at every level. Racism and patriarchy may be alive and well. But so, thank God, is the resistance.
Bernie Sanders knows very well which way these generational political winds are blowing... which is why this smear story is implausible to the point of silliness. He would never have said a woman couldn't win simply because it's so obviously, demonstrably, completely at odds with a reality he has worked for decades to change-- while Warren was still a corporate lawyer, Reagan voter and GOP loyalist.
The first woman president will be a hugely significant event. But here's our core question today: can we elect anyone, man or woman, who is neither a neoliberal multinational capitalist (Clinton/Obama) nor a warmongering/nationalist oligarchic buffoon (Bush/Trump). If we can't, the victory winds up as tokenism-- or worse: Thatcherism.
That’s the real vice grip that's choked the U.S. presidency since 1980. Bernie Sanders is our first viable shot at freedom from it in a very long time.
9
The GOP and President Trump just finished their first bucket of popcorn.
It's ridiculous that Bernie Sanders would say anything like that especially given the fact that he's known Senator Warren for years.
What's more troubling is the timing. With a weekend of news reports about Bernie Sander's surge in the Polls before the upcoming caucus and primaries this looks like another attempt to smear him before the voting finally starts. Senator Warren's response was disappointing but taken in context to the other gaffs she's made it's not surprising.
Senator Sanders support is not going to waiver in 2020. It's going to be an issue for the DNC who clearly don't want Bernie to be the nominee. Even President Obama has spoken out against him. The 2020 primary season is shaping to be a battle for the soul of Democratic party itself.
4
Wow. Bernie comes out ahead in the Iowa poll and then Warren's staff (I can't imagine Warren came up with this plan herself) decide to resurface something Sanders denys even saying (and considering he is the only politician I trust I do give him the benefit of the doubt. I get he is a white man but I'm done deciding who should win based in identity politics, I believe in what Berne represents).
I'm very saddened by this. If this is some political game I'm disappointed. Warren should win my vote through her policy proposals and her platform. I wont vote for someone because of political games and this news doesn change anything for me.
I'm pretty disappointed. I like Warren a lot and if she starts talking about this or uses it as an attack I will be even more disappointed.
8
Saying you don't think a woman can win the presidency isn't the same as saying you don't think a woman should win the presidency. Sanders clearly does not think the latter.
6
Only two people know actually what was said. Warren and Sanders. We don’t know the context if the comment was actually made. The timing of the revelation is what stinks. If he did say it why reveal it now ? If it was a private conversation why leak it and then confirm it ? It smells of opportunism. Warren is struggling in the polls. And this is one way to get a leg up. Elizabeth Warren is acting against her better instincts probably at the urging of her campaign leadership who are likely desperate for a break.if she was genuinely upset by the comment she should have revealed when it was made. Not wait for a politically opportune moment.
4
I will start by disclosing that I have been a supporter of both candidates- Bernie in 2016 & a Warren volunteer this primary season.
It’s bad if Bernie said that. To me it is sexist to tell a woman they can’t win, even from a point of analyses. This is the story of sexism in our country- men telling women what they can or can’t do. Who is he or anyone to say that? What makes any man all knowing? Sure, we know there are more obstacles and women are held to a higher standard (e.g. Warren’s health care plan is subjected to serious scrutiny while others haven’t shown anything nearly as detailed). But the only way to defeat sexism, is to go against these conventional rules of thumb and lead by example.
That said, we don’t know what was said. It was a private conversation between two friends. And by Warren’s team leaking this now, to me it makes them looks desperate. On top of that, it’s a bad look because frankly, Bernie has more credibility when it comes to being unapologetically honest— while Warren’s honesty has been questioned (like the Native American debacle, which we all should have hoped to move on from by now.)
Meanwhile, who does this hurt but progressives? Bernie’s base will only be more incensed and divided from the pack. I mean, it’s not as if some Bernie supporter is going to say: omg Bernie is sexist! I’m for Warren now. That person doesn’t exist.
I think most people will be turned off by all of it and lean more toward the moderate candidates.
79
@Peter same we love them both. And we know many many folks who wish them both equally well. To us Bernie and Liz represent the best our country can offer to the youth and beyond, with their clear vision and wisdom.
Our kids feel the same way, they were always for Bernie but to this day they will not say a word against Liz.
Come on guys. Remember the media is in the business of he said she said. The metoo movement came to light because of media taking a stand and we are thankful that it has changed work culture everywhere. But Bernie is not a misogynist don’t let the media label him and the so called Bernie Bros back in 2016 had plenty of girls and women in their midst. I think it’s the Russian trolls making mischief. Who knows Biden’s campaign might have some hand in trying to cause confusion amongst Bernie Liz supporters? Watch out!
15
@Peter
How about the fact, after the meeting, Senator Warren told staffers what Bernie said? Of course it's true. Just for disclosure, I will vote blue no matter who.
11
@Peter This pettiness from two candidates over age seventy is not attractive. Have we not had enough pettiness? I'm getting sick of both of the screeching.
Go Biden.
2
1. I believe Sanders believes a woman cannot win, or will have a significantly harder time winning - and said that when conferring with Warren.
2. I don't believe such a remark was sexist, but rather a fairly realistic view of the political landscape, particularly in many red states. Yes, a woman could win a majority of the votes, as Hillary did, but fail to win via the electoral college.
Thus, did Bernie say something of the sort?: probably. Was such a remark due to a sexist perspective?: probably not.
6
The sniping between these two candidates DOES NOT help in attaining what should be the Democratic Party's only goal - getting Trump out of the Oval Office. Let's stop fighting about who ("progressive", "centrist", whomever) is "best" for our country and stop nit-picking about who might have said what to whom (in a private meeting) and get on with the main objective - getting rid of a person who has no moral compass, no objective other than self-aggrandizement, and whose actions have done nothing good for anyone except really rich people. Infighting only serves Trump and his supporters, not the rest of us. PERIOD.
Oh I'm so bummed Warren did this. Smells of desperation. I don't believe Sanders said anything in the way she described it. It couldn't be any clearer that she's lashing back at the Sanders camp for criticizing her about her campaign's "educated" supporters, which I believe they did. I agree she should snap back, but choose a criticism that's not impossible to verify or not so laughably untrue.
4
Looks like a Sanders-Warren ticket is the only way to go now. I, for one, think together they will be unbeatable.
I don't know whether a woman could win the Presidency in 2020.
Neither does Bernie.
But that shouldn't stop either of us from expressing an opinion on the matter, if that's what we want to do.
What should stop is the media getting all hot and bothered about questions nobody has answers to.
4
Bernie Sanders may have very well said, in a frank and private discussion with Sanders over a year ago, that he thought a woman couldn’t win.
When we realistically look at the misogyny thrown any woman in a national level campaign, whether or not a woman can win is a valid question. I’m certainly wondering if it’s possible in this backwards time machine we seem to have entered.
And just can’t help but notice here online that, when presented with conflicting accounts from the two candidates, the Bernie fans are very quick to declare that the “desperate” woman must be “lying.”
Their enthusiasm is only matched by some members of the press who seek to create great schisms out of very few sound bites.
4
The lashing remark issued by E.Warren and her team at Bernie's expenses doesn't hold water. Especially since Sanders came around admitting that Senator Clinton, back in 2016, had more than fair chances to win the presidency. And also, does she forget that Senator Sanders went out of his way, back in 2016, to rally up and endorse Senator Clinton even as he was in very good standing in the polls late in the race? Sounds more on E.Warren's part like a timely move to try to break away from a candidate who now, and on all accounts, is getting momentum, surges in the polls and perhaps is sets on a possible path to eventually clinch the Democratic nomination. Does Senator Warren see that in the store for her? Otherwise, one wishes to be spared of such petty zingers that tarnish a healthy discourse between gifted candidates while trying to put someone at odds with the notion of having women as president, which nowadays makes no sense. It's a belittling and meant to cast a long shadow on Sanders as to his views on women, and in this very case, there is little more than amplifying some wild assumption tainted with a sprinkle of hearsay rather than anything consistent to corroborate such a claim. To E.Warren's discredit, it's not a very classy act on her part and it would be better off sticking to politics instead of diverting the media's attention towards tabloid material.
3
The only path to a Progressive victory in 2020 is for the Progressive candidates to win big in Iowa and New Hampshire and then shut-out "Status Quo Joe" Biden and "Middle-of-the-Road" Mayor Pete on Super Tuesday. Bernie and Elizabeth should wait until they are the only candidates left standing to begin sniping at each other. But at that point, they would be better off combining their campaigns and running together as a team for President and Vice-President. Together they would be unstoppable.
18
Rick...great comment. Sanders should do one term and she should follow for one perhaps with Gabbard or AOC. Unstoppable. It would give the voters some predictability over the next 12 years as we transition from an Anglo defined society to a Latino society like Brazil.
1
@AS Thanks. Gabbard lost my support when she refused to vote for impeachment. But whatever shape it takes in 2020, the important thing is a progressive win that shuts down fascists like Trump and Bolsonaro. And 12 years from now - after she gets more experience - I could see AOC becoming President.
2
Well this is the end of the leftist dream. What actually was said does not matter any more. The point is that the supporters of each will be less than enthusiastic for the other should s/he lead on win the nomination. Which means neither is 'electable'. Why oh why do we we - the humanist compassion left - keep doing this to ourselves. Well, now we are really left with the centrist three; I will go with Amy. Goodbye leftist dream.
3
The assertion that Sanders is supposed to have said a woman can't win is nonsense. Everything I've read about the runup to the 2016 primaries was that Sanders encouraged Warren to challenge Hillary Clinton, and Sanders stepped in only after Warren didn't want to run. Why would he have encouraged Warren to challenge Clinton if he thought a woman couldn't win?
If Warren is responsible for this lie, she's lost any votes Sanders supporters would have given her if she wins the nomination.
22
If Sanders told Elizabeth Warren that a Woman could not win the Presidency, it was a mistake on his part, and he should own up to it. However, even assuming that Sanders said what the Warren campaign claimed that he said, it was wrong of Warren and her campaign to bring the comment to the public consciousness.
Whatever was said between Sanders and Warren was said with the tacit understanding that the conversation was to remain private. It might be OK for Warren to have discussed specific remarks to her staff, but it was not good for them to leak it to the media, apparentky for the sole purpose of embarrassing Sanders.
What everybody is lacking is the context of Sanders' comment. We don't know what Bernie Sanders' attitudes are ,regarding the prospects of a Women becoming President.
Certainly, in this country, at this time, there is some residual prejudice that exists, where a small but still significant portion of the electorate is reluctant to vote for a Woman.
Sanders ought also be aware that the odds are also stacked against the prospect of a Jewish candidate getting elected, given that there is a portion of the population which hates Jews.
Sanders is not the most elequent of speakers, and compared to many candidates he lacks the "filter" of self-Censorship. My surmise is that he said what is claimed, but that he was indulging in hyperbole to make a point--a point that he was trying to make via extemporaneous comments in a casual conversation.
10
Dear Bernie Sanders just gambled off his last bid of credibility of being a good president for todays' need. Myself as older male and a US-citizen, I say a woman would make a great US-President. Anything except the current warmongers and climate change deniers are welcome, but B.Sanders is still of the old guard who at end of day does not understand that true changes are needed.
3
This is the lowest moment of the Warren campaign, which I have loved until now. Whether it was her fault or her staff's, this is an appalling, desperate cheap shot. She will suffer from this the most, and unfortunately, Sanders will as well.
Only one of these two has a lifelong history of consistency.
29
Stop it! Sanders and Warren have put in years fighting for us. Trump’s campaign and the corporate wing of the Democrats are terrified of both of them.What better way to sully both of them,than to resort to gossip. Please let’s all unify. We need to get our country back for ALL of us, and that is what BOTH Sanders and Warren are campaigning on.
26
I agree. Everybody needs take a deep breath and let’s see if the two candidates can back their staff off long enough to focus on the objective at hand: someone needs to beat Trump! So let’s stop baiting them and move on.
Every democrat should be watching Thursday and noting when your state’s primary is. Let’s get out the vote.
4
Sounds like a desperate move by a campaign in second, gasping for straws.
17
I simply don’t believe this.
It seems like a desperate last ditch effort on the part of Ms. Warren to gain traction in the final weeks of Iowa.
Shame, shame, shame.
This smacks of desperation on the part of Warren.
And no, I’m not a Bernie supporter. I used to support Warren!
20
Why should he back away from this?
He's probably correct...for now, not forever.
4
She just lost my support. This is hearsay and when it comes down to honesty/integrity, I will believe Bernie over her in a heartbeat. She should be embarrassed that this came out.
24
@Matt Of course she did. But if it's hearsay, why are you paying any attention at all? Did you ever stop to question the placement and timing of this hearsay with a debate scheduled for tomorrow night?
1
Bernie, this is a chance to say - absolutely, a woman can win the presidency. Shameful he cannot bring himself to say this. Guess what, Bernie, whether we agree with Warren’s policies entirely or not, it is time for a real change in this country. We have had 45 male presidents; move over.
4
Read the article. He says exactly that, and reminds us that Clinton won.
4
I’m sure he will say that a woman can win the presidency at the debate tonight.
I agree with him; I do not think a woman can win the Presidency in 2020. Democrats need to stop the infighting and clear the way for the one candidate who can deliver the White House: Biden. Get over it people!
5
@Frank whilst I absolutely don't think either Warren or Sanders can beat Trump, the assertion that Mr Biden is the only one who can is a nonsense.
Warren's people leaked this, and months after it supposedly happened. I doubt they did it on their own; if they did, they just hurt their candidate and the progressive movement. And played into the hands of all who despise progressives.
And both sides, Warren and Sanders, will now play into this garbage. And play into the hands of all those who despise progressives.
It was a huge mistake to even bring this whole thing up -- for Warren. She's putting her trustworthiness up against Sanders', and I don't think that's going to go well for her, not because she's dishonest but because Sanders is known far and wide for having no compunction about saying what he thinks, and he's never been caught out in even much of the usual politician spinnery that isn't that big of a deal. But he rarely, if ever, goes there. I don't think Warren can say the same.
It looks very bad, this close to the first primaries, with her campaign slipping, to bring up something from more than a year ago. Very bad. And it's hard to believe it's true; Sanders' retort has the ring of truth because it is patently obvious. Hillary missed by a hair. One factor doesn't happen; she's president. Comey doesn't give that speech: she's president.
So who would even broach such a thing? It's just weaponized identity politics.
Thing is, Obama, to my recollection, never once drew attention to his being black. He knew people could, like, tell. Why bring it up? Yet many (not all) female candidates do, and it's a mistake.
12
Wow - he said, she said - and then he denied....
why, it's a soap opera normally reserved for our POTUS.
This quote got my attention:
"...“Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed,” she said. ..."
I am no lawyer, but nowhere does Bernie say that Warren can't win.
In 2018 - no one knew who or how many men or women would run - forget get nominated..
So, to put a spin on this generic comment - well, it's almost Trumpian.
Finally, I researched Iowa caucus results.
Since 1972 - only 3 relatively unknown candidates went on to capture Iowa and the White House - Carter, Clinton (Bill) and Obama.
So, in my opinion, Iowa is way over over exaggerated.
But these silly storms do make us political junkies sit up and take notice.
This is just a storm in a teacup.
What both should be worried is their forced absence from Iowa battlefield - because one Madame speaker refused to move Senate shamimpeachment trial along.
8
I really detest Bernie Sanders. This stuff he is doing -- distributing detailed instructions to his minions on how to backstab his competitors while he acts innocent and claims lack of knowledge -- is a direct repeat of 2016. We need to beat Donald Trump, not undercut each other and the party (which he does not belong to). This man undercut Hillary in 2016, and he is working to get Trump elected again in 2020.
5
TPH. I don't think Sanders, who you despise, is what made Hillary lose. It was the Russians and the Iranian general. It was revenge for Gaddafi's death. And one can hope Hillary can run again if the convention is deadlocked.
Warren uses the word “punditry” to describe the context of the discussion. And i think therein lies the truth...that Sanders did say ( as he said so himself ) that Trump will weaponize the gender of a woman successfully, and she disagreed...hence both are accurate... what stinks is that Warrens camp chose to use it so maliciously...she lost supporters there, many sanders supporters love him and shes a close second, but probably not for too many people anymore
12
I'm not sure why this is big news? It's a perfectly respectable opinion. Women DO have a harder time winning.
9
@Alyce if the quote is true, he didn't say they have a harder time winning, he said a woman can't beat Trump. That is two completely different things. One is clearly true and the other isn't.
For heaven's sake. Trump is destroying this country, and everyone is obsessed with what Sanders said or didn't say? He was actually right. A woman probably can't be elected president. Sad, but true.
3
@dba Mrs Clinton got 3 million more votes than Mr Trump. I would love to know how being a male candidate makes you more likely to win the electoral college.
1
@Melbourne Town
Unfortunately, she got more votes in the wrong states due to the electoral college. Trump can win again with even a greater margin of popular votes in the east and west coasts states. The Midwest states that we need for 270 electoral votes tend to be more conservative. Also, too many people didn't vote, especially African Americans in the urban centers of Midwestern states. If African Americans had voted in the same number as for Obama, Clinton would have won.
A woman has already won the presidency--Hillary won the popular vote--and were it not for the archaic Electoral College would be sitting in the Oval Office now. Not only does that prove a woman can win: it also means, of course, that the present occupant is a fake. But we knew that already, didn't we?
6
A woman has already won the popular vote for President.
8
Here we go again - this is how Trump won.
Seriously Democrats: there are way more critical issues to focus on than this circular firing squad stoked by certain media outlets. (See the bait for what it is.)
Seriously Democrats: "only fools fight in a burning house."
8
For argument’s sake, let’s say that Bernie did indeed say a woman could not win the presidency. My question is this: after seeing a woman that was eminently qualified for the presidency lose to an unhinged liar and sociopath that wasn’t (and still isn’t) the least bit qualified for his current position, do you disagree with him? I would love to think that he’s wrong, but I don’t think he is.
10
@Bobby McGee Mrs Clinton won 3 million more votes than Mr Trump. So your argument basically is that a man is more likely to win the electoral college than a woman. I would love to know how you could possibly reach that conclusion.
With the evil Republicans and what they did to Hilary stole to election i feel will happen again if a women is nominated. I voted for Hilary and was very disappointed how Trump illigitmatly got in .The GOP are all profoundly immoral people and as we see daily will lie and start wars . To save our Democracy how about letting the men go after the Presidency. Hilary commented she was shaken when she was on the stage with Trump just a few steps away and intimidated.
2
@D.j.j.k. I would absolutely love to know what quality males possess that make them more likely to win the electoral college than a woman. We know it's not winning more votes than their opponent - because Mrs Clinton already did that
Well, this guarantees that I’ll never vote for Elizabeth Warren. I believe that Sanders never said it. But this does nothing to help people decide who to vote for. A statement like that says nothing about a person’s beliefs or how they’ll govern. It’s just a dumb allegation that is irrelevant and can’t be proven. It’s an example of the nasty discourse in politics today. Warren is a former Republican who advocated for school choice. That is something everyone should know and consider.
19
Interesting that you have decided that Warren is lying here..Bernie himself brought this on, by LYING when pretending not to be aware of the anti-Warren smear phone campaign being carried on by his workers in Iowa, or did you miss that part of this story? Campaign workers have been making scripted calls, highly critical of Warren, and Mr. Sanders spun that every which way..First, it wasn't true, then it was perhaps being done by a few of his hundreds of workers who "made a mistake", and finally he blamed the whole thing on the "news." Who does that sound like, I wonder...During the last election, it was painfully clear to millions of women that Sanders did absolutely nothing to control the rampant, rabid misogyny coming from so many of his Bros. I'm one of many who saw this coming. We won't forget his behavior last time, and we're seeing a rerun. Bernie doesn't hesitate to go to the gutter and pretend that he doesn't know what's going on. This is all on him.
2
What matters is *why*someone asserts this.
If one sees too much mysogony plus a political party only too willing to stir up & exploit it - as is the case now - then it's a reasonable statement.
But it's likely to be just as true for a declared socialist, a gay mid-western mayor, etc.
The question is "What's your point?" If it's to dissuade her from running, that's pretty despicable. After all, HRC won the popular vote despite the Russians, the FBI, a lazy, significantly mysogenistic news media... oh, & the GOP.
The media hasn't changed. It's as full of macho, narcissistic men as ever. The Russians haven't changed, but we might be more on to them. The GOP has changed for the worse, of course. But the FBI may possibly have learned its lesson.
And maybe the dems can re-learn what they knew about getting Electoral College votes in 2008 & 2012.
You think?
3
Women are the ones voting against female candidates. Women are the ones capable of this sort of dirty games trying to win by claiming victimhood. Bernie is a man of integrity, intelligence and a true gentleman. What he is accused of is a cheap shot and is above him.
Sadly, our political campaigns are focused on petty, personal attacks on the candidates and not on their policies. If character is what voters are after, why is Trump in the White House?
12
Winnowing down candidates here in NH, and Warren just crossed herself off my list.
18
Do people think that Warren would make such a claim without a tape? How long before we hear Saint Bernie’s squirming sorry/not sorry?
3
@Steve
And if she releases a tape of what she herself described as a 'private conversation' which she also seemed to imply should stay 'private' (clearly it hasn't), what does that say about Ms. Warren ?
3
Regardless of who said what unfortunately Hilary Clinton ruined it for a woman to be elected president for some time.
11
That's a ridiculous statement. Maybe you were asleep during the last election, and missed the forces all built-in and paid for with only one intention..to smear her. It's bad enough, but predictable, when it came from the Republicans. What was inexcusable was the pure venom that came from Sanders' supporters. I can't wait for one of them to show up at my door, or give me a call.
1
@Dr. B by getting 3 million more Americans to vote for her than her opponent?!?
1
Oh really? Would that be the Hillary that passed the CHIP Program that has insured millions of disadvantaged kids for decades now? Or maybe it was the Hillary that got medical care for the 9/11 first responders through Congress. Are those and all her other major accomplishments what ruined it for other women?
This really seems like an act of desperation by Warren as she declines in the polls. Why didn't she say anything about when she entered the race or when she was running ahead of Sanders.
20
If this is or was Sanders' frank analysis of the situation, why would it even be a problem for him, and not for the U.S. electorate? I have several American friends (both male and female) who often state something to that nature, and they, just as I, do so with sadness and not with glee.
The sad facts of the American electorate and current president don't go away just by condemning those who point them out.
22
3 million Americans have voted for a woman over a man. But, the setup of American "democracy" was made by white men for white men and therefore, has carried that explicit, now more implicit, bias forward towards women/POC/LGBTQ/pick-your-less-privileged group. While this gender bias against Warren's electability while being highly qualified may be true, it speaks volumes that Sanders chose to use that as an excuse for arguing against electability rather than try to figure out with his colleague how can they team up against the patriarchy. Still not too late to do so. I was not in the room when Bernie (allegedly) discounted Warren's chances for her gender. But we all know how he treated Hillary, and will keep seeing his defensive knee-jerk "socialism makes all equal, so what is your problem" reaction.
Identity politics matters for the simple reason the experience of many cannot be represented by the experience of the few. Others we will keep having the white straight cis male perspective getting disproportionately represented, just like in the oscars, only over things of higher life-death priority. If men could get pregnant, we would have universal childcare and rights to abortion and contraceptives guaranteed by the constituion rather than guns.
3
Just when I was starting to be proud of the Democratic candidates for not bashing each other, I hear Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren going at it. This is how we reelect Trump.
I find it hard to believe that Warren would lie about something Sanders said in 2018, but I have felt all along that Bernie just wasn't all that interested in women's issues.
And I do remember that Bernie just couldn't really get behind Hillary Clinton in 2016. Both Bernie and his cohorts just couldn't believe that they had lost to Hillary. His supporters claimed the Democratic party was crooked. Bernie's support of Hillary Clinton was half hearted.
I believe that Bernie Sanders needs to have a heart to heart talk with himself about his beliefs in gender equity.
I admit that I am speaking primarily of "feeling" stuff rather than hard facts. But in the end, isn't that how we live our lives, mostly?
I just neither candidate would go negative on the other. And I also hate to see Democratic candidates fighting each other in any race.
6
Amen! You stated it perfectly.
Why would Warren lie about this? Because she’s trying to win the election. It didn’t work in 2016 against Trump and it probably won’t work against Bernie.
13
It was supposed to be a private conversation, so Warren betrays the confidential conversation because of her blind ambition to be president. Bernie of course likely said it. Neither of these candidates are particularly honest.
2
Even if Bernie did say that a woman couldn’t win, it’s telling that Warren waited until now (an extremely politically opportunistic time) to make this public.
Warren’s accusation is in stark contrast to everything else I’ve seen from Bernie, so it just seems like a desperate attempt to instill a discrimination narrative and rally progressive women to her side based on gender alone.
Lastly, could Warren’s statement be any more brief and/or bizarre? She doesn’t want to talk about it? Her campaign brought it up! An accusation of sexism is a big deal, you don’t get to just mention it casually and move on.
19
While I wish the Democrats would refrain from general backbiting since we NEED to coalesce around some candidate and win in November, I think it’s interesting to observe what is happening here:
- A remark disparaging female candidacy for president is made by a male candidate.
- Male candidate (from what I understand) admits that he did essentially say this.
- A number of people, judging from the comments here, then come away with a worse opinion of the female candidate who speaks out.
This is the same type of woman-blaming that occurs on a far more severe scale when we tell little girls that the boys bullying them in the schoolyard “just have a crush” or ask female victims of sexual assault what they were wearing at the time.
Stop— think— and break the pattern of internalized misogyny.
3
Over-zealous campaign staff leaking a conversation Bernie & Liz have kept quiet since Dec. 2018.
There’s nothing to see here! Let's move on to defeating Trump and saving our country.
5
Warren did the right thing. She told the truth in a way that wasn’t a full-on attack and emphasized that she and Bernie have far more in common than areas they disagree. Whether or not a woman can be elected President is a conversation that has been had in almost every corner of the liberal establishment. Misogyny and sexism are alive and well. And whether or not we elect a woman will not change that.
But.
As always, Bernie’s surrogates do his dirty work. What is Warren supposed to do when they are outright accusing her people of lying. She’s supposed to stand by and not tell the truth when she’s the only one who knows it? She should watch her people be eviscerated so she can avoid the sexist salvo that is always launched at women when they defend themselves? She has no obligation to play nice, but they might be the nicest attack I’ve ever seen.
Elizabeth Warren is a leader. I trust her to be truthful, straightforward and thoughtful. I trust she is truly a progressive partner to Bernie. I trust her to unite this country as our next president.
6
It wouldn't surprise me if he had said that a woman couldn't win the presidency. I know quite a few men who say they will never vote for a woman.
I think Bernie simply recognizes the misogynistic society in which we live.
8
I do not believe a single thing Elizabeth Warren is saying. This does not sound the way Bernie Sanders talks. If you've noticed in the last few weeks this is Elizabeth Warren's pattern she is grasping at straws and becoming so overwhelmed with her polling numbers falling that she's doing almost anything to try and breathe their back into her campaign. Shame on you Elizabeth Warren
9
hmm... I am not a bernie fan but this seems a bit far fetched. This is dirty politics a la Trump style. We dont need nor can we afford another Trump in office. We need a president who is willing to take a rep hit to do what needs to be done to stabilize the economy long term and avoid a major disaster from low interest rates. Warren needs to focus on things that actually matter and not be another Trump.
10
Sanders totally said that he didn’t think a woman could win against Trump. So what. Let’s move on. Should Warren lie? No. She said he said it and let’s move on.
6
@K. Martini No, she absolutely shouldn't keep lying. She should come out and acknowledge that Sanders said nothing of the sort and apologize for the transparent, inept attempt at a smear-by-proxy.
1
There are two major red flags with the CNN story which leads me to believe this is nothing more than a hatchet job. 1) All of the sources given are anonymous. It's very easy for somebody to concoct a false story and then use anonymous sources to back up those supposed claims. So we need to take the sources for granted because none of them decided to leave these claims tied with their names on the public record. The second red flag is that, while Sanders responded immediately and denied these claims, the Warren campaign declined to comment. Really? This has become a major news story surrounding the Warren and Sanders campaigns, but the Warren campaign declined to comment on this story when it first broke? That tells me that the Warren campaign has something to hide with this story. At the time of writing this comment, Warren herself has finally responded, and her response was very telling. She affirmed what the anonymous sources said, but at the same time continued to talk about how she and Sanders have similar goals and are friends. What? Talk about being passive-aggressive. If Warren and Sanders were really friends, she wouldn't be trying to take both sides of the story for the sake of political gain. I had previously applauded the Warren campaign for being positive and largely substantive, but this recent change to a negative strategy reeks of desperation from sinking polling numbers in the early states, or trying to topple Sanders and position herself to be Biden's VP.
16
This issue is going to take up at least 10 minutes of time on the debate stage that could be better spent talking about health care, transfer of wealth, foreign policy, student debt, and environmental concerns.
28
This seems to me an obvious “counterpunch” in response to Sanders’ phonebanking transcript that read something like “Warren is popular with elites and doesn’t bring anyone new into the political process.”
I’m afraid that this calculated “leak” from the Warren team only proves this to be the case. This complaint will only ruffle the feathers of the delicate, “woke,” petty bourgeois, hyper educated democratic elite and no one else.
I will also submit that it’s shortsighted—these kinds of manufactured identitarian squabbles masquerading as “scandal” will only cheapen and water down the progressive message. Warren, here, is entrenching herself (or allowing her team to entrench her) in conflict with a dead horse. It is hard to watch her plan so meticulously to beat it to no end.
Meanwhile, Senator Sanders continues to take the fight to Trump and the billionaire class of this country. God bless Elizabeth Warren, but her team needs to refocus their energy on getting out the vote.
12
It seems impossible to believe after the disaster of Corbynism in the UK - whose adherents offered the same insistence that he was uniquely reading the public mood as that proferred by Sanders and Warren supporters - that some Democrats are seriously considering voting for Sanders or Warren. It will end in the same disaster as Corbynism.
2
Bernie Sanders should have said to Elizabeth Warren that a woman could win the presidency just not her. She is not what the voters want or need. A woman could definitely win the presidency but it must be the right one. Also a man can win the presidency but he must be suited to the task. We want the best man or woman and the sex of the person should not matter. What counts is talent and dedication to the American people.
5
@KMW Senator Nina Turner could win.
Perhaps Bernie was of the honest opinion was that Americans would be hesitant to vote en masse for a female candidate and said so. That doesn’t make him a bad guy ( as if, for example, he had said a female does not have the capability to be president). In any case, I’m a Buttigieg or Klobuchar fan, so if these two progressives want to waste energy attacking each other, go for it!
6
Way to go NYT. Turn a candid factual assessment about Trump's campaign and an honest assessment of American culture given between two people who shared the same goal, into a wedge issue. Bernie did not say 'A woman shouldn't run." He said he thought there were structural impediments for a woman to win. And indeed, he was right. Hillary lost.
13
Right...she did....because of Bernie doing the Right’s dirty work for them.
@Bodyman That's ridiculous. Bernie is the right's worst nightmare. Bernie ran because corporate Dems like Hillary have sold their souls for money and power. I'm praying, it seems in vain, that the Dem establishment will finally embrace the candidate truly means to shake up the system in a way that benefits regular people.
1
I find it impossible that Bernie would say such a thing.
The fact that this untrue will not be reported until the damage is done.
At any rate, also,
this allegedly happened in 2018 and is being reported now?
Two years later?
Before a big debate and a primary?
“Coincidences take a lot of work.”, Malcolm Nance.
12
Having supported and voted for both Senator Warren and Senator Sanders, and regarding them as the best public officials in office today, I offer these comments.
1. An assessment of how a woman running against Trump would fare is not necessarily sexist. Indeed, such an opinion is based on a recognition of how odious Trump’s record with women is and how savage a campaign he would run against a woman opponent.
2. It is ludicrous to think that Sen. Sanders would say in 2018 that a woman “could not” (not to mention “should not”) win the Presidency since Sec. Clinton — for whom he campaigned in the general election as much as he was asked to do — actually won the popular vote in 2016.
3. When and where does the long public career of Sen. Sanders reveal a bias against women, particularly in politics?
What we are seeing is the news media turn to its usual habit of considering elections as horse races rather than serious discussions of issues. Before every primary debate the talk was of when Warren and Sanders would ‘take the gloves off” and attack each other regarding character.
We are also seeing the inevitable assault on Progressives by establishment, corporate Democratic stalwarts, like the NYT and the big donors and centrist operatives who yearn for Michael Bloomberg. Divide the Progressives is their goal. Progressives: Don’t fall for it.
16
“The best public officials in office?” So name a major Bernie accomplishment while he has been in Congress the last thirty years.
The he said, she said scenario will propel Trump into a second term. Do we really want that? Noooo!
5
@Marianne Pomeroy actually, if it is Warren v Sanders damaging each other then it is not difficult to make the case that that could be the best possible outcome for the Democrats.
Desperation from the Warren camp. Not at all appealing. Sanders has my vote.
16
Last on the list of things I want to see in 2020: for Warren and Sanders to tear each other down. The two are much better off as allies.
5
Well, I consulted a psychic who predicted that Meghan and Harry would bag out of the Windsor posse and create a company that would be publicly traded within 1.5 years. He (the psychic) said the whole thing never happened. He said all the motivational speculating herein would be better applied to whomever decided to print such a trivial story the night before a debate.
3
This tempest in a teapot is why I will not read or listen to any would-be candidate until we actually choose one.Then I will vote for the Dem, no matter who it is. I like Warren, but this country is, sans miracle, incapable of electing her. I agree with Bernie, incidentally - a woman can't win this. He says he said Clinton won - she did not. She may have won 3 million more voters, but they are not the ones who count. We are playing on a rigged field, and given that, I believe that only Biden can beat Trump, and that whom he chooses to share the ticket with may well influence that.
The is no Democratic candidate that can't be laid low by the various forms bigotry running rampant through the country.
5
Clinton won the popular vote and she was, like most who break through barriers, likely the most qualified candidate to ever run for the office of the President. It is a very sad truth that she lost the electoral college to definitely the least qualified candidate (intellectually, ethically, and in every other way) ever be nominated in very large part because of misogyny (along with racist, low-education, and evangelical sentiments). Sanders can deny that he said it but it I don't find it awful that he might have said it. I have had, and still have, serious concerns given 2016. Dare I mention that Clinton should have been nominated in 2008 and Obama should have been running in 2016? You can't convince me that misogyny didn't deny her the nomination back then. The problem is- can we afford the gamble that misogyny will not keep Trump in the White House? I will support any Democratic candidate and hope for the best.
4
Fundamentally, this is a volatile and contentious claim, and it's simply bad strategy for Democrats who plan to win the election to go down this sort of road. No doubt Old White Man Syndrome is a major player this election. As an undecided primary voter, I just don't think it's productive to pursue this right now on an intra-party basis, as it smacks of bickering.
4
Maybe you should talk to Bernie about it since he’s the one that went on attack first.
Just like he did to Hillary. Possibly see a pattern there?