Women would make a more credible presentation as being commander material if they didn't wear earrings and didn't use noticeable lipstick. Look at photos of Golda Meir.
1
@Errol
You have a number of comments on this article that seem to want people to react to your nasty assessment of women.
I’m starting to wonder if the comment threads on the NYT are as prone to trolls as on many Facebook feeds.
5
@AS
The comment above is not a "nasty assessment of women". It is not an assessment of women at all. It is an assessment of how I think most people, including a great many women, REACT to female candidates when national security issues are in their minds.
Why do you feel the need to accuse bias when you don't like or don't agree with what someone says? Perhaps it is you who is affected by a gender bias (in the opposite direction of that which you are so quick to accuse).
Just stop, NY Times. Please just stop. This non-story is a distraction from what really matters; the Trump administration is deeply corrupt and must go for the good of the nation. Any of the people on that stage last night would be a fine choice for president. Let's not lose focus by giving column inches to something so silly. Blue, no matter who in 2020.
4
This article & CNN's awful moderation of the "debate" make a loud case for our need for media reform. CNN's owned by a big corporation, and NYT is a corporation heavily influenced by billionaire shareholders (e.g., neoliberal Haim Saban) and advertisers posing conflicts of interest.
There are multiple problem spots in this article, NYT's neolib ideology coming through loud and clear:
-There's no acknowledgement of what most viewers agree was grossly unfair bias against Sanders in CNN's questions, let alone the lack of professionalism.
- There was no back-and-forth on whether a woman can be president; it was about Warren's allegation, which Sanders denied.
- Warren did not "confirm" CNN's "report"; her office leaked the allegation to begin with! Buzzfeed confirmed this. With so-called sources neither present at the time nor revealing identities. CNN's "report" was journalistic malpractice.
- Bernie proved Warren's claim re: "30 years" to be incorrect;
- It's untrue Sanders "has not said what his proposal would cost" -- he's said time and again that, all other industrialized countries, single payer will cut our health care costs in HALF;
- Warren got pushback from media / voters not about embracing M4A but backtracking on it; she's now for a public option, to transition to M4A 3 years later.
Surely, as a society, we can do better in ensuring an independent media that doesn't hamstring candidates and movements that dare to challenge the establishment & status quo!
1
He said, she said.
3
Elizabeth Warren who's been serving my state since 2012 has a lot of gall comparing herself as electable against a couple of men that have been serving this country for over 20 years.
Yes they have lost elections but in all likely hood if she doesn't get the nod for this presidential election she won't get reelected when her term comes up, so she will have something in common with them.
And yes, some day a woman will be president of this country, just not Liz.
3
Warren lies Bernie doesn't.Warren endorsed HRC in 2016,so much for her progressive credentials.My best friends daughter in law is a real Native American she had a few choice words about Elizabeth.
4
Can't say I'm *shocked* to see the massive amount of thinly veiled misogynistic attacks on Warren from all these Bernie supporters given their behavior in 2016, but you would think they'd at least have figured out how to hide it better this time.
3
Read my comments I’m the father of two amazing women and hope we will has sexual parity but Elizabeth and HRC are not the right kind of people,
4
Darn you, NYT. You are so disingenous here. And you know it. This is a manufactured bit of drama, not a real argument. I wish I could quit you. You've sunk to the "facebook" level of integrity in that regard: too big to quit, but consistently making me nauseous with your manipulative, self-serving, profoundly anti-democratic approach.
3
Huh? Please explain your references. Unclear!
There isn't a sexist bone in Sanders' body.
There's a photo of him speaking as Mayor at an LGBTQ fight for rights rally back in 1986. Let me repeat, 1986! This was, at the time, political suicide and hardly any major politician would touch this with a 10 foot pole. What was Warren doing? She was two years off voting for Ronald Reagan a second time!
Many disparage Sanders saying "He isn't even a Dem". Ok, what were the Dems position? Obama didn't "come around" to supporting LGTBQ till 2006, when the winds were already clearly shifting and it became politically expedient.
Hillary Clinton, who many erroneously claim was victim to "sexist" attacks from Sanders, didn't even support same sex marriage until 2013!
Sanders is a man of integrity and has stood for the oppressed and working poor of this nation. And when you stand with the oppressed, you get treated like the oppressed - from the corproate media to "woke" latte sipping patagonia democrats. This latest smear by Warren, who is tapping furiously into her empty woke/identity fuel reserves in an attempt to salvage her slipping campaign reveals her true nature. Simply a blind careerist.
As Shakespeare noted in Macbeth . . .
"I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself and falls on th' other."
3
I don't like Sanders and I don't want him to even be in the Senate much less be the nominee for president.
But this accusation against him is ridiculous and unfair. Even if he made the alleged statement, criticism of him for it is asinine.
It is not alleged that Bernie said a woman should not be president or was unfit to be. All that is alleged is that he said a woman could not get elected president. That is nothing more than a judgement of how he thought other people would actually vote. It is not in any way a statement of his judgement regarding fitness of women to be president.
Those who are making this accusation against Bernie are just deviously playing the gender card. Making this accusation is a demonstration of the accusers' gender bias, not Bernie's.
4
When feminists declare the US is still too sexist to elect a woman, that is a feminist statement.
When anyone else says the same thing, it is a sexist one.
9
I hope Sanders and Warren cancel each other out.
1
Warren made a big deal that her clever statement of "in the past 30 years" was true because Sanders' victory was 30 years ago.
Sanders answered her question about his victory as 1990 and then Warren said that was 30 years and so her statement was correct.
But if Sanders' victory was in 1990, then that would be November 1990. This is January 2020. Now is 29 years and 2 months since Sanders' victory.
Warren seems to have almost as much regard for the truth as Trump.
4
I think many were surprised at Elizabeth Warren's reaction, however, when one digs a little deeper, perhaps it wasn't so much of a surprise after all. It is rather coincidental to note that although Warren started her campaign strictly on a progressive note with strictly a progressive team, as time went on, it came to light that, for some reason, she started to take on some staffers/strategists out of the old Clinton/Obama teams in which, coincidentally, she almost immediately started to backtrack on her Medicare For All plans which ultimately started to hit her negatively in the polls while at the same time, Sanders continued to rise. It is also interesting to note, that some of these Clinton staffers also went to work for Beto O'Roarke whom despite being the early "media darling" had a campaign which crashed before it barely started.
Unfortunately, many of this group's "claim to fame" has been primarily identity politics and then blaming everyone else, except themselves for their failures, an attitude, for some of them, that is still playing out today 3 years after HC lost to Trump. (Cue, among others, Neera Tanden).
They contributed to prematurely eviscerating O'Roarke's campaign and maybe they are trying to do the same to Warrens?
4
First off, I haven't made a choice yet between candidates. Equally open to all, although Warren and Sanders come closest to my personal vision of how to move this country forward.
It did feel, however, that Warren was lining up her shots a bit too conveniently. Her initially triumphant ball-in-pocket came when she proclaimed that only she had defeated a Republican in the past 30 years.
Bernie's rejoinder left her dumbfounded and scrabbling for purchase. Someone on her team either missed Sanders' 1990 victory or was math-challenged. Regardless, this thoroughly undercut her triumph and came off smelling just a bit like a connivance.
Makes me sad, too. Up till that point, I thought she looked younger and more vital than most of the others onstage - aside from sweet and callow Mayor Pete. Warren lost me some respect last night.
3
Whenever the issue of national security is on voters' minds, women just do not seem appropriate for leadership. There are not many Golda Meirs around. Hillary Clinton came close to presenting herself as acceptable. Women seem especially unqualified to lead when they make feminist issues a major part of their political advocacy.
You may not like that it is that way. But it is that way.
1
@ Errol
Personally, when the issue of national security is on my mind, Donald Trump seems inappropriate, and dangerous, for leadership. It has nothing to do with his gender.
I have to ask why you would assume gender makes one person better than someone else at something that has to do with character and intellect?
@AS
You have just done to me what Warren and other feminists did to Sanders. I wrote of what I think most people reactions are to female candidates when national security issues are in their minds. I did not say that I reacted the same way. Nor did I say that I did not react the same way. But you assumed that I react the same.
How I react (and vote) is of absolutely no consequence to the election. How most people react and vote is what matters.
What reasonable person today could doubt that a woman could do the job of president. In fact I've begun to lean toward the expectation that the right woman could do a better job than the men who preceeded her.
But that doesn't mean there's no reason to fear that large block of the electorate who - out of ignorance or self-interest - just can't bring themselves to vote for a woman.
I can easily see such fears arising during the private discussion between Sanders and Warren. And I can understand Sanders might be embarassed that he voiced such a fear. Especially given how easy and profitable it is for rivals and a disingenuous reporter (or moderator) to exploit his worst possible motives. All in service to a good old-fashioned political brawl.
Good for ratings? Maybe. Bad for the country? Definitely.
2
Ugh. Warren shows herself to be a gotcha sort of politician. I’m not really a Bernie voter, but the leaking of whatever that was in 2018 is so totally Trumpian. It’s almost like Giuliani is advising Warren. These folks need to focus on the issues, and whether or not a woman can win is not really one of them.
2
I am so sick of these debates and the questions being asked by the moderators who are constantly trying to put together a scenario that suits their bosses at CNN. They are part of the problem with their resort to quibbling over who said what and why! They are there to entertain, not to provide what should be a real debate on the issues that are first and foremost on the minds of the voters. Debating is an excellent tool...if the debate procedure is followed to the letter. These are not anything resembling a real debate....MSM at work!
2
Don’t be so desperate Senator Warren! Whether Sanders said it or not in a private setting is no importance to American voters, because we don’t have the right context to judge the significance. Suppose indeed he said it, as a friend, giving his candid assessment of the country’s mood, do you have to turn it against him now? If you believe he is a sexist, why didn’t you say something then? If you don’t believe he is sexist, why mention it now? It feels like a cheap shot to me.
Growing up in communist Regime where political party made family and friends turn against each other is a painful memory. No one feel safe if private comments can be used as weapons to put people done. I sincerely hope we don’t lose our human decency and become a society of back stabbers.
That said, my favorite candidate is Mayor Bloomberg. I am more comfortable with his policies (climate and gun), trusting his character (giving for education and democratic cause) and liking his balance and pragmatism.
1
#WarrenRefund
Warren already has credibility issues, who is one going to believe? Warren or Sanders?
And the "30 year" argument. Really weird. Warren figured she could not be caught in another lie. So hammered "30 years" is "over 30 years", desperate.
2
For some time the underlying assumption has been that Warren and Bernie will support each other at the Democratic convention to secure one of them in the first round. Based on recent projections however, the number may not add up and someone must have come up with a better idea: how about Warren supporting Biden in the first round? This would ensure his nomination and create an exciting ticket that would energize gender focused voters as well as some of the progressive ones. This may be the underlying reason behind the malaise.
It's pointless to debate whether or not a woman who is nominated could win the office, because we've only had one test case. More information is needed.
2
Did not watch. I have had my favorite for some time but will vote for the eventual nominee. The Media all love the breathless horse-race aspect. Wish they spent more time on issues in news coverage.
People, Vote!
2
I think a large portion of voters don't perceive much difference between Sanders and Warren, their vote would be based on impressions of the progressive agenda in general. Progressives will have a huge demographic advantage in 2024, but 2020 is risky. Blow it and you cripple your longterm efforts, as the Nader impact in 2000 demoralized and set back progressives previously. Timing is everything.
2
Warren's campaign leaked this claim.
It wasn't anything she chose to talk about when she was polling well.
I'm extremely disappointed in her.
I believe she's lost a lot of credibility because of this.
17
If you work for a large, successful U.S. company and expect a Democrat to win the presidency you best start looking for a government job. All of the candidates blamed successful companies for all the ills faced by anyone. "If you like your company income and benefits you can keep them". Not!
The only question here is whether this story was meant to harm Sanders alone or both Sanders and Warren.
6
Who cares. Neither of them will be the Democratic candidate to run against Trump.
1
That is factually correct, Liz, but the last time Bernie lost was in 1988... when you were still a conservative.
8
This -- Warren vs. Sanders -- is a bogus story cooked up by unethical CNN reporters to supercharge their debate. By "cooked up," CNN reporter/moderator referred to Sander's comments "reported out," when all their reporting sources lead to Warren. Anderson Cooper, to his credit, pointed out that it was simply a he-said, she-said and nothing more. And "she," when put on the spot, wouldn't say much about it.
5
@Tim Clark
So reporters reporting something about which they were told is cooking up a story? I wish Warren had simply not leaked this (you can claim she didn’t leak it, but she has not fired anyone, and has used it to advantage - that leads me to believe it is an approved campaign tactic). But to blame CNN or anyone else for reporting on it is just more of the same media bashing. I think CNN got it right.
Gov. Nikki Haley will be the 1st woman president. You can count on it. The Democrats have nothing to offer but empty promises.
When THAT question came up, each party should have said;
"There's already been enough time wasted on the subject, please move on."
3
It's unfortunate that, to boost viewership, CNN pimped this "debate" by acting as though a fist fight, if not a duel, would break out.
But, I suppose we may as well get used to it.
1
Warren is a coward claiming fake Indian heritage to advance her career now claiming fake sexism to advance her failing campaign. Warren does not have a grass roots movement behind her and will fail should she go against Trump.
Somehow we are supposed to believe a candidate who was a republican until she was 47, who continually votes to increase military spending, reauthorized the Patriot Act, and provides misleading responses on everything from her support for Medicare for All to whether she'll stop the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is really going to bring out voters new and old to defeat Trump.
Warren is a politically toothless opportunist and smear merchant backed by a professional class that refuses to self-reflect on the corporate takeover of the democratic party and its decades long failures to make a material difference in the daily lives of working-class voters establishing the opportunity for victory by charlatans like Trump.
10
@Nick F.
What genetic markers (look it up, and not on Breitbart) do you have? And are they fake?
1
Not sure whether Bernie said that. But, the notion is important: gender and elections. The data suggests more men get elected. Whether or not Bernie said it, or believes it - America surely votes in ways to suggest that women are less electable. If Trump can beat Hillary in a national election, and people who did not vote for Hillary speak without articulating a clear reason for not voting for her in ways that are anchored to facts, then without a shadow of doubt - gender makes a difference in voting outcomes.
1
There were plenty of coherent reasons to dislike Clinton that have nothing to do with sexism. Off the top of my head: her strong ties to Wall Street, her attitude that it was “her turn” to be President, calling Trump voters deplorable, and her incredibly mismanaged campaign. She even admitted to her advisors that she had no idea what was happening in this country. The only thing Hillary Clinton seemed to stand for was Hillary Clinton.
3
CNN seems to enjoy sabotaging the Democratic debates. This does not look good.
The Warren/Sanders rift is unfortunate. I like both these people but it is of utmost importance that hostilities over something that was allegedly said or not said some time ago needs to be brushed under the rug.
American citizens who care about where our country is headed need to go to the ballot box this November 3rd and vote Trump out of office. Sanders, Klobuchar and Warren are all strong candidates but in this perilous time I'll take any of the people that were on that debate stage Tuesday night.
2
I respect both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and it is clear to me that they respect one another.
It is also clear that the mainstream media and the DNC would like us to fight about this, which is a waste of time and energy and focus (which serves their purpose, not ours).
This is all white noise, manufactured media buzz, reality TV-like drama.
The mainstream media helped usher in Donald Trump's presidency with its billions of dollars' worth of free coverage to his campaign and it will manipulate us again if we let them distract us with this.
Climate change, income inequality, healthcare, jobs, affordable education and housing, corruption, authoritarianism vs.
democracy, saving Social Security and Medicare from the likes of Paul Ryan (who has just joined a think tank dedicated to demolishing them) - these are the things that matter. These are the things that transcend identity politics. These are the things that will make us or break us as a nation. These are the things that concern me as a voter.
Gossip disguised as a debate topic - especially melodrama that pits women and men against one another - does not.
3
@Pamela
I suspect that they are friends, and that they are likable. But I am reminded of the revulsion many of us felt when Clayton Williams refused to shake Ann Richards’ hand. I saw the same petty nonsense in Warren’s post debate behavior. It could take her right off my short list.
1
Once again, one comes away from having watched the Democrat candidate debate with one overriding feeling: any one of these people would be vastly superior to the incumbent.
All of the Democrat candidates passionately wish to improve the lives of Americans and better the world. Trump, on the other hand...
2
Good grief he said it! Why would any man want to run against Elizabeth Warren?
Context people!
Liz invites Bernie to her DC apartment for dinner in Dec 2018.
She tells him she’s running.
He tries to argue against it and refers to timing. He does not want her to run.
Bernie is not anti woman anything. But Bernie does not want Liz in the race...I don’t believe a woman can be elected president in 2020. (Not ever, just 2020)
Of course he said it, I wouldn’t shake hands with somebody like that either.
3
@D
But you would shake hands with somebody like that for a whole year until someone from your campaign anonymously leaks details of a private conversation to the press, then suddenly you would get a conscience about who you can shake hands with?
Doesn't sound right...
2
@D This makes sense. There was a reason Sanders decided, after a life spent in politics, to suddenly decide to run in 2016. He thought he could beat Clinton. Well, he didn't and it's pure fantasy to think he'd have been able to beat Trump. But Clinton losing to Trump was the best thing to happen to Sanders because it allowed him to run again now. Except now he's battling for votes from Warren. Not Biden, Klobachar or Buttigieg--Warren. Voters for other candidates aren't going to vote for Bernie, but they might for Warren. And he most certainly knew Warren would be problematic. He may mot be a sexist, but he certainly is calculating and not the man of principles his supporters claim him to be.
1
I adore Elizabeth Warren, and it's incredibly telling that many of these commenters are blaming her for a moderate, sensible answer to a question that the media has contrived. Media reports a story, asks her about it, and her saying "Bernie is my friend" and "I disagreed" are her starting against Bernie? That is absolutely insane. I am voting for Warren despite the media and Bernie bros' attempt to shame her.
5
The idea that not having lost an election makes you electable is hogwash. Reagan lost the nomination to Ford before winning, and Bush likewise lost to Reagan. Clinton famously lost his office in Arkansas before regaining it. George W Bush lost a House race, as did Barack Obama. Before those, Carter lost a gubernatorial election in 1966, Nixon lost his run against Kennedy, and so on. A perfect electoral record simply means that you are due to lose at some point.
8
Other people leaked the story. I supported Bernie in last campaign and do not believe him to be a sexist (noun), but he would be one of thousands of people who expressed a sentiment of it being "safer" or "better" or impossible to beat Trump without putting a white male against Trump, removing all the sexist/racist ammo he can use.
I have heard this from life long Democrats and some Independents, and if you hear it while not being white and male, you are hearing-- once again-- that a woman, or a person of color, can not beat Trump-- aka be President.
Bernie's explanation was the exact context that I describe above.
Both of them KNEW this question was coming. It's all the press talked about. Both campaigns prepared answers.
Warren'a campaign spiked it back brilliantly, promoting her record and effectively killing the dispute in the same effort, yet all I see here is conspiracy theories of HER setting this all up, and people losing respect for her. THIS would not be the response Bernie received if he killed the entire subject in a tough, smart, self promoting and brilliant way. I saw someone who came prepared with a perfect response and did not flinch.
Warren clearly went over there to say something, not shake hands, maybe to clarify the 30 year comment, no one is saying. They disagreed and Sanders ended it. Take your frustrations out on the leaks or the media, not a properly prepped candidate.
3
There's just absolutely no way that Bernie said he doesn't think a woman could be elected. He's literally on tape saying the exact opposite and all his behavior and his entire platform contradicts the accusation. It would have been about as in-character as Trump reciting poetry. I can't believe that Warren and team thought this attack was a good idea - any reasonable person would know immediately that it's nonsense.
6
Sanders' supporters are loyal to a fault. The number of comments here defending him is depressing. Remember when he took the position that abortion was a "social" issue and we had to school him on how it was an economic one too -- so he'd listen? Remember how he had to be prodded to distance himsf from misogynist "Bernie bros"? Loyalty clouds the memory. And he's lying.
1
@GKC Remember when Bernie cofounded the Congressional Progressive Caucus, in 1991... when Warren was a Republican? Bernie has also never claimed to be a Native American, so.... who do we think is lying?
1
@GKC Yes Sanders is such a sexist he was the one that urged Warren to run in 2016 and only mounted his campaign after she refused to do so building the current grass roots movement Warren wishes she had. He fully endorsed Hillary stumping for her close to 30times (more than Clinton's own Vice presidential pick ) - despite the constant smears of sexism he endured both during and after primary as well as suffering DNC/DWS interference/bias. And finally, Sanders is such a sexist that even last night he pledged to stump for and promote any candidate that wins the nomination in an effort to defeat Trump.
If this 'Bernie is a sexist' trope were flogged any harder by its specious proponents it could qualify as elder abuse.
1
Seems to be on ongoing campaign to paint Bernie as as misogynist. Cheap shot. Same thing with the diversity issue. What we need is “Any Functioning Adult in 2020”.
3
Those who wish to see Trump defeated in November simply MUST resist the media's self-serving penchant for exacerbating disputes (legitimate or not) among Democratic presidential candidates. For the media, it's about money via "clicks." For our opponents (including Putin), it is about "divide and conquer."
We are smarter than this. We've been fooled many times. Can we just stop this nonsense?!?! Please?!?!?
2
Warren has had my utmost respect until last night when she turned into a backstabbing liar against her loyal friend after falling behind Bernie and then was praised for it by the mainstream media. The media still treats the race as a fun (for them) game, apparently blind to the fact that the fate of the nation and the planet are at stake. How shameful for them to hype up a leaked story about literally nothing rather than focusing on the implosion of our planet. Why was Warren bringing this alleged comment up over a year later? Why is the comment worth discussing even? And why is it considered misogynist? She isn't alleging that he said a woman couldn't handle the job !! Rather that the country is still too misogynist. It all makes absolutely no sense but Warren emerges with her stellar reputation deeply tarnished.
8
@mary bardmess I completely agree & think that no for-profit entities should run these or ANY political debates. Beside CSPAN, there are universities that can run debates.
The fact that Sen.Warren refused to shake Bernie`s hand in public, on a stage, right after a debate, shows that she has some trouble controlling her emotions. She has a very good pedigree and I would normally expect her to act as a professional on stage whether or not she is in disagreement with Bernie. The world right now needs an American president who knows how to keep his cool and act responsible especially when it comes to foreign policy, the middle east, Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. If Sen. Warren gets upset and angry at Bernie like that, it sends the wrong message since the job of the president comes with daily high pressure and stress and on top of that the coolness needed to deal with foreign policy in order to take the right decisions. The reaction of Sen. Warren worries me. Joe Biden is very calm, so is Bernie. They have their emotions in check.
Since it is now high school days for Democrats, the comparison to the Lilliputians of “Gullivers Travels” is astounding in its comparison; Trump is this Gulliver...
Absolutely no one was debating last night "the fraught subject of whether a woman could elected president." Both Warren and Sanders said exactly the same thing: OF COURSE she can. As Sanders pointed out, Hillary Clinton already WON a popular election. It's not even a matter of conjecture anymore. Shame on NYT for publishing an intentionally misleading headline and inaccurate reporting meant to stir the pot of a manufactured controversy. This is what one expects from a cable news network desperate for viewers, not the New York Times.
Words matter. Facts matter. The truth matters.
Do better.
2
CNN did a terrible job last night... they showed their bias at EVERY turn. I would really like to know who's payroll Abby Phillip is on the way she was outright attacking Bernie last night. Poor showing... and a turn off to voters... this is how you get Trump 2020.
6
At times, and this is one of them, it shocks me to read commentary such as here on NYT, and on social media in this run up to the 2020 election.
It's as if people expect to 'like' everything about a candidate and if one thing is 'off', they dump the candidate and swear off them forever. No integrity! Liar! Shrill! No dignity! Desperate!
Please, remember who you are ultimately up against. And pick the candidate who's policy preferences closely match your own.
The rest of the world is watching and depending on you to rid us all of DJT and his swampy cast of sycophants.
5
I don't know how stupid these candidates can be. Why aren't they discussing how Trump is savaging the lower and middle classes. Why are they talking about the evidence, the proof that increasing minimum wage does not lead to job reductions. Another Republican orthodoxy proven to be completely false.
2
Ah yes, regrettably if inevitably the affair ends with a thud. The non-aggression pact torn up, the welcome mat hauled inside, furtive glances across a crowded Democratic field replaced by sullen glares.
The war of the roses is on, writs waiting in the wings, the only thing left to decide - ownership of the coveted votes two modernists managed to amass between them over the past year. Each of them sees it, plainly now, as winner takes all.
It is the risk that invariably dogs friends with benefits - there can be no return to simpler, more innocent times of being just friends. Hell hath no fury and all that rot. Their pillow talk - once sworn to secrecy - now used as a cudgel by the one to bludgeon the other. Reduced to a heated 'he said, she said' battle for the hearts and minds of cautious caucus goers and wary Iowans, the unseemly squabble gives succour to the moderates among them and the creature across the deep lagoon.
His white mop especially unruly from repeated head scratching, he can't fathom what brought on this fit of pique. Was it something he said over the coq au vin in her posh Penn Quarter condo that wintry evening more than a year ago? A misplaced turn of phrase? Perhaps an unwise allusion to the 2016 debacle in which a credentialed woman with yeoman experience in the trenches was mauled by a hairless, crude, dimwitted Russian bear?
Health care for the masses, it seems, comes at a too high a price - an ego that can not, will not be subdued or denied.
1
It's a bit surreal observing all this from Canada. Warrens and Sanders would be labelled moderates here, center candidates with balanced platforms. To read descriptives like extremist, dreamer etc has the rest of democracies shaking their heads in dismay. That's how most other developed nations are governed; people before profits. Just plain old common sense.
Good luck USA! Any functioning adult 2020
11
Maybe it is me, but I did not see anyone who rose to the level of rational, pragmatic world leader during this debate.
Much of it was like a job interview filled with vague promises of :
a) billions to be spent on this and that without considering that Congress and courts have a say (unless the candidates want to do away with the balance of power that they accuse Trump of doing.)
b) outrage over the deficit
Can someone help me understand how huge spending will reduce the deficit?
2
I’m disturbed that Biden can’t speak in complete and clear sentences. I don’t appreciate Pete’s bringing religion into this. Bernie is 100% spot on that income and wealth disparity is America’s most serious problem. We can’t address climate change or anything else as long as the 1% have all the money. I don’t understand why Klobuchar, who appears to be a genuine working man’s Roosevelt Democrat, has no support. The good news is that Bloomberg will spend 1 billion in swing states to support the candidate, even if it isn’t him. Maybe it should be him.
6
@Doug Lowenthal, yes, we can all address climate change, right now, without assistance from the 1%. To say otherwise is to deny that we can all cut back on overuse of utilities, that we can all stop purchasing totally unnecessary items, that we can all downsize and live in smaller homes and reduce our carbon footprints.
If even 100 million people would do those things, it would have a net positive impact, almost immediately. Waiting around for the 1% to change things and fix the problem is a cop out.
For what I feel is simply my intuition, Joe Biden is staying civil, controlled and doing a job of working to become president.
when he feels insulted or attacked, however, he can bring his temper to bear on the attacker. We've seen this at a rally before. At first I thought he wouldn't be strong and fast enough to debate Trump but now I believe when shoved, he can and will defend himself (and his son).
Trump shadowed Hillary Clinton all over the stage when they were campaigning and, for her own reasons, she either didn't notice or ignored it. No one should make the mistake of allowing the "aggressor in charge" to win any debate by being intimidated.
The unconscious rebuffing of Mr Sanders' extension of his hand to Ms Warren after the debate was iconic and will be remembered by the electorate. Bad move by Ms Warren, never mind her bringing up the unsubstantiated claim of Mr Sanders' opinion that a woman cannot be elected to be President.
15
I've been closely watching the situation between Bernie and Elizabeth since they are both favorites of mine. I saw clearly that Elizabeth was the aggressor who accused Bernie of saying that a woman couldn't win the presidency. Bernie said he didn't say that. That is the conflict. Who told the truth cannot be known since the two were alone in the room. But Bernie has no history of ever believing such a thing and plenty of believing the opposite. See the evidence. This leads me to believe that Elizabeth either mis-remembers, misunderstood or is lying. In any case the conflict is not about whether a woman can win, but about whether Bernie said that or not. After Bernie denied the accusation, the moderator asked Elizabeth the same question the second time as if Bernie had not spoken at all and as if Elizabeth was telling the truth. That enabled Elizabeth to evade the question about falsely accusing Bernie and change the subject to whether or not a woman could win. Your article makes the same mistake.
Bernie was upset but only because he had been falsely accused by Elizabeth. Your article misses this point too.
11
Bernie’s campaign started this when they gave talking points to their organizers basically saying EW’s supporters are only white elites. Then the woman-can’t-win comment “came out”. The thing is, I can imagine Bernie, or really anyone, thinking and saying that in a private conversation. I don’t like that either of them leaked an internal campaign deliberation. I think she handled the question superbly, and although I don’t like to see them feuding, only one of them can become president.
I’m a long-time Bernie supporter, and he definitely got a raw deal in 2016. I have been to see both of them recently in NH. I am beginning to feel that she has the better chance to beat Trump and unite the party and even maybe the country. She just connects to her audience better than our Bernie, even though they are both passionate champions of the people. And then there’s the Socialism thing, which will be hard to refute when one calls themself a Democratic Socialist.
It really is time for a woman President.
@Sherry Blair Further Warren has a history of deceitful opportunism e.g. her 'Native American ancestry.'
1
It looks like we've finally put the put the ghost of Viet Nam behind us once and for all. Unfortunately, the ghost of the Iraq war has arisen to take over the unsavory task of the unpopular war that's now dogging some of the current presidential candidates. Will Joe Biden follow Hillary Clinton into defeat because of his vote to support the Iraq war?
The most important issue is 'beating Trump', not gender or any other issue that was discussed.
Why does 'political correctness' trump winning?
For this reason alone, we will be stuck with Donald for another four years and the Democrats will not figure out why they are always the bridesmaid (cue no lessons learned from 2016).
2
As a former CFPB employee, I had been a strong supporter of Warren from before this campaign. I’m disappointed that her campaign leaked this to the media this week and her lack of direct response last night. I asked her campaign to stop sending me text updates as a result.
People who work in consumer protection are familiar with the term UDAAP- unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice. If a financial institution behaved this way with a consumer, it would be cited for committing a deceptive act. If you’re going to present yourself as fighting against corruption, that better include acting in the most honest and transparent manner. Voters don’t like dirty tricks, and they have even less tolerance for that with candidates who claim to be for truth, transparency, and anti-corruption.
7
I am seeing a lot of supposed Warren supporters here claiming they no longer support her and instead are going with Sanders. While I find all this faux outrage a little hard to swallow, I do wonder: when neither Sanders nor Warren get the nomination because the progs have fractured their unity, who will those voters be supporting then? Blue no matter who? I certainly hope so, but I’m not holding my breath.
1
Just how … you need to be to give Warren any pluses for her gross behavior and difficult relation with truth and friendship. She's gone my friends, for all intents and purposes, and it comes down to two ~ 80 years old, well done Dems, what else to say.
Team Warren!
I find it incredible that women have been elected President of countries around the world, but only the US (the leader of the free world?) is still arguing whether a female can be President.
After Trump's disastrous Presidency, maybe we should be arguing whether a man can lead our country?
3
America has become the battle of the cults. On the right you have the Trump cult and the identity politics cult on the left. It’s all about me me me! They are taking the us out of the US. I’m not impressed with any of the candidates. America is still a cowboy country in personal relations, foreign policy, trade thru imposition of force and might dollar. It’s going to take testosterone to beat the bratty Trump. Testosterone comes with not just being male; but money; it’s what we value more than anything else. Hence my first choice would be Bloomberg, then Steyer; they have both built something. Others just spew words and unfounded suggestions like Medicare for all.
I thought Warren’s accusation - and the media pile-on, especially CNN for putting the question in a way designed to elicit conflict instead of understanding - was a cheap shot.
I will still support Liz in the general if she makes it of course, but this for the first time made me seriously question something she’s running on: her judgement.
7
@unreceivedogma Warren is inept as a politician. She was easily baited by Trump into testing her DNA for her Native American claims after the damage was done. She failed to stand up for protesters at Standing Rock, something that would have cost her zero political capital (Mass. isn't an oil state as far as I recall) and could have smoothed over her ancestry claim blunder. She equivocates on her support for Medicare for All (leaving it out of her campaign speeches), takes compromised positions on student debt (before the fight for relief has even started).
Now, by doubling down on the claim that Sanders told her 'a woman couldn't win' (blatantly in contradiction with Sanders' words and actions over the course of his career including his urging Warren to run in 2016) Warren is effectively torching her credibility with progressives and the left - looking very much like the opportunist that made false claims about her heritage in order to advance her career or now her campaign, as the case may be.
1
"Mr. Buttigieg was asked directly about his lack of support among black voters, whom he will need to activate not just to win the nomination but also a potential general election against Mr. Trump. Mr. Buttigieg said those who know him best — in South Bend — support him, cited his African-American backers in Iowa and noted that his new campaign co-chairman was a member of the Congressional Black Caucus."
Pete's answer was essentially "but I have black friends" and somehow he gets a pass.
Of course people that know you are the people that support you. Still doesn't explain why, after a full year of a national campaign exposure, his support is only at 2% among black voters. That's the point: other people outside of South Bend know him now and they overwhelmingly do not support support him. That should be disqualifying by itself, considering this is the Democratic party and black voters are the bedrock of it. Apparently the rules have changed to make white mid-westerners appear more viable than they really are...
6
@Eric W
Well, Eric, he certainly can't tell the truth: that a significant portion of the black population thinks homosexuality is an abomination.
2
@Eric W
Corey Booker and Kamala Harris had similar support from African Americans voters. How to explain that?
4
I will 'vote blue no matter who', but Sanders' dishonesty is troubling. His inability to be truthful about making a mistake is telling.
And, worse, his supporters want to believe Warren is the liar. Come on, why would she make that up?
14
@JE
She would make it up because she will do anything to win. He is rising in polls and she is falling so her motivation seems pretty easy to see. She was my second choice after Bernie. No more. This is such a stupid move on her part.
13
@JE
One hypothesis: Because she would stand to gain from it? Even if she didn't make it up, an intentionally unfavorable distortion of Bernie's true comments would have the same effect.
A question for you: Why would Warren wait until this week to have an anonymous staffer from her campaign reveal purported comments from a conversation a year ago?
7
@JE Because she is behind in polls. She wants to smear Bernie. May be a VP post in Biden's ticket.
3
Elizabeth Warren's "Well since you brought up this topic, we need to address it" comment was the moment I lost a bit of respect for her.
It is widely reported that it was an anonymous source who leaked this "information" to the press this week in the lead-up to the debate.
Any reading of this situation reflects poorly on Warren. Kudos to Sanders for keeping his calm while the debate moderators perpetuated this myth.
39
@Jeff
correction - "an anonymous source in the Warren campaign"
18
@Jeff
If it reflects badly on anyone, it's on CNN which, apparently looking to gin up attention for the debate, leveraged an anonymous source to run a story about a largely irrelevant year-old exchange. The debate moderators then compounded the malpractice with their own shallow, poorly formed questions. What a mess. But not Warren or Sanders' fault. Just media game playing of the worst sort. Honest progressives should quit condemning Warren for the leak without offering hard evidence that she or her campaign were involved. And it wouldn't hurt to quit trying to paint Sanders as a secular saint. He's as political as anybody running.
I would be pleased if either Bernie or Elizabeth got the nomination.
I am really annoyed at the way - Warren herself, apparently - and the media sprang this ‘gotcha’ question on Bernie. It came across as a cheap, calculated smear and has ZERO credibility: everyone knows by now that Bernie absolutely is not a chauvinist.
If there is any shred of truth to the remark, I could see Bernie acknowledging that in the era of Trumpism, where chauvinism is on blatant display as something to wield in pride or defiance, women would face a particular challenge.
BOTH candidates would have better served their supporters if they acknowledged this plain fact and doubled down on fighting it together. Warren making this claim, of all things, as a way to put some light between herself and Bernie was a poor choice. Bernie, by flatly denying he made the claim, when intelligent people could understand why this would be a reasonable topic, gave Elizabeth no room to backpedal, also a poor choice.
I’m sorry for both of them, but - pressed to make a choice on the matter - my common sense puts me on Bernie’s side.
A woman won the popular vote in 2016. There are still two women standing in 2020. One is a front runner. PLEASE. Let’s stop with the identity politics and move on to the pressing issues: the climate crisis, income and wealth inequality, health care, and the despair among the working classes.
16
@Maggie The smear against Sanders you're describing simply states what has been reported on for months in poll after poll - Warren's base of strongest supporters skew white, professional, and wealthy while Sanders' strongest supporters are multi-ethnic, and working class. One is a coalition that can win while the other is a niche (there are more working class people of color than there are wealthy white elite professionals).
If Sanders is such a sexist why did he urge Warren to run in 2016 and only mount his campaign after she refused to join the race? If Sanders is such a sexist why did he stump for Clinton some 30x (more than her vice presidential nominee) despite the DNC/DWS interference/bias and constant sexist smears he endured? Why did he pledge last night to help any candidate that wins the nomination if sexism is at play?
Warren on the other hand has a history of deceitful opportunist claims first with her 'Native American Ancestry' and now with ungrounded sexism claims right before the first primary.
1
As others have pointed out, in the 2016 election Trump LOST by around 3 million votes. It was only the geographical distribution of those votes, and the way that interacted with the Electoral College, that gave Trump the presidency. And Clinton was a particularly weak candidate. She was a poor campaigner, was ineffective in countering Trump's lies and bombast, was seen as part of the establishment when a lot of voters were looking for something different, and in the time of MeToo her association with Bill (which included her helping cover for him) was not helpful. She also had her email scandal, which was both overblown and genuine, and was an entirely self-inflicted problem. Warren may have policy issues, but she won't bring Hillary's baggage.
7
I've a passionately feminist colleague who often says things like "the US just doesn't seem to be ready to elect a female president". I've always understood that she means this in a descriptive, not in a prescriptive way. That's, of course, her criticism of sexism and misogyny, not something that she stands for.
But I can see how bad this could sound if (deliberately?) taken out of context.
13
Some reasons why a qualified woman (or man) cannot get elected are 1. misogyny of male voters 2. internalized misogyny of female voters and 3. the corporate media's focus on inane questions such as who might have spoken about misogyny to whom rather than focusing on important issues (climate change, rising economic inequality, mass incarceration, corruption in politics, women's rights to medical care, etc.).
11
@KS Don't forget they stink as a candidate (no gender preference required)
These articles bother me - having the NYT media critic write about the theater of the debates makes me cringe.
I came away having watched people who put country over party, who are decent people wanting the best for their fellow citizens, glad to hear that they will all back the candidate no matter who it turns out to be. That, while they all want to be pres, they know that's not possible, that the goal is to beat the r's.
For a couple of hours, I felt a jarring sense of hope.
I wish the media could feel how desperate the country is to feel outrage against the republicans, not within the the democrats.
12
The debates need to change. They are good for snippets to put on Twitter but cheapen the real depth and seriousness we need to explore life and death issues like climate change, a criminal in the White House, war, health coverage, a rise in racism, misogyny and getting money out of politics.
Most of the issues candidates focused on would never pass in Congress, so then what?
Debates should not foster division and “cat and dog” fights either, but broaden our knowledge of issues. And we definitely need to change the glaring fact that Iowa is a state that lacks the diversity of the Democratic Party and we should not make it the first stop on the way to electing a candidate.
5
I am a biracial feminist who supports Bernie. And what Warren did this week is peak white feminism: weaponize gender when it suits them, disengage when the accused is present, and call for peace and unity once the damage is done. While the victims of white feminism are usually people of color like me, the tactics are no different when employed against a white man.
While I vote for her if she is the nominee? Absolutely. But I will never forget this betrayal to the progressive movement.
15
@L. Solís
Wow, I am guessing you are someone who tries to be a good person so I don't understand how you cannot see how divisive and ugly your comment sounds.
1
@L. Solís Say it.
1
@L. Solís please, biracial and you focus on 'white' -- go keep with your Bernie pack, cling to his promises of whatever you're hoping to get. Too many of you Bernie diehards are out here dumping on Warren when you weren't supporting her in the first place. You'll play out 2016 in 2020, same old same old.
1
My losers from the debate: The moderators. How many times have we heard the same questions before? This debate could have been much better if the moderators had asked the contenders to compare/contrast their records and proposals to those of the president.
Voters want to know how each of the Democrats would compete against Trump, on stage and on the stump. Moderators failed to deliver.
5
Warren tried for a cheap moment and failed.
13
This is gas lighting folks. Someone wants us to be talking about this INSTEAD of talking about the FACT that Trump and the GOP want to cut social security and medicare. BOTH!! Yet here we are talking about Bernie vs. Elizabeth.
Trump will tell his base how much he loves them while stabbing them in the back right in front of them and they will still wear their MAGA hats. UNBELIEVABLE!
11
@Patricia Warren's staffers shouldn't have injected this into the news cycle then. We know by now they did, this wasn't some insignificant breadcrumb the media cooked up to exaggerate, this was fed to them by the Warren campaign *the day before the debate*
3
I just unsubscribed from her email list and gave the reason as her disingenuous and opportunistic attack on Bernie. I suggest everyone unhappy with her tactics do the same.
17
@theresa
Unfortunately, I have done the same. The direction her campaign is taking is disappointing.
4
Klobuchar is electable. Waren is not.
3
Liz threw down the gauntlet and made this about who has more personal integrity. Is she lying or is Bernie? There is no way to know unless you were in that room with them. It is sad that she did this, because I hadn’t really questioned their personal integrity until now. Now, one of them is lying. I see no reason to believe it’s Bernie. He’s been the same person for decades, while she was a Republican in the 90’s. He’s been fighting for the working class his whole career, while she represented big corporations while at Harvard Law School. This is thin evidence, and doesn’t go directly to who is more likely to lie in a he-said-she-said, but overall Bernie seems to be more consistent, so it’s more likely to me that Liz is the liar.
16
“Anybody knows me knows that it's incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States."
Sanders has denied this accusation. He has pledged to support any democrat who wins the nomination in 2020, as he did Clinton last election season. He actually deferred to Warren in 2016, only entering the race after she decided not to run. But most importantly: he has been fighting for equal rights for everybody his entire career. These are not footnotes or “the other side says” details to print in paragraph three, these are the actual headlines of this “controversy”. Disagree with his policies if you feel an obligation to do so, but please don’t stoop to this.
The way Warren and the media work together to damage Bernie’s campaign with this lazy and obvious fiction makes me confident that Sanders is _the_ candidate who has the interests of the working and middle classes at heart, and the only candidate truly fighting for real structural change in America. I’m embarrassed for Warren and disappointed in the New York Times for its reporting on this.
21
"'Just to set the record straight, I defeated an incumbent Republican running for Congress,' [Sanders] said, before Ms. Warren pointed out that it had been 30 years ago."
NYT? Feh! Your anti-Sanders bias is staggering:
Warren had claimed said she was the only on stage candidate who'd beaten an incumbent Republican in 30 years; Sanders noted his win in 1990; and when Warren challenged the timing, Sanders pointed out that his win was, in fact, in her "30 years."
19
@Jackson
29 years and 2 months.
6
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's the environment, stupid!" Only non-professional politician, Tom Steyer, addressed it. And, he had a very good debate. So, why is the media all-in with the pettiness and myopia of the political class? I'm a debate-weary progressive Democrat who knows Medicare-for-All is an albatross and we need a fresh, not the stale, repetitious (yes, you Amy and Bernie and Joe) pablum we keep on hearing. It's time for all the outsiders--Tom and Mike and Deval and Andrew--to take the stage. Please!
1
@Paul Wortman Sanders emphasized the importance of the environment when discussing his approach to trade deals.
Must have been a reasonable discussion, it disappointed a lot of folks who obviously sought entertainment and didn’t find it.
2
Sexism is an issue. A second tier issue. Dwarfed by issues not being seriously debated in this debate format. Tulsi Gabbard was excluded from this "debate" for her views, not her gender.
4
Can someone tell me what Sen. Sanders did to Sen. Warren that she should (before the entire nation) refuse to shake his hand? How did he personally offend her to the extent that she should reject this gesture of goodwill? I think we know where the problem lies.
21
Whether Bernie said it or not is not the issue, as much as he is going to be the SPOILER (once again) of 2020 and will surely help put Trump back in the WH - if he escapes impeachment...
3
Agreed! His is a scorched earth campaign, he will tarnish the democratic nominee, if he does not make it. Sanders will lead to Trump 2020.
@sunburst68 Bernie is the frontrunner, and the one with the best chance to win the general. The other candidates are the spoilers.
4
@sunburst68
Sorry to burst your sunburst but the only thing Bernie will be spoiling is tRumps re-election.
Bernie 46!
1
If the supposed Sanders remark to Warren was not the main subject of their conversation but more of a passing remark, I can think of many scenarios in which either Warren misheard Sanders or Sanders mis-spoke. I'm a Warren constituent, and I do like her, but bringing up this situation is just one of a number of serious mis-steps her presidential campaign has made.
12
I thought they were all excellent, each in his or her own way, and I especially appreciated the civility and good will. That's what we need!!
3
There is a woman in the news who deserves coverage today. We should be focusing on the documents released yesterday that suggest the president’s associates were ready to put a hit on the US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch—not on a lack of a handshake between Warren and Sanders.
Please keep your eye on the prize, news media! Have you already forgotten what you let happen in 2016 by focusing on exactly this kind of thing?
15
I think this so called "rift" is being created by the media.
12
I'm getting behind the candidate with a movement. Not just a candidate playing the woman card. That did not work for Hillary and certainly will not work for Warren. Bernie always has my vote but now Warren's lost my respect.
25
My favorite part in the debate was when Bernie said he wouldn't sign any trade deal that didn't include provisions to deal with climate change. My second favorite part came a few minutes later when Steyer said about the same thing.
My least favorite part was when the debate moderators didn't ask a single question about climate change.
12
Making the conversation between Warren and Sanders a key focus of last night’s presidential debate is irresponsible and a waste of our time. All of these democratic debates have featured more questions framed from a perspective of how can the Democratic Party acquiesce to the average Republican or “average American” (why those are synonymous is a mystery as well), when the reverse is never applied to Republican candidates. Endless questions about how to pay for Medicare for all or a Green New Deal and none about how to pay for war? No wonder people have no trust in the media.
11
Well,praise the lord, it’s over. No more debates before the Iowa Caucuses.
We have been subjected to months of repetitious jawboning by the Democratic candidates as they seek to convince about three quarter of a million Iowa Democrats that they should be the anointed one. Yep, we’ve all been subjected to this media fueled circus to convince about one quarter of one percent of the US population who should be the next President. Of course, you have to add Tom Perez’s Price is Right musical chairs to the mix to create such a useless, mind numbing TV series. Why, to spice it up they even had to add a little sexist imbroglio to the last episode.
Now, everyone knows that the caucuses don’t really matter. Whoever wins the most votes (no one wins in this scrum) has as much chance of winning the nomination as everyone else. What matters though is that it is a colossal waste of sorely needed money for the general election, exhausts the electorate, puts politics over governing for way too long and focuses the party on the wrong issues.
Ever since the 2016 Hillary debacle everyone has started to suspect that our political system needs updating. Here’s one to add to the list.
6
How have the circumstances changed from the last election? If Clinton couldn't win against Trump, why should we believe Warren can win?
3
if the right person is there American people will have no hesitating in accepting this person as their President.Unfortunate referring to females there has not been right person to lead the nation yet. The time however is evolving that that right female person is in works to lead.America is ready for it to happen.
I am appalled that this line is in this article - the NYT should immediately correct/update it:
"Prompted by the moderators, Ms. Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders continued a back-and-forth over the fraught subject of whether a woman could be elected president, an issue that in recent days had caused the first serious breach in their relationship."
Continued the back and forth? This implies that Sanders does not believe a woman can be president, something there is ample evidence to the contrary of AND he explicitly denied thinking/saying.
14
This was a good discussion by competitors who could express themselves reasonably. The questions were reasonable ones that required the candidates to respond to logical questions about their positions. None of the silly put downs and mind numbing hyperbole and evasive efforts to change the subjects in response to logical questions by moderators which candidates use to avoid honest discourse.
In most instances, Bernie has been on the right side of history for decades, and certainly in his progressive, consistent stance on women's issues.
Warren has seriously miscalculated by deliberately casting aspersions on the most forward-thinking candidate on the stage. No one knows what is said behind closed doors, but any comment Bernie may have made about electability has been repeated wholly without context. What does she possibly hope to gain by such a disingenuous remark?
For her to suggest that somehow Bernie does not believe that a woman could be elected President or that a woman is not capable of being President is absurd. All you have to do is look at his history, his speeches, his actions.
I hope this backfires in a big way, as it deserves to.
30
@nina nina
The whole exchange, with the 'moderator' getting Bernie to deny 'saying that' and then turning immediately to Elizabeth and asking 'how did you feel when he said that', with her completely canned response at the ready, was so scripted that it definitely (following the prior CNN 'breaking news' release on the issue) felt coordinated. In the sense that Elizabeth was waiting for just that question to be asked. She could have handled it differently, with more nuance, saying something like 'perhaps we misunderstood each other' but she didn't and went right into her memorized reply.
You'd think she might have learned something from Kamala Harris' crash and burn on "I was that little girl".
But apparently not. This was Warren's figurative version of Harris' literal "I was that little girl". All that
was missing were the t-shirts. (Altho, like Harris, she was fund-raising off of the 'identity issue').
20
Worst debate ever. CNN didnt even attempt to be impartial. Glad to see I'm not wasting my time with traditional TV news networks. Nobodys missing out on anything by cutting the cord.
18
How about some substance, folks? This is precisely the kind of petty nonsense that causes Dems to lose elections. Let’s not forget that Clinton was also a shoe-in to beat Trump right up until the moment she lost.
15
Why are we allowing slave holders from the eighteenth century to decide how democracy works here in the 21st.
12
The dispute between Warren and Sanders involves a long ago private conversation between the two. Warren's blatant, opportunistic betrayal is par for the course by now for the depths to which Sanders' opponents will sink to do him damage. It speaks ultimately to Warren's character or lack thereof and recalls the cheap shots lobbed at Sanders by his opponent in 2016, who also happened to be female. Is there a flip side to the unfair burden of "likability" placed on female politicians? Do they escape customary expectations for gallantry and fair play placed on men?
34
Warren and Sanders are stubborn and certain of their belief but sincere. Both do mean well.
3
Last night and even more than any other time that I can recall, in its "excuse" for moderators and some of the ridiculous distorted questions they asked, CNN espoused their bias and arrogance for all to see, a stain on the legacy of what was once decent, fact finding journalism on American television, clearly those days are gone. They are so blind to their bias they are totally unaware of how the public is "on to them" and we can see that in the comments today and last night right after the "show" because that was essentially all it was, a disservice to the voter.
Sanders and Warren in particular fully understand in order to get to the voter, considerable money must be spent on the ground talking directly to voters, not on consultants 30 second TV ads. Clearly, these debates have outlived their usefulness.
12
It was a good. The questions were reasonable and the answers were direct. It was nice to see competitors who respected each other, the commentators, and the audience.
1
@Deus You make a great point in your final paragraph, but Bloomberg is the one candidate who truly gets this. His ground game is unmatched and voters are taking notice. He also refuses to get into the muck, unlike Warren and Sanders (whether directly or through their staff, surrogates or supporters).
@Jolton, Stop and Frisk will ultimately doom Bloomberg's candidacy. It will interesting to see how the money flows when it's not to promote his own candidacy.
1
So if Warren gets elected and she disagrees with a foreign or other government leader will she refuse to shake hands? My 14-year-old might do that.
45
I watched the debate and the extra coverage of the exchange afterward. I didn’t see Bernie or Warren stick out a hand. No one refused to shake the other one’s proffered hand.
4
@AS
Just plain wrong. Watch it again. Bernie offered his hand, and Warren ignored it.
4
@AS
You can watch the video highlights on this very page on which you are commenting and you can see Bernie hold out his hand to Warren.
2
I used to be a Warren lean, but I'm going sour on her. This "a woman cant get elected as president" flap reeks of playing the gender card and special pleading. It was a low blow and a cheap political stunt. Sorry, Liz, in your particular case, you probably can't be elected to the presidency. And it has nothing to do with you being a woman.
65
Trivial issue, that. All women have been told at one time or another that their sex limits them. Easy to generate a lot of heat and no light by introducing it out of context.
If Sanders meant that the history would indicate that a woman is less likely to be elected, that’s just empirical evidence.
If it meant that voters would have no confidence in any woman, Clinton’s popular victory, dispels that assertion.
3
Elizabeth Warren sure is taking a beating in these comments, and over what was basically the moderators' clumsy performance. In the end, the debate winner is CNN, which managed to generate a controversy and gain attention for itself. Substance, as usual, got pushed to the side. From the arcane debate qualifying process to the pinball-machine set designs, this year's partnership between the DNC and big media organizations has been very disappointing. I'm sure it's earned a lot of money for some folks, but I'm doubtful it's really advanced viewers' understanding of what's at stake. I can't help wishing the League of Women Voters was still managing political debates.
17
There is no rift over electability. The back-and-forth is a he said, she said. If we recall, CNN is the same network that literally gave Hillary Clinton the debate questions in advance. What appears to have happened, here, is that CNN helps Warren plant Bernie opposition saying a woman can't be president, CNN hosts the debate, CNN asks Bernie if he said it. Bernie said now, CNN then says he did then CNN post debate crew says Warren won the debate: Biden becomes president.
Very similar to the manufactured smears that sunk Corbyn in the UK, nice to see our press is in on the act too, reporting this as something that definitely happened is journalistic malpractice.
15
@Thomas Watson
No thought here about the game played by the news media towards Trump since the very beginning.
Double standard ? Or simply the first time you feel it ? (I am sorry for you, but I hope you now become aware of it)
@Thomas Watson
I have yet to see any substantive evidence from people making this collusion claim. Quit telling everyone what "appears to have happened". Do the work, find the facts, then get back to us.
[As an aside, Cornyn was the author of his own electoral downfall; it required no help from the UK press, awful as they are. He did little to heal the rifts in the Labour Party or present a coherent alternative to Brexit. His own ambivalence to remaining in the EU was a major stumbling block.]
I have gone back and forth between being a Sanders supporter or a Warren supporter. I can say last night I was disappointed in Bernie's response to Warren and I was equally disappointed in Warens failure to shake his hand.
6
In 2016 a woman won, but was prevented from becoming president by republicans in the electoral circus.
3
@Getreal Clinton didn't win. Claiming Clinton won is like saying a team scored more points in a championship series without acknowledging that the championship is decided by who wins more games.
There is a process to change the constitution and get rid of the electoral college. But complaining about the 2016 results in 2020 isn't it.
1
We are debating the ability of women to lead? Other countries lead the way. Why is this even a question this day and age...how disappointing.
2
@Kathy Helzlsouer
It isn't a question. It's a false narrative meant to divide and discredit by a corporate medai with an agenda but no credibility.
2
The way in which Bernie die-hards have been attempting to undercut/gate keep EW's progressive bona fides has always come off as lightly sexist to me... and it's starting to seem strongly sexist in the fallout from this debate. I don't think anyone could make a good faith assessment of her life, career, voting record and come to the conclusion that she's a "neo-liberal" in the pocket of big money doners or whatever nonsense. She's as genuine as they come.
For me, she was by far the most presidential last night. The massive chip Bernie carries on his shoulder is not a good look.
11
@Andrew um, she was a Republican until 1996, Bernie cofounded the Congressional Progressive Caucus in 1991. She also claimed to be an authentic Cherokee until 2012.
1
@Matt look at her voting record and her career as a senator and tell me she isn't a progressive. The growth of her ideals in inspiring and genuine. Get out of here with that republican talking point nonsense...
Everyone’s a pundit after a debate. And the majority are biased in favor of their candidate and disinterested in figuring out ways to make their candidate better, more appealing to the unconvinced. For example, Sanders in debates and interviews continues to disappoint me in terms of how thin his grasp of issues beyond his few key areas (income inequality, M4A, climate change — all w/few specifics). I respect that Sanders has momentum but I would like him to be much more vigorously vetted, pushed for more specifics, his ideas questioned further. Essentially stress-test him for us non-believers, better now than later when/if he wins the nomination and has to battle the Trump Lie-o-rama. Unfortunately, even questioning Sanders’s positions, policies and biography is met with vitriol by his surrogates and supporters, who fail to understand the need for compromise and appealing to more than just his base. No Dem will win without POC, the *evil* “centrists” as well as a fair number of 2016 Trump supporters and none of us are interested in our concerns about Sanders being pushed aside with conspiracy theories about the “rigged” DNC, MSM, the “1% cabal” or, my favorite catch-all “The Establishment.”
3
Doesn't matter who misunderstood what.
Point is, why did she bring it up.
"Little girls grow up to be women, little boys grow up to be little boys"
That line needs updating.
11
Wow...this is really a contrived controversy. I understand that CNN wants ratings, but come on, there are genuine issues to be discussed.
Also, a big difference between “could not” and “should not”.
17
Any of them would be great! The clock is running and the country is sinking...let’s vote!
4
All this is foolish & self-destructive on Warren's part.
She won election and re-election herein Massachusetts, arguably, the "bluest" of states in America !
I voted for her twice. However, I would not vote for her in a presidential party primary because she has several long term "inconsistencies" of character & judgement which Trump will gleefully expose in the general presidential campaign.
In short, unelectable.
Let's move on. Bloomberg or Biden in 2020.
5
“ Feel The Bern” as he is accused of sexism by the perennial victim Warren when she wants something bad enough, that is! Bernie is the one truly , painfully at times, honest candidate of the remaining, if mediocre, lot of has been, complainers and free-spenders of our tax money!!
8
We're on the brink of war with Iran, the planet is on fire, and millions in the richest country on can't even afford to see a doctor.
Seeing CNN, the NYT, etc put a small disagreement over a private conversation front-and-center is revolting.
26
@JT As revolting to me are the media always going after Trump, from the very beginning and just on principle.
I hope now you can better understand me
Bernie said a woman can run
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr9NSvypw2g
Bernie extends hand after debate and Warren pulls away
Thank you Warren for making Sanders look Presidential
He is the Best Choice
36
A woman did win the last general presidential election and the present candidates are still being baited with this same stupid question? This is why I won’t watch anymore of this tortured debates.
2
How did the Democratic Party become the White People’s Party ?
2
@Common Ground
Because Obama was constitutionally prevented from serving a third term?
3
@Common Ground Agreed. I don’t care about this “rift” between two white affluent candidates with their largely white base.
1st: please stop reporting on the “rift” between Sanders and Warren. This is a distracting story which takes away from informative reporting about the candidates (NYTimes, I’m looking at you...re: Hillary and the emails nonsense that you covered ad nauseam to our nation’s detriment).
2nd: So sad and strange that in 2020 we have to ask if a woman can be president. That these women - all intelligent, articulate, qualified, experienced - need to spend even a minute dignifying the question over whether they can do the job/get elected based on gender alone is ridiculous. For goodness sake, we have an incompetent, ignorant, incurious moron (of the male gender) who is currently doing the job. Clearly anyone can do it.
7
Mary Bardmess,
CNN has become the worse abuser in making conflict where there should be none; they have become a disgrace to journalists and have turned the legacy of the great Ted Turner into rot.
10
They each have different strengths and weaknesses, and I'm torn, although I'm growing more fond of Klobuchar. Maybe we can find all of them roles in the next administration, along with Yang, Booker, and Harris. Wouldn't it be lovely to have a competent executive branch again?
7
All the debates should be run by CSPAN or The League of Women Voters - non-partisan non-profit entities not beholden to advertisers. The debates should be about the candidates and their views. Instead the goal becomes ginning up conflict to increase network ratings.
In spite of the manufactured Warren-Sanders tiff there was a good amount of substantive discussion. I wish they could have gone into more depth on foreign policy. They barely touched on climate change. The only candidate left who rightly puts climate change at the top of his agenda is Tom stayer, who got the least amount of speaking time.
Our democracy is dying because America puts money at the center of everything. Thanks for nothing Republicans and Ronald Reagan.
(The highlight of the show for me was the ad by Ron Reagan, avowed atheist.)
13
@Eric
Absolutely, years ago when the "Fairness Doctrine" was eliminated and the news departments of major networks was brought under the umbrella of the entertainment department, it signaled the end of real fact finding journalism in the media in America, especially television.
These debates, but, especially the one last night exemplified how that all of that "interference' has unfolded, news has become the television version of The "National Inquirer", pretty sad.
6
I must have watched a different debate. There were differences of opinion, but I didn't notice any "clashes". Most of the candidates didn't rise to the bait of some of the questions pitting them against one another.I thought all of the candidates were being very adult and considerate of one another.
I would have been more interested in reading about the stances each candidate took on the questions presented. I noticed that this article and the media commentators spent more time on trying to look for moments to make this more of a "brawl" than a difference of opinions and policies.
I never liked Palin, but there was one thing she was right about. The media center, right and left is always looking for the "gotcha" moment. I wish they would spend more time explaining the policies of each candidate.
13
Buttigieg’s response to his lack of support amongst black voters simply highlighted why: a wooden recitation of the few black politicians who do support him followed by an empty platitude about how he won’t take their vote for granted.
10
I don’t know; this feels like a manufactured media narrative to me. Buttigieg has higher black support in polls than Klobuchar, and is the only one who is ever asked this question. He has lower name recognition than Biden and Sanders and Warren, and it’s the most plausible reason for lower poll support. Buttigieg actually led a city which has economic and racism challenges and tried to do something about them (did Warren, Biden, or Sanders?). Former candidate Booker did, and yet he was never called on the explain how Newark, NJ is doing. Answer: not good. So, I’ll file this “issue” in my media hype category and go back to making decisions based on policy proposals.
2
Although I support Biden, I think introducing the question about what Sanders may have said about a woman presidency was a cheap shot by the moderator. Many of us, myself included, have wondered whether the electorate is mature enough to look past old stereotypes about a woman's ability to lead. That's very different from saying "I don't think a woman should be president" which is what the moderator implied in a low-class twisting of the facts. Sanders rebounded with the obvious fact that Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election by 3 million votes but Trump got lucky and sneaked in by the back door because of the sometimes awkward results of the electoral college.
The only positive I felt about the otherwise strident tone of the moderators and the banality of their questions was that they were tough on enforcing the time limits imposed on the candidates.
12
@styleman
"Strident tone" you say....Now you can feel yourself how millions of Trump's supporters feel, always having the Media after them....I hope you agree the media have their agenda, unfortunately for the democracy ! Media are not reporters, they are players !
3
@Mary Do you still support Trump after all that has been revealed by the Impeachment Hearing? Do you like his style of constant lying, soiling the Constitution, his vulgarity, ignorance of facts, ignoring the counsel of his more sensible advisers, alienating our allies, subservience to Russia's Putin and blatant instability and dangerous, spontaneous actions in the Middle East? Has his presidency made you proud to be an American?
5
Media is a business. The more eyeballs, the more revenue. Thus, even the most sophisticated/reputable press will resort to stories that don't deserve coverage.
18
Sadly true.
4
As Bernie said, it's preposterous to think that a woman could not defeat Trump, since Hillary already did by three million votes. He also said he encouraged Warren to run against Hillary in the previous primary. There is simply nothing in Sanders's history that would indicate he would ever make such a statement. I find it troubling that the story of his supposed sexist remark surfaced days before the debate where Warren delivered her well rehearsed mic-dropping remarks. It all looks concocted from start to finish, and it's tempered my once great respect for Elizabeth Warren.
310
@Lisa Mann
I find it disturbing that the tired meme of Hillary beating Trump by three million votes is still being raised as if it is significant. It is not. She lost the election. Obama won his first term with ten million votes and his second with 5 million.
Let's all agree that the candidate must win enough electoral votes to win and drop the pretense and the magical thinking. This means for the Democrats a huge turnout of passionate voters including the young and the independents across the states and not just the coasts and suburban enclaves. I did not see that candidate on the stage last night.
44
@Lisa Mann
So you draw the line at ten blatant and outright lies? Just have a full deck of free passes until you hit that magic number huh? She has lied all her life why stop now?
10
@Rick Spanier Absolutely correct. Democrats lost the 2016 election, period. There is no redo on Hillary Clinton. Democrats need to move forward and present the best candidate for 2020 and stop living in the past.
7
Memory is malleable. That's a fact. Two people will almost always remember a private conversation differently years later. That's also a fact. It's incredibly stupid to make such a huge deal about such an insignificant thing. But that's what the media does, isn't it?
217
@David F No, that's what the Warren staffers did by feeding this to the media the day before the debates. They knew what they were doing, and the result is that it almost looks coordinated. And I say that as someone who's supported and donated hundreds to Warren as my #2 choice. This is on her and her campaign, and her weak attempts to step away from it (the statement yesterday) only wreak of her camp realizing this was a Hail Mary that would hurt more than help.
31
@David F When you have a towering figure of substance and integrity (Sanders) opposed by an increasingly desperate and ditzy Warren, then it makes perfect sense for the latter to make such a huge deal about such an insignificant thing.
7
@Marc "This is on her and her campaign, and her weak attempts to step away from it (the statement yesterday)-"
"Weak attempts" further vitiated by her refusal to shake hands with him - which is also a statement.
7
I wish we would not let network television control our debates. All commercial television thrives on conflict. CNN is just more subtle about it than FOX. Lives are at stake here and they want to gin up an irrelevant CNN induced conflict between the only two progressives. I smell a dead fish. CSPAN knows how to run a camera. CNN can be part of the audience and report on it like everyone else. Is someone writing a book on the danger that advertising funded media poses to democracy?
233
@mary bardmess
CNN has stopped being a news network and become, like Fox, an opinion network.
50
@mary bardmess Manufacturing Consent? ...among many others.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/78912/manufacturing-consent-by-edward-s-herman-and-noam-chomsky/
17
@mary bardmess
Matt Taibbi's "Hate Inc." released Oct 2019
10
Did we watch the same debate? Despite prodding by the moderator, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders kept it civil, and did not clash with each other about the "Women cannot be president" thing. Warren spoke about women's strength in combating Republicans for office in recent years and about her own strength over threee decades combating Republicans, but she and Sanders did NOT clash. It's the media, including the NYT, that make a big thing about this.
454
As much as I have appreciated the role of the media in keeping the public informed in the midst of this chaotic political environment, any and all “cheap shots” personalizing candidates’ disagreement can only be seen as editorial marketing strategy. It’s all about ratings at the expense of these highly professional politicians seeking the nomination. And potentially damaging to our overly convoluted elections processes. It feels smarmy.
We are in an ever expanding Information Age wherein competent consumers are not easily influenced, especially by reporting that feels more like “reality TV” than good journalism.
NYTimes, you are better than that.
252
I agree. Very disappointed with NY Times linking a video supposedly showing EWarren not shaking Bernie's hand. She clearly had something to say and there was no mic on so we have no idea what was said between them. Why put that in article? All that does is fuel the fire and it's all too reminiscent of 2016 - Hillary/Bernie.
108
@Maggie
CNN of course is still pushing this nonsense.
I just watched a CNN reporter pushing Tom Steyer to tell them what Warren and Sanders were saying to each other. To his credit and to the visible annoyance of the interviewer Steyers refused to play the game.
I expect them to ride this horse until it dies.
99
The remaining candidates make one pine for Democratic giants of the past: John Kerry, George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. All were far more accomplished than any of the current contenders.
5
@Richard
Hilarious.
But your point is well taken. I have supported three of the candidates on the stage last night in way or another in the last two elections and midway through the debate last night, I turned it off and said to wife, these candidates are all losers.
Speaking of Dukakis, I was in college and pumped to volunteer for Gary Hart and then Monkey Business happened. So I dutifully went and volunteered for Dukakis and I think it took me a year to shake off the low from that experience.
@Richard But all of these so called Democratic giants lost their presidential election bids big time to their Republican opponents. That's why there was never any President Mondale, President Kerry, President McGovern or President Dukakis.
1
Warren already had credibility issues because of the Native American thing and the fact that she used to be a Republican. Now, it's going to be even more difficult for the voting public to take her seriously.
25
@Jason
I still have not made up my mind about which of the candidates I prefer. But I have decided that I am tired of people telling me what the voting public , of which I am a member, will do.
I am also tired of journalists and news commentators telling me what the candidates must do to win the primary and the election, and what the Republicans and Democrats in government have done that will hurt them. I'd like to know what magic crystal ball they are using that they may think for me and the general public.
2
Good grief. Seems likely Bernie voiced doubts about a woman WINNING against Trump, as distinguished from whether a woman could become president. Subtle but crucial difference. If his privately shared doubts were overheard, misinterpreted, and brewed as conflict, shame on everyone gulping tempest from this teapot.
24
@Wendy Yes, and I'm going to admit to voicing that question myself. Does that mean I'm a traitor?
6
@Wendy
How many of "his privately shared doubts were overheard, misinterpreted" by the media, but nobody from the Left not only told anything against it, on the contrary, they were welcomed because it involved Trump ?
With so many important issues to debate, what a waste of time. he said, she said and somewhere in the middle is the truth. But at this point, who cares. The most important issue is how to oust trump. This was the worst debate we've sat through. Amy K. must have a very sore arm today. She spent most of her allotted time patting herself on the back. None of them put much effort into how they know they can defeat trump. Wasn't that why they were there?
5
Very surprised that the debate moderator thought it was appropriate to repeat hearsay as if it was truth:
"You said you didn't think a woman could win the presidency."
25
Does anyone else notice the pattern that when a Democratic women starts losing suddenly there is a sexist act or statement somewhere in the man’s past that she forgot to report till now.
Thomas, Kavaungh, Now Bernie? Democrats need a new playbook. This one is getting old.
11
@Glenn when a WHITE Democratic woman starts losing
1
Unbelievable, infuriating exchange here:
Abby Phillip: "Sen. Sanders, CNN reported yesterday, and Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?”
Sen. Sanders: " As a matter of fact I didn't say it . . . ."
Phillip: “So Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election?”
Sanders: "That is correct."
Phillip: “Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”
COME ON. I am a feminist (you might even call me a "radical feminist!"), and I've been supporting both Warren and Sanders with recurring contributions.
Phillip's questioning here was so unfair, I don't know how Bernie didn't spontaneously combust from rage right there on the stage. I would have.
78
@Bubbles
Even worse, judging from Warren's response, she had been waiting for That Exact Question, and the whole exchange was initiated by the moderator abruptly cutting off a substantive discussion about trade.
7
Sen. Sanders has denied saying that a woman couldn't be elected, and firmly stated that he thinks one could, despite sexism. This is a minor misunderstanding. The Times and MSM has become so sensationalist that they look for big problems where there are none.
You seem to state Sanders says a woman couldn't be elected. That is a Pinocchio.
19
Interesting that neither CNN nor any of the candidates asked Joe Biden about the elephant in the room:
"Joe, please tell us how your son Hunter got a million dollar salary from the Ukraine gas company Burisma Holdings when Hunter did not have any previous experience in energy or the Ukraine. Why did you say it would not happen again if you are elected president?"
12
@99percent That is another tempest in a teapot, and has been addressed MANY times by the Bidens. I wonder if you're also asking how it is that Trump's kids are traipsing around the white house and the world, injecting themselves into discussions with other world leaders on questions they know nothing about?
4
@ Rita Prangle
Exactly! Or why patents have been approved after visits. Or why Jr didn’t get in trouble for killing protected animals. Or why the adult children of the President who don’t work in the WH got to visit the Queen. And so on and so on. None of those things would have happened without their dad as President.
1
Biden and Booker 2020.
2
I had been so impressed in the past at how Warren and Sanders supported each other,though obviously running against each other.Warren has lost my respect.To try to frame Sanders as a misogynist is not only laughable but desperate. And to all of you chip on my shoulder HRC supporters,do you remember his "I don't care about the dam emails" support for her from Bernie?Or his campaigning for her across the country after getting burned by the DNC and the super delegates or how many more of her supporters voted for McCain in anger,than Bernie supporters voted for trump?Sick of the "Bernie Bros"nonsense too.I'm a 63 year old woman.Both of my adult sons SOs support Bernie,one a Harvard Medically trained MD and the other top of her class at a respected State U.Yes there are many of us that support him because we are tired of corporations and their lobbyists running this country,tired of a for profit healthcare industry,and tired of endless wars!
24
@Nora Really? She framed him?
2
@Nora
Well said Nora. And congratulations to your sons on their academic careers.
3
Yang was missed.
8
I'm very disappointed in Sanders supporters. All of a sudden it's a repeat of the baseless smears used in 2016. I suspect most Democrats understand that Bernie is a disruptor and has inspired a legion of disruptors as followers. And so the Russian hackers/trolls win without having to lift a finger, we'll divide and conquer ourselves. I had started to warm up to the idea of a Sanders presidency, but the nail is likely in the coffin. And not because of Sanders, but because of the people he surrounds himself with.
11
@Richard The smears are coming from the Warren campaign, they're the ones putting out this stupid story about what Bernie supposedly said, which is plainly nonsense. Don't whine when your dirty tricks backfire.
2
This debate is actually about Donald Trump.
If Warren is the Democratic candidate in 2020, she will be the subject of vicious attacks. We will hear ’Pocahontas’ repeated as many times as ‘Benghazi’ or ‘emails.’
If Sanders is the candidate, we will undoubtedly hear a comparable catchy slur about socialism.
Concern about whether Elizabeth Warren can win in 2020 is a call for a realistic appraisal of (a) Trump’s misogyny; (b) the unapologetic misogyny of his base; and (c) the generally unacknowledged but nonetheless real prejudice against women shot through much of the public at large.
It calls for a discussion about the way things are, not the way things should be.
It is absolutely not a statement that a woman is not qualified to _serve_ as president.
As a demagogue, Trump is uniquely skilled at tapping into the execrable emotions of his base.
If he is to be tossed out of office, unemotional thinking is required.
18
This was the most boring debate ever. Nothing but a stream of platitudes from the candidates and meaningless questions from the moderators. Why didn’t anyone ask some real questions? Such as, for example: how does Bernie explain his support for Chavez? After all, if we are re-litigating the Vietnam War, shouldn’t we consider other historical issues as well? What about his lies that every developed country has a M4A healthcare system? Most don’t. As for his misogyny, I knew it was there even before his despicable attack on Warren. A socialist cannot support women’s (or human) rights. Warren flailed, trying to get back to the center which she so unwisely abandoned. Biden looked half asleep, and I don’t blame him. I was too. The only ones who acquitted themselves well were Amy and Mayor Pete. She was articulate and funny (though I would advise her to go easy on the blush). He did not sound like a TV ad for Xanax. Can we get the two of them in whatever combination and assign the rest to the dustbin of history?
3
Actually a reasonable discussion is rational not emotional so it can be boring if you want entertainment.
1
Last night's debate was sad. The political duopoly has failed us again. All we have left to vote for are self-absorbed egotists. Wanting to be president should be an immediate disqualifier. Conscription of competent people demonstrating intelligence, wisdom, and compassion would make this country truly great. Again, the drudgery of voting seems futile.
2
This debate did nothing to change the dynamics of the race. Unfortunately the least capable and inspiring candidate - Biden - is the one most likely to get the nomination. Blech!
8
The so-called "rift" between Sanders and Warren lasted all of about 20 seconds, even tho the moderator tried her best to have one of them create a soundbite for the media to chomp on.
I would suspect that neither one of them is "lying", just remember the same conversation differently.
9
@Ron G Agreed. CNN seemed more interested in creating some juicy sound bites for Wednesday than helping voters make more informed choices.
5
CNN moderators ought to be ashamed of themselves. The questions were loaded and seemed engineered to favor the centrist and corporate point of view. The naked hostility towards progressivism was obvious to anyone who watched the debates. This was Fox News level misdirection.
21
@Ben n It was even more obvious in the immediate rehashing by CNN. I thought, regardless of his politics, Sanders seemed the most forceful and least fake, yet CNN moderators barely mentioned him except the report how Warren schooled him. Sad state of affairs.
9
@Ben 2016 CNN they gave Hillary a question in advance, now Warren ?
1
Regardless of who’s lying, the underlying premise is true.
A woman will not be the Democrat nominee in 2020.
Its down to Bernie and Biden.
7
I disagree with almost every policy stance taken by Bernie Sanders and could never support him for any office. At the same time it is beyond absurd to accuse a man who seems to have a lot of integrity regarding issues of equality (look at his history on civil rights) of being anyway sexist. Shame on the media and shame on Ms. Warren for even implying such. Shame also on the other candidates for not speaking out in Mr. Sanders defence. This makes them all unelectable.
16
@Matt
I am the same. I do not agree with Bernie on anything, but he has been in public life for over thirty years and seems to be the most sincere and honest politician ever. He is an honorable person and Warren has shamed herself by this act.
4
CNN and American print and video media that gave us Donald Trump as POTUS in 2016 saw fit to raise a silly non-issue about a private discussion between Warren and Sanders when time for discussion of real issues was so limited. Shame on CNN and shame on American TV and print media for distracting voters from real issue like Climate degradation, Foreign Policy, etc. etc.
6
Warren and CNN make almost perfect if not grotesquely banal and obvious collaborators against Sanders. All they need is Hillary to complete the fix and keep Trump in office until 2024...
18
Moi? I am ready for a female president, a gay president anybody other than another Republican president. I am no fan of David Brooks, but he said something quite profound: "He does have, over the course of his life, a consistent misogynistic view of women as arm candy, as pieces of meat. It's a consistent attitude toward women which is the stuff of a diseased adolescent. And so we have seen a bit of that show up again. But if you go back over his past, calling into radio shows bragging about his affairs, talking about his sex life in public, he is childish in his immaturity. And his — even his misogyny is a childish misogyny" Woman for Trump - the idea makes my head explode.
8
"Bernie is my friend and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie [smile to Bernie]" - Warren
Do you believe that statement? Well, I don't, not for a minute, and her refusal to shake Bernie's hand couldn't have been more pointed and rude. She's untruthful, insincere, and mean spirited, unfit to be President.
18
Last night was not a good look especially for those of us who believe in democracy and evolution. The world is richer than its ever been. We produce far more than we need and we have the technology to solve most of our problems. The world population is on the verge of maximum, and the population will start to shrink.
Trump is a symptom not the disease and nobody will address the fact that the GOP is America's Ayatollah and Republican Guard.
The people who elected Donald Trump voted for Donald Trump because they hate the America that is, the people on stage love an America that isn't and never can be unless we stop lying to ourselves.
It is 2020 and the denial was palpable. America does not work for too many of its citizens and those citizens know they and their children will never be able to compete with the children of those that are brought up to compete with in a world where we the other write the rulebook.
America is the least upwardly mobile of any liberal democracy. Trump voters are not stupid they understand that in the America extolled by what used to be called the middle-class their lives will not improve. They cling to their guns and bibles because that is all they have and that is all America is willing to concede them.
Nobody believes Donald Trump but just like their forefathers the Snake Oil Purveyors are their entertainment and at least promise a winning lottery ticket.
Citizens of the richest country that ever was should not be born to lives of insecurity.
7
Democrats, Democrats, Democrats.
Please stop forming ' Circular Firing Squads '
when you should all just concentrate on why
you would be better than Trump.
Not whether Bernie said or did not say
a woman cannot yet be elected President.
Please let Mayor Bloomberg participate in the debates.
Either as a one term President or a Vice President
he has the wealth to pay for advertisements and the
trust of the business classes - he can only help stem
the cry that Bernie and Warren are Socialists who plan
to take your individual freedoms away.
3
Bernie totally mishandled this. He could have just answered that he and Warren disagree about what was said at that meeting but instead he called her a liar. This after his campaign broke the promise not to attack one another when they issued negative talking points to canvassers. What was Warren suppose to do? I think her response was measured and appropriate. Bernie is not the pure angel his cult-like supporters make him out to be.
5
@Bernice K
He did not call Warren a liar. He said that the sentiment attributed to him - that a woman could not be president - was a lie.
1
The "electability of women" issue is a distraction, a spectre that haunts those unable to stay focused on substantive issues. Warren prevaricated, and used a lot of weasel words instead of either calling Bernie a liar or having the integrity to tell the asinine moderator that this was a minor issue which did not deserve media time.
This moment from the debate is a perfect example of the wife-beater fallacy: would the CNN moderator know what a logical fallacy is?
7
Once again the standards are much higher for women than for men. A small lapse would not seriously harm a man but it can kick out a woman - still in the second decade of the 21st century...
2
70% of Bernie’s campaign staff are female and they are paid exactly the same as their male counterparts. Warren is blowing smoke by calling him a sexist.
14
Elizabeth Warren's penchant for engaging in petty, ridiculous arguments in an effort to slander the other, first with Mayor Pete and now with Bernie Sanders, reminds me of Donald Trump.
8
@dga At least Donald had a point !
Considering Warren’s history of dishonesty, I believe Bernie.
16
I am afraid it's going to be Trump in 2020, and that's all there is to it. I see nothing here worth voting for. Joe is ancient and senile, Bernie is also ancient, Warren will not beat Trump and...who else? Not really paying attention, they are all so lackluster and uninspiring. Like the election of 2016, I will hold my nose and vote for a Dem and watch them lose.
Like Reagan, during whose administration I saw AIDS skyrocket and kill some of my friends in their early 20s in NYC without a peep from the government, everyone who wants a President who isn't a degenerate will just have to wait until 2024 and hope the earth isn't wiped out or a million innocent people murdered as in Iraq in the early 2000s, or the skies blackened by denial of global warming and more fracking.
At one time, you would tell your child, "Maybe you'll grow up to be President!" Remember those days?
3
@Zellickson Actually "those days" are now: are not children all out trying to become president ?
Thankfully on stage last night the number of candidates was down to 6!
Politics/government is very important to me and I watch it closely, but I have to admit that the debates leave me turned off, for the most part. I watched last night for awhile, but turned it off long before the end. 30 second answers, more or less, aren't very helpful.
With due respect to the authors of this piece, I think there should be a different entity conducting debates - if we have to have them - than The Press. Pre-debate The Press really promoted this so-called fight between Warren and Bernie. Very annoying.
Steyer did pretty well - at least I haven't personally written him entirely off.
Even though the Press largely ignores him, I'm still planning on voting for Pete Buttigieg in the Primary.
1
@Pat Boice
Only Trump is capable (and very skilled at it !) to give a comprehensive answer in 30 seconds.
He really nails it !
@Mary - Probably even better than anybody in the whole history of the world - bigly!
Tucker Carlson showed a video last night:
Bernie Sanders stated very clearly that "a woman can win the presidential election."
I find it hard to believe Bernie would tell Warren that a woman could not beat Trump - especially considering he had already publicly stated a woman could win the presidential election.
He might have told her, "YOU cannot beat Trump." But it seems incredible that he would tell her "a woman cannot be elected" when he has already stated publicly that a woman COULD win.
The alleged conversation occurred over one year ago - why did Warren wait a year to play this card days before the debate.
21
My takeaways from last nights debate:
1) I’ll gladly vote for any of the people on that stage over Trump.
2) The moderators were more interested in stirring the pot to gin up future ratings.
3) Warren came across as petty. I don’t believe her claim. It doesn’t pass the smell test. Sanders has been an unflinching feminist for decades. If Warren’s claims are true, why wait until the last debate before the Iowa caucuses to unload? Also, only Sanders and Warren were present for the alleged incident. IF Warren’s claim were true, why not address it in person when it happened? Why maintain such a close relationship with Sanders? Did she just stew about it for a year until she could score political points? Passive Aggressive behavior and not presidential, though still better than Trump. Makes her my last choice out of the Dems.
14
@Mrs Ming
Warren originally was my #1 choice. Love her focus on protecting consumers and the little guy. Her strong stance on rooting corruption out of DC and the need to get $ out of politics are winners. Something all voters of good will can rally around.
My support for her has continually eroded as she has gone all in on massive new programs and identity politics. Way too much and politically untenable if she wants to beat Trump - to the point it makes me question her political sense.
5
@Mrs Ming
I feel the exact same way! I mean, I think a dramatic expansion of the welfare state would literally ruin the country, but it's obviously meant to strengthen her bargaining position if she wins. Overton window and whatnot. Her passion for Bull-Moose-style Progressive reform, for which we are long overdo, seems a lot more authentic. It's also, you know, actually doable.
But after her slip in the polls, she took a hard left on identity politics. She figures the political calculus works in her favor: alienate some men, attract lots more women. It must be New Math because the silent majority can clearly see that idpol is responsible for the dangerously high political temperature. Starve a fever, feed a cold, Elizabeth!
Anyway, this is her trump card, but she overplayed her hand.
1
@Mrs Ming
The only point i don't agree with you is Nr. 1.
I am a political junkie and I honestly found that debate very hard to watch last night. The country would be better off with anyone other than President Trump but that debate left me wondering if any of these Democrats can pull it off.
Given the relative strength of the economy, I don't see how any of these candidates can succeed. The debate format is awful but outside of Buttigieg, I don't have confidence in any of them. I do believe if the Democrats go safe with Biden, they will lose because Biden has not aged well and is too confused. Sanders is older but has great passion and stamina. Warren looks and acts 50 but they are both too radical to win.
4
So, Sen. Warren played a bogus identity card to advance her academic career, and now she is is playing a bogus identity card to undermine Sen. Sanders.
This tells us a lot about her character - a lot that's not good.
We've already heard much about her policies. If elected, she will likely lead this country down the same path Venezuela has followed. I realize many progressive Democrats will strongly disagree with this assessment; such differences in opinion are the essence of democracy.
But please, make no mistake about the "bottom line." If Sen. Warren is the nominee, President Trump will be reelected. Really. And it will not be because of Warren's gender.
7
Sen. Warren was the classy one. He response was smart. She preferred, with a slight smile, to avoid an argument or accusations. For me, the issue of who said what was far less important than how they both responded to the accusation. I liked her response.
3
@blgreenie Since it was her campaign that made the accusation in the first place, what you witnessed was not a response, it was a set-up. She had plenty of time to rehearse it because she knew it was coming.
1
Attacking Bernie's integrity is a losing proposition, which is all but certain to backfire. I hope it continues.
7
At this point, I'm just praying that all of the Sanders die hard supporters don't take their toys and go home out of frustration - a la Bernie or bust in 2016.
There are legitimate gripes with coverage and even debate moderation, but that's the equivalent of blaming the refs. And not matter how upset you may be at the refs, your team has to nonetheless show up and play the game.
However one feels about how it was raised, the issue of electability was dealt with in the most straight forward way imaginable. Identity issues got their fair shake, explicitly and implicitly. Frankly, if you're not a white man, you're far more likely to recognize that Sanders' "correcting the record" on him beating a Republican was slightly problematic - minorities and women have largely been in that situation before. Warren was roasted in the past for actually having a plan to pay for Medicare for All. It's only appropriate that Sanders have to answer the same tough questions.
None of this is a conspiracy, as some commentators allege. And any declaration that any Democratic candidate lacks sufficient integrity, when they will eventually be running against Donald Trump, seriously misses the forest for the trees.
5
@MC
First let me say I'm not a Sanders supporter.
Bernie at least recognizes he doesn't know how the government will pay for any Medicare for All plan regardless of whose plan it is. There is no way to know this. His vague statement that taxes on middle income will go up should be acknowledged for its honesty.
The size of the plan, the complexity and all the fingers that will want to creep into the cookie jar will make any price tag a moving target. Too many economists from brainiac institutions have said Warren's numbers don't add up. That means her taxation must trickle down to lower income brackets, hitting the very people who struggle most with health insurance bills. Better to take criticism for not having a payment plan than claim to have the numbers nailed down.
Just look at ACA...no one was supposed have premiums they couldn't afford and that has not been the case.
2
Warren showed her true self when she refused to shake Bernie’s hand.
But, yet, she doesn’t hesitate to come up with schemes to put her hands in the pockets of tax paying Americans to pay for outlandish promises.
3
The framing in this article is wrong. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren did not debate whether a woman could be president; they agreed that a woman could win. The point of contention was whether the conversation happened as Warren described.
This article should be updated and clarified.
10
Warren came out with perhaps the best line of the night. “Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost 10 elections,” she said. “The only people on this stage who have won every election that they’ve been in are the women, Amy and me." You go Liz. I confess I slept through a lot of last night's debate, but as luck would have it, I actually woke up for that line. As an Elizabeth Warren supporter, it was good to see her shine again. I would vote for any of these candidates over Trump though. There isn't a clear front runner among them (yet) but they are all pretty solid, even if none of them are exactly exceptional. In a sane world (which this is not) anyone on that stage last night would easily beat Donald Trump, who is hands down and without a doubt, the worst president in American history.
1
Here is a question I would like to hear each candidate answer: "If you weren't running, which of the other candidates would you vote for, and why?" Wouldn't an honest answer be great?
I will vote for whoever gets the nomination. But on the merits, the candidate I have the most doubts about is Biden. Joe is out of touch and was never the sharpest pencil in the drawer, to begin with. Plus I don't see someone who spends all of his time hiding behind Obama being the leader we need.
3
I think Biden is a shoe-in for the nomination. He's already in the lead and with the pending Senate trial, Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar will be stuck in chambers during the crucial first primaries. If the trial takes as long as Bill Clinton's trail, these candidates will miss campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and North Carolina. If it takes a week longer, they'll miss out on Super Tuesday. Pelosi has long thought the Democrats were on the wrong path moving too far to the left. She strategically delayed the Senate trial which helps Biden, the more mainstay Democrat, and hurts Sanders and Warren. the more leftist candidates. Sly old fox.
4
I think that Warren can handle Trump's smear campaign. It isn't Sanders business to patronize her in the way that he did which is paternalizing in itself. And what is his age and health status; how is he medically an cognitively going to be able to sustain the presidency if he were to be elected?!
3
The biggest shock for me? I found there were reasons I liked all of the candidates.
None was perfect. None said absolutely everything I would have loved to have heard. But they all seem to be people of character and intellect, and they all seem to understand that the Presidency is about serving the needs of all Americans to the best of their abilities. Will they make everyone happy all the time? Nope. But I believe any one of them will try to balance the competing needs of us all to bring about the best possible for us all.
I can vote affirmatively for that!
2
Too many candidates, started campaigning too early.
I am getting tired of these debates.
Grown adults [mainly senior citizens] bickering over petty differences- It makes our party look disheveled and weak.
I can picture Trump sitting on the couch with a TV tray, chomping on his well done steak and mashed potatoes- grinning ear to ear.
1
Warren and Sanders demonstrated that they were just two typical, graceless politicians who will say what they need to in order to win. The big news is that Bloomberg emerged unscathed.
1
I couldn't bring myself to watch this one because I fully expected Wolf Blitzer to frame everything through a right-wing lens. From what I gather, I wasn't mistaken. I know this is "news" rather than opinion piece, but think it would be useful to include phrasing of questions, as that can influence how candidates feel obligated to respond.
1
Elizabeth Warren continues to be the Incredible Shrinking Candidate. As an inspiring figure she makes a good college professor, full of theoretical responses but unpersuasive that she could actually lead.
And refusing Bernie's handshake? Lame.
Most critically, with the Iranian situation simmering, her lack of bona fides on national security is troubling. She seems to feel the answer to every foreign crisis is to smoke the peace pipe. But her noble ancestors knew that sometimes you have to walk the path of war -- or at least be willing to weigh that option.
4
I may have missed this in former debates, but I don't remember any moderator asking the candidates 'how they propose to pass their agenda's in a Republican senate'. Remember when President Obama was president and the Republican senate blocked everything he tried to achieve? Had to use EO's to get some things done. I sure there is someone out there that will correct me.
Brad Parscale and the GRU are hard at work this morning attempting to use their typical strategy of splitting the Democrats while also trying to stigmatize CNN.
Don't fall for it.
Stay steeled. Stay united. Stay strong.
We win when we are united.
We remove Trump when we are united.
And we must--must--remove Donald Trump in 2020.
2
If what is suggested by Ms. Warren is true, why is it becoming an issue for her now? She was all smiles and buddy-buddy with Mr. Sanders just a week ago!
5
There is absolutely no way the former Republican, former Native American, former supporter of Medicare for All and soon to be former candidate for President, Elizabeth Warren, could possibly be lying 24 hours before the final debate in Iowa.
3
Medicare-for-all is going to be Warren's undoing. Half of the American people get their health insurance from employer-sponsored plans. Including nearly all of the "middle third" of moderate, middle-class, working voters.
People may gripe and moan about their health insurance, the poor customer service, the copays, the limits, the bureaucracy, and the hassle. But the devil they know is better than the devil they don't. Single-payer healthcare could be amazing...or it could be like a daily trip to the DMV. Obamacare may have changed some attitudes about helping the uninsured, but middle America is still not ready to take that leap.
2
Be honest. If Elizabeth Warren was a man, then she would be the clear frontrunner right now. She is smarter, more articulate, and pitches more coherent policies than anyone else on that stage. The media attack on her electability has badly damaged her campaign.
7
I’m a Trump supporter, but early on had a favorable view of Warren.
In particular, I think she had some good ideas on reigning in Wall Street and even Medicare for All. (Yes, all of conservative friends and even most of my liberal friends think I’m nuts.)
But once Warren started campaigning, all the favorable impressions disappeared. She tries to exude energy and enthusiasm, but comes across as unsettled and harried. She literally induces a sense of anxiety every time I hear her speak.
And now with the whole, “Bernie secretly said..” thing, she comes across as a little underhanded. Then she tops it off by not shaking Bernie’s hand.
A very poor look for a fading candidate.
10
Elizabeth Warren had to address Bernie Sanders alleged comment, as it was all over the news, and she did so beautifully.
Do you think the men on the debate stage would not have defended their electability if the comment had been “A man can’t win against Trump”?
4
@Sarah She was the reason it was all over the news, her campaign leaked the made-up story. The whole thing was a set-up she was already prepared for. Dirty tricks which reveal a lack of ethics.
This was a typical primary debate in that there were clashes and disagreements. Hardly news. The difference this time around is the generally high caliber of the field.
The usual facile commentary, that is to say, questions, from the corporate world is a bit hard to stomach after the trump years piled on top of four decades of drowning us in the bathtub.
It seems quite apparent to me who is lying in the Sanders-Warren "back-and-forth": Neither Sanders nor Warren. In all likelihood, Sanders and Warren are remembering the same conversation in different ways, as that is the typical consequence of the shortcomings of human memory, which is both subjective and malleable and, consequently, unlikely to ever be 100% accurate.
40
Agreed. I was thinking the same thing. I've had arguments with people over what was said only to realize we both heard somewhat the same thing and just misinterpreted what was said. I think that is what happened here.
9
@Matt I wholeheartedly agree. As Bernie keeps saying, his history makes it unlikely that he baldly and unequivocally said that a woman could never be elected President. Yet I don't think Warren would baldly and unequivocally lie about what Bernie said.
I can think of at least two ways the conversation could have gone that could leave them both telling the truth as they believe it to be so much time after the conversation in dispute. And that's assuming their memories are separately 100% accurate. Any memory drift involved, and forget it - they're doomed to conflict unless they undergo hypnosis therapy or something, and even that can trigger false memories.
It wouldn't be the first time two friends divided over a grudge because of a misunderstanding. Usually that kind of thing stays private, and maybe the friends take it up and figure out the problem with no one else the wiser. Unfortunately, these are public figures, and sometimes stuff happens publicly before that kind of reconciliation can happen. When the friends are running for the same job, things can easily go south fast, and each can get stubborn because the larger scenario provides pressure to erode the friendship.
Time to leave the issue be. Even if Warren is 100% right and Bernie 100% wrong about their memory of that conversation, what Bernie believes and says now is what is important.
6
@Matt
It really doesn’t matter, she has shown her true self. I’ve never been so disgusted with one person in my entire life.
11
The electability of women "debate" came off as a coordinated smear between CNN and Warren. The moderator didn't even attempt to entertain the idea that Warren was purposely exaggerating what Bernie likely said about the certainty that Trump would weaponize sexism against her. Instead it was "why did you say a woman can't be president?" to him and "how did you feel when he said that?" to her.
Warren was one of my all-time heroes until last night. Bernie's integrity remained intact, as always, while Warren and CNN tried to steer the progressive ship down the dark rabbit hole of identity politics, again.
Never again. Economic inequality is the root of all our evils. Bernie 2020.
612
@Bradley Butterfield, I agree with your assessment. Plus Elizabeth Warren's ongoing difficult relationship with truth reflects a lack of integrity that makes her candidacy problematic. Bernie's integrity is unquestioned.
203
Bradley, I also agree with everything you said. I have always understood the substantive difference between Bernie and Warren; and I support Bernie. But I’ve also understood that we needed both of them in order to get the “progressive” wing of the Party into the WH. I thought both candidates understood that this campaign is bigger than who shall be president; but which direction the country will move in. Authoritarianism or democracy? I thought a Bernie-Warren ticket would move the country toward democracy. He would be the social movement president and she would be the policy-wonk who sat down with party insiders. My big fear is that she’s steering the country toward 4 more years of Trump.
81
@Bradley Butterfield
Absolutely agree. Deeply disappointed in Warren’s move against Bernie. Feels cheap and desperate and frankly sets women back. Let’s save our ammunition for the real sexists? Used to be a huge fan of both but can no longer support Warren.
165
Prompted by the moderators, Ms. Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders continued a back-and-forth over the fraught subject of whether a woman could be elected president,
The above was for me the low point of the debate. Just prior to the prompting question, candidates were discussing the trade pact and whether something that admittedly had "modest improvements" was worth voting for, was ethical to vote for, because it made no provisions for climate change or other environmental issues. Sanders said no, and a lively and thoughtful discussion began. However, it came to a crashing end when the questioner abruptly ended it and turn to the so called electability question and "feud" This is a media fueled issue.
There is nothing more important than addressing climate change. The moderators really fell short in the above intsance looking to pivot to a sexier topic. Then later, when climate change was raised by a moderator directly to Steyer, it was the only question. The moderator followed up Steyer's answer with questions to two other candidates on the environmental issues that were less directly tied to the seriousness of the climate change challenge that faces us.
So, we can all cluck cluck today over whether Bernie once told Elizabeth (both candidates I like) that a woman couldn't get elected. Meanwhile, the fires are burning and the ice is melting.
197
@Ms D Finally, the voice of reason speaks. Thank you. Questions like that make me cringe at their stupidity and obvious cater to a tabloid audience. From now on as soon as I hear a journalist use "electable" in a sentence, then they are no longer watchable.
11
@Ms D
My guess is that Sanders and Warren were discussing the last presidential election, and Bernie shook his head and said, "She got three million more votes and still couldn't get elected. With Trump's animosity towards women, how would a women be able to defeat him?"
1
@Ms D Absolutely. A lot of debate time was wasted on that. But, you know, the media sometimes creates bigger stories than necessary out of small time flak; conflicts sell. The moderators could have used that time to let debaters finish their thoughts more often instead of talking over them in the middle of sentences to rush them towards the next question.
Most of these debates don't tell me what I need to know about how these people would function for 90% of what a President needs to do. We've had a lot of slick people elected who never should have been within a mile of the Oval Office, present occupant definitely included. Many times the moderators move on when they should come back with an incisive follow-up question and really grill these candidates. The debates are too 'surface-y" and only show us who is better in a media debate setting for a couple hours. Zingers, and handling them, does not a President make.
5
I don't think anyone "won" the debate. And it's, of course, hard to know which candidate would be strongest against the buffoon in the White House.
What I do know, undeniably, is that Iowa having this much influence on presidential elections is patently absurd.
It is tiring to listen to Iowans, and, for that matter, others in the heartland talk like they have a monopoly on America's values. That their homespun wisdom is somehow more spot on than, say, the wisdom of folks from New England or California.
Iowans voted for Trump. Iowans have Steve King representing them. Iowans have continuously re-elected Chuck Grassley.
That's really all one needs to know.
60
@History
I agree! When we have people hard at work aiming for equal in San Francisco it hurts to not be taken seriously!
2
@History Guy
I agree with your perspective for the most part, but d I do think it's a little unfair to blame Democrats in Iowa for the election of Steve King.
1
@History Guy Finally someone says the truth. Frankly, I won't rely on what Iowa does, for the very reason you stated. They have Steve King and Chuck Grassley and worst of all they voted for Trump and probably will again.
1
Can we put country above gender of any other identity?
We have a crook and a crazy in the White House. He sends the stock market up and down with capricious tweets and tariff rules, and no doubt his family is raking in big bucks by buying low and selling high.
His foreign policy is based on whim, ego, and the art of distraction.
The GOP has sold their collective soul to him with the sole purpose of quashing civil rights and criminalizing abortion.
And we're worried about what sex or color will be sitting in the Oval Office?
29
@B. We've put country above gender since it was founded. We've never had a woman president. Or vice president... and now even suggesting that it's possible is too much to bear? For progressives? I think we can handle the discussion.
2
(Gender OR any . . . .)
I thought it was Biden's best debate. And more importantly, I thought the candidates, and to be fair, the moderators, did a great job of staying positive and on the issues.
3
When you live by the identity sword, you die by the identity sword. No surprise a progressive weaponized identity. No surprise progressives don't like being the victim of it.
17
All Biden has to do is be patient and let the nomination come to him. Everyone else is going to alienate enough people to lose.
10
@John
Yes, those extremely progressive candidates are literally chasing democrats and moderates toward Biden. They are the reason the democrats will likely lose this election.
@AACNY
You support Trump, so why are you concerned about progressive candidates potentially losing support?
3
Gender wasn't an issue until Warren started slipping in the poles... poor form Elizabeth.
72
What a terrible thing it is that Sanders dared to have an opinion that might be unpopular even if it is based on decades of experience and all sorts of campaign research.
For me it's not a male/female thing. It's a quality candidate thing and I have yet to hear anything but pie-in-the-sky promises from this crew of Dems.
8
Elizabeth Warren is an exceptionally sharp & unlike most, policy oriented. Focusing on the tete-a-tete with Bernie, true or false, diminished her in my eyes. Yet Bernie would be smart to name her his running mate if he wins. She is just too gifted to ignore.
The only other person on that stage impressing was Steyer, a sure bet for the forthcoming Democratic cabinet. Klobuchar can keep doing good things for Minnesota.
19
It was a low-watt debate last night full of retreaded points of view. CNN tried to turn up the heat between Warren and Sanders. We knew that was coming, so it was anti-climatic.
Nothing new emerged, but they didn't disgrace themselves. Not even close, which is more than you can say for our current president every time he steps in front of a microphone.
Perhaps the top candidates are saving their energy and best talking points for later - when the field narrows again? I hope so because each and every one of them would make a better president than the one currently occupying the WH.
6
"Beating Trump" should not be the campaign. Trump is only the highly visible symptom of We-the-People not only being almost evenly divided, but also being manipulated by a variety of means.
Social Media, with it's likes, re-tweets, and other forms of affirmation gives a disproportionate voice to those who wish to impose their opinion of the rest of us. It is also a diversion, shifting our focus away from the real problems that require our attention to fix the root-causes.
The aspirants to the Democratic candidacy engaging in what can be called: "Schoolyard diatribes" doesn't help, neither do "questions" designed to create a media event that adds heat but no light to the argument.
We ignore the real problems of this nation: a large portion of our population ignored by their elected officials, Americans addicted to illegal drugs (spending over $10B annually and funding the cartels), medical care business with out of control pricing, failing infrastructure, an ever widening gap between the wealthy and the rest of us,... and much more.
These debates are "made for Television" designed to entertain and sell the sponsor's products by creating drama that is not representative of the real ideas.
This nation is in dire need of healing, not adding to the wounds and divisions. Somebody who can bring us together while others seek to tear us apart. Yet, what we get is a schoolyard spat between a pair of 5-year old kids arguing about girls rights.
10
@George N. Wells I completely disagree with your first statement. This election is all about getting Trump out of his powerful position as President. We are already losing the judiciary and if Trump gets another 4 years to nominate judges then forget about a progressive agenda for another generation at least. We have to stem the tide of the conservative appointments to the judiciary.
1
@Bj, et al.,
The problem is: Focusing the campaign on "Beating Trump" makes everything about Trump and his supporters will rally around him and he can claim all sorts of ills.
The fact is that Nothing has been solved since 20 Jan 2017. If anything, the situation for all Americans has gotten worse. That lack of achievement, that lack of progress at fixing anything that is plaguing the nation is testament to needing a change. But, first and foremost, the candidate has to present as a healer of the nation, someone who can bring together the energies of We-the-People to solve our own problems and reject the idea that somebody else, a one-man-band is going to solve everything for us.
Put the focus on Trump, and Trump wins. Make him address issues of substance and he will defeat himself. We-the-People know a con-artist - focus on real issues and Trump cannot hold a candle to the bright lights of those who can mobilize the people of this nation to fix their own problems.
1
This is a he said she said situation with the accused a historically-proven non-sexist. Please don’t waste time reporting on this... stick to the issues please. The NYTimes had it in for Bernie last time and we ended up with Trump. Don’t act like CNN did last night. Don’t tarnish this paper with bias again.
43
Meh.
I LIKE MIKE.
2
@Billy The Kid Mike who talks about the urgency of climate change while flying around on his private jet to multiple houses? Mike who is using his own influential news service to censor criticism and debate?
We're just going to ignore the whole 'billionaires should not be able to buy public office' thing?
He was a good Mayor of NYC. Crony capitalist but oversaw much good as well. I think that's enough
16
If he chooses to not participate in a debate, I have no interest in him and why should you. This authoritarian maneuvering. He has a habit of entering races late. Ask yourself why he does this over and over again.
2
Putin is loving every moment of your bickering. Please stop and unite. Our democracy is dependent on your united effort to beat the destructive force in the White House.
9
PELOSI
Please run.
5
@Vasu Srinivasan Pelosi who's hedge fund husband has been given ridiculous founders stock from every tech company for the past 20 yrs?
No crony capitalism or pay to play there right?
Bernie won that debate from the start with his response over the Iraq war. The message is loud and clear: Bernie Sanders is the only candidate besides Tulsi Gabbard who will stop regime change wars and take all the bloodmoney back from private, predatory defense contractors and give it to our public schools, public health, green jobs and infrastructure.
Biden still looks tired, studdery and like his eye is about to explode every time he gets stumped on a word.
I fell asleep for the rest.
28
Warren's comment on electability based on past election history indicates either she has a questionable knowledge of American history or is depending upon that the American people don't.
In 1860 the Republicans nominated a fellow who had last won an election 14 years before and had twice lost elections for Senate after that. Lincoln did pretty well.
And in 1968 they nominated Nixon who had not only lost the presidential race in 1960 but the California gubernatorial race in 1962.
Unless one counts the primaries and caucuses in 2016, Hillary Clinton had the same perfect record as Warren does. And I don't if Warren loses any of them this year that she will consider her perfect record broken.
Warren makes what is at best a specious argument.
17
Well, that was poorly done.
Did or did not Bernie once say this to Warren in private? I was inclined to believe her, but honestly, why does this matter? Bernie clearly believes a woman can win, and his public career supports that. (Don't forget who mentored Ocasio-Cortez.)
I'm not surprised that the media turned this into a debate issue; they want a "centrist" candidate, so any spat between progressive candidates, no matter how minor, is a goldmine for them. But Warren chose to play along, framing her candidacy as a rejoinder to sexist beliefs that Sanders doesn't espouse or defend. That was very poor political strategy. It won't help her, and may cost them both. There's too much at stake for that.
If this rumored remark becomes the reason we don't get a candidate who is serious about addressing healthcare, climate change, and the struggles of working Americans, then shame on progressives.
Idiotic and pathetic.
27
@Chris
I didn't watch the debate, so I don't know how Warren framed her candidacy on the stage last night. I do know, though, that from the day she announced, she's built her campaign around her deep policy experience and skills, big ideas coupled with practical problem-solving, and a commitment to work for the well-being of all Americans. To imply that she's focussed on sexism is inaccurate and misleading. CNN stoked this story, and from what I've read in the aftermath, the candidates responded to the questions they were asked. So it seems a bit of a stretch to blame Warren for a political result that hasn't happened yet. Have more faith in progressives and voters in general.
2
@Maggie Mae
Her campaign originally leaked the story to CNN and have played along and exacerbated the story at every turn. Her campaign is just as culpable as the media for the story at this point.
7
@Maggie Mae
Anonymous individuals within the Warren campaign were the sources of the story, providing the information to the same reporter who did a fluff piece on Warren and her husband and for the network that was hosting the debate.
3
Rather than rely on political pundits to determine who has the best chance to beat Trump I decided to check out the bookies who actually put their money on the line. One of the most famous is the Irish Paddy Power. Their odds for beating Trump for Biden are 5 to 1, Sanders 11 to 1, Bloomberg 12 to 1, Warren 16 to 1. Other candidates had worse odds. Odds of winning the Democratic nomination are Biden and Sanders 9 to 4, Warren 5 to 1, Bloomberg 7 to 1, Buttigieg 9 to 1. The net-net is that either Biden or Sanders will lose to Trump in the general election. I’d take that bet.
6
You’re right. Trump (Casino Don) and the bookies is a marriage made in heaven. Or could it be a marriage made in the other place? No matter, they deserve each other.
4
I like Warren. However when she said the issue of a women being president was raised rather than saying Bernie said it directly was threading a needle. It was both a way of agreeing Bernie did not say what was alleged and trying to fan the flames. She is better than that.
17
"Ms. Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders continued a back-and-forth over the fraught subject of whether a woman could be elected president"
This is factually incorrect. Though the two senators disagree over what was said in a private conversation two years ago, they did not "continue a back-and-forth" on the subject of a woman's ability to win the presidency. Sanders has never publicly questioned this topic, nor did he in the debate.
I'm amazed and disappointed at how unprofessional this is.
90
@Owen Davis - Yes, it really is unconscienably bad reporting.
1
The wealthy in this country are scared of both Sanders and Warren. The corporate media, which they own, wants nothing more than to have the two progressive candidates in this race tear each other down. What the wealthy really want is a combination of Biden / Buttigieg / or Klobuchar - status quo centrists who will do little or nothing to improve the structure of our nation and our rigged economy. I'm not buying it. I feel that Warren and Sanders comported themselves well last night, and this "scandal" will hopefully slip quickly from the headlines. Our nation is collapsing, the middle class is dying, and the planet is literally on fire. I'm voting for a progressive in this primary, period.
21
I believe that Bernie Sanders gets a much fairer hearing on FOX than on CNN. It could be the case that is why the DNC refused to allow FOX to air one of thier debates. It was the DNC last round that did not treat Sanders equally in favor of Clinton. I find this very disturbing.
61
Only to the identity obsessed was that Warren-Sanders dustup meaningful. Everyone else heard a charge of lying go unaddressed.
12
EW, like Trump, will say anything whatever to advance her own cause. If it happens to be true, that is icing on the cake, but for her truth is not essential.
12
@Richard Ok, where is your evidence of that?
8
As a woman, I am getting a little sick of the identity politics. When a woman comes along who I can support and think can do an effective job as president, I will cast my vote for her. Note my qualifications: support and confidence — the same by which I’ve voted for every single presidential primary candidate since 1980. Right now Warren has neither from me, and it has absolutely nothing to do with gender.
This comes very close to tokenism — the expectation of a vote for someone because of who they are, not for their ability, what they stand for, or what they can do. Again, as a woman, I find that insulting.
Warren’s temperament when under criticism, or when her poll numbers shrink, also is not reassuring.
71
@MDB "Warren’s temperament when under criticism, or when her poll numbers shrink, also is not reassuring."
CNN has confirmed that the leak came directly from her campaign - meaning Warren vetted it.
Incredibly poor political judgement - heaven help us if it splits the progressive 'non-aggression pact' further and gets Trump re-elected. Then it really is on her...
2
I'm not concerned about the lack of a handshake at the end. It's the pretending to be a member of a different race in order to get a job at Harvard that bothers me. Possibly the most disadvantaged race.
20
@Jerome
This is false claim has been debunked repeatedly over many years by many media organizations. The Boston Globe has reported on it extensively. A detailed article on the subject was published in the Globe on Sept., 1, 2018: "Ethnicity not a factor in Elizabeth Warren's rise in law".
4
@Jerome Except this never happened. Boston Globe (who broke the whole story to begin) was pretty clear Mrs. Warren never played up the race card to advance her career.
5
Of course a woman is electable. Hillary beat Trump. Have we already forgotten that? It is simply unfortunate that we have an inane thing called the electoral college that gave us Trump and this ongoing descent to the bottom - of which no one can really fathom how low he will go. Before that, the electoral college gave us Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the debacle in Iraq.
I don't know any liberals personally who will turn their nose up at a Warren or Klobuchar nomination.
Whoever it is must win decisively. If it is close we know Trump will say the elections was rigged. You know he will do that and Fox will support him.
Trump is the existential threat to America. He must go.
7
The questions to Warren and Sanders were slanted in Warren’s favor on whether Bernie said “a woman can’t win”. The questions to both assumed he said it. She was not asked to confirm it. Biased and unfair to Bernie.
147
@Buster Dee
She did confirm it:
PHILLIP: Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?
WARREN: I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But, look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it's time for us to attack it head-on.
8
@GMooG
Except she wasn't asked to confirm it. CNN phrased the question as if it was already a fact that Bernie said it (this was after Bernie gave a powerful statement denying this and making a strong case for why a woman can be president). Shame on CNN and shame on Warren for playing their game (and for not shaking Bernie's hand at the end).
8
@Ken "the gender card will do her as much good as the race card did Kamala Harris"
What did Warren and her team (consultants for HRC in 2016) hope to get out of deliberately "leaking" this story to CNN?
As you suggest, reorient her candidacy along gender lines - a repeat of HRC's 2016 'identity' strategy?
Get the 'embittered Clintonite' vote that - being right liberal - is squarely behind right liberal Biden this time (despite his being a man with questionable judgement about touching, and 2 yrs older than Sanders was when he ran)?
If so, that won't work: where it was not simply a vote of 'best chance' desperation, Clinton voters really are right liberals first and foremost - making Warren's being female an inadequate draw for them...
...the whole 'gender' thing was just a pretext to attack the non-establishment progressive...
1
The debate was a major disappointment.
The last one was only watched by 5 million people. This one probably less. February will have three, one every ten days.
Overkill. People are not even paying attention except in states like NH and Iowa that are not even America with their lily white tiny populations.
Meanwhile, someone is actually taking the fight directly to the real America.
Mike Bloomberg, on his own dime, is going to 33 states where we must win and, along with Judge Judy whom 10 million Americans watch daily on TV, taking back this country from Trump.
He will be our next and best president.
16
@Simon Sez
What happened to Pete? How many times have you stated that he will be the next President? Will you have a new candidate who you know will be the next President after Super Tuesday?
4
@BK
You ask What happened to Pete?
I supported Pete because I thought he would be the best president and also because I thought he would get the nomination.
I have worked on my own to promote him and to support his candidacy.
I contacted his campaign to coordinate my efforts with theirs.
They never responded to any of my emails.
Finally, in desperation to get their attention, I sent an email with the subject line: I want to give a large donation.
I got an immediate response.
I did give much more than I can afford and went to one of his private meetings in DC. I got to meet him. He was real as always.
I no longer believe that he will win the nomination.
If he doesn't take Iowa he is finished. That simple.
He won't take Iowa or NH.
Mike Bloomberg is a true patriot who is using his own money to defeat Trump, something we all want.
He alone has the smarts and the reach to defeat Trump.
So I am all in for him.
1
Bernie's unwillingness to vote for USMCA is a perfect example of why I won't vote for him. His attitude of 'Trade deals take a number of years,' was infuriating. No compromise, no consideration for the many Americans swept up in this. Just more my way or the highway. It is exhausting. I just want a president who actually gets things done. Really, at this point small improvements would go a long way. I can't feed my kids with highly held but un-vote-able ideals.
9
I heard in his answer he is taking a stand to include battling clinate change. He seems to be one of the few on stage that really care about that (hence the endorsement by the sunrise movement).
17
@Lauren But can you feed them through the fires and flooding and hurricanes and all the extreme weather conditions? Well good for you for settling for modest change that will set us back years, good for you!
3
@Lauren
These trade deals do not benefit the average American: they benefit large multinationals and billionaires. And as Sanders pointed out they exacerbate climate change.
2
Perfect illustration of why the left will lose. One of the "highlights" is whether a woman could be President? I'll bet the majority could really care less about the gender, color, sexual orientation, etc of a candidate. We just want somebody who can solve issues and unite. But it makes for good theater to draw attention to such things. The left continues to eat itself.
24
@John B Considering that many men unconsciously think that women aren't even fully human, I think it does matter, quite a bit. I wish that every man could spend a month in a woman's shoes. I think a lot of things would change after that.
6
I agree that it was a ridiculous moment in the debate. I disagree with you assessment this js about ‘the left’.The media is making this a an issue.
14
@LV
I respect that. I also wish that every woman could spend a month in man's shoes. Maybe we'd all come to a new understanding.
10
She defeated Scott Brown, who had held that seat for all of 2 years. Any Democrat was going to win that seat back in 2012.
45
Way too much attention on the Warren/Sanders he said/she said issue. The only thing I take from that is it's another example of that something about Warren I don't like or trust. This attack on Bernie allegedly saying a woman couldn't win can be nothing but an attempt on her part to weaken the view of Sanders by women voters. Even if he said something along those lines what would the context have been since he has never shown any tendency of biased thinking? Then she says she and Bernie are friends while dealing a low blow.
52
@Charlie But look at his body language at the top of the article. The rest of the candidates are looking at her, and he is not. He's looking down. What if he did say it? Does it make him a bad person? No. He's afraid, as many of us are, that DT will win again. He wants, more than anything else, to get him out of office.
And we don't know what he is thinking. We only know what he says.
They can have a respectful disagreement and still be friends. That is what being friends is about. There is no twitter attacks, pictures of each other in burkas, etc., just a disagreement. It won't change much on either side.
4
@LV "It won't change much on either side."
Unless Warren uses it as a pretext not to endorse or support Sanders - as Sanders did for an ideologically opposed vs. kindred nominee in 2016 - in the likely event he continues to pull ahead and her campaign continues to sink...
3
The difficulty of someone classifying herself as the woman candidate or the white or black candidate is to escape the assumption that she is running against the interests of males or people of another color.
12
The hypocrisy of Bernie supporters is so visible here. It is OK for Bernie to have sexist views just because they are supporting him and they see him as a good guy. It is the victimization of women again where people don't believe them when doing so could harm their football team or the candidate they support for president.
5
The real problem is that we don’t know what was said. Neither do you.
10
@Maria Holland
If that is the case then whats with all the comments calling Warren a liar and siding with Bernie. That is the sexism I am referring to.
2
@John They're calling her a liar because she's lying. The fact that her campaign is feeding this stuff to CNN at this late hour is proof it's just dirty smears. She has no integrity.
Gender War? Only in the minds and hopes of those who want one. The Candidates may not like each other due to ideas and they REALLY want to win. Gender War? Not present last night or on the Campaign Trail so far. There is a Young vs Old, Progressives vs. Moderates, or Experience vs. Inexperienced battles, but not war. The group is united in ONE war: getting rid of Trump. That 2018 Elizabeth and Sanders "a woman can't win the White House" conflict is an example of the classic "out of context" misunderstanding or an idea that has evolved from competive energy and now has "taken on a life of it's own". I must admit that after first voting against the 38th President, that looking at pictures of the Presidents, it is thrilling and daunting to visualize #44 African American Male to the left of #45 Caucasian Boy with #46 ___Female on the right is quite a picture. A long OVERDUE Picture. 100 years ago the 19th Amendment gave half of our population the right to vote. In that century we have had 18 MALE Presidents. My own choice: AMY for America 2020.
5
A bit of a yawner of a debate. Even more so than the others. The most significant part of the night was not in the debate, but Warren's refusal to shake Bernie's hand after the debate, and what appeared to be a curt response from Bernie as he spoke to her and quickly dismissed her by turning away. Kind of like angry kids in the schoolyard.
1
They did not "debate over whether a woman could win an election," they debated over if Sanders actually said the comment or not. A complete mischaracterization.
16
The headline here reads, "Democrats Debate War and a Woman's Chance at the White House" but this is incorrect. They all agreed that a woman could win the presidency. What was debated was whether or not a candidate had said a woman couldn't win. That's very different and I'm surprised at your concession to the false narrative. It's also a narrative that allowed Warren to tee off on a topic she clearly had prepared a speech for. Kudos I guess are in order for memorizing the lines well.
29
@Jeremiah Crotser - I agree. There was no debate over a woman's chances at the White House. Just a carefully crafted moment for Warren's grandstanding speech. I hope she feels it was worth torpedoing the progressive coalition within the Democratic Party as well as her campaign.
2
Sanders was fighting for minority rights and peace when Warren was still a republican corporate lawyer. Now, in desperation, she is resorting to identity politics and weak attempts at smears. I would have voted for her if Sanders was not nominated now but I will not. She is, as I suspected, a phoney, game-playing politician.
Over all, in spite of CNN's stilted questions, Sanders shewed himself to be principled, Presidential and the best choice we have.
44
@Al M
She even told Amy Goodman that she's "just a player in the game".
3
A debate question like "do you think a woman can win?" That should have died out in the 1950s. It might be asked in the smoky back rooms of donor meetings, but not in a debate. Warren is barking up the wrong tree and appears to be showing the gender card in claiming Sanders "said it" (because he's alleged to have said it in private). What if he'd said her choice of shoes was poor?
9
During the debate there was a nuance to the tiff between Warren and Sanders that went unrecognized. The original claim (which I understand Sanders denies) was Sanders did not think a woman could be ELECTED president; Warren shifted it to a woman could not BE president. The first would be a commentary on our society. The second is a personal position. The first would be pragmatic while only the second is truly sexist.
12
@TDD I agree with you. Unfortunately I also think this country is not ready to elect a woman as president. Women are continually held to higher standards than their male counterparts, and when they act assertive it is characterized as shrewish, whereas a man is considered powerful for doing so. I don't know what Bernie said, of course, but I could see him saying something along the lines of this country not being ready to elect a woman president - because it appears to be true.
3
I fell asleep on the couch with my two doggies, again, during the debate. We have no real, dynamic, viable candidate to take on Trump. I woke up and tuned on a rerun of the Bachelor. None of these sleepers will win the election.
12
Why does everyone keep giving Joe Biden such a pass? He is halting and over rehearsed, and the bits about “our administration” (Obama’s) are wearing quite thin. He looked like he was trying to stay awake! I get why Buttigieg has risen so far, but I think it’s as far as he can go. He just does not have the experience, and he comes off to me as robotic and condescending. I’m a Sanders supporter since before 2016, but this primary I’ve been trying to decide between him and Warren. She won me over last night, and I think the difference is that she connects with people in a way that our Bernie just doesn’t. I saw her in New Hampshire recently, and, although she’s a little hokey (she brought her dog!), she really comes off as caring for the people. Her answer on women’s electability was on fire!
6
The problem with Warrren is that she is essentially attacking Sanders’ character, while going public over a private conversation. I mean, it’s weird. Is she trying to tell the world that she thinks Sanders is a secret misogynist? Because that’s what the punditry is saying she’s saying. Is that really fair? And why is this suddenly such a huge talking point (repeated in print and on national TV) for Warren in January of 2020, if she thinks this is a problem, why did she not inform us about this apparently now hyper critical issue in any of the previous debates?
49
I am waiting for the Times and others to do some real reporting on Sanders and his record. He does not have a reputation as a stalwart in the fight for women's rights.
His appeal is that he is an excellent "truth-teller." He is great at articulating and expressing people's anger, a talent he shares with Trump which is what makes both their supporters so cultish.
That is not enough to run a government nor the way to bring this nation back together and then forward. His election will just mean more yelling. And I do wish he would stop wagging his finger at me.
5
Warren’s refusal to shake hands at the end of the debate is an immediate disqualification for President. This is not a go it alone position - we don’t need another person who lacks leadership. Bernie was right to say that a woman would be treated with the same disrespect and distain that Trump shows to all women. Hillary made the mistake of not calling him out and she had much more confidence than Warren. Amy? Her condescending comments are also disqualifying. As for the panel - no excuse for rudeness and petty questions.
19
@Barbara Think about her choice from the perspective of how society thinks women should behave. If she were a man, would you consider the refusal to shake hands differently? Shaking hands would signal an acquiescence, a forgiveness. Women are expected to make nice. There are a few men in my life who I have refrained from hugging or shaking hands with because of how they have treated me. They don't see their behavior as an issue and yet, I don't have to acquiesce to them simply because society expects me to do so. I respect her 'protest' because it isn't name calling, yelling, or being mean. They are two people having a disagreement in a civil manner. But, the pundits are going to say she's unfriendly, uncompromising, etc, because it runs against those gender norms and suits their narrative that a woman can't be president.
4
If this is true, why is Warren only bringing this comment up now, when it was supposedly said almost 2years ago? She’s throwing in the misogynist card to light up her polls. Her refusal to shake Bernie’s hand was the height of rudeness and beyond petty.
8
What good of these candidates or any politicians can do if no one is going to bring down this corrupted President? What good this debate could have served?
I do wish that democrats could shake that image. They do not show competence in the "black art" of diplomacy. Democrats are shy when it comes to using the military effectively. They are, what one ancient British politician called, "Not someone you want as your second in hunting elephants." Elephants charge. The second is supposed to put down the elephant if hunter misses.
It is time for Vice President Biden to step down...he does not look good, he does not sound good.
I worry about him and feel sorry for him.
17
@Betty But, you WILL vote for him if he is the nominee, so please spare me your analysis.
I also don't believe Sen. Bernie Sanders would have made the most inappropriate and intimidating comment to Sen.Warren that women cannot be president. On the other hand if he said that there has been no woman president in history, he was 100% truthful, that no one can deny, like it or not. On the other hand, I think Bern saying "pres. Trump, is the most dangerous president in history and a pathological liar" is open to interpretation. Bernie is correct in a sense that Trump has been the most dangerous president in history to the radical Islamic terrorists, illegal migrants, countries manipulating currencies, countries not trading fairly, NATO countries not contributing their fair share to the collective defense, corrupt countries, drug dealers and human traffickers and to the Dem. majority in the house of reps.
If one accepts that Bern was indeed telling us the truth at the debate, that would mean Warren made it up, as she has made up several other stories and therefore she cannot be trusted and the Dems should seriously consider not nominating her for president. On the other hand, Sen. Amy Klobuchar should be considered as the only credible able woman from the Dem candidates for nomination. She does have the most recent and valuable experience compared to Biden or Butti. Biden being out of office for 4 years. I would suggest to the Dems in Iowa consider "Able Amy" and forget about Warren. Trump at his rally in Wisconsin also ridiculed her and said he believes Bernie.
7
The ones left standing are all white, and by degrees the female candidates are fading into the background because they are women. Ugh, I am so turned off.
1
Democrats and all good Americans: Go Big or Go Home. Bernie Sanders is our best chance to seriously change the foul direction of this country since the rise of vile Trumpism.
18
Warren thinks her winning all her races in liberal Massacussetts will mean she can win nationally? That is like thinking a litttle league team can win the world series.
16
I know who won the debate. Trump. The democrats scare me. They are nuts. Trump has to win, and he will.
17
@one percenter ~
No, trump is nuts and has to lose if only for the preservation of our Constitution and democratic republic!
18
The debates used to be run by the League of women voters. Why in the world are they now moderated by cable and network news anchors, many of whom have their own agenda or are fulfilling the wishes of their bosses. Most of us would agree that Sean Hannity would not be an unbiased moderator, nor would the people from Fox and Friends. Their slanted opinions are so evident. Yesterday CNN showed they can easily fit into the same unfair and biased category. Beth is does both the candidates and the voters a great disservice.
Before the next Democratic debate and certainly before the general election the debates should once again be moderated by the League od women voters or CSPAN, so the questions and the way they’re asked are not only relevant but helpful for voters to make their decisions at the voting booths. Too much is at stake to do otherwise.
Ok another note, even if Sanders said what they claimed, so what. Saying a woman couldn't be president is acknowledging a possible political reality. That’s not the same as saying a woman shouldn’t be president. A competent unbiased moderator last night might have addressed the differences or just said nothing.
81
@Miriam
Both the Democrats and Republicans refused to agree to the rules set out by the League of Women Voters.
Also, the big networks likely promised the parties kickbacks from the ratings.
The coverage you get of campaigns is so skewed because very few outlets can afford to send journalists as part of the traveling press core. Matt Taibbi said in a speech about this that when he flew with Trump for 3 days, Rolling Stone (his employer at the time) was charged $15,000. That didn't include food or hotel accommodations.
11
Since their 2016 electoral debacle, Democrats have spent (squandered?) 2 years on ‘Russiagate’ and over a year on ‘Ukrainegate’, which has served as their ‘case’ to impeach Trump. The vote to move impeachment forward was along party lines in the House. Democrats will have to pick up an additional 20 votes in the Senate to obtain the required 2/3 majority (i.e., 67) for conviction, which is not going to happen. Thus, Democrats have deliberately avoided addressing issues that directly affect working people- more jobs paying a livable wage, affordable healthcare, housing, education, childcare, cheaper and far better public transportation and ending expensive wars in ME. So now the American public is being treated to ‘debates’ focusing on identity politics- i.e., electing a woman president. With the possible exception of Bernie Sanders (only candidate who can defeat Trump), the rest of the field is in fundamental agreement with Trump on trade policies, military spending, border wall and an astronomically expensive, publically funded healthcare system, designed to maximize profits for the healthcare industry- health insurance companies, big pharma, including drug stores like CVS, for profit hospitals and clinics and overpaid medical specialties. The 2020 Presidential election is 10 months away. What are Democrats going to campaign on- they spent over a year impeaching Trump and failed? This is not a winning strategy.
16
The exchange between Warren and Sanders reminds me of what Harry Truman said about Washington - if you want to have a friend there, get a dog. Neither of them is my choice and I don’t believe either could win the general election. I did feel for Sanders a bit. If Warren knew this for over a year, why is it only coming up now just prior to voting in Iowa. We need a moderate to appeal to the electorate. I wish Amy had slightly more charisma, she would make a fine president. But I believe Biden will ultimately prevail and hopefully all the Dems rally around him.
6
Sanders is a one-issue candidate, Healthcare for all. Which I happen to agree with.
There's nothing "socialist" about it. Are providing police protection, fire departments, FAA, CIA, FBI, libraries, parks, schools, road construction and upkeep, and other such public services funded by the taxes which we pay socialism? I think not.
Get it done, patients should pay substantial deductibles like $50-100 per visit, to discourage frivolous medical visits, and who cares what we call it. Call it "TrumpCare".
Let us recall that when it comes to insurance coverage of all varieties, the many who don't use the benefits pay for the few who do.
9
Many can't afford a co-pay of $50 per visit, especially those of us already on Medicare.
4
@MIKEinNYC. Mike, and what do you do when doctors ( the best ones ) opt out of Medicare, which they can and go to a cash only model with no insurance companies. We'll have an inequality system in the healthcare system that will be divisive as ever. FYI, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc. DO NOT have a Medicare for All like systems. Private insurance still coexists in those countries. Also hope you've noticed, the people in those countries with money come to the US for their Healthcare because of the expertise and care in the US. IE: Mick Jaggers recent heart valve surgery in NYC. In those countries bureaucrats disallow some things because of expense, and not effectiveness. IE: See recent studies documents a much greater drop in cancer deaths in the USA than European Countries because they won't fund cutting edge drugs and treatments because of costs, while in the US we do. Great way to get costs down. Just let people pass away.
1
That was a "clash" between Warren & Sanders? I mean it wasn't quite a Trump/Putin love fest, but really quite civil. I liked both of their answers.
I will vote for either one, but I prefer Warren, because she has been subjected to sexist attacks from a media that hammers her for not explaining how to pay for M4A , while making no demands of Bernie to do the same.
I suspect that there may be sharp elbows coming from Bernie Bros in the ground campaign. Too many of them are unwilling to vote for anyone but Bernie. Too many of them can't handle a woman candidate who defends herself without complaining about how "identity politics" will get Trump elected. The only people who ever complain about "identity politics" are white men.
Bernie Bros need to look at their own sexism and get over their resentment of women--every one of whom reminds them of Hillary. Had they swallowed their resentment over losing to Hillary and voted for her instead of taking their X-boxes and staying home in 2016 we wouldn't have Trump.
As for the so-called "moderates" who will stay home because they fear Bernie or Elizabeth will turn America into Venezuela, they also need to get a clue about the catastrophe of a Trump re-election.
17
I find it very disheartening that Yang was not only excluded from this debate but not mentioned once in this article
12
Well since the media doesn't appreciate what Bernie and Warren bring to the table for Americans the media and the CNN moderators want to make this a big issue.
We have a madman in the white house the media doesn't address the children in cages ,the destruction of Obamacare . an hour before the debate the stalking text messages were released. Rudi's hand of destruction is in those messages why didnt the moderators talk about that and ask questions. Why because they weren't prepared to do so. A PRIVATE conversation is more meaningful so that they can bring both candidates down.
We don't need Facebook to destroy America we have the media doing a good job. Warren did a great answer addressing the statement, but that isn't good enough for the talking heads.
The American people will vote for who they think is the best candidate not what the talking heads say or the NYT, and we will get behind that candidate. Haven't the American people suffered enough with this administration?.
15
Of all the dirty manufactured tricks. This is not an attack from Warren who did not take the bait. You have no audio recordings only hearsay. Sanders denies it and his record proves otherwise. Media is trying to drive a wedge between Warren and Sanders supporters. Dont fall for it.
37
@Brian Brennan Sort of reminds me of a recent smear campaign against a sitting President.
2
The intelligence, thoughtfulness and decency across the stage last night was alarmingly refreshing. I have my own thoughts about who can win. But looking at this contest in the perspective of our current situation, all of these candidates are winners.
14
The intelligence, thoughtfulness and decency across the stage last night was alarmingly refreshing. I have my own thoughts about who can win. But putting them in the perspective of our current situation, all of these candidates are winners.
3
The most striking part of this debate was the moderators' wording and tone when addressing Sanders compared to the other candidates. There was the obvious Warren/Sanders exchange during which they really should have taken the time to have her lay out what he said to her, but also, for instance, when Biden was asked "why is Sanders wrong?". It really felt like they were trying to portray him negatively.
My expectations of CNN are not particularly high, but that is certainly inappropriate.
60
“Mr. Sanders had the opportunity right from the start to emphasize his pacifist credentials”
This kind of framing is dangerously misleading. Sanders is a realist in the proud tradition of Washington and Eisenhower, not a pacifist. Do not put our troops in harms way unless it is absolutely vital to protecting the American people and their allies. Allies should share our values and be reliable partners, which is why Bernie is questioning our commitment to Saudi Arabia and Netenyahu. I may not vote for him, but I have zero doubts that if America were directly attacked he would not hesitate to defend her. What he would not do is provoke and begin unnecessary wars. The real radicals who are breaking with the founding fathers are the interventionists who shoot first and make the working class pick up the pieces later.
35
Why is there even a debate about this? They aren’t even making the same statements, according to the article. Elizabeth Warren’s people say Sanders stated ‘a woman couldn’t win against Trump’ while Sanders claims he would never say ‘a woman can’t win the Presidency.’ They are not the same. Considering Trumps support base and their apparent willingness to encourage his reprehensible attitude towards women, added to his willingness to go to any lengths to win, a woman would have a much harder fight against him. Stop focusing on sowing seeds of derision, now’s when we come together to accomplish a common goal, to rescue our country.
15
So the question is not anymore what a candidate will do for his/her country but which has the best chance to defeat Trump?
That's rather simplistic, isn't it?
5
@waldo
A losing strategy and a dangerous historic moment.
4
I still remember Sullen Sanders the night Clinton accepted the party’s nomination and his lack of support for her candidacy. I suspect he did tell Warren a woman couldn’t be elected in America right now.
10
@Bella Drake Guess what? Sanders had every right to be sullen, since he was a), the victim of a rigged nomination process and b), the better candidate.
14
@Bella Drake
https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/bernie-sanderss-hard-fight-for-hillary-clinton?verso=true
4
@Bella Drake
Bernie Sanders held 39 rallies for Clinton in states she couldn't even bother to step foot in (Wisconsin and Michigan). He certainly did more to elect Clinton than Elizabeth Warren.
6
Elsewhere the NYC calls the moment Bernie and Warren discussing something at the end of the debate ‘the most intriguing moment’.
I do wonder about the lens through which you see the debate (world). You’ve included this ‘intruiging’ moment in 4 posts.
10
This debate was fascinating. Most of them played themselves. Their messages were more finely tuned that at any time before. That was not a surprise.
Except for Buttigieg.
He was tired but ramrod stiff. His answer were like a tape goes on. He can't talk about the issues spontaneously like Bernie talking to his neighbors. He fears making a mistake. I wanted to support him, but he makes it distasteful. For me, there is the issue of privilege. And not just privilege, but of an inability to recognize the extent of that privilege. Buttigieg knows all about his advantaged status. He's smart, but they're all smart.
What he has trouble recognizing and articulating is the extent to which the breadth of that status effects everything. Not just your jobs. Not just your ideas (none of which will get past Moscow Mitch). But your lack of connection to voters who have been left out of the system their entire lives.
Much of the Democratic base.
The working class does not belong exclusively to Trump. Buttigieg did one thing that caused me to sit up and listen.
Bone Spurs. He actually said it. It was his only fiery moment. I wish he would let himself have more.
An entire campaign could be based on those two words. Forget all the other arguments. Bone spurs over and over and over again goes to the heart of who and what Trump is. For every Trump attack there is one response.
Bone spurs says it all.
6
@Tim Barrus Mayor Pete talks a big game, even says the right things, but has all the gravitas of Justin Bieber.
4
The article did not describe the debate I saw. Please stop the spin as it feeds into Trump's portrayal of the media.
My concern is these softball debates with coaches lines will not get the candidate ready for the general election. Think of poor Mark Rubio.
3
It's so difficult reading the NYT because of articles like this one. Elizabeth Warren did a mastery job of handling the question about the electability of a woman for president. She didn't attack Bernie nor deny that what was reported he said; rather, she turned the answer to addressing the sexism inherent in the issue. With great tact, skill, and intelligence demonstrated that she is the most qualified among the six to be president.
17
This "debate" is rigged. Of course Andrew Yang, polling higher than both Tom Steyer and Amy Klobuchar, should have been on this stage. This is why people voted for Donald Trump, because the DNC doesnt get it. We need a visionary that is not from the corrupt establishment.
29
@Equity I agree--the debates all along have been rigged. I wrote to the DNC giving them a piece of my mind: How dare they decide for me who to vote for? I am a big fan of Marianne Williamson who made a splash at the first 2 debates and then was cut out. Folks said she could never win. Well, in my opinion, if Trump can win, ANYONE can.
Marianne's "politics of love," that love can triumph, that we can establish a Department of Peace. Yang's vision is also a more caring and loftier one, and vision is what we need badly in this country. Call me impractical, but I believe in the establishment of a great and compassionate society. We are on the wrong road in so many ways towards that goal. I believe Sanders gets it.
7
It is time stop having these so called debates. Let the candidates go spend time with the voters instead of the bickering we hear now. These so called debates are a waste of time and energy.
9
Warren didn’t play the gender card. She just stripped off a little veneer from the image of the Honorable Senator from Vermont. Remember, Sanders can also “shoot someone on Fifth Avenue” and his supporters would still vote for him.
20
@Oliver No, Warren showed her true colors. She sees the prize in reach and is now willing to resort to smears and dirty tricks. Vote accordingly.
1
@Oliver OK, I get it. You don't like Bernie. You are under no pressure or obligation whatsoever to support or vote for him. But to comment here that...'Sanders can also “shoot someone on Fifth Avenue” and his supporters would still vote for him" is downright over the top.
1
One important clarification, here. Ms. Warren did not 'confirm' the account of Sanders' comments the closed-door meeting: her campaign was CNN's (and the NYT's) source for the story. The calculated omissions in this story from Warren's campaign and the major news outlets are very disappointing to me. We need to do better than this as a party.
50
@David Nelson your 'clarification' is anything but clarification.
Warren DID indeed 'confirm' the (obviously false) allegation last night when asked by the moderator (who ignored Sanders' answer to the charge)!
4
@David Nelson "Ms. Warren did not 'confirm' the account of Sanders' comments the closed-door meeting"
Obviously, you didn't listen to the followup question to Warren when the CNN moderator specifically asked her, "what did you think when Senator Sanders told you that a woman could not win the election" Her response, "I disagreed!" That's absolutely 'CONFIRMING.' the account.
4
@ Hinckley51 See my response to 'Season smith' below.
Refusing to shake hands at the end seemed petty to me and poor move by Warren.
234
@SMH Warren is a looser Harvard Law students gave her a 2.5 which is a C.That is a liberal bunch of young people if you can't please those you are in trouble
@SMH her true character.
Why lead with the contrived "gender war?" This is a serious election. Shame on CNN for disrupting the flow with that question.
175
Why Warren can’t win: the way she played the “women can’t win” exchange was evidence of a technocrat over a leader.
1. She was wrong and would not admit it (Bernie did win just under 30 years ago)
2. Nobody browbeat Bernie said that
Sure she scored “debate points” but she came out looking more interested in scoring points that leading.
If she just said “of course Bernie, you’ve been at the forefront if change, but let’s look at these facts...”
27
Bernie is a Democrat every four years when running for President. He ran a campaign in 2016 that went far deeper than it should have when he had no chance of winning. In doing so, he hobbled the first woman nominee’s chance of winning. Having to defend against Warren’s attacks on this front is a mild dose of karma IMO...
21
For the life of me, I don’t understand this type of “team” mentality, especially when the very survival of the democracy and the planet are at stake. Warren has shown, at best, a faint recognition of the truth when she risks losing her political footing, while Bernie just continues taking every step with integrity. I know which kind of person I want at the helm when the high-stakes decisions have to be made—the ones that will directly affect me, my family, my country, and planet Earth—and it isn’t the person whose shirt is the purest Dem blue.
15
@Ben Smith
Bernie stayed in as long as Hillary did in 2008, and unlike Hillary he didn't justify staying in the race by saying the frontrunner might be assassinated (like Hillary did with Obama). Hillary hobbled her own chances in 2016 by being so entitled and out of touch that she couldn't be bothered to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan.
6
The whole issue seemed like a well-orchestrated smear on the part of Warren to score points at this all important debate and reverse the downward trajectory of her campaign. It would be consistent with her history of falsifying her heritage to claim undue rewards, denying the truly deserving.
119
One thing that I still find odd is that we often talk about great lines of the night or who had the best moment. It is a bit disappointing to suggest that someone's zinger on a random night should say anything about their candidacy.
Let's pretend that the Warren/Sanders exchange did not occur, does that mean she had a less successful night? If so, what does that say about us as voters?
63
@Vern - So totally agree with you! The zingers on committee hearings from Klobuchar and Harris turned me off. Zingers do not a president make!
4
This is a truly gross mischaracterization of the "debate" about a woman's electability. Sanders has never argued that a woman can't be president, and in fact has said the opposite on many occasions over decades. He publicly urged Warren to run for president in 2016 and only entered the race after she declined.
The debate, if one can call it that, hinges on a two-year-old private conversation that Warren refuses to discuss in any detail, and CNN did not ask her about it. She is obfuscating at best, lying at worst.
256
@Ryan Barger Amazing that you know what really went on in that private conversation.
5
@Bridey
Well anonymous sources who weren't in the room at the time were enough for Warren and the MSM to smear Sanders as a "sexist".
10
@Bridey He's not saying he does. The simple truth is the best scenario is she's telling the truth about this, but she lied about being his friend and ally the last 2 years, only to stick the knife in his back just before Iowa with this nebulous private conversation nonsense.
Worst case scenario is she's lying and sabotaging him with this, and also sabotaging herself, considering how this has all panned out.
7
I watched the entire debate. The candidates are definitely coming across more articulate and knowledgeable as they gain experience and presence. Warren and Sanders were both strong. I would say it is curtains for Amy Klobuchar and Biden. Both degraded even further. Cringeworthy to watch those two ope there mouths.
37
The debate confirmed one thing for me - neither Warren nor Sanders can win this election. They will both lose the electoral college - let's hope that Dems will not fall into this trap and nominate them as the candidate.
31
Agreed. We need to pull away Trump supporters in the general election. One guy can do that, but the DNC rigged the debate criteria and polling schedule against him. Andrew Yang.
6
@Gatorbait Sanders has the interest of people that don't normally vote (for whatever reason). I think you underestimate his appeal.
4
The debate confirmed one thing for me - neither Bernie nor Sanders can win this election. They will both lose the electoral college - let's hope that Dems will not fall into this trap and nominate them as the candidate.
@BMD
Bernie split into two people? That’s some impressive shape shifting.
3
We have such a great group of candidates; I look forward to pulling the lever for any one of them!
69
Sadly, I still don't believe any of these candidates can beat Trump.
Three of them are too "woke" for their own good, one is too "centrist" for the progressives, being a billionaire is something to be ashamed of, and Biden...what's the real appeal?
17
@KB
Who are the three woke ones?
The debate demonstrated just how weak the Dems are - both in policy and persuasiveness. They can't make a case.
14
@2observe2b
Really the democrats can think,talk and put complete sentences together, The Russian loving GOP are traitors to this country. We will be out in force to vote for our candidate who receives the nomination.
All colors,shapes, and for every person taken off the voting rolls, we will have three people replace them who can vote. The people are the worst nightmare of bigots and the GOP.
We are coming and we are loaded with brilliance compared to the dim wattage of pathetic old GOP party members.
The case has been made by the corruption of a draft dodger why the GOP should never be in office. The case has been made by Trump on why he should not be president. Trump committed the crimes not anyone else.
Perry Mason has made the case for Impeachment over and over. So grow up and read if you cant understand TV and there are to many thoughts for your to follow
6
This is what really happened, but certain media are desperately trying to spin the story against Bernie. The same Bernie that wanted Warren to run in 2016 instead of himself.
“Two people with knowledge of the conversation at the 2018 dinner at Warren’s home told The Washington Post that Warren brought up the issue by asking Sanders whether he believed a woman could win. One of the people with knowledge of the conversation said Sanders did not say a woman couldn’t win but rather that Trump would use nefarious tactics against the Democratic nominee.”
“What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could,” Sanders said in the statement. “Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.”
I hope that Warren has some dignity left to admit what really took place, but she appears to be desperate to win at any cost.
368
@steve Sander's would be more credible against this charge if he hadn't let his sexism show in the last election, and in fact, over the years.
10
@dc what? Do you even know sanders? And don't bring up Hilary. She lost on her own.
1
Although I’ve like Warren and Bernie in the past, they have gone way, way, way too left for my taste.
Uncle Joe seems to be sleepwalking through it all and that scares me.
Go Amy!!
16
Interesting that you say they have gone too far left. They’ve held these positions for ... years (Warren since she became Dem, Bernie always). Maybe the change is yours?
143
Bernie is essentially running on the same positions as 2016.
6
@MB
People who have serious illnesses cant wait for Amy to decide NOW is the time to do something. Her economic plan is slow and we need help now. Andrew Yang is the only one who understands how poor people could earn a decent living from working on Climate change and the new industrial revolution.
There is no sense of urgency with Amy, how are we going to pay for it. Well she never has a plan for that except for everyone to wait. Life is now, not when she decides to make decisions at the perfect moment.
Unless she has a sense of urgency she wont make it and people get tired of her midwestern values. She needs to represent the people who live in poverty all across this country and I don't think she does.
6
The lack of a handshake in the debate is interesting.
But the fact that the agent of the personal attorney of Donald Trump received an offer to hit one of our own Ukraine diplomats, who was being removed in the service of receiving personal campaign benefits, seems worthy of more attention by all media today.
“They are willing to help if we/you would like a price,”
85
@Joseph Bloe - I read that the way you did and was floored. I would much rather the media focus on such than the snit between Sanders and Warren.
4
Sanders will not get my vote. Positively not. I cannot vote for him. Unlikable. Unelectable. Unless he miraculously wins the nomination.
17
Not much persuasive in this argument. You have an unexplained personal distaste for the man. It’s your right to use your vote as you see fit, but I hope and pray that most voters are more practical than this whomever they vote for.
22
@Robert Black I personally cannot stand even looking at the man, but I'll do my patriotic duty and vote for him. Anything, anyone but Trump.
4