I will tell you bold and clear... if the DNC puts forward Warren or the other woman (I wont even dignify typing her name), I can tell you that I will not be voting blue. You will all call me sexist because I have convictions against both of these candidates.... but if it was Tulsi I would proudly and openly shout her name in the streets after checking her name in the voting box. Frankly and unapologetically those who are voting for a woman because it is a "woman's time", YOU are the sexist one.
5
It is time to nominate someone who has the best chance of beating Trump. Period. Four more years of this scoundrel and our democracy is through. Stop talking about breaking barriers. The only barrier our country faces is putting a Mitch McDonnell Republican Party in charge of setting priories for the foreseeable future.
5
Amy Klobuchar has a much better chance than poor Warren, who lied about being a Native American. The GOP will never let that fact rest.
4
Hillary Clinton didn't do women proud with her no show campaign allowing Donald Trump to bash her night after night on national TV while she ran and hid in her safe space. Amy Klobuchar didn't do women proud either asking Kavanaugh if he had a drinking problem and when Kavanaugh demanded to know if she had one she meekly allowed him to get away with that. Elizabeth Warren may well be the most intellectually qualified of anyone to be president. Yet she was dumb enough with her silly Pocahontas nonsense and the more she tried to justify it the dumber she looked. Apologies for the sexism but women by and large will instinctively shy away from confrontation. And loud proud vapid confrontation is all Donald Trump has.
3
I heard a man can't win against Trump.
7
If you had written "Biden and Steyer Teach the Girls a Lesson" the firestorm would be epic.
Me, I don't care. I think people on the left are out of their minds obsessed with such silliness. It isn't the left that I have bought into for my entire life.
5
Whatever Bernie Sanders - arch knee-jerk liberal politically-correct socialist nemesis - said in private to Liz must have been significantly distorted in this age of #MeeToo.
Woman as victim. Going back to the cavemen. Reparations?
Truth is, this Democratic field looks pretty weak. On a good day. Can any of them - I don't care who - beat Trump? That would be a Question Mark and the Mysterians hit tune.
And, I hope the title of that tune is not "96 Tears" after whoever - man or woman - on the Dem side loses to Trump and his 44% who would not - in general - vote for a woman...
3
Having just read the New Yorker mag article about how women don’t get fair treatment in Alabama when raped and then murdering the rapist in self defense, I don’t hold out much hope that Americans want women in power.
4
You can tell it's an election year. Trump trolls are out in force.
5
Warren revealed an lack of killer instinct when she failed to call Sanders a liar. Trump would walk all over her in a debate.
What if some one said Biden taught the girls a lesson? Enough with this gender baiting.
4
Good thing you're not a Democratic strategist.
2
Well of course a woman can't win your election. It's America. You're the one place in the world that trumpets so loudly that you're so progressive, so inclusive, so modern, when in reality you're one of the most sexist, the most racist, the most elitist countries on earth. All those privileged white southern men are not going to vote for a woman, period. Con yourselves all you like, but neither of those women stand a chance as president, no matter how competent they are, and you know it.
3
I’m glad to see that women are angry and motivated. But, that’s not why Elizabeth Warren is the answer. She is the answer, because she understands the single issue that is dragging down this country—corporate power.
We can legislate all kinds of things to fix all kinds of problems. But corporate power will undo them, confuse them and distort them.
It’s like fixing the flat tire, but ignoring the half dozen spike nails on the driveway.
6
I don't care whether the Dem nominee is a man or a woman. I want a nominee who a) can win, and b) will attempt to rewrite the social contract, so that Trumpism (not just Trump) can be defeated in the future.
With half of Americans living hand-to-mouth, and the middle class and the planet nearly extinct, we need a President who has the courage to take on the establishment (or the "Economic Royalists" as FDR called them).
Biden's not the one (even if you like him). He's the least electable due to his history and the "appearance" of corruption that'll make it easy for Trump to demoralize voters into saying home.
4
If a woman doesn’t win the Presidency in 2020, a woman is guaranteed to win in 2024, when a Democratic woman Governor/Senator runs against Republican Governor Nikki Haley.
5
I'll share this assessment of the debate and candidates from Nick Gillespie from reason.com:
"They live in a world where dark, shadowy forces—billionaires, corporations, Russian operatives especially—conspire with near-perfect success to make us all poorer and sadder, dumber and sicker, more alienated and hopeless. According to the candidates, nobody can afford the doctor, college, or child care. The whole planet may be baked in a decade because of fossil fuels, but we shouldn't really talk about expanding nuclear power or even using natural gas and fracking as a bridge fuel. Sexism, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, police violence, and more are worse than ever."
Do democrats as a whole really buy into this negativity?
"But if you're promising (threatening might be the better term) major transformations of the economy, health care industry, education system, and more, having a positive vision of the future rather than a punitive one seems to be a prerequisite. Yet with the possible exception of Andrew Yang, the long shot candidate who didn't make the cutoff to appear last night anyway, all of the remaining Democrats talk more about settling scores than about creating a richer, smarter, more innovative world."
2
30 years ago Elizabeth Warren *was* a democrat.
Warren’s comment that she beat an incumbent Republican was a cheap and misleading shot. She defeated Senator Brown who won a special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. Browns opponent was an awful campaigner and had not traction. Warren came along a little more than a year after and took back a seat that had been in Democrats hands for three generations. Not really a hard lift and not one that is de facto translatable to a national election. This kind of dissembling is what dooms her campaign. We have heard it before. Think about her Native American ancestry.
3
Wasn't the previous presidential candidate of the Democratic party was a woman ? Are we proposing a rule that only the women can be presidential candidates here ?
1
Nixon ran for president 3 times. Lost the first one and won the next two. Reagan ran 4 times, lost the first two, won the next two. Losing first didn't seem to matter for them. American politics is full of people who won something before they lost big: Goldwater, Dole, Bush 1, Kerry, McCain, Gore, Mitt, Hillary. Warren, a liberal democrat won in a liberal state. How hard can that be? Warren's argument is irrelevant.
The sad truth is that so many in this country would rather have a really unqualified MAN for president than a really qualified woman.
If you're a woman, you already know where I'm headed with this. So many incompetent, crooked, dangerous men throughout history have not only gotten "a pass," but are even celebrated.
But women who exhibit these traits, or indeed any traits considered assertive, are routinely punished for having them.
Not fair...
4
I'm so tired of this identity culture we live in. Television stardom/"royalty", religion, skin color, gender, financial status, expensive cars, big houses, designer clothes, designer dogs (!), "in" neighborhoods, etc. Enough already. What happened to community, country, planet, humane humanity, peace, love?
Back to reality... Vote BLUE no matter who. (If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.)
5
I agree with the thesis of this column and look forward to voting for a woman for president again. That is, a candidate I can support wholeheartedly who happens to be a woman.
Given that the Republican nominee will be Donald Trump, finding a Democrat of any description whom I can support wholeheartedly will be like shooting fish in a barrel. Finding a female candidate I can support wholeheartedly, and not just vote for, will finally become possible.
In fairness to those people, both men and women, who say a woman can't be elected president this time, we need to understand that they're looking over their shoulders at a certain demographic: potential swing voters in swing states.
Still, I think you're right. By Election Day 2016, Hillary Clinton had multiple limbs tied behind her back while Trump was being boosted by Russian active measures (and given a pass by the FBI), and yet it was close even in the swing states.
1
As a life long Democrat I am appalled by the weakness of these candidates - It is a sad state of affairs and Bruni, you are making matters worse by towing the party line. We need better.
3
In this debate Sen. Klobuchar scored with me a number of times but one point in particular: The senator told us she had studied what our President can do on her own: She learned there are over 100 things our President can do my herself and as I recall she pledged to do them. No House divided, no Senate divided, just a woman who found a way to be President and make what she thought were right things happen.
OK, I've registered on her website, haven't donated yet. Why? I couldn't find anyplace to click that told me about this aspect of her campaign. I'll be looking.
1
Much fuss last night about Elizabeth Warren not shaking Bernie Sander's hand. I don't think she was snubbing him so much indicating that she had words to say to him before she did. Given how Trump used aggressive handshakes with politicians and foreign dignitaries to prove his dominance, Warren wanted a second.
Why people jump to conclusions that she 'wouldn't shake his hand' baffles me. A handshake is not required. Women have smaller hands and also don't shake hands as much as men. Give her a break.
3
I am so glad Warren made an issue where there wasn't one. I don't believe there is a barrier for a woman to become President today. We just need the right woman. Warren and Klobuchar leave a lot to be desired, they’re not the right ones. Whether it is a man or woman should not be a qualification for being President, period. Being the best candidate in the room should be the only qualification. From what I saw up on the debate stage, none of them really impressed. For me it was a cringe worthy night. This is the best we have, to put up against Trumpism? I think making the debate, largely one on sexism where it doesn’t exist, made Biden more desirable. So, picking the best from the worst, I would say Biden has the best chance, not because he is a man, but rather because he's been there, 8 years with Obama and has the experience. What we need is a moderate steady hand and not an over-correction to the left, to bring us back to even keel. If I had my druthers, I’d like to see a long shot like Mike Bloomberg, win. But that would be too good to be true.
4
I disagree with Buttigieg sounding too rehearsed. He may sound a bit academic but that’s only because the guy understands the complexity of the issues and is able to speak to the various factors influencing the issues.
6
Warren and Klobuchar have never lost a race only because they have never run for president before. Each will have a loss after Iowa.
6
Sorry but Warren lost my support last night. Her conversation with Sanders was private and should not have been dragged into the debate. Her refusal to shake his hand after the debate was over was very telling. She struck me as desperate.
21
I am Iowa voter who was undecided until last night. I'm now caucusing for Warren and sure hope she will choose someone like Klobuchar as her veep. I honestly wonder if the pervasive sexism (explicit or implicit) on seeing women in powerful positions is some Freudian insecurity of having our mothers as the most influential woman in our early childhood. For most of us, the mother is/was the primary caregiver, and our early perceptions of authority are shaped by feeling powerless at the authority of a woman.
10
This is not a quota system. When the right woman runs, people were vote her in. Americans already sent that message in 2016. Klobuchar presents a chaotic message that is meaningless to me when I decide who to vote for. She needs to focus on 3 things she intends to give the American people and then say how she will deliver them. Warren is really good at outlining her platform and explaining how it will work and how she will deliver it. But, the cost of her health care system scared many potential voters away. She needs to recapture them somehow. Let's remember, Trump has kept important promises and he did so in 3.5 years! He set a new standard so candidates can't just "promise" things like they did in the old days....and then not deliver.
5
For some reason, Warren's Macchiavellian move makes me like her more. To trot out (and undoubtedly distort) something that was said over a year ago -- after waiting until the last second before the primary -- and then to disingenuously twist the knife in the debate by saying "I disagree but I'm not going to fight about it" was so slimy that it makes me think she could stoop to the level that is needed to beat Trump.
2
I find it amusing that a conversation between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would be thought to provide some kind of gauge on whether a woman can be elected. People that are educated and as progressive as Bernie Sanders are not the problem. With all due respect to females everywhere, there still is some disadvantage to being a woman in an election in some places.
When Hillary did not “win“ the election I looked at how many females around the world have won popular elections to lead countries. There have been very, very few. The ones who have, usually have some connection to some previous leader (a Ghanaian or a Peron) almost like royalty ascending to the throne.
Many of the female leaders throughout Europe have been elected by coalitions in the ministries, where the populace has not placed them in office, but they have been chosen by representatives (almost like Nancy Pelosi).
If you look at a number of states in this country you see that they have never elected a woman governor. These states highlight how backward some portions of this country are. We have come along way, but there is still a way to go for women to be treated as the equal to men.
3
Elizabeth has "a policy for everything" and an answer to every question, the gift of gab, but that is not what most people are looking for in a president. People are looking for a thoughtful person who is a good listener, and who really does not have a policy for everything.
7
Unfortunately, we still have women who vote against their own interests. We also have men who will never, ever vote for a woman. Show them virtually any two candidates who have the same qualifications, and it will come down to race and/or gender. Are we absolutely sure that the Bernie voters who voted for Trump over Hillary did so to vote against the establishment? Or do you think there was a tinge or sexism involved? I do. This is why Elizabeth Warren polls worse against Trump than Bernie when they have virtually the same message.
7
Good point....It's crazy! Men vote against their interests by voting for women sometimes too... You'd think men and women would be smart enough to vote for their own gender or perhaps their own race or religion...Hopefully progressive Democrat policy will convince our citizens to stop being foolish and vote properly for candidates based on their gender, race and ethnicity. Form over function.
2
At this point, "electability" is a farce. I don't know which candidate is the most "electable," but I do know that anyone who claims to know is deluded. The political landscape has shifted and we're all still stumbling around.
Warren makes a fine point, and it was wise to bring up the gendered "electability" fear in order to dispel it. It was not wise to do so by first insisting that Sanders claimed the contrary in a private conversation. Whatever Sanders said or meant then is frankly irrelevant, because throughout his career, his public statements and actions show he firmly believes in the viability of female candidates. You can't credibly argue with someone about something you both strongly agree on.
Ultimately, either Sanders or Warren will have to step down in favor of the other. When it comes, that transition needs to be fair and amicable, or it will alienate a critical group of progressive voters, one that the winning candidate will need to win the nomination and general election. Here's hoping that they think about that.
4
I would rather stay home than vote Warren or Sanders. Klobuchar is on the board, however. I will continue to evaluate her policy positions.
4
Identity politics will guarantee four more years of Trump. Warren decided to jump-start her campaign in the last debate before the Iowa caucuses by asserting that in 2018 Senator Bernie Sanders confided to her that he did not believe a woman could be elected president. She apparently also decided that it would be good politics to inflate this questionable piece of information into a bit of political theater during the debate, boasting that her Senate victory somehow refuted this supposed notion of Senator Sanders and then pointed out (irrelevantly) that no man on the stage had defeated a Republican in 30 years. Michael Moore has weighed in: "...'there is no way' @BernieSanders told @ewarren that a woman could not be elected president. When that feud started on Monday, “my first thought was they will mark this day, January 13th, as the day Donald Trump was re-elected. Good work, Warren.
10
Bruni says:
"Warren’s boast about vanquishing a Republican incumbent? That incumbent was Scott Brown, whose victory in a special election in deep blue Massachusetts was considered something of a freak occurrence to begin with."
I beg to differ:
Massachusetts has a Republican governor (Charlie Baker). There has only been one Democratic governor (Deval Patrick) since 1991.
3
@Darth Vader Nothing to do with the Mass. governor. Elizabeth Warren defeated Scott Brown to become the SENATOR for Massachusetts -- and she is still in the U.S. Senate.
I think the real story here—and I haven’t seen any in-depth discussion of it—is who first broadcast the claim about a private conversation, and who, if anyone, would have been most likely to benefit from it? I have no idea who initiated it, but when I tried to work out in my own mind who would have the incentive to do so, I was flummoxed. Warren? How would she know that Sanders would flat out deny out? Even if he didn’t say it, he could have defused the whole issue by saying something along the lines of, ‘It was a private conversation and I will not discuss what we said to one another.” Sanders? Can’t see anything he’d have to gain by initiating. One of the “moderate” candidates? They’re the big winners here, but they couldn’t have possibly guessed that Warren and Sanders would take the bait and go after each other, could they? A Republican? I doubt that they fear a left-wing Democratic candidate. I just don’t get it, but it’s the only part of this mishegoss that I’m interested in.
5
This essay was hostile to men, as are so many pieces in the allegedly progressive precincts of the media.
And by the way: Warren may have won all of her races but she is a progressive who got elected from Mass., the only state in the Union which was carried by George McGovern.
12
Poor men! And yet I had no trouble not being offended.
5
It’s likely they did have a conversation about a woman candidate in 2020; it’s unlikely we’ll ever know the accurate exact content of that conversation. Any female candidate, Warren, Klobuchar, or Gabbard for that matter will be attacked from the alt-right and alt-right lite. DJT will undoubtedly deploy extreme sexism and misogyny with little to no subtlety; it is after all, his stock in trade. I am less concerned about the likely attack pattern than I am that Democrats will be subtlety avoidant in their selection.
Nominate the most competent and capable individual; we did so the last time and SHE won the popular vote. This time let’s develop a coherent Electoral College strategy to go along with that popular vote. Whoever the nominee is, everyone that wants DJT out of office, vote for her or him. Third party votes and indignant refusal to vote brought us GWB and Iraq. I really don’t want DJT and Iran.
1
Just so you know the election was in November 1990. That was 29 years and 2 months ago not 30 years ago. Elizabeth got the math wrong and Bernie did not mansplain anything. She picked the number to exclude Bernie. Bernie is a winner and she is doing everything she can to try to separate herself but she just lacks the ethics and the transparency that Bernie shows.
12
"There was a memorable moment when Sanders sought to correct Warren on her 30-year claim, noting that he’d defeated a Republican in 1990, and she did some quick, out-loud arithmetic to determine that 1990 was, well, 30 years ago! Mansplaining met mathematics".
hey, do elections take place in January?
I think if we are going tolerate excessive pedantry we should at least demand a little precision.
13
Numbers are hard for politicians and I guess opinion writers to understand. She picked 30 years because it sounded better. She knew it wasn't true...She has issues telling the truth when it won't sound like she wants it to...This caused her to refuse to admit her Health care plan will raise taxes. Then she changed her plan, lost momentum in the polls and looked foolish....Not shaking hands with and outing comments made in private against someone she claims is her "friend" does not make for a good image..If nominated, it's hard to believe the electorate will get too excited about her. All she offers is a smarter nastier, more politically correct version of Trump, with policies most people don't want. She may lie less than Trump, but she will lie much better! Not sure that's good.
1
I've been a feminist all my life. But I believe that if women want to be equal we have to stop playing the gender card. It's counterproductive.
20
As much as I’ve wanted a woman president my entire life, Warren just removed herself by proving she is untrustworthy, a liar, has bad judgement and bad character. She has just removed the last benefit of the doubt and proved by herself, with an unforced error, that she is not a progressive champion, as she wants us to believe. Warren is unfit to lead. Just gave Bernie another donation.
4
@CPC Most discrimination occurs because of subconscious biases people have. The only way to wake them up and get them to reassess a situation consciously and fairly is to point out what they seem to be doing. Yes, it's better to do so mainly when we have solid evidence of the bias, but one to stay silent and hope things will get fairer all by themselves is foolish.
Elizabeth Warren is too clever by half.
7
What makes me crazy is how many people I've heard say, "I'd vote for a woman, but I don't think those people in Michigan or Wisconsin will." I remind them that my home state of Michigan has elected two women governors and has had a woman senator for many years. There is no way we can second guess this. We all need to vote for the candidate we think is the most qualified in the primary and then vote for whichever one gets the nomination in the general election.
9
Strong women throughout history prove that the right woman would make a strong president.
4
Strength is good judgement. Strength is uniting the entire country based on service, even if it doesn’t personally serve you. Strength is caring about policies that will improve the quality of life for all citizens. Strength is uniting the world to fight for life on earth. Warren has, through a calculated, failed strategy, recycled from a previous failed campaign, just shown in an unforced error of judgement and untrustworthiness, she is not a strong, admirable or a leader.
3
Maybe the reason why no woman has shattered the glass ceiling is because they concentrate on identity politics, rather than on substance.
I cringed when Elizabeth Warren delivered her obviously well-rehearsed anti-attack on Bernie, after she invented the attack herself. No reasonable observer could possibly believe Warren's attack on Bernie. And I am no fan of Bernie.
I am a conservative Republican, and would gladly vote for Nikki Halley. I consider Maggie Thatcher an awesome leader, and there are many other female leaders I admire.
I would have voted for Elizabeth Dole had she run for president; Christie Whitman was a great governor and cabinet member. She should have thought of running for the top spot.
The point is that to me, they were just plain candidates. Gender had nothing to do with it.
Warren practically begged voters last night to vote for her just because she's a woman. That's partially why Hillary lost, and I hope Warren goes down for the same reason.
14
She will. It is important to note tho, that she would have went down for that reason. Amy will go down for the same. It will turn to gender. America needs to address certain things, most of those things are identity politics now. You cannot address them by pretending they do not exist. Warren's mistake was trying to convince anyone that Bernie said that over say Biden. It would have still rang false, but is more plausible than the dude fighting next to you for most things. None of these dems will win tho. Not against Trump.
2
@G ELizabeth Warren hasnt asked anyone to vote for her simply because she is a woman. She was making a point to those who have expressed doubts that a woman could win an election. And her point was a valid one.
5
Frankly, I think most voters are less concerned about the candidates gender, race, or even sexuality than what these candidates will do for them.
I think Warren has lost the progressive wing to Sanders as she stumbled on how to pay for her health care plan and as for Amy it is getting tiring listen to how people should vote for you because you are a woman from the midwest.
14
Out of every topic that was talked about in the debate, it is predictable that the one thing that people are commenting on the most is Elizabeth Warren’s defence of the electability of women candidates for president. That just proves that Warren is right to point it out and take it on.
It is so very difficult to point out to people what it means when they have a very modern and enlightened view of the role of women in society.... for someone speaking in the 1970s. Things have changed. You haven’t kept up. You don’t even know it. You don’t want to know it. Why do things have to keep changing? It would be so much more comfortable if everybody just stayed the same for a bit.
5
I hope I'm not being shallow. But I can't help thinking how pleasant it would be to see either Ms. Klobuchar or Ms. Warren in the news every day compared to what I endure now.
Then, again, that's about as low a bar as can be set.
11
oh Please.. Mr. Bruni acts as though its some trail-blazing event to have a discussion about gender..or race, or ethnicity, or electability, or whatever.. ..
.. I specifically remember women in Michigan being interviewed after the 2016 election..and they said they did not vote for Hillary..because they didn't think a woman could do the job.
... So yes.. it could be a bit harder for a women to be elected President in this country.. -But the same was true for a Catholic man & a black man..and they've been elected.
..--- As far as Warren in this race.. her poll numbers began to slide after she released her $20 trillion health plan, not because she's a woman.
.. People judge others on a whole bunch of different criteria..and yes..gender sometimes is one of those criteria.. -That's life.
12
43 white male presidents.
1 black male president.
0 female presidents of any color.
Yeah, I'd say it's their turn. For 243 years, half of the population has been treated as ineligible for the presidency because they are women. So, it's not time for an unqualified woman or an inexperienced woman. It is time for a woman like Warren or Klobuchar.
199
@writeon1 There are no turns! Woman or man get elected on your merits.
29
@writeon1, It doesn't work that way, Candidates don't get to take turns at the presidency. The winner has to earn it. Which apparently the American public thinks Biden is doing exactly that.
10
@justice Holmes "Woman or man get elected on your merits." Well, if that were true, Donald Trump would definitely not be president.
27
As to the Warren/Sanders dust-up, Sanders simply doesn't have the luxury of telling the truth, as admitting he doesn't think a woman is electable would damage or kill his campaign.
2
@Rick You are presuming that that is what Sanders thinks. Why does it matter? Voters will decide if a woman is qualified. Not Bernie Sanders. Or Elizabeth Warren.
5
@IGUANA No one but Sanders will ever know what he really said or thinks -- I made the different point that we can't trust what he says on the subject because admitting he did say or does think a woman isn't electable would likely end his campaign.
So, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders alone in a closed room private meeting. Did she say that he said that she could not win because she is a woman? Sounds like a clear case of Schrödinger's cat?!
4
“We took back state houses and Congress because of women voters”? What about all the men, like me, who voted for Democrats in 2018?
Frank Bruni stamps his little feet and complains vaguely about all those big bad men out there. What’s the point?
Let’s remember that Barack Obama didn’t win two terms as President by whining about white supremacy, and that Kirsten Gillibrand was bounced from the race months ago when Democrats rejected her “time for men to clear out of the way” message.
After the disaster of 2016, you would think that Dems would have learned not to take any groups of potential voters for granted, or treat them with disdain. We’ll see.
In the meantime I look forward to voting for a woman for President—but not a neo-liberal woman.
Ovaries are optional, a commitment to reduce economic inequality is mandatory.
13
It's ridiculous that Democrats would discuss whether a woman can win in 2020. Leave such a bigoted argument to the Republicans, who still want women to be barefoot and pregnant.
All over the world, women have led countries for decades and done it well. There is no excuse for this bigotry here, just as there should be no excuse for bigotry against gay people, people of color and people who live with disabilities.
7
Probably Democrat males should go Republican after all, if the male gender is such a liability to the party in these times. At least there you won't be shunned for who you are.
8
No they did not teach the boys a lesson as you so playfully claim. Or they taught them that women can be just as devious as men. I say this as a woman. I do not feel represented nor would ever want to be represented by these women. Warren playing the victim/sexist card, just when she was floundering in the polls and had taken on Obama people and had Hillary people to advise her. Low and calculating and I think wildly miscalculating. She picked the wrong dude to smear. His record for fighting for and supporting women, including standing down so she could run if she chose to do so, in 2016 is excellent, no matter how the women on the View make up stuff. And Amy is the corporation and main stream media's darling who will not catch fire with regular people no matter how much she smiles and talks about she is from the Midwest and can bring people together and that is all she says she will do too. She is for sale and hopes to pick up the left overs from Pete's banquet with the corporations. Amy is a hack and will serve corporations and not us and Warren think she can cheat and win and then maybe do something for the mommas and babies and so on. Nope, I would not trust either as a friend, why trust them as president. Plenty of other strong and honorable women, too bad the squad is too young. In them I have real faith. And who cannot love AOC? Well all those the brain washers got to. Lucky me, not brainwashed and loving it. Women we can do better.
8
Let's remind everybody that Warren "remembered" Sanders was a sexist after she started losing the public support.
Do we really need a president whose strength is to play a defenseless victim?
So she shared her memories with us for the public to protect her?
Isn't the presidential role to protect the others and not to look weak?
16
It seems that he people who will vote for Trump and those who might vote for him are the people who are disinclined to vote for a woman.
If the Dems nominate a woman, they hurt their chances with those who might vote for Trump--no chance any Dem gains votes from Trump's base given their invincible ignorance.
True Warren and Klobuchar have won the elections in which they have run; also true that there are not many Trump leaning types in the states in which they won elections.
1
I'm a card-carrying, published feminist.
And bias is pervasive and implicit, so it's harder for women. Even terrific women.
To argue otherwise is to deny the reality of sexism.
Two wonderful women candidates. But the women voters are already gravitating away from Trump.
We must defeat Trump. We must appeal to swing voters, not preserve some theoretical purity. The rest is the stupid side of PC.
6
"It was a self-serving edit of history."
That's Warren's SOP in a nutshell.
12
Every time American media pushes a narrative of fake/exaggerated drama a Russian Troll gets its wings. We know it's a nothingburger story, but those seeking to create chaos in America feed on this kind of stuff and keep its life blood pumping. Do better.
12
There is no clear evidence that Bernie Sanders actually said a woman could not win the presidency. In fact, the evidence is weak, at best. But the NYT, by publishing this content, is doing what Elizabeth Warren did last night, articulating that a woman can win (and so quietly assuming Sanders' guilt) without going so far as to say that Sanders did, indeed, tell Warren she could not win due to her gender (and thus tell a lie). It's having cake twice.
Also, Klobuchar committed workplace harassment over the course of many decades, having among the highest turnover rates of any congressperson. She should not be lauded, she should be put out of work.
12
That creepy misogynist we have in the White House needs to be taken down a peg or two, I believe only a woman can do that. We have two excellent choices for the job. Color me biased, but it would be about damn time.
7
"Past success does not guarantee future performance."
6
Brilliant Joel.
1
A mediocre column with a predictable identity politics theme.
Here is what Bruni isn't telling you:
1/ The debates and the campaign are irrelevant and haven't changed anything. The race is the same as it was 6 months ago. #1Biden...#2Sanders...#3Warren
2/ A recent poll out of Florida says that Biden is the only Democrat who can beat Trump there. Given Florida's role as one of the key deciding states in Presidential elections, that probably implies that Biden is the only Democrat on the stage who can beat Trump in November.
3/ Three out of four polls from Texas say that Biden and Trump would have a very close race there which Biden might win. If Texas becomes a swing state that will be a seismic upheaval in US politics which will really help Democrats. Bruni should be writing multiple columns about that possibility.
If Democrats want to win in November, they need to choose Biden.
4
Mr. Bruni referring to electing a female President:
"...how absurd it is that this country hasn’t yet shattered the highest glass ceiling of all."
Why in the world should we feel OBLIGATED to elect a woman?
Talk about a biased view. The time will come when a woman is elected to the oval office, the right candidate in the right circumstances.
The only reason Obama won in 2008 was a lot of white people wanted to prove how tolerant they were. It's a horrible reason to elect anyone (race or gender).
6
Issues about climate change, cyber security, eroding privacy and MBA running healthcare into the ground - those are my concerns that I probably share with many others.
Warren is a better bet that Sanders - she is pragmatic enough to work with both sides of the aisle, but how much does she knows or cares about my concerns, except her pie in sky healthcare reform?
Klobuchar is sort of all over the place, again she didn't really go with new ideas or new approaches.
Biden is slowly fading away, and Sanders is consistently Sanders, which is nice but it doesn't propel us ahead.
Buttigieg seems to understand and voice problems that are not only at our doorstep but in our houses with changes in the agri business and communications. But he is somewhat weak on solutions.
The billionaire guy is strong on climate change and the environment, but what about education, infrastructure?
ALL of them are better than the Current Occupant of the WH. SOME of them are better than others.
A ticket without Warren, Klobuchar or Buttigieg is a losing ticket. Those three are smart enough and 2 of them young enough to run a few circles around the Current Occupant and Pence make their head spin and have them fall flat on their impeached and saintly faces respectively.
5
Warren's (obviously well-prepared) remarks about how a woman could be in a good position to win the Presidency was perhaps the high point of an otherwise bland debate. But she had a lot of help from CNN in setting it up. So much help that CNN's credibility as an objective news source and future debate organizer should be in question.
Warren is the only person in the world who claims to have heard Sanders make the statement about a woman not being able to win the Presidency this time. Prior to the debate Sanders denied that he made this statement. Yet, the first question went to Sanders and it was phrased as 'why did you say that?' Sanders denied it in a way that was believable although not terribly inspiring. But in his denial lies the implication that Warren was lying. Still, CNN's follow up question was phrased as 'how did you feel when Sanders said that?' At this point she went into her somewhat inspiring speech about women. But her moment relied on CNN's set up and failure to follow up. CNN's actions implied that Sanders is lying, put no pressure on Warren to counter his denial, and gave her the opening to make her convincing case.
I'm not sure what Democrats are supposed to think about CNN at this point. Remember, it was a CNN debate with Sanders and Clinton when Donna Brazile gave the questions to Hillary Clinton in advance. And now we have this. Sanders can make some pretty reasonable claims about bias in the media.
12
CNN and it's minions leaked questions to Bernie's opponent in 2016 without consequence. They probably did so again in some fashion...The DNC will do nothing. CNN is too important to them. Nothing inherently wrong with that. It's a Democrat Party thing. The Party makes the rules. They can do as they wish. It just looks stupid.
1
Goebels would be proud!
To accuse of the sexism a candidate whose female opponent was favored four years ago by the Democratic establishment is the new low for this party.
It doesnt get any worse than this...
5
If a writer at Fox wrote a headline about how Biden and Bernie had taught the girls a lesson, the NYT would be bursting with outraged editorials. So why is the reverse fine? If Democrats think that historic sexism by some men means they can turn around and be as sexist as they like against all men, then they can prepare for another term of Trump.
13
Your second paragraph says all anyone needs to know. You should have stopped there.
So, Elizabeth, please tell us if you’ve stopped beating your husband.
8
Frank, Frank, Frank, you try to have it both ways. First you say it's a stupid question, and unanswerable, then you in essence give it an answer.
3
I love listening to a gay man, married to another man tell me about how women can win the presidency. I only point out that Mr. Bruni is in the enviable position to have two male salaries in his household while the gender pay gap means most women still make 22% less. I'm not interested in the gender, or the religion, of any of the candidates although I will point out that Bernie Sanders would be the first Jewish American president.
3
@lzolatrov
Only when comparing men's and women's wages *in the aggregate*, do women make 77% of what men make.
But that does not mean a woman standing next to a man doing the very same job, for the same amount of hours, with the same amount responsibility and so on, is being paid less. When actually comparing apples to apples the pay gap is so small as to be immeasurable.
There are a mountain of complex and ever-changing reasons why - in the aggregate - women's pay is lower, and most of that has everything to do with the choices women make about the kinds of education and careers to pursue, and choices to raise children.
4
"There was a memorable moment when Sanders sought to correct Warren on her 30-year claim, noting that he’d defeated a Republican in 1990, and she did some quick, out-loud arithmetic to determine that 1990 was, well, 30 years ago! "
The election Sanders recalls would have been in November 1990, right? If so, that victory was 1 year old in November 1991 -- and 29 years old in November 2019.
If it's about math, not sexism, Sanders wins
6
NOT A SMART ANSWER AT ALL. Abraham Lincoln lost 7 elections by himself! Find a better reason to choose between these people. My stock in Ms. Warren continues to dive. Although I will vote for a democrat, even though I am a republican, my vote does not count in Oklahoma and I do not see any of these choices winning the Presidential election, despite the immoral character currently in office.
7
"And both made clear, with commanding performances, how absurd it is that this country hasn’t yet shattered the highest glass ceiling of all."
Can we stop trying to shatter ceilings? This cycle it's about electability and policy.
3
I can't tell you how much I dislike Warren. I liked Hillary, donated to her, campaigned for her, voted for her. Klobuchar is smart and appealing. (Though Yang is my top choice.)
Warren? With Trump as the alternative, I would have to vote for her, but then I would need to shower for a week. She's obviously very intelligent, and I believe she does care about at least some of what she says she cares about. But first she claimed to be Native American, then that she was fired for being pregnant, now that Bernie Sanders (who is on television urging girls to be president in the 1970's, and who Warren herself said urged her to run in 2016!) supposedly thinks that a woman can't be president. How can you not be seriously disturbed by this? Either she's got a pathological persecution complex or she's just flat-out a liar.
Media doesn't help by portraying her critics as bros. I'm a woman and a feminist. I believe sexism is pervasive and profound. But I can't stand Warren at this point. And if you check out, say, #itrustbernie on Twitter, it's coming very largely from women--many of us women of color.
10
I am not a Bernie bro, but I was somewhat disgusted by Warren's cheap move on gender. She got there by revealing a private conversation from four years ago with a supposed friend and colleague, and then used it for some hoped for political gain on the debate stage. Being a jerk is an equal opportunity status, and Warren has revealed herself to be a jerk.
18
'... citing yardsticks by which they were demonstrably superior to their male rivals.'
This is demonstrably stupid. The two women in this comically biased article have absolutely no edge vs. the four males on the stage unless you consider their sex a huge advantage per-se. (Vice versa also applies).
I absolutely do not mind a woman for a president but if that is to be the primary criterion, then say it loud that men need not apply, and see where will that lead you. As is now, it is going to be a man candidate, and then a man president, and the same as now on top of it all. So sorry for you Bruni, you may have such a hard time in Nov, neither your candidate nor your preferred gender to win ...
5
Mr Bruni -- please, please keep the Democrats focused on race and gender.
5
How about a Warren Klobuchar ticket
? A double whammy!!!
109
@Irwin Rubin
Unfortunately, being nice and intelligent means less in current US politics.
The Democrat needs a powerful and teflon personality
to beat Trump and his supporters.
@Irwin Rubin Yes, two 100% white people. That should do the trick.
1
@Irwin Rubin
Warren/Harris is my pick.
1
Like Trump who throws nonsense made-up red meat claims at his base, so does Warren with this female electability stuff. It's made-up red meat calculated to stir up the radical left base. Many pandits have fallen for Trump's demagoguery, while Mr Bruni has been a stalwart defender of truth and reason. Sad to see him fall for this "progressive" red meat demagoguery.
1
There was a missed opportunity by Warren or Klobuchar to highlight the leadership of Speaker Pelosi.
5
Warren should go after the low hanging fruit: Biden - not Bernie. A lot of females support Biden, and would likely support Warren if Biden was not there (it sounds sexist, but it is a political reality).
All Warren has to do is ask the one simple question that everybody wants to ask, but lacks the nerve to ask:
"Mr. Biden, 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, and why - if you don't think anybody did anything wrong - did you say it would not happen again if you are elected president?"
4
Warren would do that, if she weren’t running merely to sabotage Bernie.
3
@99percent
Hunter is a full-grown adult who can work where he chooses, I presume, as long as he breaks no laws. Was it unseemly to have taken the job, as his dad was VP? Was the fact that his dad was VP a factor in landing the job? Apparently, but it is more than just unseemly how much unqualified nepotism exists in the current WH. Why aren't Trump supporters critical of that?
1
As a female, it insulted me a little bit, that CNN and Warren would assume that I would be so in thrall to my emotions surrounding my womanhood, that I would snap my fingers in an "I'm every woman" sort of way, when Abby Phillips was feeding Liz softballs right down the middle.
I'm a little more dismayed that Mr. Bruni has willfully bought into the obvious gender card narrative, that, dare I say, was a deliberate smear on Sanders, coordinated between CNN and Warren's campaign.
This is all a bit ironic considering Frank Bruni was the one who tapped Buttigieg to run in June of 2016, with a glowing writeup in the Times.
I don't care for Senator sanders, and I used to be somewhat on board for Warren's candidacy - but I will have to go with Mr. Bruni's first choice, 4 years before the fact (wait, a little under four years): Pete Buttigieg.
7
Is this the twilight zone?
Warren and Clobuchar accusing Sanders of the sexism, the very candidate whose campaign was sabotaged by the Democratic elite in order to clear the path for heir majority Hillary?!
7
Donald Trump beats himself by his lying, cheating, stealing, racism, cowardice, destroying the environment, both climate and societal, and his overall uncouthness and middle school punk speech.
Someone just needs to convince enough Trump voters not to beat themselves by voting for this embarrassing man. These Trump voters and the media should ask Trump to see his written plans on healthcare, environment, etc., just as they have asked the Democrats on their plans vision for the entire country.
1
Can a woman be elected president? Give me a break.
If I'm not mistaken isn't this the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment? Would it be too radical in 2020 for a major party ticket with two women? Of course it's too radical, I dream. (But it does have a nice ring about it.)
2
Klobuchar has a strong record of accomplishments and legislation to run on. Bernie has almost no legislative success to his name. When asked how he will get his program through Congress, any Congress, he replies 'we're going to have a revolution'. He is saying that he hasn't a clue. Compromise in not a dirty word.
Also, if the author is interested in electing a woman President, then he should tell his employer not to apply the sexist double standard they applied to Hillary last time.
3
I find it interesting that after a woman, Hillary Clinton, got three million more votes than her male opponent, that that question even needed to be dealt with. Warren and Klobuchar were quite good at doing so, however.
Now, for the true 200 pound elephant in the room: when are the democrats going to have as a debate question the issue of a male president with a male first spouse? I suspect, based on where I think we are as a society, especially in the middle and south of the country, that once that image sinks in, Trump wins in a landslide...
Just saying....
1
Teach the boys a lesson based on track record? Huh?
Sanders: 13 wins vs 6 loses (4 loses in the 1970's, 1 in 1988), all wins since then.
Klobuchar: 5 wins (and dropped out of a race early)
Warren: 2 wins
I think I'll go with Sanders' track record.
7
I’m sorry, but I disagree. I don’t think our country is ready for a woman as President.
Am I? I think so, but only if it is the right woman, and not simply an establishment-approved woman - DNC, Amy’s List, high-end Democratic donors, etc - which I think was the obvious flaw in 2016 when Bernie clearly qualified over Hillary.
Is our country ready? Not yet.
How do we get there? By each of us seeing the unpleasant childish ‘Trump’ qualities that lurk within us all and deciding to grow up.
As a progressive longing for change, here is my problem with Warren: I have been a big fan and t-shirt wearing supporter of her for years. And I supported her most recent campaign until she refused to be interviewed on Fox. Regardless of what one thinks of Fox, it remains the megaphone for at least half our country. If she is not willing to speak to us all (I lived in TN, where Fox is the default in all public spaces) then I, a flaming liberal in all other ways, am no longer interested. She is agreeing, by running, to be the President of us all — or she is not.
Am I expecting more perfection in a woman candidate than I am a man?
Unfortunately, yes: A mesmerizing, uplifting woman ‘Obama’ with the right inspiring message, story and momentum, but added to this a necessary timing of optimism and collective hope as a collective whole. We need to feel safe or desperate to elect a woman. Unfortunately, I think this is what it will take. And we, as a country divided, are very far from there.
I agree that both Klobuchar and Warren would make presidents far superior to Donald Trump because they are believable and Trump is not. But I also believe Mike Bloomberg would make an excellent president.
3
And yet, Clinton still lost and so will Warren.
3
It is logical for voters to see Warren or Klobuchar as symbols of feminist progress.
However, Warren and Klobuchar should carefully consider whether it's wise to claim that themselves. Conflating structural bias with an issue of personal bias may turn the issue into a caricature and backfire. Structural bias is a widespread condition.
Further, when the moderator intentionally ignored Sanders' answer as she reposed the question to Warren, it did not serve the issue. It drew attention to whether the moderator abused her role. It took attention away from the issue itself.
3
Bruni says, "how absurd it is that this country hasn’t yet shattered the highest glass ceiling of all." Which I interpret as how absurd it is that this country hasn’t yet elected a woman as president.
So we should elect someone just because she's a woman? Because it's their time? I voted for Hillary because she was the better choice not because she was a woman.
101
@Martello
Frank's not saying we should vote for a woman. As he wrote in this column, "I’m also not saying that Warren or Klobuchar would be the party’s best bet. I don’t know who would be."
9
@Martello - well then, go ahead and do it again. You would still be voting for a woman.
7
@Martello yes, let's just go ahead and do that. We've done it many, many times for men over the last several hundred years.
There is an assumption of competence with men.
There is a skepticism of the competence of women.
It's deeply ingrained and a "we should vote for a women just because she's a woman?!" feels incredibly condescending, just an fyi.
I'm sure it's not intentional.
16
"You have to be competent."
This is just wrong. Politics is a contest of popularity.
Popularity is determined by personality. No one cares if you were valedictorian and graduated from Yale with a 4.0 degree.
People vote for the candidate who makes them froth at the mouth and charge into battle.
Warren and Klobuchar ain't it. Sorry. They are both smart people and I hope they keep contributing to politics in one way or another, it just won't be commander in chief.
3
It's pitiful to use "mansplaining" to describe Sanders countering an off-the-cuff pedantic comment. Sanders was not being condescending when mentioning his record; it was Warren who came off condescending. She may have been trying to say "Listen, women are successful and this should not even be a discussion" but she came off, like Clinton in 2016, as if to say "Women are better, vote for me because I'm a woman".
I'll still vote for her in the general, if she gets the nomination. But she played both sides of a card last night, not categorically defending her perception of Sanders' alleged private comment, but taking the opportunity to deliver a speech on sexism with the pretext of responding to the controversy. It was underhanded and disappointing.
3
@Fox I discontinued my contributions to her. Given the sexism in this comment section maybe we should start having discussions about "Warren Womyn," the new analogue of the fictitious "Bernie Bro." I guess Trump will win another term. Sad.
1
Warren's claim about her and Amy Klobuchar never losing an election is like saying an undefeated college team could win the Super Bowl. News flash to Warren the MA electorate is not representative of the US electorate. Nor is the MN electorate although no far off. Amy Klobuchar is much more centrist and so did well in MN.
3
Frank Bruni, You are one heluva writer! And it's not just about your sharp, clever, witty style, but your deep thoughfulness. Thank you for framing that very important debate on women's electability. And it's interesting that it also put a spotlight on my candidate of choice: Amy Klobuchar. I do like Elizabeth Warren but I fear her more idealistic but unrealistic positions will make her fodder for Trump and the republicans. On the other hand, Klobuchar is the ideal candidate to defeat Trump. She's calm, tough, smart, young but with proven sucessful experience, and is a dedicated public servant. She has big ideas, but she is also realistic. She rather reminds me of a younger, prettier Angela Merkel. Klobuchar brings truly such qualified, tough, smart -- and definately experienced -- leadership that our battered democracy so desperately needs right now.
3
I’d like to see more change around these primaries. Why do Iowa and NH go first? And their results cause nominees to drop out. Ridiculous. Note neither state is very diverse, which may explain why Booker and Harris and Castro fell to the wayside. Let us all vote in the primaries, an early super Saturday (a day when many folks don’t have to wrk) and let the top 2 candidates from those votes play it out.
2
I would give Warren a lot more credit if her campaign hadn't cynically "leaked" the supposed private conversation from 2 years ago in an obvious attempt to make this an issue. Which worked, because both the NY Times and CNN ran with it. Congratulations on being played.
14
@Roy The Times was not played. They oppose Sanders vehemently and were happy to drive a wedge between liberal voters. The Times is betting that this feud will turn off a lot of voters and reinforce their narrative that progressives are feuding fanatics. The endgame for the times is to nominate Biden.
3
It reminds me of Harris' cheap-shot racial attack on Biden, followed the next day with T-shirt sales. How is Harris doing these days?
4
@Roy That's what happens in elections. Whoever designed that leak should be given a bonus.
"...Sanders sought to correct Warren on her 30-year claim, noting that he’d defeated a Republican in 1990, and she did some quick, out-loud arithmetic to determine that 1990 was, well, 30 years ago! Mansplaining met mathematics."
I am sorry to mansplain Bernie's mansplaining, but the election he referred to was November 6, 1990, which was 29 years, 2 months, and 8 days before made his comment. Therefore, it was less than 30 years ago.
Technically correct!
[I would still love either candidate as president]
9
I saw Liz Warren making a personal attack on Sanders based on second hand reporting. I saw Amy Klobuchar crowing about the political deals she can make reaching across the isle. How did she get Mitch McConnell to agree to see things her way?
8
I'm not an American, so my views may be irrelevant. Just wanted to say, I come from a country which elected a woman prime minister for the first time more than 50 years ago. What has that meant for the majority of women in the country? We are still a deeply patriarchal society, incidences of violence against women are still high, and far too many women live in abject poverty. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of having a woman or any other person who belongs to a historically disenfranchised group as head of government. It is important. But what is a lot more important is what that person is going to do in office and what their policies will do for those who continue to be disenfranchised in different ways.
21
Thank you— I couldn’t agree more.
5
These election cycles are so tedious. I have my preferred candidate and will vote for such in my state's primary. But whoever ends up being the Democratic nominee will get my vote against Trump. So many words spilled that say nothing.
10
Warren had a chance to win the nomination based on her abilities but wasn't sure it would be enough.
That's why she started a gender war in a party to stop Bernie.
In the similar way she lacked courage to personally confront Hillary four years ago...
15
Warren and Sanders are splitting the Progressive Democratic vote. If they can’t resolve this, both will likely lose to the Moderate Democrats. So instead of making Progressive policies foremost, Warren lies to besmirch Sanders politically as an anti-feminist, and again like Hillary make identity the overriding issue. So, if her lie takes root, she may win the battle, but lose the war: a Pyrrhic victory at best. We want a true believer Progressive like Bernie. Warren has now proven herself to be divisive and devious. Her strengths and legacy are in the Senate. The conversation she had with Bernie was Private. If she can’t honor that simple agreement, then can she be trusted to be transparent and true as President unlike the current one? It’s now time for all Progressives to rally for Bernie and win the Presidency. All the current Democrats are electable against Trump, as long as they don’t wound themselves like Warren just did with her transgression. Keep it simple, stupid.
9
Warren would get crushed by Trump on a debate stage - his sadistic attacks on her vs. her whiny attacks on him would make him look strong and her look weak. While Klobucher reflects my views better than any of the other candidates, I also wonder if she's too civil and rational to take on Trump. As of now, Biden is still my #1 choice because I think he has the best chance to defeat Trump. Mayor Pete had been my #2 choice, but now I think it's Klobuchar.
3
After reading Warren's interview with the NYT staff I thought she could take on the issues and do a good job and I could live with 4 years of the President calling her father "Daddy" and talking about brothers I don't are about just make her life seem like a TCM movie. Then came this debate and her "Mean Girl" attack on Bernie and men in general. Don't waste my time and TV time on this nonsense. You lost any possibility of my vote Liz.
12
@Marlene Gawron I discontinued my donations to her campaign as well.
3
Nothing new in that debate. The real winner was Michael Bloomberg.
Earnest Tom Steyer, a Johnny-come-lately. Teacher's pet and class knowit-all, Pete Buttigieg. Please pick me! I can be popular, Amy Klobuchar. Sleepy Joe, as Triump calls him. Lecturing hectoring Elizabeth Warren. Ole' one note grouchy Bernie.
They don't look too presidential.
5
Gender really isn't an issue for the candidates. The problem the Democrats have is their platform:
Open borders.
Higher taxes.
Bigger government.
Free health care for illegals.
Transgender bathroom rights.
Suffocating regulations.
Socialized medicine.
Gun confiscation.
Criminals voting.
Deranged belief in global warming.
Post-term abortion.
Insane hatred of Trump.
Free loan relief for student loans.
Can any gender win with that platform? I doubt it!
6
@George Orwell ^^^^^^ this guy gets it.... policy over gender... but when you make someones identity/race/gender more important that what you think... you get the Democrats.
George Orwell was a democratic socialist who believed in helping the downtrodden. You appropriating his name to spread right wing misinformation is positively...Orwellian.
4
The selective deployment of "identity" - by both Bruni, the moderators, and the whole talking head universe - is quite staggering in its utter dishonesty. Based on hearsay and allegations, the pontificating class is doing its best to present Sanders as being a misogynist, because the entire pontificating class (led by this paper) is dead set on sinking Sanders.
Which leads to the obvious hypocrisy. Sanders and the field are forced to answer the fabricated and ludicrous question of whether a woman can win the presidency, and whether a socialist can win the presidency. Yet no of candidate is grilled about the great big elephant in the room: whether Sanders, as a Jewish candidate, can win the presidency.
And, frankly, this paper, which is so attuned to the issues of identity when it comes to discrimination against women, blacks, homosexuals, and other minorities, has absolutely no problem ignoring the rather historic nature of his candidacy and the long odds against a Jew becoming the top office holder in this most sanctimonious of Christian countries. Because that might actually stir sympathy for a candidate this paper, uniformly, hates.
Which leads to another obvious question. Why does this paper despise Sanders so much? Of course, the editors will point to his "politics." But that is an easy cover for what seems like a far more pernicious pattern of slandering the sole Jewish candidate in this race at every. single. turn.
An absolute disgrace.
15
@Andrew I agree that Sanders' ethnicity has been completely ignored by the Times and much of the so-called mainstream media. But I think that has to do with his political views. They would have been much more attentive and supportive in the case of someone, say, like Joe Lieberman. Or Michael Bloomberg.
3
@Andrew I agree that Sanders' ethnicity has been completely ignored by the Times and much of the so-called mainstream media. But I think that has to do with his political views. They would have been much more attentive and supportive in the case of someone, say, like Joe Lieberman. Or Michael Bloomberg.
1
@Andrew Well said, Andrew. If this paper were actually concerned to promote difficult but important discussions regarding identity and identity politics, it would have picked your comment.
2
Trump has an insurance policy to stay the President for another four years.
It's called the Democratic Party.
He used the same policy 4 years ago.
Just remember when was obvious that America demanded the radical change the Dems acted behind the scene and ballot boxes to assure the traditional Washington DC insider would the nomination.
They stabbed Bernie in the back to clear a path for Donald...
9
@Kenan Porobic Bernie is NOT A DEMOCRAT. He's an interloper trying to use the party only when it's to his advantage.
Where is he when its time to fundraise or build coalitions? No where to be found.
As a liberal Democrat, I want someone who will work from within to effect change.
1
Bernie has conscientiously made the effort to work from within to effect actual change. Bernie is increasing democracy in every single state. Everywhere I go, young people feel unless BERNIE wins, they will never have a future to have a family or ever have a life without debt, without access to actual healthcare or without bankruptcy if/when they get sick.
2
There are two distinct concepts at play here. The first is whether or not certain immutable traits will cost the candidates votes. The second is whether a candidate is "electable." The first is a statistical objective fact, but the former says very little about the latter, and is certainly not determinative of it.
Let's examine the first issue. This is NOT a debatable point. A woman candidate will lose a not-insignificant numbers of votes based on the fact that she is a woman, much in the same way as Obama lost votes based on the fact that he was black. These are cold hard statistical facts; denying them is akin to denying that sexism and racism exist.
However, as the Obama presidency proves, clearly race is not a determinative factor for electability, it just depends on whether the candidate can inspire more voters to show up through his/her message, and yes even through the assistance of his/her race/gender.
The lesson to take from the Clinton loss is NOT that a woman candidate is unelectable. The big difference between Obama and Clinton was that not only could Obama use his race to get out the minority vote, but his message of CHANGE was also an inspiration that energized the Democratic side. In contrast, sure Clinton lost votes based on sexism, but I'm sure she also attracted votes of additional women because of her gender. Her problem was she didn't inspire enough people to vote because she never articulated what she actually stood for beyond the status quo.
4
@Andres Hannah: Hillary Clinton actually won close to three million more votes than Donald Trump, so, on point of fact, women are indeed capable of garnering more votes than men. To generalize and claim they are less "electable" everywhere is false. But the U.S. is not a democracy, in which each person's vote is equal to every other person's. Americans are stuck with an Electoral College, which is designed to defeat the popular vote and prevent the majority from ruling the country. So the real issue is are women capable of garnering more votes in the three conservative-leaning states crucial to an Electoral College victory? It's easier for women to win in states like Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, California, Washington, Oregon, and even on a local level in Texas and Florida. But wherever gerrymandering keeps higher political offices firmly in the hands of white males, progressive voters are faced with the problem of having to wonder who their more conservative neighbors will support, and currently, they have to avoid splitting the progressive vote, thus essentially conceding the nomination to a Republican Lite candidate like Biden, owing to the states that take an all-or-nothing approach to doling out their primary delegates. I see all of this less and less as a gender issue, and more of a fundamental problem in the design of the electoral system itself. What we have protects a backward minority at the expense of a moderate to progressive majority.
1
@Allison Way to not read beyond the first sentence. Please tell me where I generalized that a woman is less electable everywhere? In fact, I'm pretty sure I wrote the complete opposite.
2
@Andres Hannah: "A woman candidate will lose a not-insignificant numbers of votes based on the fact that she is a woman, much in the same way as Obama lost votes based on the fact that he was black. These are cold hard statistical facts; denying them is akin to denying that sexism and racism exist." Seventh and eighth sentence.
1
I saw Bloomberg on the View.
I like his chance to beat Trump with his no-nonsense approach better than Democrats' please everybody with carefully scripted political correctness.
Bloomberg silenced View's often too politically correctness panels.
3
Klobuchar came across as rude and pushy in her repeatedly barging past time limits. Others may say that is a double standard because men do that also. The reality is that men who do so are also rude and pushy. It all adds up to a disrespectful, entitled, immature image.
6
yeh...but if Bloomberg faced Trump on the debate stage..Bloomberg would eviscerate him pretty much effortlessly.
4
@Julie Everyone thinks their candidate would destroy Trump in debate, but with Bloomberg you have a good case. He's a real billionaire, after all.
5
"Mansplaining met mathematics." Thank you for the laugh Mr. Bruni.
1
Warren and Clobuchar could have been a great president if they had enough courage to confront the Clinton clan in 2016.
They didn't...
Trump did...
That's why he is the president...
4
The headline needs to read "teach the men a lesson." Unless we want to ask ourselves "can a girl be POTUS."
I believe Senator Sanders said to Senator Warren that he disagreed a woman can be elected President in 2020. But I also believe he did NOT mean a woman isn't qualified to be President because of her gender.
I think Senator Sanders likely meant that in this age of Trump and his toxic misogyny, attitudes that huge numbers of Trump supporters seemingly agree with, it will be very difficult for a woman to win. That's an awful thing to say about America, but many believe its true.
The larger question for most Democrats is not who is most qualified to be President, and Senators Warren and Klobuchar are clearly qualified, but who is most able to defeat Trump.
Senator Sanders said in the debate that Trump is the most dangerous person to ever be President. At least half the country agrees. If that is so, then millions of Democrats will not vote for who is most qualified, but who can siphon off enough independents and Trump voters in key swing states to put together the 270 electoral college votes to win.
The moral urgency of our time is to defeat Trump. Whoever is best able to do that, a man, woman, gay, straight, old, young, rich, middle class, progressive, moderate, eloquent, or plain spoken, I don't care.
No matter who the Democratic nominee is, she or he must win on November 3, 2020 to save our nation.
3
Nice to see that the Times' readership is too smart to allow the "moderate" pundits (who favor candidates whose "strategy" for meeting the imminent threat of climate change is impotent incrementalism, as embodied, for example, in the Paris Agreement) to drive a wedge between the only two viable candidates that are credible on climate change and a whole host of serious problems, including corruption and income inequality. Incrementalism is not "moderate" then the threat is imminent and catastrophic. "Moderates" are not moderate in 2020 people. Don't let the privileged pundits (many of whom have one foot in the grave and little to no skin the game) abuse identity politics to divide us.
1
Elizabeth Warren played the woman card tonight which was not empowering or inspiring at all in my opinion. And it’s obvious that she embellished the story about the so-called “sexist” conversation she had with Bernie Sanders in 2018. I see a disturbing pattern of embellishment in much of her bio. Sorry, Liz, this is going to be the first election you definitely lose. You also didn’t defend Medicare for All, so I think your progressive bonafides are doubtful, too.
116
I think Sanders did say it; he was trying to discourage Warren from running. What choice does he have now but to lie about it.
28
@SylP It's impossible to know whether Bernie said it because there were only two people in the room and their accounts differ.
13
@Zareen She didn't need to defend M4A; it's clear the country is not there yet. She knows it and has modified her plan as such.
That's why Bernie is not going to win.
18
"She was making the case for herself as a progressive who would favor incremental fixes if those were the only available improvements and who could be a unifier; she suggested that Sanders lacked that potential."
This position could also be seen as a perpetuation of the Democerats' penchant to negotiate themselves to a position midway between their desired outcome and the extremes of their negotiation counterparts' position prior to coming to the table. One argument made by Sanders' supporters is that progressives need to _come to the table_ with their most desired position. If the negotiation produces a final convergence position short of that, then at least some progress was made. That final position is likely far more desirable to progressives than would have been achieved were they to come to the table with the "mid-point" negotiating position.
A bit of caution regarding the Warren -- and even more, the centrist position -- is at least advisable.
3
Amy Klobuchar, for the win.
She's accomplished a lot in the Senate, more than almost all senators. She's represented folks in her state very well, and has a great sense of humor and ability to cut to the chase on all issues. She's extremely hard working, gets along well with others including folks from the other side of the aisle, balanced, reasonable, and doesn't propose out of this world projects that have zero chance of being passed by Congress.
Most of all, she's been an honest broker on her positions from the get go, and would be the best of all candidates in putting Trump on the defensive, all while she's got that midwestern grin and wit.
Iowans know straightforward, honest to goodness leaders when they see one.
Amy has the best chance of knocking Trump off.
6
I'm fairly certain Messrs. Biden, Sanders, Yang and Buttigieg are grown men, not "boys".
7
Numerous countries have had female heads of government and heads of state. Among Heads of Government, Indira Ghandi was one the best-known and earliest. She ruled for two terms totalling 15 years but Vigdís Finnbogadóttir of Iceland has had the longest term at 16 years. Dame Eugenia Charles of Dominica ruled for almost 15 years, Angela Merkel of Germany has been Chancellor of Germany for over 14 years, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia’s term was 12 years, and Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the UK for 11 years. Chandrika Kumaratunga was Sri Lanka’s President for 11 years as was Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh. Other women whose terms were shorter nonetheless had lasting impact - Golda Meir’s term was only 5 years but her importance cannot be understated. Heads of State have also had long terms - Vigdís Finnbogadóttir was President of Iceland for 16 years, Mary McAleese Ireland’s President for almost 14 years, Tarja Halonen Finland’s President for 12 years. We in Canada have only briefly had a female Prime Minister, Kim Campbell - way back in 1993. Why are North Americans so myopic? This is a fitting time for Americans to elect a woman – a perfect antidote to the toxic male than now inhabits the Oval Office.
2
I would have enthusiastically voted for Tulsi, because she never made it about her gender. Now that I know for sure that Warren and the other lady from MN (yeah she does not even get a name mention) are going to make it about their genitals and how much better theirs are and how they deserve it because of gender.... hard no.
6
Honestly, the most qualified woman candidate for president of the United States was not in the debate last night. Her name is Hillary Clinton. I’m glad she was not. Her time has passed. She received the most votes, she was a terrible candidate, twice. She lost the Democratic nomination in 2008 and the electoral college in 2016. I wish she had won in 2016. Many of us wish she had won, except for Putin and Trump’s base. Too late. Time to think about the future.
3
Many of us in Minnesota consider Senator Klobuchar a fine candidate for Vice President. With a 30% absentee floor vote record in 2019, we would like her to return to the position of full time United States Senator. For 'a hair full of snow' photo-op (2/10/19), she may want to finally return to Minnesota for this Friday's winter storm.
49
@Reggie : I'm truly sorry that, by one metric, she's not fully doing her job as a US senator.
But by another metric -- she's trying to defeat the most dangerous admin every to blight this nation -- she's more than doing her job.
23
@Reggie
Do you have the same complaint of 30% absenteeism about the male Senators who are running or is it just the female who is guilty? They have missed the votes too.
23
@Reggie
As vice president she would preside over the Senate and perhaps spend more time there as VP than as a Senator.
2
Warren claims she won every election she participated in?!
So, why is Trump the president?
Either Elizabeth lacked a courage to stand up to the Clinton clan or wanted Trump to be the President.
See, the lies have very short and quick expiration date...
3
@Kenan Porobic Hello? Warren was not the candidate. This is a very weak argument.
1
@Ed
That's exactly the problem.
Why wasn't she the candidate?
There was not enough doom and gloom for her to even try?!
2
"[Warren & Klobuchar] turned the stubborn, sexist notion that their presence and presidential ambitions were exotic on its head, citing yardsticks by which they were demonstrably superior to their male rivals."
That's a silly reply to a silly suggestion--it's akin to saying that a fighter with a tiny but undefeated record is a superior boxer to someone who hasn't been befeated in 30 years of fighting but lost some early bouts.
Take Klobuchar as an example. She dropped out of the first election she entered so technically not a loss. She was then elected DA twice, the second time unopposed. She then won three senate races.
Good record, but lets compare her to Sanders, who wore the brunt of these attacks. Sure he lost long-shot races in 1972, 1974, and 1976, and again a race for mayor in 1980. But since then? He won three mayoral races, lost one Congressional race, but then one it (against an incumbent) two years later, winning a total of 8 races (1991-2007), and then won another two times running for U.S. Senate. So that's a total of 13 successful campaigns for Sanders vs Klobuchar's relatively paltry 5 (one being unopposed).
Warren's record is even more limited in comparison, having only had 2 successful campaigns.
As such, Sanders' very reasonable response should have been that he has been in continuous elected posts since 1981, with the exception of two years. I.e. Klobuchar was in university when he first got elected as mayor, and Warren was still a professor.
3
A very thoughtful article that goes a long way toward what I have been wrestling with, can a women win. The problem I have is that it is not possible to vote in a "Presidential Primary" in Alaska, we don't have one. Why, I have not been able to find out but think it would lead to less control by whoever controls now, one of the huge problems in USA politics. I even wonder if this will get posted.
I not exactly sure what "rubbing noses" in gender differences and lost elections brings to the table, Frank. Complaining about gender differences and then using it as a wedge issue isn't building my enthusiasm.
6
Clever headline. Good click bait. Why do Democrats need to debate the issue as to whether a women can win a Presidential election? Do Democrat women need some sort of self esteem boost from their candidates by making it an issue? It's embarrassing.
7
I fail to see how Sanders was mainsplaining when he pointed out that he had beaten a Republican incumbent 30 years ago after Warren had asserted that only she and Klobuchar had defeated Republican incumbents in the last 30 years. Was he not just correcting Warren's incorrect assertion?
5
Many in America are yearning for a breather from the chaos and ulcers generated by the current White House occupant, but the openness to change is still strong: Whether or not they'll get to the brass ring, it is something remarkable that two women and a gay man remain in serious consideration.
I think the Democrats should go big on change by nominating a TWO-women ticket. Klobuchar and a more pragmatized (?) Warren could fill either or both ends of the ticket. Warren's fighting spirit (she's as good a debater as Buttigieg) and that uniquely withering, pitying look Klobuchar gives will throw Trump, the biggest of sexist pigs, off his mark while reassuring the country that rational and competent women have arrived, as always, to clean up the mess.
2
So hear we go again, the Democrats making identity politics their major litmus test. And thanks to the MSM, including the NYT, for manufacturing a "controversy" between the two candidates they desperately want to prevent from getting the nomination. Well done!
I understand that women have been held back for centuries, and that it's long past time that we have a woman President. And I would gladly vote for Warren (or another woman) if she gets the nod. But I won't be voting for her because she's a woman, I will vote for her strictly on her merits as the best person to lead us. And isn't THAT what should be important, and not gender (or race, or sexual orientation)? But here we are again, elevating identity as the chief qualifier.
But what if the best person to lead us is an old white guy again? Are we to simply ignore that because of his gender and age? Isn't this sexist too? Of course it is!
And isn't trustworthiness important? We have an unsubstantiated claim by Warren that Sanders told her that she can''t win in 2020 based on her seeking his opinion about that issue. He allegedly told her that because Trump and the Republicans would weaponize her gender, it would be hard for her to win. IF - and that's IF - he said anything like this, note that it was not a blanket statement about women not being able to ever be President, but specific to THIS election, with THIS President known for his lies, misogyny, and racism. This will hurt Warren more than Sanders.
5
Trump's vulnerability is his highly partisan politicking and lies. His base alone is not big enough to win reelection. Millions of Americans care more about education, health care and infrastructure than the Trump Show that Don Don trots out every night. Democrats need to elect a candidate that will be a President for all Americans not just those that pray at the altar of Trump.
1
While I’m excited that for the first time in a century, America has awakened from a propaganda-induced slumber and is currently making a Socialist candidate their Number One Choice (to the despair of all the corporate media, obviously, given the blackouts and widespread smearing attempts going on), I do think Warren will make the better President. She is patient and detailed and ambitious, and was far better at overcoming the “pipe dream ideology” propaganda than Sanders was last night, when confronted with it.
It’s going to be a Sanders/Warren ticket, one way or the other. Who’s on top doesn’t really matter, they’re both what the country really needs.
Incrementalism will kill us all, pal; it’s time for some really big changes.
2
@Steven Nah, Bernie is not a team player.
Warren would pick someone younger, certainly.
And Bernie? Maybe he'd go with AOC. That seems to be his only ally.
"You have to be competent"
Clearly not true.
2
Maybe gender and race don't make a president.
4
Warren just proved she’s unfit to be president.
15
Really, was anyone questioning whether a woman could win a presidential election before Warren brought up the Bernie statement which conveniently came up the day before her well written response on the issue and zinger of the debate. You are not going to tell me that was off the cuff. After Hillary's historic democratic nomination and win of the popular vote last election and the number of women that entered the race this year including Kamala Harris it was a given that women are contenders and most certainly have a chance to win. Whether Bernie said the thing she says he said, it is pretty clear to me that Warren wanted very much to bring up the issue of women winning in politics.
118
@Karena Yes, she played it admirably. It’s called thinking ahead and being strategic. A leadership quality.
78
@Ambroisine , if being strategic is a measure of leadership then Trump clearly deserves a second mandate.
10
@Luc Trump? Strategic? We have a different understanding of the word. According to all the evidence, Trump is impulsive, reactive, and unthinking, which is the opposite of having a strategy.
88
A lesson in what, Frank? How to be petty and boring in the same go? That debate was a disaster for our party. We've got a guy in the oval office who slurs his words as he lies about why he shot a thermobaric weapon at a motorcade in Iraq then, when caught out in the lie, says "so what?". But of course we have to discuss identity politics instead.
The only one on the stage who seemed to care about anything other than his next career move was Bernie, and he had to waste time on Warren's desperate attempt to regain momentum in her campaign.
5
There has always been a double standard for Warren on Medicare-for-All. Even though Bernie wrote the bill, Warren was the punching bag. SNL’s Kate McKinnon hilariously lampooned the double-standard:
“When Bernie was talking Medicare-for-all, everybody was like, ‘oh, cool, and then they turned to me and they said, ‘fix it, mom!’ With dad, you eat birthday cake for breakfast and then go to Six Flags, and then I hold your hand and let you throw up in my purse.”
Now Warren, with her transition plan, has developed a more politically realistic proposal and path than what Sanders has offered, and a more ambitious and compelling vision than what the moderates have proposed.
It shows that Warren can listen to her critics, and come up with proposals that have a realistic chance.
Bernie introduced his bill in 2017. Reintroducing it again does little to move the needle.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/15/21054083/elizabeth-warren-2020-democratic-primary
3
Whether you believe Warren or Sanders, it was utterly unfair that the moderator blatantly ignored Sanders denial and gave Warren not only a pass, but fed directly into her narrative.
148
@Lily I absolutely agree-
12
Clear and present evidence of msm/ClintonDNC/Warren bias against the only progressive champion we have on that stage.
13
@Lily
It did not go unnoticed. The unwillingness to shake his hand after the debate also was noted. I think these debates and the performance of the candidates have little or nothing to do with their ability to be President of the U.S. Trump is proof of that. The moderator's are there just to stir the pot and create discord, rather than bring out the issues, qualities and ability to be Presidential.
9
Warren will continue to show that she is the best person for the job, and men will continue to come up with excuses for why she won't be a good nominee. Her plans are not extreme, they are necessary. The country is drowning in student loan debt and it is economically necessary to fix that. Universal healthcare will end up costing America a lot less than our current system, which is practically criminal. Wall street does need to be heavily regulated. Monopolies do need to be broken up. These are all common sense. They are not extreme positions.
2
@JJS I was the first donor to Warren's campaign in the very populous county in which I live. I have been evangelizing to my family that she is the best candidate in the field, despite the fact that my female partner has consistently encouraged me to support Sanders instead. Last month, at the behest of my wife, I chose to contribute also to Sanders' campaign without discontinuing my contributions to Warren. When Warren played the identity card last night, my wife turned to me and said "it's time to discontinue your contributions to Warren." And that's precisely what I've done. My default position was enthusiastic support for Warren. She had to give me a compelling reason to withdraw my support. Warren miscalculated horribly here and we will all pay the price. Apparently, Liz had a plan for winning the election too and it involved identity politics--a strategy most of the country now abhors. So disappointing.
3
Do people think womens' presidential ambitions are exotic?
Only in America.
The US is backward---many countries have had women leaders already. Same as they've had HC for all as a right. Their citizens can attend college without huge debt, and their elections don't depend on rich donors for financing. They have less economic inequality.
Now we have to elect a person--he or she-- who can make the lagging US a more progressive country, in line with 21st C standards. We the People must demand proper Representation for Our Taxation. That was the demand of the colonies when they overthrew King George and his aristocrats.
Now we have to demand it all over again in the 21st C.
It's well past time for us to elect a woman president. But now, it's not THE crucial factor. It's whoever can move this country forward to align with the modern world standards. And recover the country from the damage of Trump/GOP.
WHY IS THE US STILL HAVING THIS FIGHT when we've all seen Margaret Thatcher, Teresa May, Angela Merkel, Indira Gandhi, and plenty of others, on the world stage for two generations?
My problem with Hillary Clinton was never that she was "a woman." It was that she parlayed her status as the wife of the Governor of Arkansas, and then the President of the US, into a political resume, and refused to acknowledge that aspect of her history.
There ought to be a constitutional amendment forbidding any first-degree relative of a president from becoming president: spouse, son, daughter, sibling, parent, parent-in-law, stepson or stepdaughter, sibling-in-law, son- or daughter-in-law, and also ex-spouse, and the exes of all the above. That would not only go far towards undoing the drift towards dynastic rule we have had in this country; it would also have leveled the playing field for women candidates by disqualifying Hillary Clinton and her sense of entitlement from the moment her husband became president.
3
@herzliebster You are entitled to your opinion about Hillary Clinton, but she was a force before Bill. She wasn't merely a wife without qualifications. I don't like political dynasties either, but her ambitions absolutely did not come from a sense of entitlement. They were a natural progression of what she had been working for her entire life.
2
@JJS Wrong, she was gifted her NY senate seat, in a state she'd never lived before, entirely as a result of her husband's presidency. She then used that to try and run for the presidency. Her "natural progression" was riding her husband's coattails to third base.
4
This column is based on a false premise: that Warren argued against a position held by Sanders, that a woman cannot win a presidential election. In fact Warren engineered one of the biggest political hit jobs in a presidential campaign I've seen, reminiscent of the evocation by Bush of Willie Horton in 1988. (Trump of course is off the charts with his stream of fabrications). It will undermine both Warren and Sanders. I have supported both candidates, but this has seriously diminished the respect I felt for Warren.
14
@John Ryan Horse Agreed. I was a very early support of her and had discussions with law professors four years ago about whether she'd run for us. I have now withdrawn my support. My wife warned me this would happen. I'm sorry I wasted so much money on her campaign. What a terrible disappointment. Biden must be very happy with this development--completely manufactured by Warren.
3
Forget about unseating a president disastrous for progressive policies at all levels of government. Focus on the issue that only matters: Women's Rights and the ability of one to get elected. If we focus on that, and lose we will retain our widely known Political Purity!
2
I am a dyed-in-the-wool democrat and I have seen many forms of perversion in my day but I have to say that the obsession the Times has with assigning rationality to the wholly outrageous nonsense that Elizabeth Warren continues to espouse really takes the cake. Her feel-good rhetoric is wonderful...and that's it. There is zero substance behind anything she's proposed or said during this already brutal campaign. Ms. Warren has run for office exactly twice and won. In Massachusetts, on the heels of Teddy Kennedy's death, she beat an "incumbent" who served just shy of 3 years...hardly time to create a lasting impression that might have given a Republican a foothold in a state that had not elected a republican to the Senate since the early 1970s. That does not hold a candle to the hard fought races the other candidates have faced and, sure, in some cases, lost. Nor does that non-achievement increase her chances of securing the nomination. Who will win the nomination, and very possibly the presidency, will be the democrat who comes up with a way to relate to those disenchanted voters out in middle-America who do not care if it's a male or female, as long as that person begins to understand that, even if they're not dirt poor or a minority, they've been unheard for many years. Trump got their ear and look what happened! Stop writing about how wonderful Ms. Warren is and start asking what her realistic plan is to relate to those outside of her base.
13
Thank you for your comments, I agree wholeheartedly.
It also riles me that Warren’s last win to the Senate became her new fight for the Presidency. So much for Massachusetts. Ever seen her take a selfie in her hometown, nope, just the baseball cap pulled down.
6
I am closer in age to the Warren, Sanders, Biden candidates. I neither look, feel, nor act my age....most of the time. But that is one big reason I want to see a more middle-aged person take the reigns. I am guilty of ageism I suppose but I don't think it's the worst "ism" by far. Sanders will just get crabbier, Biden will find recipes for new world salads, and Warren might decide she doesn't want to shake anyone's hand! So that leaves Buttigieg and Klobuchar. I like Pete a lot but not this time around. He is so intelligent it gets in his way at times. He just needs a few more years for everything to gel. This country needs Klobuchar. I consider her "raging ambition" to be a plus, since she is a person of smarts, integrity and the very definition of stable. I haven't mentioned policy regarding anyone but I prefer a moderate. I mean how is the extreme right wing working out for us?? If we swing wildly the other way giving the country whiplash, our current divisions will seem mild by comparison. Amy is perfect....from the heartland but plenty of sophistication. Tough as nails but a great sense of humor. Most of all....a FIGHTER for we the people. She wants to serve, would choose a fine cabinet and advisors and listen to them. No more revolving door with some running and some going to jail! We are in dire straights. This strong woman is our best bet and can't wait to see her debate the "stable genius."
13
Once again, the Dems are being reactive rather than proactive in presidential politics. This focus on "electability" is a losing game. No one can predict who will be the better candidate against Trump. Trump's own election proved that the electorate is not feeling the same-old, same-old when it comes to politics. The old rules are out the window. Quit reacting to what we think others will do and in the primary vote for the candidate you most want. Then in the general don't do a "protest" vote or go with the Green Party, get behind whoever that nominee is and vote.
10
For Democrats for whom winning in 2020 is all important, even raising the question of whether a woman can win a majority of the electoral college in 2020, is probably not helpful in the primaries and caucuses. It raises doubts. In truth it's an open question. According to the exit polls most white women did not even vote for Hillary in the 2016 general election. Had the majority of white women voted for a white woman, namely Hillary, she would have won the
majority of the electoral college. So at the end of the day it is problematic.
2
@David
Oh, but doubts about a woman's ability to be elected President MUST be raised. They are there for real, even if we do not recognize them.
Only by talking about them can we begin to recognize them for what they are and are not.
2
She should have said 29 years...
On the flip side, how many elections has Warren won? Two, I think. Biden and Sanders have won way more than two elections each.
9
When people say "Americans won't vote for a female (or black, or gay, or...) president," they are saying they don't trust their fellow Americans to be as enlightened as themselves on the subject.
But those same people will never imagine that when a woman wins an election it may be because the electorate is not as sexist as assumed.
A perfect example of this was last night.
Warren handled the kerfuffle with terrific class. But the audience's reaction to her enumeration of female politicians who won elections had done so by somehow "stickin' it to the guys!," getting one over on the patriarchy. That's very unfortunate.
When will women dare recognize that the great majority of males are not against them, that after decades of feminism and girl power, many of the doors they are pushing on are wide open?
8
@Livonian
Thank you for this, especially your last question!
I am a homosexual male (no children of my own), and I live with my adoptive family - two brothers and a grandson. We live in a house that I own, and me and my brothers are aging, so we are increasingly aware of our mortality.
Thus I've been holding conversations with the younger generation - sons, daughters, nieces and nephews - to see who might take ownership of the house.
I would welcome any who recognizes the special love that resides in this home, and has the requisite skills to maintain the house - male, female or otherwise.
2
Warren was brilliant in her comments about the women on the stage, and brilliant when she declined to engage in an argument with Sanders on the stage. Though let's not let her wisdom let us forget our good judgment. Odds are Sanders had said something along those lines and odds are that Warren who is incredibly sharp did not remember his comments incorrectly. I quote here from your other story:
"But in the immediate aftermath of the debate, CNN cameras captured Ms. Warren appearing to refuse to shake Mr. Sanders’s hand, and the two senators engaged in what seemed to be a pointed conversation."
3
@Robert Robert, I take issure with your statement that it appeared that Warren refused to shake Sander's hand. On the contrary, it was Sanders, in fact, who refused to shake HER hand. Look at the clip again. He waves her off in frustration and then turns his back on her. Bad show, Bernie. Take it like a MAN!
1
@Jane Terhune
Thank you for the correction. Though I watched the debate, I didn't see that particular event myself. I am quoting what the news story on this site said elsewhere.
1
In reply to Jane Terhune re the Warren/Sanders interaction at the end of the debate: you are correct that at the end of that interaction Sanders waved Warren off. However, before they began talking at all, when Warren was approaching Sanders, he extended a hand to her and she pointedly refused to shake his hand.
7
"I don’t mean to romanticize Warren and Klobuchar. "
Oh, really? That's EXACTLY what you're doing here. Along with subtly trying to undermine Sanders and his "radical" platform.
Did you not notice the inconsistency of Warren, first defending her support of a very flawed and weak USMCA by saying "incremental change is better than no change", and then later, defending her push for MFA replacing the ACA by saying incremental change was insufficient? And she failed to directly accuse Sanders of his alleged statement that a woman can't win in 2020. If he really said that, why didn't she push the issue? After all, it was her campaign that raised this. Without irrefutable evidence to back this up, this is going to come back to bite her, similar to how her Native heritage claim did.
As for Klobuchar, the more she fails to gain support, the more desperate she's getting, acting like the little kid in the back row jumping up and down shouting, "Look at me ! Look at me!" with her claims of all the legislation she's sponsored. But that's not what voters look for in a President. If it were, Trump wouldn't be in the WH. They want someone who inspires them, and gives them hope for a better future. Klobuchar isn't inspiring and that's the simple truth. If she were, she would be polling far higher than she is. It's time for her to bow out.
5
Amy Klobuchar did fine, despite apparent fatigue after her "full Grassley" in Iowa.
She would say, as indeed she did after the debate, and with more energy[!] that, yes there's a double standard and so women have to work harder and she can do the hard work just fine.
Bloomberg/Biden/Klobuchar in any order would beat T.
4
What would happen if the article was titled "The Men Teach the Girls a Lesson"? To highlight the gender of candidates who happen to be women, in an effort to place praise is sexist, period.
10
The concern is NOT that Democrats won't support a female Democrat; it's that NON-Democrats can be manipulated by sexism to oppose a female Democrat.
Same can be said about black candidates.
It's a matter of political science research that sexism cost HRC support and racism cost Obama support overall (although it's also true that some voters were motivated to support these candidates because of their gender/race). And we all saw how Trump used racism to foment opposition to Obama and sexism to foment opposition to HRC. He motivated potential voters to HATE these two people.
No Democrat is happy this is so, but it's foolish to be willfully blind to it. There's a lot of racism and sexism in this country.
In fact, this is commonly used to explain why Biden has so much support from older black voters; blacks fear that white racism will mean a black general election candidate will lose and we'll be stuck with 4 more years of Trump.
Look, I am leaning towards supporting Warren in the primary. But this whole kerfuffle reflects badly on her; she's implying that people worried about sexism ARE the sexists. That's disingenuous.
6
Conversely, even the worst debater on last night's stage, even the most feeble-minded (I bet you're thinking of the same person I am) would be vastly better at being President than the current pretender.
Vote blue, no matter who, even if the nominee is not a feeble-minded poor debater.
5
Only one person can win the nomination so it is normal for the gloves to come off as we near the initial voting. Hindsight will tell if it was correct for Warren to play the “oppressed white woman card.”
4
If another woman is the nominee I wonder if Bernie will play spoiler again?. I want Trump vanquished, by a woman would a plus for me but more importantly this man needs to be crushed by the American voters. Send a loud message to the world that the US can be trusted and incompetence and malignant lying will not stand. Whether he is defeated by a competent man or woman is less important to me than his defeat.
8
Give me Elizabeth and Pete. Elizabeth for President, and Pete for VP.
I like to dream of a VP debate between Pete and Pence where Pete breaks the Pence closet door with a loud kick and forces GOP Gay hypocrisy out into the open.
4
"There was a memorable moment when Sanders sought to correct Warren on her 30-year claim, noting that he’d defeated a Republican in 1990, and she did some quick, out-loud arithmetic to determine that 1990 was, well, 30 years ago! Mansplaining met mathematics."
Mr. Bruni and Sen. Warren have difficulty with addition: Sanders beat a Republican incumbent on Nov. 6, 1990, which is 29 years and 2 months ago. She carefully planned her line before the debate but she still got it wrong. Sanders was correcting, not "mansplaining."
Mr. Bruni, a correction is called for--the NY Times is disseminating factually incorrect information.
But even if Warren had been correct about the 30 years, it would have been a half-truth given Sanders' victory back then. It's unfair puffery for which politicians should be called out.
13
Are you kidding me? Mansplaining met math? He fact-checked her. This is a cynical and shallow "thought piece" that subsumes thinking for elite liberalism. We see right through you, Bruni.
10
Klobuchar would be a more effective senate leader than president while Warren already sounds like the 46th president mi hitting her mark on day one.
It's long past time to break the Old boys Club in the Senate. klobuchar would be more effective as Senate leader than Mitch or Chuck. This country needs less partisan leaders to get the job done.
3
I hear what @TJ is saying about being a 'moderate democrat', if by moderate you mean not spending money simply for spending's sake, but when the concept of moderate means that policies like universal health care coverage, realistic family leave policies, broader access to higher education, higher minimum wages, stronger environmental policies, and being open to immigrants are 'too expensive' or 'make it too easy for folks', I have to strongly disagree. All of those things work successfully (or at least relatively so, given that there are NO perfect governments) in other Western countries. Why can't we find ways to make them work in the US. As an American living in Norway, I can tell you that the quality of life is significantly better than in the US because of the flexibility that universal health care provides with respect to choosing or changing jobs and the work-life balance that is supported by parental leave policies, options that allow people with disabilities to work part time, and minimum wages that actually allow one to live. Although my taxes are high, they are probably about the same, if not lower than what I would pay in the US if I added health insurance payments to what my US taxes would be on an equivalent amount of income. Bring on the "liberal" policies! A better description of them would be "policies that recognize that members of a society have obligations to each other"!
6
Historically democrats have a way of tripping over themselves and ruining the chances of winning elections without any help from the Republicans. . This gender debate and focus on lack of a diverse field for president is another distraction hurting their chances. Stick to the issues and the sordidness of the current President and they may have a chance.
6
If the moderate case is true, Klobuchar is the strongest candidate. It is hard to say who is further behind her, Biden or Buttigeig, but in my view it is unambiguous that both are far weaker.
If the "mobilize the base" case is true, Warren is approximately tied with Sanders.
I would think that some combination of these three is the way to go. I would be happy with any combination.
4
"Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost 10 elections ... The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women ... And the only person who has beaten an incumbent Republican any time in the past 30 years is me."
Warren's response was brilliant. Sanders and his mansplaining were snicker snacked and rightly so by Warren's mathematical sword.
(This Warren who is a progressive who would favor incremental fixes would be a powerful unifier. Though it remains to be seen whether Sanders and his supporters can find within themselves the maturity to vote for the nominee no matter who it is.)
4
@Robert Except that Warren's math was wrong, Sanders last beat a Republican 29 years and 2 months ago. So within her contrived limit. But clearly neither she nor you can actually do math.
2
@KM
That's just nitpicking. It was perfectly fine that she rounded the number to 30. Do you have any real objections?
1
In 2016, I fervently supported and wrote about Hillary Clinton's exceptional qualifications and experience making her a favorite to win. She lost and in the following analysis, I realized, she was too timid and afr as she appeared to view Trump as a petulant child unworthy of focus and debate. She lost because she didn't fight. Since then, Warren has also recognized that and has confronted Trump far more forcefully making her a contender. She is a woman who cannot deny not only biology, but the realities of the national public outside the more accepting cosmopolitan cities. Trump terrified Clinton into what appeared as submission. The claims of her better popular vote are an illusion. She should have won in a landslide due to her superiority above Trump. There are voters outside the cities. They are challenged by those who are better educated. They react with scorn as a means of defending their self esteem, and they vote accordingly. Now Warren, a University Professor you and I want to win, is another perceived threat to to many voters. If Warren really wants to win as a woman, she's going to have to fight like a man. That is a fact of life aside from our cosmopolitan idealistic views. It's tough out there. The women have to be tougher. Politics is a spectator sport. Trump knows it and uses it with his in the pocket Television industry. Warren has a gut quality, but Klobuchar is too reserved. So was Clinton. Don't confuse your desires with reality.
2
Coming to mind is the success of Mr. Judge Judy, a tough as nails woman Trump brought on to coerce women voters with just what I described. I don't like a tough woman, but that's how Democrats will win. You need a tough leader to protect the weak. The weak protecting the weak never worked.
Joe, if you are the nominee, you need to seriously up your game. Everyone knows that Trump couldn't deliver a coherent sentence if his presidency depended on it. If the debating skills you displayed last night are in any predictive of how you would handle a debate with the president, you are sure to lose. You lost me more than once. Mr Bruni feels the same.
I may not have a clue of what Trump is attempting to say most of the time, but I can at least grab three to five words that leave a final conclusion. Don't make the viewers struggle to understand your point. If both of you are incoherent, I'll grab the remote and watch reruns on another channel.
6
I can believe that Sanders thinks that a woman is capable of governing as president, & that he also believes that a woman won't be elected to the office. Notice that Sanders denied saying that a woman "couldn't" be president. He did not deny saying that a woman could not be elected. A few have already picked up on this distinction, such as Melanie Pryce in this publication. The latter assumption, of course, is pure speculation. Nobody knows who is "electable" until they are actually elected. Most people thought Trump had zero chance of being elected in 2016, and indeed, he did lose the popular vote. The female candidate won the election. However, she did not win the Electoral College, as we all know. So again, the entire country is faced with the problem of trying to second-guess how three states will vote. None of those three are known to be hotbeds of feminism. The Democrats in those states tend to be Republican Lites, not Democrats in the FDR sense of the party. So, once again, we are confronted with the fact that the entire country can be controlled by a minority, if that minority wins strategic states. And if that occurs again, you can bet that there will be massive political unrest from the majority, who are sick and tired of being under the thumb of people we profoundly disagree with. This conflict will only grow with time. Electing Warren or Sanders will help to assuage the conflict. Denying the majority again the right to rule itself will only exacerbate the problem.
2
The problem with our politics - with who we are becoming as a society - is that we're always in the mode of anxiously and breathlessly dealing with an emotionally reactive present moment...and rarely do we take a step back and look at the "big picture."
And the "big picture" needs to be returned to...again and again and again. Maturity, wisdom, insight...come out of this process of looking at the whole of a situation or person.
What about all the women who voted for Trump in 2016? What about all the disenfranchised white men - extremists - we have discovered are trolling the internet for followers?
What about the millions of folks who have never recovered from the recession? It's 10 years later and they are employed - in minimum wage jobs, in jobs with minimal wage increases and little of no opportunity for upward mobility - but their standard of living has never recovered.
What about all the "gig economy" folks poised right on the edge of financial insolvency?
Hullo?
It pains me to say this, as I myself have served in elected office - the only woman to do so from 1835 to this day - but do we really think all those folks are going to cast aside the realities of their lives...and vote for a progressive woman?
Warren, Harris, Klobuchar would be fine Presidents, I have not one iota of doubt.
But, we must pull our heads out of our media, marketing, technology, pop-culture world on our smart phones...and get real!
2
@Kelly Grace Smith
"What about all the disenfranchised white men - extremists - we have discovered are trolling the internet for followers?
What about the millions of folks who have never recovered from the recession? It's 10 years later and they are employed - in minimum wage jobs, in jobs with minimal wage increases and little of no opportunity for upward mobility - but their standard of living has never recovered."
So you believe that all disenfranchised white men are internet trolling -EXTREMISTS? Yet you clearly understand that there are millions of disenfranchised white men? And NONE of them would consider voting for a woman?
The one point you might have made a correct assumption on is that they would likely not vote for a progressive; at least not when being a self proclaimed progressive means blaming all of the worlds failures on white men regardless of their own actions. As this seems to be the progressive belief in this current election you are probably correct in assuming such men will not vote for a progressive candidate.
4
I'll vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever wins it, as it will be a vote to bring back sanity, diplomacy and intelligence — vs. the chaos and self-serving brutality of Trump, who tramples our Constitution in search of authoritarian adulation. I found Liz Warren to be inspiring last night, standing out from a (still) crowded stage, and hope her candidacy continues to gain momentum, just as Barack Obama's did. She would make an excellent president.
6
Warren made an incredible allegation about something she claimed Sanders said in a private conversation one year ago. Why is her allegation difficult to believe? Because it runs contrary to everything Sanders has done and said in his life, including his urging Warren to run in 2015. Then, when the issue came up, she used an obviously rehearsed line to garner applause at the debate. And her terrific line, according to that usual purveyor of the most utterly conventional wisdom, Frank Bruni? That she and Klobuchar have won every election they have run, as opposed to the collective losses of the men on stage. Sorry to throw cold water on this little gimmick, but Warren has run for office twice, three times if you count this presidential run. When Bernie Sanders ran and won his first congressional campaign against a Republican, thirty years ago, he had run in several political campaigns and served as a very successful mayor of Burlington. Warren hadn’t yet entered politics and was a registered Republican, as she would be until 1996. It’s easy to have a great record of victories if you run twice as a Democrat in a very blue state. To cap off her shameful treatment of her “friend” and a truly embarrassing night for the CNN moderators, Warren refused to shake the hand of the man whom she had just smeared. Like Bernie Sanders, in 2015 I was one of the people urging Warren to run. Now? I find her behavior appalling and her cheap exploitation of important gender issues very sad.
19
First off, a woman already did beat Trump, by nearly 3 million votes. More importantly, we have to keep reminding ourselves that what all the expert commentators are doing during election season is justifying their existence as experts. Essentially they are “experting,” which is nothing more than educated guessing.
What wins election, especially presidential elections, is a candidate and the candidate’s staff who are able to successfully create and manage that candidate’s projection of an image as President of the United States. Think back to how Obama came out of nowhere as a junior Senator to eventually create a sense of inevitability for himself. He wasn’t there until, bit by bit, he became the one. His campaign artfully created in enough voters’ minds that he was the best choice for President. Of course there are thousands of steps along the way in what is a very complex process, but electability isn’t just something a candidate has, it is something a candidate creates.
So a woman is electable, and to think otherwise is a first step in consigning oneself to the trash bin of history. But that woman, whoever she is, will have to smartly create what will become her own inevitability with a smart campaign that builds a winning image. In fact, that is exactly what Trump did. The job now also involves pointing out all the obvious flaws in the Trump image. Perhaps a woman candidate is the best choice for reminding everyone of the obvious: that the emperor has no clothes.
2
If we are using Hillary Clintons gender as a litmus test of if a woman can be president rather than her character and policies, then perhaps we are using the wrong litmus test.
7
This much to do about nothing. I am a woman. I must say that
Elizabeth Warren's decision to publicize a questionable comment by Bernie Sanders about women and the Presidency disgusted me. Firstly, if indeed he did say that - so what.
I have said that before, because it is true. While a woman may be qualified to be President ( Hillary Clinton was) - that doesnt mean she will be able to achieve it ( that is what happened). Do I want a woman to be President ? Yes, I voted for Hillary Clinton , but at the same time I wondered if Americans were going to vote for a woman. Not enough did, in critical states. Elizabeth Warren is drowning in the polls and decided to take Bernie with her. That kind of meaness doesnt believe in the White House, it is already there.
16
@Irene Cantu:
"While a woman may be qualified to be President ( Hillary Clinton was) - that doesnt mean she will be able to achieve it ( that is what happened). "
Achieve? Hillary took "her win" of close states for granted, and ran to Trump's right on several issues during the general election. She achieved the election of Trump; it was her choice.
3
@Yaj You did not understand what I said.
I meant that Hillary Clinton did not achieve her goal of being elected President of the United States. She did not win the electoral college.
She was more than qualified to be the Presidency, but the US Constitution gives the win to the person who has more electoral votes.
Her loss resulted in the election of Donald Trump, but i would not say she "achieved it."
The voters did that.
2
Mr. Bruni,
"Mansplaining" does not mean being technically true.
Now, while technically true that Warren won a race against a sitting republican (Scott Brown) more recently than Sanders, Massachusetts is a much more one party state (Democrat) than Vermont. So winning a statewide race (Vermont has one House seat) is indeed much more of an accomplishment, even if it came 29 years + ago.
The only reason that Warren could run against Brown was that Martha Coakely treated her "win" as foreordained when she lost to Brown. Sound familiar?
5
The headline is pure click bait. They didn't "teach the boys a lesson", they showed up and did well. The men (not boys) already knew that they were serious candidates, and that a woman could win. After all, it was only a quirk in the electoral college that gave 2016 to Trump.
The main reason that the Democratic candidate will likely be a woman is because these men all have problems.
If this becomes a referendum on sexual equality, Trump will win.
6
Dear Mr. President,
Watching the debate last night, and having experienced an election or two as vicariously as liberals do, and knowing that history often repeats, I suspect the DNC, true to form, will give the nomination to Joe. No sweat, right? Entering the debate stage with him may be a security risk, as I suspect that after invoking the name of our country, he thinks he’ll win the debate by punching you in the nose.
Any of those guys on the stage pose no serious problem, but if Senators Amy and Liz get together, well, watch out!
PS. Global warming is not a hoax. The US military is actively preparing for it. Check it out.
2
@William Ahearn Is the DNC the reason Joe leads just about every single poll outside of a few state polls? It seems, and I'm not one of them, Joe is the preferred candidate by most polled.
The two lady candidates last night Democratic debate Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Amy Klobucher that the boys behind in the dust Sen. Bernie Sander, about a woman becoming president. Amy should use flashcards.
The race to the White House to be President Donald Trump has to be of hard fight the Democrats have one thing going for them healthcare help Pres. Donald Trump stops away poor of Americans the knee healthcare should, mentioned the Supreme Court the other day about 16 Republican governors tried to terminate Obama care for Americans middle class and poor. The Democrats could mention a 2 trillion cost to the American taxpayers for healthcare. But have you seen the deficit a Pres? Donald Trump Republicans afford trillion deficit since he been in office. $11 trillion deficit was George Bush Junior you think they were drunken sailors spending American money not for the Americans but before themselves, this is very hypocrites. The Iraq war cost is $30 trillion. Democratic on the stage to use for their benefits to when President Donald Trump and his potty mouth, 11 months to go must see what they can do the Democrats party win White House.
1
It might have been fair for Sen. Warren to ask Sen. Sanders whether a Jewish American could ever win a presidential election in this country. Then again, her merely citing the fact that this hasn't yet happened here might be enough to get her roundly condemned by Jews and Evangelicals alike. Some forms of bigotry can be practiced but never mentioned.
8
Biden didn't fall over.
7
Once again CNN shows it lack of integrity and intelligence by asking the most stupid question of any presidential debate about whether a woman could win the presidency.
CNN doesn't care about the issues, only wants the gotcha moments. No wonder their ratings are so low these days.
17
How about two women on the ticket? Warren and Klobuchar?
3
I agree. This may be the best bet for a win.
1
Blue women getting elected in blue states. Big whoop.
10
I agree. This is an excellent idea, and may be the best bet for a win.
1
If Klobuchar is on the ticket I will cross party lines and not just vote for her but actively campaign for her. She is a smart, decent, strong person. She is what we need: a figure that the whole nation can rally around.
Warren would be a disaster. We do not need more angry fighting and we do not need another coastal elite. Warren is simply the obverse of Trump.
Klobuchar/Buttigieg 2020. The nation yearns for this ticket.
5
We seem to forget that a woman won the majority vote in 2016 by 3 million votes! That's in spite of her poorly managed campaign and her failure to engage many potential voters who stayed away and didn't vote.
Women demonstrated in 2018 that they can make a tremendous difference in election results in local, state and federal elections
1
I am a 63-year-old lifelong feminist and Democrat who thinks this country needs some big changes if we are to tackle the existential problem of climate change and end the wildly imbalanced distribution of power and wealth that threatens democracy itself. I have been waiting for decades to have a woman in the White House, and for months I favored Warren. But lately I have been leaning toward Sanders and Warren's current behavior has pushed me further in that direction. I think she should try to differentiate herself from Sanders without making a villain of him. After all, he is the only other candidate who, as president, would be likely to champion policies that Warren herself favors. I don't know what was said in the Warren/Sanders meeting, but I find it odd that Warren waited until now to bring it up. In any case, Sanders has made it clear that he believes a woman could be President and I am disappointed that after the debate Warren would not shake his hand. In future I hope that Warren and Sanders will not undercut each other as I believe they are the two best candidates in the field.
13
Agree with the sentiment but pretty much everything else is nonsense. Do we really want to harken back to the good old days of the 1960 election that was so blatantly corrupt that even Richard Nixon realized that if he challenged the result the electorate's faith in the system might never recover? Warren's claim about the men losing 10 elections between them was a perfect example of why I dislike her. It's too clever, too facile and a meaningless statement that has only a surface appeal. In fact, all those elections were different and perhaps only show that they ran for offices that weren't sure things. As Frank correctly points out, it's silly to say a woman can't win just like it's equally silly to say that the men are less likely to win because they've all lost elections in the past. The amount of time she must have spent crafting that talking point should have spent on any other activity. You don't beat DJT with zingers or with intelligence -- see HRT -- you have to do it with heart.
5
Wouldn't it be great if the Democrats could nominate a woman for president twice in a row, showing that it was "normal", as it should be! And the Democrats can do so without having to do it as a gesture. The thing now is to run a smart campaign so we won't have another election where the winner of the popular vote loses in the Electoral College.
1
What I would like all debaters to stop doing is telling us how they are supremely qualified to stand toe to toe on the debate stage with trump.
Trump is not going to debate anyone. He’s not even going to show up. To speak like he will disqualifies any candidate as naive in my mind.
4
If anything could change my mind...it might be this column Mr. Bruni.
I too, think it is absurd a woman has not yet been President of this nation I love. But I too, am fearful a woman cannot win at this juncture in time.
Let me be clear...I have no doubt Warren, Klobuchar or Harris would make fine Presidents.
On some level this is also deeply personal for me. I served as the first - and still the only - female leader elected Supervisor (like Mayor) of my upstate New York hometown of 25,000, established in 1835, in the mid to late 1990's.
It was a powerful - and volatile - experience. The sexism, harassment, and misogynistic behaviors I encountered were shocking.
But I would do it all over again because I believe - at the most fundamental level - that this nation is rooted in an ideal, a recognition of the power of our humanity...that has helped to lift the whole of mankind.
I have also worked actively for women's empowerment in myriad ways - coach, mentor, course leader, healer - for 25 years. So, I share this with sincerity and sorrow...
...I do not think a woman can be elected in 2020 because of the women who voted for Trump in 2016. White, well educated women - millions - voted for Trump.
And I think they will do so again.
Combined with disenfranchised men and women struggling financially for the last 10 years...we cannot afford a female candidate.
We must attend to the immediate danger...Trump.
3
@Kelly Grace Smith "Combined with disenfranchised men and women struggling financially for the last 10 years...we cannot afford a female candidate. "
I say we can't afford another 300 years of men making laws for rich white men. And when you throw your lot in with those men, you serve their interests.
You say: "I served as the first - and still the only - female leader elected Supervisor (like Mayor) of my upstate New York hometown of 25,000, established in 1835, in the mid to late 1990's. "
You stood proudly where you fought to get to. Now we can't afford women like you? You won't allow any other woman to stand on your brave shoulders to get into positions of power?
Now we just can't 'afford' to take a chance, do I have that right? We have to offer a man??
3
@deb Thank you for your powerful, heartfelt response...civil discourse at its best!
Sadly, and I never thought I would see it this way...I do think because of the extraordinary and dangerous circumstances, we do have to put forth a man.
I think we must set aside, temporarily, our ideals and aspirations for a woman President, in deference to the well-being of our democracy and our peoples.
I may be wrong...I am willing to be wrong. And, as I said above...I never thought I would see this perspective.
Perhaps if we take the "safer" route...our reward will be a President - who will in fact be a staunch supporter of women?
The reward may be worth the sacrifice...
@Kelly Grace Smith I could not disagree more. It's really sad to hear you say that when challenges arise, we have to turn it over to men. Men go to war when their testosterone levels are questioned! Men direct the eternal refugee camps filled with your sisters and their children while men plan more war. Men love to take your attitude and say 'see? They need a strong manly guide to do the right thing!'.
A leader LEADS, not meekly hand over power to the ones who won't even consider their own fellow Americans worthy of the formalized ERA! What an insult.
The notion that the unsuccessful nomination of a woman for president before, will doom any other woman's chances, is troubling on so many levels. It ignores the many differences between Secretary Clinton and Senator Warren, including their policy positions and experience, and reduces them to a gendered stereotype. We should be asking who is the most qualified to be the next president of the United States, whether they can articulate a vision to address the serious problems we will confront post-Trump, and, yes, who has the best plan to govern?
195
@Lisa And IMHO that would be Senator Warren.
13
@Lisa:
"The notion that the unsuccessful nomination of a woman for president before, will doom any other woman's chances, is troubling on so many levels."
And that's not a notion anyone, except the likes of Trump, is suggesting as valid.
5
@Lisa
The point is that you would have to look far and wide to find a candidate as experienced, knowledgeable, and articulate as Hillary--and she lost.
Hillary's policy positions are not that different Elizabeth's. Hillary received several standing ovations when she delivered the results of her work on health care in Congress.
Hillary also enjoyed eight years of White House experience, access to offices in both the West and East wings.
So, qualifications are not the ultimate benchmark.
The precedent of Bill undermined her candidacy.
12
Warren's canned speech did nothing to improve her credentials.
It was showman(woman)ship, plain and simple, and detracted in no way from her unreachable goals, unrealistic promises and class warfare.
She's a former bankruptcy lawyer who defended corporate America (nothing wrong with that), and who know has had an epiphany realizing that inequality exists.
Bandwagon at best, completely inauthentic at worst, she will do or say anything to try to get elected.
It won't happen. Not because she's a woman. Not even close. Simply because she's inauthentic and she's not the answer to Trump.
7
I had been a Warren supporter until yesterday and last night when she pulled that shameless, cynical attempt to kneecap Bernie in order to re-energize her slowly sinking momentum. It reminded me of Kamala Harris’s going after Biden on busing. How can someone as sharp as Frank Bruni not see through that?!?! And if the exchange was in 2018, why did Warren choose NOW to reveal it? So transparently opportunistic!!
20
The media are always looking for an angle, a hook, something to use to turn a political race into trivial entertainment. The boys vs. the girls is one such trivialization.
No one should vote for Elizabeth Warren just because, or mostly because, or in spite of the fact that she is a woman. But everyone should vote for her because she is far and away the best candidate.
4
@ Mike in Boston, Amen. Your comment is spot on!
1
If the Dems want to lose again than by all means pick Warren.
6
Bernie on Warren's "30 years" put down: "I was told there wouldn't be any math."
1
I'm a man and a sexist. I'm sick of how male hierarchy all over the globe has failed my species as a result of excess testosterone in leadership.
I'm a sexist that believes that a different hormonal balance leads to different behaviors and testosterone coaxes men to often take unnecessary risks to prove strength or obtain short-term rewards at the expense of the very future of our species.
Just as the general differences between men and women can lead to better management of a home, with both involved in making decisions, the same is true of governments and corporations.
With the planet heading to the point of canceling our lease for existence, I especially believe that women are better suited to fully understand the stakes- that they are more capable than men at seeing the long view and more willing to ante up the overdue rent our earth requires of us to keep our home.
I'm a sexist with this fantasy that women are more nurturing than men and more focused on their children and grandchildren that in proving themselves as warriors.
So to me, it isn't a matter of being willing to vote for a women to be president. I'm completely disgusted by the idea of having to choose between two men again when I cast my vote for president.
561
Enough mansplaining, Alan. Shouldn’t we elect candidates based on their specific policies rather than on whether they have XY or XX chromosomes?
31
Ha, you’ve never reported to a female boss. I have. And let me tell you: they can every bit as egotistical, shortsighted, imperious, cruel, political, selfish and incompetent as a bad male boss. This idea that they’ll bring some sort of soft and fluffy “nurturing” management style to the office is absurd. Is this contention serious? The best and only reason why a qualified woman should be president is because there no good reason why one shouldn’t. Period.
110
@alan haigh
"I'm completely disgusted by the idea of having to choose between two men again when I cast my vote for president.'
especially two antiquated men.
34
Of course there’s no good reason why a woman shouldn’t be elected President. But then again there’s no good reason why Trump was elected President. Reality often doesn’t jive with what ought to be.
2
It's 2020. And I'm sick of women having to "teach the boys". The "boys" need to grow up.
2
Can't say I'm surprised that Sen Warren was well prepared considering what a set up hit job this whole thing was.
10
Wine caves, Pochahantas, Sander’s alleged gender comment. I feel like she’s always looking for a “teachable” moment. Warren’s smug attitude exhausts me—
10
"A self-serving edit of history?" What edit? People did say a Catholic could not win, and Kennedy won. People did say an African-American couldn't win, and Obama won.
1
Hillary's tears all over again.
50 years of "men are no good" and sure enough...
If you respond to an accusation, you're mansplaining.
How about a male cliche to spice up this female dish: Women don't fight fair?
4
Where is Andrew Yang? Oh yeah, I forgot. He didn't qualify for the debates because these biased media systems don't even give him time to speak. The only guy that looks into the actual future and America doesn't even give him a shot. Even the NYT does not even cover the incredible leaps his campaign is making. In an age where newspapers should highlight the unknown, new force in the status quo, the Times needs to give more coverage to Mr. Yang. He's literally an "Asian man running for president."
8
Frank Bruni for President.
Period.
Klobuchar for the win. Any backhanded caution by commenters is simply cover for lack of courage and conviction. Put your silly litmus tests for “electability” aside and listen really listen to Klobuchar. You’ll hear intelligence, experience, honesty and yes, grit. Minnesota winters build character (unlike Florida beaches). These are the characteristics of a leader—something we are in grave need of. So. Stop making excuses and back the real thing. Go Amy.
4
Really?This 63 year old feminist was not impressed with either of them.Warren pulling a "gotcha" on Bernie that is so totally disingenuous.Let's drop the identity political stuff.It's not "her turn" either.Let the voters pick the best candidate,the one with a moral compass,the one that will represent ALL of America.
Bernie 2020
9
@Nora
I'm not a Bernie supporter but was ashamed of Warren's obvious ploy as a woman, if she had this as a real conversation, should have put it out at the beginning, now it just looks cheap.
Similar to Hillary's camp waiting to use the Access Hollywood tv segment on Trump, when if they were really concerned should have put it out at he beginning, only using it when it was too obvious.
Not that I think that women cannot steal from the dirty tricks handbook, but this was not even a well thought out veiled attack.
3
what debate? we saw a series of mostly insipid questions and prepared responses. Choices seem to be:
Biden- Nostalgia for Mediocrity
Sanders- Don Quixote
Warren- Ms. Don Quixote
the rest of the field doesn't have a chance in the primaries and likely would be clobbered in the General.
there are other candidates that came and went that would be formidable and qualified and most important, would have a real chance of winning. The nominating process is crazy.
in the word of the current occupant of the White House. "Sad"
I am not a partisan of any party. I don't like Sanders and disagree strongly with most of his positions.
However, I think that feminists making an issue of Bernie's supposed statement 13 months ago is irrational and extremely unfair to Bernie. I think making an issue of it is actually evidence of the gender prejudice of the women critical of Bernie.
Even those who allege the statement was made do not claim that Bernie said that he was opposed to a female president. The alleged statement was nothing more than his judgement about how others (the entire electorate) would vote, not his opinion of the ability of a female to be president.
The relentless playing of the gender card by female candidates is fast becoming a liability to female candidates who use it. More and more of the public will come to resent those who play the gender card. Playing the gender card is actually a sign that the candidate doing so does not have the ability to prevail on the issues.
5
It is a lot easier to say you have won more elections than lost them when you have not run very many. How many elections Warren and Klobichar won 4? Two senate runs each? Or maybe Amy won something at the state level as well. But count up how many elections that the three men have run won or lost. Which is actually the better track record. I am not saying women cant win. I am saying it is a tricky debate tactic that doesnt actually help me trust Warren. Add to that her point that she was the only one who has beat an incumbent in 30 years which she said because Bernie had beat an incumbent just over 30 years ago. That seemed tricky and sly. I dont like my political leaders tricky and sly. She never did answer the question about whether Sanders actually said she couldnt win. It doesnt strike me as something he would say considering he was the one trying to get her to run in 2016.
7
The Democratic debates don't do anything for anybody. In fact, they probably do more harm than good.
The Democratic National Committee is astonishing in its insensitive ignorance. It is beyond galling that a billionaire buys himself onto the stage while Booker, Castro, and Harris were out because they couldn't meet funding requirements of the Party. Not good 'optics' for the party of the people. It may be good enough for the GOP to have a bozo buy the presidency, but I thought Democrats were better, silly me.
Further galling that yesterday's debate did not include Yang, Bennet, and Patrick, who are still in the race and viable candidates. At least until the first handful of primaries.
Democrats, like me, turned the debate off early because those people on the stage were canned and boring to stultification.
It's so early, and yet we are tired of them. They are tired.
It's not their ages that make Biden, Warren, Klobuchar and Sanders old. It's their shabby, old-fashioned, gimmicky schtick.
That leaves Pete.
3
This entire discussion makes it so clear that dems will lose. While Trump and the Republicans have pretty clear agendas and are working to push them forward we have our leaders and media acting like high school kids - playing he said she said and talking about if we are liked enough. We are going to be destroyed. And mark my words the first woman to be president will be a Trump.
1
@JC Maybe not a Trump but it will almost certainly be a Republican.
1
I am a liberal, and live in major progressive city. I realized last night that my city has never had a female mayor - ever. (It seems other big cities haven't either) If liberals and progressives cannot choose a woman to lead their local politics, why would we expect the country to do so? We cannot be hypocrites and claim to be woke and all, when we are not putting our money where our mouth is.
There are plenty of women who dislike Trump but wonder if a woman can win against him in 2020. I don't know what Bernie said or did not say (unlike CNN), but if he did voice that concern, he was just saying what many people think.
2
I was hoping that Warren would reject the implication that Sanders is misogynist and accept the certain fact that such a comment was taken out of context. She didn’t. That revived the argument that many DO maintain that a woman cannot be president. This only displays victimhood and acts to sabotage herself. It’s like Bernie claiming that Warren said he’s too old to be president. Why bring that up? Warren’s campaign has to think long and hard about optics.
9
Sayingthe issue of whether a woman can beat Trump is a "stupid question" raises questions about Frank Bruni. We saw the press go crazy against Hillary Clinton. A person clearly superior to Trump. In an election in which the only issue is ousting Trump it matters whether a women, even one who would be superior to Trump and her Democratic opponents can defeat Trump. There are many women I know who supported Hillary and now believe a woman can't beat Trump.
2
Warren's sneak attack on Bernie was the last straw. "if" Joe privately told Bernie that he was worried that the USA wont/hasn't voted for a woman....and if Bernie used that against Joe, well, then I'd be done with Bernie too.
She unleashed the dogs of war. Asking for others to attack her for being a Republican until she was 47 and claiming to be Native American on application forms.
7
My kids are gender blind race blind they don’t get what the fuss is about. They love Liz and Bernie equally so do we. They are both competent.
2
Mr. Bruni referring to electing a female President:
"...how absurd it is that this country hasn’t yet shattered the highest glass ceiling of all."
Why in the world should we feel OBLIGATED to elect a woman?
Talk about a biased view. The time will come when a woman is elected to the oval office, the right candidate in the right circumstances.
The only reason Obama won in 2008 was a lot of white people wanted to prove how tolerant they were. It's a horrible reason to elect anyone (race or gender).
5
This election isn’t so much about the character or gender of the candidates but about the character of the nation.
2
Wouldn't it be nice if we heard nothing about the campaign until the voters made a choice? Then we could read about the election as a news event and not as a mud wrestling contest?
Why must the media opine on every candidate's every statement. I will vote for the candidate who has a vision of America I can live with.
The media makes altogether too much money with these gladiatorial combats to be effective in covering them as news.
Did you hear Justin Trudeau won the election in Canada? Wasn't that a nice and short story?
1
"The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man. In my view, a woman could be elected president of the United States. The real issue is whose side are you on? Are you on the side of workers and poor people? Or are you on the side of big money and the corporations?"
Bernie Sanders, 1988
10
Sanders has zero right to assume anything. He is a one-issue candidate who is too old and cranky for a serious 8 years
With all of the pressing issues including immigration which was ignored last night it was disgusting that Abby Phillips and CNN felt it necessary to try and dig dirt on this women's electability nonsense. I was disappointed that Warren did not shake Bernie's hand.
9
Warren/Klobuchar would be a bold ticket. Dems, go big and win.
1
Warren's implication about being surrounded by white male losers should have been saved for a debate with Trump. She could and should have been graceful (and smart) to acknowledge that she would fully support any of these "losers" if one of them becomes the nominee. She not only gave Donald ammunition, but also sent the wrong message to her followers by suggesting that they might have to support a "loser".
9
@Daniel B So agree. Warren's set up of Sanders was graceless and tacky, the last thing needed as the Dems gear up for the campaign.
5
I've been trying to avoid the video and rely on reporting after the debates.
The one thing I am curious about, though, is if Warren would shake hands with Sanders in earlier debates and other events.
The sudden refusal of courtesy appears contrived and reactionary.
Frankly, I've about had it with contrived and reactionary behavior in our elected representatives and that is not appealing to me as a voter and a woman.
8
There are too many political debates in this campaign. After three they illuminate little. The reviews aren't about issues but how the candidates show up on TV. And pundit commentary is for the most part repetitive and redundant. The Democratic Party needs to seriously consider a different approach.
218
@HPower if I could recommend this a thousand times I would. Does anyone really watch the debates at this point? How about not having a campaign run for a year (or more) before the election. Crikey, by the time November comes around I'm numb.
22
@HPower And the media spurs us on. I feel like I'm watching a horse race, because of all the media hype with little or no substance. Oh, Bernie takes the lead! Wait, Warren is a nose behind and chomping at his heels! Now Biden rounds the corner and bumps into Warren, sending her to the middle of the pack! Watch out, here comes Buttigieg in a sprint to take the lead! No, he's tripped up by Warren and Sanders, crowding him to the rail!
Arrgghhh!
22
@Mary Chasin I mostly agree except that, like it or not, how a candidate appears on TV is important. Trump exploits his reality TV persona with success. Whoever is the Democratic nominee will have to contend with that. I think Warren can give as good as she gets.
9
Willingness to accept that progress isn’t achieved in giant leaps is honest and practical. We have my way or the highway embodied in both DJT and Mitch. It will be refreshing when we have people willing to give and take at the levers of government.
No doubt qualified women.They would win popular vote but in the 6 EC states the trump types and others are not so easy. Policy, qualifications mean little.Its emotion and culture and these folks have the idea that starting with a male GOD figure and a husband who is King that Men are the better choice.
The Dems will get the most votes but its the EC that counts.
1
Tulsi Gabbard was missed.
6
@PeterC Have no fear. Tulsi will become a star on Fox News
1
How long have them men been mucking this up? Time for a woman.
Warren could have said, “Amy and I have never lost and this time at least one of us will!” Said that way it loses its power, right? Unless the “winners” want to buddy up.
I also don’t get these people commenting here about what Bernie supposedly did bad to Hillary in 2016. What was it? All I remember is the media going out of its way to ignore him, even though he was doing so well. Let’s face it: Hillary made her first and last mistake in not choosing him as her VP and the media is screwing it up again this time too!
The way things are going, all Trump will have to say when things really get going is: Look at ‘em!
6
Can you imagine President Warren walking up to Putin at a summit and refusing to shake his hand? Burn! Yeah, that'll show him.
4
I struggle to believe that these are the headlines coming out of the last debate before Iowa's caucuses. Petty stupid stuff. Female against male. he said/she said. I guess we should be thankful that the questioners didn't also bring in Meghan and Harry!!! With all the big issues facing this country, we instead have headlines fit for a reality show.
5
“You don’t have to be the loudest person. You have to be competent.”
How do you explain Trump, most likely the least competent president we've had in my lifetime?
1
Well, there’s human folly, left-wing languidness, the Russians, a media far too interested in clicks, racism, banks and financiers and corporations who just want theirs (which includes yours, to be sure), the decline of unions and the working class....
It's very strange to me that no one in the press ever discusses what an amazing, historical achievement it would be to see a Jewish person serve as president.
I think it has something to do with corporate media's general distaste for the Jewish candidate who could very well be the first.
7
Warren has a lot of nerve even broaching the subject. I won’t forget that after 2016 she was all too willing to jump on the “trash Hillary” bandwagon by agreeing with trump that it was Hillary’s campaign that cost the Dems the election.
Anyone who has paid attention to the statistics knows that there are millions of people who just can’t bring themselves to vote for a woman. Most notable among them are white women who can’t function without a man, and black men. Both of these groups have a problem with insecurity and feel the need to have a male president. Interestingly, black women, who have every right to feel insecure in this country, had no problem supporting Hillary in vast numbers.
Face it. Some needy people will willingly believe any lie thrown out by the Russians or trump if it will help them justify their refusal to accept a woman as president.
The only way Democrats can beat trump is with Biden. If he would choose Klobuchar as his running mate then resign when the time is right, he will have done us all a huge service.
1
29 years ago, November 1990 from January 2020...round down. Check her/ your math.
And a silly talking point, every successful pol becomes the incumbent and rolls on, just beating one. Biden also.
Another silly spin- the men combined have lost 10 times….
The real issue is practical experience in DC. Among the once Senators on stage, Warren comes in with the least of that.
4
Well, if we’re gonna be that way....English lesson, okay?
“in,” such-and-such a time means nkt when it started and not when it ends, but within those two boundaries.
It’s less important than, say, the fact that St Bernie doesn’t know the diff between single-payer and universal systems, or that few European countries have actual single-payer systems, but what the heck, huh?
@Robert nah...let's forget English, this is math. Besides it's an obvious astro turf bit of Madmen spin.
Bernie understands the important point is to build energy to push for something that is actually universal, and non corporate. As to the math, vague leaves a harder target to find.
No one believes we'll pay nothing under the Warren plan really.
Last bit o' math- the knockers of Med4All started with it costing $30 Trillion OVER TEN YEARS.
Like $3 Trillion a year.
Our lovely system already costs 3.7 THIS YEAR, and things in a decade will climb.
1
How I would be thrilled to see a woman beat Trump!
Feeling a Warren/Klobuchar ticket right about now.
3
Perhaps we hold women to a different standard. Life is not fair.
If we could only clone Klobuchar's positions with Warren's intellect, energy and personality. Winner.
Playing the woman card. Again.
That’s so 2016.
Didn’t work then either.
12
Ha. You guys in the media just *must* find a way to write favorably about Klobuchar after every debate, huh? Is it written into your contracts?
Meanwhile, Senator Better Things Aren't Possible can't break the 4% mark.
6
"Mansplaining met mathematics." Indeed! May males modify the masculine modus operandi allegro ma non troppo.
Bernie should have responded to Warren: "Well, I did have that feeling, earlier, that a woman couldn't win the presidency. But seeing you spunky little ladies debating so splendidly, now I'm not so sure!"
2
Warren/Klobuchar. Let’s stir up the world.
A Warren/Klobuchar ticket would gain more excitement among Democrats (and the world) than any other in the last 50+ years.
In turn, this would add 10-12% votes for the Democratic ticket — without Republicans adding more than 2-3% in protest.
Trump’s guaranteed misogynistic comments would add another 5% of angry voters for the Democratic ticket.
1
I almost always like what Frank has to say and especially how he says it. He is barking up the wrong tree here and romanticizing and therefore distracting from the real issue.
Ideally the most powerful position in the world should go to the best candidate. Ideally this doesn’t matter if you are black or white, male or female, gay or straight, tall or short, telegenic or have orange hair.
In reality there are biases that exist in society. Sure in theory anyone can get elected and lets always shoot for allowing our arbitrary prejudices to fall by the wayside. But let’s also consider strategy: you start with an advantage if you are tall, handsome, commanding, articulate, and telegenic. Also yes white, male and straight. There are many who have the archaic notion that a woman can not do as good a job as a man. I am not saying this is right, simply that this is a prominent bias.
Warren is playing the underdog here and I don’t blame her. Still at the end of the day cherry picking facts about defeating opponents in the past is not terribly impressive to me. I think we should pay attention to the issues and policies and let our judgement go from there.
3
Did Sanders make the comment regarding the electability of a woman? If he did, was he simply observing a regrettable fact of American political life? What is more telling is his actual behavior. I don't think I've ever heard him apologize to Clinton or to America for his part in her defeat through his virulent criticism prolonged even after she was the candidate. After the election his comment was that she had "lost against the most unpopular candidate in the history of the country." His following comment was to the effect that he didn't want to re-hash the past.
I was annoyed that the moderator brought in the he said/she said between Sanders and Warren. Does anyone believe that Bernie Sanders thinks women aren't viable candidates? This felt sophomoric and gossipy. Politics is a gritty business and not for the easily offended. Please stop pitting the candidates against each other, rather than against the person the ultimately need to beat in November.
901
@Chiordella Someone should have asked each of them directly. It seems unfair to bring up something like that at the last minute. It was widely reported that she did not shake Sanders's hand after the debate. That was not her practice previously. How come?
28
Because Elizabeth Warren wanted another TV moment that everyone would talk about. That’s called a cheap (and petty) shot and it’s going to backfire big time. It’s obvious to me now that Warren do anything to win, so she’ll never get my vote in this election.
Bernie 2020
69
@Chiordella. I agree with you. The push for sensationalism and ratings cheapens the process.
37
One of our nation's most valuable resources which is untapped to it's full potential in improving our country as we seek the common good, The American Woman. Bring her up and let her lead our nation for our children's sake!
If we’re talking about gender discrimination, which is omnipresent, why aren’t we are talking about age discrimination? Or putting them together, why aren’t we acknowledging age discrimination against older women? Believe me it’s real and prevalent. 
3
Biden-Klobuchar in 2020 !
Amy will put backbone in any role she is asked to undertake, and Joe will add to the congressional know-how this team will offer. If you think Amy would back down from a menacing Trump shadowing her around the stage you have another think coming. Trump clearly fears a Biden run for the job he has so completely botched. I would love to watch a Trump/Pence debate against Biden/Klobuchar on the stage all to once. If the right questions were asked and the answers not interrupted as in last night's annoying fashion by CNN, that would be the best assessment of what would take place in the ensuing four years.
Go Joe and Amy !
4
The misogyny is this country has only worsened in my lifetime.
Every time I think we have collectively reached a closer level of equality, we backslide. Trump being elected has done more damage to leveling the playing the field for women that any other single event in my lifetime. That is, his views, treatment of and policies.
Both of the women running are great senators that represent their people well. Either would be a great President based on education, experience, qualifications, etc.
However, the Democratic party has done nothing but throw their own women candidates under the bus and their respective candidacy for old Biden Man. The media has done the same.
If that sounds familiar, it is. It is the same stunt Joe Biden pulled with Anita Hill during the Thomas Hearing. Anita Hill never asked to be in the limelight. She was one of many women that complained to HR about Clarence Thomas' workplace harassment. Years last, Thomas' old personnel files were dragged out to be used against him, but it was the women who lives and careers were destroyed, not his. Thomas went on to be one of the most ineffective, useless justices to serve the court. The women were vilified.
Break the glass ceiling? How about equality? How about leveling the playing the field, instead of letting men, and the institutions they created, undermine us every step of the way.
Warren 2020.
8
The number of progressive WOMEN who have told me they find Warren shrill and unlikable is easily in the dozens. Most men just give me an eyeroll when I ask what they think about Warren and I travel in left of center circles.
When I go home to swing state PA it's understood that Warren is from a deep blue planet (MA) that has nothing to do with how they live.
Anecdotes are not data, but I simply don't believe Warren is electable. In contrast, I think Klobuchar is the most electable democratic candidate. So perhaps personality not gender is the key.
12
Weak . . . is the only word that describes the Democratic Candidates occupying the stage. The debate was weak and each of the candidates policies and positions are equally weak. They comprise a group of contenders for the American Presidency that cannot connect with the American People and stand outside the traditions and culture that the country's founders established and that brought the American Dream to fruition. Where are the candidates that will represent the American People? They must be out there somewhere.
2
It looked to me like Elizabeth Warren’s campaign surfaced a private conversation from 2 years ago so that she would be positioned to grandstand and slime her biggest rival with a spurious unprovable accusation of bias. If he actually said this, and if it was indeed so terrible, why did her campaign wait to reveal the details 48 hours before the final debate of the Democratic primary?
7
I found senator Warren petty when she brought up a private conversation, that took place 2 years ago, with senator Sanders. Nobody knows what was actually said, one denies and the other used it as a last ditch attack. Also refusing to shake his hand shows her character. I was a Warren supporter, no longer. As for madame Klobuchar, i simply disagree with her policies and her attempt at grandstanding by not following the allocated time was annoying . Gender should not enter the equation, it is about having the best candidate.
13
Prior to Election Day 2018, Hillary Clinton had never lost an election either so Warren's comment was pointless. That said, I would feel comfortable voting for any of the men or women that were on the stage last night. My personal favorites are Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar.
2
@osavus She lost the 2008 primary election against Obama
I wish discussions of gender could reach deeper into their origins where they lay cemented in our unconscious. A discussion about whether or not a woman could win the presidency is incomplete without recognizing the flow of female hatred and fear that has settled for millennial into the deepest regions of both male and female consciousness. You don't believe me? Look at the stubborn irrational hatred that continues to be flung at Hilary Clinton. And for what? What crimes has she committed that would warrant the vitriolic hatred? She's a woman, ergo she is suspect and reviled. I've asked moderates why they voted for Trump in 2016 and all of them - women as well as men - respond with "he was better than the alternative." Really? And then when I ask them what she did, they can't come up with anything substantive. They rattled off "Benghazi" or "emails." And when I point out that no other Sec. of State has been made culpable for an embassy attack, I get blank stares. Their hatred of Clinton is irrational because what they hate about her is that she is female. It's this roiling of unexamined bigotry that has to be resolved before a woman can win. And I don't know how long that will take.
5
My pledge: I will not vote for or withhold my vote for any candidate based on their being a man or a woman. I will consider voting against any candidate who characterizes this election as a choice between a man or a woman, be they a man or a woman. Let's stick with the issues.
6
Well played, Senator Warren (probably including the leak that led to this exchange). But my Democrat wife said the same thing in some of our conversations. NOT because she believes a woman could not be a good or even great President, but she doesn’t think the country that elected a Donald Trump is ready for it. And, sure, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but, because this is not how the system works she lost the election and ignoring this fact is denying reality. But I do admire this swift political jiu jitsu move. If Elizabeth Warren is nominated, such skills will come in handy against Donald Trump.
1
I think Bernie's track record of working so hard, no once but twice, to make sure a woman is not elected president, speaks volumes. I hope that folks remember the hard-left of Bernie's glory days when women were not included in his inner circles with the new good old boys. Look at Bernie's years as mayor and see how many women were in positions of power. Look at his years in office and see how many women were in positions of power. Had AOC worked for him, she would have been stuck in the typing pool :)
119
@Jodi Harrington
Femnism is not defined as putting women in positions of power but rather helping the most vulnerable women, which are poor women of color, who make up the majority of the working class.
And fighting for the working class is exactly what Bernie has done his entire lifetime. The NYTimes even ran a headline after his mayoral victory disparaging him"Socialist wins mayoral race with bias towards the poor".
Simply putting a woman, although symbolic, in a position of power won't do anything. Look at GM. A woman is in charge and when the workers went on strike for living wages, she cut their health care.
38
@Jodi Harrington I think Bernie was able to read the polls, which consistently showed him beating Trump, and Hillary at best even with or trailing Trump. Would you have stepped aside so eagerly when you thought the country was about to elect a buffoon? The idea that Bernie cost her the election, or was misogynist in this regard, is utter nonsense.
29
@Jodi Harrington
You are kidding, right? Bernie Sanders runs for office because he has a clear vision of a better America. He does not run "to make sure a woman is not elected president," his opponents simply include women. I imagine that you also think that Hillary Clinton ran to make sure an African-American was not elected president. And by the way, AOC is voluntarily working hard for Bernie to be elected, perhaps due to advances in word processing.
31
A critically important problem is that by saying that women can't win, people MAKE it more so. Because, of course, that argument is used to keep women out of the running, and then the mindset that only men are reasonable candidates keeps getting perpetuated.
We were ROBBED in the last election, and I want to see a woman as President before I die.
4
Watch those who are not fans of progressive candidates try to get Sanders and Warren into a death match so they can cancel each other out.
Sanders said what he had to say - how credible he was will likely be in the eye of the beholder. Bernie fans will accuse Warren of lying. If Warren edges Sanders out, will they hold their noses and vote for her, or have they learned nothing from 2016? Sanders has a tendency to be so emphatic about his candidacy that he comes across as condescending at times.
Warren did not take the bait to call Sanders a liar - as all the press was hoping - and instead chose to make a larger, stronger point. But not shaking his hand afterwards sends a message too. Women are expected to defer to men; Warren showed she will not back down when it matters, and that's something she will need going forward - as will any other woman.
Make no mistake. Both of them have an agenda that fits the challenges facing this country better than the centrist dogmas that keep falling short. Of the two I prefer Warren - but any of them are orders of magnitude better than anything on the GOP side.
5
That cnn story about ‘sexist sanders’ was opportunistic ratings hogwash, that subsequently all the ‘reputable’ media outlets picked up as well. It culminated in a TV moment that degraded the nature political debate and it made me feel like a chump. This debate felt like a high school cafeteria popularity contest.
Warren lost my respect by manipulating a media cycle much in the same vein as Trump actively does every day. CNN saw the ratings opportunity - Warren saw an opportunity to throw her ‘ideological ally’ under the bus over a non event in which sanders was making practical allusions to a sexist electorate.
This was quite upsetting for me because I was very Pro Warren, have gone to her rallies and donated plenty to her campaign, and then she resorts to Trumpian tactics to undermine her progenitor in the Senate (Sanders), in hopes of winning Iowa. It was all very low. Shame on CNN, shame on Elizabeth Warren.
13
Identity politics aside, I was astounded that Warren apparently thought that her real problem was that she didn't have enough plans. Surely, she thought, one more plan would change the tide and bring her the nomination. And her new plan? Government-manufactured drugs! Yes, sir! Just what I've been waiting for. And what could go wrong?
If that plan doesn't work, her next bright idea will be government-baked pizza.
5
I wanted Warren as VP or cabinet/advisor. I know she was solidly against the same progressive policies she claims to support this time, in lock-step with Clinton last election, and therefore suspect when she used progressive policies initially, to position herself as a progressive champion, but now it looks even more as if that is all political theater. Now she seems even more untrustworthy, again, a liar, (she’s already proven she’s shameless enough to use lies to get what she wants), even less interested in improving the quality of life for Americans, and only interested in herself and ‘winning’, and, coordinated with CNN, turned the debate into reality tv, which makes her like Trump, despicable, and equally unfit for leadership to me.
7
Frank writes a well-balanced column about this debate, one I hadn't planned to watch but once tuned in, watched with much interest. Yes, there is a sexism at work when Joe Biden, who is barely coherent (it's more than stuttering; is it dementia or what is it?) is held in higher regard by most Democrats than Warren and Klobuchar? Both women earned my admiration for what I heard them say and how they said it.
1
I keep reading and hearing people that say Warren can’t win, Bernie can, but it is not about gender.
Bernie is less moderate.
Warren is sharper intellectually.
If you met them in person (I have) you would know Warren is great one on one.
Warren is a better counter puncher.
Spare me the absurd attacks on Warren. If she can’t win it is solely because the country prefers average guys like Biden and George W, and even bombasts like Trump, to strong, smart and experienced women like Clinton and Warren.
14
Funny how all this came out about Bernie being against a woman candidate now. It didn’t need to be addressed last night either. I am more worried about Cheaper Healthcare Insurance with cheaper prescriptions, ending endless costly wars, more about bipartisanship, sick of red state blue state and all the other garbage like failing tariffs etc.
Hoping for a Blue wave in the White House and Senate.
4
I will take anyone who is competent after Trump but I generally find women work harder which is why I like Warren. That and she is not a "silver spoon" candidate or one who rose on white male privilege.
1
A woman can beat Trump (Hillary actually did), and I believe Warren and Klobuchar can beat Trump and go on to be great presidents.
But if we live in a bigoted, sexist male patriarchy, where women’s get less pay for the same work, where they are objectified as sex objects and subject to sexual harassment, called on less than boys in classrooms, and their opinions treated dismissively in work places around the country, then why is it wrong to consider whether all of that also hurts a woman’s chances of being elected?
2
Klobuchar could win; Warren doesn't have a chance. She has proven herself to be completely without ethics or morals (claiming to be a Native American in her 30's in order to boost her career; her pregnancy got me fired garbage) and I seriously doubt that Bernie said a woman couldn't win. And her flapping about on the stage is not appealing, nor is her condescending tone. It isn't a batter of gender though. It's a matter of policies and leadership. You can't wonk yourself to the presidency.
8
If you would call what we saw last night from anyone a “commanding performance”, I’m not sure what debate you were watching. I had a hard time not falling asleep and gave up 40 minutes in. It was surprisingly boring after all the energy put into hating Trump the past 4 years.
3
From a non-Bernie supporter, it was jaw dropping to see Bernie deny the accusation, only to have the CNN moderator take the accusation at face value in the follow up question to Warren, which was not to ask "Are you calling Bernie Sanders a liar?" but rather "How did it make you feel when Bernie said the thing he denies saying."
This cheap political hit job, aided and abetted by CNN, reeks of desperation on the part of Warren. And then Warren acts like the aggrieved party in the post-debate handshake debacle.
Call the man a liar to his face if you want, but stop peddling the insinuations and soundbites. Democratic voters see right through it!
9
I would take either of the women on stage for president. Bernie is almost 80 and just had a heart attack. he's had a couple of decades in Congress and accomplished close to nothing. He's an idealogue. He can't budge. He can't compromise. A lot of legislation is getting what you can today and improving it tomorrow, especially with big, game-changing stuff. He won't do that, as we heard with his talk about USMCA. Half a loaf is not better than none to him; he'll let the farmers suffer because it isn't 100%.
Mayor Pete is too young, too inexperienced. And yes, a woman with his experience would have been laughed off the stage (especially a lesbian). He's bright and well-spoken. Maybe his time will come, but it's not now. If he can't win Indiana, how will he win the country?
Styer? He sounds in earnest, his arguments are good, but again, no experience as a legislator, a leader. He's used to top-down: the CEO says it, it happens. Politics is the art of the possible, gaining consensus, and yeah, twisting arms when needed. Those are different skills than are needed in the business world.
And Joe? I like Joe. I thought he was funny and sharp back when he debated Paul Ryan. He's lost some of his zing, either to age or tragedy or both. He would do a good job and he would have excellent people around him to give good advice. He has a ton of experience and I think he is at heart a decent person.
Warren and Klobuchar are the best in the field. Ideas, experience, energy.
6
Can these two great women deal with Trump in a debate? Consider this.
Who has had more experience dealing with spoiled children than long time school teacher Elizabeth Warren?
Who has had more experience prosecuting alleged criminals than Amy Klobuchar?
Both are extremely intelligent, highly experienced, competent and above all honest.
We could rest well with either one of them in the Oval Office!
3
Elizabeth Warren is a liar. Everyone who follows Bernie Sanders carefully knows that in 2015 Bernie Sanders publically encouraged Elizabeth Warren t run against Hillary Clinton. It was ONLY after Warren repeatedly declined Sanders reluctantly ran as a progressive alternative to Clinton.
Elizabeth Warren always had a convenient relationship with the truth. She's displaying it for the whole country to see.
8
Win in the upper Midwest, PA, NH, and NV. Klobuchar seems well-positioned to do that. Reading her interview in the Times today, she, too, has a plan for just about everything.
Win one new state outside of those for insurance: Arizona or maybe Florida.
Show up in all 50 states to show that the Democrats aren't ceding anything.
4
"...it’s a stupid question, its answer dependent on which female candidate you’re talking about, on how she runs her campaign, on the twists and turns of the national conversation between now and November."
This clarity - this incisiveness - is why I read Frank Bruni, and the kind of winning record and approach to fundamental issues and values displayed by these candidates is why a woman can handily win the presidency.
1
Frank,
If voters focus on the accidentals....Catholic, African-American, Male or Female....they can only cause more accidents.
Vote instead on the substance of the candidates. Therein lies leadership and the ability to work with those whose parties are different from their own.
That's called "leadership." Gender has nothing to do with it.
If it's not present, we will continue to get what we've been getting along without for a long, long time.
3
Actually, the woman who is putting big cracks in the glass ceiling this morning is Speaker of The House Pelosi. It's not any one woman, it is a whole lot of tough, competent, shrewd woman together that will get it finally shattered.
2
So, wait. There was a private meeting between Sanders and Warren back in 2018. Nobody else was there. Yet 4 anonymous sources reported on what was said.
How is that possible?
7
on the contrary the debate was made into a sham by the moderator insulting sanders. it was rude and unprofessional to dismiss his answer and then imply he was lying. the whole charade was a loss for warren and a win for bernie. it also exposed what we already know. the msm doesnt want a leftist candidate to win. the goal is to pit warren and sanders against each other. warren took the bait.
6
So sick of identity politics. There are good candidates and bad candidates. Hillary was bad candidate, simple as that. Warren and Klobuchar are good candidates who happen to be women. Biden, Buttigieg, and Sanders are good candidates who happen to be men.
5
So Amy wins every time in Minnesota and she wins over red districts in Minnesota. It could be because she doesn't have any policy differences with the Republicans. She even supports the majority of Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations. Not sure how she can say she is for the working class with a straight face. Also, I am not sure how winning in Minnesota (where Trump lost) means she will win a national election. And, of course, as is the case in every debate, we are reminded that black people shouldn't vote for Buttigieg, although Amy has an abysmal record with African Americans and truly has 0 support.
4
The stirring of petty controversy by the media has to stop! None of this matters, it weakens who over wins the nomination. I've read comments below that say childish things like "I was for Warren but not anymore".
Really? How tepid and shallow was your support? How exactly do you intend to find a divine and perfect candidate?
It is a complete disservice to Democrats who want actual progress to play these games.
2
Beyond the Pacific Ocean, I find Mr. Biden a fascinating prospect – despite his age – but I like all the Democrats and most Republicans; I like at least Republican plank – making abortion an ‘open-secret’ option; any female ought to have to do research in order to have one.
Not sure what not losing any election till today has anything to do with beating Trump.
If I remember correctly Hillary had not lost any election either till 2016 and her husband had lost quite a few by 1992.
4
Not sure what not losing any election till today has anything to do with beating Trump.
If I remember correctly Hillary had not lost any election either till 2016 and her husband had lost quite a few by 1992.
1
Well, I saw an Elizabeth Warren, who I don’t want anywhere near the presidency, and I once supported her. She didn’t even have the decency to shake Senator Sanders’s hand at the end of the debate. She prettied herself against beating Scott Brown, when she’s been a Republican since 1996, in a state whose median household income is $17K over the US’s median income. And although her family once nearly lost the family station wagon, I hardly doubt life was as hard as she would like many to believe. Her dad was a flight instructor for the US Army during WWII — and poor kids don’t get scholarships at age 16 to George Washington University. She’s a fake and an opportunist to the max. She says, “I’m with Bernie” and supports Medicare for All, and takes your money, until someone else, evidently, offers her a better deal. With no apologies, she now supports the ACA and her two-cent wealth tax is no longer a meme. She has no backbone and absolutely no history of fighting for the downtrodden. And, how did she pay for all of the college? She also has a degree in speech pathology and audiology? And teaching? And law? Most can’t afford the cost college for one degree. No, thank you!
6
It seems to me that Maureen Dowd, yes, the NY Times journalist, does have a problem with women.
If you go to her articles of 2016 you'll find she was much more critical of Hillary Clinton than of Donald Trump.
I haven't read a single article by Ms. Dowd since, but I had to come across the grades she gave to Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders: 4/10 for her and 8/10 for him. Beautiful.
PS. Mr Sanders is an independent who entered the Democratic Party when it suited him. His greatest achievement so far is damaging Ms. Clinton candidacy 4 years ago. Thanks, Bernie!
5
I’ve never been more disgusted with one person in all of my life than I am with Senator Warren.
6
The DNC establishment once again betrays Bernie Sanders. As a Trump supporter, let me say that we invite Sanders supporters to join us in voting for Trump. The DNC is betraying you all once more. Join our side in November. As they reject you, we welcome you.
2
It's interesting that while race is talked about incessantly end gender is as well religious origin is not. Probably Kennedy put this to rest. If so it's probably a good thing
November 1990 is 29 years and 2 months ago, so within the last 30 years. Not a big mistake obviously! But framing that moment as “mainsplaining vs mathematics” is pretty dishonest when Warren’s math was wrong.
1
Frank Bruni Wrote:
"when Sanders sought to correct Warren on her 30-year claim, noting that he’d defeated a Republican in 1990, and she did some quick, out-loud arithmetic to determine that 1990 was, well, 30 years ago! Mansplaining met mathematics."
I'm no math wiz, but:
1990 election: Nov. 1990
Present time: Jan. 2020
Thus, Bernie's win was 29 years, 8 months ago, NOT 30 years ago. So with rounding, yes, 30 years. But w/o years, <30 years. Or is my arithmetic off?
1
Mr. Bruni, when are you going to ask Trump about sexism? How is he being taught a lesson?
It is high time for this issue of female vs male candidates to cease! It’s absurd and a waste of time. Discuss them all on a LEVEL playing field. Kindly stop perpetuating this issue by writing columns about it and by singling out the females on the stage. We have a maniac to defeat. That’s the one and only issue at hand. Focus.
3
A woman CAN win against Trump! Just let her make her case .... Warren, on the debate stage, will make Trump appear a name-calling play ground bully full of nothing but hot air.
I like everything about your article except the title, " Warren and Klobuchar teach the boys a lesson". These are not "boys", these are grown men. Cute titles like this one imply schoolyard antics, not national political issues.
1
Without Russian interference, we would not be having this debate
1
Beyond the Pacific Ocean, I find Mr. Biden a fascinating prospect – despite his age – but I like all the Democrats and most Republicans; I like at least a single Republican plank – not supporting abortion, which could be an ‘open-secret’ option; any pregnant female ought to have to do research in order to have one rather than having it recommended by some one other.
Less inspired, to be sure. It was painful to watch last night.
The stakes are so high; that should be enough inspiration. And yet, I would really like to feel inspired about a presidential candidate, and I really just don't. Bernie thinks that he, alone, can create this kind of inspiration. Resoundingly, no.
Never forget the true-crazy in Trump's dedicated 42%; those who blindly follow the scam, and would applaud him on 5th Avenue.
However, add Stacy Abrams' name to the D-ticket, any of them, and you have suddenly, and instantaneously created enough electricity to create dizzying heights of inspiration.
That kind of electricity and excitement is what's needed after the eventual nominee gets the nod.
Democrats need a woman president (or vice pres) on the ticket.
Trump may pick a woman vice presidential running mate and win.
I think, the only way for Democrats to win is with women voters.
They need to pitch their campaign to women, in a big way.
Sen. Warren has a slogan: "persist"
With the persistence of women, Democrats can win in 2020
"Democracy is coming to the USA" (Leonard Cohen)
1
Bernie Sanders says whatever comes to mind. Who knows what he said to Senator Warren. The real point is that Bernie Sanders is not and never has been a Democrat. He is a Bernie Sanders Independent who rides on the Democrat's coat tails when convenient. All one has to do is a little research. You will find that Sanders has not accomplished much in his long life as a politician.
5
@Jeff Would you rather he ran as a 3rd party candidate, like Nader did? We have a two party system, so he's doing the responsible thing. And he's winning, which shows he's more of a true, FDR Democrat than anyone else on that stage.
2
"And both made clear, with commanding performances, how absurd it is that this country hasn’t yet shattered the highest glass ceiling of all."
This country did shatter the glass ceiling for the presidency in 2016. It was undone by a quirk of the elector college.
Technically it was a quirk in how electors are apportioned by state, not how they voted.
1
"Mansplaining met mathematics," yes! That was an unexpectedly petty response from Bernie about beating a Republican incumbent --- uh, 30 years ago.
Kudos to both women, and now to the press, for helping to lay to rest inane concerns about these women candidates' readiness for the job and their electability. It should have happened sooner, when Kamala Harris was still in the race, for example. And we should have been the first nation with a female president-or-equivalent; instead, we are far behind other democracies now.
Let's also call on the DNC to support female candidates equally all the way down the ballot.
6
Dear lord.
1
so. confessions. I have been an Elizabeth Warren fan for a long time. So why do I find myself losing enthusiasm? Part of it is simple exhaustion. This election seems to have been going on forever & we aren't even to the primaries. Part of it is columns like this. Frank, I REALLY appreciate a lot of your writing, but imagine if your title had been "Bernie teaches the girls a lesson" or some such? the howls of rage would have driven you from town. As long as the Dems play identity politics they play right into Trump's hands. zI know that many of your readers are going to say "easy for you to say, White boy" but what I liked about Warren (and still do) is her emphasis on policies and results. What I hate is the growing handwaving over gender etc. That is no way to build a winning coalition.
5
We’re still caught up with what’s between a person’s legs over what’s between their ears? Sad...
8
Didn't a majority of women vote for Trump.
You're country is screwed.
1
Clinton state’s that half of Americans were ‘deplorable’. Warren is running on progressive policies she fought against along side Clinton last election. She lost against the worst opponent in history, even though the DNC and media tried to elect her without an election. Think about how terribly this country wants what you have, for starters. The ability to go to the doctor without fear of losing your home, would be nice. Bernie2020
2
I’d read in several places that voting issues (suppression, purging), gerrymandering, the Electoral College, etc. we’re to be a focus...No. Just a rerun of past performances in response to tired centrist questions.
And I’m convinced Trump will find to avoid debating any of them, and just hold a contemporaneous rally on the scheduled notght
1
All comments are good, solid, and represent the many ways people observed the debate and their take-aways. The fact is that what we need is any morally-responsible, ethical, functioning adult.
Everyone on the stage last night would be an excellent president with each bringing excellent ideas, plans, and programs to our country.
The answer? VOTE, DRIVE OTHERS TO THE POLLS AFTER YOU'VE VOTED, AND ORGANIZE, SUPPORT, AND EDUCATE.
6
The WSJ name-calling of Sanders' economic proposals as a "wrecking-ball" and breaking down the long term budget costs reveals a lefty way out of control and a non-electable candidate when the going gets rough as it will real soon.
Warren takes all and Biden slides.
1
Beyond the Pacific Ocean, I find Mr. Biden a fascinating prospect – despite his age – but I like all the Democrats and most Republicans; as for values, I like most of those Republican – such as making abortion a quiet or hidden option one needs to have initiative to acquire.
@Mark
I don't really recall most Republicans taking the stance that abortion should just be "QUIET OR A HIDDEN OPTION" they generally want it completely banned. That means it IS NOT AN OPTION.
After watching last night's debate, I could comfortably vote for any one of these candidates. They are smart, successful, and passionate about our country.
We are using the wrong frame when we ask, "can [fill in the blank] beat Trump?" That's Trump's frame, that's the GOP's frame. Let's stop answering their question.
Can each one of these candidates beat Trump? Absolutely.
Now let's get busy.
4
Beyond the Pacific Ocean, I find Mr. Biden a fascinating prospect – despite his age – but I like all the Democrats and most Republicans; as for values, I like most of those Republican.
1
Warren never answered the question about whether she believed still Sanders said what he said. I'm the least Sanders person in the world, but I would bet the house that he didn't say it. That she dropped this allegation a week before the primary says more than all the words of that debate. She makes Hillary Clinton look like Jimmy Carter.
6
The thing is, being a woman much like being black, Latino, Asian, or gay, will inevitably be a not minor part of the candidate’s appeal (or lack of appeal) to an overwhelming majority of Americans. It’s an unfortunate and an unfair reality any candidate who is not a straight white male has to contend with and strategize about, be it explicitly or not. Who here believes people on Warren’s or Klobuchar’s campaign have not spent some time thinking about sexism and bias?
1
Here we go again. Like Clinton, Warren has raised gender. No man . . .. Only women . . .. Etc. Something Obama carefully avoided during his campaigns.
No, it's not nearly approaching Gillibrand's miscalculation with Franken. Different in degree, but not kind.
I regret that many, if not most, men have always exploited gender identity in their campaigns. For the relatively recent period of time that women were allowed to vote, they had no female candidates for whom to vote. This is shameful. But alternatives obviously exist for alienated male voters.
I find Warren's life story inspiring, esp as her brilliance, courage and grit enabled her to overcome many roadblocks posed by sexual discrimination in various forms, incl her first husband. But I always have assumed that, when confronted with discrimination, she, much like Obama, pressed on with renewed determination and reached her goal. Sure, it was unfair that she had to be brighter and work harder than a man, but she did--and she didn't spend much time protesting the mistreatment.
I've alternated between her and Sanders this campaign. She is smarter and more capable of administration, and he is more to the left and inspiring. But I'll stay home if she beats him by playing the gender card.
I won't presume to tell you, Sen Warren, whose hand you need to shake at the end of a debate, but don't presume to tell me that, after refusing to shake the hand of the only candidate to your left, I have to vote for you.
5
I agree with regard to Klobuchar. She will beat Trump. I agree the gender question is distracting - it's an oversimplification (as you note, Frank, it depends on so many other things). But Warren, like Bernie Sanders, will not win and she (and Bernie) will not win because their policy recommendations are too focused on growing government. I'm no Republican, but I dont want to spend my life "at the DMV" or on hold with the IRS. I'm a moderate Democrat because I believe government can help us and is essential to the common good, but too much government cannot help us. Government should be like prescription drugs: of course they can and do help people, but we should take as little as possible and stop taking them as soon as possible. The Republicans have been attacking and tearing down government for too long and too much, but I see a risk we will oversteer with a candidate like Warren or Sanders, endorsed by AOC. Then Trump wins. I am a moderate not for pragmatic reasons, although Trump should make us all pragmatic, but because moderate policies are actually the best ideas for real progress and for improving our lives and our relationships with other countries.
219
@TJ Choice is a burdensome government or a slick, lying private sector who are mostly crooks. More private guys and less regulations and more tricks and less services. I say take Government.
38
@TJ I agree with you about the DMV, but have you ever had the pleasure of staying on hold with a medical insurance company? The private sector is no picnic to deal with, either, especially if they get to decide whether they will pay for your necessary medical procedures.
68
@TJ :
Try Europe, where civil servants have the _highest_ public regard, are well paid, qualified, serious, and well respected. France, as one example.
Compare waiting at the DMV in your town with the equivalent in Europe (fast, organized, courteous, informed). Compare public education, postal service, health systems - anything public you like...
Compare the respect and treatment of those who raise and educate children or care for the sick. A society that values such workers is one where the services they provide are high quality. There's no mystery here. You get what you pay for, including paying respect.
When a country takes civil service - government serving the people - seriously, it works well.
In the US, we don't take it seriously. When a society has at its core the ideology that government is evil ("the problem, not the solution"), smallest government is best, and private enterprise is the answer to everything, it's a no-brainer that government works badly. Foregone conclusion.
The baked-in ideology in the US is that government will, and should, fail, and - lo and behold - it does. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
Government in the US works badly for the _people_, that is. Kickbacks, subsidies, power-sharing, lobbies, and all the other niceties of US gov't-business coziness mean that our crony government, at all levels, works very well for big business.
51
I'm tired of people debating whether or not a generic woman can win the Presidency and then applying that to specific female candidates. But generic women and men don't run for President. Look, I would love to support lots of women for President, but not Elizabeth Warren. I would support Amy Klobuchar, for example. So when you look at people who would vote for Senator Klobuchar, but not Senator Warren, for example, you can't draw any conclusions about generic women being elected President.
Warren would be a disaster for the Democrats. Trump will crush her. Warren wants to fight -- all of her invective and political imagery and discourse highlights her as a "fighter." That approach will lose, because Trump is a stronger and better fighter than she is. (Not because she is a woman, but because she is the person who she is.)
We need a Democratic candidate who can resolutely challenge Trump with skill, capability, knowledge, and experience, without taking him on directly in fights that cannot be won. Warren is the wrong person.
5
Anyone (but the Trump devoted) think Hillary Clinton would have been superior as President to what passes for President today. Less than eighty thousand votes in three critical states from some one hundred and one hundred and twenty five million votes cast gives us a chronic prevaricator in chief who sees no reason why he would do anything for Americans who did not and will not vote for him. Doesn't matter who ends up being the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2020, they've got my vote.
8
@alprufrock
I am "someone" who would not have voted for Trump and I seriously doubt Hillary Clinton would be far superior. I know of many other people of the same opinion. Obviously if Trumps base is described as 30% of the population there were enough people willing to vote for him as opposed to Clinton despite not being diehard Trump supporters.
1
@David
Well, David of Florida, the abuse of the public trust, emolument abuse and obstruction of Congress alone I could do without with this President and doubt we would be dealing with that with Clinton, not to mention the too cosy relationship with Putin, Kim Jung Un, and Erdogan. But to each his own.
“Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost 10 elections.”
What an awful comment. If you’re trying to beat Donald Trump - who is 1-for-1 this century - you need to be inclusive. Warren’s comment comes from a place that just isn’t going to work with a lot of voters.
It’s easy to win elections if you comfortably set up in a gerrymandered district. My former congressperson won five straight re-elections without ever doing anything.
Lots of people think Bernie should have been the 2016 candidate. Telling them their candidate is damaged goods because he’s lost elections seems a dubious way to get their support.
Eyes on the prize.
302
@Andy And how many elections has Warren won exactly? Only two. Bernie has been a mayor, a Congressman and won 3 terms in the Senate.
38
@Andy
I might agree with you if we took Warren's comment out of context. The issue last night - and ever since Hillary lost to Trump - was whether a woman can win this election. The conversation was gendered already when she spoke up. I thought she was making a valid point.
66
@Andy Bernie Sanders is "damaged goods" Because he is all talk with almost nothing to brag about. According to the man himself, his political greatness rests on always being elected again and again by a very slim majority and being one of many "Co-authors" on one important Congressional piece of legislation. I will never trust a candidate when he or she is a Democrat only when there is a Presidential election.
29
"There was a memorable moment when Sanders sought to correct Warren on her 30-year claim, noting that he’d defeated a Republican in 1990, and she did some quick, out-loud arithmetic to determine that 1990 was, well, 30 years ago! "
That was my favorite moment of the debate. There's nothing like a fact to win an argument, unless, of course, we're talking about politicians whose idea of "truth" is beyond squishy.
The expected fireworks between Warren and Sanders ("You lied!! No, you lied") never happened, Thank God. The last thing Democrats needed was a food fight on something as important as gender, considering the makeup of the party.
I wish we could put this "can't win" notion to rest, but I suspect until a woman wins the highest office, we can't. Like Frank Bruni, I have no idea who is the best choice to beat Trump in our era of high-stakes partisanship, vanishing truth, and-let's face it--misogny.
But female competence, from Pelosi to last night's candidates, is no longer in question.
594
@ChristineMcM
"But female competence, from Pelosi to last night's candidates, is no longer in question."
Bernie apparently knows that based on his response last night, some body needs to inform Elizabeth.
38
@ChristineMcM And female competence should never have been in question any more than it was for males.
41
That wasn’t a fact, though. November 1990 was 29 years 2 months ago, so within the last 30 years. Not a particularly important mistake, but I don’t think we should be using a fake fact to emphasize the importance of truth!
31
While it may be impossible to untangle how sexism weighs on a candidate's prospects, we can join in admiring the talent and ability of Elizabeth Warren. While nervousness and anxiety makes us dither at the edge of the stage, she is doing excellent work.
It's a good thing to remember history, to re-tell how doubt gnawed away at the edges of that Roman Catholic candidate, that African American candidate. as if every "otherness" were a kind of disability at the top, where a chorus of shining white male faces still create a daunting forcefield to the imagination.
I am so grateful for the work of women like Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, for the hours invested by the women who ran for the United States House of Representatives. There is so much work left to do! Ultimately, I would be grateful to see in my lifetime a government that cared for the working poor and the environment, that actively engaged a difficult world in the work of peace.
I think female politicians do this best. At the moment, I think Elizabeth Warren has the skill and the power to accomplish this.
536
@Maine introvert this is a beautiful comment.
19
@Maine introvert My wife, a seasoned psychotherapist, said she has trouble watching Warren because she finds her so nervous, jittery and anxious on stage. So I suppose these things are subjective.
12
@Maine introvert I'm a female, and can't get behind a silly, manufactured moment built on a disingenuous, back-stabbing lie. I've moved far into the anti- Warren camp in the last three days.
14
It is bemusing to me that this is still a question; women have proven themselves in politics for a while now. People like Betsy DeVos and Michelle Bachmann have shown that women can be every bit as much a failure and mess things up as men, and Angela Merkel, Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher are more than capable of leading a country. As Mr Bruni noted, what matters is which woman, and while I hope Amy Klobuchar is the eventual nominee, Liz Warren would be a good candidate as well. (Marianne Williamson, on the other hand, would have been a disaster.)
So, to paraphrase Martin Luther King, it is the quality of a person's character rather than race or gender (or any other "identity") that determines one's fitness for office, and any of those 6 people on the debate stage is leagues ahead of Trump in that department.
601
@Danny
Glad you said “quality” and not “content” of a person’s character. MLK’s sentiment was right but his metaphor was wrong. Character is a stamp, not a container.
4
@Danny
Of course, all you say is true, however.....
This is the great country of America. don't you see?
That just about anyone would be a better president than this loathsome pudding of a man is too obvious.
The thing is, the fix is already in. The cult supporters aren't going anywhere, we will again be treated to an empty podium signifying the potential arrival of our bloviator instead of a better person actually giving a speech.
Maybe this very paper will trash the best Progressive candidate with puerile nonsense while the theft goes on.
So, to further your analogy, what we need is higher quality of character in the voting public. Not optimistic about that.
18
@Danny
Democrats need a woman president (or vice pres) on the ticket. Trump may pick a woman vice presidential running mate and win.
I think, the only way for Democrats to win is with women voters. They need to pitch their campaign to women, in a big way.
Sen. Warren has a slogan: "persist"
With the persistence of women, Democrats can win in 2020
"Democracy is coming to the USA" (Leonard Cohen)
5
I’ve always liked Senator Klobuchar’s acumen, strength and ability to distill an issue into its basic constituent parts. Her arena has always included folks from either party.
Senator Warren understands the societal impacts and mechanisms of bankruptcy extraordinarily well. But she exists, politically, in a homogenous environment. Scott Brown was a Senator more because his opponent was horrid, rather than he was outstanding. Defeating him was not challenging.
I hope Senator Klobuchar prevails, but I will not be voting for Trump or anyone aligned with him.
5
@historyRepeated
I disagree that defeating Scott Brown was not challenging. At least from watching TV I had the sense that he was well-liked in many quarters (handsome, affable, etc.), and I was frightened that his race-baiting seemed to be gaining traction.
4
can a woman beat trump or can a woman be potus?
there is a very long list of countries that have had presidents or prime ministers.
if and when it happens in the usa, it'll be like it's the first time in recorded history a woman has reached the top of the political ladder.
7
Warren's statement sounded like shrill feminism, like she was saying women do it better: “The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women — Amy and me."
I don't think that kind of fool's feminism plays well with average, undecided voters.
She immediately followed this with: "And the only person who has beaten an incumbent Republican any time in the past 30 years is me.”
This made her sound like a typical politician who peddles self-serving half-truths: choosing a 30 year look back window, obviously calculating in advance that Sanders won an election against an incumbent Republican 30 years and two months ago.
To top it off, she appeared petty when she refused to shake the hand of her fellow Progressive in the race. I write all this with sadness, as she used to be my candidate (I put her bumper sticker on my car this summer).
14
@George Silverberg I think both women have a right to shout out their achievement. Would we begrudge a male candidate doing the same?
9
@George Silverberg in the field of pettiness and bad behavior, If this is what throws you off of Warren, you weren’t there to begin with. Thirty years is a long time, and it’s a real measure of her point. Would you have been more comfortable, would it have been less calculated if she said 25 years? The point is still the same. Why should she be spurned for pointing out her relative success? When women speak of their successes they are deemed shrill. Take a moment and try and compare similar statements by the men on the stage which are just considered statements of fact.
7
@George Silverberg Double crossed by the double standard again and looks like Bernie supporters are lining up to be the spoilers again. I wonder sometimes if Bernie supporters are on the wrong team. They seem like they’re working for Trump.
9
While it's true that Elizabeth Warren beat Republican Scott Walker in the "bluest of blue states," it's also true that nobody, absolutely nobody thought she could win.
I'm glad she didn't listen to the naysayers then and I'm glad she's not listening now.
19
It was Scott Brown, not Walker.
1
Not having seen the debate, I found this snapshot to be astute, and among Mr. Bruni's most compelling analyses. It seems that when the focus shifts away from Trump, political commentary reaches a higher, more cogent plateau.
6
Warren didn't say Sanders made the comment. She just said some people believe it. No doubt Sanders could say some people don't believe a Jew could be elected president. That isn't the same as accusing Warren of saying it.
And we're fortunate that in 1860 people didn't accept that a potential nominee who hadn't won an election in 14 years and had lost his two races for the Senate after that couldn't win. Otherwise we'd never have had a President Lincoln and the country would have fallen apart.
And Warren has that same perfect record as Hillary Clinton did and she couldn't beat one of if not the the worst and least qualified major party candidates in the history of the country.
13
@Steve Hillary won 3 million more votes than Trump. And, let’s don’t forget Putin.
Winning the presidency is one thing. Getting past the Republicans in the House and especially the Senate is something else. We cannot afford 4 or 8 years of a Dem in the White House who isn't prepared to go all in on challenging the Rep's AND being successful in doing so. Any candidate who even suggests that he/she can work with the Rep's is either delusional or lying. Nealy any of the remaining Dem's can win. I'm looking past the win to actual governance.
What Elizabeth Warren's plan for that?
5
I think people are overlooking the possibility that, assuming Bernie Sanders said what is being attributed to him, he may simply have meant it descriptively, not normatively. I happen to agree with him; I don't think this country is ready to elect a woman. I mean that as a description of the electorate, not in reference to any candidate. (Fortunately, I've been wrong before. I did not think we would have an African-American president in my lifetime. Being wrong can be uplifting.)
Either Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar would be formidable candidates and fully qualified presidents. I can happily support either if she gets the nomination. But I live in a nation where racism and sexism are rampant, with a president who exemplifies both and has millions of people who agree with him on both counts, though some of them will deny that. (Others are quite proud of it.)
I do not think a woman can win, and I look forward to being wrong again.
10
@WTig3ner In any country without a bizarre election system where you can get less votes and somehow still be president, Hillary would have been the winner. By any reasonable standard a women already did win the election, and we know that a majority of people already have voted for a black man twice and a woman once. The issue is the electoral college, not wether most people would vote for a woman.
@MK
I agree with you, but my comment is in light of the system we have. I see no prospect of changing it, because it would require a constitutional amendment. The sparsely populated states that currently have disproportionate power in presidential elections because of the electoral college will not vote to curtail their own power, and an amendment to do so has no chance of obtaining the approval of three quarters of the states.
"Either of the two women among the six candidates on the stage in Des Moines on Tuesday night would give Trump a serious run for his money."
Not good enough.
The Democrats MUST select a candidate who can insure America NEVER has to experience a second term by this imminent danger to our democracy.
And I'm saying this as an advocate for women occupying the HIGHEST places in all parts and positions in our country.
Get it done!
7
@AWENSHOK and how do you fortwll who that will be?
There is no doubt in my mind that Bernie Bernie Sanders had told Elizabeth Warren in a previous, private meeting that he did not think a woman could defeat Trump. How very convenient for him to forget? A senior moment? Doubtful!
What a classic mistake! During the debate Sander’s “overreaching” denial, backfired. In letting Elizabeth Warren brilliantly make the case for the electability of an experienced and competent woman, this critically important electability issue needed to come into focus.
Bottom line: Both Senator’s Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, would make outstanding Presidents! This debate made them shine, even more!!
37
Thank you, Frank. We Women know who are real friends and allies are, and you’re among the very best.
Cheers.
23
@Phyliss Dalmatian " We women" really?
6
Mansplaining? Really? She was wrong - Sanders won an election against a republican less than 30 years ago - the election was in November 1990 - 29 years and 2 months ago.
16
@Citizen She probably doesn't remember, because Warren was a Republican until 1996.
3
Elizabeth Warren lost me last night with her cheap political stunt. It was cringe-worthy transparent. No one believes Sanders said that. She was just looking for a social media moment. And not shaking his hand at the end was bush league.
46
@Hugh CC
Employing identity politics to discredit a man who has long been an advocate for women and for working families comes straight out of the Clinton playbook. It is disappointing and not worthy of Warren. I thought she was better than that.
2
In addition to the questionable accusation of sexism against Sanders, Warren made a more worrisome move against evidence-based reasoning, which should be her strong suit as an academic and economist. Many of us count on her background as a differential. A win in the past of one kind cannot be projected as a win of another kind in the future. She suggested that the series of hers and Klobuchar's elections wins and the male candidates losses can be smoothly projected into a different type of election to the presidency. That remains unclear. To project a win in every race depends on many variables that have to analyzed in context on a case by case basis.
9
Thank you for focusing on important presidential contenders.
Articles in the media about Sanders are proliferating and appear to be Putin or Trump backed. Sanders will never lead the republicans making it impossible to win. A Sanders vote is a vote for Trump and the opposition know it. Please, media, track down who is behind the “Sanders is the best option” push.
18
@Peters
Heard that one back in 2016.. Had to nominate Clinton because Sanders couldn't win. He sure couldn't have done any worse than she did.
2
@Peters LOL. So Sanders is now a Putin plant? One of the unfortunate side effects of the 2016 election is that it made a lot of liberals into conspiracy theorists.
Millions of people think Sanders is the best option. Hence his near frontrunner status in the polls.
1
@Steve Clinton won 3,000,000 more votes than Trump. She was running against Trump, Russia and the FBI. And, yet, Trump still only squeaked it out with a few thousand votes in three states.
Some democrats seem gun shy of a woman presidential candidate because of the hatched job Trump and the GOP with some democrat's support on Hillary Clinton. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar are not Hillary Clinton first of all and secondly democrats do not condemn Al Gore or John Kerry for their losses because they are male.
When confronting misogyny there are always unspoken assumptions about people, male or female, that are mainly unspoken such as a female is abrasive when outspoken and men are just being tough. And these assumptions are not only held by men, but conservative women as well. When will our society move beyond misogynist and racial prejudice to truly see people as people without unspoken bias.
21
@just Robert Why would you jump to misogyny? It's simply that a woman has never been elected president before and the Dems can't afford to lose this one. The world can't afford to lose this one. People are simply unsure if Warren can beat Trump. Saying misogyny is just crying wolf.
Amy Klobuchar said she was amused by Rachel Dratch's SNL caricature of the rising and falling curl over her left eye, so I was surprised that she went out and had it removed (!), along with much of her stylishness, just in time for her crucial appearance in the last televised debate. Why?
Warren on the other hand, who has run the most derivative presidential campaign in U.S. history -- patterning her every policy after Bernie's, right down to his rules about which contributions represent "good money" and which signify being in bed with corporate interests -- had a moment of reckoning when she attacked Buttigieg and we learned for the first time about her $10.4 million stash of ill-gotten funds left over from her senate campaign, which helped propel her to the early lead in Iowa!
She'd already lost half her standing in the polls when she postponed her MfA rollout by 2 to 3 years, although I liked her honesty and ability to compromise.
Despite the recent infighting, she and Bernie still seem joined at the hip but we still don't know if she'll fall in behind him as his running mate.
Or maybe she'll surprise us and be like the Colombian cyclist who won the last Tour de France. When his Welsh teammate, the defending champ, faltered in the late stages of the race, the Columbian was suddenly free to go on his own and win the race.
4
@LS
And watch the electorate return Trump.
@Maggie
It appeared to me that the point LS was making in regard to Sanders, was that Warren had essentially plagiarized much of her campaign from that of Sanders. It appeared the same way to me, at least until she had to explain how she would pay for things...
1
Those who say a woman can't be elected president are saying that because the system is rigged; the Electoral College, not the popular vote, elects our President. The Electoral College is designed to keep men in power. Until we eliminate this grossly unfair and undemocratic system of electing our presidents, then, yes, sadly, women will have an uphill climb to reach the Presidency. Look no further than the results of the 2016 election. Hillary won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, and yet could not break that glass ceiling called the Electoral College. Unfortunately, history could repeat itself in 2020 with either Warren or Klobuchar at the top of the ticket. Doesn't mean it's right, but it's a sad fact of our undemocratic republic.
22
@Maggie Is there any evidence at all that millions of bernie supporters stayed home on the election?
1
Frank, since you are being sillily chauvinistic, it should be noted that Bernie is technically correct. He defeated his Republican opponent in November 1990, which is less than thirty years.
European and Pacific Rim nations don't countenance this particular "card." And female leaders from these geopolitical arenas have emerged galore, two of the most recent being Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand) and Sanna Marin (Finland), noteworthy because of their relative youth and, in Ardern's case, because of her charismatic leadership.
Why is politicians' gender such a prominent issue in North America? It suggests we are way behind Europe and the Pacific Rim in this area.
Elizabeth and Amy cannot hold a candle to Hillary (First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State) and look what happened to Hillary. Hillary never lost either until she lost to Obama.
Defeating a Republican incumbent in Massachusetts does not pose the same challenges as winning a Presidential election. And Elizabeth is in Hillary's mold.
Academics tend not to make good leaders--they are too accustomed to captive audiences in thrall to their every word. And Amy is best suited to head up the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The women who are Presidential are not contenders--Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson. And dare I say it, Nikki Haley, although Haley has proven herself to be too politically labile of late.
Cut it out.
12
@Andrew Shin
Nikki Haley is on the board of Boeing. How many people have died with the business manger CEO who moved the company from Seattle to Chicago fired engineers and then tried to blame the pilots on the airplanes going down.
Ms. Haley never opened her mouth to say she was sorry to the families of the passengers who died. Ms. Haley was given a board position for money that she DID NOT DESERVE. the Trumps complain about Hunter Biden well the GOP sit on boards where they know nothing but how to collect their paychecks.
I am sorry she is a woman who is an embarrassment to the sex, she is all about greed and self promotion. She had nothing of consequence to say when that white terrorist shot up a black church but she had a lot to say when the confederate statues were forced to come down. she is a white woman using a minority status to promote herself
We need a scholar, who understands Americans and the values of this country and Ms. Haley is not that person, she is just as horrific as Trump
2
There is no doubt that misogyny is alive and well in the country. Nonetheless, increasing numbers of women have both run for and achieved high elective office, and the number is growing. Whether they are better than men is not the right question to ask, because the answer is that they are, at least, just as good.
But maybe they are better. They are a product of their own life experiences, and due to things like gender bias, glass ceilings and other factors, they bring a perspective that differs, by its nature, and likely in a positive way, from that of the old boys club.
Women have long done a lot of heavy lifting in this country, and around the world. Successful female leaders have included the likes of Gold Meier, to mention only one, and scores of others in both government and corporate life.
No, gender alone should not and does not signify which candidate is electable and capable of serving as an effective and successful president. But it's high time to even up the scoreboard by turning our backs on long-held gender bias, and stopping even the questioning as to whether a woman is prepared and capable of serving as President of the United States.
5
Warren failed to mention that she and Klobuchar had the luxury of running against Republicans in two very blue states.
Klobuchar absolutely could be Trump. She may be the most likely to win of anyone on that stage. Warren likely couldn't -- she's too far left.
9
@Polaris
Warren won the seat that had been held for almost 50 years by one of the most liberal members of the Senate, Ted Kennedy. And Al Franken, much more liberal than Klobuchar, also won in Minnesota.
1
For those that missed it, and for Frank who appears on MJ, Mika and Joe had the proverbial knives out for Warren this morning. Interesting that Mika has attacked the leading women candidates in the last two presidential elections. I’ll never forget her cozying up to Giuliani during early voting in 2016 while he slammed Clinton.
This morning Mika was aghast that Warren was allowed to speak to electability issues instead of being forced to answer who lied, her or Bernie while saying no way Bernie lied. Warren was deft in her response last night, a response that could have easily gone south. John Heilman had the guts to praise Warren but went silent in response to Mika and Joe’s attacks.
Virtually the whole panel turned into submissive participants, deferring to the hosts.
As they spoke, their favorite women candidate, Amy, waited in the wings. Mika didn’t mention Amy openly praised Warren’s response on stage last night.
You don’t have to be a man to be threatened by a strong women.
23
I read Amy Klobuchar's interview in the NYT today. She made this statement concerning education: “Why can’t the richest country in the world do this?” I would say, “Why can’t one of the most advanced, if not the most advanced countries in the world figure out how to make our education system work for our students so that they’re able to be functioning members of our economy in a good way and are able to make a living?” That is pragmatic. Higher education in America has become a place to go so you can earn more money when you graduate. It has become a business. To pursue an education so one might become a better citizen, a better person has been thrown on the junk pile of consumerism. All this ruckus we live with today is a result of choices we have made about what gives life meaning. Go to Harvard - Go to Wall Street ain't working like many graduates thought it would.
11
@DHR
A better question. Why can't the wealthiest country in the history of the world and has a booming economy can't provide what every other industrialized country in the world does: guaranteed health insurance coverage for every one of its people.
2
I have my doubts about the spontaneous nature of Warren's discourse on female empowerment. In order to belive that, you'd first have to believe that the now infamous CNN report on her meeting with Sanders was truly the work of dogged good journalism that just happened to produce a negative story about something Sanders may have said a year ago. Moreover, you'd have to see it as a coincidence that this remarkable piece of journalism just happened to come to fruition on the eve of the final Democratic debate before the Iowa caucuses, at a time when Sanders is surging in the polls and Warren is fading. I don't know how many people out there are really going to believe that. I don't even think the Warren faithful believe that. So when Warren teed off on the gimme question in which Sanders' contested remarks were presented as fact, her assertions--all of which I agree with--fell a little flat against the backdrop, at least for me.
What this exchange highlights more than anything is the fact that this country, whose history is based on economic oppression as well as oppression of women and minorities, can't figure out that both identity politics and genuine economic progressivism fit hand in glove--one is not complete without the other. None of this the fault of Sanders, by they way, who will nevertheless be presented now as if he's representing only the economic side.
8
1990 was 30 years ago. Bernie was correct. But that is not salient. Anyone who knows Warren and Sanders understands that this is not an important issue. What is important is that they both want to create a republic that works for everyone and not only the rich and powerful. They both want to take in the special interests that control legislation and continue the rise of inequality.
I’d love to have a woman be POTUS. And I’ll vote for Warren if she is leading in the primary; way ahead of Sanders and fighting to beat the same ole same ole (Biden or Bloomberg). However, if it’s close, I’m going to be sticking with the person who has dedicated his entire career in government for the poor, working and middle class. That person is unequivocally Bernie Sanders.
24
For evidence of the leadership ability of women we need look no further than the US House, and specifically Nancy Pelosi. Wish she would step in and run. My dream ticket would be Pelosi-Warren. And I would pay good money to watch a debate between either of them and the current occupant.
15
"There was a memorable moment when Sanders sought to correct Warren on her 30-year claim, noting that he’d defeated a Republican in 1990, and she did some quick, out-loud arithmetic to determine that 1990 was, well, 30 years ago! Mansplaining met mathematics."
I was a little surprised to learn that Sen. Warren, a trained economist, only does integer math. Yes, 2020-1990=30, but this is January of 2020, and Bernie won that House election in November of 1990 - that's closer to 29 years than to 30.
The flap over the 2018 Warren-Sanders "private" meeting is likely to hurt both of them. If Sen. Warren wins the nomination, there will be a segment of Sanders' supporters who will see the leak from her campaign as a "dirty trick" that unfairly undermined Sanders' candidacy, and they'll sit on their hands in the general election. If Sen. Sanders wins the nomination, he's probably right that Warren's base will still turn out and vote for him, but he'll lose some support among those who are now convinced he's a closet sexist.
7
@Gary this wasn’t the thing that convinced some that Bernie is sexist. There’s been years of examples building up to that. And, when someone asked an economist how old they are, are they required to say, 78 years and seven months? You really want to quibble about that?
@Lulu
If someone asks an economist how old they are, are they required to say 29 years and 3 months?
Why should Bernie be held to a higher standard?
He's beat a Republican within the past 30 years.
I have no vote but I have a voice.
Warren might be a strong president, and more a morally accountable one than any recent candidate over the previous 3-4 years.
22
@MARK
Well, Warren must serve the same Republican master in healthcare or she wouldn’t have stepped back from Medicare for All.
1
I didn't watch the debate last evening, but did tape it. Thanks Frank, can't wait to look at it today, love it when the women put the men in their place.
Atta go Elizabeth and Amy.
35
@cherrylog754
Be sure to watch the end, where Senator Warren, refuses to shake the hand of Senator Sanders. Truly presidential. I’m in the crowd who hope she loses her Senate seat!
13
@rebecca1048
Because she didn't shake Sanders' hand?? I thought it was bush league but to think she should lose her Senate seat over it is internet-driven hyperbole and hysteria.
1
@rebecca1048 So what you are saying is that you were offended Warren failed to defer to the man who had told her she had no business running?
3
Can a woman win? Of course. Can these women win? Not so sure. Warren most likely not. And remember, Hilary Clinton should have won and didn't. The politics involves winning the electoral college. It requires strategy and savvy. Hilary, who was supposed to be a juggernaut, failed at both.
So that mistake should not be repeated. The Democratic nominee should have the chops to win the election, not just be the most qualified or electable.
11
@T Mo
Hillary lost because she listened to a young man (Robbie Mook) who relied on faulty data instead of listening to her female field organizers with years of on the ground experience who urged her to go to campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin. Thirtysomethings with smartphones aren't magical!
Can a woman win the presidency? Uh.. in 2016 woman did win , by 3,000,000 votes. That debate was settled.
270
@Joe
The election is decided by the Electoral College, not the national popular vote.
25
@Beliavsky And therein lies the problem. The electoral college does not reflect the popular vote, and is no longer representative of states with large populations. The College was created because the founders did not trust the full power of the vote to ordinary people.
36
@Ms. Crone
Hillary won California by 3,000,000 votes. It made up 97% of her majority. Do we want California deciding every presidential election? Because, sans the electoral college, that would happen every four years.
It's all hypocrisy by Dems. Put a Republican female candidate (say, Nicki Haley) against a male Dem, and the progressives' fight to break the glass ceiling will quickly evaporate. Witness how viciously progressives attack any woman who has been in the Trump administration or supported Trump in any way. Senator Collins gave a thoughtful, reasoned opinion for why she voted for Kavanaugh, which had nothing to do with loyalty to Trump, and progressives attacked her mercilessly. Were any female to challenge the Dems right now, they would be given a Russian nickname and claimed to be aligned with Putin. That's the game, folks, so please stop with the sanctimony.
11
Trump can only get the worse women to support him. There is no point in us supporting them.
@R.P.
Ummm, strange logic; you're saying if the Republican's nominate a woman, Dems should rally around her because she is a woman? Else they are not breaking the glass ceiling? Please...
3
@R.P. A false argument. And projecting how Democrats would treat a female candidate from the GOP won't hold water. Take a good hard look at who are the cabinet members and those that are around him. All male. The only females are full of vitriol (Kellyanne Conway) or are simply not doing their job (when was the last time there was a press conference). Nicki Haley? She quit. Susan Collins, reasoned? No one believes she'll do anything but support the president. Collins reasoning included leaving Roe v. Wade alone. She picked wrong, as the Supreme Court is set to run rough shod over that.
Given how we men have botched things, why not try having only women in elective office for a time?
69
@Richard Waugaman, M.D.
I’m a woman who supports Warren. Your humility regarding your gender is noteworthy but unnecessary. Women are equally capable of making bad decisions, case in point the two previous and current Mrs. Trump.
Let’s get the right person for these fraught times, I believe it’s Warren now, I thought it was Bernie last time and Obama before that. Gender is irrelevant, as is race.
1
Can a woman win against Trump?
Of course!
But Warren can’t.
27
The 800 lb gorilla? Bloomberg. As he should be
This is an election which:
Contrasts truth with prevarication on steroids
Allegiance to country vs party
Looking and moving forward vs ‘the good old days’ of unquestioned Caucasian dominance which only sees the past
Positive policies FOR all Americans and to be Americans ( immigrants) vs destruction by design
It is crystal clear
Dems by any means possible
The choices here are infinitely superior to any offered at any level by the Grand Ostrich Party
And take Mayor Mike’s $ and help
If we are to reshape this country post Trump
it had better start sooner., as in NOW
8
No one pressed Warren to quote Bernie in context on exactly what he said to her. The very words he used and the context in which he used them... I don’t believe he did, and if Warren cannot provide better evidence under closer scrutiny, I’m going to just assume she’s lying to the American people again.... you don’t get to levy false accusations for political gain and be believed just because you’re a woman. And you certainly need to do better than having some staffers “leak” it and then nod your head afterwards in agreement.... that said.... neither of the two women on that stage last night will win a general election against Donald Trump... thats not to say any women couldn’t win the presidency. Both Warren and Klobuchar would get trounced in a general election to Trump. Just look at the numbers he pulled on white women voters in 2016 and that tells you everything you need to know about their chances. The irony is their blind egos would set back the efforts of truly electable women to win the office in the future... Elizabeth and Amy are unelectable in America in 2020... I would not be surprised if a Republican woman candidate would be the first woman elected to the office. The day that happens all these bogus gender arguments get cast aside and its revealed the voters really just didn’t like you policies or your personality... just ask Hilary Clinton how that feels.
14
And there it is, "The day that happens all these bogus gender arguments get cast aside and its revealed the voters really just didn’t like you policies or your personality." Because it is sexism. A significant portion of men cannot bear the thought of a woman president. Ask their wives or employees who tippy-toe around so as to convince them that the good ideas were their own or came from another man. They don't know it, they can't see it. Nevertheless this bias is very much there.
1
@F. Jozef K. You’d think that if no one pressed EW to be specific about what Bernie said, there would be no reason for her to risk her reputation and lie about it. Seems like a very foolhardy and short term result for someone who is much smarter and broader thinking. Why let’s assume she lied rather than Bernie?
Honestly, this is the first one I tuned in to watch. It was almost unwatchable and I quit after ten minutes. Wolf Blitzer needs to retire. The opening questions about war were so poorly framed and broke all the rules of the debate--what about giving everyone the chance to answer before you editorialize the question once again for Joe Biden? He's past his prime, blah blah blah. Likes to hear his own voice, like so many of them.
I did stick around long enough to think Warren-Buttigieg could be a winning ticket but this opinion piece leaves me to believe maybe we SHOULD leave it to the women to change the world.
17
@Joseph
Who is carrying the flag of democracy? Nancy, who appeared to talk to the investigating committees and did not hide, ? Women. Women are ten times smarter than the loud mouth GOP and so democrats who love to hear their voices.
Its about time that women begin to lead this country, Nancy is saving this country and we the people will follow and uplift the American people from this tyrant
Sen. Warren is by far the best bet to win. Klobuchar’s staff outed her as not having the right temperament. What with her grumpy comb eating salad because her staffer “ forgot “ to bring silverware. Small incidents that speak volumes. Biden is too beholden.
6
A college advisor once told me that every student should get a C at least once in their college career. It shows that they took a class that was outside their comfort zone.
I thought of my advisor's advice when Warren announced to the world that the men had lost elections but she and Klobuchar had not.
Bernie ran in 2016, not because he thought he could necessarily win. But because he wanted to draw attention to the vast inequality in our country and the ensuing problems that has caused. And he did. And I thank him for it. Building a movement and transforming this country takes more than one election cycle as Bernie has proven.
Bernie was a long-distance runner in his youth. He is running a long-distance race. I'm voting for him.
(By the way, I'm a middle-aged, poorly paid woman and have experienced my share of sexism in this world. I'm not the cliched Bernie Bro.)
39
I too was a non-typical bro last primary (financially as well) but I changed my mind when Bernie when he promoted the idea that electing Democrats is more important than ensuring the candidate supports basic civil rights for women.
Sorry. I can’t overlook that.
I like Bernie but he’s clueless. If he ultimately become the nominee, I will vote for him, but until then, I will not support him.
7
@Mich
Why in the world would a 78 year old man run for office if he didnt care about this country. He has enough money to sit home and watch our own insanity kill us.
A democrat by nature of who they are have values and values mean that women can have an abortion, take care of their health care needs at Planned Parenthood. No white man,woman has the right to create policy to hurt women.
How clear is that for you. Democrats need to be in office to ensure women's rights are not shrunk.
Bernie is giving his life for the American people, get over yourself . Have you helped register people protest against gerrymandering?
Bernie embraces the Constitution and we need to support him but whoever gets the nomination,woman
2
Lost in Warren’s line about she and Klobuchar never having lost an election is that Warren has never lost an election in one of the bluest states in the country. Yes, she unseated an incumbent Republican, but that incumbent got his seat by running against a Democrat who was widely considered a bad candidate to begin with.
Klobuchar on the other hand, has been tearing it up over a longer political career in a swing state.
Warren got credit for the line, but who has the more impressive election record?
16
@Alejandro F.
Re Klobuchar "tearing it up" in a swing state. Sorry Alejandro, but Minnesota isn't a presidential swing state, and is only regarded as such by virtue of media hyperventilation over Trump's performance there in 2016. It has gone for the Republican presidential candidate once in the past 88 years. Trump's performance in 2016 was probably a fluke. I expect massive Dem turnout in the Twin Cities in 2020 that will swamp outstate Republican votes.
Minnesota isn't as blue as Massachusetts, but few other states are. The difference that I see is that Minnesotans have a tradition of splitting the ticket, so that Republican votes for Klobuchar are in that context not so remarkable. I'm not sure how well her appeal will translate to other states where voters tend to vote more straight party.
1
@Philip Wynn
Thanks for pointing that out— I guess I’ve bought into the media hyperventilating. Still, I think my point basically holds. Warren bragging about never having lost an election in Massachusetts of all places is a bit much. I think Klobuchar has the better electoral record.
1
@Alejandro F. MA is not that blue. Republican governors for much of my life including right now. You could look it up.
1
We need president Warren to scare the pants off the Wall Street crooks and set an example for the future.
67
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.
13
@Bradley Butterfield. Warren's response indicated she likely anticipated the question and had already calculated the "ten" elections the men had all lost. Was she fed the question ahead of time? No one usually knows that off the top of their head.
1
@Bradley Butterfield
I get a little tired of hearing about Bernie's integrity. In 2016 he said that the nomination should be decided on the basis of which candidate won the most delegates in primaries and caucuses, and by April Hillary had won an insurmountable lead in such delegates. But instead of conceding defeat according to his own principles, he decided that he was going to try to win over the superdelegates he had originally despised by "humiliating" Hillary in the remaining primary contests. He hadn't conceded defeat even going into the convention. Back in 2008, Obama had a much smaller lead over Hillary in delegates and votes than she did over Bernie in 2016, yet Hillary did concede with grace and gave the ticket her full support. You learn even more about people's character from how they lose than from how they win.
37
@Alicia Lloyd Thank you. The reason Trump won was the bickering and division in the democratic party. Everyone talks about Bernie exposing corruption in the DNC, but that was a calculated move by Assange (and Trump and Russia imo).
Bernie’s failure to get behind Hilary 100% and unite the party was what lost us the election. He had a moment where he could have helped and rallied his base, instead he chose to rally his own ego.
8
Warren is my senator. I voted for her.
Bernie's my candidate. In 2016 and now in 2020.
I am a woman and a boomer. An aging hippie. (To give context.)
If Bernie won't say it, I will:
A woman will not beat Trump.
Trump will destroy Amy Klobuchar, but she doesn't have a chance of being the nominee, so it's moot.
Trump will DESTROY Elizabeth Warren if she is the Democratic nominee.
Why is this the truth and not a sexist statement or perspective?
Trump is a destroyer of humans.
But he is of a particular type that has no problem eviscerating a woman.
We are living through the actualization of Roger Stone and Steve Bannon's mission in life: to create chaos and burn the system down. Trump is their Man for the Job and he is willing to do anything to fulfill their mission.
41
@JD, incorrect. A woman can, and will, beat Trump.
6
Bruni got one thing right: "...it’s a stupid question."
Gender is not the determinate factor in how Democratic primary voters vote. The turnout for a primary averages around 15 percent among voting age citizens. 2016 was 14.4 percent according to Pew. Obama in 2008 sets the record at 19.5 percent. You're not talking about your average citizen or even your average voter. These people are already politically engaged and left-leaning. They aren't deciding their vote on gender.
What Democratic primary voters want are strong candidates who will turnout down ticket support and win elections generally. Obama was one of those candidates regardless of his skin color. Clinton was not one of those candidates regardless of her gender.
So far no Democratic leader has emerged as the clear nomination. No one makes you say, "This is THE candidate." Granted, Obama is a tough act to follow. However, that's really what voters seek. Someone who will lead voters... to the polls. Male or female, no one truly checks the box.
Sanders comes closest in my opinion. He at least has a vision and a dedicated following. However, Sanders obviously grates on some people. Meanwhile a loss from Sanders foreshadows a big "I told you so" from the Clinton crowd. A sentiment which echos pots, kettles, and black. However, the result does not bode well for future Democratic prospects.
A Sanders win though? I wonder what that means.
7
The track record of locking up children, ignoring the environment, tossing out healthcare legislation, diverting funds from the military for a wall, obnoxious and immoral behavior will be replaced by a sane, steady leader--man or woman. America is Trumped-out at this point and most of us just want him to go away and get carpal tunnel so he can't tweet. Men have run this country since its founding. They have done well, but also have messed up big time (re: debt, enviroment, watergate, etc). I'd welcome the opportunity for a talented woman with a sane-steady disposition to run our nation.
28
People want somebody who they think can beat Trump. The gender or sexual identification means little in the big picture.The media in its need to be relevant is always trying to explain why one candidate is up and the other one down.If any candidate wants to win in the primaries they have to show they will stand toe to toe with Trump and battle. What vote you took twenty years ago means little. We are looking for a puncher who knows how to stick and move. We want someone who can take it to Trump and give as hard as they get. I personally want someone with a fire in their gut that only that can only be soothed by beating Trump. When Warren and Saunders said they were still friends after one of them lying on the other they both lost me. I want someone who in the big game, The General Election, who can unleash a world of hurt on Trump.
3
Warren's defeat of Scott Brown should not be dismissed so lightly. It was a tough race and showed her ability to handle exactly the kind of sexist, anti-intellectual attacks she could expect in a race against Trump. There is plenty of red in Massachusetts and if the state were not so gerrymandered (so named because the practice was invited by Cambridge resident Eldridge Gerry, a signer of the Declaration of Independence) the delegation would not be so reliably blue.
19
Oh, yawn. The Sanders/Warren kerfuffle is manufactured by Warren’s campaign because she needs to put some light between her and Sanders.
Did Sanders say a woman couldn’t win?
I doubt it.
Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes and only lost the electoral college by 88,000 votes. That’s a hair’s breadth away from winning. Had she campaigned in the rust belt, had Comey not made his announcement, had the been no Russian leaks, etc., she probably would have been in the White House. If all that is clear to me, I assume it is clear to any seasoned politician.
And what if he did say it?
So what?
The most outspoken supporters of that point of view were female Clinton supporters unwilling to believe that their candidate lost because she was a bad candidate. It is an opinion, one I disagree with, but an understandable one.
So this is a big, petty, nothing-burger. I’m disappointed that when Warren plays politics, she does so in such a clumsy way. See her DNA test for a similar ineptitude.
I generally like Warren in general, but she just doesn’t have a political instinct— a fatal flaw in a presidency.
26
I have argued politics with progressive & conservative Democrats, with pro & anti- Trump Republicans. I believe that the number of people in this country who think that a woman can not or should not win the presidency is negligible, and arguing against those irrelevant bigots makes you look silly to much of the country.
Now, some people may be subject to unconscious motives, but you can’t do much about that. They may not have thought through the consequences of electing someone like Trump, who treats women as disposable, but the answer to that is to change their minds. If you argue with them respectfully, instead of calling them names, it’s sometimes surprisingly easy to change their minds.
4
the debate format was ridiculous giving what? 90 seconds for the candidate to respond and then interrupting them continuously until they stopped talking. how does that help our understanding of their positions?
13
All things being equal, a woman probably can't be elected president in the US; nor a homosexual, nor a black man. That's a thought experiment that in our heavily divided country there are voters who are hesitant to vote for something different. But, as Frank points out, nothing is ever equal. Obama could win in 2008 in the frame of the financial crisis and a woman could win in the frame of an impeached and disgraceful Donald Trump.
Warren beat Scott Brown in HEAVILY democratic Massachusetts. That's not something *I'd* be pushing as too big an achievement. Scott Brown won by beating a woman democratic candidate who just assumed "it was her turn" (Maura Healey).
The more Warren and Klobachar make the question a horse race about women-victimization ("It's our turn!"), the more likely Donald Trump will be reelected.
If Bernie did make some comment about a woman not being electable, the proper response is simply to go out and win, not use it to mobilize one's victim-hood. Warren's repeated visit to this well is damaging her candidacy.
11
@OneView
Trump is responsible for pretending that he is a caring individual while he is a monster killing people . The country understands that Trump is a crook.
He will not be getting a second term, the electoral college is afraid of the American people they have made to many mistakes and this mistake of giving him the presidency will not be the third that breaks the camels back.
the managers have been selected for the Impeachment, it is fair and balanced on the Democratic side. We are fighting for our democracy and our country
Justice and reason will ensure that Trump and his minions will not harm anymore Americans.
Who is the most effective politician in the country today? A 78 year old woman named nancy pelosi. Women know how to get things done. When they act like men, (that’s you, Nikki Haley) they fail. But, left to their own devices, they succeed.
Bernie showed his true pettiness when he announced he beat a Republican in 1990. The press has never vetted him sufficiently. This writer cannot stand him. He presents himself as authentic and honest. But he is a nasty guy, motivated by ego and self interest. And, his behavior towards Hillary in 2016 is unforgivable. Finally, he is not a member of the Democratic Party and thus has no business making any demands on the party.
28
@Rachel
Sanders was actually correct as many have pointed out here already. He won in UNDER 30 years....
1
@David I think the point, David, is that Bernie didn't help himself with his response. Warren was not attacking him personally, she was responding to the "electability of a woman" question, specifically the electability of the candidates on stage. That Sanders took it personally, and took issue with a minor inaccuracy (29 not 30), seems to some like a small-minded response to an issue that's important to voters. His response did not flatter him; it seemed beneath him.
1
Keep up the identity politics.
Trump wins by an even bigger margin.
7
Trump is the one who is all about identity politics — White Nationalism, xenophobia, racism, sexism, etc.
We need to counter that forcefully and repeatedly, not fall for the meme that “identity politics” is something apart from economic, education, climate crisis, immigration, and health care. All those things affect minorities, the poor, refugees, immigrants, women, LBGQT people, etc.
Democrats need to call out Trump's corruption, sexism, and racism and promote progressive policies that address inequities and injustice.
1
@Cjmesq0 If you want to see identity politics to go any Trump rally.
2
Besides the fact that the Warren-Sanders kerfuffle was completely manufactured in a setup by the media salivating for "explosive" moments, a point of order here regarding Mr. Bruni's use of the term "mansplaining" to represent Sanders's response to the group’s electoral history:
Mansplaining: (noun, informal): "the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.”
Sanders’s response was nothing of the sort; it was simply a statement of fact regarding his own electoral history, which then led to the strange and confusing math-out-loud moment of whether his election occurred within the 30-year timeframe Warren had added to her assertion almost as an aside. Hardly “condescending or patronizing.” More like just really bad theater all around, brought to you courtesy of a carefully wrought question designed to elicit maximum spark about a tired issue that has already been proven absurd by 3+Million Hillary.
7
The Elizabeth Warren of, say, 2008-2018 is an exceptional candidate. However, she has millstones from both before and after this period that undermine her advantages and talents. The entire Native American imbroglio is silly, but can any Democrat explain it? Can you really say why she did it? I don’t think some minor thing from 40 years ago should matter, but we will hear about this endlessly If she is the nominee. And again, while it is silly, can you explain it? And doesn’t it feed into an image or someone willing to say anything — an image reinforced by her current and shameless vacillations on health care? Any person who has ever read anything on health care knows that single payer is the most efficient and morally sound way to deliver health care. “For all who want it” inevitably leads to a two tier system that degrades health care; this is born out by studies of Australia etc. She is too smart not to know this, but constantly changes her position according to the wind. Again, this is the post-2018 issue, and matches up to the issues around her pre-2008 persona. Democrats must put forward the most authentic candidate — the one who most radiates sincerity, principle, and moral purpose.
5
There is an obvious best candidate here in my mind, but then what do I know seeing that last election the obvious worst candidate won.
5
More identity politics, Frank, which is a loser in 2020! Rather it’s going to be about results and Dem’s men and women candidates have little to offer. Expect a Trump electoral landslide victory in 2020!
4
Identity politics is the refuge of the desperate and of candidates with nothing better to offer.
11
Thank goodness, the debates are over! No more instant declarations of "winners" and "losers" No more content-free commentary. No more endless recitations of meaningless poll results. No more media-manufactured controversy. No more posturing, preening self-declared candidates.
I remain, readers, a disappointed Sherrod Brown Democrat.
4
What happens when you live in a society of "participant awards" you take the point away from actual winning by your own merits by putting the winner back down with the losers of the competition. And yes people lose all the time.
I am male supporter of Elisabeth Warren. Yet, all things being equal, I would be a fool to believe that a woman doesn't have a more difficult time to defeat Trump (or any other male candidate) than a male candidate would have. That's a sad truth, but it is a truth. More people are willing to dismiss a good candidate because of him/her gender (race, religion, sexual orientation) than are willing to vote him/her. Why is that?
Anyone who is bigoted enough to dismiss a candidate because he is, say, Jewish, doesn't need to look any further. But, anyone for whom being Jewish is not an issue will immediately ask, whether that person really is the best candidate on the issues? And for that person, the answer maybe no.
The silver lining is that many people didn't think that America was ready for a black president. And I know a lot of reliable Democratic voters who didn't vote for Obama because he was black - and went on to vote Republican ever since.
3
Speaking of sexism, if a male candidate had refused to shake a female candidate’s offered hand, the way Warren refused to shake Sanders’ hand last night, the press would be up in arms about “ungentlemanly” behavior.
When a woman does it? Crickets.
18
@Objectively Subjective Someone who couldn't hear what was being said thinks she refused to shake his hand and suddenly it's gospel?
1
Looking at it from a foreigner perspective, I really, really do not understand why gender, colour or sexual preferences matter in an election.
Only journalists care about this. People don't care about who lead them. They care about their own lives, and how the government works towards making their lives easier and better.
People don't matter. Policies and ideas do. The past is irrelevant because it only demonstrated its inability to grasp and address the real issues like climate change.
I believe we need someone with radical ideas and radical new approaches to solve the crisis we are living, and the upcoming collapse of our societies that will happen with the 4th industrial society.
I understand you may only be doing your job by writing this paper, but in my opinion it completely fails at covering what really matters.
Writing about men vs women match in a primary debate for what may be the most important presidential election in modern history. Might as well write an article about the colour of the chairs in the Titanic dining room while it is sinking.
8
@thomasbw, exactly!
The only thing worse than an out of control male ego is an out of control female ego. At last, the televised Democratic circular firing squad episodes are over. The smart folks chose to watch "This Is Us."
I grew up in New York, attended an elite school and worked in California. Here is what I learned. Being the smartest one in the room is not what matters. Life and politics are team sports. My advice to the Dems. Don't do something,..... just stand there.If it was really about us and not them, the Dems on the stage would step back and endorse Mike Bloomberg. Send all your money and all the troops to get out the vote in Wisconsin, Michigan Ohio and Pennsyltucky. They know exactly who needs to get top the polls. They have parsed the data over and over. Nobody ever won a war with one "hero."
6
CNN -Bernie did you tell Elizabeth a woman can’t win ?
Bernie - I did not
CNN- Elizabeth how did you feel when Bernie told you a woman can’t win ?
As they say you can’t make this stuff up .
P.S. Bernie was correct about the math and he’s been beating Republicans forever .
18
I hope that Warren has some dignity left to admit what really took place in her meeting with Bernie, but she appears to be desperate to win at any cost.
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.”
6
Honey, do! Take out the trash!
Who said men are in charge?
This gender talk is balderdash.
A myth that’s looming large.
Women have always shown their men
who wields the real power.
If they say “Yes”, the still say “When”.
And men will clearly cower.
If they persist, impose their will,
say “Yes” when she said “No”,
it clearly is abuse. The drill?
He finally let’s go.
If there’s been no Ms. President
so far in our land,
it’s ‘cause women were hesitant
to take that final stand.
Once women in America
decide the time has come,
it won’t be esoterica:
A woman will have won.
That's great, as long a Bernie graduates.
November 1990 was 29 years and nine months ago.
4
You do not need a "crystal ball" to figure that these 2 will not win the nomination. That may change Warren's math for next time around.
4
I felt bad for Biden.He looked tired,lost and stumbled a lot.Trump would eat him up like apple pie.
5
Liz Mair nailed it when she said this about Bernie’s performance last night :
“ Let me keep telling you how I’m totally not sexist and make you think I’m totally sexist.”
Elizabeth’s approach was perfect. She, Amy and all the other women have been battling this nonsense for years.
18
The headline for this article is an good example of selective sexism. What if there was an article that headlined "Sanders, Biden, and Buttigieg teach the girls a lesson?
I believe that any type of sexism is inappropriate. However, others apparently believe it's OK as long as it's directed at the right people.
6
Nope - these are the headlines that will hand Trump a second term.
When will we learn?!
6
"Teach the Boys a Lesson" in the title is sexist. The male candidates are grown men. The author would never write about male candidates "teaching the girls a lesson" in reference to female candidates.
8
Where did Warren get all of her bold ideas? From Bernie!
8
@Zareen Bernie is not her intellectual equal by any stretch. He has old, warmed over ideas and, decades on, still has no clue how to make them reality. Meanwhile, Warren has carefully thought out ways to implement her vision. It may not happen but she has at least put in the intellectual effort. Bernie is like a math student who doesn't want to show his work but gets graded on a generous curve.
4
The Democrats could down to defeat again if they keep pounding the identity politics issues, in particular gender issues. That's unfortunate because we desperately need to be rid of Trump. Talk about the economy and national security - issues that will draw voters from the other side and are much more important then whether the president is male or female or transgender bathroom access. We will eventually have a woman president. So what? We want to know what that person will do as president, not what gender he or she is.
4
“How the Health Insurance Industry (and I) Invented the ‘Choice’ Talking Point”
Let’s steer the discussion back to healthcare. Has anyone read the excellent opinion piece above by Wendell Potter?
To combat Medicare-for-All, the healthcare industry has created the false narrative that you’ll have no choice in healthcare providers. All this from an ex-healthcare executive who appears to champion Medicare-for-All.
We need Medicare for All right now!
Thank you Mr. Potter.
7
The 30 years addendum was at best deceptive, at worst a deliberate trap. She used that number because she wanted to say the line about only the women here beat an incumbent Republican, but knew it to be incorrect without the disclaimer. Bernie heard the statement, but missed the qualifier - as we were all intended to do.
In this, I think Warren was uncivil to her friend and colleague. I wondered also about her honesty over the “a woman can’t be President” story at least to the extent that she is exploiting something misspoken or misheard. Bernie’s profession of faith in a woman’s potential victory seemed forthright and sincere; Warren ignored it called him a liar. If she had accepted his assertion and built upon it, it would have been as effective and less Brutus.
I have been hoping for a President whose actions speak of simple virtue; Warren disappointed last night.
19
@Gerard
"Warren disappointed last night."
I agree. I don't know if Bernie said what she says he said. She disappointed me how she prepared and seemingly relished bringing it up and interjecting it into the national discussions when nobody was questioning the capability of women, except out of the blue Bernie according to Elizabeth.
There are times I believe bringing up the abilities or successes of women is affirming or just refreshing as a reminder; somehow I did not get the feeling last night that either of these was the aim of Elizabeth's presentation bordering on diatribe last night.
9
I'm tired of the gender wars. I'm supporting Amy or Pete. I like their ideas and I also think it's high time to turn the presidency over to a younger person. These 70 somethings need to stand back to make room for newer ideas and a fresher perspectives on dealing with the most important issues of the day. We also need to keep in mind the country did vote for a woman president in 2016 and she won - just not with the right blend of states.
18
While Warren scored big points with her "gotcha boys" moment, I found it deplorable. She elevated herself and Klobuchar at the expense of her competitors, and it was a tactic that's featured in Trump's playbook. She sounded like a sore winner.
10
Should Trump not be removed by the Senate, I believe pundits will push the narrative that since Trump won Round 1 of himself versus Biden, we are required to move on to Round 2, the main event in November between these two. And in driving home that narrative, they will quietly step aside from asking why we haven't had a woman president yet. Pundits don't care about electability; all that matters is a grand narrative that is just too tempting to let go.
2
Pundits care first and foremost about commentary that will generate ratings and clicks; in the end it is all about money.
Could not watch the debate last night, as I could not find it in non-subscription TV channels.
Agree in any case that we need less televised debates. TV has distorted more than enhanced democracy recently.
Why do we we apparently want so much our future President to be good at looking, acting, and talking like a TV star? (Look where that led us.) Why do we care so much in soap-opera minutiae like if a candidate shook the hand of another or not?
9
I couldn't stand it and turned it off. First of all, the questions were horrible. Questions like, How would you prevent Iran from getting an atomic bomb? There is no answer. Iran is a moving target. A policy is not a thing. Policy changes as conditions change and conditions change constantly in the Middle East.
As far as the gender issue is concerned, there is tremendous levels of misogyny in our society. There are millions, upon millions who would never vote for a woman and far too many of them are women. Those people want a Christian patriarchy. The real issue here is not what Bernie said or didn't say. The real issue is why do so many want a testosterone fueled Rambo in the White House instead of someone who can solve problems.
After bombarding the candidates with questions that require 300 pages of analysis to even begin to answer, we get to 'performance' issues. How did they perform? What is this, a Broadway play? Are we critiquing people to be cast in a new TV show? We already did that and Donald Trump was selected for that role. We need a president, not a staring role in a reality TV series.
Mike Bloomberg got it right. Skip the whole debate/caucus nonsense and go directly to the people. Both parties are have degraded the selection process to the point that the best candidates have little, if any chance. Both parties exist to maintain their grip on power, not to find the best people. The way the system works, the best people want no part of it.
103
@Bruce Rozenblit
Yup. The CNN panelists were intrusive and self-aggrandizing.
20
@Chris M
I read that CNN survey and you have grossly misrepresented it. Try again.
3
I am a conservative, however, we need a President other than Trump. Last night’s debate was formal and classy. The candidates are all thoughtful, knowledgeable patriots. I would vote for any man Jack of them happily, and that includes Warren and Klobuchar.
59
Strange, how pundits who claim to be so worried about "electability" have no trouble dismissing worries about gender but find all sorts of reasons an actual liberal can't elected.
Identity politics forever?
OTOH, Bruni appears to have made some progress. He's actually giving Elizabeth Warren some consideration, if only as an excuse to promote Klobucha. So what if Amy K. is polling worse against Trump than either Sanders or Warren? She's still the adult's candidate. At least, the center-right adults.
4
What I saw last night made me proud to be a Democrat---although still not has diverse a group as I would like, we did have two women running, we did discuss real issues that matter to Americans, and the use of full sentences that were tied to thought out policies was so refreshing. Anyone on that stage could in their sleep be a better President than what we have now. Given the ups and downs of these debates, at a minimum, and we are in a minimalists age, I feel in the morning that there is hope for this country---
12
Warren used a lie that she made up as an occasion to grandstand. And while I find her recent tactics deplorable, I have to say that she did it well. So yes, women can clearly do what the men have been doing in politics for a long time.
22
What is your proof, pray tell, that she made up a lie? If you make such a blanket statement back it up with credible facts.
1
Klobuchar is the one candidate who can beat Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. I hope she is the next to suddenly rise in the polls--and at this late stage, it might be permanent.
29
Not really in the mood to vote another Republican into office
1
@MA
Disagree completely
@Timothy Hall That's better than the alternative, though, isn't it? Because not voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be, is a vote for Trump (especially damaging in Ohio). And, we all know how well the past three years have gone. I'm terrified to think of what Trump will do if he is re-elected.
If either doesn't win the nomination but is picked as a running mate, there will be a problem. Pence will have to take the stage, alone, with a woman who isn't his wife. And either one of these women can take Pence down intellectually with both hands tied behind their back. And if either becomes the nominee, Trump won't be allowed to walk behind them and try and intimidate them. He would have a very difficult time because all the tactics he used in the last election will be useless against these two.
123
@Walking Man maybe Mother can be on the stage with him?
3
What lesson was taught? Sure if you want women to think it is us against them so vote for us. In the real world Hillary lost in 2016 because a great deal of women voted for Trump.So when columnist beat for something to write about stoke the man vs woman fire they should also include why women have a tough time voting for a woman. The lesson should not only be for the Boys. If the majority of women had of voted for Hillary Trump will still be living in Trump Tower.
15
@Steven McCain The majority of women did not vote for Donald Trump. That's misinformation that's been pushed over and over again since 2016. 54% of women who voted chose Clinton. Considering that less than 57% of registered voters cast a ballot in 2016, and that Trump won the presidency with only slightly more than 1/4 of registered voters, that would mean about 1/8 of registered women voters voted for Trump. But you missed the overall point, which is that choosing a female candidate should not involve gender, but should be based on qualifications. You demonstrate the inability to think beyond genderl with your comments.
45
@Steven McCain Yes, of course. If only women had been more responsible and not voted for an incompetent male president, the irresponsible male Trump voters wouldn't have been able to elect Trump.
@MD I did not say the majority voted for Trump. I said the majority of women did not vote Hillary .Taking into account the hundred million people who did not vote in 2016. 54 % of voting women is numbers enough for only men to be taught a lesson? So we give the 44% who voted for the misogynist a pass? Really?
2
No doubts, Frank, either of the two Democratic women candidates running for the Iowa laurels would be a far better president than the useless and unfit president wasting America's time and money in The White House today. Neither Senators Amy Klobuchar (who can deliver the Midwest states in November) and Elizabeth Warren have ever lost an election. Both women are winners. Both women have proven their electability.
As for Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Tom Steyer, their electability will be iffy if Donald Trump does run for re-election. Most likely Mr. Trump's terrifying TV reality show presidential career will crash during his Senate Impeachment Trial starting next week. If President Trump does survive his historic Senate trial this month, all of us will be losers, not just the Democratic candidates, female and male, for our presidency.
14
@Nan Socolow : I do not know Klochubar's exact history, but Warren has run TWICE for Senate in the most liberal state in the USA -- relatively small Massachusetts.
It's not like she's an experienced politician -- she never held ANY office before being HANDED a Senate office, and never was a Congressman or Mayor or Governor or even dog catcher or on school board.
You could also say Trump has never lost an election. He only ever ran one time.
1
I’m not sure if I watched a debate or a prelude for the Imperial Reign of House Trump.
The nonsensical “job interview” format of touting one’s resume whilst attacking one’s competitor, is a vestige of a lost age. A time overtaken and replaced by government-as-entertainment; exemplified by a reality tv host in chief.
“I look very much forward to debating whoever the lucky person is who stumbles across the finish line in the little watched Do Nothing Democrat Debates,” Trump tweeted. “My record is so good on the Economy and all else, including debating, that perhaps I would consider more than 3 debates”
However, and true to his “tease and do the opposite” form, Trump will probably skip the general debates, leaving the democratic challenger to waft in the breeze in the most Trumpian of venues: Twitter and the media.
November 2020. Vote. Like. Your. Life. Depends. On. It.
44
Always winning is nice, but resiliency is vital.
I respect people who survive defeats. I respect people for whom politics isn’t just about winning and losing, but about taking one for the team, and creating new possibilities — sometimes FROM defeats! :)
We all must find places large and small to offer our talents and time. That isn’t always a question of zero-sum all-or-nothing “winning”
9
Whether someone wins or loses an election is irrelevant, compared to why one is fighting to win on behalf of improving every aspect of people’s lives. Why one is trying to lead us what makes the difference. What Warren pulled last night was a destructive attempt to use her sex as the main issue, like she made whether supporting progressive policies serves her needs over the needs of the people. The main issue is, which policies will improve lives and who can be trusted to fight to enact them with all our support. Bernie2020
2
Last night reminded me of how the Clinton campaign gave every indication that they preferred Trump to progressive policies that Americans need to survive, which Warren supported wholeheartedly. Again, Warren once again proves she’s just there to attempt to keep us from getting the policies we desperately need to survive, including the Green New Deal. Warren refused to support progressive policies last election, when it didn’t suit her personally, and she’s doing it again. This represents real suffering that she apparently doesn’t care about, just like Clinton called half the country deplorable. Bernie2020
14
@Lilly
Not sure what you’re saying is true. Can you provide examples?
3
What's tougher, herding cats or herding Democrats? The answer is the latter, the sooner the better. Since we're now in year four of these Divided States of America (and can't survive another five), a
United States of Democrats, regardless of its nominee and running mate, is essential to rescue our democracy and bring a true sense of honesty, expertise and strategic vision back to where it belongs.
49
After watching the Democratic debate last night one thought ran through my head -- Trump, against all odds, will probably be a two-term president.
27
@John Jabo thanks. Sadly, I had the same thought and doubt we were alone. Not only were they walked into a corner of promising all sorts of free stuff for everyone, raising taxes on more people than they claim and not giving a number, but then I watched them go after one another on irrelevant minutiae instead of Trump. Finally, I looked at the likability factor. Do I want to hear any of those people in my house lecturing me on their pet social issues for the next 4 years of my life?
18
@John Jabo
I thought every candidate on stage last night was actually impressive. Articulate, sensible & professional. But that's obviously not what it takes to get elected today, and I'm afraid you're right.
11
It reminded me of when the Clinton campaign appeared to prefer Trump over Progressive policies Americans desperately need... which Warren endorsed.
1
After the financial collapse of 2008, Obama tasked Elizabeth Warren and she led the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She has spent years studying finance and the effects of unbridled Wall Street, our terrible health care system and the triggers for bankruptcy. She was the first person I heard talk about the Queens of Welfare being Walmart, McDonald and other large employers benefitting from low wages. If not for her work, Wells Fargo would have received a slap on the wrist, a small fine and moved on. If not for her, your 401(k) fees would still be high. If not for her and Bernie, no one would be talking about our shameful healthcare system.
Klobuchar would be an excellent President. She is reasonable, smart, diligent, a midwestern sense of humor, works across the aisle, gets it done and knows her faults.
As for beating Donald Trump? I don’t think his base is going to be enough to get him re-elected. Any adult in the room would beat him. Better yet, a smart woman with a proven record or a smart woman with a plan for everything.
Women are now the majority of the workforce. Will they still work for lower wages than men? Who is going to lead? Old white men that speak in word salads or articulate women that know how to get things done? Seems pretty simple to me.
686
@CJNY
It has nothing to do with his base and has everything to do with where his base is located.
Remember he did not really win the election (the popular vote). He won the Electoral College.
And yes, he will do it again. Sadly.
20
@esp He did not win those states on his own. He was aided by aggressive, GOP-led voter suppression campaigns. Many of us formally observed the results of those campaigns on election day (e.g., as election observers with LWV in WI)
32
@esp Yes, it has everything to do with where Trump won electoral votes -- which is why the Bloomberg money going into ads in must-win electoral states is giving us hope. The top candidates are focused on early voting states, but ads for a better, non-Trump future are getting oxygen in must-win states. It may take a team of candidates -- and their money, including billionaires' -- to defeat false information, and false "news" channels like ONA, and the results of Citizens United. So let's work together to reclaim the People's House and have the human sitting in it actually serve our Constitution.
47
Both women have been the most consistent in debate and campaigning, but the closer the primaries get, the less support they receive. I have been reading the NYT interviews and Bernie has the same record from 2015. Is not enough! I am for Klobuchar, but if Warren is the last woman standing, I’m for her.
102
I would hope you are for the last Dem candidate standing, no matter what gender.
9
@JJ Yes, of course I will. A woman can only hope is a woman, that is what I am saying.
3
@DAT More consistent than Bernie's 30+ years of service and unwavering positions? 30 years ago Elizabeth Warren was a Republican.
4
I lasted 5 minutes before I turned off the TV. Bernie Sanders voice is nails on a chalkboard. But that's my problem and irrelevant. The issue is who will beat Trump. Viewing the issue through the eyes of a PA voter, I think nominating Sanders or Warren will result in a Trump victory in the Keystone State. Joe Biden would take the state, as would (I believe) Amy Klobucher . I would love a Biden/Klobucher ticket. I think that's the Trump beater. Park the identity politics at the curb and keep the real issue out front. ELECTABILITY!
139
@Joe there’s no such thing as “electability”. Donald Trump, who was deemed the least electable candidate in the history of US politics, is our president. Throw out what you think you know about who can win what and where and vote for who has the best policies.
21
@Joe
This is the state of American politics for the last 20 + years. Democrats must prove they are “electable.” Republicans must prove they are far-right enough. Could you dream up a less “electable” candidate than Trump? “Electability” is a con. Debate the issues.
29
@Joe Electability is exactly what Warren spoke to in her response.
I am waiting for someone to just admit they are too sexist and put off by strong women to vote for Warren.
12
Political power is the power to influence others through coercion. The power to hire and fire, punish, imprison, even to kill. Or to threaten such things. It has nothing to do with wisdom or kindness. It doesn't reside in a person's gender or character. It resides solely in money and/or position.
There is another kind of power. The power to influence through one's own being -- by kindness, humor, wisdom and love. This power can be exhibited by the lowly as well as the high and mighty. In fact, the hallmark of this kind of power is humility.
15
I continue to marvel at high the bar is set for Democratic candidates. In normal times, my complaint would be nonexistent. But consider how low the bar is set for GOP candidates. It's positively subterranean with Trump. We win just by showing up and being competent.
142
@M
Makes my point from an earlier comment.
I call this: The fix is already in.
They are all in on it. Get used to the idea of more of this mess.
1
We know Warren and Klobuchar are both women. Why anyone should single out that criteria as being decisive is beyond me, especially IF we’re supposed to be non-discriminatory on questions of gender. I don’t like either candidate because of their POLICY choices. Next, I’ll be told I’m “sexist” for saying so. Biden is no debater, but then again I don’t care about debates when there’s a RECORD to review. On THAT basis I’m able to support him and while Buttigieg hasn’t had as many years in office, what he HAS achieved during his lifetime wins on all counts for me. That they’re both MEN is hardly the point. That I agree on their policy positions IS.
24
@ManhattanWilliam So easy for a man to say he doesn’t care about gender. So easy for white people to say they don’t see race. So easy for the monied to say they earned it solely through their own hard work. Starting to see a pattern?
2
@ManhattanWilliam Explicitly you may not be sexist, but I'm betting my bottom dollar that you're not witness to your own implicit sexism.
@JIM TRUE Americans SHOULD BE colorblind and indifferent to gender. You want EQUALITY by demeaning or undervaluing a gender not YOURS.
1
I agree with everything but writing"...Teach the Boys..."in the title.
Had it been the reverse, I can't imagine the title would have referred to the women as "The Girls"!
Reminds me of when my son's public school kindergarten teacher thought it was okay to repeatedly say "Boys Drool, Girls Rule." It was very damaging to my sensitive son others in his class.
Double-standards should not be tolerated in either direction.
219
@American Abroad. Why was that even worth commenting on? It's a figure of speech, the way a team of men refer to each other as boys, as in "Come on, boys!"; it is certainly not a sign of disrespect.
2
@Danny
Since this article is about gender, I consider it relevant to highlight the subtleties and sometime not so subtle misuse of gender names.
"Come on boys" is quite different from the condescending "Teach the Boys", as if the women are school mistresses (not an ideal stereotype either).
So are the expressions "boys will be boys", 'Man up" and "Don't be so girlie".
12
@American Abroad I have to wonder about the editorial input columnists have on the titles of their own work.
Some of the best columns I've read here have been totally different from the declarative statement of the title.
I would not have opened the piece if I had not known the previous work of the author.
5