BREAKING: Did Candidate Warren ever believe that?

SATURDAY, MARCH 7, 2020

A look at the dogma rules:
Judged by traditional, fairly sensible standards, we Democrats had a god-awful list of candidates to choose from this year.

Let's restrict ourselves to the less-than-Magnificent Seven who survived into, and even beyond, South Carolina. The rundown looks like this:

Way too old:
By traditional, fairly sensible standards, two of the candidates were much too old.

One of the two seems to be losing cognitive power. The other one had a recent heart attack and won't release his medical records.

Way too young: One of the candidates was much too young, and was quite inexperienced.

Way too wealthy: Two of the candidates were billionaires who were on the debate stage for no other reason. They had bought their way onto the stage.

One of them had been a Republican for the past three hundred years. (He too was way too old.)

Lacking in charisma:
One of the Candidates, Candidate Klobuchar, wasn't way too old or way too young. She also seemed to be thoroughly sane, and she serves in the Senate.

News flash! "White men" who fit the Klobuchar profile never get nominated either! As an example of what we mean, consider these candidates from this very campaign:
They too failed to emerge:
Jay Inslee, governor of Washington
Steve Bullock, governor of Montana
Michael Bennet, senator from Colorado
John Hickenlooper, former governor of Colorado
Those candidates didn't get as far as Klobuchar did. They weren't sufficiently well-known, and they lacked break-out charisma.

(What does break-out charisma look like? The stunningly talented AOC had it when she was just 28. So did Barack Obama.)

As you may have noticed, we've skipped one of the less-than-Magnificent Seven—Candidate Warren. In the past few days, the lamentations about her demise have been straight outta scenes from The Iliad in which wailing women watch sacred Hector die at Achilles' murderous hand in the plains outside Troy.

On the "intellectual leadership" level, has a political tribe ever been as scripted and dumb as our liberal team currently is? By any normal standard, Candidate Warren was a god-awful candidate too.

Today, we'll mention just one of the ways in which she was a nightmare waiting to happen.

Below, you see part of what Annie Linksey wrote in a front-page report in the Washington Post last December. Our request:

Try to step outside our existing tribal bubbles to see what this seems to mean:
LINSKEY (12/20/19): Warren identified herself professionally as a Native American at various points in her life. In April 1986, she listed her race as “American Indian” on her registration card for the State Bar of Texas, according to a copy of that document obtained by The Washington Post. She also listed herself as a minority from 1986 to 1994 in the Association of American Law Schools directory.

While teaching at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Warren had her race changed to Native American from white
, university records show. Later, she requested that Harvard Law School list her as Native American after she was hired in 1995, according to the Boston Globe, which reviewed her personnel records.

Warren has said that she didn’t receive preferential hiring treatment because of her Native American claims, and an investigation by the Boston Globe confirmed that she was never viewed as a minority when hired at various law schools, despite being counted as a minority in diversity reports filed to the federal government by Penn and Harvard law schools as recently as 2004.

Her past claims have given Republicans openings to attack her character and honesty.
To draw attention to the controversy, President Trump frequently refers to Warren as “Pocahontas,” which Warren and others say is a slur.
As Linskey notes, our tribe has (dumbly) waved this topic away, repeatedly saying that President Trump is sunk in "racist slurs." Before we consider the nature of those "slurs," let's try to consider the contents of Linskey's summary.

Here's what Linskey reported:

At least from 1986 through 1995, Candidate Warren repeatedly identified herself as an "American Indian," and/or as a "minority." She actively said that she wasn't "white," causing official records to be changed

She was still being listed as a "minority" through 2004. Is there any conceivable way she really believed such a thing?

Did Warren really believe that? Just this once, let's try to understand this peculiar history:

Warren didn't say that she had some degree of "Native American ancestry." She wasn't saying that, somewhere back on the family tree, there was one Native American.

That isn't what she kept saying. She kept saying that no, she wasn't "white"—she was actually "Native American," and therefore a "minority."

We'll ask our question again: Is there any conceivable way she ever could have believed that?

A second question follows. Are we really unable to understand the way this history looks?

Our tribe's "thought leaders" have persistently ducked these questions by shifting our focus to Trump. But are we really unable to see the way Warren's past conduct appears?

Our tribe has found a hundred ways to avoid asking these questions. As Linskey noted, we've often said that Warren "didn’t receive preferential hiring treatment because of her Native American claims."

That may or may not be true. But this dodge avoids an obvious fact:

Unless we're blinded by tribal dogma, it looks like Warren was trying to achieve a hiring advantage! Inevitably, it looks like she was trying to achieve an advantage by advancing these puzzling claims.

Would Trump have returned to his derisive "Pocahontas" taunts had Warren been nominated? We have no way of knowing.

That said, the appearance here is blindingly obvious. But because we're hopelessly sunk in tribal narratives and dogmas, our team has avoided this topic all through the primary campaign—with Trump likely waiting to pounce.

So how about it, team members? Do you believe that Elizabeth Warren ever thought she was Native American, not white? Can you find a plausible way to believe that she really believed that?

She wasn't white—she was Native American! Do you think she really believed that?

We'll leave the question of those "slurs" for another day. So too with the ridiculous way this reputedly brilliant candidate took that DNA test, then obscured the original question in the way she explained its results.

How dumb did this candidate have to be to stage that second-order charade? And yet, our "thoughts leaders" insist on trying to make us believe that she was The Smartest And Most brilliant By Far.

The outpouring of dogma is the past few days has been a deeply instructive sign of the times. Expert anthropologists explain the matter as follows:

When tribes lose confidence in their primacy, they tend to cling, even more strongly, to their narratives and their dogmas. So it has gone as our stunningly scripted "thought leaders" have tried to tell us that Candidate Warren was the brightest by far, and that her loss can only be explained by 1) sexism, and 2) the dumbness of the public.

We'll have more on this highly instructive outpouring in the week ahead. That said, riddle us this:

Did this seventh god-awful candidate ever believe she was Native American (not white)? Riddle the truth to us just this once:

Does that really make any sense?

70 comments:

  1. “But are we really unable to see the way Warren's past conduct appears?”

    Is Somerby really unable to see past this, and see the good things Warren has accomplished?

    Did he watch the way email server practices were blown up into some earth shattering pseudoscandal by the right wing and MSM in 2016? Those practices “appeared” quite troubling.

    Is he paying attention to the ginning up of another pseudoscandal around Biden? Yeah, actually he has. He credits the worriers on the right and in the media with well-founded “concerns.”

    Bill Clinton had past infidelities that came to light in 1992, plus the Lewinsky thing while in office. Should Democrats have worried about how Clinton’s conduct appeared? That isn’t what 1998 TDH said. He ripped the media for breathlessly “reporting” on it.

    That was then, this is now.

    Drop it, Somerby. Warren isn’t the nominee. She never won a single contest in the primaries. So why are you chiding our “tribe” then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe so we can recognize our shortcomings in order to overcome them. Are you talking about Hunter Biden? Trump is going to mop the floor with him.

      Delete
    2. The right hasn't been criticizing Warren for this stuff. Just Somerby. I've also seen zero talk about this in comments on various blogs where candidate merits were being discussed.

      If it were raised during a general election, it is fair to assume that neither the right nor the left would see the relevance of this stale old complaint. Especially since she has addressed this is every way possible: (1) by having her employers attest that being Indian had nothing to do with her getting hired, (2) by apologizing to Indians and tribes, (3) by showing that she had some small part of her DNA that was Native American, (4) by showing that she herself did not make some of the claims attributed to her, but did check a box on a card, (5) by facing the issue head on and discussing its relevance to important issues at hand, and so on. That is what an effective politician does, and she did everything she could and the issue has not been important during the primaries.

      In fact, most people hearing this complaint think "if this is the worst thing they can say about her, she must be pretty clean." and that is a good thing.

      Delete
    3. 2:27,
      We know what our "shortcomings" are. Namely, passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

      Not coincidentally,a Democrat has not won the white vote in a national election, since doing so.

      Delete
    4. In fact, most people hearing this complaint think "if this is the worst thing they can say about her, she must be pretty clean.”

      Thank you. And let’s put this in the worst possible light, namely that Warren was trying to gain an undeserved advantage from the diversity metrics. This happened when Warren was half as old as she is now. Is there no statute of limitations on venial sins? And this sin seems on par with saying that twenty-five years ago, Warren farted in an elevator and blamed it on some other rider’s dog.

      Delete
    5. Hello viewers around the Globe, Herbal Penis Enlargement product is 100% guarantee to Enlarge and get a better ERECTION ,the reason why most people are finding it difficult to enlarge Penis is because they believe on medical report, drugs and medical treatment which is not helpful for Penis Enlargement . Natural roots/herbs are the best remedy which can easily Enlarge your Penis permanently Contact Dr Olu via Email : Drolusolutionhome@gmail.com or via Whats App : +2348140654426 for Natural root and herbal remedies put together to help you get Enalarge and Erect healthy. Thank you.  

      Once again God bless you Dr. Olu for what you have done in my life.  

























      Hello viewers around the Globe, Herbal Penis Enlargement product is 100% guarantee to Enlarge and get a better ERECTION ,the reason why most people are finding it difficult to enlarge Penis is because they believe on medical report, drugs and medical treatment which is not helpful for Penis Enlargement . Natural roots/herbs are the best remedy which can easily Enlarge your Penis permanently Contact Dr Olu via Email : Drolusolutionhome@gmail.com or via Whats App : +2348140654426 for Natural root and herbal remedies put together to help you get Enalarge and Erect healthy. Thank you.  

      Once again God bless you Dr. Olu for what you have done in my life.  

      Delete
    6. Good day to all viewer online am so happy sharing this great testimony on how i was checking for solution in the internet then miraculously i came Across Dr.LOSA the powerful herbalist that Cure Numerous individuals Herpes Simplex Virus,so I contacted him base on the testimonies I?m seeing about him on the internet, I was cured too by him, kindly contact him actoday through his email he can help you email ; dr.losaherbalhome@gmail.com and so he can cure types of diseases like,HEPATITIS B,DIABETICS,CANCER,HPV,LOW SPERM CAM HIV/STDS FIBROSIS LOST OF WEIGHT .. all thank to you Dr LOSA for your kindly help in my life his Mobile number +2349056464736

      He cure listed diseases
      CANCER
      HEPATITIS A AND B
      DIABETIC.
      HERPES



































































































      Good day to all viewer online am so happy sharing this great testimony on how i was checking for solution in the internet then miraculously i came Across Dr.LOSA the powerful herbalist that Cure Numerous individuals Herpes Simplex Virus,so I contacted him base on the testimonies I?m seeing about him on the internet, I was cured too by him, kindly contact him actoday through his email he can help you email ; dr.losaherbalhome@gmail.com and so he can cure types of diseases like,HEPATITIS B,DIABETICS,CANCER,HPV,LOW SPERM CAM HIV/STDS FIBROSIS LOST OF WEIGHT .. all thank to you Dr LOSA for your kindly help in my life his Mobile number +2349056464736

      He cure listed diseases
      CANCER
      HEPATITIS A AND B
      DIABETIC.
      HERPES

      Delete


    7. I want to give a big thanks to a great spell caster commonly known as DR TAKUTA for the great spiritual prayers he did in my life by bringing my ex-lover back to me after many months of breakup and loneliness. With this, I am convinced that you are sent to this word to rescue people from heartbreaks and also to help us get the solution to every relationship problem. for those of you out there who have one relationship problem or the other why not contact DR TAKUTA. that is the best place you can solve all your problems, including a lack of jobs and promotions, binding and marriage spells, divorce and attraction spells, good luck and lotto spells, he has herbal medicine to cure any type of diseases and infections and medicine for infertility, and pregnancy spells, and also the business success and customer increase, winning court cases and many more. contact him at takutaspellalter@gmail.com or contact mobile contact +27788634102














































































      I want to give a big thanks to a great spell caster commonly known as DR TAKUTA for the great spiritual prayers he did in my life by bringing my ex-lover back to me after many months of breakup and loneliness. With this, I am convinced that you are sent to this word to rescue people from heartbreaks and also to help us get the solution to every relationship problem. for those of you out there who have one relationship problem or the other why not contact DR TAKUTA. that is the best place you can solve all your problems, including a lack of jobs and promotions, binding and marriage spells, divorce and attraction spells, good luck and lotto spells, he has herbal medicine to cure any type of diseases and infections and medicine for infertility, and pregnancy spells, and also the business success and customer increase, winning court cases and many more. contact him at takutaspellalter@gmail.com or contact mobile contact +27788634102



















































      Delete
  2. "One of the two seems to be losing cognitive power."

    That's perfect for a zombie candidate.

    Whichever one is so zombie-like that even you, dear Bob, noticed it (personally, I haven't seen any sign of cognitive power in any of them, except for Major Gabbard), he's going to be your candidate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Somerby, but we all lose cognitive power. We increase in cognitive power until around age 25, then steadily decline after that. People tend to notice memory problems around age 40. Big declines happen around age 65, but since these are confounded with health problems affecting brain functioning (such as Type II diabetes, use of drugs with side effects), it is hard to know if that is due to age or health.

      Many of the myths about cognitive decline during aging are incorrect. Processing speed declines, but acquisition of knowledge does not. Old people do better on semantic tasks than young people because they have more crystallized knowledge. Old people learn at the same rate as young people, but worry more about their performance (which slows them down). Old people have different values than young people. But this idea that someone in the 70s is inevitably worse off cognitively than a young person isn't substantiated by cognitive science. It all depends on the health of that 70 year old, which is why Bernie's refusal to release his records is problematic.

      We should judge Bernie, Biden, and any of the other 70+ year old candidates on their merits, not how well they give a speech when sleep deprived.

      Delete
    2. I think Mao has been declining. He keeps repeating himself.

      Delete
  3. "Two of the candidates were billionaires who were on the debate stage for no other reason"

    This is incorrect about Tom Steyer. He has a liberal pedigree going back to his retirement from business and has been involved in local causes for years. Further, his parents are similarly liberal. He has no government employment experience but that isn't a disqualifier, especially in CA politics.

    It isn't true about Bloomberg either. He was a three-term mayor of NYC and that makes him a politician, not solely a billionaire. Like Steyer, he has been involved in liberal causes since leaving office. His main problem is that he was a Republican and only recently switched to Democrat. That makes his stand on certain issues suspect. But then, Bernie wasn't a Democrat either.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Did this seventh god-awful candidate ever believe she was Native American (not white)? Riddle the truth to us just this once:"

    I thought I was Irish. I was so sure of it that I tried to apply for Irish citizenship under the rule that says that if you have an Irish grandparent, you are eligible to apply. It was at the time when the EU was dissolving borders and I thought that being Irish would permit me to retire anywhere in the EU.

    When I researched it seriously, I discovered that I didn't have an Irish grandparent at all. My grandfather hadn't been born in Ireland but was born in the USA, because instead of emigrated to the US in 1916 (as I thought), his father emigrated to Canada in the 1830s (during the potato famine). That made me ineligible. It also demonstrated that long-told family histories recounted to children over the kitchen table can be very wrong.

    This is what happened to Elizabeth Warren. She may also have had some personal issues related to establishing an independent identity, separate from an ex-husband, but many people in OK claim Cherokee relatives (often a grandmother), many with as little basis as Warren. She didn't do it to commit any kind of fraud. I have friends from HI who similarly debate their percentages of Chinese versus native Hawaiian ancestry. Judging by the sales of those DNA testing kits, many people are fascinated by this, with no practical goal in mind beyond exploration of family.

    Perhaps having grown up in Boston in an Irish Catholic family, where there is a great deal of homogeneity centered around that particular ethnicity, Somerby doesn't understand what it is like for people with greater mixtures. Somerby may be like Conan, who jokes about being 100% Irish, and thus may not understand Warren's impulse at all.

    Or maybe he is using this issue because it is the only stick available to beat her with. And beat her he must, because she is obviously a girl and she had the nerve to run for President -- how dare she!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "So it has gone as our stunningly scripted "thought leaders" have tried to tell us that Candidate Warren was the brightest by far, and that her loss can only be explained by 1) sexism, and 2) the dumbness of the public."

    For some unexplained reason, Somerby has never considered the plans and policies expressed by Warren during the campaign. He appears to have never listened to her during the debates. If he had, he would understand why people consider her competent, smart and well-qualified.

    Somerby, who berates liberals for tribalism and for focusing on trivialities, cannot get past this particular trivial complaint to see her other qualities.

    When someone focuses stubbornly on a single issue and won't consider a candidate on her own merits, that is sexism. Because his narrow focus has been on claims of Indian heritage, one might suspect him of being a racial bigot, but he doesn't really care whether she is Indian or not. This is his manufactured excuse for ignoring all of her strengths, her programs, her experience. When a man does that when rejecting a female candidate, he is being sexist. His actual problem with Warren is that she is female. Indian DNA is a screen objection to disguise his actual one, that he is outraged that a woman would consider herself fit to occupy the highest office.

    Somerby likes to complain about tribalism, but he doesn't have the courage to break tribal norms and come out as the closet-sexist he clearly is. If he really disliked PC liberal culture, he would be proud to disdain the female candidates because they are female (not because of lack of charisma), throwing charges of sexism back in our liberal faces. But he doesn't have the guts. Instead he complains that liberaldom insists on tribal scripts, such as that a woman can aspire to higher office, when everyone knows that is bunk.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is this list really how Somerby picks who to vote for? Doesn't he care about issues? Doesn't he care about qualifications, experience and competence?

    Does he vote based on charisma? Does he think Bernie has charisma? Many of us find Bernie grotesque.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hickenlooper doesn't lack charisma. He is a character and people in CO love him. He founded a craft brewery! He just didn't have and couldn't quickly establish a national profile, so voters didn't know who he was beyond CO.

    Klobuchar suffers from that problem too. It is unfair of Somerby to assume she has no charisma, from the results. She gained a great deal of visibility and was well liked by voters who supported her. Her problem was too much competition and too little time.

    Both Biden and Bernie had the advantage of name recognition on a national scale. They both had run previously, in Biden's case, several times. Biden was VP to Obama -- how can Klobuchar compete with that, in terms of name recognition.

    Somerby forgets that Obama was introduced to Democrats by being given a prime speaking spot at the National Convention, which was televised nationwide. Then he wrote two books that sold well: Dreams from my Father and Audacity of Hope. The first was written in 1995, eight years before he ran for senator, then reissued in 2004, which prepared the way for his presidential race. It was a bestseller.

    That isn't charisma. It is a long-term campaign to get his name in front of a national audience, to introduce himself and things like his name and his mixed heritage, which might otherwise have been campaign liabilities if sprung on the public right before an election.

    Calling this charisma is ridiculous. It was planning and hard work. Somerby thinks AOC has charisma too. That's because she's young and pretty (which passes for charisma among men). She is inexperienced and unproven. It is unclear whether she will even be reelected to her own seat.

    Has Somerby considered that maybe Gore lost his election because he lacked charisma? Would it be fair to say that? Would it be fair to judge his merits on that basis?

    Warren has a great deal of charisma. She inspires devotion in women, who fixed their hopes on her that she might become the first female President in our history. Women are upset, angry, devastated, broken-hearted, in large measure because they identified with her and felt so strongly about her strength, character, worthiness for the top job. Her charisma. But Somerby is blind to that because (1) he isn't female, (2) he lacks empathy with women, (3) he has no imagination, (4) he is a sexist jerk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse4:46pm, keep hope alive.

      We’ll ikely have Nikki Haley to vote for in 2024.

      Delete
    2. And (1) you're an ignoramus, (2) you're a troll, (3) see point 1, and (4) see point 2.

      Begone, troll.

      Delete
    3. Can't you just say "I disagree with everything you wrote" and leave it at that? @4:46 has as much right to opinions as you do.

      Delete
    4. I'm old and I'm tired. Tired of pointing out the trollishness of @4:46's incessant ignorance mind-reading. Of course @4:46 has the right to be a ridiculous and ignorant troll. Where do I say otherwise? How could I possibly abridge that right?

      Delete
    5. Leave the incessant ignorance mind-reading to Somerby. It's all the poor boy got.

      Delete
  8. There are a couple of problems with this. First, some on the left do not believe that there IS an advantage to being non-white. Quite the opposite, as I have heard about white privilege ad nauseum.

    Second as I discovered when I looked it up, ANY amount of Spanish heritage is enough to make a person Hispanic. Thus, I could credibly claim to he Hispanic based on my ancestry test which said (originally) 6% Spanish.

    In a similar way, if she believed (apparently correctly) that she had SOME Native American ancestry, that IS enough to credibly claim to be non-white. Not enough to be recognized by a Native American Tribe, but perhaps enough for one of those boxes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spanish heritage, or being Hispanic, is not a race. It refers to someone who was born and grew up in a geographic area previously or currently dominated by Spain, where people speak Spanish and participate in some version of Spanish culture. It refers to people growing up in one of the former colonies of Spain (including parts of the US such as Florida and the Southwestern states). You can be blond and blue-eyed and be Hispanic (like the Mennonites or Mormons who have lived in Mexico or Germans who settled in Argentina), or of African descent and thus black, or red-headed and blue-eyed like boxer Canelo Alvarez (born of Mexican parents in Guadalajara MX).

      So it isn't a DNA test that makes someone Hispanic, but their heritage and culture, what language(s) they speak from birth. It is a cultural designation that isn't measured by those DNA tests. If you want to talk race, you need to look at Spanish vs indigenous vs African DNA in someone born in a Hispanic region of the world.

      Dr. T, it sounds like you are talking about the 1 drop rule, which says that if someone has even a very small amount of non-white racial mixing, that person is classified as non-white. This was done for purposes of apartheid in the US. Different rules apply in places such as South Africa. We don't have any such rule any longer, but the tendency of people to judge based on lightness or darkness of skin persists and is part of what is meant by racism. But skin color and other traits don't map cleanly onto racial classifications or national boundaries or cultural classifications (e.g., Hispanic). That is part of Warren's problem, in my opinion.

      It is hard to know what Warren's intentions were, but the original claim occurred long before she was an academic or ran for any office. She may just have been trying to make herself feel better by affiliating with a special group in her local community. That's why it seems pretty harmless to me. I sometimes tell people I can speak French when I can just bumble along in it, at an intermediate-minus level. If someone accused me of claiming fluency, I'd be embarrassed. Why do we say such things? To enhance ego, to share an interest with others, wishful thinking? Perhaps lots of reasons, not horrible. That's why I don't understand Somerby's harshness toward Warren.

      Biden was telling people last week that he was arrested in South Africa, something his staff walked back. Is that any better or worse than what Warren did? Who among us is 100% accurate about all the details of our past lives or current circumstances?

      Delete
  9. 1:39 PM "Is Somerby really unable to see ... the good things Warren has accomplished?"

    We don't know - I would guess he has a reasonably good grasp of Warren's utility as a US Senator. But, er, this point is irrelevant to Somerby's particular point on this occasion anyway, right?

    2:27 PM "Are you talking about Hunter Biden?"

    Obviously he's not. And obviously this point is irrelevant to Somerby's particular point on this occasion, right?

    3:48 PM "It isn't true [billionaire status responsible for presence on stage] about Bloomberg either."

    False. Yes, he's a politician, but that's not why he was able to qualify for the stage. Technically it was his ability to spend large sums, not his billionaire status, but essentially same thing.

    3:57 PM "If it were raised during a general election, it is fair to assume that neither the right nor the left would see the relevance of this stale old complaint."

    False and totally bizarre. The right's candidate in 2020 would be tweeting about this every ten seconds.

    4:07 PM. "I thought I was Irish."

    Hmmm. Let's say you had chosen to characterize yourself as a Native American in the manner Warren did. I just want to see you run the "this is just like the people who think they're Irish" defense past a gathering of Tribal members. (Without setting a new world record for blushing and cringing).

    4:16PM "For some unexplained reason, Somerby has never considered the plans and policies expressed by Warren during the campaign."

    Er, I seriously doubt this is true, there's no evidence for it, and once again irrelevant to Somerby's particular point on this occasion anyway.

    4:19 PM "Is this list really how Somerby picks who to vote for? Doesn't he care about issues? Doesn't he care about qualifications, experience and competence?"

    Answers: Almost certainly not. Almost certain does care, obviously. Almost certain does care, obviously. Once again, a point completely irrelevant to Somerby's particular point on this occasion.

    I don't know if I agree with Somerby's point about Warren, completely - I think it's something to think about, and I wonder whether it might have been a problem for her, both in the primaries and the general. Maybe someone will survey voters on this point and we'll have some actual data.

    In the meantime, why all these totally moronic comments? Somerby has really hit a nerve. I can imagine Warren herself reading this post and these comments and wishing her "defenders" could be a little less juvenile and touchy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t know what they’re touchy about. Within the course of all the debates, Warren was questioned about the controversy of her claim to be Native American only once, and the context of that one question was Trump calling her Pocahontas.

      Delete
    2. You don’t know because you miss the point. Whatever nonsense the right and the msm wanted to use against Bill or Hillary, or Kerry, or Obama, or whomever, Somerby used to analyze and criticize the media for spreading such nonsense. Now, he does the right and the msm’s job by helping to spread the nonsense.

      Delete
    3. Somerby said that Warren has problems that weren’t just those caused by her fellow Democrats being too sexist and dumb to vote for her as their party’s nominee. Issues that make her a very vulnerable candidate even if she had won the primary.

      You might not agree with that opinion, but it’s not “nonsense” that Somerby is spreading. It’s an arguable position.

      Delete
    4. Somerby has only stated one objection to Warren, that Pocahontas thing. And that is nonsense. That's why his repetition of that Republican trope looks like sexism.

      Delete
    5. On the contrary, it’s a simplistic trope to blame Warren’s failure on the worst instincts of her party constituents. As though she hadn’t been the front-runner for most of the primary cycle and only started to slip with her inability to articulately counter the candidates critiques of her policy positions.. They were smart enough not to bash her character. A tactic she didn’t hesitate to engage.

      I’m not sure how it is that Clinton could be successful among Democratic voters and the public in general, but Warren is the victim of inveterate societal sexism when she is not.

      I think this sort of finger-pointing orgy reflects the doubt Democrats harbor toward Sanders and Biden.

      It’s energy best spent elsewhere, even though it is a device that does have it uses in liberal power struggles.

      Delete
    6. You move from Democratic voters to societal sexism, as if the two were the same. Most Democrats try hard not to be sexist and they support the idea of eliminating it. Society as a whole does not. There are sexist men and women who are also Democrats, but not as many as among Republicans.

      Hillary Clinton discussed the sexism she encountered during her candidacy in a chapter in her book, "What Happened." She got a lot of votes despite sexism, not because there was no sexism.

      Hillary had many advantages that Warren did not, beginning with the name recognition of having been First Lady and at the top of the most admired woman poll every year (beating even Michelle Obama). Warren didn't have that same track record or name recognition. Biden and Bernie both had national recognition, while Warren did not. It is ridiculous for you to suggest that they started from the same point in their campaigns. Hillary was First Lady and Secretary of State for god's sake.

      There are a lot of Democrats who are unhappy with both Biden and Sanders. But they really really want to throw Trump out of office. So they are trying to unite the party behind the person they think has the best chance to do that. And that isn't an obscure up-and-comer or someone like Bernie, who doesn't support the Democratic party and has shown no willingness to unite Democrats. Today I saw an article about how Bernie's supporters are OK was reelecting Trump because they are hoping for a revolution. That is not how Democrats feel, but it illustrates the distance between most Democrats and Bernie supporters.

      Sexism prevented Democratic voters from seeing Warren as the best person to unite the party, not Biden, who is not only too old but has never appealed to Democratic voters in the past despite repeatedly running for the nomination. And when you ask why voters didn't trust Warren, sexism is a big part of the answer.

      Delete
    7. I've been under the impression that Democrats were a part of society and were as subject to human failings as everyone else. Oh, dear.

      Interesting that we go from inappropriate flirting in the workplace as being the equivalent of assault, but sexism among Democrats (i.e.- the act of not voting as you'd would) is sexism-lite. The soft sexism of low Elizabeth Warren expectations?

      Who argued that Clinton never faced sexism, or that Warren, Biden, and Sanders are all on the same professional footing?

      Thank you for making the point that such advantages matter (years and accomplishments in office, having been the second in command to the president, etc...) when it comes to the success of candidates, though you aren't honest enough to attribute that pragmatic assessment to anything other than sexism when it has to do with Warren.

      Don't let perspective get in the way of a good rant, huh?

      Delete
    8. American voters not being able to tell the difference between an actor and a role they play, gave us Trump.
      It's true. There are actually American voters who think Trump is a successful businessman, because he play-acted as one on a TV show.

      Delete
  10. As the person who wrote the long post criticizing the other commenters, at 5:33PM, let me emphasize that you can think Warren is totally wonderful and perfect and still think that Somerby has a point, at least about how her actions will be interpreted by voters.

    Going back to 3:57PM, fine, let's say Warren it's true "did everything she could and the issue has not been important during the primaries."

    That doesn't matter! Of course it hasn't been important in the primaries! But if Somerby's surmised "Trump pounce" would have been successful or efficacious and she was to lose the general election to Trump over this issue, "doing everything she could" would not have been enough!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Who is Somerby mad at? The liberal “tribe” (ie the voters) rejected Warren in favor of Somerby’s two preferred candidates.

    What’s the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Are you having troubles in getting your Ex Lover back, having marital problems, infertility, financial instability.
    Why are you bordering yourself about your lover/husband/wife breaking up with you, its time you get all your problems solved with the help of my PERMANENT SPELL CAST powers.
    Am specialized in all types of spell casting such as
    Love Spell ( to get your ex lover, husband or wife back )
    Lottery Spell
    Money Spell
    Pregnancy Spell
    Job/Contract Spell
    Health Spell
    Wealth Spell
    Good luck Spell
    Life Spell
    Spiritual Spell
    Beauty/Shape Spell
    Trick Spell
    Fantasy Spell
    Spell to win court cases
    Am always here to help you solve all your problems and grant you all your heart desires through my spell powers.
    My PERMANENT SPELL CAST is 100% guarantee sure. Do get to me to help solve your problems now on Email: padmanlovespell@yahoo.com. website: https://padmanspell.com/index-3.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. “Did Candidate Warren ever believe that?”

    “it looks like Warren was trying to achieve a hiring advantage!”

    Somerby could just cut to the chase: Warren is a liar and a fraud.

    (Despite the family stories of Native American heritage, despite her unquestioned intelligence, academic record and accomplishments and the testimony of dozens and dozens of hiring officials which rendered her ethnicity irrelevant. Ah, but that is all a “dodge.” It is Somerby’s clever attempt to divert attention away from the facts toward a mind reading of Warren and her intentions, one that prevents Warren from ever being able to defend herself in any conceivable way. “Guilty as charged” is her only possible answer, and we all know that no one should ever run for president *as a Democrat* if there is any hint of a flaw in their background.)

    What isn’t clear is whether he believes this himself, or is just helpfully reading the conservative mind and passing it along to the multitudes of liberals and Democrats who read his blog, whom he apparently views as too stupid to comprehend his argument. He *seems* to despise Warren. There is nothing in his writing that indicates otherwise. But he is too coy or cowardly to state that unequivocally.

    Does Somerby agree with the right wing, who, by their mocking of Warren, imply that Warren wasn’t truly qualified to take those jobs? It’s a familiar line: they said the same thing about Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Enjoyed the essay, despite its obvious display of anguish, which I share. I'm no prognosticator, but I think Trump would have eaten her for lunch in the general.

    Not to mention her back-stabbing of Sanders. But I think she's brilliant and a phenomenal achiever (see CFPB).

    I don’t care about age, I’m a hateful BernieBro. But we can only hope that she makes a pact with Sanders. It would be fucking great!

    Leroy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leroy,
      At least Warren didn't "rig" the primaries by having way more people vote for her than Sanders, like Hillary did.

      Delete
  15. Forgot to add the ™ to BernieBro (™ ). I spell differently than most people.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In her defense, Elizabeth Warren was the only candidate who knew how to use every part of the buffalo.

    ReplyDelete
  17. By traditional, fairly sensible standards

    Here's where TDH seems hopelessly lost. These political times are neither traditional nor sensible, so traditional and sensible standards don't count.

    Too old? Too senile? Too rich?

    The oldest, most senile, richest Democrat doesn’t come close to Trump in these categories.

    Too young? Buttigieg is about the same age as grifter-in-law Kushner, whom Trump put in charge of screwing up the Israel/Palestine situation. Does anyone believe that as young as Buttigieg is he would have defunded the CDC because he basically doesn’t believe in the germ theory of disease?

    TDH also seems to have missed the point about Warren. Even if Warren hadn’t checked the Native American box, Trump and the feral Trumpers around him would have found something else even if they had to make it up. Warren’s electability was in no way affected specifically by her erroneous ethnic affiliation. It’s the sexism, stupid.

    Trump’s contribution to our era is to mainstream woman hating, antisemitism, white supremacism, xenophobia, and other forms of bigotry. I admire Warren for her attention to policy. I admire Bernie for his dedication to challenging our political narrative. But Warren has two X chromosomes, and Bernie is a Jew, and a steady 43% or so of the electorate is just fine with hating both of them for who they are.

    You want to bet against the id of the American electorate?

    I don’t because I think it’s got no bottom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many reasons to despise Bernie. If you attribute dislike of him to hating Jews, you are being unfair to those who genuinely dislike the man.

      Here are some of the reasons, that have nothing to do with his religion:

      1. He accepted money from Russia and hasn't cared that Republicans and Russia are supporting him in 2020, to divide the Democratic party.

      2. He has pretended to be against wealth but has behaved like a millionaire.

      3. His ethics are suspect. His campaign in 2016 had more FEC violations than anyone else and he showed no interest in following campaign finance rules.

      4. He similarly showed no interest in following caucus rules in various states. His campaign staff ignored rules for themselves, then yelled when the caucus organizers applied the rules to their disadvantage. Their tactics were to disrupt and interfere with procedures and to create chaos for others. Evidence is their booing during other candidates speeches.

      5. Bernie has done nothing to rein in the disruptions of his followers. They issue death threats, dox campaign officials and the union leaders who opposed Sanders, and committed other ugly dirty tricks and Bernie did not tell them to knock it off or apologize for their actions.

      6. All of the things he has done during this campaign were done against Hillary too. Attacks on online Hillary supporters were vicious and personal. After the nomination, Sanders did not support Clinton in the traditional manner.

      7. Sanders never did switch his affiliation to Democratic Party. Between elections, he worked to harm the DNC and disrupt Democrats. Then when the election came around, he used that affiliation again.

      8. On a policy level, he believes that economic change will eliminate racism and sexism, so he shows no empathy for or interest in civil rights issues affecting minority groups and women. He has no good answers to questions about civil rights, except vague support and some things he did as a much younger man (nothing since).

      9. He accepted money from the NRA, knowing what they are and why they exist. He has no interest in gun control.

      10. He has very little knowledge or experience in foreign affairs. He did not serve on any foreign affairs committees and has held no positions dealing with such issues. There is no evidence he has done anything to remedy that gap.

      11. He has no accomplishments in the Senate beyond some veterans bills and a community health center in his state. He consistently votes against good bills because of idealistic objections and is often a dissenter among Democrats, despite caucusing with them. He seems proud of that intransigence.

      12. He has no specifics to his proposals, other than expecting that he will be able to enact them through force of personality. The Senate doesn't work that way and neither would congress, were he to be elected. He has shown no skill at political deal making that suggests he would be effective.

      13. He doesn't seem to understand diplomacy.

      14. He seems to be OK with cultivating a cult of personality without providing the substance that would make him a good president. Another narcissistic win-at-all-costs candidate without plans or skills would be a disaster for our country. It isn't any better when such a person comes from the left instead of the right.

      15. He seems comfortable in the role of spoiler and did the bare minimum to beat Trump when Hillary ran, and is now OK with Trump/Republican/Russian support as long as it defeats other Democrats.

      There is a lot to dislike about Bernie based on his own actions and behavior.

      Delete
    2. deadrat - FactCheck says Trump did not defund the CDC.
      It’s true that the president’s budget proposals have consistently called for reduced funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but Congress hasn’t enacted those cuts. Some Democrats have correctly said Trump “tried” to implement such cuts, while others wrongly claimed he “slashed funding of the CDC” or “cut the funding,” in the words of Democratic presidential candidates Mike Bloomberg and Joe Biden, respectively.
      https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/democrats-misleading-coronavirus-claims/

      Also, the word "defund" does not apply to a reduction in funding. It means "to prevent from continuing to receive funds" or "to stop providing the money to pay for something."

      Delete
    3. There are many reasons to despise Bernie.

      Well, you certainly have many reasons to despise him, although I think your list tells us more about you than about Bernie. But that’s as may be. I don’t think antisemitism is a factor in the primary campaign. I’m saying that it will be in the general election should Sanders be the nominee.

      You should have been able to tell that from my quoting Trump’s 43% approval.

      Delete
  18. From Political Wire:

    "Sen. Bernie Sanders told NBC News that if Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar didn’t drop out, he would have won Maine, Minnesota and Massachusetts on Super Tuesday.

    Said Sanders: “The establishment put a great deal of pressure on Pete Buttigieg, on Amy Klobuchar who ran really aggressive campaigns. Well, I know both of them. They work really, really hard. But suddenly right before Super Tuesday they announced their withdrawal.”

    He added: “If they had not withdrawn from the race before Super Tuesday, which is kind of a surprise to a lot of people, I suspect we would have won in Minnesota, we would have won in Maine, we would have won in Massachusetts. The turnout may have been a little bit different.”"
    -----------------

    Does Sanders think these candidates don't have minds of their own? They obviously did not support Sanders or they would have said so after dropping out. The strategic importance of dropping out in order to find a candidate capable of stopping Trump was enough to explain their actions, without Sanders implying some pressure tactics on the part of a nebulous "Establishment" which is actually all of those who are not Sanders voters.

    Next we will hear anti-Sanders voters referred to as anti-Semites, as his bros are already talking about online. It isn't because of Bernie or his policies but because of a religious heritage he doesn't even practice.

    Sanders treated Warren badly, breaking a non-aggression pact, implying that she was a liar about his statement that a woman cannot win the presidency, and encouraging (by tacit approval) the ugly bro-tactics used to pressure Warren supporters into switching to Bernie.

    Bernie doesn't play well with others. His approach to resistance to his views is to label those others "The Establishment" as if that meant anything except "those who aren't supporting me".

    With these types of statements, he is managing to sound bitter even before his eventual loss to Biden. In contrast, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren all know how to take one for the team. Bernie doesn't play on any team. That's why he is unable to instill in new voters that he will have their backs. It is obvious he won't.

    ReplyDelete
  19. “One of the two seems to be losing cognitive power.”

    This article addresses this notion:
    “The Disinformation Campaign Being Launched Against Biden”

    https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/03/06/the-disinformation-campaign-being-launched-against-biden/

    According to the author, the notion that Biden is in cognitive decline is part of a disinformation campaign that is circulating amongst Sanders supporters, and is being pushed by Jill Stein, Glenn Greenwald, and, of course, Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  20. “News flash! "White men" who fit the Klobuchar profile never get nominated either! “

    Ahem...Mondale? Dukakis? Kerry? Gore, possibly?

    It’s difficult to ascribe “charisma” to these candidates.

    Nonetheless, I voted for all of them, because “charisma”, aside from being a rare commodity, is overrated as a personality trait.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Psychology studies show that charisma correlates with wanting to have a beer with someone, liking them, but not with ratings of competence professionalism. It is the George Bush vs Al Gore distinction.

      People will vote for charisma if they don't care about expertise, experience, wisdom, training, all the things that make someone competent. Somerby exists to undermine competence by maligning the whole idea of experts, professors, people who know more than others, because knocking competence is comforting to The Other, and they just don't believe in it. All the name-calling of professors wasn't just an attack on female historians, but on historians in general.

      Just like Democrats are reality-based, they are also supporters of science and experience (Vindmann not Trump). So when Somerby comes down on the side of charisma, he is expressing conservative values again. And when he challenges the most wonkish candidate (Warren) and tries to make her appear foolish by calling her every name except Pocahontas, he is not just attacking her, but also the whole idea of electing a competent, qualifed president.

      Delete
  21. If Somerby had more influence in the media world, one would be tempted to theorize that his (and others’) interminable performative anguish about Warren’s “Indian” heritage caused Democratic voters to get scared about the prospect of this attack being launched against her by Trump and the GOP in the general election and caused them to vote against her in the primaries.

    It’s also possible to theorize that Democratic voters understand the depths of sexism and misogyny that would be unleashed against Warren (or any female candidate: see Clinton, Hillary), and decided to vote strategically for a male candidate. That notion deserves thought and discussion. You won’t find it at TDH.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Trump's go-to attack on Hillary was the "Crooked Hillary" thing, which obviously wasn't particularly sexist or misogynistic in the least. (If you don't get this, imagine Hillary had a son named Hunter and Biden had the e-mail server thing; it would have been "Quid Pro Quo Hillary" last time and "Crooked Joe" this time, instead of the other way around).

    "That notion deserves thought and discussion."

    BS. It *requires evidence*, first and foremost. It's obviously dubious - even strategic voting vis-a-vis electability has only so large of an impact. "Deserves thought and discussion" really means "something we should buy into, without really thinking about it very deeply, because it comports with our smug little worldview."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People seem to be confusing sexism with opposing a candidate. That isn't it. Sexism consists of not giving a female candidate the same chance as a male candidate. It consists of things like not giving her as much air time during a debate (never calling on her despite her hand being raised), not covering her policy proposals in the mainstream media, commenting on her looks and personality instead of her accomplishments or proposals, talking incessantly about her "electability" or "likeability" without doing the same for male candidates. Directing a certain kind of question to male candidates while directing a different kind of question to female candidates. Talking incessantly about whether her campaign is gaining traction, or ruminating about why her campaign isn't taking off (irrespective of actual polling), interpreting an occasional tough statement or stance as a feud, cat fight, vendetta, spat, etc when the same tone would be taken as natural toughness for a male candidate, talking over and interrupting her during an interview (as Matthews always did) more often than occurs for male candidates. None of this stuff has to do with being for or against a candidate based on issues. It is the kind of thing female candidates still encounter routinely and it presents a built-in obstacle that makes campaigning more difficult for them than for their peers.

      My favorite example is when Biden was talking about all the accomplishments he helped achieve and turned to Warren and said "What have you ever done?" as if she had accomplished nothing while a Senator. Her response about the Consumer Protection Agency made him appear ridiculous since he clearly expected her to have nothing to say. And that is sexism. Warren not only had plans but also managed to get important ones enacted into legislation, unlike Bernie. But how do voters find that out given the sexist bias in how female candidates are treated? How many voters knew that Amy Klobuchar is a veteran, for example? But she got dinged for talking about herself so much, which was her way of handling the bias she encountered, along with Warren.

      Delete
    2. "And that is sexism"

      Dear dembot, are you sure that asking another candidate "What have you ever done?" is sexism?

      I disagree. In fact it's racism. Because Pocahontas is an Injun.

      And also Creepy Joe was hypnotized by The Dark Lord Putin. Putin made him ask that question.

      Delete
    3. It *requires evidence*, first and foremost.

      Damn, but that's adorable. Simply adorable.

      Delete
    4. “ It’s also possible to theorize that Democratic voters understand the depths of sexism and misogyny that would be unleashed against Warren (or any female candidate: see Clinton, Hillary), and decided to vote strategically for a male candidate. That notion deserves thought and discussion. You won’t find it at TDH”

      How about this notion:

      Democrats weren’t solely being protective of Warren by sparing her an avalanche of woe from what they see as an inveterately sexist public, but were simultaneously acting to protect themselves from daily campaign reminders of the throughly self-serving nature of Warren’s action.

      In co-opting an ethnicity, Warren’s move was particularly cynical. It’s cynical for an intellectually gifted Caucasian woman to appropriate a minority status in order to further her own ends. It’s cringingly cynical toward both the people who do not possess her privileges and cynical toward the system of counterbalance that she and her peers have championed.

      Delete
    5. "It’s cynical for an intellectually gifted Caucasian woman to appropriate a minority status in order to further her own ends."

      This. This This.
      Just be careful. If you aren't, you might think this s something that Warren did, and not just something people who know nothing about the incident, accused Warren of doing.

      Delete
    6. This. This. This.

      Yes, but

      1. Even if you grant the basest of motives to Warren, on the cynicism and exploitation scale implemented by Republicans, her actions are barely perceptible.

      2. Even if you adhere to the theory that Warren did nothing wrong, it wouldn’t matter. Feral trumpers would come up with something else, even if they have to invent it.

      In light of these two points, I find it difficult to believe that voters in Democratic primaries gave much consideration to the merits of the accusation.

      Delete
    7. Deadrat:

      No. 1 would be germane if Warren was already the Democratic nominee and running against Trump rather running against her fellow primary opponents.

      #2 is a given, of course, but it belies the notion that some wrong actions are more significant than others and harder to swallow when they hold a sense of betrayal against bedrock principles for personal advancement. .Principles such as the championing of fairness, equality, and the advancement of minorities in progressivism.




      Delete
    8. Cecelia,

      I can’t agree with you on the first point. Our political landscape has been bulldozed and remade across the board by the Grifter-in-Chief and his merry band of kleptocrats.

      The second point relies on my estimate of the gap between “championing of fairness, equality, and the advancement of minorities in progressivism” as a public official and giving into temptation to gain some undeserved cred during one’s previous private life. The pettiness of her transgression just won’t sustain the weight of the condemnation.

      (Of course, that last applies to Democratic primaries only. Feral trumpers wouldn’t consider hypocrisy as the basis for the Pocohantas jibe. Their political lives thrive on hypocrisy. And they certainly wouldn’t care about “minorities in progressivism.” It’s just a chance to label the opponent as part of “the other.”)

      Standard disclaimer: all this is just my own opinion, unsullied by any polling or investigation. But I haven’t seen any fact-based analysis in the news either. Plenty of visceral distaste for Warren; plenty of guesses no more informed than my own.

      Delete
  23. deadrat,

    I remarked on Warren and the Native American thing in response to this remark.

    “ It’s also possible to theorize that Democratic voters understand the depths of sexism and misogyny that would be unleashed against Warren (or any female candidate: see Clinton, Hillary), and decided to vote strategically for a male candidate. That notion deserves thought and discussion. You won’t find it at TDH”
    AnonymousMarch 8, 2020 at 11:56 AM

    This Anonymouse said that TDH should entertain the "notion" that Warren lost because Democratic voters were so protective of Warren as to prevent her from actually winning. That voters would do this to shield her from the ensuing abuse from the Trump campaign.

    With that theory in mind, I offered that it's as likely that Warren was rejected by Democrats because they thought there were better candidates. Not better in the sense of being male and unlikely to face sexism, or more likely to win, but better as people.

    In the primary, voters were not in the process of comparing Warren's virtues and failings to Trump's, but to those of her colleagues. Voters could decide to spare themselves from having to face the brouhaha about Warren's heritage by choosing candidates who haven't done what she did.

    I could well have overestimated how Dem voters might feel about Warren's actions, but I wasn't comparing her disfavorably to Trump, but rather to the Dem candidates who have bested her in the primary.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could well have overestimated how Dem voters might feel about Warren's actions,….

      That’s my bet. Wasn’t Warren leading in the polls last summer? Between now and then, you think Democratic primary voters decided her ancestry was a problem?

      In 2012, she beat the incumbent 54%-46% to take her seat in the Senate. Her opponent tried to make an issue of her claim to Native American ancestry.

      Six years later, she wiped the floor with the next Republican clown to challenge her over the issue. That election went her way 60%-36%.

      In both of those elections, Democrats were so unmoved by the accusations that she didn’t have any primary opponents. But she came third in the Massachusetts Presidential primary this cycle. I think it’s a stretch to think Massachusetts Democrats suddenly decided Trump was right about the Pocahontas thing.

      But I’ll admit it’s just a hunch.

      Delete
    2. "In both of those elections, Democrats were so unmoved by the accusations that she didn’t have any primary opponents."

      I think those scenarios are different from Dem voters having to sit through persistent attacks and jokes about her actions via a presidential race.

      In 2012, Warren had yet to take the DNA test that resulted in more controversy and less confidence in her assertion, and Warren besting Republicans in MA, wasn't very unlikely.

      With her early ascendance in the presidential primary, Dems got a taste of the sort of pummeling that was to come, mostly via the national attention on Trump tweets and comments to the media.

      I'm not arguing that anything said by Republicans, least of Trump, would change the minds of Dems. I think her Dem challengers shied away from that line of attack because it's seen as siding with enemy.

      A national presidential race would be different, there would be focus on the controversy. Dems would feel uneasy at this greater scrutiny that would cause the country to look more closely at what Warren did, and put more pressure on them to do the same.

      It's just a "notion" as "Anonymous March 8, 2020 at 11:56 AM" termed such conjectures. I suppose that's also a hunch.



      Delete
    3. Relax, Cecelia.
      When Trump voters look further into Warren's actions, and realize she's on the side of the citizens, not bankers, they'll hate her even more, because she doesn't kiss the ass of the Establishment the way Donnie the Great does.

      Delete
    4. Bankers prefer Warren over Bernie Sanders.

      How much did your party hate Warren... and... next up.... even more so...Sanders, rather than Biden?

      Just enough.

      With these facts on the ground, why would you bother worrying about what a Republican thinks, Anonymouse 11:45pm?

      Don’t you have enough on your plate?

      Delete
    5. "why would you bother worrying about what a Republican thinks"

      Are you being obtuse? They've been running my native country into the ground since Reagan.

      Delete
    6. And you had the DNC to content with as revealed by Wikileaks.

      My condolences.

      Delete
  24. I never believed that i will be happy again after much frustration. I have been rejected by my husband after Six(6) years of marriage just because he met another woman and he left me and the kids to suffer. One day when i was reading through the web i stumbled at a post on how chief dr lucky the great spell caster has helped people to restore broken marriages and relationships and curing of diseases. I emailed him immediately to help my situation via: chiefdrlucky@gmail.com He told me not to worry that my husband will return to me begging and shedding tears of forgiveness. I am so happy that my husband actually returned to me in 48 hours after i obeyed the words and instructions of chief dr lucky. contact him today in any of your problems for a lasting solution via: chiefdrlucky@gmail.com or call/whats app +2348132777335 Website: http://chiefdrluckysolutionhome.website2.me/  

    ReplyDelete

  25. Lottery spells that works immediately to win large sums of money at any lotto jackpot. Get the lottery winning numbers with the help of Dr.nana.
    Is a great thing to announce to the general public for I have been saved and redeemed by winning a power ball lottery with a spell and a winning number from nanakwakuspiritualist@gmail.com I heard he has helped lot of people until he helped me this month to win my first $500,000 from power ball. You too can try for your self today is just a spell and a winning number. His Whats App number +233 57 679 3653,. This just a beginning I will win  more,
    Good luck. visit website https://lotteryspellsthatworkfast.blogspot.com/  

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hello, my name is RITA CARMEN and I have been trying to get pregnant for over 12 years. i have been looking for ways online for so long, I first did Depo Provera Shot which i consecutively took every three months in order to get pregnant or fertile, but there was no way from it. I did Depo shot for 3 years constantly until my Doctors in Australia told me to try IVF because I had Endometriosis stage 4 and I resulted to try IVF (In Vitro Fertilization). For months after my IVF no progressed and my situation became worse that my husband had already had plans or getting married to another woman because I was barren. I read a testimony about Prophet Abulele how he had helped so many women with pregnancy problems and also how he usually casts return spells to bring back partner and make one fertile. Of all options tried, I gave Prophet Abulele a try. I am now a mother of a baby boy. For over 13 years of my marriage I received my help from this spell caster. I want to impact on someone's life and make the person get help from a good spell caster. Prophet Abulele's email is:- prophetabulelehealingtemple@gmail.com and his WhatsApp is +2349022406159 once you contact him, he will help you fast.

    ReplyDelete
  27. i want to tell the world about the great and mighty spell caster called Dr .osofo my husband was cheating on me and no longer committed to me and our kids when i asked him what the problem was he told me he has fell out of love for me and wanted a divorce i was so heart broken i cried all day and night but he left home i was looking for something online when i saw an article how the great and powerful Dr osofo have helped so many in similar situation like mine he email address was there so i sent him an email telling him about my problem he told me he shall return back to me within 48hrs i did everything he asked me to do the nest day to my greatest surprise my husband came back home and was crying and begging for me to forgive and accept him back he can also help you contact him on Email ( osofo.48hoursolutioncenter@gmail.com ) whasAPP him +2349065749952

    ReplyDelete