Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), capitalizing on one of her winningest moments from the Nevada debate, opened her CNN town hall Thursday by reading a contract she wrote to release former Bloomberg employees from Michael Bloomberg’s non-disclosure agreements.
You know, the past couple of days settled it for me. I’ll support whichever Democratic nominee emerges (in whatever fashion that takes), but I’ll be voting for Warren in the primary.
now she’s just being a jerk. why is she reminding me of dana carvey’s “church lady”.
A bridge too far. Warren made her point, move on. No a good look. IMHO
Please, go after some others like Bernie.
Is she trying to make a point? Or is she getting at something real?
Trump said he’d release his taxes. Of course he hasn’t.
Bloomberg is saying, “There’s nothing to hide.” She’s giving him the simple tool he would need in order to be able to prove that.
This is substance, not mere point-scoring.
lol what the fuck is wrong with you
your opinion isn’t humble it just sucks
Releasing the women from their non-disclosure agreements will cost him far less than all the ads he’s purchased.
I think he should just do it. Chances are many of the women will choose not to attract public attention. For those who do – well getting the info out could ultimately clear the air more than defending it as “they didn’t like a joke I told.”
That’s exactly what I’m doing. I’m in California and I’ve been holding on to my early ballot while trying to make up my mind who to vote for. I’ll probably send it in today with a vote for Warren.
No, this NDA issue is relevant far beyond a specific attack on Bloomberg. Mike’s weaknesses are Trump’s weaknesses (billionaire whose boorish and sometimes illegal behavior towards female subordinates is hidden from the public through the weasel use of Non-Disclosure Agreements).
Let her ride with this.
Last time she did that, did you see what happened to her poll numbers?
A little off topic, but this relates to more of the post-debate spin: I’m reading stories that say that she is the Dems best debater, based on the last debate. I think she’s probably the smartest person running, but it seems to me that beating up on Bloomberg isn’t necessarily proof that she could run the tables on Trump in the same way. For one thing, Bloomberg was smart enough, or intimidated enough to take a lot of the criticism, even though he did make a few feeble attempts at self defense. There is no way that Trump would ever shut up, even though the opponent eviscerates him. If there is a series of debates between the two candidates (a big if), he will not adhere to rules, he’ll talk over whoever is speaking, he won’t stop when his time is up, and if it is Warren on the stage with him, he will try to physically intimidate her (although I doubt she would put up with it). It will be like trying to debate spoiled, four year old triplets who are coked up on Mountain Dew and candy. It won’t make him look good, which is probably why, if he lasts into debate season, there will be a “national emergency” directly before each debate that is scheduled, so he won’t be able to attend.
Warren needs to proceed with caution. At the next debate, she needs to split her attention between whoever is the front runner (even though she seems loath to take on Bernie) and Trump. She could do her Bloomberg number on Bernie, attacking him for his lack of concern with his supporters. When he claims that he shouldn’t be held responsible for his supporters, she can point out that paid campaign staff are just as badly behaved. She can ask him how he believes that a candidate who can’t ask his supporters to be civil can be expected to unite the party, much less the country. She could take him apart in ways that had nothing to do with his policies.
A bridge too far?
Not even close. Warren is right. If we are going to beat Donald Trump we’ll need women. As many as possible. And not nominate someone they have to hold their noses and vote for after being dragged to the polls.
It’s a point that is worth repeating.
She will. How are you paying for M4A? She has a plan, he doesn’t.
Warren is broke. Going after Bloomberg helps her raise money.
Against Trump-- Get him angry enough to have a heart attack on stage.
If the NDA’s of Trump’s accusers are relevant and worthy of wide publicity, why shouldn’t Bloomberg’s be as well?
I think that Warren finally figured out that the way to get the nomination and beat Trump is to go out on the attack and be seen as a fighter. Her previous approach, which struck me as excessively plaintive and trying to appeal to the public’s better angels, was a loser. That sort of approach rarely if ever succeeds. The approaches that usually work are attack dog (e.g. Nixon, Bush II), commanding leader (Ike), and sunny optimist (FDR, Obama). Per her personality and the current political situation, I think that attack dog is her best approach (but with a bit of the other 2 approaches thrown in given the hostility that women who are seen as too aggressive are shown). It’s worked for Bernie, and he’s the one to go after. And it will absolutely be the right approach with Trump.
Nor should she.