If I may indulge my cynical side, he’s also admitting he’s just kind of a shitty politician. Even if Sanders thinks something like this, saying it out loud to a potential rival is tactically stupid.
That’s an inherent problem with progressive candidates this cycle. By the very nature of their position, they have to/want to argue for a transformative view of what their election means. Re-vamping the entire healthcare system, redistributing the wealth, breaking down the corporate oligarchies, etc.
But the only big change voters want right now, is getting rid of Trump.
This, IMO, has been a major miss by pretty much the entire field in this cycle. We have spent far too much time debating healthcare for example, and very little time debating immigration, trade policy, foreign interference in our elections, how we realign ourselves with our allies on the global stage and how we treat dictators. All of these topics I mention are the prime ground we want to take to attack Trump; single payer vs. public option isn’t.
It does not mean he hates women. But he sure could show more optimism and support when in the trenches.
Warren can’t be held accountable for what she said in her meeting with Sanders. There were grandchildren romping about in the room, and she was keeping her eye on a pie in the oven. You know, distractions. It’s always something. A woman’s work is never done.
If they were looking to plant something they would need to be a lot better at covering their tracks. Hacking into something is a lot easier than hacking into something and putting things in there without leaving any proof.
As the article states, they mix some truth in with a lot of bullshit and spread it far and wide. I will add: And voters here will believe it here because they want to.
It is when you’re running to be the first female POTUS and you talk a lot about the year of the woman and yet you made an alliance with a misogynist. These are the types of examples of questionable judgments that one sees in Warren’s past that leave voters scratching their heads.
Thanks.
That’s an inherent problem with progressive candidates this cycle. By the very nature of their position, they have to/want to argue for a transformative view of what their election means.
It doesn’t help that their assuredly Very Online staffers simply don’t comprehend what is popular with the American electorate, or even the Democratic primary electorate (e.g., a Medicare-for-all plan that eliminates private insurance plans).
Kamala Harris is probably out of the race because the vast majority of her ex-staffers are highly active on Twitter.
Russian hackers, and Putin himself, are rather inept. Sure, Putin kills or jails his enemies, and he tightens his grip on power.
But it’s a game that leads to no good conclusion for anyone. If Putin was forward-looking -if he was smart- he would have renounced his KGB leanings and built another Eastern empire with Russia as the centerpiece. And without invading and annexing parts of his neighbors.
It doesn’t help that their assuredly Very Online staffers simply don’t comprehend what is popular with the American electorate,
Getting into the head of 63,000,000 of these people would be a depressing task.
Yeah, you’re right about the clumsiness. However, if there’s a “leak” of planted stuff from Burisma, do you think anyone is ever going to be able to adequately push back and prove that it’s planted stuff?? It may be clumsy, but it could also be damned effective.
Like I said, its pretty standard stuff during a crowded/semi-crowded primary.
But its at definite odds with the persona that Warren is trying to build. And its a bit of a naive alliance to forge for Warren…she knew Sanders was going to be her top competitior for the progressive votes, so there was no way such an alliance could hold for the long term.
Plus, you are always vulnerable if you are the candidate trying to stay pure and above the fray, and letting the other alliance partner do all the dirty work of taking down your opponents. They are already engaged in the dirty work, so know how to do it, and aren’t too concerned about it coming back on them. The pure candidate, however, IS concerned about it coming back on them.
So, what?
All of these topics I mention are the prime ground we want to take to attack Trump; single payer vs. public option isn’t.
Everyone seems to be desperate to play the politics and media game they are comfortable with as opposed to rising to this moment. There are some standouts in both arenas but unfortunately none of them are Democratic candidates for President right now.
Kamala Harris is probably out of the race because the vast majority of her ex-staffers are highly active on Twitter.
If Harris thought she was a progressive candidate (and there is definitely evidence to support that at least during major stretches, she did), then that has more to do with her being out of the race.
You gotta know which lane you are in, very, very early on.
This is why the story came out. But there is an item that was very important. All three members of Congress (including Schiff) said that they were not briefed by OUR Intel services.
They said they heard it for the first time last night.
It’s too easy to elaborate on the word “Barr”…so I’ll leave it to others to either do so, or provide another reason.
They’ve made a weakness out of our free flow of information. It’s a short-term strategy, though.
Yup, we keep getting so flooded with crap like this that many of the important details get lost, floating away in the tsunami of BS.
And where is Mark fucking Zuckerberg? Why the HELL can’t these guys show some spine (hmm, recurring theme, obviously) and announce that they will devote whatever it takes to be vigilant? The eternal question: How much goddamn money do you NEED? Sorry for all the swearing.