(It feels a little weird to be in agreement with so many around here again.)

She was always the candidate that I wanted but who I knew couldn't win. Now she's on an upswing, though.

To be clear, for me it ISN'T about her policy prescriptions (some of which are really good, some of which are clearly just meant to be candy for 'progressives'). People think they're being serious about politics when they judge candidates on policy positions, but it's really a very skin-deep analysis, especially nowadays. As I've noted around here many times: no permanent or large-scale policy changes will happen for the left until the nation outgrows this stage of media-driven hyperpartisanship, and I don't see that happening in my lifetime. So most policy proposals that candidates make are fundamentally dishonest. The presidency is a temp job nowadays.

What I like about Warren, though (and this is evidenced by her policy-heavy campaigning), is that she takes a fundamentally intellectual, informed, technocratic approach to her work. This is something I liked about the Obama years, something I saw in Hillary Clinton; and Sanders's lack of this is the main reason I've always been so vehemently opposed to him. Warren isn't left-wing because of some "movement." She's left-wing because she spends time studying how the world works.

Even though I don't see Warren (or anybody) making the kind of fundamental changes their policy prescriptions imply, there's still important day-to-day work that a president does, executive actions, bureau staffing and directives, that sort of thing, and also just being an icon for what America represents to itself and to the world. I like the idea that we'd have a smart, intellectual person doing this job.

I still think there's a little-recognized anti-intellectual fervor among the public these days, partially among the Democratic primary electorate, but obviously even more so among the general electorate, so that still makes me worry that she'd be at a disadvantage in the general election.

She's also reportedly having significant difficulties with fundraising. This is already changing, I'm sure, as she's getting more attention in the primary. However, this problem would get a lot more serious in the general election. She's pledged not to accept any high-dollar donations, but we still don't have evidence that you can fund a general election campaign that way. I read somewhere that her finance chair supposedly resigned over this promise not to take large donations.

I still think Kamala is probably a stronger general-election candidate if she can make it there. Or Biden, if he keeps his idiot mouth shut. I'd be happy with pretty much any of these candidates (apart from vanity candidates like Williamson, Yang, Gabbard, Sanders, Swalwell, Gravel, ...).