|
i had to come back to it because i wasnt really in a state of mind to read it.
>Very different situation, but suddenly I'm thinking about Ted
>Kennedy, who just didn't get the right cards to bring a
>presidential run together but still found ways to be one of
>the most important politicians in the country. I hope her
>future is every bit as big as his was.
>
>Yeah there were unforced errors. I think much of the
>reputation she developed for "stunts" was undeserved, but that
>seemed like a part of the problem at the end.
i was late to warren in many ways. i heard her name but i didnt know much about her besides the whole native american thing. i didnt really know what to think about her when she announced she was running. as i said, she "irked" me. i didnt know why. as i learned more about her and read her plans, watched interviews of her i quickly realized she was exactly the type of person i wanted to run the country. i tend to do a lot of research and stay lukewarm until i am convinced on an option. then im pretty stubborn on it because i feel i have considered everything that i need to.
i feel like i showed that a lot with her. i would constantly speak up for her and try to make a case for her any chance i got. i wasnt blind to her missteps and tried to be upfront about anything that i thought wasnt a "good look". still, my support for her persisted.
knowing that she has been working on ways to make the change that she sees we need makes me feel better that she isnt getting the nomination because i know she will continue doing that work. she mentioned a bill she pushed through during trumps admin about over the counter hearing aids in a town hall. how she went to republicans to get their support on it and got it signed by trump. this wont affect everyone but she found a real problem and a way to help in a real way. thats what we need.
>
>Anti-intellectualism was a problem for her, but that's to be
>expected. Sexism creeps into all facets of how we judge female
>candidates. Most female national candidates have spent decades
>preparing an "I'm not like your preconceptions of female
>politicians" narrative (working as a prosecutor, a secretary
>of state, whatever). The way that Warren jumped into politics
>unexpectedly late in life, and entirely on the power of her
>own academic work, precluded some of the carefully planned
>image cultivation that we see from other female candidates. At
>her best, it helped her seem open, genuine in ways that we
>don't normally get to see from female national candidates and
>it's part of what powered her rise. But then there's the
>downside that every little thing got judged and blown out of
>proportion. Female national candidates tend to be very guarded
>for a reason.
as i said, i didnt know much about warren before last year. to be honest, until a few weeks back i assumed she had been in government for 30 plus years. that was one thing that wasnt adding up in my head. how is she so sharp and to the point but hasnt done more in 30 years??? then i realized shes only been involved for 10 years. that put her resume in a whole different light. she isnt someone that is polished in politics and just trying to satisfy their ego. she just wants to help people and that led her to this path.
i try not to discuss sexism because i feel things arent that black and white but theres no way around it. it does not make sense that she didnt have more support. i recognize that there is probably sexism in me and that i could do better. i tried to do a deep dive into most of the candidates last spring. hearing the paths that gillibrand, harris and warren went through is eye opening. women definitely have a lot more to overcome than i realized. im not sure how we move forward on this as a nation but i do think warren has been a big boost.
>
>I do really resent the fact that she fell from her frontrunner
>status because of Bernie Sanders's agenda. She was pushing
>M4A, green new deal, things that I didn't particularly like,
>but I respected the fact that she was honestly building
>bridges to Sanders supporters and trying to get us past this
>intraparty warfare and build something new and inclusive. But
>the fact that it was then treated like it was on her (solely)
>to explain how she'd pay for these things (when Bernie would
>get away with just bullshitting his way through the same
>questions, on the rare occasions that he even got them), and
>that THAT was what caused her decline at a time when she
>really was starting to look like not just the frontrunner but
>a way for the party to find its future --- that bothered me
>and I imagine it still bothers her. And then she got thanked
>for it by being called a snake.
this is where if she was more experienced in politics she would have recognized the game and had been more prepared for the optics. she was presented with a challenge (unfair as it was) and she said, you know what i can do it. ill show you how we do this without raising taxes on the middle class. that impressed me a lot but it obviously just served as more fuel against her. oh people want a public option and a choice??? she comes out with a real option that actual leads to medicare for all and again she suffers for it. that honestly perplexed me. the more i looked at her option the more i saw it was actually the best plan, even though it was designed as a transition it was something that could actually be implemented and have big benefits on the people that need it the most. im holding on to some hope that it gets implemented.
>
>All that said, counting by votes as opposed to delegates
>(which is not what officially matters, for a reason, but does
>say something about the mood of the party), she came in a very
>strong third place against two candidates with huge built-in
>advantages. That's a big deal, and it says a lot about how
>much she matters to the party.
this was bothering me too. how does she have 1.25m unique donors but so little delegates??? where are all the voters??? once i saw that she was actually pretty good when counting total votes it made me feel better. she deserves a lot of credit and praise for that.
>
>I'm guessing she won't endorse anybody. She has honest and
>unavoidable differences with Joe Biden. There's nothing she's
>cared about more than bankruptcy reform. And the senator from
>Delaware, the home state of all the credit card companies,
>would inevitably and justifiably be a bad guy to someone who
>cares about this as much as she does.
>
>At the same time, all the people expecting her to endorse
>Sanders are oversimplifying the dynamics, in my view.
>Progressivism comes in a lot of different flavors. Warren's
>progressivism has been guided by research. Sanders's
>progressivism has been guided by ideology. It's grated on me
>since 2016 just how glib and slapdash he is about the real
>justification for his positions. It's fucking dangerous if a
>powerful person puts their ideology ahead of real
>understanding and intellectual challenge, even if that
>ideology is just. In fact, especially if that ideology is
>just, because a just ideology, poorly understood and poorly
>implemented, is self defeating. I don't think she takes
>Sanders seriously, even when they agree.
>
>More simply, there just isn't a reason for her to endorse
>Sanders other than to burn down the party, which is not
>something she wants to do and not something that would serve
>the reform efforts she really cares about. I imagine she'd
>happily serve as Treasury secretary for either president, or
>probably a number of other cabinet positions. But for the time
>being it's probably more valuable (to the country at least)
>for her to hold that senate seat if there's an outside chance
>of us winning a brief Senate majority. A few years down the
>road when a Democratic governor would choose her replacement
>or a new election for her seat comes up, maybe then she'll
>find a new thing.
i dont know what she will do in regards to an endorsement and wont pretend to know what she should do. i hope that she endorses bernie but i wouldnt expect her to do it without him making some meaningful concessions to her.
>
>Or maybe she'll just be the most important Senator in the
>party for the foreseeable future. That ain't bad.
>
>She was my personal candidate from the start, even when I
>decided I wouldn't vote for her, it felt unfair. In a world
>with a more healthy political system, she'd be on the fast
>track to the presidency. But this isn't the end of Elizabeth
>Warren.
indeed.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
(23 votes)
(5 votes)
(2 votes)
(1 votes)
