HomeUncategorized1/15 News Roundup & Open Thread
newest oldest most voted
Notify of


T and R, LD!! I’m reading the debate live threads on here and NC. I never liked Liz Warren. Now, I know why. She’s not POTUS material. The acting job she pulled around Bernie (not shaking his hand) was very lame. She’s definitely a fraud and it comes across on video. I hate most billionaires, but I’m glad Steyer is bringing up climate change. 🙂 🙂


This progressive split is on Warren regardless of what actually was said at the meeting.


My own (inescapably subjective) read on the controversy is this: I don’t think it’s possible to know with certainty whether or not Sanders told Warren that a woman “couldn’t win” in 2020. And, based on current reporting, I also don’t think it is possible to know with certainty whether Warren herself, or a rogue Warren staffer, or someone else seeded the CNN story that kicked off this mishegas. But whatever the facts on those points, Warren did have the option of either declining to confirm the story, or else, confirming it in a manner that allowed both sides to save face (“Bernie raised the concern that Trump would weaponize misogyny against a female nominee,” or some such thing). She chose otherwise. If her account is true, I certainly don’t think she had an obligation to characterize Sanders’s remarks in more charitable terms. But it does seem to me like killing this story fast was in both her interest as a candidate, and progressives’ interests as a movement (her campaign itself was either of this view from the beginning, or else quickly came around to it). And directly contradicting Sanders’s account was guaranteed to give the story legs, while fudging the matter had no obvious downside (even if some embittered staffer came forward and said, “that’s not what Elizabeth Warren told me,” and the press somehow invested this hearsay with more authority than Warren’s own telling, “Elizabeth Warren selflessly lies to cover for Bernie” does not seem like a bad story for her campaign, in my opinion). The fact that Warren chose the first route, anyway, may reflect nothing more than her desire to tell the truth. But it could also be reasonably interpreted by those disinclined to trust her campaign as confirmation that this was a fight that Warren both picked and wanted.

But at the end of the day, none of this matters very much! You can believe that Bernie is a secret sexist (his decades of advocacy for the rights of women and LGBT individuals notwithstanding). Or you can believe that Warren is a secret corporate shill (who only took the side of working people in their conflicts with credit card companies, big banks, and the Obama administration as a savvy exercise in political brand-building). You can believe that the typical Bernie supporter’s favorite past-time is online harassment, or that the typical Warren supporter’s is updating their LinkedIn page. Or you can believe, in spite of everything, that Bernie, Warren, and their people are truly good at heart.

Regardless, your position on these matters will not change three brute facts: 1) There are not very many people in this country who are eager to spend copious amounts of time, money and attention on progressive politics. 2) There are not very many politicians in America who are as responsive to the demands and desires of such people as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. 3) As a consequence of the first two points, Bernie and Warren supporters cannot win much of anything without each other.


Kind of a shit article, yeah? Some fair-and-balanced, both sides are at fault, lets ignore how this happened, sing kumbayah stuff?

Warren and her campaign decided to take things to the gutter because they thought it would hurt Bernie, regardless of the consequences to her campaign or the possibility of aiding Biden. Her supporters need to decide what to do with that knowledge.

As a Sanders supporter, I’m happy this lie was met with a strong rebuttal. That should be the end of it, as far as I’m concerned.



4 winners and 3 losers from the January Democratic debate
Bernie Sanders had a good night. Wolf Blitzer did not.

Winner: Bernie Sanders
An Iowa win might very well propel Sanders to the nomination. He’s already very well positioned narrowly behind Biden in New Hampshire and leads in California.

And while there wasn’t one breakout winner in Tuesday’s debate, Sanders had a great night. He solidly owned discussions of health care and climate change, and he solidified his status, recently regained from Warren, as the leading voice of the party’s left.

There were several high points. He and Warren elegantly defused their conflict about comments Sanders supposedly made about female presidential candidates in 2018; he also hammered home his antiwar credentials against the formerly pro-Iraq War Biden.

Particularly impressive, though, was Sanders’s ability to continually return the discussion to climate change. It would have been a mistake to let Tom Steyer own the issue, especially if that’s part of the reason for Steyer’s surprisingly strong polling in early states, and Sanders did not cede the issue.

He even refused to let it go when asked about topics nominally unrelated to climate. Asked about the new US-Canada-Mexico free trade agreement, he explained, “Every major environmental organization has said no to this new trade agreement because it does not even have the phrase ‘climate change’ in it. And given the fact that climate change is right now the greatest threat facing this planet, I will not vote for a trade agreement that does not incorporate very, very strong principles to significantly lower fossil fuel emissions in the world.”

And he connected it to Iowa’s farming industry directly: “The drought here in Iowa is going to make it harder for farmers to produce the food that we need.”

Climate change is the second-most-important issue to Democratic voters, according to Pew, narrowly behind health care. And Sanders commanded the issue on Tuesday. It contributed to a strong overall performance that puts him in a good position as we head to the Iowa caucuses.


Thanks Liz


The moderators did not press Warren on what had transpired, or whether there could have been a misunderstanding. So we didn’t come away with any better sense of what was said in that meeting. What we do know is that both candidates have been hurt by this: many Sanders supporters now despise Warren for launching a damaging attack weeks before the Iowa caucus, and Warren’s supporters believe Sanders is a sexist. At the end of the debate, Sanders offered to shake Warren’s hand and Warren rebuffed him, suggesting that she does not intend to revive any “truce” between them.

That’s why Joe Biden had the best night of anyone on the state, even though he put in one of his worst performances. Biden seemed lethargic and said very little that was memorable. But he did what he needed to do, which was escape completely unscathed. Bizarrely, even though Biden is the frontrunner, neither Warren nor Sanders launched a major attack on him. It has been strange to see how lightly the candidates have treated Biden given his appalling record and electoral weaknesses. He was the clear beneficiary of the tension between the two progressives, and the fallout from Warren’s attack on Sanders might well lead to Biden winning Iowa.


I don’t agree based on reading both comment threads. I also wish the League of Women Voters ran these events. These MSM sideshows are not debates.


You don’t agree that Biden had the best night of everyone?


Biden’s Unexamined List of High-Powered Fundraisers

The fact that the media, for the most part, fell for this evasive maneuver has higher stakes than the Biden campaign simply avoiding a bad news cycle. This list tells you more than perhaps any other campaign document about what a Biden presidency would look like—and, let’s just say, it does not paint a flattering picture. These names seem to suggest that the bold actions proposed in the Day One Agenda would not be borne out in reality under a President Joe Biden, instead remaining trapped on the Prospect’s pages.

Consider how exactly presidents are powerful. Although campaign-trail rhetoric tends to focus on candidates’ legislative agendas, in reality, presidents have limited influence over legislation. But they still have the power to enact major reforms. As the Day One Agenda illustrates, presidents can make bold changes in all policy realms using the tools of the executive branch, including regulation, enforcement, federal contracting, and yes, even executive orders. But the efficacy of these tools depends on the personnel a president taps to carry out their mandate.

One might hope that the individuals chosen to fill these positions of prestige would be picked for their qualifications and, above all, unassailable commitment to the public good. Unfortunately, positions in the executive branch are often treated as rewards, doled out to prolific fundraisers and their allies. Even when bundlers don’t take a job themselves, their work uncovering money for the candidate wins them a receptive ear when it comes time to choosing who does, and does not.

Since bundlers are inevitably from the wealthiest ranks of society—executives in the private equity, real estate, BigLaw, and technology industries—their perspective is hardly that of the average person. And indeed, their influence has routinely tipped the scales against the public interest, including dissuading administrations from taking the sorts of actions that the Day One Agenda encourages, and instead toward the maintenance and expansion of private profit.

Biden’s list of bundlers gives ample reason to believe that his administration would fall short of the Day One Agenda’s bold proposals. Consider, for example, the numerous ways the next president could “Overhaul the Business of Wall Street,” from breaking up too-big-to-fail banks to forcing divestiture from carbon (and much, much more). But look at Biden’s biggest fundraisers, and these proposals start to seem less attainable. People like Erskine Bowles, who served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff but now sits on the board of Morgan Stanley, are unlikely to support any effort to have the Federal Reserve use its authority to divide up the nation’s largest banks. Worse still, they’ll likely have the opportunity to discourage the president’s team from appointing hard-charging Fed governors in favor of more business-friendly picks. Other Wall Streeters bundling for Biden include Andy Cohen of the hedge fund Greenoaks Capital, Wells Fargo’s former chair of “corporate responsibility” Federico Peña (who was Bill Clinton’s energy secretary) and Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers alumnus Mark Gilbert (who was made ambassador to New Zealand under Obama).

(Yes, you read right—Wells Fargo had a “chair of corporate responsibility.” Next we’ll learn Fox News has a fact checker!)

Bank consolidation is not the only thing Biden’s list suggests we will be stuck with. It would seem unlikely that financial regulators would take advantage of the tools at their disposal to get the country divested from carbon with people like Michael Collier, Biden fundraiser and fossil fuel financier, in the next administration (or exerting influence over it). As an aside, Biden signed a pledge vowing to reject donations from the fossil fuel industry, though he’s likely to sidestep that the same way Pete Buttigieg has, arguing that Collier is merely an investor in fossil fuels, not a producer of them. This may not pass our laugh test, but so far it’s been good enough for the bundler-heavy candidates in this primary.

Skip to toolbar