I was at my first class for my "alternative licensure" public school teacher's program at our local community college last night and missed the debate. Still, I read about it thereafter.
I laughed at the LA Times coverage of last night's debate because the main article summarizing the debate did not focus on Bernie's foreign policy answers, while the LA Times reporters live blogging the debate--which I read late last night--said it was his strongest moment, as did the writers at The Nation magazine. I give the Times writers credit for not focusing too much on the personal imbroglio between Sanders and Warren, though.
The Times did have two inside the front page section articles on the imbroglio, however. In reading the articles, I winced as I read Warren's big applause line about she and "Amy" being the only ones to never lose an election. First, neither has run for president before and Biden and Bernie have. Biden never lost a race except for president and Bernie since winning the first time in 1990 for Congresspeople, has never lost a race except for president. And remember, Nixon lost in 1960, lost the gov race in 1962, and then won in 1968. Reagan lost in 1976 and then won in 1980.
I laughed at the LA Times coverage of last night's debate because the main article summarizing the debate did not focus on Bernie's foreign policy answers, while the LA Times reporters live blogging the debate--which I read late last night--said it was his strongest moment, as did the writers at The Nation magazine. I give the Times writers credit for not focusing too much on the personal imbroglio between Sanders and Warren, though.
The Times did have two inside the front page section articles on the imbroglio, however. In reading the articles, I winced as I read Warren's big applause line about she and "Amy" being the only ones to never lose an election. First, neither has run for president before and Biden and Bernie have. Biden never lost a race except for president and Bernie since winning the first time in 1990 for Congresspeople, has never lost a race except for president. And remember, Nixon lost in 1960, lost the gov race in 1962, and then won in 1968. Reagan lost in 1976 and then won in 1980.
But what really stood out to me was Warren's opening phrasing on the subject, where she said, "now that this issue has been brought up." I was stunned because it was Warren herself who brought up this issue, in a most cynical move, intending to imply Sanders is a sexist (or else why bring it up at this point at all?). I immediately flashed onto Nixon, and said to myself, That is so Nixonian. Nixon would say, after planting and building on stories of liberal opponents being soft on Communism, "some say my opponent is soft on Communism, but not me."
Then, for Warren not to shake Bernie's hand, and stand there with arms folded showed a streak that is not nice at all, and was pathetic to me. Yes, Bernie could have said there was a misunderstanding, as I have. However, based upon his entire--and I mean entire--history of a strong belief in women becoming the president of our nation, Bernie had more than the right to deny the accusation. Rebecca Traister, a person who was willing to criticize HRC in 2015-2016 from time to time, but a real Bernie hater in that period, has provided a more subtle analysis saying there is no sexism in believing a woman can't win in 2020 against Trump. Still, that was the intended implication in the initial leaks to the press, and it is why this imbroglio falls squarely on Warren. At this point, one wonders, as does Traister, what it does for both campaigns. Sad how trivialities over a single conversation can lead to ignoring substantive issues in this dangerous time. I am not feeling too hopeful about our species right now...
:(
:(
And on some further substance, I really winced at the CNN questioner who asked Bernie why a single payer medical insurance plan would not bankrupt the country. That questioner earned her paycheck for her corporate executive bosses. How many times do we have to repeat that the Koch Bros. funded study, designed to show single payer is bad, instead showed single payer saves trillions--yes, trillions--over the current system. And worse, how come nobody gets asked about the cost of saving or ending the ACA/Obamacare, or adding a public option? The discourse we have in the corporate owned media is precisely tuned and designed to promote the interests of the private insurance companies at the expense of public health. The late Ure Reinhardt, Princeton professor specializing in medical insurance economics, understood this from painstaking years of research and analysis, and his conclusions are unassailable. Yet, here we stand with corporate media propaganda pushing fear into people's heads.
God, I hope this imbroglio with Warren's accusation goes away. We have way too important things to argue about. However, if it continues to be discussed, I am now hoping it backfires on Warren for the cynical moves she has made, and be criticized for that handshake refusal after the debate. Don't count on corporate media punditry to see things that way, but one wonders how that will be interpreted.
