Warren campaign might not be source of CNN story about Bernie Sanders saying a woman can't win [SEE STAFF POST]

[Deleted member 11046]

Take your victory lap dude. You asked a shitty question to make it ok to say women shouldn't run for President because the country isn't ready.

I "dodged" it because it's some gotcha bullshit... the same shit could have been said when Obama ran.

The right candidate can be anyone.

I like that you had to add athiest on top of queer so as to successfully ignore Buttigieg running

Click to shrink...

No, it can't. I'm sorry if that truth bothers you, but it can not. The idea of what a right candidate "is" is expanding, and I'm happy to see it expand. The point was to get you to admit the difference between an honest assessment based on judging the deplorable state of our country and a blanket statement based on bigotry. You know as well as I do that a queer Muslim or atheist would face so many serious hurdles in a 2020 bid that his or her candidacy would be questioned. And being honest about this is not in any way maligning anyone who falls into those groups, nor would the "no" that you avoided saying make you homophobic or racist.

A woman CAN be President, and there is no way anyone can convince themselves that Bernie Sanders doesn't also believe this. He isn't some secret misogynist. And it's almost offensive to see that seriously suggested. Delusional.

But I also firmly believe Warren. So if I have to sit here and ponder where I fall on this topic, it's this: They likely had a brutally frank talk amongst themselves about their respective candidacies and who would be better against Trump, and Bernie accurately pointed out that Warren would face additional hurdles as a woman running in 2020. However it makes you feel is irrelevant; This is a strength his nomination would have over hers. But it's also something I can see rubbing Warren the wrong way, enough to mention it to others (because the implication is that Warren isn't strong enough to overcome that problem).

I really don't understand how a poster who sat through how ridiculous we collectively were back on GAF in 2016 can sit here on Era and repeat the same behaviors. It's like some of you love arguing and making enemies out of people who aren't opposing you at all.

 

[Volimar]

This thread is just the same shit different day.

People who don't like Bernie are convinced he said it and want him to apologize.

People who support Bernie are convinced he did not say it and are glad he issued a straight denial of it.

And CNN continues to stir shit up for ratings and to aid the moderate dems.



In the end it's going to remain a he said she said issue which divides the democratic base at a time they need to solidify.

Is this really an important issue? Both Sanders and Warren are great candidates, does this drama truly even matter?

Can't we just let this go rather than run around in circles until Trump gets re-elected? :(

Click to shrink...

It's an even bigger nothing story than that because candidates accuse each other of lying all the time. But insular supporters are so afraid that every issue will be the one that the electorate will use to disqualify their candidate that every molehill MUST be a mountain.

 

[pigeon]

It doesn't, but you've rather clearly got an axe to grind with me the last few days for some reason, so whatever.

Click to shrink...

no, it's not personal, your position on this topic is just manifestly absurd, a proven lie is a much, much bigger story

 

[Ichthyosaurus]

Donald Trump is president. All bets should be off on "Can [Insert whoever here] be president".

Click to shrink...

Trump isn't the "impossible" president. He's a rich, white asshole who had a controversial election win which he needed third parties to help him over the finish line. George W Bush had a similar election in 2000.

 

[Tukarrs]

This thread is just the same shit different day.

People who don't like Bernie are convinced he said it and want him to apologize.

People who support Bernie are convinced he did not say it and are glad he issued a straight denial of it.

And CNN continues to stir shit up for ratings and to aid the moderate dems.



In the end it's going to remain a he said she said issue which divides the democratic base at a time they need to solidify.

Is this really an important issue? Both Sanders and Warren are great candidates, does this drama truly even matter?

Can't we just let this go rather than run around in circles until Trump gets re-elected? :(

Click to shrink...

Then Warren and Bernie need to issue a joint statement and clarify exactly what was said. It's the only way to explain this 'misunderstanding'.

 

[Deleted member 176]

Then Warren and Bernie need to issue a joint statement and clarify exactly what was said. It's the only way to explain this 'misunderstanding'.

Click to shrink...

that seems stupid. they should come together and issue a joint statement on like... how Biden sucks or something else constructive

 

[excelsiorlef]

No, it can't. I'm sorry if that truth bothers you, but it can not. The idea of what a right candidate "is" is expanding, and I'm happy to see it expand. The point was to get you to admit the difference between an honest assessment based on judging the deplorable state of our country and a blanket statement based on bigotry. You know as well as I do that a queer Muslim or atheist would face so many serious hurdles in a 2020 bid that his or her candidacy would be questioned. And being honest about this is not in any way maligning anyone who falls into those groups, nor would the "no" that you avoided saying make you homophobic or racist.

A woman CAN be President, and there is no way anyone can convince themselves that Bernie Sanders doesn't also believe this. He isn't some secret misogynist. And it's almost offensive to see that seriously suggested. Delusional.

But I also firmly believe Warren. So if I have to sit here and ponder where I fall on this topic, it's this: They likely had a brutally frank talk amongst themselves about their respective candidacies and who would be better against Trump, and Bernie accurately pointed out that Warren would face additional hurdles as a woman running in 2020. However it makes you feel is irrelevant; This is a strength his nomination would have over hers. But it's also something I can see rubbing Warren the wrong way, enough to mention it to others (because the implication is that Warren isn't strong enough to overcome that problem).

I really don't understand how a poster who sat through how ridiculous we collectively were back on GAF in 2016 can sit here on Era and repeat the same behaviors. It's like some of you love arguing and making enemies out of people who aren't opposing you at all.

Click to shrink...

Warren's hurdles would far more be her past regarding the Cherokee claims then her sex.

Bernie Sanders is not a better 2020 Candidate because he's a man.

Warren will face sexism but that's not #advantageBernie

This is basically pragmatic sexism you're performing here, but also while not being honest enough to identify it as such.

But I'm glad you think Bernie Sanders needed to explain to Warren that she's a woman and he's a man, and that women experience sexism, so advantage Bernie.

This discussion would be so different if it was Warren being accused of saying a Jewish person couldn't win in 2020.

But it's so much more acceptable to imply that America just isn't ready for a woman as President


So do you think Warren should drop out because a woman can't win in 2020? Cause I didn't end up dodging your stupid question but you dodged mine.

 

[RedMercury]

Trump isn't the "impossible" president. He's a rich, white asshole who had a controversial election win which he needed third parties to help him over the finish line. George W Bush had a similar election in 2000.

Click to shrink...

That's true I guess, I don't think it's entirely without merit though considering most people held it as a virtual impossibility until it happened.

 

[Kschreck]

I wouldn't be surprised if CNN is trying to sabotage Bernie and Warren in order to get Biden or Bloomberg to win. Turns out mega corporations LOVE to hold onto all of their cash and tax loopholes and Bernie and Warren threaten that. Everyone on here by now should know that companies will do just about anything to ensure Bernie or Warren cannot get elected. CNN is no more "good" then Fox News is.

 

[Afrikan]

Warren hosted an off-the-record dinner with a number of journalists, according to sources with knowledge of it.

Click to shrink...

I know they say that stuff rarely leaks from these types of meetings. (I doubt that shit)

But with how the media has always treated Bernie Sanders... hell even worse in the past few years, why would she bring his up in the way she did? Why trust them? She knew it would eventually leak.

Then she could have cleared up the whole context of the conversation on many occasions, but didn't. She rolled with the Media Click Bait. Especially when CNN pulled that BS at the debate right after asking Bernie Sanders the question.

 

[Deleted member 18360]

Warren's hurdles would far more be her past regarding the Cherokee claims then her sex.

Bernie Sanders is not a better 2020 Candidate because he's a man.

Warren will face sexism but that's not #advantageBernie

This is basically pragmatic sexism you're performing here, but also while not being honest enough to identify it as such.

But I'm glad you think Bernie Sanders needed to explain to Warren that she's a woman and he's a man, and that women experience sexism, so advantage Bernie.

This discussion would be so different if it was Warren being accused of saying a Jewish person couldn't win in 2020.

But it's so much more acceptable to imply that America just isn't ready for a woman as President

So do you think Warren should drop out because a woman can't win in 2020? Cause I didn't end up dodging your stupid question but you dodged mine.

Click to shrink...

This all seems fair to me, thank you for your insight.

This doesn't really have anything to do with your exchange with the other poster, but I think a problem is that sexism in electoral politics is a serious issue and worth addressing in a substantial way by the candidates running, but this situation was designed (and by who I don't know) to provide anything but that. And in the context of her modestly progressive campaign, one which seems to hedge more towards the center every day, and the strategic timing that this comes out, it reads more specifically like a plea of "women can do anything, so why aren't I personally (rich white woman) the president?." And it's like, why are you actively playing into media, effectively casting some kind of schrodinger's-aspersions on the better candidate?! To neatly tie in some electoral girlboss talking points into your speaking time, all while surely not saying enough to act as anything more than a shallow hastily conjured wedge issue on why or how the less progressive candidate could totally actually be the more progressive one? Please...

And if I dare risk being entirely honest, I think the discourse here can be so mind-numbingly reactive sometimes that people effectively have to talk around legit complaints, otherwise something they say might be flagged for having a superficial similarity to something that FOXNews claimed once, or something. The example that I have in mind is trotting out the lying woman trope to explain away any case of claiming that Warren might have a bit of an authenticity and credibility problem relative to Bernie Sanders. I actually don't think she's more or less honest than the average politician, I only take issue when it's assumed that because of 'believe women' or any other utterly slavish observance to the fact that women's experiences are pervaded by misogny that men will never understand, we're now apparently 'supposed' to believe that she's actually more trustworthy than arguably the most trusted politician in a generation. But this fracas all happened around her superficially raising this issue, you see, so it's 'just like women speaking out and being silenced!'. Which is maddening because yeah inevitably some valid criticisms will strike someone's ear as sounding like sexist tropes, because sometimes two different things can have a superficially similar appearance...

 

[Laughing Banana]

Donald Trump is president. All bets should be off on "Can [Insert whoever here] be president".

Click to shrink...

I mean really now. The fact that Donald Trump is president, if anything, gives more credence to a queer Muslim, heck just a Muslim, won't be able to become a US president!

That you think a Muslim could become a US president, by using Trump as a qualifier for that, is mindblowingly naive, if not stupid.

 

[RedMercury]

That you think a Muslim could become a US president, by using Trump as a qualifier for that, is mindblowingly naive, if not stupid.

Click to shrink...

We can have a civil conversation without the digs. Chill.

 

[Laughing Banana]

We can have a civil conversation without the digs. Chill.

Click to shrink...

I am chill, I am not calling you stupid, I'm calling what you said stupid.

 

[Deleted member 19218]

So do you think Warren should drop out because a woman can't win in 2020? Cause I didn't end up dodging your stupid question but you dodged mine.

Click to shrink...

I might be wrong but I think he is trying to say anyone who is not a white male will face challenges, I don't think the user you quoted is being disingenuous. If we look at today, Hilary should be the President right now, everyone was so sure she would win the election because it just made sense. She was actually a politician, she had experience in politics, she was more well liked than Trump, she didn't have nearly as many controversies as he did yet Trump somehow won. It's shocking, of course a woman can be President but I think Aaron was just saying anyone who is not a white male will face additional challenges, not that they should drop out.

 

[RedMercury]

I am chill, I am not calling you stupid, I'm calling what you said stupid.

Click to shrink...

Well I'll take you at your word. Here's how I look at it anyways:

I don't think it is an unreasonable position to think that factors like misogyny or Islamophobia or bigotry of any kind is a barrier when looking at the electorate. That being said, I think at the same time vocalizing that out into the world is also perpetuating bigotry because questioning if someone can win the Presidency is putting up another barrier, when we should be working to be accepting of anyone who shares progressive values. So for me, I would feel very uncomfortable with saying "X individual could not be elected" and putting that out into the world.

I think with the right messaging and the right person, you can make what some might consider insurmountable barriers much less insurmountable, I think those two things are much more important than "is it the right time".

 

[Inuhanyou]

So Ryan is alledging that there was no leak and the media basically printed the story before the debate themselves intentionally to make into a non story as sanders rises in the polls to try and 'get' him.

Thats also a valid theory. Its not just other candidates doing disingenious oppo research and it would not be the first time.

 

[Greigor the FellHand]

So Ryan is alledging that there was no leak and the media basically printed the story before the debate themselves intentionally to make into a non story as sanders rises in the polls to try and 'get' him.

Thats also a valid theory. Its not just other candidates doing disingenious oppo research and it would not be the first time.

Click to shrink...

honestly, if this is the case, any self respecting dem running for pres will boycott all future cnn debates.

 

[uncelestial]

Liz isn't street smart, she ALWAYS takes the bait

She accepted Donald Trump's DNA Challenge for crying out loud.
Who does that? Accept Trump's DNA Challenge?

and now this? failling for CNN's trap?

Warren is bad at this

Trump would tear her apart in the general election

Click to shrink...

Yeah I'm pretty concerned about that. Like, if it wasn't her campaign leaking this, it's much worse-looking in terms of how it evidences her strategy for navigating political stories.

Before -- It looked like her campaign set up a topic that gave her a chance to forcefully make a case for women as leaders, which she did on the debate, on social media, and in fundraising emails -- as well as peel off some support from arguably her most direct primary rival. One presumes that it's cynical, perhaps, but she was taking a calculated risk that the divisiveness inherent in the conflict would play in her favor. This was my own (very cynical) take.

Now -- she looks like she can't resist being reactionary and being instigated into dangerous infighting that splits apart the leftist base of support, with the "hot mic" moment seeming akin to YouTube footage of a prank victim being upset. You want her to start deciding she is above certain issues and getting upset about them, then you remember how she was baited by Trump into taking a fucking DNA test and publicly releasing the result even though it came back 1/512th Native American and it's just generally an offensive line of conversation to begin with.

 

[Sloth Guevara]

Lol!

fucking priceless! Warren backing down cause she made a terrible move.

take the L Lizz. Take the L.

 

[32X4LYF]

Warren's hurdles would far more be her past regarding the Cherokee claims then her sex.

Bernie Sanders is not a better 2020 Candidate because he's a man.

Warren will face sexism but that's not #advantageBernie

This is basically pragmatic sexism you're performing here, but also while not being honest enough to identify it as such.

But I'm glad you think Bernie Sanders needed to explain to Warren that she's a woman and he's a man, and that women experience sexism, so advantage Bernie.

This discussion would be so different if it was Warren being accused of saying a Jewish person couldn't win in 2020.

But it's so much more acceptable to imply that America just isn't ready for a woman as President


So do you think Warren should drop out because a woman can't win in 2020? Cause I didn't end up dodging your stupid question but you dodged mine.

Click to shrink...

You can't honestly believe this do you? A woman president has been a point of contention far more than any other qualifier beyond "old and white". Even more so than a black president. For whatever reason many people still can't imagine a woman being in office. Very few people are going to care about the random percentage of Cherokee she supposedly has in her bloodline.

From my understanding of the posts from Aaronology he isn't suggesting "Warren should drop out because a woman can't win in 2020", more so that a woman running for president is going to have a shitload more hurdles than the average (old and white) candidate. Which is exactly how I imagined this supposed exchange between Bernie and Warren went down.

 

[Stinkles]

Futile appeal to both sides here to move on. Hugh Hewitt - actual Nixon fan - announced this morning that he's voting for Bernie. He's not - he's stirring chaos and shit and so is CNN. Support your candidate. Don't get dragged into the bullshit vortex they're creating to manipulate you.

 

[Deleted member 176]

Lol!

fucking priceless! Warren backing down cause she made a terrible move.

take the L Lizz. Take the L.

Click to shrink...

what do you mean

 

[Baji Boxer]

So Ryan is alledging that there was no leak and the media basically printed the story before the debate themselves intentionally to make into a non story as sanders rises in the polls to try and 'get' him.

Thats also a valid theory. Its not just other candidates doing disingenious oppo research and it would not be the first time.

Click to shrink...

I don't get it. If there was no leak, how would CNN know what was discussed?

 

[blackw0lf48]

that seems stupid. they should come together and issue a joint statement on like... how Biden sucks or something else constructive

Click to shrink...

Nah I disagree. There's a reason we saw so many progressive organizations making unity statements that they are enthusiastic about both candidates. A fractured progressive camp only benefits Biden and trump. Making a unity statement that clarifies what happened (even if it's both of us have different memories and respect the position of the other) could go a long way towards healing wounds and strengthening the progressive side.

 

[Jordan117]

I don't get it. If there was no leak, how would CNN know what was discussed?

Click to shrink...

There was a leak, but in the form of Warren mentioning it candidly at a dinner off-the-record shortly after it happened (in 2018/early 2019), as opposed to Warren deliberately planting the story now to damage Sanders. The only ones doing that are CNN, who deliberately sat on the story until now to maximize the divisive drama.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I don't get it. If there was no leak, how would CNN know what was discussed?

Click to shrink...

My understanding is that this conversation between Sanders and Warren has been gossiped about quite extensively the last couple of years. That it's the kind of thing that many pundits and journalists has known may have happened for awhile, but that journalists felt it was the kind of story you can't take to the press, due to the difficulty of verifying it, and lack of newsworthiness

 

[Deleted member 176]

Nah I disagree. There's a reason we saw so many progressive organizations making unity statements that they are enthusiastic about both candidates. A fractured progressive camp only benefits Biden and trump. Making a unity statement that clarifies what happened (even if it's both of us have different memories and respect the position of the other) could go a long way towards healing wounds and strengthening the progressive side.

Click to shrink...

I think a statement of unity that moves past it entirely would be better. If we find out the details people would continue to argue about which interpretation is right. I think it would be better if they just came out together and said "we got over it, stop talking about it".

 

[Zed]

CNN is a garbage "news" organization. If it wasn't for Fox News existing, CNN would easily wear the crown of worst mainstream news company.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I don't get it. If there was no leak, how would CNN know what was discussed?

Click to shrink...

Because they say that warren herself said something about it a while ago and are only now sourcing two supposed people in her campaign who were not at the meeting. Makes sense right? Lol

Its clearly backfiring in a huge way

 

[Baji Boxer]

There was a leak, but in the form of Warren mentioning it candidly at a dinner off-the-record shortly after it happened (in 2018/early 2019), as opposed to Warren deliberately planting the story now to damage Sanders. The only ones doing that are CNN, who deliberately sat on the story until now to maximize the divisive drama.

Click to shrink...

My understanding is that this conversation between Sanders and Warren has been gossiped about quite extensively the last couple of years. That it's the kind of thing that many pundits and journalists has known may have happened for awhile, but that journalists felt it was the kind of story you can't take to the press, due to the difficulty of verifying it, and lack of newsworthiness

Click to shrink...

Because they say that warren herself said something about it a while ago and are only now sourcing two supposed people in her campaign who were not at the meeting. Makes sense right? Lol

Its clearly backfiring in a huge way

Click to shrink...

Ah, I didn't realize the backstory changed again. I haven't paid super close attention to every development, because it seemed like a petty dumb tabloid level controversy. Explains why the "scandal" seems to have vanished from CNN's front page very quickly lol.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Ah, I didn't realize the backstory changed again. I haven't paid super close attention to every development, because it seemed like a petty dumb tabloid level controversy. Explains why the "scandal" seems to have vanished from CNN's front page very quickly lol.

Click to shrink...

They are still trying to run with the nonsense to attack sanders though. Joy ann reid had on a body language expert to try to prove bernie sanders was lying.

Cant make this shit up

 

[PMS341]

They are still trying to run with the nonsense to attack sanders though. Joy ann reid had on a body language expert to try to prove bernie sanders was lying.

Cant make this shit up

Click to shrink...

Speaking of that...

 

[Inuhanyou]

Speaking of that...

Click to shrink...

The kinds of contacts corporate media will parrot. Those powerful connections matter

 

[vodalus]

 

[Deleted member 11046]

Warren's hurdles would far more be her past regarding the Cherokee claims then her sex.

Click to shrink...

Both of these are challenges she will/would face in the general. Downplaying either issue only leaves you less prepared to respond to them.

Bernie Sanders is not a better 2020 Candidate because he's a man.

Click to shrink...

I'mma need you to attempt to dive a bit deeper into nuance than the level we're engaging at currently. Correct, excelsiorlef, he is not inherently better a candidate because he is a man. His sex is an advantage to his candidacy, however. Acknowledging this is not sexism, rather it's an unfortunate statement on American society. I know you have your "should Warren drop out" retort at the bottom of the post I'm now replying to, but plot twist: I'm actually a Warren supporter, with as much conviction but much less toxicity (and hostility towards Sanders) as I was for Clinton before her. The H-> sticker is still on my car.

I am not offended by you constantly attempting to paint me as sexist. Rather, I'm frustrated seeing how easily you (and many others) are provoked into taking essentially the same bait that both the Sanders and Warren camps collectively failed to avoid. And that frustration doubles because you lived through the primary season of the last election on GAF. How is this not giving you deja vu? How does this entire discussion not feel utterly pointless and besides the point for you?

Warren will face sexism but that's not #advantageBernie

Click to shrink...

It is, sadly, for reasons already touched on. tldr; This country is shit. See: Current President.

This is basically pragmatic sexism you're performing here, but also while not being honest enough to identify it as such.

Click to shrink...

I am actually being incredibly honest about my position(s). It's that frank honesty that seems to bother you. I've been behind Warren since she announced and that won't change until she is no longer an option. However, the reality of the situation is that America is sexist, racist, homophobic and divided. A woman in this America is going to face a harder time winning votes than a superficially identical male counterpart. Bern/Liz reportedly had a discussion on their bids, and the idea of this being brought up by Sanders does not outrage me, if that's what happened.

But I'm glad you think Bernie Sanders needed to explain to Warren that she's a woman and he's a man, and that women experience sexism, so advantage Bernie.

This discussion would be so different if it was Warren being accused of saying a Jewish person couldn't win in 2020.

But it's so much more acceptable to imply that America just isn't ready for a woman as President

Click to shrink...

It's 2020 and our government is literally, not figuratively but actually in real life literally sliding towards blatant fascism and open, unabashed corruption. That snark you're throwing my way is so much wasted energy.

So do you think Warren should drop out because a woman can't win in 2020? Cause I didn't end up dodging your stupid question but you dodged mine.

Click to shrink...

I didn't dodge it. I actually just glossed over it as noise. You can imagine how ridiculous it is to answer a question about whether you want the person you plan to vote for to drop out. To answer your question with a bluntness that will prevent any more misunderstandings:





No.