We may be a year away from the 2012 general elections, but the race for the U. S. Senate seat currently occupied by Sen. Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts) has been in full swing since Elizabeth Warren officially announced her candidacy in September.
A superstar of consumer advocacy, Warren has swiftly eclipsed her Democratic rivals and has even surpassed Sen. Brown 43-39 in a recent poll of registered voters. It seems likely that Elizabeth Warren will become the Democratic nominee for Senate.
That Warren could become such a solid candidate in Massachusetts without first outlining her views on civil rights is disturbing. Civil rights are nowhere to be seen on her list of priorities. And considering that the next junior senator from Massachusetts is certain to be voting on legislation directly impacting the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, it is more than disappointing that a candidate described as progressive would remain silent on LGBT legislative issues.
Below the fold are each of the candidates’ position statements on LGBT issues, as posted on their campaign websites. Since Elizabeth Warren hasn’t posted anything LGBT-specific on her website (nor can I find any quotes from any news source), I placed a call to her campaign office today to ask for a statement. Unfortunately all I got was the answering machine, so I’ll update this post if I hear back.
UPDATE 12/3: Kyle Sullivan, spokesperson for the Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts campaign has responded to my query, saying he’ll provide a more formal and detailed response “in the coming days”. In the mean time, he stated that “I can tell you from hearing Elizabeth talk about these issues that she supports marriage equality, supports repeal of DOMA, and agreed with repeal of DADT. She also supports ENDA and believes strongly that LGBT individuals should have their rights protected.” This is an encouraging development and I look forward to being able to post a direct quote from the candidate herself and linking readers to the source on the campaign’s web page.
[More below the fold.]
U. S. Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts)
Marriage
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people’s will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.
Massachusetts state Rep. Tom Conroy (D, 13th Middlesex)
Marriage Equality
In perhaps his most important vote in his first year in the Massachusetts legislature, Tom voted against efforts to put the question of same-sex marriage on the ballot in Massachusetts in 2008. If not for victories in 2006 by Tom and five of his pro marriage equality colleagues against opponents of marriage equality, the ballot initiative might have gone forward and reversed the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision approving same-sex marriage.
How Tom will Make a Difference
Tom believes, unlike opponents of marriage equality, who instead support the Defense of Marriage Act, that by definition, marriage is a civil right. He will support efforts to repeal DOMA and advocate that the national government follow the example that Massachusetts has set for marriage equality. He believes that preserving marriage equality, and extending it across the nation, gives more people the opportunity to express their loyalty to each other, honor their commitments, and uphold the values of marriage.
Marisa DeFranco, Immigration Attorney (D)
LGBT Rights
I support equal marriage for all and the inclusion of orientation in Title VII, it is decades overdue. Repeal DOMA NOW. Transgender rights for all (we recently had a great victory here in Massachusetts, but a person’s civil rights should not depend on the vagaries of state law—state by state is too slow, we need action on the federal level). I have represented lesbian and gay individuals in discrimination and asylum claims, winning an important case this year for a gay man from Uganda who fled persecution under their abominable laws.
Herb Robinson, Engineer (D)
Gay and Lesbian
I have a number of gay and lesbian friends who I want to keep as friends. This means that I support equal rights for gays and lesbians. That includes gay marriage and gays in the military.
Elizabeth Warren, Law Professor (D)
N/A
Conroy, DeFranco and Robinson are clearly LGB allies, but it is painfully obvious that only Marisa DeFranco mentioned transgender rights. And nobody mentioned the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), arguably the most important piece of LGBT legislation pending in Congress and completely in-line with the nation’s focus on jobs and the economy. Clearly, more advocacy work needs to be done with all of these candidates.
That Elizabeth Warren is widely considered to be a progressive but is the only candidate who hasn’t taken a position on LGBT issues leads one to wonder whether the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Commitee might be advising her to stay quiet. What is certain is that she has a great opportunity here to learn from her opponents’ deficiencies and really come out swinging solidly for civil rights. But to be meaningful, it needs to happen now.
Cross-posted at Pam’s House Blend.
…but I am fairly certain I have heard/read that she favors marriage equality.
this summer that she supports marriage equality, but it didn’t mention anything else LGBT-related like the desperately important Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
In my book, such a minimal statement stuck in a newspaper several months back isn’t adequate. Voters have the right to know what the major Democratic senatorial candidate thinks about major non-economic issues that they will almost certainly be taking votes on in the next 6 years. She needs to get her website up to speed, at the least.
I’m confident she will take care of this In the near future. I personally don’t need a laundry list of all the issues I care about checked off for me 9+ months before I’m voting.
I am convinced beyond any doubt that Elizabeth Warren has the best chance of beating Scott Brown. I am also convinced that most of the problems in this country can be traced back to the influence of big money in our political system, and that things won’t get fixed until that systemic problem is addressed. Finally, I’m sure that she is the candidate who has the most experience and expertise in this areaand has the greatest chance of moving forward on this problem.
That doesn’t mean other issues don’t matter. But she is still at the early stages of her campaign trying to boost name recognition and get voters familiar with her message. The case she has to make to voters about why they should vote for her is her expertise in the most important economic issues facing our nation, not because she’s another Democrat on the right side of LGBT issues. It makes perfect sense that she’s focusing on her core strength right now, and not on why she’s the same as all the other Democrats in the race. I’d expect she will explain positions on other issues as the campaign moves forward, but this is still phase one.
During her listening tour she was at our house. She was clear that she supports equal rights for LGBT folks.
LynPB and her wife
Nor, I imagine was most of the electorate. I’m glad that you got the message personally that she’s pro-equality, but as you know silence on LGBT issues sends a signal that there’s something to be feared in publicly supporting those issues. She may not fear the issues at all and is not making public statements for other reasons, but it still sends a negative signal, even if unintended.
Also, why should I have to rely on your word? Why shouldn’t the candidate herself let the electorate know where she stands? Is it so hard to state on a website that you’re pro-equality and will work to pass ENDA and repeal DOMA, etc etc?
or the wars either. I disagree with this statement: “silence on LGBT issues sends a signal that there’s something to be feared in publicly supporting those issues.” I wouldn’t exactly say she is being “silent” on LGBT issues, the environment, or ending the wars. But I am almost certain she will never introduce legislation regarding those issues. Her area of expertise is the economy, and it is there that she will be proactive and lead our country in the right direction. However, I feel very confident that she will support civil rights, clean air, and ending the wars when her colleagues present those issues for consideration.
when you say you’re confident that she will support civil rights, clean air and ending the wars? I’m not saying your conclusion is right or wrong, I’m just honestly interested to know why you came to that conclusion since she hasn’t spoken on those issues.
I think she’s getting a huge pass from lots of people on the issues she doesn’t discuss because of how she approaches the her favorite subjects. It’s a leap of faith people are taking. I don’t think a candidate should put voters in that position, but that’s just me.
There may be no big donations from the 99% – or the 80% – but there are a heck of a lot of votes out there.
When I talk about the senate election with the working people who form most of whom I see, as well as other attorneys who do indigent defense (and who feel abandoned by the Democratic Party, frankly), grocery store clerks, hairdressers, ordinary folks who are in fact “working class” and far more numerous than the “middle class” who earn $75k – $250k – they say “Elizabeth who”. After all, an income of $60k is in the top 40%
The esthetician I spoke with today said she thought that Elizabeth Warren looked like a Stepford Wife (sp?) from the movie. No I am not kidding – that is what she said.
The “sell” has to reach ordinary people or Scott Brown stays our Senator which is NOT what I want. But when it comes to LGBT issues, civil liberties, coming down against the violation of the 1st Amendment right to free speech and the use of excessive force against Occupy, or sustainability and environmental issues (and I could go on) – while I understand (though I really cannot figure out why) Elizabeth Warren has garnered a lot of support – I don’t see openness or a “real personality” shining through – this has simply not happened yet that I can see with Elizabeth Warren as a candidate.
No guts, no open and believable personality and passion, = no win in the general election. I am not tethered to, or supporting, any candidate at present though I admit I am starting to lean, but leaning to trying to ensure that every candidate who has the guts to collect 10,000 signatures gets on the ballot.
Most voters care a lot more about the economy than everything else, so why dilute her message by talking about the other issues.
If you want to know her positions, you should ask her, rather than insinuating that she’s secretly an archconservative. Liveandletlive has hit on a good point. A few seconds of research reveals that her general silence on foreign policy is a dilution of message thing, not a fear of letting her position be known thing. See: http://livableworld.org/elections/2012/candidates/senate/ewarren/
And as mski points out below, she has told the New Yorker her position on LGBT issues. The reality is that emphasizing these issues isn’t the way to win an election. Claiming that she’s hiding her positions is dishonest.
Elizabeth Warren may not be hiding her positions on the wars, the environments., LGBT rights, etc., on purpose, but she’d do well to also mention those issues if she is to not only win the election, but to become an even more rounded out senator in the event that she does win the election, if one gets the drift.
Which is part of why I prefer a robust primary and, having lost my first choice, have become an avid watcher rather than a supporter, who will help any and all candidates get on the ballot.
Has it occurred to you the media is complicit in this? Right now the race is only in its infancy, really. That campaigns start earlier does not make them tangible any faster. The media is not talking about issues, yet. They are talking about a horse race, pure & simple. Where the media has mentioned issue, it has bled through quotes from Warren. A New Yorker article, which was not on issues, but the race itself, offered a glipse of her support for gay rights. In fact, although buried in a paragraph full of direct quotes and pauses, she implied that Brown’s position against gay marriage was one of the things that bothered her!
She has a tendency to stay on talking points, no doubt, but it is so easy to get her onto another subject and she does just fine. I asked her a question about immigration and the subject is incredibly personal to her. Her son-in-law is an immigrant and that clearly shapes her view on the subject (very pro-immigration). If you have not had the same experience talking to her directly, then I’m sorry, but during the brief conversation I had with her, I was sold.
This campaign will grow and evolve. It already has. I also don’t think we can measure campaigns by how much a candidate broadcasts a message that has never been their bread and butter. Are we really so small that we are mad at Warren for not making a whole commercial saying that she’d repeal DOMA 11 months before election day? Or are we content to sit and stew and help facilitate reelection of a Senator who may be prone to oppose ENDA and DOMA repeal?
doesn’t it make sense that she let us all know her views on non-economic subjects via a public medium like her website? It’s just common sense.
Nice hyperbole in your last paragraph. I’m just asking for the same basic information from this candidate that every other candidate has already provided. If she’s not a one-note wonder, she owes it to herself and the voters to let us know that.
Any takers?
I can’t imagine someone with such intelligence, honesty, and fortitude being anything other than a raging social Liberal.
The unfortunate reality is that the LGBT community is a tiny piece of the electorate. We all know where Scott Brown stands, and Scott Brown is the person to beat.
Suppose we over-simplify and pigeon-hole Ms. Warren’s views into “for” or “against” LGBT issues. Suppose we then ask the question of how public she should be in expressing those views.
There are four possible choices:
1. She is for LGBT issues and says so
2. She is for LGBT issues and avoids discussing it
3. She is against LGBT issues and avoids discussing it
4. She is against LGBT issues and says so
In order to win, she needs to change a significant number 2010 votes from Scott Brown to Elizabeth Warren. Since Scott Brown opposes LGBT issues, then we can rank those four strategies according to their effectiveness at winning 2010 Scott Brown voters (from most to least effective): 4, 2, 3, 1
She also needs to avoid alienating her progressive base, so that she keeps all the 2010 Martha Coakley votes. We can rank the four strategies for that “mission”: 2, 1, 3, 4 (many Martha Coakley voters are neutral or opposed to LGBT issues)
In order to win voters who care most about LGBT issues, the rankings are: 1, 2, 3, 4
Now we should ask what Ms. Warren’s views actually ARE. If she opposes LGBT issues, then she chooses between 3 and 4. If she supports LGBT issues, then she chooses between 1 and 2.
Let’s assume she opposes them: then she’s best with option 3, so that she preserves as many 2010 Martha Coakley votes as possible. If we instead assume that she supports them, then she’s best with option 2, so that she gets as many 2010 Scott Brown votes as possible.
The bottom line is that not talking about it is the best stance for her, however she feels, if she wants to win the election. I get that she alienates some LGBT voters if she does that.
I support LGBT issues, and I also think that defeating Scott Brown is far more important than — for example — taking a public stance on a local bill that has already been passed.
I disagree completely. Brown received barely more votes in 2010 than McCain received in 2008. Warren does not need these votes (nor is she likely to get them) — rather, she needs to expand the electorate beyond those who showed up in the special election. Lucky for her, she could do nothing and the electorate will expand simply because it is a presidential election year.
In other words, it makes little sense to oppose LGBT rights because doing so might win her some Brown voters. She doesn’t need them, and LGBT issues will barely make a dent in this election anyway because the election will be (correctly) focused on economy. Indeed, that’s probably the major reason why Warren hasn’t said anything about equal marriage or the wars.
That isn’t to say that Warren shouldn’t be pushed to take a very public position on these issues. Doing so successfully would be both a testament to the continuing good organization of the pro-LGBT rights movement in Massachusetts as well as clear up any doubts for those worried about her commitment to these issues. But this campaign is about the economy, first and foremost. I think that’s a much more likely reason for her seeming public silence here rather than conjecture about the DSCC advising her to stay quiet.
I made no conjecture about “the DSCC advising her to stay quiet”.
I think we’re in violent agreement. I enthusiastically agree that “LGBT issues will barely make a dent in this election anyway because the election will be (correctly) focused on economy”. That is another reason why taking any public posture on LGBT issues can only hurt her.
In my view, pushing Ms. Warren to take a position only weakens her. It risks alienating those who support her on other issues, and gains at most those who are passionate about LGBT issues. I suggest that the latter is a tiny portion of the electorate.
I think that the LGBT community benefits far more from having “Senator Elizabeth Warren” in office from 2012 to 2018 — whatever her stance on LGBT issues.
voted for him because they bought into his being a moderate, and another fair slice of them were just pissed off with Coakley over issues like when she scoffed at shaking hands on a cold day at Fenway. Those sorts of people can absolutely be persuaded to vote EW this time around.
because of very, very high voter turnout in the GLBT population (as high as 90%), we’re a bigger chunk of the voting population than most people realize, and our votes are particularly meaningful in primaries. In a democratic primary, GLBT voters could be as high as 1 in 10 in some races — and considerably higher than that when talking about percentage of volunteers (I’ve been in races where I felt like close half of the volunteers were GLBT).
So, I don’t doubt she’s focusing on the issues most relevant to her message (economic fairness), but I wouldn’t scoff at the GLBT population’s importance to and in the Democratic Party. We help decide primaries and we’re a big part of the boots on the ground in getting candidates into office, once past the primary.
None of that is really relevant to EW, because she has made it clear that she’s for GLBT rights and I have no doubt she’d be a strong proponent, I just think the importance of the GLBT vote is something Democrats should be aware of.
…Warren has kept her views on many issues such as LGBT, environment, and education to herself. Oh, she offers nice bromides, but it seems that she’s reluctant to go beyond a small circle of advisors and favored activists with her thoughts.
Just as she seems reluctant to go beyond volunteer meetings lately.
I could well end up supporting Professor Warren, but I wish I knew more about her.
What is beyond volunteer meetings? What should she be doing that she is not? Honestly, I’ve never seen volunteer meeting broadcast in such a wide way (or attract such numbers)…well ever.
Let’s put this into perspective. In Massachusetts, the only real inequality that is faced by LGBT community is that Federal Law does not acknowledge marriages here. No offense to the other Democrats running, but first of all their campaigns have been running a lot longer; they are deliberately trying to cause consternation and confusion among pockets of the electorate for their NEXT run for office, since they never really had a chance anyway; I’ll wager a majority of LGBT families are more worried about getting a job than if Warren supports transgender equality, which BTW is law in Massachusetts.
As I have said before, if Warren’s campaign looks like this in September, we’ve got serious problems. But to be so starved for an exact platform on everything and , months before the state convention, let alone the election, and to be so upset about it. This is a time for raising money and corralling volunteers. Not to mention, Warren was teaching a class until about a week ago. Once she’s done w/ exams (later this month), we will be seeing a lot more of her and we will be seeing a bigger and better campaign.
It’s actually funny. I don’t actually begrudge your frustration entirely. It cuts both ways. In that same New York Magazine article I reference above, Warren faced volunteers at a House party that were upset that they were unable to volunteer thus far. She apologized and said everything grew at a pace beyond even their expectations. But in the meantime, cut her some slack. Don’t stop asking questions, but we needn’t be so incensed about it.
I just think it would be nice if Professor Warren ever met with large numbers of voters — Democratic activists, even — who aren’t committing to helping out her campaign. I saw Bob Massie several times, Tom Conroy multiple times. I’ve seen Herb Robinson twice, Marisa DeFranco twice, Setti Warren once.
Elizabeth Warren hasn’t gone to committee breakfasts, activist meetings, conferences, etc. I’d like her to start. At the same time, she hasn’t even bothered to throw together a platform on her web site. I don’t expect her to talk about every issue at every conference, but I expect her to follow other candidates in giving people an idea of where she stands on her core beliefs.
I’m not incensed — longtime members here know what my writing looks like when I’m incensed. I just want, and need to be, convinced that Warren has what it takes on non-economic issues.
http://elizabethwarren.com/priorities
That looks pretty danged platformish to me. It’s not comprehensive on every single issue, or even every single 2012 USA political topic de jure. Still, it’s pretty clear where her efforts will lie as a legislator.
The page that you refer to is very short and contains little of substance. For example, she says that she supports workers’ right to organize, but does not say how she would vote on card-check. She talks about renewable energy but never says if she believes in the reality of global warming.
Compare her page with Tom Conroy’s multiple pages of detailed in-depth positions on numerous issues, at http://www.tomconroy.org/.
She’s in favor of good things, fairness, and small business! This is a page any Democrat and half the Republicans in Massachusetts would have.
Of course, Elizabeth has a strong stand on civil rights.
Please remember that Elizabeth decided to run just two and a half months ago. There are numerous important groups that are asking for meetings to discuss issues in detail, and Elizabeth is doing her best to have these discussions. Indeed, she tried to have a meeting at MassEquality last month, but the MassEquality people postponed the meeting, because they were pre-occupied with the events at the state legislature.
Please be patient. She will respond shortly on LGBT issues, and you won’t be disappointed.
Certainly I wouldn’t deny Warren’s prospective primary opponents the right to ask where she stands on these issues. To the extent there are differences in policy preference or even policy emphasis, they’re worth debating over. I have gotten the idea that whatever disagreements emerge out of that process will revolve more around style or prioritization than policy substance, but I could be wrong.
But I am a little wary of something. I’ve seen too many good Democrats have lose primary and general elections alike in Massachusetts because too many voters got the idea that their campaigns cared a lot less about bread-and-butter issues than they did about the fashionable “cause of the month.” The state is more conservative in some ways than people to tend to think it is; it doesn’t manifest itself in a “conservative talk radio” sort of way but in a skepticism of the efficiacy of a certain class of activist. It’s been far too easy for both Republicans and right-of-center Democrats to mine electoral gold out of this idea that progressives do and say what they do to make them feel better about themselves and not because they care that much about the community around them.
That’s what Scott Brown and his barn coat and his pickup truck were all about and Martha Coakley did nothing to counter any of that. She said a lot of the right things but many people never got the sense she meant much of it.
The promise Warren is showing right now is that of an academic who nonetheless has a message that cuts through all that fog.
(And I’m a gay man, BTW.)
One of the ironies for good and bad of marriage equality here is that it has made this issue a complacent one for Democrats. One the one hand in just six short years its become poison for any serious gubernatorial contender or statewide officeholder to oppose it, hard for candidates to leg to oppose it, etc. On the other hand our states progress on this issue has blinded us to the realities that most of the country is still in the dark. I agree with Answer Man that the economy and jobs have to be the #1 issue all Democrats talk about. We could seriously see working people and the middle class lose out forever if we elect Romney or re-elect Brown.
As to the attack she can’t talk to workin’ people my parents, both only hs educated and both now retired workers are for her. Also good news is that my parents best couple friend, true Reagan Democrats from Sudbury, pro-gun, pro-military, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage are also for her. The guy, appropriately named Butch (and actually a pretty cool dude, one of the smartest self educated people I know) says she reminds him of the Democrats he grew up with like Truman and Kennedy, and the kinds he voted for like Clinton and Deval Patrick (big Deval fan actually, go figure). So give her a break. Only so much the Senate can do, its really a state by state issue, and maintaining DADT repeal and killing DOMA are the top federal priorities. Maybe a domestic partnership or civil unions bill down the line as well. Marriage has always been a state issue and is hard to pursue federally, but I am sure like Teddy and Kerry she will advocate for that too.
While I think the attack was unfair, the line of questioning was valid since it seemed LGBT issues were not on the campaigns radar, they are now, and kudos for getting a major candidate to respond to an important issue Laurel
For the the iconic “Big Tent” of the Democratic Party to be meaningful and democratic, issues and candidates have to be “fair game” for open discussion and questions – after all that “Big Tent” was around long before the Occupy tents – and it may be the silence, deference to hierarchy and incumbency, has left a void, and Occupy is part of what is filing that void. I am grateful that Laurel had the courage and passion to openly air her concerns.
And obviously, you and I are hearing very different things but then there are millions of people in this state and more likely than not, we move among different populations. One of the ways that our Republic has become less healthy is undue deference to incumbency, and a fear of asking hard questions, or the questions some folks fear will get THEM attacked – just for asking!
Thanks for the support on the latter and on the former I was simply saying it was unfair to rake Warren over the coals for not articulating a clear enough position yet since its an early campaign and one that should be properly focused on an economic message.My assumption is that they, like too many in the progressive community, take LGBT rights for granted in MA since we have achieved so much. But Laurel was right to get her to make comments on the federal issues.
It IS good to hear that the campaign responded, as well. Again, it is better to ask up front, and discuss issues that any of us care about. It is helpful to everyone when this kind of post is well-developed by a good discussion (like this one!) and the campaign and even better, a candidate weights in. Much appreciated!
I remember many BMGers and progressives thinking that Obama was pro-LGBT, pro-marriage, etc. He never made statements, never was explicit, but anyone we love so much MUST agree with us.
Until he turned out to be more about civil unions than marriage. Then it was Betrayal, etc.
Except he never did say so.
Progressive seem to fall for ‘tabula rasa’ candidates, upon whom they project their own beliefs. They are shocked then the candidates don’t care.
(Do not know what Warren thinks – only noting a recurrent pattern here)
Don’t forget, the radical-right felt betrayed by George W Bush, who they believed would be (and he didn’t correct them) an anti-choice crusader. The MA Tea Party and MA anti-gay organizations likewise feel betrayed by Scott Brown because they imagined him to be their water boy.
in which some of Warren’s supporters appear to view her as a “Messiah” (the term used in the article) and are setting themselves up for disappointment.
What I find astounding is that many of the same people who are most disappointed in Obama are strong supporters of Warren, giving her credit for positions she has not taken.
It is ironic that Tom Conroy, who has taken positions on these issues, is the one who has actually reached out to voters outside the Democratic base – both in his 600 mile walk this summer and, of course, in his successful campaigns for state rep, in which he defeated an entrenched Republican.
That may be a fair criticism of Obama and progressives’ Obama support; it remains to be seen the extent to which this is the case with Liz Warren.
Of course there’s a big difference between running in just the Bay State versus the nation as a whole, and the White House versus Capitol Hill. To the extent it could be said that progressives have given Obama a free pass on LGBT issues, it’s an acknowledgment of three things:
1. Obama to prevail is/was going to need the votes of constituencies who are/were not particularly sympathetic to LGBT rights, in elections both primary and general;
2. The President does not have a big role in these issues. The only thing we could really ask of the White House is not to veto anything favorable that might emerge from Congress; I did and still do trust him there. As for marriage, domestic relations is a policy area that has always been left to the states, and the President has no say in any proposed constitutional amendment (whether friendly, or, more likely, hostile) that might arise from Congress.
The stakes are a bit different with a U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts obviously, so Warren is going to eventually be held to a higher standard by the LGBT community. In the [unlikely, as I see things now] event that she’s appreciably inferior to other primary candidates, or worse, not an appreciable improvement on Scott Brown on these issues, I expect her to pay a price for that with our votes.
The more is known about EW’s beliefs, the better, certainly. Kudos to those asking questions.
But as a number of people have said, it’s early. It’s especially early for her, because she hasn’t been plotting a run like this for years, unlike other people. And on that note, I hope that we don’t fall into the trap of resenting EW for becoming the Dem frontrunner overnight despite not having paid her dues in the party. Is it unfair to the other candidates? Perhaps. But if EW represents our best chance to beat Brown — and if she’s a strong progressive who (mostly if not entirely) aligns with our beliefs — isn’t that enough?
Otherwise, let’s give her time to ramp up — without immediately assuming the worst about some DSCC plot to co-opt her. There’ll be plenty of time for Dem infighting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. (Being facetious. Mostly.)