You’re headline was a bit clickbaitish – She answered some questions, but did not seek it seems to really go after Mayor Pete.
I don’t like judging fundraising strategies so long as it’s legal, though I thought some of what she was calling for was required by law.
Can we please not have diaries that focus on criticism of one of our candidates?
SomervilleTomsays
Well, in fairness, the end of the clip (from 3:00 to the end) was criticism from Ms. Warren directly and explicitly directed at Pete Buttigieg.
Criticism that I think is legitimate and fair.
Christophersays
It may be, but I’d prefer that not be the premise of a BMG diary.
SomervilleTomsays
I don’t view this piece as critical of anybody. I think it is inviting discussion about a reasonably clear shift in direction of the campaign — a shift that I at least welcome.
pogosays
When do we place value judgements on first hand political news? And what is so click bait about the headline. I mean this is a “gloves come off” kinda thing.
Sorry to give some first hand information rather than the “insightful” analysis you an get anywhere.
Christophersays
Except the gloves didn’t come off that much, and if they did I would not want to see it on BMG. You made the judgement to post a juicy critique because like the MSM you knew that would attract attention, which is the part I can get anywhere. You could have posted either just her self-advocacy or the entire event.
jconwaysays
I think it’s fair to say the Democrats should open up their fundraisers to the public. The whole idea of a big dollar fundraiser is that you’re selling access and exclusivity with the candidate. A stockbroker friend invited me to one his boss was holding for Rahm Emmanuel back when he was first running for Mayor. It was the typical soft libertarian/neoliberal “fiscally conservative socially moderate” crowd.
Rahm promised a lot of deep spending cuts and tax incentives he was not promising in public. That’s why these things can be corrosive and why I think they damaged Hillary’s effectiveness as a candidate and Obama’s effectiveness as a president. Warren is right to eschew them herself and call out those who are funding the majority of their campaign from these secretive meetings.
The electability question hasn’t come up with Pete as much, which I think is strange, but I’m not sure how anyone could view that clip and think that he’s the one to beat Trump.
Valid criticism from Warren. At the same time, she can be criticized for other things. Curious to read that criticism is discouraged on BMG by some posters. Why not let instead ideas stand on their merit.
SomervilleTomsays
@Discouraging criticism:
Attacking something or someone isn’t an “idea”. Proposing something different is an “idea”. Offering ideas is far more interesting and far more difficult than taking shots at somebody else’s efforts.
The GOP spent ten years relentlessly attacking the ACA. Had they spent even a little bit of effort thinking about an alternative during that time, they might have both actually contributed something and also avoiding looking as absolutely foolish as they did.
Yes, of course, when someone makes a fool of themselves then it’s perfectly reasonable to say so. I think BMG is much better on-line destination when we value proposals and suggestions over criticism and attacks.
Maybe, but the Iowa caucuses are in a couple months, and the candidates themselves have switched from expressing mere ideas to criticisms.
The Trump administration, actually, is contributing something to ACA. They are beginning to enforce pricing transparency rules in hospital and insurance rates. The hospitals are suing to stop them. You would not know it, for some reason, reading the Boston Globe and the state press.
But yes, during ACA passage, the Republicans in Congress did not cooperate at all, and pulled all the stops they could. This is a Washington disease we are seeing with the impeachment debacle also – where the evidence against Donald Trump is clear, yet not one Republican in the House would vote to impeach him.
Why partisanship has risen to these levels takes a longer discussion to tease out. But, basically, if Republicans in the House cooperate, they are voted out in their primaries.
I like it when Warren plays offense. And she’s making a principled case, not a personal one; one that should surprise no one at all.
Buttigieg strikes me as old wine in new bottles: A centrist, pretty corporate Democrat who seems “safe” while disdaining the very things a Democrat ought to fight for. I think that’s actually quite risky this time around, with less reward.
During the debates, Warren also asked other candidates to pledge to not appoint big donors as ambassadors. None of the other candidates joined her in the pledge. The silence on the stage was embarrassing.
Three things:
You’re headline was a bit clickbaitish – She answered some questions, but did not seek it seems to really go after Mayor Pete.
I don’t like judging fundraising strategies so long as it’s legal, though I thought some of what she was calling for was required by law.
Can we please not have diaries that focus on criticism of one of our candidates?
Well, in fairness, the end of the clip (from 3:00 to the end) was criticism from Ms. Warren directly and explicitly directed at Pete Buttigieg.
Criticism that I think is legitimate and fair.
It may be, but I’d prefer that not be the premise of a BMG diary.
I don’t view this piece as critical of anybody. I think it is inviting discussion about a reasonably clear shift in direction of the campaign — a shift that I at least welcome.
When do we place value judgements on first hand political news? And what is so click bait about the headline. I mean this is a “gloves come off” kinda thing.
Sorry to give some first hand information rather than the “insightful” analysis you an get anywhere.
Except the gloves didn’t come off that much, and if they did I would not want to see it on BMG. You made the judgement to post a juicy critique because like the MSM you knew that would attract attention, which is the part I can get anywhere. You could have posted either just her self-advocacy or the entire event.
I think it’s fair to say the Democrats should open up their fundraisers to the public. The whole idea of a big dollar fundraiser is that you’re selling access and exclusivity with the candidate. A stockbroker friend invited me to one his boss was holding for Rahm Emmanuel back when he was first running for Mayor. It was the typical soft libertarian/neoliberal “fiscally conservative socially moderate” crowd.
Rahm promised a lot of deep spending cuts and tax incentives he was not promising in public. That’s why these things can be corrosive and why I think they damaged Hillary’s effectiveness as a candidate and Obama’s effectiveness as a president. Warren is right to eschew them herself and call out those who are funding the majority of their campaign from these secretive meetings.
Warren’s answers were good. The more devastating answers come from Pete himself.
The electability question hasn’t come up with Pete as much, which I think is strange, but I’m not sure how anyone could view that clip and think that he’s the one to beat Trump.
Valid criticism from Warren. At the same time, she can be criticized for other things. Curious to read that criticism is discouraged on BMG by some posters. Why not let instead ideas stand on their merit.
@Discouraging criticism:
Attacking something or someone isn’t an “idea”. Proposing something different is an “idea”. Offering ideas is far more interesting and far more difficult than taking shots at somebody else’s efforts.
The GOP spent ten years relentlessly attacking the ACA. Had they spent even a little bit of effort thinking about an alternative during that time, they might have both actually contributed something and also avoiding looking as absolutely foolish as they did.
Yes, of course, when someone makes a fool of themselves then it’s perfectly reasonable to say so. I think BMG is much better on-line destination when we value proposals and suggestions over criticism and attacks.
Maybe, but the Iowa caucuses are in a couple months, and the candidates themselves have switched from expressing mere ideas to criticisms.
The Trump administration, actually, is contributing something to ACA. They are beginning to enforce pricing transparency rules in hospital and insurance rates. The hospitals are suing to stop them. You would not know it, for some reason, reading the Boston Globe and the state press.
But yes, during ACA passage, the Republicans in Congress did not cooperate at all, and pulled all the stops they could. This is a Washington disease we are seeing with the impeachment debacle also – where the evidence against Donald Trump is clear, yet not one Republican in the House would vote to impeach him.
Why partisanship has risen to these levels takes a longer discussion to tease out. But, basically, if Republicans in the House cooperate, they are voted out in their primaries.
I like it when Warren plays offense. And she’s making a principled case, not a personal one; one that should surprise no one at all.
Buttigieg strikes me as old wine in new bottles: A centrist, pretty corporate Democrat who seems “safe” while disdaining the very things a Democrat ought to fight for. I think that’s actually quite risky this time around, with less reward.
He’s not my guy, for sure.
During the debates, Warren also asked other candidates to pledge to not appoint big donors as ambassadors. None of the other candidates joined her in the pledge. The silence on the stage was embarrassing.