Thursday, February 27, 2020

A Dual Motive

Investigative journalist at The Intercept doesn't understand what's going on:
It is accurate that Bloomberg's ad money- certainly not debate performances  or personality- and Warren's spending keep the field divided and have contributed to Bernard Sanders' lead in the Democratic race for President.

And Bloomberg does have a big ego, unavoidable when one has tens of billions of dollars and was chief executive of the largest city in the country (the "Big Apple") for three consecutive terms.

Nonetheless, it's remarkable, recognizing that the presence of Warren (and Bloomberg) in the field has aided the Vermont senator, that Fang completely misinterprets the Massachusetts senator's strategy.

During the most recent debate, Warren stated "I think I would make a better president than Bernie."  Of course she does- otherwise she wouldn't have been on the stage. Everyone vying for the Democratic nomination believes that he or she would make a better President than anyone. That is (for anyone but Donald Trump, who wanted to maximize his wealth) a prerequisite to running. They all have big egos and believe they can effectively lead what- before President Trump tore apart the nation's reputation- was the undisputed leader of the free world.

Were I running for office, I'd expect nothing more positive from a rival than

Look, the way I see this is that Bernie is winning right now because the Democratic Party is a progressive party and progressive ideas are popular ideas. Even if there are a lot of people on this stage who don’t want to say so. But Bernie and I agree on a lot of things, but I think I would make a better president than Bernie.

Warren, given her choice, would still prefer to be President. She went on to explain, accurately, why she would be a better president than Sanders, but in a manner which was about as close to an attack as Boston is from, say, Spokane.

In the debate in Las Vegas, every Democratic candidate criticized Mike Bloomberg. However, only Elizabeth Warren lit into him like a vulture lights into a dead carcass. She started off like a hungry, mongrel dog that discovers a bone, and she barely let up. Personally, I thought her initial attack was over the line- but I'm not running for President or fronting for another candidate.

Below, one sees Warren, asked by a reporter "let me ask about Bernie Sanders," replying "I heard you. Michael Bloomberg....."

Elizabeth Warren has been competing against Bernard Sanders, who was initially propelled by a proposal for "Medicare for All," When she proposed a similar, somewhat less radical, program for single-payer health care with more details, more meat on the bones, than had her opponent, she took Sanders supporters and the right the incoming which Sanders would have expected to get. Her numbers plummeted.

Were I in Warren's position, I would have been annoyed and a little bitter. But then besides being male, a little younger, and far less knowledgeable than EW, I'm not as committed to progressive ideals as she is.  So that is why, in a manner very unusual for a politician, Elizabeth Warren's strategy does make sense. It's how she rolls.

Bloomberg is not the leading candidate for the nomination. Bernard Sanders is, and Elizabeth Warren continues to belittle and denounce Michael Bloomberg. It's almost as if she's trying.... Well, you get it.

Share |

No comments:

  The Atlantic’s David Frum reminds us that on Tuesday   the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT were caught ...