Patterico's Pontifications

1/15/2020

CNN Debate Moderator Shamefully Takes Sides In Warren-Sanders Feud (UPDATE ADDED)

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:31 am



[guest post by Dana]

I just wanted to follow-up on a particular moment during last night’s Democratic debate wherein CNN debate moderator Abby Phillip assumed that Bernie Sanders was lying when he emphatically denied telling Elizabeth Warren that a woman couldn’t win in a general election. From the actual transcript:

PHILLIP: Let’s now turn to — let’s now turn to an issue that’s come up in the last 48 hours. Sen. Sanders, CNN reported yesterday that — and Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?

SANDERS: Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it. And I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. Anybody knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States.

Go to YouTube today. There’s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States. In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Sen. Warren. There was a movement to draft Sen. Warren to run for president. And you know what, I said — stayed back. Sen. Warren decided not to run, and I then — I did run afterwards.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States? And let me be very clear. If any of the women on this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination, I hope that’s not the case, I hope it’s me.

(LAUGHTER)

But if they do, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country.

(APPLAUSE)

PHILLIP: So Sen. Sanders — Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election?

SANDERS: That is correct.

PHILLIP: Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?

(LAUGHTER)

WARREN: I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But, look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it’s time for us to attack it head-on.

And I think the best way to talk about who can win is by looking at people’s winning record. So, can a woman beat Donald Trump?

Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost 10 elections.

(LAUGHTER)

The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women…

(APPLAUSE)

… Amy and me.

After the debates, Warren rebuffed Sanders when he attempted to shake her hand:

Look, either Elizabeth Warren is lying or Bernie Sanders is lying. And moderator Abby Phillip, to her discredit and without any evidence, made it clear by the framing of her question to Warren, that she believed Sanders was not telling the truth. Not only did she openly confirm that she believed Sanders was untruthful, she gave Warren a convenient opportunity to pivot from confronting Sanders to move on to the broader picture of women and elections. This morning, I noticed that CNN’s Editor-at-Large Chris Cillizza somehow completely missed his colleague’s act of “media malpractice” in his analysis of the interaction. Perhaps it has something to do with this, eh?

CNN contributor Jess McIntosh suggested later that Phillips had taken her stance because of the network’s reporting: “This was a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking.”

Abby Phillip discredited herself with her clear and obvious bias, and Elizabeth Warren discredited herself by not directly confronting Bernie Sanders about his sexist remark. Her decision to choose party unity over standing up for herself and standing against an act of alleged sexism came off as weak. On behalf of women everywhere, it’s not an impressive look for a Democratic woman contending for the presidency of the United States to pass on an open opportunity to condemn sexism, especially when it has allegedly coming from a powerful, white male seeking the presidency.

UPDATE: CNN has released the audio of the post-debate exchange between Warren and Sanders (when she refused to shake his hand):

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

63 Responses to “CNN Debate Moderator Shamefully Takes Sides In Warren-Sanders Feud (UPDATE ADDED)”

  1. Good morning. In perusing some leftwing sites, it’s pretty clear that people don’t understand that women lie just as much as men, and that both men and women can be equally devious and conniving when on a quest for power.

    Dana (643cd6)

  2. She probably should have thrown a campaign worker under the bus. Neither one of them can back down now.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  3. Apropos to my comment at #1:

    Still thinking about the Warren-Bernie squabble and I have a question to people who have accused Warren of lying: isn’t the lesson of #metoo and the last few years that we believe women and don’t call them liars?

    Dana (643cd6)

  4. Bernie should’ve offered a peacepipe and firewater instead of a handshake.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  5. Dana (643cd6) — 1/15/2020 @ 7:45 am

    The lesson of #metoo is the lesson that 4 fingers are 5. We’re expected to believe who we’re told to believe.

    frosty (f27e97)

  6. Great post, Dana. I agree that the knife was out for Bernie. I wonder if Warren is CNN’s Trump this time around.

    I’m not sure what kind of comments you invited in your comment #3 re your comment #1, and I think I’ll wait until (late) evening to comment on your statement

    it’s pretty clear that people don’t understand that women lie just as much as men, and that both men and women can be equally devious and conniving when on a quest for power.

    nk (dbc370)

  7. Abby Phillip discredited herself with her clear and obvious bias

    And what negative consequences will she face for that?

    Hint: Crickets chirping.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  8. Bored Lawyer,

    Following her marching orders…

    Dana (643cd6)

  9. Dana:

    Assuming you are correct (I don’t know, but I suspect you are right), then what consequences will her employer face.

    Again. Hint: Crickets chirping.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  10. Both Ms. Phillip and Ms. Warren unintentionally revealed their character, and not in a good way. If CNN were smart, they would bench Ms. Phillip at the very least.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  11. The president recently made it clear that he is giving serious consideration to skipping or recalibrating the 2020 general election presidential debates. He would be wise to follow his instincts.

    Trump pointed out that debates involving Democratic candidates were “little-watched,” and said the “so-called Commission on Presidential Debates is stacked with Trump haters and Never-Trumpers.” He’ll weigh his options and “make a decision at an appropriate time.”

    The appropriate time is now. Trump is correct about that bias and should tell the Commission on Presidential Debates to close up shop for this cycle…

    …For Republicans and conservatives, every debate hosted by the commission showcased clear-cut examples of bias against the Republican presidential or vice presidential candidates. The vast majority of the “nonpartisan” moderators and panelists for each debate were liberal journalists. Some were willing and eager to be more partisan and activist than others.

    https://www.thehill.com/opinion/white-house/475059-trump-must-skip-presidential-debates-create-his-own-dare-democrat-to-show-up%3f

    It is good to see Trump’s sentiments catching on here.

    BuDuh (51f808)

  12. Four years ago Deb, the DNC and the networks put the fix in to squash any chance for Bernie to secure the nomination.

    It was so shameless and naked that it created thousands and thousands of Never-Hillary types who refused to vote for her.

    I’m seeing a lot of very negative ‘serial liar’, ‘will never vote for her’ stuff from the left on social media.

    Now they are doing the same thing to Bernie with the added complication of also trying to get Warren’s shrinking popularity to somehow overcome Biden’s appeal to a larger spectrum of Dems (e.g. black voters).

    IOW last time they knew who they wanted, now it’s still up in the air but they don’t want the socialist woke mob anywhere near the control booth.

    The most amazing thing is they seem clueless that this is one of the ingredients to the recipe that elected Trump.

    harkin (d6cfee)

  13. Warren has the evil mother-in-law vote locked up.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  14. Both Ms. Phillip and Ms. Warren unintentionally revealed their character, and not in a good way. If CNN were smart, they would bench Ms. Phillip at the very least.

    I agree regarding Phillip and Warren’s character. However, CNN doesn’t need to bench Phillip because we have already seen, repeatedly, that they can say whatever fits their agenda without any consequences. Even during a debate. See: Candy Crowley.

    Dana (643cd6)

  15. Trump Kellyanne is right, BuDuh. The way they’re set up, they’re not debates, they’re talk show interviews. They’re more about the media than they are about the candidates.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. Looks as if cnn was the loser in the debate.

    mg (8cbc69)

  17. “Bernie is my friend”

    ummmmm…. OK then.

    Is that a lie or a simple window, or the entire width of her house with her walking around naked with a basket of special rodents window into her character.

    steveg (354706)

  18. They’re both habitual liars. Neither would be more honest than the current President and both would make the world more awful to live in.

    On a different note, why would any Republican ever agree to a debate with a CNN moderator ever again? It’s just Lucy with the football over and over again.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  19. @18, you’re concerned about your perception of fairness. They might be concerned about getting their message out.

    Time123 (353edd)

  20. Tommy Vietor
    @TVietor08
    It is strange to see so many people, including reporters, just asserting that @ewarren planted this story about the Bernie conversation. You think she WANTS a big discussion about women and electability? And now she has to deal with sexism and get attacked for talking about it?
    __ _

    5 min conversation
    @ehnottooxabi
    ·
    Gee, it’s soo super suprising person that thought leaking DNA to show she’s 1024th Native American, would make another political mistake.
    __

    harkin (d6cfee)

  21. #BelieveAllWomen

    JVW (54fd0b)

  22. Abby Phillip discredited herself with her clear and obvious bias…

    More likely, given the speed of the exchange clearly observed, she’d over-rehearsed her ‘gotcha’ set-up and she wasn’t listening— which, on global television, for a professional reporter acting as a debate moderator employed by a major media firm is far, far worse than any ‘bias.’

    Dollars to donuts Blitzer would not have done that.

    It’s just incompetence. Fire her.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  23. Bernie Sanders seems to believe it was Trump, or people from his campaign or friendly to it, who made up the story:

    And I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want.

    But I believe someone who was pro-Warren leaked the story to CNN with Warren’s knowledge and consent * and leaked a cover story to Sanders that it was Trump. And further circulated the argument that it is divisive and harmful to all candidates involved, to discuss it.

    Which means that the Clintons are trying to save Elizabeth Warren, and sink Bernie Sanders.

    * and that’s one reason she doesn’t want to discuss this thing too much. She doesn’t even want to speak to Sanders because how can she have Sanders believing it was Trump and not deny the story to his face?

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  24. Jeeze, the Bezos Bugle has at least three different stories or blog posts about this.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  25. @24. That’s what happens when you cease giving daily WH press briefings. The Beast is hungry and needs fed 24/7.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  26. What really settles this is that it seems to be an acknewleged fact that, in 2015, Berne Sanders deferred to Elizabeth Warren. (She was probably letting that simmer for awhile, while never intending to run, at the ibntigation of Hillary Clinton, who was trying to limit the number of candidates in the race, and psyched out Joe Biden, by first letting him think he had time and later that it was too late to gt started.)

    What really happened was that probably, as she states, Elizabeth Warren made the claim to Bernie sanders, that, as a woman, she had a better chance of winning than a man, because of all the women who would vote for her, and Bernie Sanders disputed that. But he did not dispute it by claiming no woman could win the residency.

    She does get some more first choice votes from (mostly unmarried) women. It;s not that much. And other people have other constituencies.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  27. A much better way to phrase the question to Warren would have been:

    “Senator Warren, is Senator Sanders being truthful?”

    Dave (1bb933)

  28. @15. They’re over produced today. Go back and view the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debates. Two candidates, two chairs, one moderator, some glasses of water and a few podiums. That’s all.

    No pundits, no spin rooms nor hours of pre-debate/post-debate panels of peanut gallery talking heads. Viewers didn’t need any Chris Matthews-types to tell them what they just saw.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  29. @27. That’s ‘Bltizeresque.’ Abby’s a sheep- no Wolf.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  30. Caitlin Johnstone ⏳
    @caitoz
    .
    Top three US trends right now:
    1. #CNNisTrash
    2. #NeverWarren
    3. #WarrenIsASnake

    _

    This was posted last night after the debate.

    I just checked and the only one of these as trending top 5 is #neverwarren at number 2.
    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  31. Two candidates, two chairs, one moderator, some glasses of water and a few podiums. That’s all.

    Yes, exactly. I have been on this kick for years. What passes for a “debate” these days is just an exercise in pre-rehearsed grandstanding and the hope that you will have the opportunity to break out your carefully memorized one-liner, e.g. Lloyd Bentsen versus Dan Quayle. Candidates don’t get to question one another, the follow-ups from the moderators are uniformly weak, and each candidate is playing to the audience in the auditorium and on TV rather than trying to make salient points.

    I saw an item recently where President Trump’s campaign team is considering not participating in the debates his coming fall. I hope that’s not the case, but I also hope that they are using this threat as leverage to upend the lousy format that the League of Women Voters and other alleged good government groups have foisted upon us. The Trump Team should demand that it be the two candidates with one moderator in a television studio, with candidates allowed the opportunity to ask follow-up questions of each other and have an actual debate rather than an exchange of soundbites. This may or may not play to Trump’s strengths, I don’t really care either way. But it would be infinitely more watchable than the dreck that we have had for the past forty-plus years.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  32. and leaked a cover story to Sanders that it was Trump

    Sanders would have to be stupid on a level that is hard to imagine to think that CNN would run a political hit for Trump. That would be like praising Chavez’s economic policies and then not course-correcting when people starting eating pets.

    frosty (f27e97)

  33. harkin (d6cfee) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:28 pm

    The twitter algorithm is being tweaked as this is being typed.

    frosty (f27e97)

  34. Wow. The increasingly unhinged Jennifer Rubin analyzes the Sanders-Warren dustup in her typically blinkered way:

    It is no stretch to imagine that Sanders, desperate to keep his progressive rival out of the race and sharing that widespread concern (however illogical and baseless) that Clinton’s gender determined the outcome in 2016, could have said he didn’t think a woman could beat Trump or that a woman would be disadvantaged running against Trump.

    Second, Sanders chose to deny saying anything to that effect. He either forgot the remark — because it was such a commonplace sentiment at the time — or now is lying about the exchange. [. . . ]

    I know this is crazy talk, Ms. Rubin, but bear with me for one quick moment here because there is another possibility that you seem determined to ignore: Maybe Sen. Sanders didn’t say what Sen. Warren accuses him of saying. I mean, we’ve documented here before Sen. Warren’s penchant for concocting self-serving stories of dubious merit — there’s a reason she is known in conservative circles as Fauxcahontas and Lieawatha.

    I wrote last night that I am totally willing to believe that a foolish old Marxist like Bernard Sanders holds antiquated sexist notions and is crazy enough to repeat them in front of a tiresome harpy like Elizabeth Warren, but I can also believe that Sen. Warren would be conniving enough to make up a story like this, get it out into the public, and then declare that she no longer wants to talk about it once she has fired her volley. If the two ridiculously righteous lefties take each other out of the race and clear the way for Slow Joe or Petey the Boy Wonder then I will thoroughly enjoy the irony.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  35. The #NeverBernie crowd on twitter is already telling Bernie Bros to shut up and take it #BecauseWarren is #BecauseWomen.

    frosty (f27e97)

  36. The Trump Team should demand that it be the two candidates with one moderator in a television studio, with candidates allowed the opportunity to ask follow-up questions of each other and have an actual debate rather than an exchange of soundbites.

    I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally wrong with the commonly used format.

    Dispensing with the live audience is probably a good idea, but nothing would prevent rehearsed answers, soundbites, posturing, etc in the format you suggest. It would just devolve into a shouting/name-calling match more frequently.

    Dave (1bb933)

  37. It would just devolve into a shouting/name-calling match more frequently.

    Good. Then the audience can reach their own conclusions about the candidates’ temperaments and suitability.

    We know that probably 90% of people who watch the debates already have their minds made up, perhaps even more. Letting the debate turn into a free-for-all will help those last undecideds to make a decision. If Donald Trump talks over Bernard Sanders then maybe a swing voter will hold it against him. If Elizabeth Warren is goaded into acting like an arrogant entitled Ivy League professor then she’ll have to hope the independent voter doesn’t hold it against her. But the anitseptic format of modern debates suppress all of that. How much more fun would it have been last night if Sen. Sanders had the opportunity to directly question Sen. Warren? That’s what is missing from these debates.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  38. I think that Abby Phillip intentionally teed up the pivot for Warren, who then was able to recited her much-practiced response. It was no accident. Warren just needed to wait for the cue.

    I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I’d love to see the Warren and Sanders go after each other, and see Biden sit back and wait, knowing that they were doing the heavy lifting for him. CNN obviously has skin in the game, so it’s be fun to see them take the hit too.

    Dana (f905d7)

  39. Not even asking Bernie about his Bolshevik staffer exposed by Project Veritas was another way CNN tipped the scales for Warren.

    Nothing wins over Dem voters quite like floating the idea of throwing Trump deplorables in the gulag. Warren needs to get out in front of that.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  40. @38. They do practice deliveries. It’s part of TV production and folks the biz can spot somebody when they’re ‘over-rehearsed.’ Phillip was.

    Case in point- back in the day we were taping some practice 30 second SX-70 commercials and the various talents would read the script and do several run throughs before an on camera take for taping but some would ‘over-rehearse’ the lines for delivery– they come out fast or just a tad unnatural. You develop an eye and ear to spot it. Even before your post, it struck me watching it live last night that Phillip’s was over-rehearsed, probably because she knew the significance of that Q&A, and didn’t listen to Sander’s response. CNN producers goofed: she’s not ready for this sort of primetime gig.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  41. @37. Thing is, if it was an actual debate[s], a la Lincoln-Douglas… it would be hard to keep a television audience interested just as it’s hard to keep viewers watching a lengthy, more mundane- and scripted- legislative debate televised by CSPAN on the House or Senate floor.

    Even truncated, as w/JFK and Nixon in 1960, what people saw was more important than what they heard, hence radio audiences felt Nixon won but TV audiences saw JFK as the winner. The value– and limitations– of television and the production techniques in use really surface when brodcasting events like this. The format is crying out for less hype and more content.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  42. @37. Thing is, if it was an actual debate[s], a la Lincoln-Douglas… it would be hard to keep a television audience interested just as it’s hard to keep viewers watching a lengthy, more mundane- and scripted- legislative debate televised by CSPAN on the House or Senate floor.

    I don’t disagree. But we can’t continue to have these phony, highly-scripted “debates” and then sit around wondering why our choice for President comes down to the Donald Trumps, Hillary Clintons, Elizabeth Warrens, Mitt Romneys, and Bernard Sanderses of the world. Nor do we have any standing to lament the vacuousness of the campaigns when we refuse to demand any better.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  43. @42. Well, consider ‘the drought’ between 1960 and the next set of televised debates–what was it… Ford/Dole/Carter/Mondale in ’75/’76? The television medium had technologically progressed a long way by then but the ‘debating’ format really has not adapted well to that advance. If memory serves they turned the formatting over to the League of Women Voters for a time but now it is more or less left in the hands of the broadcasters in conjunction w/t political party managers.

    They could select just four questions- two national, two international, over three hours and let them go at each other without much intrusive moderation– Jim Lehrer was pretty good at letting them ‘go with the flow’ in the debates he moderated but was also criticized for it. I think a lot of it today requires the broadcasters to inform the audience– to ‘educated’ them– including the trick of the trade, on the strengths and limitations of televised events like this. But OTOH, the campaigns of the candidates must agree– they can play to those the strengths and weaknesses. LBJ was great one on one– Bob Dole, Romney and even HRC were known to be as well- but all three were stilted and came across poorly on television. Mayor Pete is smooth on TV; Joe Biden is not and they may be just the opposite in person. And then there’s Reagan– and Trump, both mastering the medium.

    McLuhan was correct: the medium truly is the message And the debate format really has to adapt to it to be effective. So far it has not.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  44. Now we know what Lizzie and Bernie were saying to each other right after the debate:

    “I think you called me a liar on national TV,” Warren can be heard saying.
    “What?” Sanders responded.
    “I think you called me a liar on national TV,” she repeated.
    “You know, let’s not do it right now. If you want to have that discussion, we’ll have that discussion,” Sanders said, to which Warren replied, “Anytime.”
    “You called me a liar,” Sanders continued. “You told me — all right, let’s not do it now.”
    After their exchange, fellow Democratic candidate Tom Steyer, who had been standing behind the two senators, can be heard saying, “I don’t want to get in the middle. I just want to say hi Bernie.”

    I call that a partial save on CNN’s part after that obnoxious question by Ms. Phillip, and it shows us the real Lizzie, the kind of schoolmarmy old biddie who likes to hold onto grudges.
    I just thought it was funny to include Steyer’s exchange with Bernie at the end.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  45. I don’t like Sanders. He doesn’t fight.

    nk (dbc370)

  46. I’ve updated the post with the video and audio of the post-debate exchange between Warren and Sander (when she refused to shake his hand).

    Dana (643cd6)

  47. …the kind of schoolmarmy old biddie who likes to hold onto grudges.

    And if she had man parts and a five o’clock shadow, she’d be buried in Yorba Linda, CA.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  48. I don’t like Sanders. He doesn’t fight.

    Absolutely. If you are innocent and have been accused of being a liar on national television during a critical presidential debate, aren’t you going to put your hand up and say Hey, just wait a minute here… You, pointing to moderator have called me a liar, and you pointing to Warren, have also called me a liar. I reject both of your accusations, full stop. And because I am telling the truth, I am calling both of you liars.

    Warren made the accusation, the onus is on her to provide proof.

    Dana (643cd6)

  49. I don’t like Sanders. He doesn’t fight.

    Yeah, he should’ve punched her, or hocked a loogie.
    I actually liked his quick reaction: First taken aback, then he called her liar but stopped himself, then he blew her off. The funny part was part was Steyer horning in, acting like he was just happy to be on the stage.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  50. I was being sarcastic.

    A lot of people over at Savaedra’s comments think CNN did this on purpose. That it was #2 of a 1-2 punch against Sanders. I don’t care enough to think about it tonight. I’ll think about it tomorrow. (That’s my Scarlett O’Hara impression.)

    nk (dbc370)

  51. The fact that Sanders didn’t do any “wait a minute” suggests to me that Warren didn’t lie.

    Of course, it wasn’t as if I would vote for either of them in November.

    Kishnevi (dc4324)

  52. Oh, I get the sarcasm. It was funny. I’m just entertained by the whole spectacle.
    I’m not sure how a woman would perceive Lizzie’s bee-lining over to Bernie and verbally accosting him, but she didn’t win any male voters, and more likely she lost a number of men.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  53. Maybe, kishnevi. It might also suggest that that Sanders is unable to be necessarily confrontational (hollering about evil corporations all the time doesn’t count), or put his integrity before party. Both are negatives.

    Dana (643cd6)

  54. Again: television— what they say matters less than how it looks: A crotchety, cranky old man badgering a prim, Marion-The-Librarian-type on TeeVee looks bad. It ws a no win for him:

    “The Mark Twain book was a day late and you’re fining me five buck, lady??? I’m on Social Security in a walker with a with a fixed income!”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  55. Dana (643cd6) — 1/15/2020 @ 6:34 pm

    I think this is it. He just doesn’t have the instinct to fight back. It’s an odd play for Warren though. Biden will need to go completely delusional for her to get the nomination. As long as he can keep a couple hours of working memory her best bet is a VP slot which would cut Bernie out anyway. Why set fire to the Bernie Bros?

    frosty (f27e97)

  56. I’d like to see a Biden – Buttigieg ticket.
    Because it will be fun to watch Biden completely forget who the kid is… “are you a page”?
    “Oh. My VP. I picked you? Was Hunter not available? WTF? This is a big effen deal, bigger than Obamacare. I was the architect of Obamacare, Barack and I were up late at night, 6:00 PM some nights working on this big effen deal.”

    steveg (354706)

  57. 46. Dana (643cd6) — 1/15/2020 @ 6:08 pm

    I’ve updated the post with the video and audio of the post-debate exchange between Warren and Sanders (when she refused to shake his hand).

    Inside Edition featured a lipreader.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  58. This is hilarious.

    Curb Your Enthusiasm, Bernie… pic.twitter.com/jUO0Togpk1— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) January 16, 2020

    JRH (52aed3)

  59. The New York Times has a (signed by an individual) editorial today that seems to be taking the position that Elizabeth Warren is telling the truth – and tries to say that Bernie Sanders is not lying by parsing his words.

    It argues, that him saying:

    Anybody that knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman could not be President of the United States.

    is different from saying that awoman couldn’t serve well.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/opinion/sanders-warren-women-president.html

    Ms. Warren contends that, during a tête-à-tête in late 2018, Mr. Sanders told her he did not believe that a woman could win the presidency. Mr. Sanders has dismissed the charge as “ludicrous” and initially accused some on the Warren campaign staff of lying about it.

    When asked about the comment by the debate moderators, Mr. Sanders doubled down on his denial. “Anybody knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States.”

    Now, one could point out that believing a woman can be president of the United States is not the same as questioning whether a woman can get elected president.

    Notice how biased this. It even says “debate moderators like this was more than one, like this was some kind of an informed consensus. The words “doubled down” also imply that what he is saying is wrong.

    But Bernie Sanders’s words are not subject to that – oh, he was just speaking in practical terms – interpretation:

    Here is the full quote:

    https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/january-iowa-democratic-debate-transcript

    Anybody that knows me knows that it’s in comprehensible that I would think that a woman could not be President of the United States. Go to YouTube today. There’s a video of me 30 years ago, talking about how a woman could become President of the United States.

    I think it;s probably true that members of Warren;s official campaign staff are not involved in the leak. This is a Klinton Konspiracy. It’s also pretty stupid and won’t get her anywhere.

    Bernie sanders also said:

    In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Senate Warren. There was a movement to draft Senator Warren to run for President, and you know what? I stayed back. Senator Warren decided not to run, and I did run afterwards.

    Elizabeth Warren didn’t dispute that.

    What happened in 2015 was that Elizabeth Warren tried to play it coy too long, never saying yes, but also never saying now. She met with a group of people trying to draft her on April 22 (she denied that that was what it was about) and because she wouldn’t say yes, they took it as a no and Bernie Sanders announced the next week. Sanders and others, unlike Joe Biden, knew what the true deadline was. (because of fundraising and staff hiring considerations.)

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  60. It;’s now known what Elizabeth Warren said to Bernie Sanders after the debate:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/us/politics/sanders-warren-debate-handshake.html

    Warren Told Sanders After Debate, ‘I Think You Called Me a Liar on National TV’

    “You called me a liar,” Bernie Sanders responded, as the candidates’ sudden clash injected new uncertainty into the Democratic presidential race.

    …..The New York Times described details of their exchange on Wednesday afternoon, and CNN broadcast an audio recording that night.

    According to the audio, Mr. Sanders responded, “What?”

    “I think you called me a liar on national TV,” she said again.

    “You know, let’s not do it right now,” he said. “If you want to have that discussion, we’ll have that discussion.”

    Ms. Warren replied, “Anytime.”

    “You called me a liar,” Mr. Sanders said. “You told me — all right, let’s not do it now.”

    …And in a conflict heavily focused on which candidate is telling the truth, Ms. Warren faces a real risk: Several studies have shown that voters punish women more harshly than men for real or perceived dishonesty.

    Maybe because, on average, they start off with a better reputation for telling the truth and/or being good people! So they lose more.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  61. Bernie still won’t talk about the Warren issue when given a chance. Even to say it was a misunderstanding.

    frosty (f27e97)

  62. Bernie has this party loyalty thing.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  63. Part of the Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren debate:

    E. Warren: (44:06)
    So can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost ten elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women. The only person on this stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican anytime in the past 30 years is me, and here’s what I know….

    ….Bernie Sanders: (46:49)

    Well, just to set the record straight, I defeated an incumbent Republican running for Congress.

    E. Warren: (46:56)

    When?

    Bernie Sanders: (46:57)

    1990. That’s how I won. Beat a Republican Congressman. Number two, of course …

    E. Warren: (47:06)
    30 years ago.

    Bernie Sanders: (47:06)

    … I don’t think there’s any debate on …

    E. Warren: (47:09)

    Wasn’t that 30 years ago?

    Bernie Sanders: (47:12)

    I beat an incumbent Republican Congressman.

    E. Warren: (47:16)

    I said I was the only one who has beaten an incumbent Republican in 30 years.

    Bernie Sanders: (47:20)

    Well, 30 years ago is 1990, as a matter of fact. But I don’t know that that’s the major issue of the day. I think what the major issue of the day is … Does anybody in their right mind thing that a woman cannot be elected President? That’s enough. Nobody believes that. Hillary Clinton got 3 million votes, more votes than Trump. So who believes that a woman can’t win? Of course a woman can win.

    Bernie Sanders: (47:45)

    But the real question is how do we beat Trump? The only way we beat Trump is by a campaign of energy and excitement and a campaign that has, by far, the largest voter turnout in the history of this country.

    Bernie Sanders: (48:02)

    I believe that our campaign has the strongest grassroots movement.

    Well, the elections are 30 years apart, but the Election of 1990 was 29 years, two months, one week, and two days before this debate.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4087 secs.