CNN Debate Moderator Shamefully Takes Sides In Warren-Sanders Feud (UPDATE ADDED)
[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.
CNN: "Sen. Sanders, you're saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election?"
SANDERS: "That is correct."
CNN: "Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election." pic.twitter.com/zdXOfIpdOY
— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) January 15, 2020
After the debates, Warren rebuffed Sanders when he attempted to shake her hand:
Right after the debate ended, Bernie Sanders extended his hand for a handshake and Elizabeth Warren straight up rejected him.
BIG YIKES pic.twitter.com/hQY3avFuSS
— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) January 15, 2020
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):
CNN releases the audio from the post debate interaction between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren
Warren: “I think you called me a liar on national TV”
Sanders: “What?”
Warren: “I think you called me a liar on national TV”
Sanders: “No, let's not do it right now …” pic.twitter.com/nhendvv5Jb
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) January 16, 2020
(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)
–Dana
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) — 1/15/2020 @ 7:33 amShe probably should have thrown a campaign worker under the bus. Neither one of them can back down now.
Kevin M (19357e) — 1/15/2020 @ 7:40 amApropos to my comment at #1:
Dana (643cd6) — 1/15/2020 @ 7:45 amBernie should’ve offered a peacepipe and firewater instead of a handshake.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:02 amDana (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) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:03 amGreat 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
nk (dbc370) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:07 amAbby Phillip discredited herself with her clear and obvious bias
And what negative consequences will she face for that?
Hint: Crickets chirping.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:16 amBored Lawyer,
Following her marching orders…
Dana (643cd6) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:20 amDana:
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) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:25 amBoth 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:27 amIt is good to see Trump’s sentiments catching on here.
BuDuh (51f808) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:30 amFour 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:34 amWarren has the evil mother-in-law vote locked up.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:39 amI 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:44 am
nk (dbc370) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:45 amTrumpKellyanne 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.Looks as if cnn was the loser in the debate.
mg (8cbc69) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:58 am“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) — 1/15/2020 @ 9:34 amThey’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) — 1/15/2020 @ 9:56 am@18, you’re concerned about your perception of fairness. They might be concerned about getting their message out.
Time123 (353edd) — 1/15/2020 @ 10:36 amTommy 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
harkin (d6cfee) — 1/15/2020 @ 10:53 am@ehnottooxabi
·
Gee, it’s soo super suprising person that thought leaking DNA to show she’s 1024th Native American, would make another political mistake.
__
#BelieveAllWomen
JVW (54fd0b) — 1/15/2020 @ 11:18 amAbby 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 11:22 amBernie Sanders seems to believe it was Trump, or people from his campaign or friendly to it, who made up the story:
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) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:05 pmJeeze, the Bezos Bugle has at least three different stories or blog posts about this.
JVW (54fd0b) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:06 pm@24. That’s what happens when you cease giving daily WH press briefings. The Beast is hungry and needs fed 24/7.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:14 pmWhat 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:16 pmA much better way to phrase the question to Warren would have been:
“Senator Warren, is Senator Sanders being truthful?”
Dave (1bb933) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:18 pm@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) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:24 pm@27. That’s ‘Bltizeresque.’ Abby’s a sheep- no Wolf.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:25 pmCaitlin 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:28 pm_
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) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:33 pmand 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:42 pmharkin (d6cfee) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:28 pm
The twitter algorithm is being tweaked as this is being typed.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:45 pmWow. The increasingly unhinged Jennifer Rubin analyzes the Sanders-Warren dustup in her typically blinkered way:
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) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:48 pmThe #NeverBernie crowd on twitter is already telling Bernie Bros to shut up and take it #BecauseWarren is #BecauseWomen.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/15/2020 @ 12:54 pmI 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 1:04 pmIt 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 1:23 pmI 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 1:34 pmNot 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 2:28 pm@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) — 1/15/2020 @ 4:06 pm@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) — 1/15/2020 @ 4:24 pm@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) — 1/15/2020 @ 4:49 pm@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) — 1/15/2020 @ 5:27 pmNow we know what Lizzie and Bernie were saying to each other right after the debate:
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.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 1/15/2020 @ 5:44 pmI just thought it was funny to include Steyer’s exchange with Bernie at the end.
I don’t like Sanders. He doesn’t fight.
nk (dbc370) — 1/15/2020 @ 5:49 pmI’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) — 1/15/2020 @ 6:08 pm…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) — 1/15/2020 @ 6:09 pmAbsolutely. 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 6:13 pmYeah, he should’ve punched her, or hocked a loogie.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 1/15/2020 @ 6:15 pmI 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.
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) — 1/15/2020 @ 6:21 pmThe 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 6:23 pmOh, I get the sarcasm. It was funny. I’m just entertained by the whole spectacle.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 1/15/2020 @ 6:31 pmI’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.
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) — 1/15/2020 @ 6:34 pmAgain: 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) — 1/15/2020 @ 6:36 pmDana (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) — 1/15/2020 @ 6:47 pmI’d like to see a Biden – Buttigieg ticket.
steveg (354706) — 1/15/2020 @ 7:06 pmBecause 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.”
46. Dana (643cd6) — 1/15/2020 @ 6:08 pm
Inside Edition featured a lipreader.
Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3) — 1/15/2020 @ 8:31 pmThis is hilarious.
JRH (52aed3) — 1/15/2020 @ 10:01 pmThe 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:
is different from saying that awoman couldn’t serve well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/opinion/sanders-warren-women-president.html
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
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:
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) — 1/16/2020 @ 6:21 amIt;’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
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) — 1/16/2020 @ 7:13 amBernie still won’t talk about the Warren issue when given a chance. Even to say it was a misunderstanding.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/16/2020 @ 11:42 amBernie has this party loyalty thing.
Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3) — 1/16/2020 @ 2:51 pmPart of the Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren debate:
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) — 1/16/2020 @ 2:57 pm