January 14, 2020

Is Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren lying about whether Bernie said a woman cannot win the presidency in 2020?

I'm reading the story in the NYT, and I'm trying to figure out if it's necessary to say that somebody is lying:
Mr. Sanders vehemently denied making the remark earlier on Monday and accused the Warren campaign staff of “lying” about it, in a statement intended to refute a news report by CNN that relied on anonymous sources. The New York Times and other outlets confirmed the CNN report on Monday afternoon, while the Warren campaign initially declined to comment....
Sanders and Warren had a two-hour meeting in December 2018 in which they talked frankly about how the 2018 race might go, but CNN, this week, decided to put out a story that was very damaging to Sanders, making him sound like a sexist. Sanders had to fly into action and deny everything, and then it became such a big deal that Warren responded:
“Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed,” she said. “I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry.”
"I thought a woman could win; he disagreed." That's very starkly put, and I'm skeptical that Bernie would say that a woman cannot win.

I can believe that they talked about the pros and cons of the Democrats going with a female candidate against Trump once again and that Bernie might stress the difficulties a woman would face, while Warren might lean toward the idea that the Democrats need to represent diversity and offer a contrast to Trump.

I can believe what Sanders says he said: He told Warren "that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could." But I can't believe that Sanders would go to the extreme of taking the position that a woman cannot win.

Nevertheless, in a 2-hour private conversation, in which the 2 power-seekers worked on each other, Sanders could very well have put the words together and announced that a woman cannot win. Didn't he want Warren to stand down and allow him to go forward and run in the left lane?
The existence of the meeting has been public since shortly after it happened in December 2018. The New York Times reported shortly after the meeting took place that Ms. Warren had sought it “as a courtesy,” and that neither party had tried to gain the other’s support or discourage the other from running. But the two senators were the only people in the room, and all reports of what was said had been secondhand....
No one can remember everything that was said in a 2-hour conversation, certainly not verbatim. And in a conversation like that, many things are said hypothetically or for effect, so even a verbatim comment — like "A woman cannot win in 2020" — means very little out of context. That's why it's wrong — speaking of weaponizing whatever you can — to bring that quote/near quote out of the confidential conversation and spring it on the voters.

The real problem here is not that Bernie may have said the words attributed to him, but that Warren's people chose to drag something private into the light for the purpose of making him look like a sexist.

140 comments:

wendybar said...

Does it really matter?? They are both losers and will NEVER be President!!

Phil 314 said...

Can you believe anything Warren says?

Rob said...

Liz was going for Bernie’s scalp.

Leland said...

If Sanders believes he will be the winner, then unless he has a sex change, then he certainly doesn't believe a woman will beat him. So then the question becomes, if Sanders were to not run, could a woman become President with whatever is left to run. Rush noted long ago about the ego required to be President, much less run for it. If you don't go in with an inflated ego that you will win; then you will be destroyed and lose.

Beasts of England said...

When septuagenarian socialists collide... 🍿

Ann Althouse said...

The NYT needs more careful word editing: "Mr. Sanders vehemently denied making the remark earlier on Monday..."

You can't put something like "earlier on Monday" where it can refer to things that happened at different times. It's not only inelegant. It's hard to read.

AllenS said...

Warren speak with forked tongue.

Shouting Thomas said...

I'm for ending using the presidency as a platform for the diversity crusade and identity politics.

President Trump is the most competent candidate. He's proven it thru performance.

Sanders is a communist. Warren is close to a communist. Both are extremely dangerous.

We need a competent, pragmatic president, not an identity politics crusade. We need to re-elect Prez Trump.

Beasts of England said...

Maybe we’ll get some fireworks at the ‘Blinded by the White’ dem debate this evening. Or at least a tuna casserole cook-off.

Curious George said...

"That's why it's wrong — speaking of weaponizing whatever you can — to bring that quote/near quote out of the confidential conversation and spring it on the voters."

So this is what you find wrong about things Democrats say to voters. This.

Amexpat said...

Warren is getting desperate. I can understand why. How can a 78-year-old, who just had a heart attack, be getting ahead of her in this race? He should have dropped out by now and left the progressive wing for herself.

AllenS said...

The more exposure that the Fake Indian gets, the less people like her. Most people know that all of her promises to give everyone what they want, is nothing but her bullshitting. "I've got a plan for that."

Mary Beth (the commenter) said...

Warren doesn't think "a woman" can win, she thinks she can win. Sanders doesn't think "a woman" can't win, he thinks he can win. They're both at least half wrong.

Rick said...

I don't believe he would say that either, mostly because it's hard to believe he believes it.
As such the most likely explanation is that he said Warren couldn't win for which she substituted "women". This is Victim Posing 101.

stevew said...

My rule is that I do not trust or believe things asserted by anonymous sources. Not only is it difficult to remember all that was said, verbatim, in a 2 hour, wide ranging, conversation, but even more so for a conversation that happened more than a year ago.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie thinks that a woman can't win against Trump, but not any woman, a very specific woman such as Warren. That's what the voters think, so far.

whitney said...

Elizabeth Warren's a pathological liar. That has become blatantly obvious. I don't know about Bernie but he probably is too just because he's a career politician . It's a coin toss

Jeff said...

Ann is right. Whatever was said in a private meeting should have remained private. Attacking Sanders with it now is a very low blow, and it hurts Warren more than it hurts Bernie. His supporters no doubt are now remembering how rotten Hillary Clinton was and are thinking that Elizabeth Warren is just as nasty.

gilbar said...

a news report by CNN that relied on anonymous sources.

remember the olden days? back when news reports were based on FACTS, not "Truths"?

Hagar said...

A woman can't until a woman does, but it won't be Elizabeth Warren.

Narayanan said...

Time to bring back gender-reverse debate video from last season. And cast new players. Manly woman vs feminine Trump.

That would almost quality Trump for first trans- President-

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

A 'woman' can't ('won't' is the better word) win in 2020, because a certain 'man', Trump, is virtually unbeatable.

iowan2 said...

Once again, something that I'm exposed to in the abstract, but not caring enough to figure out why it is of any interest. I mostly don't care that politicians are lying all the time. But you have distilled it down to the essence.

Why did Warren make this public?

So if anyone cares about this,asking that simple question will get you all you need to know.

(off topic. is their a "strike through" HTML? What I've tried won't work here)

rehajm said...

Didn't he want Warren to stand down and allow him to go forward and run in the left lane

It's the ditch beyond the median strip of the left lane. Bernie is a socialist, remember. Warren is just dumb. The people she hired are political scumbags. Now that we're in the attack each other phase of the election all you have to do is look who is behind to figure out who's setting the memes or just flat out lying...

John henry said...

Wouldn't it depend on the woman?

And who she is running against?

John Henry

Temujin said...

Of course a woman can win. But the Dems keep putting up hideous people who happen to be women and expect the rest of us to vote for those hideous people because they are women. I know, I know...but Trump! And you would be right to point that out. But Trump is a complete one-off, never to happen again.

After Trump we'll get back to the regular folk owned and operated by Washington, Inc.

But a conservative woman will get elected, and may get elected before a Dem woman. Nikki Haley for instance. (also...Condi Rice might have done well had she run.) There are others, about to become more know.

Dems give us Elizabeth. AOC. Hillary. Not a great lineup.

rehajm said...

Wouldn't it depend on the woman?

My thought was Bernie said Warren can't win, so Warren says Bernie said a woman can't win...

Darrell said...

I choose to believe neither.

AllenS said...

"I have a plan for that."

"Wouldn't it depend on the woman?"

"Wait a minute".

gilbar said...

But the two senators were the only people in the room, and all reports of what was said had been secondhand....

and the secondhand reports, were reported Anonymously to CNN; which reported them as TRUTHS

Then, The New York Times and other outlets confirmed the CNN report on Monday afternoon
Which is to say; they CONFIRMED that CNN had reported it.

The Warren campaign initially declined to comment. Then, later; said "That's about right"
Then, the Sanders campaign said: "That's NOT what we said"

THIS is what passes for TRUTH these days.
Meanwhile, the Iranian secret police are SHOOTING people protesting their government
And that doesn't make the news

Kevin said...

PUMA II - Revenge of the Scorned!

Mattman26 said...

Can’t recall where I read it, but some Dem insider noted that it’s the kind of thing Bernie would say, and the kind of thing Warren would lie about.

Which is kind of perfect.

gilbar said...

rehajm said...
My thought was Bernie said Warren can't win, so Warren says Bernie said a woman can't win...


MY wild ass guess, unsullied by facts; is that Bernie said something along the lines of:
"Y'all can't possibly win!" And Lizzy took the Y'all (or, whatever the vermontise for Y'all is) as meaning ALL women; not her campaign




Mattman26 said...

I would pay money to see Bernie say “y’all.”

MikeR said...

In that case, this story makes Warren sound like one of those scary snowflake touchy social justice warriors, where anything you say is liable to bring an explosion. We probably don't want a president who's going to remember an imagined slight from two years ago.

Karen of Texas said...

So are the Bernie/Warren camps going to have a throw down about how low and vile people are who traffic in secondhand sources as fodder for The Truth of an event? Are they going to point out that reporters "reporting" by using anonymous secondhand sources to "break" news are useless dirtbags looking to drive a narrative or favor - or disfavor - a particular candidate?

Because, you know, Trump. Ukraine. Trump. And just about everything else that the media "reports" with regards to Trump and his presidency...

Tank said...

As indicated by others above, why would anyone believe anything Warren says?

Bob Boyd said...

Does she pinky swear he said it?

Michael K said...

Whatever was said in a private meeting should have remained private.

So, there were only the two of them in the room and an "anonymous source" told CNN. Who does not believe that "source" was Warren ?

Bob Boyd said...

Bernie will have bigger problems before the day is done.

Narayanan said...

In the vote harvesting and garnering system that Democratic call election isn't this a question of enthusiasm of the machine operators on behalf of the candidate.

Big Mike said...

Yes, Althouse, we get that your feminist principles force you to believe Elizabeth Warren, no matter how many times she’s been caught in a lie or supporting both sides of the same issue. #BelieveAllWomen, even when their lies are obvious.

gspencer said...

Elizabeth Warren wouldn't lie even if it served her self-interests, would she?

Unknown said...

B̵l̵o̵g̵g̵e̵r̵ ̵d̵o̵e̵s̵n̵'̵t̵ ̵l̵i̵k̵e̵ ̵t̵h̵e̵ ̵"̵s̵t̵r̵i̵k̵e̵"̵ ̵t̵a̵g̵.̵

But you can simulate it by cutting & pasting from here. (Very busy, ad-full page though..)

Paul Zrimsek said...

Someone who says "a woman can't win" isn't being sexist, he's accusing the voters of being sexist. The Hillary! dead-enders have been saying the same thing since the last election-- are they all sexist as well?

Browndog said...

A woman shouldn't win any election anywhere if they use the fact they are woman as a reason to vote for them.

iowan2 said...

I originally thought it was obvious, Warren had weaponized the "off the record" discussion the two of them had. I have shifted. How does Bernie torpedo Warren? a woman. How does the dark underbelly of politics get aired, how does the discussion about voters accepting female, get started without getting dirt on yourself? Bernie leaked this through one of his back channel operatives.

This leads into my contention, that President Trump is no different that any other politician or President. The only difference is President Trump does his own wet work. President Trump launches his own trial balloons, Offer his own take...out loud. All politicians do it. Before President Trump, surrogates did the dirty work, so blow back didn't sully the neck tie of the Grand Statesman. Bernie is playing dirty, through surrogates, just like tradition dictates.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The New York Times and other outlets confirmed the CNN report on Monday afternoon, while the Warren campaign initially declined to comment....

The CNN story states flat-out that Sanders made that comment. They don't just couch it in terms of "sources say..."

So how did the NYTs confirm the CNN story? Did they ask one of the two people in the room, Sanders and Warren? If you are confirming the story, wouldn't you need to ask the other one, the one who was not the source for the original story?

I guess if you got the original story from the Warren campaign, you could confirm with second-hand knowledge from the Sanders campaign, assuming Sanders told one of his staffers "I told Warren xyz..."

Unless someone recorded the conversation, I call bullshit on the confirmation

gilbar said...

Mattman26 said...
I would pay money to see Bernie say “y’all.”


well, me too! I don't know HOW they say second person plural, in Vermont
In the Chicago suburb were i grew up, we'd have said: "YouGuys can't win in 2020"

Bay Area Guy said...

Anonymous sources from a year old meeting - two weeks before the Iowa Caucus?

The Warren camp is lying. CNN willfully spread the lies. Hopefully, it boomerangs against her.

JAORE said...

Of course none of us really know. But, also of course, some people say.... second hand....

If I HAD to pick the liar, if liar there be, I'd see who was sliding DOWN in the polls and needed a boost.

Wince said...

"I thought a woman could win; he disagreed." That's very starkly put, and I'm skeptical that Bernie would say that a woman cannot win.

That was just Bernie acknowledging the sexism inherent in the system!

rhhardin said...

Trump isn't a woman so there you are.

Unknown said...

BERNIE:

I think *A* woman could win

Just not *THESE* women

DONE

narciso said...

Carrying over from the other thread:



https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1217083949693968385

traditionalguy said...

I demand a counter intelligence operation run through MI6 and Australian 5 eyes guys. This is clear collusion between a USSR loving Communist and a USA hating Harvard Professor.

Browndog said...

Blogger Bay Area Guy said...

Hopefully, it boomerangs against her.


Already has-

#RefundWarren is trending on twitter after a huge rush of donors are getting a refund for their donations to Warren.

BAS said...

Liz Warren's problem is that she lies a lot when she feels it will benefit her, even if it is easy to disprove. I'm not saying Bernie doesn't lie, he is a politician, but he would be more subtle in his lying.

tim maguire said...

With the primaries right around the corner, Sanders and Warren both need the other to drop out. Which is why their tactics are getting dirtier.

Aunty Trump said...

"Liz Warren's problem is that she lies a lot when she feels it will benefit her”

And it sounds like Bernie. So I am going to have to call this one unknowable.

Aunty Trump said...

Warren is just a lousy liar. She should call in Bill Clinton for lessons.

Howard said...

He probably told Warren that she couldn't win.

tim maguire said...

Bay Area Guy said...
Anonymous sources from a year old meeting - two weeks before the Iowa Caucus?


Two weeks before Iowa, but only a few days after Sanders' robocall tempest. Payback.

gilbar said...

https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1217083949693968385

does it bother me, that these white Boys are demanding;
reeducation camps?
gulags?
the incineration of the city of Milwaukee?

YES, YES it does...
But not Nearly as much as the fact,
that they think the Chicago Democrat convention riots took place in 1978!

Dazed, fat, and stupid; is no way to go through life

narciso said...

Like sonny bono in airplane 2 who doubled up on the auto insurance.

Unknown said...

The only correct answer is that the NYTimes is lying. There is no doubt that they are lying in this story.

GRW3 said...

Let's see Bernie is pretty honest about all his crazy ideas. Warren lies about everything. I believe the point goes to Bernie.

mockturtle said...

This is easy: Warren has established herself as a chronic liar so no one is going to believe anything she says. One will always assume she's lying unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

walter said...

off the record..but on the record as the longest 2hrs in history.

mccullough said...

Believe All Women, Bernie.

AllenS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

“I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry.”

There’s the tell. “I’m lying and I don’t want to discuss it”. Plain as bloody murder. Warren is so maladroit for someone in her position. Affirmative action and white privilege realized in one squirming little package.

Bay Area Guy said...

Crazy Bernie v Lizzie Warren - an old socialist, who pines for the return of the USSR and a paleface Harvard Professor who thinks she's an Indian.
Your modern day Democrat leadership!

AllenS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mccullough said...

Good for Warren. They are competing for The White Progressive Vote.

Now Bernie needs to call her a liar to her face at the debate tonight. Or he can be a pussy like he was in 2016.

Mayor Pete has no problem putting Grandma Liz in her place.

AllenS said...

The 3rd time attempt --

Evidently, Bernie said a woman cannot win the presidency in 2020. Now would be a good time for Bernie to tell America that a woman who has only one pair of black pants that she never washes cannot win the presidency in 2020.

mccullough said...

Angry Amy can pipe up tonight and call Bernie a Sexist.

He’s the only guy in America who gives a shit if a woman calls him a sexist.

Mich McCormick said...

Given the several fibs Warren has been caught telling (Native American heritage, not having school teacher contract renewed for being pregnant and sending her kids to public school) I’m inclined to believe Sanders when he denies saying a woman can’t win.

And I say this as someone not voting for either person.

robother said...

Mike Pence would never fall into that trap.

Karen of Texas said...

Bernie had enough name recognition to run a very credible 3rd party this go around and didn't do it. He is viable as a 3rd party contender - but obviously doesn't have the strength of his convictions. Go big or go home, Bern - you whimped out. Again.

wendybar said...

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=612353006194523

Burn Milwaukee, burn!!!!

walter said...

AllenS said... Now would be a good time for Bernie to tell America that a woman who has only one pair of black pants that she never washes cannot win the presidency in 2020.
--
The guy who wears glasses from the 70's and laments choices in deodorant is not well positioned for austerity shaming.

Rory said...

"Or he can be a pussy like he was in 2016."

This is interesting, because we know from Podesta's wikileak dump that Bernie did make a deal with the Clintons not to discuss certain subjects (don't know the extent). Is that what was happening here - the setting of ground rules that have been breached?

narciso said...

This is unoriginal, mitch mcgee was promising this in the 90s because reasons.

Lucid-Ideas said...

@Wendybar

"Miwaukee will f*cking burn"

Should it happen, I've never seen better documented evidence for extra-judicial killing. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

hombre said...

“But I can't believe that Sanders would go to the extreme of taking the position that a woman cannot win.”

You overestimate Sanders. For someone stupid enough to be a Marxist, anything is possible.

TreeJoe said...

Warren's making a power play because she is not breaking out and she's doing it in a cynical unprove-able way.

Bernie is many things, but his reputation is fairly good. Warren on the other hand has a history of lying, mis-representing, and positioning herself for maximum good even when her claims are specious. A long history of that.

This is the beginning of the end for Warren and weakens Bernie in the process. The beneficiaries are Biden and Bloomberg.

rcocean said...

I'd submit a 78 y/o man with a bad heart can't win the Presidency either. Do you realize that Bernie graduated from college with JFK was President? He's way too old and out of touch to be President. Again, I don't think his supporters care if he gets nominated, they're trying to be "edgy" and "Cool" by supporting a quasi-socialist.

And who cares if Bernie said "A woman can't win". There's only one woman who can get nominated and that's Warren. So, he doesn't think Warren can win. Which isn't surprising, since he wants Warren to drop out and support him. Bottom line: One of these two has to drop out after NH, and support the other. Otherwise, its Joe Biden for the win.

rcocean said...

"Mr. Sanders vehemently denied making the remark earlier on Monday..."

Yep. Why is "earlier on Monday" in there? It adds nothing. maybe the writer needed to pad out the article.

rcocean said...

Since Bernie was the token opposition in 2016, and refused to mount any real challenge to Hillary, I wonder if his 2020 run is just designed to split the Left-wing vote and help Biden get nominated. He's stated he'll support Bloomberg or ANY Democrat for POTUS. So, its not like he cares if his beliefs get enacted into law.

Greg the class traitor said...

It would not surprise me if Sanders had said "You can't win in 2020"

It would not surprise me if Warren translated that in her head to "no woman can win in 2020"

Why don't we just assume that they're both lying, and Move On?

Earnest Prole said...

Let’s imagine Warren told Sanders she would win it all, Sanders was less than 110 percent enthusiastic, and Warren spun the story to her benefit.

rhhardin said...

Sexisst remarks tend to be true. That's why they're sexist.

rhhardin said...

If I say a woman couldn't win the presidency, isn't that just right or wrong. Not in particular sexist.

If I say women tend not to show up at the top in mathematics, that's sexist. Also true.

That's all the fun in saying vile things. They have to be true, though.

walter said...

"The American people don't care about yer damn vaginer."

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

maybe he meant "woman of color"

...so-- not sexist !

#ROWDy !! Rich Old White Dems

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

@Walter
his Bklyn accent would auto-correct his crotchety pronunciation

Scott M said...

Given Warren's track record, I'm going with her as the liar. I'm certainly no Bernie fan, but I don't think he's that stupid. He probably said something akin to how sexist the real deplorable knuckle-draggers are and she's rephrased it to be more incindiary. After the news cycle damage is done, she can float a "simple misunderstanding" tweet and be done with it.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

BERNIE'S GONNA PUTCHA ALL IN CHAYYYNZ !!!

..well, Gulags.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/14/project-veritas-bernie-sanders-field-organizer-suggests-gulags-to-help-nazified-trump-voters/

Bob Boyd said...

Suppose Bernie did voice disagreement with Warren's expressed belief that a woman could win.

Why is that scandalous?
Why does that make Bernie sexist? It may mean Bernie thinks America is sexist, which is what Hillary tells us and is something pretty much every Democrat would agree with.
Does Warren disagree that America is sexist?

walter said...

Make American Gulags Acceptable.

bleh said...

Liz Warren is a vile creature. I used to think she was basically a professorial type and a doctrinaire leftist. But actually she's more of an opportunist and a liar. People talk about Trump being a liar but he's really more of a bullshitter. He exaggerates, he blusters, he's the loudmouth idiot at the bar with opinions on stuff. He's a P.T. Barnum type salesman.

Warren is a stone cold shameless liar who pretends to be a sober deep thinker. She just lies about everything and the press doesn't call her out on it. The Native American stuff, getting fired for being pregnant, etc. And she lies all the time on the trail about even about her own platform. I mean, it's insane.

She's a dangerously power-hungry opportunist.

Quaestor said...

She's a dangerously power-hungry opportunist.

True.

He's a dangerously power-hungry Stalinist.

Also true.

n.n said...

Palin could have been president, but Feminists mocked her sex, and fetishized her gender.

Yancey Ward said...

Here is the most important sentence in the story:

"But the two senators were the only people in the room"

This actually tells you everything you need to know. The ultimate source for the story that Sanders spoke the sentence has to be Elizabeth Warren, either directly to the journolists, or to her campaign staff and then on to the journolists. Note how she claims to support the story, but then doesn't want to talk about it any longer. This basically sounds to me that Warren is caught in another lie, and knows it. If the two were the only people in the room, then Warren would defend her honor and take full responsibility for being the source, not try to dodge the issue with a limited hangout.

I also don't think Sanders would say something like that to Warren- he might think it and say it to some person he trusts, but he definitely wouldn't say that to Warren. He might have suggested to her that she couldn't win, but I doubt he would even make that suggestion directly.

Unknown said...

Warren is attempting to get more of the female vote by lying to females about Bernie!She is a vote whore!She will say anything because she is desperate!Trump is definitely the next President!If not there definitely is a load of fake votes!

James Pawlak said...

Assume they both lie!

n.n said...

Perhaps a trans/neo-female (i.e. male), or a transgender male, with a feminine orientation (i.e. mental), but masculine physical attributes.

Yancey Ward said...

"Mr. Sanders vehemently denied making the remark earlier on Monday..."

Yes, that is just horrid writing and completely ambiguous. This is how it should have read:

"On Monday, Mr. Sanders vehemently denied making the remark."

These are people who make their livings writing and publishing. They are idiots by all indications.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

this is just a classic case of "Xe said, Xer said"

... but that aside, get ready for the Bernie Bro Bugaloo**

**remember what that means!

Yancey Ward said...

Tonight's debate should be fun, though!!

walter said...

Yancey Ward said...Note how she claims to support the story, but then doesn't want to talk about it any longer.
--
Drops a turd in Berno's punch bowl, saying it's still mostly punch.

Lucid-Ideas said...

@Ingachuck'stoothlessARM

"Bernie Bro Bugaloo"

No. 'Boogaloo' is our word as in Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo. What they can put together hardly qualifies except as Burn Trash Cans for Burnie: Part Deux, accompanied by mace, tasers and lots of crying.

Only our Boogaloo is the real Boogaloo. There's is a 'Boohoogaloo'. But if it's any consolation they won't be weep long before saying adieu.

Bob said...

It's a "he said she said" story, and both of them talk too much.

Martin said...

Not that it matters what I think, but in the absence of other evidence of course I believe Sanders over Warren.

James K said...

Of course Warren lied. It's what she does.

Jupiter said...

Of course Sanders is sexist. He's male. He's white, too, so he's racist.

Jim at said...

Left on left fight? Here's hoping for injuries.

Bay Area Guy said...

Bernie should counter that he is only 1/1052 sexist.

Bill Peschel said...

I choose to not care about the whole thing. The absolute fact that they'll both close down fracking and tie our nation's future to Russia and Iran is disqualifying enough.

And that's not counting their open borders, pro-gun confiscation, Bernie's general froot-loopiness and Warren's plan to crash the economy by 2028 (or whenever it was).

Seriously, do we really need to argue over who said what and what they mean by it?

Rabel said...

Warren's campaign is struggling. This is just a play by Warren for attention and the small jump in feminist support she might see as a result.

In another such play today she released a plan to give up to $50,000 of debt relief to all student loan recipients.

That is not new. What is new is that she say's she will do it by executive order and claims that as President she will have that authority.

OK, Boomer.

Rabel said...

Also, Warren is a liar, but not a "pathological" liar.

She lies with intent and for personal gain.

Bilwick said...

"Both?" It's hard to believe that people whose basic agenda consists of legalized looting, and who come from the gang that gave us "No truth but socialist truth," would actually fib! My stars and garters!

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

why he's called "Breadline Bernie" vid:

https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1217153501622611968

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

Bernie's Gulags will put the "RE-Education"

...back in "Free Education" !

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

“A woman enjoys intercourse with her man...she fantasizes being raped by three men simultaneously.”
-Bernie Sanders

maybe it's with 3 Party leaders, so she can skip to the front of the breadline

Milwaukie guy said...

I'm voting for Bernie in the primary because I want a straight-up socialist vs. Trump.

Who's the leader of the club
That's made for you and me?
D-O-N A-L-D T-R-U-M-P

Donald Trump!
Free Marketeers!
Donald Trump!
Free Marketeers!

Forever let us hold our banner high!

Don't be h8terz.

narciso said...

this schlub does seem to agree with the panthers and the sds, on certain things,


https://freebeacon.com/politics/matthew-dowd-sexist/

narciso said...

the huntress was too earnest and too polite, this is why I find the protestations over tact in trumps's case a little forced,

narciso said...

I would say toxic stupidity, but ymmv:



https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/toxic-environment-is-why-huntsman-leaving-the-view/ar-
BBYX7sa?ocid=spartandhp

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

Bernie Bro Jurek and staff hold up in his office now
not "random" "volunteer" but paid staffer
State Director looking into their acc'ts now..

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

All men? Or just Bernie and Trump?

Elizabeth Warren: Let’s Put Men In Women’s Prisons

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/13/elizabeth-warren-lets-put-men-in-womens-prisons/#.Xh3OjAZsaFo.twitter

narciso said...

maybe this kerfluffle was engineered to squirrel, the jurek revelations, hmm

Nichevo said...


Bill Peschel said...
I choose to not care about the whole thing. The absolute fact that they'll both close down fracking and tie our nation's future to Russia and Iran is disqualifying enough.

The details of the Blue on Blue isn't the point. The point is that the establishment now fears Sanders, as I have long predicted, is going to be the choice, and will be an epic fail up and down the ticket.

They are now yanking on the ripcord, but will find it comes off in their hand and nothing streams out the chute but a string of dirty laundry. Warren and Sanders had a non-aggression pact but obviously Liewatha has received the smoke signal to dig up the hatchet. All to no avail.

DavidD said...

I wonder how things would’ve been different if, instead of McCain picking Palin in 2008, Romney had picked her in 2012. There could’ve been a woman at the top of both tickets in 2016 and we’d have a woman President now.

Anybody who blames misogyny for Clinton’s loss had better check what they said about Palin in 2008 and beyond.

DavidD said...

Is “sexist” a noun?

I thought it was an adjective; every time I saw it written above, I expected to see “pig” immediately following....

Bobb said...

I'd go with the Indian on this one.

narciso said...

he wasn't going to, he hired dennis jones and madden, two of her detractors from 2008, but ryan served like a ritual lapdog,

Tom said...

Does anyone trust Warren enough to believe that if Bernie said “You know Donald Trump will say ‘A Women cannot win in 2020,” Warren would never say Bernie Sanders said, “A woman cannot win in 2020,” to damage Sanders?

I trust Warren, implicitly. I trust her to use that statement against Sanders exactly how she is and then to say she’s not talking about it so she’s not caught in another lie. I’ve seen nothing to suggest from her that she will speak the truth even when it’s harmful to her and I’ve seen nothing that suggests to me she won’t say anything to be president. And, yes, I’m double negative+ on Warren.

TJM said...

Who cares, since they are both morons?

Bob V said...

Bernie meant that Warren (or maybe Tulsi) can't win.