I really loved Warren's take down of Bloomberg

[Dem4Life1102]

She was great!

However, I really didn't like her when she went after Sanders, Klobuchar and Buttigieg. It seemed a bit mean spirited.

[Faux pas]

1. Kicketty Kickin'

[CalFione]

2. If she wants the nomination, she will have to go after Sanders harder

She will never win the nomination by being every Bernie voter's "second choice".


I think Warren might be the only possible bridge between the Bernie faction and the majority that are moderates.


But if she keeps running on a platform of "I'm just like Bernie, vote for me" - she'll never come in first.

[Jersey Devil]

3. She had to go after Sanders

He is getting the lion's share of the vote from the left. The moderates do not take from her vote so going after them was a waste of time in my opinion (except for Bloomberg who was rising fast until Elizabeth slammed him to the mat).

[JustAnotherGen]

4. I call it going for the win

I was raised to be a competitive woman. Amy was too - and she took it in stride.

Those two women know you gotta throw an elbow sometimes.

I respect them both for their blunt force trauma inflicted on our opposition and showing younger women (I'm in my late 40s - but hope millennial and Y's paid attention) - well - how to throw and elbow and give a subtle shove.

[rwheeler31]

5. I may be the only one but I thought it looked awful.

I think it will hurt us.

[denem]

14. And you said the same when Biden accused her of 'double talk' and 'making things up'

when she released her health care revenue plan, right? And you were particularly upset when Biden said of Pete's Medicare for All Who Want It "he stole it, it's the Biden plan"?

You would prefer that Joe plays lovey-dovey with Bernie like he has most of the way through?



That looks real good - everybody loves Bernie, right?

[Boomer]

15. Yes, you're the only one

I thought she was in great form. This is the Liz I signed up for. I want more.

[ancianita]

6. Why do you say "go after." This was discussion. She pointed out problems with their claims. I saw

no "going after." She's a professor who, by habit, has homework done and explains the consequences and meaning of their policy stands.

We must have watched two different Elizabeths.

Do you see how, at some point, the remaining five have to show how they can be aggressive toward an "above the law" class of rich ruler? Or will you not be comfortable with that?

They chose this debate to show tough debate style.

jmo

[squirecam]

7. Politifact rated her attack on Amy

As highly misleading. While it played well on tv, it was far from the truth.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/feb/20/fact-checking-las-vegas-democratic-debate-bloomber/


“Amy, I looked online at your (health care) plan. It’s two paragraphs." — Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

This is highly misleading.

Warren’s campaign told PolitiFact that she was referring specifically to Klobuchar’s plan for "universal health care." It pointed to the two paragraphs at the end of this Klobuchar campaign web page, which come under the heading "Propose legislation to get us to universal health care."

But that ignores most of Klobuchar’s health care plan, which she outlines in quite a bit of detail on four different web pages — a main health care policy page, a more detailed sub-page, a sub-page on prescription drugs and a sub-page on mental health. Klobuchar supports building on the Affordable Care Act and adding a public option that expands Medicare and Medicaid.

— Louis Jacobson

[ancianita]

8. It wasn't an attack. She'd read Amy's healthcare plan.

To state that it was only 2 paragraphs, implied that Amy had not given her policy as much thought or weight as she claimed in the debate.

That's how I saw it. It was an appropriate challenge, but not an attack.

She attacked Bloomberg, and professorized Klobuchar.

[squirecam]

9. And as shown it was false.

She wanted a post-it note zinger. Except the basis for the zinger was highly misleading.

That makes it an attack. Not a discussion of the issues.

Warren could have simply said that a public option wasn’t good enough for her. That’s not what she did.

[ancianita]

10. Okay. Amy's toughness could have been the correction for that, but she didn't use it.

[squirecam]

11. She was being interrupted and talked over

The Whole night. And has been described as angry or on the verge of tears, depending on what sexist story people want to tell.

But I guess it’s “ok” to be highly misleading...

[ancianita]

12. Maybe not okay. Still, she got a lot said. I watched the whole thing twice and got that she

was no more interrupted than anyone else. That 'gotcha' moderator who challenged her answer was the absolute worst. She should be rightfully angry for being targeted like that.

Though the women raise their hands, men onstage tend to overtalk and cut off women's speech when it goes over their internal "time limit."

[blm]

13. She referred to Amy's own offerings of details.

Amy understood what she was doing, which is why she referred to it as a law professor critique. You don’t get points for repeating the work done by others, you score points for your own original contributions.