Yes, she is certainly going to be put to the test. She and the orange one have already been sparring. It didn't take him long to go after her, noting that she was announcing in the middle of a snow storm and using it to take a pot shot at climate change. She responded with some bite. The spotlight that is going to be on her now, would, I think begin to reveal those tendencies, if they are there.
Yes, it is that disparity between public and private that has me a bit befuddled. On paper, she has everything that I like about a candidate, though not necessarily for Pres, as I stated. Previously, I have always seen her as a quiet but always efficient worker for progressive causes, which I of course support. She also got things done. She is very well liked here, so I apparently am not alone in how I have seen her.
I don't know much about Klobuchar beyond the fact that Rachel Maddow really likes her, which I consider a big plus. But I'm unsettled by such a disparity between her public persona -- which appears to be that of a very amiable person -- and the private reports of how she treats staff. That kind of hitting downward is the hallmark of a bully, not just someone with "high standards." The stress crucible of running for president will definitely put her to the test.
Tim Walz is a genuinely likeable guy, but I think he is right where he needs to be; keeping the wolves at bay.
If true she is abusive in any way, it shows to me a weakness of character and self control. I had an abusive principal once, someone the district promoted from a vice principal position straight to a large new high school top spot because she was such an impressive golden girl — and by year end she was standing in the hall weeping and shaking.
I don't know much about Klobuchar beyond the fact that Rachel Maddow really likes her, which I consider a big plus. But I'm unsettled by such a disparity between her public persona -- which appears to be that of a very amiable person -- and the private reports of how she treats staff. That kind of hitting downward is the hallmark of a bully, not just someone with "high standards." The stress crucible of running for president will definitely put her to the test.
Agreed! My experience with mean managers is that when they go far, it's because they are good liars with good presentation, and not because they are effective.
Having seen her interview on Rachel Maddow's show tonight, I can understand why you're such a fan. She's pretty impressive and answered the questions about her staff treatment issues with aplomb. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on this... for now.
The country has moved left, propelled no doubt by the trauma that’s been inflicted on us. GND seems pretty popular and a significant majority likes taxing the super rich fairly. Medicare for All seems reasonable to most people. Every word Warren spoke in her speech was both spot on and not wildly left anymore.
Yay! He has been my first choice for two years!
Sounds like "Tax the Rich to Put People to Work building Solar and Wind Farms" would be a winning campaign position.
I managed to catch most of that, as well. You were right, Rachel really does like her. I do like Amy's approach, as well, mostly because she's been able to get things done without compromising her/our values. Rachel brought up some very good points in regard to her potential weaknesses.
That's a good way to put it. I just hope, in the end, the winning dish from this buffet attracts more people than the Scarf-n-Barf across the street.
That's a potential danger. Strong candidates could damage each other if the primary fight gets dirty. Though my preference is Harris, I mostly just want an unscathed winner. ..any of them.
The issues surrounding her "blackness" are really questions of whether or not she really identifies with the American black experience. I find some of this unsavory, but I understand where they are coming from. American blacks don't want someone who is a shill for the status quo of white supremacy to come dancing for their votes, using their "blackness" as a lure when they don't really connect. I've seen some of the discussion about it. Mainly, they want any candidate who purports to represent the black community to come with "tangibles" - a real, positive agenda that will deliver tangible benefits to the black community. I don't blame them one iota. The Democratic Party relies on the black vote and yet has yet to deliver meaningful economic gains. Civil rights is good and necessary but not enough. It's time to move the black community's economic power ahead. That's a reasonable request. Every other interest group (Latinx, LGBT, etc.) have some kind of policy specifically aimed to meet their needs. But when asked about what they intend to do for the black community, the response is mostly mealy-mouthed weasel words. Thus far, the only candidate who has anything resembling a positive black agenda is Marianne Williamson. Although this section of the commentariat doesn't think that her 100B reparations plank is enough, it's still something that distinguishes her from every other candidate.
