The first debate between Warren and Brown--the one likeliest to be watched--will be moderated

[No Elephants]

by a smarmy "I pretend to be a journalist, but I am incapable of real objectivity " Republican.

He'll lose his regular viewers, maybe even his job, if he allows her to look better than Brown.

Why did any Democrat agree to that? Why?

Who the hell is running Warren's campaign? Is the head of Mitt's campaign moonlighting?

:banghead:


:banghead:


:banghead:

Between the Coakley campaign and the Warren campaign, I'm guessing Democrats don't really want Ted's seat.

[Enthusiast]

1. The "powers" do not want a Democratic majority in the house and senate.

They will do anything to prevent it. I have been watching a subtle undermining of Warren by TV Democrats.

[No Elephants]

2. Very possible that they fear that she may actually be the populist she claims to be.

When my friend told me that she changed her ads because Democrats took her aside at the National Convention to tell her to do that, I was a little suspicious.

If you were a Democratic politician following the ads of someone you really wanted in office, would you wait until the convention? How about picking up the phone? Hell, even I did that. Problem was, I got an answering machine.

And Barney Frank, whom I used to love, was on Morning Joe opining that she was behind Brown (which she was then) because Brown was such a nice guy. I chalked that up to possibly sour grapes over having to share glory of Dodd Frank (such as glory is for such a weak bill) with Warren.

I think it becomes more and more obvious that liberals and populists are not welcome in the Democratic Party.

Thing is, I did not see her as either of those things. I just prefer her to the Brown turd anyway.

But, that is not your point. Your point is the majority.

Watching the Coakley campaign up close, my conclusion was that the last thing Obama wanted was continuance of a 60 member Democratic caucus, especially while Obamacare was still pending. But, majority is close enough.

It is impossible to explain to the inattentive members of the public why you cannot deliver what you promised while you hold the WH, a 60 member caucus in the Senate and a strong majority of the House. It's not much easier if you have a majority.

[eleny]

3. So Brown says Warren isn't Native American because her skin isn't dark enough?

He said that she claims to be Native American, a person of color. And then he said she is "obviously not".

Holy crap on a toasted bun.

[No Elephants]

4. Skin color is irrelevant. The only issue is truthfulness/trustworthiness.,

The only issue is whether her relative ever actually told her that she was part Native American and whether she actually believed her relative.

If Elizabeth told the truth about those things, she is not a liar and there is no issue because nothing is wrong or unusual about trusting your relatives.

Maybe her relatived lied or erred, but that is irrelevant because her relative is not running for office and lying is not a trait that is passed on genetically.

And that is the end of it.

On the other hand, if she lied intentionally about her heritage in the hopes of getting something she wanted, I would squint at her a lot harder and wonder which of her campaign promises I could believe. I put both Romney and Brown in that category because I have observed each of them dissembling more than once.

Anyway, her skin color is irrelevant and the only way to deal with the issue even a little would be a lie detector test, to see if her relative ever told her she was part native American and if she assumed her relative was being truthful.

Of course, then, it would be only fair for Brown to submit to a lie detector test, too, so I doubt he'll be suggesting that route.