I always try to check the religious affiliation of those who attack women!

Warren has a new problem, never before seen in American history, that too many women are running for the presidential nomination of a major political party this time around. Hillary had a clear path with the folks who said, "Time for a woman President" as being among their top wishes for the next Chief Executive, but even discounting Gabbard and Gillebrand (perhaps a mistake to do that in the case of Gillebrand), Sen. Warren will have to fight off Sens. Klobuchar and especially Harris, and it could get difficult to watch.

Male candidates have long been advised to make sure they don't look like bullies in a debate with a female candidate, only the Orange Menace has broken that rule successfully. I expect that towards the end of the debates, the two or three women left may be inclined to go after each other in a way that a Democratic male wouldn't dare try.

I caught a little hell here last week for describing the optics of such a thing as a "catfight", but don't be surprised if the mainstream media (and certainly Faux Snooze) try to spin it as such. They thrived on the insults that Trump and the GOPers flung at each other about low energy and hand size, they may feel tempted to play up the drama of the confrontational nature of this new phenomenon.

Both are exp senators. I want Cortez to learn how to count votes from Madame Speaker, and then get made Majority Whip.

But no matter what happens, 3 things will happen:

I will make my decision based on my own, and the judgements of people I trust, and maybe disagree with (which means some of you around here--thats a good thing).

We will conduct ourselves in a manner befitting our commitment to the Democratic Process...which means we're GONNA FIGHT with each other at some point lol!

We will support whoever is the Party Nominee. We will NOT have a repeat of that JPR nonsense (even tho, under other circumstances, JPR was a voice I appreciated. For disclousure, I don't think I've ever been to that other site).

We are One, from MANY. and we will take back our House from that orange monster , and then watch him die in prison.
Word.
Vol.

a winning nominee picks a VP who either didn't run for president, or who dropped out early on, before the fighting got tough. The only exception I can think of to that is John Kerry picking John Edwards, and it's my understanding that he came to regret that decision.

There can be a lot of anger displayed during a nomination fight, and if this one goes into multiple ballots, I'd be very, very surprised to see our nominee pick as VP someone who fought until the end. The only exception to that would be if a dark horse emerged as a consensus nominee, and that politician picked someone who complemented them on the ticket for the sake of party unity, who was a recognized leader in a faction of the party needed to win in November.

I can see the party nom selecting the runner up, unless there were some other consideration at play (like nominating Beto to put Texas in real play, even if he didn't run initially ....something like that would make tactical sense).

The GOP must be held to account. They have done nothing to restrain a man unfit to be President proving that he is unfit to be a dog catcher.

and, of course, I hope it continues. But, we saw a lot of anger between the Hillary and Bernie camps last time around, and there were only the two of them that were viable by the time of the convention. If we have a half dozen folks with 15-20% of the delegates, there will be a lot more factions to feel like they got cheated in the final result.

Even if a dark horse is nominated on the umpteenth ballot as a unity nominee, there may still be wounds to heal over the ultra-progressives vs. the moderates divide, if it is seen that one side clearly won over the other.

Trump has a powerful advantage this time around with incumbency, and an even more powerful one if he is not challenged for the nomination, like Carter and Bush, Sr. were in 1980 and 1992.

From Vox, 2016-11-15, I think the title/link says enough:

I looked at 2 years of front pages. Trump's Muslim ban got far less attention than Clinton’s emails.

..."and how she handles them."

more akin to Jerry Springer than journalism.