Don't get me started on the chaos they'd have with the entire seating arrangement.

Her campaign, from "shouting" onward, has proven that they couldn't be opposed to heartlessly clever without adding and hypocritical.

she wants without any repercussions. nice that you did not link to your source or attribute it

I'll edit it in.

If you're a Democrat, shouldn't you see Warren taking potshots at Trump as a good thing?

and speak of great achievements, not lower themselves to brawl with small people, and that absolutely includes engaging The Donald on his level. Others do that for them.

But the fact of the matter is, once this goddamn primary season is over, we still have the GE in front of us. Are you suggesting that she's going to be able to campaign on her own strengths for 6 months without engaging with Trump?

The classic role for the VP candidate is to wield the sword, while the presidential candidate keeps to a much higher road. Especially Democratic candidates because most of us find that sort of behavior distasteful and inappropriate in a president.

Take a look at President Obama.

Or are you just saying that she'll leave that to whoever she picks?

she picks. Presidential candidates practice their walk so they look like "Hail to the Chief" is always playing wherever they are.

Warren's already gone to work against the GOP as herself.

This is just how it needs to work; depending on the position and situation, nasty brawls can be prohibitively counterproductive, while others are forgiven because the image of the office is less important to the audience.

Look at the pubs. 16 male candidates available, but a man going after a woman would look bad, so they elevated Cruella de Fiorina from the kiddie table to the main stage as a pretend "genuine" candidate so she could do the nasty attacks. She couldn't possibly win, so looking unworthy of the presidency didn't hurt her. Then again briefly as Cruz's sinister sidekick. I've often wondered what payoff she may have negotiated for candidate "temping." She had become one of the long-term unemployed, after all, but still had something to offer that was briefly in demand.

An attack is an attack and it can be seen that Warren's attacks on Trump have been successful. Those attacks would not be more effective if they were made by Clinton. When Warren makes these attacks, Trump inevitably uses his time to respond to them. That leaves Clinton free to choose what message she wants to get out.

BTW, I noticed that Trump is again quoting Sanders to support his claim that Clinton is incompetent. I guess Sanders thinks that attacks on Clinton somehow make him seem larger, but I think he's mistaken in thinking that. He may have to consider whether his campaign has been about him or about the country. I suspect that he is losing favor with much of the public except Trump supporters.

For the record Sanders is about even with Clinton in the meaningles national Dem polls. I have no real worry they Sanders is going to enthusiastically story Clinton in the fall.

But obviously getting his supporters to vote for her in big numbers is mostly going to be up to Clinton

And, on the other hand, what will Sanders gain by gratuitously criticizing Clinton. I suspect that he convinces himself to continue his campaign now by telling himself that he should be around to pick up the pieces in the event that something horrible happens to Clinton - illness, injury or indictment. What I don't understand is why he doesn't wait quietly. What is the point of the gratuitous attacks? They don't do either of them any good.

Sanders is saying nothing Trump won't in the fall. Think of him as a sparring partner. if she can't handle the mild arguments that Sanders is putting out there, how is she going to be able to get into the dirt Trump ?

If Sanders anti-Clinton rants were helping Clinton, Clinton would be asking Sanders to engage in them. She is not. She has been suggesting that he accept reality.

The notion that you and Sanders know better than Clinton what is good for her campaign is not something that you could sensibly believe.

chosen they become the main attack dog.

HRC and Sen. Warren are coordinating this. They know what they are doing.

I expect he's going to do his own bulldogging

Unpalatable in a GE.

That's MY guess... That gives off "cooties" to the DLC type of Democrats. They like Elizabeth, but don't want to get too close to her "Bernie-ness", I'm guessing.

what a good surrogate is supposed to do.

And what Bernie should be doing by now, but isn't.

for years.

Do you agree or disagree with the assessment of the difference in views between Warren and Sanders?

Monday, May 23, 2016 05:11 AM PDT
Watch Fox & Friends guest flip out over Hillary Clinton’s criticism of Donald Trump’s gun policy
"The only 'epidemic,'" Regis Giles said, "is the logic bacteria that is sucking out politicians' brains"

All I had to do is Google hillary criticized trump, and you should have done so yourself before your downer post.

was not that she's not criticizing him, it's that she's not doing it effectively.

The point of the post was to discuss what seem like substantive differences in outlook regarding predatory financial practices between Clinton and Warren, but it seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle of people who only read titles of posts and skip reading the post itself before commenting.

...she can say this stuff very effectively. Obama tried the "you didn't build this" and other Warren ideas - but it didn't work. Warren says this convincingly and seems so natural making the case. Obama tried and wasn't as effective. I think Hillary would have the same luck. You stick with what works.

Is because her words are backed by the courage of her convictions?

...I believe all three have courage in their convictions. There is a difference in style/delivery, though... I noticed Obama was a little hesitating when he went with a Warren-type story. Hillary has not gotten as close to Warren's words as Obama did... Mainly, I remember the "You didn't build that..." story. Hillary is very structured, very calculating as her every word is parsed. She's too careful. Obama, to me, seemed a little uneasy taking Warren's lines. He's also very careful in speaking. I suppose Warren may be, also, but we don't see her as much and she delivers her message very well.

concerning trump....at least warren is a liberal who knows what to do....sanders could learn a thing or two from her

I wanted to talk about the differences between Warren and Clinton mentioned in the quoted comment, but pretty much everybody is ignoring it, in favor of the much easier task of snarkily responding to the title of the article.

Trump has a compulsive need to answer every attack that's thrown at him. Having people attack him from outside the campaign draws him off message.

Make him fight a multi-front war while we're only fighting one.