She can handle her own campaign just fine on her own, thanks, lol

video out contradicting what she's been saying. It would be especially easy to revise if her pregnancy actually was an isssue, along with her not having the teaching credits she needed to continue.

But speaking of desperate...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=266484

to one of my recent OPs by indicating that we who support Warren seem either to have forgotten or are in denial about the misogyny directed towards our last Dem woman candidate and that by implication will be directed towards Warren should she become the Dem nominee.

As one who has had frequent experience of misogyny in my 75+ years and one who only too well remembers what happened to our highly qualified woman candidate in 2016, I am hardly likely EVER to forget or be in denial about misogyny.

But if the argument is that we should discontinue supporting highly qualified women candidates for fear of the misogyny that will be directed towards them, then such people have lost me altogether.

The fact is that women teachers in the 1970s in many, if not most areas of the US, were NOT allowed to continue teaching after a certain number of months of pregnancy, whatever additional reasons there might have been. The situation that concerns this OP is hardly mutually exclusive, whatever different versions may be available.

Those of us who lived through that era remember it all too well, and NOT with nostalgia.

that her pregnancy wasn't a factor.

But since video is out now where she made it clear in 2007 that her not having teaching credits was a factor, and that she decided at that time that teaching wasn't "going to work out" for her (her words), I think she ought to revise her stump speech at least slightly, to bring it in line with the earlier explanation.

a bfd if you want to make it one.

IMO

why she needs to incorporate at least a brief mention of what she said in 2007 with the "fired because I was visibly pregnant" version.

She'd only have to add a sentence or two to the speech.

Is enough of a big girl to do what she needs to and to know when to do it.

That is why I am a committed supporter.

It’s beyond absurd to expect perfection from the Democratic candidate when LITERALLY every day of this presidency brings a scandal that should sink him, but here we are.

An easy fix and I appreciate your pointing it out.

The problem here is a discrepancy in her stories which could give rise to people saying she is making a dramatic political point with a version of the story that other versions don’t support.

Maybe the truth is in all the facts she has presented.

Frankly, I think she should get the facts straight. If she was not let go because she was pregnant, then she should not use that particular story as a relatable example of the misogyny she experienced. I am sure she has others.

Warren will be vetted. She and supporters should be ready for it.

who are most "concerned" are Biden supporters.

Elizabeth will do just fine, thank you.

as insurance, hoping she can stand up to vetting. So far when asked about paying for M4All through a tax raise on the middle class, she has discouraged the question with “that’s a Republican talking point” or evaded it.

So no, I don’t know that she will be fine. And I think Trump will save the big hits for the GE. I hope if she gets that far she will prioritize and prune some policies and have an answer for what happens if her wealth tax does not pass.

If I had the assurance that Warren would be fine, I wouldn’t express concern.

will be addressed ... and I have every confidence that they will be, which is why I am an EW supporter. I can't say that I am 100 percent behind everything that she says and does, but my percentage approval with her is much higher than with any other candidate, which is while it took me some months to come down in her corner. Now I am solidly there.

Many more things concern me about Joe Biden. Not Ukraine, that is complete and utter BS! But I am concerned about his actions wrt the 1994 crime bill; his actions wrt to Clarence Thomas (who should never even have been considered as a credible US Supreme Court choice even apart from Anita Hill; he was the ONLY nominee to that point ever to get a mere "qualified" rating from the ABA, as opposed to the traditional "well-qualified" - I am an attorney myself and THAT still rankles); and others of his pre-Veep actions, e.g., he was one Dem to be very supportive of and less likely to see fault with practices of banks and financial institutions, etc.

Biden was an excellent Veep to an outstanding Prez and there is no denying that. I truly love him for that. But I fear that much of his current support stems merely from that association. In some ways, he is much too nice a guy for the kind of GOP politicians that we have in force - and, more importantly, in office - today.

Elizabeth sees them exactly for what they are and pulls no punches. She also sees the big picture in a way that I believe that no other candidate does.

But that's JMO.

believed Hill then and does today. The rest we have all answered and fought over in other threads.

In DC. Working for the USG at the time.

I know exactly what happened. Please do not "explain" it to me.

of the public’s reactions quite differently, and understood the times we were in differently. There are
transcripts, however. Maybe we see those differently too. Thus, no point in continuing to debate.

This.

Just some helpful advise for Senator Warren...

talking about.

I taught in Houston in the early 70's ( I have 41 yrs of teaching experience) and I know they gave out emergency certificates to teachers in hard-to-fill positions. Special ed is one of the neediest areas. Maybe she was pregnant AND the district wanted her to take more classes to be rehired. There is a high burn out rate in special ed. Anyway they probably wanted her back but she felt she couldn't take the classes at that time. No district will turn away a good special ed teacher without offering a way to remedy the situation.

If you're on an emergency credential, you have to enroll/earn so many units towards a clear credential each year in order to maintain the emergency credential.

Really? I don't think that this is such a bfd that they are making it out to be. It wouldn't be damaging enough to cost me my vote.

You are expecting perfection from a candidate but not expecting it from your own. Glass houses and thrown stones and all that stuff.

rivals, media, and from those who have the power of the US government! He has been excoriated for anecdotes, whether called out as dishonest or as racist.

Here at DU he has often been criticized and the criticism doubled down on even when based on
misinformation or outright disinformation.

I am not slamming Biden at all but he is not perfect and I don't expect him to be. Neither is Liz. That was my point and the only reason I put him in is because the op was posted by a Biden supporter.

thinks. That's rude.

and I am not sure what you are getting at. Stop what? Rude where? You lost me Cha, help me find the way.

when that's not what this is about.

We have more important issues than slamming Liz for this. I do not see this as a major issue and I am wondering what we are doing eating our own.

No "Slamming".

It's called Vetting. I'll happily vote for EW if she is our Nom.. but now is the time to get all this out there.. not during the GE.

Didn’t expect to see it embraced here. Then again, I know times are tough for your candidate.

And this article was at the top of the page when I checked Mediaite this morning.

I'm just suggesting a small revision of her stump speech.

It’s embarrassing.

"embarrassing".

Do you as a Biden supporter really want to go down this path? Because if we start bringing up past statements and stories, Joe is going to have to do a lot more than "slight" revisions. Even bringing up Joe's many misleading or false recollections on here brings a torrent of "mehs" and "so whats" from Biden supporters.

But thank you for your "advice".

I like honest debates not this BS. But if you are truly concerned about a Democratic nominee and telling the truth, these should really bother you - although revisions won't help these false statements listed by Politifact:
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/joe-biden/statements/byruling/false/

Or this just one example of false stories:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-he-campaigns-for-president-joe-biden-tells-a-moving-but-false-war-story/2019/08/29/b5159676-c9aa-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html


I mean if your concern is real, these and the many other issues Biden has with the truth are a much bigger deal than this that you story that you felt compelled to highlight. When these stories came out, did you express concern about Biden and the truth or did you join the people who pooh-poohed this?

Last edited Sat Oct 5, 2019, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

It isn't a perosnal attack. I asked a question whether you expressed the same concerns about Biden when his false statements were pointed out Politifact and you choose to try this tactic rather than answer a legitimate question.

pointing out it's politically naive not to realize Trump's afraid of running against Biden.

I've used Advanced Search to review the sort of things you usually post, and I'm not going to play your games.

I posted the OP because of a headline at the top of a news site I usually check, and because I saw a problem Warren can easily fix.

If some of her supporters can't deal with that, it isn't my problem.

And answer the question as to whether you are worried about Joe's issues with the truth. Then any question about your sincerity would be answered. As it is, you are just deflecting with talk of games and attacks. Just answer the question.

Fox is pushing this now. Surprise! Just like they have pushed stories on Biden recently that rightly never saw the light of day here.

I just wish that people who are worried about something like this were as rigorous in their concern for candidates who have much more liability in this area.

Thanks for the additional info.

Can you imagine if Jesus were preaching today?

The meaning of a parable is lost on partisan "fact checkers".

parable[ par-uh-buhl ]

noun
a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

We are chasing shiny objects again!

I hope the poster reads this.

the GE.. I don't think the OP is "nitpicking".

This is no doubt part of it and will be tweaked for each audience -- as an intelligent campaigner will do.

Ronald Reagan used a pile of 5X7 cards (remember those?) that he would shuffle -- adding and subtracting -- depending on his audience.

Joe Biden has been under this sort of scrutiny since the day he announced.

Oooooo, he changed details about his story on the stump. Or he got the dates wrong. Or he used a different pitch/angle from one speech to the next.

Biden critics were more than happy to jump on the bandwagon, extrapolating all sorts of analyses to the nitpicking--he's too old, he's showing cognitive decline, he's this or that, etc., etc., etc.

Or my all-time favorite: this is legitimate vetting.

Well, now it's Elizabeth Warren's turn in the barrel. Mediate found a discrepancy in Warren's story, one with an emotional pitch. And now we find the 'facts' don't line up.

Welcome to the primary. Otherwise known as: if you're going to dish it out, be prepared to eat it.

Didn't realize it had spread that far. Not surprising though. These things tend to go viral almost immediately.

And yes, if any candidate is competitive for the catbird seat, they and their supporters should be prepared for this sort of thing.

sources.

Nothing from the real world.

home with her baby.

This is a common issue for women. I lost a job once when I was five months pregnant. Officially it was a layoff due to an economic downtown. But since just a couple of weeks earlier I'd been told I'd have a job with the company as long as I wished, I knew it was likely due to the pregnancy since they were not happy that I told them I couldn't take a cross-country trip when I would be nine months pregnant.

Depending on circumstances I've alternated between which reason I listed for leaving that job; neither was false, there were simply two reasons, the true one and the official but bogus line.

when you seek to be fair.

My teachers that had children were in their mid or later thirties or older. I don't remember a single female teacher that was in her twenties that mentioned children to the class.

if we were to go down the list of the five top candidates we can find many discrepancies in all of their background stories. Certainly we don't want to start unraveling Biden's bio now, do we? It's silly to go down that road with our Democratic Candidates. It's such a divisive tactic.

Very young pregnant teachers. It was ok if she had worked for 7 or 8 years. I don't remember having a single teacher that had more than 2 kids (the older ones), most were childless or had only one child (the ones in their thirties).

Who doesn't seem nearly concerned about Biden revising his story about opposing the Iraq War from the beginning.

February 2002: “If Saddam Hussein is still there five years from now, we are in big trouble,” he told a crowd of 400 Delaware National Guard officers.

“It would be unrealistic, if not downright foolish, to believe we can claim victory in the war on terrorism if Saddam is still in power.”

March 2002: “There is overwhelming support for the proposition that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power.”

------

Worse than supporting Bush's rush to war, Biden was the leading Democratic voice and held high profile hearings but refused to give a platform for the many dissenting voices from the regional experts and diplomatic community, let alone those from the CIA and Pentagon who disagreed with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. Even former weapons inspector Scott Ritter was persona non grata at Biden's hearings.

The hearings were essentially handing the keys - and political cover - to George W. Bush.

That's a $1.7 TRILLION discrepancy in Biden's personal history, let alone the loss of 4,424 American lives - and 460,000 Iraqi lives - that can never be returned.

We should only do for republicans.