Elizabeth Warren was attacked from all sides in debate -

[saidsimplesimon]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/16/elizabeth-warren-attacked-democratic-debate

The Guardian
10/16/19
Elizabeth Warren was attacked from all sides in debate – and she barely batted an eye
Moira Donegan

Warren weathered attacks from opponents with patience, grace and an agility in her rhetoric that rivals that of a gymnast on a balance beam.
...snip
But the attention was almost all focused on one candidate, the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, who has emerged as the frontrunner after a slow and steady rise in her support, and who has crystallized her position in recent months as the party’s intellectual and ideological center of gravity. Questions were framed around her policy positions, her past statements, her agenda; other candidates staked their claim to positions almost exclusively in relation to where Warren stands.
..snip
Warren’s new dominance reflects not only her slow but dramatic rise in the polls, where she is now besting the longtime establishment favorite, Joe Biden, but also a renewed Democratic political landscape in the wake of the opening of an impeachment inquiry against Trump in the House of Representatives. At the debate, the impeachment proceedings provided a brief opportunity for unity among the ideologically divided candidates, with a softball opening question about the inquiry providing all of them an opportunity to voice their distaste for Trump. But the unity ended there. From that point on, half of the stage dedicated themselves to the project of attempting to discredit Warren.

She was attacked by Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg over how she plans to pay for Medicare for All. She was attacked by Andrew Yang over her plan to break up big tech and enforce a strict antitrust agenda. She was attacked by Kamala Harris, who alleged that Warren was hypocritical for, of all things, not calling on Twitter to suspend Donald Trump’s account. She was attacked by Joe Biden for supposedly being “vague” on Medicare for All. She would have been attacked by Tulsi Gabbard for her lack of military experience, except Gabbard was cut off by a moderator.

For the most part, Warren weathered these attacks with patience, grace, and an agility in her rhetoric that rivals that of a gymnast on a balance beam. She refused to take the bait repeatedly offered to her by moderators and other candidates, who attempted to goad her into saying that she would raise taxes to cover Medicare for All. This denied her opponents a video clip that they could use to discredit her; instead, she hammered home the larger point that total costs would go down under her plan. She refused to get mired in the petty point of whether Twitter should suspend Trump’s account; instead, she focused on how big tech companies have too much influence over our politics to go unregulated. She wouldn’t concede Andrew Yang’s dubious assertion that unregulated tech giants encourage innovation; instead, she focused on the ways that monopolies in all sectors of the economy – she cited agriculture and pharmaceuticals – need to be broken up to protect consumers.

It was a frontrunner’s strategy, a deflection technique meant to avoid inconvenient commitments and stymie the attack strategies of her rivals. Warren made moral cases instead of economic ones, refusing to get bogged down in the kinds of specifics that can only be communicated poorly and haphazardly to voters within the confines of the contentious debate format. To make her case in a general election, she will have to become more willing to communicate the details of her multitudinous plans on a mass scale, more ready to get down to brass tacks on television and on the debate stage. But Tuesday’s debate was her first as the object of rivals’ ire – before tonight, her opponents had more or less held their fire against her. The discipline and poise she showed in this new role bodes well for her performance in a general election against the erratic and taunting Trump. He will bait her and goad her, and she will be able to calmly and convincingly remain on message.
....more at link also posted other snippets in Democratic Primaries

[jcgoldie]

1. I thought she did well

A couple of points that stuck out to me.

For as much crying as Biden supporters have done about his media coverage and a couple of incidents in earlier debates in which other candidates targeted his record, he has not faced anything remotely like the pressure that Elizabeth faced yesterday with 5 or 6 candidates at a time deliberately targeting her and calling her by name with pre-planned criticisms. Given Joe's shaky performances thusfar I can only imagine how ugly it would be were they to gang up on him in this fashion. In rapid fire she was taking criticism from Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Harris, Biden, Gabbard on multiple occasions, and even, I was sorry to see, from Beto. The main source of criticism is just a gotcha game that they are using to score media points by painting her as "evasive" because she doesn't want to give them a sound byte about raising taxes. The fact that a bunch of Democrats are playing this game against universal health insurance when they all realize the cost implications is rather shameful and insincere and yes Amy, you ARE repeating Republican talking points. Painting Democrats as taxers and spenders because they believe government should be run to solve social problems rather line the pockets of rich corporations is a Republican game that goes back at least as far as Reagan in my lifetime.

The second point is that I really think she scored well on the topic of impeachment which is the issue which is consuming the nation. She called for impeachment after reading the Mueller report and to paraphrase... "Look what happened, he was encouraged to break the law again and again since." To me thats a very powerful argument that has been born out by facts and could benefit her in the sort of way that opposing the Iraq War benefited Obama very much in hindsight in 2008.

[saidsimplesimon]

2. jc, thank you

In your first point, "Medicare for All" is something I support. I do think that should Senator Warren get the nomination, she will need to consider the voters who want to keep their current plans. imo

[Jirel]

5. In practicality, I think that will happen.

Does anyone really believe we'll go from our current mess to Medicare For All in one swoop? I sure don't. I bet that should Warren win, we'll see a phase-in plan, with Medicare immediately available for the uninsured, and then for those who are desperate for decent coverage unlike their current plan (it's so nice to hear all the concern for people who want to keep their plans, but really, try living in the rural south with one of the horrible plans available there - let's see how many really want to keep them!). Once that huge raft of people hit the system hard, and find out it's a good thing, I bet the majority of people, regardless of their plan, will start clamoring for it. But it's going to take a few years for a phase-in. If, in that time, enough people still want to keep their plans, there may be some options for insurer-based offerings, etc. My bet, though, is that most insurance companies will transition to supplemental programs because it won't be worth fighting the exodus. There might be a few survivors like the companies offering the alternative Medicare plans.

[Jirel]

3. I'm irritated at all the negative reviews, like the CNN article this morning.

She stood her ground well. She spoke her points clearly. She didn't get flustered. She dealt with the attacks with firmness and even humor. She had far more to say, in her time, than most of the other candidates who were looking for attack moments or ways to get in a well-rehearsed sound bite to make sure their faces stay on the news.

She IS the frontrunner, and I think she's well poised to stay there and open up the lead.

[saidsimplesimon]

4. Negative reviews go with the territory.

I like best President Obama's response, non-verbal, he just dusted off his shoulder to remove the dirt.