I think Warren is the smartest candidate. She has policies she has worked out.

[rusty quoin]

It’s good to have her on the side of the common person, because she fights for us without fear, with complete knowledge of what she is talking about, and with the background to face any opposition research.

What have they got but to call her Pocahontas. That’s all they’ve got.

She knows exactly what she’s talking about, and I also think she’s become a darn good politician. Good for her. I think she will shine given time.

[larwdem]

1. I like her

She got the toughness we need against ass wipe dump

[Honeycombe8]

2. You may be right.

But those things don't matter much in this election. What matters: Beating Trump, hopefully by a large margin.

What a Presidential candidate needs that Warren doesn't have, in my humble opinion: A sense of humor. She rarely smiles. Does she make jokes? All people who have won the Presidency have the gift of humor in some form. It's one of those leadership qualities. Even Trump cracked jokes on the campaign trail. Sick jokes, granted. Nonetheless....

[rusty quoin]

3. Jokes?

[DemocracyMouse]

12. Personally, I find Warren's dry humor PERFECT for these awful times - and for taking on Trump.

[Honeycombe8]

20. Yep. Smiling. Making the occasional joke. Most Presidents & successful elected leaders have it.

That's part of people skills, which any successful elected leader has.

FDR, JFK, even Nixon, Carter (smiled a LOT), a Reagan strong point, Clinton, an Obama strong point.

About JFK:

But the difficulties he faced were made so much easier by the personal rapport he established with the people of the world, in large part due to his sense of humor.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/190791-kennedys-wit-and-humor-a-legacy-for-political-leadership

[caraher]

5. Or at least we haven't been shown that side of her much

Don't forget, a lot of her early national exposure came through appearances on Jon Stewart's Daily Show. In that context she was, of course, the sincere wonk playing against the jokester. But even just that much shows she was willing to play along in a less-than-totally-serious forum.

Meanwhile from what I've seen she does connect well in interactions with everyday people. I think it's less humor per se than seeming a genuine person that matters, and Warren has that knack. And even a sense of humor (even if it's self-deprecating; see the end of the excerpt):

All of which points to a bigger conclusion: In an environment like Iowa (and New Hampshire!), which puts a premium on face-to-face campaigning, Warren is a natural fit. She seems to feed off her interactions with voters in a way not every politician does, drawing energy from the back-and-forth they have and then, in turn, imparting that energy back to them in a virtuous cycle. Given that Warren’s a law professor known for her skill in the classroom, this isn’t necessarily a surprise. But in Iowa, people who’ve only seen her on TV, or haven’t really seen much of her at all, have said told me she was better in person than they expected. After Warren’s kickoff event in Council Bluffs, Roger Utman of Papillion, Nebraska said: “I’ve heard [Warren] talk a lot of different times on television, but I was really impressed with her…. She’s very personable.” His wife, Nancy, added: “Her sense of humor came out tonight…. I think she’s an intense person, and sometimes I think the intensity that she comes across with doesn’t show the warmth that I saw in person.” (Some go-to Warren laugh lines: being told she was a “surprise” by her mother and not knowing what that meant until she was 30, and imprudently getting married at the tender age of 19 — “following looooooooove,” as Warren put it at one point.)

[rusty quoin]

6. +1

[Honeycombe8]

21. The Daily Show? Most Americans never saw that show.

Warren is pretty much an unknown to the average American. The few times I've seen her in recent years, she was talking loudly and angry. I think I've seen her smile once, maybe?

I'm not ragging on her. I'm just saying what I've seen, which I imagine is what most people have seen. People who aren't Warren fans, don't live in that area of the country, don't watch political talk shows & such...they don't know much about Warren, Harris, Booker, and other Congress people.

I think this is one reason why Biden is so far ahead. He's the only one who is widely nationally known, and not in a negative way.

[Grasswire2]

4. I like Warren-Booker.

I think that's a great combination.

[radical noodle]

7. I like Elizabeth Warren

I would happily vote for her in the general. She has great policies, and they're well thought out.

[rusty quoin]

8. Here's an anthem for Warren.

[still_one]

9. I agree, but least right now I don't think she can win the general election. My view may change as

the process moves on, that is my thinking

[rusty quoin]

10. How do you know?

[barbtries]

11. she's shining already.

she does the right thing and as you said, she has the policies to run on.

[djacq]

13. Number 2 Choice

[emmaverybo]

14. Was shocked that some liberals objected to her exercising her right to determine if there

was a documented truth behind her family narrative of having native ancestry. There was and Trump should have paid up.

It is also true that tribal registries were not complete and that people moved out of tribal life through intermarriage and assimilation voluntary or forced. Many people do not know their ethnic heritage because it was buried, telling the story of racial, ethnic, religious and cultural discrimination in America.


In any case, I agree that she is bright, diligent, policy-prepared.
Since intelligence is a more complicated matter than can be accurately measured, I would leave it at her having issue and policy fluency in addition to great “reflexes” in an argument. She is able to
make laypeople like me understand her ideas.

I like her saying she doesn’t hate capitalism, just thinks it needs to operate with some regulations.
I like her.

[brer cat]

15. I'm not sure she is the smartest

but she is near the top. She is a formidable candidate.

[YOHABLO]

16. She's a straight shooter. No ''triangulation'' from her.

[susanna]

17. Though still undecided, she has impressed me.

Her campaigning skills are excellent thus far. Her speaking of truth to power (instead of lukewarm platitudes designed to comfort) is also a big plus.

She has my ear.

[Hortensis]

18. Smart's a real thing.

I like Warren, but like others have no idea who might be "smartest." A whole lot goes into that, of course.

[BlueMTexpat]

19. While I remain undecided,

Elizabeth is one of my top two candidate preferences.

Not only do I believe that she is "electable" (I put that in quotes only because it seems to be a major sticking point for some) in a GE, she has demonstrated not only capability and competence in everything that she has done/posited/proposed, but also an ability to connect with people wherever she goes.

She is NOT afraid of Trump and calling a spade a spade in non-equivocal terms. She has also demonstrated her willingness to visit parts of the country that some (too many, IMO) Dems overlook.

In many ways, she is Hillary Clinton without the hatred of Hillary that has been stoked by the RW for all too long and that too many so-called Dems fell for in 2016.

As for her Native American ancestry, her DNA test proved that she has it. She herself has recognized that there is a difference between NA ancestry and being an enrolled tribal member, for which she does not qualify. She never used that ancestry to receive preferential treatment, nor did she receive any preferences because of it, and she apologized for taking the DNA test, which was practically forced upon her by Trump's goading. It has also been demonstrated that this situation has been willfully and repeatedly misinterpreted and overblown. See, e.g., https://newrepublic.com/article/153090/media-blowing-coverage-warrens-native-american-claim

...
Warren’s handling of the controversy—particularly her decision to take a DNA test to prove distant Native American ancestry—has been seriously flawed, and is worthy of coverage. But that’s not what’s looming over her presidential campaign. Instead, many in the media are giving the same credence to Republican attacks that they did in 2016, when Hillary Clinton faced “lock her up” chants for her use of a private email server, and 2008, when Barack Obama was forced time and again to prove he was born in Hawaii, not Kenya. (It is no coincidence that Donald Trump has been the leading instigator in all three cases.)
...
And yet, there’s no evidence that Warren claimed minority status for preferential treatment. She has been remarkably consistent about her background. While she never belonged to any of the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes, she has always described her mother as “part Cherokee” and said she learned of this heritage through her family’s oral tradition. The most recent iteration of the scandal, involving Warren’s Texas bar card, supports this. The information on that card was private; Warren would not gain any advantage from listing herself as Native American. Even the aforementioned Post story eventually gets around to that truth, albeit not until the eighteenth paragraph:
...
This is precisely why the right has latched onto this story, knowing full well that the mainstream media feels compelled to cover any sustained political frenzy, no matter how disproportionate or phony the allegations may be. The Native American claim is the perfect vehicle for conservatives to undermine a female Ivory Tower academic who is a persistent and effective critic of crony capitalism, and to expose affirmative action as a liberal plot to discriminate against white men and eliminate meritocracy in America. These attacks, particularly Trump’s vile “Pocahontas” label, seek to mark Warren as an outsider—a line that is not dissimilar to the “birther” smear against Obama that became the foundation of Trump’s political career.

That this “scandal” overshadows Warren’s policy ideas—such as her recent “wealth tax” proposal—is exactly the point. Instead, breathless coverage is given to every twist and turn of this saga: It’s become a self-sustaining cycle, the culmination of years of pathological dedication from the right. That’s troubling, especially given the stakes in 2020. During the last presidential election, the media gave similarly breathless coverage to every twist and turn of the Clinton email saga, and seemed unable to discern the meaningful aspects of that story from the irrelevant details. It may well have cost her the election. Warren, and Democrats broadly, have reason to fear a repeat of that fate.

How soon we forget the divisive tactics of the RW and its predictably compliant lapdog US M$M! When will we ever learn?

Will that same RW fight against Elizabeth tooth and nail? Yes indeed. But they will also fight tooth and nail against ANY Dem candidate. Never forget that. NO ONE with a D after their name will EVER be acceptable to them. EVER!