General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Elizabeth Warren is angry, and if she isn't running, a whole lot of trees have died in vain [View all]cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... but not on issues as I think Sanders would make just as fine a president as Warren would.
The reason I like Warren in a primary against Clinton, is that it takes out the "woman identity" issue (pro or con) out of the picture, and then the two candidates would have to focus on issues instead of gender identity as an election issue. America needs candidates engaging with its citizens on their stances on issues and a debate on them.
In the last election, we had a lot of discussion on both sides of how Barack's skin color or Hillary Clinton's gender was affecting both those who supported them or those who voted for the other side, which distracted us from having them push those "issues" aside and focusing on the REAL issues that should have been discussed so that we would have had better commitments than just "Hope and change" and other more nebulous stances instead of detailed campaign stances that we could have held Obama's feet to the fire on now. I think a Warren candidacy against Clinton for the primary will best serve us to have that discussion in the primary season. Sanders will also be very good, but just wait and see what happens when the corporate media plays the "gender card" then in efforts to distract us...
Also, Bernie's defining himself as a Democratic Socialist will also be used by the corporate media to distract us from issues, as the "socialist" label card will also serve to try and oversimplify things, even if many of us would really like more of what is described as "democratic socialism" and how it is practiced in many countries in northern Europe now. The "socialist" label will definitely be used to distract and divide us unfortunately, and Elizabeth Warren won't be the same victim of that labeling scheme as she hasn't defined herself the same way Bernie has, even if they share a lot of the same viewpoints.