I am accused of being too focused negatively on @ewarren but it’s a larger point. A POTUS needs to be able to discuss a wide range of issues from international to civil rights to judicial appointments and more. This is from her town hall now and is exactly what frustrates me: 1/
I don’t question her passion and commitment to financial issues including taxes and corporate regulatory issues. But building a broad case to be President means being able to deal with a broad range of issues. It is December & I have waited to see her demonstrate that ability 2/
And instead absolutely every issue - this time about mental health - gets pivoted into her comfort zone and her signature issues. That’s not what you want to see in December. After a year of campaigning you want to see an ease & facility with being a candidate for many topics. 3/
Remember the town halls we witnessed from Obama and Hillary in December 2007? Incredible facility with a wide range of topics.
Even IF your overriding concern is tax policy and corporate regulatory issues, that simply won’t be all that the job entails, and nor is it the 4/
Even IF your overriding concern is tax policy and corporate regulatory issues, that simply won’t be all that the job entails, and nor is it the 4/
answer to everything. I’ll admit they aren’t my top priorities - one of the reasons she has never been a candidate “for me.” But I’ve watched Warren build herself into a position where many Dems were willing to listen to her - and then falter by lack of ability to leave her 5/
comfort zone of issues. That’s not just a political error (and an obvious one - basic data says you need to broaden to reach new voters), but should call into question basic issues of competence & qualifications.
It can’t all be a “noun, verb and billionaires.” It just can’t /end
It can’t all be a “noun, verb and billionaires.” It just can’t /end
