Just Six Have Qualified for Next Debate

But I'm sure people will rage, nonetheless.

And thank God for that.

she just hit 6% in another early state poll too (NH)

is gay illustrates white privilege perfectly.

If the field were six black people, NO one for even a second would think it was diverse, regardless how different the six black people were from each other.

In fact, people's hair would be on fire and they'd be demanding the system be torn down and fixed immediately because something was obviously wrong with it.

We were hoping for the first female president 4 years ago.

But replacing straight white males with a couple of white women and a gay white man doesn't diversity make. I'd say the same thing if the field of straight white men was replaced by a field of black men, even if one of them were gay. I have a feeling women wouldn't feel especially happy such a slate or feel that it was particularly diverse.

Still seems their differences would get played up. Most liberals would not have a problem with their being all black men - for the very fact of white privilege that would be amazing to most liberals. The right-wingers would be the only ones saying anything about it.

You have a lot more faith in white liberals than I have - or that many of them deserve.

I think many white liberals would be horrified if it was all black men. First, they'd question why no women made the cut. And I have no doubt they'd also suspect that the system unfairly benefited black candidates and somehow disadvantaged white people - too much identity politics - and that this would be a problem in the general election since many liberals truly believe that a black candidate can't win in 2020.

especially at their being "horrified." If that happened, those would be the candidates with the support. They'd have white liberal support in enough numbers to be the six remaining candidates, so most white liberals would supporting one of them.

colors, I know better. Some of my biggest disappointments in politics have come at the hands of white liberals whom I thought were allies. I have good reason not to be as optimistic about how segments of this group behave when push comes to shove.

They must have supported these black men, since they are the last 6 standing.

and is what he seems...no false faces for Biden. What you see is what your get. I can see supporting another candidate but why such intense dislike...just curious. Feel free to message me if you like.

Also, I've seen little to change my mind of him, and his famous "congeniality," since that congeniality failed Anita Hill at the Thomas hearings.

Biden. I also don't care about a hearing so long ago. I don't really like Anita Hill either. She is always after Democrats and I don't recall her ever going after Republicans. But thanks for sharing. I guess you support Buttigeig or Klobachar as they are the only candidates who have a chance below the age of 70.

and I can't stand Clarence Thomas -- and Biden had the power to keep him off the court, and failed to use it.

numbers...so there was little point in continuing.

without hearing the public testimony of the women who were prepared to corroborate Hill's testimony. It would have been much harder for Democrats to ignore the testimony of three women than just one.

On the other hand, he DID allow the testimony of that fake expert who claimed Hill had "erotomania."

no point. He did not vote for Thomas.

more difficult position. And Biden should have put them in it.

and it seems to me that there were legitimate issues with Hill's testimony...do I think he did it...yes I do. But hindsight is 2020...The witness you refer to was reluctant to testify. Democrats said the witnesses had credibility issues. I think it will remain a he said /she said thing...and of course the question I have is why did she go with him to a different job when he moved on? I have experienced sexual harassment and would not have done so. I think it was a bad situation and it was 25 years ago...we will never know exactly what happened. Thomas feels he is the victim and blames Biden too.Obviously a no win situation for Biden... It is not a deal breaker for me with Biden. Below is one place where I thought things were presented fairly...still a super partisan issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination#Anita_Hill_testimony

Yes, they wanted it to be under subpoena. We should know by now that asking for a subpoena doesn't make you a reluctant witness. They were ready and willing to testify -- and surprised when they weren't called.

harassment happened. The Democrats feared the women were not credible and public opinion was against them. Even by today's standards part of the Hill story was problematic...the biggest problem was why did she follow him when he moved jobs? I can't judge it all these years later...I believe she told the truth...but at the end of the day even with the witnesses it was a he said she said situation...remarkable similarity in some ways to the Kavanaugh thing. I think Biden did the best he could...sure there were mistakes...but hind sight is 2020 and it was a long time ago. Anyway. Thanks for making me research it...just a quick look but I will continue to read about it. It is quite a story. Truth is stranger than fiction.

She was "reluctant" to testify in that she wasn't attention seeking -- but she thought it would be important. She also said she knew that if it became known that she testified, that would damage her career with law firms which might send cases to the Supreme Court.

But not calling the other women -- Hardnett, Wright, and Jourdain -- wasn't the only serious mistake Biden made. And today even Biden acknowledges the hearing he led wasn't fair to her.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/23/650956623/anita-hill-testimony-the-witness-not-called

MARTIN: So let me just paraphrase from the sworn affidavit that you said. You said you were not claiming to be a victim of sexual harassment, but you wanted to testify about a sexualized atmosphere that you observed where you said that young, black women in particular were, quote, being inspected and auditioned as a female. But why did you feel that that added to the understanding of the events? Because you're saying you did not have specific knowledge of their interactions.

HARDNETT: What I wanted to do was corroborate the fact that Anita Hill, like so many other young females at the commission, would be an audition by Clarence for whatever purpose. He would call them into his office. In particular with me, Clarence expected me to be available to him every morning and for lunch, and I would run down to a friend of mine's office and hide just to avoid being in the situation with Clarence where I would have uncomfortable conversations.

SNIP

HARDNET: There was some talk about the fact that certain people would be called to testify, and I agreed to do that. And I did it reluctantly. I didn't really want to be thrown into the public atmosphere any more than anyone else. But I felt it was necessary to say that because that position is a very important position. It's a position that affects the lives of all of us.

SNIP:

HARDNETT: Oh, no. I have no regrets about speaking up when I did. I mean, there have been repercussions in terms of my employment, in terms of law firms who wouldn't want to be associated with someone who had a history of making a statement against a Supreme Court justice by the mere fact that some of their cases could possibly go before the Supreme Court. It did have somewhat of a negative impact on my professional career, but I've always tried to live on the right side of justice. Now, I may not have always succeeded, but I've always tried. And I thought that that was really important to make the statement on behalf of Anita Hill.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-was-in-charge-of-the-anita-hill-hearing-even-he-says-it-wasnt-fair/2019/04/26/a9a6f384-6500-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html

Joe Biden was in charge of the Anita Hill hearing. Even he says it wasn’t fair.

Interviews with a dozen people with firsthand knowledge and a review of the written record and interviews published with participants over the past three decades reinforce that Biden failed to use the powers afforded to Senate committee chairmen to conduct a judicious and thorough inquiry into Hill’s allegations. He did not give full consideration to witnesses whose allegations seemed to corroborate her testimony or curb the attacks and innuendo leveled at her during the hearing. A former Biden lawyer told The Washington Post this month that the Democrats were outmaneuvered by Republicans, whose purpose was to damage Hill.

SNIP

Thomas was asked questions about a woman named Angela Wright, a former EEOC employee whose claim that he had asked the size of her breasts and pressured her for dates had made its way to the committee. Wright, then an editor at the Charlotte Observer, was deposed by staffers and flew to Washington under subpoena. Biden, citing time constraints, never called her to testify.

Two other women who had worked at the EEOC were also seen as potential witnesses whose accounts would support Hill’s. Rose Jourdain could corroborate Wright’s story, and Sukari Hardnett wrote to the committee that “if you were young, black, female and reasonably attractive, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female” by Thomas while working for him.

did not support Ms. Hill at the time...Democrats would have still voted for Thomas...but there would have been a political price to pay. I really don't see that Biden did anything disqualifying...it is 25 years later...and times change...I have to tell you I disagree that an anonymous accuser can ruin a man or woman's life...it seems we are now the sex police demanding purity from our candidates...we are likely to lose Katie Hill's seat...very foolish. The GOP will work overtime to dig up dirt on our folks and self righteous (don't mean you) folks will insist they resign...thank God the Governor of Virginia did not do this...the state would likely be under GOP control.

helped educate others. If he had taken her accusations seriously, others would have, too. Instead, Biden allowed Thomas's nomination to come to the floor for a vote. As the head of the Judiciary committee, that was Biden's CHOICE. He thought it was more important to give the black man a vote than to give the black woman a fair hearing.

And then he made one bad decision after another -- allowing witnesses to talk about her fake condition of erotomania, agreeing to limit the days of the hearings, not calling the corroborating witnesses.

And, despite what you just said, Anita Hill wasn't anonymous and her corroborative witnesses were willing to go public. This has nothing to do with anonymous accusers.

So he was only 6 years younger than life expectancy.

He died in office after only 31 days.

Biden would be around 7 years younger than like expectancy in 2021 for someone who makes it to his age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Harrison#Death_and_funeral

What killed him could have killed anyone at any age back then, and included the medical treatment itself.

Life expectancy FROM BIRTH was only around 40 years because so many died before they hit 10 years old or so. If you made it to adulthood, then it was much longer.

John Adams lived to be 91. Many probably did. If you made it to 10, you had a strong constitution. So many illnesses that can be cured now that killed kids then. It was probably common to have a family member who died in childhood or know some kid who had.

Jefferson was 83.

Jefferson & Adams: Founding Frenemies

The two founding fathers, who share a special place in American history, had a long, complicated relationship over the course of their lives.

https://www.history.com/news/jefferson-adams-founding-frenemies

I always thought that an incredible coincidence. Maybe failing, but they held on to see the 50th. Not just any anniversary, but the 50th! And both the same day. They may have been the last two surviving signers, because I remember reading that Adams' last words were "Jefferson still survives," though Jefferson in fact had not.

He was the longest lived as well, and the only Catholic signer. Carroll was also the wealthiest signer and possessed the highest formal education of all of the signers.

It is believed that Freedom of Religion in the Constitution's First Amendment was included to show gratitude to Carroll because Carroll gave financial support from his personal funds for the American Revolutionary War.

Carroll later served as the first United States Senator for Maryland.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carroll_of_Carrollton

So many of the founders not so well known but had interesting lives. Though wealthy, which could have made him conservative, he put it on the line for the Revolution.

I thought you need 4% polling? Isnt Klobuchar running around 3%

So much for the diversity of the field.

one has to drop out

Rather than look for excuses to keep going by overplaying what positives she had as a candidate, she looked at her situation honestly and said she didn’t see a way forward where she could compete money-wise with the billionaires.

Harris raised more money that both of them combined.

Women and gay men don’t count as diversity?

Remaining six D candidates:

100% white
66% male
16% gay male
50% over 70, with a fourth (male) age 62

0% black
0% Latino/hispanic
0% black female

The Rs had more diversity in 2016.

Definitely a minority. So between women (a minority, see attached article), the Jewish community, and the LGBTQ community, 66% of the debate field will consist of minority candidates.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/are-women-minorities_b_595a91a0e4b0f078efd98be3

so, no, women are NOT a minority.

So subtract out the women % and where are you?

It has to do with power. Reference the link to the article I attached.

Got it.

We need the best person, whatever qualities they were born with.

Both Booker and Harris had far more to say than some of the people on that stage.

The only one who I don't think is worth listening to is Tulsi Gabbard.

They are both one poll away.

The debate stage may look like this: 1 Jewish man, 1 gay white man, 2 white women, 1 Asian man, 1 Polynesian woman who practices Hinduism, 1 white man who is Irish Catholic, 1 white man who is Protestant.

And if Kamala hadn't dropped out there would be an African-American woman on the stage too.

Finally, let's not forget that Kamala Harris and Corey Booker have been in all the debates up until this point.

Those in the single digits should consider suspending the campaign as well...waste of time and money.

had AA voters supported Harris,she would have been able to continue. But with little support, or much of a chance to be the nominee, the money people and individual donors moved on to other candidates who were perceived to have a better chance than Harris. I feel sorry for her, presidential fever is a painful disease when you don't win and has no cure. I would bet she will be back someday to try again. Good luck Sen. Harris ...rip Trump a new one during his trial.

This kind of thing hands right-wingers talking points.

When a black person was the best candidate, we nominated him.

If anyone was cut out for that job, Barack Obama was it!

Booker and Harris had just as much time to say what they wanted to say as the other candidates.

What would he say had we had only Biden, Sanders, Butiggieg and Booker? All men? Would he still have lamented?

Or if we had only Warren, Klobuchar, Harris and Gabbard? Only women?