Connect with us

Politics

Warren Says Sanders Told Her a Woman Could Not Win the Presidency

Published

on


Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said on Monday night that Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont told her in 2018 he did not think a woman could win the presidency. Ms. Warren’s description of the comment, from a private one-on-one meeting, represents a remarkable salvo at her leading liberal rival in the 2020 race just three weeks before the Iowa caucuses.

Mr. Sanders vehemently denied making the remark earlier on Monday and accused the Warren campaign staff of “lying” about it, in a statement intended to refute a news report by CNN that relied on anonymous sources. The New York Times and other outlets confirmed the CNN report on Monday afternoon, while the Warren campaign initially declined to comment.

With the two Democrats set to face off Tuesday night in their next televised debate, they now find themselves in the most tense standoff of the Democratic nomination fight: Mr. Sanders insisting he did not make the explosive remark, which risks alienating many Democrats, and Ms. Warren saying on the record that he did make the comment.

Ms. Warren, in a statement on Monday night, said that Mr. Sanders made the remark at a two-hour meeting in December 2018 where they discussed the 2020 election and “our past work together and our shared goals,” in particular defeating President Trump.

“Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed,” she said. “I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry.” She added that she and Mr. Sanders were “friends and allies” and said she believed they would continue to work together to beat Mr. Trump.

Internally, the Sanders campaign was roiled by Ms. Warren’s statement, which seemed to catch several staff members off guard.

Her statement represents a startling break in the Warren-Sanders relationship, which has largely been cordial and mutually beneficial. The two are both leading candidates in Iowa, where they are fighting for a similar voter slice, and the back-and-forth will most likely animate not only Tuesday night’s debate but the jockeying among the liberal groups and activists who are aligned behind either candidate.

Ms. Warren’s advisers insisted that she had no intention of making this private meeting a public spectacle. However, after Mr. Sanders’s team forcefully denied the reports, some advisers said they believed she had no choice but to offer her account firsthand.

Mr. Sanders, in his statement earlier on Monday, said it was “ludicrous” to think he would have made such a comment.

“It’s sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren’t in the room are lying about what happened,” Mr. Sanders said. “Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by three million votes in 2016.”

Mr. Sanders added that he had told Ms. Warren “that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could.”

The people familiar with the 2018 meeting, who were briefed on it shortly after it took place but were not authorized to speak publicly, said Mr. Sanders offered the comment while giving his assessment of the coming race. In relaying to Ms. Warren the challenges he thought her campaign would face, he said not only that President Trump would weaponize sexism, but also that such attacks would preclude a woman from being elected, according to the private accounts.

Larry Cohen, a longtime friend and adviser to Mr. Sanders, had said earlier Monday that Mr. Sanders told him about the meeting after it happened and that he did not believe the report.

“Everything I know about Bernie Sanders for 30 years tells me he would never speak like that, let alone to a woman he admires tremendously,” Mr. Cohen said.

Faiz Shakir, Mr. Sanders’s campaign manager, had called on Ms. Warren Monday afternoon to refute the accusation.

“We need to hear from her directly,” Mr. Shakir said, “but I know what she would say — that it is not true, that it is a lie.”

The existence of the meeting has been public since shortly after it happened in December 2018. The New York Times reported shortly after the meeting took place that Ms. Warren had sought it “as a courtesy,” and that neither party had tried to gain the other’s support or discourage the other from running. But the two senators were the only people in the room, and all reports of what was said had been secondhand.

Asked last March whether Mr. Sanders had urged her not to run, Ms. Warren said, “Bernie and I had a private dinner, and my view is that dinner stays private.”

The full political impact of the controversy could hinge on what happens during Tuesday’s debate in Des Moines. Up to this point, Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders have focused their attacks on more moderate rivals, a consequence of their friendship and a desire to not damage the party’s left wing.

However, tensions between the two campaigns — and among their most fervent supporters — have increased in recent days. One well-respected poll from The Des Moines Register and CNN placed Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren as the top two candidates in Iowa, with Mr. Sanders leading the pack.

Beyond how the candidates grapple with the issue is the matter of how exactly it’s perceived — as a sexist gibe by a candidate whose 2016 campaign faced complaints from female staff members, an 11th-hour smear by a candidate who has lost ground or some combination of both.

“You both are progressive champs & our movement needs to see you working together to defeat your corporate Dem opponents — not attack each other,” the group tweeted. “Progressives will win in 2020, but only if we don’t let the corporate wing or Trump divide us.”

Sydney Ember and Maggie Astor contributed reporting.





Source

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Citizens United critics fail to understand a political reality

Published

on

By


Ten years ago this week, a bogeyman was born. Its name is Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruling that struck down limits on independent corporate political spending and, liberal Cassandras say, ushered in a dystopian era in which big-money interests got official permission to buy democracy.

Quick history lesson: Citizens United was a nonprofit that, during the 2008 Democratic primaries, sought to air a 90-minute ideological documentary deeply critical of Hillary Clinton to Americans’ homes via pay-per-view. The Federal Election Commission barred its broadcast under rules enforcing the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

The Supreme Court faced a question: How could such a ban stand in a nation whose Constitution has a First Amendment forbidding government limitations on speech, and in which political speech is deemed the most privileged and protected form of expression?

How could it be that, in an act of expression no one would ever contemplate abridging, a for-profit corporation could in the thick of the 2004 presidential election release into theaters and advertise on television “Fahrenheit 9/11,” a strident anti-George W. Bush documentary, but the release of “Hillary: The Movie,” a photo-negative film, could four years later be criminalized?

And how could it be, as Theodore Olson argued before the court, that “it is a felony for a small, nonprofit corporation to offer interested viewers a 90-minute political documentary about a candidate for the nation’s highest office, that General Electric,” then owner of NBC, “National Public Radio, or George Soros may freely broadcast”? He could’ve added Fox News to the litany.

And how could it possibly be that government could never stop a publication owned by a billionaire or a corporation, like the one you’re currently reading, from putting online and printing a 7,500-word, 14-chapter editorial urging readers to “Bury Trump in a landslide,” but it could prohibit other corporate entities from similarly speaking?

Those who worry about dark money corrupting elections are more than justified in arguing for stronger disclosure rules, changes that must happen at the FEC and IRS and which require congressional action, but arbitrary distinctions barring some political speech could never, can never, hold in a free society.

Democrats can rail all they like about the evils of independent political speech by individuals, groups of individuals or corporations. What they cannot do is use the power of government to silence it.



Source

Continue Reading

Politics

Jim Lehrer, longtime PBS anchor and journalist, dead at 85

Published

on

By


Jim Lehrer, co-host and later host of the nightly PBS NewsHour that for decades offered a thoughtful take on current events, has died, PBS said Thursday. He was 85.

Lehrer died “peacefully in his sleep,” according to PBS. He had suffered a heart attack in 1983, and more recently had undergone heart valve surgery in April 2008.

For Lehrer, and for his friend and longtime partner Robert MacNeil, broadcast journalism was a service, with public understanding of events and issues its primary goal. Lehrer was also a frequent moderator of presidential debates.

“We both believed the American people were not as stupid as some of the folks publishing and programming for them believed,” Lehrer wrote in his 1992 memoir, A Bus of My Own.

“We were convinced they cared about the significant matters of human events. … And we were certain they could and would hang in there for more than 35 seconds for information about those subjects if given a chance.”

Tributes poured in from colleagues and watchers alike, including from Fox News’ Bret Baier, who called Lehrer “an inspiration to a whole generation of political journalists — including this one.” Dan Rather said “few approached their work with more equanimity and integrity than Jim Lehrer.” And Jake Tapper of CNN called Lehrer “a wonderful man and a superb journalist.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called him a “champion for truth and transparency.”

The half-hour Robert MacNeil Report began on PBS in 1975 with Lehrer as Washington correspondent. The two had already made names for themselves at the then-fledgling network through their work with the National Public Affairs Center for Television and its coverage of the Watergate hearings in 1973.

The nightly news broadcast, later retitled MacNeil-Lehrer Report, became the nation’s first one-hour TV news broadcast in 1983 and was then known as MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour. After MacNeil bowed out in 1995, it became The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

This 1973 image released by PBS shows co-anchors Jim Lehrer, left, and Robert MacNeil reporting on the Watergate hearings. PBS announced Thursday that Lehrer died at home. He was 85. (PBS via AP) (PBS/Associated Press)

“I’m heartbroken at the loss of someone who was central to my professional life, a mentor to me and someone whose friendship I’ve cherished for decades,” Judy Woodruff, anchor and managing editor of PBS NewsHour, said in a statement.

Moderator of presidential debates

Politics, international relations, economics, science, even developments in the arts were all given lengthy, detailed coverage in their show.

“When we expanded to the hour, it changed from being a supplement to an alternative,” Lehrer said in 1990.

“Now we take the position that if you’re looking for a place to go every 24 hours and find out what’s happened and get some in-depth treatment, we’re the place.”

Lehrer moderated his first presidential debate in 1988 and was a frequent consensus choice for the task in subsequent presidential contests.

Lehrer was a frequent moderator of presidential debates, with about a dozen under his belt. (Chip Somodevilla/The Associated Press)

“Anybody who would say it’s just another TV show is a liar or a fool,” he once said. “I know how important it is, but it’s not about me. It’s what the candidates say that matters.”

He also anchored PBS coverage of inaugurations and conventions, dismissing criticism from other TV news organizations that the latter had become too scripted to yield much in the way of real news.

“I think when the major political parties of this country gather together their people and resources in one place to nominate their candidates, that’s important,” he told The Associated Press in 2000.

“To me, it’s a non-argument. I don’t see why someone would argue that it wasn’t important.”

Naturally, Lehrer came in for some knocks for being so low-key in the big televised events. After a matchup between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000, David Letterman cracked, “Last night was probably the first and only that time Jim Lehrer [was] the most exciting person in the room.”

‘I’ve got all these stories stored up’

But the real-life Lehrer — who had a tradition of buying a new tie for good luck before each debate — was more colourful than he might have seemed on PBS.

On the side, he was also a novelist and sometime playwright. His debut novel Viva Max! was made into a movie starring Peter Ustinov. He did a whole series of novels about the adventures of an Oklahoma politician known as The One-Eyed Mack.

“Hemingway said this, too: If you paid attention as a reporter, then when the time came to write fiction you’d have something to write about,” Lehrer told The Associated Press in 1991.

“And it turned out I did. And I’ve got all these stories stored up after 30 years in the news business. And they’re just flowing out of me.”

As Lehrer turned 75 in spring 2009, PBS announced that the show would be retitled as PBS NewsHour later in the year, with Lehrer pairing up on anchor duties with other show regulars.

He said he approved of the changes, telling The New York Times that having a pair of anchors would “shake things up a bit,” even as all sectors of the news business struggled to meet changing reader and viewer demands.

Lehrer was born in Wichita, Kansas, in 1934, the son of parents who ran a bus line. In addition to titling his memoir A Bus of My Own, he collected bus memorabilia — from station signs to a real 1946 Flxible Clipper bus.

After graduation from college in 1956, he served three years in the Marines, later calling the experience so valuable that he thought all young people should take part in national service.

“I had no close calls, no rendezvous with danger, no skirted destinies with death,” he wrote.

“What I had was a chance to discover and test myself, physically and emotionally and spiritually, in important, lasting ways.”

He went to work from 1959 to 1970 at The Dallas Morning News and the now-defunct Dallas Times-Herald. Lehrer jumped to television for a Dallas nightly newscast.

Lehrer wrote that it was ironic that the Watergate hearings helped establish the importance of public TV, since former U.S. president Richard Nixon hated public broadcasting. He also recalled that the lengthy hearings gave him the chance to practice his new craft, and MacNeil, already a veteran, gave him valuable pointers on how to speak on camera clearly and conversationally.

He is survived by his wife, Kate; three daughters: Jamie, Lucy, and Amanda; and six grandchildren.

Lehrer stands on stage ahead of a 2012 presidential debate in Denver for which he served as moderator. (AFP via Getty Images)





Source

Continue Reading

Politics

23andMe lays off 100 people, CEO Anne Wojcicki explains why

Published

on

By


23andMe Co-Founder and CEO Anne Wojcicki speaks onstage during TechCrunch Disrupt SF 2017 at Pier 48 on September 19, 2017 in San Francisco, California.

Steve Jennings

Home DNA-testing company 23andMe is laying off about 100 people, or 14% of its staff, on Thursday, in the wake of declining sales.

The layoffs primarily cover the operations teams, which were focused on the company’s growth and scaling efforts. In the coming months, the company plans to tighten its focus on the direct-to-consumer business and its therapeutics arm while scaling back its clinical studies arm.

CEO Anne Wojcicki told CNBC she’s been “surprised” to see the market starting to turn.

Wojcicki has theories, but she doesn’t have clear proof for why consumers are shying away from getting tests that reveal their percentage of Irish heritage, propensity for a favorite ice cream flavor, or whether they have a limited set of variants that are associated with breast cancer. Either way, she notes, she’s downsizing because it’s “what the market is ready for.”

“This has been slow and painful for us,” she said.

Wojcicki notes that privacy could be a factor. Fears about people’s DNA ending up in the wrong hands might have been heightened in the aftermath of the Golden State Killer case. Criminal investigations honed in on a suspect involved in a decades-old rapes and murders by running DNA found at the scene through a free online database where anyone who got their DNA tested through a company like 23andMe could upload it. A suspect was found because a distant relative had shared their genetic information — showing how DNA data, unlike other kinds of data, is unique because it’s linked to and potentially exposes information about family members.

She acknowledges that “privacy is top of mind” both for consumers and her executive team. She said the company hired a new chief security officer, who previously ran security at Okta, earlier this week.

“I think the tech world needs to own this better communicate privacy standards to build trust,” she said. “I want to jump in and really own it.”

Wojcicki said another factor could be that people fear an economic downturn, and they don’t want to spend a few hundred dollars on a genetic test. That might make it expensive for 23andMe to acquire customers via social media platforms like Facebook, if the early adopters have already bought tests and the next potential batch of users are reluctant to spend.

A slowdown in genetic testing

23andMe has seen its ups and downs over the years.

The company raised ample venture capital — $786 million, according to Crunchbase — and Wojcicki used that to fuel growth, including by hiring a team to acquire new customers for its tests, and to strike deals with both pharmaceutical companies like GlaxoSmithKline and academic research groups. But the FDA conducted a regulatory probe in 2013 after 23andMe marketed a health test directly to consumers. The company repaired its relationship with the FDA and resumed sales of both its ancestry and health tests in 2015.

What followed was a period of hyper-growth, which involved the company ballooning to 700 people. And it seemed to be working. Sales of DNA tests were growing — until they weren’t, which started sometime in 2019.

The first clear signs of a slowdown in the space came last summer when Francis deSouza, chief executive of Illumina, maker of DNA sequencing machines, noted in its earnings call that the entire segment was down. DeSouza didn’t share an explanation, but said his company is taking a “cautious view” of the market for ancestry and health tests. Illumina’s customers include Ancestry and 23andMe.

Other companies in the sector have also pivoted or struggled, including Veritas Genetics, which shuttered its U.S. operations late last year.

Meanwhile, Color Genomics raised capital in recent months after focusing on the enterprise market, which involves selling to companies, and not just consumers. Its has relationships with Jefferson Health, a major hospital chain, and Apple, among others.

Investors in 23andMe include Google parent-company Alphabet, where Wojcicki’s sister, Susan, is the CEO of YouTube, plus GlaxoSmithKline and Sequoia Capital, among others.

Correction: The layoffs affect 23andMe’s operations team, as well as other groups.



Source

Continue Reading

Trending

//onvictinitor.com/afu.php?zoneid=2954224
We use cookies in order to give you the best possible experience on our website. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies.
Accept