She may also be able to espouse Socialism while escaping the label, oddly enough. That's out of the question with Sanders
Well, I actually think Warren is a species of distributist, and therefore espousing something a bit different than socialism. I suppose it depends on how broadly you define "socialism," but the more standard socialists are frustrated with her specifically because they think she's a capitalist.
It probably all looks like the same thing if you're not already on the far left, and I don't think it helps that some Democrats are trying to downplay the fact that Sanders really
is a fullblown socialist, but Warren is... different. She would probably be better able to compete against Sanders if she
were a real socialist, but as it stands, I think she'd have trouble escaping the label despite not fitting it terribly well.
STILL, she seems hyperactive and physically shaky, not just forceful.
Yeah, this I agree with. I kind of think it's an issue for women in general, though. It can be hard to
not come across as shrill and hyperactive rather than forceful, especially when people start talking over each other.
On the other hand, Sanders, who is old and looks old in other ways, still seems to be better organized, lucid, and more consistent (even when blowing smoke).
Oh, I don't really agree with this. Sanders has always struck me as shrieky and running more on populist rage than on policy. He's more consistent, given that he's an ideologue, but I don't really see him as more organized or lucid.
I thought he did pretty well last night, since he had a fantastic target for all that pent up revolutionary energy in Bloomberg, but I find his "Revolution Now, we'll work out the details later" approach a bit... uh, less than organized.
(Oddly enough, he's still my second choice, but I'm a little bitter all the same since I think Warren is a much better left-wing option if you actually want to get anything done.)
