Good News: California Gets A New Senator

Yeah, Biden picked Kamala Harris as his running mate. It was probably the smart political move-- certainly better than Susan Rice, who he really wanted. Everyone seems to like the idea. Obama, who probably had a lot of influence on this choice, said "Joe Biden nailed this decision." David Axelrod coined a new word: "Kamalat." I can't imagine there is one Democratic Party careerist who isn't saying something positive, effusive, supportive. I'm not a Democratic Party careerist so let me just say I never voted for her when she ran for anything here in California and I'll be happy to keep that record going in November. Oh, yeah, she's absolutely better than Biden. I wonder if she'll try to talk him into keeping her pal Mnuchin in place after they win. In any case... I'm way more interested in who Gavin Newsom picks to replace her in the Senate, where she actually does have a stellar voting record, significantly to the left of where Newsom stands on most things.

The most reasonable-- relatively speaking-- right out of the box public comment I saw from any official group came from PDA executive director Alan Minsky:

As we saw during her own presidential campaign, Kamala Harris is a political weather vane. First she was for Medicare for All, then she wasn't. She failed for years to hold police accountable for gross misconduct in California, then touted her commitment to police accountability in the wake of George Floyd's murder. While her penchant for taking positions broadly palatable to the corporate donor class raises concerns about her dedication to progressive principles, her habit of aligning her stance with the prevailing political winds gives us some hope. We will fight every day to hold Vice President Harris to the higher ideals she often espouses, and make sure those winds blow decisively in the direction of a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and a level playing field for working families everywhere.  

Someone knocked on my door the other day. I wasn't expecting anyone. A door knock is strange these days. It was a young lady, appropriately masked, holding a clip board. She asked me to sign a petition for a recall of our bungling corporate Democratic governor. I was happy to. A friend of mine, from the upper echelon of the Democratic Party, called me 2 minutes after Biden announced that he had chosen Kamala as his running mate. My friend told me she hopes Newsom appoints himself to the Senate seat-- "At least we'd get him out of the state."

I don't think this Senate seat is going to a white male, not even one named Newsom. Cross front-runner Adam Schiff off the list, as well as desperate hopefuls Eric Swalwell and John Garamendi. I doubt Newsom will sell it to Tom Steyer. And, I know the whole genealogy thing, but-- like it or not-- Eric Garcetti is viewed as a white man.

My guess is that Newsom's going to pick a proven, well-qualified person with a minority background. There was an on-line rumble for Katie Porter but a freshman congresswoman (also white) is probably not what Newsom has in mind. I also think he's looking for someone from Southern California, which leaves out two other social media heroes-- Barbara Lee and Ro Khanna.

That leaves six people I think he's going to look at-- well, five, because he's not really going to look at Kevin De Leon because he hates him and, Kevin is probably going to run for mayor of L.A. anyway. My list is of all southern Californians, all accomplished members of minority communities and all probably popular choices. Congressmembers Karen Bass and Ted Lieu have a ton of relevant experience-- she was Speaker of the Assembly and he wrote and passed the best legislation out of Sacramento in decades. She's an African-American and he's an Asian-American. He's also a veteran, not a bad thing in the state with the most vets; and he's wildly popular for his outspoken criticism of Trump. If I was making the choice, I can't see how I would pick anyone but Ted. But I'm not; Newsom is and I imagine he's most likely going to chose a Latino.

So... Hilda Solis is very progressive, a former congresswoman who Obama picked to be his Secretary of Labor. She's currently an L.A. County Supervisor. I'd love to see her get the job and I think she'd be a great senator Californians would love.

Xavier Becerra is also a former member of Congress, currently serving as Attorney General, having taken that position when Harris left it to become a senator. He was once thought of as potentially "the next Speaker of the House" and he's been good at the jobs he's had and would also be a relatively popular choice.

I hear, though, that Newsom likes Alex Padilla, the Secretary of State, more. Presumably, a lot will be riding on how smooth the November elections in California go since that's Padilla's biggest job. (The new voting machines in L.A. sure suck bad and thanks to Brad Friedman I now don't know for certain if that's Padilla's fault or not.)

Ready For An Emorej Presidential Campaign Speculative Mind-Read?

-by Emorej

Following are two or three mind-reading attempts:


A.      Lincoln Project people, by targeting Senate races, are doing one or both of the following:

  1.       Showing off their skills to audition for top roles in the post-Trump Democratic-branded unified centrist establishment party, and/or

  2.       Implementing their half of some existing deal with Biden’s top backers (of which the biggest potential win-win deal would be Biden putting Condi onto a bi-partisan anti-Trump ticket).

  B.       It would be rational for Biden’s top strategists to think along the following lines:

1.       If Condi were selected, the best lead-up to  it would be to first actively float Susan Rice alongside Kamala as the two finalists, so that critics, of Susan’s lack of prior public face/voice exposure, would have exhausted much of this line of criticism, thereby neutralizing criticism of Condi’s lack of prior campaigning experience (which, anyway, is a two-edged sword, because “not a politician” always has appeal).

2.       Selecting Condi would neatly fit into and cap off the DNC’s ongoing series of actions and messages demonstrating maximum welcome for former Republicans and maximum disrespect for Bernie supporters’ policy concerns, and would be consistent with a strategy of:


• planning for four (at least) years of using many more sticks than carrots to deal with the economic-cum-political consequences of the 90%’s economic and healthcare distress;

• provoking pre-election protesters in Portland, etc. to expand in numbers, vigor and breadth of anti-establishment message, and
• provoking Trump to initiate martial law against them.

  3.       Martial law, declared by Trump, would: 


• enable the Pentagon to tell Trump “we can’t risk an October-surprise shooting war with Iran, N.Korea or especially China while we’re deploying domestically”;

• enable the Pentagon, under cover of rhetoric & reality that “it was Trump who already deployed our troops domestically against Lefties & Minorities,” to then broaden those troops’ mission to prevent Trump supporting militias and armed lone wolves from violently resisting the John Roberts-finalized Electoral College vote against a second Trump term; and
* enable the next President to take credit for (even gradual/partial) relaxation of martial law-- which would distract from the little-or-no relaxation of the high-tech Panopticon originally justified by the Pandemic.  

C.      Until now, Biden has benefited by letting Trump remain the center of attention and letting the Veep short-liist get old and boring, but now:

1. Biden can't delay Veep choice much longer, and

2. The Ghislaine Maxwell news (notably the mention of Bill Clinton) is attracting attention to some of the grossest aspects of pre-Trump establishment corruption, so

3. Great time for Biden to make news, of which the best kind for him would be 'exceeding expectations for decisiveness with, and surprising everybody after long keeping tight lipped about, ultimate act of bi-partisanship, which also amounts to an escape from predictability in general, and more specifically from the short-list that everybody thought he had been boxed into committing to,

4. Of course the Condi selection works best if followed (about 72 hours later) by an endorsement from G.W. Bush, and then a day or so later by Mitt Romney, etc.

AN UPDATE: Posted here.

Kamala Harris or Susan Rice? The Veepstakes Appears To Have Kicked Out Two Truly Terrible Choices

Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, reportedly one of the last of Joe Biden's finalists for Vice President

by Thomas Neuburger

Events on the VP selection front are moving quickly, and so far, it appears from all I can gather (private conversations, news stories, tea leaves left in news stories), that the choice is between Kamala Harris and Susan Rice.

These are two terrible choices, to be clear, neither of them like the Elizabeth Warren of some people's dreams or the Tammy Baldwin of some others. But if we must have a terrible VP choice, these are among the very worst pick from. Both are women and people of color, so each checks those high priority boxes. Beyond that, though, each brings a different set of highly undesirable qualities to the table. Let's take a brief look.

Two Bad Choices

Kamala Harris, former San Francisco District Attorney and CA Attorney General, was by the account of several lawyers in my acquaintance, one of the worst DAs and AGs in the country.

In addition to all the bad deeds that have been made public recently — prosecuting parents for their children's school truancies; jailing marijuana users, then laughing about using the drug herself when it became to her advantage to do so; and the fact that she "repeatedly and openly defied U.S. Supreme Court orders to reduce overcrowding in California prisons while serving as the state’s attorney general" — there's the little-known 2010 evidence-tampering scandal that resulted in the dismissal of over 1,000 of her DA office's prior court cases due to tainted chain of evidence, and the fact that Harris and her office failed to reveal this problem until the story came out.

Because of this mismanagement, was forced to dismiss a great many cases "in which convictions had been obtained and sentences were being served." In what was called a "scathing decision," Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo wrote in May 2010 that Harris "failed to disclose information that clearly should have been disclosed."

Lawyers will say it's a lawyer's job to know the validity of her chain of evidence and also to disclose any problems with that evidence to defendants. Harris did none of those things, preferring to let those already convicted and serving time to languish in jail rather than reveal a politically damaging failing of her office.

Another Harris negative: She failed to win California, her home state, and in fact was forced to drop out before a truly embarrassing showing in the primary. (If I recall correctly, she was polling close to 3% nationally as the primary approached.) Even though California isn't a must-compete state for Biden, since he'll most likely win it comfortably, Harris's lack of pull is national.

Less is known about Susan Rice, and that may be points in her favor. But if she's the VP pick, people will get to know her quickly — and learn to not like her just as fast. To summarize the reports I've seen, she has no political background or instincts, a chilly and aloof "I know better than you" personal manner, absolutely no domestic policy experience or identifiable positions, and a "love of war" foreign policy stance.

In other words, Rice is the exact opposite of an excellent choice — a person without political skill, possessed of Obama's hauteur with none of his charm, and who views the outside world through a Hillarist neocon lens. 

She's also, from as much as I can gather, the most likely pick. Not only do rumors favor her, but there are now reports that people in Biden's circle are strongly opposed to Harris, in part because "she's too ambitious and ... will be solely focused on eventually becoming president." 

Those who argue this would be right. Ambition is the only star Kamala Harris sails by. Which leaves us with Rice, unless a surprise is in the offing.

And An Opportunity

I want to close with a personal note. Given that...

a) No good VP choice will be made by the current deciders, and that

b) This race may not be winnable by the Republicans under any circumstance save a midnight visit to the White House by the Ghost of Donald's Future

...I think the very worst choice for VP may harbor the very best outcome for progressives. More on that later, but if so, it looks like we may have quite a promising opportunity ahead of us.
  

Entitled GOP Nut Bag Judd Gregg Sees An Anti-Biden Coup Looming

Nut Bag Gregg Judd offering a seminar on progressive politics

Judd Gregg's father was governor of New Hampshire when Judd was a child. The younger Gregg was elected to Congress in his early 30s and then retired from the House in 1988 and ran, successfully, for his father's old job. After two terms as governor, he ran for the U.S. Senate. A mainstream conservative, he was one of the token Republicans Obama offered to put in his first cabinet (as secretary of Commerce)-- at a time when presidents still attempted to make it look like they cared about being vaguely bipartisan. Biden, no doubt, will being that tradition back with a thunderclap and a roar. His old pal Gregg, however is unlikely to be under consideration for a post, even though Gregg-- who first tried getting himself appointed to Obama's cabinet and then withdrew his name-- and Biden worked on schemes together to cut Social Security and Medicare, something dear to each man's cold, austeritarian heart.

Gregg was always thought of as a little nutty and a little crooked. I don't know if he's more corrupt than he used to be when he would do earmarks that directly benefitted his family's business, but he's certainly nuttier than ever. He writes an occasional OpEd for The Hill these days and his column yesterday was a crackpot conspiracy theory meant to prevent Biden from making Elizabeth Warren his running mate. It's a doozy!

Gregg claims that Biden "may be cornered into choosing a socialist or progressive" as VP and will then be ousted for senility sticking all the Republicans backing Biden this cycle with-- shudders-- Warren! Or maybe not Warren. Gregg is so out of touch with today's political reality that he considers Kamala Harris and "any number of lesser-known" potential Biden picks as "advocates for the far left." I guess if you consider keeping Social Security and Medicare policies of the far left, almost any non-Blue Dog is about equal to Lenin or Stalin. He claims this is the agenda being thrust on Biden via his far left running mate:

• Promoting and promulgating-- not merely accepting-- the massive protests that have occurred in some cities, even when they have led to lawlessness, looting, riots and declarations of autonomy.
• Searching out and destroying unbelievers in pursuit of a politically correct version of history, and doing so with a zeal that would have made Cotton Mather blush.
• Removing statues of historical figures that are deemed unacceptable based on today’s parameters of social justice.

Apparently, Judd Gregg, like Señor Trumpanzee, speaks for the left and interprets their agenda. As far as I know, removing statues of Confederate traitor that were erected in the late Jim Crow era is an infinitesimally small part of it. Removing memorials to Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other American founding fathers is not. "It is difficult, if not impossible," moaned Gregg, clutching his pearls, "to see how the nation would have developed without these extraordinary men." But not men like Judd Gregg; America-- and New Hampshire, would have been far better off if he and Trump had never been born. "It is also ironic," he kept raving, "that when leftists condemn these historical figures, they are using freedoms and rights that would not exist without the leadership of those selfsame giants of our past. But the Democratic Party is, to use a highly politically incorrect phrase, 'on the war path' against the nation’s history if it is not interpreted pursuant to their dogma. The pilgrims of the progressive cause countenance no dissent as they rope and spray-paint the statues of people who once led the nation. They are a fanatical group. Biden is suspect to them, of course. He defeated their patron saints, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Warren, and thus they demand that he have as his cohort an acceptable socialist/progressive who is fervent about the cause. This is about power. All major elections are. The socialist/progressives understand this as well as any political movement does." Always go right to conservative nut-bags when you want an explanation of what progressives think. He describes them the way many mainstream conservatives describe the neo-fascists who've, with Triump, taken over the apparatus of the GOP.

But the difference is that the socialist/progressive movers who now control the board in the game of Democratic Party politics have no ethical tether.

They are filled with the flames of clarity as to the rightness of their goals. They see all who attempt to dampen those flames as enemies.

Theirs is first and foremost a social justice cause that is justified by their self-proclaimed correctness.

It allows them to move forward without any doubt and with untempered intensity.

They can proclaim sections of cities independent nations. They can proclaim America’s most important past political leaders evil. They can promote lawlessness in the name of the rightness of their cause.

They can essentially march outside the boundaries of the nation’s history and political structure, asserting that what they do is best for all.

They will not tolerate for long not being in total control. They will have their vice president, but not their president. And they are a very impatient people and movement.

Since their goal is power and their purpose pure, why should they wait?

The path to total control is clearly there once they have the vice presidency.

It is the 25th Amendment.

Within a few months of assuming the presidency, Biden may find himself being the next statue toppled as the socialist/progressive movement moves closer to power.

Replacing him with his vice president could be deemed necessary to the cause.

His colleagues could declare him too old to handle the presidency and remove him under the 25th Amendment.

Et tu, Brute?

The Cause will have been completed.

Power will be fully in the hands of the statue-removers, the social justice police and those who see America’s political history as basically evil. Socialist/progressive excess will govern.

It will be a coup.

Look over your shoulder, Joe. Watch your back. Donald Trump is not your most threatening problem.

Donald Trump is everyone's most threatening problem and if Judd Gregg had a patriotic bone left in his feeble body, he would know that too.

Last Decision Days of DED-Heads-- A Guest Post By Emorej

Choices of "DED-Heads" (Dem.Estab.Donor.Heads)

after Senate Primary Dominance survived 2020:

(ii) leave some $ on table, or

(i) suicidally double down


Status update:

Now that big money staved off Progressive Senate nominations in Kentucky (Booker) and Colorado (Romanoff), the 2020 primary cycle has failed to mark the official death of Democratic Senate nominations’ dominance by Democratic Establishment big Donors and their loyal servant Democratic Party heads ("DED-Heads").

Meanwhile, Trump’s electoral college math is in free-fall as Florida, which has long been the hill where Republican Presidential nominees must do-or-die, is racing toward every type of “die” as the Trump-turbocharged Pandemic passes the point of no return towards a major culling of the elderly retirees who disproportionately vote in Florida’s elections.

Thus, 2021 policy will be made by a non-Trump (probably Democratic) President facing a Senate containing zero or few new Progressives.

DED-Heads’ Options


How will DEDheads use the above reprieve (during the short interim before the Senate seats of Schumer, Warren, Harris and others are besieged by Progressive challengers)?


Option (i), which would be psychologically consistent with their track record, would be to double down on worshipping big donors’ cheap purchasing of economic and ecological domination, while using a few Black and/or Brown female faces and identity politics rhetoric in order to ‘rainbow-wash’ a continued lemming-like rush over economic, political and ecological cliffs towards mass genocide and suicide. The most prominent and transparent symbol of this option would be a Biden-Harris Presidential ticket, likely to win (with zero coat-tails) mainly because of Trump’s Pandemic cherry on top of broader self-marginalization.

Option (ii) would follow the tradition of “today’s winners leaving some money on table for today’s losers in order to keep the game alive.” For this option, too, the most prominent and transparent symbol would be the Democratic Presidential ticket, as discussed below.

Biden + Black Woman Dem


A Biden-Harris ticket (even more than a Biden-Demings ticket) would confirm many of the worst suspicions of swing and variable turnout voters about the DED-Heads. For example:

1. DED-Heads’ comfort with (a) Biden’s cognitive decline, soft (at least) corruption and coddling (at least) of racists, and (b) Harris’s three-fer identity profile outweighing her laughable unpreparedness (thanks to CA’s 1-party echo chamber) for the barely warming up spotlights of her first Presidential primary. Even Harris’s recent marriage is a negative, because her White husband (whose day job coincidentally enjoyed a leapfrog up into a mega-lobbying Big Law firm) highlights suspicions that ‘cultural Blackness’ has been mainly a career strategy for Harris, whose (East) Indian mother raised her mainly in Montreal after divorce from her (partially) Black Jamaican father, who has publicly denounced Harris’s joke about Ganja-smoking stereotypes.





2. Even Demings would be a modest upgrade over Harris, because (a) Demings’ anti-Progressivism can be attributed to need to please the Orlando electorate (and the Presidential ticket’s goal of pleasing swingy Florida), and (b) Demings’career as a policewoman suggests a potential cultural bridge between police and the victims of over- and overly-brutal policing (unlike Harris’s career as a prosecutor who had to overcome her lack of cultural connections to police by pandering to them at the expense of their victims).

Better Options

What alternative Democratic Presidential tickets would embody more politically effective symbolism and/or substance?


1. For Vice-President, Barbara Lee would be a slam-dunk, because Barbara, along with the traditional experience of 2+ decades in Congress, (a) has a Black woman identity to pre-empt complaints from box-checkers (and is too old to clog the lines of succession for very long), and (b) is widely admired (notably for her 2001 casting of the sole vote in the House against the Cheney-Rove-W. administration’s first endless war bill) by many Progressives including Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders, but (c) has ‘matured’ (along with her rapidly gentrifying district, where Black voter percentage has declined even more rapidly) into avoiding fights with the Dem establishment.

2. For President, Al Gore would be an intelligent choice, offering many advantages over Biden, especially in order to minimize Dems’ loss of voters to the Green Party Presidential ticket. Examples include: (a) early identification with climate change awareness, and 2003 public opposition to invading Iraq, (b) recent proximity to Silicon Valley (which is great for raising money and is necessary for understanding options relating to the looming surveillance apocalypse), (c) arguably being owed a ‘gift-wrapped’ nomination as compensation for loss-by-theft of the 2001 Presidency, and (d) also old enough to not clog the lines of succession.

3- For either President or Vice-President, a master-stroke would be Condoleeza Rice, who would (a) formalize the merger of establishment Democrats with anti-Trump (non-Libertarian) Republicans, and (b) enable the Presidential popular vote to better reflect voters’ ideological alignments, such as:

• Condi ticket 50%;
• Trump ticket 30%;

• Libertarian ticket 4%;
• Green ticket 16%-- creating a base camp for a stronger 50-state (expanded GreenEntry) ticket in 2024.

Obviously the DED-Head-whipped Dem establishment is unlikely to follow the above advice, because they are too bubble-brained to catch up with the new reality that (riffing on Chuck Schumer’s infamous failed 2016 prediction):

"For every vote the Dems lose to a Green or other Lefty Presidential ticket, the Condi-led Dems could win both a vote and a donation from another Republican suburban woman."

Instead, they’re more likely to waste this last chance decision by re-running their old playbook, and then try to enjoy their golden caskets while the rest of us sleep easier in mass graves.

Who Would Be A Worse Vice President-- Amy Klobuchar Or Val Demings?

On Thursday, Norman Solomon wrote that "eighteen years before Minneapolis police killed an unarmed black man named George Floyd on Monday, Minneapolis police killed an unarmed black man named Christopher Burns. Today, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar decries the killing of Floyd. Back then, Minneapolis chief prosecutor Amy Klobuchar refused to prosecute city police for killing Burns... [T]he gruesome killing of Floyd has refocused attention on Klobuchar’s history of racial injustice. In sharp contrast to her prosecutorial approach two decades ago, she has issued a statement calling for 'a complete and thorough outside investigation' into Floyd’s death and declaring that 'those involved in this incident must be held accountable.'... Klobuchar’s political record, when it comes to light, simply can’t stand up to scrutiny. While mainstream media rarely seem interested in her Senate record, it has been no less contemptuous of equal protection under the law than her career as a prosecutor. When the progressive advocacy group Demand Justice issued a 'Report Card' about the confirmation votes of Senate Democrats on President Trump’s right-wing federal judge appointees, it explained that the report graded 'willingness to fight Trump’s judges.' Elizabeth Warren received an 'A,' Bernie Sanders an 'A-' and Kamala Harris a 'B+.' Amy Klobuchar got an 'F.'"

This is a gross way to put it, but there's a actual silver lining to this brutal murder of George Floyd: Klobuchar will not be president. I say president because whoever Biden picks as his running mate will probably wind up as president sooner or later. I haven't been writing about the VP speculation much-- just that Susan Rice was briefly in the mix-- but I've always suspected it would be Klobuchar because she's the only one conservative enough to make Biden comfortable.

Yesterday, writing for NBC News, Marianna Sotomayer noted that "Klobuchar’s record as Hennepin County attorney has come under fire in recent days even though she has not been involved with the police officer who is being accused of killing Floyd. Even so, she has faced increased scrutiny from the African American community in numerous op-eds over the last week that say she should not be chosen as Biden’s vice president because of her lack of prosecuting police misconduct in Minnesota during her tenure. Prior to ending her presidential campaign in early March, Klobuchar was forced to cancel a campaign event in St. Louis Park, Minnesota because black activists overtook the stage to protest her decision to sentence a Minnesota teenager to life in prison for murder while serving as county attorney."

Elena Schneider's piece for Politico emphasized Klobuchar's abysmal performance among black voters during her primary run for president-- and how Black activists are warning Biden to steer clear of her. She wrote that Klobuchar has an "ideological profile to mesh well with Biden, and she’s regularly appeared as a surrogate and a fundraiser for him, raking in more than $1.5 million for a single event she headlined. The pair have a warm relationship... and they didn’t tangle publicly during the primary."

But more than a dozen black and Latino strategists and activists warned in interviews that selecting Klobuchar would not help Biden excite black voters-- and might have the opposite effect. Klobuchar would “risk losing the very base the Democrats need to win,” said Aimee Allison, founder of She the People, which promotes women of color in politics. They pointed to Klobuchar’s poor performance among nonwhite voters during the presidential primary, as well as her record as a prosecutor in Minnesota.

It’s not yet clear how much the opposition of activists matters to Biden. He's made clear that the electoral politics of his pick matter less than choosing someone who can be a governing partner and step into the top job without worry.

But the vocal contingent of African American and Latino detractors-- many of whom said they would prefer that Biden select a black woman as a running mate-- is unique to Klobuchar; Elizabeth Warren, another top contender for VP, doesn’t elicit similar antagonism from communities of color.

"It comes from her performance in the primary-- her weakness in being able to motivate them," said Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of BlackPAC, who supports several potential vice presidential selections. “The engagement and the enthusiasm of black voters is going to be a difference-maker in this election, and the concerns about her in this role stem from the degree to which she resonated or not with those core constituencies.”

Earlier this week, Biden confirmed that "multiple black women [are] being considered" for vice president. Those often named include Sen. Kamala Harris, former Georgia gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams and Florida Rep. Val Demings. Besides Klobuchar, other Midwestern options, like Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, have been mentioned.

But for many of these operatives, Klobuchar symbolizes a strategic division within the Democratic Party: whether to focus on winning back white, Midwestern voters who flipped to Donald Trump in 2016, or on activating voters of color who were not excited to vote. She “represents that tension,” said the Rev. Al Sharpton, who added he’s told Biden that he would prefer a black woman on the ticket, but noted he’s “not anti-Amy.”

“It is not her fault, but she is in the middle of an ongoing battle from the last few presidential races,” Sharpton continued, adding he would be “concerned” that selecting Klobuchar would not help energize black and brown voters.

In a Washington Post op-ed this month urging Biden to select a woman of color as running mate, seven black strategists and activists called out Klobuchar, warning she would “only alienate black voters.”

"Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, does not need help winning white, working-class voters-- he serves that function himself," they wrote. Referring to her record as a chief prosecutor in Minneapolis-based Hennepin County, they added, "A choice such as Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN), who failed to prosecute controversial police killings and is responsible for the imprisonment of Myon Burrell, will only alienate black voters."

“If it was important enough to raise in an op-ed, it speaks to how serious we are,” LaTosha Brown, a co-founder of Black Voters Matter and the lead author of the op-ed, said in an interview. “Her campaign appeal was about bringing in working-class, white people from the Midwest, and perhaps that’s true, but that’s a particular strategy that doesn’t align with what it’s going to take to win. You need to excite the base.”

Angela Rye, a Democratic strategist and the former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus, who also signed the op-ed, called Klobuchar a “nonstarter.”

Klobuchar's boosters counter that opposition to President Donald Trump will bring out the Democratic base no matter what, and that the key Rust Belt states Democrats have to win play to Klobuchar's strengths.

"I think she could help put the upper Midwest in play, and that's an invaluable asset," said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who backed Bernie Sanders during the presidential primary. He also noted that "there are a lot of black people" in the Midwest, in cities like Detroit and Milwaukee, who will be key for Democrats’ winning back those states.

"I think the base is going to be excited enough because, before, Trump was an idea, now Trump is the reality," Ellison continued.

...The primary results illustrate Klobuchar's failure among voters of color.

In South Carolina, she won 1 percent of black voters, even though they make up a majority of Democratic primary voters in the state. It was the lowest total for any of the presidential candidates on the ballot.

In Nevada, Klobuchar received 4 percent support of the Latino vote, the lowest share of any presidential candidate other than Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Nationally, Klobuchar regularly polled in the low single digits among voters of color.

...Biden, too, was recently warned about not taking African American voters for granted. On Friday, he apologized on a conference call with black leaders for comments he made to The Breakfast Club radio host: "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."

Klobuchar’s prosecutorial record as Hennepin County attorney is another sore spot, particularly her handling of a case involving Burrell, a black teenager. An investigation by The Associated Press found numerous flaws in the case, and civil rights leaders in Minnesota called for her to suspend her presidential campaign.

Klobuchar called for an independent investigation after her campaign ended, a move applauded by the Minnesota NAACP.

If Biden picked Klobuchar as his vice president, “it would add to [his] workload” for the general election, said Daughtry, who signed onto another letter sent to Biden, urging the selection of a black woman as vice presidential nominee.

“There are enough people who either A, don’t know her, or B, have a negative view of her that it becomes another thing the campaign has to do-- introduce her and convince communities of color that she’s OK,” Daughtry said. “That’s not impossible, but there’s already a lot of work to do in a presidential race.”

Yesterday House Majority Whip and Biden king maker, Jim Clyburn (D-SC) said that he believes it’s not the right time to choose Klobuchar. "We’re all victims sometimes of timing and some of us benefit tremendously from timing," said Clyburn on a media call. "This is very tough timing for Amy Klobuchar, who I respect so much." He's pushing Val Demings (D-FL), a former police chief in Orlando.

It's a real no-no to refer to a black woman as a moron. But Demings fits the description. She demonstrated she can read her staff's notes aloud-- more or less-- when she participated in the impeachment hearings but the idea of her as a vice president, let alone a president rises to a Trumpian level of unqualified. One of her more senior colleagues in the House who knows her well told me that "Honestly, I could go on and on and on about her. She is a deeply flawed person, in my opinion. I would say that her biggest problem, as an elected official, is her self-absorption. She has now managed to get through two entire campaigns without ever making any promise to anyone to do anything. She stands for nothing except personal advancement. Val Demings is all about Val Demings. Her only constituent is the one in the mirror. She is so lacking in principles that she joined both the Progressive Caucus and the New Dems. If there were a Gay Caucus and a Straight Caucus, she’d probably join both of those, too... On the other hand, her husband should be on that short list. He is an actual public servant, and a good soul. Compared to him, she’s [description deleted; even I couldn't publish it]."

Warren would be the best choice but it's hard to imagine Biden picking someone so much smarter than himself and so much more likely to be admired than he is-- not to mention someone as ideologically distant from where he has spent his entire adult life. Still, Warren is the one who will help him the most electorally and would be the best person standing there if he dies or becomes so much more senile than he already is that he would have to step down.

Bloomberg And The Parasitic Billionaire Class vs Bernie And Elizabeth

Yesterday, Bernie's campaign manager Faiz Shakir, sent out an e-mail about the troublesome billionaires afflicting the Democratic Party. "First," he wrote, "we had to face off against candidates flying around the country begging rich people for money at high-dollar fundraisers. Even so, we’ve out-raised them all… at just $19 a contribution. Then, Joe Biden’s super PAC says they have raised a ton of money in unlimited contributions from wealthy folks and will start running ads in Iowa imminently. Now, Mike Bloomberg and his billions are filing paperwork to run for president, mostly because he doesn’t want us or our issues to succeed. The truth is, big money will concede nothing to us. Nothing. They will fight us and our ideas to the end."

Yesterday, Newsweek's Jason Lemon asked if a billionaire, namely Michael Bloomberg, can buy an election. After all, he his net worth is in the $50 billion range.

Bloomberg historically has shown a willingness to spend tens of millions of his own money to win an election. During his successful 2009 mayoral reelection campaign, the billionaire spent about $102 million of his own money-- or about $174 per vote. In his 2005 reelection campaign, he spent about $85 million of his money, roughly $102 per vote. Four years prior during his first campaign in 2001, he spent $74 million of his money, coming in at about $99 per vote cast in his favor.

Notably, Bloomberg spent more of his own money on each of those successful campaigns than Trump, who is estimated to be worth only about $3 billion, did on his 2016 presidential run.

Richard Eskow had already asked the question the day before at Common Dreams. Eskow looks how the same math that Bloomberg used to buy the mayoralty in New York can be applied nationally. "If so," he wrote, "it would cost him $12 billion to buy the Oval Office. That is, of course, a disturbing and absurd notion to anyone with even a vestigial attachment to democratic principle. Here’s something even more disturbing: Bloomberg can easily afford it. Bloomberg has become a living illustration of runaway inequality and an irretrievably corrupted democracy."

Bloomberg was a Democrat, became a Republican, and is now a Democrat again. Party affiliation is, however, a trivial thing in his world. The ultra-wealthy change party affiliations and contributions on a whim, or for expedience, much as a gentleman might wear a tan linen suit in the summer and switch to darker wool blends as the autumn chill sets in.

Let’s do the math. As the New York Times reported in 2009, Bloomberg spent $74 million to win the mayoralty in 2001. He spent $85 million to win re-election in 2005. He then managed to void the two-term limit for New York City mayors and went on to spend $102 million winning his third term.

As The Times notes, that means Bloomberg spent $185 for every vote he received. Additional calculations by this writer show that he spent a total of $88 for every vote cast in his races for any candidate.

How much would it cost Bloomberg to become president, if we assume that every vote in the country “costs” as much as a New Yorker’s? 136,700,000 people voted in the 2016 election. If turnout is unchanged, and if the election could be purchased for $88 per vote, the cost of buying the United States presidency would come to $12 billion.

The total cost of the last presidential election was estimated at $2.6 billion. Bloomberg could spend five times as much as all the presidential campaigns spent together last time around, and he’d still be one of the richest people in the world.

Not that it would be easy. Despite his wealth, Bloomberg retains his deeply dislikable public persona. I have never seen him in person, but I have observed him as most voters would, through the media lens. Even the highest-paid consultants-- the one who told the officious Bloomberg to call himself “Mike,” even though he is never addressed that way-- have not figured out how to alter his self-presentation as a scowling, self-righteous martinet.

If beating Trump is your top priority, Bloomberg’s not your guy, even in our broken simulacrum of democracy. His nomination would almost certainly depress turnout among core Democratic voters. Some say he would win some votes among “persuadable” Republicans, but Republicans have proven far more attached to Trump than insiders and pundits expected. And if impeachment results in a different GOP candidate for 2020-- not likely, but not impossible-- the entire rationale for a Bloomberg candidacy disappears.

Still, if anybody can buy this election with personal funds, “Mike” can. He is one of the richest people in the world. According to Forbes, a source that is hardly hostile to the wealthy, Bloomberg currently has a net worth of $52.3 billion. (The use of the word “worth” in this context is, of course, is meant in a fiscal context, not a human one.)

Bloomberg may have certain restrictions on his investments and assets, but borrowing against them would be easy. He would be worth $40 billion after the election-- enough to buy several more races.

What would a Bloomberg presidency look like? True, he’s good on guns, but his imperious presentation of policy is likely to win few converts in Congresss. His environmental rhetoric is good, but he’s unwilling to make the sweeping changes needed to address climate change. His views on the economy are the retrograde ravings of an isolated oligarch. Inequality soared in Bloomberg’s New York City, which quickly became unaffordable for working people and extremely lucrative for others.

When Bloomberg spoke to an assembly of fellow executives in 2018, he reportedly said that we need to “go back to how things were done in Clinton days, when he'd get three Democrats, three Republicans and take them golfing, then go lock themselves in a room, close the door, smoke cigars and make all the decisions.”

Clinton’s deal-making elitism led to the financial crisis of 2008. Obama’s similarly “centrist” policies cost the Democrats the House, the Senate, the presidency, and 1,000 state seats. If that’s the outcome you want, Bloomberg’s your guy.

...Bloomberg’s wealth would have been unimaginable to the wealthiest and most powerful emperors of old. He didn’t “earn” it. His $52 billion is the product of a long chain of policy decisions-- in areas that range from taxation to the use of publicly-funded technologies and networks by private enterprise. His extreme wealth, and its ability to undermine democracy, reflects a long chain of policy failures. It is we who pay the price: in loss of democracy, in loss of economic rights, and in a future that may well be for sale to the likes of Michael Bloomberg.

Last week Mehdi Hasan interviewed Bernie for The Intercept You should read the whole thing. Hasan began the interview by asking Bernie why he is doing so well in the polls. Bernie responded: "For two reasons. Number one, we are taking on the entire establishment and it is no secret that I am not much loved by the corporate establishment or the corporate media. That’s one factor. We are a threat to them. And they are nervous that we are going to put together the kind of grassroots working class movement that we need not only to defeat Trump to transform the country. And I’ll tell you what the second reason is, you know, a lot of the media folks who are you know, they are hardworking. They’re nice. They’re honest people. They are not, 'enemies of the people' as Trump defines them, but they live in a certain world, an upper middle class world where they talk to each other. They don’t know many working class people who are supporting Bernie Sanders. They don’t know many young people who are supporting Bernie Sanders. And they talk to each other and they say, I can’t believe it. How does Sanders-- We have not talked to anybody who supports Sanders. How come he’s doing so well in the polls? I think those are the two factors that we have."

Hasan: One of the issues that moderators have obsessed over in those debates is how are you and Senator Elizabeth Warren going to pay for Medicare for All. Unlike you, she’s unveiled a very detailed, lengthy, specific plan for how she wants to pay for it. She says she’ll target employers as part of it. You told ABC News last weekend that her proposal isn’t as progressive as you’d like it to be, and would even hurt jobs by hurting businesses. A lot of Warren supporters have said that your argument Senator is the kind of argument that Republicans have used for years to say any tax on employers will cost jobs. How do you respond to them?

Bernie: Well, let me respond in several ways. First of all, right now, we are spending twice as much per capita on healthcare as do the people of any other country while 87 million are uninsured and some 500,000 people go bankrupt every year because of medical bills that they can’t pay. Number two, I appreciate very much that Senator Warren is a strong supporter of Medicare for All and is supporting the legislation that I introduced which is the only way that we’re going to provide quality healthcare to all people in a cost effective way.

So, there are differences in terms of how you fund it. Now, for the last several years, we have put out options. You say, you could do this, you could do that. One of the aspects of our plan is a 4% income tax exempting the first $29,000 of income. So, if you are the typical American family and making 60,000, you would pay a 4% income tax on 31,000, which is about 1,200 dollars a year which by the way, is much, much, much lower than that what that family is paying right now. We also have put a payroll tax on employers, and I think the number is 7.5%, or maybe 10%.

Hasan: But what about the specific criticism of you from the Warren team that you sound like a Republican saying that a tax on employers will hurt jobs?

Bernie: No, no, what I’m saying is... you tell me. The two concerns here, when you have a payroll tax, it will impact more significantly upper income companies where lawyers are making $100,000 or a million dollars a year, when you’re putting what amounts to a $9,500 head tax on a company that is hiring workers, for 40 or $50,000. That’s quite a hit. That’s quite a hit. So my point is, look, I was asked this question by ABC, and that’s the answer I gave and I think it’s the right answer. Senator Warren is trying to figure out a way to fund this. I am trying to figure out a way to fund it. Most importantly, what we both understand that Medicare for All will save the average American substantial sums of money in their healthcare costs.

...Hasan: And for those of us who are on the left and are not fans of Joe Biden, is there a danger, a lot of us worry that there’s a danger that you and Elizabeth Warren, both being in the race and doing so well splits the progressive vote, splits the left and helps a Joe Biden or even a Pete Buttigieg come through the middle and win the nomination. Isn’t that a real danger?

Bernie: I don’t think so. I mean, you have a process which as crazy as it may seem, actually make some sense and that is the primary process. And what it is, is the goal here, obviously, is to defeat, and defeat badly, Donald Trump the most dangerous president in modern American history. And ultimately, you know, you can argue about who the best candidate is, and I can argue about it, but you know, it’s going to be the people who make that decision. So Senator Warren and I are going out. She’s making our case. I am making my case for a variety of reasons. I do believe I am the strongest candidate to defeat Trump. The people will decide. She’ll get delegates. I will get delegates and we’ll see what happens as this process goes down the line.

Hasan: But you’re competing for similar delegates is my point. You’re not competing necessarily for exactly the same people as Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg.

Bernie: Right, that’s right but I think we’re also competing for some different constituencies as well.

Hasan: Okay. And in the past, you’ve suggested that and I’m quoting you from Twitter that the corporate wing of the Democratic Party is “anybody but Bernie.” You’ve said that you’re the real threat to the billionaire class. I just want to check then, are you saying that Elizabeth Warren is not a threat to the billionaire class...

Bernie: Don’t try-- don’t try to-- no. Elizabeth Warren is a friend of mine. And what we’re trying to do it...

Hasan: But is she a threat to the billionaire class.

Bernie: ...One second, one second, one second. What I said is that quote, paraphrasing, the corporate wing led by a group called Third Way said that Bernie Sanders is "an existential threat to the Democratic Party." And I agree with him. We are moving this party in a very significant way away from their dependency on corporate money on billionaire money to the needs and the support of working people in this country. I am very proud, by the way, Mehdi, that we have received more individual contributions from more people than any candidate in the history of American politics at this point in a presidential...

Hasan: I understand that and that’s a major achievement. I’m just wondering if I were to ask you, which candidates in the race should billionaires be afraid of? Clearly you would say yourself, and I think everyone would agree with that.

Bernie: Yes.

Hasan: Clearly, we wouldn’t say Joe Biden.

Bernie: Yes.

Hasan: I’m just wondering is Elizabeth Warren someone you would say that billionaires should be afraid of.

Bernie: Yeah, I think they should be as well. But I think, given my record and what we are trying to do in this campaign, is we are trying to uniquely in an unprecedented way in modern American history-- It’s not just win this election which obviously we’re trying to do. We are simultaneously trying to build an unprecedented grassroots movement of millions of working people, black and white and Latino, Native American and Asian American around an agenda that works for all of us and not just the 1%. So, we are building a movement because at the end of the day you know, we can’t bring about real change without that movement.

Hasan: And you said, Elizabeth Warren is a friend of yours. You say you have a similar approach on Medicare for All, would a presidential candidate Bernie Sanders be open to Elizabeth Warren as his running mate?

Bernie: Elizabeth Warren is somebody that I have worked with for many, many years. Worked with her before she was a United States senator. So obviously, if I am fortunate enough to become the Democratic nominee and president of the United States, I would look absolutely, to Elizabeth Warren as somebody who would play a very, very important role in everything that we’re doing.

Hasan: And other candidates have talked about the need to balance a ticket. You know, we live in this age of “identity politics,” especially with Trump’s racism, Trump’s misogyny that the Democrats should take a stand. Are you okay with an all-male or an all-white ticket in 2020 for the Democrats?

Bernie: It’s too early to talk about it, but I do believe let me just repeat what I’ve said many times is my administration and my cabinet will look like America. It will be the most diverse administration and the most diverse cabinet this country has ever seen. We are proud of our diversity. I am the son, proud son of an immigrant. And I think when people look at our cabinet and our administration, they will say, “Hey, that’s what America looks like.”

Hasan: I’m sure they will. I have absolute faith that your administration and cabinet will but I asked about the ticket. And the reason I asked about the ticket is Cornel West, who came on the show in March and endorsed your presidential bid in that interview. He said to me, and I quote: "When Bernie Sanders wins the presidency, you can rest assured it’s not going to be with another vanilla brother." Is he right about that?

Bernie: Well, Cornel is... I love Cornel. He’s doing a great job. He’s a longtime friend of mine, but we will make a decision about the vice presidency at the appropriate time. It’s a little bit early to do that now... [T]rust me that my vice presidential candidate will be a strong progressive.

Bernie Should Pick A VP Candidate And Run As A Dream Ticket

When asked to describe the attributes in a vice president he's looking for by Cenk recently, Bernie said, playfully, he "would look for somebody who is maybe not of the same gender that I am and maybe somebody who might be a couple of years younger than me" and, less playfully, "somebody who can take the progressive banner, as vice president, and carry it all over the country to help us with our agenda and help us to rally the American people." Sounds like Elizabeth Warren, no? Kamala? Is she an actual progressive? Tulsi? [Just take my word for it-- and I hate to put it this way-- ain't gonna happen.] Nina Turner? Not impossible. Stacey Abrams? That wouldn't come as a shock. But I'll stick with Elizabeth Warren for my guess.

"When," Bernie said, "you talk about other candidates, Elizabeth Warren is someone I have known for over twenty years. She is a friend of mine and she is a very, very good senator and a very serious person." Keyword: serious-- and many think Bernie and Warren are the only really serious contenders in this race.

There was a lot of buzz over the weekend around Theodoric Meyer's Politico piece, Inside Biden And Warren's Yearslong Feud. She's a great counterweight to the biggest threat progressives face in the nomination battle, establishment pick Status Quo Joe, the worst of the Democratic candidates. She never could stomach his suck-up posture towards the banks and the very rich. They fought a long, bitter battle over the bankruptcy bill Wall Street assigned him to get passed. Meyer wrote that it was a question of responsibility they were fighting over. "Were the rising number of people who filed for bankruptcy each year taking advantage of their creditors by trying to escape their debts? Or were credit card companies and other lenders taking advantage of an increasingly squeezed middle class?"

Warren blamed the lenders. Many credit card companies charged so much in fees and interest that they weren’t losing money when some of their customers went bankrupt, she said. “That is, they have squeezed enough out of these families in interest and fees and payments that never paid down principal,” Warren said.

Biden parried. “Maybe we should talk about usury rates, then,” he replied. “Maybe that is what we should be talking about, not bankruptcy.”

“Senator, I will be the first. Invite me.”

“I know you will, but let’s call a spade a spade,” Biden said. “Your problem with credit card companies is usury rates from your position. It is not about the bankruptcy bill.”

“But, senator,” Warren countered, “if you are not going to fix that problem, you can’t take away the last shred of protection from these families.”

At this last remark, Biden smiled and sat back in his chair, according to Mallory Duncan, a lobbyist who was in the room.

“I got it, OK,” Biden said. “You are very good, professor.”

“It was like watching a championship tennis match,” Duncan told me, more than a decade later, of the sparring between the two future presidential candidates.

Fourteen years later, Warren and Biden are expected to find themselves facing off again, this time on a much larger stage. And while a bill that passed in 2005 is unlikely to dominate the 2020 Democratic primaries, the fight over the bankruptcy legislation helped shape Warren politically and could be a surprising liability for Biden in the race to become his party’s choice to replace President Donald Trump.

The bill, which was signed in to law by George W. Bush two months after Biden and Warren tangled, made it harder for Americans to discharge the debts they accrue from things like credit cards and medical bills. According to one study, the law “benefited credit card companies and hurt their customers.” Delaware was home to one of the nation’s biggest credit card issuers at the time, and advocates on both sides of the debate saw Biden as trying to represent his state’s interests in Congress. But with emotions still raw about the banking bailouts of the Great Recession, some Democrats see Biden’s vote for the bill as part of a broader record that’s not as progressive as he’d like it to appear.

And the issue may have special resonance in a primary in which Democrats will be competing for the chance to try to defeat a president whose businesses have gone bankrupt half a dozen times, and who bragged, during the 2016 campaign, about using the nation’s bankruptcy laws “brilliantly” to his benefit.

Some of the lobbyists and lawmakers who championed the bill say it’s worked the way they intended. The number of consumer bankruptcy filings has slumped from more than 2 million in 2005 to fewer than 800,000 in 2017, the most recent year for which statistics are available. Joe Rubin, who worked on bankruptcy legislation as a House Republican staffer in the 1990s and later lobbied in support of the bill for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote in 2015 that it had “returned bankruptcy to its roots as a last resort for consumers, particularly wealthy consumers, as it was intended.”

But bankruptcy scholars say the law has made it harder for people in financial distress-- especially the poor-- to file for bankruptcy. Hundreds of thousands of people who might otherwise file for bankruptcy have delayed doing so, according to research conducted by Warren and others who’ve studied the law. Meanwhile, there’s little evidence the law has tackled the problem that Biden and other lawmakers described as the reason that bankruptcy laws needed to be changed in the first place-- a supposed surge in bankruptcy fraud and abuses. “I doubt that the bill reined in the abuses that the bill was premised on, in part because they didn’t necessarily exist in the first place,” said Melissa Jacoby, a law professor at the University of North Carolina who studies bankruptcy.

While Biden has expressed remorse for other aspects of his record in the Senate, including the way he handled Anita Hill’s accusations against Clarence Thomas during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of 1991 and his vote for the crime bill in 1994, he has defended his push to pass the bankruptcy bill. Biden, “knowing that the bill was likely to make it through the Republican-led Congress, worked to moderate the bankruptcy bill and protect middle class families,” Bill Russo, a Biden spokesman, said in a statement to Politico. “He believed that if you have income and consumer debts you can pay, you should agree to a repayment plan that you can afford.”

Even so, Biden has expressed misgivings. One of the bill’s hundreds of provisions was to bar those who file for bankruptcy from getting rid of private student loan debt. (Government-backed student loans, which make up the vast majority of student loan debt, were already exempt from discharge in bankruptcy.) But “the private student loan market in this country has changed dramatically since 2005, in part due to the increase of for-profit education,” Russo said. In 2015, the Obama administration asked Congress to pass a law allowing those with private student loan debt to eliminate it through bankruptcy-- reversing the change Biden had voted for a decade before. Congress hasn’t done so.

Former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), who voted against the bill, described it as “one of the worst pieces of legislation of all time” when he ran for president in 2008 and questioned former Sen. John Edwards’ vote for it during a presidential debate. But Dodd told me he didn’t see Biden’s vote for the bill as a fault line between Biden and Warren. “I would call them both progressive Democrats, and they’ve reflected that throughout their careers,” Dodd said.

...[S]ome progressives say he hasn’t done enough to make up for what they see as his past mistakes. Biden’s vote for the bill, along with those he cast in favor of the Iraq War in 2003 and the crime bill, are “very out of step with where the electorate is,” said Rebecca Kirszner Katz, a Democratic operative who’s worked on the campaigns of progressive candidates such as Cynthia Nixon and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. Biden’s record in President Barack Obama’s administration doesn’t absolve him of his votes in the preceding decade, she added.

“I don’t think he just gets a pass because he was Obama’s vice president,” she said.

...[Warren's] anger at Biden didn’t abate after Bush signed the bill into law in 2005. In a post on her now-defunct Warren Reports blog-- which is still accessible via the Internet Archive-- not long afterward, Warren accused Biden of “twisting arms to get the bankruptcy bill through Congress.”

...Biden was one of 18 Democratic senators to vote for the bankruptcy bill in 2005, but of the more than a dozen current and former members of Congress who are running or considering running for president, he is the only one who voted for it. Two other candidates-- Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, both of whom were in the House at the time-- voted against it. While Biden’s support for the bill is unlikely to torpedo his campaign by itself, it’s easy to imagine his rivals using it to help make the case that he’s too close to Washington lobbyists and Wall Street.

Before he tapped Biden as his running mate, Barack Obama criticized John McCain during the 2008 campaign for “siding with banking industry lobbyists” by voting for the bankruptcy bill. Sanders suggested in 2016 that Hillary Clinton had capitulated to the financial industry by voting for a version of the bill in 2001. (She didn’t vote on the 2005 bill.) And Warren herself has mused on how presidential candidates’ votes for the bill might be turned against them.

“For a decade, Orrin Hatch, Joe Biden, Jim Sensenbrenner, and dozens of others in Congress decried the state of bankruptcy laws that permitted people to take advantage of financial institutions,” Warren wrote in a 2008 post on Credit Slips, a bankruptcy law blog, after Tim Russert asked Clinton and Edwards about their votes for the bill during a Democratic presidential debate. “With a recession bearing down, the language of bankruptcy has shifted from ‘abusers’ who ‘take advantage of lenders’ to language of concern over the growing stress on hard-working families.” While voting for the bill had won senators the gratitude of lobbyists who write campaign checks, “that door swings both ways,” Warren went on. “Those who wanted to snuzzle with the lobbyists leave themselves vulnerable to counterattacks.”

“Back in 2005, there was supposed to be no political cost to voting for the bankruptcy bill,” Warren added. “Today, that seems to be changing.”

As an example, she cited Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD), who faced a primary challenge in 2008 from an opponent [Donna Edwards] who attacked him over his vote for the bankruptcy bill, among other issues. Wynn lost in a landslide-- then resigned to become a lobbyist.

Who Biden has fought for for his entire miserable political career, should tell you exactly who he would continue fighting for if-- God forbid-- he gets into the White House, a candidate whose only redeeming quality would be that he's better than Trump, the lowest political bar ever.