CNN Implicitly Took Elizabeth Warren's Side in the Unproven Sexism Accusation Against Bernie Sanders

"Senator Warren, what did you think when Sanders said a woman couldn’t win the election?”

Diehard supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) have long believed that the mainstream media finds subtle ways to undermine their candidate—and occasionally their suspicions are well supported. Tuesday night's Democratic debate provided another one of these moments, as the progressive believe-all-victims mantra led CNN's Abby Phillip to presume the truth of the unproven accusation that Sanders privately told Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) that a woman couldn't win the presidency.

The accusation surfaced over the weekend, with the media citing unnamed sources—likely members of the Warren campaign—who claimed that Sanders made the comment during a meeting with Warren in 2018. Sanders vehemently denied saying this, and was asked about it again on the debate stage.

It was a fascinating exchange. When Sanders again stated that the story wasn't true, Phillip asked, "You're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman couldn't win the election?"

"Correct," Sanders responded.

Phillip then turned to Warren and asked, "Senator Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders said a woman couldn't win the election?"

CNN: "You're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman couldn't win the election?"

Bernie: "Correct."

CNN: "Warren, what did you think when Sanders said a woman couldn't win the election?"

Reminder: CNN helped rig the primary against Bernie in 2016. #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/xMxwI3Mq8h

— Alex Marlow (@AlexMarlow) January 15, 2020

Note that Phillip did not actually ask Warren whether he had made the comment—she merely presumed that he had, even though he just denied it. Moments later, CNN.com ran with the headline, "Sanders denies saying a woman can't be president." This framing of the subject makes it sound like Sanders is denying some objective reality—even though there's no evidence he said it, and Warren's recollection of the statement was not specifically probed by the moderator.

CNN missed an important opportunity to shed some light on a rare dispute between Sanders and Warren. Instead, they punted—in a manner that implicitly took Warren's side. No doubt many of Sanders' most fervent online backers found that telling.

Comments

[JesseAz]

Which one used the word imminent? Only way we can tell who is lying.

[Spiritus Mundi]

A famous Democrat use to preface all his lies with "let me be clear."

[Quixote]

Let me be very clear: this is an excellent way of dealing with the serious matter that has arisen. In fact, here at NYU, we recommended exactly the same technique to the prosecutors who handled our nation's leading criminal "satire" trial on our behalf. See the documentation at:

https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

The perpetrator in that case, who inappropriately created mayhem and havoc in our quiet institution, declared that he had merely engaged in "parody," but he was unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had acted just for fun as is required by law in such circumstances, and so we were able to secure his conviction (unfortunately our efforts to have him incarcerated were ultimately unsuccessful, but that is a separate topic). Similarly, this man, Sanders, a candidate for the nation's highest office, is clearly attempting to suggest that his words during a meeting have been misconstrued, and it is incumbent on him to prove his claim beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever. Kudos to CNN for sticking it to him and making it very clear that he won't get away with it. Heck, there should be a crime for this. I'm sure we could arrange something, if CNN would like to work together with us on the matter.

[Sonny Bono's Ghost]

Alos flexibile with the definition of the word "IS" as I understand.

[JesseAz]

"Diehard supports of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) have long believed that the mainstream media finds subtle ways to undermine their candidate—and occasionally their suspicions are well supported. "

Things reason would never say for Trump.

[SIV]

I'm no kind of Sanders' supporter and I know without a doubt that the bipartisan centrist establishment and the mainstream media show no subtlety at all in their blatant efforts to undermine his campaign.

[ThomasD]

They think it is a form of damage control for the party - gotta keep the hard left under wraps lest it turn off the hoi polloi.

[JesseAz]

I dont disagree. just found it funny how differently Reason treats the bern.

[Teddy Pump]

They undermine him because they know he has ZERO chance to beat Trump! That is why the DNC fixed it for HildaBeast in 2016!...Thank God America at this point is not ready for a staunch grumpy old Jew Commie!

[newshutz]

There is nothing subtle about the ways the media find to undermine Trump.

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

With Kamala Harris out, Warren is my clear first choice for November. It will be a fantastic victory for racial justice if the US's first woman President is also the first Native American President.

#LibertariansForWarren
#DNATest

[Ike C.]

OpenBordersLiberal-tarian -

Supporting Warren = support for Trump.

If nominated Warren would lose badly. If you think Trump rolled over Clinton, he would steamroll Warren twice as fast and and leave her twice as flat.

Please reconsider and support the only candidate who's got any sort of chance against Trump and the American Oligarchy.

Blatant liar and fake native American Elizabeth Warren is just another tool of the 1%.

[newshutz]

Sounds like more support for Klobuchar.

[Unable2Reason]

She clearly doesn't have a bone through her nose so she's not a native.

[GKHoffman]

Martin Van Buren was the first native American President. That is, he was the first President to have been born an American citizen.

[SIV]

Bernie is a full blown commie but he's demonstrated remarkable authenticity, sincerity and honesty for a politician. That's why he's the fuckin' frontrunner. Warren is a serial liar, a proven phony, and everyone but a subset of her supporters know her role in this campaign is to attempt to split the left-prog vote so the center-left can capture the nom by any means necessary. There's no doubt who is lying here.

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

She lied about her heritage to take advantage of affirmative action.

She lied about being fired for being pregnant.

She intentionally obfuscates how she will pay for any of her proposals, presumably so she doesn't have to outright lie about it.

But we're supposed to believe her about Bernie saying something that would be completely out of character for him. He might be a communist, but I don't think he's a sexist.

[Ike C.]

Bernie is a democratic socialist not a "commie".

[soldiermedic76]

Next you will trot out that old canard about Denmark being a Democratic Socialist Country and how road building and maintenance is also socialism. We are talking about a man who praised Communist regimes, honeymooned in the old Soviet Union and lived on a commune (which he got kicked off of for being too lazy). It sure is quacking and walking like a certain aquatic avian species.

[Lisa Montez]

Yeah, so was Lenin.

[Hattori Hanzo]

What is Bernie honest about?

[gbwhatsapp]

Sure enough Trump takes this election

[Wearenotperfect]

You may be right but it sure as hell won't be with my help!

[R Mac]

I’ll take things nobody gives a fuck about for $200 Alex.

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug]

incorrect

[Sir Chips Alot]

i will happily vote for Trump....again. MAGA 2020

[ThomasD]

I wouldn't say I'll be happy - we could do a lot better - but the Democrats (or Libertarians) are not making it a remotely difficult choice.

[JesseAz]

Imagine all the named post offices we would have of we could vote for Amash. Sure we would still have the whole deep state and IC problem, but god damn if unnamed post offices wouldnt shrink.

[Leo Kovalensky II]

I'm curious, which (if any) Libertarian candidate(s) would you consider voting for instead of Trump?

[Sevo]

Wearenotperfect
January.14.2020 at 11:41 pm
"You may be right but it sure as hell won’t be with my help!"

Bullshit.
Scumbags like you are the REASON he got elected and is likely to get re-elected.

[Mr. JD]

#BelieveAllWomen!

[Ike C.]

Elizabeth Warren is a liar.

[Eddy]

Reason called this one - they said it would be Sanders' turn in the barrel.

It should have been because of the O'Keefe revelations, but, sure, let's get indignant based on the premise that Warren would never lie.

[ThomasD]

I'm thinking that, were it a Republican candidate's flunky espousing the benefits of interning and 're-educating' their political opposition, the whole thing might be getting at least a little presentation and discussion.

When a Democrat does it it gets politely ignored, like the Queen's flatus.

[JesseAz]

The Republicans pounce is queued up for the roundup blurb.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

No Democrat is ever going to get "Romney'ed" when they or their staff get caught saying seditious shit on camera or admitting to breaking laws.

O'Keefe got Scott Foval to admit on camera that the DNC deliberately commits election fraud and pays people to act as agent provocateurs at political rallies, and absolutely nothing came of it except that Foval got fired.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I wouldn't be shocked if some former Hillary staffer on Warren's team advised her to do this. "If you accuse him of misogyny, he'll fold like a cheap suit."

It won't change the fact that Bernie is and will always be a jobber. Hillary and the DNC deliberately set out to undermine his candidacy in 2016, and he still bent over like a bitch and endorsed Hillary after she beat him. He's basically the Brooklyn Brawler of the Democratic party--someone who gets booked to win dark matches that won't matter and who won't ever get the belt put on him, but is talented enough to push the top names and make them look good during the TV tapings.

[Jerryskids]

I don't understand Warren's position here. Isn't it a known fact that Amerikkka is far too racist to ever elect a non-white person as President and far too sexist to elect a woman? Ask Kamala Harris or the New York Times or Hillary Clinton - isn't this exactly why The Great Satan must be destroyed? Capitalism, individualism, the patriarchy, Western Civilization, white privilege - all the things America stands for must go.

So how the hell is Warren not being slammed for parroting the right-wing extremist GOP talking points by claiming that a woman can in fact get elected President in this shithole country?

[RabbitHead]

If Sanders thinks it's true, then so what? Its a statement about the electorate and about political strategy, not about Warren or women.

The same might be true of mayor Pete. It's about numbers and votes and electability.

I think he's wrong. A charismatic, practical centrist woman could get elected. But there isn't one in the race.

[Moderation4ever]

I take it you did not notice Amy Klobochar on the debate stage.

[Barnstormer]

I think he did, but he was looking for a "practical centrist woman." It is likely there wasn't one in the entire auditorium.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

He said "charismatic, practical centrist." Klobuchar is a charisma vacuum who's benefited from representing a state that hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Nixon in 1972.

The only thing about her that indicates she's a "centrist" is that she isn't a screaming commie like Bernie or an entitled schoolmarm like Warren, but that's like saying a college professor isn't as radical as his students.

[Commenter_XY]

charisma vacuum....LMAO.

[Ike C.]

Thing is Sanders never said what Warren claims he did. In spite of CNN's plutocratic defenders of the 'system'.

[EISTAU Gree-Vance]

Correct. What sanders really said was “ain’t no way a 1/1024th drunk savage wagon burner gets near the White House.”

Nothing about gender. Haha.

[Longtobefree]

Wait. Is Reason implying that CNN taking partisan positions in the electoral process is so unusual as to be newsworthy?
They seem surprised by the blatant disregard for the truth that is the entire business model of CNN.

[loveconstitution1789]

+100

[Nom de Sobriquet]

This, exactly. Plus, Reason's headline used the word "implicit" when it was quite bloody explicit. A marshmallow question followed up with a bullshit answer about the female candidates' election records, which was germane to nothing meaningful at all (except self-congratulatory high-five fishing).

[mad.casual]

^This^

The FBI in cohoots with the DNC didn't storm CNN HQ (that we're aware of) and force them to broadcast these debates. It's not like CNN can't find any other news to show when the debates are on (other news networks domestic and abroad manage to fill the gap). These debates are on CNN because CNN explicitly wants to broadcast the debates.

[Charlotte Falcon]

Which one is Stalin and which one is Trotsky. I say Sanders is Trotsky and Warren is Stalin. I can see Warren having Sanders killed to consolidate her power.

[MK Ultra]

Warren is Beria.

[Rufus The Monocled]

And we're surprised because?

CNN and Brazile. That's all you need to know about the 'objectivity' of these assholes.

And it wouldn't surprise me that was taken out of context. Warren isn't exactly an honest person; a despicable person in fact.

Imagine that. This idiot is making people defend a commie fuckhead.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""Warren isn’t exactly an honest person;""

Oh stop that. Only white man speak with forked tongue.

[Sevo]

"And we’re surprised because?"
I've been a victim of CNN two or three times since Trump was elected, sitting in some waiting room what that propaganda-spewing network on a TV.
I guess regular viewers are used to it, but you'd think even they would get fed up with the constant outpouring of 'DO YOU KNOW WHAT TRUMP DID NOW????!!!!'

[Earth Skeptic]

"Diehard supports of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) have long believed that the mainstream media finds subtle ways to undermine their candidate—and occasionally their suspicions are well supported."

Silly me. I thought the media treatment of Bernie is all about his entertainment value (true for media perspective towards all candidates, but they wouldn't actually vote for Bernie).

[Brandybuck]

Kingmakers can't be making kings unless they're allowed to pick sides! Duh!

[JohnSteed]

The bias was explicit, not implicit -- someone was trying for her Candy Crowley moment.

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

“Sanders denies saying a woman can't be president” — he wasn’t even accused of sayinng that, just that a woman can’t be _elected_ president. The quote makes it look like a slur on women, not on the electorate.

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

Exactly. If he said it, it's commentary on the electorate, not the candidate.

And he's somewhat right, none of the women presented to us are winning a presidential election. I think a woman could win, just not the women that are being put forward. No one wants to vote for their bitchy mother-in-law, a lesson I thought they'd have learned in 2016.

[Ike C.]

"Implicitly"? Try explicitly. CNN was quite open about their fear and hatred of Bernie Sanders. CNN are rabid defenders of the Bipartisan "moderate" Oligarchy. CNNs fear of and bias towards Bernie Sanders was unmistakable in last night's debate. Shame on CNN and the rest of the "mainstream media". Ordinary Americans are sick and tired of our 1% overlords. Decent Americans, please donate to his campaign and vote for Sanders. By the way, thanks a lot Elizabeth Warren, way to collude with the plutocrats.

[EmpatheticSkeptic]

The overlords are not who you think they are.

[Ike C.]

So enlighten us EmpatheticSkeptic, who are the "overlords" ? I'm think the overlords are the wealthy plutocrats, the 1% of the 1%. They call the shots, as clearly evident from last night's debate.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Bernie IS part of the 1%. He also bent over when the DNC screwed him in 2016; what makes you think he won't do the same this time?

[mad.casual]

*Newsflash* CNN "implicitly" sides with Democrats by hosting DNC primary debates.

[Ike C.]

In the same way Fox {implicitly" sided with Democrats by hosting a Democrat debate?

[mad.casual]

I don't think you know what implicitly or explicitly means (or maybe understand the use of quotation marks).

Yes, they explicitly sided with Democrats and no explicitly not the same because as you explicitly state debate vs. debate*s*.

"If CNN were worried about being too partisan, they would host fewer debates." is not an unreasonable conclusion to anyone except an idiotic sophist.

[Egypt Steve]

I didn't take it that way at all. I think it was just a jocular way of segueing to EW and her obvious disagreement with BS's account of what happened at that meeting.

btw, I see that their initials also have rather negative connotations in print. Not my intention, but let it stand.

[Law Prof John Banzhaf]

NOT NECESSARILY “SEXIST”

Regardless of what Senator Bernie Sanders may or may not have said, predicting or arguing that a female candidate would not be elected in 2020, running against President Donald Trump, is not necessarily “sexist,” and voicing such a view isn’t necessarily a “sexism accusation”

It could, after all, simply be the honest opinion of many knowledgeable people, male or female, feminist or not, given the politics of our time and the makeup of the electorate as filtered through the Electoral College.

Similarly, it’s quite likely that many Muslims would candidly acknowledge the harsh and perhaps unfair reality that, while a few Muslims may be able to be elected to Congress, the country as a whole is unlikely to elect a person of their religion as president.

This would not necessarily be religious bigotry; rather, it would simply be a prediction of what is likely to happen and smart politics. So Muslims sharing this political view might decide it is wiser to back a candidate for president who is a non-Muslim who has generally supported Muslims than a Muslim with a much smaller chance of winning.

Similarly, individuals who are themselves transgender, and LGBTQ supporters in general, would probably also recognize that, as far as such individuals have come in gaining general acceptance, our population would be very unlikely, as least at this time, to elect a transgender individual to the highest office.

This likewise isn’t necessarily homophobic or transphobic; rather it may well be a frank and unbiased recognition of what polls and other indicators show.

[Malvolio]

Hasn't a woman candidate ever won the popular vote? Has that never happened.

[macsnafu]

Sanders is a rich white guy. When push comes to shove, he must necessarily be a loser in SJW politics.