We went out to Elizabeth Warren’s rally at the Seattle Center Armory tonight. Warren was great. So glad we went out and got to see her. She’s really does come across just as good as you’d hope she would: incredibly intelligent, passionate, articulate, engaged, warm, and through everything, energetic and having fun.

She went through about a fifteen minute stump speech, then took five questions from pre-selected attendees, and spent about 30 minutes total answering them. Her answers were incredible—both because she gave good answers to the questions, and also because she very deftly was able to use each of them as launching points for touching on other focus points and areas of her campaign, but always coming back to the original question and never giving the impression that the question didn’t actually matter. I didn’t record the stump speech, but did record the Q&A; I’ve got it going up to YouTube now and will add it to this post later…but rather than bother with my amateur, from-the-crowd video, here’s King 5’s video of the full thing (Warren starts speaking at about 25 minutes in):

So, yes. Warren is my preferred candidate. I absolutely believe that she has a plan for everything, and knows exactly how to get about getting it done.

Once again, very glad we got to go.

Now, though, we’re exhausted.

From Cosmopolitan: I WANT an Angry Woman as My President, Actually:

Warren’s anger is a great thing. She’s not using it to fight for herself. She’s fighting for the less privileged, a trait I actually really, really want in a leader. For instance, during the debate, she was furious as she stood up for the thousands of men of color who have been stopped and frisked, the millions of black and brown families who were preyed upon with redlining, and children with disabilities who faced budget cuts while billionaires got a tax break this year.

Warren’s rage is almost always in the service of others and that’s her secret weapon. Nothing made that more obvious than when Pete Buttigieg pressed Amy Klobuchar about forgetting the name of the president of Mexico. Warren jumped in, not to prove that she knew the answer, but to stand up for the only other woman onstage, even if she’s her competitor.

“Let’s be clear: Missing a name all by itself does not indicate that you do not understand what’s going on, and I just think that’s a mistake,” Warren said. Even when an injustice is lobbed at her opponent in a way that could totally benefit her, Warren doesn’t take the bait. Isn’t that precisely the quality we want in the person we elect to the highest office?

And, related, an image I found on Facebook and reposted earlier today:

Warren was not mean, nor angry. She was _effective_.

There is nothing wrong with women expressing anger. We’ve certainly given them enough reasons to do so.

And any blather about Warren’s debate performance being too mean, or aggressive, or not pleasant enough, is astoundingly obvious sexist claptrap (but of course, to my utter lack of surprise, is plentiful).

While I haven’t been paying a lot of attention, this looks about right, at least from a policy standpoint. (The numbers are how many questions out of 20 I agree with the candidate on.)

Candidates with Warren at the top and Biden at the bottom

You can take the quiz at the Washington Post.

Ranking on a “would I feel good about voting for them?” scale have the same top and bottom results, the rest would be shuffled to varying degrees.

Ranked on a “would I vote for them if they were the nominee?” scale, they’d all be in the number one spot. Because while some are more in line with my personal beliefs than others, the priority is getting Trump out, and the top of the ticket vote needs to be a strategic vote to get Trump out of office, not an idealistic vote to “send a message”.