LogFAQs > #933206421

came in here to laugh about the NYT, am pleasantly surprised everyone else is too.
and the reasoning in the article is painfully bad.

the reason they knock points off sanders is age and health, saying he'd be 79 sworn in and that's too old. which i can agree with but you can't then turn around and endorse warren - 70 is still old. it ain't that much better for a high stress job. and the tag-line used is awful. "Good news, then, that Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left." what a fucking joke.

their answer to pete is "oh he hasn't won enough stuff."
answer to Yang is "oh he doesn't have experience in government," which is partially true, though it removes the fact that he was hand picked by Obama to being on a board focused on entrepreneurial growth.
they give a ton of praise to bloomberg then criticize him a bit but he's got more of a blurb than everyone so far so lol no.
they get to biden and point his age out again. which hey, i agree with, but it's hypocritical to act like 70 and 77 are that off - they ain't, especially for someone trying to be president. you are in or around life expectancy range and that's without the added stress of the job.

most confusing is they think Klobuchar has "midwestern charisma."
no.
just no.

---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.