Next, if you really want to see a real shit wad at play, MoJo has the video.
For people who want to read; MoJo and boston.com
Biden is the candidate of Comcast and the credit card industry; predators. It need not be complicated much beyond that, but more facts can be put into subsequent posting. For now, follow the links, and see the sleaze.
Biden is Trump with wording and stylistic differences; but Trump kinship exists by a willing choice to be no different, and not genealogy.
Just as Clinton and Trump were the two most unpopular presidential candidates in history; Biden can be a Clinton surrogate in that duality. He fits.
A Biden cramdown just as the Clinton cramdown will fail. Running Biden will assure four more Trump years. Does the DNC care, do the beltway consultants care, do the politician buyers care? They get mirror images, Biden or Trump, and we suffer. The spoils will remain in the Trump hands, so some will care, but the beat goes on.
Warren, Bernie, Gabbard, perhaps Booker; or then the alternative, four more years.
__________UPDATE_________
No comparison. A juxtaposition but no comparison.
____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Excerpting the MoJo item will be helpful; the text following the embedded video [italics in original]:
Long before their Capitol Hill clash [shown in the video], Warren called out Biden by name in op-eds and in her first book, accusing him of carrying water for the big corporations that called his state home and kept his campaign coffers full.
The bankruptcy fight was a pivotal moment for both Warren and Biden, who have each built a political brand based on a defense of the American middle class. Biden is fond of saying that he talks about working families so often his colleagues called him “Middle-Class Joe.” (Exactly who has ever called him that is a mystery.) Warren’s 2017 book was subtitled “The Battle to Save America’s Middle Class.” But there’s a key difference. In Warren’s telling, politicians like Joe Biden are exactly who the middle class needs protection from. And as the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign slowly heats up, the two may be on a collision course once more.
The primary point of conflict between Warren and Biden has been bankruptcy reform, which was accomplished with Biden’s 2005 bill. Though the law was enormously complex, its most important consequence was simple—the legislation made it harder for millions of Americans who had fallen into debt and who sought relief through bankruptcy to break free from their obligations. At the same time, the bill entitled creditors, such as car companies or mortgage lenders, to an even greater share of their assets.
So Biden was not merely having a turn in a round of witness questioning over a bill; but he was snotty as he was pushing his bill; one against people in dire straits, favoring small and large creditors, including credit card firms on the squeeze. Next:
Warren, whose research at Harvard focused on the causes of individual bankruptcy, had allies in her fight against Biden’s bill. Women’s groups, including the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, opposed the measure because of the disparate impact it would have on women, who made up a rapidly increasing percentage of all personal bankruptcy filings. The legislation also made it harder for single mothers to collect child support from bankrupt exes, by strengthening protections for other creditors.
Some of the same women’s groups that were fighting the bill had previously elevated the Delaware senator to exalted status because of his work passing the Violence Against Women Act. And that’s what made Biden’s support for the measure so grating to Warren.
Warren first began publicly taking on Biden in 2002, when she wrote a paper for the Harvard Women’s Law Journal suggesting that his position on bankruptcy had been effectively bought.
“His energetic work on behalf of the credit card companies has earned him the affection of the banking industry and protected him from any well-funded challengers for his Senate seat,” she wrote. With a touch of snark, she added, “This important part of Senator Biden’s legislative work also appears to be missing from his Web site and publicity releases.”
Inexplicable amnesia, in the process of self-definition as "Middle-class Joe?" Or just evasion of who he really is? Go figure. Resuming the excerpt:
And in a New York Times op-ed that year she called the bankruptcy bill “unconscionable,” singling out Biden for his work on it. “Apparently many politicians believe they can remove the last safety net for families facing financial disaster (many of which are led by women) so long as they can find another highly visible issue that lets them proclaim their support for women,” she wrote.
She took on Biden again in The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke, the best-selling 2003 book she co-authored with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi. “Women’s issues are not just about childbearing or domestic violence,” they wrote. “More women with children will search for a bankruptcy lawyer than will seek subsidized day care. And in a statistic with special significance for Senator Biden, more women will be victimized by predatory lenders than will seek protection from an abusive husband or boyfriend.”
Warren and Tyagi continued, “The point is not to discredit other worthy causes or to pit one disadvantaged group against another. Nor would we suggest that battered women deserve less help or that subsidized day care is unimportant. The point is simply that family economics should not be left to giant corporations and paid lobbyists, and senators like Joe Biden should not be allowed to sell out women in the morning and be heralded as their friend in the evening.”
There is more at MoJo, but the excerpt is already long; while illustrative and instructive. Read it all, at MoJo. Has Biden changed, with a stint as Obama's VP arguably a leavening agent? Know the history, however, to effectively judge the present. Being informed means be skeptical. However Trump won, suggesting an insufficiency of skepticism; and MSNBC in ramping up to the 2016 election surely played a lot of Trump campaigning while Bernie was treated by those at that outlet as a news leper. Don't touch, don't even go near. So, trust MSNBC at your peril. Be skeptical. The bet here is there will be a whole hell of a lot of Biden video at MSNBC ramping up to November 2020, or at least ramping up to when the Dems convene to choose a nominee. Biden love, flowering strongly at MSNBC and the institutional money loving that along with the Dem establishment; Haim Saban likely there too.
Watch for it. See if I am wrong. Do note news - do the research, it's on the web and easily found - news is that Biden's initial fundraising at big dollar amounts will be hosted by a Comcast person, with Wikipedia stating:
In December 2009, Comcast announced its intent to acquire a majority stake in the media conglomerate NBCUniversal from General Electric (GE). The planned acquisition was subject to scrutiny from activists and government officials; their concerns primarily surrounded the potential effects of the vertical integration that the acquisition could create, as Comcast is also heavily involved in cable television and internet services in many media markets.[1] The deal went through, resulting in Comcast owning 51% of the company until March 2013, when GE divested its stake to give Comcast sole ownership.
[Links omitted, italics added] Chris Hayes knows suck-up, Comcast pays the piper, so watch the tune somewhat skeptically, please. You will be getting a super-dose of Biden love, Biden koolaid, so don't drink the koolaid, it's not good for you.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Jimmy Dore has opinions about Comcasts's MSNBC, Morning Joe, dumping a load on Tulsi Gabbard. Dore has points of disagreement also with Chris Hayes.
___________FURTHER UPDATE__________
After linking to the Dore screeds, and for a compare and contrast with Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard on YouTube. Campaign website "about" page, where readers can navigate to her CONTRIBUTE page. If Gabbard and her ideas and issues-agenda can generate enough poll and money raising moxie, she will be included in debates - something needed because she is the strongest candidate on ending regime change wars a world away and using the money wisely instead, for us and our homeland needs. The story, possibly apocryphal, is that Trump complained to Carter about the Chinese and their astounding economic growth engine, asking Carter about any thoughts about how to react, and Carter replied, "How many wars have the Chinese caused since Nixon opened relations?"
Another Tulsi YouTube posting, showing how an unfriendly but polite establishment acceptance looks. Some do not warm to her message.
Surprisingly, a refreshing lack of hostile coverage, Tucker at FOX, here and here.
Opinions might differ, but Crabgrass thinking is Gabbard seems to have the constitution and background to make one hell of a fine Secretary of Defense in a Bernie presidency. Or a VP, with attitude. Just as we await a first female president, with Warren being a suitably uncompromised possible first that way; we've not yet had a woman heading the Defense Department. It would be neat to, with Tulsi. Good for the troops via sane policy, good for the nation's infrastructure needs. Good for not funding terrorists for a proxy fighting function in mucking around in Syria. Good also if a National Security Chief. Better than a Gen. Flynn for the job, for example.