There's speculation on Twitter that Gillibrand will be going after both Biden and Warren

[highplainsdem]

We're already seen a thread here about Gillibrand making some vague charges against unnamed "candidates" before this week's debate, apparently trying to draw media attention to herself:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287214133

And today there's a thread about an article saying Gillbrand is apparently going after Biden:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287214545

I didn't post anything yesterday about the speculation I'd seen on Twitter, because I wanted to see if Gillbrand would be more specific.

This is a quote from the NY Times, the artcle linked to in the first DU topic above:

“We have Democratic candidates running for president right now who do not believe necessarily that it’s a good idea that women work outside the home,” she said emphatically before a women’s labor event in Iowa City, Iowa. “No joke.”

Ms. Gillibrand did not name names, and her campaign would not say whom she was referring to.

I'm going to address the speculation about why she's going after Biden later in this OP, but I want to explain now that according to what I read on Twitter, some people think she'll be going after Warren because of this book Warren co-wrote years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap


Gillibrand's planned attack on Biden, if it's about a child care tax credit, is probably about Biden voting against having a child care tax credit for even the wealthiest two-parent families. Biden was in favor of putting an income cap on a child care tax credit in the '80s, for couples earning the equivalent of $90,000+ today. He didn't propose an income limit for single parents who had no choice but to pay for child care if they wanted to work.

He did make it clear at the time that he thought that couples who could afford to pay for child care on their own didn't need a government subsidy, and he also said that if a couple could afford for one parent to stay home with preschool children, then one of them should. He didn't care whether it was the father or the mother.

He FAVORED expanding the tax credit for couples who weren't well off.

So this was NOT an example of him thinking "women shouldn't work outside the home," as Gillibrand is insinuating.

I don't know if we have DUers who will still think that Biden believing it's best, when possible, for one parent to stay home with very young children, still means he's discriminating against women.

But I want to make two points to anyone who sees it that way:

First of all, if you're at all in favor of paid family leave when children are young, then believing that means you recognize the importance of a parent being able to stay home. Most of us think the Nordic model is good. Sweden, if I recall correctly, offers 480 days of paid family leave. At five days a work week, that's nearly TWO YEARS of paid family leave. Not just free child care.

Second of all, Biden had lost his first wife and his daughter, and had nearly lost his two young sons, the decade before he made these statements. He'd been taking Amtrak home every night to be with his sons. Given that background, that personal experience, I think it's perfectly understandable that he'd feel that if it's financially possible for one parent to stay at home with young children and not work, then that's probably best.

But again, he favored expanding the child care tax credit for families that weren't well off.


I can't address the speculation about how Gillibrand might attack Warren for that book because I'm not familiar with it.

But IMO if Gillibrand goes after Biden for this, she'll fail miserably.

And I don't expect her to have any better luck going up against Warren.

[wyldwolf]

1. She's counting on voters being too young or too willfully obtuse to know the history

[msongs]

2. twitter lol. nt

[awesomerwb1]

3. Who?

[underpants]

5. Exactly. She's has no none ZERO chance of what Ning the nomination

And if she makes it thru New Hampshire I’ll be surprised.

[Bettie]

4. Gillibrand may indeed attempt to attack

both Biden and Warren on her carefully crafted argument that only she can protect and adequately work for women.

I don't think it will make as much difference as she thinks it will.

Neither Biden nor Warren have ever suggested women should be forced to stay home.

Personally, I do appreciate that both understand that the option for a parent to be home should be there, if that is what works for an individual family though!

[George II]

6. Stuff like this always backfires, particularly if it looks strained or contrived.

[crazytown]

7. Dillybrand better steer clear of Warren.

Yes, she has been conducting a positive campaign, but there is a reason candidates have avoided stepping on her toes, as the ex-CEOs of Wells Fargo could well attest.

[nocoincidences]

9. I so agree.

Warren is not someone to be provoked, because she will fight back and win.

[democratisphere]

8. When a candidate has to fight with other candidates to become noticed

the campaign is already lost.

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. Yes, "after", as in "waaaaay, waaaaay after"

Adios, Kirstin.

[onecaliberal]

11. That will be it for her.

[customerserviceguy]

12. I've long said

that Gillibrand will go after Biden on the Hyde Amendment, I'll be surprised if she doesn't throw that in there. The Twitter stuff could be misdirection.

[highplainsdem]

13. I don't think it's misdirection, since the Twitter speculation was the result of what Gillibrand

told the NY Times.

But she'll probably mention the Hyde Amendment as well. I'm sure she'll try everything she can think of out of sheer desperation.

[Kahuna7]

14. I've sent the headsup to Team Biden.

[Cha]

16. Thanks.. In case

they missed it!

[RhodeIslandOne]

15. Gillibrand loves taking the competition out.

It's a strategy with her. Get people out of the picture, things supposedly get easier.

[dflprincess]

17. Pity the Gillibrand thinks she can only get ahead by attacking other Democrats

and not whatever ideas she thinks she brings to the table.

[tritsofme]

18. Gillibrand is irrelevant, her support is statistically insignificant.

Even if she has little to “lose” the question is still: why? Why keep running a pointless campaign? Why keep sliming the likely nominee?