I doubt any of the frontrunners go after Biden directly. They see him as road kill now and wouldn't want to risk alienating the morons who support him. So it will come, if at all, from one of the peripheral players, either to make a name for themselves, eg Tulsi, or as a surrogate for one of the big candidates who has promised them something for taking Biden out.
Yeh, the other thing there is that Warren- for example- saw how it worked out when Kamala went after Joe. There was about a week there where she looked like a ballsy hero that you might want to try to duplicate. Then the dnc powers made sure that everyone soured on her for being a little bitch. She got a one time lift in the polls, then it was wiped out. It's a messy strategy. Warren has no reason to get involved in that as long as the trajectory of Joe's numbers and her numbers remain the same. Plus, how the hell can they duplicate Trump who has been working overtime to point out shiite on Joe. If the other dems had some dirt on Biiden that was not well known that could be a reason to surface it- Kamala's busing issue was a bit like that- but otherwise everyone already knows more about Hunter than they ever wanted to. Thank you Mr. Trump. Sooner or later Warren and Biden are going to clash bigtime over the MNBA, bankruptcy, credit card, issues of the past. But they have periodically gone back and forth over that for years and they know it is just a dance now where each gets to crow a bit and show that they are aggressive but there is no character assassination involved. Warren will be up for that soon, because it lets her look like she is going after Biden, but she knows it is not so degrading that she will lose his supporters when he goes down. Or at least lose them, for that reason.
This Syria hysteria couldn't have come at a more opportune time for Tulsi. This is her signature issue, ie no more sand wars. It is very popular with the voters, who actually send people to fight in them, unlike neo-con big thinkers, media loudmouths and the establishments of both parties, all of whom bitterly resent her bringing it up. Add to that the NYTimes smear piece on her this past week. If nothing else, it raised her name awareness. She was said to be controversial and suspect because she shared some issues with right wing republicans, who tend to be isolationist and who see Tulsi as at least not certifiably insane on immigration, unlike her fellow candidates. I thought being bi-partisan and reaching across the aisle were supposed to be good things that we want pols to strive for. I guess that only applies when republicans are surrendering something or selling out their voters yet again. She has a very direct message, ie are we better or worse off for all these wars we barged into? We've spent an astounding $9 trillion dollars, and counting, in Afghanistan. No doubt Iraq is as high, plus add in the human misery and disruption our bungling, in places like Libya and Syria as well, has caused. I expect to hear a lot from the others about how much we owe the Kurds. They're perilously close to supporting a Kurdish state, something every other country in the region vehemently opposes. How many dem voters are prepared to send US troops to defend a Kurdish homeland?
Yeah, good point, I forgot about that. Problem is, it is kind of involved to explain. Hunter was probably a big help to his dad while Joe was working on the bankruptcy statue. So she can say Joe is the reason you can't resolve your student loan debts in bankruptcy. That could leave a mark.
Yeh, you follow too, I think, that Hunter - at one time- had a cushy job with MBNA, and also was on the board of Amtrak. You know - as in "Amtrak Joe." Joe being in Delaware and owned by all the credit card companies who gravitated there for their loose regulations, and because they had Joe on their side. Incestuous.
Well if anything the backup singers would go after Warren, not Biden, because her rise in support was at the expense of every other candidate except Biden. Theoretically, Warren is rich with Klobuchar, Booker, Harris, Buttigieg, etc supporter’s. The smart campaigns would go after Warren.
Hey, don't knock it. You can get to be Prime Minister of Canada by being a ski instructor/bum at Whistler.
True where it applies but not so true where it does not. Some of them are playing the long game to be VP or get some cake appointment in a new dem administration. In those instances, attacking Warren beyond her tolerance level might be less-than-smart.