For one thing, she’s not telling exactly the same story. Sure, she tells how her mother had to get a minimum-wage job at Sears after her father had a heart attack. But we also hear about her three brothers in the military and her non-linear life and career. She has gotten “looser” and funnier. She interacts with the crowd more. She has less anger, more determination and more confidence. She is high-energy.

And she has put more substance into her three-part plan to end corruption, to use a wealth tax to pay for a whole lot of child care/education programs and to fix our democracy (e.g., end gerrymandering and voter suppression). If we do all that, we can make progress in a bunch of other areas.

There were a few striking things about her Los Angeles appearance.

AD

AD

First, she said virtually nothing about health care in her presentation. For all the time and energy that have been taken up on Medicare-for-all, it was not in her three-part agenda. In the Q & A, she began her response to a health-care question by reminding the audience about the House’s vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act: “What kind of people high-five one another over taking away health care from millions of Americans?” She reminded the audience about Republicans’ efforts to take away Medicaid, which pays for everything from addiction treatment to nursing home care. She affirmed that she believed in Medicare-for-all and asserted health care is a “right.” There was not a detailed plan, however, for health care.

Perhaps this is strategic, putting Republicans on defense rather than quibbling with other Democrats, or maybe she is giving herself just enough latitude in the general election to propose some intermediary steps. In either case, she seem very much aware of how easily Democrats can be thrown on defense against a president who tried to eliminate the entire ACA.

Second, she doesn’t run on gender specifically (vote for me — I’m a woman!), but much of her agenda revolves around education, health care and child care — all issues that matter a great deal to women. Moreover, in a lighthearted way, she recalls experts who told her not to have so many plans and to “smile more” (a typical put-down directed at serious women). She mugged with an exaggerated grin, as if to say, “No, I’m not going to get told what to do and how to look.”

AD

AD

Third, Warren still has difficulty attracting nonwhite voters, but it is not for lack of trying. She addressed everything from investing in historically black colleges and universities to police protection for transgender women of color. She stressed that however hard it is for the working class, it’s that much harder for people of color. Will that be enough, or are those voters looking for more passion, more emotional uplift and fewer policy solutions? Bill Clinton felt people’s pain, and perhaps Warren needs to make some visceral connection. (Did she participate in the civil rights movement? Did she live in segregated towns?)

In sum, Warren is a hugely impressive candidate. Whether her town-hall performances translate into votes, especially votes among critical African American voters, remains to be seen. But no one can say she doesn’t “Dream big, fight hard.”