Progressives and leftists online have had an interesting couple of days thanks to the, what seems to be either manufactured or fabricated, feud between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

At the beginning, a campaign document from the Sanders campaign was leaked, within it was the claim that Warren’s base of supporters is overwhelmingly wealthy and college educated, while Sander’s base was made up of the working and lower class- a coalition that’s not normally targeted by Democrats or Republicans.

The story was broken by Alex Thompson, a Politico reporter who reports on the Warren campaign. Most of his appear to be Pro-Warren and Anti-Sanders.

In the article, Thompson quotes the Sander’s Campaign document:

“I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional]” the script begins. “In fact, she’s my second choice. But here’s my concern about her.” It then pivots to the criticisms of Warren. Politico

The article neglects to mention the actual criticisms within the document. This is perhaps because Thompson found them to be for the most part accurate, which wouldn’t play into the “trashing” angle he seemed to be going for.

The exact criticism present in the document was “people who support [Warren] are highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what.” Most people who are aware of the demographics of different candidates would find this to be a fair and accurate statement on the difference in support for Warren v Sanders.

The document also brings up Sander’s ability to excite a previously untapped sector of the population, which most would agree is true. Sanders speaks to the working class, the young, and in general everyone whom the traditional democratic establishment either only make empty promises towards, or ignores completely.

In response to this, Warren stated “I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me… I hope Bernie reconsiders and turns his campaign in a different direction.”

Most would take issue with the claim that bringing up valid demographic differences between two candidates is “trashing” someone. Most who understand exactly what trashing implies, at least.

A day later, another coal was dropped into the fire. CNN posts an article, from multiple anonymous sources, claiming that in 2018 Sanders told Warren that “a woman couldn’t win.” Later that day, Elizabeth Warren herself confirmed the story “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”

This confirmation was the first stoke of a proverbial online fire of leftist and progressive activists. Twitter lit up with opinions from both Sanders and Warren supporters. Some saying that the allegation was an outright falsehood that completely contradicted everything Sanders has stood for his entire career, and some saying that the allegation was true, and that Sanders was clearly a rampant misogynist.

Regardless of ones opinion on the matter, one thing is very clear. The timing is suspect. This article was released by CNN a single day before the debate that CNN was set to host. Was it merely just a ploy to drum up ratings? Was it a cooperative effort between Warren and CNN to characterize and slander Sanders?

After this article, sources also familiar with the meeting denied the allegation that Sanders had said “a woman couldn’t win.” Sanders himself denied the allegation as well, saying:

“It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn’t win. It’s sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren’t in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.” Bernie Sanders

Regardless whether or not one is inclined to believe the side of Warren or that of Sanders, one thing is very clear. This stoking of the flames was no accident. Neither was Warren’s refusal to add context or nuance to Sander’s statement. By simply saying “he disagreed,” she leaves open a vast window of interpretation, and people often assume the worst. By neglecting to include the nuance of his statement, she left him open to characterization and character assassination.

This all came to it’s climax during Tuesday nights debate. When Sanders was asked whether or not he said “a woman cant win” and he vehemently denied saying it. Immediately after his denial, the moderator asked Warren, “how did it make you feel when Sanders said this?” The beat was so palpable that both the audience and Bernie reacted to it.

And finally, at the end of the debate, more drama ensued. Warren approaches Sanders, Sanders reaches out in attempts to shake his opponents hand, and Warren snubs him. You can see sanders say “what?” but the rest is unknown. Warren seems to be upset, and Sanders seems to be confused. But nobody knows exactly what occurred. Well, except for Tom Steyer; who was awkwardly standing there witnessing the entire interaction.

“They were talking about getting together or something, I didn’t hear,” Steyer told to CNN. “You could see it’s an awkward moment.”

This whole debacle makes one thing very clear. The primaries are heating up, and after Iowa polls showed Sanders at the top, he has been made a target. Not just a target of the media, but apparently, a target of his oldest ally and friend in Congress.

Some are calling this a betrayal, others are calling it bad politics. But while both of these things may be true, neither of them are as true as one thing. That this entire debacle reflects extremely poorly on the political instincts of Elizabeth Warren.

Why now, after all this time, did she decide to attack a man who she had publicly praised for years now? Why, after an entire year, did she only now decide to mention the alleged sexist remarks? Both of those answers are quite clear. This was all released now because people are finally realizing that Sanders has a very real chance to win. After the month long media blackout, they realized they needed to make up for lost time. How they convinced Warren, his colleague and good friend, to partake in that is unclear.

Whether or not the Warren campaign had designed and perpetrated this entire conflict is unknown. But what is known is that this was not a naturally occurring clash. It was manufactured. By who? It can’t be said for sure. But it is no coincidence that as soon as Sanders shoots to the top of the pack, the industry tried desperately to shoot him down.

But it seems this may have backfired on Warren. As on twitter, many Warren supporters are bothered by her actions. So much so that the hashtag #RefundWarren began trending. This hashtag was urging those who donated to Warren to refund their donations through ActBlue. It is not known how many refunds were made, but ActBlue did note they had a uptick in refund requests.

The next few weeks will be interesting to say the least. As the Iowa caucus comes closer and closer there is no reason to believe this conflict will cool down. But based on the reactions on Twitter, it seems pretty clear- the public does not appear to view Sanders as the bad guy in this situation.