General Discussion

it would be both.

I suspect that it's shock that he is that rich and mentioning it suddenly pits a prominent dem against all the narrative that's being pushed. If they're bad--and the unsaid word, like usually, is the quantifier like "some" or "all" or "most", but we understand it to mean "they're all bad"--how can this one be good? If we're on the side against (all) those with that obviously, only unearned, unmerited, stolen wealth, how can we support him? (Personally, that's what happens when you make arguments by proxy. Is it the wealth that's bad or what they do with it? And on that point, I think over Pritzker there'll be a bit of a split. There's more, but it's early and I have to finish my coffee and mow the front yard. And feed/water the queen that appeared a few days ago on my back porch under my work bench with three newborn kittens. She's orange, but she has 1 gray, 1 orange, and 1 black kitten. Highs are 95 outside and 'cool' doesn't exist in nature north of Houston.)