As a lefty but also pretty avid about Warren being a great option, I feel like Brooks' critiques all fall within being the strategic goals of people that want transformative systemic changes. I tend to lean more into the Emma Vigeland mindset which isn't as openly critical of Warren but recognizes that when people like Michael Brooks and Kyle Kulinsky go in on their critiques, there's always a substantive claim underlying in there. We just gotta get Biden out of the conversation and I'm gonna be ecstatic. But the frustrating issue for me is that people blend critiques with substance into "emotional" or "bernie bro" ish...nah, these are strategic differences and dismissing the critiques is bad form. This ain't Pocahontas crap, it's "the whole country is listening and we're on the verge of a number of economic, racial and climate related systemic problems hitting boiling point; how bold can we and should we go?"