Home | About | Donate

Does 'Revealing' Warren Speech Hint at Sanders Endorsement?


Does 'Revealing' Warren Speech Hint at Sanders Endorsement?

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

With days to go before the critical Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, pundits are abuzz about one potential endorsement in particular—one they say could actually sway voters: that of progressive luminary Elizabeth Warren.


A Sanders/Warren ticket?


What is Warren's own beliefs as far as what she suggests by what she says in her last paragraph. Does Warren believe in the change she speaks about? Ms. Warren tells us about how big money is buying elections but what about Bernie's putting the change she speaks of into practice and refusing the big money route?

At this point in time progressives should ask Warren just what does she truly believe in? How about endorsing her colleague and fellow progressive Bernie Sanders who has not taken the oligarchy' money? How about supporting the candidate that didn't accept the plutocratic control of our electoral process?

Warren should support someone who embodies the very things she addresses in this speech. Her endorsement would lend weight to her words and show her commitment to them as well. Her endorsement of Sanders would possibly carry him to a win in the primaries and the earn him the nomination for the democrats. Does Warren want someone who doesn't take the Citizen's United/big pac money to win or will she stay on the sidelines rather than 'fight back' as she puts it, when a little support for the very things she believes in would matter the most?


The nation is at a crossroads: continue the corporate dominated democratic charade of governance or re-institute the principles enshrined in our Constitution for a better life.


Good question. What's she waiting for?


Obama has endorsed Clinton, further proof that he has been and continues to be a Wall Street stooge. HRC probably has promised Obama a political quid pro quo!


A woman as Sanders VP pick would change the game and set-up that person in the next election cycle as Prez. There are many qualified women beside Liz Warren possessing great promise, a grasp of the issues, moral compass and integrity, tho with not so much name recognition - one such is Dr Jill Stein, Green candidate! Steins platform should be read by all.

So far Hill has played the gender card with success as many women may not look beyond that one aspect to Hills actual policies and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans, women and families. Corporate/banker/Wall St greed and usury do not benefit the great majority of anyone including women and I hope more women see beyond gender to policy and Hills record.....


The blond definitely looks good in blue. In other words, Ms.Warren's views on, more exactly, what she would propose to actually do to solve the domestic economic problems about which she rails synchronize with Bernie's views on what, more exactly, he would do to solve the middle east quagmire that the Bush-Clinton cabal has subjected the US to over the past 26 going on 27 years (including Desert Shield/Storm in this statement). Other than that affiant saith not.


I don't think she is looking to be someone's running mate when she certainly had enough support to run her own campaign. But it does bring up the question of who Bernie would choose if he were nominated. I am pretty sure that Bernie could beat any of the Republicans if he were nominated, but I don't think the Democratic voters will nominate him. With that said, he is doing better in the polls than most people expected, so my fingers are crossed. Polls are mostly used to prop up tv ratings and sell ads by making races look closer than they really are, so we won't begin to get a clear picture of the real scenario until next week.


It's my feeling Warren cannot declare her support now, not before the Iowa/NH primaries.

It could spell political suicide for her.

Crossing any of the Clintons is something this family never forgets. They have high-ranking cronies in high-ranking places.

Both Obama and Clinton disappeared June 3, 2008, and when they re-emerged a couple of days later, Clinton conceded to Obama. It's shocking how everybody forgets this.

A deal was made. Not just with Obama, but with shadowy people who can make things happen. And it wasn't just the SoS prize; I knew back then she'd run in 2016.

You cross Clinton now, and you'll pay the price later, in the event she gets what she bargained for back in 2008.

Naivete has no place in this filthy political atmosphere.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Nader... head of the EPA ?


That should start with the people elected being accountable to all the people and not just moneyed interests.


Aside from Warren's 2012 opposition to legal marihuana, she follows Bernie very closely on the issues:


Sanders/Warren 2016 may be unbeatable.


Yup - a crossroads, vote for another duopoly candidate or a true independent 3rd party ..


Just what we need - more pols concerned about their "political future" ... she is indeed hedging her bets, how courageous ....

Clinton conceded in '08, when it was clear she had lost - but I think you were right that deals were made to get erstwhile Clinton backers to back O - If Sanders wins, methinks you will see (or actually won't be able to "see") the same arrangement ...

It wouldn't surprise me to see a Sanders/Clinton ticket ...


Sanders - Warren I would vote for.
Sanders - Clinton I would not.


That will never happen.


It is not enough to be FOR Bernie Sanders, you have to get involved, phone bank (from your home if you like), walk precincts, etc. etc. Go to BernieSanders.com and GET INVOLVED. If you don't want to or can't do campaign work, then search Facebook for "How You Can Get Bernie Sanders Elected." Use that guide and share it with other Bernie supporters.