I don’t want to be negative, but Ruth Conniff’s analysis is just plain awful. Sen. Warren, cultural appropriator par excellence, showed her true colors in 2016, championing Wall Street-neocon Hillary Clinton over FDR-Democrat Bernie Sanders – when the Democratic Primary was blatantly being rigged before our eyes.
After the damage was done, Warren – like DNC Chair Tom Perez, DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile, and Kyle Kulinsky – admitted that the primary was rigged.
Even Noam Chomsky, a paragon of precision and restraint, admitted that Bernie would have won it, were it not for DNC “shenanigans.” (And would be our president, right now, as all polls showed him mopping the floor with Trump by 10-13%.)
Of course, following Sen. Warren’s admission that the 2016 Primary was rigged, the authoritarians in charge of the Democratic Party had a few words with her, and Sen. Warren resumed shutting up about the rigged primary. The establishment can always count on Warren to follow orders and betray progressives. That’s simply her record.
And the reason Elizabeth Warren gave a standing ovation to Trump’s “socialism-never” claptrap, during his State of the Union Address, is simple: she agrees with him (on that point and so much more – where is she on Venezuela? Yemen? Syria? Ukraine? AWOL or standing with the neocons, as usual).
Whatever Bernie-esque noises she’s making, these days, Warren’s record suggests that she will fight against Medicare-for-All, tooth and nail. The same applies to the Green New Deal, the Fight for $15, tuition-free state college, and more. And her recent announcement that she’d like to see the end of the Electoral College is pretty weak tea, failing to address the multitude of factors that make U.S. elections the most corrupt in the Western world, per a 2016 Harvard University study: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxXKr2hKCz0
An establishment pawn, Warren will fight democratic socialism at every turn. And she’s a warmongering neocon, to boot. How is she distinguishable from Sec. “We came, we saw, he died” Clinton when it comes to foreign policy? (And how was Clinton distinguishable from Dick Cheney, with regard to the neocons’ genocidal agenda? She wasn’t.)
THIS IS HOW WE DON’T SPLIT THE PROGRESSIVE VOTE: WE COALESCE AROUND “GABBARD/SANDERS 2020” N-O-W !
Because all of the other contenders, from PhRMA’s Booker to Wall Street’s Gillibrand to Wall Street’s Harris to PNAC’s Biden, on down… they’re total, unconscionable shit. One sellout after another. They will never excite the base, win the middle, or draw conservatives away from the neo-fascist Trump.
Gabbard/Sanders (possibly reversed) will.
That’s simply the reality of it.
Like Bernie in 2016, the more people get to know Tulsi Gabbard, the more they like her. The grassroots folks are already excited. For my money, Rep. Gabbard is unquestionably "the horse to bet on" in 2020… that is, if our primaries were not rigged. (Oh crap… but they are, Blanche, they are… Gee, that sucks… I guess when I say that “Gabbard is "the horse to bet on in 2020" what I mean is that she will probably end up as the "Bernie Sanders” of 2020: they’ll steal it from her/progressives, but a year after the election, she’ll be the most popular politician in the country.)