Home | About | Donate

So, What’s the Difference Between Warren and Sanders?

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/13/so-whats-difference-between-warren-and-sanders

"Last time he ran for president, Bernie Sanders found himself odd man out in a race against Hillary Clinton, whose establishment bona fides and years of White House experience propelled her, in the end, to the nomination. "

Excuse me, but it is a proven fact that Hillary Clinton’s gang did everything in their power to STEAL the nomination from Bernie. The emails that were downloaded from the DNC computers prove a concerted effort to do everything in their power and then some to swing the election to their pre- “Chosen One.” There were thousands of absentee and mailed-in votes that were thrown out and never counted. The dubious results of the CA primary were announced before the polls had even closed and there was donation money siphoned into Clinton’s coffers as well as the super delegates promised to her well in advance. And the on the ground reports of unscrupulous handling of Bernie’s delegates at the National Convention were many.

I just want to know when Common Dreams is going to run an article about the fact that the US elections are the most corrupt of any of the first world countries and a lot of the third world countries as well. When is the so-called progressive media going to start acknowledging that??? The only opinions of the difference between Warren and Sanders that matters is that of the Oligarchs that will chose the next president and it won’t be either of them.


Their differences will not mean much if cons maneuver us into a war with Iran. Voters will vote for the Chickenhawk in Chief during wartime.


A more accurate labeling would be regulation versus reform on the part of Sanders, not revolution. Warren and Sanders both want to empower those “disaffected citizens” and even the playing field, but both are proposing changes that keep the structure of the political system intact. That’s not a revolution. It preserves all the anti-democracy institutions of our government, not the least of which is a Supreme Court which has infamously ruled, again and again, on behalf of corporations and big money. It preserves the Senate which gives disproportionate political power to states with fewer voters than states with more voters. It preserves all the clandestine agencies that operate behind closed doors, beyond the reach of citizens. And so much more. As always, proposals that have the support of voters don’t count for squat if you leave in place a political system designed to preserve the rich and wealthy and utterly corrupt status quo. It’s the system that needs to be changed, not the players, and a vote for either Warren or Sanders is a vote to continue a badly flawed system. A revolution takes down a political system; it does not preserve it. In the end, both Warren and Sanders will remain loyal to the very system that put them in power. If you doubt it, watch as they both bow their heads and support Biden should the Ds nominate him.


In regards to what is actually needed to give even one more generation of humans a chance at survival, neither of them appear willing or able to do what is required, so who cares what the difference is?


LOL. Trick question; right? SMH

1 Like

Bernie: demonstrated values and fighting for economic and social justice his whole life? Not taking corporate PAC money.

Elizabeth: Republican until her mid 40’s cause she likes money…ie markets??? Which are not people you may note. Reconstituting Bernie’s ideas makes her a good follower, not a leader… . Not supporting M4A despite signing on as cosponsor originally. . Not a supporter of the constitution or aware of the implications of Assange arrest and freedom of the press) States she will take Corporate PAC money… Despite considering herself to have some first people heritage did not speak up about or go to Standing Rock. IMO she is weak and mutable.


Contrast Tulsi Gabbard with Sanders as from my perspective they the top two Candidates that US Citizens should look at.

She about the only one stating that in order to pay for all those things progressives wants, she will take the money from Military spending.


OK, folks, what sort of credibility can the rest of the argument have when we open stating that it was with her “bona fides” that HRC stole that nomination? Of course, WaPo was part of that, so it is not surprising that they have again decided to avoid the issue.

I am not sure why that means that CD should redistribute the article, though a legitimate comparison of Warren and Sanders would be timely. This does not qualify:

  • Warren is not extremely progressive, even though both extremely and progressive are vague and unexplained here. She is educated about economics and has made high-profile statements, including to bankers. But what else on her agenda appears on a similar level? It’s not foreign policy.

  • Tulsi Gabbard is at least arguably more progressive than Warren, but not mentioned. It’s fine to just compare two candidates if one wishes, but that doesn’t excuse lying by omission or not knowing who the candidates are–at least if you’re the Washington Post.

  • Sanders isn’t a socialist any more than Warren is, his own announcements notwithstanding. I can say that I’m Bill Gates’ nephew, too, but it hasn’t helped my credit rating. Sanders is and has been quite persistently a liberal in the 20th Century USA post-FDR Keyenesian sense. There’s nothing against markets in that. You have the markets, tax some people, and help the young and the old and the sick and the destitute.

So let’s do a comparison on a real basis.

  • The economic policies are similar.
  • Stated policies regarding gender and minorities are similar
  • Warren has in no way taken on the MIC; Sanders does so irregularly, but not reliably.
  • Sanders folded when the nomination was stolen from him in '16
  • Warren folded to retract a statement that the nomination was stolen after Donna Brazile’s book came out, and, I suppose, she imagined that it could be said.

There’s a lot left to say, but not much of it in the article.

CD should consider just dropping altogether the idea of carrying articles from WaPo. It’s not a good source.


Yeah, big point there.

This is true, but if you truly want peaceful revolution, you must start moving in the right direction, & either candidate would be a big step in the direction we need to go.

1 Like

OK. So what do you recommend we do?

She sounds just like Bernie Sanders. Has she come up with anything new that he hasn’t already been saying for years? Even the idea of using DoD money for other programs isn’t new. Bernie and others said that years ago.


Ignoring Tulsi, when not downright tearing her down, is a common refrain with Common Dreams and most all the media in general. Half the polls don’t even include her name then they report that she has low poll numbers. Even Samantha Bee dismissed her as some sort of joke candidate and topped it off by calling her “honey.” Calling Ivanka a c**t was more respectful.

This is what Rolling Stone still has under Tulsi’s description despite UN reports saying she was correct in her assessment of Syrian gas attacks, "Appealing to dovish Democrats (apparently being against the slaughter of civilians and destruction of governments for corporate interest makes you a silly dove), Gabbard has staked her campaign in opposition to wars of regime change. But her foreign policy credentials are worrying: She visited Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in 2017 on a secret “fact-finding” mission (note air quotes and the fact that is wasn’t secret but part of her role on the Foreign Relations Committee) and dismissed his opposition — across the board — as terrorists (Not true, she said the US is funding terrorist opposition which is true) Gabbard’s rollout also received an unsettling signal boost from Kremlin-backed English language media networks, RT and Sputnik (neo-McCarthyism that would make Rachael Maddow proud). Into adulthood, Gabbard espoused virulently anti-LGBTQ views (despite the fact that she issued a video on the subject and has a 100% positive voter rating on the issue the media will not let this one rest). This is what a supposed progressive magazine is saying.


You really think so? I would like to think it would cause his support to tank, at least if the Democrats point out that he promised to not get us into more wars. Which to be fair it will only happen in someone like Sanders is the nominee.

“With all of those policy positions, there’s little for a progressive stalwart to object to in Warren.”

Yeah, sorry, but this “progressive stalwart” finds a LOT to object to in Warren. For starters, tho she co-sponsored Medicare for All, that was a purely political move. She’s already waffled on it a number of times & now says she thinks there are many different “routes” to eventually getting there, starting with offering private/public options – which translates to nothing really.

The former Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, Dr Don Berwick told the House Ways & Means Committee that a public option would be good to have now, just so it could be tested out, but that it’s only really a good idea for the Insurance Industry since they’d use it to help themselves & it would only hurt the American people.

She’s also a very bad bet when it comes to foreign policy, war, the military-industrial-complex, Israel, & AIPAC. Most certainly not a progressive on those issues! Here’s a good article covering that: http://inthesetimes.com/article/21890/elizabeth-warren-war-military-iran-north-korea-venezuela-bernie-sanders

Simply put, Warren is not trustworthy at all. She is a political opportunist who makes her choices based on what will most benefit her career. She waffles, she promises, she changes her mind when it benefits her to do so. Hardly Progressive to me.

I won’t vote for her. And why would I when I can have the real deal?!

Bernie Sanders 2020!


Warren is not progressive.


OK, so…First - I volunteered with and donated to Sanders in 2015/16, and have donated twice in 2019 and am volunteering again now. Though he’s not left wing enough for me on many issues, I think M4A is so humanly important, and has such political potential to form a progressive electorate that I support him anyway.

Second, Sanders’ bold, resolutely populist progressive vision of political reform clearly contrasts sharply with Warren’s more limited, ‘regulatory progressive’ vision: underlying all Sanders’ rhetoric is the belief that citizens must seize power from the rich and their government proxies; underlying Warren’s - an idea of fair and just management of capitalist power meted out by governmental regulatory bodies.

Third - despite all this - I think it is untrue, unnecessary, and utterly unproductive to dismiss Warren on the grounds that she is a “political opportunist.” She has her declared ‘core issue’ of regulating capitalism, she is modestly progressive on that ground, and - in supporting M4A and then qualifying support for it, she is openly marking herself off as a candidate from Sanders - showing sympathy, but simply not making M4A the core commitment of her campaign.

I don’t go for her, but I just see her as progressive on some issues, not others - in ways that are quite obvious.


1 Like

Bernie is better from the bully pulpit and the one I would chose to lead the revolution we need. But having read more from Warren lately I think she may have the more effective policies.

40% board membership for workers is Warren’s idea and going straight at t he boardrooms is the most direct route. Very Nordic!

Costs nothing, saves American Capitalism!

American corporations are nearsighted producing pay and profits chiefly for the uber-rich, while actually driven to dis-invest in their own companies in order to boost bonuses and stock values instead. Germany has far better performance, far lower CEO pay and 50% labor board representation.

This is just MAGA for corporations, making them behave the way they used to in the 70s with commitment to workers and communities and to consumers as well.

The difference is she (EW) is NOT the Gentleman from Vermont ! Bernie has been true to the progressive agenda his entire political career and you could rightly claim he is the founder of the progressive agenda. I can only hope he and Tulsi will partner up on the ticket and its a slam dunk in my mind.