I wish the two of them would find a way to run together in 2020. Personally I think Bernie who has paved the way for progressives after a long hard and determined slough over the decades should run with Warren as his running mate because they would find huge support levels across the country besides progressives. Warren after being VP would be well positioned to run to be the first woman President.
Either way, I wish the two together would run as a team in 2020. America sure needs them.
This is a good one. Among other things it would begin to put meat on the bone of the vacuous understandings of “socialism” in the U.S. This focus should be done there too, and many are beginning to do so.
I could live with you’re match-up, but I think a Sanders/Gabbard ticket would fit better (I’m dumbfounded as to why CD continues to bury her). Sanders for domestic issues, and Gabbard for her understanding and knowledge of international issues and wanting to dismantle overseas bases, and bring the military home and downsize it.
On a side note, the resent Jimmy Dore Show is about Biden, and it’s not flattering.
Bernie is the true American statesman, Elizabeth is ok too, but nobody has spent the last 40 years fighting for progressive issue like Bernie. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but thank god for the gentlemen from Vermont or none of the issues we care about would even be mentioned today.
I 100% agree a Sanders / Gabbard ticket is a winner
Common dreams appears to be in full DNC agenda mode. Failure to talk up Tulsi Gabbard, the obvious peace candidate, is totally reminiscent of back in 2004 when “Move On. ORG” which sold itself as an anti-war organization, refused to endorse or talk up Dennis Kuscinich despite his high ratings in their own internal poll. Tulsi Gabbard is the obvious choice for progressives and anti-war activists, her experience, her passion, her youth all are winning hands. She is the only one not doing the typical democratic two step: one step to the masses one step to AIPAC.
I really wish this site would stop showing photos of Warren and Sanders. Warren would be a disaster- a guaranteed Trump win.
Tulsi is the one they are ignoring. She is everything Warren is not.
Enough of the bs. If Commondreams wants to defeat Trump it should stop promoting Warren.
I’ve seen a few of her interviews, if she’s truthful, she’s very impressive.
As planned, Tulsi and the others are dividing progressives, just when a Bernie victory was within reach and when he would have more progressives in congress to support his actions. With this kind of stupidity, we deserve what we will get: Biden or Trump.
With just Bernie on stage at the debates, how many progressive topics do you think will come up, and be seriously debated in front of the American people? With 3 progressives on stage, the percentage of progressive debates goes up by 66%. Gravel has already said he doesn’t want it, just wants those progressive discussions out in the open. As far as Sanders and Gabbard, who ever is in the lead in the home stretch, the other will indorse the leader.
This article was first over at TruthDig. Here’s how I responded there:
Mr. Johnson, you cannot do what you are trying to do. It is a form of propaganda to try and do what you are doing:
Your stated goal of IGNORING foreign policy to focus on domestic policy of opposing the rich.
Guess what. YOU CAN’T DO THAT if you don’t oppose their American Imperial Project. Therefore anything you say about Elizabeth Warren in here is proven to be out and out lies on her part since she is 100% behind the American Imperial Project and has pivoted to the strange idea that Trump is the ‘bad guy,’ not the plutocrats with their Military Industrial Complex that has now gained full control over Trump.
The biggest error in your article is to ignore the one candidate who is most outspoken on doing the only thing that will make it possible to have the funds to focus on the needs of the 99%, which both Sanders and Warren just leave as a second thought: ending the power of the military, stopping these costly regime change wars, cutting the miltiary, and restoring it to its original purpose to defend America instead of waging endless war in foreign entaglements.
You know now who I am talking about. Tulsi Gabbard.
So go peddle you biases somewhere else. We are waking up and now know we have to oppose the Empire if we want to stand up to the Plutocrats.
Warren? She’s a charade of a chimera, she’s a lot of rhetoric that is empty and pointless. For one thing you have to have courage and she showed in 2016 and with her recent cowardice wrapped up in virtue signalling of fear of FOX that she is not anything other than a coward.
Sanders has a habit of forgetting foreign affairs and not realizing how vital it is.
I’m also sick of this idea that Warren is somehow better than the others with her ideas. What she is doing is taking others’ ideas that already exist- like Bernie’s proposals or Tulsi’s actual bills in Congress, watering them down, lecturing us like that tired school marm she is, and getting so many, for some unknown reason (stopping Bernie or Tulsi maybe) to shout that she is the one with bold ideas when she is COPYING and repeating her betters.
No thank you.
I sure don’t. The last thing we need is another coward anywhere near the White House who will easily be controlled by the NeoCons. I mean Warren hasn’t even tried to oppose them, unlike easily bowled over Trump who at least spouted such rhetoric when he ran.
But not Easy Warren, who’s big idea is that we need to Green the Pentagon so our military can be more effective in pursuing the NeoCon agenda around the world.
No, she isn’t. How anyone who support Bernie in 2016 could think Warren is ok is beyond me. She is one of the reasons we have Trump.
How can I say that?
First of all the DNC put forward the most hated candidate it ever ran, an all time loser who never accomplished anything in her life except promoting WallMart, locking up more Black people, destroying the wave for Health Care Reform in the 1990s, and shilling for every regime change war that came down the pike. Only Hillary Clinton could lose to Trump (and no spouting the nonsense she really won “because of the popular vote.” She knew she had to win the Rust Belt to win the election that she always knew was not decided by the popular vote.)
Bernie could have and would have won. But the Clinton crowd was rigging the election, purging voters, doing illegal campaigning, throwing out votes, unseating elected delegates to the conventions, and obviously flipping black box electronic voting in Super Tuesday precints with no paper trails (as they and only they were drastically different than the exit polls always in Clinton’s favor.)
But if Bernie had won Massashusettes things would have been different.
But little sweet ole Easy Peasy Warren was too much a coward to stand up to the Clinton machine and endorse Bernie and campaign for him. That state was close. But he lost, partially due to the shennanigans of the Clinton campaign. If Easy Peasy had not been a coward Bernie could have won. That could have changed everything.
But no. Little Mis Virtue Signalling was to afraid of the Big Bad Rodham to stand up for progressive values she claimed she was for. Nope. She waited until it was all over and endorses the Big Bad Rodham hoping that the wolf in Grandma’s nightie might make her VP instead of chew her up and spit her out.
This coward is anything but ok and anyone who thinks her virtue signalling is courage instead of more cowardness, and thinks she’ll stand up against the powers that be are fooling themselves. FOOLIN
cue Def Leppard…
Yes, it’s a great shame. But this place has always been more establishment than its commenters and lately the commenters are being more and more absorbed by the DNC Blob too.
There has been a major push lately to promote Warren. It’s everywhere and it’s here too. I find it disgusting.
Tulsi is the most truthful person, other than Mike Gravel, running in this cycle. She has spoken out on things that Bernie is not speaking on, like Assange, Manning, and Maduro.
It’s not Tulsi that is the problem. Tulsi will support Bernie before the convention if he has more delegates and I sure hope Bernie will support Tulsi before the convention if it’s the other way around.
Easy Peasy? I don’t think so. She’ll want to be Anti-bussing Hands-On Delaware Joe’s VP too much. Don’t forget her behavior in 2016 and don’t forget Tulsi’s behavior then. Tulsi was the rising star in the establishment. They’d made her the heir apparant of the DNC to take DWS place afterwards. When she first won office in 2012 DNC Megaphone Mouthpiece Maddow said she was a future Democrat superstar and to remember her name. She sacrificed all that because the DNC was corrupt, biased, and tipping the scales against Bernie.
She boldly quit the DNC, making enemies of all the hard Clintonista crowd for life (thus the smears from the mainstream) and, it turns out, from the soft Clintonista LOTE types like TYT and Ana Kasparian and Sam Seder and, it turns out, Common Dreams.
But she walked away and endorsed Bernie.
She started runnning this cycle before Bernie. She is bolder than Bernie. She is the most anti-war voice out there besides Gravel, who isn’t serious but just wants to add to the debate- he’s already endorsed Tulsi. She can say in the debates what Bernie can’t as he woos the established center. She gives him cover from the Left.
No, the threat to Bernie is not from Tulsi. It’s from all the centrist candidates that the big donors have wooed to run and will keep in the race as long as possible- the Betos and the Ghoulamas and the Mayor “What Me Worry?” Petes and the Abusive Klobuchars and the Blue Dog Bennets and Swalwells and Moultons and Bullocks and the NeoLiberal Inslees and Hickenloopers and Castros and empty suited Bookers and Gillibrands and Ryans and Delaneys.
The idea that Tulsi shouldn’t run and we who find her the best candidate shouldn’t support her because it hurts Bernie sounds awfully a lot like the idea in 2016 that Bernie shouldn’t have ran and we who supported Bernie shouldn’t have supported him because it hurt Hillary.
(a long post- but Common Dreams likes to tell me to not post so much, so I put it all in one post.)
Good, it makes it easier to skip. I always skip the long ones, as they often turn out to be convoluted, windbaggy, circular firing squad hogwash. Warren is a great and brilliant leader and she and Bernie would make a formidable pair. Tulsi is building a revolution too and will be more ready in 8 years.
LOL. Oh well.
Well, since you skipped my long post, you have no idea if it was convoluted or succint, windbaggy or a developed argument, circular firing squad hogwash or pointing out who is and who isn’t an ally.
But that’s okay. I support you in your right to read what you want and skip what you want. Of course if you read what I wrote we could engage in a discussion about it…
…looks like we are anyway!
If Warren is such a great and brilliant leader, how about sharing with me one thing she’s done since she has been in the Senate? Enlighten me because I really don’t get this infatuation everyone who has it has with Warren.
Tulsi is ready now.
On September 18, Elizabeth Warren, the much beloved poster child of the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party, voted for a bill that authorizes $700 billion in defense funds. This includes $640 billion for the Pentagon and an additional $60 billion for military operations in countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. This bill increased military spending by $80 billion, which far surpasses the increase requested by America First President Trump($54 billion). There were 8 no votes (against 89 yes votes) and three abstentions, but Warren was not one of them.
So you’ll know, I didn’t mean to imply she wasn’t truthful, so many politicians aren’t (especially during campaigning), I add the “if truthful” thing out of habit when talking about them.
I didn’t take it that you were saying she wasn’t truthful; I took it to mean you were saying you didn’t know.
So I affirmed that she is truthful! (smile)
Cass Sunstein is quite the chameleon. On top of which: When working for Obama, part of his job was to perform “cognitive infiltration” of groups engaged in “conspiracy theories,” in order to break them up.