Home | About | Donate

What Corporate Media Like Best About Elizabeth Warren: She’s Not Bernie Sanders

The NYT writes that Warren "is a team player who is seeking to lead the party—not stage a hostile takeover of it.”

The word “party” can mean the rank-and-file or the leadership - and the rank-and-file want M4A but the leadership opposes it. When the leadership opposes the membership, a “hostile” takeover is the members’ only recourse . Being a “team player” means being cozy with the leadership and compromising on M4A. Leading a hostile takeover means representing the members, not the Pelosi-Hoyer-Schumer-Clinton clique. Bernie is the only trustworthy candidate.


Sending Bernie another 50$ right now!!!

Issue Sanders Warren
Student Debt Forgiveness All Some
Medical Debt Forgiveness All Some
Big Money Contribution None In the General
Trump’s Military Budge No Yes
Ben Carsen for HUD No Yes
Medicare for All Yes Some

Hedging bets in case Joe Dough goes belly up and Harris can’t handle the Obama drag act?

I wanted to get this out there but wasnt sure where**.

Tusi is BACK on the debate stage! !!!**

I just got this from the Tulsi organization;:

**We wanted to make sure you heard: A new Monmouth University poll released today means lsi is back on the debate stage in October.

Today’s news should not come as a surprise to any of us. Tulsi has consistently been polling in the top 10 in every state poll and the momentum of our campaign has been steadily gaining ground exactly where it matters: In early state polling, with local and independent media, and in the hearts and minds of Americans who want better for the country they love.

But we need your help to keep this momentum going — with the political establishment making it clear they do not want to see Tulsi on that debate stage, this is truly a campaign of, by and for the people. We’re less than a week away from our critical September third quarter fundraising deadline, can we count on your support now?

Don’t let the establishment drown us out. Dave, can Tulsi count on you to keep her in this fight? Pitch in $12 right now to help close out the quarter with a surge in the books to match Tulsi’s surge in the polls.

Society often movers incrementally when it should be revolutionary; this is sometimes accomplished by many people moving slightly but is more often accomplished by large movement in some and continued intransigence in a shrinking group. It’s been the function of radicals throughout history to make other less radical people look more palatable to all those to the (in this case) right of them.

But we’re facing a different sort of problem now, one in which the status quo isn’t coming up against other competing views but against the unbending reality of ecological consequences and a deadline on the dismantling of what democracy we’ve had over the last 300 or so years.

Sanders is the only POTUS candidate offering practical proposals, the only real solutions to the existential problems facing us-systemic change of society and governance. Climate and inequality are inextricably intertwined because the ecological catastrophe is being caused almost entirely by the rich, and if we don’t solve both problems we won’t solve either.

That’s why
" Sanders’ strategy of

doubling down on his ideological purity and socialist credentials carries risks for the senator from Vermont, other Democrats say. It’s enabled Warren to position herself as impassioned but reasonable, while Sanders holds down the leftward flank of the Democratic Party and serves as the ideological outlier in the race."

is not only out of touch with reality it’s insulting–because of the very fact that he’s in touch with reality and they’re stuck in the delusion of political “reality”. What they call ideological purity is practical necessity, and the sooner the rest of the US comes around to recognizing that, the sooner we can start actions to avoid the worst of the ecological cataclysm. Til they do, we’ll continue to drift further into unparalleled catastrophe.


I found Kyle Kulinski’s style kind of annoying despite agreeing with his positions. So here’s a summary of what he said (filtered a bit by me). I took his word for things I don’t know about, and realize there may be good reasons to support Warren. (I’d love to hear them, not to argue but to learn and investigate.) But as Kulinski says, if you’re a democratic socialist all the following things you probably believe in are more strongly supported by Sanders than Warren.

Sanders (S) is consistent and honest, Warren (W) does the normal flip flop over politics, retracting statements.
S: eliminate all medical debt. W: reduce debt.
S: eliminate all student loan debt. W wants to eliminate some or lean toward eliminating it.
S voted no on latest bloated military budget, W voted yes—more money for Trump.
S: Medicare for all; W waffles and is proud of Dems for saying they want something they haven’t gotten, and mostly haven’t tried to get, in fact have actively opposed.
S won’t take corporate money. W will in general election and has already transferred money she raised before into her campaign. That’s probably not possible without compromise. What industries would you like your president to owe favors to? Fossil fuel? Defense? Agrochemical? Insurance?
W didn’t endorse S in 2016 campaign.
S will actively campaign for his agenda in D primaries.W defended Joe Manchin (Very conservative D, WV)
W uses the language of bipartisanship. Why? In the US now, it’s utter nonsense. This is a struggle of the mass of people against the oligarchs and the system set up to collect more power and money for them; it’s a struggle of sane people against those who deny science and reality in their quest for total power.

Kulinski didn’t even mention climate, which is inexcusable. So the following is me talking:
Both are very good on climate, the most important issue. S is better. He’s more in tune with the best scientific thought, the reality of the crisis and what we have to do. From all their other stands, especially on corporate money, it’s much harder for me to trust W that she’ll do the things in her detailed climate plans. She seems like the 2nd best of all the people running, on climate and on almost everything else. I’d love to see her as VP or Climate Czar.

Living in New Hampshire I have had the pleasure of hearing both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren in venues where they attracted large crowds. They both were personable and inspiring and it is like a fantasy to imagine either of them taking over as President from someone so unworthy for the job as President Trump. But Bernie tips the scale for me. His record of standing outside of party politics and managing to get elected as an independent and re-elected means to me that he is as solid as a rock for us, the people. He is not really a politician. He saw that politicians don’t seem to work for us, they work for the government. He sees the big picture and will work on a major overhaul to give the people what we need. Elizabeth is different. She is brilliant. She sees the whole picture big and small. The changes need to be massive to turn this country into a place which values all of us and works for all of us instead of just the wealthy
If the heavens align for us, the people, the next election will give us Bernie as President and Elizabeth as Vice-President, ready to take over after Bernie starts the process.

more to the point, Capitalism is an economic system, not a governance system. One can casually propose and support governance systems which are at odds with one’s preferred economic system. For instance the United States is a federated republic in form but is nominally a democracy, the best fit economic system for a democracy (complementary in goals and methodologies) is socialism, both elevate the people in general and focus on benefiting and assisting equality and fair treatment among the population. If you were looking to pair a pure Capitalism economic system with its ideal governance system you would probably end up with an Anarchy governance system.

1 Like

The best place for Warren is where her positives (corporate oversight) don’t get inthe way of accomplishing a bold Progressive agenda. IMO, this would involve a specific role (head of SEC) or a general role that she could also use as a future career springboard and still accomplish a lot of Justice System reform such as an appointment as Attorney General (which would also make her later elevation to USSC bench easier). Warren shouldn’t be VP as the President needs a dedicated partner who shares his views on a broad range of issues and can work effectively to promote (and twist arms where necessary) while not undermining any of the administration’s agenda. I’m still pretty well sold on Senator Nina Turner as being the most competent and effective VP in a Sanders administration.

EW ! I am Bernie 2020 !!! We must fight back through donations, conversations with others and ultimately Votes ! There are roughly 7 million new voters this time around and as far as I can tell most of those young people are for Bernie

Just say NO ! to Joe and EW ! to Elizabeth Warren Bernie 2020 !

I also think we need to boycott MSNBC and their sponsors for their role in the last election and this upcoming election.

Because the Powers That Be have tasked the MSM with burying Bernie – The PEOPLE’s Choice – just as they did in 2016, and the best way to do that is to split the progressive vote between Bernie and Liz.  If they can keep both Sanders and Warren below a clear majority going into the Convention – say 35% each – then adding the DNC’s stupor-delegates to Biden’s 30% would give him the nomination and will give us – unless by some miracle Tweetle-Dumb has been Impeached and Imprisoned – another four years of the Drümph-Kushner Crime Family running the country . . .

1 Like

And on top of that, the WSJ is just wrong about the idea that more government control means that perspective is not basically capitalist. You could make that argument about those (including me) who who want to simply take away many markets from the capitalist domain (health insurance, banking, energy utilities, and more). Making that argument with people like Warren is either lazy thinking or an attempt to mislead people with a known falsehood (more likely with the WSJ). A perfect example is antitrust law which in my opinion needs strengthening and would have the obvious effect of increasing competition and if you believe in some of the benefits of the free market, innovation. I hate the WSJ.

1 Like

Competent and effective sure - the best choice for a ticket with name recognition and a person who given Bernie’s age has the experience to jump to the presidency (maybe Bernie will do only one term) - I’m not seeing it. I’m not one for speculating on this much and I don’t give the chance of Bernie winning the nomination of any better than 50% (though I’ll be very happy if he does). There will be plenty of time to speculate then, but as many have said, Warren makes less sense since her exit from the Senate means a Republican replaces her until the special election. I like Tulsi Gabbard, but don’t think she’s the right person either (secretary of state or defense on the other hand …). I don’t have a problem with Bernie constraining his choice to a woman and in fact this is probably the most pragmatic strategy - I just don’t know who that woman would be.

This is obvious, not surprising, but also not good news. Some deal has been made. At this point, we had best speculate what, since the odds of finding out concretely are poor.

What do we know?

The media in question took content straight from the Clinton camp and presented it as news in '15 and '16 as part of rigging the nomination against Sanders. They are clearly doing that again, but not doing that against Elizabeth Warren. They are not doing that because they like the Warren who chews out bankers; they are doing that because the like the Warren who rescinds obvious admissions about Hillary Clinton.

In more detail–Warren has had certain unusual treatment by the media. Some has been critical. But we have also gotten to see Warren cross-examining bankers in various committees. How often are we treated to this sort of coverage of a sitting official outside of one or another scandal? To be fair, Liz put on a good show during those meetings, and most of our representatives do not. But some of her turns later make one wonder whether the point was not to establish her anti-banking credentials so that she would not have to actually adopt a progressive platform in exactly the sort of situation that she is in now.

There’s a deal in place here, or else this media would roar after Warren’s failures and ignore her successes as they do with Bernie Sanders.

So what sort of deal would cause this? I can think of three significant variations, and maybe I am missing something else.

  1. One, she could have a deal to exchange concessions in other policy for at least some economic changes

  2. She could be a mostly owned quantity. That is, they have made it obvious that they can command her, and she has made it obvious that she will bend. This is likely oversimple, but something in this direction is not unlikely.

  3. A more specific strategy is in place, a bargain with fairly concrete contours, and a plan to move forward.

Perhaps I am missing something here, but there is an obvious possibility that takes only a bit of cynicism to see. In the current environment as rendered by the in-house and owned Corporate Media outlets, Bernie, Liz, and Uncle Joe are running more or less neck and neck. Were this to be duplicated, naturally or artificially, at the convention, no one gets the vote on the early ballot, and the superdelegates come in to accomplish the fix, presumably with help from the press and the DNC and the money as before.

Obviously, these entities fix for Biden. But the probability that the extremely unpopular and badly aging Biden loses to Trump are very high, especially since many of us will feel little doubt that the party has fixed its nomination process again and that this cabal has to be broken or driven from one party at least.

A very natural move would be for Biden to offer Warren the VP slot. Given her willingness to chum up to HClinton, we might assume that she might accept–the reasons that she really should object are similar in each case. This would be a very natural ticket balance for Biden. She would accomplish some whitewash for hsipolicies in general. She would be the only really articulate person on the ticket, since Joe appears to be failing. And she would provide a feminine whitewash for the remains and peripheral details of the Epstein and Podesta-related pedophile scandal that clearly involves many politicians, but that has been simmering and smoldering without really coming to a blaze. Here Biden could be completely innocent, for all I know, but he is among the characters about whom the public finds the story most believable. A faithful and personable female running mate would be perfect, and Warren would balance the ticket better than other options.

Very little control over American politics remains to electoral decisions of any sort. We need to take another tack.

In addition to all of this, some members of the media will say “vote blue, no matter who” without admitting there are some who aren’t really that blue, and at the same time completely ignore Bernie as a candidate. They just roll by Bernie. as if he’s not there.

Thankfully, in spite of the obvious attempt by the DNC and its hench-persons in the MSM to bury him again, Bernie is still doing quite well — roughly tied with, or even ahead of, old wind-sock Joe in some polls.

I for one will NOT “Vote Blue, No Matter Who”.  I wrote in “Bernie & 'Beth” in 2012 and 2016, and will
do so again if a numb-nuts like Bye-Done, Bait-Oh or Buddy-Geek is the DamnocRatic nominee.

I understand the sentiment and even shared it prior to going in depth into the actual differences and distinctions between Sanders and Warren, their policies and perspectives with regards to economics, the mechanisms of public policy, and the role of government in general. The sense I come away with from that is that having Warren as a VP would hamper Sanders from enacting the types of sweeping economic and institutional changes required for the revolution necessary to save my family, our nation, and quite possibly our species. A revolution that Warren’s conservative capitalist foundations reject wholly and completely, which is why the DNC and Democratic Leadership can find some common cause with her that they cannot with Senator Sanders.