TYT: Elizabeth Warren's Secret Endorsement of Bernie Sanders

[WhoIsNumberNone]

Elizabeth Warren has not officially endorsed either Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton. The timing and content of her recent speech indicate that she would much prefer Bernie. Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

"Elizabeth Warren (remember her?) has so far withheld an endorsement in the Democratic presidential primary, though there’s little doubt where her loyalty lies. After all, it was the decision by the Massachusetts senator to forego a run that compelled her neighbor to the north, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, to pick up her populist critique and carry it into the race against Hillary Clinton. Sanders has since built the message — of hostility toward what he frames as entrenched corporatism and the campaign finance system that sustains it — into a bona fide grassroots movement. Now on the eve of his first test against Clinton, in the Iowa caucuses on Monday, Warren is reemerging. What she’s offering in lieu of an endorsement is a more nuanced argument for Sanders than the one he’s made for himself.

Last week, on the sixth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, Warren took the Senate floor to decry it for allowing dark money to flood back into campaigns. She didn’t mention Sanders by name, but as she concluded, she channeled him: “A new presidential election is upon us,” she said. “Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard has crawled into bed with the billionaires who want to run this country like some private club.””*

Read more here: http://fortune.com/2016/01/30/elizabeth-warren-on-bernie-sanders-and-corporate-criminals/

[onehandle]

1. And in turn, she was endorsed by Elvis, who in turn was endorsed by Bigfoot. nt

[stonecutter357]

2. .

[Peace Patriot]

3. I agree with his analysis of Warren's op-ed that it is pro-Sanders.

I noticed this, too. She addresses some of the anti-Sanders memes--coming from the Clinton campaign and the Corporate punditry--almost point by point.

Why hasn't she endorsed Sanders? She is a very powerful voice for reining in Wall Street and the Banksters, so she is probably being careful about an endorsement cuz, if Clinton does win the nomination and the GE, she wants (and we need her to) have a voice within a Clinton administration.

Also, if Sanders continues to do well--and he has all the momentum, at this point--and it develops into a very tight race, as in Iowa, and possibly a "brokered convention," Elizabeth Warren is a very viable candidate--someone all could agree on--to break a deadlock at the convention. She could end up being our candidate, and an early endorsement of Sanders might kill that possibility and ruin her chance to heal the party split.

I want to add something to her op-ed--something no one is saying--and it is this: President Sanders will without question meet fierce opposition in Congress in his first two years. But what about 2018? If we have a president--a Teddy Roosevelt type, an FDR type--who wields the "bully pulpit" as Sanders surely will, who hammers on these issues for two years, who goes out to the country and rallies support for a better Congress--if he's there for good candidates, if we're there for good candidates--he will get a good Congress.

The corporatists on the Puke side, and the corporatists within our own party, do NOT have the support of the American people on the issues. Once the American people see someone fighting for them, on all of OUR issues, we WILL rally to him, and overturn both the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines (why oh why is no one talking about THIS?!) and the vile Corporate media and the Puke vote suppression tactics, and get ourselves a real Congress! Just give us half a chance--a President who is fighting for us--and we will make it happen.

Sanders has not had the resources nor the visibility to seriously change the face of this very rigged Congress, as a candidate--but as President, it's a very different story. He can not only do much to un-rig the economy, to regulate Wall Street and the banksters, to reform the justice system, and rein in military spending corruption, and more, but also he can launch his New Deal-like initiatives as the proper "center" of political discussion, and pour the resources now at his command--for instance, contributions to the DNC--into energizing a whole new class of Democratic political candidates and getting them elected to Congress. He can (and will!) personally go support them. He will also attract the support of Democrats, both leaders and voters, who have not been happy with their party, but who haven't seen a way to change it, so have gone along with "centrism" or have simply withdrawn from political life; as well as Independents and Greens, and moderate Republicans who have felt abandoned. As President, he can change the political landscape in this country, and I am convinced that that is what he intends.

With President Clinton going in compromising from Day One, and, of course, putting no effort into moving the party and the country to its true "center," Congress will likely remain rigged and with a...what is it?...EIGHT PERCENT approval rating. (Jeez.) She really can't (and probably won't) rally the troops to get a better Congress. Sanders will. That is a key difference.

As for working with Congress AS president, Sanders is a very strong fighter but he is not an antagonizer. He has done very well, advocating for OUR issues, for 40 years, in extremely difficult circumstances (Reagan to Bush coup d'etat, in my opinion), without making personal enemies, and while paying very close attention to legislation and amendments. (He is known as Mr. Amendment.) He has extensive experience at working with difficult Congresses without compromising his core values, which are New Deal values for this new age. So give him just a half-decent Congress, and he will get a lot done, and will continue to get better and better Congresses as his administration matures.