In response to Donald Trump’s statement that “America will never be a socialist country,’’ Elizabeth Warren gave a standing ovation.

While Joe Biden still remains the frontrunner, few people paying attention are taking him seriously. It’s become clear that the 2020 primary will come down to Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren.

And the possibility of Warren winning is deeply worrying.

Warren was not a good person in the 90s, when she made a fortune ruining thousands of lives by acting as a lawyer for big business. She doesn’t talk about that often. To her credit, however, she turned herself around and became one of America’s better senators- unlike opponents Biden or Harris, whose careers are checklists of crimes against humanity.

But “one of America’s better senators” is a very low bar to clear, and Warren barely passes. If she becomes president, expect Obama 2.0- a friendly face in the White House who makes white liberals feel safe while deporting people by the millions, invading other countries, scratching Wall Street’s back, and doing nothing while the planet hurtles towards destruction.

Warren never truly cut her ties with corporate America- she still routinely takes their money, after all. She takes great pains to court the corrupt establishment, assuring them she’ll play ball. She proclaims her support of Medicare for All, student loan forgiveness, fighting climate change, and so on, but a look at her policies reveals her plans refuse to step on corporate toes- and because of that, they are both ineffective and easily defeated. Warren is firmly on the side of corporate America, and that, above all else, makes her an enemy of the people.

Oh, and she’s also an imperialist who has represented Raytheon and defended Israel’s bombing of Palestinean schools and hospitals.

As a presidential candidate, Warren’s gimmick is being the Safe Bernie- a candidate that will echo Bernie’s rhetoric to appease the voter base, but who will never challenge the oligarchs of the DNC in any way that matters (contrary to her “Big Structural Change” motto). Her policies imitate Bernie’s, but are watered down to the point of uselessness.

That the same corporate, liberal media outlets that routinely slander leftists and progressives are overwhelmingly in favor of Warren should be a massive red flag. Warren herself has said she is willing to take money from big corporate donors in the general election, in case there was any question where her loyalties lie.

In a time when capitalism threatens the existence of humanity itself, Warren is, in her own words, a “capitalist to her bones”.

Despite What She Says, Warren is a Friend of Big Money

The people Warren often rails against are perfectly comfortable with her. There’s only one explanation: the things Warren tells voters and the things she tells corporations are very, very different.

Warren’s pledge to not take corporate cash is at best disingenuous (and at worst, an outright lie). She funneled $10 million in corporate cash from her 2018 senate run into her presidential campaign. Not only that, but Warren has made it clear she will be taking more corporate money in the general, should she win.

Warren is perfectly comfortable selling herself to corporate interests. Avoiding big donors in the primary is a completely meaningless gesture if she’s just going to take their money in the general.

What’s the purpose of the pledge, then? Warren herself has admitted she’s going to drop it as soon as it becomes convenient. There’s only one way to read it: it’s a cynical PR move, and nothing more.

(Update: Warren has claimed she won’t attend big money fundraisers in the general, which has been spun as “Warren won’t take big money!” In true Warren fashion, the new pledge is full of enormous loopholes that enable her to keep taking their money. It doesn’t count corporate money raised outside of fundraisers, doesn’t count if her staff does it, and doesn’t count if it’s raised “for the party”)

“I’ll stop taking most bribes from people destroying the planet for profit, but only for one half of an election cycle, and not counting the money I’ve already received.” Such conviction!

Even entering the primary, Warren was already prepared to drop her “pledge”. Her campaign treasurer is Paul Egerman, an arch-lobbyist steeped in corporate dark money. Warren also plans to headline a major DNC fundraiser in October, alongside Nancy Pelosi.

And her campaign has already turned to a big donor to pay for access to the DNC voter database. Their excuse? Warren hadn’t personally facilitated the transaction, therefore it wasn’t a violation of her pledge.

And it’s not as if Warren’s campaigns in the past haven’t been massively funded by corporate cash. Propagandists from mainstream media like to trot out anti-Warren statements from big corporations to make her appear as an enemy of big money- but even the most adamantly pro-corporate candidates (Biden, Trump) have made corporate enemies.

As one might expect, the things Warren tells voters and the things she tells party insiders aren’t exactly the same. While Warren isn’t their first choice, Wall Street is generally comfortable with her. And while Bernie has made enemies of the corrupt democratic elites, Warren cozies up to them.

That includes the anointed queen of the establishment- Hillary Clinton (and apparently her policy chief). Warren has been meeting the Hillary behind the scenes, which speaks poorly for both her electability and her moral character.

Warren herself has called out Clinton in the past, and has said herself the 2016 primary was rigged. But that didn’t stop her from refusing to endorse Sanders- and then endorsed Clinton once he dropped out. Warren went further- she walked back her claim that the primary was rigged, and even said she would’ve accepted a VP offer from Clinton.

Clinton “seriously weighed” Warren as a potential running mate, the report states, and top aide Philippe Reines wrote in a memo to his boss after their meeting: “If a crystal ball said she wouldn’t antagonize you for four years, it’s hard to argue she isn’t the most helpful for the next four months to get you elected.”

Her intentions aren’t hard to guess at- the Clinton machine still holds enormous influence in the DNC, and anyone looking to sell themselves for political gain would do well to seek out HRC. It’s a deal with the devil, and Warren has sold her soul.

AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHH

And she’s cozied up to Obama, too:

Does this count as pandering to Pelosi? Probably not, but it disgusts me enough to warrant a spot in this article.

While Ms. Warren has been careful to avoid directly criticizing Mr. Sanders, her regular references to being a capitalist withstanding, she is also quietly taking steps within the party to make clear that she does not want to create a competing power base should she become president. She was one of the first Democratic candidates to sign a pledge circulated last month by the Association of State Democratic Committees vowing not to create any parallel political or organizing infrastructure that would compete with the national or state Democratic parties. The same pledge, which was shared by a Democratic official, also includes a promise “to share all of my data collected during the presidential campaign with the D.N.C. and with state parties.” The state leaders were trying to ensure that the eventual nominee would turn over his or her fund-raising list and any voter file that was compiled for future races. More broadly, they also wanted to ensure that the nominee’s political organization is housed within the architecture of the party. This was done partly out of concern over Mr. Sanders, who has refused to share his 2016 supporter list with the party. (The senator’s aides are quick to note that he has raised nearly $10 million for Democratic candidates and committees dating to his first presidential bid.)

Bernie put it best:

Warren Has a Plan For That, and it Sucks

Not the Onion.

Warren promises “Big Structural Change”, but her biggest flaw is that she adamantly refuses to touch big structural change. She acknowledges no fundamental fault in the system, and therefore every reform of hers must remain entirely within the realm of neoliberal capitalism, never challenging its core principles.

Predatory capitalists need to be nicer!

Warren’s plan for climate change is atrocious. Firstly, it involves the standard liberal incentives and regulations. It’s effectively a plan to politely ask corporations to stop destroying the planet, and if that doesn’t work, well, she’s all out of ideas.

This difference in perspective came out clearest in Warren’s answer to a question asked by audience member Robert Wood from Brooklyn. Wood asked, “Bernie Sanders has endorsed the idea of the public ownership of utilities, arguing that we can’t adequately solve this crisis without removing the profit motive from the distribution of essential needs like energy. As president, would you be willing to call out capitalism in this way and advocate for the public ownership of our utilities?” Warren looked briefly panicked. “Gosh, you know, I’m not sure that that’s what gets you to the solution,” she said. “I’m perfectly willing to take on giant corporations,” she added — but take on doesn’t mean supplanting them with public alternatives. “If somebody wants to make a profit from building better solar panels and generating better battery storage, I’m not opposed to that. What I’m opposed to is when they do it in a way that hurts everybody else.” It’s clear from this answer that Warren believes that profit-driven corporations are key partners in solving climate change. She just wants them to behave better, and her solution is a series of carrots and sticks — incentives and regulations — that can bring out the best in the private sector. This is the key difference between Sanders and Warren: he’s guided by no such faith. That’s why his plan places the federal government, an entity not motivated by the maximization of private profit, in the drivers’ seat of the effort to save the planet. The corporations got us into this mess, and they won’t get us out of it.

It gets worse, of course.

The US military is the world’s biggest polluter, but Warren wasn’t especially concerned with that when she voted for a massive increase in the military budget in 2017- even bigger than the increase Trump wanted.

In fact, Warren seems more concerned with the dangers climate change poses to the military than she does anything else. She wrote “In short, climate change is real, it is worsening by the day, and it is undermining our military readiness. And instead of meeting this threat head-on, Washington is ignoring it — and making it worse.”

The plan itself, of course, is utterly awful. Warren wants to charge a miniscule fee to any contractor that hasn’t achieved carbon neutrality. Oh, and if they don’t want to do that, it’s fine, the secretary of defense can just toss it out entirely whenever they please:

WAIVER: the Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of this section . . . [if] he determines that market conditions for a product or service make it difficult for the Department to acquire that product or service and the waiver will accelerate the Department’s acquisition of the product or service.

Yep, you read that right. Not only is her plan useless to begin with, she also saw fit to include a passage that allows it to be completely ignored.

Wait, sorry, two passages. She included a second one for good measure.

WAIVER: the Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of this section . . . [if] he determines that meeting these requirements would adversely affect the national security interests of the United States . . .

What the hell, Warren?

It is not difficult to see why the legislation has a waiver that lets the government opt out of Warren’s contracting plan: it is there to protect military “readiness” against the possible costs of the fight against climate change. In her Medium post, Warren repeatedly invokes this imperative of readiness. We are told that climate change “is undermining our military readiness,” that “our military’s top priority is readiness,” and that we need to “improve readiness.” But readiness for what? In a DoD report Warren links to in her post, the Pentagon is characteristically blunt: “Our 2018 National Defense Strategy prioritizes long-term strategic competition with great power competitors by focusing the Department’s efforts and resources to . . . build a more lethal force . . . To achieve these goals, DoD must be able to adapt current and future operations to . . . weather and natural events.” Time and time again, the DCRRA invokes these priorities. “Resiliency,” it explains, means that the US military must be able to respond to climate change “while continuing normal operations.” In section three, the bill pointedly excludes from its “Net Zero Energy” plan all military bases, infrastructure, and vehicles that “support combat operations.” And in section eight, it calls for an annual report with “an assessment of how adapting climate change impacts” the “readiness of the military” to “counter threats posed by Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and violent extremist organizations.”

Warren makes it abundantly clear that she thinks fighting climate change should take a back seat to expanding American military strength. With the sword of climate change dangling over our heads, Warren’s top concern is that the military might not be effective enough at killing people in other countries.

Her Medicare for All “plan” is deliberately vague. While she trumpets her support for M4A, she carefully tiptoes around anything of substance to keep rotten health insurance executives on her side- and one thing she has been consistent about is that private insurance will still be allowed to exist and be profitable under her plans. Like her climate change plan, the details of her medicare plan we do know involve regulations and incentives for private insurers to ensure they don’t act too unethically while they’re letting people die for profit.

The webpage — which reiterates Warren’s support for Medicare for All without referencing a specific bill — is frustratingly sparse on detail. There’s nothing about eliminating premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Nothing about expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, hearing, and mental care. Nothing about prohibiting private insurers from competing with the public Medicare for All program — and indeed, no reference to “single payer” health care at all.

It seems like every time Warren mentions M4A, her plans have become worse. She’s stated that “Medicare for all has a lot of different paths.” All roads lead to M4A, according to Warren. It should come as no surprise that the health insurance industry is comfortable with her plans- a definitive sign that whatever Warren’s proposing, it’s not M4A.

She’s also been a consistent ally of the medical device industry.

She doesn’t even have a plan for dodging questions.

Having “access to” health care is not the same as having health care.

When asked about the issue of mass incarceration and the 1994 crime bill, Warren repeatedly dodged the question and said absolutely nothing of substance:

Watch this if you feel like being angry.

If you don’t want to watch that, I’ll summarize: nothing. Her plan is nothing.

She’s also against rent control (at least on a national level), though she offers up another nothing plan.

Her stance on unions:

Most of her other plans are at best mediocre. Warren, like most democrats, compromises before her plans are even challenged. A sampling:

On student loans:

Democrats talk about resources, pointing out that we’re no longer investing in our kids the way we once did. Republicans talk about risk and incentives — arguing that students take on debt without fully understanding the consequences, and that colleges get access to federal dollars pretty much no matter the quality or cost of the education that they provide,” the Senator said in her remarks. “Here’s the truth — both sides are right… Our college crisis needs a one-two punch -more resources and better incentives to keep costs low.

On teachers’ unions:

Elizabeth Warren has said that she will nominate a public school teacher to be her secretary of education. But she chose former Teach for America corps member Joshua Delaney to head her education policy. Delaney only completed one year in the classroom before switching to “education reform” endeavors. We know that in the reform arena, TFA supports charter schools, merit pay, and weakening teachers’ unions.

Regarding education, she’s also spoken favorably of charter schools and standardized testing (and in the past, she was much worse). Like many of her positions, she’s been all over the place in the past couple years. The Network for Public Education Action has given her mediocre scores (Sanders, on the other hand, received nearly perfect scores).

Also, this.

She also came up with the bizarre notion of “economic patriotism”, which is very on-brand for Warren. This earned her the praise of Tucker Carlson:

THIS IS NOT A GOOD SIGN

Echoing Kamala Harris, Warren also opposed surgery for a transgender prison inmate:

Jill Stein sums up Warren:

Military & Foreign Policy

In 2015, a spokesman for Raytheon said the company “has a positive relationship with Sen. Warren, and we interact with her and her staff regularly.” To say you have a “positive relationship” with Raytheon is like saying you have a positive relationship with war crimes (which is also true of Warren). There’s a special layer in hell reserved specifically for Raytheon executives.

It’s not good- but Warren’s relationship with evil incarnate is just the tip of the iceberg.

As mentioned above, Warren voted for a massive increase in the military budget in 2017 that was even bigger than the increase Trump wanted. When asked about it, she avoided the question.

👏 MORE 👏 WOMEN 👏 IMPERIALISTS 👏

It’s the least you can ask of someone to not support war crimes, but that’s a bridge too far for most democrats, including Warren.

In 2014 came Operation Protective Edge, an attack from Israel that killed over 2,100 Palestinians. In the midst of it, Warren voted to send $225 million to Israel, apparently believing that Israel didn’t have enough money to bomb civilians with. In defending her vote, she stated that Israel has the right to “defend itself” by attacking hospitals and schools. “if Hamas has put rocket launchers next to them”. “Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law,’’ she said. “And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.” Her comments echoed the far-right rhetoric of Netanyahu- and in fact, no evidence of Hamas putting rocket launchers next to schools or hospitals was ever discovered.

Just one month before, Warren co-sponsored the Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014. And Operation Protective Edge wasn’t a wake-up call for Warren- in 2016, she signed a letter calling for Barack Obama to “not to back any international measures that would pressure Israel to withdraw from occupied territories”. She’s become publicly critical of Israel since 2017 or so, but that didn’t stop her from cosponsoring a bill to send an additional $30 billion to Israel in 2018, and it seems she only criticizes Israel when it’s a politically safe move. She also consistently refuses to use the term “Palestine”.

Yikes.

In March 2019, Warren, along with Sanders, O’Rourke, Harris, and Gillibrand, refused to attend an AIPAC conference- but Warren simply sent her staff instead of visiting personally. (“Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) appeared to be the only elected candidate to consciously snub the conference.”)

https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1184655833206005761

As the US gears up to invade Venezuela for entirely evil reasons, Warren has gone back and forth on her support. In February 2019, she admitted she supports sanctions on Venezuela: “I support economic sanctions but now we’re gonna start, we’ve got to turn the dial some here we have to offer humanitarian help at the same time.” It was a departure from her own statements a month earlier, when she claimed to be against sanctions and military intervention. She at first declined to co-sponsor the Prohibiting Unauthorized Military Action in Venezuela Resolution of 2019, but eventually caved and signed on to it.

Warren also took issue with the Korean peace talks because she was worried Trump wasn’t being aggressive enough.

Her position on Yemen has generally been positive, but still outshined by Sanders.

While advocates for ending the war appreciate Warren’s votes, they don’t credit her with spearheading the effort. “She is not a leader,” Jehan Hakim, who chairs the Yemeni Alliance Committee, tells In These Times. “Chris Murphy, Sanders, Ro Khanna and Mark Pocan — those were the people leading.”

With a couple exceptions, Warren has been a consistent friend to the military industrial complex, voting for budget increases and against budget cuts, especially in her home state. She only changed her tune in 2019, when she voted against the massive military budget- only two years after demanding a bigger military budget increase than Trump had.

And she has employed highly questionable advisors:

Perhaps most telling about what a future Warren administration would look like is the advisers Warren has surrounded herself with. In February 2017, she announced the hiring of Sasha Baker to be her national security advisor. Until 2017, Baker was the deputy chief of staff to the Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. Carter oversaw the U.S. war on ISIS, as well as U.S. military buildup in the Asia-Pacific to hedge against China. Another key adviser is Ganesh Sitaraman, a professor at Vanderbilt and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank aligned with the leadership of the Democratic Party that has been widely criticized for its hawkish policies, including calls for confrontation with Iran. There are numerous other warning signs — and unanswered questions. In 2013, Warren supported John Brennan’s CIA nomination. He was a major advocate of the U.S. targeted-killing program. (Bernie did not. Gillibrand did.) Warren did vote against legislation that would authorize President Obama to arm and train Syrian rebels in September 2014. “I do not want America to be dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, and it is time for those nations in the region that are most immediately affected by the rise of ISIS to step up and play a leading role in this fight.” Beyond that, Warren has revealed little about her positions on Syria.

She also cited sociopath war criminal Madeleine Albright as her main foreign policy advisor during her senate run, and Albright donated to her.

AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHH

Lying About Her Past

It’s well known that Warren was a republican until 1996, when she was 47 years old. Well, people can change, and there’s no doubt that Warren did. She grew out of her far-right economic views and shifted to the opposite side of the American political spectrum: the center-right.

Warren is only left-leaning by American standards.

Warren doesn’t bring up her past often. But when she does, she has a tendency to outright lie about it. When asked about her conservative history, Warren responded “I was just never very political.” According to those who knew her, however, that was entirely dishonest- she was extremely politically active and mainly interested in economic conservatism.

In 1993, Warren was profiled by the Philadelphia Inquirer, which noted she sounded “like an entrepreneur” in arguing the government had too much regulation. “Regulations have stretched and grown beyond all imagination,” she told the Inquirer. “And regulations are a tax, as real as reaching into your pocket and taking 33 percent for the IRS. “The biggest part of government — regulation — is not even taught in law school,” she added. Warren occasionally appeared at conferences and on panels for conservative groups such as the Manhattan Institute and a 1991 panel at The Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention on “Socialization of Risk: Bankruptcy Law and Financial Institutions.” KFile obtained copies of Warren’s speeches from the groups. In her speech to the Federalist Society, a judicial organization that boasts membership of several conservative Supreme Court justices, Warren argued in favor of the federal bankruptcy system because it kept losses in the private sector and away from being a “socialized loss.” Warren predicted that “retired employees’ expectations” would be “the next big” cause of companies’ bankruptcies. “We bought labor peace in the 70s and 80s by promising those employees that they were going to have retirements like you wouldn’t believe,” Warren said. “Well, you know what? They shouldn’t have believed because what’s happened is now it’s time to pay the piper.”

She’s also awful at explaining her right-wing past:

In the 90s, Dow Chemical faced thousands of lawsuits from women who had become sick from the company’s breast implants. Elizabeth Warren, then a lawyer and expert in corporate bankruptcies, was brought in by Dow Chemical to advise them on how to limit payouts to their victims as much as they possibly could- and that’s exactly what she did.

But after launching her presidential campaign, Warren claimed she worked for Dow Chemical as “a consultant to ensure adequate compensation for women who claimed injury”. Why would a corporation, let alone Dow Chemical, hire a consultant to ensure they paid more? They wouldn’t- because it’s horseshit. An investigation (from the Washington Post, of all places) revealed Warren had in fact worked on behalf of Dow Chemical against the victims.

Dow Chemical wasn’t the only one, or even the worst. Warren’s private legal practice is a deep rabbit hole. She made anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars representing large corporations and ruining the lives of thousands of people.

In 2002, she listed some of the companies she’d represented:

In addition, I am working with Caplin & Drysdale as a consultant in Chapter 11 proceedings involving the Babcock & Wilcox Company, Pittsburgh Coming Corporation, Owens Coming Corporation, Armstrong World Industries, Inc., W.R. Grace & Company, G-1 Holdings, Inc., United States Gypsum Corporation, Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. and North American Refractories Company.

There were many more, but she’s managed to keep much of her history quiet. One might speculate that Warren is hiding many more dark secrets from the time she ran her legal practice.

Warren ran her legal practice out of her Cambridge office, which may have been a violation of Massachusetts law. She lied about being fired because of her pregnancy, and she lied about endorsing Marijuana legalization in Massachusetts (she had not). It seems the only things from her past we can safely say are true are the bad things.

And then, of course, is Warren’s best-known lie:

The Native American Debacle

Warren spent the majority of her career claiming Native American heritage, until Trump goaded her into taking a DNA test that revealed she was, in fact, caucasian. She gave a disastrous non-apology that left many Native advocates unsatisfied.

Of course, the Senator has predicated her career on a second false identity: that of a warrior for the disenfranchised. Her animosity toward one of the most systematically oppressed demographics in the nation’s history emphatically underscores that she is not only an ethnic impostor but an ideological fraud as well. Black and Latinx voters in pivotal primary states should ask themselves how they can trust a politician who spent years determinedly avoiding the minority community to which she contends she belongs.

To be clear: Warren most likely knew that she might not have Native American heritage. She repeatedly claimed she was Cherokee for political gain, and consistently refused to provide evidence.

In the “Pow Wow Chow” cookbook, her husband also claimed to be Cherokee. This was the only time he had ever identified himself as such:

It got worse:

What isn’t made up is the story of how Warren’s great-grandfather John H. Crawford shot a Muscogee man. Warren claims Crawford was Cherokee. He was not.

Also, in 2016, Warren was nowhere to be found on the the Dakota Access Pipeline issue- until it was politically expedient for her to do so.

When the opportunity called for Warren to stand up for Native Americans, joining in the fight to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline, Warren was nowhere to be found. But as soon as the Army Corps of Engineers announced it would not grant the final easement for the pipeline’s construction, instead initiating an environmental impact study to explore alternate routes, Senator Elizabeth Warren immediately swooped in to exploit the Dakota Access Pipeline for political points now the political risk in doing so has been substantially mitigated, and to provide herself with plausible deniability that this was her stance all along.

Who Likes Elizabeth Warren?

Yes, that is an actual quote.

Warren’s strategy of signaling to party insiders that (unlike Sanders) she’s willing to play ball seems to have paid off well for her. The democratic establishment media who slandered Bernie and coronated Hillary in 2016 are increasingly coalescing around Warren, despite Warren portraying herself as ideologically very similar to Bernie.

As mentioned above, she has the backing of Silicon Valley, despite her promises to break up big tech.

“I think people are begrudgingly coming around to admit that she’s the best answer because Bernie [Sanders] is crazy. The guy they thought they were going to get in Joe Biden is looking like an old man, and I think they are looking around and wondering who else is there,” said a California based money manager who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “She seems pretty sharp. She knows the drill in Washington. She seems on it and has a plan.”

She’s in on in, all right. The voters are not.

Third Way, the corporate democrat think-tank widely despised by the left, has warmed up to Warren:

“I don’t agree with ‘Medicare for All.’ I don’t agree with free college, … [But] her consumer protection policies are great. I think she has a good infrastructure plan,” said self-described moderate Democrat Reagan Gray, a health care policy and political consultant attending the Third Way conference. “I absolutely know and believe people are taking a second look at her. She now seems to be getting herself away from the Bernie Sanders grouping. People are taking a second look at her and saying, ‘Hmm. Some of her policies are good. Maybe she isn’t like Bernie.’”

And so has the similarly loathed Center for American Progress:

The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos’s personal propaganda outlet and probably the most rabidly anti-Sanders outlet there is, also warmed up to Warren:

It’s not as though [Warren is] content to thunder against the evildoers like an Old Testament prophet. That’s much more his mode. Sanders sees [his campaign] as a revolutionary mass movement to upset the established order. While Senator Warren is obviously very dissatisfied with the status quo, she describes her campaign in very different terms, and terms that I think are less scary.

Warren still faces her share of scrutiny from wealthy executives and propagandists who insist that anyone left of Ayn Rand is a hardline communist. But it’s clear that the corporate democrat establishment has found their candidate in Warren.

Nothing sketchy about this at all.

And of course, there’s Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and a whole host of other ghouls, as mentioned above. If these people are on your side, you’re on the wrong side.

Then there’s the Working Families Party fiasco, in which the WFP leadership discarded the votes of its own members to endorse Warren and then still had the gall to claim the decision was arrived at democratically. Specifically, they counted their leadership vote for 50% of the results and their membership vote for the other 50%, and then refused to release the results.

It’s not difficult to see what happened here.

This was of course used to push yet another tiring “Bernie Bro” narrative.

Yes, that’s right: a number of messages that can be counted on one hand, from anonymous sources. Even if we give corporate propagandists the benefit of the doubt and assume these are all real messages from real Sanders supporters, it’s nowhere near the bile spewed by centrist liberals.

One wonders why Sanders is personally responsible for the behavior of a few no-name twitter users, but Warren owes no one an apology for supporting the bombing of Palestinian schools and hospitals (or anything else).

This article could go on for a hundred pages about the media bias towards Warren, but I think you get the idea.

Warren only got the dog after her presidential campaign was already underway.

Then there’s the issue of demographics. Bernie supporters are far more likely to be young, low-income, non-white, and live in urban areas, whereas Warren’s are more likely to be older, high-income, white suburbanites. In other words, most Bernie voters are overwhelmingly working class, whereas Warren voters are mostly affluent white liberals.

Warren is the champion of the privileged, the second coming of Hillary. Her biggest supporters are privileged neoliberals who see American politics as political theater; to these people, the job of the president is to be America’s Top Celebrity. They are hypocrites who condemn Trump for ICE concentration camps but don’t spare a thought to the fact that Obama ran the very same camps. The status quo works for them and their biggest fear is that it might shift. They fear Sanders, not Trump.

Warren voters are the white moderates Martin Luther King Jr. described in 1963:

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Also, Warren’s national organizing director Rich McDaniel was fired from the campaign because of “inappropriate behavior”.

She Can’t Beat Trump

Warren’s Native American blunder isn’t often brought up by liberal-leaning media (for obvious reasons). If she wins the primary, that will change- if there’s one thing Trump is actually competent about, it’s taking his opponents’ flaws and mistakes and hammering them. Warren’s past will be dredged up at every conceivable opportunity.

This will be every day up until she loses the general.

She’s terrible at handling anything the far-right throws at her:

Anyone with functioning eyes can see that Tomi Lahren is not, in fact, seeing that correctly. Warren still overreacted by creating and publicizing something called the “fact squad”, in an embarrassing move, like a child loudly exclaiming that he isn’t the one who farted. It’s not exactly a notable incident in and of itself, but it portends how she’ll fare against Trump.

Not that any of this is a problem for party insiders. It’s no secret that the republicans who make up the Democratic party elite would rather lose to Trump than elect Sanders.

I’m not convinced.

And Other Things

While Bernie has been blasted by the media for his alleged labor problem, there’s been barely a whiff of Warren’s actual labor problem:

Two early converts to Warren described the process for entry into her campaign’s volunteer fellowship program as deceptive and at times exploitative in interviews with The Daily Beast. They said they were pushed toward unpaid positions over paid ones, misled over the availability of financial assistance, and asked to sign highly restrictive nondisclosure agreements that worker advocacy groups concede are irregular. Both applicants verified their accounts with emails and text messages from the Warren campaign. The complaints from those offered unpaid fellowships could raise new questions for Warren as she seeks to put her lengthy history of advocating for consumer and worker rights at the center of her rising campaign. “What was sold to me was very different than it actually was,” said Jonathan Nendze, a rising senior at Seton Hall University who was offered a volunteer fellowship position on Warren’s campaign. “It was kind of a great scam of getting people to show up and work in the capacity of volunteer, but to function as a paid intern in the amount of work they’re doing,” he said.

Bafflingly, she was one of 6 democrats to vote to confirm Ben Carson.

This included Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who explained her action by saying that Carson “made good, detailed promises” that serve as a “toehold on accountability,” which Warren committed herself to pursue personally. “If Dr. Carson doesn’t follow through on his commitments,” she wrote, “I will be the very first person he hears from ― loudly and clearly and frequently.”

She crossed the picket line at the Palms Casino Resort:

Her campaign paid people to attend her rally:

She praised Ronald Reagan:

Last and least, the selfies, which is more irritating than anything. Warren knows her white, affluent, liberal audience well:

Conclusion

Elizabeth Warren is an opportunist, a corporate puppet, and a bad liar. As of writing, the left is waking up to her, and more of her dirt is being dug up by the day.

I do believe she had a genuine political transformation from her republican years, but it wasn’t half as dramatic as she’d have you believe. She is still, fundamentally, an economic conservative. Warren’s politics only allow her to go so far. She’s reached that limit, but everything this country needs lies beyond.

Many on the left have some respect for Warren, seeing her as the progressive who is good but not quite as good as Bernie. Perhaps she could be considered an ally in the Senate- but as president, she would not be. Warren is running on the corporate ticket, and she has effectively gained their full backing by advertising herself to them as the anti-Bernie. She takes corporate money, she does corporate dirty work, and she sees to it that nothing in government threatens the oligarchy that is corporate America. When Warren says she’s a capitalist to her bones, she means it.

It’s unlikely Warren will ever be president. If she wins the primary, her chances of beating Trump are about as real as her Cherokee heritage. Our best plan to prevent her from losing to Trump?

Ensure she loses to Bernie Sanders instead.