“I Think Bernie Needs Space”: Warren Repeats 2016 Strategy In Refusing To Endorse Sanders

In a repeat of her refusal to endorse Bernie Sanders in 2016, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren again refused to do so before the critical Michigan primary after she pulled out. At the time, she said that she needed more time. Now, as liberal supporters have grown angrier at her failure to support Sanders (with many of the same priorities and policies), Warren is saying that she will not endorse because “Bernie needs space” to decide what to do. It now appears that Sanders is done after his losses this week. For Sanders, it is a familiar knife delivered by a familiar hand.

Many Warren staffers joined Sanders critics in objecting to the refusal to endorse Sanders and, when Warren refused to do so, they went ahead and gave their own endorsement. If the shared policies were driving Warren’s campaign, it would seem a no brainer to support him before Michigan. Yet, such an endorsement would not work to Warren’s personal advantage either as a potential running mate to (or cabinet member for) Biden. Indeed, as a future ally in the Senate, such an endorsement could have costs. There is no question that refusing to endorse Sanders was to Warren’s personal benefit but many followers felt betrayed.

Warren spent the critical time before the Michigan primary claiming that she needed more time. She said that she would not rushed.

Given the passage of time, Warren is now saying that she wants to give Sanders more time:”I think Bernie needs space to decide what he wants to do next, and he should be given the space to do that.”

On Thursday’s The View  added that she has moved on to other topics: “Right now I’m focused on what we’re going to do next in this crisis around the coronavirus.” For critics, the statement is another example of Warren being focused on Warren over the movement that she sought to lead.

I admit that, even though I disagree with his policies, I have long admired Sanders’ commitment to his principles including endorsing candidates against the wishes of the establishment. That authenticity is what seems to fuel the passion and commitment of his followers, as I saw at the huge rally before the Michigan primary. At that time, there were various supporters who told me that they were enraged by Warren’s failure to endorse.

The pattern is familiar. In 2016, the expectation was that Warren would endorse Sanders who has supported her in the past. The Democratic establishment however was known to have put considerable pressure on Warren not to oppose Hillary Clinton. To endorse Sanders in 2016 was risking the ire of Clinton, who was widely viewed as the chosen candidate of the Democratic National Committee and the next president. Warren went with the best option for her. She did not endorse anyone until Sanders effectively was eliminated and then endorsed Clinton. That seems to be the same strategy in 2020, but Warren just ran a campaign insisting that she did not care about her politics over principles.

166 thoughts on ““I Think Bernie Needs Space”: Warren Repeats 2016 Strategy In Refusing To Endorse Sanders”

  1. I sense the next time Liawatha is up for reelection she will have challengers from both sides. Coming in 3rd in her home state doesn’t really bode well. This woman really is a dolt.

  2. Ok, from the home page by scrolling one arrives at the coronavirus section. Click on it.

    — David B Benson

  3. Unfortunately worldometer appears to be banned from posting on Jonathan Turley’s free speech blog.

    There is a good page on the coronavirus statistics.

    — David B Benson

  4. Allan, it is “coronavirus” not “Corona virus”. Remember that Corona is a brand of Mexican beer.


    1. Thank you. I am a lousy typist and not really concentrating. Though I know better, I will probably repeat the same error. If we talk about beer I will probably recommend Coronabeer. 🙂

      1. “…not really concentrating. ” Allan, struggling…

        Allan has such an important “job” on the Turley blog. Once again, he’s helping with this crisis, one comment at a time. What exhausting and perilous work.

        Carry on brave boy.

        1. Posting just the same as you Anonymous the Stupid. The only difference is my posts generally make sense and are productive. I keep wondering why you bother to read them.

          1. “I keep wondering why you bother to read them.”

            My guess would be for the entertainment, Allan.

              1. “It’s better than the other entertainment you are involved with.”

                Allan isn’t making any sense, again.

  5. More On Senators Cashing-Out

    This issue is complex.  To his credit Senator Burr is on record as warning a home state civics group about a coming crisis.  And it’s hard to separate good investment strategy from insider knowledge. Anyone on Wall Street has inside knowledge of some kind.  So the legal boundaries fall into gray areas.

    And Donald Trump could be so unfit for duty he honestly meant no harm.  In his own simple way Trump may thought he was preventing a panic by playing down the danger.  The Trump children will argue that long after Donald has passed.  And that defense is possibly valid.

    So I would enjoy Professor Turley’s input on these stock sell-offs.  It’s a fascinating issue. 

    But in terms of appearances this is one of those ‘smoking gun’ conspiracies.  Or so it will play in a million memes.  And that’s all it takes to alter public perceptions.  For that reason the president has to be believed on basic facts.  That’s not Donald Trump.

    Trump’s predicament shows how plain-speaking presidents, improvising on camera, can leave a trail of soundbites that look terrible weeks later.  And that’s how presidents launch a million conspiracies; making statements on camera that don’t jibe with facts.

    1. Trump is not the issue., just as he said he’s lost a ton on this job, but God bless him for doing it

      As for Feinstein. I take her at her word that her husband manages the money. He is a rich guy and Di Fi — sorry but I think she lacks the acumen. Prolly doesnt know a credit from a debit. I would let Di Fi off the hook on this one.

      Burr and some others, I think they abused the public trust, i realize it is technically not insider trading, but the law should be changed so that it is. very unethical!

      1. Feinstein is one of the more capable people the Democratic Party has produced in the last generation. However, she was born into money. Her first husband was a satisfactory earner as far as most women might be concerned, if profligate. He second husband was a good earner, but a man with lucrative skills (a surgeon), not someone who built a business. Her third husband was wealthy and grew wealthier from the real estate business. She’s always been around money, but not the one making the money.

      2. Kurtz, I appreciate your otherwise non-partisan comments, but 2 comments.

        We have no idea about Trump’s finances because he purposely hides them from us and is defended in this by his supporters.

        Feinstein was not able to attend the Jan 24th meeting where Burr and Loeffler were warned of the serious nature of the virus threat.

        “Senators from both parties were briefed about the coronavirus by Centers for Disease Control director Robert Redfield and National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci on Jan. 24. “

        1. i try and not speculate too much on what i dont know. but i know that in general, business executives make big money money managing business not just owning it. if anything the managerial executives make a living out of ripping the ownership off with their massive salaries. and so when they have another full time job, necessarily, they can’t get a salary for something they arent doing. why should this concept not apply to trump? nobody makes the case because it’s a weak case to make, what he says has the right of truth

          burr and loafer, i don’t know what parties they come from, nor do i care., their trades were unethical but probably not illegal. it’s a loophole and a bad one we need to close. hoepfully they will be replaced by their electorates.

          Di Fi, I dislike for many things, but I would want to hang a bogus charge on any politician. usually there is no need! the dogs are usually guilty of so much, there’s no necessity to make stuff up.

    1. Article:

      The Only Treatment for Coronavirus Is Solidarity


      We live in an interwoven, interconnected world where an injury to one is truly an injury to all. We must confront the coronavirus with solidarity and fight for a society where the health of all is more important than profits for a few.


      A pandemic makes the slogan of solidarity literal: an injury to one is an injury to all. That’s why a pandemic also heightens the frantic wish to withdraw oneself from the web of interdependence and ride it out alone.

      The new coronavirus makes vivid the logic of a world that combines a material reality of intense interdependence with moral and political systems that leave people to look out for themselves. Because we are linked — at work, on the bus and subway, at school, at the grocery store, with the Fresh Direct delivery system — we are contagious, and vulnerable. Because we are morally isolated, told to look out for ourselves and our own, we are becoming survivalists house by house, apartment by apartment, stocking enough that’s canned and frozen, grabbing enough cold meds and disinfectant, to cut ties and go out on our own.

      The scramble reveals a class system in which a mark of relative status is the power to withdraw. If you have wealth or a salary from an institution that values you, and enough space at home, you might be able to pull off the essentially absurd trick of isolating yourself for a few months by drawing down the global web of commodities on display at Costco and Trader Joe’s. But for the 50 percent of the country that has no savings and lives paycheck to paycheck, or in small apartments with little food storage, or has to hustle every day to find work, this is simply impossible. People will be out every day, on the subways, at the gas stations, choosing between epidemiological prudence and economic survival, because they have no choice but to make that choice.

      And as long as this is true — as long as many of us are out there every day, mixing it up to get by — there is reason to think very few of us will be safe. Extrapolating from the little we know about the virus, the number of carriers will continue to grow. As long as our moral and political isolation drives us back into the marketplace, our material interdependence makes nearly everyone vulnerable.

      “Wash your hands” is good advice but also a poignant reminder that this is not the sort of problem that personal responsibility can solve. Epidemiology is a political problem. It’s not hard to sketch the steps that would ease our cruel situation: a work stoppage, massive income support (unemployment payments with some universal basic income in the mix), a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures and evictions. Treatment for coronavirus and potentially related symptoms should be free and comprehensive, no questions asked (about immigration status, for instance), so that no one goes untreated because of fear or poverty. This is all, in the most straightforward sense, good for everyone. It is also how people look out for one another’s vulnerability and need when they see one another’s problems as their own.

      Survivalism is so palpably desperate and elite-only that a pandemic also makes clear that we need the state if we are going to survive. Trump’s clumsy cycling through his repertoire — Everything’s fine! It’s foreign! We are taking strong action! — shows once again that he has no real idea of how to use the state, except as a showman’s platform and a bank account for grift. His class of late-capitalist oligarchs are too decadent, too thoroughly the products of their own stupid and selfish ethos, to have any instinct for what to do in a crisis like this one. But sharper minds will have plenty of ideas, many of them bad for many people.

      There are three basic scenarios for this crisis and future, deadlier ones. First is the current US trend, which is more or less privatist, with some public-health involvement in testing and behavior guidelines. The wealthy withdraw, the middle and professional classes self-isolate as much as they can but remain vulnerable, and working and poor people get sick and die.

      Even in our often-cruel society, this is a recipe for political backlash, issuing in the second possibility, disaster nationalism. Coronavirus resembles an accelerated version of the climate crisis in that, by highlighting our vulnerability and interdependence, it gives a political advantage to those who can take care of us — enough of us, anyway, or certain of us. If not in this epidemic, then in the next one, Trump’s “foreign virus” may find a successor in nationalism that takes real material steps to protect “our” people while excluding, shipping out, or otherwise getting rid of the rest. Something like this is probably the default setting of politics in an unstable, threatening world where most state power works on the national level, posing a constant invitation to ethno-nationalism.

      The third direction is solidaristic. An injury to one actually is an injury to all; it doesn’t just sound good to say so. Even national-level responses to global ecological and epidemiological crises are stopgap mitigation. In this world, every country needs every other country to have a green energy system and infrastructure, an economy focused on health and social reproduction rather than precarious racing for the next gig. We need standing armies of green infrastructure workers and nurses more than we need the standing armies we have; and we need everyone to have them. The lesson of the climate crisis, that we can afford public abundance but the effort to have universal private abundance will kill us all, carries over to pandemic: we can afford truly public health, but if everyone is driven to try to stay healthy alone, it won’t work, and trying will kill a lot of us.

      Is it impossible, too much to ask? It’s worth remembering that our alone-together world of individualist ethics and material interdependence didn’t just happen. It takes a vast and intricate infrastructure to keep us all running in one another’s service, and in the ultimate service of return to capital: from highways to credit markets to the global trade regime. The fact that these interwoven systems are tanking financial markets around the world at the prospect that people might need to spend a few months sitting at home rather than hurrying around exchanging money shows how finely calibrated they are to profit, and how totally lacking in resilience to shifts in human need.

      The hands and minds that built up this order are not powerless to make one that puts health first, at every level: of individuals, communities, the land, and the globe. That is a different, deeper resilience, though to get there requires a political fight over the value of life itself, whether we are here to make profits or to help one another live.

      Jedediah Britton-Purdy teaches law at Columbia University. His most recent book is This Land Is Our Land: The Struggle for a New Commonwealth.

  6. Allan, you would be closer to state the illness as a severe cold as some colds are caused by coronaviruses.

    — David B Benson

    1. David, a lot of times these words flu and cold are used interchangeably just to indicate some sort of ‘respiratory’ illness whether upper or lower.

      “some colds are caused by coronaviruses.”

      That is right. Many people have had mild illness due to a Corona virus yet they might call it a “cold” or a “flu”.

  7. The source of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus remains unknown. There are reports that the first people with COVID-19 symptoms were located near a fish market. Do fish harbor coronaviruses?

  8. At least Allan is no longer calling it the “flu.” He’s still engaging in other nonproductive silliness, though.

    1. Anonymous the Stupid, “the flu” is a common answer to what was wrong with the person that didn’t show up for work. I wasn’t designating it as Influenza A, B, C or D or whatever. The flu is a respiratory illness caused by a virus and does mean Influenza virus in particular but many people do not understand the difference between bacterial, fungal and viral respiratory infections so saying its a flu type illness points them in the right direction and if you add the appropriate risk factors they will have a fine understanding of what the CCP Virus is. If I was responding to you I might have kept the response real simple because you are Anonymous the Stupid.

      1. Yep, Allan was calling it “the Corona flu, but he pivots and obfuscates with his run-on answer, above.

        Isn’t this the guy that some call “Allan the Blog-Idiot”?

        1. “calling it “the Corona flu”

          I don’t remember exactly what I said, but at times I like to dumb things down so people like Anonymous the Stupid get the point. I have often seen that some of you guys complain about the length of a person’s comments such as Karen’s very good posts, or the words not commony used from DSS. We have all sorts of people on the blog, some intelligent, some that might be intelligent but not as wide read and then we have others like you, the really stupid.

          1. “…but at times I like to dumb things down… ”


            sure you do, Allan.

            thanks for the truly pathetic “explanation.”

                  1. 4 comments from Anonymous the Stupid without any merit. He is like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz looking for a brain.

                    1. No you didn’t just argue seriously against the Hillbillies did you, Allan???

                      Put Mr. Floptop back in the spank bank and don’t mimic his tendencies of being completely unable to recognize a softball tossed his way, as he did from Peter Alexander’s question yesterday.

                      Don’t do it, man! I implore you!

                    2. “No you didn’t just argue seriously against the Hillbillies did you, Allan???”

                      Anon, do you have prejudice against hillbillies? My comments had to do with Anonymous the Stupid and his lack of a brain. Are you a relative?

                    3. ” I can’t help you anymore”

                      Thank goodness Anon. Your’s is the type of help that kills. It paralels that of Joe Biden who thought it racist to ban Chinese travellers. It is on the level of thinking that Anonymous the Stupid employs. Good riddance to you.

  9. Understanding that a national defense is extant and in process, the only thing anyone in America needs to “think” right now is who is going to litigate against the Chinese with reference to the malicious, derelict and negligent propagation of “Wuhan Flu” in the initial amount of $5 trillion as just compensation.

    1. “the only thing anyone in America needs to “think” right now is who is going to litigate against the Chinese with reference to the malicious, derelict and negligent propagation of “Wuhan Flu””

      George, should we call it the Wuhan Flu? The people of Wuhan were mistreated and killed by the Chinese Communist Party so it has been recommended that this virus be referred to as the CCP Virus since it designates the cause along with the country.

      1. Google the origin of the “Spanish Flu.” It doesn’t appear that Spain was the source of the Spanish Flu and it may have, again, been China. Speculation had it that Spain was war-neutral and the only source of “news” about the outbreak. Apparently, the pandemic was named after Spain for that reason.

        1918 Flu Pandemic That Killed 50 Million Originated in China, Historians Say
        Chinese laborers transported across Canada thought to be source.

        Dan Vergano, National Geographic, January 24, 2014

        The global flu outbreak of 1918 killed 50 million people worldwide, ranking as one of the deadliest epidemics in history.

        For decades, scientists have debated where in the world the pandemic started, variously pinpointing its origins in France, China, the American Midwest, and beyond. Without a clear location, scientists have lacked a complete picture of the conditions that bred the disease and factors that might lead to similar outbreaks in the future.

        The deadly “Spanish flu” claimed more lives than World War I, which ended the same year the pandemic struck. Now, new research is placing the flu’s emergence in a forgotten episode of World War I: the shipment of Chinese laborers across Canada in sealed train cars.

        Historian Mark Humphries of Canada’s Memorial University of Newfoundland says that newly unearthed records confirm that one of the side stories of the war—the mobilization of 96,000 Chinese laborers to work behind the British and French lines on World War I’s Western Front—may have been the source of the pandemic.

        Writing in the January issue of the journal War in History, Humphries acknowledges that his hypothesis awaits confirmation by viral samples from flu victims. Such evidence would tie the disease’s origin to one location.

        But some other historians already find his argument convincing.

        “This is about as close to a smoking gun as a historian is going to get,” says historian James Higgins, who lectures at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and who has researched the 1918 spread of the pandemic in the United States. “These records answer a lot of questions about the pandemic.”

        – National Geographic

        1. There is time for that later. When you are considering litigating don’t play your cards too early. That is what overly emotional people do.

          1. Allan, you didn’t comment on the fact that National Geographic revealed that the “Spanish Flu” – which was assigned to Spain simply because news of the pandemic came from Spain which was neutral with a free press and WWI caused silence from most other nations – actually came from North America which was infected by extremely contagious Chinese laborers who were casually transported across Canada in sealed-door box cars on the railroad.

            If this is true, a century of wanton, malicious dereliction and negligence can be proven agaisnt China.

        2. George, it would be impossible.

          a. the actions of the PRC are sovereign and generally you can’t sue other sovereigns for sovereign activity. sovereign immunity

          b. the actual cause of the virus damages is the virus, not how poorly the CCP handled the initial response.

          Now if it could be proven that it was an accidental escape of a lab made virus from the r4 lab in Wuhan, that would be a different fact scenario, but that is difficult to know and probably impossible to prove. the experts all seem to agree it was emergent from nature, and not the same lab made virus that was developed in the US back in 2015.

          i reject the hypothesis that it was a deliberately engineered bio-weapon. bioweapons are understood to have the likelihood of blowing back on all sides which is precisely why they are not part of the usual national arsenals of weapons.

Leave a Reply