theintercept--2020-03-07--Trump Is a Disaster for Abortion Rights — but Joe Biden Can’t Be Trusted to Fight for Choice

is currently deliberating a case that threatens to further retrench already imperiled abortion rights in the U.S. Louisiana is fighting to uphold a law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to also have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital .
Under the bogus guise of patient safety concerns — abortion is one of the safest common medical procedures — the law would make ever scarcer access to legal abortions in the state and , if sanctioned by the Supreme Court , the country .
Despite the fact that the court struck down a nearly identical Texas law in 2016 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neil Gorsuch — both President Donald Trump appointments — on today ’ s conservative bench could see the established legal precedent rejected in favor of anti-abortion ideology .
In restrictive states like Mississippi , medical abortions are already de facto inaccessible ; now the reactionary dream of legally entrenching that inaccessibility — overturning Roe v. Wade — is closer to becoming a reality .
Abortion rights will likely not survive another term under Trump .
Even under a Democratic president , the current makeup of the Supreme Court will continue to pose a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrain in which voters who care about reproductive rights need to consider the Democratic presidential nominees .
They must look for someone who offers an unwavering commitment to not only protect the right to abortion , but to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy a readily available option for all .
And that is what ’ s so concerning about the frontrunner , former Vice President Joe Biden , and his record on abortion rights .
He is worse than inconsistent — and his rise should concern anyone who believes that reproductive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice .
Democratic primary debate , Biden aligned himself with the other candidates on stage by calling for the protection of abortion rights .
Alongside Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass.
, the former vice president said that if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe , he would put forward legislation to uphold the law ’ s protections .
“ If they ruled it to be unconstitutional , I will send to the United States Congress , and it will pass I believe , a bill that legislates Roe v. Wade adjusted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a later Supreme Court case that prohibited undue burdens on abortion rights .
“ It ’ s a woman ’ s right to do that .
Period.
” That “ period , ” however , has for much of Biden ’ s career been a comma — a qualified and compromised support of abortion ’ s legality at best , and a commitment to limit funding for abortions at worse .
Up until last summer , Biden supported the Hyde Amendment , which prohibits federal funding for abortion under programs like Medicaid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care to poor people .
One might generously frame Biden ’ s changing stance on abortion as a righteous journey , navigating his Catholic faith with a willingness to learn and change in the interest of women ’ s rights .
As vice president , Biden actively worked to undermine reproductive rights by trying to cut mandated coverage for contraception from the Affordable Care Act .
His reversal on the Hyde Amendment last year , meanwhile , smacked of electoral expediency : On June 5 , Biden ’ s campaign said that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received immediate censure from activists , other lawmakers , and his opponents for the Democratic nomination .
The very next night , at a Democratic National Committee gala in Atlanta , Biden said he no longer supported the ban on federal funding for abortions .
Biden claimed that recent Republican anti-abortion efforts around the country prompted his change of position .
But widespread abortion restriction laws have hacked away at abortion access for years — including throughout President Barack Obama ’ s tenure — and Biden ’ s support of the Hyde Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone ’ s ZIP code , ” Biden later said , explaining his about-face .
He had , however , managed to support such legislation for nearly a decade after the Center for Constitutional Rights reported in 2010 that , since the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976 , more than a million women have been unable to afford abortions and had to carry unwanted pregnancies to term .
Of his many years supporting the dangerous and discriminatory law , Biden said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position.
” course , only one among a number of crucial issues on which Biden has a poor record , riddled with discriminatory positions ; he worked with segregationists and helped bolster racist mass incarceration .
Contrary to claims in his current campaign ads , he has argued for cuts to Social Security throughout much of his career .
And , as I wrote last year , Biden ’ s pathetic excuse for an apology to Anita Hill was decades too late , insufficient , and transparently timed around the launch of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he will not address the power structures that enable patriarchal sexual abuse to prevail .
Biden ’ s supporters , meanwhile , highlight his record against sexual violence to parry allegations of misogynist behavior .
He championed the 1994 Violence Against Women Act , which introduced crucial provisions for domestic violence victims , like rape crisis centers , the National Domestic Violence Hotline , and battered women ’ s shelters .
Biden should be commended for this .
It should not be forgotten , however , that the Violence Against Women Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill , which he helped draft ; support for the provisions on violence against women went a long way toward gaining liberal backing for the broader bill .
In other words , even Biden ’ s proudest legacy when it comes to addressing sexual violence must be considered in the context of his efforts to bolster the violent , racist criminal justice system .
The former vice president ’ s very recent shift to support abortion access should be measured against his long history of compromise , and indeed complicity , with Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compromise as moral value in and of itself should not be trusted to fight hard for an issue on which he ’ s shown unacceptably wavering commitments .
The risk to too many people ’ s lives , health , and well-being — particularly the risk to poor women of color — is too high to allow the decimation of abortion access to proceed .
He would make an insufficient bulwark against the conservative anti-abortion tides .
What delineates robust from weak support for abortion rights is an understanding that the issue of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and racial equality , health care access , and how society treats gestational labor .
A promise to protect Roe is insufficient to defend abortion rights , which require abortion access to be meaningful .
That sort of commitment seems unlikely to come from the man who , in 1973 , said that the Supreme Court had gone “ too far ” in its Roe v. Wade ruling .

Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The Supreme Court is currently deliberating a case that threatens to further retrench already imperiled abortion rights in the U.S. Louisiana is fighting to uphold a law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to also have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Under the bogus guise of patient safety concerns — abortion is one of the safest common medical procedures — the law would make ever scarcer access to legal abortions in the state and, if sanctioned by the Supreme Court, the country.
Despite the fact that the court struck down a nearly identical Texas law in 2016, the presence of misogynist Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch — both President Donald Trump appointments — on today’s conservative bench could see the established legal precedent rejected in favor of anti-abortion ideology. In restrictive states like Mississippi, medical abortions are already de facto inaccessible; now the reactionary dream of legally entrenching that inaccessibility — overturning Roe v. Wade — is closer to becoming a reality.
Joe Biden’s rise should concern anyone who believes that reproductive rights and choice are essential to social justice.
Abortion rights will likely not survive another term under Trump. Even under a Democratic president, the current makeup of the Supreme Court will continue to pose a grave threat. That is the bleak terrain in which voters who care about reproductive rights need to consider the Democratic presidential nominees. They must look for someone who offers an unwavering commitment to not only protect the right to abortion, but to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy a readily available option for all.
And that is what’s so concerning about the frontrunner, former Vice President Joe Biden, and his record on abortion rights. He is worse than inconsistent — and his rise should concern anyone who believes that reproductive rights and choice are essential to social justice.
During a February Democratic primary debate, Biden aligned himself with the other candidates on stage by calling for the protection of abortion rights. Alongside Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., the former vice president said that if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe, he would put forward legislation to uphold the law’s protections.
“If they ruled it to be unconstitutional, I will send to the United States Congress, and it will pass I believe, a bill that legislates Roe v. Wade adjusted by Casey,” Biden said, referring to a later Supreme Court case that prohibited undue burdens on abortion rights. “It’s a woman’s right to do that. Period.”
That “period,” however, has for much of Biden’s career been a comma — a qualified and compromised support of abortion’s legality at best, and a commitment to limit funding for abortions at worse. Up until last summer, Biden supported the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortion under programs like Medicaid, enforcing a hideous denial of affordable care to poor people.
One might generously frame Biden’s changing stance on abortion as a righteous journey, navigating his Catholic faith with a willingness to learn and change in the interest of women’s rights. As vice president, Biden actively worked to undermine reproductive rights by trying to cut mandated coverage for contraception from the Affordable Care Act.
His reversal on the Hyde Amendment last year, meanwhile, smacked of electoral expediency: On June 5, Biden’s campaign said that he continued to support the law. He received immediate censure from activists, other lawmakers, and his opponents for the Democratic nomination. The very next night, at a Democratic National Committee gala in Atlanta, Biden said he no longer supported the ban on federal funding for abortions.
Biden claimed that recent Republican anti-abortion efforts around the country prompted his change of position. But widespread abortion restriction laws have hacked away at abortion access for years — including throughout President Barack Obama’s tenure — and Biden’s support of the Hyde Amendment did not shift.
“I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s ZIP code,” Biden later said, explaining his about-face. He had, however, managed to support such legislation for nearly a decade after the Center for Constitutional Rights reported in 2010 that, since the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976, more than a million women have been unable to afford abortions and had to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Of his many years supporting the dangerous and discriminatory law, Biden said he made “no apologies for the last position.”
Abortion is, of course, only one among a number of crucial issues on which Biden has a poor record, riddled with discriminatory positions; he worked with segregationists and helped bolster racist mass incarceration. Contrary to claims in his current campaign ads, he has argued for cuts to Social Security throughout much of his career. And, as I wrote last year, Biden’s pathetic excuse for an apology to Anita Hill was decades too late, insufficient, and transparently timed around the launch of his presidential campaign; it was further evidence that he will not address the power structures that enable patriarchal sexual abuse to prevail.
Biden’s supporters, meanwhile, highlight his record against sexual violence to parry allegations of misogynist behavior. He championed the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, which introduced crucial provisions for domestic violence victims, like rape crisis centers, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and battered women’s shelters.
Biden should be commended for this. It should not be forgotten, however, that the Violence Against Women Act was tucked inside the pernicious 1994 crime bill, which he helped draft; support for the provisions on violence against women went a long way toward gaining liberal backing for the broader bill. In other words, even Biden’s proudest legacy when it comes to addressing sexual violence must be considered in the context of his efforts to bolster the violent, racist criminal justice system.
The former vice president’s very recent shift to support abortion access should be measured against his long history of compromise, and indeed complicity, with Republican agendas. A politician who treats such compromise as moral value in and of itself should not be trusted to fight hard for an issue on which he’s shown unacceptably wavering commitments. The risk to too many people’s lives, health, and well-being — particularly the risk to poor women of color — is too high to allow the decimation of abortion access to proceed. He would make an insufficient bulwark against the conservative anti-abortion tides.
What delineates robust from weak support for abortion rights is an understanding that the issue of abortion intersects with structural questions of economic and racial equality, health care access, and how society treats gestational labor. A promise to protect Roe is insufficient to defend abortion rights, which require abortion access to be meaningful. That sort of commitment seems unlikely to come from the man who, in 1973, said that the Supreme Court had gone “too far” in its Roe v. Wade ruling.


theintercept--2020-03-08--As in Afghanistan, Ending Our Endless Wars Will Not Be Painless

of a quiet , dusty street in an industrial suburb outside the Jordanian capital of Amman sits the house of one of the most infamous radical Islamic clerics in the world .
Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi has spent a lifetime promoting a militant religious ideology that has helped inspire armed movements around the world .
A former carpet salesman , his activism has brought him years in prison and made him an internationally notorious figure .
Now aged 60 , the lanky Palestinian-Jordanian was described in a 2006 West Point Combating Terrorism Center study as “ the key contemporary ideologue in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most influential living jihadi theorist.
” In the summer of 2017 , I found myself sitting on one of the flower-printed couches in Maqdisi ’ s living room .
At that time the militant group Islamic State was still expanding its so-called caliphate with a campaign of horrific violence that had set the entire region on edge .
Maqdisi opposed the group .
But he had also played an indirect role in its creation .
During a prison stretch years ago , Maqdisi had been the mentor to a former street thug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That man would one day become known worldwide as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi , the bloodthirsty founder of Al Qaeda in Iraq .
The two men later fell out over Al Qaeda ’ s massacres of Shia civilians during the Iraq War .
Zarqawi himself was killed in a 2006 U.S. airstrike on his rural safehouse .
But the terrorist group that he created survived , mutating over time into the abomination that now called itself the Islamic State .
Maqdisi had agreed to meet with me and a British colleague for a story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizen named Shawki Omar .
Judging by his home , Maqdisi seemed to live up to his ascetic and scholarly public image .
The brown , sand-colored stone walls of his living room were empty , save for some wooden bookcases stuffed with leather-bound volumes on history and religion .
A few pieces of his prison artwork were perched on the shelves , including an ornate wooden sailboat that he had built out of popsicle sticks .
A fuzzy , green rug lay across the ground between the couches .
After a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came in to receive us .
Tall and lanky with a scraggly , wolf-like brown beard , he was dressed in a long blue thobe and skullcap .
At least in terms of his personal demeanor , he was less fearsome than his fiery public statements and reputation suggested .
Like any other leader — whether of a basketball team , a right-wing militia , or a religious extremist movement — Maqdisi is conventionally charismatic .
In conversation he is easygoing and even funny , climbing onto the floor at one point to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kicked the door of his cell to gain the attention of his guards while in solitary confinement .
I mention these details not to soften any judgement of the man and his extremist worldview , which I find genuinely chilling , but to explain how ordinary people could come under the influence of such a person .
Maqdisi had agreed to answer our questions about his jailed relative , whose American wife and children also lived in Amman .
But there were some other things I wanted to ask him about as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the entire world seemed to be coming apart with nerves because of terrorist attacks carried out by militant Islamists .
It was true that Maqdisi was opposed to the Islamic State , not least because of their attacks against other militant groups like Al Qaeda .
But he still remained part of a broader extremist movement that was effectively at war with the governments of the region , and by extension their supporters in the West .
This was a long conflict and the battle with the Islamic State seemed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when I asked him what it would take to end this war that he dropped the easygoing manner he had held for most of our conversation .
“ This movement will not end because people are still looking for solutions to the problems of the dictatorial regimes and the conflict with Israel , ” he said .
His voice had turned steady and serious , as though he was reading the text of a communique that he had issued many times before .
“ Leftist , socialist , and Muslim Brotherhood groups have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems .
But the youth are still looking for new models to create change.
” Maqdisi was a revolutionary and believed that he had found an ideology that could not be defeated by force of arms .
The problem with the United States , he said , was that it was still fixated on the idea that if it simply killed all its enemies its own problems would go away .
This was a strategy that would never result in victory but would guarantee a war that never ended .
“ They believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fighting will just stop , ” Maqdisi continued .
His tone and manner had become distant , but he held his eye contact , I suspect to gauge my reaction to his words .
“ But nothing will stop as long as the issues that drive people to join this movement still exist .
Even if you terminate one jihadist group , another one will rise in its place.
” of that meeting with Maqdisi years ago while considering a piece of news that many people , including myself , had once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at war in Afghanistan , the United States had signed a peace agreement with the Afghan Taliban .
Last week Donald Trump reportedly spoke on the phone with the Taliban ’ s leadership to seal the deal , the first time an American president had communicated directly with the group .
On social media a photo even emerged of Mike Pompeo clasping hands with a senior Taliban negotiator .
Nearly two decades after the September 11 attacks , a war-weary public in the United States has finally begun demanding a conclusion to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the George W. Bush administration .
Outside of the most extremist corners of the D.C. blob , there seems to be a broad consensus that the wars should end .
The question of how to actually accomplish that is a thornier one .
In some cases , the U.S. has attempted to withdraw from places like Iraq , only to be sucked back in by the carnage that leaving a vacuum created .
The Trump administration ’ s agreement with the Afghan Taliban is in some sense an unsavory one .
It does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including other extremist factions and a corrupt Afghan central government that has been propped up with U.S. support .
The Taliban is also not a noble resistance group .
It is a brutal fundamentalist movement with the blood of many innocent Afghans on its hands .
Negotiating with them is a hard pill to swallow for Americans , whose foreign policy mission theoretically includes spreading liberal values abroad .
But if we are serious about ending endless war , making bitter compromises with our enemies will be a necessary component of that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Taliban might even be a model .
Islamists across the region like Maqdisi long ago took note of how successful the United States had been at crushing secular nationalist and leftist movements in their countries .
As a result they ’ ve girded themselves for much more suffering and a much longer fight .
” We are not liberals like Allende and Mossadegh , whom the C.I.A .
can snuff out , ” Iran ’ s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei once said about the clerical-led Islamic Republic he leads .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to consider that he might be right .
There are two options then for American foreign policy going forward .
The U.S. can keep waging wars that inflict suffering on entire societies without changing their politics for the better .
Or we could negotiate dignified and strategic withdrawals that preserve America ’ s clear national security concerns in the Middle East : the security of global energy supplies and the prevention of terrorist attacks that target American interests .
The raging civil wars in the greater Middle East may take generations to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ancient nor inevitable .
At some point , local actors will arrive at a stable new equilibrium .
For the time being American involvement is making things worse while exhausting our own limited resources .
The easiest path for the U.S. would be to stop involving itself in the wars of the region , while fostering trade ties , encouraging diplomatic resolutions to conflict and speaking out in favor of human rights .
There is no reason to prop up hated dictators , nor to try and depose them and create dangerous vacuums @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces and reinvest those resources in health and infrastructure spending for the American people .
It can also help spread liberal values by being the best example of them at home — something that gets harder to do as war naturally erodes our culture and breeds racism and authoritarianism .
Leaving the Middle East may indeed mean more violence , rather than less , in the short-term .
It may also mean that organizations like the Afghan Taliban wind up holding power in their own countries , rather than the liberals that Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious about ending endless war , these are the trade-offs , sometimes painful ones , that have to be taken into consideration .
living room , the sounds of the call to prayer from a nearby mosque periodically wafted in from the windows , rising above the din of the traffic outside .
Our meeting at his home was in part due to a lucky overlap of interests .
Maqdisi had been issuing statements online denouncing the Islamic State on religious grounds for their excesses in Iraq and Syria .
Local supporters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amman had been threatening to kill him in retaliation .
His house had recently been set up with some security measures in response to these threats .
The Jordanian intelligence services appeared to be glad to let Maqdisi and some other local radicals opposed to Islamic State live freely and fight it out with the group .
That was as far as their sympathies with him went .
An unreformed extremist , at heart Maqdisi was no friend of the Jordanian government or any of the autocracies of the region .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wars in the Middle East today between secular dictatorships and Islamist movements , liberals and conservatives , impoverished peripheries and wealthy metropoles .
Before we left , I asked Maqdisi what he thought about the bombing and shooting attacks then wreaking havoc on Western cities .
His response , coming from a man who has few sympathies for the West , emphasized to me the extent to which the U.S. has gotten itself involved in conflicts that are primarily local .
Maqdisi was against the attacks .
Like almost everyone else his concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as long as the U.S. continues pointlessly acting as an enforcer for the wealthy Gulf monarchies and Israel , both of which boast powerful lobbies that steer U.S. foreign policy for their own purposes , it will remain trapped in wars with men like him , both secular and religious , that do not come closer to ending no matter how many people are killed .
Standing down from these conflicts will be a bitter medicine .
I personally wouldn ’ t relish making such a difficult decision .
But if we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the region and its people to solve their political disputes on their own , as we are doing in Afghanistan , will necessarily play some part in that .
It might in fact be the only way for the U.S. to ever get out of these conflicts .
“ The Western authorities choose to support dictators in this region , people like Sisi in Egypt , ” Maqdisi told me before I left , referring to President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi , the brutal Egyptian strongman .
“ Even parties like the Muslim Brotherhood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by America that in the long-term they would not uphold the peace treaty with Israel .
But I say to ISIS : Why are you causing these problems in Europe and America ?
You can fight the near enemy in Iraq and Syria , so why are you attacking these places ?
” Maqdisi ’ s family was part of the great wave of Palestinian refugees created as a result of the founding of the state of Israel .
Spending some time with him in the bleak suburb built upon scrub desert that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I got a sense of why war seemed endless for this region .
So many people have been born into situations that seem utterly devoid of hope .
For them , there is no question of simply walking away : This is their life .
Whatever Americans ultimately choose to do with their wars , they should count themselves lucky that they at least have the option to step back from conflicts that are so painful and intractable .
Those who are truly trapped in them live on promising ground for extremists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young men that he influences .
“ I tell Al Qaeda that these attacks will achieve the opposite of what you want , ” Maqdisi went on , explaining his opposition to attacks in Western countries , while emphasizing that the West was still no friend .
“ According to our belief , Islam says that you must attack the enemy that is close , not the far enemy .
When I tell them this , they respond by saying , ‘ OK , but the close enemy is taking support from the @ @ @ @ @

At the end of a quiet, dusty street in an industrial suburb outside the Jordanian capital of Amman sits the house of one of the most infamous radical Islamic clerics in the world. Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi has spent a lifetime promoting a militant religious ideology that has helped inspire armed movements around the world. A former carpet salesman, his activism has brought him years in prison and made him an internationally notorious figure. Now aged 60, the lanky Palestinian-Jordanian was described in a 2006 West Point Combating Terrorism Center study as “the key contemporary ideologue in the jihadi intellectual universe” and “the most influential living jihadi theorist.”
In the summer of 2017, I found myself sitting on one of the flower-printed couches in Maqdisi’s living room. At that time the militant group Islamic State was still expanding its so-called caliphate with a campaign of horrific violence that had set the entire region on edge. Maqdisi opposed the group. But he had also played an indirect role in its creation. During a prison stretch years ago, Maqdisi had been the mentor to a former street thug who was locked up with him. That man would one day become known worldwide as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the bloodthirsty founder of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The two men later fell out over Al Qaeda’s massacres of Shia civilians during the Iraq War. Zarqawi himself was killed in a 2006 U.S. airstrike on his rural safehouse. But the terrorist group that he created survived, mutating over time into the abomination that now called itself the Islamic State.
Maqdisi had agreed to meet with me and a British colleague for a story about his imprisoned brother-in-law, an American citizen named Shawki Omar. Judging by his home, Maqdisi seemed to live up to his ascetic and scholarly public image. The brown, sand-colored stone walls of his living room were empty, save for some wooden bookcases stuffed with leather-bound volumes on history and religion. A few pieces of his prison artwork were perched on the shelves, including an ornate wooden sailboat that he had built out of popsicle sticks. A fuzzy, green rug lay across the ground between the couches.
Photo: Murtaza Hussain/The Intercept
After a few somewhat tense minutes of waiting, Maqdisi came in to receive us. Tall and lanky with a scraggly, wolf-like brown beard, he was dressed in a long blue thobe and skullcap. At least in terms of his personal demeanor, he was less fearsome than his fiery public statements and reputation suggested. Like any other leader — whether of a basketball team, a right-wing militia, or a religious extremist movement — Maqdisi is conventionally charismatic. In conversation he is easygoing and even funny, climbing onto the floor at one point to demonstrate for us how his brother-in-law had kicked the door of his cell to gain the attention of his guards while in solitary confinement. I mention these details not to soften any judgement of the man and his extremist worldview, which I find genuinely chilling, but to explain how ordinary people could come under the influence of such a person.
Maqdisi had agreed to answer our questions about his jailed relative, whose American wife and children also lived in Amman. But there were some other things I wanted to ask him about as well. At the time of our meeting, the entire world seemed to be coming apart with nerves because of terrorist attacks carried out by militant Islamists. It was true that Maqdisi was opposed to the Islamic State, not least because of their attacks against other militant groups like Al Qaeda. But he still remained part of a broader extremist movement that was effectively at war with the governments of the region, and by extension their supporters in the West.
“Nothing will stop as long as the issues that drive people to join this movement still exist. Even if you terminate one jihadist group, another one will rise in its place.”
This was a long conflict and the battle with the Islamic State seemed to be only the latest chapter. It was when I asked him what it would take to end this war that he dropped the easygoing manner he had held for most of our conversation.
“This movement will not end because people are still looking for solutions to the problems of the dictatorial regimes and the conflict with Israel,” he said. His voice had turned steady and serious, as though he was reading the text of a communique that he had issued many times before. “Leftist, socialist, and Muslim Brotherhood groups have all tried and failed to address these problems. But the youth are still looking for new models to create change.”
Maqdisi was a revolutionary and believed that he had found an ideology that could not be defeated by force of arms. The problem with the United States, he said, was that it was still fixated on the idea that if it simply killed all its enemies its own problems would go away. This was a strategy that would never result in victory but would guarantee a war that never ended.
“They believe that if they kill all the leaders the fighting will just stop,” Maqdisi continued. His tone and manner had become distant, but he held his eye contact, I suspect to gauge my reaction to his words. “But nothing will stop as long as the issues that drive people to join this movement still exist. Even if you terminate one jihadist group, another one will rise in its place.”
I was reminded of that meeting with Maqdisi years ago while considering a piece of news that many people, including myself, had once considered impossible. After almost 19 years at war in Afghanistan, the United States had signed a peace agreement with the Afghan Taliban. Last week Donald Trump reportedly spoke on the phone with the Taliban’s leadership to seal the deal, the first time an American president had communicated directly with the group. On social media a photo even emerged of Mike Pompeo clasping hands with a senior Taliban negotiator.
Nearly two decades after the September 11 attacks, a war-weary public in the United States has finally begun demanding a conclusion to the “endless wars” that began under the George W. Bush administration. Outside of the most extremist corners of the D.C. blob, there seems to be a broad consensus that the wars should end. The question of how to actually accomplish that is a thornier one. In some cases, the U.S. has attempted to withdraw from places like Iraq, only to be sucked back in by the carnage that leaving a vacuum created.
The Trump administration’s agreement with the Afghan Taliban is in some sense an unsavory one. It does little to settle differences among Afghans, including other extremist factions and a corrupt Afghan central government that has been propped up with U.S. support. The Taliban is also not a noble resistance group. It is a brutal fundamentalist movement with the blood of many innocent Afghans on its hands. Negotiating with them is a hard pill to swallow for Americans, whose foreign policy mission theoretically includes spreading liberal values abroad. But if we are serious about ending endless war, making bitter compromises with our enemies will be a necessary component of that. In that sense then, the agreement with the Taliban might even be a model.
Islamists across the region like Maqdisi long ago took note of how successful the United States had been at crushing secular nationalist and leftist movements in their countries. As a result they’ve girded themselves for much more suffering and a much longer fight. ”We are not liberals like Allende and Mossadegh, whom the C.I.A. can snuff out,” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei once said about the clerical-led Islamic Republic he leads. After four decades, there’s reason to consider that he might be right.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, greets attendees in Doha, Qatar, ahead of a signing ceremony for a peace agreement between the United States and the Afghan Taliban on Feb. 29, 2020. Photo: Fatih Aktas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
There are two options then for American foreign policy going forward. The U.S. can keep waging wars that inflict suffering on entire societies without changing their politics for the better. Or we could negotiate dignified and strategic withdrawals that preserve America’s clear national security concerns in the Middle East: the security of global energy supplies and the prevention of terrorist attacks that target American interests.
The raging civil wars in the greater Middle East may take generations to sort out. But they are neither ancient nor inevitable. At some point, local actors will arrive at a stable new equilibrium. For the time being American involvement is making things worse while exhausting our own limited resources.
The easiest path for the U.S. would be to stop involving itself in the wars of the region, while fostering trade ties, encouraging diplomatic resolutions to conflict and speaking out in favor of human rights. There is no reason to prop up hated dictators, nor to try and depose them and create dangerous vacuums. The U.S. can draw down its forces and reinvest those resources in health and infrastructure spending for the American people. It can also help spread liberal values by being the best example of them at home — something that gets harder to do as war naturally erodes our culture and breeds racism and authoritarianism.
Leaving the Middle East may indeed mean more violence, rather than less, in the short-term. It may also mean that organizations like the Afghan Taliban wind up holding power in their own countries, rather than the liberals that Americans would prefer. But if one is serious about ending endless war, these are the trade-offs, sometimes painful ones, that have to be taken into consideration.
In Maqdisi’s ground-floor living room, the sounds of the call to prayer from a nearby mosque periodically wafted in from the windows, rising above the din of the traffic outside. Our meeting at his home was in part due to a lucky overlap of interests. Maqdisi had been issuing statements online denouncing the Islamic State on religious grounds for their excesses in Iraq and Syria. Local supporters of the group in the rough suburbs of Amman had been threatening to kill him in retaliation. His house had recently been set up with some security measures in response to these threats.
The Jordanian intelligence services appeared to be glad to let Maqdisi and some other local radicals opposed to Islamic State live freely and fight it out with the group. That was as far as their sympathies with him went. An unreformed extremist, at heart Maqdisi was no friend of the Jordanian government or any of the autocracies of the region. There are others like him, waging the many wars in the Middle East today between secular dictatorships and Islamist movements, liberals and conservatives, impoverished peripheries and wealthy metropoles.
If we are serious about ending endless war, leaving the region and the people to solve their political disputes on their own will necessarily play some part in that.
Before we left, I asked Maqdisi what he thought about the bombing and shooting attacks then wreaking havoc on Western cities. His response, coming from a man who has few sympathies for the West, emphasized to me the extent to which the U.S. has gotten itself involved in conflicts that are primarily local. Maqdisi was against the attacks. Like almost everyone else his concerns ultimately remain close to home. But as long as the U.S. continues pointlessly acting as an enforcer for the wealthy Gulf monarchies and Israel, both of which boast powerful lobbies that steer U.S. foreign policy for their own purposes, it will remain trapped in wars with men like him, both secular and religious, that do not come closer to ending no matter how many people are killed.
Standing down from these conflicts will be a bitter medicine. I personally wouldn’t relish making such a difficult decision. But if we are serious about ending endless war, leaving the region and its people to solve their political disputes on their own, as we are doing in Afghanistan, will necessarily play some part in that. It might in fact be the only way for the U.S. to ever get out of these conflicts.
“The Western authorities choose to support dictators in this region, people like Sisi in Egypt,” Maqdisi told me before I left, referring to President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the brutal Egyptian strongman. “Even parties like the Muslim Brotherhood were liquidated simply because it was believed by America that in the long-term they would not uphold the peace treaty with Israel. But I say to ISIS: Why are you causing these problems in Europe and America? You can fight the near enemy in Iraq and Syria, so why are you attacking these places?”
Maqdisi’s family was part of the great wave of Palestinian refugees created as a result of the founding of the state of Israel. Spending some time with him in the bleak suburb built upon scrub desert that he and many other refugees now inhabited, I got a sense of why war seemed endless for this region. So many people have been born into situations that seem utterly devoid of hope. For them, there is no question of simply walking away: This is their life.
Whatever Americans ultimately choose to do with their wars, they should count themselves lucky that they at least have the option to step back from conflicts that are so painful and intractable. Those who are truly trapped in them live on promising ground for extremists, whether ideologues like Maqdisi or the young men that he influences.
“I tell Al Qaeda that these attacks will achieve the opposite of what you want,” Maqdisi went on, explaining his opposition to attacks in Western countries, while emphasizing that the West was still no friend. “According to our belief, Islam says that you must attack the enemy that is close, not the far enemy. When I tell them this, they respond by saying, ‘OK, but the close enemy is taking support from the far enemy.’”


theintercept--2020-03-08--Rainbow Coalition Comes Full Circle as Jesse Jackson Endorses Bernie Sanders

special place in the memory of Jesse Jackson and the supporters of his insurgent 1988 presidential campaign .
It was Jackson ’ s Nevada , the moment that the party establishment realized this campaign it had long written off might just seize the nomination .
At a rally in Michigan on Sunday , Jackson will endorse Sanders ahead of a do-or-die primary for the Vermont senator .
The Michigan contest in 1988 fell on March 27 .
After more than three dozen primaries and caucuses , a crowded presidential field had been winnowed down to three serious contenders : Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frontrunner ; Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt ; and the Rev .
Jackson , a former close aide to Martin Luther King Jr. , and the public bearer of the torch of the civil rights movement .
Joe Biden , then a senator from Delaware , had dropped out of the race following a plagiarism scandal and dismal polling numbers .
Given Gephardt ’ s hard-hat , working-class brand , he badly needed a win in Michigan .
He threw everything he had left into the state .
Dukakis , too , wanted Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond the liberal confines of Harvard Square , and that he could win back those Reagan Democrats whose defection had cost Jimmy Carter reelection .
Jackson spent that election day touring Detroit , hitting black churches and five different housing projects .
The New York Times ’ legendary political reporter , R.W .
Apple , was on hand for the last minute push .
Jackson , Apple observed in his election night dispatch , “ had drawn surprisingly large crowds of both blacks and whites in the last few days , ” adding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support of Michael Dukakis — Detroit Mayor Coleman Young was backing Dukakis — Jackson won some Detroit neighborhoods by 15 or 20 to one .
“ But the surprise was the Chicago clergyman ’ s powerful showing in predominantly white cities like Lansing , Flint , Kalamazoo and Battle Creek , several of which he carried.
” Indeed , Jackson did more than get out the black vote .
Progressive whites in the state also rallied hard to his cause .
( Dean Baker , now a prominent progressive economist , was district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) The energy of the moment comes through in the Times dispatch .
“ So dramatically did [ Jackson ] seize the public imagination that he was able to counter successfully the notion that Mr. Dukakis was the Democrat with the best chance of nomination , ” the Times wrote .
Jackson , after 37 primaries and caucuses , was now effectively tied with Dukakis in the delegate count — a stunning moment in American politics that has gone down the memory hole .
The victory generated two polar opposite responses in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both of which would have profound implications for the future of the party .
In Burlington , the city ’ s independent mayor , an outspoken supporter of Jackson , had to decide if he would engage directly with the Democratic Party in order to help Jackson win .
After the Michigan victory , Bernie Sanders went all in , calling a local press conference and announcing that he would be participating in the April Democratic caucus to back Jackson .
“ I am the only non-Democrat , non-Republican , independent progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
OK , it is awkward , I freely admit , it is awkward for me to walk into a Democratic Party caucus , believe me , it is awkward .
I am not a Democrat .
Period , ” he said .
But he said the stakes were too high , and the opportunity too great , to stand aside on principle .
Jackson , he argued , could remake the Democratic Party in an image of social justice .
“ So while in fact , he may end up losing some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes , I think there is a real chance that he could do what [ Walter ] Mondale couldn ’ t do in a million years .
That is to bring millions and millions of poor people and working people into the political arena who in the past never participated.
” In Washington , though , the reaction was pandemonium .
Just as party leaders melted down publicly after Sanders ’ s win in the Nevada caucuses , they did so after Jackson ’ s triumph in Michigan .
Talk in the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panic , with David Espo of the Associated Press reporting that the establishment feared a general-election blowout if Jackson was the nominee .
Plans were being drawn up , he reported , to draft New York Governor Mario Cuomo to challenge Jackson at the convention if Dukakis couldn ’ t stop the reverend .
E.J .
Dionne , then reporting for the New York Times , captured the sense of dread .
White Democratic leaders who do not support Mr. Jackson admitted they were in a quandary , wondering how to confront the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be racist and without alienating the large core of activists , including many white liberals , that he has attracted… .
Around Washington , the words used by leading white Democrats to describe their party ’ s situation included crisis , disarray , disaster , consternation , mess , and wacky .
“ You ’ ve never heard a sense of panic sweep the party as it has in the last few days , ” said David Garth , an adviser to Senator Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee .
Mr. Garth predicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the reality of his becoming President seeps in , may be a much bigger constituency than there is out there right now.
” Jackson , the Democratic political class argued , was simply unelectable , so the party should go with a winner like Dukakis .
Rep. Barney Frank ’ s sister , Ann Lewis , was working for the Jackson campaign , but Frank was backing his home state governor .
He explained to Dionne that there were two reasons Jackson couldn ’ t win .
“ One , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t mean the whole country ’ s prejudiced .
It means that if there ’ s an irreducible 15 or 20 percent prejudice against a particular group , you ’ re giving away an awful lot , ” Frank said .
“ Two , he ’ s still to the left of the country , especially on foreign policy.
” Jackson ’ s opponents had argued that his proximity to the nomination would paradoxically push some white Democrats away from him .
It ’ s all fine and good to vote for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message in 1988 — indeed , it was an anti-racist badge of honor — just not if he actually might win .
The party establishment pulled the fire alarm .
I asked Jackson , in an interview for my recent book We ’ ve Got People , what kind of pressure he felt after his Michigan win .
“ The pressure was not on me , ” he said .
“ It was the so-called Reagan Democrats who began sewing discord and spreading lies.
” At the April Democratic caucus in Vermont , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The interloper ’ s speech did not go over well with every Democrat .
As he headed back to his seat , a woman in the audience slapped him across the face , he later recounted in his 1997 book , “ Outsider in the House.
” “ Bernie represents direction not complexion .
He stood up for me in ’ 88 and we won Vermont — the whitest state in the country , ” Jackson recently recalled to Jeremy Scahill .
On the back of the progressive coalition Sanders had organized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucuses 46 to 45 percent .
Outside of Vermont , it didn ’ t go as well .
Jackson had been polling ahead in the next state on the calendar , Wisconsin , but the party consolidation behind Dukakis , fueled by the panic , flipped the momentum , and Dukakis took the state .
Over the next month , Dukakis would win Pennsylvania , New York , Ohio and Indiana , and while Jackson continued picking off a state here and some delegates there , the nomination contest was effectively over .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wisdom failed the party elite , and Dukakis was crushed by the unpopular George H.W .
Bush .
Jackson ’ s endorsement comes in the wake of Elizabeth Warren ’ s departure from the race .
“ I will not go against Bernie , but I ’ ve not made a decision to endorse anybody , ” Jackson said in a February episode of Intercepted .
“ And when we talk , I share with him observations .
Same with Warren , share observations .
I ’ m not endorsing either one at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on who he would not be supporting .
“ I think the idea that somehow Biden has largely inherited the black vote in South Carolina is not sound judgment , ” he said .
“ We were saying no to Clarence Thomas , he said , yes , to Clarence Thomas .
We were saying no to the Crime Bill .
He said yes to the Crime Bill .
No to the Iraq War .
He said yes to the Iraq war .
He ’ s on a different side of history .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there but he might as well own up to his side of history.
” Jackson said that Biden had taken on the aura of Obama , though that misunderstood the role Biden had played on the Obama ’ s ticket .
“ Joe Biden is seen as connected to Barack .
He was put on the ticket to balance the ticket not to enhance it .
Barack was against the Iraq war .
He was for the Iraq war .
Barack was against the Crime Bill .
He was for the Crime Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden let Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court as a monument to his leadership in that committee .
So his proximity to Barack gives the impression he is active in Civil Rights is clearer than it is , ” Jackson said .
“ Biden was Barack ’ s right-wing .
With Barack out , there ’ s nothing left but the right-wing.
” Biden isn ’ t offering a vision that meets the moment , Jackson said .
“ His message does not address the pain of our people .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have affordable healthcare .
I ’ m not sure what moderate , ‘ I ’ m a moderate ’ means to us .
In fact , it means very little to us , ” he said .
Just as Biden isn ’ t moderate , Jackson argued , Sanders isn ’ t on the left .
“ What Sanders represents is not the left-wing , ” he said .
“ It ’ s the moral center .
Healthcare for everybody is moral .
Education even for the poor without student @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Middle East policy where you recognize Israel and Palestine is the moral center.
” Ryan Grim is the author of the book We ’ ve Got People : From Jesse Jackson to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , the End of Big Money and the Rise of a Movement

Michigan holds a special place in the memory of Jesse Jackson and the supporters of his insurgent 1988 presidential campaign. It was Jackson’s Nevada, the moment that the party establishment realized this campaign it had long written off might just seize the nomination.
At a rally in Michigan on Sunday, Jackson will endorse Sanders ahead of a do-or-die primary for the Vermont senator.
Jackson’s Michigan contest in 1988 fell on March 27. After more than three dozen primaries and caucuses, a crowded presidential field had been winnowed down to three serious contenders: Michael Dukakis, the Massachusetts governor and presumed frontrunner; Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt; and Jackson, a former close aide to Martin Luther King Jr. and the public bearer of the civil rights movement’s torch.
Joe Biden, then a senator from Delaware, had dropped out of the race following a plagiarism scandal and dismal polling numbers.
Given Gephardt’s hard-hat, working-class brand, he badly needed a win in Michigan. He threw everything he had left into the state. Dukakis, too, wanted Michigan — to show that his appeal extended beyond the liberal confines of Harvard Square, and that he could win back those Reagan Democrats whose defection had cost Jimmy Carter reelection.
Jackson spent that election day touring Detroit, hitting black churches and five different housing projects. The New York Times’ legendary political reporter, R.W. Apple, was on hand for the last minute push. Jackson, Apple observed in his election night dispatch, “had drawn surprisingly large crowds of both blacks and whites in the last few days,” adding that despite the black establishment’s support of Michael Dukakis — Detroit Mayor Coleman Young was backing Dukakis — Jackson won some Detroit neighborhoods by 15 or 20 to one. “But the surprise was the Chicago clergyman’s powerful showing in predominantly white cities like Lansing, Flint, Kalamazoo and Battle Creek, several of which he carried.”
Indeed, Jackson did more than get out the black vote. Progressive white voters in the state also rallied hard to his cause. (Dean Baker, now a prominent progressive economist, was district director for Jackson in Ann Arbor.)
The energy of the moment comes through in the Times dispatch. “So dramatically did [Jackson] seize the public imagination that he was able to counter successfully the notion that Mr. Dukakis was the Democrat with the best chance of nomination,” the Times wrote.
Jackson, after 37 primaries and caucuses, was now effectively tied with Dukakis in the delegate count — a stunning moment in American politics that has gone down the memory hole.
The victory generated two polar opposite responses in Washington, D.C., and Burlington, Vermont, both of which would have profound implications for the future of the party.
In Burlington, the city’s independent mayor, an outspoken supporter of Jackson, had to decide if he would engage directly with the Democratic Party in order to help Jackson win. After the Michigan victory, Bernie Sanders went all in, calling a local press conference and announcing that he would be participating in the April Democratic caucus to back Jackson. “I am the only non-Democrat, non-Republican, independent progressive mayor in the United States of America. OK, it is awkward, I freely admit, it is awkward for me to walk into a Democratic Party caucus, believe me, it is awkward. I am not a Democrat. Period,” he said.
But he said the stakes were too high, and the opportunity too great, to stand aside on principle. Jackson, he argued, could remake the Democratic Party in an image of social justice. “So while in fact, he may end up losing some conservative white votes, some racist white votes, I think there is a real chance that he could do what [Walter] Mondale couldn’t do in a million years. That is to bring millions and millions of poor people and working people into the political arena who in the past never participated.”
'Pick up your sling shot, pick up your rock, declare our time has come, a new day has begun!’ — Rev. Jesse Jackson's iconic ‘David and Goliath’ speech from 1984 is just as relevant today pic.twitter.com/uCbW2W5UFy — NowThis (@nowthisnews) February 6, 2020
In Washington, though, the reaction was pandemonium. Just as party leaders melted down publicly after Sanders’s win in the Nevada caucuses, they did so after Jackson’s triumph in Michigan. Talk in the top echelons of the Democratic Party turned to panic, with David Espo of the Associated Press reporting that the establishment feared a general election blowout if Jackson was the nominee. Plans were being drawn up, he reported, to draft New York Gov. Mario Cuomo to challenge Jackson at the convention if Dukakis couldn’t stop the reverend.
E.J. Dionne, then reporting for the New York Times, captured the sense of dread.
White Democratic leaders who do not support Mr. Jackson admitted they were in a quandary, wondering how to confront the growing movement toward Mr. Jackson without appearing to be racist and without alienating the large core of activists, including many white liberals, that he has attracted…. Around Washington, the words used by leading white Democrats to describe their party’s situation included crisis, disarray, disaster, consternation, mess, and wacky. “You’ve never heard a sense of panic sweep the party as it has in the last few days,” said David Garth, an adviser to Senator Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee. Mr. Garth predicted that ‘”the anti-Jackson constituency, when the reality of his becoming President seeps in, may be a much bigger constituency than there is out there right now.”
Jackson, the Democratic political class argued, was simply unelectable, so the party should go with a winner like Dukakis. Rep. Barney Frank’s sister, Ann Lewis, was working for the Jackson campaign, but Frank was backing his home state governor. He explained to Dionne that there were two reasons Jackson couldn’t win. “One, there is unfortunately still racism in the country. … That doesn’t mean the whole country’s prejudiced. It means that if there’s an irreducible 15 or 20 percent prejudice against a particular group, you’re giving away an awful lot,” Frank said. “Two, he’s still to the left of the country, especially on foreign policy.”
Jackson’s opponents had argued that his proximity to the nomination would paradoxically push some white Democrats away from him. It’s all fine and good to vote for the charismatic black guy with the unifying message in 1988 — indeed, it was an anti-racist badge of honor — just not if he actually might win. The party establishment pulled the fire alarm. I asked Jackson, in an interview for my recent book, “We’ve Got People,” what kind of pressure he felt after his Michigan win. “The pressure was not on me,” he said. “It was the so-called Reagan Democrats who began sewing discord and spreading lies.”
At the April Democratic caucus in Vermont, Sanders spoke on Jackson’s behalf. The interloper’s speech did not go over well with every Democrat. As he headed back to his seat, a woman in the audience slapped him across the face, he later recounted in his 1997 book, “Outsider in the House.”
“Bernie represents direction not complexion. He stood up for me in ’88, and we won Vermont — the whitest state in the country,” Jackson recently recalled to Jeremy Scahill. On the back of the progressive coalition Sanders had organized in Vermont, Jackson won the Vermont caucuses 46 to 45 percent.
Outside of Vermont, it didn’t go as well. Jackson had been polling ahead in the next state on the calendar, Wisconsin, but the party consolidation behind Dukakis, fueled by the panic, flipped the momentum, and Dukakis took the state.
Over the next month, Dukakis would win Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and Indiana, and while Jackson continued picking off a state here and some delegates there, the nomination contest was effectively over. As is often the case, political wisdom failed the party elite, and Dukakis was crushed by the unpopular George H.W. Bush.
Jackson’s endorsement comes in the wake of Elizabeth Warren’s departure from the race. “I will not go against Bernie, but I’ve not made a decision to endorse anybody,” Jackson said in a February episode of Intercepted. “And when we talk, I share with him observations. Same with Warren, share observations. I’m not endorsing either one at this point.”
But Jackson was clear on who he would not be supporting. “I think the idea that somehow Biden has largely inherited the black vote in South Carolina is not sound judgment,” he said. “We were saying no to Clarence Thomas; he said yes to Clarence Thomas. We were saying no to the crime bill. He said yes to the crime bill. No to the Iraq War. He said yes to the Iraq War. He’s on a different side of history. It’s his right to be there, but he might as well own up to his side of history.”
Jackson said that Biden had taken on the aura of Obama, though that misunderstood the role Biden had played on the Obama’s ticket. “Joe Biden is seen as connected to Barack. He was put on the ticket to balance the ticket not to enhance it. Barack was against the Iraq War. He was for the Iraq War. Barack was against the crime bill. He was for the crime bill. Barack was supporting Anita Hill, and Biden let Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court as a monument to his leadership in that committee. So his proximity to Barack gives the impression he is active in civil rights is clearer than it is,” Jackson said. “Biden was Barack’s right wing. With Barack out, there’s nothing left but the right wing.”
Biden isn’t offering a vision that meets the moment, Jackson said. “His message does not address the pain of our people. I’m not sure what moderate means if people don’t have affordable health care. I’m not sure what moderate, ‘I’m a moderate’ means to us. In fact, it means very little to us,” he said.
Just as Biden isn’t moderate, Jackson argued, Sanders isn’t on the left. “What Sanders represents is not the left wing,” he said. “It’s the moral center. Health care for everybody is moral. Education even for the poor without student loan debt is the moral center. Middle East policy where you recognize Israel and Palestine is the moral center.”
Ryan Grim is the author of the book “We’ve Got People: From Jesse Jackson to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the End of Big Money and the Rise of a Movement.”


theintercept--2020-03-09--Democrats and Their Media Allies Impugned Biden’s Cognitive Fitness. Now They Feign Outrage.

in Democratic Party politics to periodically express revulsion about the bigoted political attacks wielded for years against former President Barack Obama : images designed to emphasize his African roots , false claims he was Muslim , the campaign of de-legitimacy based in the racist allegation that he was born in Kenya .
But that mandated Party denunciation often obscures the undeniable fact that — while Republicans seized on and drove them — all of those attacks also emanated from within the Party , particularly from the 2008 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign , which employed them to try to sink Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February , 2008 , Clinton campaign officials widely circulated a photo of Obama meeting with tribal elders while dressed in Somali garb on a trip to rural Kenya , an act which Obama ’ s campaign chief David Plouffe angrily denounced as “ the most shameful , offensive fear-mongering we ’ ve seen from either party in this election.
” In December , 2007 , the Clinton campaign — weeks before the Iowa caucus — was forced to “ request ” one of its volunteer county coordinators leave the campaign when it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numerous other Clinton supporters , were forwarding and posting emails claiming Obama was Muslim and sent by “ madrassas ” to infiltrate the U.S. on behalf of radical Islam .
When Donald Trump , in 2011 , began pushing the “ birtherism ” attacks against Obama into the mainstream , Politico ’ s Ben Smith and Byron Tau wrote an article entitled “ Birtherism : Where it all began , ” and explained : “ The answer lies in Democratic , not Republican politics , and in the bitter , exhausting spring of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Obama was not U.S.-born first originated on fringe right-wing sites and not from Democrats , Politico documented that it was during the 2008 Democratic primary , not the General Election , when the repellent theory first gained traction as a result of Clinton supporters spreading it : Then , as Obama marched toward the presidency , a new suggestion emerged : That he was not eligible to serve .
( See : Birther debate alive across U.S. ) That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008 , as Clinton supporters circulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizenship .
“ Barack Obama ’ s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy .
She was not allowed to travel by plane then , so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth , ” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008 .
All of that was consistent with a very deliberate and carefully crafted strategy from the Clinton campaign of depicting Obama as an exotic , foreign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Clinton family ’ s long-time chief political strategist Mark Penn wrote a now-notorious memo proclaiming Obama “ unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun , ” and decreed : “ I can not imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values , ” and directing that Obama be targeted for his “ lack of American roots.
” In other words , the very attacks that Democrats with virtual unanimity today vilify as disgusting , racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own party — either from the Clinton campaign itself ( maliciously spreading the photo of Obama in Kenya in traditional Somalian clothing and suggesting he is Muslim ) or from various Clinton supporters ( falsely claiming he was not eligible to run for office ) .
And now they are doing the exact same thing when it comes to plainly valid questions concerning Joe Biden ’ s cognitive fitness : expressing revulsion and scorn at the mere mention of these questions and declaring the topic off-limits to all decent people even though establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insinuations and even explicit accusations about Biden ’ s cognitive decline when they thought doing so could help them defeat him and/or because it genuinely concerned them regarding his ability to defeat Trump .
in the South Carolina primary and his even-more impressive Super Tuesday showing , many viewed his candidacy as all but dead .
A fourth-place finish in Iowa was followed up by a fifth-place finish in New Hampshire , causing the corporate donors on which he centrally relies to flee and his political obituaries to be widely written .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status as Democratic front-runner and , as is customary , he is receiving far greater attention than previously , particularly on the question most on the minds of Democratic voters : his “ electability ” against Trump .
And one of the towering questions in that regard is his cognitive fitness : it is visible to the naked eye that the 77-year-old six-term Senator and two-term Vice President is in serious cognitive decline .
That is a grave matter not just because the establishment wing of the Democratic Party wants to put him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most dangerous nuclear arsenal , a large chunk of the planet ’ s health , and the welfare of hundreds of millions of people , but also because it directly pertains to whether he can sustain the rigors and spotlight of a General Election against the incumbent President .
And multiple incidents over the past couple weeks — from Biden ’ s forgetting the words of the most iconic and memorized passage of the Declaration of Independence to confusing his wife for his sister to spouting sentences that make no sense — have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Democratic establishment has united with creepy speed and obedience behind Biden in order to stop the Sanders candidacy , those who now raise these concerns instantly come under a withering assault of insults and attacks from Democratic Party operatives along with their crucial media allies : thinly disguised pro-Biden reporters who continue to insist on wearing the unconvincing and fraudulent costume of neutrality .
They are invoking the classic Orwellian formulation from the novel 1984 : “ The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ command.
” CNN ’ s Democratic Party consultant Karen Finney condemned the discussion of Biden ’ s cognitive capabilities as “ truly a disgusting low blow , ” demanding that former Democratic presidential candidates Julian Castro and Cory Booker — both of whom themselves had commented upon Biden ’ s cognitive failures ( on camera ! )
— announce ( falsely ) that their prior comments about Biden had been distorted .
Castro ’ s Communication ’ s Director , Sawyer Hackett , dutifully accused those who were raising these concerns of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ” ; he also denied that Castro ( or Booker ) had ever themselves questioned Biden ’ s cognitive competence , warning those who are raising the issue : “ don ’ t try to throw Julián and Cory in front of you when you do.
” Meanwhile , Politico and CNN reporter Ryan Lizza , more devoted to defending Biden than even DNC functionaries , spent all weekend conspiratorially insinuating that journalists who were raising concerns over Biden ’ s cognitive fitness were part of a joint “ coordinated ” attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lizza and others like him promoted various outraged articles from Democratic Party-loyal sites expressing all kinds of indignation — after four years of open season of musing casually about Trump ’ s dementia — that anyone would even dare discuss Biden ’ s cognitive fitness to occupy the most powerful political position in the world .
They all insisted that this was some sort of very recent invention on the part of the Sanders and Trump world to stop the Biden juggernaut : a last-minute act of desperation from the Far Right and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his rightful place in the Oval Office .
The problem with all of this ?
Aside from the fact that Biden ’ s cognitive decline is visible to the naked eye and it is incredibly reckless and repressive to demand that it be supressed , these concerns were first raised not by Trump operatives nor by Sanders supporters , nor were they first raised within the last several weeks .
Quite the opposite is true : they were raised repeatedly over the last year principally by Democratic Party officials and their most loyal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the earliest mainstream figures to raise serious questions about Biden ’ s cognitive decline was MSNBC ’ s Andrea Mitchell immediately before the June , 2019 presidential debate .
The long-time reporter , not exactly known as a Trump sympathizer to put that mildly , went on air amidst a series of rambling , incoherent Biden appearances and said : “ the question is , does he still have his stuff ?
How sharp is he ?
, ” prompting Chris Matthews to immediately understand her point and reply : “ You know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question.
” One of the most explicit and direct attacks on Biden ’ s cognitive fitness to run for President and to serve came from Democratic Senator Cory Booker ( now a Biden endorser ) .
After a CNN presidential debate in September — in which Biden had bizarrely rambled about how the key to solving the problems in African-American communities was having parents play “ the record player ” for their children , and during which Castro had pointedly accused Biden of having forgotten what he had said just moments earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to endure the rigours of the campaign ( the full Booker interview is here ) : One of the exchanges Booker had referenced — where Castro accused Biden of forgetting what he said just moments earlier — elicited a very intense reaction from the audience because , contrary to the attempts of Castro ’ s consultant to re-write history now that they need jobs and favors from Biden , who they expect to be in control of the party , both Booker and the audience knew exactly what Castro was suggesting about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that numerous Democrats and MSNBC analysts were saying : that Biden is suffering from serious cognitive decline that would make it very difficult to stand up to Trump let alone to govern as President : Before Biden became the consensus establishment choice three weeks ago — and Democratic operatives thus tried to impose a ban on speaking ill of him while deceitfully pretending they and their clients never did so for fear that it could cost them future consulting or political gigs within the Biden-controlled Party — it was commonly and routinely acknowledged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as MSNBC , that Biden ’ s cognitive decline was an open secret among Democratic Party officials who believed it posed a serious threat to his ability to campaign , let alone beat Trump , let alone govern as President .
Just watch for yourself and remember this as they now try to convince you that this is just some recently manufactured smear by Sanders and Trump supporters ; they are the ones who have been raising this , with good reason , for more than a year : The list of prominent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throughout 2019 is long and diverse .
That this is some recently manufactured script — “ coordinated ” by the Sanders and Trump campaigns to smear Biden — is so laughably and provably false that pro-Biden reporters should be ashamed to show their faces as they claim it .
But centrists — as they ’ ve proven since Trump ’ s presidency began — casually arrogate unto themselves the right to disseminate the most unhinged conspiracies without the need for any evidence and without the slightest regard for whether they are true .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ large numbers of people who have long been watching Joe Biden who have been admitting that they see his cognitive decline and that it deeply worries them about his ability to beat Trump .
That includes , indeed has been led by , Democratic politicians , operatives and pundit-journalists now supporting him while feigning outrage over this discussion ( that they started ) and pretending that it ’ s all some morally reprehensible fabrication recently churned out by his enemies .
Some are motivated by desperation to push Biden to the Oval Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ integrity and their dignity to do it ; others are power-flatterers who now see Biden as the new King of their royal court on which their wealth and access depends and so are re-writing their own history to delete what they said about him .
Regardless of motive , it ’ s clear where these valid concerns about Biden ’ s cognitive decline originated : from within Biden ’ s own partisan establishment circles .
The video and textual evidence is undeniable .
When you hear them spin this lie , just confront @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , do everything possible to make sure voters see it before they pass the point of no return .
Voting in democracy is valuable only when it is informed , not the by-product of elite deceit and propaganda .

Photo: Charlie Riedel/AP
It is virtually required in Democratic Party politics to periodically express revulsion about the bigoted political attacks wielded for years against former President Barack Obama: images designed to emphasize his African roots, false claims he was Muslim, the campaign of de-legitimacy based in the racist allegation that he was born in Kenya.
But that mandated Party denunciation often obscures the undeniable fact that — while Republicans seized on and drove them — all of those attacks also emanated from within the Party, particularly from the 2008 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, which employed them to try to sink Obama’s rival presidential candidacy. In February, 2008, Clinton campaign officials widely circulated a photo of Obama meeting with tribal elders while dressed in Somali garb on a trip to rural Kenya, an act which Obama’s campaign chief David Plouffe angrily denounced as “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election.”
In December, 2007, the Clinton campaign — weeks before the Iowa caucus — was forced to “request” one of its volunteer county coordinators leave the campaign when it was revealed that the official, along with numerous other Clinton supporters, were forwarding and posting emails claiming Obama was Muslim and sent by “madrassas” to infiltrate the U.S. on behalf of radical Islam.
When Donald Trump, in 2011, began pushing the “birtherism” attacks against Obama into the mainstream, Politico’s Ben Smith and Byron Tau wrote an article entitled “Birtherism: Where it all began,” and explained: “The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008.” While the blatantly false theory that Obama was not U.S.-born first originated on fringe right-wing sites and not from Democrats, Politico documented that it was during the 2008 Democratic primary, not the General Election, when the repellent theory first gained traction as a result of Clinton supporters spreading it:
Then, as Obama marched toward the presidency, a new suggestion emerged: That he was not eligible to serve. (See: Birther debate alive across U.S.) That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship. “Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.
All of that was consistent with a very deliberate and carefully crafted strategy from the Clinton campaign of depicting Obama as an exotic, foreign, non-American Other. In early 2007, the Clinton family’s long-time chief political strategist Mark Penn wrote a now-notorious memo proclaiming Obama “unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun,” and decreed: “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values,” and directing that Obama be targeted for his “lack of American roots.”
In other words, the very attacks that Democrats with virtual unanimity today vilify as disgusting, racist smears were ones that emanated from their own party — either from the Clinton campaign itself (maliciously spreading the photo of Obama in Kenya in traditional Somalian clothing and suggesting he is Muslim) or from various Clinton supporters (falsely claiming he was not eligible to run for office).
And now they are doing the exact same thing when it comes to plainly valid questions concerning Joe Biden’s cognitive fitness: expressing revulsion and scorn at the mere mention of these questions and declaring the topic off-limits to all decent people even though establishment Democrats were the ones who first spread insinuations and even explicit accusations about Biden’s cognitive decline when they thought doing so could help them defeat him and/or because it genuinely concerned them regarding his ability to defeat Trump.
Prior to Joe Biden’s massive victory in the South Carolina primary and his even-more impressive Super Tuesday showing, many viewed his candidacy as all but dead. A fourth-place finish in Iowa was followed up by a fifth-place finish in New Hampshire, causing the corporate donors on which he centrally relies to flee and his political obituaries to be widely written.
But since then, he has consolidated his status as Democratic front-runner and, as is customary, he is receiving far greater attention than previously, particularly on the question most on the minds of Democratic voters: his “electability” against Trump. And one of the towering questions in that regard is his cognitive fitness: it is visible to the naked eye that the 77-year-old six-term Senator and two-term Vice President is in serious cognitive decline.
That is a grave matter not just because the establishment wing of the Democratic Party wants to put him in charge of the world’s most dangerous nuclear arsenal, a large chunk of the planet’s health, and the welfare of hundreds of millions of people, but also because it directly pertains to whether he can sustain the rigors and spotlight of a General Election against the incumbent President. And multiple incidents over the past couple weeks — from Biden’s forgetting the words of the most iconic and memorized passage of the Declaration of Independence to confusing his wife for his sister to spouting sentences that make no sense — have only intensified those worries.
But, as the Democratic establishment has united with creepy speed and obedience behind Biden in order to stop the Sanders candidacy, those who now raise these concerns instantly come under a withering assault of insults and attacks from Democratic Party operatives along with their crucial media allies: thinly disguised pro-Biden reporters who continue to insist on wearing the unconvincing and fraudulent costume of neutrality. They are invoking the classic Orwellian formulation from the novel 1984: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
CNN’s Democratic Party consultant Karen Finney condemned the discussion of Biden’s cognitive capabilities as “truly a disgusting low blow,” demanding that former Democratic presidential candidates Julian Castro and Cory Booker — both of whom themselves had commented upon Biden’s cognitive failures (on camera!) — announce (falsely) that their prior comments about Biden had been distorted. Castro’s Communication’s Director, Sawyer Hackett, dutifully accused those who were raising these concerns of “push[ing] Trump messaging about Biden”; he also denied that Castro (or Booker) had ever themselves questioned Biden’s cognitive competence, warning those who are raising the issue: “don’t try to throw Julián and Cory in front of you when you do.”
Meanwhile, Politico and CNN reporter Ryan Lizza, more devoted to defending Biden than even DNC functionaries, spent all weekend conspiratorially insinuating that journalists who were raising concerns over Biden’s cognitive fitness were part of a joint “coordinated” attack from the Sanders and Trump campaigns. Lizza and others like him promoted various outraged articles from Democratic Party-loyal sites expressing all kinds of indignation — after four years of open season of musing casually about Trump’s dementia — that anyone would even dare discuss Biden’s cognitive fitness to occupy the most powerful political position in the world. They all insisted that this was some sort of very recent invention on the part of the Sanders and Trump world to stop the Biden juggernaut: a last-minute act of desperation from the Far Right and the Far Left as Biden ascends to his rightful place in the Oval Office.
The problem with all of this? Aside from the fact that Biden’s cognitive decline is visible to the naked eye and it is incredibly reckless and repressive to demand that it be supressed, these concerns were first raised not by Trump operatives nor by Sanders supporters, nor were they first raised within the last several weeks. Quite the opposite is true: they were raised repeatedly over the last year principally by Democratic Party officials and their most loyal allies in the media.
One of the earliest mainstream figures to raise serious questions about Biden’s cognitive decline was MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell immediately before the June, 2019 presidential debate. The long-time reporter, not exactly known as a Trump sympathizer to put that mildly, went on air amidst a series of rambling, incoherent Biden appearances and said: “the question is, does he still have his stuff? How sharp is he?,” prompting Chris Matthews to immediately understand her point and reply: “You know you’re answering the question with the question.”
It's not just the other candidates who think Biden's age/fitness are fair game. Here's MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell wondering if Biden is in possession of his full mental acuity. "How sharp is he?" pic.twitter.com/C5IYNXAZ6U — Caleb Howe (@CalebHowe) June 28, 2019
One of the most explicit and direct attacks on Biden’s cognitive fitness to run for President and to serve came from Democratic Senator Cory Booker (now a Biden endorser). After a CNN presidential debate in September — in which Biden had bizarrely rambled about how the key to solving the problems in African-American communities was having parents play “the record player” for their children, and during which Castro had pointedly accused Biden of having forgotten what he had said just moments earlier — Booker unflinchingly suggested Biden lacked the ability to endure the rigours of the campaign (the full Booker interview is here):
One of the exchanges Booker had referenced — where Castro accused Biden of forgetting what he said just moments earlier — elicited a very intense reaction from the audience because, contrary to the attempts of Castro’s consultant to re-write history now that they need jobs and favors from Biden, who they expect to be in control of the party, both Booker and the audience knew exactly what Castro was suggesting about Biden. It was the same thing that numerous Democrats and MSNBC analysts were saying: that Biden is suffering from serious cognitive decline that would make it very difficult to stand up to Trump let alone to govern as President:
Lmao. Watch the video. Listen to the hoots from the audience. Then meditate upon how much less charitable and kind Mr. Trump is compared to Mr. Castro and tell me that isn’t a HUGE liability. pic.twitter.com/CRKJ4zdF6b — Wet-Bigfoots???? Flying-Bigfoot? (@platzmania) March 8, 2020
Even more explicit than Castro and Booker was Democratic Congressman Tim Ryan. Prior to the New Hampshire primary, the 9-term Congressman from Ohio and then-presidential-candidate not only made clear that he believes Biden is suffering from cognitive decline but also admitted that members of the Democratic Party establishment routinely discuss this in secret:
https://twitter.com/cancel_sam/status/1236421497801105408?s=21
Before Biden became the consensus establishment choice three weeks ago — and Democratic operatives thus tried to impose a ban on speaking ill of him while deceitfully pretending they and their clients never did so for fear that it could cost them future consulting or political gigs within the Biden-controlled Party — it was commonly and routinely acknowledged, even on DNC propaganda outlets such as MSNBC, that Biden’s cognitive decline was an open secret among Democratic Party officials who believed it posed a serious threat to his ability to campaign, let alone beat Trump, let alone govern as President.
Just watch for yourself and remember this as they now try to convince you that this is just some recently manufactured smear by Sanders and Trump supporters; they are the ones who have been raising this, with good reason, for more than a year:
https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1236760401918005249?s=20
Here’s one of the most popular pundits among Democrats, Rolling Stone’s Jamil Smith, raising the issue delicately but clearly after Biden, for at least the second time, falsely claimed that he was Vice President during the Parkland school shootings:
Screenshot: The Intercept
In September — more than six months ago — the playwright Dylan Brody, a devoted hater of Donald Trump and a fan of both Biden and the Democratic Party, said what any honest person was seeing:
https://twitter.com/dylanbrody/status/1168278546436870144?s=21
Numerous liberals, including my colleague Mehdi Hasan and others, were warning in the fall of last year that Biden’s cognitive decline was clear and would be used against him as a potent weapon:
Democrats – this is your future if you nominate the ludicrous gaffe machine Joe Biden as your presidential nominee! A future in which Trump (Trump!) mocks your nominee’s mental fitness and even attacks him from the left over racism and criminal justice. FFS. https://t.co/luGgNAWseL — Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) August 10, 2019
After the early Fall, 2019, debates, discussions of Biden’s visibly faltering brain were commonplace even on MSNBC:
https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1236704879390986241
The list of prominent political and media figures raising these concerns throughout 2019 is long and diverse. That this is some recently manufactured script — “coordinated” by the Sanders and Trump campaigns to smear Biden — is so laughably and provably false that pro-Biden reporters should be ashamed to show their faces as they claim it. But centrists — as they’ve proven since Trump’s presidency began — casually arrogate unto themselves the right to disseminate the most unhinged conspiracies without the need for any evidence and without the slightest regard for whether they are true.
Whatever else is true, there are large numbers of people who have long been watching Joe Biden who have been admitting that they see his cognitive decline and that it deeply worries them about his ability to beat Trump. That includes, indeed has been led by, Democratic politicians, operatives and pundit-journalists now supporting him while feigning outrage over this discussion (that they started) and pretending that it’s all some morally reprehensible fabrication recently churned out by his enemies.
Some are motivated by desperation to push Biden to the Oval Office and will sacrifice the truth, their integrity and their dignity to do it; others are power-flatterers who now see Biden as the new King of their royal court on which their wealth and access depends and so are re-writing their own history to delete what they said about him. Regardless of motive, it’s clear where these valid concerns about Biden’s cognitive decline originated: from within Biden’s own partisan establishment circles. The video and textual evidence is undeniable. When you hear them spin this lie, just confront them with this evidence. Most importantly, do everything possible to make sure voters see it before they pass the point of no return. Voting in democracy is valuable only when it is informed, not the by-product of elite deceit and propaganda.


theintercept--2020-03-09--The Working Families Party Endorses Bernie Sanders for President

WFP National Director Maurice Mitchell told The Intercept the group intended for their endorsement of Sanders to signal to Warren supporters that there ’ s a significant ideological and political divide between the two current Democratic frontrunners .
Compared to former Vice President Joe Biden , Mitchell said , “ [ Sanders ] is the person best suited to deliver on the change that many people in the Warren campaign were committed to.
” The Working Families Party endorsed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination on Monday .
The announcement comes less than a week after Massachusetts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsed in September , dropped out of the presidential race after a poor showing on Super Tuesday and in other early primary states .
When WFP endorsed Warren in the fall , they held a ranked-choice vote of its national committee and online voters .
Mitchell said it was clear from the beginning that there was strong support within the group for both Warren and Sanders .
“ Many strong Bernie supporters were also Elizabeth Warren supporters , and vice versa , ” Mitchell said .
“ Now that Elizabeth Warren has ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case to everybody — that ’ s all of the supporters of Elizabeth Warren ’ s change — that there ’ s a very clear contrast right now between Biden and Bernie .
And Bernie ’ s clearly the person who believes in a Green New Deal , Medicare for All , has recently laid out a universal child care plan of his own , ” he said .
On the question of whether the WFP endorsement might have any influence on Warren endorsing Sanders , Mitchell said they ’ d spoken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren knows our position , ” he said .
“ She deserves the time and space to figure out what her next moves are .
… And we ’ re sure that when she ’ s ready to make her next moves , she ’ ll make it known.
” WFP will be communicating to other Warren supporters to help ensure that Sanders is the nominee , Mitchell said .
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee , another progressive group that ’ s long been an ally of Warren and endorsed her in February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekend to members in Michigan urging them to “ vote strategically ” for Sanders .
The group has not endorsed anyone since Warren ended her campaign .
“ We are still heartbroken that Elizabeth Warren is no longer running for president , ” it read , in part .
“ If your top priority is defeating Trump , and you want to ensure both remaining Democratic candidates are tested so we know the eventual nominee can go the distance , vote for Bernie Sanders on Tuesday to stop the premature ending of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 , 6:35 p.m. A previous version of this article stated that PCCC endorsed Warren in February .
It endorsed in February 2019 .

The Working Families Party endorsed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination on Monday. The announcement comes less than a week after Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whom the WFP endorsed in September, dropped out of the presidential race after a poor showing on Super Tuesday and in other early primary states.
WFP National Director Maurice Mitchell told The Intercept the group intended for their endorsement of Sanders to signal to Warren supporters that there’s a significant ideological and political divide between the two current Democratic frontrunners. Compared to former Vice President Joe Biden, Mitchell said, “[Sanders] is the person best suited to deliver on the change that many people in the Warren campaign were committed to.”
When WFP endorsed Warren in the fall, they held a ranked-choice vote of its national committee and online voters. Mitchell said it was clear from the beginning that there was strong support within the group for both Warren and Sanders. “Many strong Bernie supporters were also Elizabeth Warren supporters, and vice versa,” Mitchell said.
“Now that Elizabeth Warren has ended her campaign, we want to make the case to everybody — that’s all of the supporters of Elizabeth Warren’s change — that there’s a very clear contrast right now between Biden and Bernie. And Bernie’s clearly the person who believes in a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, has recently laid out a universal child care plan of his own,” he said.
On the question of whether the WFP endorsement might have any influence on Warren endorsing Sanders, Mitchell said they’d spoken to the Warren campaign. “Senator Warren knows our position,” he said. “She deserves the time and space to figure out what her next moves are. … And we’re sure that when she’s ready to make her next moves, she’ll make it known.”
WFP will be communicating to other Warren supporters to help ensure that Sanders is the nominee, Mitchell said.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, another progressive group that’s long been an ally of Warren and endorsed her in February 2019, sent an email over the weekend to members in Michigan urging them to “vote strategically” for Sanders. The group has not endorsed anyone since Warren ended her campaign.
“We are still heartbroken that Elizabeth Warren is no longer running for president,” it read, in part. “If your top priority is defeating Trump, and you want to ensure both remaining Democratic candidates are tested so we know the eventual nominee can go the distance, vote for Bernie Sanders on Tuesday to stop the premature ending of this primary election.”
Correction: March 9, 2020, 6:35 p.m.
A previous version of this article stated that PCCC endorsed Warren in February. It endorsed in February 2019.