Just two weeks ago, our survey of media coverage of Elizabeth Warren (FAIR.org, 9/23/19) found a fairly—though not exclusively—positive tenor, with stories often contrasting her favorably to Bernie Sanders and highlighting her outspoken commitment to capitalism. But with erstwhile frontrunner Joe Biden under fierce attack from Donald Trump, and Sanders recovering from a heart attack (FAIR.org, 10/7/19), establishment Democrats and their big donors are suddenly looking at Elizabeth Warren’s rising poll numbers as a sign that her candidacy has very real potential—and is a very real threat to their power.
As centrist Democratic sources go, so go the media.
Among the “events of the past two weeks [that] have created huge uncertainty for the candidates who have dominated the Democratic nomination race,” the Washington Post (10/6/19) lists “persistent doubts among some party leaders” about Elizabeth Warren
Under the headline, “Uncertainty Takes Over the Lead in the Democratic Presidential Race,” the Washington Post’s Michael Scherer and Matt Viser (10/6/19) report that recent events “have created huge uncertainty for the candidates who have dominated the Democratic nomination race.” Those recent events? For Sanders, a heart attack; for Biden, an uncomfortable role in the impeachment inquiry; and for Warren, the curiously un-event-like “persistent doubts among some party leaders that she is too liberal to win the general election.”
The Democratic Party has many leaders from both its left and right wings; for the Post, the adjective “some” serves to obscure the fact that its sources expressing those doubts are almost exclusively from the right.
People like former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, who lost her 2018 re-election campaign (in which she emphasized how often she voted with Trump) by more than 10 percentage points—who better to turn to for an opinion about how to win an election?
Or there’s consultant Donna Bojarsky, who has donated to Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker—all representatives of the corporate wing of the party. How about former Obama adviser David Plouffe, who went on to flack for Uber after his Obama years, and now runs policy for Mark Zuckerberg’s philanthropy company? Then you have self-described “radical centrist” Mitch Landrieu, who told the Post:
[Warren] says she can do all these things. There’s a thing called political reality…. Aspiration is wonderful, but you can’t eat aspiration for lunch and send your kids to college on it. That’s a fundamental decision that Democratic primary voters need to make a decision on.
The best bits come from anonymous donors, though, who are given cover to sow fear about a candidate whose policy proposals (like a wealth tax and a lobbying tax) would directly impact their own finances and political influence:
As Warren has steadily marched upward in the polls, the reality that she could become the nominee has unsettled some of the party’s top donors, who worry that she would hand the race to Trump. If it starts to look like Warren will win the party’s nomination, a longtime Democratic bundler said, “there will be efforts to stop that.”
Another anonymous donor, who the paper tells us is “seeking a moderate as a nominee,”
expressed worries that if Warren is the nominee, her presence would ruin any Democratic chances to win the Senate, because voters would perceive having a Republican majority as “the only way to keep her in check” as president.
To end the hit parade, the Post reminds us that even if Biden falters, we still have centrist choices—calling up Michael Bennet and Tim Ryan, candidates currently polling below 1%, for some closing thoughts.
There’s obviously a lot of uncertainty at the moment; it’s just that the Washington Post, relying on its corporate centrist cast of characters, can’t give anything like an honest accounting of it.
Messages can be sent to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com, or via Twitter @washingtonpost. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread of this post.
Invoking a “political reality” that they strive mightily to make real
ELIZABETH WARREN IS A CORPORATE HACK! TOO LIBERAL? SHE IS NOT PROGRESSIVE! SHE HAS BEEN STRATEGICALLY PLACED TO SPLIT THE VOTE SO SUPERDELEGATES CAN DECIDE THE NEXT CORPORATE CANDIDATE! I GAVE FAIR MORE CREDIT THAN THEY DESERVE! IF YOU THINK THAT WE WILL ALL FORGET ABOUT BERNIE, YOU ARE TERRIBLY NAIVE!
ROFL Elizabeth Warren is Identity politics for Reporters. She has been hyped so much lately it is insane. You think calling her left wing is an insult? LOL it’s trying to sell her to Bernie voters.
Warren already promised to take their dirty money so this looks like an attempt to make us believe she’s not well liked among the big donors. She’s their defense against Bernie’s socialism & they know they need her now that Biden’s toast.
OMG, is Hillary coming back? If so the Dems are the dead party——- again.
Surprising how FAIR equates a Centrist who merely talks like Progressive as an actual lifelong Progressive when Warren’s growing pattern of personal duplicity, corporate defenses, and meetings with Centrist Hillary Clinton is ignored and replaced with something less fair and something less accurate. Pity.
And let’s not forget the fact that in foreign policy she is an absolute hawk, on par with Hillary Clinton, which is not that far away from Dick Cheney or John Bolton
WaPo isn’t worried she can’t win, they know that at this point in time she very likely will win. Nothing terrifies the corporatocracy and oligarchs more than a Warren or Sanders president. She will revoke the Trump Tax cut, and stick it to the oligarchs. All they care about is their money.
Biden was recruited exclusively to split the Sanders / Warren vote and let him squeeze by with his 30% or right-wing democratic corporate centrist and dismiss the 70% of Sanders and Warren, who would each getting 25% each with the rest going to minor candidates.
The corruption of the democrats is that in preventing ranked-choice voting, in a field crowded with liberals, it’s easier to peel off the undecideds and get them to go with Biden by paying off the media to run the false story of Biden’s “electability.” Except Biden’s not electable. He will lose to Trump. But DNC would rather lose than give power to the Warren/Sanders teim.
Others say Warren is the establishment’s choice for next POTUS. Hmm.
Don’t forget that Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, the man who never met a tax he didn’t hate and try to kill. Here in Seattle he has financed the opposition to every effort to tax billionaires, capital gains, or income. He sees Warren as a threat and is using his toy newspaper to go after her. Pay no attention to the small man behind the curtain!
This piece is hilarious. It doesn’t really belong in FAIR.
Nobody fears Warren. She has shown many times that she lacks courage. She will fundraise for anyone the party asks her to, and she will gladly do their bidding on the way to losing to Trump. (The many versions of Elizabeth are more than what is generally known, and the GOP has all of them.)
I think it’s time for all who think they know about politics to be realistic about the history of the law professor. She’s not here to change the status quo. She’s here to give women a candidate to rally around with meaningless, subjective slogans like “big, structural change.”
None of which she has any intention of delivering, and which is only written about in the vaguest of terms in her Medium posts.
The real fear of corporate Democrats is that upon gaining the Democratic nomination, Warren will go on to win the Presidency. They do not fear she will be defeated by Trump. They fear she will win, allowing her popular proposals to reign in corporate influence over the political process to gain even more traction. Stating she will contribute to republicans maintaining control of the Senate is an obvious red herring with no substantive evidence to support it.
And of course we have the same ultra-left nay-Sayers telling us that Warren is not a progressive, never has been and is merely in the race to prevent Sanders from gaining the nomination. Despite her numerous progressive fiscal policy proposals, her support of single payer health care, her condemnation of Israeli apartheid and her call for action on climate change. It is true she is not a substitute for Sanders and some of her views are misguided ( e.g.; charter schools; regime change in Venezuela) but she is a nominee that should have the support of progressives, should Sanders not gain the nomination.
Why are you so afraid to call then what they are , ” Corporate Democrats ” , not “Centrist “.
Pathetic example of “journalism”.
This article is spot on. The anonymous ‘sources’ must be the same ones that WaPo goes to for ‘medicare for all’ trashing, or any other programs that would benefit large numbers of citizens. It’s what happens when you have millionaire reporters covering the candidates and their proposed programs. Perhaps it’s time for reporters come clean and release their tax returns.
The Washington Post attacks anyone who is a threat to their owner Jeff Bezos’ bottom line.
They have attacked Sanders relentlessly and now that they perceive Warren to be a threat, they attack her.
The editors of the Post take dictation from Jeff Bezos .
It really is that simple.