SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee members Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill January 17, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Democrats Who Don't Like Being Criticized By Elizabeth Warren, Say Progressives, Could Just Vote Against Big Bank Giveaways
"We suggest these Democratic colleagues check in on the messages they've been getting from their constituents," responded one progressive group. "Our guess is they sound a lot like Senator Warren."
Mar 09, 2018
"If Warren's colleagues didn't want to be criticized as Wall Street-owned hacks, then they could choose not to vote for legislation that enriches Wall Street."
That's what progressive writer and activist Jonathan Cohn had to say overnight as reports emerged that Democrats are upset at Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) over her criticism of their vote to advance a bill that would reward Wall Street and heighten the risk of another financial crisis.
According to CNN's Jake Tapper, Warren "really angered many of her Democratic Senate colleagues" by highlighting the names of the 16 Senate Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent who voted to propel the "Bank Lobbyist Act" over a crucial procedural hurdle. A final vote on the measure (S.2155) is expected next week.
\u201cThis tweet in which @SenWarren calls out her Democratic colleagues who voted for loosening bank regulations, and similar comments she has made (a) will no doubt endear her to progressive base (b) really angered many of her Democratic Senate colleagues, sources tell me. https://t.co/pLp5DefenT\u201d— Jake Tapper (@Jake Tapper) 1520548443
In a report published late Thursday, The Hill confirmed this widespread anger among Democrats, who--according to one anonymous aide--find it "disappointing" that Warren would go after members of her own party for backing a bill that analysts say would make it easier for banks to "hide racial discrimination in mortgages," significantly increase the risk of future taxpayer bailouts, and reward massive Wall Street firms like Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase.
The Democratic aide also accused Warren of opportunistically attacking the deregulatory bill to "raise money for her campaign," highlighting an email Warren sent to supporters calling on them to circulate an image of the vote tally.
"Dems who vote to weaken one of the party's signature (albeit still insufficient) laws to restrain banks deserve every criticism leveled at them."
--Richard Yeselson, Dissent Magazine
Another anonymous aide quoted by The Hill repeated the trope--by now thoroughly debunked by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), journalists, and federal regulators--that the GOP-crafted measure would only provide "relief for community banks and credit unions across rural America."
Warren hasn't been shy about acknowledging the blowback that could result from criticizing members of her own party.
"Saying Democrats are helping to roll back rules on big banks doesn't make me the most popular kid on the team," Warren wrote in a Medium post on Thursday, adding that she has been "taking heat from fellow Democrats" since she called them out earlier this week. "But Massachusetts didn't send me here to fight for big banks. The people of Massachusetts sent me here to fight for them."
Responding to growing anger at Warren for having the gall to highlight vote counts that are in the public record, progressives recommended a simple fix for Democrats: vote against the deregulatory bill.
\u201cYup\u2014Dems who vote to weaken one of the Party\u2019s signature (albeit still insufficient) laws to restrain banks deserve every criticism leveled at them. And surely none of them will win even a single voter\u2019s support for doing this either. Just fubar. https://t.co/257bhJjqOc\u201d— Richard Yeselson (@Richard Yeselson) 1520566570
\u201cWe suggest these Democratic colleagues check in on the messages they've been getting from their constituents. Our guess is they sound a lot like @SenWarren. https://t.co/t11p1YsJzb\u201d— 5 Calls \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@5 Calls \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8) 1520553370
Even a self-described "loyal" Democrat--Shareblue's Matthew Chapman--denounced the attacks on Warren, called the deregulatory bill "shit," and concluded, "if Democrats don't like being criticized for supporting it, they can vote no."
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
"If Warren's colleagues didn't want to be criticized as Wall Street-owned hacks, then they could choose not to vote for legislation that enriches Wall Street."
That's what progressive writer and activist Jonathan Cohn had to say overnight as reports emerged that Democrats are upset at Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) over her criticism of their vote to advance a bill that would reward Wall Street and heighten the risk of another financial crisis.
According to CNN's Jake Tapper, Warren "really angered many of her Democratic Senate colleagues" by highlighting the names of the 16 Senate Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent who voted to propel the "Bank Lobbyist Act" over a crucial procedural hurdle. A final vote on the measure (S.2155) is expected next week.
\u201cThis tweet in which @SenWarren calls out her Democratic colleagues who voted for loosening bank regulations, and similar comments she has made (a) will no doubt endear her to progressive base (b) really angered many of her Democratic Senate colleagues, sources tell me. https://t.co/pLp5DefenT\u201d— Jake Tapper (@Jake Tapper) 1520548443
In a report published late Thursday, The Hill confirmed this widespread anger among Democrats, who--according to one anonymous aide--find it "disappointing" that Warren would go after members of her own party for backing a bill that analysts say would make it easier for banks to "hide racial discrimination in mortgages," significantly increase the risk of future taxpayer bailouts, and reward massive Wall Street firms like Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase.
The Democratic aide also accused Warren of opportunistically attacking the deregulatory bill to "raise money for her campaign," highlighting an email Warren sent to supporters calling on them to circulate an image of the vote tally.
"Dems who vote to weaken one of the party's signature (albeit still insufficient) laws to restrain banks deserve every criticism leveled at them."
--Richard Yeselson, Dissent Magazine
Another anonymous aide quoted by The Hill repeated the trope--by now thoroughly debunked by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), journalists, and federal regulators--that the GOP-crafted measure would only provide "relief for community banks and credit unions across rural America."
Warren hasn't been shy about acknowledging the blowback that could result from criticizing members of her own party.
"Saying Democrats are helping to roll back rules on big banks doesn't make me the most popular kid on the team," Warren wrote in a Medium post on Thursday, adding that she has been "taking heat from fellow Democrats" since she called them out earlier this week. "But Massachusetts didn't send me here to fight for big banks. The people of Massachusetts sent me here to fight for them."
Responding to growing anger at Warren for having the gall to highlight vote counts that are in the public record, progressives recommended a simple fix for Democrats: vote against the deregulatory bill.
\u201cYup\u2014Dems who vote to weaken one of the Party\u2019s signature (albeit still insufficient) laws to restrain banks deserve every criticism leveled at them. And surely none of them will win even a single voter\u2019s support for doing this either. Just fubar. https://t.co/257bhJjqOc\u201d— Richard Yeselson (@Richard Yeselson) 1520566570
\u201cWe suggest these Democratic colleagues check in on the messages they've been getting from their constituents. Our guess is they sound a lot like @SenWarren. https://t.co/t11p1YsJzb\u201d— 5 Calls \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@5 Calls \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8) 1520553370
Even a self-described "loyal" Democrat--Shareblue's Matthew Chapman--denounced the attacks on Warren, called the deregulatory bill "shit," and concluded, "if Democrats don't like being criticized for supporting it, they can vote no."
"If Warren's colleagues didn't want to be criticized as Wall Street-owned hacks, then they could choose not to vote for legislation that enriches Wall Street."
That's what progressive writer and activist Jonathan Cohn had to say overnight as reports emerged that Democrats are upset at Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) over her criticism of their vote to advance a bill that would reward Wall Street and heighten the risk of another financial crisis.
According to CNN's Jake Tapper, Warren "really angered many of her Democratic Senate colleagues" by highlighting the names of the 16 Senate Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent who voted to propel the "Bank Lobbyist Act" over a crucial procedural hurdle. A final vote on the measure (S.2155) is expected next week.
\u201cThis tweet in which @SenWarren calls out her Democratic colleagues who voted for loosening bank regulations, and similar comments she has made (a) will no doubt endear her to progressive base (b) really angered many of her Democratic Senate colleagues, sources tell me. https://t.co/pLp5DefenT\u201d— Jake Tapper (@Jake Tapper) 1520548443
In a report published late Thursday, The Hill confirmed this widespread anger among Democrats, who--according to one anonymous aide--find it "disappointing" that Warren would go after members of her own party for backing a bill that analysts say would make it easier for banks to "hide racial discrimination in mortgages," significantly increase the risk of future taxpayer bailouts, and reward massive Wall Street firms like Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase.
The Democratic aide also accused Warren of opportunistically attacking the deregulatory bill to "raise money for her campaign," highlighting an email Warren sent to supporters calling on them to circulate an image of the vote tally.
"Dems who vote to weaken one of the party's signature (albeit still insufficient) laws to restrain banks deserve every criticism leveled at them."
--Richard Yeselson, Dissent Magazine
Another anonymous aide quoted by The Hill repeated the trope--by now thoroughly debunked by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), journalists, and federal regulators--that the GOP-crafted measure would only provide "relief for community banks and credit unions across rural America."
Warren hasn't been shy about acknowledging the blowback that could result from criticizing members of her own party.
"Saying Democrats are helping to roll back rules on big banks doesn't make me the most popular kid on the team," Warren wrote in a Medium post on Thursday, adding that she has been "taking heat from fellow Democrats" since she called them out earlier this week. "But Massachusetts didn't send me here to fight for big banks. The people of Massachusetts sent me here to fight for them."
Responding to growing anger at Warren for having the gall to highlight vote counts that are in the public record, progressives recommended a simple fix for Democrats: vote against the deregulatory bill.
\u201cYup\u2014Dems who vote to weaken one of the Party\u2019s signature (albeit still insufficient) laws to restrain banks deserve every criticism leveled at them. And surely none of them will win even a single voter\u2019s support for doing this either. Just fubar. https://t.co/257bhJjqOc\u201d— Richard Yeselson (@Richard Yeselson) 1520566570
\u201cWe suggest these Democratic colleagues check in on the messages they've been getting from their constituents. Our guess is they sound a lot like @SenWarren. https://t.co/t11p1YsJzb\u201d— 5 Calls \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@5 Calls \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8) 1520553370
Even a self-described "loyal" Democrat--Shareblue's Matthew Chapman--denounced the attacks on Warren, called the deregulatory bill "shit," and concluded, "if Democrats don't like being criticized for supporting it, they can vote no."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
Ukraine Must Be Included in Trump-Putin Peace Talks, Says Sanders
The senator said the negotiations could be "a positive step forward" after three and a half years of war.
Aug 10, 2025
Echoing the concerns of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders about an upcoming summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said the interests of Ukrainians must be represented in any talks regarding an end to the fighting between the two countries—but expressed hope that the negotiations planned for August 15 will be "a positive step forward."
On CNN's "State of the Union," Sanders (I-Vt.) told anchor Dana Bash that Ukraine "has got to be part of the discussion" regarding a potential cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine, which Putin said last week he would agree to in exchange for major land concessions in Eastern Ukraine.
Putin reportedly proposed a deal in which Ukraine would withdraw its armed forces from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, giving Russia full control of the two areas along with Crimea, which it annexed in 2014.
On Friday, Trump said a peace deal could include "some swapping of territories"—but did not mention potential security guarantees for Ukraine, or what territories the country might gain control of—and announced that talks had been scheduled between the White House and Putin in Alaska this coming Friday.
As Trump announced the meeting, a deadline he had set earlier for Putin to agree to a cease-fire or face "secondary sanctions" targeting countries that buy oil from Russia passed.
Zelenskyy on Saturday rejected the suggestion that Ukraine would accept any deal brokered by the U.S. and Russia without the input of his government—especially one that includes land concessions. In a video statement on the social media platform X, Zelenskyy said that "Ukraine is ready for real decisions that can bring peace."
"Any decisions that are against us, any decisions that are without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace," he said. "Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier."
Sanders on Sunday agreed that "it can't be Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump" deciding the terms of a peace deal to end the war that the United Nations says has killed more than 13,000 Ukrainian civilians since Russia began its invasion in February 2022.
"If in fact an agreement can be negotiated which does not compromise what the Ukrainians feel they need, I think that's a positive step forward. We all want to see an end to the bloodshed," said Sanders. "The people of Ukraine obviously have got to have a significant say. It is their country, so if the people of Ukraine feel it is a positive agreement, that's good. If not, that's another story."
A senior White House official told NewsNation that the president is "open to a trilateral summit with both leaders."
"Right now, the White House is planning the bilateral meeting requested by President Putin," they said.
On Saturday, Vice President JD Vance took part in talks with European Union and Ukrainian officials in the United Kingdom, where Andriy Yermak, head of the Office of the President in Ukraine, said the country's positions were made "clear: a reliable, lasting peace is only possible with Ukraine at the negotiating table, with full respect for our sovereignty and without recognizing the occupation."
European leaders pushed for the inclusion of Zelenskyy in talks in a statement Saturday, saying Ukraine's vital interests "include the need for robust and credible security guarantees that enable Ukraine to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity."
"Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a cease-fire or reduction of hostilities," said the leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, German Cancellor Friedrich Merz, and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer. "The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force."
At the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, British journalist and analyst Anatol Lieven wrote Saturday that the talks scheduled for next week are "an essential first step" toward ending the bloodshed in Ukraine, even though they include proposed land concessions that would be "painful" for Kyiv.
If Ukraine were to ultimately agree to ceding land to Russia, said Lieven, "Russia will need drastically to scale back its demands for Ukrainian 'denazification' and 'demilitarization,' which in their extreme form would mean Ukrainian regime change and disarmament—which no government in Kyiv could or should accept."
A recent Gallup poll showed 69% of Ukrainians now favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible. In 2022, more than 70% believed the country should continue fighting until it achieved victory.
European Soccer League Criticized for 'Insulting' Tribute to 'Palestinian Pelé' Killed by Israel
Suleiman Al-Obeid was killed by the Israel Defense Forces while seeking humanitarian aid.
Aug 10, 2025
Mohamed Salah, the Egyptian soccer star who plays for Liverpool's Premiere League club and serves as captain of Egypt's national team, had three questions for the Union of European Football Associations on Saturday after the governing body acknowledged the death of another venerated former player.
"Can you tell us how he died, where, and why?" asked Salah in response to the UEFA's vague tribute to Suleiman Al-Obeid, who was nicknamed the "Palestinian Pelé" during his career with the Palestinian National Team.
The soccer organization had written a simple 21-word "farewell" message to Al-Obeid, calling him "a talent who gave hope to countless children, even in the darkest of times."
The UEFA made no mention of reports from the Palestine Football Association that Al-Obeid last week became one of the nearly 1,400 Palestinians who have been killed while seeking aid since the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an Israel- and U.S.-backed, privatized organization, began operating aid hubs in Gaza.
As with the Israel Defense Forces' killings of aid workers and bombings of so-called "safe zones" since Israel began bombarding Gaza in October 2023, the IDF has claimed its killings of Palestinians seeking desperately-needed food have been inadvertent—but Israeli soldiers themselves have described being ordered to shoot at civilians who approach the aid sites.
Salah has been an outspoken advocate for Palestinians since Israel began its attacks, which have killed more than 61,000 people, and imposed a near-total blockade that has caused an "unfolding" famine, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification. At least 217 Palestinians have now starved to death, including at least 100 children.
The Peace and Justice Project, founded by British Parliament member Jeremy Corbyn, applauded Salah's criticism of UEFA.
The Palestine Football Association released a statement saying, "Former national team player and star of the Khadamat al-Shati team, Suleiman Al-Obeid, was martyred after the occupation forces targeted those waiting for humanitarian aid in the southern Gaza Strip on Wednesday."
Al-Obeid represented the Palestinian team 24 times internationally and scored a famous goal against Yemen's National Team in the East Asian Federation's 2010 cup.
He is survived by his wife and five children, Al Jazeera reported.
Bassil Mikdadi, the founder of Football Palestine, told the outlet that he was surprised the UEFA acknowledged Al-Obeid's killing at all, considering the silence of international soccer federations regarding Israel's assault on Gaza, which is the subject of a genocide case at the International Court of Justice and has been called a genocide by numerous Holocaust scholars and human rights groups.
As Jules Boykoff wrote in a column at Common Dreams in June, the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) has mostly "looked the other way when it comes to Israel's attacks on Palestinians," and although the group joined the UEFA in expressing solidarity with Ukrainian players and civilians when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, "no such solidarity has been forthcoming for Palestinians."
Mikdadi noted that Al-Obeid "is not the first Palestinian footballer to perish in this genocide—there's been over 400—but he's by far the most prominent as of now."
Al-Obeid was killed days before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approved a plan to take over Gaza City—believed to be the first step in the eventual occupation of all of Gaza.
The United Nations Security Council was holding an emergency meeting Sunday to discuss Israel's move, with U.N. Assistant Secretary-General for Europe, Central Asia, and the Americas Miroslav Jenca warning the council that a full takeover would risk "igniting another horrific chapter in this conflict."
"We are already witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe of unimaginable scale in Gaza," said Jenca. "If these plans are implemented, they will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza, reverberating across the region and causing further forced displacement, killings, and destruction, compounding the unbearable suffering of the population."
Sanders Takes Oligarchy Fight to Appalachia With Standing-Room-Only Crowd in West Virginia
"Whoever said West Virginia was a conservative state?" Sanders asked the crowd in Wheeling. "Somebody got it wrong."
Aug 09, 2025
On the latest leg of his Fighting Oligarchy Tour, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders headed to West Virginia for rallies on Friday and Saturday where he continued to speak out against the billionaire class's control over the political system and the Republican Party's cuts to healthcare, food assistance, and other social programs for millions of Americans—and prove that his message resonates with working people even in solidly red districts.
"Whoever said West Virginia was a conservative state?" Sanders (I-Vt.) asked a roaring, standing-room-only crowd at the Capitol Theater in Wheeling. "Somebody got it wrong."
As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported, some in the crowd sported red bandanas around their necks—a nod to the state's long history of labor organizing and the thousands of coal mine workers who formed a multiracial coalition in 1921 and marched wearing bandanas for the right to join a union with fair pay and safety protections.
Sanders spoke to the crowd about how President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was supported by all five Republican lawmakers who represent the districts Sanders is visiting this weekend, could impact their families and neighbors.
"Fifteen million Americans, including 50,000 right here in West Virginia, are going to lose their healthcare," Sanders said of the Medicaid cuts that are projected to amount to more than $1 trillion over the next decade. "Cuts to nutrition—literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry kids."
Seven hospitals are expected to shut down in the state as a result of the law's Medicaid cuts, and 84,000 West Virginians will lose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, according to estimates.
Sanders continued his West Virginia tour with a stop in the small town of Lenore on Saturday afternoon and was scheduled to address a crowd in Charleston Saturday evening before heading to North Carolina for more rallies on Sunday.
The event in Lenore was a town hall, where the senator heard from residents of the area—which Trump won with 74% of the vote in 2024. Anna Bahr, Sanders' communications director, said more than 400 people came to hear the senator speak—equivalent to about a third of Lenore's population.
Sanders invited one young attendee on stage after she asked how Trump's domestic policy law's cuts to education are likely to affect poverty rates in West Virginia, which are some of the highest in the nation.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes a federal voucher program which education advocates warn will further drain funding from public schools, and the loss of Medicaid funding for states could lead to staff cuts in K-12 schools. The law also impacts higher education, imposing new limits for federal student loans.
"Sometimes I am attacked by my opponents for being far-left, fringe, out of touch with where America is," said Sanders. "Actually, much of what I talk about is exactly where America is... You are living in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, and if we had good policy and the courage to take on the billionaire class, there is no reason that every kid in this country could not get an excellent higher education, regardless of his or her income. That is not a radical idea."
Sanders' events scheduled for Sunday in North Carolina include a rally at 2:00 pm ET at the Steven Tanger Center for the Performing Arts in Greensboro and one at 6:00 pm ET at the Harrah Cherokee Center in Asheville.
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.