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
Democratic presidential hopeful Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders participates during the fourth Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential campaign. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
After Sanders Says West Virginia Working-Class Base Will Support Bold Vision, Manchin Says His Vote "Wouldn't Be Bernie" in Head-to-Head With Trump
"Just imagine the anger directed at the Bernie camp if a lawmaker supporting him (or even a prominent support of his) said they wouldn't support for the centrist Dem candidate against Trump."
Oct 31, 2019
Sen. Joe Manchin on Wednesday said he would not vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders in a general election contest against incumbent President Donald Trump, just days after the airing of an interview in which Sanders told CNBC's John Harwood that working-class voters in states like Manchin's West Virginia would support progressive policies like Medicare for All and a higher minimum wage.
"It wouldn't be Bernie," Manchin, a Democrat, told Fox News host Neil Cavuto when asked if he would vote for the Republican Trump over Sanders in a hypothetical matchup.
"Let's just say I'm going to make decisions based on what's best for my country and my state," Manchin added when pressed on whether he would cast a vote for Trump.
Manchin also told Fox that he would vote against the Sanders agenda, calling it "not practical where I come from."
Linda Sarsour, an activist and prominent Sanders backer, took to Twitter to point out that Manchin has no motivation to support Sanders' policies "because Joe Manchin will be fine under any administration."
"No one is ever gonna be stripping white men of any rights," said Sarsour. "He doesn't give a damn about the most marginalized and struggling people in America."
The West Virginia senator's comments came in response to questions from Cavuto about remarks Sanders made in his Tuesday interview where the Vermont senator, a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, said it was "damn right" that Manchin and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) would vote for his agenda. Sanders told Harwood that as president, he would go to the home states of recalcitrant senators to ask constituents to pressure the holdouts.
"Your average politician sits around and he or she thinks, 'Let's see--if I do this, I'm going to have the big money interests putting 30-second ads against me,'" said Sanders. "But now, they're going to have to think, 'If I don't support an agenda that works for working people, I'm going to have President Sanders coming to my state and rallying working-class people.'"
Activist Jordan Uhl on Tuesday questioned the premise of Harwood's question, saying that the CNBC host "doesn't quite understand the political makeup of West Virginia."
"He asks if Joe Manchin of West Virginia would vote for Sanders' policies if elected," Uhl said. "Every single county in West Virginia went Sanders in the 2016 primary."
Justice Democrats communications director Waleed Shahid made the same point Thursday, calling Manchin's comments "pretty disrespectful to Democratic voters."
\u201cManchin\u2019s move seems pretty disrespectful to Democratic voters.\u201d— Waleed Shahid (@Waleed Shahid) 1572526452
Reaction to Manchin's comments from Democratic leaders was largely muted, leading Young Turks reporter Emma Vigeland to wonder if centrist Democrats would call out the West Virginia senator.
"Where's the 'Bernie's not a Democrat' crowd on this?" asked Vigeland wondered.
Daily Beast politics reporter Sam Stein opined that if the situation were reversed, the anger of centrist Democrats would likely be explosive.
"Just imagine the anger directed at the Bernie camp if a lawmaker supporting him (or even a prominent support of his) said they wouldn't support for the centrist Dem candidate against Trump," tweeted Stein.
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.
Sen. Joe Manchin on Wednesday said he would not vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders in a general election contest against incumbent President Donald Trump, just days after the airing of an interview in which Sanders told CNBC's John Harwood that working-class voters in states like Manchin's West Virginia would support progressive policies like Medicare for All and a higher minimum wage.
"It wouldn't be Bernie," Manchin, a Democrat, told Fox News host Neil Cavuto when asked if he would vote for the Republican Trump over Sanders in a hypothetical matchup.
"Let's just say I'm going to make decisions based on what's best for my country and my state," Manchin added when pressed on whether he would cast a vote for Trump.
Manchin also told Fox that he would vote against the Sanders agenda, calling it "not practical where I come from."
Linda Sarsour, an activist and prominent Sanders backer, took to Twitter to point out that Manchin has no motivation to support Sanders' policies "because Joe Manchin will be fine under any administration."
"No one is ever gonna be stripping white men of any rights," said Sarsour. "He doesn't give a damn about the most marginalized and struggling people in America."
The West Virginia senator's comments came in response to questions from Cavuto about remarks Sanders made in his Tuesday interview where the Vermont senator, a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, said it was "damn right" that Manchin and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) would vote for his agenda. Sanders told Harwood that as president, he would go to the home states of recalcitrant senators to ask constituents to pressure the holdouts.
"Your average politician sits around and he or she thinks, 'Let's see--if I do this, I'm going to have the big money interests putting 30-second ads against me,'" said Sanders. "But now, they're going to have to think, 'If I don't support an agenda that works for working people, I'm going to have President Sanders coming to my state and rallying working-class people.'"
Activist Jordan Uhl on Tuesday questioned the premise of Harwood's question, saying that the CNBC host "doesn't quite understand the political makeup of West Virginia."
"He asks if Joe Manchin of West Virginia would vote for Sanders' policies if elected," Uhl said. "Every single county in West Virginia went Sanders in the 2016 primary."
Justice Democrats communications director Waleed Shahid made the same point Thursday, calling Manchin's comments "pretty disrespectful to Democratic voters."
\u201cManchin\u2019s move seems pretty disrespectful to Democratic voters.\u201d— Waleed Shahid (@Waleed Shahid) 1572526452
Reaction to Manchin's comments from Democratic leaders was largely muted, leading Young Turks reporter Emma Vigeland to wonder if centrist Democrats would call out the West Virginia senator.
"Where's the 'Bernie's not a Democrat' crowd on this?" asked Vigeland wondered.
Daily Beast politics reporter Sam Stein opined that if the situation were reversed, the anger of centrist Democrats would likely be explosive.
"Just imagine the anger directed at the Bernie camp if a lawmaker supporting him (or even a prominent support of his) said they wouldn't support for the centrist Dem candidate against Trump," tweeted Stein.
Sen. Joe Manchin on Wednesday said he would not vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders in a general election contest against incumbent President Donald Trump, just days after the airing of an interview in which Sanders told CNBC's John Harwood that working-class voters in states like Manchin's West Virginia would support progressive policies like Medicare for All and a higher minimum wage.
"It wouldn't be Bernie," Manchin, a Democrat, told Fox News host Neil Cavuto when asked if he would vote for the Republican Trump over Sanders in a hypothetical matchup.
"Let's just say I'm going to make decisions based on what's best for my country and my state," Manchin added when pressed on whether he would cast a vote for Trump.
Manchin also told Fox that he would vote against the Sanders agenda, calling it "not practical where I come from."
Linda Sarsour, an activist and prominent Sanders backer, took to Twitter to point out that Manchin has no motivation to support Sanders' policies "because Joe Manchin will be fine under any administration."
"No one is ever gonna be stripping white men of any rights," said Sarsour. "He doesn't give a damn about the most marginalized and struggling people in America."
The West Virginia senator's comments came in response to questions from Cavuto about remarks Sanders made in his Tuesday interview where the Vermont senator, a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, said it was "damn right" that Manchin and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) would vote for his agenda. Sanders told Harwood that as president, he would go to the home states of recalcitrant senators to ask constituents to pressure the holdouts.
"Your average politician sits around and he or she thinks, 'Let's see--if I do this, I'm going to have the big money interests putting 30-second ads against me,'" said Sanders. "But now, they're going to have to think, 'If I don't support an agenda that works for working people, I'm going to have President Sanders coming to my state and rallying working-class people.'"
Activist Jordan Uhl on Tuesday questioned the premise of Harwood's question, saying that the CNBC host "doesn't quite understand the political makeup of West Virginia."
"He asks if Joe Manchin of West Virginia would vote for Sanders' policies if elected," Uhl said. "Every single county in West Virginia went Sanders in the 2016 primary."
Justice Democrats communications director Waleed Shahid made the same point Thursday, calling Manchin's comments "pretty disrespectful to Democratic voters."
\u201cManchin\u2019s move seems pretty disrespectful to Democratic voters.\u201d— Waleed Shahid (@Waleed Shahid) 1572526452
Reaction to Manchin's comments from Democratic leaders was largely muted, leading Young Turks reporter Emma Vigeland to wonder if centrist Democrats would call out the West Virginia senator.
"Where's the 'Bernie's not a Democrat' crowd on this?" asked Vigeland wondered.
Daily Beast politics reporter Sam Stein opined that if the situation were reversed, the anger of centrist Democrats would likely be explosive.
"Just imagine the anger directed at the Bernie camp if a lawmaker supporting him (or even a prominent support of his) said they wouldn't support for the centrist Dem candidate against Trump," tweeted Stein.
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
US State Dept Releases 'Shameful' Human Rights Report Revamped to Shield Allies, Including Israel
"This sends a chilling message that the U.S. is willing to overlook some abuses, signaling that people experiencing human rights violations may be left to fend for themselves," said one Amnesty campaigner.
Aug 12, 2025
After leaked drafts exposed the Trump administration's plans to downplay human rights abuses in some allied countries, including Israel, the U.S. Department of State released the final edition of an annual report on Tuesday, sparking fresh condemnation.
"Breaking with precedent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not provide a written introduction to the report nor did he make remarks about it," CNN reported. Still, Amanda Klasing, Amnesty International USA's national director of government relations and advocacy, called him out by name in a Tuesday statement.
"With the release of the U.S. State Department's human rights report, it is clear that the Trump administration has engaged in a very selective documentation of human rights abuses in certain countries," Klasing said. "In addition to eliminating entire sections for certain countries—for example discrimination against LGBTQ+ people—there are also arbitrary omissions within existing sections of the report based on the country."
Klasing explained that "we have criticized past reports when warranted, but have never seen reports quite like this. Never before have the reports gone this far in prioritizing an administration's political agenda over a consistent and truthful accounting of human rights violations around the world—softening criticism in some countries while ignoring violations in others. The State Department has said in relation to the reports less is more. However, for the victims and human rights defenders who rely on these reports to shine light on abuses and violations, less is just less."
"Secretary Rubio knows full well from his time in the Senate how vital these reports are in informing policy decisions and shaping diplomatic conversations, yet he has made the dangerous and short-sighted decision to put out a truncated version that doesn't tell the whole story of human rights violations," she continued. "This sends a chilling message that the U.S. is willing to overlook some abuses, signaling that people experiencing human rights violations may be left to fend for themselves."
"Failing to adequately report on human rights violations further damages the credibility of the U.S. on human rights issues," she added. "It's shameful that the Trump administration and Secretary Rubio are putting politics above human lives."
The overarching report—which includes over 100 individual country reports—covers 2024, the last full calendar year of the Biden administration. The appendix says that in March, the report was "streamlined for better utility and accessibility in the field and by partners, and to be more responsive to the underlying legislative mandate and aligned to the administration's executive orders."
As CNN detailed:
The latest report was stripped of many of the specific sections included in past reports, including reporting on alleged abuses based on sexual orientation, violence toward women, corruption in government, systemic racial or ethnic violence, or denial of a fair public trial. Some country reports, including for Afghanistan, do address human rights abuses against women.
"We were asked to edit down the human rights reports to the bare minimum of what was statutorily required," said Michael Honigstein, the former director of African Affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy, and Labor. He and his office helped compile the initial reports.
Over the past week, since the draft country reports leaked to the press, the Trump administration has come under fire for its portrayals of El Salvador, Israel, and Russia.
The report on Israel—and the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank—is just nine pages. The brevity even drew the attention of Israeli media. The Times of Israel highlighted that it "is much shorter than last year's edition compiled under the Biden administration and contained no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza."
Since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Israeli forces have slaughtered over 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to local officials—though experts warn the true toll is likely far higher. As Israel has restricted humanitarian aid in recent months, over 200 people have starved to death, including 103 children.
The U.S. report on Israel does not mention the genocide case that Israel faces at the International Court of Justice over the assault on Gaza, or the International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The section on war crimes and genocide only says that "terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah continue to engage in the
indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians in violation of the law of armed conflict."
As the world mourns the killing of six more Palestinian media professionals in Gaza this week—which prompted calls for the United Nations Security Council to convene an emergency meeting—the report's section on press freedom is also short and makes no mention of the hundreds of journalists killed in Israel's annihilation of the strip:
The law generally provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right for most Israelis. NGOs and journalists reported authorities restricted press coverage and limited certain forms of expression, especially in the context of criticism against the war or sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza.
Noting that "the human rights reports have been among the U.S. government's most-read documents," DAWN senior adviser and 32-year State Department official Charles Blaha said the "significant omissions" in this year's report on Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank render it "functionally useless for Congress and the public as nothing more than a pro-Israel document."
Like Klasing at Amnesty, Sarah Leah Whitson, DAWN's executive director, specifically called out the U.S. secretary of state.
"Secretary Rubio has revamped the State Department reports for one principal purpose: to whitewash Israeli crimes, including its horrific genocide and starvation in Gaza. The report shockingly includes not a word about the overwhelming evidence of genocide, mass starvation, and the deliberate bombardment of civilians in Gaza," she said. "Rubio has defied the letter and intent of U.S. laws requiring the State Department to report truthfully and comprehensively about every country's human rights abuses, instead offering up anodyne cover for his murderous friends in Tel Aviv."
The Tuesday release came after a coalition of LGBTQ+ and human rights organizations on Monday filed a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department over its refusal to release the congressionally mandated report.
This article has been updated with comment from DAWN.
Watchdog Unveils Standards for Countermeasures to 'Authoritarian' GOP Gerrymandering
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," said the head of Common Cause.
Aug 12, 2025
As Republicans try to rig congressional maps in several states and Democrats threaten retaliatory measures, a pro-democracy watchdog on Tuesday unveiled new fairness standards underscoring that "independent redistricting commissions remain the gold standard for ending partisan gerrymandering."
Common Cause will hold an online media briefing Wednesday at noon Eastern time "to walk reporters though the six pieces of criteria the organization will use to evaluate any proposed maps."
The Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group said that "it will closely evaluate, but not automatically condemn, countermeasures" to Republican gerrymandering efforts—especially mid-decade redistricting not based on decennial censuses.
Amid the gerrymandering wars, we just launched 6 fairness criteria to hold all actors to the same principled standard: people first—not parties. Read our criteria here: www.commoncause.org/resources/po...
[image or embed]
— Common Cause (@commoncause.org) August 12, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Common Cause's six fairness criteria for mid-decade redistricting are:
- Proportionality: Any mid-decade redistricting should be a targeted response proportional to the threat posed by mid-decade gerrymanders in other states.
- Public participation: Any redistricting must include meaningful public participation, whether through ballot initiatives or open public processes.
- Racial equity: Redistricting must not further racial discrimination or dilute the political voice of Black, Latino, Indigenous, Asian American, and Pacific Islander, or other communities of color.
- Federal reform: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, including provisions banning mid-decade redistricting and partisan gerrymandering.
- Endorsement of independent redistricting: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse citizen-led independent redistricting commissions as the long-term solution.
- Time-limited: Any new redistricting maps must expire following the 2030 Census, which counts all people in our country, and be replaced through the regular decennial redistricting process.
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said in a statement. "But neither will we call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarian tactics that undermine fair representation."
"We have established a fairness criteria that we will use to evaluate all countermeasures so we can respond to the most urgent threats to fair representation while holding all actors to the same principled standard: people—not parties—first," she added.
Common Cause's fairness criteria come amid the ongoing standoff between Republicans trying to gerrymander Texas' congressional map and Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in a bid to stymie a vote on the measure. Texas state senators on Tuesday approved the proposed map despite a walkout by most of their Democratic colleagues.
Leaders of several Democrat-controlled states, most notably California, have threatened retaliatory redistricting.
"This moment is about more than responding to a single threat—it's about building the movement for lasting reform," Kase Solomón asserted. "This is not an isolated political tactic; it is part of a broader march toward authoritarianism, dismantling people-powered democracy, and stripping away the people's ability to have a political voice and say in how they are governed."
'These Officials Abused Their Power': Texas Woman Unlawfully Arrested for Murder Over Abortion Seeks Justice
"Texas law is clear: A pregnant person cannot be arrested and prosecuted for getting an abortion. No one is above the law, including officials entrusted with enforcing it," said an ACLU attorney.
Aug 12, 2025
When officials in Starr County, Texas arrested Lizelle Gonzalez in 2022 and charged her with murder for having a medication abortion—despite state law clearly prohibiting the prosecution of women for abortion care—she spent three days in jail, away from her children, and the highly publicized arrest was "deeply traumatizing."
Now, said her lawyers at the ACLU in court filings on Tuesday, officials in the county sheriff's and district attorney's offices must be held accountable for knowingly subjecting Gonzalez to wrongful prosecution.
Starr County District Attorney Gocha Ramirez ultimately dismissed the charge against Gonzalez, said the ACLU, but the Texas bar's investigation into Ramirez—which found multiple instances of misconduct related to Gonzalez's homicide charge—resulted in only minor punishment. Ramirez had to pay a small fine of $1,250 and was given one year of probated suspension.
"Without real accountability, Starr County's district attorney—and any other law enforcement actor—will not be deterred from abusing their power to unlawfully target people because of their personal beliefs, rather than the law," said the ACLU.
The state bar found that Ramirez allowed Gonzalez's indictment to go forward despite the fact that her homicide charge was "known not to be supported by probable cause."
Ramirez had denied that he was briefed on the facts of the case before it was prosecuted by his office, but the state bar "determined he was consulted by a prosecutor in his office beforehand and permitted it to go forward."
"Without real accountability, Starr County's district attorney—and any other law enforcement actor—will not be deterred from abusing their power to unlawfully target people because of their personal beliefs, rather than the law."
Sarah Corning, an attorney at the ACLU of Texas, said the prosecutors and law enforcement officers "ignored Texas law when they wrongfully arrested Lizelle Gonzalez for ending her pregnancy."
"They shattered her life in South Texas, violated her rights, and abused the power they swore to uphold," said Corning. "Texas law is clear: A pregnant person cannot be arrested and prosecuted for getting an abortion. No one is above the law, including officials entrusted with enforcing it."
The district attorney's office sought to have the ACLU's case dismissed in July 2024, raising claims of legal immunity.
A court denied Ramirez's motion, and the ACLU's discovery process that followed revealed "a coordinated effort between the Starr County sheriff's office and district attorney's office to violate Ms. Gonzalez's rights."
The officials' "wanton disregard for the rule of law and erroneous belief of their own invincibility is a frightening deviation from the offices' purposes: to seek justice," said Cecilia Garza, a partner at the law firm Garza Martinez, who is joining the ACLU in representing Gonzalez. "I am proud to represent Ms. Gonzalez in her fight for justice and redemption, and our team will not allow these abuses to continue in Starr County or any other county in the state of Texas."
Gonzalez's fight for justice comes as a wrongful death case in Texas—filed by an "anti-abortion legal terrorist" on behalf of a man whose girlfriend use medication from another state to end her pregnancy—moves forward, potentially jeopardizing access to abortion pills across the country.
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.