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
election 2028
'Just Tell Us What You Believe': Buttigieg Torched Over Non-Answer on Israel-Palestine
One critic said Buttigieg's description of Israel's genocide in Gaza as "complicated" is "disqualifying... both as a politician and a human being."
Aug 12, 2025
Pete Buttigieg, one of the top contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, is facing a bevy of criticism, including from his supporters, after he gave a largely incoherent answer about his preferred policy towards Israel and Palestine.
Over the past several weeks, the genocidal nature of Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip has become undeniable to much of the world. Israeli leaders have openly discussed the goal of clearing the strip of Palestinians and, to that end, have inflicted a punishing blockade that has resulted in mass starvation.
Though official estimates from the Gaza Health Ministry put the death count around 60,000, many expert analyses have found that it will have likely eclipsed 100,000 or potentially 200,000 once all indirect deaths from disease and starvation are accounted for.
In an interview on Pod Save America, the former South Bend mayor and Biden transportation secretary was asked if he would support efforts backed by a majority of Senate Democrats to halt weapons sales to Israel.
Buttigieg began by acknowledging that taxpayer money should not be going to "things that shock the conscience," adding that "we see images every day that shock the conscience" out of Gaza.
"So much of this is complicated," he continued. "But what's not complicated is that if a child is starving because of a choice made by a government, that is unconscionable."
After this brief acknowledgment, however, Buttigieg proceeded to give an answer that Gal Debored of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft called "a beautiful example of sounding like you care about genocide while actually saying nothing at all."
Buttigieg spent the bulk of his time discussing how Israelis were being affected.
He discussed the necessity of "including the voices of those who care about Israel, who believe in Israel's right to exist, who have stood with Israel in response to the unbelievable cruelty and terrorism of October 7th."
He said what was happening in Gaza was a "catastrophe for Israel in the long run," before describing the United States as "Israel's strongest ally and friend."
"You put your arm around your friend when there's something like this going on," he said, "and talk about what we're prepared to do together."
William Lafi Youmans, a professor at the George Washington School of Media and Public Affairs, described this as rhetorically identical to former U.S. President Joe Biden's approach to Israel.
"Biden wanted to 'bear hug' Israel to constrain it via friendship," he said, noting that it "ended in genocide."
When asked whether he'd support recognizing a Palestinian state, Buttigieg said it was "a profound question that arouses a lot of the biggest problems that have happened with Israel's survival."
Zeteo founder Mehdi Hasan responded: "Answer the fricking question."
Buttigieg later seemed to contradict his previous statement, saying he'd support a "two-state solution" to end the conflict.
J.P. Hill, the author of the Substack newsletter New Means, called out Buttigieg's unwillingness to take a clear stance.
"Pete Buttigieg talking about Palestine," Hill said, "is what happens when someone who wants to perfectly triangulate a middle position on every issue runs into an issue where [there] is no middle ground for him to hide in."
Even Ben Rhodes, a foreign policy official for former President Barack Obama and a co-host on the Democrat-friendly network that produces Pod Save America, was left bewildered.
"Pete is a smart guy and I admire a lot of what he's done," Rhodes said on X. "But I have absolutely no idea what he thinks based on these answers. Just tell us what you believe."
These outraged comments reflect a now overwhelming dissatisfaction among Democratic voters with the party's near-unwavering devotion to Israel. In a July Gallup poll, just 33% of them described themselves as having a favorable view of Israel.
While Buttigieg continues to find himself on the wrong side of that increasingly yawning chasm of public opinion, other Democrats have become much more willing to call for swift action to be taken to constrain Israel.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), another potential 2028 candidate who introduced a resolution calling for the U.S. to recognize Palestinian statehood and urged his fellow Democrats to support a bill that would block weapons to Israel, also denounced Buttigieg's feckless response.
"I respect Pete. But we need moral clarity," Khanna wrote on X. "[President Donald] Trump AND Biden disastrously failed on Gaza, and we need a new human rights-centered vision."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Cheers New DNC Push to Curb Dark Money in Democratic Presidential Primaries
"Billionaire-funded super PACs like AIPAC and crypto shouldn't be able to undermine democracy and determine Democratic candidates," said the senator. "This principle should apply to congressional primaries too."
Aug 12, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and the advocacy group he helped found applauded a new resolution from Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin, revealed Tuesday, that aims to limit corporate and dark money spending in the party's next presidential primary.
CNN obtained a draft of the resolution that Martin plans to introduce at the DNC's August 25-27 meeting in Minneapolis. The outlet reported that it calls for creating a panel that would identify and study "real, enforceable steps the DNC can take to eliminate unlimited corporate and dark money in its 2028 presidential primary process."
The draft "does not explicitly mention" super political action committees, "and it's not clear whether it will ultimately restrict super PAC spending in party primaries," according to CNN. It also says that the "only way to solve for this problem in the long term is through congressional action, including a constitutional amendment" to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates to corporate spending on elections.
Still, Sanders (I-Vt.)—who ran for president as a Democrat in 2016 and 2020—welcomed the proposal as progress, writing on social media Tuesday, "Congrats to the DNC for starting the process to ban Big Money from presidential primaries."
"Billionaire-funded super PACs like AIPAC and Crypto shouldn't be able to undermine democracy and determine Democratic candidates," he added, calling out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "This principle should apply to congressional primaries too."
Sanders and seven of his Democratic colleagues—Sens. Ed Markey (Mass.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), Tina Smith (Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), and Peter Welch (Vt.)—wrote to Martin and Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) in June, urging them to curb the influence of rich donors and super PACs in party primaries.
Last year's federal elections were devastating for Democrats, who lost not only the White House but also both chambers of Congress. In the wake of that, Sanders said that "it should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working-class people would find that the working class has abandoned them."
"Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign?" he wondered at the time. "Probably not."
While then-DNC Chair Jaime Harrison swiftly lashed out at Sanders in November, calling his critique "straight up BS," the forthcoming resolution is a sign that Martin may be listening to key progressives—as well as registered Democrats and Independent voters, who are frustrated with the party and want to see elected officials fight harder for working people.
Just before the February DNC election in which Martin was victorious, Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, the group that grew out of Sanders' first presidential campaign, declared that "this moment demands a Democratic Party that provides more than just reactive opposition to an administration bent on rigging our economic and political systems in favor of the wealthiest and most powerful individuals on Earth."
Geevarghese also stressed the need for "leaders who put the party's grassroots base ahead of the donor class" and reject corporate rule, and accused Democratic leadership of "failing disastrously to meet this urgent mandate."
On Tuesday, Geevarghese welcomed the reporting on Martin's proposal, saying that "for the last 15 years, the disgraceful Citizens United ruling has unleashed a flood of spending from dark money groups and corporate super PACs that has drowned out working people's voices and sidelined the progressive candidates our party needs to challenge the corrupt billionaire class."
"This resolution is a crucial step to ensure the Democratic presidential nominee is chosen by everyday people—not deep-pocketed donors and the special interests they serve," he added. "We urge every DNC member to rise to the moment, back this fight, and put power back where it belongs—in the hands of voters, not the billionaires."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Myopia on the Left: Let's Not Do the Billionaires' Work for Them
Misguided attacks on progressive leaders like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders are not only wrong-headed—they are a-political.
Aug 09, 2025
Recently a Facebook friend of mine—whom I’ve actually known since before Mark Zuckerberg started at Harvard, and whose political activism I hold in high regard—surprised me by posting an article entitled “AOC is a genocidal con artist.” I can’t tell you what the article said because I’d be as likely to read an article proclaiming that “AOC is a lying communist child-murderer” as I would that one.
And really, the particulars of the article concern me less than the spectacularly myopic political stance on display. Political—allowing smaller or infrequent differences to outweigh broader agreement on larger issues—is always going to be a hazard for a group of intensely committed people whose concern with an issue extends down to the smallest detail. It is, however, a tendency we really can’t afford to fall into if we aspire to actually achieve goals like winding down the nation’s war machine or supplanting our corporate-dominated economy with a democratically controlled one.
The concern here is both general and specific. General, in that this type of short-sightedness diminishes the effectiveness of all of us who share the above-mentioned goals. Specifically, in that I consider attacks upon Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) particularly wrong-headed and damaging. And while few approach the level of absurdity of the above-mentioned article, claims that she’s only a “so-called progressive” can too often be found coming from people who really might benefit from taking a moment to consider things from a broader perspective.
When Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) authored a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio declaring that the Israeli government food “blockade is starving Palestinian civilians in violation of international law, and the militarization of food will not help,” and going on to “demand an immediate end to the blockade, an immediate resumption of unfettered humanitarian aid entry into Gaza, the restoration of U.S. funding to UNRWA, and an immediate and lasting ceasefire,” she was joined by only 18 other members of Congress—Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and 17 Democratic members of the House. This did two things: it told us just how insensitive to the devastation of Gaza the U.S. Congress actually is and it provided a marker of just who constituted its anti-Gaza war hardcore. Ocasio-Cortez was one of those 19.
On the domestic front, the April 16, 2025 New York Times headline said it all: “Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez Electrify Democrats Who Want to Fight Trump.” It referred to their “Fighting Oligarchy” tour which has taken the pair before crowds of 36,000 people in Los Angeles; 34,000 in Denver; 30,000 in Folsom, California, where the line to get in was three miles long and thousands more watched through the fence and from the surrounding hills; 20,000 in Salt Lake City; 20,000 in Tucson, Arizona; 15,000 in Tempe, Arizona, with another thousand outside; 12,500 in Nampa, Idaho; 10,000 in Greeley, Colorado, with an overflow crowd said to be of equal number; 7,500 in Missoula, Montana, with another 1,000 listening outside; 4,000 in Bakersfield, California; and 1,000 in North Las Vegas. Additionally, AOC held a rally with New York Representative Paul Tonko in the district of Elise Stefanik, Trump’s one-time nominee for ambassador to the United Nations.
In short, the claim that Ocasio-Cortez is something less than a “real progressive” is preposterous. If someone were to take such an assertion to court they would have to hope for a Trump-appointed judge to have any hope of winning their case. The only political figure to have done more to rally opposition to the Trump regime than Ocasio-Cortez is Sanders himself. So whence this recent flurry of muttering that she’s not the real deal?
Much of the current discontent concerns a failed amendment to H.R.4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2026. The amendment in question would have eliminated funding for Israel’s so-called “Iron Dome,” a missile system designed to intercept incoming missiles. It was offered by one of the most Trumpist members of the House, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and received only six votes—that of Greene, one other Republican, and four of the 18 hard-core opponents of Israel’s Gaza devastation. Ocasio-Cortez was not one of the four.
Members of legislative bodies may opt to deal with various amendments to bills in a variety of ways. For one thing, they are obviously taken more seriously if one intends to vote for, rather than against the final bill, as well as if or when the amendment is deemed to have a chance of passing. In a situation such as the one involving this Greene amendment, other considerations may come into play. In this case, for instance, one might imagine some deciding to vote against an amendment with no chance of passage out of disdain for the overall political stance of its author. (The vote in question occurred before the shocker of Greene becoming the first Republican in Congress to call the Israel assault on Gaza genocide.)
I am in no position to speculate as to the reasons that the majority of the Tlaib-letter signatories voted against it, but Ocasio-Cortez actually articulated hers: “Marjorie Taylor Greene’s amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of U.S. munitions being used in Gaza. Of course, I voted against it. What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue. I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive to its end. That is a simple and clear difference of opinion that has long been established. I remain focused on cutting the flow of U.S. munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza.”
The counter-argument to this is that to the extent that the Iron Dome is effective—in itself a disputed matter—it allows Israel to act with impunity, inflicting damage on others without fear of retribution. I share this take on the issue, in fact. At the current moment I’d vote against sending aid of any kind to Israel. However, I do not consider the Ocasio-Cortez viewpoint to be beyond the pale, and I also view her vote in the context of the ongoing necessity of clarity on the point that we opponents of Israel’s military operations oppose both Israeli and Hamas attacks upon civilians. Hopefully, all of us who hope to convince an ever greater sector of our population to oppose the Israeli onslaught recognize that necessity. And the possibility of erring in that direction should by no means be seen as treason to the cause on the part of one of the staunchest congressional opponents of Israel’s effort to destroy Gaza.
To take the question from a different angle, let’s consider the Israelis who are currently publicly demonstrating against this extermination campaign. Surely we’d have to count them among the most courageous and impactful protestors against their government’s actions to be found anywhere in the world. While I personally don’t know any of them, I strongly suspect that there are some among their number who support the Iron Dome system because they believe that it does offer some protection to them and their neighbors in the case of attack—a real possibility in their lives. If that were to be the case, would we deem their opposition to the war as insufficient, or less than genuine? Arguing and debating every fine point regarding the current horrific situation is in many ways an admirable thing; it’s a facet of commitment. But when it creates needless divisions or even turns friends into foes, it ceases to be admirable. And certainly, on this question, Ocasio-Cortez’s stance does not justify articles with absurd titles like the one cited above.
Of course, the phenomenon is not limited to Ocasio-Cortez. Bernie Sanders too is lately under attack by some adherents to what we might characterize as a crossword-puzzle approach to politics—that is to say, if you don’t use the right word, it doesn’t count. The word in question here is “genocide.” Many, perhaps most opponents of Israel’s actions believe they meet the definition of genocide created by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. But there are also equally staunch opponents who—because they think Israel’s devastation of Gaza, although abominable, doesn’t fit that definition; or because they adhere to a different definition of the word; or for some other reason – choose not to use the word. Sanders is one of those, which has resulted in some people going to far as to argue that the fact that the word “genocide” does not appear in his statements actually outweighs, for instance, the importance of his authoring the Senate resolution that for the first time drew a majority of that body’s Democrats into public opposition to what Sanders characterized as “an all-out, illegal, immoral and horrific war of annihilation against the Palestinian people.” I even recently ran across someone who called him “a coward” on those grounds. Bernie Sanders—a coward! (He has, by the way, recently extended his Fighting Oligarchy tour to West Virginia and North Carolina and is headed there this weekend.)
Nor is this sort of thing new. Before she even took office, comedian and YouTube program host Jimmy Dore was denouncing Ocasio-Cortez as a “liar ... coward ... gaslighter” for refusing to make her first vote for Speaker of the House contingent on Nancy Pelosi’s agreement to schedule a full House vote on Medicare for All legislation. Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of progressive members of the House ultimately decided against the tactic. Perhaps Dore’s Force-the-Vote advocacy was right, perhaps it was wrong, but one thing the subsequent five and a half years have clearly demonstrated is that he was wrong in his name-calling.
In a sense, these outbursts of political myopia—“I don’t care about what you’ve done or think about anything else, if you disagree with me on this, you’re a (pick one) coward/genocide-supporter/gaslighter/so-called progressive/con-artist/liar—are actually a-political. The decision to be political involves commitment to overcoming the well-known fact that no two people will agree on everything, in the interest of finding areas of agreement to act upon. The Internet does wonders in allowing people to share their ideas—including their differences—but it can unfortunately also make it too easy to forget that commitment.
I stated above that I considered misguided attacks on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to be particularly damaging. The reason is 2028 and the next presidential election. Bernie Sanders’s decision to enter the 2016 presidential race was a game changer—his ultimate failure to win the nomination notwithstanding—as it belatedly brought American politics into the 21st Century by introducing working class-oriented democratic socialist ideas into millions of living rooms during the Democratic primary debates. Likewise in 2020. But not so in 2024, when the only candidates in the limelight, Donald Trump, Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris, vied to be Bibi Netanyahu’s best friend, and all opposed Medicare for All.
Assuming that Bernie Sanders will not make another run, we find ourselves very much in need of a candidate who will carry the banner he ran on—one who will reject a minimalist “At least we’re better than Trump” message instead calling for turning away from the disastrous endless-war foreign policy that has reigned supreme for decades and against economic policies that favor the interest of the few who are fabulously wealthy over the interests of the many who are not. It is certainly not too soon to consider this question, as we know all too well how prepared the other side is.
To my eye, at this point the obvious choice would seem to be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, should she be interested. Perhaps the reader sees it differently or has another candidate in mind. Nevertheless, we should all be able to agree that it’s imperative not to lose sight of the broader goals because we have obsessed over differences on lesser matters. We should not do the billionaires’ work of dividing us. They have enough money to do it for themselves.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular