SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
U.S. President Joe Biden gives remarks on his administration's response to Covid-19 on January 13, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
These days, conventional media wisdom says that President Biden will have a smooth path to renomination if he wants it.
Don't be so sure.
Fifty-five years ago, pundits scoffed when a Democratic senator announced that he was running against incumbent Lyndon Johnson for their party's presidential nomination. Eugene McCarthy launched his campaign to challenge Johnson's continual escalation of the war in Vietnam.
A progressive challenger could launch a principled campaign to constructively give Biden a run for his corporate money in early primary states--raising vital questions about crucial policies along the way.
Joe Biden's public approval rating is now at 42 percent, virtually identical to what it was for President Johnson when the McCarthy campaign began in November 1967. A few months later, on March 12, 1968, McCarthy received 42 percent of the votes--a stunning result, just 7 percent behind Johnson--in the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary. Senator Robert Kennedy jumped into the race four days later. And two weeks after that, Johnson shocked the country by declaring that he would not seek re-election.
It would be nice to hear from Biden the kind of statement that Johnson made: "I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the presidency of your country." But Biden has said in recent weeks that he intends to run again.
Spinners aligned with the White House are careful to detour around the notable shortage of enthusiasm for Biden among the Democratic electorate. New polling found that 57 percent of Democrats don't want him to be the party's nominee.
So far, no Democrat in Congress has shown any interest in entering primaries against Biden. Yet a progressive challenger could launch a principled campaign to constructively give Biden a run for his corporate money in early primary states--raising vital questions about crucial policies along the way.
Skeptics might point out that, unlike when McCarthy received strong support from antiwar citizens, now there is no single overriding issue like the Vietnam War. But there is a class war (by any other name) going on with great intensity in the United States--and a wide range of Americans are feeling the countless dire consequences of inordinate corporate power and worsening economic inequality.
Of course, Biden does not want to face a primary rival who could clearly illuminate such issues. In the absence of a credible opponent, the president would be able to skate through primaries without needing to face cogent critiques of his administration's record on an array of chronic problems--including corporate price-gouging, skyrocketing costs of housing, voter suppression, and a bloated military budget that soaks up roughly half of all federal discretionary spending.
Given the enormity of the crises facing the United States and the world, measures that Biden has proposed are often akin to calling for garden hoses to put out roaring wildfires. Being far better than Republicans in Congress is a high jump over very low standards, while simply blaming Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema is more like scapegoating than explaining.
Whether in the realms of the predatory healthcare system or the exploitive treatment of workers by huge corporations or the ever-increasing stranglehold of big tech companies or many other ills, Biden has often accepted or worsened destructive priorities while rejecting remedies that would improve people's lives instead of boost corporate profits.
"Our ideas are way more popular than Joe Biden is," a progressive Democratic member of the New Hampshire legislature says in a TV ad that will begin to air throughout the state this week. A young voter says "Joe Biden representing the status quo in 2024 simply won't cut it." Another New Hampshire voter warns in the ad (which was produced by our colleagues in the Don't Run Joe campaign), "We can't afford to risk the White House for a Republican who could defeat status-quo Joe."
But where is a prominent progressive Democrat willing to challenge status-quo Joe in the primaries? Political courage appears to be in short supply among self-identified progressives on Capitol Hill, who so far have done nothing to help get Biden out of the way and clear a path for bolder leadership. It will be up to grassroots activists to get the job done.
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. |
Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. The paperback edition of his latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, includes an afterword about the Gaza war.
These days, conventional media wisdom says that President Biden will have a smooth path to renomination if he wants it.
Don't be so sure.
Fifty-five years ago, pundits scoffed when a Democratic senator announced that he was running against incumbent Lyndon Johnson for their party's presidential nomination. Eugene McCarthy launched his campaign to challenge Johnson's continual escalation of the war in Vietnam.
A progressive challenger could launch a principled campaign to constructively give Biden a run for his corporate money in early primary states--raising vital questions about crucial policies along the way.
Joe Biden's public approval rating is now at 42 percent, virtually identical to what it was for President Johnson when the McCarthy campaign began in November 1967. A few months later, on March 12, 1968, McCarthy received 42 percent of the votes--a stunning result, just 7 percent behind Johnson--in the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary. Senator Robert Kennedy jumped into the race four days later. And two weeks after that, Johnson shocked the country by declaring that he would not seek re-election.
It would be nice to hear from Biden the kind of statement that Johnson made: "I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the presidency of your country." But Biden has said in recent weeks that he intends to run again.
Spinners aligned with the White House are careful to detour around the notable shortage of enthusiasm for Biden among the Democratic electorate. New polling found that 57 percent of Democrats don't want him to be the party's nominee.
So far, no Democrat in Congress has shown any interest in entering primaries against Biden. Yet a progressive challenger could launch a principled campaign to constructively give Biden a run for his corporate money in early primary states--raising vital questions about crucial policies along the way.
Skeptics might point out that, unlike when McCarthy received strong support from antiwar citizens, now there is no single overriding issue like the Vietnam War. But there is a class war (by any other name) going on with great intensity in the United States--and a wide range of Americans are feeling the countless dire consequences of inordinate corporate power and worsening economic inequality.
Of course, Biden does not want to face a primary rival who could clearly illuminate such issues. In the absence of a credible opponent, the president would be able to skate through primaries without needing to face cogent critiques of his administration's record on an array of chronic problems--including corporate price-gouging, skyrocketing costs of housing, voter suppression, and a bloated military budget that soaks up roughly half of all federal discretionary spending.
Given the enormity of the crises facing the United States and the world, measures that Biden has proposed are often akin to calling for garden hoses to put out roaring wildfires. Being far better than Republicans in Congress is a high jump over very low standards, while simply blaming Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema is more like scapegoating than explaining.
Whether in the realms of the predatory healthcare system or the exploitive treatment of workers by huge corporations or the ever-increasing stranglehold of big tech companies or many other ills, Biden has often accepted or worsened destructive priorities while rejecting remedies that would improve people's lives instead of boost corporate profits.
"Our ideas are way more popular than Joe Biden is," a progressive Democratic member of the New Hampshire legislature says in a TV ad that will begin to air throughout the state this week. A young voter says "Joe Biden representing the status quo in 2024 simply won't cut it." Another New Hampshire voter warns in the ad (which was produced by our colleagues in the Don't Run Joe campaign), "We can't afford to risk the White House for a Republican who could defeat status-quo Joe."
But where is a prominent progressive Democrat willing to challenge status-quo Joe in the primaries? Political courage appears to be in short supply among self-identified progressives on Capitol Hill, who so far have done nothing to help get Biden out of the way and clear a path for bolder leadership. It will be up to grassroots activists to get the job done.
Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. The paperback edition of his latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, includes an afterword about the Gaza war.
These days, conventional media wisdom says that President Biden will have a smooth path to renomination if he wants it.
Don't be so sure.
Fifty-five years ago, pundits scoffed when a Democratic senator announced that he was running against incumbent Lyndon Johnson for their party's presidential nomination. Eugene McCarthy launched his campaign to challenge Johnson's continual escalation of the war in Vietnam.
A progressive challenger could launch a principled campaign to constructively give Biden a run for his corporate money in early primary states--raising vital questions about crucial policies along the way.
Joe Biden's public approval rating is now at 42 percent, virtually identical to what it was for President Johnson when the McCarthy campaign began in November 1967. A few months later, on March 12, 1968, McCarthy received 42 percent of the votes--a stunning result, just 7 percent behind Johnson--in the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary. Senator Robert Kennedy jumped into the race four days later. And two weeks after that, Johnson shocked the country by declaring that he would not seek re-election.
It would be nice to hear from Biden the kind of statement that Johnson made: "I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the presidency of your country." But Biden has said in recent weeks that he intends to run again.
Spinners aligned with the White House are careful to detour around the notable shortage of enthusiasm for Biden among the Democratic electorate. New polling found that 57 percent of Democrats don't want him to be the party's nominee.
So far, no Democrat in Congress has shown any interest in entering primaries against Biden. Yet a progressive challenger could launch a principled campaign to constructively give Biden a run for his corporate money in early primary states--raising vital questions about crucial policies along the way.
Skeptics might point out that, unlike when McCarthy received strong support from antiwar citizens, now there is no single overriding issue like the Vietnam War. But there is a class war (by any other name) going on with great intensity in the United States--and a wide range of Americans are feeling the countless dire consequences of inordinate corporate power and worsening economic inequality.
Of course, Biden does not want to face a primary rival who could clearly illuminate such issues. In the absence of a credible opponent, the president would be able to skate through primaries without needing to face cogent critiques of his administration's record on an array of chronic problems--including corporate price-gouging, skyrocketing costs of housing, voter suppression, and a bloated military budget that soaks up roughly half of all federal discretionary spending.
Given the enormity of the crises facing the United States and the world, measures that Biden has proposed are often akin to calling for garden hoses to put out roaring wildfires. Being far better than Republicans in Congress is a high jump over very low standards, while simply blaming Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema is more like scapegoating than explaining.
Whether in the realms of the predatory healthcare system or the exploitive treatment of workers by huge corporations or the ever-increasing stranglehold of big tech companies or many other ills, Biden has often accepted or worsened destructive priorities while rejecting remedies that would improve people's lives instead of boost corporate profits.
"Our ideas are way more popular than Joe Biden is," a progressive Democratic member of the New Hampshire legislature says in a TV ad that will begin to air throughout the state this week. A young voter says "Joe Biden representing the status quo in 2024 simply won't cut it." Another New Hampshire voter warns in the ad (which was produced by our colleagues in the Don't Run Joe campaign), "We can't afford to risk the White House for a Republican who could defeat status-quo Joe."
But where is a prominent progressive Democrat willing to challenge status-quo Joe in the primaries? Political courage appears to be in short supply among self-identified progressives on Capitol Hill, who so far have done nothing to help get Biden out of the way and clear a path for bolder leadership. It will be up to grassroots activists to get the job done.
"Eric Adams is a complete non-factor in this race," remarked a founding partner of pollster Zenith Research.
A new poll of the New York City mayoral race found that Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani is very well positioned to win later this year and that former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is only competitive in the race if every other Mamdani opponent drops out.
The survey, which was conducted by polling firm Zenith Research, showed Mamdani holding what Zenith founding partner Adam Carlson described on X as a "commanding" lead of 28 points among likely voters in a five-way race featuring Cuomo, incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, Republican Curtis Sliwa, and independent candidate Jim Walden. Even in other scenarios where other candidates drop out of the race, Mamdani would still garner more than 50% of likely votes in each instance.
However, Mamdani's lead becomes much smaller when the poll is expanded to all registered voters, among whom he only holds a three-point advantage over Cuomo in a head-to-head matchup. This suggests that Cuomo has room to grow as long as he can convince Adams, Sliwa, and Walden to exit the race.
Even so, commented Carlson, Cuomo faces significant headwinds that could block his path to victory even if he succeeds somehow in making it a one-on-one race.
"Another thing that’s extremely tough for Cuomo is that 60% of likely voters (as well as 52% of registered voters) would not even consider voting for him," he explained. "Only 32% say they wouldn't consider voting for Mamdani. Cuomo will need to go scorched earth to bring that number up."
New Yorkers who oppose Mamdani will have to place their hopes in the disgraced former governor, given the dismal standing held by incumbent Adams.
"Eric Adams is a complete non-factor in this race," remarked Carlson. "He polls at 7% in the five-way race, 14% if Cuomo drops out, and 32% if Cuomo and Sliwa drop out. More than half of [likely voters] strongly disapprove of his performance and have a very unfavorable view of him. 68% won't consider voting for him."
The poll also found Mamdani with an overall lead among Jewish voters despite efforts by opponents to paint him as antisemitic given his opposition to Israel's war in Gaza and his past reluctance to criticize the slogan "globalize the intifada," which he told The Bulwark he viewed as "a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights." New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, a progressive Jewish ally of Mamdani's who has endorsed his mayoral bid, acknowledged before the election that some Jewish people view the phrase as a threat of violence.
Among likely Jewish voters, Mamdani leads Cuomo by 17 points in a five-way race. Although Cuomo holds a double-digit lead over Mamdani among likely Jewish voters over the age of 45, Mamdani dominates among young Jewish voters by pulling in more than two-thirds of likely Jewish voters between the ages of 18 and 44.
"These individuals have already taken steps to upend decades of scientific research and vaccine policy, threatening the health and safety of all Americans," said a letter signed by Sanders and seven other Democratic senators.
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday launched an investigation into U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s purge of independent experts from a panel on vaccine recommendations.
Last month, Kennedy announced that he was "retiring" all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, commonly known as ACIP, despite promising during his Senate confirmation hearing to keep the committee intact.
At the time, Sanders (I-Vt.)—chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions—warned that "firing independent vaccine experts is a dangerous, unprecedented move that will make it harder for the American people to access vaccines that are safe, effective, and essential to saving lives."
After the firings, Kennedy said, "We're going to bring great people onto the ACIP panel—not anti-vaxxers—bringing people on who are credentialed scientists."
In a letter sent to Kennedy Tuesday, Sanders and seven other Democratic senators said those fears have come to pass. Kennedy, they said, has replaced the panel of experts with "prominent vaccine deniers."
The most prominent of these figures is Dr. Robert Malone, who has described it as "high praise" to be dubbed an "anti-vaxxer."
Malone gained prominence during the Covid-19 pandemic by casting doubt on the illness's severity and baselessly suggesting that the mRNA vaccines used to treat the disease were "causing a form of AIDS."
Earlier this year, Malone also attempted to foment doubt that children had died due to the unprecedented measles outbreak in Texas.
Kennedy also appointed the former leader of his anti-vaccine organization, the Children's Health Defense, Lyn Redwood, a longtime proponent of the false belief that the vaccination for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) causes autism.
Also on the committee is Vicky Pebsworth Debold, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center—one of the longest-running anti-vaccine organizations in America—who has argued that a vaccination caused her child's autism.
ACIP is in charge of examining scientific findings to make recommendations to the public about which vaccines to get and when.
"These individuals," the senators said, "have already taken steps to upend decades of scientific research and vaccine policy, threatening the health and safety of all Americans."
When Kennedy's new handpicked committee met for the first time in late June, the members made substantial changes to vaccine policy and hinted at others coming in the future.
The most significant change they made was the recommendation that Americans receive flu vaccinations free of the preservative thimerosal—which is partially made of mercury and prevents germs and fungi from contaminating batches of vaccines.
Thimerosal, which is a component of many multidose vaccines, has never been found harmful by any scientific study. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided a document to the committee that included 25 years of studies indicating thimerosal's safety. But that document was removed from the meeting without explanation.
When they questioned ACIP about its removal, the senators say Malone replied that it was "not authorized by the office of the secretary," which the senators concluded meant that Kennedy or one of his staff "had the document taken off CDC’s website."
Instead of credible science, Redwood presented a report likely generated by artificial intelligence, which included many debunked claims about the dangers of thimerosal, and even made reference to a CDC study on the dangers of the preservative that did not exist.
Kennedy's ACIP also determined that it would revise the childhood vaccine schedule that has been in place for decades. That schedule includes vaccines for polio, chickenpox, diphtheria, and tetanus—illnesses that once routinely killed children but have been virtually eradicated by mass immunization.
The recommended vaccine schedule, the senators noted, determines what immunizations are required to be covered by health insurance companies and government programs like Medicaid and Medicare.
"If insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs stop covering vaccines, Americans will be forced to pay out of pocket," the senators said. "The only people who will be able to afford vaccines will be the wealthy."
The senators warned that this, along with Kennedy and his appointees' undermining of vaccine science, would result in "a resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases."
Under Kennedy, the U.S. has already experienced its largest measles outbreak in 33 years, which has resulted in the first deaths from the disease in over a decade, following a downswing in measles vaccination.
Despite this, Kennedy has continued to downplay the disease's severity and the vaccine's well-documented effectiveness, even claiming that it causes "deaths every year."
The senators demanded that Kennedy provide information about why each of the nonpartisan members of ACIP were fired, and what criteria and vetting process was used to pick the anti-vaccine figures who replaced them.
"The harm your actions will cause is significant," the senators told Kennedy. "As your new ACIP makes recommendations based on pseudoscience, fewer and fewer Americans will have access to fewer and fewer vaccines. And as you give a platform to conspiracy theorists, and even promote their theories yourself, Americans will continue to lose confidence in whatever vaccines are still available."
"What will come out next about Bove?" said one senator as a confirmation vote loomed. "That's precisely the problem with this disaster of a nominee. And why Senate Republicans are rushing through his nomination."
With the U.S. Senate poised to vote as early as Tuesday on Trump administration official Emil Bove's nomination for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge, a third whistleblower came forward with information about Bove's conduct at the Department of Justice and Democratic senators made their latest push to stop his confirmation.
As The Washington Post reported, a whistleblower shared evidence with lawmakers that Bove, the principal associate deputy attorney general and a former personal attorney to President Donald Trump, misled the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding his role in the DOJ's dismissal of corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
During his confirmation hearing in June, Bove told senators that U.S. District Judge Dale Ho granted the DOJ's motion to dismiss the Adams case because it "reflected a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion."
He denied the existence of the DOJ deal with Adams to drop the charges in exchange for the mayor's cooperation with Trump's mass deportation agenda, saying that "the suggestion that there was some kind of quid pro quo was just plain false."
The decision to drop the charges led several prosecutors to resign from the DOJ in protest.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee and condemned Republicans' decision to advance Bove's nomination earlier this month, first received evidence from the third whistleblower, according to the Post. Several other Democrats have also reviewed the evidence, which Booker told the outlet was "significant."
"We have substantial information relevant to the truthfulness of the nominee," Booker said on the Senate floor, calling on Republicans on the committee to review the new evidence.
"Another whistleblower has come forward with evidence that raises serious concerns with Emil Bove's misconduct. Senate Republicans will bear full responsibility for the consequences if they rubber stamp Mr. Bove's nomination."
Lawyers for the anonymous whistleblower told the Post on Tuesday that they had turned over the new information provided by the person to the DOJ inspector general.
Booker was joined by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Tuesday in calling on the DOJ's inspector general to promptly open an investigation into Bove in light of the latest whistleblower complaint.
"In the event these whistleblower complaints and other reports have not already prompted investigations by your office, we urge you to undertake a thorough review of these disclosures and allegations," said the lawmakers.
Two other whistleblowers have come forward in recent weeks, alleging Bove told DOJ lawyers to ignore court orders that would impede Trump's mass deportation agenda. Former DOJ attorneys and federal and state judges have urged the Senate to oppose his nomination.
Schiff condemned Republicans on the committee for attempting to dismiss the whistleblowers' complaints.
"What will come out next about Bove?" said Schiff. "That's precisely the problem with this disaster of a nominee. And why Senate Republicans are rushing through his nomination. Before more disqualifying information can come out."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) emphasized that the fight to stop Bove's confirmation "isn't over, even when subservient Senate Republicans ignore another whistleblower and shove this character through their new-low, hide-the-ball Senate confirmation process and onto the bench."
Republicans can afford to lose only three votes for Bove and still confirm him with a tie-breaker vote from Vice President JD Vance. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) are expected to oppose him.
Josh Sorbe, a spokesperson for Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, said the latest complaint is "another damning indictment of a man who should never be a federal judge."
"Another whistleblower has come forward with evidence that raises serious concerns with Emil Bove's misconduct," said Sorbe. "Senate Republicans will bear full responsibility for the consequences if they rubber stamp Mr. Bove's nomination."