Politico Announces Presale Tix For 'Who Would Vote For The Unf*ckable Harpy 2' Tour

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, it's your time to shine!

Far be it from  Politico  to write a hit piece on Elizabeth Warren calling her an unfuckable harpy five minutes after she announces her presidential run. But they have to ask, isn't she too strident, divisive, and shrill to be president? Maybe she's just too darn unlikable, you know?

The anti-Elizabeth Warren narrative was written before the Massachusetts senator even announced she was exploring a presidential run.

Written by whom, John Barron? Many people are saying that Politico is going to run exactly the same playbook with Elizabeth Warren that they did with Hillary Clinton, ignoring a lifetime of public service and writing one thousand stories implying that she's somehow untrustworthy because she used a DNA test to establish the fact that she had a Native American ancestor several generations back.

How does Elizabeth Warren avoid a Clinton redux — written off as too unlikable before her campaign gets off the gro… https: //t.co/M5r2E8FDzR

— POLITICO (@POLITICO) 1546368004.0 

Oh, FFS! Why don't you just come out and headline it "Trump That Bitch"? You know you want to!

She's too divisive and too liberal, Washington Democrats have complained privately. Her DNA rollout was a disaster — and quite possibly a White House deal-breaker. She's already falling in the polls, and — perhaps most stinging — shares too many of the attributes that sank Hillary Clinton.

In the year of the woman, it adds up to one unwelcome mat for the most prominent woman likely to be part of the 2020 field. But it also presents an unmistakable challenge: How does Warren avoid a Clinton redux — written off as too unlikable before her campaign gets off the ground?

Elizabeth Warren is responsible for the creation of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, but there's no mention of that in the article. After a cursory nod to "sexism" and "her early years as an anti-Wall Street, pro-consumer crusader," Politico is back with several paragraphs wondering whether the DNA debacle has already tanked her campaign before it started. Third verse, same as the first. 

We can start by treating women as candidates for president, not homecoming queen. https: //t.co/Qlwszu6Os0

— Connie Schultz (@Connie Schultz) 1546379649.0 

Who's that lady? She is the wife of another possible 2020 presidential contender, and someone who  doesn't suck.    Politico should try it sometime!

Not to be outdone, the    New York Times  just has to ask if Elizabeth Warren is disqualified from the presidency because she spent too much time being a Senator and is now past her sell-by date.

Knowing when to run is increasingly crucial in presidential politics. Barack Obama ran in 2008 after only four year… https: //t.co/OhrHRJgT3W

— NYT Politics (@NYT Politics) 1546352821.0 

Ms. Warren was hardly the first White House hopeful to risk waiting. Bill Clinton, for example, opted out of the 1988 campaign and still became president four years later.

But the more recent history of presidential calculations suggests that candidates are wiser to run when the moment presents itself. That is what Mr. Obama did in 2008 after just four years in the Senate, the same period Ms. Warren would have served by 2016. Some Democrats think 2020 is Mr. O'Rourke's moment: He has been in the House for just six years, but many liberals see his energy and freshness as inspiring.

Props to the Times for finding a fresh angle on the old unlikability trope. In their version, Warren dithered too long, and is now an over-prepared old maid whose eggs have died. Gosh, where have we heard that one before? Oh, right.

.@chucktodd: #debatenight exposed Trump's lack of preparation, but Clinton seemed over-prepared at times.

— Meet the Press (@Meet the Press) 1474944064.0 

Did Warren "miss her moment" in 2016, when she could have spent six months calling Hillary a corporate shill before losing the primary, so now she must cede the field to a younger man? (Or a couple of older ones!) Sure Beto just lost an election in his own home state, but does anyone call him a shriveled up old hag? The New York Times is just asking questions!

We're not taking a position on the viability of Warren's candidacy, or O'Rourke's, or even Jay Inslee's. Because it's January 2, 2019, and tomorrow Democrats will take control of the House, at which point all hell will break loose. (Although we'd be willing to take a wild shot that John Delaney is not going to be POTUS. Call it women's intuition!)

But we're sure as hell not going to let the media run the same lazyass misogynistic playbook they did in 2016. Because when they say "shrill," they mean bitch. And when they say "unlikable," they mean bitch. Same for opinionated, and strident, and divisive, and polarizing, and loud.

AND WE ARE NOT TAKING THAT SHIT ANY MORE.

[ Politico / NYT ]

 Follow your FDF on Twitter! 

Happy New Year! We made it! Please celebrate by throwing a dollar in the Wonkette kitty.