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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


[Politico / NYT]

Follow your FDF on Twitter!

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

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Five Dollar Feminist

Your FDF lives in Baltimore under an assumed identity as an upstanding member of the PTA. Shhh, don't tell anyone she makes swears on the internet!

Donate with CC

Once upon a time... about ten years ago, a group of entirely ridiculous men burst onto the scene wearing stupid hats and telling men that wearing stupid hats and telling men that walking up to women in bars and insulting ("negging") them would get them laid. This did not last long, as women also had televisions and computers and were completely aware of these tricks as well, so when some ass came up to us in a bar and said "Hey, nice nails, are they real?" we would laugh and laugh and loudly announce "Oh my god, this guy just tried to neg me! Can you believe that shit? HEY EVERYONE, THIS GUY JUST TRIED TO NEG ME!" and then refer to him as "Mystery" the whole night.

Most of the men who tried that shit only did so a few times before realizing that it wasn't going to work, and thus moved on to other things. Perhaps things that did not involve furry hats and coming off as a huge creep. We may never know, because I would assume that those who tried it are now extremely embarrassed and would never, ever admit to this to us.

Still, there were a few men willing to eat that shit up, as well as some grifters willing to take advantage of that. Said grifters tended to be extremely misogynistic and seemed more like they were teaching men how to be as despised by women as they were than teaching them how to actually be liked by women.

Some of them, like Roosh V, a creepy weirdo who actually does live in his mom's basement, actively encouraged men to rape women who were intoxicated to the point of being obviously unable to consent.

However, even that branch of the PUA tree is wilting away. Many "self-help" style PUA forums like Nextasf and RSDnation are shutting down or have already shut down. In March, Chateau Heartiste, a batshit crazy PUA turned White Nationalist/Alt-Right blog was shut down by Wordpress. This week, rape advocate Roosh V (whom you may recall once called yours truly a "Wonkette typist/clown face, would not bang") announced that he was renouncing his PUA ways and devoting himself to Jesus. He explained to the forum he manages that he would no longer be allowing anyone to discuss premarital "fornication."

Keep reading... Show less
Donate with CC

'Baby Geniuses' star Jon Voight took to Twitter early this morning to proclaim his undying love for Donald Trump, probably because there is no one left in his life who will listen to him talk about this, or anything else, in person. In this video rant, Voight encouraged members of the Republican Party, whom he apparently thinks are the only real citizens of the United States, to stand by Donald Trump and "acknowledge the truth" that he is the best President since Abraham Lincoln.

Part ONE:

People of the Republican Party, I know you will agree with me when I say our president has our utmost respect and our love. This job is not easy. For he's battling the left and their absurd words of destruction. I've said this once and I'll say this again. That our nation has been built on the solid ground from our forefathers, and there is a moral code of duty that has been passed on from President Lincoln. I'm here today to acknowledge the truth, and I'm here today to tell you my fellow Americans that our country…

Oh no, not our absurd words of destruction!

Part DEUX:

is stronger, safer, and with more jobs because our President has made his every move correct. Don't be fooled by the political left, because we are the people of this nation that is witnessing triumph. So let us stand with our president. Let us stand up for this truth, that President Trump is the greatest president since President Lincoln.

Does Jon Voight not know there have been... other presidents? Can he name them? Because really, it does not sound like it. Does he also not know that a very big chunk of the Republican Party actually does not care very much for Abraham Lincoln? Namely those defenders of Confederate statues that Trump called "very fine people?" Also, did he intentionally diss their beloved Ronald Reagan?

Who can know? Who can even tell what he is trying to say or why he is trying to say it. He doesn't appear to have tweeted much since 2016, so I'm guessing whoever's job it was to keep him from tanking his career quit. Either that... or after filming the seventh season of Ray Donovan, he found out it's going to be canceled or his character is getting killed off or something and he is now free to be a jackass? I don't know, I haven't watched the show, although my parents are very into it and mad that I haven't watched it. Literally all I know about it is that it has something to do with Boston, because they keep mentioning that to me like it's a selling point.

It seems useless at this point to note that the people who scream their faces off about how bad it is for Hollywood celebs to support liberal causes, and how they should keep their politics to themselves, etc. etc. make a way bigger deal than normal people do whenever a Big Time Hollywood Celebrity like Jon Voight or, uh, Scott Baio, supports their cause. Mostly because they're the only ones who have elected a reality TV star and the star of Bedtime for Bonzo (who by the way, also once practically ruined a perfectly good Bette Davis movie with his bad acting. Which is not to say that Dark Victory is not fantastic and probably the best thing to watch if you want to sob your face off, but he was very bad in it.) to run the country.

But we might as well do that anyway, because it actually never stops being funny.

[Jon Voight Twitter]

Donate with CC

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc