Donate

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.

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.

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

An unhinged wannabe fascist who tweets about golden showers did a news conference in the Rose Garden this afternoon. Also, Donald Trump was there.

Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro is in town, and everything about today's public appearance with Trump and Bolsonaro has been real stupid, just like how it was real stupid when Bolsonaro's stupid son was the stupid guest of honor the other night at a stupid Steve Bannon event at the stupid Trump trash palace hotel in DC.

During their pool spray, Trump excitedly told reporters that he was making plans to give NATO privileges to Brazil, because of how Brazil elected a big gross dipshit just like America did. Of course, considering how Trump treats actual NATO countries, Bolsonaro might want to reconsider whether he wants that.

Then a reporter asked him about his blubbering whiny-ass attacks on John McCain, who is still dead.

That's right, Donald Trump didn't even avoid the question about his very embarrassing behavior. He spoke about McCain as if McCain were still alive, whined about McCain killing Obamacare repeal, and concluded by saying, "I was never a fan of John McCain, and I never will be." As for McCain, he will continue living rent-free in the president's nightmares and his face will be the face of Trump's insecurities, because we guess that's what happens to John McCains when they die.

But enough about the pool spray! After they met in the Oval Office and did whatever fascists who should be prohibited entry to the White House via an electric doggie fence do (sniffed each other's butts, probably), they entered the Rose Garden and proceeded to hike their legs on democracy some more.

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC
Yep, we're breaking out the Wikimedia kitten image for this one.

CNN is out today with a story on members of the anti-vaccination/pro-disease movement who have found a delightful new way to win converts to their side in the war on science: find parents (mothers, generally) who have recently lost a child to a preventable disease, and then harass them on social media, because after all, good people refuse vaccines and anyone who advocates for vaccines must be burned to the ground. As your lawyer (we are not a lawyer), we advise you to secure any hurlable heavy objects near you before reading.

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC
Donate

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Newsletter

©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc