She has to beat Bernie. That's hard to do when she will not attack him, or his positions, or his past support for totalitarian regimes.
She makes nice to him onstage.
Meanwhile TODAY Bernie is campaigning in Massachusetts, trying to finish her off on Tuesday.
You want to play? You gotta play. She did not. Bernie did.
5
Virtually overnight, Warren went from condemning Super PAC money to accepting it, becoming one of the race's largest recipients of Super PAC money in the process. In addition, she won't release the names of the donors.
Each week of the past three months has seen Warren engage in new acts of desperation that call into question her integrity and her commitment to the reforms that once served as the cornerstone of her candidacy. What principle will she betray next? What will it take for her supporters to turn another way? Warren's camp indicts Sanders' (and, previously, Yang's) supporters as cultish, but I can't help but wonder if that's not simply a matter of projection.
7
I like Liz. She's peppy, quick, smart, informed, convicted--but not too inflexible to work with. I liked Hillary too. I used to think of myself and my 30-something gal pals as the "Hermiones for Hillary" (that idea might have originated online somewhere). It is SO frustrating that competence and hard work (in spades) isn't enough to get a woman elected. Do people not see how the Hermiones of the world make things happen--at work, at home, and beyond? Just look around!
14
Why is it not okay to "bash" Elizabeth Warren as "too shrill", etc., but it IS okay to "bash" Senator Sanders for being -
a. old (I'm 78 and female and get tired of being told to put myself out to pasture).
b. scowly (I look crabby too, some days, at the state of our country)
c. Impractical (really? It's practical to have the idiotic healthcare "system" we have? Practical to load our children with student debt"?
As a woman, I don't like any sort of double standard, and have had my lifetime fill of being told my place should be in the kitchen cooking.
But it feels not okay to me to do it to men as well.
9
No wonder she tanked. She appeals to that subset of voters who are white woke wealthy women, and that's simply not enough to win an election.
7
$12,000,000 from a Super PAC, she pledged she would not accept. Now desperate, she accepts. And thus her future marriage to her corporate suitors.
6
To BWCA 1) "I'm not a woman and I'm not gay so I don't write as a woman" - Huh? why would being a gay man make you write as a woman.
2) "When she speaks she sounds professorial. ... I personally find it condescending and disrespectful ..."
Oh god, this makes me so angry. That's exactly some said about Obama, but anyway, both of your comments are patently absurd.
I am a professor, and we don't sound any particular one way. We sound like people who want to help others, and who stand up and work hard to explain stuff.
What's not "respected" is to be be smart - people who know a lot, who are well-educated are treated as rejects and dorks. Kids who are smart are one of the most frequent targets of bullies.
People who are modest and come from humble beginnings like Warren have to worry about toning down their intelligence are walk on eggshells not to "offend" people who are less educated or maybe just less informed about something.
This is a key reason why teachers get torrents of vitriol from the public and are paid so badly - American at its core does not value education or people who have it.
What's also not respected is being a woman.
The two combine act as giant hurdles that should not be there in the first place - turn-offs to people who harbor resentments and cannot deal with competent women who happen to know more than they do, and who want to lead.
19
I never read Faust... only about it.
Can someone please tell me if the obvious parallels with Elizabeth Warren really apply (i.e. her on-off-on SuperPac money, her "revival"- not "revolution", her M4A and wealth tax adjustments, her Hillary pantsuits, her not endorsing Bernie before 2016 super Tuesday... though it was "psuedo-faked", etc.).
5
I guess Faust's story was covered in a few books (and plays)... ich glaub es stimmt doch.
You know. A neighbor once asked me why I had an Erin Mendenhall sign in my lawn. I could honestly say I knew her personally as an elected community representative and I thought she would represent our community's interests best. Gender never even entered my mind. Complete mental absence on gender.
Mendenhall is now the Mayor of Salt Lake City.
I don't normally buy into lawn signs. In fact, this is my first and only. The sign wasn't even my idea. However, the same neighbor later approached me to say thank you. He said, "Thanks. It's nice to finally be on the winning side."
In retrospect, I desperately wish I had asked why. Is it the winning? Is it because you have daughters? Is it because you agree with her personality and/or politics? Why?
What about a lawn sign compelled you to vote for this person? Why would you bother to thank me afterwards?
I'm not sure. It's not a question I'll ever ask. However, I get the same feeling when I think about this article. We want more women in office for the same reason we want more brown and black people. We want a representative democracy. But that's not why we should for or against any person. Brown, black, male or female.
We vote for representatives who we think will represent us. They don't have to look like me. I just need them to work in the collective interest.
2
Here is why I don't like Elizabeth Warren. Wells Fargo had rogue employees that opened up fake accounts to earn commissions from the incentive plan. Wells Fargo made no money off these fake accounts and customers may have suffered $5-15 million in losses. So penalize Wells Fargo triple the damages, say $45 million. But Wells has already be fined $4 billion, way not commensurate with the crime and Warren wants more. Now I don't expect the average reader of your column to follow this but in Warren's own words "Look, sigh" either Warren doesn't understand economics or she is willing to lie to pander to her base. So if I were to like Warren it is because she is a woman, not because she is a likable person and I don't want to do that because that would be sexist.
2
I despise Elizabeth Warren, but I have to acknowledge she is the smartest candidate in the race. I admire her tenacity on the debate stage and her fearless attitude on the stump.
Being super intelligent does not equate to the most qualified. I am surprised that readers draw that conclusion. A president must have mass appeal, warmth, and an ability to bring people together.
Calling every male challenger a sexist is the anthesis of inclusion. That is why Warren might be the biggest policy wonk, but not the most qualified.
7
Let's keep in mind the role the press has played in the downturn of Warren's campaign. Warren was on a tear in the summer/fall, and Wall St. panicked that their days of robbing Main St. were over. So financier and columnist for this paper Steven Rattner writes a piece calling a Warren presidency a "terrifying prospect." Unfortunately, the editors of these pages fail to note that Rattner's day job is managing Bloomberg's money, an enormous conflict of interest. Rattner and friends also call other news organizations repeating their trumped-up horror stories about Warren and pushing Bloomberg as an alternative. As a result, anti-Warren stories appear all over the business and consumer press during the fall. And then -- just as the propaganda effort begins to bear fruit and Warren's star starts to fade -- Rattner's boss Bloomberg enters the race! The particularly sad thing about this scam is that so many of my fellow suburban women have fallen for it and are now supporting Bloomberg. When given the choice between a woman who is dedicated to making positive changes for struggling working women and a sexist racist billionaire who is trying to buy the election, they are choosing the latter. How can this be when so many of these women were strong advocates for Hillary in 2016? Could it be that their support for Clinton was more about preserving their economic advantages than about making strides for all women?
17
I encourage all of you who can afford it to donate more money to Elizabeth Warren, an outstanding and qualified candidate who knows a lot more about fixing the mess being left for us by Trump. She became a Democrat through study of the laws that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
I have donated to her campaign regularly since her first campaign for the Senate in Massachusetts. I am so proud of the Consumer Protection Bureau that she was able to implement and which has been a thorn in the side of Trump. And Trump can't get rid of it because it is law. He just posts one of his cronies to head it so it won't work. But it will be there the next time a President is elected who has the issues of the people at heart.
Hang in there Elizabeth. We need you as an example and model of what women can do. And I know that if we continue to support outstanding women like Elizabeth Warren, one day we will finally get a woman for President.
I am looking forward to that day.
17
Frank Bruni recently wrote a column headlined
‘Nobody Likes’ Bernie Sanders. It Doesn’t Matter.
I have yet to hear/read any pundit say/write that likability doesn't matter for women candidates. Quite the reverse -- they harp on it.
I am very, very weary of this. I began identifying as a feminist at 14, in 1976 (thanks to my eldest sib), and until the early 1990s, I really thought that we'd have something approximating equality by now.
Time to reread "Backlash," by Susan Faludi.
11
In a perfect world, gender wouldn’t matter. But this isn’t an equal opportunity society. When we have affordable quality childcare that allows women to pursue career goals on an equal pace, or when our country pursues meaningful family leave policies, or when women are no longer expected to fit into certain default roles, then and only then can we tell ourselves that representation doesn’t matter. Women are oftentimes hamstrung from the beginning, especially if they choose to have families, putting them two steps behind their male counterparts. Few are arguing Warren isn’t qualified. So if she’s qualified, smart, experienced and can also provide an opportunity for our children to reframe exactly what it means to be female in a male dominated...world then why not?
11
I posed the following question to myself the other day: I am 51. What is more likely to happen in my lifetime - the Browns going to the superbowl (not winning, just being one of the teams), or a woman president? I don't know the answer. I hope to see a female president before I die. I figure I have about 6 or 7 more chances after this election.
6
Politically I align more with Warren than Klobuchar, but I think Amy has a better chance in a general election. Do America's professional women not see themselves in her? I'd certainly give her my vote.
1
Many interesting thoughts here. But, misogyny is real. Press coverage is not equitable. Our elections are not clean. The early caucuses and primaries are held in places that do not represent America. Candidate's positions and platforms are not read, analyzed, and reviewed by most voters. Perhaps the only remaining truth is that elections are determined by the voters turns up on election day - but even that might not be true anymore either.
7
TAKE TWO
It wasn’t not misogyny that blunted Elizabeth Warren’s momentum. It was dishonesty.
She had it. The nomination was hers to lose. Many of Bernie’s supporters were undecided back in October, and most were leaning toward Elizabeth Warren. Rightfully so. She is smarter, more competent, more effective, and more likable than him. She would also make a much better president than him.
But she blew it when she dissembled on whether her Medicare for All plan would raise taxes on the middle class. She dissembled instead of answered—repeatedly—and so injured her brand of being an honest straight-shooter instead of a Washington insider speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
And she is doing it again now with Michael Bloomberg. By conflating his personal NDAs with his company’s NDAs she is implying that he has suppressed dozens of bad behaviors with women instead of just three (which were apparently violations of bad language and not bad action). This is Trumpian dishonesty.
And it continues to injure her brand.
And it is a shame.
Because she really is all the good things we thought she was.
Now she is fighting fighting FIGHTING!!!!! harder harder HARDER!!!!! to get back to the crossroads five months behind her, and it is making her ever more strident, clutching arguments ever more abrasive, and sublimating more and more of her talent to her rage.
She might have been the first woman president. Instead, she will not make it much past Super Tuesday.
5
And yet Bernie pays no political price among his supporters for hemming and hawing on how he will pay for MFA. Among other programs.
Are you sure misogyny isn’t in play?
13
@CJB
MISOGYNY +
Also misogyny. No question about it. But…
She just did it again on “All in With Chris Hayes” twenty minutes ago. He asked her why she is accepting Super PAC money now when she pledged not to receive it before, and she… dissembled. Deflected. And evaded. Everyone should do it, etc. Then she went after Bloomberg, her Go To Escape Button. But she never answered the question. Because of course there is no answer—other than hypocrisy (remember the Buttigieg “wine cave” moment?).
And there was a noticeable silence in the audience.
They did cheer later when she talked about the coronavirus, which was a relief; she really is an exceptional person.
But it’s over.
She’s lost her way.
What a shame.
7
It seems that as long as your criticism of Warren is not a deep one you'll get posted here. (I'll try posting my concerns one at a time to troubleshoot where my actual offense lies.)
Warren said in the NH debate that she 'has been a teacher her whole life'... not. Harvard Law School is not a "school" and its professors are not "teachers". Warren may enjoy the prestige and salary of a Harvard professor, but she can't ALSO expect to have the 'street cred' of a public school teacher. But she does expect this... probably because she assumes, as do many academics, that less educated people are less smart.
4
@carl bumba she was a school teacher prior to going to law school. Little kids. Street Cred and prestige, all in one woman.
6
@Shelly
Street cred! Her first job (which looks to be a resume builder) used her Audiology degree to get a temporary, part-time teaching assignment, I believe in special ed - that's it! Never had a teaching certificate, never taught any kids besides this brief part-time thing when she was, like, 21.... she is 70 now and still talks about these months like it was yesterday and very pivotal for her life. She went on from there to law school and married a higher level (and, as I understand it, very rich) academic in her field. And she would remain a Republican for another twenty years - with Nixon, Reagan, etc..
3
Go Elizabeth go!
And I’m not even a woman!
But I understand the power of women. Especially the smart ones.
Just ask... Arisha al-Kamal, and Jennifer Boyles, and Melissa Cartwright, and Lillian Bruberry, and Denise Sanchez, and Sana al-Kamal.
Just to name a few...of my favorites.
Go Elizabeth!
7
"They saw themselves in Elizabeth Warren," just like they saw themselves in Hillary Rhodman Clinton. Look at what that got them.
6
Sorry. I'm a man. I've known nothing but male presidents in my lifetime. I've never once "seen myself" in any of them. Can this paper please stop refracting every story through the lens of identity? At least long enough to think about what you're really saying. Warren has proven herself to be a skilled administrator and campaigner. But she's also proven to be an opportunist and a liar. Who sees themselves as that? You want seem to want readers to look at Warren and see a woman but you should be teaching readers to see people for more than their identity.
7
@SJG
You said it yourself - you are a man. As such you have absolutely no idea what it is to be raised in a world entirely dominated by the opposite gender. Take a moment to imagine what life would be like for you if for your entire existence every field/profession/historical reference you ever encountered were dominated by women. Then imagine all the additional burdens you carry, restriction of movement being one obvious example. (Where can a man not travel? What time of day is not safer for a man?) You are tired of NYT articles that focus on identity? What is all of public life if not a celebration of white maleness? If we can live through that and still thrive and smile and carve out a little place for ourselves, certainly you can manage to read (or ignore!) a few articles you find annoying.
16
Hillary Clinton was/is a giant compared to Elizabeth Warren, who is little else but a less authentic, less honest version of the other socialist candidate in the race. I was proud to have voted for the first woman president in 2016 as she was immensely qualified and espoused an inclusive positive agenda. Elizabeth Warren is no Hillary Clinton.
4
@Robert
"she was immensely qualified and espoused an inclusive positive agenda..."
Interesting choice of words -- "espoused." Because the only reason we even know who Hillary is is because of her spouse. Unlike Hillary, who rode her husband's coatails to fame and power, Warren, with whom I disagree on many of her policies, made it on her own.
3
When you don't get your own way, whine about it and feel sorry for yourself. Elizabeth Warren has nobody to blame but herself for her miserable primary standing among the Democrat presidential candidates. She has lied repeatedly about her ethnic background, and she has tried to deny her own record as a big bucks corporate lawyer. Her promise of Medicare for all without accounting for the $20 trillion cost reveals her own economic ignorance. She is not electable, and to call her a role model for anyone is simply wishful thinking on her part.
7
Warren claimed she'd reject super PACs, based the entire appeal of her campaign on getting money out of politics. Now she has one and hasn't even updated her website.
Pretty sure we should blame her brain for these decisions and their consequences, not her reproductive organs.
7
I think we all wanted to like Warren, at least I did. She seems like an intelligent politician, her priorities are well aligned in my view, I'd love to see her in the oval office, but there's no way around it - her campaign effort has left much to be desired. She's punched well below her wait, repeatedly coming up short on substance when the moment has called for it, and essentially made herself into a liability.
She came out swinging at trump when he took office, much to democratic party voters delight, but I fear she has made herself too much of a household enemy in a similar vein as Hilary Clinton. I can't many find dems who agree on anything regarding 2020 predictions and electability, but one thing I'm hearing from most is that if Trump's favorite punching bag "Pocahontas" lands the primary, she'd get creamed.
She seems disconnected on the debate stage, which to be fair, so does everyone else, but I would have thought she had some more gnarly, more intelligent, "stuff" for us by now. Something that would set her apart from the rest of these babbling idiots. Maybe other Dems have just realized what I have, she's not going to be the one to save us.
1
The complete obsession of a part of the Dem. party with issues of race and gender is rapidly killing the party. Articles like this just reinforce that fact.
2
Why waste my breath.
By next Wednesday Warren will be begging Sanders
for the VP spot
3
@New World
Too late for that. Real change is needed in America - not another phony politician (who happens to push liberal ideas). Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner would blow doors wide open.
2
Warrens weakness among women is utterly baffling to me. But I do think she has missed the opportunity to distinguish herself from Sanders.
Warren and Sanders come to their similar seeming positions for very different reasons. Sanders holds and has forever held his positions due to an ideological commitment to Marxist class power dynamics. Warren, on the other hand, is sincere when she says she is a capitalist to her bones. She comes to similar seeming policies by recognizing the distortions in opportunity created by exorbitant concentrations of wealth. Her commitment is to democratizing opportunity and innovation. She recognizes the strangle hold that mammoth companies have on insurgent competitors, and that it has always been thus. Following Louis Brandeis, she is an anti monopolist. As such, her remedies will focus on reducing concentrations of economic power using the regulatory authority of government, while Sanders will focus on simple redistribution of wealth via handouts.
I will have no problem voting for Sanders if it comes to that. But the “suburban women” who’ve turned away from Warren because she seems too “radical”, should look again at her underlying policy motivations. Someone has to save capitalism from itself.
15
@CJB It's not so much radical but more the fact she did not distinguish herself from Sanders ; a more deadly decision that has left her floundering and at sea . She definitely is very qualified to be President more so than Sanders , whose record in office is a cure for insomnia . Sometimes we are our own worst enemies ; I feel she is being misdirected by her surrogates . She needs to be THE Elizabeth Warren again .
6
@CJB
Really?
Guess Sanders “Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act” (BEZOS), and the Stop Walmart Act were somehow a handouts?
They are punitive legislature used as a cudgel when congress wouldn't act.
Thus Sanders used all his tools from speechifying on the congressional floor, to his media bully pulpit, to speaking out in Union Halls and in the boardrooms of the largest Corp. in America. He walked the picket lines and mobilized his million wo/man Revolution to protest, boycott and march for those in the Fight for $15. And they won~!
Not a "plan", not another false promise, not a tax scheme...boots on the ground, using every tool possible to help millions of min. wage workers.
These weren't "handouts". These were direct actions.
Guess you missed Sanders the whole '16 election too. Sanders ran on breaking up monopiles especially the Big Banks. In '15 he introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act
The bill would force the fed. gov. to dismantle any bank with total exposure greater than 3% of U.S. GDP, which is roughly equal to $584 billion. Banks above that threshold would be given two years to downsize before the federal government would be forced to take them apart.
Feel free to pump up Warren, I like her too. But don't lie and misconstrue about another candidate, especially one that very well could be the nominee.
Don't do Trumps work for him.
3
Dobby, I voted for Sanders over Clinton in 2016. And will vote for him again if he’s the nominee. My point is strictly that his most of his policies are structured around wealth redistribution. As opposed to altering the regulations around wealth creation and consolidation. You name some exceptions, that’s all good. But you’re manifesting a common divisive behavior among Bernie supporters, specifically calling allies names (liars, doing Trumps work) whose characterizations of Bernies policies you don’t like. You really shouldn’t.
4
I don’t care what the current narrative is; Liz Warren is still my first choice. She’s incredibly smart, she has progressive policies that she’s passionate about, and she can still work within the system. While I like Sanders’s ideas, I am afraid that the party establishment will not want to work with him, even in office. I believe that Warren will be able to get more done.
13
It's not a matter of male, female or in between; not a matter of white, black or in-between. It is a matter of who is the best qualified candidate to lead our country in the direction that our Constitution sets out for America. Too much energy and debate is wasted on this issue, taking away creative resources for health care, immigration, climate change, and foreign affairs. Stay focused on the priorities.
2
@Teresa
I would love to see more articles debating the various merits of candidates policy positions
As a black man I voted for Hilary Clinton in 2008 and 2016. For weeks I'd gone back-and-forth on whether to vote for Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg. Last Tuesday's debate sealed it for me. I'm supporting Pete Buttigieg, because unlike Elizabeth, he consistently went after the biggest threat to both their candidacies, Bernie Sanders. Bernie is the biggest obstacle in her way, not Michael Bloomberg! If she had attacked Bernie as vociferously as she had Michael Bloomberg, then she would have demonstrated to me that she wanted to win the nomination, not be Bernie's wing woman. The irony is that if she wants to be his running mate, Bernie likely won't choose her because he'll need someone like Cory Booker to better balance out ticket. Heavy sigh...
5
I came away with the exact opposite reaction. Mayor Pete sounds like Rahm Emmanuel, the guy who very nearly hobbled the Obama administration right out of the gates. No thanks
4
@Richard the point is that Elizabeth did not go after her main rival Bernie Sanders, who is the clear front runner.
I know many think Warren went after Bloomberg rather than Sanders because she’s angling to be Sanders running mate. Maybe that’s right.
But what if, just maybe, she is genuinely morally outraged by Bloomberg’s sexism, racism, and most of all his presumption that he can waltz in after all the other candidates have been hoofing it on the hustings for a year or more, and quite literally buy the election by virtue of his immense personal wealth. And in so doing be answerable to no constituency but himself.
Why shouldn’t she be outraged?
6
As the featured comments indicate, she is held up to an impossible standard.
A self declared feminist/socialist believes someone who dodges every question about his plans would start a revolution at age 80, after a decades-long career where his accomplishments include naming two post offices and not much else.
A straight man correctly identifies all her virtues and undeniable intelligence/competence but alas she's not charismatic enough for him yet an older career politician whose family financially benefitted from his political office and who has trouble expressing a coherent thought is somehow, in this strange world more "electable".
5
The virulence of her attacks (okay, criticisms) of Bloomberg did not sit well with many watching the last two debates. She's suffering the same loss of support as did Harris, Julian Castro and Booker when they went after Biden.
4
Warren looked very theatrical when she confronted Sanders on camera after a debate. Furthermore, Sanders could have escalated it, and told her that she was the one lying. He didn't and remained calm in telling her that it was not the time or place to discuss it.
It was unprofessional and selfish. i.e., she put herself ahead of the Party's interests.
Sanders won big on that exchange.
5
I fear that this primary season's narrative can be taken even further in terms of what it reveals about gender bias.
Of the remaining candidates Elizabeth Warren is the one who is able to articulate in great depth and detail the dynamics of capitalist society and why a set of progressive policies is needed for it to function properly. To boot, she has the professional experience to develop them thoroughly. The fact that this has not engendered broader support for her campaign and, yet, has not prevented some commentators to see her as the perfect fit for a cabinet position is disheartening on two levels.
First, it suggests that Democrats are not as immune as they'd like to believe to the anti-intellectualism that makes the right distrust career bureaucrats. Second, and most importantly, it goes beyond women's electability and speaks to a more pervasive form of sexism: society has no problem relegating women to positions where they do most of the daily heavy lifting because it is assumed that they are responsible and attentive, while men, even if sloppy and vague, are seen as dreamers and allowed to become "big picture" guys.
I was once asked to imagine where the female equivalent of Sanders, an older radical woman with wild hair living in Vermont, would have ended up in life. Third party candidate? Owner of a local bookstore? A liberal arts professor? This is not a comment on Sanders, who has done wonders energizing the base, but a comment about roles reserved for women.
9
I liked Warren once, now I don't. In fact I can't stand her when she speaks. It is her divisiveness that gets me, the ease with which she paints people as greedy or corrupt. It is her show of moral superiority, same with Bernie, no humility. I don't want to listen to vitriol from a President I want someone to be above that.
To me it would be voting between two evils in the presidential if one of them were to be nominated.
4
Sadly, Warren apparently saw polls and thought she should follow them rather than be the intellectual leader she seemed to have been earlier on. Once she started attacking capitalism and adopted socialism to compete with Bernie, and then she started to "out" or "cancel" others unrelated to specific policies, her petty antics and bad economics turned me away.
2
''... enraged by the obsession with electability in the 2020 race. These are women who see themselves in Ms. Warren and argue that simply by asking whether a woman can be elected, pundits and voters who fancy themselves as such, are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.''
Yes, yes, exactly.
Thank you.
7
She is taking money from PACs after swearing that she wouldn't, claimed to be American Indian, was a republican for a considerable stretch of her life and completely reversed her opinion on superdelegates when it stood to benefit her.
It has less to do with being a woman than turning out to be an opportunistic neo-liberal after all.
6
@PF
A PAC set up to support a particular candidate can't even donate money to that candidate - they are expenditure based only - so they can run ads.
Since the rational for PACs is that they are independent and are not allowed by law to coordinate with a candidate (something that seems to not be well enforced) I'm not really sure a candidate can stop a PCA from supporting them -
2
@Meg
Technicalities, really. Actually denouncing their support would be a start.
3
There are women, who are misogynistic like men. Women who are petty, and those women oppose a woman president. True, even though it’s very sad. I don’t need a president to be charismatic nor to inspire me. I want a capable, competent and brilliant president. Elizabeth Warren is smart, and she works hard. Has experience!
I will vote for whomever the Democrats nominate, but I would prefer Sen. Warren or even Joe Biden over Bernie.
6
The sad thing for Ms. Warren is that the further she falls behind, the more she has to use gender to distinguish herself. She isn't the leading super-intelligent candidate; Mr. Buttigieg is. She isn't the leading progressive candidate; Mr. Sanders is. Voters don't want to vote for the first ______ to be president; they want to vote for (what they think) is the best person to be president. President Kennedy was not a Catholic president; he was a president who was Catholic. President Obama was not an African-American president; he was a president who was African-American. I am not a Senator Warren supporter, but she has a great track record, concrete plans for the future, and an incredibly sharp mind. It is too bad that it has gotten to a point that gender is the only talking point remaining.
3
Wouldn't it be nice to take the strengths of all the Democratic candidates and roll the up into one person? Seems to me that person is Elizabeth Warren.
10
To me it's not a question "can a woman be elected " but rather that it is time that we have a leader whose not an aged white man. Time to move forward imo.
2
Same article could be written about Klobuchar vis-a-vis Buttigieg. More evidence that this country values male charisma more than female competence.
4
Warren is great. Vote for her, write her a check, volunteer.
I'm getting so tired of these "disappointed middle-aged woman" stories, let's rewrite the narrative.
5
I am so disappointed in Elizabeth Warren ; she is wasting her talent , brilliance , in attacking the men instead of reminding everyone of who she is . I loved her twitter war with Trump awhile ago ; her spunk and ability to give as good as she got . I don't see that anymore ; it appears more pandering for votes in desperation . I don't know if her surrogates are advising her to do so but it's not playing well . Her constant attack on Bloomberg (just saw her ad) is making her appear as a she-man hater harridan ; worse , she's wasting her cache . Bloomberg is not going to win and neither is she ; she should be going after Bernie (and his health which is concerning )but seems reluctant to do so . Men should be held to account but to constantly make Bloomberg the poster boy of misogyny while ignoring the others is disingenuous .
1
Hopefully - after this overly long nomination process, we have started to disabuse folks that you get bonus points for being a candidate of color or a female candidate.
"June Diane Raphael, an actress and one of the founders of the Jane Club, was pouring herself a glass of wine in the kitchen."
And seriously - quit looking at actresses and the like as role models or leaders - look to that young engineer quoted at the close of the article as a role model for your daughters.
1
Is it possible to like women but not Elizabeth Warren? It is pretty despicable to on the one hand believe in affirmative action and then on the other misuse it your own advantage. She is also not looking good falsely attacking Bloomberg in the debates. I know it is total desperation in a losing effort but shows taking the high road, initially, was only a campaign strategy and not part of her character.
5
You know what we do. We PERSIST. Warren has been nothing but a bright light for me and many women in my circles. She has a lot of runway ahead, and plenty of support on her side, women and men.
4
We need Elizabeth to clean up the chaos and set us on the right path. She's the teacher you remember from childhood that urged you to be the best you could be and showed you the way and made sure you persisted when you thought you couldn't make it.
She did it with the banks, she'll do it with drug pricing, healthcare, gun control, and immigration.
Women understand how to clean up. Go Liz!
3
This is Warren's best fit:
"According to a report by the Intercept, [Sanders] wondered whether a vice president could also serve simultaneously as treasury secretary. Nothing in the Constitution prevents multiple job titles, and in December, Sanders thought the dual role might be a good fit for Warren."
5
I think Warren's politics aren't good enough. She has not been able to rally the public, nothing close to what Sanders has done. And that, perhaps above all, is the key to confronting the vested establishment interests, Warren, HRC, and others can pretend that they care, at all, about helping the people on the low end of the class (to say nothing of those below that, who are generally only mentioned when it comes to some form of indentured servitude work-school plan),note that she is aligned with HRC in various ways which I completely reject especially in terms of foreign policy. She has also employed a number of veterans from HRC campaign of 2016 into her own. She's hoping to offer herself as a "compromise candidate" at the convention when she loses the popular vote to Bernie, or else a VP slot to the establishment winner of the brokered convention in order to pacify progressives.
2
@Max
She does have the huge benefit of not branding herself a Democratic Socialist.
Bernie not even the nominee yet and down-ballot candidates are already getting hit over the head and paired with Sanders in attack ads.
Sanders could lose us the House and Senate. For those who prefer a more liberal candidate to a moderate she is certainly a much better option.
4
Senator Warren would make a strong and effective President but the political climate is way too extreme for her style of campaigning. Super Tuesday is coming up. She still has a chance.
6
A lot of people were attracted to her based on her past work and her being a pragmatist. I had been a supporter of hers for a very long time.
Then when she became a candidate she picked a very impractical policy position, M4A, that she as a Senator, had to know would have no chance of getting passed in the Senate and she did not really have a plan for it.
That was confusing and attracted as many people as it repelled. Many who stuck by her side regardless said they were doing so because they assumed she would pivot to the center later. Others insisted she was serious about M4A and were supporting her over that issue.
A few debates ago she said she would defend the ACA, so I'm not sure where she is on M4A at this time, maybe it is simply a preference, but she will do what can get done.
I think she would make a great president, but by taking the M4A lane she may have alienated some moderates, and if she does not she may do the same for some liberals, so could she win?
What seems clear is that she has her own solid base of support and actually would do a good job as President if she could find a path to get there.
I feel all of them would do a good job - not so sure about Bernie - but still better than Trump - it is a matter of who can get there at this point.
3
The healthcare plan on her website answers your questions. She supports Medicare For All as the end goal, but her plan includes a detailed transition period and she also supports protecting the ACA and passing incremental expansions of access to care in the meantime.
8
@Susannah
Passing incremental expansions to the ACA is essentially the plan of all the moderates and has been from day 1.
Yet she attacked Delaney over this very idea in one of the first debates when he simply suggested that it might be more workable and voter friendly - she said not big enough and essentially said - go big or go home
I'm glad she is becoming more realistic but her changing positions is confusing.
However, her ability to change her mind to fit what can get done is a lot better than Bernie.
It does not explain her original position though.
With Klobuchar I feel like she is not pandering to one side or the other and is simply stating what can get done - however it seems people prefer a lot more "hoopla" in national political races.
3
@Susannah
In that case, she should have just supported M4A, period. No plans, just support.
Winners talk about goals
Losers gripe about costs
1
After reading this article, which seems to highlight disappointment, and the comments, many of which misrepresent Warren's views and accomplishments, I just wrote a big (for me) check to the Warren campaign. While I've admired her for a long time, I've never actively supported her presidential run. But that picture of Warren talking with 3 very young women represents for me the future that's at stake this election. It's far too soon to let press narratives, polling and social media battles determine how the primaries will turn out. I believe that Warren is the candidate with the ideas, policy proposals, dedication, brains and fundamental decency to secure a better future for all of us. So I'm putting my money where my belief is.
12
@Maggie Mae
As a liberal with a business degree, I had been a big fan of her for years until M4A. It would be a lengthy process to get there with how our economy works so "Medicare of all who want it" or a public option, seems like the path to get to something that resembles M4A fairly smoothly while making great improvements on people's lives right away. I think expanding medicaid and creating a buy-in to that would be the best public option (no deductibles with medicaid) and then they could lower the age limit for a buy-in to medicare as well. Since Klobuchar's website suggested a buy-in to medicaid or medicare and since she has an A+ rating with the League of Conservation Voters I decided to go with Klobuchar, but she does not seem to be polling well enough. However Klobuchar and Warren would both make good presidents and so would most of the others - so I will support the nominee.
2
@Meg
I watched Pete Buttigieg's white-board presentation re his plan, and came away less convinced it would work than I had been beforehand. It seems more likely to entrench the corporate-dominated health system that now exists than solve the problems and inequalities that plague it. Many who now have the private, employer-based insurance that Buttigieg's plan depends on can't afford actual care because of deductibles and costs at point of service. As described, his plan leaves loopholes that would let powerful interests move more cost of coverage onto individuals and the public add-on. I don't know much about Amy Klobuchar's plans, but a well-managed Medicare buy-in could help solve at least some of the access issues.
Let me start by saying that if you are a fan of many of the policies that Elizabeth Warren advocates, good news they are almost identical to Bernie Sanders and she may very likely be his VP choice.
However, what we have here is a classic example of party leadership and their big money donors doing everything they can to thwart the will of the people. If we are ever to take back our government from the moneyed interests that control it, we need to support those who defy the status quo. Bernie Sanders is such a candidate. I am an independent, but I will change my registration so I can support Bernie in the primary. Opposing our broken political system is an uphill battle, but when an opportunity presents itself, I think it's worth the effort.
4
Is it just possible this is not about Warren as a woman but Warren as a candidate? I want the best qualified candidate to defeat Trump, period. From my perspective:
Warren never actually answers a question beyond her talking points. She immediately pivots to them with every question. I feel as if I'm being lectured. Sanders does the same thing. I questioned friends about this, including a member of the Democrat party working in SC and they all agree.
Warren appears to be the female version of Sanders. Warren so much as said so in the last debate. There is little to differentiate Warren from Sanders. Her failure to stake out her own campaign instead of tying herself to Sanders is a major issue.
Warren may have simply peaked too soon and cannot sustain or regain momentum. This is not uncommon for the early front runner to lose their standing as races progress.
What I find puzzling is why Klobuchar does not attract more attention. She is a proven winner, strong, female for those of you who care, answers questions presented to her and stands up on her own as a beacon. I understand many progressives think Klobuchar is too centrist but I disagree. She has her own plans to get us where we need to be. They just aren't the Warren/Sanders plans. I would love to see Amy as the presidential nominee first or vice president. Her time is due and she won't shrink against Trump.
3
@ArtM I can tell you why I'm not attracted to Klobuchar: she has a history of abusing her staff to the point she was voted the hardest Senator to work for AND had the highest turnover of staff. (My past area of study was medical quality in nursing homes: one vital indicator of poor quality is high staff turnover.) Too many people have worked for abusive bosses (or their friends have or their family has) to really support someone like that. We have a bully in the WH now, we don't need another one. You can be a talented, effective leader without throwing binders and staplers at people.
2
Warren and Sanders basically have the same platform. Warren's plans have more depth behind them, she is more articulate and she answers questions without resorting to 'talking points'. For the life of me I don't understand why Sanders polls so much higher than Warren. I had hoped we would have learned form 2016 and would evaluate candidates on their knowledge and experience. I am at a loss to explain why young progressive women flock to Sanders.
16
@P
Easy.
Sanders is authentic
Warren is not.
Everybody can see it.
4
@P
Warren is fine. You seem to think highly of her.
As for Sanders...
Trust.
Honest to a fault.
History of the fight and struggle, with the scars to prove it.
A life time of Public Service in pursuit of helping those with less.
A politician that has spent his life swimming in a cesspool of corruption and lies, yet remains unbought, unbowed, uncorrupted with a dry sardonic wit and humor.
His progressiveness is whipping cream on the sundae.
I like and vote for politicians I can trust.
Could it be that "young progressive women" see the same thing? It would be sexist to suggest otherwise.
2
She would have the nomination locked up, if not for such an unusually competitive and talented field this year.
2
I've been a feminist since I knew the word. Bernie is my first choice and Warren is 2nd--simply because Bernie has promised to introduce M4A in his first week in office and Warren says in her 3rd year. I work with injured and disabled people. The sooner they get help the better.
6
I am a man but, truth be told, I see myself more in Warren than in any of the other candidates. That is, I see in her the me that I have always aspired to. In that light, I believe she has made a strategic error by acting like a Sanders disciple, and refusing to point out how each and every one of his shortcomings are her strengths.
8
Funny. Many commenters here dismiss Warren as "lacking charisma." Frankly, that's one of the things I like most about her. I am not charismatic. Most of us are not charismatic. Charismatic people win popularity contests, but often do a lot of damage because they so easily influence others. And their charisma isolates them from the "real life" that most of us experience, so they usually can't really understand or identify with the struggles of Average Jane and Average Joe.
11
@ARNP
"Lacking charisma" is another way of saying she's a woman. Same as "electability concerns."
I think she is charismatic and electable. Oh, and the most qualified person with the best ideas.
1
@Lisa Cabbage
No, actually, "lacking charisma" is a way of saying that the candidate is "lacking charisma."
1
It's so disappointing to see how the media disregards Elizabeth Warren. She has ideas that look to the future and plans to realize them. Yet it seems the media prefers to dwell on the male candidates. America can only progress by changing the political status quo. The time is now for a female president. She was my choice from the beginning and still is.
23
I absolutely agree!
I am a middle-aged, professional woman who most people would think is a Warren supporter but I am not. Her policies are not so much the issue but rather the way she has conducted herself. She has focused on issues and distorted items about her life for no clear reason like claiming she was Native American or that both her kids attended public school or that Bernie might have said something sexist 3 years ago in a private conversation. She has also waffled on Medicare for All and would likely compromise before fighting for it.
So although I would love for a woman to be a front runner, she is not that person (nor Hillary C.). I am not going to vote for someone who shares my chromosomes but whose character I question. I also don't think she truly understands why people of color were so offended by her heritage claims despite her apology: hence her continued lack of traction with them (and me).
She is better than some of the moderate D candidates policy wise but I also believe there are better women politicians out there.
5
Over-scrutinized the ‘how’ of women aspiring to leadership in a double standard is one of the pillars of sexism.
Read up on it and reflect.
@Bohemian Sarah Don't lecture me on what to read. I've read a lot on that issue. My concerns about her are not about her sex but her character and her actions. If she were a man and had acted the same, I would also not support that candidate.
2
I am a middle-aged, professional woman who most people would think is a Warren supporter but I am not. Her policies are not so much the issue but rather the way she has conducted herself. She has focused on issues and distorted items about her life for no clear reason like claiming she was Native American or that both her kids attended public school or that Bernie might have said something sexist 3 years ago in a private conversation. She has also waffled on Medicare for All and would likely compromise before fighting for it.
So although I would love for a woman to be a front runner, she is not that person (nor Hillary C.). I am not going to vote for someone who shares my chromosomes but whose character I question. I also don't think she truly understands why people of color were so offended by her heritage claims despite her apology: hence her continued lack of traction with them (and me).
She is better than some of the moderate D candidates policy wise but I also believe there are better women politicians out there.
1
It is much too early for the post-mortem of Elizabeth Warren's residential campaign. Her chances may be one-percent at this point, but as Jim Carrey says best, "There's still a chance."
6
That reckoning is good. Warren doesn't have the credentials. Leader of nothing but 5 person senate office. At least Bloomberg, Buttegieg, and even Sanders were former Mayors. Legislating isn't leading. She is just a policy wonk. And this is the same problem many women, not all, have in their career. They haven't earned what they want. They take time off to raise a family. Or they take the lower stress job. But then they want the same promotion. Sorry, you need the high stress, continual struggle credential.
2
Warren at this point is far more valuable in the Senate. If there is any hope of the Democrats regaining the current do nothing Senate, they need every seat. Massachusetts is led by a Republican Governor and if she were to win, he would choose her replacement, just as Scott Brown was put into the Senate by Mitt Romney when he was Governor. Most people are not thinking about her candidacy strategically.
3
@Bill
US Senate vacancies in Massachusetts are filled by special election (although the governor can make an interim appt. till the election is organized). Brown won his Senate seat in a special election to replace Ted Kennedy. Warren beat him when he ran for a full term. So Democrats won't necessarily lose a Senate seat if Warren wins the presidency.
Considering she wasn't a career politician, she is doing very well. It would be as difficult if she were a man as well. Even for Trump whose only qualification probably would be that he is a populist, this is the second try and a lucky one.
I've admired and respected Elizabeth Warren since President Obama tasked her with investigating the financial crisis.
She is outstandingly emotionally, physically, and intellectually solid; however it is her ability to use her knowledge and find out what she doesn't know to complete the work that makes her the best candidate.
If nothing else, the current pandemic (yes Harvard's School of Public Health now uses the term), indicates that Senator Warren understands the need for healthcare for all.
Were it not for President Obama's ACA, many more individuals would be panicking about their health, their finances, their work and of course their families.
12
I voted early for Warren. She is simply the best candidate. I had to tell the many Sanders supporters who kept texting me, asking for my vote, that I like Bernie just fine, but Warren is the superior candidate. I would prefer to have her representing me on the national and international stages. And it is way past time for the United States to get over its fear of losing its macho image.
18
I’m a 69 y/o liberal male and I’ve had issues w Warren; her wonky demeanor and lack of messaging about the environment or world affairs. Bernie’s belief that a woman can ‘t win may sadly be true
It’s about patriarchy. Most men fear giving up power to women and too many women still want men in charge (Christian women who support Trump) Then there’s the endless criticism that women have for one of their own
A kind of purity test I don ‘t get that
I myself like Liz since she went after Bloomberg and gotten more aggressive in speaking about her ideas. It’s probably too late for her but I hope she makes a good showing in my own state of CAl
2
I see a confirmation of what I already knew:
Women are held to a higher standard.
Some people see women of a certain age as "mother" figures, for better or worse, usually for worse when it comes to political or career aspirations.
Exceptional women are still frequently passed over for mediocre men.
I'm still going to vote for her when I get my turn.
16
You know what enraged me? When Klobuchar was surging in New Hampshire and many commentators suggested that the ticket could be Bloomberg- Klobuchar! Typical situation the woman does all the hard grueling work and the man steps in and assumes the leader position because he is the man. This is an overwhelmingly typical scenario I run into in a daily basis in the professional work environment.
7
It's kind of baffling to me that Warren's campaign has faded while Sanders' has taken off when they're so close in terms of policy. I like Sanders too (though I'm wary of his most rabid supporters), but it seems clear to me that Warren is smarter, more intellectually agile, better able to discuss policy nuts-and-bolts, not a self-identifying socialist (I don't have a problem with Sanders' style socialism, but I do think the label is an electability concern), younger, and healthier.
Is it just because Sanders ran in 2016 and established a base that's stuck with him? Or is it because that sort of (justified) anger at the economic system is OK coming from a cranky old man but not from a woman?
10
Or Russian meddling, and erasure by columnists and pundits who wrote her off before IOWA was barely concluded?
“I really fear this is history repeating itself,”
Not really. Warren is just a very bad candidate.
2
Contrary to the usual "men steal women's ideas at work" narrative, Warren has co-opted Bernie's ideas and is simply running them as a more professional, less exciting version of it. That's not a winning strategy.
I'd also argue Klobachar, who I love, is in the race while Michael Bennett (another vanilla, boring candidate) is out, is because she is a female candidate. There's nothing about her that excites anyone.
Every cycle, there's more people who want to be president than get to be president. We just need the right female candidate. Most of the country even voted for a pretty flawed one last time around.
1
I believe some voters, myself included, find angry, bombastic, high pitched, wide eyed, arm-waving emotionalism in a politician distasteful, regardless of the sex of that politician.
Warren is not the only woman running for the Democratic presidential nomination, though one could be excused for thinking so, from her media coverage.
Amy Klobuchar would be a more solid & less divisive president than the demagoguing Warren. Warren's screaming, arm-waving, eye-rolling emotionalism would exacerbate the current political hostilities in Washington.
I don't understand why those who dream of a woman president, like "bluesky" below, aren't thinking of Klobuchar.
3
Forty six nations, including Canada and the UK, elected women leaders in the 20th century and the US is not one of them. Misogyny is alive and well in the United States.
4
I am an ardent Warren supporter. My support comes from a combination of a yearning for competence, policy, and a belief she can persuade those less liberal than herself to vote for her regardless. In other words, I believe she can do the job, do that job pursuing policies I support, and persuade others that true progressive change is possible and that the time for it is now.
8
I think of three women who have become world leaders in politics---Gold Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel. I am afraid the only thing that Warren shares with these women is that she did not rise to power on her husband's coattails. Beyond that, I see nothing in Warren that would inspire us to make her our president. She appears flighty, and excessively and destructively critical of her opponents. I cannot imagine her leading us through a time of crisis. If she gets the Democratic nomination I will vote for her. But then I would vote for just about anyone over Trump.
7
I worked on Warren’s first Senate race in Massachusetts. I am a retired professional feminist. I will support Warren as a VP candidate. I supported Hillary 2016. Warren is one of the best and I believe we will not win if she is the presidential candidate because we live in one of the most backward first world countries.
3
Elizabeth Warren will make the best Secretary of Treasury, or VP to set the stage for a run in four years.
The person with the best qualifications and the ability to defeat 45 right now is running a diverse gender balanced campaign. We can build on that.
I do not fault Warren for taking on Bloomberg as she did. Sanders took him on for buying his place on the stage, but ONLY a woman could make clear his misogyny. He's a boss right out of Mad Men.
Both these candidates have the vision and determination. I would love to see them run together. Unbeatable!
5
Elizabeth Warren is too good for America: America has shown it does not deserve her.
Those who have been "enraged by the obsession with electability in the 2020 race" are right to be enraged. And sexism is a huge component to that obsession. #MeToo has not made a dent in the pervasive "low-grade" misogyny that many people -- not just men, but women too -- refuse to see, though it defines much of their thinking.
Warren is far beyond all the other candidates: her intelligence, integrity, deep knowledge, and moral grit and compass would make her hands-down the very best president. The best of the others are mediocre by comparison, but all fail in ways that she does not. And then there is Michael Bloomberg, and then there is Donald Trump. Tt is a long way down. There is a lot of work to do, even on the left, even amongst women on the left.
16
The comparison of Warren to Hilary Clinton running for President is a false comparison. By all rights, Hilary Clinton should have won that election in 2016, and she did in fact win the popular vote. But there was enough voter suppression and voter interference that Trump managed to steal the presidency. On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren is doing poorly all on her own.
2
THE BEST DAYS FOR AMERICA ARE IN THE FUTURE.
Thomas Jefferson once stated “Our liberty can never be safe, but in the hands of the people themselves.” In a world shattered by corruption, racial discrimination and economic inequality, women are taking Jefferson's statement to heart. They are the most honest brokers to restore American democracy as they did during the dark years of WW2. By 1943 or so, there were about 475,000 American women working in aircraft factories; their job has only begun, and voters are excited about Senator Warren campaign. She may not get to be President (this time), but she could be a phenomenal VP, “Bernie and Warren” is a winning ticket for Democrats. Some of us even dare to start dreaming again.
3
While I would love for a woman to be President I am just not a fan of her policies and how she plans to pay for them. Also, Bernie is the only politician I have ever seen who SO CONSISTENTLY backs up his words with his actions.
I am a Republican who voted 3rd party in the last election and WOULD have voted for Bernie if he got the Democratic nomination. I'm really pulling for him again this time around.
1
When Hillary was running, how many times did we read, "I want to vote for a woman, just not her." Often those comments were accompanied by the statement, "If only Elizabeth Warren were running, I'd vote for her in a shot." Well, now she is running, and guess what.
7
I really liked Warren at one point and donated to her campaign. Her unapologetic liberalism and willingness to aggressively take-on powerful interests appealed to me. However, over time the red flags started to accumulate. Sure, I could ignore the fact that she went calling herself Native American for three decades, but the DNA test debacle was inappropriate, causing me to look at her claim more dubiously. In 2016, she sat on the fence until there was a clear winner of the Dem primary. Then in 2020 she went and hired a bunch of Clinton flunkies who told her to moderate her positions and attack Sanders. So at this point, she has lost her unapologetic liberal bonafides and compromised her integrity. But what really sealed it for me was when she accused Sanders, without evidence, of claiming that a woman couldn't be POTUS. No context was given in the CNN obvious hitpiece, which should seem necessary given his long history of gender progressivism, and she made no effort to provide it. She only she "disagreed" and then pulled some hotmic stunt after the debate. That was just snakey. I assume this was also the idea of one her Clinton flunkies, but she should have had the character and judgement to remind them that she is not HRC and would not countenance such chicanery.
So guess what, I went over to the last liberal standing tall. I'll be looking forward to seeing all the limp-spined "moderates" fold over in support of Bernard Sanders at the convention in Milwaukee.
3
@nickchop
Exactly how Warren lost me too.
She touched Clinton and was poisoned
1
I think Amy Klobuchar, who has been in two male-dominated fields— criminal law and the Senate— would be better able to beat Trump. I thought the same about Kamala Harris, who has a similar resume. This is based solely on style. Warren, who has a long academic career, should have started working last year with a voice and speech coach. When she is conversational, her voice is too soft (not in volume but in tone.) When she gets tough, she then falls into the “schoolmarm” sound that harmed Hillary Clinton.
On substance, I think either of them would be a good president. It should go without saying that either would be better than Trump.
3
Warren is not going to go away if she isn’t President. She can still be an effective person in politics in the senate or as a Supreme Court Justice. If we can dump Trump she could overhaul the Justice Department or The Treasury.
Warren is a power house in her 70s. She is intelligent. Win or lose she is an inspiration.
8
Why should professional women be represented by a liar?
4
I've been thinking this week about our grandmothers and great grandmothers who won the vote for us 100 years ago, and how hard and long they fought. Now I'm angry that we women don't seem to be able to do that again, especially when we have candidates as outstanding as Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. At age 80, I've been waiting a long time, and thought this might be the year. In memory or our suffrage ancestors, can't we all call on all women to vote for a candidate who will break the glass ceiling at last? We might actually get a progressive President who could really make change happen, or a moderate who has the experience and proven ability to pass bills to make changes we need - and bring a badly needed sense of humor to the white house. If we have a black vote, a youth vote, why not a women's vote?
4
I'm a female voter and I find this drivel. IT'S ABOUT POLICIES. And decency. And honesty. Bernie has them all in spades. Warren does not. Enough with the vagina politics!
6
I think Warren is excellent on every front. Won't vote for Bloomberg ever, nor Buttigieg, or Biden. Not interested in mealy-mouthed centrism that does nothing at all. Won't vote for a billionaire. And I think Bernie is just too old, way too old, and irritating as hell with his finger pointing and hand waving. I will vote for Warren. She has energy, is a great public speaker, grace under fire, and obvious intelligence. My theory is that misogny is what animates the Bernie supporter as well as wacko purity tests.
14
This attitude is why Democrats may lose the election.
1
I had hope warren would run in 2016, and early in this primary season, I decided to support warren.
There’s still time for warren to turn it around, but she did make a number of mistakes. Namely, she never clearly distinguished herself from Bernie Sanders. We know she doesn’t like Bloomberg. But why is she a better pick than sanders? I know the answer, but warren never made the case in public.
4
Just today on NPR they had a pundit analyzing the Democratic race. He mentioned every candidate except Warren. The msm effectively tanked Harris and they're trying to do the same to Warren. She actually is the best candidate at this point, but that means nothing apparently. Her major mistake was hitching her wagon to BS.
10
I’m a 61y.o. man who strongly supports Warren and wish she was doing better. My wife, also a big Warren supporter, is very glum about her chances. She thinks it’s because much of America won’t vote for a woman.
But let’s remember. Hillary Clinton did get almost 3,000 more votes than Trump and would be president but for the Electoral College.
If Democrats have a brokered convention, I hope they choose Warren or Sherrod Brown. Both would make great candidates and presidents.
4
This is the article you write on Warren when you focus almost all your coverage on the four male Bs? THIS is why people are fussing about electability instead of her clearly superior strengths on everything it takes to do the actual job.
Shame on you, NY Times.
11
If I were a feminist, I would happily vote for Warren. I am, in fact, a socialist feminist so Bernie gets my vote. Furthermore, in order to win, you have to build an army and Bernie is the only one who has. After he becomes President (insert prayer here), his army, myself included, will continue to fight state by state to achieve our working class goals.
46
@Elizabeth First and foremost let me say that I absolutely respect voters like you who put the needs of individuals, communities, and society above their own. I too vote with that in mind. I voted early here in Maine, for Warren. I would be ecstatic if either Warren or Sanders were to ultimately get the nomination and win the presidency.
The realist in me is a bit concerned with the potential outcome of a Sanders/Warren versus Trump election. I may be only 27 years old, but unlike many young Sanders or Warren supporters, I do not let my enthusiasm cloud the fact that there are many older, more traditional-thinking Americans who are very concerned with the economics of Warren, but more so Sanders. I voted for her, and even though I appreciate the economic benefits of student loan forgiveness, I am skeptical about the principle of it.
Unfortunately, people vote with their wallet far more often than with their compassion. Again I respect your opinion and would bet we agree on a lot of issues - but your comment and the way you've said it terrifies many Americans. I hope that fear doesn't cost democrats the election. Crossing my fingers.
11
@Elizabeth
Well said and done.
Thank you Elizabeth.
I'll be happy to walk/dance beside you.
NotMeUs
2
@Elizabeth
I'm sorry Elizabeth but though I will vote for Bernie if he becomes the Democratic nominee I think I would completely prefer Elizabeth Warren - a large portion of Bernie's Bro's are bullies - and Bernie still seems to be living the past in certain issues - and I do believe he is way too old and sickly - he constantly looks like he is in pain during the debates - all his ideas are just that - it will take Congress to make them happen and guess that - even if he wins - they won't go along with it - Ms Warren would be a better choice.
12
In 1958 I was in the 5th grade. Grade school Teachers were predominantly female then. I remember being shocked at seeing the woman next door driving the family car with her husband a passenger. There were no female police officers, in fact few women worked outside the home (except in a few predominantly female occupations, e.g. teachers, librarians, nurses) Help wanted ads were separated by gender. At my school one day, one of the teachers, a woman from another classroom, interrupted our class to say she was taking a survey throughout the school to see if the students thought a woman could be the nation’s President. She asked for a show of hands as to who agreed a woman could be President. I was the only kid, among boys or girls, to raise my hand. I think because my father did the shopping and cooking in my family I could imagine different gender roles. In my family now I do all the grocery shopping and cooking. I don’t resent doing what is still a role left to women generally. I think it is an outlet to show love and can be a creative outlet. It takes a huge ego to run for President. Bernie certainly has that down pat. I don’t see how any man who claims to be a progressive would not support a clearly qualified and progressive woman to be the first female President in 250 years.
5
If I'm not mistaken the Democrats nominated a woman for President in 2016 and she won the popular vote by three million votes. Unfortunately Hillary chose to barely campaign in the rust belt which probably cost her the election. There was also another woman candidate in the race, Jill Stein, whose hopeless ego-trip candidacy cost Hillary just enough votes which also contributed to her defeat. The country has proved that is more than willing to elect a female President. And I would not be surprised if that woman will be Nikki Halley in 2024.
2
She's missing experience governing a constituency, experience managing an organization, experience communicating to all of the citizens she aspires to preside over.
Warren has been a Senator. That kind of experience is much less relevant to being president than even Pete Buttigieg's time as mayor of a small town.
Last time around, Hillary Clinton was superbly qualified to be president. Secretary of State, Senator, and first lady for eight years, she was uniquely ready to be our first woman president.
As a father of two daughters, and a feminist, I was excited and happy at the prospect of her presidency, which seemed like a foregone conclusion.
But we have a presidential campaign to show what skills our candidates can bring to the office. Demonstrating their abilities to strategize, mobilize support, communicate, and solve problems in a fish bowl are part of that try-out.
Hillary did not tie down the Midwest states she needed to be elected. That is a fact, and she neglected, even after calls from local Democratic congress women, to campaign in the areas that eventually caused her to lose those states.
In other words, she blew it.
If you are still mad about not having a woman president, blame it on Hillary. And Warren, in my opinion, is not nearly as qualified or polished a candidate as Hillary was.
Warren should run for governor of Massachusetts to prove what she can do when she has a chance to govern. But I don't think she will. It would be too difficult.
4
Elizabeth is not at all the best role model, as now manifested by her sharp drop in the South Carolina polls into single digits. Amy, for example, is a much better female role model running for president. Amy is an outstanding Senator while many find Elizabeth to be a highly divisive character. A woman will be elected president, but not Elizabeth Warren.
1
Naive, but the simple fact she is a woman should be enough to get every other woman to the polls and put her and/or Ms Klobuchar into the Oval office.
There is no way we men can or ever will understand the natural complexity of every woman's life and how it alone bonds and unifies every woman on the planet.
When men approach a problem it invariably leads to conflict whereas it appears when women approach a problem it is with cooperation.
This election really may be our democracy's last chance and I can only hope the women of our nation unite behind one of their own.
4
Despite the need to focus on which most likely Democratic candidate can win this race, I find myself more concerned about the hoped for defeat of another. Good qualities are a bonus, winning is everything.
As a conservative, I’d prefer Ms. Warren to Bernie. Just my two cents.
1
"For some professional women, the struggles of Ms. Warren’s campaign feel like a reckoning with their standing in the world."
No wonder. Senator Warren would make a much better president than Senator Sanders. Why haven't his supporters migrated en masse to her? She has everything that he has and a whole heck of a lot that he is missing or doesn't have a clue about. It would be lunacy to say this has nothing to do with the whack-a-mole misogyny of the Sanders campaigns. Warren's character, honesty and principles are and always have been exemplary. The nature of the Sanders' supporters' attacks on this site alone are appalling. Moreover they are saying many of the same things they said about Secretary Clinton. I'm not buying anymore their 2016 excuse that their beef was only with that woman. I share the disbelief and the disappointment. What else can we do, if Warren is already doing everything the men are doing and much much more, backwards and in heels?
11
Warren was fine and electable .. until she fell back into "I'm a woman and therefore I deserve a little special attention because of it.". -- She had almost avoided that until she felt the need to assail Sanders with some gossip. In addition, she is simply too whiny.
7
I think Warren's a great candidate and I would love to see her as president. I think each of the woman candidates (including those who dropped out HRC 2008/'16) get shafted by sexism or bias (real or speculated) by both men and women. Charisma is in the eye of the beholder--what excites each person about another. She's not shy but exiting in her speeches and appearances--she is charismatic. She receives more knocks than do the male candidates and there are higher expectations (or lower) for her (same for other women candidates). In my opinion, Charisma is not the issue for Warren, it's sexism.
5
Back when I was in graduate school in the 1970s, I predicted that the first female prime minister in Britain would be a Conservative.
I was laughed at in class... How can that be? The Labor Party is the party that gives voice to feminist issues.
I replied that the one day a Conservative woman would become prime minister because she would NOT run on her sex.
I predict that the first female president in the US will be -- like Margaret Thatcher -- a Republican woman who does not consider her gender relevant to the campaign.
I say this as a woman (Ian's wife).
3
Not to worry. After being chosen as Bernie’s VP and political heir in a few months, Warren will break the glass ceiling easily in 2024 and maybe again in 2028, opening the door for Senator AOC in 2032, when most right-wing Boomers in both parties will be dead and progressive Millennials and the even more progressive Parkland kids and Gretas behind them will totally control our politics.
Trump was the last shot of the noxious Boomers, the vast majority of whom were either neoliberal Dems or Trump voters outright. The sooner they are gone, the better.
2
Ha! I hope you are right. Just wish you’d refrain from these reductive generational cliches (say I, a boomer).
1
Warren is shrill and Sanders is not.
3
“Shrill” has long been one of the most common sexist put-downs when a woman dares to be anything but soft-spoken and ingratiating. Bernie displays more off-putting mannerisms than anyone running for the Dem nomination: Scowling; repetitive hand gestures, finger-pointing; glaring. His broad “New Yawk” accent reminds me of my crazy, curmudgeonly uncle. When he smiles, rarely, it’s grudgingly. How is that any better than Warren’s supposed “schoolmarm” voice? She presents herself as way more pleasant than Bernie, and, even more important, has more well thought out and concrete plans than he does for how to get things done. She is Bernie, except better.
1
Really? On what planet is Warren shrill and Sanders not?
1
Joe is a stumble ("matter of fact"), Michael is slow the radar, Pete is Pete, smart, but slick, Bernie is a sloganeer, Tom is a couple of one-liners,
Then there two senators, both women; both have been effective legislators; one prides herself of being from the midwest and being the solution. The other, E Warren is the solution, but a bit overzealous. Trump will mock her for her (unfortunately claimed) Native-Americanism and will deride her as viciously as he can.
I was most impressed by Warren's CNN town hall in Charleston. There she performed as the best candidate of the entire lot.
I am switching to her. She is so sharp in analyzing and finding workable solutions. Bernie pales with his repetitiveness. I also did not like Warren's attack on Bloomberg. Bloomberg needs to be critiqued, but not that way. It was too self-serving. But Warren outshines the lot by her brilliance and commitment to serve the American People without the pitfalls of Bernie's pipe dreams.
Hopefully, Warren will get more traction and much better primary results and finally the nomination
5
Agreed, but I admire Warren for calling Bloomberg out on his sexism. If she were a man people would be congratulating her on her uncompromising values and her willingness to “tell it like it is.”
2
I play my gender flip game a lot. I read newspapers and just switch gender of the lead in most stories. Try it. I read everything about a 38 yo women from South Bend, Indiana who wants to be President. She is quite bright but has very little experience as a legislator or senior administrator. She’s gay and her girlfriend is photogenic. She’s doing well in polls. Or the 78 year old woman from VT who does have many years in the US Senate. She is a Democratic Socialist, has a knack for screaming everything she says, jabbing her finger in disgust at everything. She looks every bit her age. A bit rumpled all the time. Needs a decent haircut too. She published some deeply sexist and offensive sexual fantasies as a young woman. She’s leading in the Dem race in 2030. Or we have a very polished 78 yo woman who amassed one of the largest fortunes in the world, including from the now hated fossil fuel industries. She a killer negotiator and a very shrewd woman. She gives away a fraction of her stupendous to great fanfare. She too seems to like to denigrate men with sexist jokes. It’s just what women like to do, not a a big deal. These women’s ideas, policy positions and accomplishments are all given very careful consideration by many political and media gatekeepers. They are all viable Presidential candidates, right? I encourage everyone so eager to pass judgement on Ms Warren to play the gender flip game. See where you land. Warren can win if you vote for her!
8
@Barbara Grob That rumpled 78-year-old woman sounds amazing and fearless!
2
Warren would be the president that we-- all of us Americans in our red and blue free enterprise culture-- need most of all, to correct our systemic problems in pragmatic ways. So much integrity and intelligence, but somehow not "likable" enough? Didn't people "like" when she pushed back at big banks exploiting consumers? Don't people "like" someone honest, smart, and effective? I wish Bernie would just throw in behind her and go get himself a manicure.
7
So well said, thank you!
Elizabeth lost me when she drank a beer with her husband in her kitchen much like Hillary lost it when she drank boilermakers with the boys. It's not that I'm against drinking, it's about being genuine. Neither of them is. They have the problem many women do, trying to be all things to all people and if one more female candidate uses the word "fight" I just may throw something at my TV.
Elizabeth needs to show us who she really is. Bernie's been doing that for decades and so is Pete but he's new at it. How do you think Trump got elected? Good or bad, he was genuine.
2
I wondered at first, but I have decided she genuinely likes beer!
This is a haunting primary election for me. My only objective is defeating the dangerous, incompetent tyrant in the White House before he and his cronies kill us all by their malfeasance and corruption - or by nukes. Any Democratic candidate is far superior to the status quo.
My policy preferences and respect for serious attention to detail, hard work for the causes that matter, and proven competence lead me directly to Warren. I also believe she is a much better choice than Sanders for the general election.
But who is the best candidate to defeat Trump in the key electoral college districts? With older voters who reliably vote? With African Americans and Latinos?
It’s the quandary many are facing. The field is too fractured. By all accounts, Sanders is the one Trump-Putin salivate over as their ideal opponent - that can’t be good.
The Republic and very possibility of a government that works for the majority of its citizens is in the ER. The doctors are fighting with each other as the patient’s condition worsens. The best doctor might not be my first choice, but saving the patient is the first priority.
Who is that?
1
The worst sexism apparent in people’s opinion of women is what I hear from women. I don’t like her voice, a woman friend with a PhD in Anthropology says. Another woman acquaintance says Warren is too argumentative and overbearing. When I pointed out that it is Bernie who yells all the time, she said, but Bernie has a warm heart.
2
What they should do now is get behind Bernie with all they’ve got. Tell the DNC to start playing it straight and fair with Bernie too. Tell the DNC not to bungle this last chance like they did in 2016 by pumping up HRC. Go Bernie!
She's down in the primaries because of three things - sexism, money, and bad luck. First, the sexism is because even though voters want a fighter, if that fighter is a woman then she's too emotional and not ladylike. For the money, she just can't compete with the war chest Sanders has build up since his 2016 campaign or the millionaire funds going to the other candidates. Third, she is unlucky to be the second woman running after Hilary, as dems are worried about a repeat situation of a woman losing against Trump (though just like Sanders, they'll never admit this publicly).
3
Warren is not only devoid of charisma he is also a person who has proven herself a liar. Her claiming Native-American ancestry wasn't a venial sin: she used it to game the Affirmative Action system --- successfully. She's a serial liar, having repeated the faux "Log Cabin" version of her rise, including a bogus firing for being pregnant. Candidates need some humility, but she comes across as an arrogant scold and, yes, to both my male and female friends as a stiff schoolmarm. She is smart, but being smart isn't enough. One needs the people skills she conspicuously lacks. Every time her hand shoots up at one of the risible "debates" I'm reminded of the unpopular nerd in school who was desperate to show the teacher they were the smartest in the class. Everyone secretly despised such students. In terms of her agenda, it is only a hair less loopy than Bernie's. She has a plan for everything, a sure indication of a self-impressed narcissist. She would be only slightly less of a disaster than her buddy Bernie.
4
Having been one of those nerds in school that were openly, not secretly, despised, and bullied for it, I would be thrilled for Warren to win. Those who are set on edge by her resent her integrity and intelligence. She has a true enthusiasm for analyzing what needs to be done, and coming up with positive solutions. I WANT someone smart, resourceful, and kind in the White House.
1
@Dr. Svetistephen
Again, the charge that Warren "gamed" Affirmative Action has been studied and debunked repeatedly since it first emerged in her Senate campaign in 2012. See the exhaustive Boston Globe investigation from Sept. 2018.
It was supporters of Scott Brown who first deployed the smear, complete with obnoxious "war whoops" and gestures. After that, it was kept alive through the right-wing radio controversy mongers, till Trump to picked it up and injected it back into the mainstream. And it remains a smear and a lie after all these years.
most qualified, most thoughtful, most likely to succeed
3
I am a man, and my first two choices for the nomination are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobachar.
I blame the women of this country for buying into mysogny.
In a poll a supposedly professional woman disliked Warren because she is allegedly "cold" just like Hillary Clinton.
This from a woman?
This explains why it will be a cold day in you know where before we have a woman President.
5
Identity politics is part of the problem, not the solution. In many advanced countries, apart from America, no one would notice Jack Kennedy's religion or Hillary Clinton's gender or think of mixed race Obama as "black". Of course, everywhere other than the US, Trump would be seen as a fraudster, misogynist and buffoon -- but that's not identity politics, that's they man's persona. Warren has never stood a chance because of who she is, how she relates to others, and her voting record. But in America, her gender is also against her, which is unfortunate, baked into US culture. Willingness to vote for geriatric males is also a US quirk. Even the English couldn't countenance an elderly Churchill returning to office. For the over 70 set, their achievements and promise lay in the past, and they have no business seeking high office, especially if their bid trades on accumulated wealth. None of Trump, Biden, Sanders, Warren or Bloomberg should be in the running. This, of course, begs the question: where are the able men and women in their 40s and 50s? Other nations can recruit and elect them. Why not the US?
1
Warren is super smart and when she is not lecturing, she is just dynamite on the stump. But she has genuine problems that have sunk her. I started the campaign by contributing to her but she has driven me away,
One clear issue is her smug sense of righteousness. We saw an example of this when she attacked Buttigieg during the debate or his fundraising, No only had she raised money the exact same way, but everything she attacked Buttigieg for was a fabrication. The fund raiser in the wine cave was not closed (the press took the pictures). The wine did not cost $900/bottle. There were no billionaires present. And no promises were made to donors. And now she has her own super PAC. Apart from her base, no one likes this sort of hatchet job. Too much of the Warren campaign is divisive and off-putting. It's not what I was hoping for from her.
2
* American voters, Ms. Warren continued, had backed firsts in the past — there was a Catholic man in the 1960s and an African-American man in 2008, she said, leading to her conclusion: “Let’s do this one more time.”*
Percentage of people identifying as Catholic in US (from a 2008 Pew survey): 23.9 %
Percentage of people in US identifying as African-American (US Census): 13.4%
Percentage of people in the US who are biologically female or legally registered as female: 50.8%
2
Many of these responses merely prove the point that women face a different set of qualifiers than males.
‘She had my support for many years, then lost it’
‘Her dramatic campaign seems desperate’
Good grief. I’ve watched every single debate start to finish and the drama is not coming from EW. Yelling; finger-waving; condescension-that’s Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
It is not the job of the candidate to prove him or herself to you. It is your job to propel the candidate to the White House.
What intellectual laziness has crept into the electorate when presented with a woman who thinks thoughtfully, and articulates a plan for nearly every major issue facing our country, and people find every reason to dismiss her.
5
@Lissa
People see what they want to see. In your case, you seem to see sexism, even where there is none.
You say this statement is sexist: ‘She had my support for many years, then lost it.’ How on earth is that sexist?
You say EW isn't dramatic in the debates? Her silly "wine cave" attacks on Mayor Pete are nothing but drama. Her sad attempt at setting up the "Woman can't be President" thing with CNN to embarass Bernie at the debate was pure drama. And both dramatic attacks failed.
You say "It is not the job of the candidate to prove him or herself to you. It is your job to propel the candidate to the White House." But that's exactly backwards.
You accuse others of "intellectual laziness." Try a little bit of introspection & self-awareness; you need it.
1
Senator Warren is going to be our next president.
1
Elizabeth Warren is a known liar, does not have standards, and is not genuine. She promises a lot of free stuff and cannot explain how she will pay for it or get it done. People are not falling for her fake news and false promises.
2
Here's another answer : of course I face an extra challenge as a woman, just like most everyone faces some challenge, like Obama and Kennedy did, so let's move on. If people will elect a black president, they'll certainly elect a woman.
1
It’s even worse being a minority and not even seeing yourself in the stage.
1
Here we go again. A female candidate has run an incompetent, inconsistent campaign showing no political savvy and yet it's failure is all the patriarchy's fault.
4
The complete obsession of a part of the Dem. party with issues of race and gender is rapidly killing the party. Articles like this just reinforce that fact.
1
Warren is the kind of person you'd want to get away from in about 2 minutes. Very irritating, like Trump and Sanders.
Unlike Obama or Biden.
I'm almost as old as Elizabeth Warren and have also seen less qualified men obtain higher positions, and paid more - I absolutely get it. I also don't see that any of the male candidates get it no matter how much they think they do. But -the conundrum is that I wish Ms Warren would be running on her accomplishments as well as her gender and she seems to be forgetting that. Her accomplishments - consumer finance board, banking are substantial, but the accomplishments are getting lost in her message.
I have a 28 year old daughter who trained a subordinate to the point that he was promoted to her level- and she discovered he will be earning more than she. She is angry but believes it is because they are paid through different subsidiaries of the same company,no matter how much I tell her the issue is that it is because he is a man.
82
@robin
My aunt, born in 1916, who was one of the first employees of what became a successful company, spent a lifetime as a secretary training men who would be promoted above her.
I thought of her when the younger male programmer, working under my supervision, was promoted over me in 2004.
it would seem that nothing changes.
14
@robin I think Warren does refer to her own accomplishments and has run a good campaign for the most part. I do not understand the appeal of slimy men-Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg. I was surprised by Bernie whom I supported in the last election cycle and am pleased to see that he has loads of loyal supporters... And for those who say we can't afford Medicare 4 all -- esp. the senior making millions on Wall Street who pays less tax now -- I say maybe we can't afford Medicare for seniors who are very expensive with all of the end of life diseases and dialysis, and hip/knee replacement etc. and cancer and heart disease issues. Yes medical care might have to be rationed... so what? I prefer to see more have some than a few have everything.
5
@robin Keep up with the times. Keep an eye out for men in positions of power that promote women loyal to them over men who are at least as qualified. This is rapidly becoming a preferred strategy. It has always been about doing what is most advantageous to hold onto and build power. Think about it. In most corporate environments, if you're a straight white male in middle-upper management, do you want to have nearly all of your direct and next-level reports also be straight white men? You do not.
5
I will cast my primary ballot for one of the two women left in the Democractic women remaining in the Democractic primary because Warren and Klobuchar are excellent candidates and have more energy than Biden. Bernie is too ideological for me.
Women constitute a majority of the democratic party and yet Elizabeth Warren can't win because she is a woman? Hillary won and she got more votes than Trump in the general.
While I am sure there are men and women who will not vote for a woman, that is not a difference maker. Hillary proved that.
2
Let’s put aside the past for a moment, the Cherokee blood and all that kind of thing. Let’s focus for a moment on how Elizabeth Warren speaks in the here and now.
In the last debate, on several occasions, she spoke of issues having a disproportionate impact on communities of color. It seemed impossible for her to speak of solutions in a unifying and principled way. Same thing with her attacks on Mike Bloomberg.
Bernie calls for Justice. Bloomberg calls for Pragmatism. Warren is stuck on how to separate the deserving from the undeserving.
She’s like the teacher who focuses on her problem children and neglects the rest of the class. In her mind I’m sure it all feels noble and heroic, but in the end it’s the majority that counts.
3
I am a college educated professional (PhD) from UT Austin. I raised three kids and now enjoy six —make my heart happy — grandkids. I don’t know why it is so but I believe there is a bias in our country when it comes to supporting a woman candidate for President. Now isn’t that absolutely crazy? And those who hold that crazy view should do a bit of soul searching and think again.
Let’s think about who is the best candidate. Let’s think about who would support the middle class, the working class, the poor and would call on the rich to do their fair share. Let’s think about who supports a capitalistic system that is fair. Let’s think about rooting out corruption and the incredible influence of rich corporations and lobbyists in buying elected officials. Let’s think about health care and support for children and education.
Let’s think about someone who has reasonable plans for achieving some if not all of these goals. Let’s think of someone who calls out misogyny. Why are some offended by this?
I am a North Carolinian. Yesterday in early voting, I voted for Elizabeth Warren. Not because she is a woman, but because she has serious credentials, good policy coupled with good plans and yes will fight for us.
I hope you do also.
211
@Mary Sorry, Bernie is by every standard superior in each metric you just described. That's why he's winning, not because people hate female candidates. Mind you some of the strongest female candidates and public figures today have put their support behind Bernie as well. The hypocrisy evident in Warren's campaign grows more evident by the hour. She capitulated on her most progressive standings and the worst part of all, she is now running with super pacs that she decried for ages. I never again want to hear her discuss the elimination of the electoral college, or the filibuster when she has now openly supported the notion of a corrupt brokered convention. A candidate needs to be a public servant, not a reflection of our personal identity traits. The most consistent, honest, and reliable public servant who is truly wiling to fight for average Americans should win.
4
@RSK I hope we agree to disagree and I do disagree with you. But at the end of the day, we both vote blue. Best, Mary
PS She is only recommending that the convention follows its own rules.
2
Why is it that our country has lagged so far behind in electing a female president. So many other countries (countries that are themselves rife with sexism) have long since crossed this line and broken the proverbial glass ceiling by electing a woman head of state. Is it an accident of history or something else?
1
Warren needs a voice coach. Talks too quickly and pitch too high. Cadence and intonation come off as exasperated and lecturing.
It just grates on you - and that is coming from someone who respects virtually every position she takes and believes she is the most qualified, honest, understanding and capable of the bunch.
Is that fair ? No. But it is what it is and I believe this is the major reason she is not in the lead. The voice.
5
@True Believer
The interminable pleading for understanding.
It’s horrible.
For those who do not agree with Senator Warren, her flaws are entirely unrelated to her gender. It is a shame that identity politics are used to prevent an objective evaluation of the candidate.
6
@LTJ, thank you. I could not agree more. I share a profession with Warren and am a little younger. By most guesses, I should support her and I disagree most profoundly with her. Perhaps it’s because I’m actually pragmatic since I practiced law in the trenches, making budget and raising a family. Nobody gave me anything ever. I had a good upbringing and was given a strong work ethic. Like most progressives, Warren doesn’t respect work or making decent choices; it’s all about being a victim. Bernie is even worse
2
I'm not a woman and I'm not gay, so I don't write as a woman. I think it's important for the most qualified person to be President, be that a man or a woman, a Caucasian, a Black, an Asian, a Native American, or any race, gay or straight.
I connect with Warren's policies. I think she has the best solutions to our country. I believe she's the most qualified candidate. Much like I thought Hillary Clinton was the most qualified in 2016 against Sanders.
Warren has the same problem as Amy Klobuchar - neither is charismatic. A candidate for President must, above all, raise people's hope in a few words. Neither of these two women do. It's unfortunate because both are extremely competent. Obama, Clinton and Trump are charismatic figures. Bush II wasn't, but he ran against Al Gore who was probably the most anti-charismatic candidate ever.
Warren has an additional problem. When she speaks she sounds professorial. She treats voters as students learning a new subject. I personally find it condescending and disrespectful, but I give her a pass based on her policies and the fact that she actually is a professor and she's trained to speak like a professor. Most people don't like to be treated like students in a classroom. I guess that's why she will likely not be nominated.
37
@BWCA "When she speaks she sounds professorial." One of the many reasons I like her is that she is intelligent. I like professors and what they can teach us. I've read Warren's books--all of them--and the tone is friendly, outgoing, honest, helpful and practical. Why do so many Americans feel contempt for the intellect? We go to the theatre to see fine acting; shouldn't we go to Washington, DC to see fine minds at work?
49
@BWCA It seems like ages ago, but President Obama sounded professorial.
9
@NTR
You got it wrong - it's not contempt for the intellect.
Warren shows contempt for those who don't agree with her. She is exactly what Biden said - 'my way or the highway." She looks down on others. Moreover, her brains are in one topic - bankruptcy law. That's her forte. She has no political instincts or ability to get people together - or get people inspired to vote for her.
All that is why she is where she is. Nowhere.
3
Obviously the US will not elect a woman president in my lifetime, which is sad because my mom, a doctor always said that women are the best leaders. On wider point, one just need look at the US corporate sector, where the death of women visibility and leading roles is an atrocious crime. I grew up in Sweden and what I see there now are corporate boards dominated by women and more important, in the political sphere, an upward curve for majority women at the helm of political parties with progressive agenda, social inclusion, equality and family friendly policies. Here in Switzerland, during the last election there was a minor scandal, when a male candidate asked a female candidate: 'why would you want to run for office?' Needless to say, she and a majority of women won and took over parliament. On the agenda for this legislative period: family support programs, climate change initiatives, social care, integration and work programs for immigrants. Women are the future and the US is not in it.
1
@CHARLES I am a woman and while I agree with the need for better representation of women in leadership positions, saying women are outright "the best" leaders is just as bad as saying men are "the best" leaders. (You can substitute men/ women with any other groups.) Ideally, I don't want to be judged based on my XX chromosomes, I want to be judge just as the individual person I am. Women are not better or worse than men in general. SOME individual women are better than SOME individual men at SOME things.
1
I think you'll find that all of the candidates draw their supporters from a wide variety of demographics with varying weights within those numbers. Warren is a great candidate and would be an excellent president but she isn't currently at the top (this could change). There are multiple variables as to why this is the case, one of which is definitely conscious or unconscious sexism. I don't know how to prove the weighting of the variables but I can't imagine it's easy or free of error. People's minds are complicated and I don't think it's entirely fair to imply those who support Sanders over Warren do this purely based on sexism even if it's a large component for some people. If Warren surges a month from now will we say voters became less sexist over that time? Many who support Sanders, who are both men and women, may even see this article's tone as evidence that the Times and other media are using the subject of gender to discredit a candidate they don't want to see on the ticket. It will only harden Sanders' support in an environment where trust in institutions, which includes the NYTimes, is at historical lows. Republicans will use any point of division amongst Democratic voters to their advantage.
1
it's a comment on our current sociological circumstance that so many see the failure of elizabeth warren's campaign as a reflection of voter limitations rather than a reflection of the candidate's and her campaign's limitations
5
In listening to Warren the last few years, agreeing with her on many issues ( except abolishing ICE ), I have never been disappointed in her answers of explanations. She over-prepares though a large part of the country seems to prefer personality and winging it over thoughtful preparedness. I am tired of hearing trump reduce things to amazing or incredible, even the coronavirus.
4
What's wrong with electability? All the candidates agree that getting rid of Trump, and electing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, are the primary goal. Personally, I believe that Biden, Klobuchar, and Warren, in that order, would perform best as President. But the main point is to get a replacement for Trump, so the question absolutely should be who can best do that.
Given the present state of the nominating process, I hope that the moderate candidates will pick one champion among them and throw their support to him/her. Democrats were vocal about the refusal of Republican Senators to commit political suicide in the Impeachment trial. A graceful withdrawal from candidacy, especially by those with poor prespects, might actually enhance their reputations.
They should start by admitting they were duped by a very intelligent and talented orator, into voting for identity over actual progressive policy. I fully expect Warren to terminate her campaign next week on Wednesday. She has misled and lied repeatedly throughout her career and political life. She brought advisors in from the Clinton campaign that seemingly devastated her polling in Iowa and New Hampshire with the wrong advice and tactics... I have less than zero sympathy for her political demise in this election. The real question is to what degree she really believes what she says about her values. I could have just as likely seen Warren throw her support behind Klobuchar simply because she was a woman... it was clear in the other night’s debate that will not likely be the case.
2
I love Elizabeth Warren. Kind, smart, passionate and compassionate. Unfortunately I think she is too smart for her and sadly, our own good.
Voters can't seem to swallow a lot of information.
People can't. It's a basic rule of thumb, repeat the same two or three things over and over again until it's seeps in. Republican's and Trump are aces at it.
I believe that's why Bernie is leading. His repetitive slogan'ing.
And he has a leg up on it from four years ago, so he just needed to keep on repeating, and now he's gained the traction he needed.
5
In my lifetime, I have not seen a presidential candidate who "gets it" to the extent that Warren does. That she is not running away with this says something profoundly bad.
6
It seems evident that to win an election these days you have to be the angriest and yell the loudest. Yet when women candidates get angry or yell, they're perceived as overly emotional and shrill.
Warren's strength is that she has thought more deeply about economic inequality and has a much more practical plan for addressing it than anyone else. She can tell you what her proposals cost and how we would pay for them. She's a liberal, and she's pragmatic, and some of us find that impressive.
But in the current environment, it is evidently more effective to promise pie-in-the-sky programs that no one knows how to pay for. Anger, a tool that only male politicians are allowed to wield, is what's driving both the Trump and Sanders campaigns, and it's tearing the country apart.
7
Of course a woman can be elected president of America - we elected one four years ago. The bigger question is whether we will ever again be able to have confidence in our elections.
4
How can anyone take pride in being male or female when it's a trait determined at conception.
What would make me proud is an American president who is smart, educated, ethical and honest; these are traits developed through life and not achieved by many.
But as for Warren, what distinguishes her is her singular focus on the major problem in the US: the overwhelming corruption of money in our government, leading to the concentration of wealth in a few hands and economic uncertainty for the rest of us. And she has an uncanny ability to see where we need to tweek the levers of government to make it work for all of us. This is a person who can fix our government.
So why not push for Warren as the smartest candidate. Maybe that will get voters to look at the difference between Sanders and Warren: it's not gender; it's smarts.
4
Another article incorrectly conflating Elizabeth Warren with the plight of all woman professionals. Can't people realize that Warren's own actions have led to her demise as a candidate? Warren made too many strategic mistakes and that fact has nothing to do with her being a woman. It's solely related to her being Elizabeth Warren. The good news in all this (or bad news depending on your view) is that the far left wing of the Democratic party has united behind Sanders.
1
Elizbeth Warren is a high energy high IQ politician. Her problem was that Sanders has a much better campaign organization than she put together. I have always enjoyed listening to her speeches. If Sanders wins the election she should be given a very prominent role in his administration.
3
I love Elizabeth Warren. I think if she had offered the right contrast with Bernie on health care —universal coverage, a public option available to everyone, but still allow people to keep private insurance if they chose to do so— she would be the front-runner today.
Warren supporters, don’t whine. It’s weak and unconvincing and becomes an excuse for candidates failure to ask themselves hard questions.
Kamala Harris or Corey Booker as victims of racism? Nope. Two uninspiring candidates who didn’t give voters a reason to vote for them.
Joe Biden a victim of ageism? Nope. A doddering old man, way past his prime, who is obviously a poor bet to lead the country for the next four years.
For better or worse, elections involve asking the general public, with all its virtues and flaws, who they want as President. Deal with it.
5
Like originally helping to elevate Donald Trump in 2016 by the chosen style, tone and frequency of his press coverage, media has been doing same to Warren for months now, but in the opposite direction. No surprise she's fading...wasn't that the point?
Men cannot permit a woman to challenge their presidential or much of any other menaingful power base.
Put me down as disappointed with a heavy dose of anger at Ms. Warren's judgment or lack thereof.
I was dumbfounded as I watched/listened to her attack on Bloomberg during an alleged debate (NV). I wondered particularly about whether Ms. Warren had ever heard of Donald J. Trump -- Rumor has it that Ms. Warren is running for the purpose of competing against the Trump guy.
Certainly Bloomberg deserves a dressing down, but the debate was not the place to do it.
Next debate (SC) rolls around and Ms. Warren picks up where she left off the last time. Now I have to seriously question her judgment and self control. Too much like Trump. Too much unfocused anger.
I'm older than Elizabeth but I'm part of her natural constituency but I won't send money and I won't vote for her unless she's the ham sandwich running against Trump, however unlikely that may be. There will be no female president for at least another 4 years -- unless Amy gets the vice presidential bid, etc., etc.
2
For me, and I suspect many progressives, it's ot about gender. It's all about authenticity.
Warren is not authentic. Sad to say.
Bernie is authentic.
2
I am Team Warren. She is the only candidate that I felt any connection to. Bernie Sanders isn't charismatic or endearing, yet a few posters mention Elizabeth isn't "charismatic" enough to get the votes. Really?
Is it that Warren is not charismatic enough or is it that she's not attractive enough to catch the male eye - because Elizabeth is certainly intelligent enough for the votes. She certainly has the necessary political savvy for the votes. Elizabeth is educated, well spoken, with great compassion for our country, which should make her worthy of our votes.
Hillary Clinton would have been an excellent President. Instead, we got Trump - that loud mouth, "charismatic - reality star" male. How did that work out? Trump cares about no one but himself. When Trump speaks, he has trouble putting together a simple cohesive sentence. My father who never graduated high school speaks more elegantly than Trump, this "brilliant, stable minded genius" that is destroying our country from the inside out.
It amazes me the hoops women have to jump through in the US to be considered half as good as a man. In third world countries women are elected President, but not here in the US.
Instead of asking ourselves if we are ready for a female President, we should be asking ourselves if our country can endure another "male President". That is the real question at hand.
3
I initially supported Warren. I fell away from her not because of her gender, but because I couldn't trust her. She's shown a willingness to flip flop on key issues throughout her career. First she was for M4A, then she was against it. She rightly attacked Buttigieg for having high dollar fundraisers in wine caves, but then it turned out she held similar fundraisers for her Senate run, and transferred $10 million of that money to her current campaign. She said she wouldn't take a "dime" from Super Pacs, but now she has a largest Super Pac in the race, spending $14 million on Super Tuesday. Tie this with her racist claim to be Native American, and it's a pattern of phoniness you just can't ignore. Progressives want the real deal, not another flip flopping politician who will say and do whatever is convenient. It has nothing to do with gender, which is why Sanders actually does better than Warren among women voters. Integrity matters.
6
I agree totally with you, except I was not a Warren supporter to start with. As a middle-aged professional woman I am suppose to be the sort of woman who supports her but you hit the nail on the head. It is character.
A friend who also does not support her believes most people supporting her are older, wealthier, well-educated people who are more progressive (this is his demographic) but not immediately threatened by poverty, sickness etc Otherwise they would be Bernie supporters. Then there are women who support her mostly because she is female.
2
But she can’t get any traction compared to Sanders and his shallow sloganeering. Something is sure going on besides “ideas”.
That something is Warren's shrill personality.
3
@RP
Eureka. You figured it out.
Definitely let’s elect a woman president. How about a very smart, moderate one, a proven vote-getter, with great legislative experience?
Go, Amy Klobuchar!
1
Here's the only thing you need to know about how electable women are to the presidency in this country: one of them lost to Donald Trump. I don't care that it was close or that she won the popular vote, the fact that it wasn't a landslide victory for her was just unforgivable.
Bench your favorite female candidates for 2020 ladies, trot them out again against someone other than Trump.
Until white women are really interested in seeing a woman in the White House it will not happen - I mean Donald Trump received a majority of white women votes against Hillary Clinton in 2016 - I will never understand that. And it seems it may happen again - so that's your answer
1
Our country has always been misogynistic. Consider that it took 50 years after African American men gained the vote for women to achieve the same. Our current administration, in addition to condoning racism and xenophobia, has given tacit permission to keep the little woman in her place -- ornamental, quiet and standing by her man, whatever his flaws. Sad. Warren would be a terrific president.
2
If you are a woman and don't support a well-qualified woman, the problem is you, not the candidate. And don't you dare complain about sexism in the workplace or anywhere else if you are not willing to step up and support the brave women willing to serve and suffer the mysogynist onslaught.
And if you are a man and won't support a well-qualified woman, then you are, by definition, a mysogynist.
I live in Pennsylvania, and we have never even had a woman senator or a woman governor. Why?
6
@Claire
Great lots of future Nikki Haley voters!
Problem is not just that we are misogynistic. We have also become a society contemptuous of expertise and education. We eat out of the media's hands like gullible masses in a corrupt third world country. No wonder we are increasingly starting to look like one. If not for these reasons, Warren would be a shoo-in, as she rightly should be.
168
@SR : But please don't underestimate the massive force that miogyny exerts.
We -- a nation created by the labor of slaves, a nation so entrenched in racism that we won't even talk about reparations or make a national effort to talk about institutional racism, let alone address it -- we elected a black man as president long before we elected, or will elect, a woman.
That tells you something about how much women are feared and hatred in the US -- and most nations worldwide.
1
@DW99 it’s not because they are women. It’s just because the women who run are always so shrill and unlikable./s
Politics are not about role models who share your identity, but about grave material issues—except for the well-off that is. Warren supporters who think of themselves as progressive or left wing should give up their bourgeois identitarian narcissism and lend their support to the only left wing candidate with a chance of winning: Bernie Sanders. As the slogan goes, “not me, us”.
3
Warren lost decades ago when she saw fit to gain professional advantage by claiming native American ancestry. It has nothing to do with being female, but being seen as an untrustworthy opportunist.
3
The question I want Sanders, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Steyer to answer is what about their gender will make them a better president. I don't want to hear that they simply acknowledge their privilege, I want to know why being a man makes any of them the best candidate.
I would also like to see the Times and other msm address the issue of gender from the other side. The thing is, privilege can't be justified, but we constantly expect women to explain why they deserve the benefits that go along with it. That inequity is not helped by articles which explore, yet again, the difficulties women face in politics, in the workplace, at home, in life in general.
2
The worst part of the 2020 Democratic primary is that it has managed to make me to do something that I never thought possible: vote against a woman because she is a woman.
I have been a feminist for as long as I can remember, and have long looked forward to the day we have a female in the White House. Yet this president, the 2016 loss and the countless misogynist comments I have read in NYT and WaPo comments over the past four years have combined to make me too scared to vote for the person I sincerely think would be the most effective president. I love Bernie too, so he'll get my vote, but I'd like to be able to say that gender had nothing to do with that decision. The fact that it did saddens me deeply. I apologize to Elizabeth Warren for my own cowardice.
28
@bluesky I would bet your concerns are shared by 95+% of democrats, but not one of them (including Sanders, infamously) will admit it publicly. And the concerns are 100% reasonable. People are hard-wired to avoid making the same mistake twice, and nobody wants a repeat of 2016.
5
@bluesky
Please vote for Warren! It's the only way things are going to change and people will find that millions want Elizabeth Warren for president too. She can win!
18
@JS Voting for Elizabeth Warren is not the same as voting for Hilary Clinton, who began with millions of people hating her even before she began her campaign. The idea that Warren can't win because she's a woman will be a self-fulfilling prophecy if we let it be - but it doesn't have to be. Come on, folks; if you support Warren, go out and vote for her!
6
I have major respect for Warren. She is my candidate of choice. I have given her campaign donations. I believe she is the most competent thinking candidate about the issues that face us.
If Bernie wins, I will transfer my allegiance to him, respecting what he has done to get to this point, and continue to ask critical questions.
Voting blue, no matter who.
13
I live in Massachusetts, and polls say Warren will probably lose here next Tuesday unless the Super Pac money paying for a big ad buy gives her a last minute boost. There's little enthusiasm on the ground for her here, where theoretically people know her best.
I'd love to see a woman president, but I'm voting for Bernie next Tuesday. Warren is inauthentic. She's attempted to be all things to everyone as it suited her circumstances. Authenticity matters to me.
8
@Anne
Absolutely. Makes me think of that Bob Seger song (Beautiful Loser).... "you just can't have it all."
First of all, this selection of women in this article represents a very thin slice of the female population in America and hopefully of those supporting Elizabeth Warren. I am not like these women who describe being able to afford $250-$500/month to pay for a working space with child-care, meditation, and meeting rooms. Good for them but I think Warren has much broader (pun intended) appeal. She's been through the gamut of female experience except for being a woman of color. And she's working hard to make sure that all voices are included. This article makes it seem as if only the professional women are her base. It's a really down-beat, narrow piece and I wish your reporters would talk to a more diverse range of women deeply engaged in electing her.
19
@Amala She's not a woman of color? I thought she was Native American?
2
The electability question is of course a concern troll, a meta question about a candidate designed to undermine them. Never forget that 2008 it was all we ever heard about Obama.
As a "bernie bro" i'm beyond used to it. I remember it being used in 1988 in favor of Dukakis and in 2004 for John Kerry. Seems to me electability is just a code word for "adheres to the sensibilities and conventional wisdom of the political establishment." In other words, what we think doesn't count, it's what the pundits and donors think that matters.
Warren began to waffle several months ago, walking back her pledge for M4A, then taking that back shortly after, her slide in the polls came as she began to listen to her new friends from Third Way (a center right think tank that largely backs Republicans or Democrats who should be Republicans) and as she shifted positions her poll numbers continued to fall. Politics shouldn't be a referendum on 'representation' of a purely aesthetic nature, it should be based on bedrock beliefs, principles and who they are beholden to for their power. If it's between you and big donors, and what you wants is in direct competition with what they want, who do you think will win?
Lots of these people describe politics like they describe prestige tv shows, they wants characters that look like them and that's really about it. I never hear policies being pushed or how it will help anyone.
8
Pretty simple reason she's not doing well. More people like Bernie than her. They both run on similar platforms but he's just the better politician and better communicator. If Bernie wasn't in this race she'd be doing a lot better and may be the frontrunner with all the moderates splitting votes.
17
Early voting in Illinois has begun, and I'll be casting my primary ballot for Senator Warren tomorrow. Let the chips fall where they may.
23
I enjoyed reading this piece, because I saw how women feel about both Warren's candidacy and their own experiences as women in the workplace. I'm a black man, so this article was very informative for me, as it showed how another minority group navigates the rocks and shoals of life in the United States. My only advice for future women candidates is this: never talk about being a women candidate, no matter how hard a reporter presses you to do so. The minute you say anything about your minority status, that becomes the story. Reporters and editors love conflict over policy.
25
Of course women support Warren. But this is a fluff piece.
Winning the presidency requires building support among culturally diverse voting blocks-- who are looking for a candidate who best represents their interests.
Warren has some good ideas-- I would much rather read about these then be reminded that it really is time for a woman president. I agree with that sentiment, but I will not be choosing a candidate based on gender.
16
I don't think Elizabeth Warren is really running for President anymore. Instead, she has turned into an attack dog on behalf of Sanders against other Democrats. Like other senators, she also has little executive experience in the public sector, so all she can talk about is changing the budget allocation rather than any concrete proposals. I assume she would get a position in the cabinet if Sanders did win the nomination, and she will run again in 2024. Unfortunately, her actions has also turned me off as a voter. She is not the only one that has been discriminated against amongst the 7 on the podium, and she did take advantage of the American Indian ethnicity by switch from white classification to American Indian in her third year at Penn as an assistant professor. Anyone who has been in academia knows that that makes a big difference. Even if she did not use that to get in the door, it made a big difference when it comes to promotion and tenure.
7
Calling Senator Warren an 'attack dog' for Senator Sanders is offensive to both Senators. I'm a #Bernie2020 supporter and Warren would be my second choice. Elizabeth Warren is quite capable of running her own campaign, she certainly does not take any directions from Bernie's campaign. It attacks her free agency to indicate otherwise. She has not been drawing voters from Sander's base and indeed the two campaigns have significant policy differences on HOW to achieve universal access to health care. Why she has not drawn significant voter support so far is an interesting question but attacking her as a pawn of #Bernie2020 does not address this question and is just a slur.
1
What do they do?
If they are progressive, then there is only one other option, Bernie Sanders.
11
Warren is our best hope. By intelligence, temperament, experience, coalition building, and by her infinite love for our country and the actual real people in it, she is the right person at the right time for this job. She would make an extraordinary President. She has my vote. It is hard to not consider the vast and insidious reach of misogyny as her greatest opposition.
30
The real issue is the the 21st century, we are still asking whether a woman can be president of this country.
Other countries, have had women leaders, but America is still wrestling with the 19th century ideology.
The fact that the Trump administration has spent the past few years undermining the ratification of the ERA and women's rights to chose to push women back into the Dark Ages illustrates a mindset that women are, "less than and not equal to."
Warren should be the next President because she is the best candidate.
Once a woman holds the highest office in this land, it should eliminate this conversation.
The media, and fellow Democrats trying to cling to the status quo, are to blame for keeping this archaic conversation alive.
12
USA also lagging in providing health care and access to affordable education to everyone and many other things. once these things are established I think a lot of traditional power structures will also change
1
After what-all happened with Hillary Clinton last election, I think it perfectly normal for us professional women to question whether or not simply being female is an impediment to electability as president in this country. To me, our culture still seems to have many anti-female elements in it. It has been my experience, anyway, and I am shocked in my old age to see how much misogyny still exists in workplaces, including politics. Whether it's right not not, it seems like it exists. And politics must deal with reality.
7
I am so sad that an uber competent woman with ideas and a plan is getting ignored. . She has done all the work and more...
Her attacks on Bloomberg are justified if we do not want to put someone again in oval office who might have disrespected women and still sees it as jokes.
14
Oh please. Warren is losing because she tried to appeal to both the left and the center and lost the trust of both in the process. She isn’t a symbol of anyone’s professional life, and the idea that a presidential election is about “qualifications” or “earning it” is a persistent Democratic misconception. They *have never been.* W was a dullard; Obama had 2 years of congressional experience; Trump has no qualifications; Reagan was an actor. Warren is the candidate of meritocracy, but our obsession with meritocracy is a pathological internalization of capitalism and Social Darwinism where you “earn” your place in life, others don’t, and this is justice. Bernie Sanders has spent 40 years articulating an alternative vision, wherein every human being has worth and deserves to live a decent life with health care, housing, and a living wage regardless of what they “earn.” Victory is not earning one’s place in the rigged game; the rigged game is the problem.
12
My only question is why Bernie over Warren. Why would young women support Bernie over Warren? It makes no sense to me.
16
While Warren has "evolved" over decades, Bernie is the real deal. His message is one he has always lived and promoted and voters trust the authenticity.
5
things like universal health care, affordable access to education, reforming a racist criminal justice system and on and on are things that everyone, women and men, benefit from.
1
@Pat Because Warren only lately came around to Bernie's ideas, and has waffled on some of them? Because Bernie was the one with the guts to challenge the Clinton machine, while Warren didn't even endorse him? She's a progressive of convenience.
2
You people in the media artificially truncated Warren's campaign when you started the Bernie today, Bernie tomorrow, Bernie forever stuff and the bit about everybody had to coalesce behind a centrist, oh, Bloomberg! thing. Now you are telling us you have analysis of what it means when "the voters" reject Warren? Get your paws off the scales and let the voters vote. She's on every ballot on Super Tuesday, and we in California are not ignorant just because our primary hasn't run yet.
And to those women who feel this is a judgment on your place in society? You make your own place. This old white male is a Warren supporter and not likely to budge before voting day. In cold, no talk about "what she's wearing", or "whether she's shrill" terms: She is the smartest, most competent person in the field, she knows how to put an organization together to help people, and she gets my vote on pure competence.
21
Warren has an ability to cut through the fake narratives and twisted definitions of words that the Right uses to court the conversation. Most Democrats just let Republicans fill the conversation.
Warren is very electable for that reason.
Warren/Bernie or Bernie Warren. These are the candidates that actually OPPOSE the Party of Trump and TRY to WIN against them, instead of just trying not to offend anybody.
Women need to get women to vote for Warren.
12
The first mistake anyone can make is to identify personally with a politician. If you introject yourself into the politician, your ability to reason takes a hit. Any politician--yes, including Bernie Sanders.
It's deeply antidemocratic. We're hiring a person to do a pretty big job: stop species autosuicide, primarily. Whether he or she looks like you, seems like you, has the same marketing/advertising/demographic characteristics as you is simply fodder for PR.
The fact that Sanders is, among other things, white and Jewish, as I am, plays zero role in my support. So was Joe Lieberman, and I didn't support him.
Consent is manufactured by emotionally potent oversimplifications, and when you have elections run by PR and advertising, you can expect that the same people who say you're only sexy if you use a razor with four blades (or is it five now?) to sell you the president.
All that matters are the policies, the record, the plan, the political infrastructure (if any) the candidate already has, the manner in which the candidate raises money, and, most importantly, what the candidate does and has done in the past when all the usual pressures line up against stated views. Do they have a spine or not? Do they have an active mind or not?
A clear understanding of the actual problems, properly ranked in terms of severity, is absolutely necessary or you have no basis for comparisons and questions noted above. Things are dire; we need real action and no PR-talk. Right now.
4
I am wondering what is really going on here:
Does she just rub people the wrong way like Hillary Clinton?
Are we judging her too harshly, even unconsciously, because she is a woman (btw I am a woman and this question is for me too)?
Does the idea of the first female president feel so good and right at first, but then as we edge closer to it becoming a reality, our insecurities and patriarchal belief system creep in and sabotage it?
Or, is all this a non-issue? America IS indeed ready for a female president. We just need someone who not only has proven she can get the job done, but also is more inspiring and charismatic?
I don't know yet.
4
First lets get this straight this is a misogynistic country all we have to do is look back at the 2008 election. At the time I knew in my heart that President Obama would get the nomination, not because he was black but because he was a man! Even though Mrs. Clinton had more experience, voters would vote for a black man over a woman. He, as we all know did a great job and we miss him in the White House. But voters are fickle, just like I know that if it came down between Senator Warren and Mayor Pete he would get the nod, again not because he is the most qualified, which he certainly is not, but because, even though he is a gay man, he is a man. Woman in this country have been demeaned, denigrated, oppressed, stepped on, discriminated against and ignored for the most part simply because they are women. But, that is changing slowly but changing. As a Hispanic man I have faced discrimination, hate, contempt but because of those people who stood up and fought for our rights things slowly changed. Senators Warren and Klobuchar, Speaker Pelosi and all of the women who run states and won house and senate seats in 2018 are those leaders how will inspire woman to rise up and say enough. All women can point to these role models and say why not me.
9
I cannot tell you how over media misogyny I am.
AP, NPR ans Fortune Magazine “disappeared” Sen Warren when featuring “the canidates.”
6
Welcome to the club, ladies! Asian Americans have been here for a while now. We’ll show you around it’s not so bad being invisible.
3
@David
Believe me, women already know invisible.
All women know invisible.
Women criticizing women
Men criticizing women
So what’s new?
What’s new is Harvey Weinstein, Hollywood mogul, found guilty of rape.
What’s new is a President boasting about... impeached in the house and saved by his loyal henchmen from removal from office.
What’s new is two women candidates for president.
giving us options, moderate or left of left.
Courage or fear?
If you’re fearful chose your abuser.
If you’re courageous bot for a woman
Vote blue. That’s what’s new, Me Too to Vote for her.
3
She lost me when she collaborated with Hillary to attack Sanders.
In the same week, Hillary with her “nobody likes him” rant and
Warren’s preposterous claim that Sanders said women can’t be
elected president.
Besides all she does is try to copy Sanders platform.
She gets more like Hillary every week.
11
Warren is too liberal to be elected.
Leaders are not victims, they are winners in spite of opposition.
She plays the victim so much how can anyone believe that she can lead?
Obama never let his blackness become a reason to vote for him. And he became President.
2
Get over it.
She's not going to be the nominee.
She's fatally tainted among minority voters (my wife is one) for abusing Affirmative Action protections with her phony Indian story to enhance her career.
Beyond that, she comes across as a shrill know-it-all and full time scold, of the type who could never be a consensus leader.
She appeals to a very narrow band of well off white professional women - a constituency that can't elect anyone in a general election.
If she did get the nomination, she'd fare much worse than any other leading contender in the general election. As one friend put it, "She's Hillary Clinton without the warmth and charisma."
Vote for Biden. Or Bloomberg. Or if you are crazy, vote for Bernie. But get over Elizabeth Warren. She's finished.
5
Lots of people here seems to condemn Bernie supporters because of his style and approach. I think there are a huge number of Sanders supporters that are comfortable with Warren, myself included.
In fact she would be the only other candidate I could see pushing for working class citizens should she get to power. She has been very consistent in her message and comes across as genuine.
I do believe she has moved to some more slightly moderate positions throughout the campaign and made the very fatal mistake of dabbling in identity politics, which coincided with her drop in support. I hope she stays active and would support her, but I hope she fired whatever advisor told her to embrace the the idea of being voted for because she’s a woman. She had plenty of support for being a good candidate. She didn’t need to give in to genderism for the sake of a few woke votes.
9
"eventually experienced a double standard of some kind — whether it was a negative comment about their child care responsibilities or an admonition to be less forceful." Yup, I had all the experiences she details happen continually, and the different language used in the workplace. Never a peep about male co-workers literally screaming at coworkers (they're "passionate", not "emotional") , leaving hours early a few times a week to coach their kids team (they're "family men" instead of "not sufficiently devoted to the job" if I left early for similar), hired with no experience in the job. Almost 40 years in a heavily male dominated industry, made it to SVP level. With great performance reviews yet much lower pay, much longer to get promoted, "asked" to "help" new no-experience male hire at a lower offer level being paid 30% more than me (training not in my job description), told by my boss when I took a day off for a sick kid "that's what I get for hiring a woman". A few of many, many examples. When I called out the inequality, not with screaming, but direct to-the-point comments, I was "too forceful". It's time for women to lead, now, to change the behavior, the language and the rest that keeps women & minorities from reaching their full potential, whose perspective would greatly benefit industries & gov't.
19
At a recent discussion about the primary in NH, I was asked if I wanted to vote on principle or electability. I resisted. I want both and I will not choose one or the other. Elizabeth Warren in my candidate. Yes, I do identify with her. I am a former special education teacher, a college professor, and faced discrimination, closed doors, and harassment in the workplace because I was female. She is a woman of principle, smart, persistent, and she will win at life if not the presidency.
21
I cast my ballot for Warren yesterday not because she is a woman but because she is the best candidate and despite the fact she is no longer the leading candidate. Misogyny and racism are clearly at play in this primary as much as those before them. 2020 once seemed so futuristic and full of possibility but here we are and I constantly feel as if it is 1950.
22
Warren campaign has super PAC ads running in SC right now, after she disavowed them repeatedly. I was also disappointed to see her unable to substantiate her “trashing” accusation in the CNN town hall following the CBS debate. Apparently “trashing” meant simply a lack of support.
Perhaps it’s not misogyny at work, it’s perceived authenticity or organizational strength.
I admire Warren greatly, and I think she can be mostly proud of her campaign. She’s the only other candidate I would support if Sanders doesn’t win. I hope the two camps can unite because they are hugely aligned in terms of platform. I would love to see Warren as VP or Treasury Secretary in a future administration.
4
As regards the case of Elizabeth Warren, there's little parallel between the lives of a female professional politician and women who work outside of politics.
Warren was a highly-rewarded attorney for biosphere-destroying corporations such as Dow before she became a politician.
She went out on the campaign trail with her policies and persona, and the voters reacted to her.
Sexism or misogyny aren't the reasons she has failed to ignite voter interest.
Identity politics doesn't work well. And neither does telling women that Warren's failures are the same as their challenges.
6
No other candidate has the Warren life experience of rising up against herculean odds: poverty, single parenthood, getting an education - to become a Harvard Law School professor and a US Senator.
I am heartbroken to the core that Democratic women are not fully supporting Warren. It's a stunning betrayal against our own sex, our own chances, the opportunities for our daughters, our grand daughters. If Democratic women think American women will be lifted by Bernie, Mayor Pete, Biden -- they're heads are buried in the kitchen sink.
16
Every position she holds, she pilfered from Sanders.
9
@New World Right, because her decades of research about bankruptcy and books published on income inequality and 12 billion dollars from a federal agency she created compare to... what that Sanders did exactly? Go on...
2
Warren doesn't sell, she lectures.
9
This is brilliant. You have summed up in five words why people don't like her.
1
"Emily woke up with a different question: “How could a bully beat a woman?”"
The bully didn't beat a woman, the bully beat an unbelievably weak and terrible candidate. To prove the point, nominate Biden, Bloomberg, or Buttigieg.
6
As Taylor Swift would say, if Elizabeth Warren were a man, she’d be THE MAN.
21
Sexism? If a man had falsified his ethnic background on official documents while applying for positions in industry and academia, his political career would be over. Warren was so stupid that she released the results of a DNA test which showed she has less American ancestry than I do (< 1/1024). Give me a break.
8
If you must vote for Warren, please do so.
Anything that takes away a vote from Bernie is rational action if we want to remove Trump.
But if you really think that she really has a chance, I would simply quote James Carrville, as astute a political analyst as has ever walked this earth.
"You are a fool!"
3
One more first? Please. This country has many more firsts ahead of it, hopefully, if we are truly going to be a pluralistic society. We still have not had a non-Christian President and only one non-Protestant. Not even one Eastern European church.
As for women, I attended an elite women's college in the 1970s. There are a professor told us women cow and men bull. Little has changed. Elizabeth Warren comes with plans - however, they are cumbersome to implement. And, that is my objection to her.
3
Elizabeth Warren, based on her observable behavior, is the epitome of the apple-polishing, teacher’s pet, class snitch (Wine caves!... Kill it!... etc., etc.) that Americans used to abhor, call out, denigrate, and reject as not being one of us, not being who we are, but one who gains by snitching her way to the top.
7
She is quite smart, but I just have to say that there is something so irritating about her. I know I am not alone. And lest someone think I am a woman-hater, not true; I am a Klobuchar fan.
2
This struggle is there for all sections of minority community or weaker section of the society. For a white women, equality means gating the same salary, promotion, recognition as White men. They hardly understand that there is a very open but unspoken social hierarchy in this country (and in most other countries too.) It's more like- White Men > White women > and rest of the society. Skin color, race, religion, origin/nationality all play its role in establishing subsequent hierarchy.
Brown and Black men face much severe discrimination than most white women in the US. Then the discrimination intensifies as they become non-protestant, non-Christian etc. Atheists and Muslims face the worst - mainly among older generations, who are more racist and ignorant.
1
Elizabeth Warren, who I happen to like very much, cannot step out of Bernie Sander's shadow. They both have the same ideals, dip into the same voter crowd.
As much as I hate to say this, but he is the original, he hasn't changed his position for 20 years. Elizabeth Warren, while very progressive and very passionate, comes across as his clone or duplicate. It's not about gender here, it's about the message itself. Sander has grabbed the interest of the youth, he excites them more. Imagine where he would be if Warren will drop out?
4
It's completely mystifying to me that Warren isn't polling better at this point. She did have one weak debate, preceded and followed by great debates. She is the strongest debater (even though we can't call these free-for-all debates). She has the most detailed plans for paying for her proposed programs. She is better at making these understandable to listeners. Her goals are well-alligned with those of the frontrunner, Bernie. Yet she lags in polls. Why? I think it's because when a woman speaks, it's almost as if they have been put on 'mute.' The patriarchy just doesn't hear them. I love Bernie but believe that Warren is much more electable. She can't be painted (however dishonestly) with the 'socialist' label; she often acknowledges her dedication to capitalism. She champions authentic capitalism, not the corrupt version that is so strong in the US. She is passionate--and we know that many pundits and others don't appreciate passionate women. I guess passion is supposed to be reserved for the bedroom. Let's hope that voters prove pollsters wrong.
18
A long long time ago, I was involved in campaigns in Austin and learned some things. One of those things was that Machiavellian schemers would sometimes encourage someone to run for city council who had great reputation in a few precincts, they would even donate or loan money to the campaign. They did this to split the vote for someone else, a stronger candidate. It occurred to me, after watching Warren's repeated reluctance to criticize Sanders as opposed to her focus on Bloomberg, that maybe that's the role that clever Bernie Bros want her to fill. The candidate that splits the moderate vote.
2
These women should stick with Warren. Is there someone else?
4
As a white, professional woman, I would love to see a woman as president, but find this kind of analysis incredibly shallow. I rejected liberal feminism in 2016 when liberal feminist icons Madeline Albright said Gloria Steinem said there was a special place in hell for those of us who didn’t support HRC. I realized that if feminist icons would so easily diminish and insult large swaths of young women because they didn’t share their politics, or more pointedly, because they advocated a politics that wasn’t in the material best interest of Albright and Steinem, I needed a new organizing theory. I want no part in a feminism that is about professional women making partner over the vast majority of women getting a living wage. Yes, it would be great to have a woman in the White House, but a feminism that lauds the recognition of one individual woman over the material well being of the majority is not one I’m interested in.
There are many deeper, richer theories of feminism than this kind of representational approach. I have never seen the New York Times profile left or socialist feminists. Instead we get these insipid pieces highlighting the experience of women at exclusionary spaces like the Wing on repeat. Makes me sad about the state of American feminism.
16
Let's have a Sanders-Warren or Warren-Sanders ticket, with the top spot going to the person who gets the most delegates in the primaries.
This would be a progressive powerhouse with two strong people willing and able to fight for the interests of ordinary Americans and their families.
With the rich and powerful so entrenched in running the nation through the legislators they have legally purchased with campaign contributions, it's going to take a hell of a struggle to wrest our country back to a system that works for all of us.
Warren and Sanders may be rivals now, but they are kindred spirits in what they want to do for average citizens who desperately need a government of, for and by the people.
We could use both of them if we truly want a revolution from plutocracy back to democracy.
4
Warren has repeatedly called her campaign a fight and it is. She's fighting for progressive goals and she's fighting for women's equality. She dissects Wall Street while advocating for universal childcare. What a brilliant, humane person she is! And funny, too. Women in this article say they're tired and disappointed. Does Warren look tired? Hell, no! Should there have been women presidents by now? Of course! People, you'll only have a woman president by voting for a woman. Vote for Elizabeth Warren!
27
As a professional woman of the same generation as Elizabeth Warren, I’ve certainly experienced some of the biases that are mentioned here. However, I have been mistreated by women as much as I have by men having nothing to do with gender. And I’ve gotten some of the best mentoring and support for my career from men.
I was impressed by Elizabeth Warren when her campaign kicked off for many of the reasons mentioned and I had no problem overlooking her statements about her heritage. She started going down a notch in my view when she shifted into supporting Medicare for all, which anyone in the medical profession knows is impractical as a first step, regardless of how ideal it may be in theory. Her early debate performances left me unimpressed as she kept parroting the same lines over and over again. But I was still willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, taking into account her background, experience and contributions.
After watching her attacks on Michael Bloomberg, I just feel disgusted. Her attacks seem like nothing but a desperate and dramatic effort to save a failing candidacy. My opposition to her at this point has nothing to do with her being a woman or with electability based on sex. (I would be glad to see Amy Klobuchar as President or Vice President for example.). My opposition comes from the fact that her overblown dramatic display makes it less likely that competent women will be seen as equals and colleagues.
79
@NY MD This was my trajectory with Warren as well.
13
@NY MD
This article doesn't state that men can't be good mentors.
But how many men are punished for child care duties or being to forceful?
18
@NY MD
I too am a professional woman close to Warren's age. I'm going out on a limb here and I'm going to speculate that you are in a distinct minority if you have not experienced bias from men in your chosen field (I graduated from law school in 1978). The misogyny was not even subtle back then.
I'm also guessing that most women were cheering when Warren went after Bloomberg - particularly in the Nevada debate. For me it was a foreshadowing of what we might see in a Trump/Warren debate: Warren would own him.
I'm still a HUGE Warren fan! I have seen her described as shrill, a shrew and a scold - which I can only ascribe to sexism - while my take on her is that she's brilliant, articulate, passionate and compassionate.
I sense that you are not inclined to vote for either of the two more progressive candidates (Warren or Sanders) and that perhaps THAT is the primary reason for your opposition to Warren.
64
A brokered convention is a terrible prospect.
A brokered convention will hand our country to D Trump for 4 more years.
Any candidate whose main goal is to rescue our Democracy should pledge to hand his/her delegates over to whomever has the most votes going into the convention;
And then to get behind that nominee with everything they have.
So far, only Sanders has said that this is his plan.
(I early-voted for Liz in MA. I hope she does the right thing, if she is not the winner of the most national votes. I hope she puts democracy over ambition and ego. I think she will.)
I’m stunned by her lack of delegate votes to date. But after Super Tuesday we’ll know more whether or not her campaign is viable.
She has the most comprehensive and data driven plans of any candidate. That’s is clear. Although I didn’t like her comments about Hillary in 2016, I see their similarities and it makes me wonder why people are so averse to hearing the hows of a program. We want to hear from Bernie or others how since they spout platitudes about what they’ll do. And the one person with a detailed plan is considered too wonky, to emotional, too loud. Compared to WHO exactly? I think it’s clear it eventually boils down to the fear of a woman in the highest office.
9
Wallstreet, Wallstreet, Wallstreet, and, The Democratic Establishment; in 2020 Elizabeth Warren, got 2016nd Bernie'd. They fear her precisely because she gets things done and that is a threat to their hold on money and influence. "Is she electable" is a convenient hook to hang a hat of doubt and enable something of a media blackout. She is the best equipped to right the wrongs of Trump's misguided Administration.
15
Bernie tried to get Warren to run back in 2016, to take on Clinton the corporate sellout neoliberal. She refused, so Bernie did it himself, and did better than anyone expected. Warren didn't even have the decency to support him, no doubt because she feared being accused of betraying her own gender and getting in the way of the first woman president.
Now that Bernie's opened the door and shown a progressive presidency is possible, Warren suddenly wants in too. Until people start asking questions about her policies, then she evades and backtracks.
Warren's fundamental problem is she's not a leader, she's a follower. She's done good work in the Senate, she should stay there and continue it.
7
@KM
Consider the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau -- Warren proposed the idea, marshaled the support to get it through Congress, and led the work to get the agency up and running. While still a private citizen.
Millions of Americans have directly benefited from her vision and practical persistence.
That looks like leadership to me.
10
Bernie “did it so well” that we got trump. Quite a victory ... for the republicans.
5
The sexism comes into play when Warren is all of the sudden excluded by one wrong step she may have made. “She supported Hillary,” and on and on. How many mistakes have Sanders and Biden made? Bloomberg? Countless! Just like Warren. However, a female candidate has to be a political Mary Poppins to win the presidency. Meanwhile, Trump wins by demeaning women and bragging about being able to do whatever he wants to them. I would love for our nation to judge candidates on their character. Unfortunately, I just don’t see this happening until women can be seen for who there are instead of what they did or didn’t do, and men don’t get political impunity when treating the opposite sex disrespectfully.
1
Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren are the two most singular helpful American public servants in my adult lifetime.
They have both concretely helped millions of Americans improve their quality of life, Obama with the ACA....and Warren with her Dodd-Frank legislative invention of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In a sane America where critical thinking was the norm, Elizabeth Warren would handily win the nomination and the Presidency.
Unfortunately, American voters' antediluvian misogynist and primitive patriarchal instincts relegate brilliant women like Elizabeth Warren to the political dustbin instead of the Presidency.
American voters really need to start respecting and voting for brilliant women if they want a decent country to live in.
30
Seems to me it is as silly to vote for a candidate because she is a woman... as it is to vote against a candidate because she is a woman.
At this point, any sane adult would be a big improvement and Democrats know it.
The supposed hordes of wishy washy Republicans from the suburbs or the mid West are not going to come streaming to the polls for a Democrat, no matter who and no matter which side her shirt buttons. The GOP is a cult and Trump has Republicans in his grasp for good or bad.
Only, as Bernie correctly says, if there is a massive turnout of actual Democrats and Independents, mostly in more heavily urbanized states, will it be possible for a Democrat to beat Trump; a big turnout in those places that lean Democratic and where more people live. Yes, more than half those potential voters are more likely to be women themselves.
Our ship of state is sinking, America. We do not need to select a president by the cut of her jib.
NB: it is much MORE likely that Bernie or Bloomberg will face a steep uphill battle with voters outside the cities because they are Jewish, than that Warren or Klobashar will face a similar slope because they are women.
2
I've been a Warren fan for years, my loyalty was hers to lose... and she lost it.
5
Elizabeth Warren is a brilliant woman, but a terrible politician. Klobuchar (who I'm voting for) Harris and Nikki Haley, who I despise, are all far better.
The DNA debacle, the flip flop on Medicare for All, the clumsy fight with the Bernie Bros and her constant beating up on Bloomberg while Sanders is running away with the election all show why she does not have the political skill set to be President.
Yes, misogyny is a factor. But her faults as a candidate are the far bigger one.
I
9
So here’s how I see it (as Liz Warren would say).
At the same time that the Times chooses to write a political obituary on Liz, they print multiple compelling pieces on why Sanders would be a General Election disaster. Liz herself -perhaps unwisely- has declined to make a sharp argument about why she is a better bet than a 78-year-old Socialist.
So here’s how I see it: there are many glaring problems with Sanders himself. First, simply Sanders’ stubborn and self-indulgent self-labeling as a ‘Socialist’ is already costing Democrats- as will his LONG under-examined record of blabbing extremist opinions on film and in print.
Liz wants to fix and regulate Capitalism, not replace it with 1960’s Socialism. Sanders' Castro fixation is already doing incalculable damage to our chances in the key state of FL.
The national polls Sanders touts take place before ANY real vetting of his past stances- a treasure trove for the Trump attack machine. Liz W has no such trail of insanity.
She is a brilliant, articulate and fearless fighter for economic justice. She commands the debate stage like no one else- using an ‘indoor voice.’ She has the gravitas and calm to handle a crisis like this coming pandemic. The hot-headed Sanders has almost single-handedly divided the Dems with his My Way or the Highway rhetoric and his toxic followers.
In plain sight, and still in contention if we’d let her be, Liz can be the healer and the cure.
13
She’s not underperforming because of her gender
She’s underperforming because she isn’t terribly likeable
I’m sure people will pile on and say I’m being sexist but that’s simply untrue. The most likeable candidate was Kamala Harris.
5
@John Kamala Harris is the most likable and I would say she has a very good shot to be VP if Sanders, Biden or Bloomberg is the nominee.
1
This is an unprecedented period in our political history. We have a corrupt man inhabiting the White House. We have his cronies filling a few positions, while many are unfilled. We have a cloying, despotic GOP that isn't honoring the Constitution or their sworn duty to protect our citizens and country.
Into this mix, we have our Democratic presidential candidates both attempting to understand this mess, and run successful campaigns against potential Russian interference and demeaning attacks from the White House.
Through attrition, we have candidates leaving the race because of lack of funds and other unexpected reasons. Those left in the race are facing ageism, racism, misogyny, bullying and for the female candidates, a despicable lack of coverage by the media.
At this time, we should only care about character and ideas. Everything else is unimportant in this sea of corruption, and constant disintegration of our democracy.
3
So what do they see now? I’ll tell you what I see. Misogyny loud and clear.
6
So, we aren't "ready" for a woman president. Yet, millions voted for a con artist with zero experience. Tells me all I need to know about this culture and it is beyond pathetic.
10
An open letter to Elizabeth Warren:
Dear Ms. Warren -
There are good billionaires and bad billionaires, just as there are good white people and bad white people, good poor people and bad poor people, good gay people and bad gay people, good plumbers and bad plumbers. I hope you see my point.
Your narrow mindedness at seeing Mike Bloomberg as one of the “bad billionaires” has shocked and saddened me - as I used to have good feelings about your Presidential run. Now I find you extremely unpleasant and I can not even imagine you in the White House - where as Mike Bloomberg said so well at the last debate “you have to work with people on both sides of the aisle.”
I suggest you read David Brooks article in yesterday’s New York Times outlining Mr. Bloomberg’s many accomplishments over twelve years as one of New York’s MOST successful Mayors and think also about his many philanthropic activities.
Mr, Bloomberg is most definitely one of the good guys and your attempts to smear him are quite frankly disturbing.
Thank you,
Charles Baran
9
Agree with this article, and I see it mirrored on the moderate side with Amy Klobuchar. It's no wonder that she despises Mayor Pete-- does anyone really think that any small-town 30 something mayor would have gotten this far if she was a woman??? Or that it would have been considered an asset if she was a lesbian?
Am hoping that they both do better with the upcoming super Tuesday elections, but am not holding my breath.
4
Other than Biden, everyone would be a first. Bernie or Bloomberg would be the first Jewish President, Pete would be the first gay President, and Warren or Amy would be the first woman President.
4
@Elsie H. And Trump will be the first to declare himself President for Life.
1
@Elsie H Biden wouldn't be a first but he would be a second - Catholic as President. And he was the first Catholic Vice President. Surreal in a country with such a percentage of Catholics, that we have had only Catholic President and one Catholic VP nearly 250 years in.
The biggest disappointment is that Warren does not seem to be fighting for us, she is fighting for Sanders. She knows she needs his votes, instead she is aligning herself ideologically for Sanders and against Bloomberg! That does not make any sense at all. Especially that a Sanders-Warren ticket is unthinkable.
5
At this point I have little doubt that Warren would make the best President. I didn't get to this place quickly. But Bernie simply won't be able to deliver. Effective governing in our system involves the ability to compromise on policy matters without compromising one's integrity. I think Warren understands that. Bernie has shown he could care less. He can't deliver the revolution he promises within our current system. He'll need to blow it up, or he'll fail. And blowing it up will cause a lot of pain for a lot of people. If you think that pain will be limited to the 1%, I challenge you to cite a "revolution" in the course of history that was democratic, peaceful and not volatile. Warren I think understands this. Democrats are foolish to abandon her for Bernie.
I just wish she received better advice on how to navigate the blatant misogyny and double standards of our electoral politics. Maybe I'm being naive here. Maybe there is no way for a woman to become President in misogynistic America.
259
we elected a woman last time!!!!! Just vote for one again.
23
I’m not so sure you’re right about Bernie. His “platform” is really not that different from FDR and Truman...both great presidents...neither of whom were really able to “deliver” (check the history books if you don’t believe me).
Bernie projects a vibe of authenticity that goes back decades and lately I have been impressed with his interviews. He can be pretty hard-headed and nothing seems to fluster him. I like that.
For both Sanders and Warren...I could care less about how programs will be paid for...at least for now. Neither will ever get their healthcare bills out of the Senate. It just ain’t happening and no amount of “compromising” will make it happen in the USA. Not now at least.
LBJ has a chance in 1965 and the AMA and the Vietnamese Communists fatally distracted him and we’ve been living with the results ever since.
3
@Matt Warren would make a fine President and Hillary would have, too. But they are both lousy politicians.
I wish Michelle Obama would have run. I believe she could have won.
2
Always a problem to hand one's sense of self to a politician. I would argue that no self-respecting person should ever do this.
2
When I see Warren speak she isn't speaking with a sense of strength. She appears to be trying to get consensus by appealing to people, not through leadership.
I'm not sure what I wrote accurately describes her campaign style, but the way she appears to me is not strong. I'm sure she has/had strong beliefs, but it's not showing.
10
Many of the comments here very much sum up how Warren supporters view the competition and why Warren is losing. Warren started declining when she started introducing progressive ideas that were, of all things, means-tested. I actually think she also hurt herself by focusing too much on HOW she planned to implement her policies, rather than WHAT she was trying to achieve, but that's just speculation.
Then she tried to pander to the moderates in the party by delaying actual Medicare for All. Just like that, she spooked both progressives and moderates. Now she has been playing up to "woke" voters in an effort to win over minorities and women, and she has been attacking Bloomberg with less emphasis on her 'plans'. That strikes voters as very shallow. She gambled and lost, so much for that story.
7
For me, it is all about policy and principles. For example, if AOC were old enough to run for president, I would vote for her in a heartbeat. My issues: first, does the candidate accepts contributions from billionaires and super PACs? If she or he does, that's disqualifying for me as a voter. Then, policy, like Medicare for all, ending for-profit, endless wars, Green New Deal, etc.
3
So, for you is it more a decision based on ethnic background?
Because there is nothing compelling me to think AOC has any great political sense at all. Instagram/Facebook/Twitter presence is not a good basis for judging political skills
@Margo Why do you assume I'm making my decision based on "ethnic background"? Especially since I clearly stated that "for me, it is all about policy an principles."
Regarding AOC, I think she's one of the smartest, ethical, and principled congresspeople serving right now. And she has an unusual grip on issues and policies.
BTW, I voted for a woman in 2016.
2
My wife, who has an MBA and is fluent in four languages, deeply opposes the worldview of Elizabeth Warren. I applaud her for prioritizing political positions over personal plumbing.
10
The causes of her failure aren't really that complex: she simply hasn't explained why anyone should vote for her instead of Bernie. In the last debate, she said the difference was that he supports the Filibuster. The Filibuster? That's the only difference? Instead, every time she ticks off her embrace of Medicare-for-All, taxes on billionaires, a Green New Deal, she picks up two votes for herself...and one for Bernie.
Perhaps her strategy is that he'll get sick...or somehow implode and then the party will turn to her? Good luck with that - she's done.
6
That's a good point - if asked the question why we should vote for her instead of x we should be hearing about her policy strengths and not see attempts to point out and exploit the weakness of candidate x.
1
@Connecticut Yankee Warren's plans for how to accomplish her goals are more fleshed out than Bernie's. The criticism that he hasn't passed a lot of legislation should land harder than it does.
Warren set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and has a history of going after corruption. We have a lot of problems facing our country, from climate change to hostile foreign powers interfering in our elections, but in the Trump era corruption is possibly our most urgent and pressing threat. It affects our ability to get anything done. I've yet to hear Senator Sanders really tackle that head on. Warren has been there and done that.
4
The powers that be are threatened. There are two potent contenders in the Democratic party that are standing up for voters against the elites who often rightly feel that they own this country. It's sad to see the NYT doing their bidding with the "electability" smoke.
I love to hear Bernie nail the 1% because he's 100% right. And if Bernie wins the nomination and is not cheated out of it again, I'll support him to the end.
However, I believe Elizabeth Warren will make a better president, and I am sending her more money. I know that she's bright enough to craft her own team of rivals and lead us in to a new rebirth of democracy. But we have to support her. Now, and after the election.
Bemoan injustice, but do something about it. Write checks and get active!
3
I'm female but I don't in any way see myself in Warren. Wouldn't stop me from voting for her though, should something put the brakes on Sanders' momentum. And I never saw myself in Clinton, never voted for her, and never would.
4
Hopefully, smart, thoughtful voters will carefully consider the candidates, and vote with their hearts and minds.
But Medicare for all? Bernie and Elizabeth's brainchild?...
Sheesh.
Hopefully voters will carefully consider the candicates who proposed this boondoggle.
How immature, irresponsible, and childish it is to make proposal after proposal without any clue how these hare-brained proposals will be paid for.
It is morally wrong and reprehensible to pass the bill from this elephant in the room, Medicare for All, onto the shoulders of our kids and grandkids.
What kind of bill are we talking about?
Take your pick....depending on the study, between $30 to $40 trillion over ten years.
That's $4 trillion a year.
Think about that.
$4 trillion a year.
That is our entire annual federal government budget.
Want another slap in the face? $4 trillion a year is more than we bring in in revenue each year.
You want numbers? During FY 2019, the federal government spent $4.45 trillion, and brought in $3.46 trillion, for a $1 trillion shortfall in revenue.
To top this off, for an excellent gut punch: How are we going to pay off our existing, and growing, $20 trillion national debt?
Oh, I get it. Maybe if you raise your hand 98% instead of 97% of the time, and cut in on anyone else speaking 100% of the time, you can further deflect from answering the basic question of.... how your hare-brained proposal will be paid for.
It is time to grow up.
5
If every other industrialized developed country in the world has been running a program similar to this for over a century I don’t see why we can’t! Supposedly we are the richest! Unless we are squandering it on the military industrial complex!
1
@Ed, preach it! Finally a person/voter who really get its!! Thanks for your wonderful comment!
@RobF
If this sexist and personal attack comment is all you have to say, please keep your thoughts to yourself. I know plenty of people of look at Elizabeth Warren, what she has achieved, and look at the Consumer Finance Bureau, one of the most nimble and effective agency across our government, and still this is not enough for sexists such as yourself? Enough with sexism!
1
@R. Warren is the sexist. She automatically believes women as though they were born with some special gene and never mentions that men who are accused might also be just as truthful as their accusers. Sexism is a TWO WAY STREET, in case you've forgotten, and she's never going to win any office without the support of BOTH sexes. I would never vote for someone who denies me equal protections simply because I'm a male.
3
If Warren is such a feminist, then why did she voraciously undermine women and defend Dow Chemical when women attempted to get compensation from their toxic implants?
Warren has consistently plagiarized phraseology, lines, platforms, directly from Bernie's campaign. But when pushed on issues like health care, she is the ideal mouthpiece for the Corporate Democrats with so called "compromising" rather than fighting for justice.
In 2015, she had the opportunity to endorse Bernie, but she did not.
I am exhausted with all of those who play the gender card as if all women think uniformly on all issues. Was Margaret Thatcher the embodiment of progressive feminism merely because she was a woman?
Bernie Sanders is and has been a committed and consistent feminist with his support of equality for ALL people.
Lest we forget about how she has lied about her ancestry to get into top schools.
Are these the ideals embodied by feminists? Lying? Corporate Shilling? Plagiarizing? Impersonating?
Bottom line. She is first and foremost, a Capitalist who will carry the corporate bottled water if she were to succeed in her role as President.
Like Hillary, she is dangerous because if empowered, will use the excuse that there is not the support in the Congress to pass any meaningful legislation rather than rallying the masses like Bernie does. After serving, she will “capitalize” and collect her multi-millions and lay a safe foundation for her children and grandchildren.
8
“I get asked this question over and over, do you think you face sexism in running for president? And there are only two answers and they’re both bad. The first one is, ‘Uh, yeah,’ in which case everybody says, ‘Oh, whiner.’”
“The second is to say, ‘Oh, no,’ in which case, at least every other woman looks at you and thinks, ‘What planet is she living on?’”
There’s a third answer.
“Yes, sexism exists. But, so what? This is not the same as a woman who can’t even get an interview or fill out an application for a job. This is not a glass ceiling. People are allowed to choose any reason they want to support or not support a candidate. My job is not to erase every “ism” in the world. My job is to give voters a compelling reason to support my candidacy.”
4
Is Elizabeth Warren unelectable because she’s a woman, or because she’s Elizabeth Warren?
9
Elizabeth Warren is a radical feminist who say “of course I believe HER. Why shouldn't I? Why would SHE lie?” Are women born with a truth gene that men lack? As a man, I resent the immediate rush to accept as TRUTH every allegation women make against men simply based on their “recollections.”
5
74 year old man here who has already voted for Warren. She will make a great President. Brains matter.
9
I am a big fan of Warren's. At the first hearings about the 2008 crash and for CFPB, she was fantastic. She has continued to not disappoint.
But one reason I really like her is that she has never sent the message, "I am an inspiration to all who know me." "i'm running for the little girls who need someone to look up to--like me."
We tried those messages in 2016 and they sunk like a lead balloon.
Warren is great on any terms. And that's what we need right now.
16
Women have to start working together.
There is a lot of noise on cable that the Democrats need the black female vote.
Our country needs the female vote and if Black, Latina, Asian and white women start supporting each other we can rule the world.
Women have been easy to dismiss for centuries by our politicians (ERA anyone?).
The squad, "booing" Hillary because they do not recognize that the older generation
of women paved the way for so much of their success. How do men like Epstein, Weinstein
and Cosby exist for so many years? Women compete with each other because the seats at the table are limited.
If we turn that around our daughters will rule.
I am tired of old white men (Bernie, Biden and now Bloomberg) waving their finger at me and raising their voices to tell me that only they have the answers. And now the young (Pete)telling me that he's the only one with answers.
I admire Elizabeth for her strength and intelligence.
But I support Amy for her pragmatism and reality based platform.
There is no magic genie to wave a wand and give everyone what they want.
It will be a slow road back to politicians actually putting their country and citizens first. And this is a hopeful vision.
But yes, women have answers and it's time to actually hear us.
10
I couldn’t agree more. I support Amy!
One of Elizabeth Warren's biggest problems has nothing to do with gender and has everything to do with being disingenuous. In Iowa her ads portrayed her as a high school teacher from Oklahoma who came from a family of stereotypical bubbas. One would have had no idea that she was the Senator from Cambridge, MA who was making four hundred thousand dollars teaching law schools. Speaking of money, she pounced on the former Mayor of New York for his financial success i.e. rich people are evil. So who did she think was providing the that money Harvard was giving her. Last but not least, this elect me because I am a woman does not seem to fly with a lot of women. Women are not a classic voting bloc. Here in Iowa we have a right wing governor and senator who are women and a left wing woman representing my district in congress. It just might be that if you want women to vote for you you have to appeal to their intellect and not to their physicality.
7
I believe Elizabeth Warren would make the best president - very passionate - lots of wonderful ideas - a real fighter - intellectual - make her president and our country will prosper
21
It's not she is female, I supported Hillary! Just dont like Warrens politics.
11
She’s the best candidate irrespective of gender.
At the same time it’s time for a woman in the White House.
All the hand wringing in these comments, is just people making excuses for not voting for her and trying to justify it.
Democrats beating themselves.
15
It's a sad fact. It just isn't our time.
It breaks my heart. Last night I was reading an article about what people thought about Elizabeth Warren in South Carolina. One person said that he loved her and thought she would be a great president, but worried that America was not ready for a woman president so he was voting for Biden. It's exactly that thinking that is going to prevent us from having the best qualified person (who just happens to be a woman) lead our country. It's a self creating prophecy. If people could just let go of that irrational hesistation...
14
@Hope Exactly. She is electable if we vote for her. And I agree she is the best qualified qualified of the candidates to be president.
5
Funny how an article about the media overlooking a woman candidate fails to even mention once that there is another woman Senator candidate Amy Kluchubar!?!? Yes, I understand that we tend to favor the most outrageous (look at our president) and Elizabeth Warren being raised in her beloved Trump-loving family and voting for Reagan while getting rich protecting Asbestos producers fits the ego-maniac candidate profile we prefer, but please at least have the common decency to refer to Elizabeth as one of two candidates inspiring young women across the country.
8
@DoctorRPP
Conservative, even relatively conservative, women don't factor into the equation. It's really more about progressive ideology. They have to be female AND a progressive ideologue to get support.
Her gender is not the problem. Her platform is.
10
1)Warren is a Bernie clone in ideas and wealth (both are millionaires).
2) Bernie built on his 2016 campaign
3) Warren’s “I have a plan” backfired- she did not.
4) Yes we all faced discrimination and still do - mostly from the old white male population. From flight attendants hiking their skirts to show their legs in interviews to women scientists who were told they needed a face like the back end of a bus to succeed. Yet we did succeed and no woman championed us.
5) The cheerleader approach may appeal to kids but not adults.
6) The bug-eyed in your face attack may work for Bernie but he does have a sense of humor.
7) Bernie was one of the causes of Trump’s election. Please don’t contribute to his re- election.
6
The primaries are not over so I say YES SHE CAN!!
6
The only message Warren seemed to want to send to the country during the first debate and then again in the second debate was not to vote for Mike Bloomberg because he is a misogynist billionaire. It was not a compelling reason to vote for her.
7
Let's make a non-issue an issue and plant that seed in people's minds.
Irresponsible. This story belongs back in 1992. If Warren or Klobuchar don't make it, it's on their records and positions, not their gender.
5
Warren would be a great Cabinet Department head in an Administration. She would not be a good President. Her background in developing policies and as a professor would make her excellent in developing new programs and getting them implemented. A President needs different skills, much more focused on leadership and inspiration. Not that Trump is that, but there are better choices than Warren for President. And she doesn’t get a cookie for being female. It’s the best person for the position.
4
Warren's problems are not as much being a woman as her backtracking on issues that affect all women, Medicare for all being the prime example. Being a woman, her most natural base is the progressive base. To maintain support in any base, the primary objective has to be to be cognizant of the needs of all in that base. It is no coincidence that her bump reversed when she backed off on Medicare for All, and she has continued her descent since. It's not fair, and arguably a man may well have gotten away with it (although Buttigieg hasn't done very well either since reversing on M4A), but it doesn't change the sad fact that this otherwise very good candidate turned her back on a large chunk of her natural base, and that led directly to her downfall.
4
Back in 2016 I kept hearing that voters were trying to decide between Sanders and Trump. As ridiculous as that choice seems to me and many others, I have to believe the people who said that. And now, almost four years later, I believe there are plenty of disenchanted Republicans that would cross the line to vote for Sanders but not any of the other candidates. Maybe Bloomberg. I see the game that politics has become and I'm willing to put my personal preferences aside to try to help win this round.
Elizabeth Warren is my favorite candidate and the one that I most agree with, but I will not be voting for her in the primary. Some will say I'm part of the problem, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. My decision is based on believing the people I disagree with who helped create the results of the last election.
2
My wife and I are both convinced that Warren would make the best President of the crowd running.
Like women tend to do, she actually thinks through her proposals before yelling them out and plans for how she would get them enacted. Men talk and talk, women always have to show up with more than big speeches and that is why Warren has plans.
Who else on that stage is talking about how providing access to child care is step one in closing the wage gap? She goes for the root causes as supposed to dancing around the periphery. That’s why she would make such a good president. She just gets it!
I grew up in a country that elected the first female president 40 years ago, has had multiple female prime ministers and a corporate world filled with female executives. Women get things done! After 30 years in America, I continue to be baffled that in 2020 we are still talking about women as if their hairstyles and choice of a pant suit is what defines their character and qualification.
41
@Tredd I have watched every single one of them, but obviously not through the same lens that you do! It says plenty about your perspective that you think Warren is the one yelling as supposed to Sanders, Biden or Steyer. There is no rational or reality based argument to be made for her cheating and as to your claim that she cannot lead. That is actually the point here. Anyone, for example, can yell let's get out of here. Warren is the only one who has thought through which way is out!
1
This is one time, one, that I am not going to examine gender too closely. One president every four to eight years makes for possibly a good mirror but a poor test of gender dynamics at large. For that let's look to aggregate data. Warren, as an individual, not just a woman, isn't perfect and there are lots of possible reasons she isn't doing better. Biden should in theory be doing great, but he's crashing and burning and it's not because he's a white man.
A candidate seems to be getting people excited and pulling ahead. 2016 taught us that we won't win without (properly distributed) excitement. I voted early for Warren because it's not even Super Tuesday yet, but if another candidate proves extremely popular among voters... I just hope it's not Bloomberg, and I'd indulge in rolling my eyes if it were promoted-on-his-potential Pete, but I'll get behind anyone.
1
Simply put Klobuchar over Warren. Warren has good intentions but the whining, name calling, and the ok boomer when I was this age or that are totally off putting. I do not find her as electable Presidential material, maybe head of education since she places so much emphasis on that. Klobuchar is very strong candidate, but I think she needs some years of experience before being a President but I see her potential.
6
Your headline with the past tense is unfair and reflective of the problem we face in American politics. Warren is still the best candidate, despite her flaws and the immense misogyny she and all women face in this country. I certainly hope that it is too early to count her out, and it is never the right time for the media to add to misconceptions.
20
Virtually any criticism of Warren has at its root an element of bias (mostly unintentional, sometimes not) against women. One need only ask oneself if Warren's "flaw" would be considered a flaw or a strength in a male candidate.
22
@RickyDick
Warren is a progressive ideologue. Progressives will find any excuse -- ex., her gender -- to deny that their ideology is the problem.
3
Warren is by far the best candidate based on her experience and elect ability. All people have to do is vote for her. There is still time.
25
Amazing that people are still asking if a "woman can win" the presidency! Are those same people asking if a gay, married, man can win the presidency? I have heard that question just once. Let's stop thinking about what others might do and vote for the best candidate. If we all vote for Warren she will win! Once we have a woman president people will get over their prejudice. Nancy Pelosi has won the praise of millions of men for her strength and wisdom. We also need women of color in leadership positions.
The key to winning The White House, Senate, and Congress for the Democrats is having a massive turnout. We need a record turnout to overcome the gerrymandering and R's throwing thousands of legal voters off of the voter rolls.
18
Hopefully one day we will look beyond the gender of the person to recognize two humans even with similar ideas are not remotely alike or even likable.
They are two different people with two very different levels of charisma. One is lacking, the other is not.
1
Well, it is not about her gender. It is about her policies. And Bernie took the left and pushed it further. She is a next shade over from Bernie We are living in a polarized, populist world. It appears that if you are not at either end, you are left out.
2
Warren has been my first choice for months because she cares so much in keeping with the Democratic party tradition. She's an economic expert. So why is she resorting to such a shallow pitch? Sure she's a woman. There's a hundred million more in the nation, but why does she stand out? That's what will get votes, not her gendre. I know her accomplishments. I don't need to be reminded. I'm a man, and the woman pitch doesn't get my vote, her expert knowledge does, so why does she appeal in such a way as to isolate herself to woman thus discouraging men with a shallow reason to vote for her? I'll vote for her because she cares and she's expert at it, not because she's a woman.
15
As a woman -- a mother, a grandmother, an aunt, godmother, daughter, FEMINIST!...etc.....no matter what my "feelings"....I am gonna vote for the best PERSON for the job.
I will not make my decision based on gender or sex or race or sexual orientation.
That being said: I do think there is an upward limit on how old any PERSON can be and still take on a job as demanding and stressful as the US Presidency. I'd say that limit is probably 75. A President -- no matter how wonderful -- who is over 80 years old is probably out of strength & energy to do a proper job.
8
Sanders and Warren would both be good presidents. And for a myriad of reasons better than all other options. But i fail to see how Ms. Warren is somehow better than Mr Sanders in any discernible aspect, though. And his (lack of) electability has been a topic more than Ms Warrens. You need charisma to win elections, and if he is a tad stronger on this, then he needs to be the candidate. And i don’t find it plausible that his charisma would monocausally be linked to his sex.
2
I saw myself in Hillary Clinton, too. A legal services lawyer; a career focused on public service mostly; progress and solution-oriented; and about as poised and articulate and accomplished as a person could be. It was a kick in the gut, if not a beating to a bloody pulp, to watch Trump beat her.
Nevertheless, we persist. There will be a first. It’s only a matter of time.
9
'...but eventually experienced a double standard of some kind.' Really?
This perceived eventuality is a falsehood. Not every voter class (with the noted exception of white men, of course) is held back or aggrieved. One reason that women do not support her or relate to her, speaks to this fact.
2
For years I lived in Europe, where women routinely run for office, win, and occupy power at the highest levels. Here in the United States it seems we’ve never grown up
15
@citizennotconsumer
Not entirely correct. The Left remains stubbornly childish in its denial about its popularity. It blames everyone and everything when Americans reject its policies.
Mature Americans can see past identity. Immature Americans think identity is a factor in every decision.
3
@AACNY
I agree with your second paragraph. The first would require a very lengthy discussion.
There’s a social bias in our country against strong women - argue and they’re the b word, raise their voices and they’re shrill, blah blah blah. Warren is clearly the best leader with the ability to do what she says and think on her feet. That she is not the leading candidate says more about our dysfunctional culture than her abilities.
17
Our Country is ready to have a woman as President - Ms. Clinton proved that.
Ms. Warren is just not the right woman.
5
This article is inspiring me to send Warren a little more money.
One of the reasons that I have loved Warren for years and hoped that she'd run for president is that I recognized in her the type of woman who has been so meaningful in my life, both in education, in personal life, and in professional life: she is the hard-worker who gets things done. Over and over, in my workplaces, I see showboats get promoted over the people (usually women), who just roll up their sleeves and get the job done, propping everyone else up.
Note, this is exactly why we see Amy Klobuchar unable to hide her disdain for Pete Buttigieg.
What makes women like me so sad is that we know in our hearts that when people find a Midwestern grandma who loves puppies and fights for the "little guy" unlikable simply because she is articulate and competent, we know we are "unlikable" too.
409
@HD I'm also a Warren supporter, but watching this race almost makes me wish she had primaried Hilary back in 2016. Bernie's front runner status is clearly the legacy of his run back in 2016 and the advantage he gained from having an established base of support.
While Pete Buttigieg has impressed me with his ability to remain calm and collective (outside of his constant needling of Bernie Sanders, although Bernie is the front runner and so this is to be expected), I find his resume to be abysmal. Being a small town mayor does not readily translate into being president and dealing with a recalcitrant Congress. At least Warren has a plan to deal with that - by getting rid of the Senate filibuster.
33
@HD
So right...Thank you Elizabeth Warren from all the women who are smart, work hard, play by the "rules", keeps the boat upright, and get passed over by some flashy dude. The corporate news media has diminished her from the beginning....
59
@HD I see this anger towards Buttigieg a lot from Warren supporters. This idea that he hasn't "earned" it, or that he's a "showboat." I suspect that this is to some degree a projection of personal experiences onto Buttigieg (as you said, experiences like seeing qualified women being overlooked), and not necessarily about what he has or hasn't done. He's clearly an outstanding political talent - he wouldn't have gotten this far if he wasn't - and politics is not primarily about qualifications, it's about inspiration.
But his and Warren's campaigns are different enough substantively that I don't think you can say that people are choosing Buttigieg instead of Warren. His success is not synonymous with Warren's failure. By far the biggest overlap is between the Warren and Sanders camp, but it's a lot harder to criticize Sanders on those points, isn't it? Although for my money, he's the biggest showboat in the race right now.
Personally, I'd love it if the top 2 candidates were Buttigieg and Warren, they've both been my favorites throughout the campaign. Both Buttigieg AND Warren are "articulate and competent." Still, I agree with Buttigieg a lot more on the issues than I do with Warren, and that's why he's always had more of my support. But I'd be thrilled with either of them as President.
9
They Saw Themselves in Elizabeth Warren. So What Do They See Now?
That it is right, That it is just; and lord knows, "It is time"!
3
Elizabeth Warren made two mistakes. One, when asked how Medicare for all would be paid for, she waffled at the answer. Instead of saying that there would be payroll and other taxes, but the typical family would see their insurance and copay costs drop by much more, all she talked about was "costs", never saying how the cost of the new system would be paid. That made her look evasive, and never answered the question. Bernie, on the other hand, readily states that taxes will increase, but overall a family will enjoy savings.
Her other error was to pick a fight with Sanders over a remark allegedly made, a year ago, in a private setting. Given that many progressives who support her also like Bernie, it was an ill advised controversy with only downside, and no upside.
Her recent re-energized campaign seems like an effort to keep Bloomberg from buying the election. I think this is a tacit admission that her own chances are now remote, but the best role she can now play is to keep Bloomberg from swamping what should be a democratic process by his dynamite the pond tactics.
In a way, its like a soldier falling on a hand grenade for the good of everyone else. Its a shame. She was, and is, the most qualified candidate out there.
15
These are the kinds of errors from which a male candidate with her energy and qualifications would have easily bounced back.
13
Most qualified except for Bloomberg, you mean.
1
@T
I would have to take a Big Gulp before I ever voted for a guy who wanted to legislate my life to his preferences. He is more out of touch than a tooth full of Novocaine.
1
I was an early and hopeful supporter of Warren's candidacy, each month donating equal sums of money to her and to Sanders. When she moved toward the center on several important issues a few months ago, I shifted my support to Sanders alone. Everything that each candidate has said since then convinces me that this was the right thing to do.
I understand Warren's allure to a certain demographic of women, and how they might see themselves in her. Democracy, however, requires much more than that: a stable, more vibrant, and more equitable society emerges from policies that serve all interests, not just those of the professional-managerial class.
18
This article is irritating. Warren has the most thorough policies and is constantly the most prepared. She is smarter and wiser than the ridiculous mayor. Yet, instead of analyzing her policies or asking why the others haven't needed to put much of anything together, we get this downhearted piece. Warren has not emphasized gender, she has emphasized policy. Write about it.
125
Her newest slogan is literally “women win”?
2
Elizabeth Warren will get my primary vote. She is smart and the most capable candidate running this year. Bernie is smart, but uncompromising and sadly I feel too old. Pete is smart, but not human enough. Joe is too feeble. Amy folksiness isn’t landing. Mike, well he isn’t even a democrat. But for some very explicable reason Elizabeth Warren isn’t leading. It is in fact because she is a women, and most Americans are still NOT ready for that. Incredibly disappointing! Move on America and see women as equal!
65
I voted for a woman last election and was happy to do so! For some of us, Warren is inauthentic and lakes charisma. And if she is mostly putting forth the same ideas as Bernie (but with admittedly more detail) why wouldn’t we just cast our vote for bernie who doesn’t lack authenticity and charisma?
1
@T Well that's an issue too, the "authenticity and charisma" metric. I think Warren will simply do a more effective job as president. But seems many prioritize the showmanship aspects. It's related to "cult of personality" criticisms.
5
@Susan Yes indeed, please see women as equals and remember that if Warren’s name was Jay Inslee, highly qualified but considered boring she would have been one of the first to drop out. If her name was Cory Booker, a very popular mayor of a large and troubled city as well as a Senator she would be gone.
And while you can criticize Buttigieg as not being human enough, if someone makes that sort of remark about Warren the accusations of misogynism come thick and fast. Those who criticize Warren do see her as an equal to any of the other candidates and as just as fit a subject for criticism as the men.
Looking at the candidates includes an examination of their policies as well as the things that make them an appealing and electable candidate...humanness, or lack of it as you see in Buttigieg, likeability, and all the rest of it.
Sanders gets criticized because he yells, Biden because he seems slow. In addition to having the ideas the candidate has to be able to sell the ideas as well as sell themselves. So far, starting with that first cringeworthy video she made where she invited us to have a beer with her, Warren isn’t managing that last part as well as some of the others. But she is still in the race, unlike a number of other highly qualified men.
2
The 56 year old housekeeper is skeptical of Warren, but the members of the ~375 dollar a month Jane Club love her.
19
Just stop. Senator Warren, by just running for President, deserves the harsh spotlight that comes with being in that arena. This includes her "electability." Certainly she (and, it should be said, Senator Klobuchar) has certainly been harshly attacked for their positions on issues, their carriage, their manner of communicating, et alia, so have the men. To give her a pass because she's a woman is the definition of sexism.
20
Of the remaining candidates Elizabeth Warren is so clearly the most qualified. she was amazing with protecting consumer rights, and those kinds of protections didn't seem to destroy the economy. She's the smartest, strongest person left, I have the least amount of worries with having her as president and defending our country's interests. She never says anything offensive or ridiculous, unlike some other candidates, has strong plans and arguments for everything she believes in. It's ludicrous that three very old white men are trending so well when we have a candidate like Warren. If Warren doesn't get the party nomination, I am tempted to vote for Trump. I can't fathom what kind of party I am part of if we can't even get behind the best candidate and the clearest reason why we can't is because of her gender.
20
I can’t fathom what kind of party I am part of when fellow members would consider casting a vote for Trump. Eek.
12
@DudeinBoston, as an objective outsider...I see you favor a Democratic candidate who was once a Republican and are thinking of voting for the ultra-Republican Trump. Perhaps you need to reevaluate your own self identity?
2
@DudeinBoston In Massachusetts your vote for Trump won’t matter. The threat is not worth much.
1
Warren is the most unlikeable woman to run for President. It’s not a mystery that she’s not doing well. Her “unlikeable” rating amongst both men and women has risen as people have watched her on the stage. If you look at the numbers she is doing especially badly amongst male voters.
And it’s not just “because she’s a woman”. Contrast Klobuchar, whose likeability and standing has increased as people see her.
Warren reminds me of the worst teacher I ever had who constantly lectured the class on how bad we were and how we did everything wrong, and she had a plan for us to do better but we would have to do exactly as she said every minute of the school day. In politics either you are likeable or not, some say it’s an inherent characteristic. She does not have it. Please note I have gladly voted for many women in local and national elections, would never, ever vote for Elizabeth Warren.
20
@Rob
Don't know what data you're basing your opinion on, so I can't judge that. But I've seen Sen. Warren at public events large and small over a number of years, and the impression I have is very different from yours. She comes across as genuine, engaged, knowledgeable and very likable. Even before she announced her presidential run, people surrounded her at large meetings and rallies, eager to meet her and hear what she had to say.
11
It is like Clinton all over again. Somehow, when women run for the highest office, they are “the worst” kind of woman.
5
Ironic coming from a man.
5
In our household we also support Warren, and feel amazed by how she is under performing in the polls while being the most competent on the stage. We do not discount the fact that sexism plays a huge role in that result. But we also think that anti-intellectual bias is a factor. If voters had more respect for education and less for ostentatious wealth, they would have never elected Trump who is an obvious fraud. They would have never elected Bush son either. Sexism, racism, and lack of education in liberal arts go hand in hand.
61
@DM I don't think it's necessarily about respect for education. Recently, I was canvassing for Bernie with a new acquaintance. We are both well-educated professionals with grad degrees from good schools.
He brought up that well-educated people may like Warren because she reminds them of themselves (her Ivy League background, work as a professor) but that also meant - despite her childhood history -- she may seem too distant from people who aren't affluent, college-educated, etc. And that her policies appeal to that affluent demographic because it is "progressive sounding enough" but it's not progressive enough or quick enough to help the millions of people who AREN'T wealthy, college-educated, etc., who are the great majority of people in the US.
I'd also add that calling people who don't vote for your chosen candidate sexist, racist, uneducated, bound to their guns/ religion, or "deplorable" doesn't help. Insulting people who aren't liberal arts focused isn't going to help either.
One reason Bernie has appealed to a broad base is because he talks to people about the problems they're facing and how he can help rather than labelling them as this or that and saying that's why they vote that way.
1
The comments here are a little ridiculous. As a member of Gen Z myself, consider that Millennials and Gen Z overwhelmingly support Bernie despite being the most socially conscious generation yet. No one in my generation believes a woman can't be president. But we care about policy and ideas more than shallow identity politics.
Elizabeth Warren betrayed the movement. Whether it be countless lies, notably claiming to be Native American, or backtracking on Medicare for All, the #1 issue among voters. Warren lied about her campaign financing, and now is accepting Super PAC money when she promised not to. She lied about getting fired for being pregnant, and lied about her father's occupation. Then there was her insinuation that Bernie was a closet sexist. Warren's checkered history with the truth was put up against Bernie's 40-year record of consistency, and it's not surprising that most voters saw Warren's sexism smear as a cynical political ploy, deployed when it'd be most advantageous.
Warren is no progressive firebrand, and by cozying up to power, she fundamentally doesn't challenge the status quo. The progressive movement does not trust her. Her own actions have put a far bigger dent in her electoral chances than her gender ever could.
Consider a woman *did* win the popular vote in 2016.
Bernie calls for a long-overdue political revolution to unseat the corruption and rot in our country. Warren, to quote her own words, is "just a player in the game."
20
@Harsha M.
The misrepresentations and ill-considered barrage of charges aren't helping your candidate. They feel oversold.(An aside: Why are so many people so hung up on Warren's teaching experience in the 1970s? It was common then for schools to reassign pregnant teachers from the classroom. Unclear why that should be an issue now).
3
There are countless Kool-Aid flavored stretches of truth in your statement. This Millennial appreciates someone who has had the cold, sobering reflections of a good, hard look: in the mirror, at our electorate, at capitalism, at our government, at her own family storytelling, and at the egg that was subsequently on her face. Her understanding grew, and she grew. That growth, that self-reflection, is absolutely essential. Yes, she is but a single piece of a larger board, and its important that ANY leader recognize that. She has done the work, and continues to.
She is not a Messiah, she is not Che, she is the best-equipped candidate to rebuild a better America. She does not believe that she is the sole person required to build a better path forward, she believes in teams and results. She knows that details matter.
America, unlike the glorified Scandinavian countries, is a massive land full of diverse people, still realigning from the original sin of slavery. We know from research that people feel more generous towards their neighbors when their neighbors look like them: hence the declining peace with socialism in Sweden as the country becomes more diverse.
If purity and lack of growth are your sole metric, gun-loving Bernie would come in second to Buttigieg. If its revolution you want, Trump is the most effective candidate. If you're just hoping that America wouldn't be complex, and that our inequities would be wiped away, pray.
1
@Harsha M. Wonderful post on why Sanders is so much better. The replies show that some are determined not to listen.
2
Any "professional woman" who votes for Trump has severe issues which have nothing to do with gender or profession.
26
Girls, ladies whichever you accept. Do not give up. People are not all equal in this world. Some are smarter, better looking, run faster, and have more money or opportunity. Courage is something we all have access to. If you have the courage to not consider failure, you can and will succeed.
3
@NOTATE REDMOND Don’t give up but also don’t look to people to give you a pass because you are a woman. In the immortal words of FLOTUS, Be Best.
The structure of a question, inviting a YES or NO answer, and
even tolerating a MAYBE, enables falling into the constricted
trap of binary banality’s “either/or.”
Creating a disabling, disempowering mindset.
Which all to easily seeds, feeds, nurtures and
harvests too early closure. Ongoing “questings,” inherent in
helpful stimulating questions, are necessary!
What are the necessary conditions, human and nonhuman ones,
which can, are likely, to stimulate first steps? “Some crawling?”
Longer and sustainable movements? In more and more diverse
conditions? Situations? Expected and unexpected ones?
IS ... electable? Is suitable for a multiple choice test!
Not for a TESTED Democracy! HERE and NOW. All around US.
Not to systematically overcome a tradition-based WE-THEY violating culture!
Not to diminish toxic personal unaccountability by all so many policymakers. Elected and selected ones. At all levels. ALL over.
Yes or no won’t demarginalize legacy-rooted marginalization.
Yes or no won’t include the all too many unethical legalized excluded.
Yes or no won’t humanize fellow beings who are dehumanized, stigmatized and stereotyped. Daily.
YES or NO become violating barriers, when all sorts of
passable, sustainable bridges are needed.
Nobody wants for a president a schoolmarm who waves her finger on detailed health coverage plans. They want a strong man who projects vision and inspires the troops to take up arms for his sake.
And women are no exception. If she ever got closer to the presidency, many of those who mourn now would dislike her and say, as with Hillary, 'any other woman but Warren'.
These are the unfortunate traits created by evolutionary pressures on us over aeons. And now that an autocratic regime has been established and legally validated in the US, there is no chance of a female president in the 21st century. To the contrary, we may see some of the Trump sons as his successors.
1
I wish we could have her as President. Unfortunately I just cast my primary vote for Joe, since he’s the only one who may beat Bernie in my state. Feels hopeless
1
@Exile In
Please don't feel hopeless. Biden's a good choice, too. We will be in good hands if he wins the nomination/presidency.
2
Hope feels quaint now...yup, that just about sums it up. We're told to be optimistic, to try hard, to keep on keeping on, to believe in ourselves and the basic wisdom of the common man. All while facing the centuries-old intractability of endemic sexism. Even liberal men are often much more conservative when it comes to women's roles because, oh gosh, a change might affect them, their convenience and their comforts. People often endorse change as long as it doesn't affect their own lives. I saw the play "GLORIA" last Spring and it took me months to recover from my depression as I realized I've spent my entire life waiting for change which never quite happened and as other groups and interests moved up and ahead of women. Historically, others needs and interests always take precedent and women's are back-burnered. Intersectional feminism, indeed! Never again.
11
Senator Warren appears to conflate her own history as a victim of misogyny towards Mayor Bloomberg in a way that doesn’t elevate her. She makes it clear that it is personal and it shows. She is a great Senator but not a great candidate.
9
Liz Warren would be a great candidate if she was honest, but every week she just shows the worst political instincts starting with the DNA test, now the acceptance of super delegates and Super PACs, both of which she denounced. She used to run on her plans which only really signal to wealthier, meritocratic, people: “In your girl”. She never made inroads with the base of the Democratic Party, the working class and poor because her message came off too technocratic in other words she didn’t follow the KISS principal. And lastly, for much of this primary she has used her gender to attack other candidates which turns off a lot of people and unfortunately reinforces negative stereotypes. It appears she is trying to rebuild herself on the left but I think her primary run is over it looks like she will lose her home state.
11
Elizabeth Warren is hardly basing her campaign on identity politics. One of the only candidates in the field who respects voters enough to give us plentiful detail on her comprehensive platform, she has created a precise road map for what she would work on as president. Being a female candidate for president in a country that has never elected one deserves some attention, however, since over half the electorate is female. Further, Warren would bring a debate style in the one on one encounters with Donald Trump on the debate stage that no other candidate has. Instead of amplifying the decibel level and bloviating, she would simply cut him down to the size of his tiny hands.
14
She’s just another run of the mill democrat. The CFPB was an accomplishment. But she’s voted in favour of every Trump defense budget, in fact she voted to give him more than he asked for. She doesn’t have an overarching understanding of US foreign policy and international solidarity between working peoples the same way Sanders does. She also doesn’t support a universal healthcare system, hiding behind the weasel words of “health care choice”, imagine arguing for “road choice” or “fire department choice”. With those in mind, she should be nowhere near front-runner status.
6
Ms. Warren has certainly underperformed after such a promising start. As Mike Tyson once commented, "Everybody's got a plan, until they get punched in the face." Her Ed Muskie moment in the last debate, losing her focus with Mr. Bloomberg, was another setback.
9
We are in a period of huge cultural, gender, ethnic and racial transition. Women in the country have had to fight , tooth and nail, the old white men who run the show. Or, at least, used to. Now, the transition is underway. Women are empowered and not willing to have their voices suppressed. That's what Warren represents to me. The forefront of this new movement. It will ultimately, finally, level the playing in this country. So, Warren gets my vote.
9
I feel like you can’t have a real discussion about women and feminism without differentiating between the different generations. Warren is a boomer who grew up with Gloria Steinem and bra burning protests. She’s obviously very comfortable with claiming sexism as a weapon as she’s raised it with Biden, Sanders, Bloomberg, (Trump is sure to come), a drop in the polls, electability, and media coverage. I’m less comfortable with her approach.
I’m a gen-x female who grew up thinking most of the heavy lifting had been already done, and what was left was gradually chipping at the glass ceiling. Of course the election of Trump was a wake-up call and got me thinking we need to exchange the chisel for a sledge hammer. But with Trump in the White House, this isn’t the year. 2024, definitely. My generation was raised to think you don’t ask for things “because you’re a female,” you just take them. I identify more with Amy’s or Kamala’s approaches, and I haven’t excluded consideration of women just because they’re female.
And then there’s the Millennial/Gen Z generation with super-amped political correctness, trigger warnings, and Twitter mobs. They seem very comfortable making gender equality a central issue.
3
@Chris
Considering the conservative majority on the Supreme Court along with all anti-choice cases making their way through the court system, gender equality will inevitably be a central issue in our political life. We should worry about attempts to use the federal courts to undercut women's legal right to personal agency and autonomy.
I contributed small dollars to ‘DRAFT WARREN’ in 2016 but she lost me in 2020 with her too many fiscally unsupportable plans (like college debt forgiveness). Her recent strong performances in the debates started to win me back but then she lost me again by saying she wanted divert Trump’s wall money for Covid-19. I want robust legal immigration with an open guest worker program but we need strong border security — the need for which is strongly underscored by Covid-19.
5
@Sam
I’m not a Warren fan but she just came up with some immigration plan,
Naturally, since she sees Sanders gaining the Latino voters.
Elizabeth Warren strikes me as a grinder who’s uneasy with the fluffy side of politics. Her strengths are subtle and less apparent in
noisy debates. I hope she persists as the field shrinks because her appeal will become more apparent. I really like her. The her part is important.
16
One reason Warren lost my vote - and I suspect many other Democrats - is that she has repeatedly placed too much emphasis on her gender. We want a candidate who emphasizes his/her personhood first and foremost and resists the easy, divisive slide into identity politics.
21
Oh yeah she did that, not the media, not you, her.
If you believe in her policies that wouldn’t stop you from voting for her.
7
@John G
Doggone it! If only we could just forget she is a woman.
Those policy positions are so much less though-out when I realize she's a woman!
Incorrect. The only time she discusses the issue is when she is repeatedly asked about it by the media. If you were genuinely interested in the truth about this issue, you would look at her policies and pay attention to her rallies and town halls. If you are somehow indirectly projecting your distaste about her comments regarding Bloomberg on the debate stage, which I highly suspect, then you either have not followed Bloomberg's lengthy alleged history of sexual harrassment and discrimination against women in his businesses (the Washington Post has an in-depth piece on this), or you do not care. Either way, it's discouraging.
1
Elizabeth Warren would make a great president, maybe a better president than Bernie Sanders. (At the last debate, he smiled when she said that.)
But her campaign is not as strong. Bernie has worked to establish a great ground game and grassroots fundraising structure after starting too late in the 2016 season. He is a very strong campaigner, especially to working class and younger voters who prioritize economic issues.
Liz talks like a likable, caring college professor but with a lot of cerebral details. Bernie is right to gloss the details, which will be softened by Congress anyway. Polls earlier this season showed he had more crossover appeal, while she appeals more to an educated demographic. I think this has a lot to do with her campaign style. Her best path to the presidency may be through a VP or cabinet position.
One more thing: what is considered “likable” female behavior is not the same in Alabama and California. People keep bringing up Stacey Abrams’ name. She has not nearly the experience or qualifications as Liz, but she comes across as very warm and genuine. She is highly intelligent, but it’s not the first thing you see about her. I don’t know how that plays in the northeast, but in the South she would be quite an asset.
11
As Rachel Maddow says, "Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do." Which begs the question, do you want a candidate who has the policies, the record, and the strategic effectiveness to get such policies implemented? Or do you want the person who has the loudest voice and a long track record of messaging? If it is the former, you should do your due diligence in comparing not only senate record, but progressive achievements both in and out of government. Vox has a couple of great pieces on Warren's detailed record. If it is the latter, you will ultimately be disappointed if Sanders becomes the nominee.
Yep, Warren's problems are writ large in my own career - starting with how the media has consistently overlooked her in their reporting, and the self-fulfilling prophecy of "but is she electable"? How much of it is bias, and how much of it is deliberate to take her down?...
I worked in IT for over 30 years. With over a decade of supervisory experience I was hired at less than an alcoholic man with no experience. However, the most eye-popping insult was being traded to a new department "because I could do their documentation". I wasn't a technical writer and I had solid experience, certifications, and a master's degree in security. Kind of like being asked to make the coffee.
The lesson I took away from all of that was that it's fine to be bright, but don't outshine the men or expect to be treated with commensurate respect.
509
@ms Your experience is one so common among women in tech, but please correct the notion that technical writing is some kind of mindless job like making coffee. Really? This is itself a type of bias toward jobs women were more easily welcomed into.
11
@ms [[The lesson I took away from all of that was that it's fine to be bright, but don't outshine the men or expect to be treated with commensurate respect.]]
Boy, you really misread that life lesson.
What you do is go right at those men (or whomever) and challenge them on every battlefield. Dress better, be better prepared, volunteer more, give more to charity, be more positive, mentor more people.
When people try to isolate you, you isolate them by proving your value to the larger group. And that doesn’t take 30 years.
The first thing you should do is stop speaking negativity into existence. “This won’t work,” “don’t outshine the boys,” “I don’t deserve respect.”
2
@Tracey She is reporting a real phenomenon. I encountered (early in my career) several companies willing to hire me for writing documentation, but not for programming. It is not that writing is easier, it is that it is perceived as women's work by the men running the place. One of my professors found that my employer (where he also worked) had slotted me like this, and I overheard him chewing out the manager: "Are you crazy? She's ten times a better programmer than that guy you hired. And you have her writing the manual instead. That's just wrong." It still warms my heart.
27
Discrimination against women is insidious and pervasive. It is shocking that a woman who outperforms the other candidates is not leading in the polls. Unfortunately, the only explanation is that we remain a deeply misogynistic society. This is the main reason we bring up, “electability.”
616
@Anonymous. No, it's that Warren has flip flopped so many times. Pressured, she backed down from Medicare for All. Sanders has not backed down. Warren says anything to gain votes and to be popular. Sanders has supported policies that don't make sense in a popularity contest but did so anyway out of personal conviction. His vote against DOMA in the 1990s was a clear case of that. That is why people trust Sanders more than Warren. Also, their politics are actually very different. Warren believes in working within the system, and yes you can make progress that way, but it's not enough. The Consumer bureau she created was good, but it's a federal agency that can (and has) been taken over by forces not favorable to consumers. Sanders, on the other hand, works to build progressive power bases outside of government. I think it's much important, for example, to build up the labor movement, than to put in another federal agency that can just be co-opted by business groups.
23
@Paul Thomas “Flip Flopped” - another way of putting it is that she listens, learns, and amends her positions accordingly. I prefer her flexibility and ability to compromise to stubborn populists who alienate people who don’t agree, sticking to positions yet accomplishing nothing.
83
@Paul Thomas No, it's that we remain a deeply misogynistic society. Check your privilege (the same privilege Bernie Sanders enjoys as a white man) and then do all you can to educate yourself on the systemic oppression of women. Some of your critique of what you think voters are responding to may hold some validity, but you cannot dismiss the deeply entrenched systems and beliefs that continue to hold women back and blame it on policy differences. If you don't agree to look at the systemic problem or even acknowledge its existence, then you are contributing to the problem.
56
Frank Bruni’s recent newsletter had as its thesis that Sanders was a dislikable and irritating personality, but it didn’t matter because this election was about ideas.
Obviously not. Warren arrives at many of the same positions on the left as Sanders and has actual plans. But she can’t get any traction compared to Sanders and his shallow sloganeering. Something is sure going on besides “ideas”.
704
@Yeah
I prefer Sen warren over Sen Sanders, but this is not about personalities, it's about policies.
And you would have to use a microscope to find differences in their progressive policies.
Sen Warren, and Sen Sanders BOTH represent a sorely needed change of direction for the Democratic Party
45
@Yeah Because she's flip flopped incessantly. She's now got the biggest super PAC in the race after weeks of dishonestly smearing Bernie for "dark money groups" (like Sunrise Movement and front-line refugee/immigration rights groups that haven't raised more than the required amount to be considered a super PAC).
Progressives can't trust Warren. Her flip flop just this week on the most fundamental campaign promise of hers, that she would refuse super PAC money, is indefensible? If we can't trust her on that, what can we trust her on in her agenda?
49
@Yeah. That's not true. Sanders and Warren are very, very different politically. Warren believes in working within the system. Sanders knows that real change has to come from outside of the system.
28
I have been a volunteer for the Warren campaign since January. I have talked to Warren supporters across the country. I have talked to Warren volunteers here in NYC. The fact that she’s a woman candidate rarely come up. People talk about her role in setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. People talk about her clear headed way of explaining complicated policy in a way ordinary people can understand. People talk about the fact that she stands up to the banks.
These are the main reasons people support Warren. The gender thing is a side show that the media seems more interested in.
51
I have admired Warren since her CFPB days. I supported her Presidential run until last December when it seems she tempered her plans to appeal to more moderate voters. Sanders got my primary vote.
9
"Meredith Sanderson, a 21-year-old materials engineering major at the University of California, Los Angeles, cast her ballot for Ms. Warren this week precisely because of her approach to women."
Meredith will always be in demand because her education will have taught her how to make anything with everything. Smart girl.
But why is Warren, an expert in economics, running on a boutique fact that she is a woman? There are millions of women in America. I don't rule my life based on boutique TV show popularity feel goody goody reasons.
That's why my Democrats are going to lose.
21
That’s not the only thing Warren is running on. She’s running on her experience fighting for working people as she fought for the CFPB, her astounding knowledge of policy and regulation, her deep understanding of how economic policies in healthcare and the financial industry impact everyday people, her years of research into bankruptcy laws as a law professor and teacher, her sane and workable plans to combat inequality, and yes, her experiences as a woman.
430
@PATRICK some voters are particularly interested in electing a woman president, and that motivation is obviously a theme of this article. It’s not a major theme of the Warren campaign though, it’s simply not correct to suggest she’s “ running on a boutique fact that she is a woman”. Listen to her, her expertise in economics informs her views all the time.
32
@PATRICK Sorry, but she is running on her anti-corruption platform and her detailed policy proposals that were the result of very technical hard, work.
23
I just for the record - Amy Klobuchar got 10 points more in New Hampshire than Ms. Warren who is actually a senator of the neighboring state. I love that her name is barely mentioned on your opinion piece.
22
@DS - I don't understand what neighboring state has to do with anything. Idaho neighbors Washington but we couldn't be more different. I haven't been to Idaho in decades. I have no idea who their governor is and I doubt most folks in Idaho could even name a Washington senator.
9
@DS Being a senator from Massachusetts probably hurt Warren in NH. There is a long history of enmity that people in NH feel towards MA.
7
Basing your campaign on identity politics is a double-edged sword; you reap what you sow.
Americans will elect a woman when the right woman runs. Example: the UK, arguably “the home of the patriarchy” elected Margaret Thatcher 40 years ago - and not because she has ovaries.
Didn’t Warren learn anything when HRC relied on the “time to elect a woman” campaign theme?
26
@Chuck I’ve canvassed for Warren, I’ve been in her campaign offices. I just don’t see the obsession with any “let’s elect a woman” battle cry, that some seem to think is so central to her campaign. She talks about her plans not her gender.
25
@Chuck She is not relying on "time to elect a woman" as her campaign theme. She has primarily focused on her plans.
16
@Chuck Her "identity politics" is identifying with the 99%.
3
Everybody needs to learn the lesson that comes with the experience of electing a president who is not a male. It's not a theory that needs to be proven, but an experience that needs to be had as part of our history for history is how we know who we are. It's not an experiment that will prove for once and for all that a woman can do the job that has been done by men. Remember the confusion: Bill Clinton would become America's First.... what? Guy, Man, Husband, 'Lady'? The crisis is a nominative one, not really yet an experiential one. For knowledge to be complete and whole, it simply needs to be an experience, that we, like other nations, can have someone other than a male in as president.
13
@Max Shapiro : no, it is NOT an experiment nor an exercise in "political correctness".
That's where Hillary went so very wrong.
Nobody is ENTITLED to be President simply because they belong to an aggrieved identity group.
You need to demonstrate to voters that you will represent THEM and their needs, and LISTEN TO THEM. Hillary was tone deaf. She called 50% of the voters -- the citizens who cared enough to register and then SHOW UP TO VOTE!!! -- "deplorables in a basket".
You don't do that. Obama didn't do that -- Clinton didn't do that -- Carter, LBJ, JFK, Truman, FDR DID NOT DO THAT!
2
@Concerned Citizen
"Nobody is ENTITLED to be President simply because they belong to an aggrieved identity group."
Good thing no one has ever claimed any such thing. But you keep fighting those strawmen! It's much easier than having to engage with reality.
1
@Concerned Citizen
Your argument is historically wrong.
Our first president was a member of an aggrieved identity group that had just redressed their grievances, as a group, to King George. Hillary Clinton didn't get the minority of voters to vote for her because the couldn't hear what she was saying because the had Trump trumpeting their eardrums to bits. Fortunately, nearly 3 million more voters did hear her and did hear that she was trying to get America to listen to her voice even if she didn't have one as low resonating as a man's. She was most undiplomatic with her "deplorables" comment, and it was very politically incorrect. Which is certainly reason for you to have supported and encouraged her to persist in telling the deplorables the truth about themselves- the kind that only a friend will tell a friend. Drop the caps lock. It's childish.
2
The most diverse field of potential nominees has been reduced to three old white men, a young and privileged white man, and two white women with actual credentials. Welcome to America, the land of the unenlightened--and I lean Repbulican which is why I support Warren. Disheartening would be putting it very mildly.
63
@LM and here we see agism erasing the impressive credentials of “old men”. Geesh
5
@LM Your description of three of the male candidates is permitted, while you failed to mention Elizabeth Warren as an old white lady. She is no spring chicken either. The young man is privileged, but no more so than the others, and as he has pointed out, not nearly as rich as the others.
The phrase “old white men”, frequently used by pundits and critics, makes the constant complaints about supposedly unequal treatment of the women candidates a poor excuse for their performance as well as a joke.
2
The problem with Warren’s campaign isn’t that she’s a woman. As a woman, I would love to vote for a progressive woman! The problem is that she keeps walking back policies that are important and that makes her come off a disingenuous. First Medicare for All and now with this Super PAC nonsense after explicitly stating in campaign ads in Iowa that she would not take Super PAC money or let them run ads for her campaign. Claiming that it’s sexism and not bad decision making that makes her an unappealing candidate is quite honestly a cop out.
21
She legally cannot control what independent super PACs do. She has denounced it. What more can she do? It’s not her campaign or surrogates that are doing it.
15
53 percent of white women voted for the conn. I love Ms Warren, she would make an excellent president. But I bet that 53 percent figure would rise even higher if she won the democratic nomination. Maybe women don’t deserve the right to vote. 53 percent!!!
4
Don't count her out yet! She could still emerge as the preferred progressive. I'm still contributing and rooting for this amazing woman
124
One thing that we should learn from this primary, as minority and women candidates drop out or become irrelevant, is that race and gender aren't strong enough adhesives to unite people in a political movement. Not enough people are willing to reflexively vote for the candidate who "looks like them" for it to work. Good on 'em.
5
@Judd
Nice strawman. No one ever thought people would vote for someone just because they look like them.
What this primary is showing is that people clearly still have bias, conscious or otherwise, against women and people of color, and that many people are eager to ignore that and use this opportunity to whine about "identity politics."
Please! Hillary Clinton secured the nomination and was backed by most Americans. She lost because of the electoral college and some strategic mistakes she made. Senator Warren is not the perfect candidate, regardless of gender. She misrepresented her heritage, she was a Republican until age 47, she defended huge corporations for money which she now decries and she carelessly said " I'm with Bernie" instead of at that moment presenting a plan of her own. This, from the Senator who boasted I have a plan for everything. Health Care represents 18% of our economy and she didn't have a plan except to say " I'm with Bernie"? Maybe all this is why she's running near the bottom. Maybe the message of Bernie is more persuasive even though he is elderly, socialist and had a recent heart attack but is more credible than the Senator from Massachusetts.
8
Actually most voters voted for candidates other than Secretary Clinton. She had a plurality, not a majority of the votes. Commenters incorrectly keep repeating the belief the majority of voters favored her. To give someone a true majority is exactly what the Founding Fathers designed the Electoral College to do.
3
@alan brown - I beg to differ. She is whip smart, laser focused and never allows anyone to drag the conversation into the weeds. She proved herself to me with her actions before Congress at the bankruptcy hearings and with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and that was before she became a senator. She’s had more success in the senate than Bernie and she’s a lot more likable. I cannot support the yelling, hands thrashing guy who insists on pushing his ‘socialist’ flag in everyone’s face. I’ll vote blue no matter who but I’ll be a lot more comfortable if it’s Warren than Bernie.
26
@Dirk Al Gore was and still is whip smarter than George Bush. It is not enough.
I'm an unaffiliated voter who teaches about diversity issues. While I don't vote based on someone being a woman, it would be completely negligent of me to say unconscious bias doesn't factor into the race.
I can't stop thinking about NPR's series on women and anger. Before the last 2 debates, people said Warren feel behind because she was being too nice.
Two debates later, I was shocked to see some voters enraged she was "angry" and "being mean." I think debates are always nasty no matter what, especially now. I don't see her doing anything outlandish compared to other candidates in the debates, or different than the fiery speeches by Biden or Bernie.
I hope one day we can have more candid conversations about gender, not just with our daughters. It needs to be with everyone if we're serious about real change.
68
I can’t agree with this article enough. I am so disappointed that Elizabeth Warren isn’t doing better, and at least a part of the poor performance definitely feels like gender-equality baggage.
What keeps my hope in place is knowing that it will happen. Regardless of the temporary swings back and forth, progress always inches forward. And in the last 50 years, it’s made leaps: looking at the workplace now compared to when I started working - the difference is huge. And the stories I’ve heard about women dealing with sexism the generation before me are inconceivable today.
If there’s one good thing that came out of 2016, it’s that the anger and frustration helped speed up the clip of progress.
For this faster pace, I’ll always be grateful to Hillary Clinton, the #MeToo movement, the huge numbers of women that stood up to run for elected office in 2018 and again for 2020, and all other women who keep pushing harder to have a voice at the table.
I believe in her politics, so I’ll still cast my vote for Ms. Warren, and I’ll also continue keeping the pressure on in my little corner of the world for feminism. Maybe next time words implying “female likability,” won’t have a place in serious discussions about how to run a country.
382
a patronizing, arrogant, maximalist personality will not be a good candidate for president from the Democratic Party. Warren just doesn't have what it takes. Stop playing the sexism card and deal with it. Hillary Clinton was much, much better than Warren.
4
@R The best politician in the country today is clearly Nancy Pelosi. And she is also the most powerful democrat.
I would love to see a woman elected President and will vote for Klobuchar if she is still around when New York votes, but I think many of Warren's problems are because she is a brilliant woman, but a poor politician.
Nikki Haley may become the first woman President which would be profoundly depressing, but is a definite possibility.
3
@Richard Ralph
Your adjectives "patronizing" and "arrogant" most aptly describe Bernie and Bloomberg NOT Warren.
Your misogyny is showing.
6
The media has consistently made Biden and Sanders look like the ones to beat. Even when Elizabeth was ahead in polling, it was reported as a surprise result.
We all see the importance of this election- to regain the respect of the USA abroad, to end the syphoning off of taxpayers dollars to his children's luxury lives, for the environment, for the education system, for basic human decency, etc etc.
We are all jockeying to bring about the winner. That's all we want, someone who will win. Many of us believe Warren is still that person.
84
Warren was my preferred candidate. She was inspiring , courageous and super smart. If Warren was one of the front runners , I would vote for her in a heartbeat but she lost all her mojo when Bloomberg joined the race and started attacking him more than talking about her own issues. Her debate performances have been a roller-coaster ride. Warren is still the smartest among the remaining candidates we have left but it is an uphill batter for her because money plays a huge role in the elections in this country which her campaign is fast running out of.
6
That Elizabeth Warren named her dog, Bailey, after George Bailey from Capra’s film, Its a Wonderful Life is telling.
Warren has been a champion of underdogs throughout her life, and like George, has bailed out people who were robbed during the housing crisis with her Consumer Financial Bureau. And like George, she fights against corrupt leaders like McConnell, the greed of Wall Street, and the two percent who rob the rest of us by not giving their fair share!
Consider what the world would be without Liz. It would be like Pottersville, Trump driving us all to destitution and despair.
I’m with you George, I mean Elizabeth!
221
Daily I say to myself trump is turning us into Pottersville intentionally as the only policy which is cruelty based. We see it on the news every day with bullies emulating him to commit more and more cruelty and crimes against citizens.
I too am voting for a Warren, a capable educated woman with accomplishments to her name and a plan. I know Bernie will probably beat her with his arm waving, but I need to voice my vote for a force that would move the country forward back toward It’s a Wonderful Life.
16
@Ichabod Aikem
Wow, I didn't know that is how Bailey got his name. Yet another reason to like Warren...
4
I don't think I've ever felt as seen as I do by this story. I couldn't put my finger on why I've been so down about the primary, even though I think Bernie will be a fine candidate. Now I can see it's because I'm reliving 2016 again, when my daughter was in tears and asking me if I thought she could still be president. In my head, and in my heart, I could only offer a tepid "maybe," even while I reassured her. Now it seems like that "maybe" still stands. Worse yet, my daughter is less upset about it.
98
@Megan McEwen : in 2008 and 2012, white candidates (McCain and Romney) ran against Barack Obama ... and LOST!
Did that "prove" white men could no longer get elected President?
You should have told your daughter that any ONE female candidate an lose....but that the potential for a woman to WIN was still absolutely there, and that Hillary was simply the wrong woman, at the wrong time.
4
@Concerned Citizen
"@Megan McEwen : in 2008 and 2012, white candidates (McCain and Romney) ran against Barack Obama ... and LOST!
Did that "prove" white men could no longer get elected President?"
Does your question even make sense to you?
Every single president but Obama was white and a woman has NEVER been president, even though women are 50% of the population.
I had the same thoughts discussed in this article. Having watched several debates now in which Warren has obviously been more prepared and has thought out her policy positions and plans to a much greater degree than any of the others on stage - regardless of gender - I wonder why she is not rising in the polls? She has been asked to defend her plans with a greater degree of detail - and has largely done so - while others get a pass. And yet... What is it? I believe it is at least in part because she is a woman. This is so familiar to me personally. Having spent years as a professional in a discipline dominated by men, I was consistently passed over for promotion in favor or men who didn't work as hard and were much less qualified. Fortunately for all of us, I think young men and women have gotten over this to a larger degree than my generation (OK boomer). This is where my hope lies. While it may not yet be time for a woman to be President of the U.S., I am confident it will happen.
80
But will a woman ever become President in my baby boomer lifetime? Probably not. A sad loss for our country and the world.
3
I don’t anyone that isn’t put off by Sen Warren. Simply put, Senator Warren is a classic plaster
saint.
13
A woman has already 'won' the presidential race--by 3 million votes. The facts that (a) Russia was interfering with messages supporting Trump and possibly Bernie in 2016 and (b) the Electoral College point system skewed the results with less than 80,000 votes, are the only reasons that H. Clinton is not president today. We have no way to measure the precise impact of 'a' and 'b' but it does call into question the legitimacy of the 2016 vote. The 2018 elections showed clearly that competent (and truly upset) women can and do win elections. Warren has proven herself as a respected professor of law, the organizer and head of the "Consumer Protection Agency,' and as Senator. She also has a 'sharp tongue' and a keen sense of humor, and can hold her own against any man running against her. As more women are elected to higher office and more women run major companies, the novelty will wear off.
80
This seems to me a premature piece on despair. If, instead of saying Warren is struggling, you say she is persisting, the tone changes. Giving oneself over to hopelessness is an exercise better suited for 3:00 a.m., when the committee in your head awakens you, points out everything that is wrong with you and the world and then sits there asking you questions that have no answers. It is best to just thank the committee for its input and try to go back to sleep. Don’t take notes of the points they made
and publish them the following day. Promoting despair, or even unintentionally aiding it, does no one, least of all young girls, any good. We really need an Elizabeth Warren at this time and in this place. So please, writers, acknowledge your doubts, if you must, in private. Publish your hopes. Journalism should not simply be a synonym for cynicism. Or self-fulfilling prophecy. And lest this be seen as a kill-the-messenger comment, let me assure you it is not. Constructive criticism never killed anyone.
145
@Dale Irwin Thank you for turning the tone around! Surely needed, as you say, or else the cynicism may become self-fulfilling prophecy.
And for the chuckle about the 3am committee.
12
@Dale Irwin - YES, that is exactly the issue here, and throughout this campaign. Trump is assumed to be the leader, Dems are assumed to be the underdog, and Warren has been all but written off ... by the media, but not by us.
NYT, report on the groundswell that is still behind Warren, please, with optimism for our democracy.
18
@Dale Irwin Beautifuly said! Thank you. Couldn’t agree more. Believe that it’s possible to prevail and then go out and try to make it happen.
3
Let's be honest. Liz is one heart murmur away from being the frontrunner.
52
@SteveH, She isn't getting any younger herself.
1
@SteveH - No, that would go to Pete.
2
Supposedly progressive voters favoring an angry old white man shouting simplicities to an accomplished woman with actionable plans to achieve the same goals is indeed the most depressing thing about this primary season.
653
I keep hearing Sanders dismissed as “an angry white man.” That strikes me as no less reductive and sexist than someone dismissing Hillary as “shrill”
That said, there is plenty to be angry about in our politics these days, starting with the fact that Trump is president, which I find far more depressing than Sanders raising his voice to decry grotesque inequities.
176
The polls reflect the truth. Warren does not have what it takes to become president. Bernie Sanders does. If you care about defeating Trump and championing progressive vales, I hope you will join us in fighting for Medicare for all.
21
@C Wolfe, well, that’s one way to characterize Bernie’s candidacy. The other way is to notice his refusal to accept big money way from corporate contributors, unlike Warren. And his better polling numbers (remember, he’s also been branded “unelectable”) suggest that a candidate with popular policies doesn’t need that corporate cash. Why is Warren taking it?
43
This article makes it sound like Warren's support comes mostly comes from a narrow part of the electorate, affluent white women.
18
@Fried Shallots Umm, that's because it's mostly true, though professional-managerial class men are nearly as enthusiastic as PMC women. Meanwhile, the working class is decidedly unenthusiastic about Warren, for entirely understandable reasons.
8
@Fried Shallots
Reread the article. This is about the despair women feel when the understand Warren's struggles first-hand. The article is focusing on one class of women, but the message is universal.
#BlueTsunami2020
21
@Fried Shallots Ok, I am a woman not white nor affluent, supporting Warren. But I'm highly educated, which you can argue predispose me to her.
2
The reason Warren is doing so bad is her dishonesty. She lied about being Native American-and took a spot for a true minority.
She lied about her parents needing to elope.
She lied about being fired because she was pregnant.
People don’t mind candidates with whom they might have some disagreements.
People will not vote for a pathological liar. At least the Democrats voting in the primaries didn’t.
22
@Royalacresrod
Your last sentence is hysterically funny considering who’s in the Oval Office.
30
@Royalacresrod
Every reliable media organization that's looked into the question of Warren's ethnicity has debunked the claim you're promoting. The Boston Globe published a detailed analysis in 2018 demonstrating its falsehood. CBS Boston journalist Jon Keller said this about it a year ago:
"In 2012, when the story of Sen. Elizabeth Warren‘s lifelong claim of Native American ancestry first emerged, Warren – then embroiled in a tough race against Sen. Scott Brown – gave a round of one-on-one interviews. And as others did, I focused on what I thought was the only meaningful question raised by the story: did she ever use her lineage to gain an affirmative-action benefit?
'Absolutely not,' Warren said.
And in the seven years since, no evidence has emerged to contradict her.
...
But this story is the smear that just won’t die.
And I can’t recall a more effective political smear that was based on less evidence than this one."
Keller's full story is here: https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/02/07/elizabeth-warren-apology-native-american-indian-ancestry-dna-jon-keller-wbz-tv/
12
Can a candidate be considered to be pro-choice if he orders a woman to “kill it?”
16
Warren’s “electability” has nothing to do with the fact that she’s a woman. It has to do with personality and likability of the electorate. That was the same thing for Clinton. It doesn’t help the feminist cause to blame every failure on the fact that it’s discrimination against women. In fact, doing so only plays into the stereotypes of women being “victims”.
Mark my words: the first woman president and/or Vice President will likely be a Republican.
31
@HJ I agree with your first statement but highly disagree with your last. We shall see.
1
@HJ I think the first woman to be elected president and/or Vice President will be Stacey Abrams. Of course, if Michelle Obama decided to run, she sweep everyone off the field.
8
@HJ: Exactly! The damsel in distress schtick that affluent American white women insist on playing has become quite tiresome. Finland, New Zealand, and Germany aren't less sexist than the US. It's just that their woman don't wallow in the role of victim.
3
Upper-class, professional white women (and men). That pretty much summarizes Warren's only major demographic. There's a reason working-class people haven't gotten behind her: it's become clear, as the campaign progresses, that she's untrustworthy. Flip-flop after flip-flop, likely at the behest of her Obama/Hillary political consultants, has completely undermined her credibility. After condemning super PACs for years and swearing she would never accept money from one, she now has the largest super Pac of anyone in the race.
29
@Ryan H That her super PAC is named "Persist PAC" after the "nevertheless, she persisted" quote just shows the kind of performative surface-level feminism we're dealing with here, weaponizing feminist language into the same ol' same ol' dark money, billionaire-funded, special interest super PAC scheming.
The facts are the facts, and Bernie's coalition has the biggest share of women's and reproductive rights advocates and activists, black activists, environmental activists, the list goes on, they're all behind him. Warren's largely white, largely upper middle class female supporters need to remember all the "trust black women!" tweets they liked over the last 5 years (regarding their voting choices), and put their money where their mouth is, because they're not only firmly aligned in Sanders' camp, but also in the highest positions of leadership in his campaign and in crafting his policies.
4
This comment right here is why we need Bernie out of this race. His supporters are drinking the koolaid and spreading disinformation all over the place. Wake up!
5
@Marc
Nothing better demonstrates what women are up against in politics than a couple of men telling us we're doing it wrong.
4
I will cast my vote for Elizabeth on Tuesday with joy and defiance.
I am sick of the patriarchy.
414
Warren's not a progressive. She was a Republican until age 47. Who changes your entire worldview at 47? She said repeatedly that super pacts are killing democracy but is using two as we speak to keep her campaign alive. She was.told to stay in until the convention so Bernie didnt take her delegates. She will not be the nominee even if the Democrat elites steal it from Sanders.
20
@gene
"Who changes your entire worldview at 47? "
Someone open minded who actually looked at the evidence in front of her and didn't let her biases stop her from reaching the right conclusions?
Sounds like an amazing kind of person to have in charge.
1
She may have polled slightly higher with women than men, but hasn't polled in enough to get more than 15% of the vote. She's done.
6
Another story about women not supporting other women, takes me back to the Equal Rights Amendment failure. They may be the majority gender, but they don't know how to make the most of their power.
20
If elections results were based on qualifications and merit, the US would already have a woman president, Hillary Clinton ! Elizabeth Warren is more than qualified to become president. She also seems better prepared than most of her rivals. In an ideal world, she would be the front runner and a serious contender to defeat Trump.
533
@Anne Bouci I don't disagree, but democracy is not ideal; as Churchill and others have observed, it is merely the least bad form of government.
6
@Anne Bouci True.
But, they never have been about qualifications. Otherwise we'd have enjoyed President Gore as well.
Of course he and Hillary belong in another dubious club together: those who won an election, but lost.
23
@Anne Bouci I agree.
I am beginning to feel like this is Charlie Brown and the football: "Hillary was experienced and competent but a Clinton and was too unlikable with too much political baggage." So many people (and the media) explained to me that they were ready for a woman, just not THAT woman. In fact, many people told me that they'd rather vote for Warren in 2016 than Clinton.
Now here we are in 2020 and Warren's on the ballot. What's happening? Why is she now struggling to get visibility and traction? She was routinely held up as someone who had the "likability" factor that Clinton lacked.... But NOW, she's too strident? Too energetic? Too prepared? I'm tired of "not now" and "not this one." Deep down, I'm just hearing: "Not you. Not a woman."
The article really resonated with me because I'm finding it hard to stay optimistic and increasingly hard to explain all of this to my 11 year old daughter.
282
Warren has a long history of changing her position on her core beliefs.
The most recent example of this, which many I speak with are unaware of, involves campaign finance.
For her entire campaign she criticized others for taking Super PAC money. She made a big deal of how pure her campaign was and condemned others like Pete for taking Super PAC money.
Now she is taking as much Super PAC money as she can get.
She had told us she "rejects all super PACs" and "would disavow any super PAC formed to support her in the Democratic primary." She had criticized other candidates for them as late as the New Hampshire debate.
Persist PAC is the name of her Super PAC.
I think that in order to beat Trump we will need more money than he gets from the Koch Bros and other mega donors.
You need money to maintain a political campaign.
Recently, Bernie said he would refuse to accept Mike Bloomberg's offer to finance his campaign if he wins to nomination.
I love that Mike is willing to do anything to beat Mike, even to finance those like Bernie whom he believes have no chance to beat Trump.
You can watch Mike on 60 Minutes this Sunday.
15
Over the course of my life, I’ve learned that changing one’s views after sincere consideration should usually not be perceived as negative, but rather seen as being open-minded, curious, and humble.
60
@R She literally tweeted 3 weeks ago that she would never accept super PAC money, and would strongly refuse any offer to start a super PAC on her behalf. She then spent the following 2 weeks lying about Bernie having "dark money super PAC groups," which was a very dishonest way of mischaracterizing groups like Sunrise Movement and other frontline refugee and immigration activist groups that haven't even raised the level of money to be considered super PACs.
That tweet was 3 weeks ago. Indefensible.
2
@R Exactly what Bernie followers do not understand.
3
Vote for Sanders. When your taxes are going to provide you and your family with affordable healthcare, education, and protecting the planet instead of down the drain of more bullets, bombs, and drones,we’ll all have more freedom to pursue our own agendas and interests as citizens. This is what terrifies the corporatists who dominate the Center-Right mentality of the Democratic Party leadership (and, to be clear, the Republican Party overall) - we will not have to cling to their lousy jobs anymore just to survive and will be empowered to speak truth to the oligarch class. When women spoke truth to power at Seneca Falls in 1848; when gay men did so at Stonewall in the ‘60s, maybe it was a little “radical” - but it was also entirely necessary and just. We cannot afford to support any leader whose vision is a version of “we can’t have nice things because [excuse]” - that’s just parroting nonsense from the billionaire class.
9
To My Astonishment, I have heard from two women in recent years that a Woman Should Not Become a President.
One of them with advanced academic achievements who had been a doctor and then opened her own business.
They each mentioned temperament as the reason.
8
@Dart internalized misogyny is huge. I share your astonishment.
18
Elizabeth lost me when she attacked Michael Bloomberg.
She was always good at focusing on her own ideas. That was the opposite.
And Bloomberg has done and is doing some of the best real progression action right now.
He didn’t deserve that from Elizabeth.
In this world, with what we are up against, we need more ultra rich Democrats to help make things happen. Not less.
And we are going to really need Bloomberg to get rid Trump.
85
@Jane When it comes to debating and making your point with bold, clear strokes, my money is on Warren. We need someone who can go toe-to-toe with Trump. If you run for President, you can expect to have your past behavior picked apart.
I don't like the take-down culture in politics either, but she questioned his record in a highly effective manner. I want someone in office with that kind of incisive intellect and persuasiveness.
As for money in politics, you might carefully consider the ramifications of being able to buy elections. We all know it is happening on various levels, and are all for it when our side is the one with the money.... It is a cancer in our system and we need brakes on it.
Warren gets my vote.
131
@Jane
After much deliberation, I also agree with you, after seeing him on CNN in the Town Hall with Anderson Cooper. I saw that attack from Elizabeth and was seriously appalled by her mean , angry and apparent personal dislike of Mike Bloomberg. It is not a quality of a good leader.
22
@Jane Hey Jane. As a NYer, just want to let you know that Mike, while a generally decent mayor, also has a lot of flaws that I am glad SOMEBODY is pointing out so he does buy his way to the top. My biggest gripes were stop-and-frisk and the fact that he CHANGED THE LAW to run for a third term. Under his watch, NYC became a playground for the rich. Nice to look at, but who can live there now? I applaud him for his philanthropic work on guns and climate. He should stick with that and helping elect the next Democratic President.
133
If Bernie really wanted a revolution, he would vote for Elizabeth Warren because she is a powerhouse and a workhorse to get things done and clean up the corruption in Washington. In addition, she will improve the lives of ordinary Americans through healthcare, childcare, and education. Furthermore, she is a fighter who will send Trump packing.
Don’t kid yourself that this battle is over. Warren is in for the long haul, and she will persist in her plans to make our country work for us.
330
@Ichabod Aikem Sanders ran in 2016 because Warren who he asked to run refused to challenge Clinton that kind of sums up why I support him over her. He was willing to lose to bring up important issues, she wasn't and refused to endorse him over Clinton. She played it safe with with the Party Establishment. I still admire her but there are reasons many of trust Sanders over her and announcing yesterday she raised 9 million dollars from a PAC she set up a week ago does not reassure one of her not cozying up to money
21
@Jessica I suspect Warren did not want to create division in the party – especially as she was an important member of that party, and especially against the first female candidate with a realistic chance of winning both the nomination and the election.
29
@Paul Pavlis Again that is big issue for me. Support HRC and her corporate donors instead of pushing the party back to its progressive roots, I don't see not challenging HRC as a good thing
8
Liz is brilliant regardless of her gender. She has not only clearly identified the root cause of our issues -corruption she also has a track record and plan for tackling it. Her policies sound similar to Bernie from where I sit but she is more realistic; she has defined her plans. This Project Manager knows that the science of getting things done is about planning.
Humans are regularly challenged in their understanding of reality and those challenges are exacerbated in the grip of destructive emotions such as fear but we are also blessed with the power of conscious choice. A practice to manage one’s mind, thoughts & emotions can clear the clouds further empowering our ability to choose well.
312
@Jerry I assume the vicious attacks on opponents were planned, and she had it in her to execute those. In the aftermath, some reflection. Can anyone tell if it was effective? The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft agley", and this time perhaps not hobbled by good intentions.
As I look at the candidates still standing, it seems to me all but Sanders and Bloomberg would be happier doing something else the next four years.
2
@Jerry
"...she has defined her plans." That's the problem.
You need to campaign on goals, not plans. Plans get picked apart, and are subject to change or cancellation once the fog of conflict and compromise take hold.
When asked how much the change in healthcare financing would cost, Sanders was more realistic by saying "I don't know." Yet anyone who has dealt with insurance ompanies knows his is the better direction.
2
@Jerry
Warren has had only one thing to her name: her idea for the CFPB.
Her skills are limited to coming up with good ideas and plans. When she was appointed to Obama's team as an adviser to get the CFPB turned into law, she alienated so many on Obama's economic team and both Democratic and Republican Senators, that Obama decided to not name her to head it up. It took Barney Frank and Joe Biden to get it passed into law. When Valerie Jarrett was asked about Warren she said "she broke lots of eggs." To appease her, Obama promised to help her run for the Senate in MA. Her only other accomplishments were books and papers as a professor. She made millions representing large corporations, including Dow Chemical, representing the corporation, not the women harmed by the silicon implants. Her only piece of legislation has been making hearing aids an OTC product. She has no foreign policy or military or intelligence experience or bonafides. I can't imagine her standing on the world stage next to all those authoritarian men who lead the many other nations and being anything close to diplomatic or presidential or gracious. Have you seen her being gracious even once? Being a debate champion does not make for a return to the respect America has lost thanks to Trump.
2
The self-fulfilling prophecy part of the piece was really poignant, and I've had very much the same thoughts about Warren's rankings. It seems to me that primary voters are voting on behalf of some straw-man Democratic base instead of themselves. I would like argue that this is the same reason Biden has performed as poorly in the primaries as he has.
A note to voters who have yet to participate in their primaries: please, please vote for the candidate YOU want rather than the candidate you think everyone else wants.
134
If there were ranked-choice voting, I'd gladly vote for Elizabeth Warren second after Bernie Sanders. I'm a middle-aged woman.
I recently spoke with my sister, another Bernie Sanders voter, why Warren wasn't doing better, or as well as Bernie. We both thought that perhaps it was because she didn't throw her support behind Sanders in the 2016 primary and so some don't trust her progressive credentials. She wasn't willing to fight for them in 2016, so why trust that she's progressive now.
I'm not a professional woman. I work as an aide at a school. So maybe that's why I'm backing Bernie. His progressive policies mean more to me than getting a woman in the White House.
41
@Innisfree In his book, he said he ran in 2016 because Elizabeth Warren did not. This time she stepped up and ran and he declared after her announcement that he would also run. He should have supported her. Bernie Sanders just wants to be President.
95
@Innisfree Look at their records of actually getting things done not what they are saying. This is a classic trap of giving a loud man credit for the work a woman has been doing. As a minority I also see this dynamic played out constantly with minorities/non minorities.
253
Bernie had his chance in 2016. My question is, why is he not supporting Elizabeth Warren this time around? He seems to me to be a typical older white male. Still angry that he didn’t get what “is owed him” and unwilling to step aside for another progressive. Elizabeth Warren is smart, works well with others and would accomplish more in office than Bernie ever could. His unwillingness to work with others will doom his presidency, if he ever gets elected. Which is unlikely to happen.
202