Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) recently decided to give a generous gift to President Donald Trump. No, it wasn’t an admission that she is not really Native American, nor was it an autographed “Pow Wow Chow” recipe. Instead, Warren all but admitted that she plans to run for president in 2020.
Her pseudo-announcement was met with both excitement and skepticism from the left and a jubilant social media celebration on the right. But there was one left-leaning publication that came under fire for violating the Holy Principles Of Wokeness.
In response to Warren’s announcement, Politico published a piece titled, “Warren battles the ghosts of Hillary,” in which they asked an important question: “How does Warren avoid a Clinton redux — written off as too unlikable before her campaign gets off the ground?” Apparently, the sin committed by Politico was related to their questioning Warren’s likability, which is something that the High Council of the Woke has determined to be sexist.
Put simply, assessing the likability of a female candidate is an example of misogyny – or something.
Progressives Wreck Politico
After the story ran, several prominent progressives lashed out at the news outlet for its sexist speculations. CNN Contributor Joan Walsh tweeted: “How dare you @politico? I am not endorsing anyone for a long time but you make me want to get into @ewarren’s corner fast. This is so offensive.”
Journalist Soledad O’ Brien also joined in with her own tweet. “Politico out early with the ‘women’ and ‘unlikeable’ move. Come on wonen at @politico —call out some of this bullsh*t from your colleagues.”
Author Jennifer Palmieri wrote: “When did @ewarren become unlikable? Looks like you can pinpoint time of unlikability to moment she showed ambition to be POTUS. As far as women have come, people still find women w/ ambition vexing. ‘There’s something about her I just don’t like.’”
NBC’s Ashton Pittman also published a piece titled: “Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton and the sexist hypocrisy of the ‘likability’ media narrative. Here we go again.”
Pittman rightly points out that likability is a “flawed metric for political candidates,” but then goes on to claim that “there is something particularly pernicious about the recent trend of evaluating women this way.” According to the author, women with power are often held to different standards from men, and in many cases, they are judged more harshly for their behavior.
Is Likability A Sexist Metric?
Pittman makes some valid points when he references studies that show perceptions of powerful women are different than those of men in similar positions. However, this notion is not as applicable to the subject of likability as some might believe.
Likability has been a major factor in politics for ages.
Likability has been a major factor in politics for ages. This principle was evident in the 1960 presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Being that it was the first debate to be televised, physical appearance mattered far more than it had previously, and those who watched believed that Kennedy – young, handsome, and more polished than his opponent – won the debate.
Moreover, it does not seem to be applied to women more often than men. During the 2016 campaign, news outlets analyzed the likability of GOP candidates Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and most of the others. During the 2012 campaign, they also discussed Mitt Romney’s likability as well. It’s worth pointing out that another left-leaning female politician’s likability recently became part of the conversation. People on both sides of the aisle agreed that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s video of dancing with friends made her more likable.
What About Warren’s Likability?
The reality is that when it comes to political candidates, it is their personalities and behavior that make them either attractive or unattractive to voters. In his piece, Pittman asks: “Has Warren become incredibly unlikable over the past two years? Or is this change more an indication of her growing power.”
Well, Mr. Pittman, perhaps there is more to this story than simple sexism. Is it possible that a significant contributor to Warren’s lack of likability is the fact that she claimed to be Native American and used her appropriated genealogy to benefit her career? Could it be the huge mistake she made when she publicized the results of a DNA test revealing that she is so white she makes talcum powder look like charcoal?
Politico’s article was not an indicator of bigotry toward powerful females; it was speculation on a metric by which most political candidates are judged. But, according to progressives, it was not appropriate because it cast a critical look at a Democratic candidate. It is not hard to imagine how they might respond if any publication posted a similar article about a female conservative candidate. Indeed, you only need to look at their treatment of Sarah Palin to get a glimpse how that would go.Feel free to comment below. And remember to check out the web’s best conservative news aggregator Whatfinger.com