For one "expert" in gender victimology, not nominating Elizabeth Warren will "cost us our lives"

You’d never know it these days, but Joe Biden is the odds-on favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination. If you hit the Google app on your phone and the “latest headlines” appear; it seems that half the time there is something about Elizabeth Warren, usually her making some noise about the current state of the nation. She may no longer be in the running for president, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t still “campaigning,” or that the media is campaigning for her as a vice presidential candidate, or that it is simply because the fake-progressive media can’t let go of the fact that most voters saw her in a much less pristine light than they did. All her lies and mistruths only made her many policy announcements more propaganda than anything believable.

Would some of us like a progressive” as vice president to talk in Biden’s ear? Very much. Would Warren be a “good” VP in that light? No. It would have to be a person who Biden considers to be a friend, not someone who is not only not a friend, but someone who would present a constant thorn in his side who he would simply ignore. Bernie Sanders may not be in the running, but at least he and Biden are friends, and Biden might actually listen to someone like that. On the other hand, Biden and Warren are not friends, and Biden would know that Warren would attempt to undermine him at every opportunity, because she would simply be using the post as a platform for a 2024 presidential campaign. Furthermore, it would be very likely that Warren would repel more voters than she would attract, because unlike Sanders she doesn’t make people who disagree with her feel like they are being called ignorant, sexist assholes. 

I would much prefer to give discussions of this sort a rest because it isn’t pertinent to what is going on in the country today, but then I am confronted with more self-serving nonsense, and then I am off to the races. Take for instance the following headline in a current op-ed in The Hill: “Gendered disinformation might have cost Warren the nomination and us our lives”—or so claims Lucina Di Meco, a self-styled “expert” in gender discrimination. This is the kind of self-serving claim that white feminists typically make that causes most people to wince in disgust. Di Meco’s op-ed generally failed to make her case to anyone but the true believers, with her claim based on cherry-picked social media bytes and deliberately skewed “studies” by interested parties; believe me, there is tons of pro-Warren social media that is just as offensive to ones’ common sense. In the commentary section, Di Meco’s defenders seemed to believe that just by disagreeing with her assessments was proof enough of “misogyny.” 

Some doubters pointed out some obvious pitfalls in both Hillary Clinton’s and Warren’s campaigns, the kind that Barack Obama had avoided to his credit and helped him win. Obama went out of his way not make his “race” an issue in the campaign; he didn’t have to make it one, because he had the black vote in the bag, and he was free to pursue the white vote. On the other hand, Clinton and Warren didn’t feel they had the white female vote “in the bag” enough. They couldn’t accept the fact that many white women were just as bigoted and paranoid as their white men, and so they “worked” the gender angle to the point where they were ignoring or alienating the voters who might actually have been more able to satisfy their megalomaniacal opportunism. 

And of course there was all that pathological lying and disingenuousness about campaign finance (receiving millions of dollars from a PAC whose very intent was female-only support isn’t “sexist”), and the fact that Warren was viewed by most minorities as an elitist, privileged, “entitled” white candidate who was the “elitist” white media favorite. The only thing that had to with “gender” was with Warren’s abject failure to understand that today it is synonymous in a political context with a cheap attack that the media might gobble-up, but many voters see as a Hail Mary pass in the last seconds of a losing contest. Why is being disingenuousness and dealing in falsehoods more acceptable coming from a female? I have news for Warren diehards: it isn’t. 

Goddam—do we have to keep repeating the obvious truth ad nauseam? Of course we do in this “feeling good about feeling bad” world we are forced to live in, where a certain class of privileged "victims" don't actually want to "fix"  the problems, because then they'd have fewer reasons to claim that they are "victims" and employ rationalizations to dehumanize the "enemy." What these people should be doing is finding a way to reduce that 53 percent number--and realize that they need a different "strategy" than they one  they used in 2016, because it didn't work for Warren in 2020 either. That means first realizing that the "enemy" is really "us."

Self-deluding fanatics like Di Meco  actually exist on the fringes of society, but they have an out-sized presence in the superstars-in-their-own-minds realm of the media--unlike, say, Hispanics who are virtually nonexistent in the mainstream media despite the fact that there are at least 47 million Hispanics who are U.S. citizens, thus more likely to be talked about than being allowed to set the story "straight." Seattle is supposed to be a “progressive” mecca. Is it? No, it is full of self-involved narcissists, and a great many of them are women who are guided by their prejudices and stereotypes. What is like to be a male in Seattle? Actually, the better question is what it is like to be judged a Hispanic male who is stereotyped as being overly “macho” and "sex-obsessed" over white females. I was standing in line at a Dick’s hamburger shack in Seattle’s Capitol Hill district. There was just one line because there were far fewer people than usual because of this virus thing. One of the persons taking orders was a white male, the middle line that people had decided to stand in until the other window became free, where a white female was taking orders. When she saw that I was the next person to go to her window, she slammed her window shut and walked to the back of the shack, and took her sweet time coming back; she apparently expected that I would be being served by the other person by the time she came back, but I was still there, waiting. 

But instead of looking at me to tell me she was ready to take my order, she looked right past me to another person, asking in a loud, over-friendly tone “Are you ready?” as if to make sure that person responded more quickly than I did over the deliberate slight. Obviously angered by being ignored, I advanced toward the window announcing that “Yeah, I’m ready.” With that phoniness I see so often in fake “liberals” in this city, she said “Oh!” and tried to fake-off her deliberate “mistake” with patronizing “good cheer.” When she handed me my order, I said, “Yeah, I know, I’m invisible,” and she pretended not to know what I was talking about. I told her that she knew exactly what I was talking about, and as I walked away I could hear her wailing away with the usual defensiveness of the guilty person.  

If women make such wonderful and humane “leaders,” more than males (given that there are plenty of stories concerning racist interactions between white women and minorities that suggest otherwise), I wondered how  Di Meco would explain "leaders" like former British prime minister Theresa May, who when she was Home Secretary instituted the ”hostile environment rule,” whose "aim is to create, here in Britain, a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants"--that resulted in the Windrush scandal, when de facto British citizens from the Caribbean when they immigrated from British-held islands were targeted because of their skin color, and illegally detained, denied human rights and health care, and many illegally deported. White women act on base prejudices just as any other people do, and the way they “positively” stereotype themselves as opposed to others is just as harmful as any other kind.