Yeah, the deck is definitely stacked against women candidates. Likeability (or relatability, since it generally boils down to how well we can relate to what the candidate represents) can be both powerful and nonsensical and it’s much easier achieved for male candidates. After all, in a men’s world, a strong male candidate can easily be your generic (white) male, representative of how the world sees men (or thinks men should be like).
It’s pretty much annoying even for me to realise this, particularly when you have someone like Warren who can stand in the ring with the best of them. If Warren had Sanders’ program, I would promote her in my circles (just as I do AOC, shame she’s not running though I guess that’s premature — but given that she comes from Sanders’ faction, wouldn’t be surprised to see she can access the same kind of non-PAC funding).
And this is surprising for me. Warren, Clinton … but in an article about Sanders, the best nod that AOC gets is the cheap shots GOP takes at her and how unlike Obama she was treated by the hotbed of misogyny that the Republican party is? In the same context where Warren and Clinton got flak from within their own camp?
Speaking of which, way to brush off the dirty game that Clinton played at the DNC. “has learned to “think before I speak”” doesn’t really seem to apply given that the DNC leaks contained plenty of her own words and were a great source of ire for Sanders’ supporters (myself included) — really, someone who wants to be a candidate for the Democratic party goes out of her way to kill the very notion of democracy and its process?
How about Kamala Harris? (in some ways I like her more than Warren) Or Gillibrand?