#PoliCartoon: Angry and Antagonistic
— Barry makes comics (@barrydeutsch) November 7, 2019
A reminder: Annie Linskey was brought up from the minors (in this case, the Boston Globe) because she wants to do to Elizabeth Warren what Amy Chozick did to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 cycle.
Every word Linskey writes should be scrutinized from that angle, including ‘and’ and ‘the’. (The Matt Viser co-credit can be ignored, as can Viser himself.)
— Annie Linskey (@AnnieLinskey) November 7, 2019
Over the past few days, two of the leading male candidates in the Democratic presidential primary race — Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg — have escalated separate lines of attack as they attempt to counter the field’s most prominent woman: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is antagonistic and angry.
She also is an uncompromising elitist, they argue, suggesting that if she were the nominee, it would harm the party in the must-win states in the upper Midwest.
The new attacks, marking a more vigorous phase of the race, get at something far beyond her policy positions, and into one of the most fraught areas for a female candidate: Is she likable?
Pushing that argument is treacherous given that many Democrats remain upset over what they view as sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton, the party’s last nominee. Warren’s allies view the language being used against her as constructed to be particularly devastating for female candidate and beyond the policy divisions between her and her rivals.
Women’s activism — driven in part by Clinton’s loss — has fueled social and political movements, evident in the #MeToo campaign and in election results during the 2018 midterms and on Tuesday night. But it also comes as Democrats worry about turning off voters — many of them white, working class, and male — in states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin….
It’s not me, but Some People Say… Thank heavens, Mike Bloomberg is about to parachute into Alabama and save us from the Mean Mommy!
Don’t just take my word — listen to Boston professional reporter, Mr. Charles P. Pierce:
… This kind of thing makes me crazy. An opponent launches a new “line of attack.” It is then described in detail, just so everybody gets the point. Then the reporters make no real value judgments as to whether the “line of attack” is a crock of beans or not—which, in this case, it plainly is.