Warren’s experience mirrors every professional woman’s life and career

Guest post from Gail Z. Martin

Here we go again, proving that we as a nation can’t handle a competent woman in charge.

The most telling paragraph from an article about Warren’s drop from the race: “She was hypersensitive to public criticism and tended to overcorrect in her efforts to ensure her competence. Her responses often earned her more criticism, not less.” OMFG, that’s the story of every professional woman’s life and career. Remember the old joke that Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did—only backwards, and in high heels? The gallows humor about women needing to be twice as good to get half as far? Those are painfully funny because they’re true.

When Hillary lost to DT, we showed that we’d decided the presidency was an entry-level job, no experience necessary—that we would accept a reality TV star and many-times bankrupted failed businessman rather than a woman so competent she scared the Russians. Now Warren is out of the race. Who do you think worried the Russians more—Biden, Sanders or Warren?

Warren had a plan for everything—-which got criticized—-as men without a detailed plan or the guy who doesn’t believe any experts keep winning. Baggage? Nothing that even compares to almost all of the male candidates at every level that have ever gotten elected (and re-elected).

Yes, I will vote for whatever blue candidate gets nominated, which at this point is certain to be another old white guy—-maybe even the one who says he’d take a Republican as his VP. (And how, exactly, is that going to create any change at all, when we’ve seen no willingness for the GOP to rein in Dear Leader, no matter how he shreds the constitution?)

Please, no attempts to mansplain why Warren is so much worse than the men. I am just so fed up with this country’s utter disdain for women that I could howl at the moon.

Gail Z. Martin is a novelist who writes thrilling fantasy and science fiction adventures. Her web page is here.

Conservative logic

no change

Matt Bors

Are women candidates held to a different standard than men candidates?


The Ministry of Truth

Darrin Bell

Republicans know that if everyone votes, they lose

Republicans know that if everyone votes, they lose.

That’s why they have spent 50 years

  • fighting against the Voting Rights Act
  • purging people from voting lists
  • closing precincts in minority neighborhoods
  • enacting restrictive voter ID laws
  • prohibiting felons from voting
  • stopping early voting and mail-in ballots
  • making sure election day isn’t a national holiday
  • killing any bill designed to prevent Russian interference
  • making sure no paper ballots are used
  • getting rid of election finance laws
  • fighting against abolishing the electoral college
  • promoting gerrymandering

There are even tapes of them admitting it.

Anyone who denies this is true is just denying reality. These guys are literally against democracy.

cartoon by Steve Sack

Republican “democracy”


Mike Luckovich

Bernie and the argument that a plurality is enough

At the recent Democratic debate, all of the candidates were asked if the convention should nominate the candidate with the most delegates even if it wasn’t a majority. Only Bernie said yes.

It used to be that each state would pick delegates to go to a convention and then, at the convention, they’d all debate and decide who should be the candidate. Then states started deciding that it would be better if delegates were committed to a specific candidate when they went, so they started having caucuses to decide this and then later primaries (which, in the history of this country, is a fairly new development). And even then, these committed delegates were allowed to change if no one candidate could get a majority.

Bernie and his supporters are now screaming and yelling that this is undemocratic and is just a ploy to keep Bernie from getting the nomination if he has the most delegates.

Apparently, this manipulative ploy is so devious that it was established long before Bernie was ever born, simply in an effort to keep him from becoming the candidate.

If Bernie doesn’t like the way the way the Democrats set their rules for the way they choose their candidate, maybe he should have worked to change it during all those years when he was a member of the party.  Oh, right.

Here’s why we should not nominate whoever has the most delegates.

Suppose Bernie ends up with 32% of the delegates and Biden has 31%. This is not a glowing endorsement for Bernie, is it? Should we really be handing the nomination to someone who maybe only has a one delegate advantage, especially when the majority of delegates there support someone else?

Or worse yet: Suppose Bloomberg manages to convince 32%? Clearly, 68% of the delegates wanted someone else. Bloomberg shouldn’t get the nomination when a majority doesn’t want him, should he? No, what should happen is what works in a democracy: compromise. Negotiations. Working to find a candidate that the majority can support.

Now if Bernie ends up with 49.9% of the delegates, then yeah, politically it’s probably a good idea for him to be nominated on the second ballot.  It would look terrible otherwise.

But to just make a blanket statement that it should go to the person with the most votes even if it is a minority of those voting is ridiculous.