Is it projection, or obliviousness, that leads a political animal to accuse others of being political?
It would not be a day in D.C. without an elected official displaying a stark lack of self-awareness. Elizabeth Warren, in her continued attempt to appear as normal and every-day gosh-darn normal as you people in those strange flyover states, is still struggling with image control. After a bungled beer video Liz is still working on that “relatable” thing, bare she’s trying!
Her latest comes from the Team Warren Twitter account which, in true “Hello fellow kids” fashion has in its bio the opening of “Welcome Stans”. (Ugh, I swear…) The account gives a video that has Warren in an impromptu discussion with a young girl. Warren also has a children’s book that is centered upon herself, I would point out, and maybe if she focused a bit more on those who are of proper voting age she may be polling higher, but I’m not a campaign advisor, so what do I know?!
The conversation was so impromptu and off-the-cuff-candid that it was captured on video, with subtitles provided.
Last week, a young persister asked Elizabeth: Why is there sexism today? So @ewarren had an important conversation with her.
It’s time to fight for what we believe in, and it’s time for a woman in the White House. pic.twitter.com/kGmqfHTp6P
— Warren Democrats (@TeamWarren) June 9, 2019
The young girl asks Senator Warren a question, borne of undiluted curiosity in a completely natural and not-at-all pre-planned fashion. “Why is there still sexism now?” asked the young one. Warren next goes on a lengthy and involved response, that in no way actually addressed the girl’s concerns.
“I kind of think it’s people who have power,” says the Senator with a more than 1/1024 percent amount of earnestness, “don’t actually like to give it up! So you kind of have to pry it away.” She also mentioned having to “fight for what you believe in”, so says the woman who was given the Democratic Party nomination for the Massachusetts Senate seat. (As a complete newcomer she ran unopposed, somehow, so not much of a “fight” there.)
Now, this is a clear reference towards the current President, Donald Trump. This is a woman who has been in DC for 7 years, and has worked the system prior as a lawyer. Trump has never been in politics before the 2016 election. But he is the one who needs to be pried out of his office, for some reason, though he has not even completed the first term. The implication is clear; he is not a rightful occupant of the White House and it is possible he will not vacate in proper fashion once evicted, so to speak.
The irony is this is coming from someone who is comfortably cemented in DC politics, who has been shielded and coddled by her party and now she feels practically entitled. She has made a disaster of herself with her heritage issue, and yet continues to be propped up to the extent that she is one of the front-runners for the party nomination.
Yet here she stands, uninfluenced by shame, suggesting that it is others who are not rightfully in place, and may need to be forcibly extricated in order to make room for her arrival. Amusing that the woman who cannot even admit to errors of her claims of genealogy, because she needs to cling to her position of power, suggests anyone else is having a hard time surrendering their own.