Share
12.8k Shares 12.8k 73 3

For  the duration of the 2016 election, Hillary’s detractors have used Elizabeth Warren as a shield to attack Hillary, rationalizing their attacks against Hillary by claiming they’d vote for Warren in a heartbeat.

I’ve repeatedly questioned that logic, arguing that the same gender barrier that Hillary faces would be an obstacle for Warren. Here’s what I said in January:

Every time I raise the issue of sexism in 2016, every time I point out that the blind, irrational hatred of Hillary is driven by more than just support for her opponent, I get the same response: Elizabeth Warren. Somehow, it’s OK to bash one female politician if you can name another one you like. Here’s the problem for these Hillary detractors, as articulated by FiveThirtyEight: Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders.

In the aftermath of Hillary’s decisive Super Tuesday showing, including a victory in Warren’s home state, the fury aimed at Hillary has been redirected at Warren. Just browse the comments on Warren’s Facebook page to see how quickly she has become the enemy.

Proving my longstanding argument that Warren would endure the same bashing as Hillary if she were a candidate, her attackers are calling her “arrogant, a wuss, sleazy, sellout, middle-aged, disgusting, coward” and much more.

It’s deplorable, especially coming from the left, not from Republicans.