It might not be fair that Warren ate it hard in the primary, but I struggle to think of an aspect of life that is remotely fair. I challenge anyone to even define what fairness might be, in concrete terms.
My candidate of choice happens to be a woman of color, but she was completely railroaded by a mainstream media that opened a huge lane for Elizabeth Warren. Tulsi Gabbard is a woman of color, a veteran who opposes war, who has a consistent platform, who is not embroiled in bizarre episodes like getting a DNA test(!) to further squabble with Donald Trump, or lying about her employment history, or unveiling unprovable accusations against Bernie live on TV, etc.
Moreover, the DNC has shown itself to be anything but impartial during primary elections. It admitted as such in a class action lawsuit that it won based on the strength of its argument that it CAN fix primaries as it sees fit.
If that’s news to you, then you might be so far inside the DNC bubble that every piece of information you consume is pure establishment propaganda.
Warren failed because she seems unprincipled and deceptive. If you look at her policies and positions from 10+ years ago, it’s like she’s a different person entirely. She lies constantly for no apparent gain (who cares if she’s Native American ffs) and has jumped onto the bandwagon of the most marginal, outlandish aspects of the social justice movement. She promised to fill her cabinet with at least half the positions going to non-binary women of color. That kind of pandering sours most voters. POC and transfolk don’t want to be treated like children who all get a participation award, and voters sniff out this kind of obvious naked political maneuvering.
Her own state’s voters know all of this — which is why she managed to come in 3rd place there. Meanwhile, Tulsi at least came in 2nd place in Samoa against Bloomberg who spent more money than her by a factor of several million on his campaign. It seems likely Tulsi will win her native Hawaii if she’s still in the race then. So if you’re leveling sexism as the only reason why Warren failed so miserably, you have to wonder how she even got elected senator in Massachusetts in the first place, only to come in 3rd in the primary. The narrative of sexism does not line up with reality. Warren has soured in Massachusetts because of the weird behavior and new policy stances she introduced since her last election — not because of her gender. Remember: they elected her senator twice now, and she won against white men both times. She should have walked away with Massachusetts, but she didn’t. If it’s because of sexism, then you have some explaining to do.
Gabbard, unlike Warren, is remarkably transparent about her platform, and her early political missteps. She is obviously not a DNC party favorite, given her run-in with Hillary Clinton. Couple that Clinton animus with her anti-war stance, and it’s not surprising that both the DNC and the mainstream media has treated her like a ghost, but it is disappointing nonetheless.
As an aside, I don’t believe either party will ever nominate an anti-war candidate. Both parties are warfare parties first, everything else second. Even Bernie has stepped back his anti-war rhetoric. These politicians know where their bread is buttered.
