Elizabeth Warren has been coasting on the assumption that she is the
Most Like Hillary (blonde hair, annoying voice). She is going to lose this crown to Kirsten Gillibrand (blonder hair, more of a political weathervane, has more scalps as the purger of Al Franken).
The final nail in Warren's coffin will be when feminists discover that she
wrote a book in 2004 in which she displayed nuance on the idea of women in the workforce:
The politics that surrounded women’s collective decision to migrate into the workforce are a study in misdirection. On the left, the women’s movement was battling for equal pay and equal opportunity, and any suggestion that the family might be better off with Mother at home was discounted as reactionary chauvinism. On the right, conservative commentators accused working mothers of everything from child abandonment to defying the laws of nature. The atmosphere was far too charged for any rational assessment of the financial consequences of sending both spouses into the workforce. The massive miscalculation ensued because both sides of the political spectrum discounted the financial value of the stay-at-home mother. There was no room in either worldview for the capable, resourceful mother who might spend her days devoted to the roles of wife and mother but who could, if necessary, dive headlong into the workforce to support her family. No one saw the stay-at-home mom as the family’s safety net.
RIP Elizabeth Warren's campaign. It was too good for this world.