![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nwhikerWow. Could the media lick Warren's ass any more thoroughly? I'm not sure they could.
Not only did she get more talking time, but she was given the lead, and others were given questions to respond to based on her. Elizabeth says, how do you react to this?
The fact that she lied and/or was evasive is being glossed over. They let her get away with not answering questions.
The erasure of Kamala Harris continues unabated. Many of the recap articles did not even mention her name. Tulsi, with her inane foreign policy shit, got more column inches.
I saw this happen in 2008 with John Edwards. Yes, he turned out to be scum, but in the months up to Iowa, where he had a better showing than expected, the media barely mentioned him. It was like he didn't exist. It was all Obama in laudatory terms, and Clinton in a disparaging contrast, seeing up for the battle between them. There was no place in this for John Edwards, so the media just... didn't talk about him.
They're doing the same thing with Kamala Harris, aided by the fact that she has a built-in handicap of being a Black woman. Women are erased in our culture. Black people are erased in our culture. Black women EVEN MORE SO and it showed last night, and it's been showing for a while now.
Just looking at the number of minutes she was allowed to speak, and the number of questions she was asked. Looking at how Amy Klobuchar got more attention. And Cream of Pete, who is the new media darling, and who, quite frankly, acted like a jerk pretty much constantly last night.
In addition to erasure, the media are co-opting her. They're started calling Warren a "Happy Warrior". "Joyful Warrior" has been a Kamala thing forever. They've credited her plan on maternal black health to Warren, claimed repeatedly that Warren was "the first" to come up with this idea/plan and when shown evidence of the contrary, never bother to correct their reporting. When Warren said she would take executive action on gun control, they marvelled at her ingenuity. Never mind that that had been Harris's plan from the very start, announced long before Warren did. Warren steals ideas from others, often Kamala (what people on Black twitter often call "columbusing", possibly since she also has a history of stealing ethnicities), and get credited with them. See Castro's immigration plan for a non-Kamala one. And when Warren needs someone one to shut up... they do. The media played and replayed her inane cutesy stupid joke at the LGBTQ+ forum, but ignored her singing a racist little ditty (yellow? Really?), that she'd planned to sing, since it had been mentally at least edited to remove "red", which probably would have brought attention to her lies about being Native American.
Harris was good last night. She brought up reproductive rights, finally someone did. She was clear and forceful on impeachment and gun control. She'll get no credit for it and the media will focus only on her response about Trump and Twitter.
I've written about that before and I continue to agree with Harris on this. Twitter gives Trump an unfiltered, direct link to 65 million people, without any possibility of immediate correction by the media. Since Trump spews hatred, this is dangerous, and more so to marginalized people than to privileged white ones. It's always such.
Not only did she get more talking time, but she was given the lead, and others were given questions to respond to based on her. Elizabeth says, how do you react to this?
The fact that she lied and/or was evasive is being glossed over. They let her get away with not answering questions.
The erasure of Kamala Harris continues unabated. Many of the recap articles did not even mention her name. Tulsi, with her inane foreign policy shit, got more column inches.
I saw this happen in 2008 with John Edwards. Yes, he turned out to be scum, but in the months up to Iowa, where he had a better showing than expected, the media barely mentioned him. It was like he didn't exist. It was all Obama in laudatory terms, and Clinton in a disparaging contrast, seeing up for the battle between them. There was no place in this for John Edwards, so the media just... didn't talk about him.
They're doing the same thing with Kamala Harris, aided by the fact that she has a built-in handicap of being a Black woman. Women are erased in our culture. Black people are erased in our culture. Black women EVEN MORE SO and it showed last night, and it's been showing for a while now.
Just looking at the number of minutes she was allowed to speak, and the number of questions she was asked. Looking at how Amy Klobuchar got more attention. And Cream of Pete, who is the new media darling, and who, quite frankly, acted like a jerk pretty much constantly last night.
In addition to erasure, the media are co-opting her. They're started calling Warren a "Happy Warrior". "Joyful Warrior" has been a Kamala thing forever. They've credited her plan on maternal black health to Warren, claimed repeatedly that Warren was "the first" to come up with this idea/plan and when shown evidence of the contrary, never bother to correct their reporting. When Warren said she would take executive action on gun control, they marvelled at her ingenuity. Never mind that that had been Harris's plan from the very start, announced long before Warren did. Warren steals ideas from others, often Kamala (what people on Black twitter often call "columbusing", possibly since she also has a history of stealing ethnicities), and get credited with them. See Castro's immigration plan for a non-Kamala one. And when Warren needs someone one to shut up... they do. The media played and replayed her inane cutesy stupid joke at the LGBTQ+ forum, but ignored her singing a racist little ditty (yellow? Really?), that she'd planned to sing, since it had been mentally at least edited to remove "red", which probably would have brought attention to her lies about being Native American.
Harris was good last night. She brought up reproductive rights, finally someone did. She was clear and forceful on impeachment and gun control. She'll get no credit for it and the media will focus only on her response about Trump and Twitter.
I've written about that before and I continue to agree with Harris on this. Twitter gives Trump an unfiltered, direct link to 65 million people, without any possibility of immediate correction by the media. Since Trump spews hatred, this is dangerous, and more so to marginalized people than to privileged white ones. It's always such.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}