“Why, then, didn’t Warren tell this version of her story earlier? Because being a woman in politics has changed dramatically throughout the course of her career. Even a decade ago, being seen as a mom was a political liability… That Warren wasn’t telling this story in 2007 doesn’t mean she didn’t have a story to tell; it means that there were real political and cultural reasons to keep the discrimination aspect of it quiet. We’ve seen a similar dynamic with the #MeToo movement: acts that happened many years ago are taking shape through a new language and coming to the public fore. That doesn’t mean that the women speaking out now are liars. It means that the landscape has changed, and women are increasingly able to tell the whole truth.”
Jill Filipovic, The Guardian

“Some may see Warren’s rephrasing as the mark of a lie or as a cynical play for political points. I see it as an indicator of the changing ways stories of gender-based mistreatment get told in mainstream politics. To be taken seriously as leaders in politics and business, women have historically been told to project strength and power, to play down any parts of their histories that might encourage voters to imagine them as fragile, exploitable, or overtly female. ”
Christina Cauterucci, Slate

Regarding her candidacy, many note that “Biden still remains well ahead in support among blacks, at 36% [compared to 20% for Warren]. Whether Warren can continue to improve her standing with this critical demographic group will be particularly important in the early voting state of South Carolina. A recent CNN poll showed Biden with a strong lead in the state, with the support of 45% of black likely primary voters. The same survey showed Warren with only 4% support among black voters in the state… It has not gone unnoticed that some of Warren's events in South Carolina have featured largely white audiences. And despite the warm reception at the [Congressional Black Caucus] dinner, Warren has not received endorsements from any black lawmakers in that caucus, unlike Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris.”
MJ Lee, CNN

“Let’s take [the] Top 5 [candidates]: Warren’s plans may be too boldly progressive, she struggles with black voters and in Massachusetts, which she represents in the Senate, her support is weak among precisely the sorts of working-class whites that a Democratic nominee would optimally reclaim. Joe Biden has been unfairly tangled in this Ukraine web and isn’t as vigorous as in the past. Sanders just had a heart attack. And Kamala Harris has repeatedly failed to capitalize on bursts of momentum while giving voters maddeningly mixed signals about who she is. That leaves a certain hyper-articulate Hoosier…

“[Buttigieg is] phenomenally talented. None of his fellow contenders for the nomination speaks off the cuff in such gorgeously composed paragraphs… But, ugh, that age… In 2016, I visited and spent many hours with him in South Bend, then wrote a column with the headline ‘The First Gay President?’ I was looking at least a decade into the future, after he’d extended his résumé beyond South Bend, which has only about 100,000 people. I’d be a lot more comfortable if there were an additional zero in that population figure, if he had a better record on race, and if there weren’t quite so many elitist mile markers on his journey to this point.”
Frank Bruni, New York Times

The right is doubtful of Warren’s claim to have been fired while pregnant and critical of media coverage of the issue, but sees Warren as the current frontrunner.Regarding Facebook, “[its] essential threat to democracy isn’t that Mr. Zuckerberg will intervene on behalf of his preferred candidate — it’s more fundamental than that. Mark Zuckerberg need not intervene, because Facebook, the platform, will do so instinctively. With its algorithmic mandate of engagement over all else, Facebook has redefined what it means to be a good candidate — and provided a distinct natural advantage to those who distort the truth and seek to divide…

“Just as television favored a new brand of well-coiffed, charismatic and dynamic political figures, Facebook offers a disproportionate advantage to those most likely to stoke negative emotions… There’s a compelling case to be made that Facebook should be forced out of the [political ad] game entirely to counter the spread of divisive, toxic content.”
Charlie Warzel, New York Times