Elizabeth Warren is not Hillary Clinton

After criticizing Elizabeth Warren for not having a beer close enough to her during her live instagram story Tom Rogan of Fox news claimed that “she is too distant from most of the electorate in terms of her personal demeanor.”

The president of the United States, who we all know never shies away from the opportunity to make vicious and juvenile personal attacks, also joined the fray on the day of her announcement by answering the question of whether Warren has a chance at the presidency with, “you’d have to ask her psychiatrist.”

The criticism of the senator from Massachusetts has a strikingly similar tone to the criticism against another presidential candidate: Hillary Clinton. Many in the mainstream press have gone out of their way to highlight what they perceive to be the similarities between these two women. Natasha Korecki, highlights this phenomenon in her Politico article, 'Warren battles the ghosts of Hillary.' Edward Isaac-Dovere of the Atlantic addresses the same perception in his article 'Elizabeth Warren doesn’t want to be Hillary 2.0.'

In all of these commentaries about Senator Warren's upcoming presidential campaign, the prevailing narrative perpetuated by the Washington establishment is clear. It is thought that Elizabeth Warren will struggle to appear personable and honest on the campaign trail. I would challenge that argument and claim that the only reason that similarity exists is because they both happen to be older women.

It is clear that Hillary Clinton faced unwarranted criticism concerning issues of “temperament” and being a “nasty woman.” It is important to call out these criticisms for what they were, thinly veiled sexism. For whatever reason, warranted or not, the reputation of being a cold, uncaring person stuck to Clinton and was one of the factors that lead to her defeat in 2016.

Perhaps the establishment press is trying to highlight this sexism in society in order to pave a path for Elizabeth Warren to become the first woman president, or perhaps, the establishment press is highlighting this potential similarity in order to damage her reputation.

After all, there is no obvious speech pattern that these two women share. When it comes to policy their stances are quite distant from one another. In fact when it comes to the political make up of the left it’s actually pretty difficult to come up with two democratic politicians who could differ from one another to a greater extent.

For example, when it comes to regulation on Wall Street, Elizabeth Warren has a clearly defined stance of intense oversight. Warren has long been a critic of the rampant deregulation on Wall street. In fact her crowning achievement is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This organization has resulted in the return of 11.8 billion dollars that were stolen from hard working Americans by unscrupulous banks and financial institutions.

When comparing Warren’s political posture on Wall Street with that of Hillary Clinton the difference in policy is clear. One of the most popular criticisms of the 2016 presidential nominee was her speech to the Investment Banking Company, Goldman Sachs who paid her $675,000 for a single speech. For many, this was seen as clear bribery, and thus any faith progressives had in Hillary Clinton pertaining to objectivity in government regulation of Wall Street had evaporated.

Warren and Clinton’s stances on Wall Street is only the most glaring of their differences. They deviate from one another on many other issues including healthcare and the minimum wage. Once you know the context about these very different presidential candidates, it is clear that the media’s case when comparing them are really only contingent on two similarities. They are both older women. Neither of these traits should be seen as disqualifying.