To say that Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 shouldn’t be cited to minimize or, worse still, dismiss the claim that women have a steeper climb to the corridors and chambers of political power than men due to sexism and misogyny. Similarly, to assert that more women are in Congress today than in the past isn’t an adequate rebuttal either.

Things have changed for the better in some ways in recent years, but the playing field isn’t level yet. We still live in is a gendered world. Another way to look at Hillary’s presidential run is to ask: Were it not for sexism and misogyny would she, not Trump, be in the White House?

In the rift between Warren and Sanders, the accent for their supporters should be on unity, not assigning blame.

The polls suggest that Elizabeth Warren’s support has slipped some in recent weeks. If so, I suspect, it has more to do with her gender than anything else. After all, winning the nomination and then the general election against Trump, is a more difficult climb for a woman than her male counterparts for what should be obvious reasons.

And yet, it strikes me that among some people who should know better there is a tendency to minimize this dynamic. It’s as if electing a woman, and in the case of Elizabeth Warren, a woman of outstanding progressive credentials, to the presidency for the first time in our country’s history, doesn’t encounter any gender specific barriers nor offer any historic opportunity. Neither seems to figure much, if at all, in their calculus.

One has to wonder if the thought that only a MAN can stand up to the “very manly” Trump enters into their (and many others) thinking at some level. It shouldn’t, but I’m afraid it does more than we might think. To what degree I’m not sure, but to simply dismiss this specific dynamic is not only folly, but harmful in the short and long term.

Here is an article on the politics of big policy ideas. It’s worth reading. As it pertains to the current presidential primary, Warren and Sanders have such ideas. They are needed not only if the country has any chance of addressing the structural problems — climate, wage and economic stagnation, economic and other forms of inequality, etc. — that unless addressed make the future problematic. But also in order to engage the American people and to change their perception of the role of an activist federal government.

I would be happy with either one as the nominee.

The strategic objective in this election isn’t to bring the country to the doorstep of socialism. The political conditions doesn’t exist for such a leap, notwithstanding the popular interest in more deep going reforms and, to a much lesser degree, socialism as a socio-economic system.

What then is the objective? Simply put, to defend and expand democracy that is presently under a sustained, furious, and unprecedented assault at the hands of Trump and his right wing authoritarian movement.

Storming heaven, metaphorically speaking, will have to wait a few moons! On the other hand, successfully blocking Trump and gang in their sordid effort is a BFD and would create a more favorable terrain on which the struggle for reforms can begin anew.

Not everyone agrees with this approach.