Democratic Sen. Krysten Sinema, with her refusal to consistently toe the party line, isn’t easy to pin down. But that won’t prevent Slate from trying!

In a recent episode of their podcast, Slate staff writers Christina Cauterucci and Julia Craven zeroed in on the essence of Kyrsten Sinema: Toxic White Lady.


Cauterucci:  It’s interesting to me that the set of bills that she is holding up by supporting the filibuster or refusing to consider filibuster reform includes a voting rights bill named for John Lewis. Because in 2015, at the start of that Congress, as there is at the start of any Congress, there’s an election to determine who will lead each party. At the time, almost every Democrat voted for Nancy Pelosi. Not Kyrsten Sinema. She said she wanted to elect John Lewis to lead the party. And she said, “He’s my hero.” Well, the fact that she calls him a hero, publicly embraces him as a civil rights icon, and now is working against the substance of what he stood for is, to me, peak toxic white lady energy.

Craven: And that’s one of the bigger issues with politics is that so much of it can become performative and can become about how individual politicians feel. And in certain situations like this one, you have one or two individuals holding up legislation that could fundamentally change lives for broader swaps of America. It’s just really annoying. It’s really frustrating to see that a small number of people can really hold up massive changes in life for millions of people.

Cauterucci: I’m trying to understand how somebody could work alongside [Republicans] and watch them work against something as fundamental to democracy as voting rights, or something like the commission to investigate January 6. These aren’t a group of people who are making reasonable and good faith arguments about a policy that all manner of people can have fine positions on. We’re talking about really bread-and-butter issues for the future of the country as we know it, and fairness in politics and elections.

And to Slate, “fairness in politics and elections” apparently means “doing whatever Democrats decide is fair, even if it’s not.”

Otherwise you’re just another toxic white lady.

Why does Slate hate strong, independent women?

Why, no! As a matter of fact, they didn’t!

Sure sounds like it.

So, naturally, Slate et al. are leaning into this BS even harder.

Don’t think they’re not going to do their damndest to run with it as long as possible.

It’s absolutely bigoted. Aggressively bigoted. And that’s by design.

And because Krysten Sinema is sticking to her guns, Slate has decided she must be destroyed.

Give them some time. They’ll find a way.