The media are having libgasms, as they always do when a non-white male is about to achieve something.  (They also celebrate even when a non-white male fails to achieve something, or achieves something white males have achieved many times before – the bar isn't very high when it comes to declaring victory for the proper ethnic group or gender.)

This time it's about an American Indian woman who might be the first American Indian woman in Congress.  Some things to note even before we get into the meat of the article:

1. Immediately, doesn't something seem wrong with this article?  After all, Elizabeth Warren maintains that she is an American Indian woman.  By saying another woman might be the first American Indian in Congress, isn't that tantamount to the liberal media admitting that Elizabeth Warren isn't?

2. The article repeatedly calls the woman running for Congress "Native American."  But most of you reading this are also "Native American," having been born here.  Somehow liberals managed to come up with a name for an ethnic group that insults all other ethnic groups.  Liberals are very good at naming things; less so at running them.

3. There have actually been American Indians in Congress.  Ben Nighthorse Campbell was both a Democrat and then a Republican senator (back in the days before Colorado was overrun with liberals and illegal aliens).  But Campbell was a man.  Could Campbell represent the interests only of male American Indians, then?  If you follow that logic, then a female American Indian cannot represent the interests of male American Indians (much less white men or women!).

When Deb Haaland was a child, she would rise early on this state's sun-beaten tribal land, sling a water jar around her waist and climb the mesa overlooking her pueblo.

It was as high as she ever thought she would go.

Now, she is among a historic number of Native American women running for elective office.  None has ever served in Congress, but that could change this year if Ms. Haaland wins.

In all, there are at least four indigenous women running for Congress, three more are bidding for governors' offices and another 31 are campaigning for seats in state legislatures – from both sides of the aisle.

Actually, most of the women, and men, running for Congress are indigenous, if you also count whites, blacks, and most Hispanics.

On the campaign trail, she frequently cites her heritage[.]

What if Ms. Haaland were white and "frequently cited her heritage"?  Would the Times find that equally admirable?

Her priority in Congress, she said, would be to turn New Mexico into a solar energy powerhouse[.]

This is the top priority of American Indian women?  Solar power subsidies for politically connected companies?  If you talk to women on reservations, is the first thought that pops into their heads "We need more solar power"?

The main criticism of Ms. Haaland is that she is concealing a lack of policy depth by focusing on the historic nature of her candidacy[.]

Trump has nominated a woman to be director of the CIA.  Do the media also focus on the "historic nature" of her candidacy?

Probably not.

Exit question: By this logic, if you are a white person with a non-white congressman, a man with a female congressman, or a woman with a male congressman, how can you ever possibly be well represented, unless the skin color and reproductive organs of your congressman match your own?  Or does identity politics matter only if you're a non-white male?

Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.

Image: Chris Parfitt via Flickr.