Probably more like 10 years, but no biggie. However, I’m not aware of any documentation. In fact, that was the problem-- there was “family lore”, but no historical documentation. Did I miss something?
If this does hurt her politically or if it was a mistake politically, it should well be noted and learned from. To any others thinking of wrestling with a Pig, keep the lesson in mind. Pigs love shit and mud all over them.
She has Native American blood, as she claimed. Trump is a Pig.
I actually agree with you!
People love scandals, not qualifications or ideals of a potential candidate. Any plan or speech show comes up with for a run for president will be shaded by all this nonsense.
she only has 1 advantage over Hillary - the GOP has not been bashing her since 1992.
I have to notice that while there are many agreeing with this being a slight political error, there are many; even conservatives, that notice as well that: Trump **is **a pig.
At least is good to remember that when going to vote against republican congress critters that will only do the three monkey act when confronted with anything ugly that the orange pork bellied guy is doing, if they get into power again.
That will depend upon how well her race for re-election to the Senate goes. The latest polls give her about a 56% to 28% lead but that was before the DNA test result story broke. If Warren’s handling of this issue causes her numbers to slide and she ends up eking out a victory over an opponent who was considered to have no chance, she won’t run.
There’s no way that any one flub could cause that much of a slide.
It was a lose-lose situation anyway.
I guess she was thinking of Obama putting out his birth certificate in 2012 , but one big difference is that was pretty cut and dried . (except for the wackos who still insist it was fake)
But even that disclosure didn’t shut Trump up. He just used the momentum from the story for his run in 2016 (and we all know how that turned out). Likewise, Trump just dismissed Warren’s DNA results as “fake news” and resumed calling her “Pocahontas”. Why? Because it works. It’s ad hominem politics at it’s most effective. It makes the messenger seem silly so her message will seem silly as well.
And if she publicly called Trump a Pig the outcry from the suddenly sensitive Right would be loud.
“Did you hear what Pocahontas said? She called our genius a Pig!!”
One bigger difference is that Obama was sitting comfortably in the WH in 2012.
I can name a few more advantages:[ul][li]Her reputation is her own, not piggybacked on a spouse. She actually divorced her first husband and father of her children.[/li][li]She seems to actively, seriously care about the common man, and doesn’t seem to throw constituencies under the bus.[/li][li]She’s actually running against corruption rather than appearing to profit from it.[/li][/ul]She’s very unlike HRC.
She didn’t know it was true and never claimed it was, only that it was family lore. The snickering lie “She claimed she was an Indian!” is no more true than “Al Gore said he invented the Internet!”. But, haters gonna hate, and if they don’t have a good pretext, they’ll make one up.
That’s misleading. The laws of the Oklahoma Cherokee, the tribe in question:
Other tribes do have a quantum, a minimum number on the federal Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood, but the Cherokee do not.
But again, she never claimed to be an Indian, and certainly never claimed to be recognized by the Cherokee as one of their legal members.
The worse way she is unlike HRC is that she comes off as weak. Seriously, look at any other past and present female world leaders - Merkel, May, Thatcher - I’d piss my pants if I had to debate against one of them.
Is this in fact true?
A CNN article I just read, claims “Harvard Law School in the 1990s touted Warren, then a professor in Cambridge, as being “Native American.” They singled her out, Warren later acknowledged, because she had listed herself as a minority in an Association of American Law Schools directory.”
If this is true, she would have to have claimed that she was Native at some point in the past. Nobody who compiled lists of faculty members or classified them in any way would ever have put Warren into the “minority” or “Native American” category if they had not been directly informed that she had that ancestry, because there isn’t anything about either her appearance or her name that suggests it.
Maybe she never actually said the words “I am an Indian” or “I am a Native American” but it seems to me she tried to at least imply that she was. I know this seems like hair-splitting, but that’s just par for the course with the political game.
I’ll say it again: Trump won this round.
The smart thing for Warren to do would have been to downplay what she said and calibrate it a bit. She could have ‘clarified’: "Well I obviously never meant that I belonged to a native tribe, just that, like many Americans, it’s in my DNA and it’s a reminder that we’re all more closely related than we might realize.’
Instead, she took Trump’s bait. Trump framed her, and she allowed it to happen. She got caught up in his trolling, and let’s face it: now she’s in the kitchen making Trump a sandwich.
At times you seem to be the only person on the board who seems to understand how this works. I can’t say I agree with many of your views, but you know how the game is played.
At Harvard, she claimed she was Cherokee and was acknowledged as a “minority” in Harvard publications and in their accounting for their diversity goals.
The Cherokee adopted people not originally from the tribe, and not even NA, so you could be on the Dawes Rolls without being NA. As I noted, it would be unusual, but it is possible, especially since the Dawes Rolls date only to the early 20th century.
But I wasn’t speaking specifically about Cherokees, especially since we don’t know if Warren’s ancestor was a Cherokee in the first place. My post is only “misleading” because you chopped it up. Here is what I actually wrote, in full:
Not true. As per my earlier post, we don’t really know that she even claimed to be Native American. But if you have a primary cite, it would be interesting to see it.