Someone at the NY Times has a serious girl-crush on Elizabeth Warren

Can I intersperse a "who the fuck cares?" in here somewhere?

Obsessing over this stupid shit is one of a million things wrong with our political process.

 

YankeeFan is tremendously concerned.

He will, however, be voting for her because of her courageous support of gay marriage in the face of The Coward Scott Brown.

 

It's a perfectly valid 'character issue' if Elizabeth Warren lied about or embellished her personal history to advance herself.

 

Ding, ding, we have a winner!

As Black Dude pointed out in his first sentence, it's surprising that this hasn't gained more traction with voters. Actually it's not. When voters are worried more about their jobs, the economy and their health care, they're not going to care if a candidate is 1/32 Cherokee or 1/32 Martian.

 

I disagree. It has nothing to do with her ability to govern. And moreover, it is not something that has relevance to the present.

I'm so tired of "skeleton in the closet" politics. It's stupid and a waste of time. And that goes for both parties.

 

When I say "skeleton in the closet" politics, I mean those "gotcha!" moments that happened when a candidate was out of political office. Bill Clinton smoking pot, Mitt Romney hazing someone in 196-fucking-5, etc.

If you did something illegal or said something damaging while holding office, that's different, but "character issues" based on something that happened off the political grid years and years ago just shouldn't amount to jack shit.

 

Did Warren kick people of their homes? It seems to be close to what Howie Carr is suggesting. Scott Brown has to be a bit careful, especially if there are things about him that haven't been dug up yet.

 

As an academic I think it's a legitimate issue in that it shines some serious light on certain facets of how "diversity" plays in higher education, particularly at elite institutions. As I would anticipate that Ms. Warren is perfectly/largely in support of these efforts, I believe that pointing out the messy details is entirely appropriate.

 

College administrators love to trumpet "diversity", but don't get me started on colleges succeeding despite what administrators do.

 

That's great for academia, but is has little to fuck all to do with being a political candidate.

 

I think you're completely correct as regards, say, taxation or entitlement reform or foreign policy. But I disagree with the notion that it says nothing about her as a political candidate, because it reflects, however imperfectly, her understanding about the way things work and the way they should work.

 

This figures to be one helluva tight race, and I'm not interested in prognosticating it right now, but I'd pay to see Carr's face IF/when the networks call that race for Warren . . .