Elizabeth Warren has some native-American DNA after all

The Cherokee Nation is not an ethnicity, it's a political entity. Every single Cherokee who stayed behind in the East through pretending they were white ensured that they and all of their descendants could never again be counted as members of the Cherokee Nation. That was a political choice then, and the definition of membership today remains a political choice.

Really?

By Roman
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 10:49am

Your defense is that the Indian Tribes explicitly recognized as quasi-sovereign ethnostates in the original Constitution are not *really* ethnicities?

Should I write slower?

By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 12:50pm

Ethnicity and citizenship are different things. You're from what again, Bootlickistan? So ethnically you're Bootlicki, but you are a citizen of a country called America. Your kids won't be citizens of Bootlickistan even if some unfortunate Bootlicki woman marries you and procreates, making a passel of little mewling Bootlickis.

In the case of Native American tribes, history is very specific and complicated. Once upon a time it was of great benefit to individuals of Native American descent to pretend to be entirely white. Many of us whose antecedents were in this country a few hundred years ago, especially in the area of the Carolinas, can count such people in our family trees. The Cherokees of Oklahoma are distinct, because they've paid their dues for a hundred and fifty years.

Nowadays it's possible to be a benefit to someone to be defined as Native American, because some Native American tribes (hello casinos!) have figured out how to make big money off the fact, and they'd like to share that money with fewer people, and because some federal contracts are steered towards people who claim Native American identity. If you want to understand how that works, look into the matter of Vortex Construction.

Most Americans don't claim to be Native American, or even part Native American, even if we are. That's because being Native American is a political matter as well as an ethnic matter. It was unbecoming and incorrect for Sen. Warren to list herself as Native American in that survey so long ago, and she should work harder to clarify what it means to be Native American today.

only tribes determine tribal citizenship

By anon
Fri, 10/19/2018 - 8:25am

"I'm not enrolled in a tribe and only tribes determine tribal citizenship"- Elizabeth "Betsy" Warren

Watch: Elizabeth Warren's family story

Hey, we agree!

By Roman
Tue, 10/23/2018 - 2:09pm

All you have to do to understand how

By MC Slim JB
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 9:39am

the right will respond to this news is read the comments section on that Herald piece. "It's fake, it's too small, she still used it unfairly to her advantage", and so on. Right-wing morons will continue to believe right-wing lies: the facts do not matter.

As a rule, I advise against reading the comments of Herald readers, unless you want to convinced that the human race is hopelessly doomed by its own pig-ignorance, childishness and bigotry.

Fairness Due

By MrDines
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:22am

But, the Globe's comment section aint no fountain of glowing dignity, either.

Media Congratulates Trump for Spreading Lie About Sen. Warren

By anon
Fri, 10/19/2018 - 8:32am

nymag:

Media Congratulates Trump for Spreading Lie About Elizabeth Warren

The accusation implied by the nickname is that Warren falsified Native American heritage to advance her career in academia. Warren has said she has been told by her family that she has part Cherokee descent, and has listed that designation at times. This week, she released the result of a DNA test trying to ascertain whether that family lore is correct. The test suggested she probably did have a Cherokee ancestor six to ten generations ago. Conservatives claimed this proved she had less Native American ancestry than the average person, and the conclusion spread virally through conservative media, although it was false.

"although it was false"

this is going viral in conservative media. THIS IS WRONG. this is an apples-to-oranges comparison (different methods). the comparison % isn't even right from the white-paper!!! she's almost certainly more native american than average white american. https://t.co/0EWM1govEv

— Razib Khan (@razibkhan) October 15, 2018

Razib Khan: Geneticist by day. Also history, evolution, books, etc. Tweets only represent me. Pay me for my emotional labor Austin, TX

The difference between Trump and Warren

By Stevil
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:30pm

Trump is a right wing populist that promotes policy to get votes that he knows are bad or is too dumb to know are bad

Warren is a left wing populist that promotes policy to get votes that she knows are bad and is too smart to say otherwise

This progressive crap is just another word for socialism - and as Maggie Thatcher used to say - it all sounds wonderful until you run out of other people's money.

Basically a vote for Warren is a vote for the other side of the paper and more divisive politics.

Want a female Democratic pragmatist for president that would do a much better job - get Gina Raimondo from RI to run - sadly coming from such a small state it would be hard for her to get traction - but one can hope.

Please, please, please - find me a moderate Democrat to run for president and get this idiot out of the White House!

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!

By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:35pm

OMG SOCIALISM!!!

RUN! RUN AWAY!

Your hyperbole is ridiculous. Your greed is obvious.

Says the person...

By Stevil
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:16pm

That has already run out of their own money.

Not so

By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 2:24pm

I have plenty of money. Retired early, even.

Still not buying your bullshit.

So you're greedy then...

By Stevil
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:20pm

Since you've hoarded plenty of money. Not very socialist of you. Rather armchair liberal in fact.

Also

By Anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:38pm

Majority thrives and minority gets completely, absolutely, irreversibly screwed under fascism (see pre-WWII Germany.). Under communism, minority thrives and majority gets royally screwed (see USSR, Cuba, Nort Korea, etc.) When given the choice of the two which is exactly where we’re headed now that fringe lunatics from both ends of the political spectrum are screaming the loudest, where do you think we’ll end up?

Civil War?

By Stevil
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:26pm

And three countries - the west coast, the east coast and middle America?

Frightening thought - but it seems that's where we're headed.

Actually...

By lbb
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:28pm

...the majority DIDN'T thrive in pre-WWII Germany. Rationing was in place before the outbreak of the war: food, clothing and soap. Hitler was an idiot with regard to the economy as he was with regard to nearly everything else.

the rules

By SC from JP
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 9:40am

It's so great that one side can refuse to release tax returns (and pays no price) while the other side is expected to put their birth certificates and literal fucking DNA tests out there.

Maybe Trump can get a

By Dave
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:46am

Maybe Trump can get a friendly newspaper to claim that Trump has released his tax returns to them.

[img]https://www.tonyrogers.com/humor/images/kerry_foot...

"Correction: Due to a math error,
a story about Elizabeth Warren
misstated the ancestry percentage
of a potential 10th generation relative.
It should be 1/1,024."

Except there is NO law or rule

By roadman
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:22am

mandating that anyone release their tax returns for viewing (and inevitable misinterpretation) by the public and the media. Rather, release of tax returns - much like Warren's DNA test - is another pointless sideshow designed to deflect attention from the work our politicians are supposed to be doing but aren't.

I'm sorry, WHAT'S the distraction?

By lbb
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:30pm

Warren's DNA test - is another pointless sideshow

I'm sorry, WHAT'S the distraction? If Herr Trump and his surrogates hadn't relentlessly blown this dog whistle, there wouldn't have been any DNA test.

So yer saying...

By Stevil
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:18pm

Lizzie is Donnie's dog?

Scott Brown's campaign mgr Jim Barnett--6 yrs of racist drivel

By anon
Fri, 10/19/2018 - 9:03am

huffingtonpost:

Jim Barnett: Scott Brown’s Karl Rove

Barnett has served as the driving force behind Scott Brown’s classically sleazy Rove-style attacks on Warren’s qualifications and heritage. Rather than focusing on issues that actually matter to voters or the future of the country, Barnett has sent one vitriolic statement after another, and called press conferences to call Warren’s family liars for citing their Native American heritage.

snopes:

Did Elizabeth Warren Lie About Her Native American Heritage to Land a Job at Harvard?
[img]https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploa...
Elizabeth Warren

doesn't live in a mansion valued at several million dollars.

didn't make false claims of Native American heritage to gain an edge over other candidates for a job at Harvard? Watch

did not draw a large salary for teaching only one class.

does argue the system is rigged to benefit the rich (and wants the government to require livable wages, build ladders for the poor and the middle class to opportunity and financially secure retirements)

I'm sorry, but there's a huge difference...

By bibliotequetres...
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 4:49pm

... which is exactly why the media has asked for presidential candidates in the general election to release their tax returns, but has not asked them to submit DNA tests.

Here is a partial list of what can be learned from tax returns:

1) What the candidate's approximate income is, as this helps form his world view.

2) Broadly, the sources of income, including direct payments for work contracted, debt carried over, certain types of loans, etc. All of these disclose potential conflicts of interest and ethical vulnerabilities. They also shed light on his work history & life experiences.

3) Verification of prior statements about earnings, capital holdings, and wealth; this can reveal whether or not the candidate has been honest.

4) Whether or not the candidate has made errors, the size & significance of those errors, and how quickly they were rectified. After all, it is the responsibility of the president to submit the budget to the House and Senate, and while the heavy lifting is done by OPM, a baseline of financial competence is not too much to expect.

5) If the candidate's share of responsibility for the common defense & general welfare that he has paid is in line with others in his income bracket, and how it compares to his greater constituency.

There are few experiences that almost all American adults share. Filing taxes is one of them. As such, it's a reasonable benchmark to use.

In the unlikely event the tightwad pays up ...

By adamg
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 9:43am

NIWRC is a nonprofit working to protect Native women from violence. More than half of all Native women have experienced sexual violence, and the majority of violent crimes against Native Americans are perpetrated by non-Natives.

Send them your $1M check, @realDonaldTrump.

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) October 15, 2018

It's almost like

By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 9:51am

She was telling the truth the whole time.

So hard to process...

Somewhat exaggerated truth.

By Refugee
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:16am

Somewhat exaggerated truth. 1/256th is awfully dilute. Is that enough?

But I think the root of the problem is that she must have started coloring her hair a long time ago. If she kept her hair dark instead of golden then nobody would have blinked an eye.

Warren is descended from a

By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:19am

Warren is descended from a Native American. It is now scientifically proven, so yes that is enough. Facts matter.

Calculated Political move.....

By Pete Nice
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 8:13am

Doing this test and making it public was a political move that was well thought out and will most likely backfire. The bottom line is she is a white woman who more likely than not marked off on an application that she was Native American and those institutions she worked had listed her as a person of color in their HR stats.

In an election this will crush her and the move here appears to have backfired. Don't think she will get out of the Dem race in 2020 if she goes in....

So, no it isn't enough.

So if I understand correctly...

By erik g
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 9:46am

Failing to perfectly word the statement "one of my grandparents claimed Native American heritage": electoral suicide

Literally a neverending deluge of outright lies, corruption, incompetence, treasonous conduct with foreign governments, and malicious treatment of every minority known to man, and from the current president: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

See my comment above

By Stevil
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 10:10am

Merely different sides of the same sheet of paper.

Yes.

By Pete Nice
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 10:57am

But we aren't talking about making statements about grandmothers. We are talking about checking off boxes for affirmative action purposes. That is a political issue.

You can shake your head, but both sides need to take different approaches. This issue is going to hound her unless she is able to address it honestly and even then it might not work for her.

Hey Pete

By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 12:56pm

Did you ever work for Harvard?

I did. I filled out that survey about 20 years ago.

Those boxes you speak of are boxes that are checked off AFTER you are hired, not before. They have to do with assessing the composition of the current workforce, not affirmative action.

I actually worked part time for Harvard for 2 years.

By Pete Nice
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 1:36pm

(and about 6 other colleges) Never filled out a survey but....

It is the perception. I'm not saying why she did it or for what reason, but checking it off at any point puts you in a better position in the future if you want to further yourself. I am not saying that is why she did it or if it would even help her. But it is all the same when it comes to perception.

Perception is a strange thing

By Roman
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 2:32pm

About fifteen years ago, I had the minor misfortune of getting mixed up in some internal politics of student services at Chicken Scratch Tech, which despite the name is actually a highly ranked university.

The particular department I had dealings with was a place where being openly gay or transgendered helped you climb that particular corporate ladder. My evidence for this? A whole lot of the middle and upper management and workforce in this department was openly gay and the head of the department, with whom I had many discussions completely unrelated to the issue of gender or sexuality or ethnicity would occasionally go off on a well-mannered and eloquent digression about the beauty of the LGBTQQA ('queer/questioning/ally' in the parlance of the time) activism on campus.

He was a heterosexual white male with a wife and kids. I don't know if he actually believed any of it or if he was just virtue-signalling with all his might to maintain the respect of his subordinates and to stay in the good graces of his superiors. But the overall culture of the place was that if you weren't conspicuously doing LGBT activism in your spare time, you weren't going with the flow.

Some women I knew who worked there that were straight and married. But if you didn't know them, the way they carried themselves and dressed and cut their hair, you'd tacitly assume they were lesbians.

There's nothing I particularly object to about nearly all of those people. I was friendly with most of them and they did good work, but in retrospect, I'd bet some of them were faking it, if just a little. Not that they were secret members of the Westboro Baptist Church, but more that they probably didn't have strong feelings one way or the other, but weren't above faking a little heartfelt activism to mesh with the culture of the place better.

Different survey

By Stevil
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 3:54pm

There is a law professor at Cornell that was on Dan Rea last night. Very balanced approach and he says straight up - until/unless Warren's hiring records are released (don't hold your breath - Harvard isn't going to do that as a matter of policy) - we don't really have enough information to know if her position as a "woman of color" got her any preferential hiring treatment.

HOWEVER, filing out this form did get Warren on certain lists and she was declared a "woman of color" which made her a highly desirable target for hiring. Impossible to tell if this had anything to do with here getting hired but two interesting coincidences:

1) My understanding is that she was the only faculty member that did not attend an Ivy League law school. Something - not her academic pedigree - got her on the hiring list and ultimately to the top of the list - in exception to every other recent hire (I have heard this but did not read the article myself, so if you have other info - I will be happily corrected).

2) According to the guest on the radio, immediately upon qualifying for tenure, she removed her name from the list identifying her as a "woman of color".

Smoke, no fire - but certainly raises more than eyebrows.

There's never fire

By Roman
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 4:29pm

That's the point. It goes little-by-little.

There was plenty of smoke in the 1760s when Benjamin Franklin proposed a separate colonial parliament. Independent, but still loyal to the crown, so no fire.

False that Warren enjoyed an affirmative action advantage

By anon
Fri, 10/19/2018 - 10:32am

"Her name with respect to racial minority hiring? No, never."-Randy Kennedy, Harvard Law School watch

WBUR:

Harvard: Warren Got Job Only On Merits As Teacher
May 7, 2012

A Harvard Law School professor and former Reagan administration official is calling "false" and "complete nonsense" any suggestion that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed an affirmative action advantage in her hiring as a full professor.

Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, who served as U.S. Solicitor General under President Reagan, said the Democratic Senate candidate was recruited to be a tenured professor because she was preeminent in the fields of bankruptcy and commercial law.

Fried, a member of the appointments committee that reviewed Warren, said the subject of her Native American ancestry was never mentioned.

Fried said the notion that Warren "attained her position and maintains her reputation on anything other than her evident merit is complete nonsense."

State Republican Party Chairman Bob Maginn had asked Harvard to review Warren's hiring.

Claiming Native American

By anon
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 9:56am

Claiming Native American ancestry did not advance Senator Warren's career in any way shape or form: FACT. The nasty anti-Native American rhetoric coming from Trump and his supporters makes right-wingers look stupid, arrogant and ignorant. Just stop.

Not really a fact, but you can believe it....

By Pete Nice
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 12:54pm

It could be true, it might not be. But not a fact by any means.

She didn't lie

By BostonDog
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:23am

She never said she was 50% native. She said her parents told her she had distant native ancestry. Her parents were correct.

It's all stupid. No one should give a shit about something as meaningless as someone's heritage as it relates to their ability to govern or be a good citizen.

No, but...

By bosguy22
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:06am

She said it was known her mother was of Cherokee heritage...that's why her parents were forced to elope. I'm not sure a woman with1/1024th N.A. blood, 10 generations back of being a Native American is enough for anyone to object to their son marrying her.

There's also the pesky fact that they didn't actually test her DNA against actual Native American blood, but blood from those of Mexican/Central American ancestry. So, she's either 1/52nd-1/1024th Native American, or 1/52nd- 1/1024th Mexican/Central American, but hey, strong chance.

Edit: I did mean elope, not adopt.

Blood

By BostonDog
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:34am

The scientists don't have a large sample of Native DNA since many N.A. object to being taking advantage of in this way. Yet, SURPRISE, that's exactly what's happening by both political parties.

Ah, that makes sense!

By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 9:46pm

I have an identified ancestor.

Every time I log into 23 and Me, the %Native estimate increases. Now I know why: more samples mean more identified markers that match my genome.

Explains a mystery for me!

One of many, the latest of which was a daughter of my father's first cousin who was adopted out because her mother was very young and unmarried at the time. Thing is, she is a second cousin but she matched very strongly - high end of first cousin. Segment analysis indicates that she is also likely to be related to my mother. Sheds some light on the search for her father.

Oh you card

By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 12:51pm

Always with the trailer park tales!

Great fun with kin

By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 1:00pm

Shootin at cans, swillin beer, and explaining what all the genetic stuff means.

Great times!

Hopefully this works

By Stevil
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 1:39pm

Don't know the embedding trick - so here's a link to I'm my own grandpa by Ray Stevens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw

Quite funny

I think

By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:52am

You mean "elope," not "adopt."

Warren's parents got married in 1932. Do you know what prejudice was like in rural America in 1932? Seriously, people were trying their damnedest to look as white as they could, and even a rumor of being not entirely white was a big scandal.

It's a matter of record they got married in a different town, in a parsonage rather than a church, and with nobody in attendance. Maybe they had another reason to elope, I don't know.

I do know that Warren said she had a very small amount of Native American blood, from a great-grandmother or some such, and it looks like a scientific process conducted by a reputable expert upheld that assertion.

How far would you like the goalposts moved?

Goalposts moved?

By bosguy22
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:09am

She specifically said her parents were forced to elope because her father's parents objected to their son marrying a Cherokee. Her mother "may" have Native American blood from her great, great, great, great, great, great. great, great, grandmother. That is NOT enough for anyone to object to a wedding even if it is true. It's not me moving the goalposts.

Where you there?

By BostonDog
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:13am

If not, how do you know what her family was or wasn't thinking in 1932?

Were you?

By bosguy22
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:15am

The NY Times stated the average "white" American has .18% Native American blood...which is double what this test showed. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/science/23andme...

She lied about that story. Deal with it.

Where's the lie?

By BostonDog
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:23am

She said her parents told her she had native ancestry. The tests confirm that.

Give it a break, bosguy22..

By whyaduck
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:55pm

you lost. You can deny all you want (and you probably will).

Hey, here is a thought. You seem to like finding politicians that do not tell the truth and calling them out on it. May I suggest a new venue:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/w...

Have fun!

Lost what?

By bosguy22
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:06pm

Nothing in that test proves she has native american blood. It says on the high side, there's a 2% chance she has some South American blood and those South Americans MAYBE were Native American. It also says she has less native american blood than the average white american.

She was 100% lying when she identified as a Native American, and when she told the bullshit story about her parents having to elope because "her mom was part Cherokee".

https://twitter.com/RightHook99/status/10518750502...

Just stop

By lbb
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:35pm

Nothing in that test proves she has native american blood

Dude, just stop. You're a counterfactual nutjob just like your fuehrer. You need to go play with your toys or something; you have no business in a discussion with grownups who accept facts.

Hang up, caller

By Kaz
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 2:37pm

there's a 2% chance she has some South American blood

That's not what it says at all. What a DNA scan like this "says" is that she has a number of markers that are in a consistent pattern that you only find in certain sub-populations of humans, in this case that subpopulation is Native American (you can't draw a distinction between "Central American" or "South American" or "American Indian/North American" because in many ways those sub-populations were heavily intertwined and we have no way of distinguishing between their sub-sub-populations with differing patterns in DNA at this time. So, "Native American" is the sub-population.

So, she has patterns only found in that sub-population...that's not a "2% chance"...it's a 100% chance. She has them...there's no chance involved.

Now, how many patterns does she have that are specifically found in the sub-population and not in others? The more of the patterns we know are distinct to that sub-population, the more recent the ancestry because other patterns haven't had a chance to replace them in your generation. She has enough of these specific patterns to narrow it down to about 6-10 generations ago. That also doesn't mean there's a 1 in 1024 chance she has Native American ancestry. It just means that 150-200 years ago, one of her family's ancestors was Native American. And that *could* mean that just 3-4 generations ago, around the Civil War, her great-grandmother married someone who themselves was 1/8th Native American (enough to scare the white people). And that kind of stain could last on a family for generations around the right group of prejudiced neighborhood busybodies. And even if the stain had worn away and people moved on and attitudes changed, there'd still be the story of how they were treated because of their heritage within the family.

I'm 1/8th Lebanese (which was still a part of Syria at the time). I don't look it. My relatives were even the "good" Christian Syrians, so they dealt with far less abuse in America. But I know their stories of coming here and cook the food and so will my family's next generation. And hopefully in 50 years, our descendants will say "we're definitely part Lebanese...let me tell you about how your ancestor came here on a boat...". And hopefully, nobody's going to question them on it or call them "Aladdin" or some racist Middle Eastern moniker just because my family knows where it came from years later.

Globe updated their story with the correct #

By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:37pm

She's 1/1024th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back.

Not exactly

By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:30pm

There was a range of values - which makes sense given the variance in heredity experienced by humans.

No surprise

By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:01am

Many in the US do and many people have no idea that they do because ... RACISM.

Some of us were lucky enough to have reliable family stories about this ... others had it buried and hidden.

Warren

By Bugs Bunny
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:12am

If it was 1/4 indian i'd be impressed. "Strong evidence"? Not definitive to me.

Do you know what scientific evidence is?

By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:38pm

Obviously not.

Bunker Hill Community College has some excellent entry level courses. You might find them helpful and informative.

Her parents told her

By anon
Fri, 10/19/2018 - 11:00am

Warren was told by her parents that her parents eloped because her father's family didn't want him marrying a woman who was part Native American.

My family has a similar story less the elopement. My Native American heritage is supposed to be on my father's mothers side. I have no reason to disbelieve them. I can't imagine why anyone in my father's family would falsely claim native American ancestry. Dad was born in 1923.

Warren took the test and got some evidence that substantiated what her parents told her. Nowhere in that loop is Warren lying even if the test came back 0% Native American, which it didn't.

As to the claim of affirmative action fraud, how could she have known she wasn't what her parents told her she was? Beyond that, two Harvard law professors say ethnic heritage was not a consideration in hiring her. So too did law profs at Penn, UT Austin and Univ. of Houston.

Boston Globe found no evidence affirmative action was a consideration in her hiring either.

Interesting link

By Waquiot
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:16am

I mean, the Globe put the story right below the masthead on the front page, and the AP story that the Herald posted referenced the Globe story, but whatever.

That said, the Herald did highlight a politician on the front page today. For those who don't want to take a look, the headline was "Hill Says Bill's Affair with Lewinsky not an Abuse of Power," with "#MeToo, but not Her!" in larger type below it. This is a reference to an interview the former Secretary of State gave to Meet the Press yesterday.

The two papers have two different political slants, and today is a classic example. Perhaps this is another good reason why we should be happy that we live in a two newspaper town.

One is current, the other is meaningless

By BostonDog
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:26am

Clinton's scandals are now 20+ years old. Hillary Clinton lost an election two years ago and isn't running again. She could think Bill descended from mole people for all it matters.

At least Warren is a current Senator, currently up for election in a few weeks.

Is it meaningless?

By Waquiot
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:37am

I mean, after Nixon resigned, he was an outcast in his own party, though he did have a decent post-Presidency career writing foreign policy books.

On the other hand, the Clintons are still the ultimate insiders in the Democratic Party. They campaign for candidates. They are newsmakers and king (or queen) makers. Six years after being impeached, Clinton was the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. If the Clintons didn't matter, Hillary would not have been on Meet the Press yesterday.

I will concede that the Warren story has more currency, but it also didn't appear in today's print edition of the Herald. The Globe's Warren story is being cited by the Washington Post, who also noted the Clinton interview.

So...

By lbb
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:40pm

the Clintons are still the ultimate insiders in the Democratic Party. They campaign for candidates. They are newsmakers and king (or queen) makers. Six years after being impeached, Clinton was the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. If the Clintons didn't matter, Hillary would not have been on Meet the Press yesterday.

I'm not sure you understand -- like, in the tiniest degree -- how the media works, or how they decide who appears on Meet the Press. In fact, based on that laughable statement, I'm pretty sure you have no idea how the media works at all (hint: their decisions for subjects have a lot to do with what gets people like you going). As for the Democratic Party, I'm going to take a wild guess that you are not, in fact, involved in the least way with Democratic Party politics, and don't have the least idea what you're talking about -- but if you don't like the Clintons' influence (or what you erroneously believe it to be), you're free to join the party and change that. I predict you'll quickly realize just how ridiculous your statements are.

I don't watch the Sunday morning shows

By Waquiot
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 2:13pm

And I've been a Democrat since 1989. I've had a Clinton on my ballot 4 times in the Presidential primary and avoided that stink all 4 times.

That said, Monica Lewinsky was disinvited from an event this year because Bill Clinton was also going to be there. The Clinton couple are also going on a major tour this year. Sounds like the Clintons are still very much in the public eye.

But hey, remember when Hillary Clinton was basically funding the DNC. Man, it seems like years ago, but it was only two. I mean, unless you are calling Donna Brazile a liar.

And...

By lbb
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:18pm

And I've been a Democrat since 1989. I've had a Clinton on my ballot 4 times in the Presidential primary and avoided that stink all 4 times.

Hurray for you! But that in no way means being involved in Democratic Party politics. What a shame you don't get the distinction! If you did, you might be able to do something about that Clinton on your ballot.

That said, Monica Lewinsky was disinvited from an event this year because Bill Clinton was also going to be there. The Clinton couple are also going on a major tour this year. Sounds like the Clintons are still very much in the public eye.

So's Kanye West. Your point was?

But hey, remember when Hillary Clinton was basically funding the DNC. Man, it seems like years ago, but it was only two. I mean, unless you are calling Donna Brazile a liar.

I don't know how to explain this to you, but this WAS two years ago. Had it resulted in a win, things might have been different.

Let's circle this back around

By Waquiot
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:29pm

Despite your protestations, the Clintons and Elizabeth Warren are amongst the best known of Democratic politicians. Both the Globe and Herald ran stories about them today.

Can we at least agree on that?

Elizabeth Warren has some native-American DNA after all

Comments

Pages

Add comment

Plain text

Support Universal Hub