This morning three different law professors sent me this video of U.S. Senate Candidate and Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren claiming to be the first nursing mother to ever take the bar exam. One of the professors, who is a liberal academic, noted that she knows that claim to be untrue from personal experience. However, as noted by Winnie Comfort of the New Jersey Judiciary (which administers state’s bar exam), the bar does not track nursing habits and women have been taking the New Jersey bar exam since 1895. This was not a claim to be a nursing Cherokee mother, but the question remains why Warren is making such controversial boasts when she has a great financial expertise record to run on. Worse still, Warren today admitted that she did in fact claim minority status at Penn and Harvard — after insisting that she was unaware of the claims.
Obviously, the running of a law professor has made the Warren race a focus of law professors around the country. With these issues becoming part of the campaign, that fascination has grown to unprecedented levels. Warren has enjoyed overwhelming support in the academy from what I have seen. That support remains strong, though law professors are still chattering about these controversies.
These distractions however cannot be simply blamed on conservative publications, which are running the stories. Warren does not need such claims to distinguish herself. It could not come at a worse time when she has been unable to support her claim to be Cherokee In one of the most bizarre twists on the story, there are now accounts that great-great-great grandfather may have been a member of the Tennessee Militia who rounded up Cherokees and pushed them into the horrific Trail of Tears. Of course, even if true, that would not alter the fact that his wife was a Cherokee. However, the Boston Globe has confirmed that there is no documentation to support the claim.
With today’s admission that she did in fact repeatedly claim minority status at both law schools, I am again left perplexed why she would take so long to admit her claim. As I noted earlier, I could not imagine any way that such a claim, let alone repeated claims, unless it was made by the law professor.
On the merits, there is significant doubt about the claim. Warren’s bio lists her as becoming pregnant in 1976 before graduating from law school. By that point, the chances that she was the first woman to be a nursing mother during the bar seems doubtful, but more importantly it is not clear how she would know.
Once again, this is not an issue of importance, but it is one that Warren raised. While the claim of being a minority does have significant aspects for law schools and academics, nursing is not a matter that seems particularly relevant. However, what is fascinating is that I would have been impressed with Warren noting that she nursed during the bar exam – reflecting the challenges of female lawyers. No need to be first. I was trying not to hyperventilate at the time. I would be impressed even if she was the latest in a long line of nursing mothers during bar exams.
Nevertheless, she still looks good in comparison to 13 Senatorial candidates who are now accused of having backgrounds that include criminal convictions or tax violations.
I wonder if any of our attorneys have accounts to share of challenges that they faced during the bar examination. I know of one professor who was caught in a broken elevator in a hotel during his break from the bar. I know of another lawyer who was under cancer treatment and had to leave to throw up from the medication (he passed).
Holder up there folks, when Obama learns how to follow the constitution then let those insults fly. He may have taught constitutional law, but he does a durn good job of finishing off what was left of it after it was pissed on by Bush.
@SwM
“http://www.telegram.com/article/20100105/NEWS/1050378 How about Brown’s defense of water boarding to start with? anon.”
Okay thank you, so that’s a start.
How did Brown’s defense compare to other Republicans? Was it merely representative of the genre or did he take the lead in some notable manner?
@Blouise
“… sticky going if one is attempting to trivialize female candidates.”
See, this is the kind of noxious shit that I think of when I think of feminist idiocy.
Is there any real evidence that Professor Turley trivializes female candidates? If so, why don’t you present it.
If not, do you have any idea of the harm you do to Turley and to feminists and to all humans when you spout such bullshit?
Stop being part of the problem.
bfm,
Do you remember Jayson Blair? Don’t believe everything you read in the newspaper.
SwM,
Ah, but Morgan/Chase loves ‘im and he doesn’t have lactating or Native-American-Birther issues … come on … get with the program!
Blouise, Yep. Look’s like Brown is an advocate of torture and many other unconstitutional measures.
SwM,
Yeah but Brown’s opponent during that race was also a woman who did not support torture and was often in favor of civilian over military trials … sticky going if one is attempting to trivialize female candidates.
Brown to co-sponsor terrorism bill
By Matt Viser, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON – Senator Scott Brown tomorrow is signing on to legislation that would strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship if they are found to have aided a foreign terrorist organization.
Brown is joining three other lawmakers in filing the legislation, which comes after Faisal Shehzad was accused of a plot to detonate a car bomb in Times Square on Saturday. Because the Pakistani-born Shehzad is a naturalized American citizen, he was read his Miranda rights and will be tried in a civilian court, rather than before a military tribunal.
@Matt
You can read the entire article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/what-elizabeth-warren-did-wrong/2012/05/31/gJQAou8S4U_blog.html
At this point, I don’t think it is even controversial that at one point she stated she did not know how Harvard list her with minority status. And now she is admitting she gave Harvard the information.
I think most people would consider that changing her story. Maybe you do not agree. But I think most people would consider that a big change. And I think it will also cause her some real problems with some people – let me guess – maybe Scott Brown supporters and maybe some who are undecided. Maybe not. But I am guessing she will be busy explaining how she could claim a few months ago that she did not know how she got minority status, and now she she remembers she gave Harvard the information.
Matt you are not the first one to tell me I am full of shit.
But I usually at least try to read the daily news paper before I take a verbal swing at some one.
It’s not like you have to be a Harvard professor to read widely distributed news reports and make yourself aware of what the candidates themselves are saying – that is what is coming out of the candidates own mouth.
So at the risk of being accused of making accusations against Elizabeth Warren let me summarize.
(1) There does not seem to be any controversy on the contrary it seems to be a widely acknowledged fact: Elizabeth Warren claimed not to know how Harvard received information to list her as minority.
(2) There does not seem to be any controversy. It seem that Elizabeth Warren, herself, admitted that she is the one who gave Harvard the information to list her as minority.
(3) It may not be fair. It may be a distraction. But I am going to guess that there are some who will try to make political capital out of this situation. I might be wrong.
(4) It is my personal belief that Elizabeth Warren could have handled the situation from a public relations point of view. I think this situation would have been a dead story months ago if Elizabeth Warren had only said something to the effect ‘I claimed minority status because I belief my family history warrants that status’.
(5) It remains to be seen how serious this situation will be for Elizabeth Warren.
(6) I have provided on reference to new reports regarding these events. I am sure those that are capable of reading these words can look further for news reports if they wish.
(7) if anyone really wants to delve further into this story and is having problems using Google please leave a note for me here and I will try to help.
“During the campaign, Brown repeatedly railed against criminal trials for terrorism suspects, took out a television ad opposing giving “rights to terrorists who want to harm us” and declared that he did not view water-boarding as torture. And in his nationally televised victory speech Tuesday night, the senator-elect seized on the issue again.” Politico
http://www.telegram.com/article/20100105/NEWS/1050378 How about Brown’s defense of water boarding to start with? anon.
JT:
“With today’s admission that she did in fact repeatedly claim minority status at both law schools, I am again left perplexed why she would take so long to admit her claim.”
*****************************
Perplexed? Really? It looks like the “Cookie Jar” corollary to me.
More clay feet from persons we would otherwise respect. It smelled from the outset and now the reckoning is coming.
“I have never seen a negative article on this blog about him.”
What has Brown done, or had done to him, that fits the typical pattern of issues that Professor Turley addresses?
Blouise , “the favorite son, Ron Paul”………..you made my blog day.
Swarthmore mom
Elaine, Because he is a good looking caucasian male that gets lots of contributions from JP Morgan. In other words, he is a member of the good old boys club. I have never seen a negative article on this blog about him.
—————————————————————————
Which is strange given Brown’s remarks about the favorite son, Ron Paul. 😉
As bettykath wisely pointed out … “Another triviality to try to marginalize a competent woman.”
Since her competency can not be denied, especially juxtaposed with Brown’s … lactating-Native-American-Birther trivialities are all they have to work with.
Boo! There goes a truly powerful woman. Be afraid, be deeply afraid!
I don’t think Elizabeth Warren lied. I think she just forgot what she filled in on the form, or even that there was a form to be filled in. It can happen. I signed a form that cost me $3000 or $5000 (I can’t even remember how much) two years later because I forgot that I signed the form!
bfm,
Once again, I have not made any allegations about Warren. What I said is that Warren has created problems for herself by the way she handled specific questions.
===========================================================
By saying she created problems for herself, you are making allegations. Prove it.
===========================================================
The WAPO reports that Warrens previously stated: “she had no previous knowledge of that fact […that she was listed in the directory as a minority] and had not authorized Harvard to list her as a minority”.
===========================================================
Provide the WAPO reports.
===========================================================
Now, in the same story the WAPO reports that Warren has stated: “At some point after I was hired by them, I … provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, Warren said in a statement to the Boston Globe. ”
===========================================================
Provide the WAPO reports and the Boston Globe report.
===========================================================
My point is not that Warren is a liar. My point is that her two statements give her opponents an opening to claim that she is changing her story.
===========================================================
If you want to claim she’s changing her story, the burden of proof is on you. Or are you too much of a pansy to leave it to what you refer to as her opponents?
===========================================================
Again, I believe if she had just been forthright and clear from the beginning this would not be an issue.
===========================================================
Prove that she wasn’t being forthright from the beginning. Again, that burden of proof is on you.
===========================================================
I think some, not all, but some of her problems are self inflicted because she did not give full answers and attempted to avoid certain issues. That is too bad because controversy over incomplete statements now seems to detract attention from the real issues of the campaign – such as economic policy, financial reform and regulation, consumer protection.
===========================================================
How do you know that she didn’t give full answers and attempted to avoid certain issues? Prove it.
==========================================================
Before you accuse me of saying things about Warren, perhaps you should read the Washington Post story that in places quotes Warren herself.
==========================================================
If you want to quote the Washington Post, do it yourself.
==========================================================
I think is pretty easy to document direct quotes from Warren.
==========================================================
Then do the documentation.
==========================================================
If the WAPO has mis-quoted Warren I am sure the campaign will quickly challenge the news reports by the Washington Post and other news
sources.
==========================================================
You’re full of shit.
@Matt
Here Matt. This is a part of the story that I found particularly relevant.
You can read the entire article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/what-elizabeth-warren-did-wrong/2012/05/31/gJQAou8S4U_blog.html
“At some point after I was hired by them, I … provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,” Warren said in a statement to the Boston Globe.
But, when the Boston Herald first reported on the fact that Warren was listed as a Native American in a faculty directory, she said that she had no previous knowledge of that fact and had not authorized Harvard to list her as a minority. Warren’s campaign has said she forgot some details of her past employment as a way to explain the discrepancy in her statements.
And, it’s clear from the Globe story that Warren’s hand was forced by the fact that the newspaper had found proof that, in their words, “the university’s law school began reporting a Native American female professor in federal statistics for the 1992-93 school year, the first year Warren worked at Harvard, as a visiting professor.”
While the Warren campaign will insist that is being consistent — that she has always said that she never told Harvard or Penn about her heritage before being hired or that it benefited her in any way — the optics of this back and forth are just terrible for her.
This could — and should — have been a minor nuisance for the campaign. No one is alleging that Warren used her minority status to get her jobs and it’s hard to imagine that in a campaign where the economy, jobs and debt are the overriding issues that whether Warren is Native American or not matters at all to voters.
But, Warren has turned a minor nuisance into a major storyline by not simply coming out with everything she knew — up to and including that she had formally told Harvard and Penn of her Native American heritage — about the whole episode right from the start.
“In Politics 101 you learn to get it all out and apologize on day one,” said one senior Democratic consultant who marveled at how the Warren campaign dealt with this episode. “‘Yep, I did it and I’m sorry.’ This has been handled amateurishly.”
By dragging out the story — the first Herald piece on it ran April 27! — Warren has turned it into, at the least, a distraction and, at the most, an issue to be used against her this fall.
Republicans — including Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown (R) — have been agitating for Warren to come clean on the story and now can say that they were right all along. They can can also use Warren’s obfuscation — whether purposeful or accidental — to cast her as exactly what she doesn’t want to be: a politician. Whether or not Warren meant to keep key tidbits of information away from public view, it can certainly be portrayed as though she did — and that she did so for political reasons. And that’s not good.
The last month speaks to the perils of being a first-time candidate in what is, without question, the marquee Senate race of the 2012 election. Warren has spent considerable time in the national spotlight — she headed up the Congressional hearings surrounding the spending of the funds in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and then helped found the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — but never as a candidate for elected office. It’s different — and harder.
Here’s an article from yesterday’s edition of The Boston Globe. Brian McGrory, the author of the piece, is critical of both Warren and Brown.
A miserable start to Mass. Senate race
http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-30/metro/31889092_1_senate-race-political-race-tom-menino
rafflaw,
“Who cares who was breastfeeding or not at the time of the Bar exam? This is a non-issue dredged up to make her look back. Why can’t the media stick to the real issues of the campaign?”
*****
Scott Brown doesn’t want to talk about the issues.
The media follow the lead on stories dredged up by the Karl Rove smear machine and company. It would take too much time and effort for members of the press/media to actually do some investigative work on issues of the greatest import, to write about Warren’s and Brown’s positions on those issues, to find out about Brown’s voting record in the US Senate and Massachusetts legislature, to write about what Warren accomplished when she served in the Obama Administration. Too many members of the press/media are feckless.
bfm,
Where is the documentation? Where is the proof? Who are the witnesses?
You are making allegations with no substantiation.
@Matt
Once again, I have not made any allegations about Warren. What I said is that Warren has created problems for herself by the way she handled specific questions.
The WAPO reports that Warrens previously stated: “she had no previous knowledge of that fact […that she was listed in the directory as a minority] and had not authorized Harvard to list her as a minority”.
Now, in the same story the WAPO reports that Warren has stated: “At some point after I was hired by them, I … provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, Warren said in a statement to the Boston Globe. ”
My point is not that Warren is a liar. My point is that her two statements give her opponents an opening to claim that she is changing her story.
Again, I believe if she had just been forthright and clear from the beginning this would not be an issue.
I think some, not all, but some of her problems are self inflicted because she did not give full answers and attempted to avoid certain issues. That is too bad because controversy over incomplete statements now seems to detract attention from the real issues of the campaign – such as economic policy, financial reform and regulation, consumer protection.
Before you accuse me of saying things about Warren, perhaps you should read the Washington Post story that in places quotes Warren herself.
I think is pretty easy to document direct quotes from Warren.
If the WAPO has mis-quoted Warren I am sure the campaign will quickly challenge the news reports by the Washington Post and other news sources.