Once again Senator Warren's stories check out, her critics' do not

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/10/09/once-again-senator-warrens-s.html


Elizabeth Warren: All I know is… the job that I had been promised for the next year was going to someone else.

Hillary Clinton: Yeah, tell me about it.


It’s such a bizarre, asymmetrical situation. Trump is – I’m being charitable here – a living, breathing fountain of bullshit and broken promises. But somehow one small inconsistency in Warren’s story from 40+ years ago is supposed to be some kind of “both sides” counterweight?

It would be hilarious in its desperation if we could still imagine that it won’t work on some people.


This is just a taste of the inane bullshit Warren’s opponents will fixate on if she gets the nomination. That it’s been so mundane so far is what should be shocking… Basically all of her potential opponents have so much more baggage (Except for Sanders IMO), but that’s not whats really being adjudicated here.


I mean, this is funny and all, and I liked it, but I can’t help but point out that treating the presidency as a job she was promised is a big reason why HRC lost.


Its not even an inconsistency really. The entire accusation is based on the assumption that the school would have accurately recorded the details of an act that could have gotten them sued. Like they’d just write “pregnancy discrimination against Elizabeth Warren” at the top of every piece of paper work. And because they didn’t that couldn’t have ever happened to anyone.


As I read this, the critics’ story is that there is discrepancy between what Warren described as the reason for her leaving teaching in 2007 vs what Warren says now in 2019.

Many aspects of the story are the same in both (pregnancy, spousal pressure to stay home) and some are different (not liking the grad study needed for certification, being asked to resign/told that the position was going to someone else because of her pregnancy.)

The “new” information is dredged up minutes from board meetings that (April, ~20 weeks pregnant) 1st extend her contract her for the next year, and then (June, 28 weeks pregnant) accept her resignation.

From a link in the article linked above:

Warren’s claim about her dismissal from the Riverdale Elementary School came under scrutiny last week when the journalist Meagan Day of Jacobin magazine noted that Warren’s story appeared to have changed over the years. Day pointed to a 2007 interview Warren gave at the University of California-Berkeley in which she suggested that she left her teaching job after realizing the graduate school classes required for her to obtain a teaching certificate weren’t going to “work out for [her].”

“I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me,’” Warren said in the 2007 interview. “I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?’ My husband’s view of it was, ‘Stay home. We have children, we’ll have more children, you’ll love this.’ And I was very restless about it.”

Perhaps I’m not getting it. I don’t see that a board motion saying “The resignation of Mrs. Elizabeth Warren, speech correctionist effective June 30, 1971 was accepted with regret,” is in any way dispositive, because her boss could perfectly well have said something like “if you don’t resign we’ll not give good a good reference when contacted by future prospective employers”. But I also don’t see that anything in the critic article has been proven wrong.


The inconsistency claim comes from an interview she gave some years ago (2007) where she seems to say she didn’t get the job because her emergency teaching certificate wasn’t going to be valid… But if you read the quote in question, it just doesn’t seem like the two versions are necessarily incompatible - never-mind the fact that it’s basically an offhand remark open to interpretation. It’s such a weak sauce “scandal” I can’t even believe the media is picking it up… I’m getting flashbacks to a lonely email server in a basement somewhere… ugh


When it comes to who is more believable, I go with whomever is not the Reich Wing Loony. Crazy I know, but that’s me.


I mean that’s as simple as people don’t always put depressing or embarrassing stories out there. Critically she didn’t start telling the actual story until after that.

And this particular detail seems to be a later addition in response to the claim having already been debunked. Or maybe they’re just going back and forth pointing at whichever bit hasn’t been mentioned yet.

1 Like

I mean the discrepancy can also be explained by the fact that women have legitimate privacy/safety reasons for sharing different sensitive details at different times. The answer is as simple as “I didn’t really want to get into it at the time, and draw the kind of anti-feminist ire that a story about ‘whining’ about pregnancy discrimination usually draws.” This is directly parallel to “why didn’t you complain about this sexual harassment earlier, huh?” “Why didn’t you report this rape to the police!!??” gotchas from the right, that totally ignore the explicit and implicit pressures to keep quiet about them.

It’s on brand, though, in that is plays into the “women lie about discrimination/harassment” horse that the Right loves to flog, and eats like red meat.

At the end of the day, Republicans don’t give a single fuck why she left, and many believe you shouldn’t work, as a woman, certainly not as a pregnant woman or mother, so the whole thing is so fucking disingenuous.


Man you’re talking like MeToo isn’t a Gay Ukrainian Deep State conspiracy.



Lizards entering the hollow earth through the portal in Antarctica.



You forgot George Soros.


Not even an inconsistency. Thread:


What do you think I meant by Lizards?

(really sad if you image search for Reptilian or Reptiloid a lot of the images are from History Channel, Animal Planet and shit).


Disclosure: So did I.

Wow…just wow. Imagine if someone else was held to the same standard of consistency. It boggles the mind.


This line re-frames what she actually said. In her original line, she was listing things in event order, and she doesn’t explicitly say the specific cause that she thought a career in education “wasn’t going to work out fo her”. Nothing in that is her saying she never faced pregnancy discrimination, she just didn’t mention it in that passing mention.

As others have said, that’s a record of her being offered her a job when she wasn’t showing, and two months later when she was showing, she was told they would accept her resignation.

You’re repeating what other people have debunked in more detail than this.


With her credentials, without lying about her heritage, she would have never been able to secure employment at Harvard.

Politicians lie. She is a politician. Don’t defend the indefensible.

1 Like