We dunk on CNN’s Chris Cillizza a lot (everyone does, really), but we’ve got to give him credit for being consistent; the day after Sen. Elizabeth Warren made public the results of her DNA test, he wrote a piece arguing that she might have made things worse.
That certainly wasn’t the official line at CNN at the time, which gleefully reported that “Warren now has documentation to back up her family lore.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren has released the results of a DNA analysis showing she has distant Native American ancestry, which could pre-empt further questions and attacks should she run for president in 2020 https://t.co/N6fMPIYjrv pic.twitter.com/z5K7uQ8rU9
— CNN (@CNN) October 15, 2018
It was apparent from Warren’s public statements and tweets at the time that she thought the big DNA rollout was a huge slam-dunk, but as Twitchy reported earlier, Nate Silver said today she showed “poor judgment” and the Boston Globe editorial board suggested she sit out 2020. So we’ll give Cillizza credit here; he’s right:
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) December 6, 2018
He’s right; that is, if you thought her non-Native American heritage reveal was bad.
I'm Native American. Yet your network proudly championed her claims that first day throwing them in Trump's face. Only later did the beliefs of us Indians matter…
"strong evidence" ? pic.twitter.com/KJO6sV9hOc
— Brett A. Chapman (@brettachapman) December 6, 2018
Yeah, CNN’s coverage of the stunt was just a bad as you remembered too.
Then why did CNN defend her?
— Chris Ohio 89 (@ChrisOhio89) December 6, 2018
You mean the press trying to force feed the public the “hey, she ANSWERED IT, knock it off” meal didn’t go as planned?
— SMOD C137 (@PaulWDrake) December 6, 2018
I would have supported her except for this. There is a reason heritage is important on qualifying documents. She stepped over the line and "stole" (strong word but it is the essence of the action) something intended for another.
— TickTock (@AmiThibedeau) December 6, 2018
But like we said, Cillizza is in hot water for suggesting Warren’s DNA stunt, which showed she probably had even less Native American ancestry than any random American picked off the street, was a dud.
This is such a stupid nothingburger. Anything to keep a "story" going.
— Chuckleberry (@HuckYeah) December 6, 2018
Who cares about this. Can’t female politicians be judged on their merits/issues, not on nonsense?
— MEVD (@MEVD) December 6, 2018
this is weird. You've posted this three times. Are you a GOP bot?
— Steven Harmon (@ssharmon) December 6, 2018
— Bookseller Mom (@MomBookseller) December 6, 2018
Why are you covering this NON-issue? This is WORSE than your fixation with Hillary's emails in 2016.
Should Warren become the Democratic nominee in 2020, I sure hope you and the rest of the MSM don't let the GOP control the election based on this one NON-issue.
— Robin Sue Sanders (@robbysue1) December 6, 2018
But her emails, part deux. Bad take.
— Evidence Based (@FerociousBeast) December 6, 2018
Hey, maybe we’re just petty, but we’d still really like to hear some testimony from the guy who — Oops! — “accidentally” ran BleachBit on Hillary’s email archives after asking around online, on behalf of a “very VIP” client, if it was possible to change email headers after they’d been archived. (He pleaded the Fifth, of course, and no one in Congress or the media has bothered to follow up.)
Are we *still* on this?
— jamie❄️? (@freude4schaden) December 6, 2018
Full disclosure: I am a liberal Democrat who likes Warren but probably wouldn’t vote for her in a primary if I have other decent options. That being said, I liked the DNA test. It confirmed her family’s oral traditions. Why should I listen to the folks who always attack her?
— Matthew Anton (@MatthewAnton007) December 6, 2018
It confirmed her family’s oral traditions (i.e., fabrications), but it didn’t confirm her claim of being Cherokee, for one thing.
Did Cilliza actually write something bad about a Democrat?
— Gore Vital (@moodyrich) December 6, 2018
Just wait until the feeding frenzy when all 150 Democrat candidates start fighting it out for the nomination and the media have to choose a horse to back.
'Yeah, no': Soledad O'Brien's 'takeaway' from NYT's Elizabeth Warren piece shows she doesn't get it at all https://t.co/XX1XZmvtpU
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) December 6, 2018