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.”

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:

He’s right; that is, if you thought her non-Native American heritage reveal was bad.

Yeah, CNN’s coverage of the stunt was just a bad as you remembered too.

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.

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after asking around online, on behalf of a “very VIP” client, if it was possible to change email headers after they’d been archived.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.)

It confirmed her family’s oral traditions (i.e., fabrications), but it didn’t confirm her claim of being Cherokee, for one thing.

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.


Related: