@Marie

You cast the net far and wide enough to challenge most folks to question their own judgement in this matter. Like you, I blew off the Pocahontas issue. The Right was so obsessed with it that they looked deranged — or they were being orchestrated. That meant that Bankers and Wall Street were so threatened by Consumer Protections they would stick their necks out to crush it. And that meant that asset-stripping the American people was part of their business plan. This threatened the people's survival in an increasingly financialized world, so concerns about Pocahontas appeared trivial. Warren was taking a stand that no one else would take. By comparison, Biden had worked against consumers for his entire career.

How much of this can be blamed on established corruption and how much can be blamed on character flaws?

Warren became a bridge too far for me during the 2016 Convention. Warren's public pandering to Clinton was nauseating. The entire convention was a perversion, but Warren struck me as uniquely obscene. I don't often mention her in the 2020 line-up because her political destiny had already collapsed. The fact that she is still in the race is an entirely artificial construct. Money has come in to create a bandwagon for her political corpse to ride on. The less astute can vote for this thing, but it cannot be revived.

Elizabeth Warren is one of many artificial constructs that the Party will employ along the way to replace Bernie Sanders with their preferred Centrist. Dementia is a plus in US politics, if it comes to that. Make no mistake, he will be replaced.

While the Voter preference Primaries have no meaning, legally, and the Party is free to pick anyone they wish to be the nominee — they will try hard to alter the election outcome to match their pick and avoid blowback. They will rig a few elections along the way. Find a list of primary states without back-up paper ballots and you will know exactly where that will occur. The company that conducts exit polls will erase anomalies and match the vote counts, just as they do in all US elections.

Caucus states are more difficult. They had to build an app that would deliberately fail, in order to null Iowa's returns in 2020, because the winner of Iowa is always the Democratic nominee. (Something to keep in mind.) Nevada was supposed to use the app, as well, after some "retraining." But they didn't, and that was a glitch.

Forcing a contested election under the current Party rules will work out fine for the Democrats, if they are certain their preferred Centrist will win on the first ballot. If not, they will change the rules and include Super-Delegates. Thus, the nominee will not the People's choice, and the Democrat's preferred candidate will again lose to Donald Trump in 2020.

I think it is clear to everyone that the Democratic Party would prefer Donald Trump over Bernie Sanders. That's is certainly the Oligarch preference.

#26.3.1.1.1
by Warren. Professionally she did have expertise and interest in equal protection in bankruptcy which doesn't exist in the country. The great recession widened the public interest "her thing" which happened to be absent in the WH and Congress. "Occupy" added to the mix of why she should be listened to.

Perhaps the empathy for working class people getting financially screwed by the banks and in bankruptcy that she displayed before the recession was less authentic than it appeared and was more PR to sell her book and by extension herself. What I didn't know then or even years after she was elevated to a political role was that she'd long been a Republican. Still don't know when she made that personal shift to the DP. Had I been aware of that, it would have been easier to detect that in her words and acts over the years. She's much like Hillary Clinton, a circa 1970 liberal female Republican.

Since 2009 I've viewed her as a decent person with a lot of depth in one area of public policy and no breadth. She's usually shaky outside "her thing" which leads to the appearance of flip-flopping. In her case it's more like having to act/speak on the fly without liberal/progressive core principles and insufficient time to think it through. I cut her a lot of slack because she doesn't have natural political instincts and hasn't been politically active long enough to develop them, but from early on it was apparent to me that that she was too inconsistent to be a solid liberal/progressive, but most Democratic politicians aren't even liberal/progressive.

One thing I blew off -- and iirc it first surfaced in her 2012 Senate campaign -- was "Pocohontas." The facts on this issue surfaced very slowly over the years and having originally dismissed it, I didn't pay attention to it. Now, however, it's very telling. It's one thing for a naive and/or not so educated person to casually claim NA ancestry. Plenty of people do that and it's of no import. However, even they know or have learned not to put the claim on official documents because even if the NA ancestry is true, they don't possess enough to qualify for the claim. White people in OK and a few other states might know this better than the general public. As an attorney, Warren should have known better than others not to make such a formal claim based on vague family lore, and not just once but repeatedly over many years.

Like all too many politicians, she embellishes and lies about herself and life to gain greater acceptance or respect. Like Biden's SA claim and all too many bogus claims Hillary as made. Warren wasn't fired from a public school teaching job for being pregnant, and she references her public school teaching job way too often when she only held it for for about a year. These are character issues.