A weekly window on the American political scene hosted by the Monitor's politics editors.

As Warren rises, so do attacks on her truthfulness

Aaron Josefczyk/Reuters
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren does an interview in the spin room after the fourth Democratic presidential election debate at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio, October 15, 2019.

Dear reader:

If there was any doubt that the Democratic primary race has a new frontrunner, last night’s debate settled it.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren – who has lately inched ahead of former Vice President Joe Biden in some polls, and whose fundraising and crowd sizes show even more momentum – came under attack from all sides. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar called her Medicare for All plan a “pipe dream.” Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke accused her of pitting one group of Americans against another. Mr. Biden charged she’d accomplished very little during her time in Congress.

Why We Wrote This

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s opponents may not win in a battle of plans. But raising questions about her honesty could undercut her image of speaking truth to power and combating corruption.

Underneath all the jabs on policy was a more pointed critique.

“Every attack on Warren so far is subtly (and not so subtly) about honesty and not policy,” Politico’s Ryan Lizza tweeted during the debate. “This is very similar to how Obama went after Clinton in the fall of 2007 – character instead of white papers.”

Republicans have been mapping out this line of attack for some time. The recent brouhaha over Senator Warren’s assertion that she had been fired from a teaching job in the 1970s for being pregnant was a direct strike at her truthfulness.

And while it may have echoes of Barack Obama’s strategy against Hillary Clinton, it’s even more reminiscent of the attacks against former Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 election.

During that cycle, George W. Bush’s camp pounced on Mr. Gore’s statements – such as his claim that he “took the initiative in creating the Internet” – to cast him as a serial exaggerator. It wound up being a devastating critique, as the media began scrutinizing all of Mr. Gore’s remarks for inaccuracies. The effect was to undercut Mr. Gore’s squeaky clean, Boy Scout-like image (in contrast to his boss).

Senator Warren has, for now, seemingly survived the “Pocahontas” attacks from President Donald Trump – referring to her past claims to Native American heritage, for which she has apologized. The underlying thrust of that whole episode, however, was to raise questions about her honesty. Those questions hit right at the heart of her brand as someone who will call out corruption and speak truth to power.

Of course, Democrats will note that President Trump is hardly in a position to question anyone else’s truthfulness. But if he can succeed in muddying Senator Warren’s image on that front, he will have neutralized one of her main strengths.

Let us know what you’re thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.