Saagar Enjeti claims Warren is misrepresenting her past

Opinion by: Saagar Enjeti

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenOvernight Health Care — Presented by Partnership for America's Health Care Future — ObamaCare premiums dropping for 2020 | Warren, Buttigieg shift stances on 'Medicare for All' | Drug companies spend big on lobbying Mellman: Trumping peace and prosperity On The Money: Waters clashes with Trump officials over 'disastrous' housing finance plan | Dems jump into Trump turf war over student loans | House passes bill targeting anonymous shell companies MORE has been caught making things up again about her past...

This time by the enterprising Tommy Christopher over at Mediaite. Warren frequently makes reference on the campaign trail and in public to an alleged incident where she was dismissed as a teacher for being visibly pregnant.

The problem, as with many things about Elizabeth Warren, is that this version of events meant to tug at the heartstrings is not what she was saying back in 2007. During an interview, then for conversations with history, Warren said that she decided to abandon her calling as a teacher because she lacked the proper credentials to qualify for a permanent position.

Listen in her own words:

There it is plain as day. Some of Warren's defenders said it wasn't technically a lie because pregnancy may still have been one of the reasons that she was dismissed. It’s hard to find credulity in that idea however given that she said very clearly she left of her own accord and wasn't pressured out.

Look, I know this seems tedious. Parsing the words of somebody from 10, 20, and 30 years ago seems like trivial sniping when we're in the middle of an election about a battle for ideas. But the messenger of those ideas is actually really important, and Elizabeth Warren's apparent mistruth here is important because it's just the latest example we have of her misleading people about her past in order to construct a mythos of someone who's always been an underdog fighting to overcome the system.

Warren misrepresented her heritage for years because it made her stand out and appear special. Harvard University touted her diversity as evidence of its own import while she worked there. She concocted wild stories about her past in which her father and mother eloped because of her Native American heritage, none of which appears to be true if you examine the historical evidence at the time, as I did last week on this show.

For years and years she clung to a story which made her appear special different, and in this case discriminated against for her gender in order to craft a faux appeal to the people who actually experience those things in their daily lives. This gross misrepresentation is the worst form of pandering. The true version of her rise from Oklahoma single mother to Harvard law professor and United States Senator is plenty impressive on its own!

Just run with that.

One of the things the media misunderstands most about this race is that policy positions matter quite a bit less than the messenger behind them. Nearly the entire democratic field is out with some version or other of single payer healthcare. Nearly the entire republican field was out with some immigration restrictionist plan back in 2016. Why did voters choose Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpGraham to introduce resolution condemning House impeachment inquiry Support for impeachment inches up in poll Fox News's Bret Baier calls Trump's attacks on media 'a problem' MORE in that election? Because they actually believed he would do it.

How many times have you seen people pay lip-service to the ideas you believe in and then turn away from them the moment they have power of some kind in Washington? It’s a tale as old as time, and if Elizabeth Warren wants to say she's going to bring fundamental change as president of the United States then the people who vote for her need to be reasonably certain that she'll actually do it when she's in office.

How can that be so with the body of evidence that we have? The constant mis-representing of her past during her rise to the top is a gift to anybody on the right? It asks a fundamental question about her candidacy. Is she telling the truth when she says she'll actually fight for you?