Scamming the system, playing the victim, rigging the game for fellow liberals, it's part of her heritage.

Please cite the basis for the claim that "voters care" about any of this.

Why is the media into this nonsense. Who cares? What does her ethnic background have to do with the price of bread? I realize the public prefers shiny tattle-tale magazine stories about pick-up trucks and who wears what and how snookie fits in, but good grief. This is the dumbest made up controversy I've ever seen. Well you did run that dumb story about Brown posing nude or something a few years back, again real exciting. Look guys the printed paper is going the way of the Dinosaur so now you go digital. While you're at going digital how about you start writing seriously. Up the level of content, the language used and maybe we will get some meatier questions answered by the candidates.

Prof Warren has addressed this issue several times and has been consistent with her answers. She told whatever universities about her heritage. How they chose to use it was not directed by her. The Globe editors should be undertaking the kind of investigation that presents a clearer picture from all parties involved. To date this has not been done. The universities, Prof Warren's family members, and her students during this time have not been put on the record in any detail to shed real light on the subject. We do know that prior to any such revelations she had worked hard to gain the positions she held and others in authority to judge were more than pleased with her performance. Anything Prof Warren says at this juncture will not put an end to the non fact based sniping. She is a Democrat and presents a challenge to Scott Brown. That is enough to take whatever part of this news by opponents and distort it for their own purposes. This plea from the Globe's editors speaks more of their failure to investigate than Prof Warren's need to explain herself over and over again.

OETKB, Attaturk and the other Warren apologists: you discredit both the intelligence of our civic community and the democratic process when you insist and repeat that no one cares about this. This is a bona fide story about the character of a candidate for the US Senate. It is entirely appropriate for the press to print all of the facts and let engaged voters decide if it matters or not. As for the substance, the fact that we do know are damning. They indicate that Elizabeth Warren used unproven and spurious "family lore" in a way that violated federal guidelines, at a time that anyone who lived through can tell you was hyper focused on the diversity club and who was in it. (Whether or not you are in favor of affirmative action, like me, or not, the fact remains that the 90s were a time of of particular intensity and rancor on campuses on this point). She, not Harvard, claimed membership in a minority community. And she has not been forthcoming about it, which is much, much worse. Then she stopped using it as soon as she was tenured at Harvard, the grand prize. I ask to honestly consider, not in a a sniping complaint online but in the privacy of your own brain, whether you would honestly be so vociferous in stating that it didn't matter if it was Scott Brown claiming to be a Native American with this unbelievable lack of any connection. I think you already know the answer. To me, the worst thing about this is the fact that Native Americans remain so invisible to us East Coats liberals that we don't even care that they are being used once again for the benefit of a European.

Frankly I don't care if she did in fact game the system. As one who worked in the "system" for over twenty years I know that you all game the system whether you admit it or not. You merely call your gaming, smart actions and the other persons questionable honesty. So please I'm very much the cynic when it comes to the American public. So spare me the "righteousness" regarding this silly debate. If she is "part" minority which I don't know and don't care and if the "system" deems to take that into consideration then good for her. It shows a capacity to work with a dysfunctional system in order to obtain what she believes is important. Maybe she'll do a good job getting Msss. what Mass. needs and wants. But as far as character goes, all of these years in govt. and politics has taught me one thing, when it comes to power individual character is situational at best.

And why shouldn't: "This controversy shouldn't be the dominant issue of the campaign"? If she gamed the system intentionally, and one would have to be pretty naive to conclude otherwise at this point, then this is a very serious character question. Though, perhaps we don't care about these things -- especially when there's an opportunity to unseat Scott Brown. She clearly let the universities know about her status -- while seeking jobs and while seeking tenure. She's a lawyer. She's now a Harvard professor. How could it not occur to her that there were be professional benefit in making them aware of this? She'd be a pretty bad lawyer otherwise. And, when I hear it repeatedly reported that "Warren says she hadn't seen those reports", I think that's not the fundamental question. The question is whether she knew: a) That the schools thought she was Cherokee, while she was seeking positions and/or tenure (I think we know the answer to that question) b) That it'd be likely that the schools would report on this status because they believed she was Cherokee (whether she saw the reports is irrelevant) And, when she answers in a heartfelt fashion otherwise, should we believe her? I see no reason not to given that she plagiarized her "Cherokee" recipes and was the "first nursing woman" to take the bar in New Jersey. Her word is bond.

"If you look white and grew up white, you probably didn't deal with the same issues true minorities do and you shouldn't be calling yourself a minority," Barnes said. "I wouldn't consider what she did malicious at the time, but I think she was definitely trying to take advantage of the system." This is a quote from Twila Barnes, an authentic registered Native American Cherokee. For those apologists of Warren who thing this issue is no big deal they will never underatand what Barnes means however rational persons will understand that what Warren claimed is nothing less than fraud. We are told she is an intelligent woman of exemplary character however her use of minority status says something different. She knew what she was doing when she made this claim and she got caught. She used a minority claim that honest persons would not. This issue does speak of her character. Claiming to be of Native American ancestry is easier to hide when it does not show unlike claiming to be African American, Asian or Hispanic until you have to back up the claim.

"there were be" --> "there would be"

If she'd had a handicapped placard that she used everywhere, and it were proven that she made up her handicapped status to get it, would that be "nonsense"? The issue here isn't whether or not she's Cherokee, in the abstract. It's whether she used it to gain an advantage in seeking positions at prestigious universities and in seeking tenure. If she were a Cherokee, in commitment to tribe and in genealogical background, then perhaps that would be okay, technically (though I'd personally question whether someone deserves affirmative action benefits if they never suffered or been disadvantaged for their designation). But, if she's not Cherokee, and this article admits that "she does not consider herself fully Native American", and she used this to her advantage, then this is "nonsense"? Are you willing to look the other way because this is someone you want to win and who's on your 'team'? Or do you really think this is "nonsense"?

Sorry, not going there with you. It matters to me and it should to you. If you are too cynical to engage anymore, that's too bad, but don't corrupt the process further, thanks. I have children whom I want to see grow up in a time when they can look up to leaders as I did as a young person. I don't think that makes me naive, and shame on you for hiding behind a cynical front -- when is suits your politics, I might add. Not something you should be proud of in my opinion.

Who cares what Elizabeth Warren claimed about her one percent Native American ancestry? She has every right to be proud of it or to cover it up. The bruhaha over this phony issue is ridiculous, a perfect example of the nit-picking character assassination typical of this election cycle.

If you would read my remarks more carefully you would see I am asking for the same that you are. Namely, that details are missing to make a true assessment. It is the job of the 4th estate once they go with a story, they are responsible for filling in the blanks. There are too many holes in this story to come to any usable conclusions.

And the shoe is on the other foot for detractors. You and I are left with insufficient info to come to any conclusions on motive and by whom of an incident that is 20 years old and was short lived with no obvious enhancements or consequences to Prof Warren's career. So you can continue to denigrate a respected law professor, lecturer, author, and bankruptcy expert by anybody's estimation, and I will continue to support her.

I believe that Elizabeth Warren has a Native American heritage. If her maiden name or her mother's maiden name was Goldberg (as is my mother's maiden name), I would have my doubts. To me it is very believable that Elizabeth Warren is a member of the Heinz 57 throng of Americans. My cousins and I are all in the position of having to depend on information passed down to us about our grandparents and great grandparents. I am not sure if much documentation prior to their passage to the United States could be documented. As a woman that is descended from a long line of poor nobodies, I also understand using every possible advantage to get ahead and into the schools and the professional strata that I am aiming for. As a Jew, I find it very frustrating to designate my racial identity as Caucasian. I am not Caucasian. I am a member of a specific race that has and is often marginalized, excluded and the target of subtle or overt prejudice. I don't blame Elizabeth Warren for using what her mother told her of her background anymore than I blame Scott Brown for posing nude to pay for law school.

These articles in today's Globe would seem to once and for all put to rest the wild speculation about this aspect of Warren's history. She is not a "liar", and has not misrepresented her ancestry to gain advantage. If anything questionable occurred, it would be that Harvard, in keeping with it's liberal traditions, may have misrepresented the issue by claiming to have a minority of native American descent on its staff. She, however, appears to have done nothing wrong. If there are any further question about her ancestry, it is relatively simple these days to trace and verify the facts. This should mean that we can all move on to the real issues in this campaign. However. as you will observe in the comments today, there are a number of hard-core misogynistic gynophobes who will be unaffected by the true facts of this matter. Their unreasoning blind fear of women who are smarter, better educated and more influential and successful than they will ever be will cause them to continue their mindless blathering. (Have they no WIVES?) These comments may be best disregarded. Just be alert for hate/talk radio talking points, Fux news propaganda, Tea Party cliches and the many errors in spelling and grammar. These intellectually disadvantaged ultra-conservatives of the radical-right also believe that President Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Socialist, that the universe is only about 5,000 years old, Jesus rode around on a dinosaur, and will avoid long ocean voyages for fear of sailing over the edge. Rave on....

Drip . . . drip . . . drip . . .

This editorial really should be about how this is a silly non-issue, and that it doesn't really matter what her heritage is. We have so many issues to address. This one is ridiculous.

This editorial really should be about how this is a silly non-issue, and that it doesn't really matter what her heritage is. We have so many issues to address. This one is ridiculous. Or to be more direct, WHO CARES?

"OETKB" I think "Isdad" is crying about my cynical attitude not yours. Of course when the time comes for "Isdad" or his to game the system he'll be all over it, he will however cling to the belief that he deserves it, just as most of the posters on these comment pages do. I'm sorry if folks don't like the truth about what they do and how they act. As to growing up at a time when one could look up to their leaders, I'm 64 and I don't recall the time when my leaders were these paragons of virtue and that includes the ones I liked worked for and supported. So I'm a cynic if you wish to call it that, but if that means being honest about the world around me, I'm proud of it.

This editorial really should be about how this is a silly non-issue, and that it doesn't really matter what her heritage is. We have so many issues to address. This one is ridiculous. Or to be more direct, WHO CARES?

This editorial really should be about how this is a silly non-issue, and that it doesn't really matter what her heritage is. We have so many issues to address. This one is ridiculous. Or to be more direct, WHO CARES?

FKIA -- I think we get your point. The problem is it's the media perpetuating this story. If they ignored it like they ignore the important issues then it would have blown over. The real story in this campaign is the DNC trying to tell the Massachusetts Democrats who there candidate will be.

A DNA would prove her family background. The TRUTH should be enough to SILENCE ALL and get on with the IMPORTANT matters in the election. Too many important matters on the agenda to be silenced by lies and inuendo