If it's "liberal" to understand public policy slanted to benefit less than 1% of the population at the expense of more than 99%, then it's hard to understand why all Indians are not "liberal," given the scarcity of Indian one percenters. Leaving aside this racial tempest, Warren is an expert on bankruptcy and securities regs who doesn't merely sympathize with the 99% (from which she came but she's now 1%), she actually knows the mechanics of the tilt in the playing field. What she says about her alleged Native blood is said by nine of ten white folks who grew up where she grew up and where I grew up. Oklahoma is a strange place where "part Indian" is oh so cool but "Indian" can get you dumped on. She has demonstrated her cluelessness about Indian identity, but I'm more interested that she has a clue about the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the naked short rule, the uptick rule, and the rest of the stuff that put the 99% in the ditch we're in. Compare her academic career to Ward Churchill's. If you cannot write a thousand words on the differences without breaking a sweat, it could be that you ought not opine on the alleged advantage in her alleged box-checking. (There is no box until after you are hired. NO, she should not have checked it because it makes Harvard look better than it deserves. Yes, she benefitted from affirmative action...as a woman in a male-dominated field.) She would be insane to grant interviews on the racial beehive she kicked over. There is nothing to be gained and everything to lose because the lines are hardened and nobody is going to back down at this point. I'm hoping she wins and I'm hoping she learned that Oklahoma is not the USA and you don't get to brag about being "part Indian" in the real world because it has real consequences. And, yes, I send her a couple of bucks when I can.