In fact, the controversy has erupted at a particularly poor time for the would-be senator from the People's Republic of Cambridge. On a day when new numbers emphasized how unemployment (and under-employment) and stagnation are threatening Americans' way of life -- and their expectations for their children's futures -- it is galling to those struggling to stay afloat to learn that a Harvard professor with an income of almost $1 million per year may have earned her sinecure by trading on heritage that comprises 1/32 of her genetic makeup -- and for which she has suffered no discernible disadvantage over the course of her life.
It's offensive to the regular guys and gals working (or trying to find) blue collar jobs in Boston -- who look just as white as Warren and probably have heard tales of the endemic mistreatment of Irish or Italian ancestors much more recent than Warren's great-great-great grandmother. Yet they have no cushy "victim" status to show for it.
As I pointed out yesterday, the lefty solons at The New York Times would like to attribute white working class resentment to racism. I think race has little to do with it. If there's resentment, it's directed at a "liberal-elite" complex that arbitrarily confers some degree of wealth and status on favored groups (everything from designated minority groups to federal workers) while completely ignoring (or even denigrating) members of less-favored groups. Unfortunately for Warren, that's a particularly salient issue at a time when hard working people are fearing for their economic lives, especially when she cannot point to any discrimination or hardship for which her invocation of "victim" status could possibly be compensating her.
And that's why I predict that the "Fauxohantas" scandal will be around for some time to come.