But she has a long history of non-accomlishments, starting jobs and failing at them, then switching:
There's a whole wiki dedicated to Elizabeth Warren, and understanding who she really is (not just the politician's facade): https://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/
- Nicknames: Pocahontas, Fauxcahontas, Sitting Bullshit, Crazy Hoarse, The Baloney Brave, Hunts at Whole Foods, Lie-awatha, Will She Sioux
- Failed teacher: She was a master-debator in High School who aspired to become a teacher, and got a degree in speech pathology and audiology and married her first husband (Jim Warren), but after a year teaching public school on a "emergency credential" (because she never completed the required prerequisites and certificates) she failed and left teaching, and decided to be a stay-at home mom instead.
- Failed stay-at-home Mom: her "I'm going to be a stay-at-home mom", lasted 2 years, before she went to law school. Again, I don't Mom's that choose to go back to work, but just noting a pattern of not being consistent
- Failed Marriage: Liz had another kid, then divorced her first husband
- Nepotism: After her divorce she married a Husband that would help her move up more in her law career (a Harvard Law Professor named Bruce Mann). But she retained her prior married-name so no one would notice the nepotism. (She had relocated, and had no professional reputation to protect or fame, so the name had no brand value).
- Failed Republican: She switched political affiliations to Democrat, after moving from Texas to Massachusetts under the claim that "no one party should dominate". Yes, because those pesky Republicans were crushing it in places like Harvard and Massachusetts where she was living at the time. It certainly wasn't for political opportunism, she swears.
- Champion of the poor (keeping them down): She has been an unending far left advocate for no accountability in bankruptcy laws, if you're a consumer. The poorer you are, the bigger the advocate she is (not matter the crime or incompetence). And the richer, the more of a hater she is, no matter the integrity or justification. Because, you know, it's not about mistakes/crimes you make, but the wealth you have. That all sounds good to the left, and they stop thinking there. The rest of us, keep going...
- If you know anything about economics and consequences, you know that's the same as fighting to guarantee that the costs of loaning to poor people should skyrocket. Costs are correlated to the risks, so if you increase the risks/costs to banks for loaning to the poor, then the costs to loan them money will go up, and the number of places they can get those loans will plummet. So she sounds to the left like an advocate for the poor -- while those with a clue in economics or business, know that her actions/policies actual hurt her base. But as long as she can dupe them into voting for her, that's what matters.
- She even took it to the point of fighting against (and failing again to stop) the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Which had the effect of delaying bankruptcy reform, which hurt far more poor than it helped.
- Warren was a member of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion, and was a member of the National Bankruptcy Conference (an independent organization that advises the U.S. Congress on bankruptcy law), where she accomplished nothing noteworthy in those 10 years.
- Failed Films: Always the attention whore, she appeared in the documentary films, "Maxed Out" and Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story". Both performed poorly (and weren't very good).
- In the former, she claimed to be the only lobbyist for the American Family on bankruptcy reform, where she advocated for eliminating Corporate Citizenship (and concept that goes back to the early 1800's in american law, and much further in british common law), without realizing the consequences that eliminating those responsibilities and liberties would result in.
- The latter was a completely discredited and openly mocked propaganda film about the glories of socialism, the failures of capitalism (and Wall Street banking): her part was to gleefully misinform the public on what happened around the Wall Street crisis. 
- Media Whore: She so wants to inject herself into discussions she has no qualifications for. Like when Trump and the Military used a MOAB (Mother of All Bombs) on an ISIS stronghold in Afghanistan, she "demanded" an explanation for why. All based on absolutely no military or foreign policy chops, or authority, whatsoever. Bless her heart, she thinks her opinion matters.
- Failed Researcher: She has written a series of error ridden polemic academic and popular pieces alike, that are jokes among the informed, but well liked by the illiterati. (Those on the left and in the media that want to believe her dim-witted rhetoric).
- Her book A Fighting Chance, was Book Review eviscerated by the WSJ (and many others who read it). But it still gets good ratings by her fans. Which says more about her fans than the books merits.
- A co-authored book "As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America", is where she gets her "academic chops" according to the left. But it was totaled in Academic circles. In 1991, Rutgers Law Professor Philip Shuchman wrote a 60 page scathing takedown of Warren's FakeStudy (charges of scientific misconduct), and others had come forward, like law professor Todd Zywicki, or Megan McArdle who both also pilloried Warren's study and her ethics. Her fans seem to forget that, or never looked hard enough to notice it.
Philip Shuchman's key points on "As We Forgive Our Debtors":
- Most of their study replicates several earlier research publications. These are hardly mentioned (reeks of plagiarism, though just below the standard).
- The writers make extravagant and false claims to originality and priority of research.
- There appear to be serious errors in their use of statistical bases which result in grossly mistaken functions and comparisons.
- Some of their conclusions cannot be obtained even from their flawed findings.
- The authors have made their raw data unavailable so that its accuracy cannot be independently checked.
- In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.
The University of Texas, Harvard University and the National Science Foundation also got enmeshed in the scandal (scientific misconduct). But UT and Harvard both whitewashed the mess, because it reflected poorly on them for having given her letters.
What's intriguing is that Brietbart broke the story in 2012, and not one other media outlet had bothered to report on any of it, even though it was easy to find. Or worse, they had, but buried it because it didn't further their agenda. Where's the NYT, WaPo or other so called journalistic institutions that for Conservatives like Romney go back to their Jr. High School victims to find some kid that claims he once gave them a wedgie?
- Warren rails against the system (CFPB) that she designed: Warren twitter-whined about how the Trump-appointed CFPB head Mick Mulvaney is completely out of her control, and there's a complete lack of congressional oversight with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Which begs the question who designed it this way, and who warned against it?
- It turns out, that Elizabeth Warren was put in charge of creating the CFPB, and she designed it intentionally to operate without Congressional oversight, against the advice of Conservatives and Republicans at the time. So the meat of her complaint is outrage that the Republicans would use it how she designed it. Of course we know her intent was to create it with built-in federal overreach to force-feed the Democrats agendas down Republicans throats, with no ability to imagine that Republicans might ever win elections. What bugs me more than her hypocrisy, is the lack of journalists out there, who bothered to call her on it, or point it out for the public. 
- $22/Hour minimum wage: With destructive positions like a $22/hour minimum wage, that would decimate the economy, she has been called out by the head of the chamber of commerce as, "no other candidate in 2012 represents a greater threat to free enterprise than Professor Warren!"
- Eat the rich: Her primary position was that while the top 1% ALREADY pay over 30% of all taxes, they should be paying more. She either knows that this will make government and politicians even MORE dependent on them, and thus continue to erode our democracy into a political aristocracy, and extend the rich's influence even more, - OR- she's a complete moron to not understand that the more you become dependent on a group, then the more influence that group will have.
- Many think she's sincere, but I have a hard time believing she could be that stupid or self-deluded. Ted Kennedy was known to have known better, but he admitted that lying to get ahead was how the game was played. I wonder if people think she is really that much dumber than a man, or just a much better liar than a Kennedy? 
| Fake Indian -  While abusing the racial preferences for personal gain would be fraud and a crime that would never be forgiven a Conservative or Independent, Harvard and the media gives her a pass on this behavior. Democrats don't need integrity, "what difference does it make?"
He lunged for me. It was like a bad cartoon. He’s chasing me around the desk, trying to get his hands on me. And I kept saying, “You don’t want to do this. You don’t want to do this. I have little children at home. Please don’t do this.” And trying to talk calmly. And at the same time, what was flickering through my brain is, “If he gets hold of me, I’m going to punch him right in the face.” After several rounds, I jumped for the door and got out. And I went back to my office and I just sat and shook. And thought, “What had I done to bring this on?” And I told my best friend about it. Never said a word to anyone else. But for a long time, I wore a lot of brown.
So which is it? Was she lying before by choosing to show up to his memorial and tell light hearted story about the guy, or was she lying by telling the harrowing tale of how she was traumatized into silence by a superior (and yet there was no consequences)? They seem pretty mutually exclusive to me.
|Fake Pregnant -|
Congressional Oversight Panel
With qualifications like that, Democrats put her on the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), where she accomplished absolutely nothing of merit (other than distracting from any real progress).
That qualified her to be inthe Obama Administration as Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. An agency that was so incompetently run that they decide they can't give merit pay increase to one person, who deserved it, without giving them to everyone else, who didn't. So they created a policy to give everyone top marks, in order avoid having to do their job of stack ranking or merit pay: costing taxpayers millions of dollars in the process.
So because she's progressive, and incompetent, that qualified her to take over Teddy Kennedy's seat. She would have been a shoe in if she accidentally murdered someone while drunk-driving to take them home for an evening of whoring, but alas, instead of a free appointment for life, she had to win an election with a corrupted political machine just like all the other Massachusetts and NY Democrats.
She was assigned to the Senate Special Committee on Aging; the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee; and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where she appears to have accomplished absolutely nothing of merit, other than self-promotion, and obnoxious speeches littered with disinformation and self-congratulations. (No one has pointed to an actual accomplishment that I could find). So she gets a participation trophy for attendance, while many on those comittees wish she showed up and grandstanded less.
But her continued populism has made her a darling of the left, and an enemy of truth, common sense, and the common man. Where she will either be the savior or the downfall of the Democrat Party, depending on what you think their ratio is between informed and gullible the Democrats and electorate at large is.
So she has many lifetime of achievements like marrying for opportunity, divorce, lying to get ahead, taking every far left position to get on committees and political appointments (without achieving anything of merit other than self-promotion while on them), raising lots of money for the Democrats (based on disinformation) and credentials/awards earned from far left organizations for being a liberal polemicist without any real accomplishments, someone who lies about her race. With a Résumé like that, isn't she perfectly qualified for Democrat Presidential Candidate?
She has all the qualifications required: a Vagina, a History of failure, and a big, obnoxious, lie spewing mouth. Because with Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Michelle Obama, Sandra Fluke, and so on, the one thing the Democrat Party lacks is enough loud-mouthed, abrasive and lying Women without a clue on economics?