It addresses that.
We still find this explanation extremely unlikely. In order to accept it, one has to believe that only after Hillary Clinton was nearly 60 years old, and only after she had been pilloried in the press for more than ten years for claiming she had been named after someone who was virtually unknown in the U.S. at the time of her birth, and only after her husband had presented the fictitious story as true in his own autobiography, did Dorothy Rodham finally confess (or Hillary finally admit) that the "sweet family story" she once told her daughter wasn't the truth. (Hillary Clinton didn't have the excuse that it was other people who were spreading a falsehood about her, as she herself was the one who initiated the claim back in 1995.)
As we noted back in 2003, this story was likely a little white lie concocted to curry favor with the public for a special occasion back in 1995, and even if it really was a "sweet family story" Dorothy Rodham told had her daughter Hillary many years earlier, the latter had almost certainly known for quite a long time that it was just a story.
Elizabeth Warren's issue is different. I think nearly every family that can trace it's roots to the beginning of the western-style record-keeping of this country claims to have Native American blood - and they're probably right. Many European whites married Native Americans. It's part of the fabric of our country.
My grandmother, when she retired from nursing, spent her retirement immersed in genealogy. Not only did she discover that our family, the Brownings, were some of the first settlers of Jamestown, she also proved that many in our direct linage married Native American people. In that sense, I'm Native American, too. Most of us do have some Native American blood in our heritage. I could, rightfully, check that box, too.
= new reply since forum marked as read
