Then they try to play it off in a way that brings all her other endorsements into question…
I don’t usually make blog posts that link to tweets because they get deleted, but this story played out on twitter, so that’s what I’ll do.
Context: CNN posted an article titled “Hundreds of Obama alumni endorse Elizabeth Warren“.
Here’s the list. I’m not an expert on low-level democratic hob-knobbers and schmoozers, so I didn’t recognize anyone on the list… except for Ed Buck.
Ed Buck is a rich Democratic fundraiser. He’s most well-known for being charged with battery causing serious injury, administering meth, and maintaining a drug house. Ed Buck had a history of bringing home black men – often sex workers – to his house, and giving them meth and other drugs because he got off sexually on drugging black men. He killed two of them with drugs, one in 2017 and one this year, which is what he was charged for.
Now, for how this news played out. First, Warren tweeted out a link to the CNN article about those who are endorsing her:
The next day, Libby Watson of The New Republic, pointed out the fact that Ed Buck was one of the endorsements:
Dave Weigel of Washington Post tweeted out an explanation from the Warren campaign:
This tweet is word salad but you can parse the meaning. Warren’s campaign said, “we caught some non-staff that populated the list but obviously we missed one.”
This is a terrible reply because no one cares that Ed Buck was non-staff, people care because he preys on, abuses, and kills black men to get his rocks off. The fact that Warren’s campaign caught word of this, had the time to release a statement, and still didn’t get it, is even more insulting.
Kevin Robillard of Washington Post then tweeted more from the Warren campaign:
This brings a new element to the situation. Instead of the claim that Ed Buck shouldn’t have been included because he wasn’t Obama staff, now they’re saying that the list of endorsements was compiled by volunteers. The compilation included “fake names”, that were removed by the volunteers.
But this begs the question: where did this list come from and how can we trust it then? It seems like it was just a spreadsheet of names, and they deleted some of the names off of it. But can it be seen as a list of legitimate supporters, when it was seemingly just a list that they pruned?
This makes the whole list seem pointless and deceptive. If the email was sent out to enough people that there were a bunch of fake names added, why should we take it as legitimate, at all?
Finally, Max Berger, who is associated with Elizabeth Warren’s campaign, offered an explanation:
By the time we get all of these different spins on the situation, here’s the summary of the situation:
Elizabeth Warren released a list of endorsers and included scumbag Ed Buck. When people called it out, the campaign explained that Ed Buck wasn’t actually Obama staff, assuming that was the ‘mistake’ people were referring to, and not that he kills black men.
Seemingly, once Warren’s campaign realized the full context of what was going on, they had to pull back the curtain more, and reveal that the list was hardly an endorsement list. Rather, it was just a spreadsheet compiled of Obama supporters, that were given to the Warren campaign.
There are basically two possibilities, with some ambiguous possibilities between the two: Warren was knowingly endorsed by Ed Buck and bragged about it. Or, all of the endorsements are rather meaningless, cobbled together without verification.