Just a reminder to all those who inveigh against Biden-as-presidential-nominee because of whatever assailable histories one might cite, Elizabeth Warren-as-presidential-nominee would face — in addition to her Cherokee scandal, as it dispiritingly would be labeled — a torrent of Everyman backlash because, in the words of the NY Times …
* in 1995, she found herself up against the Clinton administration, representing the Cleveland-based conglomerate LTV Steel. Even though LTV had sold off its coal mines during the 1980s, a new law required it to contribute to a health fund for retired miners. LTV believed that it should not have to pay.
* the LTV case was part of a considerable body of legal work that Ms. Warren … took on while working as a law professor — moonlighting that earned her hundreds of thousands of dollars over roughly two decades beginning in the late 1980s.... Much of it involved representing big corporate clients. (In 1998, the Harvard Crimson reported that she was paid $192,550 in [professor] salary plus $133,450 in "other compensation.")
* Warren’s critics have seized upon her bankruptcy work for LTV and other big corporations to question the depth of her progressive bona fides. How, they wonder, could someone whose reputation is built on consumer advocacy have represented a company seeking to avoid paying for retired miners’ health care?
* among her corporate clients were Travelers insurance and the aircraft maker Fairchild, as well as one of America’s wealthiest [and most right-wing] families, the Hunts of Texas. She advocated for a railroad company that wanted to avoid paying for a Superfund cleanup, and advised Dow Chemical as its subsidiary Dow Corning dealt with thousands of complaints from women who said they had been harmed by its silicone breast implants.
* Warren’s campaign did not make her available to discuss her outside legal work.
Even though "scholars say [her work] should be understood primarily as an effort to preserve the right to file for bankruptcy and the integrity of the bankruptcy system," with what frequency will those considerations be coupled with the many political attacks?
That's right. You guessed it.
Thus Warren would lose many progressive votes because of her prior dedication to multibillion-dollar corporations, while also alienating millions of undecided populists, same reason.
And Warren defenders cannot say that this is just idle speculation, going nowhere, because every day they bark idle, speculative, hair-raising warnings about Joe Biden's nominated future. Having it both ways is nice, except when everyone notices.