Remember the saying "I think, therefore I am?" Well, MSNBC weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry does, and she used it to defend Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren against claims that she is not really part Cherokee Indian.

A Democrat trying to unseat incumbent Republican Scott Brown in the November election, Warren received support on Saturday when Harris-Perry laughably stated: "If candidate Warren grew up thinking she is Native American by heritage, who are we to say she is not? And who are we to define based on narrow constructs of race?"

In a report on Tuesday's NBC Today, correspondent Kelly O'Donnell described "awkward stumbles" for Senator Scott Brown and challenger Elizabeth Warren in a Massachusetts senatorial debate on Monday. Brown's supposed stumble was that he "first named an ultra-conservative" Antonin Scalia as an example of "a very good judge" and model Supreme Court justice.

O'Donnell described Warren's stumble being that she named "retiring" Indiana Senator Dick Lugar as a Republican she could work with if elected. In reality, Lugar was defeated by Richard Mourdock in the Republican primary.

Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown (R) scolded Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren for interrupting him during their debate Monday.

“Excuse me, I’m not a student in your classroom - please let me respond.”

For six days and counting (including this morning), the broadcast networks entertained the idea that Paul Ryan was lying in his convention speech last week. Yet the problem for journalists was that Ryan’s speech was accurate, even if they didn’t like the implications. NBC’s Chuck Todd on Thursday evening’s Nightly News, for example, even conceded that “what he [Ryan] said many times was technically factual,” but grumbled that “by what he left out,” he “actually distorted the actual truth.”

Such a sensitive standard means journalists could endlessly complain, since even truthful speeches or TV ads necessarily omit information detrimental to their campaign objective. The question is, will journalists be so sensitive when liberal Democrats take liberties with their campaign rhetoric?

As part of her hour-long August 20 special edition of Now about to "women's issues," MSNBC's Alex Wagner devoted a 10-minute-long segment to the so-called pay gap -- women earning on average 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. Wagner's guests, Salon's Joan Walsh, Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Lilly Ledbetter predictably did their parts to help Wagner sell the pay gap issue as one with Republicans in the dark ages and Democrats as the white knights. "Why are Senate Republicans still fighting legislation to account for that gap and to make pay equal," Wagner asked Warren at the start of the segment.

But alas, the so-called pay gap is a "a solid statistic" that has been "described incorrectly" in anti-Republican attack ads, Politifact noted back in June (emphasis mine):

In an unintentionally hilarious variation on the some-of-my-best-friends-are line employed by people defending themselves against accusations of prejudice, Elizabeth Warren—lefty Dem candidate for Senate from Massachusetts—has claimed that various people close to her have started small businesses.

Warren let loose her laugh line on Al Sharpton's MSNBC show this evening, responding to an ad Sen. Scott Brown is running that reveals how President Obama's "you didn't build that" line was eerily similar to an earlier Warren utterance. View the video after the jump.

For someone seemingly so bright, Rachel Maddow sure has a short memory.

There she was on June 19, talking about a proposed debate between GOP Sen. Scott Brown and Democrat challenger Elizabeth Warren and mocking Brown with her trademark brand of arm-waving, arrested adolescent sarcasm (video after page break) --

Has Rachel Maddow ever considered trying her hand at fiction?

What am I saying? She already does, just about every night on MSNBC. (video after page break)

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Ma.) has told the Edward M. Kennedy Institute that he will only participate in a debate against Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren if MSNBC drops out as sponsor.

The Boston Globe reported Monday:

Chris Matthews isn't even trying anymore. The liberal anchor on Wednesday went into full Democratic adviser mode. Talking to Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, he turned an interview into a strategy session, saying of the campaign against Republican Scott Brown: "Let me help you on this, to the extent that I, as a journalist, can help you."

Providing an additional contribution, Matthews somehow managed to skip the controversy that's been plaguing Warren's campaign for a month and a half: The fact that she has repeatedly tried to pass herself off as a Native American. (At one point, the Democrat claimed she was 1/32 Cherokee.) While avoiding this embarrassing subject, Matthews incredulously wondered, "Why are the polls so close?...You should be miles ahead of [Brown]." [See video below. MP3 audio here.]

At the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, Jesse Washington's Friday evening coverage ("Who's an American Indian? Warren case stirs query") of the nuances involved in claiming Native American Indian heritage -- or ancestry, or biology, or allegiance, or identity, or identification, or membership (and I've probably missed a couple) -- occasioned by Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts is the journalistic equivalent of what the occasional Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball game was like (with final scores sometimes in the 20s) before the NCAA legislated the shot clock: a continuous exercise in stalling.

Washington's report is time-stamped at 10:31 P.M., meaning that its last rendition was at least 18 hours after the Boston Globe performed a rare exercise in journalism and found the following, of which there is no hint in the AP story:

Are you prepared, Bernie Quigley?

Are you prepared for your inevitable coronation as national laughingstock?

Bernie Quigley of The Hill has written himself into the laughstock status by his incredibly laughable excuse for Elizabeth Warren's false claim to be part Indian. According to Quigley, paleface Warren really wasn't lying about her ancestry. Why? I have placed Quigley's bizarre rationale below the fold so you have a chance to put down your drinks to prevent the drenching of your monitors when you read it: