As Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren finds herself in the Democratic primary lead – for now – she will start to face attacks from many directions. In fact, just the other day, an old video surfaced of Warren which may re-open old wounds.

Senator Warren has tried to convince people that she really didn't speak about her "Native America" heritage as it became more and more of a problem for her. She was wildly unsuccessful as left, right and center all agreed that she should never have made the claim.

But she not only made the claim, she benefitted from it, too. Last year, the Washington Post dug up a Texas state bar registration card back in 1986. She's apologized for it and has survived it, for now. But as she takes the lead, Democratic rivals, anonymous PACs, Trump's campaign and others will start to hack away at Warren's brand as a presidential candidate.

Last week, a stark reminder of just how willing she is to look someone in the eye and lie to their face resurfaced. Typical Americans don't like that, even if they originally didn't like it and moved on; they don't enjoy knowing that about someone they want to support. Warren doesn't want them reminded either, especially as they are about to choose who will be the Democratic nominee.

Warren knows the attention span of most voters is shorter than a drunken goldfish, so today, she speaks as though she "might have" made the claim decades ago. But the internet is forever there, Fauxahontas.

Most Americans want to know, what did she really know to make a serious claim like this and how did she use it to her advantage? She got into some pretty prestigious schools and was given tenure at Harvard University shortly after unruly leftist students there began to protest that the Ivy League school was a more of an "ivory" one, too, with far too white a faculty.

Shortly after her hiring in 1992, Harvard began boasting about their actions to diversify the hirings by pointing out several minority tenures they'd secured, including a "Native American" female professor in Elizabeth Warren.

Warren succumbed to pressure and provided the results of a recent DNA test, showing her as little as 1/1024th Indian, and tried to redefine the genetic findings as "strong evidence" proving her Indian lineage.

Leaders in the Cherokee Nation who had once defended Warren were indignant at her characterization of the test, releasing this statement:

"Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong."

Just as in any trial, whether it be a speeding ticket or homicide, the opposition tries to break down the credibility of the opposition's information at every turn. If a lie or untruth is offered once, it plants the seeds of doubt in things that are said afterward.

It's no different in politics. The candidates are in a trial of a sort. They try to make their case to you and you, the jury, give the verdict at the polls. Americans are also understanding when it comes to the reasons one would lie. For example, many Americans understood why President Clinton would lie about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Once someone makes the mistake of infidelity, they normally try to hide it with great effort, let alone a president trying to provide an image of a sound family unit. It's understandable. It does suddenly show the nation a slimy act is capable by a guy who had created a character of himself that would be "beyond" such a betrayal of one's spouse.

But people understood why he would lie about it. It was a forgive-but-not-forget kind of attitude by America.

But Warren's lie is far more of a sticking problem for her; unlike President Clinton, who was already in office and not still making his case to the American people. Also, this stinks of selfishness, of indifference to the plight of real Native Americans and is coming on the heels of her typical speeches about caring for the "little guy," the disempowered and impoverished.

Did the next-in-line of some scholarship she may have obtained, reserved for Indians alone, change the trajectory of a real Native American because of some lily-white, ambitious  .9990234 percent Caucasian?

If she was stone-cold sociopathic enough to propel herself forward in society through these means, what else is she capable of doing that would shock most Americans?

And keep in mind, this is but one arrow of much more sure to follow as Liz takes the lead in the primary.

I can still recall Standard-Times reporter (and fellow progressive at that) Jack Spillane reporting that she was literally fleeing from him and his one pen and little notepad, closing doors behind her as he followed, trying to get her to answer just a few questions about her visit to New Bedford and about her campaign when she sought the help of the far left around here, including the Coalition of Social Justice, as she ran against Senator Scott Brown.

She will not be the next president in my estimation. She doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to tell the truth, look people in the eye and make her case. At least not in any way that will be convincing enough to the American people, or even the Democratic enrolled ones, as she is bombarded by the slings and arrows suffered by the frontrunner in a 21st-century presidential race.

Ken Pittman is the host of The Ken Pittman Show on 1420 WBSM New Bedford. He can be heard Saturdays from 9 a.m. to noon. Contact him at ken.pittman@townsquaremedia.com. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

Download The WBSM-AM/AM 1420 Mobile App