Now featuring - MiniMitt.

While Scott Brown may have voted with the Republican leadership just 75% of the time, his language still follows the extremely partisan points of the leadership and strategists. He speaks of Democrats and Elizabeth Warren of demonizing those that have been successful. How is suggesting that the people that earn more than a million dollars a year can afford to pay something additional toward the general welfare of the country as a whole, demonizing? How is pointing out the facts of shipping jobs overseas, employee wages staying flat while executives continue to increase their own financial packages, demonizing? It is not, but Brown and the republicans will continue to claim it is. No, Scott Brown is still a very partisan Senator and his continued positions on regulation of financial industry or rather that there are too many, indicates that it is what is best for the wealthiest among us and not the majority of Americans that drives his positions.

Scott Brown is now flip flopping on issues because he knows the Republican Party has gone so far to the tea party right he is starting to look bad to the general public, not just democrats. This man is a lightweight and never should have been voted into office. It was tea party support (money from out of state) and a special election most voters ignored that got him elected. If reelected and he is safe for six years he will march in lock step with his tea party friends. Elizabeth Warren knows Washington and she will be a watchdog on Wall Street. I want someone who will put the looters of the middle class in jail where they belong. If any of us 99% did what Wall Street did, we would be on death row. I certainly do not believe that Scott Brown has the brain power to rip himself away from the far right as he has shown by his record so far. If he did the Republican Party would disown him. No way do i want this man as representing me or my state of Massachusetts. I'll vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat.

Would he like a little cheese with that whine??

As the incumbent with a bigger 'war chest' he is hardly the underdog. That may change in the months to come, but Senator Brown is playing this hand too soon. It is going to be an interesting year in Massachusetts.

Obviously Scott is fighting an uphill battle in this state---Unions like the the 103 electrical workers have been organizing for months to get rid of him--ONLY because he is a repulican. No balance what so ever in this state. Lets see some debates and then see how the general public feel about Lizzie from Oklahoma.

JL---with every union in the state, maybe the exception is police, there is no chance Brown has a bigger bank behind him than Warren. Look at the turn out that was produced when they wanted Baker too lose---Brown doesnt have a shot unless Lizzie makes a fool of herself in the debate.

I wish Brown's job creators were more effective, don't you?

Charlie, Sen. Brown has his 2-year record in the Senate, and his experience as a state senator. It's his election to lose, but I agree Warren will make it a fight, and I agree union and outside money will get behind Warren while other outside money will get behind Brown. Brown will want to run on his credentials as a home-grown politician, even though 'carpetbaggers' have not seem to found that a hindrance (Patrick, Weld, Romney, to name a few). So far our junior Senator has established a record of putting Massachusetts first when push came to shove. That has to be considered in the context of his being up for re-election in only two years rather than six, so the real test of his character would be if he wins this year what will his record look like in 2018? Unlike the partisans commenting I don't think either Warren or Brown would be disastrous for the Commonwealth, but I also have not committed to one or the other, and may yet vote for a third party candidate if the race between these two gets to be too negative, just to make a point of opposing the negativity if both sides engage in it.

There is enough, awready, of reportorial hogwash about presidential candidates. Who in the name of the Miami blue heron cares about pollcounting by academics with nothing else to do with their grant money except ask silly questions about senatorial candidates. The Brown-Warren one-round bell won't ring until November, 2012. Meantime, Warren has to get through a state primary, as useless as that event will be. Whether Brown wants to be an underdog, or a pussycat by next Labor Day may be more pertinent. Why don't Taxashoosetts governmental nabobs propose a referendum on whether state voters prefer all this years of political nonesuching or whether shorter, more vibrant and pertinent campaigns at the presidential, statewide, and local election levels might be far more desirable.... and a helkuvalot cheaper. Such campaigns benefit only the media who carry the exorbitantly expensive political ads, and thus, of course, want the years-long campaigns to go on, and on, and on, and on.

JL and he is an underdog in this state. Most of the local political machines will be firmly behind Warren regardless of his record of working with both sides in office. In reality, what he has done in office will mean very little, as long as warren holds her own in the debates, she will win

Charlie, as I mentioned, he may prove to be the underdog come October, but I think he is jumping the gun to play that hand at this time. I like the man, and I think favorably of his job performance overall. I do think he should jettison Fernstrohm; the man is a liability. Cheers, Jim.

Of the two, only one, Elizabeth Warren, has suffered the slings and arrows of supporting the middle class. She has been hammered relentlessly by Republicans, banks, Wall St., credit card companies, mortgage companies and the entire financial sector in general. She is single-minded in her efforts to make sense out of nonsense. That includes a debate with Obama apointee Tim Geithner, when she was charged with finding out where the money went, including TARP funds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz7ruJw6byQ See anything of Senator Brown trying to mitigate the Great Republican Recession that is comparable to this short U tube video? If so, I would be interested. Until then: "If you haven't realized by now that Scott Brown is lighter than air, you're not paying attention."

It takes a certain amount of anxiety to write about Elizabeth Warren, as a professor, liberal and transplanted Sooner(all of which is true,)and at the same time paint her as an egghead, and carpetbagger, which is not true. It is distressing, and in Massachusetts, counterproductive, to trivialize knowledge and the pursuit of wisdom as if the process is useless and the information gained is not worth having. It should be noted that Elizabeth Warren has done much work on bankruptcy law so that the middle class is not left absolutely destitute when forced to use it. This in the face of big-time creditors and Big Business who use the law not only to their own advantage, covering their own problems, but to make sure the small fish really gets fried. A great part of her teaching and work is spent encouraging American ideals of fairness and equality.

Stinger, I assume you are a part of her campaign? What slings and arrows has she taken that Brown has not? What does a Harvard professor know about the middle class? How about she tries to get colleges and universities to start paying themselves less and using so that the "middle class" can go to college without raking in 50k in debt? She can attack banks all she wants but that is how my parents and grandparents got houses and pay for cars. If you want to limit the amount of a bonus that they can receive in a publiclly owned company, im all for it. But lets stop demonizing banks while letting government regulators and people taking out the loans off the hook. Anyone who says they didnt understand their mortgage or the terms when they signed it will get little pity from me.

Respected reporter Frank Phillips ends his piece with this Scott Brown quote about Elizabeth Warren: "She's stated there's no problem leaving blood and teeth in the streets and not compromising,'' he said. Frank, did you look for weather or where she actually said it before you put it in the article? Does it serve Globe readers to read a quote that may not be true? If Mr. Phillips didn't have the time to search for this, he shouldn't have used it. If she didn't actually say this, then Mr. Phillips has delivered a perfect example of how journalism is failing us all. And if she didn't actually say this then that should be reported on as part of the story. That would serve readers as well as the election.

One only needs to take notice whom is attacking Warren and wonder why they are doing so, to understand who she represents and make a determination of whether or not she is worthy of your vote. Because I am in the Middle Class and believe that many large Corporations wield way too much influence over our government, my vote is going to her in 2012.

@charlieboywest. I'm happy to answer the Elizabeth Warren question. I am not a part of her campaign. This is a short version: http://janebryantquinn.com/2010/07/why-elizabeth-warren-should-head-the-new-consumer-protection-bureau/ This is a real in-depth look at Elizabeth Warren. Very balanced: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/11/elizabeth-warren-201111 The way I see it, Elizabeth Warren will help everyone in America. Scott Brown will also help everyone in America, but first, the wealthy have to be taken care of. With 15 million dollars in the war chest, "underdog" is not the label that comes to mind.