Another Case of Lizzie saying one thing and doing another. She represents the little people, yet fights for corporations and their interests.

Less "heralded"? Not really. Her intransigence was reported in the Herald..... Only now, with Granny coming under the harsh light, is the Globe reluctantly reporting that which the non-liberal has known for a while... Granny ain't the "crusader for the downtrodden" she's peddling...

Seems to me neither thecpt nor The Mayor read the article, or if they did only took from it what they wanted to believe in the first place. She was defending Travelers right to set up a trust fund whiicha as she said makes it easier for victims to collect compensation. She was not defending the company at the cost of victims, or against being held responsible, that all happened after the fact and is unrelated to her contribution. Quote: "Travelers won most of what it wanted from the Supreme Court, and in doing so Warren helped preserve an element of bankruptcy law that ensured that victims of large-scale corporate malfeasance would have a better chance of getting compensated, even when the responsible companies go bankrupt. But after Warren left the case, it continued to twist and turn through the legal system, leaving a result that has been disastrous for asbestos victims. Travelers, in part because of its Supreme Court victory, has held onto its immunity from most lawsuits. But a ruling on Feb. 29 in a separate court has taken the company off the hook for paying out the $500 million settlement."

PeterB54 seems to not realize that Granny Warren was working for Travelers... Very naive if you think Travelers said: "Oh Granny, please setup a plan to make sure we pay out as much as possible". And, of course, the bad turn for the plantiff's occured after Granny left the case.... Puleeze.

Tomorrow's Globe headline, "Brown is pro-asbestos" Go-Granny go (back to Oklahoma!

It's funny that when confronted with facts the right can just ignore them and move on. Sorta like that guy defending a position that women are not paid less then men when all the data say otherwise. Just like not reading or worse understand Ms. Warren's role in this case. It's simple she was defending the people who would benefit from the trust, not the company.

The Globe is losing creditability. You people will spin anything to make Harvard's first Native American look good. 3% Native American = fraud.

For all you people wanting to throw Elizabeth Warren under the bus, try to read the article and understand the nuance presented within the black and white text. She is an expert in bankruptcy, and the concept of a 'bankruptcy trust' - which can sometimes be used to create a 'win-win-win' scenario with a corporation, current victims, and future victims. We all know insurance companies are in the business of not paying out claims. Warren is disappointed the issue is still unresolved. Is the problem that Warren may have played both sides? I think Warren will, and the record should show, that she'll go to bat for the consume 9 times out of 10. Why do you the Senate Republicans stonewalled her appointment? Big money knows she will be a thorn in their side.

Wall Street never made so much money as it did in 2009 and 2010, on no one's watch as the GOP consistently blocked the appointment of a director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, thus effectively preventing it from providing actual oversight—thus leading to the gross excesses that always follow in periods of lax regulation. This latest spin, whereby Elizabeth Warren (paid by an insurance agency to argue for a settlement that would be in the interest of the victims) is somehow assigned blame for the victims getting the shaft, comes as no surprise as the GOP—who are afraid of her potential to disrupt Wall Street's making even more money in 2013 and 2014—have been frantically trying to tear her down at every opportunity. Conservative commenters on this site probably sleep at night by telling themselves the victims of asbestos weren't 'consumers', so they still fool themselves (but not others, L-O-L!) into thinking they're some kind of internet hypocrisy-and-truth-exposure squad. Tell that to the families of the dead Americans, the dead and uncompensated Americans thanks to Republicans who fight regulation and support greed at every turn.

No, they hired her to make sure that the bankruptcy trust would be upheld. Perhaps Warren is not a chess player and didn't see the big picture that the insurance company could use the trust ruling to shield themselves from future payments related to other lawsuits. The other shoe is yet to fall and perhaps the insurance company will finally pay out what they agreed upon earlier. I've got a bridge to sell all conservatives if you think the wholesale destruction of government will be good for your freedoms and market based capitalism.

This is the third time in the past year that I've seen this story in the news. It doesn't get any traction because there is nothing to it other than her advocating for asbestos victims. Meanwhile our Junior Senator sees no conflict with opposing the president's health care plan and taking advantage of it to cover his eldest daughter. One wants the benefits just for himself while the other wants benefits for the many.

When is the Globe going to write an article on the issues?

WOW......

>$750K annual household income for the Warrens from Harvard......

>$200K (+) paid to her by Traveler to help protect the Insurance company's long-term profits.....

>$150K/year for consulting and public speaking.....

Sounds to me as if the Warrens are a couple of those greedy "Milllionaires and Billionaires" that she is pretending to protect us from....