A free campaign ad from the Boston Globe Democrat. Let's see how much positive press they give to Scott Brown.

If a woman asserts the kind of leadership and persuasiveness that gets things done it is labeled "authoritarian." Some people, mostly men, have trouble dealing with strong conscience driven individuals. No one took away any legislator's choice of vote so how can this be turned into being dictated to? There are thousands of lobbyists who do not work in the public's interest and when an advocate pops up who does and is successful you can bet the naysayers fall into the former category. Prof Warren's opposition in the Massachusetts Senate race has no qualms about using dicey tactics, smears, and outright lies to distract from her outstanding achievement. She has shown in real terms that she will represent the people of Massachusetts and deserves their vote. Sen Brown is a trickle down Republican whose endorsements reflect old social paradigms or players in the market who have not repented for their lousy business ethics. It is not so much what they believe or how they act but the suffering it has caused the general public can not be excused. Sen Brown has taken votes that limits worker's choices, weakened our security, and pushed more dollars from those need it to those that don't.

They have outlined in detail what Prof Warren accomplished in Washington. So people read these comments so why don't you mention a few of the good Senator's work products and we'll compare notes. Your overall reaction to the article by calling it positive tells me that you actually respect what she was able to do in Washington against tremendous odds. I would like to see what you think Scott Brown's achievements in the Senate were.

Scott Brown speaking. Keep up the good work System. You are a real asset to my campaign. Your check is in the mail.

The Brown campaign wants to let you know the check is in the mail.

Obama should have appointed her. He listens to Geithner. Big mistake.

Well System you have had ugly pill this am. Not only are you off topic but also a little boorish. At least I am a bit more polite than Chris Christie in pointing this out.

I'd like to suggest you head back over to the Herald and hang out with Howie Carr. Probably have more fun there.

Hasn't yet in spite of wheelbarrows full of mud thrown at her by Brown and his supporters. What do you like about Scott Brown anyway?

As other bloggers have noted, this is NOT a news story. It s a CAMPAIGN AD for prof. Warren. Also when the Globe says: Axelrod, the top Obama aide, said Republican opposition to making Warren the permanent head of the financial protection bureau put the president in a predicament from the outset: Nominate her for the permanent assignment and trigger another partisan battle on the Senate floor, or put her into the post temporarily through a so-called recess appointment while Congress was on vacation'----tHE COMPLETELY dishonest gLOBE

We Elizabeth Warren supporters know about the CFPB, the 140 Million it forced Capital One to return to its customers and the fine it won from the defendant to fund further enforcements at no cost to the tax payer. That's just one reason to vote for Elizabeth Warren. We can speak to the economic and legal theory behind her platform and how it will benefit us all. At some point, instead of making rude remarks about the opponent, you will have to demonstrate your knowledge of why anyone should vote for Scott Brown. It's interesting that you can't. You are admitting the incompetence of your tea party candidate to do anything for our state or our country. All you have is repeating his now proven LIES.

You need to check your facts and stop using screaming caps. Elizabeth Warren was never the CFPB chief. She designed the law that creates it as a consultant to the government. Recess appointments are legal and every President from both parties has used it. There are all sorts of things one can factually debate about both sides, you know none of them.

Elizabeth Warren is not running for CFPB chief nor was she ever nominated nor will she be. She is running for the Senate in which the President polls 2:1 over his opponent. She is going to be the next Senator. Get your facts straight before you impugn the honesty of others.

Scott Brown's lie which you repeat has been utterly disproven. Charles Fried a Harvard Professor, a former supporter of Scott Brown and Reagan Cabinet member has stated categorically that the "issue" of which you speak never happened. It's fascinating that Scott Brown's supporters can only speak misogynist, racist and really issue free lies and you cannot say a single positive thing as to why anyone should vote for the Cosmo fashion model. Even he can't explain why someone really ought to vote for him. Go to Elizabethwarren.com for a hundred reasons to vote for her ... not babble but reasons.

And the reason to vote for Scott Brown is? You don't know, you have no idea. Listen - this is how elections work. People vote because they have a positive reason to do so. Elizabeth Warren's creation - the CFPB has returned 140 million to Capital One customers and collected a 25 million fine for further enforcement actions. Scott Brown has done nothing. Even what he claims, he did not do or did the opposite. An incumbent with a 38% voting for him is not someone who could crash a mosquito.

Hmm. The globe censors didn't like my comment. So I'll post again, hopefully without offending their twisted liberal bias's.. Granny warren's start didn't rise in DC...it rose in Texas when she decided to declare herself a minorty.... She got to Penn State and then havard on affirmative action.... and then, when it was no longer convienent or useful, tried to drop it.

This your only response? Seriously? Try typing Scott Brown into search...

Do you have any evidence that Warren's rise was due to affirmative action? If so, please share.

Scott has been a bipartisan Senator (54-46%) but you Dems only want a senator who will vote 100% with your party. Washington is so dysfunctional because of party line votes. I'll keep someone who will work with both parties and COMPROMISE! With Obama, reid, and (before the 2010 mid term) Pelosi, there was no no compromise.

This is a better reason the Republicans torpedoed Elizabeth Warren: http://janebryantquinn.com/2010/07/why-elizabeth-warren-should-head-the-new-consumer-protection-bureau/ You'll never see this kind of opinion written about Scott Brown! http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/11/elizabeth-warren-201111 Most Brownies will not read either link. Too bipartisan? Too truthful? Too enlightening? Too congratulatory?