Easy, she was not a politician at the time. She did a job for the President because of her command of the facts and because she thought it was right. If not being from Washington means sitting on your hands and doing nothing, then you are correct. If it means being a fat cat who pours money into Super Pacs trying to distort the facts and hiding from the public, you are correct. Martin Luther King, Susan Anthony, Vietnam Vets, those who opposed invading Iraq all went to Washington to improve people's lives or prevent calamity. Usually over time Government, the people WE elect, listens and finally acts in a positive direction. How else do you propose change should take place? From your remarks it seems nothing needs attention in this country. Many of us think otherwise.

I can understand that the globe needs to prescreen the questions for profanity but these chats are a farce.When did women in combat become an issue in this election? Why can't the globe screen the questions but allow them in the order they are submitted? Let the candidates answer the tough questions from the voters not they ones that the globe and the advisers deem appropriate.

UGH!!! SO PATHETIC, THIS SIMPLE MINDED WOMAN.

So with clear answers Prof Warren has made a sharp distinction in policy from her opponent. She believes in a more inclusive world that broadens opportunity for its citizens. Sen Brown goes in the other direction. He believes government should serve certain corporations on Wall St, Big Oil, and pay little regard for the environment if it serves that purpose. He is for limiting women's freedoms using some lame excuses that bills fashioned will make life slightly difficult for some 3 people as oppose to the millions it would help. He also has yet to bring out who advocates for his candidacy other than his family but it is a pretty reactionary group. We know Karl Rove, Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, Jim DeMint, Joe Walsh, Joe Wilson, Chris Christie, and John Thune are solidly in his corner just to name a few. Plain and simple, his gratuitous rhetoric not withstanding, he is another vote in the Senate to inhibit real progress and not let this President elected by the majority of the people have a reasonable shot at meeting his promises.

It happens to be on Scott Brown's website as a major issue. It did not come out of thin air. Obviously this interview was to bring a side by side comparison of the two candidates. Not as sexy as gossip but much more important to the voting public.

I am Scott Brown and I approve this message. But don't ask me for my report card.

An "outsider's perspective"? Are you kidding? How can voters possibly expect Elizabeth Warren to provide an outsider's perspective when throughout her career she has been charged with manipulating her research data in order to support far-left liberal political positions? More importantly, when is the Globe going to start doing its job and cover this candidate with the same level of scrutiny it applies to conservative candidates? Long before Warren entered politics, peer review panels, government officials and other analysts excoriated her "research" for grossly inflating the number of so-called "medical bankruptcies" in order to justify the need for socialized medicine. (She even co-authored one "study" with physicians who were paid spokespeople for a group advocating for national health care.) But since you won't read about any of that in the Globe or hear about it on the evening news, here are some helpful links -- again, from independent sources that made these charges for no other reason than to set the record straight on Elizabeth Warren's slipshod, ideologically-tainted, fraudulent "research." Northwestern U. peer review of Warren's bankruptcy research: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/chime/papers/myth_vs_fact.pdf Deputy Dir. Commission on Bankruptcy Laws' detailed review of Warren's research, charging her with "repeated instances of scientific misconduct": http://www.docstoc.com/docs/122052167/rutgers-shuchman http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabeth-warren-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-utterly-misleading-bankruptcy-study/18827/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/considering-elizabeth-warren-the-scholar/60211/ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2009/12/20/elizabeth_warren_is_the_bostonian_of_the_year/?page=fullke

She's an outsider on the inside or an insider fromwithout? She cantmakeup her mind. That isn't a problem with a Democrat because the media won't try to vette every word you say. Brown uses a figure Os speech and the media can't let it go. As for this quote "to fix things that are broken," and in the long term through spending on education, infrastructure, and ­research", isn't this just the usual sop to to the unions and academia? Vote for me and everyone gets a job at taxpayer expense? No promise on reducing govtspending.

Just because you mention the names of unpopular conservatives into a comment does not mean that the people who get their news from sources other than Comedy Central will connect them to Brown.

Did Lizzy take Johnson out to lunch for the hard work he did covering her online blustering. A presidential candidate? I mean, really, Mr. Johnson, that was your lead. The Glob really needs to find you an editorial mentor to help you set issues in the proper order when you do your propagandizing for Lizzy and her Demoilks.

Lizzy wants women in combat... But it has to be noted that she didn't say she wants them leading troops in the charge against an enemy, nor did she say what she would want done about women with feminine problems (like pregnancy and various ills with their innards) ... Lizzy is naught but a worrier about 'principles' like those espoused by her Occupied supplicants...

Only he is connected to all these people, either in terms of marching orders or campaign financing or Karl Rove's pac. You can throw in Ray Blunt also as he co-sponsored removing basic young women's health benefits if an employer feels like it. I can't help it if you don't like the list. These are his political buddies. Remember he also enlisted the Tea Party during his initial run. So he is emphatically a card carrying trickle down believer, you're on your own, I've seen the pictures, Norquitst no new tax pledge and I hob nob with Kings and Queens Republican. If you don't like the company he keeps I assume you would have some trouble voting for him.

Keep up the good work. I am Scott Brown and I approve this message.

Yes you are so right. Scott Brown has been pummeled by the Globe day after day. Let's see, when was that? I think you do protest too much and with your fingers crossed.

Anyone who knows that Elizabeth Warren conceived and fought for the Consumers Protection Bureau knows that she does not head that bureau. President Obama appointed another person. Why did this happen? It happened because what she says (like the paragraph above) she does. During public hearings, she hammered President Obama's guy relentlessly. What she got out of it was a threat by Geithner that if she were chair of the Consumers Protection Bureau, he would resign. He had plenty of help. Banks, mortgage companies, credit card companies and indeed the entire financial sector (those wonderful people who almost got us into a depression) hate her. Don't take my word for it. Click on to the following: First the short u Tube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kptwBdfE1u8 Then the reasons why the contrary posters are wrong: http://janebryantquinn.com/2010/07/why-elizabeth-warren-should-head-the-new-consumer-protection-bureau/ Brown, in contrast, was, is and will forever be, in the tank.

Hummm lets see Gail has a job in Washington D.C. Scotty boy has a job in Washington D.C., Scotty boy pulled some strings and now has his national guard assignment in Washington D.C. So where do they live, seems to me they are Washington insiders and not Massachusetts residents.. just sayin

What difference approach, voting with the democrats 100% of the time, that's not different for our leaders in Mass, that's same ole.

It is a source of great joy to KNOW that somewhere in this looney state John Walsh & Co. are preparing a strategy if and when EW finally implodes and needs to be replaced.

Oh good, Psywar Editor Johnson gets to give Lizzy a second try at the voters, on a Monday morning, no less.... Gag!! She wants more outsiders so she create more havoc in the Senate, without having to work her way up the politicl food chain. Maybe that's how she got up the law school food chain and didn't need to count on her unconvincing claims to having a teensey drop of some kind of Cherokee DNA in her blood.

boggles the mind L - O - L!! liberal demagogues L - O - L!! boggles the mind L - O - L!! liberal demagogues L - O - L!! boggles the mind L - O - L!! liberal demagogues L - O - L!! boggles the mind L - O - L!! liberal demagogues L - O - L!!