Nice political hatchet job, typical of Y and the Globe...guys not running so lets kick him, real nice

The only thing I would add to your accurate assessment of Brown is that a lot of us never believed the pickup-driving, Carhartt-wearing nice guy image in the first place. It was pretty easy to see through this faux getup intended to garner votes. What's surprising is how gullible white blue-collar men west of Boston bought into this . On the other hand, for them all a successful Republican candidate has to do is, nudge-nudge, wink, wink, provide enough assurance that this demographic can, 1) keep its guns (and get even bigger ones, if possible), 2) keep taxes low, 3) maintain control over a woman's body, 4) keep government as ineffective as possible, and 5) maintain the American military in a healthy sabre-rattling state. The formula for Republican success is pretty simple, and the closer a candidate can look like Clint Eastwood or John Wayne, the better. Scott Brown's only weakness is that he attempted this in Massachusetts--he'd be a huge success in South Carolina, Indiana, or Missouri.

I'll be looking forward to an article on our new senator Warren and all her accomplishments. Haven't heard a peep yet, I though for sure she would come out against the tax hikes our dear governor has proposed but I hear crickets.

It's no wonder good people don't run for higher office in this state after columns like this. I don't blame Brown for bowing out, given the amount of cash and the amount of campaigning he'd need to do over the next few years, and then the added factor of a toxic media climate. For all the criticism of his voting record you outline, do the rest of the delegation we send to Washington get the same level of scutiny? I'd dare say Brown was less partisan than Kerry. I also appreciate the fact that Brown took the risk and asked for our support and vote. What are we left with? A veteran Congressman hand-picked with the request to run unopposed in the primaries, and a former political aide hand-picked to serve as the interim rubber stamp for Patrick's buddy in the White House. Now that worthy of criticism. 

And Yvonne reveals how she like, sooo, misses high school and stabbing people in the back, for no reason.

Taking a cheap shot at someone who *isn't* running isn't childish?   Why is the emphasis still on the person who lost an election?  It's like the happy divorced person who still talks about her ex.  Isn't it time to move on?  Still keeping your eye on your ex, eh? Elizabeth Warren's first words, when asked a question by the press, were a disrepectful non-answer, and her true colors came out as to how she really feels about the media.  Brown was always cagey with reporters?  Warren disses them.  The media won't have Brown to kick around during this special election, and they just don't know what to do with themselves.  I don't have any need to defend Brown, BTW, but this brand of writing is cheap, and is a reflection on Abraham, and no one else.  

It would be nice for the Republicans to put up a candidate so that the Globe can endorse the Democrat.  It's good for the Republicans to run as long as they never get to win anything.

Your first paragraph made me laugh.  It's Very Good.

Sen. Brown did say when he was running against Martha Coakley, "Try me for a couple of years and if you don't like me, ..." or words to that effect. Well, the voters of Massacusetts tried him and he lost the next election.  The voters preferred Ms. Warren.

Sen. Brown was always in a no-win situation.  He votes with Democrats and his fellow Republicans are angry.  He votes with Republicans and the Democratic majority in Massachusetts doesn't like that.  He was not a workhorse in the Massachusetts Legislature and unfortunately for him, his habits carried over to his job in the U.S. Senate.  His campaign against Sen. Warren in the fall election didn't enhance his stature as a nice guy or as a serious representative for Massachusetts.  On the important votes in the U.S. Senate, he waited until the last minute to indicate his vote.  In the last few weeks of his trying to decide to run/not run for Senate, he wasn't really upfront/fair to the members of the Massachusetts Republican Committee in his flipping from stating he needs Ms. Hughes to help him with funding as he makes a run for the Senate, and then, after she gets the job, deciding not to run.  

Either he doesn't know his own mind or he doesn't have the courage to say what he thinks.  Or perhaps he's just not a team player; a lot of people were counting on him.  Bottom line for me:  He was just not up to the job, and he didn't have the "fire in the belly" as they say.  That's perfectly alright.  It's no easy thing, running for public office.

For all of the topics you could write about for your Sunday column, you had to take the low road with a cheap shot against our ex-senator who respectfully declined to run for the open seat. You mention that Senator Brown was difficult to interview after he took office. What do you think we have now with our new Senior Senator?

I didn't realize how sensitive everybody is to Scott Brown's *feelings* !