I thought she missed a few opportunities but overall did a good job. Brown connects with Joe Sixpack though, looking into the camera at you S-corp owners, union guys, regular Joe's and spinning that bull about tax-and-spend. It's effective, unfortunately. I was surprised she didn't knock down the Travelers/asbestos stuff. She clearly did right by victims in her work there but she didn't defend herself. I also think she should spell out the Supreme Court issue more convincingly. Overall, she didn't mess up, she held her own, but to the average voter, she has more work to do to nail this down.

Brown came off as a total creep. After all the laundry folding ads, he comes out as a bully. Wasted money.

Scott didn't actually watch the debates. He had this Puff Piece prepared beforhand. Scott already has the results of the remaining debates as well.--- (To me it looked like Scott had an answer to nearly everything Elizabeth said. The only times he remained silent was when Prof. Warren used debate time to shill for Barack Obama's foreign policy (ignoring the current events in Egypt, Libya, Iran, the Obama apology video in Pakistan, and the current violence), and Brown also remained silent when Elizabeth referred to the Boston Globe to back up her statements. (We all know that the Globe is an accurate news source, don't we?).

TOTALLY agree.  Perfectly put when I had trouble putting my finger on his problem.  He was NOT senatorial..he was amateur like he belonged in the local state house NOT in the national Senate.  He was I thought initially a bully and led with the Cherokee thing? ?:?? really Mr. Brown..my goodness, people out of work, out of a home, and a job the 1% making out like bandits and creating our debacle in the first place and he wanted to play cowboys and indians. ... GIVE US A BREAK.  Masachusetts my beloved state please send Brown the abberation packing.  I am proud I come from the deepest blue state as I LOVE the color I call political blue!

I wondered why Elizabeth did not challenge Brown on his prevaricating ways. When he was caught lying for a year about meeting with kings and queens, he says he misspoke. Huh? Is misspoke the new synonym for aggrandizing, fabricating and lying? Didn't he falsely claim to have seen a photo of Bin Laden's corpse? The character question was a two way street; she should not have conceded it to Brown. There was a moment in the debate when Brown appeared to be agreeing with Elizabeth for her support of President Obama. She missed the opportunity to have some fun with that and make him say R-O-M-N-E-Y. In fact did he once either on of the R words in the debate?

Good for you, Scot!  Lehigh, I mean, not Brown!  Scot Lehigh watched the same debate I did; and saw much of what I saw: a cocky junior senator condescending to a woman with more depth than he ever imagined a woman could have.  He's too slick by half--toadying to Jon Keller, calling him by name at every question, and condescendingly calling Elizabeth, 'Professor'.  I was very surprised, frankly.  I thought he would be 'nice' and feared she might be a bit strident.  Au contraire, he was sneering and she was professional. The policy differences were more or less unsurprising, but the attitudes?  Hurray for Elizabeth Warren!!

This election is an easy one for me. You want more government in your life, you want the government to create temporary jobs at a high cost to the tax payer, vote Warren.

 

You want less government, a free market, free enterprise,private sector to start hiring again, vote Brown.

 

We cannot tax our way to proseperity, people cannot prosper living off the government, time for a better economy, we have been stagnant for 4 years, plenty of money on the sidelines just sitting there, let's open it up and get our country moving, we need a more friendly business environment.

 

16 trillion dollars in debt is also another factor for us, it's destructive, both parties are to blame for that, time to stop living above our means, balance the budget and start paying down the debt, our children are counting on that. Read some business, money articles, the predictions are scary, some say a crash worse than 2008 is coming with the feds falsely propping up the stock market and devaluing our dollar.

Every supposed "fail" cited by Scot Lehigh was a win for Scott Brown in my view.  If the next few debates go this "poorly" for Scott Brown, he'll walk away with this election and EW can go back to her $300 gig teaching one law school class.  

Anyone planning to vote for Brown must have been physically ill watching his petty, high-school-jock-like attempts to get the upper hand. 

It's very clear that each candidate appealed to different people in different ways.  Simply no clear winner in the personality department, from my vantage point.  Both have strengths, both have weaknesses.  Neither is as strong as I would like for the position.  Warren's strength is to run against Brown's voting record and the spectre of Republican control of the Senate.  Her weakness is a sense of edginess and poor ability to be plain-spoken and answer direct questions.  As another commenter said, she should have addressed the insurance case history.  Brown, on the other hand, probably connects with more people with a more casual style.  But his position on the issues is deep red, and his ability to frame choices can convince people without adequate awareness of the details that he's on the best side of the issue for the common man.  Inevitably, the devil is in the details of these kinds of debates.  If Warren wants to convince people that she is on the side of everyman, she needs to find a way to take her deep understanding of the details, and frame it in a way that works for the broader audience.  

LOL!....what a joke!  We apparently were not watching the same debate.  I saw a poll this morning on WBZ-TV showing that Brown CLEARLY WON the debate....Brown - 50%, Warren - 40%.  That, my friend is a 10 point win by Brown. 

Lizzie the Liar could not answer Brown's points, she clearly was lying but this time he was there to rebut her lies.  She actually had very little to say except the same old thing...big oil bad, taxes, spend and redistribution good.  Brown, meantime, pointedly said that the only thing she can say about him is that he won't raise taxes.  He said he accepts that accusation...he won't raise taxes, especially on small business who are the primary job creators in this country and state.

Spoken like a really good Democrat, Mr. Lehigh!

Scott Brown is in deep trouble, judging by last night's debate results. He was exposed for a bully, a lightweight with very little command of the issues, and a liar who tried to pull random numbers out of the air to make his point and was called out for it. He tried the Mike Tyson tactic of rushing out blindly firing punches, hoping to overwhelm his opponent. But Liz Warren is nobody's patsy and she counterpunched very effectively ringing his chimes on a number of issues, especially regarding his willingness to hold the middle class hostage in order to appease his wealthy campaign donors and see to it that they got more tax breaks to enrich their Cayman Island bank accounts. No, indeed, not a particulalry "Senatorial" performance by Scott Brown...more like a tantrum by a petulant two year old trying to get his way.

Yes, because Harry Reid has done such a grand job running the Senate.

Brown came acros as a liar and a bully who doesn't have coommand of the issues; he's an intellectual light weight who resorted to perconal attacks because that's what bullies do.

Brown clearly won this debate.  He was likeable and knowledgeable and exposes Warren's hypocrisy on both student costs (citing her $350,000 per class salary) and on fighting for the middle class (citing her support of an Traveler's insurance against asbestos sufferers.)  Prof. Warren also showed who her true masters are when she couldn't even say the words "pro-life" - she practically was spitting when when referred to that side of the abortion debate as "anti-choice."  Watch the tape on that one.  She's very unpleasant to listen to - she needs to stop lecturing everyone.

Mr. LeHigh, you once asked for suggestions for a column to write.  Well, here's an idea.  Today's  WS Jnl writer Fouad Ajami writes about "Muslim rage and the Obama retreat" in an Op Ed piece.  What's your take on Jimmy Carter's 444 days of Iran holding the Embassy hostage  followed by Mr. Obama's bridge building with Muslim nations?   Ajami writes that "No American president before this one had proclaimed such intimacy with a world that stretches from Morrocco to Indonesia".   This election so far has been diverted from the reality of Obama's failures onto the trivial blasting of rich people.   America has never seen such upheaval both economically and in foreign relations.  Who gets tagged with the responsibility?

Mart: A poll? A self-selected response thing, no? In other words, WBZ didn't commission a randomly selected survey, did they? Scot

Scot, I saw it differently.  I saw Brown as confident, experienced and straight forward.  Warren looked tense, evasive, and with no ideas of her own, just the usual liberal democrat failed policies. 

At the DNC, Obama told us that the economy is fine, and suddenly according to the liberal media (which is every major outlet except Fox Neews), it's no longer an issue worth addressing.  Liz Warren strikes out big time in the debate and the liberal media rushes to her defense pretending she did great.  Scot, no one with any sense is buying this garbage any more.  Brown cleaned her clock.  

 I bet Scott had this written ten minutes before Brown's plane landed at Logan.

I bet Lehigh thinks Warren's 53 references to "the Globe" were meant for him--liberal hack to liberal hack. 

The best debate synopsis of the four columns running today and miles ahead of the front-page writing.

What I have found most disturbing this election season is the squeezing out of independent and third party candidates. D and R now represent extremes that I cannot in good conscience support.

liz02131 wrote, "Brown came acros as a liar and a bully who doesn't have coommand of the issues; he's an intellectual light weight who resorted to perconal attacks because that's what bullies do."

I mostly agree, Brown is a nasty, sloganeering, light weight.

Obviously, Scot likes Professor Warren and dislikes Scott brown. I could write the exact opposite article about last nights debate because I believe in Scott Brown's positions and not professor Warren's. It's all where you sit.

Scot, I don't think it is "eye-rollingy silly" to point out that Warren didn't voluntarily pay higher taxes. A lot of people I talk to feel it would have helped her tremendously had she done so. Instead, she comes across as someone who says one thing, but does another. And I think Warren's character is certainly questionable, based on many of her actions, and it was completely fine for Brown to call her out on that. It's called guts, and Brown had them last night.

@system and the Travellers tirade: It's time to put this red herring to rest. This is at least the fourth time I have given you an explanation and links, to no avail. Since I am not weak of heart, I will try again. Let's take them one at a time. Travelers was on the hook for millions of dollars but....Travelers has deep pockets and could keep lawyers busy for years! Result? Maybe people get paid, but most of them would be dead by the time it played out. Warren helped set up a much lesser amount that did get paid out to victims. So...Travellers pays less but people get paid before they die. That's about as good a deal as anyone will get. What's wrong with that? Warren said: "At stake is how to get payments to the largest number of asbestos victims, and that means getting insurance companies to put all the insurance proceeds into a trust rather than fighting lawsuit-by-lawsuit until the money runs out,Warren said. €œ"All the victims deserve a fair shake, and that means they should all have an equal chance for compensation." Travelers also got a benefit in that it would be immune from subsequent lawsuits. Like (3) Dislike (0) Report abuse

Guys, Here's a novel thought. Just for the fun of it, instead of simply making assertions, explain why you judged the debate the way you did. Now, I know this will be difficult. It means that rather than simply writing: Scot, you're an idiot. Fox News is great!, one might say: Scot, I really thought Senator Brown carried the day because he convincingly explained why .... (insert your argument here). To my way of thinking, that would lead to a more intelligent exchange of ideas. And who knows, it might even persuade somone who doesn't agree with you. What do you say? Want to give it a try? Scot

Scott....check your GPS....I think you showed up at the wrong debate...

Mike: See comment below.

Fifty percent (50%) of voters who watched tonight's U.S. Senate debate between Senator Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren said the Senator won, with 40% saying that Warren won the debate (6% thought it was a tie and 4% were undecided) according to a Kimball Political Consulting survey of "likely voters" in Massachusetts

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/09/20/4280193/according-to-massachusetts-voters.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

I think hitting her on Travelers was powerful. Another example of her do as I say....

Also, the Cherokee issue is a big deal. I still; think she comes across as a lecturing Professor.

How does this work, technically? The Globe watches a different debate than is aired on my television set? My viewing partner Chip told me after the debate that this would happen, the Globe would attack Scott even though any reasonable person watching would see he was his usual good-natured self, while Warren seemed panicky as she repeated the same few talking points; I said no, it'll be fair and tell non-viewers exactly what happened. Embarrassed for you, McGrory, and front-page story reporters today.

I'd rank it pretty close can see why someone like Scot previously supporting her thought she did better.  In my opinion, she ducked a lot of questions and does come off as an elitist.  Being a typical liberal, she was hammering the Senator on not wanting to raise taxes on the rich, when he kept saying its not just the rich its everyone.  Both pointed out all the fraud, waste and excess in government.  It continues to disturb me that Democrats first instinct is to take money from a citizen rather than do the job they are paid to do and actually fix these problems.  I admire the Senator for saying focused cuts in defense need to be considered.  That has bothered me with Republicans this entire campaign season.  The continued "war on woman" is an absoute joke.  The Senator made her look foolish everytime she opened her mouth and tried to attack him on it. 

Given that I watched this debate, I can only conclude that Lehigh has been lying to us about everything, not just politics, the whole time.  Did he watch the same debate I watched?  Liz went down.  Hard.  And Lehigh has exposed himself.

Correction. I was so disappointed by this column, and outraged by McGrory's, that I didn't carefully read the front page story, which covered the actual debate I saw except for the odd description of Scott Brown as a "lightweight" up until his "policy-heavy language". Though no one notes the fact that, when attacking Warren's pretend heritage, he was responding to a direct question from Jon Keller. Scot, if you want responses to address specific issues, you shouldn't lean so heavily on personal attack yourself, re Brown "petty" "supercilious". Re issues, clearly you won't like any candidate who doesn't support your ongoing call for higher taxes, even though you never address the concern that new taxes will just be a substitute for reform and change as they have in the past. Scott simply shows himself too smart to fall for this; and it is always relevant to ask a liberal if she pays the higher taxes she wants for other people -- like the Sub-Chapter S businesses Scot pointed out are the "rich" and Warren never denied, just kept repeating her call for taxing them more. Did you not think her attacks on pro-choice Scott about being anti-abortion like some other Republicans was a lie?

Were you watching the same debate that I was last night. I thought Scott Lehigh was a decent columist.  I now wonder if he has ever presented a non partisan view of anything. Liz Warren is a fool and that was confirmed last night. I went into this debate with an open mind. I guess I should now believe Michael Graham. Liz Warren truly is Liarwatha. 

I guess we know whom you'll be votong for in November. Its a good thing you write for the Globe, because anyone with a brain to damage could see that Brown wiped the floor with her. And other than the usual DNC soical and class welfare book she was handed a year ago, what exactly did she say that would make anyone think otherwise?

Scot - Don't know why my earlier post was removed. Pretty sure I did not swear. I mentioned that the other posters would not address the idea that a vote for Brown is a vote for Mitch McConnel and Inhofe. But you can see that they do not want to even acknowledge that Brown is a Republican and a vote for him could put the Tea Party in control of the senate. It's that simple!

Brown spoke in misleading generalities, and Warren came back with specific votes.  He took credit for his record of "bipartisanship" (achieved by holding up his fingers to the political winds of Massachusetts when necessary).  But she described the effects of these votes on the middle class, and predicted the consequences of a Republican Senate.  He tried to obscure the facts by painting her as the "elitist Harvard professor", which is certainly going to please those who vote for him because of his barn jacket and pickup truck. But his generalities and barn jacket only appeal to already-decided voters. Anyone actually looking for information about government got it last night from Warren.

 

Were we watching the same debate? All Prof. Warren did was repeat the Democratic talking point, "War on Women", "Tax breaks for the Rich", "Tax breaks for big oil", etc. She has no substance, just another puppet for the liberal Democrats assault on business. She had the deer in the headlights look for much of the debate. Do the voters of Mass. realize she is part of the 1% that she says she despises.

Is that how prepared Warren will be if she is our senator? Brown wiped the floor with her.

she also came close to lying again about her parents marriage. Before she said they had to elope, but that was false. LAst night: "My mother and dad loved each other very very much, and they wanted to get married and my father's family said no because my mother was part Delaware and part Cherokee."

Yet: her parents were married in a religous ceremony twenty miles from their hometown. Subsequent reports showed that their hometown paper proudly announced the wedding within days after the ceremony was performed on January 4, 1932.r

DNC talking points from Scotty Taxes.

I am just happy she no longer sppeaks on her ads.

Warren hits her stride, while Brown stumbles?  Who wrote that and what debate were they watching?

What or who did I offend with my suggestion for a column re: Mr. Obama's role in the current worldwide riots? Perhaps Mr. Lehigh no longer takes suggestions he solicits?

Will the MSM push Harry Reid to apologize for his slander?

the Romney campaign said Romney's tax filings from 1990 to 2009 show that the couple paid 100% of the federal and state income taxes they owed and that their overall average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.2%. Annually they never paid an effective rate below 13.66%.

Scot,

When Mr. Brown was elected, he was widely heralded as the tea party's first electoral victory.  Of course, that was when the tea party was claiming to be a bipartisan organization aimed at reducing the size of government.  Also before they started attacking Scott as too moderate.

Now that the Tea Party are openly the amalgamation of angry tax purists and extreme social conservatives they always were, what effect, if any, do you think it will have on the election?

"begolfing"

I'll stay out of the debate re:Brown-Warren.  However the remark regarding Reid is slightly off base.  Reid said that over the past ten years, not 2011 or 12 as Mitt had already said what he paid. Reid held in the years prior to 2011 Mitt had paid nothing.  MItt has not proven anything by a self serving statement as there is no proof to it.  I would point out there is no proof to Reid's allegation either.

As to the recent tax release.  You gotta admit it is pretty funny that Mitt has to forgo his charitable tax deduction in order to raise his rate above 9% to 14.1.  In other words Mitt paid more than he was legally required to pay something that he said should disqualify him for the Presidency.  Now I don't think he's disqualified I just think he's funny.  I can see the staff now. "Are you kidding he only paid 9% if we file this way.  No way no how.  Let's drop the charitable deduction we can defend that." A long comedy of errors.  By the way he does show himself to be quite generous both in charities and in paying more than he owes. 

 

The Tea Party was and is a bi-partisan spontaneous group of citizens concerned mostly about the national debt. Like other groups it has been infiltrated by more partisan and in this case, socially conservative groups, though it has mostly held out longer than I'd have expected,keeping its focus on the fiscal issues. Even if Scott Brown wins, and if that does mean a Republican take-over of the Senate, this doesn't mean that Tea Party politicians will prevail; they haven't yet. Debt just went up again to 16 Trillion.

Barbara.

Did you read my pal Kate Zernike's book "Boiling Mad" on the Tea Party? She was very polite and even-handed, but it was nevertheless astounding to read about the lack of information or knowledge some of them had about the federal government.

 

Scot

@system: this article puts Elizabeth Warren in a different time frame than other explanations so far.  This is the correct article to read.  She did what she said she did and tried to reach an equitable settlement for Travelers, who hired her, and the victims, who were her concern.  Brown ignores the time line and dismissed the complexity of the case as a simple "You work for corporations" gambit.  Incidentally, that's what lawyers do, and very few can argue before the US Supreme Court and win.  Elizabeth won.  What happened after that is the murky part, but Brown was wrong in his presentation, leaving the viewer with a very different impression than the article states.  Here it is, in part:

," Johns-Manville, which had been insured by Travelers before it went bankrupt.

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."

Read it again: WARREN HELPED PRESERVE...LAW..THAT VICTIMS ...HAVE A BETTER CHANCE...GETTING COMPENSATED EVEN WHEN...COMPANIES GO BANKRUPT.  Then she left the case!!  What Travelers did after that and with other insurance companies and lawyers going at it is immaterial.  I'm still doing some reviewing, but right now, it looks as if Brown grabbed at a straw that gives him little factual support.

Scot: I'll look for it. Does it say they are wrong about the national debt, about the immorality of passing on our spending burden to our grandchildren? Is there something else they need to know to be better than the politicians and partisans who lie?

In re Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren: An old philosophical axiom says, "You can't give what you haven't got". And he really down't have it in comparison to Elizabeth Warren.

"System"  We are not talking about Romney or Obama we're talking about "Systems" position. You don't answer my question about you, by telling me about Obama or what you notice about Reid or the Globe.  I'm asking you can you see something else.  Do you see it or don't you.  Is one form of hypocrisy acceptable and another isn't?  I take the position that politicians are by nature hypocritical.   You take the position that only one Party, one newspaper does so.  That's find if that is what you wish to be known for if that is your "goal" in writing, proving I'm not sure what.  The question remains is what Romney did hypocritical.  It only requires one word not a paragraph.  I merely want to see if you are indeed consistent.

"System"  I asked you clearly.  It is the same question I asked  you orginally so I don't have to work at it.  Was Mitt being hypocritical in not taking the available charitable deduction in order to meet his own goal of 13% on his tax return?  It was and remains a simple question. 

As to your terrorist question to my knowledge the possiblity of it being a terrorst attack was raised early on. As to 9/11 we already know that Bush had credible info but no one took it too seriously.  I don't blame him for that the intelligence field is one of the worse fields to second guess in due to the nature of data.  Why would Obama be any more responsible for Libya than Bush was for 9/11.  It is easy in retrospect to blame either man.  However, after many years in govt. and time in the military I don't second guess except in an academic sense. 

Scot were we watching the same program?

"System"  Now wasn't that easy.  You don't think Romney was being hypocritical.  You believe Obama bears responsibility for Libya but Bush doesn't bear responsibility for 9/11.  I think that fairly and simply establishes your position regarding the events and how you view events as they occur.  I'm quite satisfied with what the responses say and I am quite sure anyone else reading them would be too.

"system"

As I said you have made it quite clear where you stand.  Your position is it is not asinine to accuse Obama, although as you say it hasn't been reported yet, although I've seen reports on it,  but it is asinine to accuse Bush after all the studies have been done. 

I would point out that I accuse neither.

I don't see how you can make it any clearer as to how you view events and the facts relating to them.  I thank you for the clarification.

 

"System"  I get it.  You don't have to defend the defense of your position.  As I said you make it quite clear as to what data and what information you deem "accurate", "useable" let's just say what you view as valid.  I'm not disagreeing with you or agreeing with you my intent was merely to ascertain where you stood when viewing similar events occuring to different people.  That's all and you have clarified it for me. 

Typical column for an ultra liberal.  What debate did you watch?  Warren came out as a shrill carpetbagger.  Brown had a full day in Washington thanks to Harry Reid and had to fly back late in the afternoon to make it to this debate. Meanwhile, Liar Lizzy had all day to relax and prepare. Still, Brown swamped her in this debate and came out  the winner.

Scot, REALLY, what are you going to do for a living when the Globe goes into the tank? You MUST have watched some other debate than I. I thought you were better than this.

Too bad Brown's opponent was Elizabeth Warren and not Barney Frank.  Then Brown could have said, "Frank claims to be Jewish, but as you can see, he doesn't look Jewish at all" or "Frank says he's gay, but is your gay-dar going off?  I don't think so."

Scott Lehigh calls it a mistake for Brown to open with questions about the Native American controversy (a controversy, by the way, that Warren created by her own unethical actions). He fails to note that it was debate moderator Jon Keller who chose to open the debate with that particular question. Scott Brown merely answered the question put to him. Warren, on the other hand, failed to answer the fundamental question put to her: If Warren didn't benefit from your false Native American claim, why not release her employment application to prove it? Once again, Warren went into full professorial mode: "That question has been answered." In other words, how dare you question me about something I've decided is a non-issue -- not unlike Martha Coakley's famed comment scoffing at the idea of actually shaking hands with voters outside Fenway Park. Scott Brown's down-to-earth demeanor connected with actual citizens far better than Warren's condescending and somewhat creepy tone -- at times it almost sounded as though she were trying to calm a deranged person. And for someone who has claimed to be a former debate champion, Warren seemed incapable of thinking on her feet, instead resorting to repeating the same stock phrases over and over. The Globe can try to prop up Warren all it wants; the people of Massachusetts know who really understands their daily lives and struggles and will fight for them in Washington, and that's Scott Brown.

Hey Scott,you must have been watching a different channel. I know that you and the Globe are in the tank for the fake Indian but let's get real. Scott Brown mopped the the floor with Professor Warren.

How convenient that Scotty Lehigh blythely ignores Lizzy's failure to respond to Brown's (personal) debate statement that Lizzy is way overpaid by Harvard for teaching one course a semester while pretending to be a passionate advocate for the middle class, and how she refused at the same time to credibly address the matter of working for Travelers Insurance and the asbestos issue case. Were these matters personal attacks on Lizzy?  Sure, to some extent, but no more so that Lizzy's using Sen. Brown's votes in the Senate to try and make him seem like an enemy of both the middle class and the feminine gender.  Lizzy repetitiously and shrewishly attacked during the debate Brown's supposed support for taxpayer subsidies of the oil industry but she failed to respond when he raised her support for the huge windmill power generation project proposed for offshore Cape Cod.  Both of these people have dubious starts to their lives and careers if the only evidence they offer is their own and their relatives' claims of history.  Lizzy has the stronger policy case to make because Brown has voted on federal statute proposals while Lizzy has pretty much stuck to academic theory, some bureaucratic manipulation and a refusal by the President of the United States - support for whom Lizzy pointedly raised during the debate - to nominate her to head a federal consumer agency whose need she supposedly designed and mentored. Lizzy's dubious ethnicity claims may be a backburner issue this far into the campaign, but there remains a major question of why this purportedly family-created possessor of Delaware/Cherokee tribal DNA has had nothing to do with Indians at Harvard and why she has avoided tribal representatives who tried to meet with her during the campaign.

"Let others lie, wantonly, gratuitously, if they will, but let you & me make it the rule of our life to lie for revenue only." Mark Twain

Scot, I agree.

Lehigh, we all saw Brown kick her tail!  If you can't call it straight on something we all saw for ourselves, how can we trust you on anything?  

It was a draw at worst.Lehigh appears in the tank for Professor Warren...does Gilligan go with the professor to DC?

Guys: I understand that those of you who are conservative and committed to Brown (and have never considered voting for Warren) think he won. (I mean: Hold the Presses!) But give some reasons why. Make an argument. Scot

Now this is getting weird.  Not only did Scot watch a different debate than I did, he's not reading the same comments I am -- the ones that give reasons for thinking Brown won.

Basically y'all saw what you wanted to see. That makes it a double defeat.