Brown voted against the blunt amendment because he was trying to follow our constitution, that doesn't matter anymore. He was a center to right candidate, but his views weren't liberal enough for this country, he wanted a smaller government, the people voted for more government, that's why Warren got elected. He was trying to be fiscally conservative, that doesn't work anymore, people generally could care less about our debt and deficit. Joan, I'm looking forward to your articles over the next 4 years, hopefully you will inform your readers of what's really happening now, the people deserve to know the condition our of country.

That's still "alleged" Native American heritage, but apparently falsifying her identity to gain employment is OK in Joan's book. after all Warren does have a D next to her name.

What a bunch of crap? Do they pay Join to write this drivel?

You hit the nail on the head here, Joan!  Throughout the campaign Brown came off as one of those bullies we women have had to deal with at pretty much every place we've worked.  He's the guy who sits at the table at a staff meeting and avoids talking about what he did and instead points out what you didn't do, after you've listed a dozen accomplishments.

One of the rare times he talked about his actual votes he defended his vote agianst fair pay for women by saying it was "bad for business."  Really?  That made his priorites clear.

And then he ran a TV/radio ad bragging about the STOCK Act, which he claimed to have authored and which was signed into law by Obama.  Except he didn't write that, and kept the ad running even after that was noted.  We didn't fall for that, just like we didn't fall for the pickup/barncoat facade.

Women vote, and the Republicans went out of their way to energize us this year.  Go Warren!

Exactly wrong. She won because of the President's coat tails and the unions hard haned tactics. Not because of some mythic anti woman balderdash you try and paint on Senator Brown. Oh yeah, and all the liberals who just want government to do everything for everybody.

I didn't vote for her for any of those reasons. I didn't find her smart and sophisticated. I found her screechy and hyper and couldn't relate to her at all, nor to even one of the folks that peopled her ads: Didn't those Boston accents go out of style sixty years ago? I waited for months for an ad that seemed directed at people who could understand copmplex sentences and never found one. I believe she lied and then lied to cover up the first lie. But being highly distrustful of all politicians except maybe Bernie Sanders, I voted for her because 1) she wasn't Scott Brown and 2) there are supreme court nominations coming up.

The demographics in America have changed, hard as it is for some people to deal with it. Brown insulted not only women but also everyone who values education every time he called her "professor". He was pandering to the anti-intellectuals, those who don't value education and the role of ideas. I suspect he lost the votes of a lot of smart men as well.

He is likable on many fronts but he does not belong in elected office. We need people who promote thinking, not those who mock it.

And, BTW, whether his campaign was aware or not, CrossRoads GPS was calling my house regularly to whine about Warren. That alone would be enough to make me vote for her.

This is WONDERFUL -- couldn't agree more with everything said!

You been holding that fsatball back for a while? Perfect.

The ability of Massachsetts to see right through the barrage of ads depicting Brown as "independant" and "pro women's rights"  restores my faith that our democracy *can* work.

I always find it amusing when my fellow "old white guys" carry on when one woman talks about the difficulty that women of Ms. Warren's age went through to get to their current positions.  I can recall quite well during the years in which I was moving up the power ladder the total lack of women, the surprise when one moved into the inner circle and the resentment expressed by many when men, women and blacks of equal talent competed for the same position and the women or the minority got the job.  Oh, the injustice.  Of course everyone wants to skip over the injustice of the previous hundred years.  The fact is Ms. Warren took advantage of whatever was available to her to move her career forward.  Just like every man I have ever known.  So yeah the heritage line was a loser.  Women would resent it.  Why shouldn't they?  Men are entitled to use any and every connection, every edge they can find, but let a women or a minority do it.  Shame, shame. Please, I'm so tired of "old white guys" whining.

Ms. Warren never stopped to make personal or family attacks on Scott Brown.  She had much more "class" than he did.

Whoops.... that was "stooped" not stopped. 

Scott Brown lost because he was disingenuous.  He was clearly a republican. he votes that way in every major vote. He tried to run and hide from who re really was  with slogans like "He is with us".    That could work in red states where stupid is as stupid does. It won't work here and it didn't.

If he had the courage to come out and say who he really was  and what he represents then i would have respecrt for him. But i lost all respect for him during this campaign. His tactics to go low and try to won by assasinating the character of Elizebeth Warren were clearly exposed in the final tally.

Go home Scott and think about moving to a red state. Your act got stale!

It was so entertaining for me to watch their debates.  You could just read it all over his face:  "I'm a tall, good-looking, athletic white guy, and I have to compete for my job with a GIRL?!  Are you kidding me?!"  She kicked his butt, plain and simple:  better campaign, consistent well-reasoned positions, worked as hard as she could.  You can say she "checked the box" but in this case at least, she deserved to win.

" women of a certain age were irked by pro-Brown ads using photos that made Warren look as crone-like as possible." I know women of many ages who were irked by this. I realize that manufacturing unflattering graphics of the opponent have become a staple tactic, but the Brown campaign brought this "art form" to a new low. Did his wife and daughters not object to this? Did they not see this as lowball, craven and misogynistic? Yes, they are a photogenic family, but one that apparently thinks the majority of voters have sensibilities as superficial as theirs apparently are. And oh what fun the Warren campaign could have had with a certain vintage centerfold piece of some renown.

Brava, Ms. Vennochi. You hit the nail on the head. Brown's attacks on Warren were so unsubstantive that he came across as a bullying airhead. And yes, his denigrating "Prof. Warren" routine backfired. Most thinking voters applauded her rise to Harvard's hallowed halls. She had real accomplishments in government to showcase too. All Brown had was a portfolio of modeling shots. I can't wait to see how she'll stir it up in the Senate.

Scott Brown lost because his vision contained no positive message. He was always against something and spoke more in terms of negative legislating. He also did throw in his share of undeserved smear tactics hoping against hope that he would not have to explain his record and explain clearly what was the societal benefit he was advocating. It was a stark contrast to Prof and now Sen Warren. Her messaging envisioned a path forward with expanded choices and opportunities for all and especially those presently on the short end of the stick. She did not put the horse before the cart. She started with the social value first and what was needed legislatively second to assure it. Scott Brown took the approach that legislation was needed to create privilege for some and reduce opportunity for others. His approach was to make societal change by imposed legislation. Not only exactly backwards but blatantly against conservative doctrine that seeks to preserve individual choices. It is almost monarchal in its point of view. Laws are suppose to produce more freedom and security not less.

Scott Brown lost because his vision contained no positive message. He was always against something and spoke more in terms of negative legislating. He also did throw in his share of undeserved smear tactics hoping against hope that he would not have to explain his record and explain clearly what was the societal benefit he was advocating. It was a stark contrast to Prof and now Sen Warren. Her messaging envisioned a path forward with expanded choices and opportunities for all and especially those presently on the short end of the stick. She did not put the horse before the cart. She started with the social value first and what was needed legislatively second to assure it. Scott Brown took the approach that legislation was needed to create privilege for some and reduce opportunity for others. His approach was to make societal change by imposed legislation. Not only exactly backwards but blatantly against conservative doctrine that seeks to preserve individual choices. It is almost monarchal in its point of view. Laws are suppose to produce more freedom and security not less.

As a woman, I was disappointed in Warren's use of minority status. I DO think she deserved her success - but I didn't like that she claimed minority status. I can claim minority status but look as white as they come, so I don't - I wouldn't want people to say that I got ahead because of anything else other than my abilities. I was also disappointed in Brown making an issue of her looks. We aren't all ex-models you know.

I disagree.  The fact that Warren lied about her heritage had nothing to do with her being a woman, it had everything to do with her being a liar.  I am a woman and I was not in the least offended that Brown brought Warren't lies to the voters' attention. 

Brown lost the election when he answered "Justice Scalia" to the question "Who is your favorite Supreme Court Justice?" This answer cut through the all the hype about him being and independent and a moderate. Scalia is a far right justice and a member of Opus Dei. that should be enouogh to scare away any moderate!

We can dissect this election ad infinitum but it all comes down to this: Warren - D Brown - R How about the 6th district: Tierney - D Tissei - R How about the 4th district: Kennedy - K Bielat - R Not very complicated.

I guess one reason that Warren's family lore didn't bother me is because I have similar stories in my family and just as little proof that they are true.  The difference is I grew up in New England, far away from that side of the family.  If I had grown up in a place like Oklahoma those stories of Choctaw heritage probably would have seemed much more real to me.  

As to the question of why Warren listed herself as Native American I suspect that one reason she hasn't given a straight answer is that there isn't one.  I can only speculate, but I suspect she was just taking ownership of that piece of family heritage and listing it probably didn't seem all that important at that time.  Haven't we all on occasion just done something without any clear intent or meaning?