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?

Agreed. Started out with neutral feelings about Scott Brown. Cannot ever imagine voting for him now. Not only is he an intellectual lightweight, he is not even the nice guy he pretends to be. His wife would be a better senator, for sure. 

As a father of an 8 year old girl, who I am confident will earn her seat at the table - A woman who would blatently lie about her heritage in order to gain favor is not a role model that I am looking for.

Once again, we see how women can influence an election -- as if it were ever in doubt. If the Muslim world were to unleash women and let them have a full say in their societies, this world would hum away like a Swiss watch. Note how more enlightened nations like Turkey allow women to thrive and bloom. Even in Iran, there is a simmering undercurrent of discontent among women, and one day it will boil over and change the country.

A violent sex offender running against Mother Theresa would win in this state if the former had a "D" after his name and the latter had an "R."  Why?  Because so many Massachusetts residents feed at troughs controlled by D's.  Enough to swing most elections.

Joan, This is what you wrote, So, once, at least, she “checked the box.” So you believe she did this, she committed fraud. That shows she is smarter and more sophisticated than Scott Brown. All that proves is that liberals have no issue at all with integrity, morals or anythig else. As long as you blieve in abortion, illegal immigrants, and welfare, don't care how sleazy or their character!!!! Doesn't that speak volumes of the integrity of the Globe and their writers!!!Actually the lack there of!!!

Warren won big. Brown lost big. Get over it and move on.

Scott Brown lost this election for the same reason that Romney did, the reliable pool of "angry white guy voters" diminishes each passing day, while the numbers of diverse members of our society increases steadily.  As a non-angry white guy, I was troubled a bit by Warren's checking of the box, but that was vastly overshadowed by the endless spitting out of "Professor Warren", as if that was something to be ashamed of.  Give her credit.  She too came up from nothing and achieved remarkable and admirable accomplishments.

Republicans need to dial back their angry, fundamentalist rhetoric about 11 notches or they will continue to suffer defeat outside of the very small pockets where predominantly angry white guys reside.

Initially, I did not think he was all that bad, but Scott Brown simply dug himself in deeper and deeper:

- The veiled words early on to suggest that Warren was old and ugly. Disrespectful and Irrelevant.

- The Native American thing. It reminded me of the irritating kid who endlessly tattles and points out a minor error over and over. Juvenile.

- His claiming to be a supporter of Women's Rights. His votes didn't go that way. Dishonest.

- The lame attempts to get out of the debates. Weak.

- That last Wagner-esque ad was chilling and had me thinking about fascist dictators. Awkward & Frightening.

And then it occurred to me that this guy is also carrying around an enormous debt to the tea-party and karl rove. I feel that they let him skate during the first 2 years knowing he had to stand for election again, but if he made it back to office, their invoice would certainly come due. In some ways, I bet he is relieved.

I hope he does not run for any more statewide of federal offices. I had enough of this bully this time.

Well that's just a little unfair.  Betsy Warren polled 52% in a state where Barack Obama polled 68%.  Considering how the deck was stacked against him, Scott Brown actually did pretty well.  I don't think that Senator Warren's gaming of affirmative action preference for minorities to advance her career was condescending to women.  It would be like pointing out that a femaie ope ed columnist for the Boston Globe got suspended for two weeks for plagiarism was condescending to women.  Most women don't scam the affirmative action minority preference any more than most female op ed columnists plagiarize.

True, true, true.

Warren: Senatorial Brown: Janitorial Z

Scott Brown did not run as a Republican.  His last ads were "vote the person, not the party."  How inane.  Brown was bipartisan because the Republican leadership let him cast votes with the Democrats on matters that were not significant. On those that were, he was expected to fall in line, as he did. He would have been absolutely a true red Republican if he were reelected. 

Elizabeth Warren won because she was smarter, had done something with her life other than being a politician,  and presented a vision with a background that shows she will carry through on it. Brown lost because he sent out a message (compounded by some who called her Granny) that you don't want an old woman representing you through his mailings that showed Warren in the worst light possible. They were looking at her through male eyes. Women looked at her and saw their friends, their mothers, and their neighbors who worked hard through life doing the best they could and raising a family.

The Angries (mostly men) loved Brown as I heard from people who held signs.  The men all gave thumbs down signs while the women waved. Brown's campaign was based on hate because he had nothing to offer the people.  As a sitting senator he should have won but as shown in the debates he had nothing to offer only attacks.

I don't think Warren deliberately lied in representing herself as Indian based on her family lore. No one accused Secretary of State Madeleine Albright of lying when she represented herself as a Catholic who converted to become Episcopalian for most of her years based on what her parents told her only to find out she was Jewish.  We depend on our parents to tell us who we are.  If she knew that she had no Native American background, I would be bothered by it.  I just don't think it has been shown that is that case.  

She won. It's good that Massachusetts had a good candidate to go up against Brown who would stop at nothing to have been reelected. I even heard that at one time he pretended that he drove around in a pickup truck all the time and the people believed him. I don't believe that story although from what I've seen of his campaign literature I would not have put it past him. 

Brown's negative ads hurt him. The US Chamber of Commerce sent out flyers with the over the top claim that Elizabeth Warren was a "threat to free enterprise." Total nonsense. Unless you define free enterprise as the right to do whatever you want with no rules. Scott Brown's negative ads managed to turn Elizabeth Warren into a sympathetic figure. She had a hill to climb in the likability factor, as Scott Brown comes off as very personable. Warren's negative ads regarding Republican control of the Senate also resonated with some. 30 years ago,in a more collegial time, I might have voted for Brown. I think his style is compromise, and I think we needed more, not less, of that in Washington. I expect that Elizabeth will be more rigid. But for me, it came down to anyone that caucused with the Republicans meant more gridlock. I think we ALL tend to project our OWN reasons for supporting a candidate onto the electorate as a whole. For you, Brown's attacks on Warren resonated as an attack on women in general. I didn't see it that way. I just saw it as politics as usual. But I voted as you did, for different reasons.

Brown lost because of the national Democratic machine was at full slime ahead in MA, plain and simple. No one with an R next to their name stood a chance.

Joan Vennochi,  Even YOU are promoting this lie one more time?!  You say “ So, once, at least, she “checked the box.”   Yes, AFTER she had been hired. Officers at Harvard have stated publicly they did not even know she was 1/32 Native American at the time she was hired. I, for one, believe that a person interested in a professorship at Harvard Law would turn in a resume, not an application -- so no box to check. And do you really believe that being 1/32  Native American would get you a professorship at Harvard?  Everything else being equal in qualifications, Harvard might like the bragging rights of  a 50%--maybe 25% Native American. But 1/32%  Really?

 Now, in the 80’s there was a dearth of women professors at Harvard Law  (I do not know if there were any--but there were either none or way fewer than 50%.) Harvard was looking to correct this. Elizabbeth had an excellent reputation based on her professorships at two or three other colleges. So Elizabeth was recruited.

I believe (without specific proof ) that Karl Rove developed the very negative charges that Scott used against Elizabeth. They reveal Rove’s technique of taking a person’s strengths and twisting them to appear to be negatives.  Fortunately,  Rove’s lying ways backfired across the board in this election. I hope  the voters have made clear to those running for office that lying --while it can be effective--can backfire big time. This has become particularly true since we have the internet and tweet.

To: kmhonan (below) Elizabeth Warren didn't "blatantly lie". She proudly told the truth as it was told to her by her family. You need to discern more closely so that your daughter will learn from you. Your daughter needs to know this: Elizabeth Warren is an extraordinary role model for women which was sorely needed after the Sarah Palin role model was presented to us four years ago. Warren's rise from getting married too young to latching on to adult education programs at state schools and then propelling herself to Harvard Law School, becoming an advisor to the president of the U.S. and then winning an election to serve as a U.S. senator is beyond the wildest dreams of any young person who hopes to succeed.

Misleading Michael Mooresque adds designed to scare the chicks sure helped Warren a lot. More Democratic slime machine at work.  

Warren also lied about having the side of the students and educational costs while collecting 350 K a year for teaching ONE class..........her household made 750 K a year plus investments..................

Can't wait for Senator-elect Warren to go to Washington and contribute to the gridlock.

She won because most feel that Brown did not accomplish much.

Will she be re-elected after she serves for six years?

Doubtful.

I like this article.

Elections like real estate purchases often come down to location, location, location.

Scott Brown or any other republican faces steep opposition in statewide elections in Massachusetts. His election in 2010 was more the result of an opponent who thought her election was a slam-dunk; ironically because she was a woman.

The party of Lincoln, (toward which I lean) needs to do a lot of work. A good start would be telling Grover Norquist and Sarah Pailn to take a hike. 

Anybody, D or R who watched Reid and McConnell the other night on 60 Minutes should realize that retiring them both would be addition by subtraction!

i voted for Brown because one party domination benefits nobody. 

Another brilliant tactic by the democrats was raising the abortion issue. I consider myself pro-life but I've waved the white flag. That one is over and will never be undone. 

Let's try to move forward together.