As expected (by me), EW spoke her party's line. Can't help it, I don't go along with a thing she says. SB could have done better but given the harassment he faced in DC prior to his appearance for the debate, he carried himself well. This business touted by EW re: SB's lack of caring about women's issues is bogus and I think she did a lot of misrepresenting of SB's voting record. What became clearer to me during this discussion between the candidates is that EW is very intent upon raising taxes and I cannot believe she is really concerned about the so-called middle class. Kudo's to SB for pointing out that the huge cost for college education is in part due to the exorbitant salaries paid to professors like EW, (teaches only 1 class) and for bringing up the use of her alleged heritage to advance her career, issues I don't think can be disputed. There is no way to judge a "winner" in these debates ... it all depends upon peoples' preferences for one candidate before the talks begins. I think they generally only confirm how people plan to vote and does not change minds. Saying all this, I will add that I think they both conducted themselves civilly and respectfully ... we'll see if future meetings will tell a different story.

I thought it was one of the best Senate debates I have ever seen. Both candidates presented their positions and points of view in the best way possible, and they were civil towards each other... though they were very strong when they needed to be. And the moderator, John Keller, did a great job as well. Hopefully, you can catch a repeat of the debate if you didn't see it last night.

I don't think either did particularly well. I was getting frustrated over their repetitive scripted answers. Both seemed timid to speak their minds - off script. There were so many missed opportunities by both to press each other on specifics. Hopefully they will step it up for the next debate.

There was one exchange that bothered me, and I'm surprised the media didn't pick up on this. Scott Brown had just finished answering a question that highlighted his military service, and Elizabeth Warren never thanked him for it - while eager to talk about her brothers who served. Scott then asked her to extend his thanks for her brothers service. Class act by Scott, but (by omission) an act of disrespect by Elizabeth.

And so, she said, so,...so,...so,...so,...

She remains an unpersuasive liar, again doubling down on the Cherokee trail of lies.

Her positions are distinctly Marxist/socialist,...she is another wealth re-distributor. She seems desperate to have power, - and that is a frightening specter.

Her comments about the military were laughable, she too is looking for 'Exit Strategies'.

What I watched was a RiNO debating a poor excuse even for a Harvard Professor. Sure glad I'm not paying to have my kid take classes from her!

As for Tsongas, - where'd she watch it from? O'Brien's apartment in Charleston? Tsongas wouldn't recognize 'Middle Class' unless it had a government label on it.

Obviously from the tone of your article, you felt that Warren won the debate. She did not answer the questions directly, continually preached class warfare and the Democrat talking points. Tsongas is the Congressional rep from the Third Middlesex and where was the interview with Golnik? I would like more discussion of Obamacare and less about the phony "war on Women" nonissues.

It's a shame Scott Brown chose to lie in the debate. He tried to blame Elizabeth for an asbestos settlement from the Travelers Insurance company, but a Boston Globe article back in May already debunked that claim. Why can't he run on his record instead of lies like this?

http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-01/metro/31499452_1_asbestos-case-asbestos-victims-travelers

We don't need Brown's lies, we don't need him to uphold GOP vetoes, we don't need him to support "47% Romney", and we don't need him to create a new Republican Senate majority.

Elizabeth's record of working for the middle class and support of President Obama came out loud and clear in the debate. That's a win for all of us (except Brown).

Mike,
Please read the post you attached to the end. The result was that people were not paid and the insurance company walked away. She was involved; the fact that her work had an unintended result in her eyes does not change the fact that she was involved in a case that had a bad result for the people affected.
As far as the abortion issue you may find this interesting: and this from factcheck.com “ An abortion rights group says that Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts is "straight-up lying" in a new ad that says he is "pro-choice, and he supports a woman's right to choose." That's wrong. “Among the U.S. Senate votes that abortion rights groups criticize is Brown's vote for an appropriations bill that, among many, many other things would have eliminated funding for Title X family planning and defunded Planned Parenthood. He said he "would have had different priorities" for spending cuts. And he cosponsored the defeated Blunt amendment, which would have allowed employers or insurers to refuse to provide insurance coverage for certain medications or procedures if they objected for religious reasons.

(Continued)
That legislation was directed at contraception, coming after the Obama administration's announcement that religious-affiliated organizations, such as hospitals and colleges, would have to provide free contraception coverage for their employees. The president later amended that ruling, saying the free coverage would be paid for by insurance companies in that case. Brown said he supported the Blunt amendment because "no one should be forced by government to do something that violates the teachings of their faith."
I have a problem with people in the advocacy of their own position make a determination that others with a contrary position based upon, in this case their religious beliefs, have no right to their beliefs.
Let’s face it the so-called war on women is a made up one by a desperate person trying to win an election.
One last point and it is a good one, why did you Andrew, not ask for a comment from Jon Golnik or if he was unavailable, a comment to that effect.

Senator Brown mopped the floor with Elizabeth Warren. The millionaire / billionaire argument is tired. She has nothing of substance to offer. Typical of those in academia.

Andrew, you have this, in the sense of fair play and I would argue your duty, where is a comment from her opponent. Do you work for her?
The Democratic candidate for Chelmsford's congressional seat, incumbent Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell), saw the debate as a victory for Warren.

“Tonight’s debate sharpened the contrast between Elizabeth Warren and Senator Scott Brown. Elizabeth Warren will be a Senator that understands the challenges too many Massachusetts families face. She made a strong case that on issues that really matter, from tax fairness to equal pay for equal work, she's on the side of the middle class," said Tsongas. "She'll be a Senator that stands up to Big Oil and Wall Street, and puts people who are in too many cases struggling to find a good job and put food on their tables, first, all of the time. Tonight Elizabeth Warren exhibited the values and conviction that Massachusetts needs in the U.S. Senate

Andrew,
I have waited all day to see if you would respond to the point first raised by Tom Gilroy at 8:30 this morning. I know you cover two towns now, but I find it odd that you only asked one candidate for their thoughts and ignored the other. What say you?

Mike Combs ... Travelers' is an insurance company and insurance companies do not wish to part with a dime if they can avoid it, so hire people like EW, who got a very nice "stipend" of +/- $250,000 to work to ensure they don't have to divvy up. That, my boy is a fact. As for SB's voting record, not enough time in any debate to explain all of the components of a bill voted upon since there is more to any bill than meets the eye. What you think he voted upon or against is more complex and not so cut and dried as EW would have us believe. Your thesis involving imaginary cases is bogus ... Scott is honorable, a husband of a woman and father of 2 young women ... I don't think even you can imagine that he would vote for any bill that would denigrate or deprive women ... RvW is law, it's a done deal, so don't sweat it. EW's manufactured war on women is so ridiculous and transparent as an effort on her part to try to win this election by any false means possible. Not surprising, however, since she does have a history of telling falsehoods. Tsongas' endorsement of EW is as expected, as is Mayor M's ... party people, cut and dried. Would be wonderful to have some free thinkers not afraid to express personal opinions and not party lines. Truths may just be told and I, for one, would hold them in higher esteem.

Christina Walsh ... Thanks for alerting me to your referenced report ... interesting, but I don't feel as hopeless as you appear to. I don't think RvW will never be overturned ... there will indeed be "adjustments", i.e., not permitting late-term abortions, not permitting abortions for gender preference (which by the way were Scott Brown's objections to the bills he did not sign on to), and you are correct that judicial appointments will rest on the shoulders of our future President and Senators but confirmation/non-confirmation takes more than one vote. I prefer to hope for the continued support of women from decent men like Scott Brown and trust him to make thoughtful and accurate judgements. You may call this a war on women, I do not ... pro-life people have been around since the very beginning of RvW and no reference was ever made about a war on women until these recent campaigns. There will always be disagreement and argument surrounding this one issue, I have lived through them all so far, but I am ever optimistic and I wish I could pass it on to you. However, I praise you for your spirited comments and believe me when I say that I care about this particular issue at least as much as you and my young daughters. Keep up your advocacy ... you are an inspiration.

Christina,
I read the article as well. A couple of points; first, many people have beliefs based upon religion that says that abortion is wrong, second, may woman feel that way.
I have some issues with tax payer money being spent on what is an intensely personal decision, and before you go there, I have issues with payments for things like viagra as well. RvW is in fact settled law and although the court could if presented with a case, overturn it. It has happened before when the politics of the times change what was well settled law. We only have to look at Brown in 1954 that ovrturned separate but equal in schools. It is not and should not be an issue that overwhelms all others. The issue is nuanced and complicated. I resent EW making seem so simple by using expressions such as a "war against women". It is an issue that both sides can point to well reasoned arguments for their positions. As a side note, and I only have the article as a reference, but it seemed like some of the issues with Planned Parenthood, went to financial issues as well. If you have more information, please provide.