While many of the voters who swept Ted Kennedy into office four months after he left the car that was Mary Joe Kopechne's tomb have perhaps themselves died, the attitude of Massachusetts voters hasn't changed too much.They barely voted for Brown over his competitor in the last election, even though she thought campaigning for the seat was beneath her.Now there is someone who learned from Martha Coakley's mistakes, and campaigns passionately. She has supporters who have been passionate about her, even before she became a YouTube star with the "you didn't build that" rant.Her battle cry is no longer "you didn't build that". She quiets down any reference of her previous pride at being the inspiration of Occupy Wall Street.There is a lot Elizabeth Warren does not want to talk about.She doesn't want to talk about her application to Harvard Business school. She will tell you that those that interviewed her did not use her Native American heritage as an incentive to hire her back in 1995. When the issue won't disappear she insists that the issue has disappeared. There is no proof that Harvard, which in the mid 1990s was under great scrutiny to improve their professor's diversity, decided to hire the only law school professor they had with her law degree from a state school because of her native American heritage.She doesn't want to talk about her daughter, who was busy this summer working for an agency that demanded that the state of Massachusetts send out (and pay for) notices to welfare recipients to remind them to register to vote. They even included a self addressed stamped envelope. She will only say that her daughter's efforts were about compelling the state to comply with the law. The action had never been undertaken in any state ever before, but no doubt registered some potential Warren voters.She doesn't want to talk about her authority to practice law in the state of Massachusetts. She has been doing so a lot since she moved to Cambridge in 1995. The problem is that there is no way to confirm that she was ever a lawyer who was licensed in Massachusetts. She had held licenses in Texas and New Jersey, but both of those licenses have been put into a state that does not allow for third party research. There is a lot of interest in this, however, and radio and newspaper reporters are in the midst of FOIA requests to get to the bottom of whether Warren was paid for legal work that she was not authorized to be paid for.This is just scratching the surface. If the press was doing it's job right it would demand that Warren sit down and answer questions like: "what kind of work have you done for the Native American tribes that you have claimed to be part of in the past." But that line of questioning might overcome the foolishness of even Massachusetts voters.
Nah. Not twice in a row.They'll put The Kennedy Seat back into the Dem column where it belongs..Ken
They'll put The Kennedy Seat back into the Dem column where it belongs..Ken I think your phrasing in this sentence proves the Dems really do think they are "Special" and the world sometimes just doesn't understand them.
It must frustrate the H. out of you that Nate now shows Liz with an 82% chance of winning.http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/Peter
You do have me going to 538 dot com now, but I have not ventured into the Brown Warren race there.I am not as impressed with Nate as you are.I understand polls are important. I even appreciate Nate's analysis.But whether it is a Senate race or a Presidential race we know that campaigns are more marathons than they are sprints.Unlike marathons or sprints, there are more come-from-behind victories in politics.The Mass Senate seat and the President's race were always going to be close. Both Romney and Brown were not in this race to win it in August, September, or October. The strategy is/was/always will be, be ahead in November.I don't get the "chance of winning" importance. It's like we're watching a Texas Hold'em game and the candidates are playing their hand after their draw.This 82% chance of winning really means that if the election day was today, it's likely that Warren would win, but if it is in the future, that might change.One more debate between Brown and Warren. If the press does their job (btw, the conservative Boston talk show hosts and columnists have been working towards one more big issue that will adversely affect Warren) the Warren campaign will be looking back fondly on the "good old 82% days"
Of course they can be fooled. They already voted for Romney once.
Of course they can be fooled. They already voted for Romney once. Not to mention three successive Democrat speakers who were convicted and a late Senator who killed a woman in a drunken stupor. Yup, they certainly can be fooled. Grape
It must frustrate the H. out of you that Nate now shows Liz with an 82% chance of winning.http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/Peter It does not take a huge amount of courage to make the call that a rabidly liberal Democrat will win in Massachusetts. My personal take on this race is that it is a toss up, which, given the fact that it doesn't get more Blue State than the Bay State and the enormous amount of resources the Democrats have put in backing Warren should frustrate the hell out of Democratic Partisans. The smarter of which should be (but won't) asking themselves how the hell they got here if Warren wins. If Warren loses, which is a distinct possibility, National and State Democrats will have recriminations all over the place. They can't really blame surprise, or lack of a suitable candidate (the Democrats were thrilled that Warren won), or lack of backing (the Democrats are all in on this one). They will have to (as much as they want to avoid it) go into that most impossible place for the liberal mind to go - the area of doing an introspective analysis of how they failed.I would love to be fly on the wall for that one.
Of course they can be fooled. They already voted for Romney once.I think it was a debate that won that one for Romney too.Shannon OBrien was on message really driving home her pro-choice beliefs. She was adamant that women under 18 should have absolute rights to have an abortion without any parental supervision. Which was fine.But the moderator was Tim Russert, and when he brought up that what she was saying was that a 16 year old can't buy cigarettes or get a tattoo on her own in Mass. but she could get an abortion, OBrien's answer to Russert: "Want to see my tattoo?" There was not much doubt from that point on that only western Massachusetts would be voting for her.
Nice, St. Pat. Since you can't prove any of your innuendos, you are free to make up anything you like.
It's not made up that Harvard was being chastised for lack of diversity. It's not made up that Warren was listed as a native American at Harvard. It's not makeup that she acted as a.lawyer based in Massachusetts when she had no law license in Massachusetts.
That's soon to be SENATOR Warren to you.Ken
St Pat saysIt's not made up that Harvard was being chastised for lack of diversity. It's not made up that Warren was listed as a native American at Harvard.And you can't prove that the only reason they hired her was to increase diversity, so it must be true.It's not makeup that she acted as a.lawyer based in Massachusetts when she had no law license in Massachusetts.Wasn't your original claim simply that you couldn't prove she did have a law license in Massachusetts?
" And you can't prove that the only reason they hired her was to increase diversity, so it must be true. "They probably just wanted to hire the first law school professor who got her degree from a public school. " Wasn't your original claim simply that you couldn't prove she did have a law license in Massachusetts? "No. It's very provable that she had no license in MA. Ever.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |