I found the first debate far too awkward to watch, so I skipped this one. I just saw a clip online and it looked like more of the same. I find these to be too theatrical to do any good, so I focus on the basics when it comes time to pull the lever: their policies first, and their character second.

Lines like, "I'm not a student in your class, professor," don't make Scott Brown seem clever or endearing, and they run contrary to his claim that he respects Elizabeth Warren's accomplishments as a scholar and an educator.

Point to Warren.

Um, Justice Scalia?... Justice Kennedy?... Justice Sotomayor?

Mr. Brown forgot to mention Judge Judy.

The winner was David Gregory. He did a bang-up job, except the last dumb question about Bobby Valentine.

Warren made some valid points regarding jobs, and Brown just came across as smug, and priviliged. I am still doing some fact finding online, and researching past history of what they have done for the people. I havn't made up my mind yet.

Warrens idea of creating jobs is through government funded projects. She didn't say where the funds were coming from, but the voters are smart enough to know the funds would come from taxes. Brown should have talked more about creating jobs in the private sector.

It was disgraceful to see Warren interrupt a US Senator like she did. I imagine it was out of frustration.

Brown won on character, experience and knowledge.

I thought Elizabeth Warren blew a really simple last question about Bobby V. Easily could have said both Bobby V and ScottBrown have not lived up to the job they needed to do for MA, fire them both now.

The gaming industry needs Professor Warren far more than the Senate. She could dress in native attire while testifying for new casinos on sovereign land.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Why didn't they ask Warren why she decided to leave DC after being appointed by Obama to head a new Consumer agency? She made it to Washington...and left. Now she wants us to return her...I'm confused.
And why doesn't she have a current license to practice law if she's touting herself as a LAW Prof? Who is she, really?

Elizabeth won, hands down, for me. She was factual, open, polite, and accurate,
and did not back down in asking for equal time! There was no name calling from
Ms. Warren, just direct inquiries for facts and an accurate recitation of Brown's voting record, which speaks volumes about how HE acts "when the lights aren't on and the cameras rolling" for MA. Joan Reddy

I am Joan Reddy! see above!

Elizabeth Warren is a Hypocrite and a Fraud

Brown won hands down

Brown won, despite the constant interruptions from Prof Warren & the obvious biased moderating from Gregory. David Gregory should never moderate again - that was ridiculous.

What I find most enlightening by reading theses comments is how much they mirror the tactics practiced by both parties. It is much easier to name call than talk about substance. Brown supporters are making him proud if he were to read this. By the way, the spending problem has little to do with repairing our roads , which are in great need. It has all to do with the billions spent in a war that we had no business starting to begin with. Osama attacked our capitalist principles that day and we respond with a war with Iraq? Now we are crippled with a slow economy and large deficit. Who won?

According to salon.com Brown got 5 full minutes more speaking time. http://www.salon.com/2012/10/02/massachusetts_senate_debate_brown_got_more_time_than_warren/

I thought Elizabeth Warren won. First, no one booed her. Second, she was clear on her stances on issues, while Brown equivocated. And, lastly, she's willing to stand with her party.

You wonder if Warren really believes all her liberal theology... driver's licenses and nearly-free college tuition for illegals, for instance. Is she a true moonbat of the first water?

Reverend E. Raliegh Pimperton III

Brown won... as far as the consumer protection agency, what the republicans object to is that it has no congressional oversight and is funded directly by the Federal Reserve. Anyone who thinks a predatory financial institution is going to protect them from predatory financial institutions is just dumb.

Elizabeth Warren I believe was the winner hands down. It is pretty awful that Brown had more time and yet when Elizabeth was to speak up about it, because it is not fair, somehow that makes her the "bad" guy. Haha it's clear Brown likes to paint this picture that he is independent, because for 1. He always backs the republican party in congress, 2. He sides with Mitt Romney and yet does not publicly show who he endorses because he knows the Common Wealth is about as Pro Obama as you can get and guess who supports President Obama? Elizabeth! Wake up everyone, elite capitalistic hierarchy are not gonna be in charge anymore!

C.J.Holmes III

Warren won. Brown is simply for big business , warren is for the little guy. Thank goodness some body is.

The fact that Brown named ultra-conservative Scalia as his idea of a model SC justice speaks volumes. Not that he actually stuck to that comment, once he realized the audience didn't like it, then he waffled and moved onto Kennedy (middle of the road) and then to Sotomayor (progressive). So, who actually knows who Brown admires after those comments? I suspect that if Brown is reelected, we'll see a true Republican in the making. No more "bipartisan" voting, if he wants to call it that.

Brown says he's the second most non-partisan U.S. Senator, yet he thinks Scalia is the Supreme Court Justice he admires the most. Hmmm. And, Scott, if you're so non-partisan, don't campaign for Republicans running for election or re-election in the Senate. Maybe you're a Republican too, Senator, but just how non-partisan are you? Warren got in a great point with that one.

I think both candidates did a nice job. Unfortunately, Elizabeth Warren is about more spending and more taxes. To me, that is a deadly combination for our future. Scott Brown gets my vote. At least we know, he knows how to compromise and he won't simply vote whatever the party leadership dictates...I cannot imagine Elizabeth Warren ever breaking ranks with Nancy Peolosi.

WARREN SHOULD ASK BROWN TO PROVE SHE DOES NOT HAVE "INDIAN BLOOD"

JACK DONNELLAN

Elizabeth Warren…native american fraud. She was owned by our senator! She should stay at Harvard. It's plain to see by his voting record, he is down the middle of the lane compared to Washington at the moment…that's what WE need. Go Scott!

Warren won brown was just snarky

Who cares who won, why are we even thinking of voting for her?!!!!! She was hand picked by the Democratic party because they know Massachusetts cant resist a tax and spend liberal or a Kennedy. Warren is so unqualified it is ridiculous that we are even having this discussion. Another tax and spend liberal from MA! No wonder the rest of the nation laughs at us. Don't we have enough theorists in Washington? Aren't you tired of these "academics" who have never worked in the real world and will never have to earn their way because they have tenure!!!! I'm sorry, I forgot this state supports Obama...another theorist who has never had a real job. Haven't we had enough on the job training; George W, Obama and now Warren?!!!! Why don't we vote for people who have actually worked and made money?! I work for my money and am tired of people taking more and more of it for government agencies like the one Warren created. We already had an agency that was supposed to be performing that job, now we pay for second one. She is just one more tax and spend liberal from MA who will vote for every tax and has no idea how business' work or make money. I'm tired of both parties and politics in America. We are so broken and there don't seem to be any real ideas surfacing on how to fix our economy, schools, our borders, or our foreign policy. She is a joke just like Obama, except there isn't a funny punch line.

You moonbats are so delusional! You really think Liawatha will actually vote anything other than the democrat party line??? She has already shown that she can lie very well...

Who's Liawatha? There were only two candidates-Brown and Warren. To be serious, I know who you meant, but how about coming up with either of those two, OK?????? If you're for Brown, I need some proof.

This just in... Richard Lugar endorses Scott Brown.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

I think Elizabeth Warren is more honest than Scott Brown. Brown works hard to profer his image as independent, which seems dishonest to me, as he seems more like the "etch a sketch" guy than really one who examines the issues for what is best for the country, as opposed to what is best for his image, or standing in his party.

It looks to me like Mrs. Warren stands strong for what she believes, but see's the dilemna's and will work to gain consensus.

Alan,

Let us suppose for a moment your are correct. What if Warren's beliefs and intentions would be harmful to the country? What does her 'honesty' buy us then?

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

The debate was no contest.
Senator Brown won over the neophyte from Harvard.

And how many of you will will decide your vote based on who won the debate? Did anyone change their mind?

I would expect Warren to be better at these due to her law school professorship Debates give a VERY narrow view of candidates. I personally prefer to choose my candidates based on their positions on issues described in detail on their websites, not on quick sound bites. Both candidates gave dumb answers to the Supreme Court Justice question. Brown picked an ultra conservative and Warren picked a scholar who has been on the bench for about a year and never practiced law.

I am neither enamored with Scott Brown's "good looks" nor Elizabeth Warren's stature at Harvard.

Spend all of your time going back and forth but please, if you are undecided, spend some time on the candidate's website rather than trying to figure out who looked and sounded better on TV.

Finally, I am certain the person most impressed with David Gregory was David Gregory. Here is hoping they might stick to local figures for future debates.

Check out the fact checking

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/10/02/fact-check-debate/QkSPbkIbodITrWIXIBCPII/story.html?p1=Well_BG_Links

especially
ISSUE: Did Brown vote 50 percent of the time with Senate Democrats?

In his closing statement, Brown sought to burnish his ­bipartisan credentials by asserting, “I’m 50 percent with my party, 50 percent with the other party.”

FACTS: It depends on how you count the votes.

A Congressional Quarterly analysis found that Brown voted with the Republican leadership 54 percent of the time. But that calculation included dozens of amendments that had no chance of passing.
"As the Globe reported in May, on the most important, news-generating votes since he arrived in office in early 2010, Brown joined Republican leaders 76 percent of the time, ­according to an analysis by Project Vote Smart, a nonpartisan organization."

Both stumbled at times. If you think your candidate was flawless and trounced the other candidate you are only kidding yourself. Brown fumbled the SCJ question and Warren fumbled the bi-partisian question ala Lugar. So the debate was about even, slight edge to Brown based answering the college student jobs question. I don't think the female senior was looking for a construction job building roads. So look at each candidates record from independent sources, not their websites. Find what work both candidates did via their public record, and you will find if you are honest with yourself you can not vote for the one percenter from Harvard elite.

Brown definitely won. We are lucky to have someone like him down in the Senate representing Mass. Warren was very well coached and tried desperately to say all the "right things." She didn't make any sense. She made up things as she went. Her "facts" were very suspect. She told a UMASS Lowell poli. sci. senior who asked about jobs when she graduates, that we'd be building roads and bridges. Say what? Maybe she can run that steam roller thing on all these new roads we'll be building??? Here's a thought, if the very wealthy, very powerful very well-educated Mass. Democratic delegation of Congressmen and Senators who are representing us in Washington all worked with people on both sides, like Sen. Brown does, then perhaps they'd actually get something accomplished in the supposed goal of helping our State be the leader we all know it can be! Thx. Thank goodness we have people like Sen. Brown working for us.

Dr. Anderson put his comments in the wrong forum. He did not answer the question put forth in this section.

Scott Brown just accepted the endorsement of a group of white ministers. Shades of Reconstruction and Klan meetings. Just kidding, of course, but imagine the outrage.

Elizabeth Warren just accepted the endorsement of a group of black ministers. Shades of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Where is the outrage?

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

i believe e warren won she outlined her position and what she wants to do for ma,unlike brown he's beginning to look,act,and lair like his boss mitt romney

I don't think Warren or Brown are bad people personally at all---This comes down to which person would best represent us---here in Massachusetts. I was on the fence, but Brown lost me with the Scalia comment---That man should resign and become a radio show host---His "original text" approach to interpreting cases is quite selective---gay rights and abortion are not OK because they were illegal for 200 years, but rights to won AK-47's and machine guns somehow were contemplated.
The S. Ct. matters and Brown just doesn't vote the way most people in MA would on court nominations---He voted against Elena Kagan, the Solicitor General of the US because of he "lack of experience"....That just doesn't make sense. I'm also concerned after reading about Brown joining just about all of the GOP's Senate filibusters---which of course mean that no discussion---NOT even a discussion---could go forward on some important bills just because the other side proposed them. This is not how a Senator from Massachusetts should act. Reasonable people can differ and I suspect some will with me, but I'm going to vote for Warren.

Mr. Hanna:

I happen to agree with Miriam---Your point about taxes is fair--No one wants to pay them, least of all me, a retired combat veteran on a fixed income---Fact is we had two wars "funded" by 5 tax cuts---We need a balance of cuts against some revenues/tax increases on the uber-wealthy or else we have to make cuts in contract programs---I don't call them "entitlements"---I paid in all my life and fought hard for my country--I'm not a victim and I don't have a $100M stashed in the Caymans. Brown voted for the Ryan budget, which is a joke and would voucherize Medicare. One side---the GOP--which created the mess under W--has refused any reasonable compromise to move things forward over the last 3 years---Even Congressman Boehner concedes that---Brown is a not a "50%" conservative---He is a 100% corporate Republican who waits for his National leaders to allow him to vote on things---even for-show votes when the Democrats already have enough votes---He's a fine Senator for a more conservative state---That's just not MA and I think Warren is more like Ted Kennedy insofar as protecting veterans benefits and overall fairness.---Just my opinion.

Raymond
I'm a fellow conservative and we are a lonely bunch here in MA---better to focus on state races and do what we can to make things better locally---never really liked Brown--He's a pretty boy and a complete lightweight. Warren is who she is---liberal, smart and she does care about the " little guy. " ---I think Brown's focus on the Native American stuff is a waste of time and money--He should focus on eliminating waste and being a newer version of former Senator Ed Brooke---Attacking her for her ancestry is small and stupid---His record doesnt allow for anything else----Let's have the debate about priorities and true conservatism ( Justice Kennedy NOT Scalia)---keep an eye on Tsei beating Tierney---that's where we need to focus. Brown is a lot cause.
Bill

Yeah HRouda---That's right becuase George W was alll about shrinking government---Was it his expansion of the Medicare prescription drug benefit without any means to pay for it that tipped you off?---Great "conservative" strategy of borrowing money from China to pay for 2 wars and expanded government---and Brown would have voted in lockstep for this nonsense because he is a poodle on a leash held by the National GOP party....There is NOTHING "conservative" about Brown or his party at the moment---It's all opposition and gridlock---No new ideas, nothing....

And on the other hand...

If you are a government employee, union member, food stamp recipient, or limousine liberal then Elizabeth Warren is the candidate for you.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Other than having to borrow money from China to pay for the salaries and benefits of government employees, why would anyone have something against government employees?

Fitzroy,

Nothing against these folks... merely identifying those who would enjoy, extend and enhance the policies of the current administration.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Meanwhile the Obama campaign unravels before us. Americans die in Libya due to lax security, and Obama runs ads featuring Big Bird.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III