According to instant polling, 50% thought Brown won the debate, as opposed to 40% for Warren.

[No Elephants]

AS usual, though, you had to listen carefully.

For example, on the issue of choice, Brown said that he had been fighting for women's rights for years, citing fighting his mother's abusive husbands. He followed that up with "If a judge made it very clear that he opposed Roe v. Wade, I would oppose that judge."

Well, intervening between your mother and her male physical abusers is not especially about the rights of women in general. What human being worthy of that name who had the ability to stop physical abuse of anyone weaker would not do so?

As far as the hypothetical judge, all judicial nominees these days claim that they cannot be specific in nomination hearings as to any issue that might come befofe them when they are on the bench.

So, while Brown was stupid enough to assume that any and all nominee for the federal bench would already be judges, he was too clever by half in stating which nominees he would oppose.

Why the difference in intelligence? Why, any campaign manager, especially of a Republican candidate, would go over something like reproductive choice VERY carefully. However, all campaign managers would not assume that a U.S. Senator is that clueless about judicial nominees.

IOW, to an almost 199% certainty, Brown was coached carefully on exactly what to say about judicial nominees and choice and he was just smart enough to commit the answer to memory. But maybe his campaign did not assume that any U.S. Senator had to be told that a judicial nomineee is not necessarily a judge. So, no one thought to coach him on that.

The review from the Republican moderator? As usual, Brown did very well, covering all the points and using his appealing personal story. And Warren did not seem overly shrill and argumentative. (tick, tock, tick, tick--the interviewer of the moderator is waiting, so the moderator adds, almost choking back the words) so she had a good night too.

Anyone remember my asking rhetorically why she or her campaign would have agreed to this particular moderator? I'd rather have had Reince Priebus moderate. At least everyone would expect him to be biased and would be on the lookout for that. Not so with the smarmy guy who actually did moderate.

[Enthusiast]

1. Okay, thanks.

Hoping for Warren to crush Brown was too much to expect I guess.

[No Elephants]

2. His campaign people are so much better than hers.

And he is so much slicker than she is. And more of a street fighter.

She probably thought that campaigning was all about sounding smarter and tougher than Brown.

Example: As I mentioned, her ads until recently made her seem unpleasant.


As I also mentioned, she finally took them off the air and replaced them with ads of people praising her and her meeting people and hugging them with a smile.

whew!

For a minute and a half, anyway.

Almost immediately, Scott Brown had ads up showing her flailing around and running her mouth behind him, in silent black and white film, probably at a slightly faster speed than is accurate, while he talks to voters calmly and affably in the foreground. Take that, Ms. Warren. So much for accomplishing whatever you thought you were accomplishing when you took your ads off the air.

So quickly that I wonder if anyone in production or the ad agency alerted them.

And then the moderator's interview reinforces that by saying how affable Brown is while he hits all the substantive points and Elizabeth was not shrill and preachy ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................(unconvincingly and grudgingly) so she had a good night, too.

As if "not shrill or preachy is a victory for her and the best she can be expected to do.

BAH!