Reply #25: Again

[ProSense]

What's had me troubled about this story is that it didn't have to be a story. Had she merely answered the question about how she financed her education, she wouldn't have left Brown a target. Yes, "cute". How he raised money for college a long time ago has diddly-squat to do with the issues that she needs to make this campaign about. Hell, how she made money to get through school isn't either, but I guess I expected her to give a simple answer to the questioner, maybe even pointed out that young people are dealing with crushing debt and exorbitant fees to even get into college. That should have been the focus of her answer.

...you're trying to blame Warren for Brown's comment. It wouldn't have been a story if Brown had avoided making his comment. The story is Brown's comment.

Yes, those who would respond with a chuckle to Brown's comment wouldn't be likely Warren voters, but they might have skipped voting for either of them. I think it's possible that it motivated at least a few voters. And playing the angry feminist will just corral more of those piggish voters into Brown's corner. No, they're not a desirable portion, or even a significant portion of the electorate, but they're out there, and they thought Brown was a wuss for posing for Cosmo in the first place.

And here again, you're implying that the negative reaction to Brown's ridiculous comment is actually a positive. That's absurd!

I hope that you're right about Warren standing up to the banksters, because they're coming at her with both barrels blazing. If she keeps to the issues, she'll win, but if she lets the media keep bouncing this non-story off of her, she's going to make that an even steeper uphill battle.

This is politics, Warren has already demonstrated she's prepared to handle it. There is no need to defend Scott Brown from Warren. He needs to be able to defend himself. If today is any indication, he's in trouble.