The New Republic’s latest edition features a piece whacking Elizabeth Warren for her lackluster U.S. Senate campaign.
Elizabeth Warren’s uninspiring campaign.
THERE WAS ONCE A TIME, not so very long ago, that, whenever Elizabeth Warren sat down with a liberal interviewer, a lovefest was practically guaranteed. “I know your husband’s backstage. I still wanna make out with you,” Jon Stewart purred in early 2010 to the then-60-year-old Harvard professor whose rimless glasses perpetually slip down her nose. But when Warren appeared recently at Boston’s Kennedy Library to discuss her bid for the U.S. Senate with local public-radio fixture Christopher Lydon, the conversation wasn’t so effusive. Lydon is a uniquely Bostonian creature, a combination of highbrow liberalism and voice-of-the-common-man affect, with a ruddy face and a trim white beard. After Warren gave her standard speech to fulsome applause, he posed the question that is very much on the minds of Massachusetts Democrats these days—namely, “Why is your race close?”
That got Warren all lathered up, as any criticism of her seems to do. But there’s plenty more where that came from, provided mainly by local fixtures Jim Shannon, Larry DiCara, and Tom Birmingham, who contributes this:
“I’m candidly perplexed by what’s going on,” says Tom Birmingham, the former Democratic president of the state Senate. “Because I did think that, if the Democrats had a strong candidate—and I would have regarded Elizabeth Warren as a strong candidate—that we’d really be in a favorable position.”
Instead, she’s in a dead heat, partly because Scott Brown is just a better campaigner than Warren is.
“Scott Brown walks into a room without an entourage, drinks beer out of a bottle, attends events, enjoys himself, and stays. And he’s a really easy guy to like.”
Elizabeth Warren? Not so much.