I'm sorry Elizabeth Warren's speech left me bored. n/t

[vaberella]

Everything was great as far as substance but I have to say the partisan-ness did turn me off. I wanted more stories, I wanted to know why she would vote for Obama and her work with him and just run on that, rather than what was wrong for Romney. Don't get me wrong...Interject it...but..dunno, something felt off for me.

I realize I'll be beat up over it. But it wasn't a great speech to me..Not like last night.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. You might have been watching some other Elizabeth Warren.

I thought she was terrific.

[marybourg]

4. Me too!

[avebury]

6. Me three! nt

[patrice]

7. me 4 Elizabeth!

[nc4bo]

9. Me 5.

I got everything she said and felt her passion.

[Hutzpa]

34. Me 6

substance was more important than tone.

[TeamPooka]

44. I was told there would be no arithmetic. Me 7

[lunatica]

53. Me 8. Elizabeth is in her own campaign mode right now

I saw fire in her. And better still, Massachusetts Democrats who were tuned in also saw it.

[JI7]

2. she is more of a policy person, not crowds type

and it's what is hurting her in Massachusettes .

[flamingdem]

10. somebody tell her to open personalize it..

she has so many other great elements going but it's hard to connect

[randome]

25. I think you have it exactly right.

You and flamingdem.

[powergirl]

3. She's a good woman and I believe in her but

She is not a dynamic speaker. It is hard to share the stage with the Big Dawg.

[vaberella]

12. Exactly. She's no Nancy Keenan, unfortunately. n/t

[karynnj]

24. I think her speech should not have been placed where it was

Bill Clinton made an excellent plea for cooperation - which is needed. The problem is that the empty suit now in that Senate seat has made the claim that he is second least partisan Senator a major part of his campaign. The problem is that the sometimes harsh partisanship of her speech makes her fit less well with Clinton's argument.

Clinton is giving a barnburner and Warren is not first and foremost a politician. When he started to speak of corruption, he could have helped Warren by mentioning her work when he spoke of the regulation problems - but his goal is to make the case for Obama - and he is doing an excellent job. Mentioning her would be going off tangent.

Unfortunately, though I liked much of what Warren said, I really do not think this will be a huge help to her.

[XemaSab]

43. Her delivery was off

She needed to pause more to let the audience react. She kept talking over her own applause, which made the pacing of the speech janky.

[RandiFan1290]

51. Time was an issue

Every speaker couldn't stop to bask in the applause. Bill would have been on at 1am if they did that.

[upi402]

5. More sincere, less pretentious

For me, I'm sick of phony showmanship.

[deutsey]

50. Yeah, I'm sick of overly polished speakers

I don't want to hear somone stumbling and stammering and rambling, either, but sometimes it's just nice to hear someone plainly tell it like it is.

As John Lennon once sang, all I want is the truth...just gimme some truth.

[Terra Alta]

8. I thought she was great.

Of course, she isn't as good of a speaker as Clinton, but give her time.

[kwolf68]

22. Whoever invented the art of language

isnt as good as Clinton

[politicasista]

28. Everyone has their own style

Even Obama.

[graywarrior]

11. Oh really?

I can't wait to vote for her.

[vaberella]

16. I'm not saying not to vote for her.

Her oratory abilities don't define a leader in my book, it's an aspect but doesn't define them and her policies, beliefs, and loyalty to the American people is apparent and sincere. Her delivery of her speech...I felt didn't resonate with me the way someone like let's say Nancy Keenan last night or even Sandra Fluke tonight did.

[graywarrior]

20. She's low key. In person, she's a dynamo....riveting, even.

[treestar]

13. Not me!

[fugop]

14. I loved her!

A strong intelligent woman like that rocks my world. I thought she was great.

[Cleita]

15. Why? Was it over your head? n/t

[vaberella]

17. Do you need to be condescending? n/t

[ProSense]

18. Twitter loved her, but

I suspect the crowd chanting "Warren, Warren, Warren" is also a hint.

[politicasista]

27. +1 n/t

[Starry Messenger]

19. I saw the first woman President of the US

I guess there always has to be a buzzkill.

[jsmirman]

42. Funny, that was just what I thought

watching her.

[CreekDog]

58. But I enjoyed the n/t fail

unless I've forgotten what "n/t" means.

[PragmaticLiberal]

21. I agree with you.

I don't think she's a great candidate even though for the most part I agree with her stances.

[progressivebydesign]

31. Define "great candidate"

Are we judging people by how they give soundbites? Or by how they would govern?

[mythology]

38. How about how she's doing in the polls?

Scott Brown isn't a great senator, but he's currently slightly ahead in the Real Clear Politics poll average. This is a state where Obama is ahead by nearly 20 points.

She isn't connecting with the voters like she should in theory given the demographics of the state. She is keeping up with him in fundraising and I see ads for her regularly on tv.

I don't know how this speech will play. She does get to benefit from the association with Bill Clinton, but she also is a less dynamic speaker than he is. There's no shame in that, as many people are, but if it furthers the idea that she's too professorial or stiff, that's bad.

[PragmaticLiberal]

65. Perhaps I should have said she's not a "great campaigner".

And that's a problem.

[sadbear]

23. Is she leading in the polls yet?

[randome]

26. She's a bit too wonky, maybe?

I don't see her as the next President. She has the intelligence and she has the passion but something subtle is missing. Maybe it's warmth. Maybe it's something else but I've noticed it, too.

[progressivebydesign]

30. You need to make a distinction between showmanship and knowing your stuff.

Elizabeth Warren knows her stuff. sadly in America, only the flashiest people who play well on TV get to govern.. apparently. Like Michael Dukakis, whose intellect and humble personality, would have served us very well, only to be beat by an empty suit with tv dazzle.

[randome]

35. I DO make the distinction.

But it's not all flash that makes the cut in TV Land. I think Obama radiates a sense of genuine warmth. I think Clinton does, too. Warren, I'm not feeling it.

[powergirl]

47. The awful truth is that you have to have that certain "X-Factor" to win

big elections in this country. And that X-Factor means having an engaging and gregarious persona. I saw her on John Stewart months ago and Jon was doing everything he could to humanize her and give her funny openings to reveal her personality and she would talk over him and give statistics, etc. I probably act the same way when I talk to my friends about politics, but I am not running for the United States Senate. Scott Brown is a weak candidate and a strong personable candidate is what is needed to beat him. This is Massachusetts, for crying out loud.

[randome]

48. Excellent observations. That helps define what I feel about her.

I want her to win. Badly. And she was treated horribly by Conservatives when she tried to get approved for the Consumer Protection Agency (or whatever it was called.)

Hopefully, we will see a general turning away from Conservatives and she can ride that to victory over Brown. Because she has the smarts, no doubt about that.

[deutsey]

52. It takes sincerity, too, and once you can fake that

you have a great chance of going far in politics.

[karynnj]

57. Dukakis lost to GHWB,

who was neither a empty suit or someone with TV dazzle. Dukakis lost to a dirty campaign by a nasty man.

[progressivebydesign]

29. Wow. Didn't get that at all. I loved her delivery and her facts.

It didn't seem to be partisan in that it was not unduly partisan. She NEEDED to make the distinctions and tell the truth. I was extremely engaged with her speech.

Yes, I love the personal stories, but there were plenty of those. Elizabeth Warren is talking about her role in this.. saving the consumers.

[renate]

40. I thought she was superb

I was watching it on DVR and I watched every single minute of her speech and was fascinated by the whole thing--I especially loved her outrage (as the panel said later, the only time anyone's ever really discussed the GROSS injustice of the way that the Wall Street bankers who destroyed lives are back to sitting on top of the world already).

On the other hand, I skipped through a lot of Clinton's speech--not because he wasn't excellent but because it kind of went on and on. I thought it was great to have it spoken by him so it would all become viable subjects for discussion in the news media instead of in preaching to the choir, but I felt as though I wasn't missing much by skipping 30-second chunks at at time.

I absolutely loved her.

[Jennicut]

32. I actually really liked it.

I liked how she talked about financial reform and her insight into it. Not everyone has the warmness of certain other natural politicians.

[Grammy23]

33. I Loved Elizabeth Warren

AND her speech. If I could vote for her I would. I found her very believable and convincing. Not a hint of arrogance.

Go Elizabeth and hope you win because if you do, we all win. We know you'll be representing your state, but also be there for the rest of us, too. We need more people JUST LIKE YOU!

[sabrina 1]

36. I thought she was fantastic. She was a breath of fresh air, sincere, intelligent and I loved

when she gave the dig to the vicious Republicans who tried to stop the formation of her Consumer Oversight Agency, and stated how President Obama had backed her, and that's how it became a reality against all their money. Then she added that 'this little agency, btw, just uncovered fraud by a credit card company' and told how the cheated consumers got their money back, which amounted to millions.

She was wonderful.

[Iggo]

37. I don't think "n/t" means what you think it means.

[shanti]

39. she has my vote

[standingtall]

41. I thought she was awesome

[Raine]

45. I admit I had a hard time paying attention but I think it was because I knew the Big Dog was

coming up next and I was anticipating that.

[Rowdyboy]

46. Wow. Sorry, but I have to disagree...While it wasn't Julian Castro or Michelle Obama

it was a good speech delivered with passion. At least in my opinion. To bad you were disappointed.

[Curtland1015]

49. I enjoyed it. But I see your point.

I thought it was a fine speech and she did a fine job with it. Was it a little more "anti-Romney" than it was "pro-Obama"? Maybe a bit... but we need a few of those mixed in when you're having a convention, I think.

Plus, while she didn't hit it out of the park compared to some, and it would be hard to with the amazing speeches we've already seen, it certainly wasn't botched.

[RandiFan1290]

54. lol ...leftover PUMA bitterness?... lol

[Nye Bevan]

55. Professorial.

She's great, but I don't think she's a future President.

[marmar]

56. I'll take substance over style any day.

nt

[reflection]

59. No beating up, but I disagree strongly

I found her delivery to be sincere and heartfelt, and it had a tinge of anguish, which added gravity to the serious message she was trying to convey... the system is rigged. Help us fix it. Help us protect those without armies of lobbyists. I thought her grim desperation and sense of urgency was the perfect springboard to Clinton.

To each his/her own. My observations are certainly no more or less valid than yours or anyone else, but I thought it was a powerful one-two punch, starting with Warren's dogged determinedness, and culminating in a charismatic Clinton crescendo, showered upon America in a torrential thunderstorm of undeniable truths.

[mmonk]

60. We should have had a centrist in there giving a speech

and will vote with Republicans just enough to keep their agenda alive and believed.

[Fla Dem]

61. I'll take substance over style anyday. But having said that, I loved her speech.

She spoke of her growing up, pregnant at 19, being a mom and teacher. She spoke of trying to get the financial industry regulated, and beaten back by the Republican congress, and Obama being there having her back. She had 10, 15 minutes max to get her points across. She was lead in for Bill f'ing Clinton; I think she was fantastic.

[derby378]

62. I hear you - it's no longer enough merely to present the facts

She needed to demonstrate a little hunger for the chance to represent Massachusetts, and she didn't. She just seemed bored and stiff.

You have to want to win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Elizabeth Warren seems like a good person, but it didn't seem like she wanted to win last night.

[sadbear]

64. She's going to have to do better on the campaign trail.

When she preaches to the choir, she does great. But Massachusetts elected Scott Brown for some strange reason. That's the political reality, and it's going to take a lot more than speeches like the one last night to win in November.

[truebrit71]

63. You were obviously watching the Elizabeth Warren in the alternate universe Bill Clinton mentioned...

...last night, because here in 'reality-world' she absolutely rocked!

[apples and oranges]

66. I don't agree with your characterization of her content, but she was boring…

I really hate to admit that, because she's brilliant and has all the right ideas. I'd vote for her in a second if I was in MA. The problem is, people who are not interested in policy will tune her out, probably before she even opens her mouth. I think (and this is unfortunate), there are a few components that every successful politician needs: sincerity (or a believable display of it), a powerful presence, and the ability to entertain and draw people in within 5 seconds. Warren has the sincerity, but her presence is too unassuming and her speech delivery is not entertaining. Wormney fails the sincerity and delivery test, but presents himself as someone with power.