I think The Boston Globe has really nailed it in  In Senate, Warren would lead where Brown has fallen short their endorsement of Elizabeth Warren for Senate.  The subhead also captures what I have strongly felt about her candidacy, “The real promise in Warren’s candidacy lies deeper in her character.”

On the campaign trail, Warren warns incessantly of a coming crisis in student-loan debt and the challenge it would present both for students and universities. This is a matter of no small concern in the higher-ed capital of the United States, and it’s easy to envision Warren becoming the Senate’s leading policymaker on higher education.

She also speaks passionately about medical research, a once-bipartisan priority that’s diminished under the Republican party’s ideological clampdown on government spending. Two years ago, for the first time in memory, the National Institutes of Health budget was reduced by 1 percent — this in a federal account that Kennedy twice succeeded in doubling over five-year periods. One of every five of those dollars goes to Massachusetts. Kennedy, for one, would never have let such a reduction happen. Brown voted in favor of the cut.

Where Scott Brown is content to see his job as only deciding which side of any legislative initiative he will support, Elizabeth Warren is much more likely to become a leader in the resolution of very important national issues of major concern to Massachusetts.

But on the biggest issue of the moment, the looming “fiscal cliff” of automatic budget cuts and expiration of multiple tax cuts, Brown foolishly tied his hands by signing Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge.

One thing Scott Brown seems adamant about is not raising taxes at this time.  This is one issue that he is dead wrong about.  Any extra liquidity that the Fed tries to inject into the economy to get it moving again is instantly sucked up by the wealthy to invest in non-productive financial chicanery.  The only way to prevent this is to tax some of this money out of the hands to the super wealthy and put it back to work in the economy.  The one remedy that is sorely needed to get us out of the economic doldrums, is the one remedy that Scott Brown is sure he will not let happen.  This alone is enough of a reason to get Scott Brown out of the Senate so he can no longer do more harm to our economy.

The Real News Network has the report Both Candidates Misleading on Iran and Afghanistan. You have to see the interview below to understand the closing following closing remarks:

And this is another cost, I’m afraid, of this two-party system, that a policy that is very clearly adversely affecting the security of the United States is not being adequately debated, it is not being given the consideration that it deserves, because—as I said at the outset: that the two parties have gotten used to lying to the American people to a degree that makes it impossible for debates to take place, even in a presidential year, when it’s so important that we understand what the real positions are of the candidates who are running for president and what their implications are for the American people. And I think that is a problem that now has to be given an extremely high priority by people who care about the future of this country. It’s time to really think much more seriously about what is wrong with the two-party system, what needs to be done about it. And I think, you know, obviously the need for other parties, at least a third party, must be high on the political agenda in this country.

When there is an important choice to be made between the candidates of the two major parties, I do not favor siphoning off votes to a third party.  However, a valuable service that a third party could perform is to make the debates more honest.  There is no guarantee that any random third party would actually perform this service.

I think that the underlying cause for the disfunction of our political system is the increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. Whether or not a viable third party could form and be helpful is a chicken and egg issue with solving what I have identified as the main problem. Perhaps it is not a question of which comes first. The process needs to begin in a way where both dispersing power and wealth more widely and the rise of a viable third party must proceed hand-in-hand.

I think that the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few is a major issue for all governments. Whether they be democratic or totalitarian, capitalist, communist, or socialist this issue is a threat to the success of said country. Despite the economic rise of China, you can see that the concentration of wealth there is going to severely hinder their chances at ultimate success. Russia is also suffering from this problem.