After all, Scott Brown is not the first candidate in recent memory who could be described in the manner Brown was in this article about last night's Senate victory.
Brown, an obscure state senator with an unremarkable record when he entered the race four months ago, was a household name across the country by the end of the abbreviated campaign. Running a vigorous, smart, and error-free campaign, he became a vessel into which cranky and worried voters poured their frustrations and fears, ending the Democrats’ grip on a Senate seat the party has held for 58 years, nearly all by two brothers named Kennedy.
Let's concede, for the sake of argument, everything that the Boston Glob has to say a Scott Brown. Is there anyone here who would disagree that the same observation could have been made about another senatorial candidate, this one in Illinois, in 2004?
And that the same Boston Glob turned around and endorsed that other "obscure state senator with an unremarkable record" for the office of President of the United States not even one full Senate term later.
So forgive me if I find this minimization of Scott Brown by the Boston Glob to be rather humorous -- not to mention hypocritical.