Yes, the Massachusetts voters of this election (not all of "the people of Massachusetts") may have expressed a change of heart. It's easy to assume, but hard to prove, that the same voters who supported Obama are the ones who voted in Brown.

Undoubtedly the turnout was lower than when Obama was elected which can be tied to lower interest in a special election, a less energized democratic base, rejection of the proposed health care solutions, or whatever an onlooker chooses to attribute it to in order to prove their particular opinion.

The issue I was addressing is how we look at an outcome and trumpet our particular belief (usually swayed by opinions of people we follow and agree with) as if it's the truth when it's actually a theory.

The psychological behavior behind this is tied to neurological impulses to pick the first solution that supports our view and ignore the other hundreds of possibilities to explain a specific result. Read "Predictably Irrational," " Fooled by Randomness," "How We Decide" or "Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind" for further research on this common phenomenon. It's most obvious in peoples religious and political beliefs, but can be seen in other areas of our own lives on a daily basis.

This Brown guy ran exclusively against Obama's health care initiative. And he won. That begs the question. "What motivated their vote?" That is done by polling the people that leave the polls…something called exit polling. Look at the data and the terms "Americans sending a message" is really the medias way of trying to explain that people have changed their mind (depending on the issue) in the last year when it comes to how much they support the Presidents agenda.

When you look at who supported Obama in 2008 in Mthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts and then see that same segment swinging the other way 12 months later then the conclusion is people are not happy with how things are being done in DC. Look at the exit polls and you will see what I mean.

You make alot of valid points all around but they really donlt address the heart of the matter which involves the swing in independents away from Obama which voted him into office.

It's frustrating that most people primarily engage in the impotent republican vs democrat distraction as if it mattered. The issue is corporate influence on government laws that negatively affect citizens in favor of postitive outcomes for mulinational corporations.

Revolution would be good,but it's not going to happen in Washington unless 1) Lobbyists are castrated 2) Corporations lose the power to pay for access and 3) Corporations stop writing legislation for congress that benefits their industries with no regard to negative impacts on others.

The MA election doesn't mean much because no matter who is elected or which party they belong to, their actions in office serve the monied interests that fund them. Then when they're voted out of office most of them become lobbyists and make higher salaries, so being defeated in an election is not a bad deal …especially if you're already a millionaire.

You just take your increased power and connections with you to further increase your wealth in power in the private sector. That's why Washington is revolving door betwen government service and corporate C-level executive positions.

It's more likely that revolution will happen outside Washington to force changes in the current systems. I'm not against corporations & congress, I'm against the misuse of their power in service to quarterly profits over a triple bottom line agenda (people, planet, profits).