• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    riverdaughter on “Why should you go to jail for…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on “Why should you go to jail for…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on “Why should you go to jail for…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on “Why should you go to jail for…
    campskunk on Ping me when there’s news
    William on D-Day -1
    William on Steve Garvey Running for U.S.…
    jmac on Steve Garvey Running for U.S.…
    William on Steve Garvey Running for U.S.…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on D-Day -1
    thewizardofroz on Steve Garvey Running for U.S.…
    William on Steve Garvey Running for U.S.…
    thewizardofroz on Steve Garvey Running for U.S.…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    January 2010
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

  • Top Posts

Martha Coakley and the Despicable Democratic Spin Meisters

The Dems are fashioning a pre-emptive strike in advance of Martha Coakley’s potentially disastrous loss on Tuesday.  Let the record show that the Democrats are starting to parrot the Fox News pundits.  From the NY Times this morning comes these tasty tidbits to savor:

“It comes from the fact that Obama as president has had to deal with all these major crises he inherited: the banks, fiscal stimulus,” said Senator Paul G. Kirk Jr., the Democrat who holds the Massachusetts seat on an interim basis pending the special election. “But for many people it was like, ‘Jeez, how much government are we getting here?’ That might have given them pause.”


Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, said the atmosphere was a serious threat to Democrats. “I do think there’s a chance that Congressional elites mistook their mandate,” Mr. Bayh said. “I don’t think the American people last year voted for higher taxes, higher deficits and a more intrusive government. But there’s a perception that that is what they are getting.”

I love this stuff.

Presumably, the 2008 primary voters of Massachusetts realized that Obama would inherit a lot of crap from his predecessor.  This is not news to them.  That’s probably why they didn’t vote for him. Maybe it’s just me but when I was written off by my own party as an inconvenient vote, a rage simmered in me just waiting for an opportunity to strike back.  Maybe, if Jon Corzine had acted like a real Democrat and had spent his four year term making the NJ tax system fairer, he would have gotten a second chance.  But Corzine wasn’t done in by more Republicans voting so much as he failed to get Democrats to the polls.  You can call it an enthusiasm gap if you want.

Or you can parrot the Republican line and say that people are objecting to more big government.  {{snort!}} Yes, that may be the perception that they’re getting because that is the perception that Democrats like Bayh are promoting.  But if that’s true, why the heck is my email account cluttered up with appeal after appeal for money for Coakley in Massachusetts.  I mean, don’t Democrats want government that works for voters?  So, they are saying one thing to the cable news audience and another thing to their (former) Democratic base?  Whoda thunkit?

Could you Democrats just cut the crap already?

If Martha Coakley loses on Tuesday it will be because she succumbed to a trait common to most tragic heros: arrogance.  Everyone thought that she was a shoe in when she won the primary, including the candidate herself.  What she is instead is a very bad politician.  Politics requires some showmanship.  You have to be able to read your audience.  But Martha Coakley is stupidly honest about what she thinks of her sucker voters.  She roped in her liberal Massachusetts constituents by presenting her liberal credentials in the primary and then did a 180 on them a short time later by embracing the health care reform act.  She signalled in advance that she didn’t really give a damn about what her liberal constituents thought.

Martha didn’t have to do this.  This is Massachusetts.  Democrats outnumber Republicans by millions.  It remains a mystery why she tacked right in a state where tacking right is a non-starter.  I can’t imagine what DC Democrats thought they could get from it unless they wanted her to lose.  But then, why all of the appeals for cash?  Why the sense of panic and desperation?  What nitwit in Washington thought it was a good idea for Coakley to broadcast the fact that she was going to screw her voters?  The loyalty pledge to Obama and the powers that back him up has finally met its match.

I wouldn’t presume to tell Massachusetts how to vote on Tuesday and they’re not looking for me for guidance anyway.  But we can look at the likely outcome.  It’s going to be Democrats that determine this thing, either by defection or by staying home.  If they elect Scott Brown, they send a potent message to the party and the country that they’re sick and tired of being jerked around by Democrats In Name Only that pretend to share their values but are really beholden to a small evil group to which no one they know belongs.  That gives national Democrats about 10 months to get their shit together and quit playing games.

If they vote for Coakley, even if the outcome is close, they signal to Washington that they are perfectly willing to be suckers but they end up with a woman who will get them closer to that 30% critical mass of female legislators that will eventually have the power to tell the Rahm Emannuel types to go take a long walk on a short pier when it comes to selling out their gender for the sake of some uber shmoozer’s political reputation. Unfortunately, that 30% level is still a loonnnng way off. Still, going forward is a potent argument.

But it Coakley loses on Tuesday, the Democrats would be wise to yank the Kirks and Bayhs from the airwaves.  The base won’t be buying it anymore.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

372 Responses

  1. Like you, I don’t understand why she went right. She had a very convincing win in the primary.


    • I have no way of knowing but I suspect that she wasn’t the establishment candidate in the primary. So, the idiots had a meeting with her and forced her to kiss their rings. Then she had to show them that she understood who was in charge by pledging her support of the bill. And she did it because she was stupid. She could have just said, “I’ll do what’s right for the state of massachusetts”. But, nooooooo, the powers that be wanted a formal declaration.
      Be careful what you wish for.

      • Right about not being the establishment’s choice. Pelosi endorsed Capuano.

      • Yup. I suspect they leaned on her with threats of some kind regarding her “stubborn” position on Stupak. Something happened behind the scenes that caused that shift.

        The whole thing makes me sad, that it’s come to this.

        • I found out something about my own plan that I didn’t know. I’m 54 and have never had nor considered an abortion. However, I have Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. I was online checking what my plan covered and was surprised to find out that it does not cover “voluntary” abortion. I’m a teacher and this plan is considered one of the “better” plans. I think everyone here might want to check their own health insurance plans to see what is really covered! It seems that Stupak’s amendment might already be a part of the insurance plans that already exist.

        • What happened was that they’re changing the Stupak language to something she will “reluctantly” accept.

          there are important distinctions between what was passed in the House and what was passed in the Senate. […] the House provision would effectively bar any insurance plan accepting government subsidies from covering elective abortions. The Senate bill, on the other hand, would allow such insurers to sell plans covering abortions, but would require women to pay for that portion of the coverage separately.

          This is from a letter Coakley’s campaign sent recently. The whole letter is at my blog at http://florasteele.blogspot.com/2010/01/house-version-vs-senate-version.html

          Imo this is a realistic use of her bargaining power. If she held out for too much, then they would just pass the HC without her (by various methods).

          • You have to be kidding about this being a realistic bargaining power example. That is virtually nada. Setting up a 2 tier system with a separate payment—-that is at best asinine. (IMHO)

          • With all due respect, BULLSHIT. The Senate version “allows” plans to provide abortion coverage, but makes it so onerous to do so that few will.

            They will have to set up entirely separate accounts, the monies may not intermingle, etc. What big insurer is going to go to those lengths to provide coverage? It’s kabuki.

          • then she should have let them pass it without her, as should every other pro-choice democrat. Subjecting women to an extra cost is discriminatory. What surgery does the government insist men pay for separately as if part of their medical needs were immoral and something to be shunned and shamed about?

      • I still believe the establishment, (Obama et al) want her to lose. They don’t want that 60 vote albatross around their neck. They want to have an excuse to do nothing. They forced Coackley to say things that they knew would cause her to lose. It is as obvious as the fraud that is 0bama.

    • She didn’t go right as much as she went along with Obama’s health insurance giveaway with the Nelson compromise in it. In the primaries, all the candidates supported Obamacare (or, the version at the time), but Coakley supported it less enthusiastically than her opponents, and not at all if it contained Stupak.

      I put together a timeline of the polls/events yesterday because I was tired of the OFB blaming Coakley for being a bad candidate. Granted she’s no Obama but then, she doesn’t have the TOTUS to support her.

      Nov 8: Suffolk Univ. poll shows Coakley clobbering Brown if that’s the final matchup, 58 to 27%.

      Nov 10: Coakley says she would vote against the House version of hc bill if it contained the Stupak amendment.

      Dec. 8: Coakley wins Dem. primary with almost as many votes as her 3 opponents combined (47% of vote).

      Dec. 20: Coakley says she’ll support the Senate version of the hc bill which contains the Nelson compromise restricting abortion rights. Nelson compromise is microscopically better than Stupak.

      No polls were conducted for a few weeks, although Coakley’s schedule, posted online, looks pretty busy aside from the holidays.

      Jan 5: Rasmussen poll shows Coakley ahead of Brown by 9 only.

      Jan. 12: Rasmussen again shows Coakley ahead, but only by 2. Subsequent polls show Brown ahead in some cases, among likely voters.

      What changed between Nov and Jan? Mass. voter approval of the hc bill dropped below 50% (in some polls), Obama’s approval ratings fell below 50% (again in some polls), Coakley flipped on abortion restrictions in the bill, and Brown started explicitly running against the bill. The bill or bills, already horrible, got worse and worse.

      There’s really no way this election isn’t a referendum not on Coakley, but on Obama, the Dems, and the health care bill particularly. No amount of OFB whining about how Coakley brought Obama down by not being a better candidate can change that. There’s no doubt in my mind that Reid, Pelosi, etc started pressuring Coakley as soon as she won the primaries on supporting the health care bill; for gawdsake, even Bernie Sanders has pre-caved on it.

      The enthusiasm gap, though, that’s getting reported is not the one RD is describing — Democrats sliding away from the party because they’re just so disgusted with it. This election is a low turnout election where enthusiasm is everything, and even Democrats who still approve of Obama just aren’t all that excited about him.

      • See my comment below. The hidden problem with HCR is that the present HCR Bill is everything the right could have wished for and tuned in Dems know this.
        With HCR, the Republicans win no matter what they do. There was one solid way for Coakley to win. All she had to do was act like a real, liberal Democrat. A savvy politician would have told the Rahm types to back the fuck off.
        She could still pull this off by repudiating the jerks who pressured her but it remains to be seen whether voters would believe her.

        • Agreed. At this point the bill is better for Republicans than anything they would have been able to get through on their own.

          There was no particular need for Coakley to declare her support for the bill before the election anyway. She took supporters like me who are strongly pro-choice for granted, lost our support, and enflamed the opposition. So much for the Dems’ brilliant strategy.

          • She was forced to declare–probably in order to get establishment support. But she might have done a lot better if she had run as a pariah because she wanted to stand up for the people.

          • I believe that’s what made her the people’s favorite.

          • isn’t that how obama ran?? say one thing and then go right He used to piss me off quoting Reagan while talking about making a change , he did , by being like his republican hero.

          • She had the people’s support (evidenced by her big primary win), and gave it up to go with the establishment. Just. Wow.

      • I agree. Of course Coakley wasn’t the establishment candidate. I wrote about it way back. Coakley stuck with Hillary all the way to the Convention and voted for her. And she said she couldn’t vote for the health care bill with the anti-abortion language. She didn’t distinguish between the House and Senate versions.

        What they threatened her with, I don’t know, but I think she would have won easily if she hadn’t changed her tune on health care.

        Apparently only about 50% of MA voters are in a political party. About 50% are undeclared. They seem to be the ones who are fired up.

        • I think of the undeclareds, the ones that are right-leaning are the ones fired up for Brown, and the ones that are left-leaning like me were lost when she flipped on abortion restrictions and tied herself to Obama. She wouldn’t have lost me if she’s stuck to her guns so I agree there.

          • Coakley should have run as a “Maverick” Democrat. Instead, she marketed herself as a Pelosi/Reid hand-puppet. Its exactly what Tea Party people and Republicans are so angry about, and exactly what MA Liberals and Democrats rejected in voting for Hillary over Barack.

          • yeah… the point I intend to make is… i am making a point of staying home on Tuesday

        • I was going to ask if anyone knew what % of the voters were indies or whatever you call them.

          I think you are correct BB. They are the disillusioned ones and are letting it be known. I also think they’ll be a force in the 2010 elections also.

      • Some guy called in on Cspan this morning. He was upset with Coakley but he is going to vote for her although he didn’t vote for her in the primary. He said when she came out it was all about being a woman and that turned off a lot of men! He said it was going to be historical, blah, blah, blah and all of that was a major turn off for men. As I said he said he was still going to vote for her but not happily so! Maybe there is something to the issue of being a woman. It certainly was used against Hillary and Sarah!

        • Doesn’t he have something better to do?

        • Such delicate souls men are, if that ‘s the case. It’s too bad there wasn’t as much concern about beating dissenting Dems with the r@c1st stick.

      • “…Democrats sliding away from the party because they’re just so disgusted with it.”

        Absolutely, Valhalla!

        • I got a lot of ‘whatever’ when I reregistered as an Independent. Maybe there’s more of me than the Dems counted on.

  2. Someone needs to school them on the law of diminishing returns.

  3. Capuano was the machine candidate. Martha won the primary because she had support from women and other Hillary Democrats. And she won big. 47-28 over Capuano. Which makes her flip on HCR even more painful. I think someone must have kidnapped her dog.

  4. Thanks so much, Riverdaughter, for your astute analysis of what’s going down in MA. Coakley should have defied the obama machine and did it “her way”, but I’m betting that Rahm and the rest of the Chicago boyz made it clear that she would publicly support obama’s HC plan or she would not get the party’s support.

    Unfortunately, the party leaders have the power to undermine a candidate who does not do their bidding. If she wins, they take the credit, if she loses, they blame her for being “an arrogant, uppity woman”!

    Either way, the woman loses.

    • Well, let it be known.

      • The party is about to learn that lesson! Coakley will be the sacrificial lamb for buying into their arrogance.

        However, let’s not underestimate the threats she surely received from the obama camp if she didn’t do as she was told.

        Let’s not forget that the party leaders ignored the will of the people when Hillary won the popular vote in the primary. I guess they thought they could do it again in MA because they underestimated the people’s outrage over obama’s HC plan.

        I’m just sorry to see a good woman like Coakley pay the price for their corrupt methods.

      • The “party” supported Corzine and he lost. They supported the guy in VA half-heartedly and then blamed him for losing. Can anyone name any candidate who has been helped by Obama’s support so far in his presidency?

        There must be one, but I can’t come up with a name. As far as I can tell, Obama doesn’t have coattails period.

        • And as of now, I’m not voting for Coakley. I just can’t bring myself to do it. I don’t know yet if I’ll stay home or vote for another candidate.

          • reasons to vote for coakley:
            1. did not appear in centerfold
            2. stood for hillary to the end
            3. has a record to run on vs. brown who? hillary had a record to run on and people devoted time to picking her record apart, rather than taking a look at the opposition who had nothing.
            4. is pro choice
            5. when will a woman candidate be perfect enough to win? when will the planets align so that the timing for voting for a woman will be right ?
            6. humbled by this experience, she will stand up to rahm”the weasel” emmanuel and realize who she represents

          • I truly, truly admire your strength of principle, BB. The Dems are not going to return to their ideals until they feel the pain of ignoring the needs of the people.

          • I hope you’ll reconsider.

            I hate the HCR plans and I don’t want them to pass. But they are going to pass with or without Coakley.

            This kind of protest vote will only hurt future female candidates. The party will blame Coakley (a woman they don’t really want anyway).

          • Every candidate stands in their own race and every state is different. If Coakley loses it will not have an impact on future races.

            This is not about her being a female.

        • Scott Brown

      • well said SOD…

  5. the long and short of this is martha is behaving like an old time dim in a time when dimocrats are imploding. they have done nothing for the american people since they swept into power not based on their “wonderful” selves but based on the poor performance by repubs.

    pelosi is repulsive and reid is scary. i wnt the whole bunch kicked out. let the dimocrats return to their real roots if they want respect from me. till then i’ll campaign against every last one. i hope hillary wakes up and resigns from obummers’s administration.

  6. But..but…Viki Kennedy and Ted, jr want me to send Coakley money to save the “Kennedy” Senate Seat.

    Brown sound like a typical evil Rethug POS but sometimes unpleasant things need to happen to get better. Hopefully Mass Dems will be willing to “take a hit” for the team inorder to send a message to the POS Dem leadership to change course.

    • I am sorely tempted, believe me.

    • The hit doesn’t have to be taken on a woman who has actually got herself through the primary against the Kennedy candidate.

      How many times have voters in Mass. had the chance to vote for a female candidate? My guess is never.

      • Unfortunately for Martha she’s the only Democrat on the ballot and this election has apparently turned into a referendum on Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

        • yes, but who turned it into a referendum? I’m guessing the Repubs, because Brown certainly has nothing else to recommend him to Dem voters.

          • If that was the GOP strategy then the voters will decide if it was a smart play.

          • it’s about healthcare, it was no GOP trick. Everything obama told people in order to get elected was a lie, and people are reacting to that as well. Obama lied and the only way to stop him is to take away his supermajority and send a message. Hardly a trick by the gop.

          • It has been a referendum on Obama and health care all along. Coakley won the primary because she separated herself from Kennedy and the Obama administration by saying she couldn’t vote for the bill with the anti-abortion language.

            Then she reversed her position. Now she is representing the establishment. She gambled and she may lose. The health care bill has been the main issue all along.

    • Even my husband is now willing to vote for Brown, and with an unusual enthusiastic (for him) defiance… that’s how PO’d he is and it’s definitely an FU vote to the Dem establishment. This is from someone who voted “none of the above” in the Presidentional election because he was unwilling to vote for a Republican. Until this past week I was pretty sure I would either stay home or go and vote “none of the above” to send a message. But in recent days I’ve been leaning towards voting Brown in order to send a message to Washington (corny as that may sound). At brunch this morning we decided we were definitely willing to “take a hit” for the team. Wish us luck!

      • Ted Kennedy was the one that deserved the FU and the only one that gave it to him was the Pope at his funeral and for reasons with which I wouldn’t agree …

        but they’re already saying within the beltway that she’s a weak candidate without the campaign to win … They’re playing this one like Virginia. It’s Martha whose the problem not the lightbringer.

        • They really can’t spin it like VA and get away with it, MA is an incredibly Blue state… we practically define Blue… so when our state votes for a Republican like Brown that’s a very big message. After all, this is the state where the Revolutionary War got it’s big start and there’s a reason the Tea Partiers chose that name. MA voters can be very independent minded and that’s why so many of us are “unaffiliated.” It’s hard to imagine a bigger FU to the Dems than to elect Scott Brown.

          I am sad that I need to jettison my earlier support for Coakley an the 30% strategy , but when she sided with the Dem establishment on HRC she sided with the lobbyists and corporations over the citizens. And I can’t support that.

          • well, I can’t knock symbolic votes since I did just that when I voted for McCain and i had to vote for Joseph Cao over Jefferson too … I voted for two Republicans last election something I thought I would NEVER do…

          • They’ll pass HRC anyway. Then they’ll blame Martha for running a bad campaign. Her career will be ruined.

            It will make it even harder for other women to run for office.

            And we’ll be stuck with a Republican lightweight for the next term.

            I don’t see this protest vote helping women (or progressive men) at all.

          • They put the screws to her. So, go ahead and punish the victim. I wish she had not caved, however I would rather have another pro-choice woman in office than a man of either party.
            If she loses it is going to be blamed on her being a lousy campaigner and a woman rather than another kiss ass man.

        • and exactly who is scott brown? a stronger candidate? what are his credentials? a centerfold and stated opposition to hcr. martha has a noose around her neck with obama hanging on the other end waving the hcr flag. it is not martha who is the problem, it is obama and the democratic party-

        • daki and gayle,

          I agree with both of you,. Coakley is being set up as a bad candidate so Obama and his HC won’t be blamed for her trouble.

          gayle said:
          They’ll pass HRC anyway. Then they’ll blame Martha for running a bad campaign. Her career will be ruined.
          It will make it even harder for other women to run for office.
          And we’ll be stuck with a Republican lightweight for the next term.
          I don’t see this protest vote helping women (or progressive men) at all.


          i agree. If necessary they can just bribe or intimidate some GOP Senator to miss the filibuster or push the wrong button.

          Martha suported Hillary through Denver and we need her in there to support Hillary and other good women later.

    • wow, now that I see it in this light… maybe I will NOT stay home on Tues… save the KENNEDY senate seat… my azz… if that is how the powers are marketing this to the average MA loyal working class dem, that is sickening, disgusting, competely wrong in so many ways…

    • I’ve already taken enough hits, thank you.

      This type of protest vote will do nothing but hurt Coakley and other potential female candidates.

      How will electing Senator Scott Brown make things better? He’s a corporatist Republican, backed by the Tea Party and pro-life groups.

  7. In what universe is Coakley’s statement that she would reluctantly vote for her own party’s health care bill “tacking right?”


    • It’s a mind fake. Many Americans don’t get it that the health care reform bill is actually a bill only Republicans would love. I suspect that Massachusetts has a higher percentage of voters who understand this.
      Of course, this is something Bostonboomer would know better. But it’s pretty clear to those of us who are following the HCR bill that it is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a liberal and/or Democratic policy to expand government except to force all of us to buy policies from private companies without any useful regulation.

      • You may be right that there are more people in MA that understand that, but that number is still a tiny percentage of the voting population. People like us are weird.

        I don’t think her statement was focused on voters at all. It was an attempt to garner support from a Democratic Party leadership who not only didn’t want her to win the primary, but actively tried to prevent it.

        I’m not sure why you think an unconnected Democrat can win a Senate seat in MA or anywhere else. It can’t be done. (Well, Vermont — they’re weird too.)

        Why do you think they call it party politics?

        I’ll suggest a whole ‘nother mind fake is going on.
        By continuously warning strategic voters like those here that defeating her defeats HCR, which is a lie, the party can pretend to help her win, while actually helping her lose. Jeez, is there any blue state that’s more opposed to HCR than MA? They already know it won’t work.

        Whether or not Coakley is elected, HCR is a done deal. It’s been a done deal since the Senate version passed on Dec 24. Congress has more than one option to pass something they will call “reform,” with or without 60 Senate votes.

        This reminds me of when the party convinced a whole lot of members that its most liberal candidate was actually an evil corporatist. Remember that?


        • You’re forgetting that we in MA already have the health care “reform” that Obama wants. We have the highest health insurance rates in the country, 20% of our population has no health insurance and has to pay a fine on their taxes because they can’t afford it, and our emergency rooms are packed to the gills with day-long (sometimes longer) waits to be seen–if you get seen.

        • I’m not forgetting that. I mentioned it in my 5th paragraph. Which is why campaigning on “Vote for Coakley or HCR will fail” would be insane — if you really wanted her to win, that is.

          So either the Democratic Party is insane, and you want to punish Coakley for that, or there’s something else going on.


          • I don’t live in MA. It’s not up to me. But if MA democrats want to send a message to the party, they have the right to do that. And if voters want to start third parties, they have the right to do that. And if the two major parties don’t like it, tough noogies.
            The Democratic party does not own votes. They have an obligation to appeal to their voters. If they don’t, they will lose. The Christian Coalition schooled the Rwpublican party until it got the message. It looks like liberal voters have an opportunity to do the same thing in MA.
            But if they do it, they’d better do it big so the message is unmistakable. I mean, like as many D’s as possible need to write in “liberal to be named later” or something on the ballot do that the Democratic machine can’t spin it without looking stupid.

        • This administration has it backward. The PEOPLE send them their congresspeople, they don’t pick them out and shame us into voting for who they want. Martha must have been confused when she dumped the people who enthusiastically gave her a healthy win in the primary so the party leaders wanted her. SO WHAT if the party wants her…the people choose their representation. Her mistake was not realizing why the people voted for her, apparently.

          There are blogs all over the net outlining a multiple of very solid reasons why Coakley may not be a great choice.

    • Well, when she said she wouldn’t vote yes on the health insurance reform clusterfk, she was the real lefty liberal that MA is famous for. When she said she would even if the Nelson language was in there, from our perspective, she moved right. It’s all relative to where you start. I really like Martha, and this is sooo painful.

      • Same here. I’ve always liked her, and I believe she is a real liberal–but she blew it this time.

        • Hard to know where the real mind f*ck is coming from. I’ve been vacillating along with you, BB. But at this point, iIf I lived in MA, I’d vote for her anyway because it’s clear that the party doesn’t really like her and neither do the Repugs. It would be a two-fer.

          Neither seems like they’re going to give you what you want. Which has the most FU power?

          • On the other hand, the more I hear about that damn book and the vast left wing conspiracy, the more I think I will never vote for another Democrat as long as I live.

      • “They already know it won’t work.
        Whether or not Coakley is elected, HCR is a done deal. It’s been a done deal since the Senate version passed on Dec 24. Congress has more than one option to pass something they will call “reform,” with or without 60 Senate votes.”


        I agree. Reid has several ploys waiting, including bribing a GOP or two to miss the vote or press the wrong button.

    • her own party’s heath care bill IS right…. so that would be this universe.

    • It’s more like “I’ll tack right if the bill tacks left and we meet in the center.” Negotiation. Otherwise they bribe a GOP Senator to give their needed vote and the bill goes further right.

  8. When Hillary was forced to embrace unity and forced to campaign for the Fraud- did you call her “stupid”?
    When a Democratic senatorial candidate from one of the bluest states was fairly confident she would win, did you think maybe it’s not “arrogence” but confidence based on past results?
    I am not willing to jettison a really good Democratic candidate so that Brown and his agenda can prevail. And I hope enough Dimocrats here in MA do not take your advice and stay home.
    When it’s your turn in your state, let the Republican win. I hope the new governor in NJ lives up to your expectations.
    Coakley does not have to be the scapegoat for all that is wrong with Obama and his thugs.

    • That’s what tugs at me about this. We don’t have a lot of women senators to begin with and to take one down because every one’s pissed at the party leadership and Obama just kills me.

      I have Bobby Jindal and David Vitter who are nuts and horrid representatives of the people. Mary Landrieu and Charlie Melancon arent’ much to brag about, but Vitter and Jindal actively work against the people of Louisiana in the name of ideology. I could see voting for a McCain type Republican or a Snowe type Republican, but Brown has nothing going for him personally …

      It’s a big symbolic middle finger to Washington, but at what cost?

      • Brown’s got a nice birthday suit..
        and I cannot believe that we actually know that about a senate candidate.

      • We don’t have a lot of women senators to begin with and to take one down because every one’s pissed at the party leadership and Obama just kills me.

        My sentiments exactly! I don’t see them doing it to some of the ones that have been in office for decades and getting nothing done and acting as it they are Lords. I understand some who want to making a point, but I don’t see how electing the Republican is going to improve things.

        • people haven’t had time to knock out some of the ones that have been there for years. If Martha loses it’s because she’s next in line. NJ, VA and now the”Kennedy seat”.

          If she loses ~ will the Democratic party stop and listen? Or will they hurry up and ram more shit down our throats before November?

      • dakikat said:
        to take one down because every one’s pissed at the party leadership and Obama just kills me. …. It’s a big symbolic middle finger to Washington, but at what cost


        I agree. It’s not even a clear symbol. It can be read as ‘we don’t like female pro-choice AGs who support Hillary.’ No one knows whether it’s angry leftists voting AGAINST the DNC, or angry anti-choice GOP voting FOR anti-choice pig Brown.

        • Well, eventually Democrats will learn that they’ll get elected when they start behaving like Democrats. They know damn well that they’re doing the bidding of their corporate masters and they think throwing corporate money at elections will get the voters. I think the voters are wising up. It may take a few cycles, but eventually, there will be no denying what the people are pissed about and even the best pundits won’t be able to spin it any other way.

          • that third party revolution is never going to happen. I vote for women, but I will be damned if I am going to vote against a republican male over a democratic male because of one thing I do not like about him.

    • I agree that Coakley isn’t stupid. She just listened to the bosses and now she’ll find out no one likes them any more.

    • Barbara Boxer could be next. Tom Campbell just jumped into the Republican primary race, expecting no doubt to benefit from this same “burn the witch” dynamic.


      • Barbara Boxer has lost my vote. She hasn’t stood up strongly against the abortion and conscience restrictions. Oh, she put up some resistance, but she caved and did not draw a line in the sand.

        • She deserves to lose for the same reason Coakley deserves to lose. Unfortunately the Dems didn’t listen to what the voters were saying in 2006. Some Dems still fell for Obama, but now most people seem to be waking up.

          • “I tried to tell you” is not a winning point to bring up these days.
            The Obots in my life are in pain and are lashing out.

        • You don’t want Tom Campbell. That sanctimonious ass voted to impeach
          Clinton against the wishes of his mostly Dem constituents. In his high-pitched
          whiny voice he bemoaned the fact that as one with many sisters and a mother,
          he was opposed to sexual harassment in the work place. As if Monica hadn’t
          been involved with an older married man before, and she announced after she
          got her internship that she was bringing her “presidential kneepads” to Washington. If Campbell thought Clinton was using his power over a lowly intern
          to affect her raises, he was quite out of touch with what had been going on. He
          could have read the Starr Report online and found out differently.

          Also, he won against Anna Eshoo by sending out a flyer that mimicked the Democratic voting recommendations EXCEPT that the Dem Party was recommending him (a Republican) over Eshoo for representative. Many dumb people fell for that, and he claimed to know nothing about it. I have despised the man ever since.

          • His whine was on the floor of the House prior to voting for impeachment.
            Did I call him an a**hole?

        • That describes every single democrat in the Senate. They ALL voted for the Senate bill and NONE stood up strongly against the abortion and conscience restrictions. That also now describes what Coakley has said she will do.

        • Coakley drew a line against Stupak so they’re changing the HC bill to get her vote.

          Boxer didn’t stand up here and also backstabbed Hillary in the primary. Coakley voted for HIllary at Denver.

          • They didn’t change the bill to get her vote. And the language in the Senate bill isn’t materially different.

          • Here is the key passage from a long letter from Coakley’s campaign.

            there are important distinctions between what was passed in the House and what was passed in the Senate. […] the House provision would effectively bar any insurance plan accepting government subsidies from covering elective abortions. The Senate bill, on the other hand, would allow such insurers to sell plans covering abortions, but would require women to pay for that portion of the coverage separately.

            The full letter is at my blog at

            Nothing is finalized yet. They promised to change it so she promised to vote for it if they change it. If they don’t, she doesn’t have to vote for it. Then they pass it some other way with even worse language in it, to persuade some GOP to help them (not openly).

    • I’m not advocating one thing or another. I *do* think it was stupid for Coakley to do what she did THIS YEAR. I understand what happened with Hillary last year. But people know better now. There’s no remote inkling of a Hope, change thingy. The jig is up.

      • Actually you are. A loyal Hillary feminist like yourself NOT begging people to vote and phonebank and donate for Coakley speaks very loudly indeed.

        Are you sure the stupid thing she did deserves that penalty?


        • actually, I don’t think we’re all of one mind here. I still wouldn’t vote to sandbag her.

          • I’m not even of one mind from one minute to the next.

            Martha had a very good record up until this most recent stupidity. I’m sure she was pressured big time to come out for Obamacare, but still, she did and has to take responsibility for that.

            I want to see a woman in our Senate seat. We need to get to that 30%. I would have voted for a much lesser female candidate toward that goal. But I don’t want to reward the stupid Democratic party which still has me under the bus.

            I resent the fact that both Republicans and the Democrats made this election about the horrid hc bill. But no matter how I vote I don’t see the Democrats taking the right message from it. If they lose they’ll cram hc through some other way, probably by making even more concessions. If they win they won’t think they dodged a bullet but that voters approve of their idiocy.

          • I’m of the mind that my vote is my own, and I make the decision myself without anyone else’s influence.

          • bboomer, that is where I’m starting to go. I keep thinking that I can only be responsible for myself. I can’t be responsible for what the Democrats will think about how the election comes out, or about how Tea Partiers/Republicans will take it.

            The same “progressives” with their nasty, misogynistic whipping for Obama have suddenly now found their “courage” and are willing to sacrifice a liberal Senate seat in Mass to send a message. (see any Coakley post at FDL). I can’t be responsible for sending their “brave” message now that they’ve f*cked everything up and are asking me to take on the burden of having Brown as my Senator either.

        • I guess the question is how many times will we as women be asked to do something “just this time?”

          • However if women can be always counted upon not to vote for women, their issues will never be given other than lip service.

          • Your statement carries the assumption “if women can always be counted upon not to vote for women.

          • How would their issues be given proper attention if they always vote for women candidates no matter what those candidate do?

          • Well for one thing, women tend to lean left as a group. So if you’re liberal, just picking names out of a hat, you’d be better off with a higher proportion of women.

            Secondly, when there are enough women in a mixed group, women tend to advocate for issues of interest to women, some of which find common ground with women on both the left and the right.

            You know all this.


          • Then I guess you have no problem with voting for pro-life Republican women?

          • Sorry-the problem is that women candidates already have an uphill battle against incipient misogyny. They need female support in buckets.

            Coakley had 50% for and 46% against among females the other day.

            Anyway the question isn’t one of voting for a pro-life Republican woman, but that of having a pro-life Republican man as your Senator.

            Anyway I am going to shut up on Coakley until after the election-since I don’t live in Mass.

          • They need female support in buckets.

            If I needed someone’s support in buckets I would support their issues (unless it violated my principles in which case I would resign myself to defeat.)

          • The “take-one-for-the-team” problem is more complicated here. I’m as sick of being “next-timed” and “wait your turned” as anyone. But if I vote against Coakley then I’m taking one for the team by losing a female Senator (the first from my state) who’s pretty liberal most of the time in order to prove a point to the Democrats (which they’ll ignore anyway) OR I vote for her and enable the hc bill with its abortion restrictions (and all the other bad stuff). It’s heads I lose, tails I lose.

            Or, not to make it all about me, heads women lose, tails women lose.

          • I am sick of politicians taking the pro-choice woman for granted, they seem to have dragged us further back in just a matter of months with supermajority in the house and senate. sorry… not buying anymore built-in womb fears served cold this time…

          • Myiq,
            The premise that you can’t give preference to any women unless you give preference to every woman is false. No, I don’t have to vote for pro-life women or for Republican women, or {insert crazy type} women. There are pro-lifers and Republicans and {etc.} who can do that themselves. I hope they do.

            My policy: absent major violation of my core values, vote for the woman.

            I mean major: deeds not words, proven not alleged, trend not outlier. None of this requiring women be perfect while men can be whatever. Simple, really. I am an affirmative actor for women.

            It’s funny to me how anxious people get about making a resolution of this type. As though you’d be trapped into making stupid decisions forever more. How about just try it and see what happens?


        • Adrienne, we went through that psychological guilt trip shit last year. That trick doesn’t work anymore. Politicians who run on feminist issues have a special obligation from now on to put their votes where their mouths are. No one gets a free pass anymore.
          But don’t look at me. I didn’t start this revolt in Massachusetts. The liberals there are doing this on their own. Actually, if Coakley loses, it might be the best thing that happens for “feminist” politicians. The peopl of Massachusetts will have delivered a powerful message to the Democrats to not fuck with voters any more.

          • Wow, you’re actually saying that women should be held to a higher standard?

            OK, as long as we’re forecasting, I’ll bet that if Coakley loses, the only way we’ll get past 17% women in the Senate is if the Republicans put them there.


          • Our original assumption was that whoever won the primary was virtually guaranteed to win Tuesday’s election and people here supported Coakley over Capuano and the other candidates.

            It wasn’t until a few days ago that Brown was even considered a real threat.

          • Adrienne, if that’s your concern, then you are wasting your time here berating us. You should be telling this to your Democratic party representative. They’re the ones who are always forcing women to vote against their own interests.
            I take the long view. Having her in the senate is better than not having her there but in order for her to stay in the senate, she has to please the voters of MA and she has already signalled that she’s not going to do that. What she needs to do if she is elected us vote against the bill and tell the party to start over.
            But I’m not a god and no one should(or has) treated me like one. Your vote is your own. If you like what a politician does, reward good behavior. Otherwise, don’t. Vote for principle not party.
            Now, you’ve done your party today. You can stop now.

          • RD, I’m not sure what I’ve said that qualifies as berating anyone. Then again, look what’s been extrapolated from one single unsurprising stance on a moot point.

            Here’s where we converge. I take the long view too.

            More women = better governance.

            What I wrote to Myiq just above about my voting policy is where my principles lead me. It has nothing to do with party.


        • For a “loyal Hillary feminist” the political merits to getting Coakley in the Senate are arguable.

          If she wins, it could of course be a win for female candidacies in general. In light of Coakley’s performance as a pro-Hillary delegate, it could also go towards reshaping the party’s attitudes towards the Clintons.

          If Coakley loses to a Republican however, it could represent one of the hugest reversals in the history of party politics. Everything from The President’s core message of hope and change, to Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama back in 2008, could be called into question.

          It really depends on whether you favor the destruction of the Obama-crats, or the eventual reconstruction of civility towards Hillary—in the confinens of Obama’s new party.

          • I don’t think a win for Coakley is going to bring about a eventual reconstruction of civility towards Hillary. I don’t think they get it yet. Kinda dense, this Obama Party.

          • That argument might have merit if the “party” was at the heart of CDS.

          • @Sophie I don’t think Coakley individually can, but her election could be a contributing factor.

            @Stateofdisbelief j/w what does CDS mean?

          • MA Dem CDS is “Clinton Derangement Syndrome”.

      • My understanding of the situation in the democratic primary was the support for Coakley was because she wasn’t the machines candidate or washington’s candidate but upon securing the nomination she lost her independence which was her strength and appeal. It would not be so tragic if she lost it is only for 2 years but the message it send is very powerful. The democrats will still have a large majority and will be forced to actually start to listen to their constitutes.
        The major flaw with a loss by Coakley would be a new excuse for not accomplishing anything.

    • bluelady,

      I admire your sticking with Coakley. Something just doesn’t smell right about the turn of events and of course, she is receiving all of the blame.

      I still have flashbacks of how quickly the dems turned their backs on Hillary, despite her being the more qualified candidate and winning the popular vote.

      Stick with your principles and no matter what the outcome, you come out the winner.

    • Coakley made choices. People have the right to evaluate her and decide whether or not to vote for her based on those choices.

      We don’t owe anyone our votes. Nor are we obligated to tailor our opinions to help any particular candidate or party.

      • yup, and no one is saying our votes are “owed” to anyone. Just arguing about who who gets those votes, that’s politics.

        Now as a woman, and knowing that you are not, I wonder if you have any idea what it feels like to be told “you can’t be in charge because you are a woman”. “Women can’t win because there are not enough talented ones in the shoot yet”. “See, we told you that the male electorate isn’t ready for a woman in that position”.

        The woman is being punished for Obama and his cohorts… isn’t that always the way?

        • But I disagree with you that she is being punished for Obama. I think she is being punished for HER choice to go along with Obama on HCR.

          Her numbers started dropping like a stone after she knuckled under to the party bosses.

    • bluelady, on January 17th, 2010 at 12:00 pm Said:
      I am not willing to jettison a really good Democratic candidate so that Brown and his agenda can prevail.


      I agree! I voted for Palin because she had good things to offer and was pro-contraception. But I’m not voting for pig Brown to jettison a pro-choice pro-Hillary woman.

      • There are folks who aren’t voting for Coakley but I haven’t seen anyone call her a pig.

      • Brown is not anti-contraception. That’s simply not true.

        • All the pro-choice groups have endorsed Coakley and the anti-choice groups have endorsed Brown. (Cites at my blog)

          ‘Moderate pro-life’ is like ‘a little bit pregnant.’

          • Did I say anything about pro-choice? You implied Brown was anti-contraception, and I said you were wrong on that.

            And spare me the “pro-choice groups” crap. I have lost all respect for those handmaidens of the Democratic party – because that’s all they are. Their opinion is not worth SPIT.

          • Brown wanted to make it harder even for rape victims to get emergency contraceptives. Make sure you get taken to the right hospital, or wait till you’re well enough to be moved ‘to another facility’….

            The ‘conscience’ people who want to protect the rapist’s ‘fetus’ aren’t going to be very eager to help the victim get help anywhere…. Imagne the run-around an injured victim in bed in traction can get when they finally get around to telling her ‘oh we don’t do that here.’ While the time period for the morning after pill runs out….

            Even in less extreme cases, just the stress and confusion of a runaround will ensure that some victims fall through the cracks and don’t get the pill in time.

          • Baloney, FS. Brown had no intention of denying the contraceptive to rape victims – he was quite careful in his amendment to ensure that they were not denied that pill, that catholic hospitals HAD to have procedures in place to make sure she got care.

            Is he in line with me on that? Nope. But your ceaseless attempts to paint him as some rabid pro-life demon are transparently farcical.

          • From Brown’s website:
            While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion.

          • ” that catholic hospitals HAD to have procedures in place to make sure she got care.”

            By ‘referring them to another facility’.

            Plenty of chance for this not to happen within the 24 hours necessary for the morning after pill. The victim shouldn’t have to jump through these hoops, to press and fight for a simple pill. It’s harrassment of the victim, for protecton of the rapist’s seed.

    • Does anyone else find Brown’s language against Coakley, eerily similar to Obama’s against Clinton?

      He says he’s not going to ‘do business as usual.’ He has his daughters in his radio ads, talking about Coakley’s ‘bad politics.’

      • MA Dem, on January 17th, 2010 at 6:00 pm Said:
        Does anyone else find Brown’s language against Coakley, eerily similar to Obama’s against Clinton?


        The whole thing reminds me of Obama’s campaign against Clinton!

        Hillary got blindsided and accused of not campaigning right, of ‘arrogance’ and ‘entitlement’ etc. A woman with a good solid record is accused of dirty campaigning if she compares her record to her opponent’s. She gets personally attacked. Some leftists vote for the unknown opponent as a ‘change’, ‘anti-establishement’, etc.

      • Certainly it does.
        This election looks like New Hampshire too.
        Hillary fell well into second place after Iowa only to make a 3 point come back after the media and Obama rained over her and mocked her for showing emotion.

  9. I can’t help but be curious about what is going on behind the barricaded doors at the DNC.

    • Stuffing bags with money as fast as they can before their out.

    • Utter panic, if my mailbox and answering machine are any indication.

      They waited too long, now they are trying to rile up the troops with the usual scary apocalypse stuff and tying Coakley even more closely to Obama. But their message is all over the place.

      • The message seems to be mostly negative stuff about Brown. If they are so sold on the health care bill, you’d think they would be touting that. But they know that MA voters already know what’s coming.

      • Perhaps they’re making it possible to have Dems vote 10 times or more (a la Ed Shultz) for Coakley.

    • Are they renewing their lease in Chicago? The one that was signed before
      the nomination was officially swung to Obama?

  10. The message is a tough one. It gets through, but the furious spinning by the machine will be relentless.

    In VA the more acceptable to the Chicago/DNC/Obama machine won the primary. And then just like the numbers in MA are hinting at, in VA the dems stayed home. It was a clear message that the machine candidates are not going to win.

    We are getting the same message in MA. Whether she wins by a small margin or looses, that message is clear. Of course you will not hear an acknowledgment from the machine.

    More importantly, as a perfect measure of how biased the media still is, you won’t hear it in the media. You will continue to hear the machine spin.

  11. “With HCR, the Republicans win no matter what they do.”
    That is the bottom of the bottom line. The Rethugs and the Insurance Industry are playing the game of “Please don’t throw us in the briar patch”. They have got to be laughing their asses off at many well meaning people who bought into their charade , ie. Jane H. with her campaigns against Blue Dogs, Lieberman, etc. as the “bad”, people when it was obvious that Obama had cut the deal during the primary in return for $19+ million in campaign contributions. For Obama, however, the trade was finalizing corporate control of American’s health care for “Obama..HISTORIC…blah…blah..” It’s all about him.

    • Are you sure it’s historic? It seemed more unprecedented to me.

    • The Rethugs and the Insurance Industry are playing the game of “Please don’t throw us in the briar patch”.


      I agree. And furthermore they’re about to get GOP Brown elected and get rid of pro-Hlilary pro-choice Coakley.

      And then watch what they’ll do. If Brown is elected, some GOP will ‘accidentlly’ not show up for the filibuster or ‘accidentally’ push the wrong button. So they get their briar patch, er, their corporate HC anyway.

  12. Obama is in church today pushing the HCR bill. And saying a word or two about Haiti. But mostly pushing HCR. He’s equating it with the civil rights bill, saying we passed that even though it didn’t have everything we wanted in it.

    In other words, if you’re not for HCR, you are… wait for it…. a r@cist. I’m shocked at this message. Shocked I tell you.

  13. Here’s an interesting take on this from The Times (London). They talk to a lot of individual voters here instead of pundits. Mass is split has gone PUMA and tea party it seems.


    “People who I never in a million years thought would have voted Republican are going to him,” said Rhonda Serre, a mother of two who has lost her job but still supports the Democrats. On Friday Brown was joined by Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York. “This election will send a signal and a very dramatic one,” Giuliani said. “Believe me, the Democrats are frightened.”

  14. oh, and look at this:

    Joe Lieberman may be close to announcing his suppport for Massachusetts Senate Candidate Scott Brown. Citing the historical Healthcare Reform Bill as the main issue attracting Lieberman to endorse Brown’s Campaign.


  15. I posted this comment at RL, but don’t remember seeing anyone mention it here. Just so no one is fooled by claims that defeating Coakley will kill HCR, here’s why that’s not true:

    If Coakley loses, cooperative parties in MA can delay certification of the winner long enough to allow Senate passage of a final bill. Failing that, even if not a single R vote can be bought, and even if every D Senator disappeared tomorrow, Democrats can still get HCR passed simply by having the House pass the Senate version as written. In that case, the Senate doesn’t vote on the same bill a second time. It goes straight to the President for signature. What a move like that would cost Democrats long term is another question, but if they want to do it, they can.

    So the question to ask is why are they telling me this lie. Coakley was never in a position to prevent HCR from passing, and it will pass whether she’s elected or not.


    • That may be true technically, but Mass voters are on a tear to “Kill the Bill”. That’s what’s showing in the polls, that’s what Democrats are implying in their campaigning

      • Exactly. The lie is working.


        • Yeah, all those voters sure are stupid, huh?

          • If they believe that a vote against Coakley will kill HCR, they’re believing a lie. Absent other information, it’s not stupid to believe what every media outlet is telling you. Most people haven’t the time to research this stuff.

            You know that too.


          • Adrienne ~ you seem smart enough to know what a protest vote is….. how else do you expect the MA voters to get their “representatives” (using that term very loosely) attention.

          • I’m not sure I understand how a Republican winning will encourage Democrats to move to the left. When has that ever happened?


          • Where did they go?

          • Strawman much?

            I never said a “Republican winning will encourage Democrats to move to the left.”

            Voters in heavily Democratic Massachusetts are pissed off at Obama and the Democratic party. They are taking out their anger on Martha Coakley.

            Should we tell them they shouldn’t be pissed off? Or just that they should swallow their anger in the name of party or gender unity?

          • When has that ever happened?

            Adrienne, it has never happened in the Dem party, but it definitely happened in the R party – via the fundies, over a couple of decades.

            They went through several cycles of punishing wayward Repubs, even if that meant voting for the hated Democrat and ignoring cries that they were “helping the other side”. They primaried and supported social conservative candidates where they could, but when push came to shove they withheld their votes if they weren’t happy. The end result was that the R’s are utterly terrified of the far right fundies of their party, who were, in truth, a minority. They bend over backwards and stand on their heads to court that vote, regardless of what they privately think of the loons.

            There is a template for that approach working, in the R party. There is also a template for the “lesser of 2 evils” approach being an abject failure – the current Dem Party.

          • Sorry, forgot to close my quote tag.

        • I think saying it is a lie is misleading. Technically, the Dems could do as outlined. But this assumes that the vote in MA if it went for Brown would have no impact on other Dems in the Senate or the House. I don’t think that is true. You are also ignoring the deal with labor which is a change to the Senate bill. So that “pass the Sen. bill w/o changes” train has already left the station and disappeared. They will have to have a conference bill at this point and that means they have to vote on it. You are also assuming that they can delay the seating of the elected person in MA and not pay any dues for that. I think that just pulls them deeper into the muck. Short run fix but big potential for backlash.

          • True, if Brown wins, there will be major reverb throughout the system. But if the fallout from that leaves Democrats unable to pass HCR any other way (assuming they still want to pass something and aren’t happy to just scrap HCR and blame Coakley for destroying Kennedy’s dream), then I would think a new cycle of arm-twisting begins, and any deal with labor isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Is it written on anything?

            Also, what counts as muck in this sordid tale depends on what the real goal is. I’ve not lost my strong sense that Obama was never in it to advance the interests of Democrats anyway. I can’t even be confident that what’s presented to us as competing teams aren’t quietly cooperating, cartel-like, to keep both sides in perks and comfy lobbying jobs. With so much money at stake, it’s hard to see how this would not be the case.

            Anyway, believe me, I hope that if Coakley loses, those who think good may come of it DO get their wish. Fortunately, the various hypotheses posed here can eventually be compared to what actually happened. Not like so many questions where you might not live long enough to find out.


    • The House bill vote was only 220 – 215 at passage. Would those same 220 vote for the Senate version?

      • I’m not sure that Pelosi didn’t have a number of votes in the wings: D’s in red districts whom she allowed to vote against the bill as long as it would pass.

    • HCR is likely to pass…unless the defeat of Coakley gives some spine to a few of the Dems who have been beaten into supporting it. Exposing the “Obama” coat-tails as a fiction could have a positive effect on the spineless Dems. In addition, even if HCR passes, there are more similar corporate welfare bills in the pipeline, ie “Cap and Trade” Obama’s “let the private markets regulate the climate” scam.

      I don’t live in Mass., so my opinion is the “courage of the non-combatant” but something has to be done to derail the Obama corporate welfare agenda or the Dem Party will be totally screwed. If the Dem. base stays home on Tuesday, that should send a clear message to the Dem leadership; if they ignore the message then they deserve to get the electoral “blood-bath” of 2010. It is very late but, IMO, not too late for the Dems to change course.

      • Yes, do something. Push public campaign financing. Elect good people locally so our bench is deeper. Primary the hell out of blue dogs. But Martha Coakley is no blue dog. Not even close. And she’s not just any Democrat. She’s the rarest of rarities: a woman with a shot. Don’t blow it.


        • so far the only one blowing it is her.

          • for one vote? Really? When the rep will vote over and over against women’s rights, you think she is blowing it over a bill that will pass anyway?

            Nah, it is us who are blowing it if we do not take every chance there is to get another liberal woman in office.

        • Martha Coakley is no blue dog. What she is, is a turncoat, for her own ambition.
          Do the right thing, Adrienne.

          • oh come on Mary, that’s a bit dkos like dramatic. She is not a turncoat and if it were her own ambition she cared about, she would have done things differently.
            Maybe, just maybe she became convinced that this bill is better than nothing. That would put her in line with the big dog and I would disagree with both of them.

          • Not really, Teresa. You have no idea what the party machine offered/promised her in return for that HCR vote, with her thinking she was a shoe-in, and taking the offer wouldn’t matter.

            Now she knows better.

            The DKos comment was below the belt, frankly.

            There are several instances in her background where Martha made bad choices to advance her own ambition. It wouldn’t be anything new.

        • And Coakley is a woman who stood with Hillary and voted for Hillary from the floor at Denver. And a woman with a strong pro-choice record (running against a GOP pig).

          She stood up for gettng the HC bill CHANGED and got a change.

    • Adrienne, why did your party force Coakley to make a positive endorsement of this bill if she is Soo important to their prospects in the Senate? What moron strategist in your party made her do that? They have to be so drunk on Kool-Aid that they still think Obama us a messiah and can heal the sick, dodge bullets and change the course of history because he’s a media darling. I mean, what universe are the Donna Brazile accolytes living in?
      They’re Having an “Oh Shit!” moment because their strategy doesn’t work on Democrats. There was no party Unity in 2008. You can’t have party mandate by eliminating half of your voters and then guilt tripping them into voting for you. Democrats can’t be ordered to do anything. That shit only works on Republicans.
      When is your party going to figure this out? How many more elections will they lose before they get a clue that Democrats are not the same as Republicans and want the party to deliver on the Change it ran on?
      Get a clue, Adrienne. The voters owe the party nothing vthe party owes the voters respect.

      • I’m not sure why you’re asking me. I didn’t say she was important to the Dem leadership at all. Quite the contrary. She’s a wildcard. Someone who refused to drink the koolaid and stuck with Hillary. Someone who questioned choice constraints on women when others were silent. Coakley losing is the Democrats’ wet dream. One less unpredictable player to worry about.

        As to who made her do it, I hear the threats (no support, primary challenge) are coming from the top.


        • Then why the fuck have I gotten 6 emails in the last 24 hours begging me to help Coakley? I’ve heard from Dodd, Kerry, Obama, Menendez and two Democratic party officials. And I formally disassociated myself from the Democrats in the most unambiguous way possible. But they’re still emailing me. It reminds me of the panic attack that happened just before Corzine lost.
          I’m betting they’re going to try to pass stuff in the lead up to 2012 and they need all 60 votes. So, who is the moron in the party who made Coakley eat her words? If MA has a registration rate of 50% D and Coakley loses, it means she was rejected by Democrats. Did the party bigwigs count on MA to just go along like good Democrats? That was stupid strategy.
          And it’s bad news for Obama because if HCR passes but nothing on the economic or employment front does, AND if D’s keep losing congressional seats, maybe he’ll get primaried in 2012.

          • from your keyboard to god’s eye

          • Actually, this isn’t quite right. Yes, they are in a panic, and yes, they did count on Mass. Democrats helping Coakley to an easy win (she was polling 30 pts ahead of him in Nov.). Obama and the hc plan still have > 50% approval in some polls of Mass. voters (that’s voters, not just Dems).

            What they didn’t factor in was the effect of Coakley’s flip on abortion restrictions on Dem or Indie support or the effect of a smallish number of enthisiastic opponents can have in a low-turnout election. The latter they have no excuse for; their business is winning elections. The former was a mistake but maybe understandable since they treated women like cr*p in 2008 yes women overwhelmingly (if reluctantly) voted for Obama anyway. On the other, again, in a low turnout election the last thing you want to do is demoralize the very people who are most likely to vote for you otherwise.

            I think the Dems demonstrated enormous hubris in pushing Coakley to support the stupid hc bill before she was even elected AND giving her bupkis for support until the last few days’ polling put them into a frenzy. It wasn’t crazy to think Mass. was safe as things were but then they just had to throw us under the bus again.

    • Adrienne said:
      Coakley was never in a position to prevent HCR from passing, and it will pass whether she’s elected or not.


      I agree. Coakley got a small change in the bill by agreeing to vote for the non-Stupak version But overall the bill is going to pass anyway, so it’s just whether we’d rather have a pro-Hillary pro-choice woman for two years or an anti-choice GOP pig.

      • If the democrats currently in congress believe that a Coakley loss is because she said she would vote FOR the HCR bill, you so sure they will all leave their votes in the YEA column?

        Coakley went from shoe-in to long-shot when she changed her position on the HCR bill.

        • Bingo. And any woman dedicated to ISSUES wants to know what they offered her in return for that change, or why she would sell out for it.

    • Not my state, but I would be voting for Coakley all the way. But if Brown does win, it will affect the HC bill, the Republicans will make sure of it. Brown’s certification will not be delayed. If Harry manages to flip someone else, other Blue Dogs could flip back given the electoral environment. If Nancy were to rubber stamp the Senate bill, her career would be over. The bill may go into reconciliation and fester there.

      Don’t know if Obama is setting up Coakley to fail or not. I hear he was heckled and booed today during his endorsement speech in Boston. But the special election is a referendum on the HC bill and on Obama. Perception has become reality.

  16. There must be some secret place where they take liberals to convert them over to the right.

  17. Oh lookie! Somebody posted a longer clip of Brown’s comment about Obama’s mama:

  18. so-he was defending Bristol Palin? Horrible man.

  19. What I see in this race is people who vote against the dems liken it to lancing a boil. To get rid of infection you have to lance it. MA is the first cut.
    The saddest part of the whole thing is that the dems are not listening and learning from the experience. They keep making it about backtrack and his agenda not seeing that the people know his agenda is not good for the country.



  20. Well, 0 should be arriving in MA soon.

  21. It pains me that a woman candidate has to one of the “lanced.”

    • I f she had stuck to her original position on the health care she would be one doing the lancing. She won the democratic vote by not going along. Many including me admired her for her stands both on Hillary and the health care. What made her give in and change? That is why she is in trouble now.
      We need senators with backbone who will stand up against what is going on now. As other people here have said Barbara Boxer is next. I will vote for Carley and Meg in the next election.



    • of course it is the woman. It is always the woman. Most of the people doing the lancing will go to the polls and vote for much lesser male candidates because they will not have the unhappy circumstance of being the ONLY boil running on tuesday.

  22. Here we are, a year later and still besot by the same dilemma.

    • No regrets here.

      (Okay, I regret initially supporting Edwards, but that’s it.)

    • I wish more Democrats had cast protest votes in the GE…. we would be doing other things right now.

      Sometimes I wonder if this was the journey necessary for us all to shake off the corporate shackles…. I really needed my eyes opened to what the Democratic party has become. If the primaries hadn’t gone down like they did I would still probably be blindly pulling the lever for whomever with the D next to their name thinking I was doing good.

    • Well said.

  23. OK, this is from the Boston Herald and not the Globe so consider the source. Couldn’t he say something else?

    “U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, when asked whether Coakley’s recent dip in the polls was related to sentiments about President Obama, quipped, ‘President Obama is not Martha Coakley in drag.’ ”


  24. Martha is live on fox now about to introduce Obama. She loses me for pimping his support.

  25. Sigh. Paul Krugman continues to disappoint:

    Wow. A video clip has surfaced from 2008 in which Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for Senate in Massachusetts, clearly suggested that President Obama may have been born out of wedlock.

    I’m sure some will try to dismiss this as an isolated stray remark. But it’s clear if you watch the video that there’s a broader context: Brown is clearly aligning himself with the Limbaugh wing of the GOP, in which slurs along these lines are standard fare. And as Steve Benen points out, claims about Obama’s illegitimacy were an integral part of the birther craziness.

    No Paul, the nutcase birthers think Obama was born in Kenya. The marital status of his parents is not integral to their delusions.

    • Is Favreau ghost-writing his articles now?

    • Obama’s father was still married to his first wife when Obama was born. That negates the marriage between Obaman’s mother and father. Technically, she was single…but she didn’t know it 🙂 All this was known during the primary….it just didn’t play.

      Doesn’t make a bit of difference. Nothing restricts a child born out of wedlock from running for POTUS.

  26. I think this election is all about whether politicians will choose to follow a party, or the people they represent. Tuesday’s election reaches to the very core of our democracy.

    Party politics will kill us all. (After all, the parties are beholden to the money – the corporate and financial tentacles now have a firmer grasp on the Washington elite than a year ago. The parties play “good cop, bad cop” with us the voters, but their allegiance always seems to lie with the corporatacracy.)

    (If Obama slips up his middle finger when campaigning for Coakley today, we’ll know he isn’t over her support of Clinton….)

  27. If you feel like barfing, turn on FOX.

    “Fired up, Fired up!”

  28. Alert:

    My wife and I are in big trouble watching President Obama at the Coakley rally.

    We’re playing a drinking game: every time he says “I,” “me” or “my” we drink. At this rate we’ll wind up in the hospital.

  29. My wife and I are in big trouble watching President Obama at the Coakley rally.

    We’re playing a drinking game: every time he says “I,” “me” or “my” we drink. At this rate we’ll wind up in the hospital.

  30. Apology for the double post. Please delete one of them and this.

  31. Heckler at Obama speech just now. Priceless.

  32. Hecklers. Time for a refill.

  33. Hubby and I took a drive to the country today, and passed a ranch that I had not seen since prior to election 08. They have a big horse wagon in the front pasture that used to have an Obama sign on it.

    Today we drove past, and it had been replaced with a giant hand-painted sign that said: “Change Back”.

  34. Every American should know by heart the amount of money (over 20 billion!) that the Obama campaign received from the healthcare industry and keep that in mind when considering the latest subsidy to a big corporate segment in the name of “healthcare reform.”

    Why will neither party sponsor real campaign finance reform? Why is public financing of campaigns “off the table”?

    This is from Raw Story:

    “A new figure, based on an exclusive analysis created for Raw Story by the Center for Responsive Politics, shows that President Obama received a staggering $20,175,303 from the healthcare industry during the 2008 election cycle, nearly three times the amount of his presidential rival John McCain. McCain took in $7,758,289, the Center found.”


    • That has always been available on opensecrets.org

      • Yes, but how many ordinary people bother to go there to look at it?

        The numbers from the very beginning showed that Wall St. money was 3-to-1 behind Obama v. the Republican. Something wrong with those numbers.

        • Most people don’t know and don’t look. Of course, the media doesn’t report it. BTW, it is 20 million, not billion.
          He was definitely the establishment candidate.

          • More than 1/5 of a billion. Getting there! Too much money is required to pay for the TV ads.

  35. Dear Lord. this is not good. Just turned it on. WTH?

  36. Obama is totally lost without his (faux) fawning and fainting groupies.

  37. We don’t want to go back to the same policies that got us into this mess.

    Uh…Obama, those are YOUR policies they want to get away from.

  38. Isn’t there some woman planted in the audience who can swoon now? Obama does have a bottle of water handy to pass on to her, right?

    Then the mass hypnosis can resume: “Yes, we can…yes, we can!”

  39. The stupid media is pretending they’re all Republican anti-abortion protestors. Ah, I knew we could count on them for the typical spin.

  40. I’m not watching the speech, but someone said he keeps making fun of Brown’s truck? If so, that is a horrible tack to take for an electorate that already thinks your party is elitist and out of touch.

    • Obama was using his suit-minus-tie look again.

      As if he stopped by after work or something.

      • As if he actually went to work.

      • O is the sloppiest dresser I have ever seen. His shirt always seems to be hanging out; he has one button of his jacket buttoned, one not. He looks like a slob. If he appeared on a couch in front of his teleprompter, the image would be perfect.

    • It’s a bigger, clingy truck. (snort)

    • It is, and it won’t play well at all in much of Central and Western Mass., where they ALL own trucks. And I don’t mean any of those silly faux-truck vehicles, like SUVs or Jeeps. Real trucks.

  41. How to go from a 30 point lead to trailing by 5 points: Embrace President Obama.

  42. Youtube already has the heckler.

    • Massachusetts to Obama:

      We want our party back from these “new coalition” faux dem interlopers!

  43. And the spin is going full tilt. Apparently this election has nothing to do with HCR or Obama, it’s all about preserving the right to choose.

    • Despite the fact that Brown is pro-choice (granted, not strongly so), he voted for the bill even after it didn’t have his amendment, and the HCR the Dems are pushing has a worse conscience provision than Brown did.

      But he is the evil scary one, and the Dems are all about protecting teh wimminz uteri. Any woman who falls for that that line again is a fucking idiot.

  44. Endorsement of the Year:

    I know it sucks. But vote Coakley.

  45. Obama did not fill his venue to capacity. Meanwhile, word is coming in from the Brown rally today:

    Phone call from the Scott Brown rally, outside Mechanics Hall:

    Up to 5,000 supporters of Scott Brown have gathered vociferously outside the hall, loud enough at times to drown out the phone conversation. Shouting slogans, they have blocked all four street lanes for about half a block around the rally point.

    Only a few at a time were allowed into the hall for about 15 minutes and they have just announced that the hall is filled to capacity as are two overflow areas, one of which is Lexington Hall in the Crown Plaza hotel.

    At least 2,000 people are still in the street outside the hall with no room for them to go. They are now marching toward another with a least 1,000 in front of Race Bannon who was one of the first to turn toward the new location and has that many behind him.

    Whether sound and video will be piped to the oveflow areas was still unclear, though simulcast has been started at the Lexingtron Hall, whose 400 or so capacity has wall to wall, flesh to flesh packed attendance of at least 1,000 very enthusiastic supporters.


    • I heard that Obama’s venue did fill up and that overflow crowds went to another place to watch on video.

      Where are you hearing he didn’t fill up the auditorium?

      • I’ve heard it on most of the major news channels (I’ve been flipping around all day). His hall held 3000, and it was not full. Estimates are 2000 to 2500.

        Brown’s hall held 3000, and was filled to overflowing, and there are pics coming out of the streets also jammed with people in all directions.

        • Wow, only 3,000? I assumed it would be a bigger crowd than that. There were people on twitter saying they waited in line and couldn’t get in.

      • This is from the Boston Herald:

        The Coakley campaign estimated 1,500 people packed the gym, while another 2,500 ralliers were ushered into the school’s student center to view the event. More than 1,000 people had to be turned away at the door, where students and others had been lined up since 4 a.m.

        • Hmmm. If the main venue (the gym) has a 3000 capacity, and 1500 were there, how does that translate to “packing the gym”? Sort of makes one wonder about how much the other numbers are biased.

          I’ve been looking at pics of both, and watching TV, and just eyeballing it, it looks like bigger crowds at the Brown rally, and definitely more enthusiastic.

          • It all depends on who is reporting. Obama’s crowd at the free Portland rock concert kept
            getting larger each time it was reported, and no mention was made of the free concert by the Decemberists.

            Finally, the number was
            listed as 60,000, which included some Hillary campaign workers
            I knew, kayakers gliding past, and those using the bike lane. I did a sample count per
            square inch, and found that the numbers were grossly over-estimated.

            Palin would draw huge
            crowds that never were reported.

            The numbers depend on who is reporting and what their agenda is.

        • The Herald is biased toward Repubs though.

    • More on that rally with pictures. He drew a heck of a crowd.


  46. Okay, I found a quote re: the truck comment by Obama:

    “Everybody can run slick games,” he added. “Forget the truck. Anybody can buy a truck.”

    Bad move. Reeks of the whole disdain for the working class that President Arugula already has a problem with.

  47. Like him or not, Scott has his finger on the pulse of what is happening. He is painting Coakley as a machine politician, and her cave-in on HCR and her subsequent surrounding herself with the royal Dem guard has played right into that perception. She should have stood firm and not been a “good little Party girl”.

    Here’s an excerpt from Brown’s speech today. He nails the mood of the people. And just from a cynically political point of view, as far as strategy goes, he is on top of the wave and Coakley and the tone-deaf Dems are going to get hammered with it.

    When we started this campaign just a few months ago, the political machine wrote us off. A Senate seat in Massachusetts, we were told, was already spoken for – and this special election was just a minor detail that wouldn’t get in the way. The political machine already had a short-term placeholder in the Senate. Now all they needed was a long-term placeholder, and everything had been arranged.

    Well, there was just one little problem with that plan – the independent-thinking people of Massachusetts wanted a real choice, and they – and you — have made this a real contest.

    The voters are doing their own thinking, and the machine politicians don’t quite know how to react. So they put in a distress call to Washington, and the next thing you know, Air Force One is landing at Logan.

    At the beginning, it felt like me against the machine. But guess what? I was wrong. It’s us against the machine.

    I don’t need an establishment to prop me up. I stand before you as the proud candidate of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents across Massachusetts, north and south, east and west.

    The party machine is in high gear for my opponent. The establishment is afraid of losing their Senate seat. You can all remind them that this is not their seat, it is yours.

    Should I have the honor of representing our state in Washington, D.C., I will serve no faction but Massachusetts. I will pursue no agenda but what is right. I will be nobody’s senator but yours.

    One of the great advantages of being independent is that you meet voters of every kind. And you learn what people are really thinking about the big issues facing our state and our country. The political experts are still wondering how this little campaign of ours grew so fast and gathered so much strength and momentum. The reason is simple.

    We do not want a senator whose only question on health care is to ask Harry Reid, “How do you want me to vote?”

    Obama and the arrogant DNC are killing the brand, and Coakley made the choice to hand them around her own neck like a millstone. THAT is what this is about.

    • typo – hang, not hand.

    • That speech hits home in all the right ways. The current environment is deadly to politicians of both parties who look like they’ll toe the party line.

      • Yup. People are both sides of the aisle are pissed off that their politicians care more about pleasing their party bosses than representing who elected them. That phone calls from constituents running 100 to 1 against something get blown off and ignored like they don’t matter.

        Dems and R’s both had better brush up their almost-forgotten representative government skills, because there is disgust with both “machines” in this country, BIGTIME. Politicians who get that will do well. Politicians who don’t are toast.

    • Okay, that does it for me…I just watched the Obama heckler video (you should have a warning on it that you hear zero talking for some time before said heckler). Then to read this brown bs after listening to Obama bs? It’s too much I tell ya, it’s too much and comment I must. Since when did brown become independent? Isn’t he running as a repub?
      And since when is it good to have a senator promote only their own state’s interests? Isn’t that a little bit Nelson-esque? And faction is not a good word in politics (see Madison, federalist paper 10). We have national bodies to avoid factionalism, not to promote it.
      Anyway, this guy sounds like pure bs to me just hits my ear like Obama does.

      I used go live in mass for 15 years but no more. I don’t envy you guys your decision. I think it’s possible coackley was blackmailed into her flip flop. Why would she do it otherwise? She was already leading. I think we know the quality of axelrove and co. They can destroy with impunity it would seem in this climate.

      • “And since when is it good to have a senator promote only their own state’s interests? Isn’t that a little bit Nelson-esque?”

        Since 1787:

        “The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.””


      • Sorry for typos

  48. Madison federalist paper 10 arguing the necessity to avoid special interest factions which would overrule minority voices. Thus representation over a broad area to include many factions at once thus diminishing each’s influence. Now states are acting as factions through promotion of pork barrel projects. I don’t know what you wanted to illustrate with your quote from the senate art and history site. I certainly agree with the Madison quote at the end of it.

    • I think we agree, but a State is not a faction. A State consists of all people within it’s territory and subject to its Constitution. A faction is composed of some people within that state (and maybe others outside of it.)

    • “I don’t know what you wanted to illustrate with your quote from the senate art and history site. ”

      You asked “And since when is it good to have a senator promote only their own state’s interests?”

      The answer is “The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states…”

      That’s the reason the Senate exists, to look out for the States’ interests.

      • The position has evolved somewhat in the last 225 years. Senators were originally appointed by the state governments. The move to popular election corresponds with the idea that Senators represent the people of each state, rather than the government of the state. Because they vote on national policy, their influence also extends beyond the borders of the states they represent. In that sense, each of us has a stake in what happens in Massachussetts, even if we don’t vote there.

        • I agree with you on the stake we all have.

          What I don’t understand is the redundancy of having a popularly elected House of Representatives and a Senate. Removing the original appointment by the State legislatures seems to me to have destroyed the original intent, to have the State represented as well as the People.

  49. Heckuva Job Barack.

  50. It’s “shoo-in” not “shoe in,” but otherwise I agree.

    • shoo-in:

      “This one is spelled wrongly so often that it’s likely it will eventually end up that way. The correct form is shoo-in, usually with a hyphen. It has been known in that spelling and with the meaning of a certain winner from the 1930s. It came from horse racing, where a shoo-in was the winner of a rigged race.”

    • Details, details. I was with relatives all day today and they don’t cotton to me typin’ away on a blog at breakfast in the first place. Editing was (and usually is) not my first priority.

  51. Very revealing video. College students in the crowd that showed up to see Obama speak could care less about Coakley:

    • Short coattails that man has… So much for drumming up the “youth vote.”

      • Yup. As the one girl said, it’s not every day you get to see a POTUS speak. Doesn’t necessarily translate into votes.

      • Charming kids. Can we raise the voting age now.

        • We tried to tell the Dems that you can’t build a party long term on clueless young people who are enamored of the new cool guy on the block.

          Yes, the youth vote is important. Yes, educated young voters have much to contribute. But you build that by getting kids involved <i.for the right reasons, with commitment to democratic principles, not the new American Political Idol.

          They went for the cheap short term gain, and fucked the party over for years by doing it.

    • I’m sorry but these kids sound like uninformed idiots. They are totally apathetic to electing Coakley and some of them support Scott Brown. Their support for Obama is purely superficial and has nothing to do with policy or principles. It angers me that these were the people who had so much influence in electing POTUS. I wasn’t the smartest kid on the block but I was hella lot smarter than these fools when I was in college.

  52. Scott Brown is pro-choice. Why do you just assume he’s not because he’s a Republican?

    • Not to mention that he was elected to the State Senate from a predominantly Democratic district.

      The national Dems will try to paint him as a rightwing, teabagging monster, but it’s bullshIt.

      The nation is sick and damm tired of it.

    • Not just because he’s a Republican, but because of his record. He talks about supporting Roe but when it comes to action, he tried to limit contraceptive availability for rape victims, and the pro-life groups endorsed him (not necessarily in that order 😉

      And here’s what he says at his website:
      While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion.

      • Could be worse, at least the Super Mainstream Moderate isn’t in favor of stripping people of their rights, torturing them, and hauling them in front of the military tribunal.

        Oh, wait… 😉 Well, at least so far misuse of Facebook isn’t a summary execution offense. 🙂

  53. PPP Final Massachusetts Poll

    “Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 51-46 in our final Massachusetts Senate poll, an advantage that is within the margin of error for the poll.

    Over the last week Brown has continued his dominance with independents and increased his ability to win over Obama voters as Coakley’s favorability numbers have declined into negative territory. At the same time Democratic leaning voters have started to take more interest in the election, a trend that if it continues in the final 36 hours of the campaign could put her over the finish line.

    Here’s what we found:

    -Brown is up 64-32 with independents and is winning 20% of the vote from people who supported Barack Obama in 2008 while Coakley is getting just 4% of the McCain vote.

    -Brown’s voters continue to be much more enthusiastic than Coakley’s. 80% of his say they’re ‘very excited’ about voting Tuesday while only 60% of hers express that sentiment. But the likely electorate now reports having voted for Barack Obama by 19 points, up from 16 a week ago, and a much smaller drop from his 26 point victory in the state than was seen in Virginia.

    -Those planning to turn out continue to be skeptical of the Democratic health care plan, saying they oppose it by a 48/40 margin.

    -Coakley’s favorability dropped from 50% to 44% after a week filled with perceived missteps. Brown’s negatives went up a lot but his positives only actually went from 57% to 56%, an indication that attacks against him may have been most effective with voters already planning to support Coakley but ambivalent toward Brown.

    -56% of voters in the state think Brown has made a strong case for why he should be elected while just 41% say the same of Coakley. Even among Coakley’s supporters only 73% think she’s made the argument for herself, while 94% of Brown’s supporters think he has.

    Full results http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MA_117468963846.pdf


  54. Too bad there can’t be a way that you could put on your ballot for Martha voted IN SPITE of Obama or if you’re voting for Brown voted TO SPITE Obama

    • I really, really like this idea.

    • ” Too bad there can’t be a way that you could put on your ballot for Martha voted IN SPITE of Obama or if you’re voting for Brown voted TO SPITE Obama”

      Yeah, too bad. As it is they can spin the Brown vote to say anti-gays are powerful, anti-choice is powerful, Coakley lost because she was a Hillary supporter, becasue she didn’t support Obamacare strongly enough, because she opposed Stupak, etc.

      The only way to send a clear message is over the span of a year or so, if ALL bots lose their elections and ALL Hillary supporters win.

  55. The Dems must be completely panicked because they’re reaching out to the e-mail list of robocallers from HRC’s campaign.

    The first email I’ve gotten from Jon Fromowitz since May 2008, and this late in the game.

  56. politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Moving_health_care.html?showall

    Jonathan Cohn surveys Dems and decides that of the various theoretical options for getting health care through if Brown wins, only one is practical: convincing the House to pass an unchanged Senate bill, in the hope of future revisions to implement the compromises the houses have hammered out.
    Such a move could be quick; unless I’m mistaken, the House could hold such a vote this week. It would also be perfectly legitimate: When a chamber votes to pass a bill, as the Senate did when it passed health care reform on Christmas Eve, it’s effectively offering to make that bill a law, pending the other chamber’s approval.


    They’ll pass it one way or another, even if they have to do something simple and legitimate. ;-/

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: