It's not about Brown or HCR or about the Democrats - it's about Coakley.

[smalll]

I'm not from Massachussetts, so of course I really didn't know who she was until this trainwreck campaign for Teddy's seat came along.

Remember Louise Woodward? Young English nanny ("au pair") convicted for shaking a baby to death? Look up the case.

Ever heard of Gerald Amirault? Part of one of the signature daycare "ritual sex abuse" cases of the 80s/early90s? Look it up.

And before them, there were the Souzas -- grandparents suddenly made into abusive monsters because their adult progeny got into the whole "recovered memory" jag, and THEN those progeny, in league with relentless expert interrogators, kept at their own small children to get them to say that gramps and granny had molested them too.

All these people were outsiders -- a young English girl over in MA for a year or so to nanny, or just humble, simple, everyday people.

And in one role or another, it was Martha Coakley who fought to railroad them, or who fought to keep them in jail when, inevitably, these travesties of cases begin to unravel with dismissals and pardons, when everyone ELSE was willing to realize that mistakes had been made.




But then there was the case of Keith Winfield. A well-connected policeman with deep roots in his city. When he actually did brutally, sexually injure his own baby neice, it was Coakley's office that dragged its feet, delayed, and almost seemed to be doing everything they could to give Winfield a way out, or at least more time.

This time, he's a "somebody" - in the ingrown, insular power structure of Tammany-style Massachussets public servants -- this time, Coakley's not riding a witch-hunt, she's covering up.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but she doesn't seem like a very good person. And it's not like she makes up for it by being a great campaigner. I'm sure she's execellent grilling someone on the stand, or constructing the key themes of a trial-by-media, but when it comes to running for office as U.S. Senator - when it comes to being a politician -- she is FAR from a "happy warrior" --- she comes across with zero charisma. She says all the right things, about public options, and wars, and reproductive rights, etc. etc. but she recites her positions so perfunctorily, with a robotic cadence, that she really does come across as an old-fashioned party hack -- I don't really believe that she believes any of it. She'd be saying the oppposite things if she'd come up as a prosecutor somewhere at the other end of interstate 95.

So this is why this is such a trainwreck - it's not HCR, or the state of the national Democratic Party, it's not about Liebercare or Nelsoncare or sell-out conservadems or purist progressives or anything in between. I'm getting the impression that Massachussets knows Martha, at least better than most of us, and that's why this is so close.

[quinnox]

1. I read she didn't even campaign in public much

until recently when it was known she was losing. Apparently she is a weak candidate and the republican may even win, its a shame.

[virgogal]

2. I've been following her career for years but she will still win .

[Mass]

3. And she eats babies for breakfast.

For your information, while she may not be the best campaigner, she is well liked and well respected in the state.

[Lurks Often]

9. Then why

if she so well liked and well respected in the state, why is the race even close?

I'm not referring to the Republicans, who would vote against her regardless, but the independents which seem to be leaning toward Brown as well.

[roguevalley]

18. maybe they like his nude ass? maybe she doesn't strip enough for

them. Who knows? I don't believe she will lose. Brown is an SOB.

[midnight]

4. This does not sound good....

[-..__...]

5. It also doesn't look good...

that she opposed the decriminalization of marijuana in MA (which passed on a ballot initiative by something like %65),

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=dmdamodulechunk&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Dmdaa&b=terminalcontent&f=news_Oppose_Decriminalize_Marijuana&csid=Dmdaa

and testified before the SCOTUS that "requiring forensic scientists to testify at criminal trials where their reports are presented as evidence would place an undue burden on the state's already-backlogged drug testing system".

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/11/coakley_forensics_testimony_a_burden

And there was a bit of chicanery involving her inaction when the states DA's intentionally tried to mislead voters regarding the marijuana decrim ballot question.

[smalll]

6. I'd seen that don't-make-forensics-testify thing --

Relatedly, allegedly when a proposal was made for a kind of state commision or board to do a kind of "innocence poject" look at old cases, she said she opposed the idea, because it would be "looking backwards" when we "need to be looking forwards."

[chelsea0011]

10. That Supreme Court case about evidence was to have the technician

who did the actual testing testify instead of having a superior testify to the testing. The contention was nothing could ever be done at the lab if technicians had to go to court to testify. A legitimate concern, I would think.

[havocmom]

7. Frankly, I chalk it up to: DLC does not want to be majority party. They thrive on the bickering tie

In the majority, they are expected to accomplish something. They don't want to. Same with GOP pols on the Hill. They are the circus. Somebody else is getting all the bread.

A candidate as pathetic as Coakley is the last evidence to convince me the DLC is just as status quo focused as the GOP. I want liberals in there, but they get penned up if they get elected.

[yurbud]

15. yep--they'd rather be corporate compliant than win.

[OHdem10]

8. This is third "Bad Candidate". Blame the Candidate Blame the

Candidate.

We seem to only run bad cadidate. The party has no say
before someone runs?????

Lame excuse.

[smalll]

13. Who were the first two?

But she IS a bad candidate. :shrug:

[bobbolink]

11. The Dem party seems to often push candidates who are mistakes to begin with.

This has happened in Colorado, and in other places.

Its very disheartening, but in times like this, it is a tragedy.

Thanks for posting this.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. She was slow out of the gate. She thought she had it locked up just by running.

Bad strategy on her campaign's part.

[RBInMaine]

14. She's a thousand times better than that TEA-HATER. So cut this SHIT.

[girl gone mad]

16. HCR is definitely an issue.

Sorry, but Dems are losing Independents in a big way by pushing a crappy bill.

[graywarrior]

17. STOP THIS!

If you are not from MA, you have no idea what is going on here. I attended the rally in Boston today. Bill Clinton's words: (and I'm paraphrasing)We've seen this before and you know what I'm talking about. But this time it's worse. Do not believe the polls and get out and vote.

[smalll]

19. "Coakley Trails in Her Own Internal Poll"

"Coakley Trails in Her Own Internal Poll
Steve Kornacki reports Martha Coakley's (D) internal poll for Thursday night showed her trailing Scott Brown (R) by three points, 47% to 44%.
The final poll from Public Policy Polling will be out Sunday night."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/01/15/coakley_trails_in_her_own_internal_poll.html

She was ahead by 2 points in her own internals only a day before. It's not the Blue Dogs, it's not the progressives, it's not Health Care "Reform" --

we have met the enemy, and they is her.

BAD CANDIDATE. :shrug:

[smalll]

20. This race says virtually NOTHING about the country at large, or about the Party --

Bad Candidate! Let us count the ways! (In no particular order)

--- Takes 6 days off from campaigning in a VERY short campaign.

--- When asked about her lax campaigning, she says:

"As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands? This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet."

(Just meditate on the various levels of badness in that one...)

--- Calls Curt Schilling a Yankees fan.

--- Is cursed by bad luck:

-------- She says there are no terrorists in Afghanistan at the same time that those CIA people were blown up in Afghanistan.

-------- Has to pull down an attack ad because is misspells the word "Massachusetts."

-------- Has to pull down an attack ad tying Brown to Wall Street greedheads because as a symbol of evil Wall Street - it shows the Twin Towers.

--- The DC Fundraiser Debacle -

She goes down to DC for a huge fundraiser, filled with Health Insurance and Big Pharma lobbyists, who seem to feel a great urge to save the 60th vote. She tells her contributors at the closed event that "It I don't win, 2010 is going to be hell for Democrats" which is not exactly sporting and sounds somewhat desperate. Outside the event, one of her political consultants shoves a member of the press to the ground, and after helping the reporter up, demands and tries to grab the guy's press credentials -- even though there's no need for press credentials on a public street. When asked about it later, she says, "I'm not sure what happened. I know something occurred, but I'm not privy to the facts" -- not privy? She was there the whole time! There's video! There's a pic of her looking RIGHT AT the man on the ground next to her on the sidewalk!

--------------------------

The fault, dear Democrats, is not in ourselves, but in her stars, that we are underlings in this particular race!

[smalll]

21. Kick for recriminations and post-mortems.

Don't blame the left, don't blame the right, blame Martha. Maybe blame Emily's List that gave so much support to Coakley during the primary? That's about as far as I'm willing to go with the blame.