Senator Kerry's statement on Martha Coakley's primary victory

[ProSense]

Kerry's Statement On Coakley

BOSTON -- Sen. John Kerry, who voted this evening in Boston, released the following statement congratulating Attorney General Martha Coakley on her victory in tonight’s primary election.

Tonight the glass ceiling in Massachusetts politics was smashed into 1,000 pieces. Martha Coakley is on her way to becoming the first woman ever to represent our state in the United States Senate. She will be an outstanding United States senator.

This is an historic Senate seat that for 47 years was filled by the most prolific legislator in Senate history. No one can fill Ted Kennedy's shoes, but we can all work to follow in his footsteps. Just as she has in her jobs as prosecutor and Attorney General, Martha Coakley will blaze her own path and make her own mark in the fight to create jobs, police Wall Street, reform health care, and combat climate change.

I also want to add my deep respect and thanks for the friend and partner we've been blessed to have fighting for Massachusetts in the Senate during this interim period, Paul Kirk.

I congratulate all the candidates for thoughtful, hard-fought and spirited campaigns in the best Massachusetts tradition. We must now band together to finish the work of sending Martha Coakley to the United States Senate.

[TayTay]

1. Plus he introduced Martha Coakley at her victory party

and said, "Sending a Republican to the Senate from Massachusetts would be like awarding Dick Cheney a Nobel Peace Prize." LOL!

Go Martha!

[karynnj]

2. Kerry is so right there

:hi:

Very nice statement.

[girl_interrupted]

3. I am so happy for her...hope we get another woman in the Senate!

I was just reading this yesterday:

"Can Martha Coakley win it for womankind?"
By Margery Eagan
Tuesday, December 8, 2009

"If Martha Coakley doesn’t win today, Democratic women of Massachusetts may as well hang it up.

"It’s ridiculous already."

"Democrats are constantly lecturing everybody else about women’s rights, gay rights, minority rights, animal rights, rights of the overweight, the underweight, the vertically challenged, you name it."

"But when it comes to the “right” woman candidate, they can’t quite find one."

“There’s nothing wrong with Martha,” says Sheila Capone-Wulsin of the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus. “There’s nothing to nitpick here.”

"Yet nitpick is what we still do."

“Of course,” says Senate President Terry Murray. “How old they are, how they look? Are they thin, fat? What kind of shoes do they wear? Their hair. Too much make-up. Not enough. Or Hillary looks really tired, and what about the pantsuit? It’s amazing.”

"In other words, women candidates still have to walk a tightrope."

"Coakley has walked it."

"And, says Murray, “she’s just the best qualified."

"Let me be clear. I’d vote for Martha even if she were a Mark. She ran Middlesex County’s state-of-the-art child abuse unit when the rest of the state was in the dark ages" http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?&articleid=1217393&format=&page=1&listingType=col#articleFull

Glad that didn't happen and she won.

That was really sweet of Senator Kerry to do that tonite.

[karynnj]

9. I really have a problem with some of what was said

The fact is that Hillary did not lose because she was a woman. The fact is she lost because she ran a campaign that was beneath her. She was the overwhelming favorite to win from the second Kerry lost - and some would say before that, when the powers that be considered 2004 to be a sacrifice year. In my old family and group of friends (excluding online ones because including the Kerry group would distort things), there were a very significant number of people who went from HRC in 2005 to Obama in 2008. Some were won by Obama, many were really troubled by the Clintons.

In addition, I find it hard to accept the view that she was harmed by sexism without people balancing that statement by how she was helped enormously by her husband having been President for 8 years. To a very real degree their desire to increase their 8 years to 16 years in the WH absolutely distorted the primary debate. As she claimed as hers most of the accomplishments of the Clinton years, others had to almost run against the Clinton years. The fact is that she did deserve credit but some things - in others, she overstated her role.

As to Palen, she was not the head of the ticket. In her case, given that her approval is significantly higher (at least per TV accounts ) among men than among women. It is pretty easy to see that she is not being hurt by sexism.

I have nothing against Coakley. The only time I had heard her before was when she gave an excellent introduction to Kerry at one of his Faneuil Hall speeches.

[waterscalm]

14. Sexism is real and is not to be "balanced" with other factors. Simple as that.

[karynnj]

15. I know sexism is real, but I don't think that the reason a specific woman loses is always sexism

In Hillary Clinton's case, it is pssible that there were more people voting FOR her because she was a woman, than against her because she was. That is just as wrong - yet none of the people calling it sexism ever . Were you and others racist because you voted against Hillary in the primary? I don't think so. Was I antisemitic in 2004 for backing Kerry over Lieberman?

You completely distort my comment.

Yes, there were comments on HRC's pantsuits, but there were also negative comments on Gore's "earth color" suits. Not to mention, was Kerry, whose looks had been described as distinguished or carved in granite and occasionally handsome, was described as looking like "Lurch", which was not just negative, but a way to ridicule him. As to comments on Palin's looks, I don't recall JK or Gore or Obama winking even once at the audience in a debate.

[seaglass]

16. Howard Dean, head of the DNC at the time called it for what it was

From Howard Dean:
"There has been an enormous amount of sexism in this campaign on the part of the media, including the mainstream media. We'll leave present company excepted, because I think that's true. But there have been major networks that have featured numerous outrageous comments that if the words were reversed and they were about race, the people would have been fired.

So that's a big issue. And there are a lot of women in this country who -- there's two issues here. One is one candidate is ahead and one is not. That happens all the time in primaries, and you get over that. What you don't get over is deep wounds that have been inflicted on somebody because they happen to be a woman running for president of the United States. "

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/howard-dean-on.html

MA voted for Hillary over Obama in the primaries, and that is all that needed to be said to refute the mistaken idea that MA Dems do not support women for higher office.

[karynnj]

17. Howard Dean has his right to an opinion

but, note that he did not say that is why Hillary lost. Saying it that assumes that it is clear cut that she was the better choice and would have won if she were male.

[seaglass]

18. I don't think that's why she lost either but at least he recognizes that

the sexism existed, while many DUers either try to minimize sexism towards Hillary as you are or outright deny it.

[karynnj]

19. It is your interpretation that I minimized it

Though I was against HRC winning, I posted against many sexist things. What I was responding to here was Egan's BH oped and the poster's agreement that all but said that HRC not winning was proof of sexism.

I think that HRC being the inevitable candidate in both the party's and the media's eyes for at least 2 to 3 years, is a clear sign that they were not just willing, but happy to support a woman for President. The fact is that there were plenty of women willing to say or post that they were voting for her because they wanted a female President in their lifetime. I heard this in NJ when phonebanking and canvasing especially from women my age (late 50s) and older. I would love to have the chance to vote for a woman for President, but that should never be the main reason.

The fact is that desire by many women, the Clinton machine and the media saying she was inevitable led to a situation where no one could beat her unless her campaign screwed up and they did an exceptional job. Had the Clintons not gone negative after Iowa and if they allocated resources to the caucus states, it is very likely she would have won. I can't think of any Democrat who was handed so much advantage on a silver plate and who still lost the nomination.

[seaglass]

20. I am talking about you minimizing it on this thread. That's all. I have

no interest in rehashing the primaries.

[karynnj]

21. The comment was in the context of the primaries

There is no other way that HRC has been hurt by sexism in recent times.

[Mass]

11. All candidates were good . She won and will be the next senator , but

while she was not my candidate, I will be happy to support her for the general election.

This said, this editorial is very stupid, not surprisingly coming from the Herald. The fact is that we had 3 great candidates and people chose according to what they were more interested in.

[Cha]

4. Well, good for this~!

That's a glowing endorsement from Senator Kerry on the next Senator from Massachusets!

[ruggerson]

5. So who started the "Coakley is DLC" meme?

Good thing the people of Mass are far smarter than to believe bullshit.

[waterscalm]

13. My guess is it was someone who dislikes Clinton

since he endorsed her last week. just a thought as I have no idea.

[saltpoint]

6. Kerry is the abiding personage of a mature republic.

Congratulations to Martha Coakley, who aspires to fill Ted Kennedy's big shoes and who has inspired John Kerry to reference with warm introduction and affirming praise.

You folks over in Massachusetts are a class act, no two ways about it.

[levander]

7. Coakley is going to hold up health reform?

Isn't Coakley the one who said she would NOT vote for health care reform unless federal subsidies were available to the poor for coverage of abortion? Would she really hold up health care reform over such a side issue?

[Divine Discontent]

8. abortion is legal, so I cannot see why she wouldn't fight to keep rights right where they are for

poor people to have them if they feel they need to - rich people shouldn't be the only ones who get to have an abortion if they wish. funny how if a rich person wants it, it's ok, because it's 'their' money, but when we have a law that declares it legal to do something, it's not okay if poor people want to use that law. I don't 'like' abortions at all, but I defend a woman's right to choose. It's a very important matter for women. Are you a woman? I'm not, but since you brought up abortion, I'm just asking a simple question.

[karynnj]

12. Where they are right now IS the Senate language

and it complies with the Hyde amendment.

As Obama said this bill should not be used to change the status on abortion. This goes either way. This issue is a powder keg and opening it will destroy any bill.

I wonder if the way to deal with funding abortions to poor or (even non rich) women is through organizations like Planned Parenthood or new efforts. Being legal does not mean that they should be free or greatly subsidized. There may not be sufficient support to fund elective abortions. Although I personally think that it should be included, there may not be sufficient support to publicly fund elective abortions.

Looking at opinion polls on abortion the choices offered really matter to the result. Here is an archive of polls - http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm The CNN poll shows that clearly by asking the question twice. But, one thing that is clear is that a pretty significant majority of people are against public funding - even as they are even more clearly against abortion being illegal. It might be the uneasy compromise of it being legal, while the Hyde amendment stands to make it not paid for by the federal government might actually reflect where the country is.

[karynnj]

10. I would bet that she will be persuaded by her senior Senator that

that it is wrong for the same reason that you mention - it is a side issue.

In addition, it is possible that Reid will get cloture for whatever this compromise is, pass it and the House will accept it as is, knowing the danger of sending anything different back to the Senate. If so, that will likely be done before the January general election.