Obama to Campaign For Coakley


President Obama will travel to Massachusetts on Sunday to campaign for Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, as worries intensify that the party could lose its 60-seat majority in the Senate and the seat that for decades belonged to Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

< Friday Morning Open Thread | Hillary to Visit Haiti Tomorrow >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Smells like (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 01:51:29 PM EST
    Teen Spirit....er....desperation.

    other thread closed (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    but no, Deval is very unpopular in MA right now.  Something like a 15-30 approval depending on who's counting and when.

    Since Obama would never risk anything... (none / 0) (#107)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:43:15 PM EST
    ... for anything other than the advancement of Obama, I'm betting that Coakley has internal polling numbers that are better than what we're seeing.

    I think he's been backed into a corner, (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:53:12 PM EST
    and can't do his usual schtick of only backing winners - if she were a shoo-in, he'd have happily scheduled a visit this week to do a smug victory lap, instead of putting Robert Gibbs through the embarrassing exercise of explaining that a campaign stop wasn't on the schedule because...it wasn't on the schedule.

    I think her internal numbers are down, and an Obama visit is a desperation move that he didn't really want to have to make.


    Fair enough (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:00:32 PM EST
    Well,  then, I hope the election gets spun as a referendum on health insurance reform and Coakley loses.

    I agree absolutely the best thing that could (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Bornagaindem on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:28:09 PM EST
    happen . But will dems then turn around and do some real health care reform? Or just give up.

    No. But paralysis is a better outcome... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:36:24 PM EST
    ... than the bill. And then there's 2010 and 2012.

    There's the 'upside' to a Coakley win (none / 0) (#133)
    by kidneystones on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:31:01 PM EST
    The WH claims that Obama put her over. (fair claim) And that voters really do love HCR and the President.

    Straight back to fantasy island.


    Real health care reform is not in the cards (none / 0) (#153)
    by Manuel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:44:35 PM EST
    Kirk has said he will vote for the health insurance reform bill even if Coakley doesn't win. The Republicans will pull out all the stops to delay the vote.  It will make for great political theater.

    If the bill is defeated, no new effort will ensue.  The votes just aren't there for real health care reform.  The Blue Dogs will join the Republicans in thwarting any real reform.  The finger pointing will begin.  More great political theater.

    Come 2012 we could well be looking at a new Republican majority like we did in 1980.  Obama and his Democratic critics will point the finger at one another.  More great theater (a Greek tragedy).

    If the bill passes, the MA Senate race will be irrelevant.  Obama should be able to find enough initiatives on which he can get some (perhaps even a lot) of Republican support (as Clinton did) and will then coast in 2012.


    And Obama coasting in 2012 is good why? (none / 0) (#169)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 10:13:50 PM EST
    Are the banksters going to need another bailout by then?

    It is just an observation/prediction (none / 0) (#173)
    by Manuel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 11:30:03 PM EST
    I am not assigning a value judgement.  The banksters aren't likely to need a new bailout for a while.  The states on the other hand ...  Bailing out the states (or any other kind of useful stimuus) will be impossible with Republicans in control.

    As I have said before, I am sympathetic to burn down the village arguments.  Just understand that there will be a lot of pain and that the village may not be rebuilt.  Opossing this health care bill (which is better than the status quo) may mean that no health care reform will be enacted for a long time.  Although I admire the courage of those who take such a position, I question their reading of the political mood in the country.


    I asked a question (none / 0) (#182)
    by lambert on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 07:54:44 AM EST
    I don't see an answer.

    Like when he campaigned for Corzine? (none / 0) (#175)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:21:35 AM EST
    And Deeds?  Obama's visit, during the NFL playoffs, may hurt more than help.  Even in MA more than half the voters opposed his health care bill.  

    Probably can't use this expression (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 01:59:55 PM EST
    in 2010 so I will just link:  phrases

    It can only help (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:51:45 PM EST
    and as many noted.  Go/not go, he'll get blamed either way if she loses.

    What he does bear blame for is time & again caving into GOP and DINO demands, serving Wall St first & thereby depressing Democratc voters whose only way of registering disapproval in this oligarchy is to vote for the other person or stay home.

    That makes sense (none / 0) (#36)
    by Pacific John on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:09:25 PM EST
    ... of an otherwise puzzling situation. I hope Coakley polling says this is a good thing, because I have my doubts.

    A few days ago I declared that Coakley (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:55:14 PM EST
    was going to win. I'm less certain of that now. It's simply amazing how far the Democrats have fallen since the huge victories of 06 and 08.

    President Obama (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:13:19 PM EST
    is the big problem here and he is not on the ballot. Ms. Coakley apparently is a less than stellar campaigner and  even may have some disqualifying issues according to Jeralyn.  However,  this is a senatorial race between Coakley, a left/center Democrat and Brown, a Republican  who is extreme right.   He is likely to be much more comfortably aligned with  Richard Shelby than Susan Collins, but a modern-day Republican all the same, i.e., wacko.  One of these two will be the next senator from MA.  For this political decision, it seems a no-brainer.

    As someone on the fence of whether (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by dk on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:20:06 PM EST
    to vote for Coakley or stay home, I would certainly be more likely to vote for Coakley if Obama actually did something liberal, as opposed to coming here to appear at a campaign rally.

    Just sayin'...

    Ha. So "just words" are not enough (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:25:28 PM EST
    for you? :-)

    Oddly, this is the reason (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Pacific John on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:29:30 PM EST
    I'm strongly rooting for Coakley. She's not in the Obama wing, so when we are routed in Nov or two years from now, it will be the Coakleys, Shermans and Weiners who try to reconstruct a Democratic party out of the rubble of the cult of personality we've had for the past two years.

    The problem is, by then (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by dk on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:36:12 PM EST
    her credibility would be completely in tatters after several years of carrying the water of the Obama and his rightward movement of the Democratic party.

    I just don't think I could ever trust a Democrat who voted against women's rights and economic fairness, and that's they're all about to do with HCR, etc.


    Then she shouldn't have flipped on Stupak (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:44:39 PM EST
    How was that a sign of anything good?

    Stupak, Lambert dearest (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 11:29:06 PM EST
    is in the House bill.  She did not and could not "flip on Stupak."

    Your nihilism is now corroding your basic ability to think.


    gyrfalcon, sweetheart, in your desire... (3.00 / 2) (#185)
    by lambert on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 08:07:58 AM EST
    ... to score points against a hate object, you've lost the ability to do basic research. Why, my goodness, at this very site, which I assume you read:
    Can't say I didn't warn you about Martha Coakley. The latest: a Bait and switch. During her campaign to replace Sen. Ted Kennedy, she said she wouldn't support a bill with restrictions on abortion.

    Today, she announced her support for the health care bill with its restrictions on abortion funding.

    Perhaps my shorthand of "Stupak" for right wing women-hating abortion policy was the source of your confusion. I'll try to slow it down for you in future.

    * * *

    As for nihilism... Try looking up words before you use them, mkay? I'm not even going to bother to respond.


    I'm not happy about that either (none / 0) (#156)
    by Pacific John on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 08:11:07 PM EST
    ...but with the strong arm tactics used to keep 60 votes for the bill, it's safe to assume that she was told she would pay for sticking with principle.

    That's not a good excuse, but I don't see how it sets her apart from any other senator who is voting for the bill.


    The difference is Coakley is up for election (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 08:39:55 PM EST
    The Democrats are truely foolish and stupid for not knowing how unpopular the bill is.  If you want someone to vote for an unpopular bill even though she said she wouldn't, you should do that AFTER the election.  Duh.

    By the way, remember Krugman telling us how popular the Massachusetts HCR bill was in Massachusetts?  So shouldn't they just love having that HCR bill implemented nationwide?  I say LOL.


    I liked Coakley but then she caved (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Bornagaindem on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:31:18 PM EST
    on the health care reform bill and even being a pro choice says she will vote for it. I can't keep giving my vote to people who continue to screw me. So I would stay home.

    If Coakley gets to the senate, (none / 0) (#89)
    by itscookin on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:39:16 PM EST
    I'm sure she'll work hard for the people of MA because that's what she's been doing for years. The seat comes up again in 2012, though, and if she's having a hard time getting there now, if there's a wholesale cleansing in '12, she may not get to stay there very long. It's going to be hard as the most junior senator in the senate to distance herself from the current debacle.

    Voting to make women (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by dk on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:44:46 PM EST
    second class citizens in their right to healthcare is not working hard for the people of MA.

    Again, it's possible I'll decide to vote for her, but not because I think she will be doing things to help her constituents.


    She said she will vote for the HCR bill (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:29:43 PM EST
    My understanding is that the bill would wipe out the good HC programs the people of MA are currently enjoying. How's that for working for the people of MA?

    maybe this explains why (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by suzieg on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:32:39 PM EST
    We'll all be keeping our eyes peeled (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 09:57:26 PM EST
    for the moment when pigs take flight...

    Terrible Precedance If Dem lose Mass (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Saul on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:21:29 PM EST
    If the Democrats cannot secure Mass seat then what can they secure in November.  The domino theory begins.

    If this senate seat goes (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by itscookin on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:00:52 PM EST
    to the Republicans, there are no "safe seats" anywhere. Massachusetts hasn't had a Republican senator since 1979.

    Both legacy parties need to be destroyed... (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:55:42 PM EST
    ... so does it really matter which one goes first?

    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Pacific John on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 08:22:50 PM EST
    ... if we look at the Whigs as an example, only one party will implode, and the other will somehow exploit the situation.

    To paint an even darker picture, if this happens during a national security crisis, we could end up with an armed, more fascist GOP, while the incompetent Dems are in rubble.

    Since the DP no longer has even minimal regard for its voters, I could care less if it crumbles as long as what rises from the ashes is not even worse.


    How about... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 08:34:40 PM EST
    ... and I hope this is not a mere debater's point, if we look at the two parties as one party with two factions? What then?

    It's true (none / 0) (#179)
    by Pacific John on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:36:57 AM EST
    ...but I can't see how both factions implode simultaneously.

    Therein is the problem, Lambert (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:22:02 AM EST
    I'm not out to destroy the Democratic Party as you indicate is your goal here. My goal is for a stronger Democratic Party.

    If I thought that was possible... (none / 0) (#181)
    by lambert on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 07:53:40 AM EST
    ... I'd be for it. I don't see the 2003-2010 more and better Democrats strategy as having brought us much more than Bush done right. The health insurance reform debacle couldn't show that more clearly. I mean, the major selling point is Medicaid expansion? Where you can't have any assets?

    The place for that message ... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:14:16 PM EST
    ... is a primary, not a GE.

    only (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by cawaltz on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:18:24 PM EST
    she ran in the primary AGAINST the HC Bill. So alot of good THAT did primary voters.

    That's too bad (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:20:14 PM EST
    However, I stand by my statement.

    No doubt (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:26:29 PM EST
    But why?

    You mean the place to send messages... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:25:11 PM EST
    ... is where they'll get the least attention? Seems a strange strategy. What am I missing?

    Chance for better representatives (none / 0) (#170)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 11:08:27 PM EST
    Zero chance of worse ones.

    The only way to get their attention... (none / 0) (#183)
    by lambert on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 07:56:25 AM EST
    ... is to inflict real pain (a maxim I got from Atrios). It follows that primary challenges, followed by falling in line, are less effective than opposition in the general. Eh?

    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:42:07 PM EST
    I wonder if this is a good idea?  I wonder if the President might be the kiss of death in a race that is a referendum on his and his Dem majority's first horrible repulsive to half the base year.

    Is this the title of a new Judith Viorst (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:03:44 PM EST
    kids' book?

    Tea-baggers? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by kidneystones on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:01:28 PM EST
    TPM has gone all 'tea-bag' all the time. Really. If accusing Brown of being part of a movement of disgruntled voters is the best Dems can do, the party is much deeper in the doo-doo than I thought.

    Isn't there a persuasive case to be made against Brown that's based on issues? No?

    Why are Dems so disposed now to demonize opponents? I can't believe Dems don't have a short bullet point speech ready for why Coakley is the better candidate at this late date. Instead, let's just frame the other guy as a nut. That'll do it!

    Nothing screams hubris like 'we didn't think we needed a platform, a proper campaign, and a plan.'

    Amateur hour all over again. Heck of a job, Dems!

    Hey, lookee! Tea-baggers coming to getya!

    TPM, David Kurtz... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by NealB on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:14:10 PM EST
    ...,Josh Marshall. Oy.

    Because they think it worked in the primaries (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:25:55 PM EST
    and general in 2008.  Demonization and riling up the troops by harping on specters of the apocalypse won them (they think) both elections.  Plus, they don't have any policy-based advantages they can run on.  (although Obama's robocall for Coakley tries).

    The "progressive" narrative on this election is growing toward blaming Coakley for being such a bad candidate (because Obama can't fail; he can only be failed).  People who have no clue whatsoever are all over the place saying she's run a terrible campaign, is uninspiring, whatever.  She trounced her primary opponents by almost double the 3 of them put together and, until last week was enormously popular.  But the demonization habit is so ingrained at this point, they'll use it to eat their own.


    Very astute. (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 08:47:02 PM EST
    Yes, they need a Hillary Clinton to hate on.  Instead, with Coakley, they've got to be for the woman.  Cognitive dissonance, and Scott Brown doesn't have crankles.  This calls for a whole new script, and they're not getting guidance!

    B00by-wise, the Palin fixation still mystifies me (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Ellie on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 09:15:20 PM EST
    It's so inverse to her actual power & influence, I'd be hotly ashamed if I gave enough of a damn to triage my political shame over what "our" side has been up to.

    The cringe factor is huge on almost every issue of importance.


    What's funny is ... (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 10:07:04 PM EST
    • 30 years in the MA National Guard, JAG, Defense Atty

    • Aggressive Prosecutor known for her role in convicting innocent teenage girl of manslaughter, fighting to keep innocent man in prison, etc.

    Which would you think was the Democrat?

    You think and I think (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 11:35:59 PM EST
    they were both innocent, but a pretty large number of people, including Coakley, are dead certain they were guilty.  So what would you fight for if you beliieved they were a monstrous multiple child molester and a baby killer?

    I think Coakley could use some serious deprogramming on the issues involved in both cases, but there's absolutely no question about her total belief in their guilt.


    I agree with you that she believes she (none / 0) (#198)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:15:42 AM EST
    did right. But, was her ambition to win this high profile case clouding her ability to think rationally or is she wired to think without requiring logical reasoning? It takes a very judgmental and hateful attitude to refuse to listen to reasonable argument. Or, was that her ambition knowing her name was going to be on national news and it needed to be butted up against the word WON? I watched every minute of this trial on Court TV while I was recovering from surgery. There are a number of these very high profile trials that have landed innocent people in prison in our history...they are driven by the celebrity that encroaches on the legal teams. IMHO

    No matter what the reason, I do not want people who have her history making laws that impact me.


    Well (none / 0) (#186)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:13:28 AM EST
    Either or both - I wouldn't generalize based on your skewed comparison.  (And I could be wrong, but I think JAG criminal lawyers work both sides of the fence, if you know what I mean).

    And BTW - remember there were juries and judges and criminal defense attorneys (who maybe should have done a better job in those cases you mentioned).  Coakley didn't act alone.


    Yes, she did (none / 0) (#199)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:17:55 AM EST
    Coakley didn't act alone.

    Every single decision she made, she made alone.


    Right (none / 0) (#200)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:27:02 AM EST
    She didn't have a boss or consult with anybody like witnesses or police officers.  And there was no defense attorney making motions or a judge making rulings on evidence or a jury of 12 people that unanimously decided the cases.

    I don't think you fully understand how a prosecutor's office works. They don't just pick a case out of thin air and say, "I'm going to screw over this guy because I have nothing else to do!"  Being a government agency, they work with a limited budget (and lower salaried department than many in private practice, such as Barry Scheck in the Woodward case, where actually, Gerald Leone was the lead prosecutor), and then there's the politics involved.  They simply do not have the time and resources to go on a witch hunt against somebody if they truly don't think they have enough evidence to convict.


    Democrats won't hear that message (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:45:28 PM EST
    The message will be, after it has been massaged by the press and FOX, that health care reform has been repudiated.  Brown says he will vote against any bill.

    You can't expect the national media to hear the nuance or position of disaffected Democrats--that's too complicated, and the media needs a simple message: Republicans win, Dems lose...the country is a Center-Right country.

    You may get your wish of having Coakley defeated but no one will hear your message....

    But since the national media isn't trustworthy... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by lambert on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 07:58:48 AM EST
    ... on anything, there's no reason to take them into account at all. This is the argument that giving either of the two legacy parties time, attention, or support has opportunity costs: In this case, alternative media outlets (what the blogs were going to be, and in some cases still are, before access blogging became all the rage for some with high traffic).

    1994 is the precedent (none / 0) (#187)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:21:29 AM EST
    A democratic loss will not lead to more progressive policies....The first State of the Union after the loss in 1994, Bill Clinton said, "The era of big government is over."



    So? (none / 0) (#191)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:39:19 AM EST
    "Big government" doesn't necessarily mean "good government". Evidence:  GWB expanded the size of the government over 8 year tremendously - do you think we have a better system now?

    Bill Clinton was right.  We need efficient government.

    Unfortunately, the inmates are still running the asylum.


    You miss the point (none / 0) (#195)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:53:25 AM EST
    Bill did not become more progressive in 1995.  No, he triangulated.   Another better, more progressive health bill did not emerge in 1995 after the original failed in 1993/1994....

    And Bill accepted the framing (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:55:40 AM EST
    of the conservatives--talking about the failings of "big government."  The victory by conservatives was complete....

    The only major peice of progressive (none / 0) (#197)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 11:01:19 AM EST
    legislation duirng  8 years of the Clinton administration was the tax hike in 1993, which partially rolled back the Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy.  That bill passed in the Senate by 50 votes with Gore breaking the tie.  It was a budget measure, so the Republicans could not filibuster.

    That bill passed in the House by 2 votes. Bill later said he had regretted the tax hike-after 1994.

    Cheer on the defeat of the Democrats--it will not lead to more progressive result.  That is why all 60 Democrats in the Senate support the current HCR bill, as do all major progessive leaders in the House--or they will at then end of the negotiations....


    Alternative media (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:25:55 AM EST
    won't drive the narrative....Few people read them.....So while a few will say the Democrats lost because they were not progressive, millions will hear that democrats lost because they were too far to the left.

    And progressives will be out of power reading alternative blogs congratulaing themselves on defeating the impure democrats and watching from the sidelines, while the Republicans run the show and pass things like the Terri Schiavo legislation.....


    Very risky (none / 0) (#2)
    by rdandrea on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 01:56:34 PM EST

    Considering he went 0-2 in NJ and VA (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 01:57:44 PM EST
    This is very risky.

    But when you're Obama you can do no wrong.

    Realistically he's damned if he does or doesn't.

    If he doesn't go and she loses he'll be blamed so what choice did he really have?


    He really had to do it... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:29:58 PM EST
    ... considering what losing that 60th seat would mean. I'm sure he'd rather not stake his personal prestige on what could be a losing cause, but to not do so would mean either that he doesn't think it's possible for Coakley to win, or, worse, that his presence would actually hurt her chances.

    So what will losing the 60th seat mean? (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:20:37 PM EST
    The Dems have been acting since Jan 2009 as though they don't even have a majority?  Losing the 60th seat will just make them whine louder about why they have to compromise with themselves on meaningful healthcare, etc.

    What did getting the 60th seat mean? (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:47:52 PM EST
    Not a whole lot.  

    I mean, we have Democrats in the caucus who are more reliable votes for the Republicans than they are for the Dems, so it's not like we have a solid and united caucus and only having 59 seats will sound the death knell for the Democratic agenda.  Do we even have a Democratic agenda anymore - one that I would recognize, anyway?  Most of the odious Bush policies, and many of the equally odious Bush appointees, are still around, so what's changed, and how much worse will it get if Coakley loses?

    What will be interesting is what Dems will take from a loss; my guess is they will just keep blaming us...


    Obama at 60% in MA, but (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by kidneystones on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:20:21 PM EST
    for how much longer? For a long time, at least if we're talking Presidential elections and MA. I can't see a majority of MA voters voting to make a Republican president anytime soon.

    I suspect a lot of Dems do blame Obama for stealing the nomination and now proving to be such an empty suit. As far as I was concerned 2008 was water under the bridge. Dems enjoyed a tremendous surge in popularity and I was both curious and excited at the prospect of being proven completely wrong.

    Kind of reminds me of how I looked at Bush late in 2001. Is this guy going to do something right?

    Hasn't been all bad. That said, he's failed completely as a leader. More popular than Bush worldwide? UBL and Saddam won the same competition.

    Obama can't lead, if by leading we mean others willing or eagerly follow. He got those kids to the voting booths by way of rock concerts and parties. Now, they don't have jobs in an economy with a 46% unemployment rate in their demographic.
    Hard to imagine these folks rushing back to the polls anytime soon, except to pull the lever for a pro-business Republican. Is this sinking in?

    Dems blew it and blew it big-time. Electing Obama gave Dems more political capital than they knew what to do with. A Senator whose only executive experience consisted of handing out checks has done exactly that and nothing more. Problem is, he handed all the big ones to big pharm, big health-care, big auto, the banks, and Wall st.

    Folks noticed. And given this guy's propensity for betraying and abandoning those who made his candidacy possible (Wright, Ayers, Rezko), I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama extremely short of friends by 2012.

    Dems get nothing by standing next to this guy now. Dem policies are extremely unpopular in many states. A large proportion of Dems are definitely going to be running against Washington in 2010. That means running against Pelosi, Reid and you know who. Dems will continue to publicly support a Dem president.

    Privately? What's that saying about the buck...?


    The OFB Won't Vote For Coakley (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:05:33 PM EST
    just because Obama's there.  The OFB only vote when Obama's on the ballot.  Obama's completely useless for Democrats when he isn't on the ballot.

    The OFB? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by CST on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:07:07 PM EST
    He lost the primary here, by a pretty good margin.

    this is likely to be such a low turnout election (none / 0) (#144)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:03:10 PM EST
    that Obama doesn't need to turn out anything like the numbers it would have taken him to win Mass. in the primaries.  There are still a lot of Mass. voters enthralled with Obama (some days it seems like I work with most of them), so an appearance may actually help.

    Or, there are reports now that he'll just provoke more Republican and tea partier gotv success by showing up.  They may be a minority but the low turnout thing can cut both ways.


    Wait!!!! (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    He won Michigan when he wasn't on the ballot... you sure he can't make the same magic for others?

    How about sending Hillary? (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:06:17 PM EST
    I don't think (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Emma on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:11:33 PM EST
    I've ever seen the SoS campaign for somebody while still in office.  I think it's not allowed.  At least it shouldn't be, AFAIC.

    Well, Hillary certainly shouldn't be campaigning.. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    ... while the disaster in Haiti is ongoing. Obama's got less really direct involvement in trying to handle that.

    Powell campaigned at the UN (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:47:55 PM EST
    for the Iraq War

    I think she said she was out of politics (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:13:09 PM EST

    Didn't Condi Rice do some campaigning (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    while she was SecState?

    She took some flak for it, as I recall.


    She sure did. n/t (none / 0) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:26:18 PM EST
    It was unseemly to me. nt (none / 0) (#19)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    "people's republic" (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:07:56 PM EST
    of MA - sometimes it feels like a foreign country :)

    Love this idea. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Angel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:07:21 PM EST
    She'll be in Haiti (none / 0) (#73)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:10:16 PM EST
    Saw that -- her honeymoon site (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:28:27 PM EST
    almost 35 years ago.  How heartbreaking it will be to see Haiti today.  Me, I haven't been able to bring myself to go back to my beloved NOLA yet.

    Don't get too weepy about the Clintons (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:10:19 PM EST
    honeymooning in Haiti just yet.

    Their time being waited-on hand and foot by impoverished Haitians at Club Med in 1975 really isn't the same as playing stickball in the streets with the kids in the slums...


    Living up to your first name, I see. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:40:23 PM EST
    No wonder you prefer to remain unnamed.

    Bill Clinton campaigned today (none / 0) (#139)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:39:58 PM EST
    for Coakley.  TPM reporting this....

    Current polling showing Coakley losing (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:10:41 PM EST
    A Suffolk poll shows her down by 4....Bill Kristol (take with a grain of salt) says other private polls show the same....

    How strange that would be to have a conservative Republican elected from Massachusetts.

    Well, that's enough:  I'll phonebank in between yard work this weekend....

    According to Ambinder, Coakley internals (none / 0) (#13)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:17:33 PM EST
    show her down....

    Down by 2, I read -- but I wonder (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:25:13 PM EST
    whether the internals were before the Suffolk poll.  I.e., whether it's just a difference within the margin of error -- or a downward trajectory.

    Has Mass. ever elected a woman (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:12:53 PM EST
    to state wide office?  I seem to recall someone from decades ago but no one recently....

    Martha Coakley (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by itscookin on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    is our attorney general, which is a statewide office. We have also had female lt governors, one of whom became the acting governor. Kerry and Kennedy have been in office so long that the opportunity to vote for a woman for the senate, at least on the Democratic side, hasn't been there. This isn't about MA's unwillingness to elect a woman.

    You also had a woman governor (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:49:38 PM EST
    as I recall from the research?

    But again, Congress is a very different thing.  That's a state election to a national office.  And per the research in the previous thread, MA's record is iffy even in the House, and nada in the Senate.

    Btw, it's not just the Kennedy stranglehold on that seat.  That is so in many states.  And of course, some Kennedy women have done well in politics -- once they left the state of Massachusetts. . . .  


    Natch, that (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:14:50 PM EST
    I was thinking of Margaret Chase Smith but she was a Senator--from Maine...

    liike I said in the open (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:32:00 PM EST
    I think it means they think she will win.

    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    But I sure hope you're right.

    I think it means either a) they think she can win (a la Corzine), or b) they're hoping for a miracle, because they have no good options if she loses.

    I'm beside myself that we're in this place.


    Yes, could you imagine a year ago (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:52:05 PM EST
    on the eve of the inauguration, on the eve of Dem control of the White House and both houses of Congress, that Dems could lose a Senate seat in Massachusetts?  The historic John/Teddy Kennedy seat?  And to a nude male model in Cosmo?

    You could not make this stuff up, as they say.


    bravo (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:05:22 PM EST
    Gotta hand it to the Dems.
    Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Rahm, Geithner... Heck of a job.

    What goes up must come down, and so forth (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:56:05 PM EST
    One thing is for sure: never put money you need behind political predictions. You'd be better off at the casino.

    HorseRace betting should def. be on SportsLeft ... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ellie on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:06:49 PM EST
    I'd love it if Punditstan was forced to ante up proportionate to its outlandish fixations (and presumed effects.)

    Who knows, eventually some actual news might creep into the news at some point.


    Not any more than I could imagine (none / 0) (#32)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:01:41 PM EST
    Democrats in MA would nominate such a terrible candidate who, as the site hostess says, would make a lousy Senator.

    Belittling your opponent for shaking hands out "in the cold," turning your back on the crowd that came out, also in the cold, to see you to talk with reporters????  

    If she loses I do hope Obama and Congressional Dmeocrats view it as repudiation of their spineless bi-partisan nonsense and watered down intiatives.  I, however, and despite my deep disagreement with how the Amdinistration and COngress has pursued their too modest progressive objectives, think if she loses it is mainly because she's a lousy campaigner.  

    YOu have to show voters you genuinely value their vote and then ask them for it.  While perhaps not always sufficient to win elective office it is necessary, 100% of the time.


    A Coakley loss would be spun (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:06:54 PM EST
    as a win for Republicans and a repudiation of Progressives....

    The Democrats in Congress will become less progressive and run even further to the right....It is hard to win by losing...

    Hopefully we will never find out....


    A tough spin (none / 0) (#71)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:07:31 PM EST
    Coakley is not a progressive.

    Coakley is overall, quite liberal. I don't (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:50:23 PM EST
    honestly know what progressive means anymore.

    It means corporatism (none / 0) (#109)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:47:50 PM EST
    and jobs for the boiz.

    Coakley is a liberal (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by AX10 on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 09:13:05 PM EST
    not a progressive.
    What is left of the "Progressives" are corporatists.
    You can hardly call Martha that based upon her record.  She is also for gay rights  She led the lawsuit to overturn DOMA.

    The lesson according to coventional wisdom (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:22:33 PM EST
    will not be that Congress needs to become more progressive....It will a big, big win for Republicans...

    I am hoping this will all be a hypotheical discussion (after-all Mitt was ahead of Teddy for awhile in the race for Senate) but if is not, then we can assess what the "lesson" will be next week.

    You will have emboldened tea baggers...


    I detest the Republican party (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:05:53 PM EST
    but I must honestly say that if it is a big win for them on Tuesday, I simply couldn't care less.

    I no longer care about the Democrats.

    If they do something I identify with, I will care about them.


    Can't lose what we never had (none / 0) (#124)
    by NealB on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:19:41 PM EST

    It would be spun that way (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 08:43:23 PM EST
    Because that would be the truth.  Independents are seeing what an allegedly "progressive" president (except to those of us who really paid attention) has done and are running in droves the other way.

    No spin needed.  She loses, it IS a big win for Republicans.


    What would hurt most about this loss ... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ellie on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:58:08 PM EST
    ... is Teddy's seat going to the GOP.

    What a freakin' year, huh? The political area of my brain -- if that particular grey matter has been charted in medical mapping -- has been fried to a crisp.


    Brown scored a lot (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by itscookin on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:21:37 PM EST
    of points in the last debate with the audience when he corrected the moderator. "This isn't the Kennedy seat or the Democrats' seat. It's the people's seat."

    That's pretty good ... did it seem scripted (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ellie on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:37:35 PM EST
    ... or was it spontaneous?

    Either way, it only seems just that this particular seat go to the librulest librul that ever libbed.

    I can't stand DINOs like Ben Nelson being called "moderate" and centrists or, hell, even GW Bush being called "liberal" as an ambient slur.


    The nude male model... (none / 0) (#122)
    by NealB on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:17:54 PM EST
    ...may be a plus. You can see what you're going to get.

    Darn staple (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by itscookin on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:24:36 PM EST
    Oh! That's what that was? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by DFLer on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:09:39 PM EST
    Nothing to run on (5.00 / 13) (#28)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:56:16 PM EST
    It is incredible.  In one year, the Democrats have destroyed almost any reason one would have for voting for them.  What's Coakley supposed to say?  Vote for her so the Democrats can end the wars?  Vote for her so the Democrats can reign in the banks?  Vote for her so the Democrats can really reform healthcare?  Vote for her to protect abortion rights?  Vote for her so that Democrats will do something to help the jobless b

    The Democrats have proven that with or without Coakley, they have no interest in doing any of these things.  So there's no real reason for people who want those things - Democrats - to go to the polls and vote for her.  

    And I agree it's amazing that we're in this place, but this is where we are and the Democratic leadership put us here and, from what I can tell, it's where they want to be policy-wise, if not election-wise.


    Obama's robocall said exactly this (5.00 / 5) (#148)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:12:32 PM EST
    He told me I needed to help Coakley win so he could hold the big banks accountable, reform healthcare and stop the stranglehold on it by the insurance companies, and fight for green jobs.  I actually snorted out loud listening.

    Obviously his message is aimed at the percent of Mass. voters (and it's larger than you'd think) who still believe he's trying to do these things.


    So . . . (none / 0) (#29)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:57:50 PM EST
    Obama showing up could really sink her?

    Yes, it could. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by itscookin on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:29:51 PM EST
    There is very little chance that it will help. This is not a good move.

    As BTD said down the list, it's enough for me (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:00:58 PM EST
    that she's materially better than her Republican opponent. But that's by no means enough to sustain a majority, because there are voters other than me.

    True (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:10:03 PM EST
    But what's the point in voting for the materially better person if it doesn't result in any materially better policy?  Because while Obama speaks in complete sentences, virtually every major policy I hated under Bush is still in place under Obama.

    Personally, I think Coakley screwed up by backing down on her opposition to HCR because of the abortion restrictions (although my guess is she was under a lot of pressure from the national party to do it).  It made her look weak and too much like the DC Democrats who came to power promising one thing and have mostly delivered the opposite.  She should've leveraged her position as a state official and run against Washington and against Wall Street, promising to represent Massachusetts and the people.  It's too late for that, however, because she already caved on the issue that separated her from them (and I think it's the act of caving that hurt her more than the issue itself, although her base is women).

    To be clear, I don't really have an opinion on whether it's better to put Coakley in or punish the Democrats.  If I were in Mass, I'd probably vote for her, primarily to get another woman into office.  But I might not.  I'm kind of done caring whether or not Democrats win.    


    From my perspective, (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:15:35 PM EST
    even if the Dems aren't good enough--and they aren't--the Republicans are guaranteed to be a disaster. I'll take mediocre over malicious any day of the week.

    What makes you think the Dems (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:22:35 PM EST
    aren't malicious?  Shoveling trillions of dollars from regular people to the rich seems pretty malicious to me.

    Not that I'm a fan of Republicans. They're awful, too, although at least they don't pretend to be anything other than awful.  

    I guess after the last couple of years I've just become convinced that our political system is completely broken and so getting invested in which brand of awful wins an election is getting to be very hard to do.


    malicious? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:24:55 PM EST
    I just made a similar comment on another blog.
    I was cynical before the last election but since then it has gotten completely out of hand.
    I am literally starting to think none of us deserve to survive.  politically or otherwise.

    I differ. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:03:54 PM EST
    I think WE deserve to survive.

    It's the political parties that don't deserve to survive.
    It's the government that doesn't deserve to survive.

    I like us.


    I like us too (none / 0) (#74)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:12:43 PM EST
    I've argued on tis site for months that we need three real parties.

    Progressive, Moderate and Conservative.

    Let moderates stop pretending they're dems or repubs and lets blow up the existing parties.

    It makes too much sense to happen.


    From my perspective (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:01:57 PM EST
    the democrats are both mediocre and malicious.
    Drones are malicious.
    The wars are malicious.
    The healthcare bill is malicious in it's treatment of women, imo.
    The patriot act which they rubber stamped is malicious.

    The only difference I could articulate might be that the Republicans are already good at being malicious, while the democrats are still learning.


    Democrats are malicious (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by NealB on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:28:01 PM EST
    Look at the narcissism of Lieberman, Nelson, Baucus; so-called Democratic Senators. Look at every coward in Congress that calls itself a progressive but fails to fight while their constituents lives are diminished. It may be a passive kind of malice, but it's malicious nonetheless.

    "All that is needed for evil to triumph (none / 0) (#180)
    by cawaltz on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 02:45:06 AM EST
    is for good men/women to stand idly by and do nothing."

    I can't remember who said it but it seems pretty appropos.


    Exactly true (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:16:22 PM EST
    and, so what that Brown has opposing views on anything. His vote will be with the Republicans. They, alone, can't get anything passed. But, Coakley can help Obama collect a whole lot of lousy legislation ticks behind his name.

    I think we've all seen the consequences of believing any dem is better than any repub... once in awhile we have to look at the whole picture. This Dem POTUS will do no good with his 60 vote majority.


    On the other hand, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:27:16 PM EST
    IG, although it will look bad in the short term for Obama if the Dems lose a Senate seat, he can then always use "I didn't have a veto-proof majority in the Senate" as his excuse for not enacting any progressive legislation, when he wants to run again in 2012.  Maybe his very late help in the race in MA is to show that yes, he supports fellow Dems, but, secretly, he wants her to lose so he has his excuse.  My head hurts- I can't follow this gazillion-dimensional chess.

    Obama's research... (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by NealB on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:31:09 PM EST
    ...is better than the best available to the rest of us. He's known for weeks this race was in trouble. He's known for months that his broken promises were burying the Democratic Party; he's been delivering the dirt and passing out the shovels for months.

    Sotomayor (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:29:07 PM EST
    is a reliably liberal vote.

    The Supreme Court matters and may be the body to decide gay marriage...


    But... (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:57:17 PM EST
    The Supreme Court matters and may be the body to decide gay marriage..

    which, incidentally, Obama opposes.


    Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    if Obama appoints someone to replace one of the conservatives or Kennedy, the Supreme Court could validate gay marriage....

    The emergency appeal on the issue of televising the gay marriage trial could be a proxy for gay marriage.  The conservaitves strained to stop the coverage....The four liberals, which now includes Sotomayor, dissented....


    Those who are watching the gay marriage (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:28:30 PM EST
    trial have to know that the effort is futile right now....

    The current make-up of the Supreme Court would not allow gay marriage--especially if they won't even allow t.v. coverage of the trial.....

    More Sotomayors would help....


    And with initiatives stuck (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:36:24 PM EST
    at 48% support of gay marriage even in liberal states, the Supreme Court a la' Brown v. Board of Education may be the best bet for advocates of gay marriage within the next decade or so....

    Brown preceded the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act by several years.  Without Supreme Court invtervention, it could be a long, long wait.


    THe Brown Court (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:28:47 PM EST
    was headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, who would not decide the Brown case until he had unanimous support, because he thought the issue was one of essential importance to the nation and unanimity of the Court would give the decision the added weight to make a clear and forceful statement.
    Gone are the days...

    Oh, thank you (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:57:56 PM EST
    for not using Roe v. Wade again.  That ol' SCOTUS scare tactic just is so tired, and especially for those of us who know how little of Roe v. Wade is left anymore, anyway, and also know how little the Dems care.  

    I left it out (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:31:34 PM EST
    because it seems secure for now with Obama likely to replace Stevens at the end of this term.  Stevens has not hired clerks for next term.....

    How little of the Roe is left....It could be a lot worse....


    So you want Coakley defeated? (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:39:30 PM EST

    There is, of course, that too (none / 0) (#33)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:03:19 PM EST
    good analysis

    BDB, you forgot (none / 0) (#40)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:14:49 PM EST
    ....vote for her so that the Democrats can overturn DADT and DOMA?

    Democrats will not overturn DOMA or DADT (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by NealB on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:01:43 PM EST
    Whether Coakley wins or not.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#152)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:31:58 PM EST
    I believe that's the point.

    Although I will say that Coakley's suit against the feds over DOMA is one of the better things she has going for her.


    Levin is bringing up DADT (none / 0) (#155)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:46:07 PM EST
    My take is that he wasn't going to go (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:00:45 PM EST
    when he thought she was going to win, and now that it looks like she could lose, and along with it, that all-important 60th Dem seat, he doesn't have any choice but to show up and campaign.

    Will be interesting to see what kind of reception he gets and how full-throated his support.


    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:11:29 PM EST
    it would be bad enough if she loses.  but if he goes and campaigns for and THEN she loses.



    And... (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:51:06 PM EST
    what if Coakley pulls it out - after Obama campaigned for her?

    Then he's a ------g hero.

    Worth the gamble for them I guess.


    It would look worse if he didn't campaign (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:56:28 PM EST
    and she lost. Alot of Democrats would see that as Obama not caring in the least about a democratic agenda.

    Jaded. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:48:50 PM EST
    The impression I get is that the puppet-masters told Obama to go.
    So he is going.

    Not "soft on drugs" > loss? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 02:43:58 PM EST
    How much of the "enthusiasm gap" Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley is facing in her Senate bid stems from her opposition to the Marijuana Decriminalization initiative that voters passed with 65% of the vote last November, and her subsequent refusal to investigate the District Attorneys who illegally used State resources to oppose it and smear proponents?

    Will the Real Drug Reform Candidate Please Stand?
    The two big-party candidates for Senate do little to distinguish themselves on drug policy.

    The "enthusiasm gap" (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by itscookin on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:27:34 PM EST
    for Coakley is directly from her flip-flop on voting for the HCR bill. No one is talking or caring much about anything else except the out of state bloggers who are looking up every case she handled as DA and every move she made as AG. She won her election for AG with 69% of the vote, and she trounced Capuano in the primary. Until she said she would vote for the senate HCR, she was a popular lady.

    None of it (none / 0) (#69)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:06:21 PM EST
    Any other questions?

    Seriously, mj decriminalization is not a super-hot item on anybody's agenda except maybe kdog's.

    Come on.  You know better than that.


    While my Facebook and Myspace feedback (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:14:32 PM EST
    is obviously a VERY skewed sample, it's enough to show there's SOME impact. Not votes swinging to Brown, but either to Kennedy or staying home. Maybe only 1/4 of a percent, perhaps as much as 2%. Valley Advocate's circulation is 45,000

    Very, very much doubt (none / 0) (#171)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 11:23:49 PM EST
    it's anywhere near 2 percent in this election.  In any case, there are literally dozens of fringe issues that can sway a half a percentage point on either side.

    Result if she loses: (none / 0) (#46)
    by robotalk on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:22:58 PM EST
    a.  Obama goes even further right in the name of bipartisanship--he uses her loss as an excuse to do more of the same; or

    b.  Obama realizes that running to the right and being timid erodes his base and and steers left.

    Bets are on the former, unfortunately.

    About "b" (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:44:46 PM EST
    There are some assumptions that you are making with respect to your choice (b) above, imo.

    You are assuming that Obama is not already on the right.
    You are assuming that he is eroding his base. I assume that his base is the group he has been catering to since he took office.

    He escalates wars. He keeps Gitmo going. He keeps rendition going. He tramples on civil liberties as well as his predecessor.
    The Constitution is still in the shredder.
    The insurance-care bill that he endorses is nothing but a bonanza for Big Pharma and the insurance lobby.

    People who support all this are his base.
    The rest of us are left in the cold with a basket full of "hope".
    He played us for suckers to get elected. But we were never his base.


    Gitmo and torture (none / 0) (#193)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:45:44 AM EST
    You should give Obama where credit is due....

    For the two most notorious terrorists, KSM and the underewear bomber, Obama is putting his money where his mouth is.  Both will be tried in civilian court without any waterboarding (or further waterboarding in KSM's case.)

    Supermajorities in this country, according to recent polling, want the underwear bomber to be tortured and tried by a military tribunal.  Obama has taken an unpopopular stand here and yets gets no credit for it from the left and criticism for it from the right....


    Obama will be steering right regardless (none / 0) (#146)
    by NealB on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:06:14 PM EST
    . There is no evidence he wants to go anywhere on the left. He hates lefties.

    1994 is your guide (none / 0) (#194)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:47:46 AM EST
    As much as you disdain Obama, look at what Bill did in 1995--he triangulated....That is what will happen if Democrats lose....

    Any thoughts to the contrary are sheer fantasy.


    Desperation (none / 0) (#52)
    by Spamlet on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:32:02 PM EST
    Here in Oakland, I just got an e-mail from Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, asking me to donate to Coakley's campaign.

    Same here in the heartland. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    Ha, as if.  Here, this economy is hurting so much that even the local boyos are going to go begging.

    But it also shows that state and national Dems still have not, despite their promises, taking me off their mailing lists.  Off to the spam filter, I go again.  The list there is becoming legion.


    I saw on the news that (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:26:38 PM EST
    Brown got 1.3Million dollars donated to him in one day. I believe it was the day post-debate.

    And a million every day since then, (none / 0) (#177)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:50:49 AM EST
    It's rather astonishing.  

    I've lost count on how many (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:39:07 PM EST
    requests I have gotten. All the 'big' guns have asked. Interestingly, I don't think Gillibrand has sent me anything. She did ask for me to support the Red Cross though . . .

    Stupid question...but (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:40:44 PM EST
    When is the vote in MA?

    Tuesday I think (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:43:06 PM EST
    obviously, I didn't read all those money requests too thoroughly, lol!~

    Me neither, even more obviously! (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:53:58 PM EST
    Thanks. I was wondering why all the heightened interest.  Back in the fall it seemed so far away - I forgot about the special election.

    Tues. Jan 19th (none / 0) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:08:07 PM EST
    ie, four days away.

    nother question (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:23:10 PM EST
    if she loses does that in any way increase the chances that they might go to some kind of reconciliation thing?

    Not a chance (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:49:41 PM EST
    After a loss like that, who is going to stick their neck out for something like that?

    Why are they sticking their necks out now? (none / 0) (#178)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 12:52:01 AM EST
    No one wants this awful bill.  Why are senators willing to risk their jobs for Obama?  I'm not understanding this.  

    Good point (none / 0) (#189)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:32:25 AM EST
    Why are all 60 voting for it--including Socialist Bernie Sanders?

    I suppose one answer is that they are all craven corporate collaborators.  Or, they are all stupid.  All 60 of them.  And all the progessive leaders in the House too....

    Maybe the answer is that the bill has some merit....

    The Rockefeller amendments will significantly regulate the insurance companies....one step towards taking them to utility company status.

    I know the convenstional wisdom around here is that bill should not pass.  But all 60 Democrats disagree with you--100% of them.  


    If she loses, the bill is dead (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:53:06 PM EST
    Reconciliation might not allow them to pass the mandate, and that's what the insurance companies love.  And Obama and the Democrats want to make the insurance companies happy.

    Good (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:56:48 PM EST
    Up in here in the coffee shop, the idea of being forced to buy junk insurance isn't going down real well. And Sicko is in the library, and circulating.

    You think that if the bill fails, a new (none / 0) (#190)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:37:47 AM EST
    more progressive bill will emerge?  Maybe in another 15-20 years.

    If the bill fails, you will have another 1994 on your hands....And the failure of the first bill did not lead to another, better bill in 1995.

    And Hillary was the one for mandates in the Primary, not Obama.  It is the height of irony that Obama is being attached by former Hillary supporters for his adoption of Hillary's idea.

    And, as to public options making the difference--I doubt all that all that many democrats knew much about that during the primaries, and who's to say Rockefeller's amenmdments won't be a suitable substitute....


    The (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:12:21 PM EST
    gutless Democrats do not want to use reconciliation.
    If they had, we would have had a strong public option. Maybe even single-payer. They don't want it.  So they'll blame it on not having 60 votes.

    No one during the Primary (none / 0) (#192)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    advocated a single payer system--not Hillary, not Edwards, not Obama.....

    The reality is that single payer had no support.  If Coakley is defeated, you can kiss any health reform goodbye for a dedcade at least.......


    If Brown wins, he will be a national celebrity (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 04:48:25 PM EST
    He would likely be the Republican choice for VP in 2012....

    And... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:07:53 PM EST
    we'll have Biden.

    Instead of Cosmo he'll do Playgirl (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:43:16 PM EST

    Brown win = GOoPer braggin rights for 3 yrs (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Ellie on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 08:53:57 PM EST
    I can't begin to imagine the malice of commentary should the Liberal Lion's seat fall to a Pug.

    Ideally Ted Kennedy's ghost would rain destruction on the library of Congress or force Demi Moore to the pottery wheel. (Heck, forget sending Obama to Mass. -- what about Whoopi Goldberg for sheer freakout value?)


    Why VP? More like 2012 Presidential Choice (none / 0) (#101)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:12:39 PM EST
    Obama spent less years as Senator in 2008 than Brown would have if he was elected in 2012.  Heck, I bet you would be hearing this talking point over and over again.

    And Brown looked even better (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:51:55 PM EST
    shirtless than does Obama.  But thank heavens Obama kept his pants on, at least.

    This is going the way of a Leno joke about role reversals for Repubs and Dems.  So I'll stop now.


    Palin supports Brownie, so now (none / 0) (#114)
    by DFLer on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:55:30 PM EST
    like I said before, she will have to retract her comments about Levi J doing porn, heh?

    Maybe. Maybe not. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 06:00:09 PM EST
    Consistency has been a real hobgoblin to politicians on both sides, hasn't it?

    I know you said it before, and I know it's fashionable here to bring Palin into everything, but I'm more of the bored-by-overreaction school.


    Yeah I know what you mean. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by DFLer on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:19:24 PM EST
    Union bashing was certainly more fashionable here today than palin bashing

    And so? (none / 0) (#118)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:58:28 PM EST
    Sounds like a good reason to write in "None of the above" to me.

    I commend Republicans on understanding the big (none / 0) (#165)
    by AX10 on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 09:21:32 PM EST
    picture.  Republicans vote all the time for anything and everything.  Even if they lost, they will minimize their losses if possible.  I am tired of being one of the few who votes Democratic in most every election and being alone at the voting booth.  In Fairfield County CT, the GOP swept most municipal offices by wide margins because the democrats could not get off their rear ends to vote.  Corzine could have pulled through if the Democrats came out to vote, now they are stuck with a Karl Rove Protege for the next 4 years.

    It's just the nature of the Democratic coalition (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 09:53:13 PM EST
    I think if you controlled for demographic factors, you wouldn't find much difference.