Martha Coakley: Progressive Bloggers Remind Us Why

Tomorrow is election day in Massachusetts.  In addition to our own Liz O’Donnell’s work, here’s some wisdom from Progressive bloggers about the race:

FROM DIGBY on HULLABALOO:   I think a lot depends upon this election in Massachusetts, frankly. If Martha Coakley loses, it will be very bad for progressives.  Worse than we can imagine. After the so-called lessons of Virginia and New Jersey, there will be no fighting back the perception that the party is in big trouble, regardless of whether it’s true — and it’s hard to argue at that point that it isn’t.  Sadly,  the lesson that will be taken from losing Ted Kennedy’s seat to a right wing Republican  is not that the Democrats have been too liberal, I guarantee it. What will follow will likely be a sharp turn to the right. 

So, job one is to make sure that Senator Playmate is defeated.  If you live in Massachusetts, and I know I have readers there, please do what you can to get out the vote.  The consequences are quite dire if Coakley loses.
FROM JENNIFER A. NEDEAU on her blog JENNIFER:If she wins she will be the 18th female in the Senate, she will vote on progressive issues and help pave the way for more legislation to be passed that favors women’s rights.

This is why I need Martha Coakley to win. I can’t continue to watch misogynistic men win elections and roll back the rights to my body, to my freedom of choice, to my paycheck, to my personal dignity. 

FROM JILL MILLER SIMON, WRITES LIKE SHE TALKS:      Yes, I would vote for her if I was eligible to vote in Massachusetts.  And yes, I do expect she will   win. I could be wrong – wouldn’t be the first time (I wanted Joe Biden in the 2008 primary), but that’s my prediction.

Regular readers can guess why:

…. Scott Brown is an untenable option for me just on the basis of his positions on pretty much every single issue that matters to me:

He is anti-choice bordering on being anti-woman (see more here, where the Boston Globe compares the candidates’ positions on choice), hethinks Obama was born out of wedlock, he espouses a position that denies decency to rape victimsanti-immigration groups love himgun rights advocates want him, he opposes same-sex marriagedisparaged and then apologized for disparaging lesbian adoption,  supports the federal DOMA and is considered anti-science.


FROM NICK BAUMANN, MOTHER JONES   …. I don’t understand how liberals—including many people who helped develop the liberal critique of the news media—could fail to see how Republicans, conservative Democrats, and the media will spin Democratic defeats in Massachusetts on Tuesday and/or in the November midterms. It’s as if people are ignoring their own beliefs about how the media operates….

If you’re just arguing that the Democrats might need a wake-up call reminding them that they have to energize their base, that’s perfectly reasonable. (I suggested as much on Friday.) The very fact that the race to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts with health care and everything else on the line is coming down to the wire should be wakeup call aplenty. Democrats don’t need Coakley to lose in order to realize they have a base mobilization problem. If you’re a liberal who’s out there arguing that a Coakley loss will “help liberals,” please go read the rest of digby’s post right now. And remember what happened when too many liberals sat out the 2000 election (or voted for Nader).

FROM LEFT IN ALABAMA:  Coakley’s opponent thought maybe Barack Obama was born out of wedlock, opposes health care legislation but doesn’t pay health insurance for his own workersvoted to deny financial assistance to 9/11 volunteers and sponsored and amendment allowing rape victims to be denied emergency contraception

FROM PUNDITMOM:  If this isn’t a huge lesson in taking voters for granted, I don’t know what is.  Martha Coakley should have been on top of this, but the whole Democratic party should have, as well.  Harry Reid knew we needed that one vote in the Senate.  The DNC knew it.  President Obama knew it.

Yes, we all knew it.

Yet here we are, three days out with the pick-up truck guy ready to buy his ticket for Washington, D.C.

If Coakley loses because the Democratic party was enjoying its blissful ignorance, I think it may be time to start a party of my own.


BY Alcon via Flickr/Creative Commons


Randy M6 years ago

The hand count showed that Martha Coakley won the special election. This was done after she conceded to Brown. These companies have a history of vote tampering and were used to steal the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. If Coakley had truly wanted to "honor her good friend Ted Kennedy" she would have contested the election and fought with the pluck and determination of her ally, not caved in as John Kerry. See link below:

TERRANCE N6 years ago

Roger H. I feel an even better message to both parties would be to vote for more independent candidates and third party candidates.

The two parties have had us voters on their threadmill for countless election cycles. Only Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura have been able to break this cycle.

The partician logjam will only be broken when the two party monopoly is broken. Look at Canada. They have a multi-party system that acts as a check and balance.

Nothing gets done of substance because the voters really don't exercise real power except our vote. Corporate lobbyist has greater leverage because our present system is based on compaign contributions that have turned our politicians into beggars and whores.

Today the supreme court is going to declare that corporations has just as much free speech rights as individuals. If this happens, the power of voters will be practically none existent. Our elected official must be urged to pass real compaign finance reform.

Roger H.
.6 years ago

I think the exit polls of the voters in Massachusetts showed that a majority of the voters feel that anything relating to the economy and jobs (as well as public financing) should be concentrated on before health care. A majority of the independent voters across the country feel that way. Government in the last year has been throwing more and more money at Wall Street and big corporations and they have been thumbing their noses at us. People are tired of the broken promises by both congress and the White House and haven't seen the changes that they thought they were going to see. This election as well as the results in New Jersey and Virginia should be a wake up call to Washington that if things don't change, many people in the House and Senate ( both Republican and Democrat) will be replaced in the November 2010 elections.

TERRANCE N6 years ago

Roger H. I heard Coadley took for granted that Kennedy's seat was her's. I also heard that she wondered why she should be campaigning at Fenway Park. She also ran a miserable compaign. If this is true, she should have lost.

Like Coakley and Obama, too many of our politicians take us for granted because our political makes compaign contributions more important than votes.

Politicians should care about the voters issues most of the time, not only on election day. That is why we need public financing of compaigns. Public financing should have been done before healthcare.

Paul Puckett
Paul Puckett6 years ago

Coakley's conciliation speech should be remembered and studied by all future politicians. It was clear, concise, humorous, and very well delivered.

She was in an untenable position. The tidal wave that swept over her campaign was partly a clear message from Brown but mainly driven by voters frustration with DC. Just my opinion, as always.

Roger H.
.6 years ago

Well now that the votes are in and Coakley has already given her concession speech, we will see if President Obama meant what he said about transparency and bipartisanship. Maybe some positive health care negotiations can come out of this and we can get a health care reform bill that we need, since all incumbent legislators who are up for reelection in 2010 are now shaking in their boots.

Carol C.
Carol C.6 years ago

Wayne, do you really believe that a vote for Martha Coakley is a step toward "disadvantaged United States citizens can enjoy the same quality of health care enjoyed by members of congress."
I thought everyone knew that to be an empty promise. No one is even pretending to promise that. Check the voting record, they voted down the one guy who suggested that they, congress should take the same health care that they are dealing out to the rest of us. You are very hopeful!
For my part, I think anyone who promises a rosegarden is suspect. My faith allows me to hope to see the day in heaven when it is so, but this group of politicians we have in DC now seems far from being willing to actually live the selflessness they profess.... on either side of the isle !

Patricia S.
Pat S6 years ago

Scott Brown is everything we want. I'm praying he'll win!

Roger H.
.6 years ago

While I agree with your assessment of the GWB administration, your last statements give people a good reason not to vote for Coakley. She actually thinks that all the Taliban have been run out of Afghanistan and that Massachusett's beloved Kurt Schilling is a big Yankee fan among her other ignorant statements that she made during her campaign about foreign and domestic topics that someone running for Senate should know.

Wayne M.
Wayne M6 years ago

Why vote for Martha Coakley? So disadvantaged United States citizens can enjoy the same quality of health care enjoyed by members of congress.