tangent4ronpaul
01-18-2010, 05:57 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/16/coakleys_rocky_run/
Perhaps it is true that Martha Coakley has run a lousy campaign and Scott Brown has run a terrific campaign. Actually, that is true.
But, really, this is all about the voters, many of whom are clearly tired of being told what to think and who they should vote for, and are taking things into their own hands.
Even as someone who criticized Coakley early on for blandness, I find it hard not to feel sorry for her. She is suddenly being savaged - especially in the national media - as mediocre, which she certainly is not. (That would be Scott Brown.) Popular just a few weeks ago, suddenly it’s as though no one quite knows how she got on the ballot.
She became a credible Senate candidate by being competent and methodical. She has been a good prosecutor and solid attorney general. But qualities of hers that were viewed as admirable a few months ago have morphed into liabilities.
And clearly she has had no idea how to deal with it. It was downright painful in the debate Monday night to watch her trying to assure voters that she has a personality and a sense of humor, without actually daring to say anything personal or funny.
It’s hard to remember a candidate for major office so afraid of revealing his or her personality.
Her single biggest problem is that voters don’t feel like they know enough about her. Fixing that in a weekend may not be possible.
Understand that I am not hosting a Coakley pity party here. First of all, she may well win. Still, if she doesn’t win, after entering with every conceivable advantage, her defeat will be well-earned.
Some of Coakley’s struggles reflect, I think, a common hazard for female politicians.
Because they are judged more harshly than their male counterparts, they struggle to project competence, seriousness, earnestness. They work within the mainstream, the better to not be dismissed.
And then they find themselves branded as “too cautious,’’ even “boring.’’ In a state that has only sent men to the Senate, Coakley is, remarkably, cast as the status quo candidate.
We won’t know until Tuesday night whether bringing President Obama in to campaign was a good idea or a bad one. At first blush, though, it’s problematic. It reinforces the idea that Coakley can’t close the deal with voters by herself. And worse, it reinforces the idea that she is simply a product of a political machine.
Her response, at crunch time, is to rely on the White House and the Democratic National Committee - even as her opponent is imploring voters to vote for “me against the machine.’’
His message is resonating. Her strategy isn’t.
If nothing else, give Brown credit for having a better sense of the mood of the voters. They got tired of hearing that it was “Ted Kennedy’s seat.’’ (Best line of the campaign, by Brown: “It isn’t Ted Kennedy’s seat, it belongs to the people of Massachusetts.’’)
They got tired of hearing that they had to save an unpopular health care proposal.
They got tired, as voters always do, of inevitability. Voters hate inevitability.
So it’s down to the last weekend, Brown’s well-financed insurgency and pledges of “independence’’ against Coakley’s guest campaigners and withering attack ads.
If Coakley loses, a lot of people could go down with her, starting with Governor Deval Patrick. If Brown can win, Charlie Baker can win. Hell, if Brown can come close to winning, Baker could win.
If Coakley wins, it will be as a diminished figure who mostly owes her victory to outside forces. But perhaps it doesn’t matter how one becomes a US senator.
The scenario Coakley used to fear was having to run against a Kennedy.
But the real danger lurked elsewhere.
It was running as the candidate of the establishment with an electorate that suddenly seems to want anything else.
-
I'd like one LANDSLIDE to go please! ;)
-t
Perhaps it is true that Martha Coakley has run a lousy campaign and Scott Brown has run a terrific campaign. Actually, that is true.
But, really, this is all about the voters, many of whom are clearly tired of being told what to think and who they should vote for, and are taking things into their own hands.
Even as someone who criticized Coakley early on for blandness, I find it hard not to feel sorry for her. She is suddenly being savaged - especially in the national media - as mediocre, which she certainly is not. (That would be Scott Brown.) Popular just a few weeks ago, suddenly it’s as though no one quite knows how she got on the ballot.
She became a credible Senate candidate by being competent and methodical. She has been a good prosecutor and solid attorney general. But qualities of hers that were viewed as admirable a few months ago have morphed into liabilities.
And clearly she has had no idea how to deal with it. It was downright painful in the debate Monday night to watch her trying to assure voters that she has a personality and a sense of humor, without actually daring to say anything personal or funny.
It’s hard to remember a candidate for major office so afraid of revealing his or her personality.
Her single biggest problem is that voters don’t feel like they know enough about her. Fixing that in a weekend may not be possible.
Understand that I am not hosting a Coakley pity party here. First of all, she may well win. Still, if she doesn’t win, after entering with every conceivable advantage, her defeat will be well-earned.
Some of Coakley’s struggles reflect, I think, a common hazard for female politicians.
Because they are judged more harshly than their male counterparts, they struggle to project competence, seriousness, earnestness. They work within the mainstream, the better to not be dismissed.
And then they find themselves branded as “too cautious,’’ even “boring.’’ In a state that has only sent men to the Senate, Coakley is, remarkably, cast as the status quo candidate.
We won’t know until Tuesday night whether bringing President Obama in to campaign was a good idea or a bad one. At first blush, though, it’s problematic. It reinforces the idea that Coakley can’t close the deal with voters by herself. And worse, it reinforces the idea that she is simply a product of a political machine.
Her response, at crunch time, is to rely on the White House and the Democratic National Committee - even as her opponent is imploring voters to vote for “me against the machine.’’
His message is resonating. Her strategy isn’t.
If nothing else, give Brown credit for having a better sense of the mood of the voters. They got tired of hearing that it was “Ted Kennedy’s seat.’’ (Best line of the campaign, by Brown: “It isn’t Ted Kennedy’s seat, it belongs to the people of Massachusetts.’’)
They got tired of hearing that they had to save an unpopular health care proposal.
They got tired, as voters always do, of inevitability. Voters hate inevitability.
So it’s down to the last weekend, Brown’s well-financed insurgency and pledges of “independence’’ against Coakley’s guest campaigners and withering attack ads.
If Coakley loses, a lot of people could go down with her, starting with Governor Deval Patrick. If Brown can win, Charlie Baker can win. Hell, if Brown can come close to winning, Baker could win.
If Coakley wins, it will be as a diminished figure who mostly owes her victory to outside forces. But perhaps it doesn’t matter how one becomes a US senator.
The scenario Coakley used to fear was having to run against a Kennedy.
But the real danger lurked elsewhere.
It was running as the candidate of the establishment with an electorate that suddenly seems to want anything else.
-
I'd like one LANDSLIDE to go please! ;)
-t