Things that matter, and things that don’t

First, let’s set the record straight on something.  Martha Coakley did not lose the Senate race because she thought that Curt Schilling played for the Yankees.  That gaffe did not halt the momentum of what otherwise would have been a win for the Democrats.  What it did, rather, was reinforce a narrative that had already gathered a probably-unstoppable-anyway head of steam by that point: that Coakley was aloof and was taking her election for granted instead of working for it (on that score, the comment about shaking hands outside Fenway Park in the cold was far more damaging).  In that context, her gaffe about Schilling was damaging for two related reasons: (1) it added to a growing sense that Coakley was “out of touch” with the “real” Massachusetts, and (2) it revealed her as a poser – someone who was pretending to be something she wasn’t (in this case a minimally knowledgeable Red Sox fan).  As I’ve written before, a “poser” is one of a few political stereotypes that can be extremely damaging to a candidate who becomes associated with them.  Her problem wasn’t that she didn’t know who Curt Schilling was; it’s that she pretended to know and got caught out.  If, even at that late stage of the campaign, Coakley had responded to the Curt Schilling question (or comment, I forget which) by changing the subject, or even by confessing ignorance, nobody would remember it as a significant event in the campaign.

Now, why do I bring this up?  Because yesterday, on what seems generally to have been a well-received first day on the campaign trail for Elizabeth Warren (even the Democrat-hatin’ Kevin Whalen of WRKO and Pundit Review called it “a good first impression“), a reporter apparently asked her to name some current Red Sox players, and she declined to do so.  This report, naturally, spurred a back-and-forth on Twitter about whether or not it mattered, and why.

It didn’t.  Let’s talk in stereotypes for a moment: Elizabeth Warren is a 62-year-old grandmother.  Other things being equal, nobody expects a “person like that” to be able to rattle off the Red Sox starting lineup.  Therefore, when such a person is asked to do so and demurs, it doesn’t matter – nothing has changed.

Now, of course, Elizabeth Warren isn’t just any 62-year-old grandmother.  She is a 62-year-old grandmother who is running for Senate, and therefore what the public thinks of her matters.  So if the public already saw Warren as out of touch with their lives and concerns, or worse, if she had previously made some comments suggesting that she knew a lot about baseball, and then she couldn’t name anyone, it would matter.  But none of that is the case.  To the contrary, early reports suggest that Warren is both good at connecting with middle-class voters – not surprising, given that her life’s work has been to champion their interests – and disarmingly honest about her relative lack of knowledge about the Red Sox.  (The Telegram article reports that Warren “asked supporters after her campaign stop how the team was doing, gesturing to televisions showing the game inside the restaurant.”)

The best thing Elizabeth Warren (or, really, any candidate) can do is to be herself – and she seems to get this, given her comment quoted in the Telegram: “I can’t change what I do or who I am.”  If she doesn’t know anything about the Red Sox, great!  There’s nothing wrong with that.  She’s not running for Commissioner of Major League Baseball.  And, frankly, voters care a lot more about whether they think a candidate understands their concerns about things that really matter – like their jobs and their families’ economic prospects – than whether their candidate can rattle off a bunch of Red Sox starters.  If Warren can assure voters on the former, her honest lack of knowledge on the latter will be utterly irrelevant.


74 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Agreed

    Man, I wish reporters would stop asking stupid questions like that. Who truly cares about that? Honestly…you’re right, people only care when a politician says something stupid or shows that they’re being disingenuous. If they’re honest and say “hey, I don’t know” no one bats an eyelash.

  2. It's truly pathetic

    that the MA GOP thinks this is such an awesome issue for them. Politico:

    Byron emailed over a press release from the Massachusetts GOP, which points out that Elizabeth Warren couldn’t name a Red Sox player when she was asked yesterday.

    The release goes on to compare Warren’s comments to Martha Coakley’s “infamous gaffe” in 2010, and calls it a sign that Warren “comes from a world of Harvard elitism and is far removed from the middle-class values she claims to represent.”

    Really amazing that the MA GOP is more concerned about the Red Sox starting lineup than about helping the middle class. But there ya go. Fortunately, Politico isn’t fooled, and I don’t think many others will be either.

    The Warren/Coakley storyline is one that’s unlikely to go away in the race, as the state GOP tries hard to make Warren look weak and out of touch — but Coakley and Warren are, beyond superficial similarities, utterly different characters, and I’m not sure it’s going to stick.

    • I would love to see Warren

      provide a sound bite that states unequivocally that her lack of Red Sox starting lineup knowledge has nothing to do with protecting a middle-class family from corporate Wall St abuse and that the GOP is playing frivolous games while the families suffer. She should say ‘one thing I do know is that the average middle class family can no longer afford to attend a Red Sox game and thats something I’m going to fight to change”.

      • That's a good idea.

        For a family of 4 to see a Sox game from, let’s say, the grandstand (roughly average ticket prices), the outlay will be better than $200 just for tickets. Add transportation, parking, hot dogs, and a couple of souvenirs, and you’re probably looking at a $300 outing easy. Not chicken feed. Those might be useful numbers for her to have handy.

        • Exactly.

          Because knowing THAT type of information would show substance and relevance. And it would negate the whole “out of touch” claim and honestly make the media and the GOP look foolish.

        • Definitely

          I used to work at a restaurant in the Fenway Park area and lots of the cheaper eateries are getting forced out by new developments and high rent so bringing up the Red Sox in terms of the cost for a “Middle Class” family outing would be a great way to put things in perspective.

        • be careful...

          For a family of 4 to see a Sox game from, let’s say, the grandstand (roughly average ticket prices), the outlay will be better than $200 just for tickets. Add transportation, parking, hot dogs, and a couple of souvenirs, and you’re probably looking at a $300 outing easy. Not chicken feed. Those might be useful numbers for her to have handy.

          While, on the surface, this line of reasoning sounds good, I wouldn’t use it for the simple fact that despite the cost Fenway Park is routinely sold out. Sure Hizzoner the mayor attends occasionally and even an occasional visit from former Governor Goodhair is to be seen, however the vast majority of people DO spend these amounts and probably DO consider themselves ‘average middle class’.

          I was in line at a convenience store the other day when the woman in front of me purchased one package of cigarettes for $7.98. Not having been ‘in the know’ on cigarette inflation I blurted out ‘wow. eight dollars a pack!” in what must have been a tone that conveyed my general amazement that anyone would continue smoking on those terms. The young woman gave me a cross look that clearly conveyed a sense of ‘mind your own business buddy’.

          I don’t think the situations are dissimilar: You risk looking like a hectoring elitist by pointing out the poor economic decisions some people make.

          • I agree, to some extent.

            I’m not saying this should be part of her stump speech. I do think one can get away with saying that an outing to Fenway isn’t something that a middle-class family with one parent looking for work can do on a whim anymore. But I agree it has to be handled with some care.

            • True

              The point is not to say “God look what the Red Sox are charging.” Rather, it is “God, you want to take the kids out to the ballpark, but you’re making barely enough to get by.” Those are actually two different statements and I think the latter, if used conversationally when prompted by Red Sox questions, can work.

          • Yet "taxes are too high"

            Any society that one way or another has enough cash to routinely sell out Fenway Park also has enough cash to increase tax revenues enough to fund sustainable public services. I plead “guilty” to being a “hectoring elitist”, yet I don’t see how to avoid this inescapable reality.

            The bridges, tunnels and subway system within an fifteen minute walk of Fenway Park is rusting and collapsing into rubble because the state “can’t afford” basic maintenance, yet Red Sox games at exorbitant prices (have you looked at what scalpers get these days?) routinely sell out.

            It seems to me that in this age of “accountability”, we must somehow find a way to hold all of us accountable to the realities of the world and culture around us. Perhaps a starting point is for at least some of us to be more willing to be “hectoring elitists”.

          • Sold out

            The main support for selling out Red Sox Games is corporations buying blocks of tickets.

            The vast majority—nearly 70 percent of tickets sold to date – were reserved months or even years ago by corporations and individual season ticket holders or scooped up by ticket resellers, according to an analysis of team seat sales confirmed by the Red Sox. And ticket sellers have taken another bite as well out of remaining tickets including bleacher and grandstand seats, which are typically the haven of the average fan.

            • Not really

              The main support for the sellouts is the huge demand for fans to see the games that is not matched by the number of seats. There just aren’t enough seats to meet the demand, so of course there are going to be sellouts.

            • IF that is the case...

              The main support for selling out Red Sox Games is corporations buying blocks of tickets.

              … and I’m perfectly willing to believe it is, how does Elizabeth Warren pointing out middle class families can’t afford tickets change that? And doesn’t the presence of corporations ‘scooping up’ tickets change the economics to the point that EW is therefore wrong in her (postulated) statements?

              • Please explain

                How does corporate ticket scooping make “one thing I do know is that the average middle class family can no longer afford to attend a Red Sox game” wrong?

        • And yet...

          The Red Sox had another sellout at Fenway Park for last night’s game against the Rangers, extending their MLB record to 700 consecutive regular season games dating back to May 13, 2003.

          The previous MLB record for sellouts was 455, set by the Indians from 1995-2001. The Red Sox surpassed that mark on September 8, 2008

      • Which is why they should have built a new stadium.

        A couple years ago I paid $200 (StubHub) for 2 totally crappy right field corner seats. Could only see the plate if I leaned forward.

        • Had they built that new stadium,

          prices would be just as high, if not higher, only the excuse would be that we have to pay for the stadium because it was expensive. So, we choose, high prices for Fenway because capacity is limited and high revenue suites don’t exist, or high prices for a modern stadium with high revenue capacity and suites because we have to pay for the new mortgage. Pick your poison.

          • Yes but the costs of the new stadium would have been spread over the taxpaying population

            and I the ticket buyer, would have benefitted. It’s subsidized entertainment.

            • Sorry, don't believe it.

              That’s the dream that gets taxpayers behind these schemes for public supported stadia, but it doesn’t work out in practice.

            • The LAST thing we need

              Of the many costs that need to be spread over the taxpaying population, a new stadium is the LEAST necessary.

            • No way

              Pretty much every city/state that has subsidized a stadium has gotten screwed over the deal and the taxpayers here know it, which is why both the Garden and Gillette were built with primarily private financing. I don’t think anything other than transportation infrastructure would have been subsidized if there had been a new stadium. The costs for constructing it would have had to come out of stadium revenue. There is really no good reason to believe that tickets would have been cheaper in a new stadium. The main benefit of a new stadium to the fans would have been roomier seats and nicer stadium amenities. Of course, the roomier seats would also mean that seats would be farther away from the action than comparable seats in the current stadium.

              • The issue is the cost of the tickets on the secondary market. There are no face value tickets out there

                More seats, lower prices on the secondary market. Possibility of seats at face value which barely exists now.

                Where did you people learn your economics?

                If they add supply and demand is constant, then prices will go down. Demand might increase somewhat, but not enough to continue this sell out streak for 20% more seats.

      • Perhaps after reading

        this article Elizabeth Warren would have a better understanding of the importance of baseball to our economic and national security, and FREEEEEDOM!

        And for the encore questions, she will be catching up on past episodes of Jersey Shore, the top 40 country music chart and the rules of beer pong. Correct answers to these questions will comfort those losing their jobs and homes.

    • Tenth Anniversary Observation

      Perhaps it is fitting to remember how so many conservatives responded to 9/11 in an us-vs-them, good-vs-evil way. Asking “why?” to such people was unpatriotic.

      So too, allegiance to Red Sox Nation, no Dijon on hamburgers, and disbelief in climate science are badges of membership in their tribe.

      Not knowing about the Red Sox is an offense to their primitive tribal cult.

  3. Snarky gotcha question

    Fair, I guess, in its way. She was smart not to answer.

  4. Why didn't she just learn some names of Red Sox players?

    Middle class people in Massachusetts spend half their time outside of work and most of their time at work talking about the Red Sox.

    It sounds like she claims she can help the middle class, but isn’t around them much.

    • Because it is not relevant

      A lot of middle class people sit around and talk about how they’re getting screwed too. THAT she knows about. THAT is what she’s trying to help fix.

      We don’t expect our coaches/GM’s/what have you to know about the tax code, or the Graham Leach Bliley Act do we? No, because it isn’t relevant to the job we want them to do.

      Equating knowledge of the Red Sox to whether or not this woman will make a good Senator is ludicrous.

    • great idea ...

      it should be a test prior to declaring candidacy.

      Or we could have someone who’s not a sellout to Wall Street and actually fights for jobs.

      Hmmmmm, don’t know which way to go one this one.

      But definitely a winner for the MA GOP, they should keep attacking like Brown’s campaign. Maybe they could get in touch with Willington and he could reserve some character attack domains for them.

    • Andy Hiller asked George Bush

      to name the leaders of India and Pakistan, I believe? He was widely criticized – meaning Hiller was criticized for asking such a snarky, gotcha question of the presidential candidate.
      Glad to see reporters learned their lesson and are now more responsible with their queries.

    • Seascraper - maybe she was true to her roots?

      In a couple of weeks, I will be spending a week or so in Oklahoma City, to visit in-laws and attend a reunion. And ‘back home’, as they call it there, is NOT baseball country.

      Now, for the Oklahoma-TEXAS game in October – traffic will cease in the streets. I was only half joking about Koppen’s ankle.

      Given her surroundings since coming to MA, she may not have caught the Red Sox fever. God knows, I’ve never had it and I was born here and have lived here all my life without having paid much attention to the most boring game on earth.

  5. the silly season has begun...

    As already noted, I plan to vote Martha Coakley, if she runs. Take that
    for what it is worth.

    That gaffe did not halt the momentum of what otherwise would have been a win for the Democrats. What it did, rather, was reinforce a narrative that had already gathered a probably-unstoppable-anyway head of steam by that point: that Coakley was aloof and was taking her election for granted instead of working for it

    I don’t think any Democratic candidate could have escaped this narrative after a rather bruising (four way) primary that was much longer than than the general election so I have never seen Martha Coakley as wholly responsible. I think she was not out of touch with the Democratic party in MA which similarly cooled their heels after the primary. A campaign of well timed stealth contributions (from out of state) also helped Brown extremely. The entire structure of the race, from fund-raising to advertising, was front-loaded for the Democratic primary and nobody… not you, nor I… took Scott Brown the least bit seriously until about two weeks before the election. Let us face it, please, we were all caught napping.

    And the very idea that J Random Democrat would have been caught napping means that no immunity is conferred to Elizabeth Warren.

  6. One time I saw Scott Brown speak and

    he was talking about when his wife Gail Huff was working the morning news and it was his responsibilty to get the kids going and off to school.

    He mentioned about how when she picked them up after school she would call him and ask “what were you thinking when you dressed them?” Any dad who has had these responsibilities could relate.

    He also seemed to have a working knowledge of diapers and little girl stuff.

    I’ve watched a lot of Warren lately (and read some earlier interviews) and I think her roots (including her early married years) are only a net neutral for her.

    People care about stupid stuff like the Sox and how sporty our politicians are. Remember Obama’s NCAA picks?

    That being said, saying she’s a 62 yo grandmother is not a winning impression for voters. Nor is Harvard professor. She’s going to have to work up a new label for herself.

    One thing she does have going is that she was divorced. She should say “I know how bad life can suck. I’ve been through a divorce.” Any one who’s gone through that can relate.

    • I didn't forget

      Remember Obama’s NCAA picks?

      No. I never knew anything about them. If I did see a story about that, I obviously passed right over it because of its being totally irrelevant.

      • Well he obviously thought it was important. There was a big photo op

        Always good to see he is focused on running the country

        • OK, big photo op

          Still totally irrelevant. Always good to see you’re focused on the things that matter.

        • The big photo op's

          are usually the things that don’t matter. That’s why I’ve sought out other media to keep abreast of the truly important issues – and we do have truly pressing issues that need attention!

          But, alas here we are on BMG. If we slide into a double dip recession, it will all be David’s fault. Casinos – due to David distracting us. And how much polar ice melted during this discussion?

          Can those of who spent more time reading and commenting on this thread than EW actual announcement, agree that David is to blame?

  7. Schilling the GOPer

    I sorta suspected that Coakley was too cute by half, assigning the GOPer to the pinstripes.

    Over thinking it?

  8. Before we get too far into this

    shouldn’t we deal with THIS?

    • Um...

      are you suggesting that ballots were manipulated to give Scott Brown the win? I see two major problems with that thesis (beyond the lack of any, you know, evidence that it actually happened). (1) There is no existing power structure in Massachusetts that would have had any interest in doing that. Where are all the Republican election officials whose complicity would have been needed to pull off this dastardly deed? (2) Polling shortly before the election showed Brown ahead by something very close to the margin by which he actually won. So … I’m afraid I’m not interested, unless someone can turn up something other than speculation. And that’s what’s in that paper, as far as I can see.

      • No, I am not

        The article doesn’t claim that and I am not claiming that. However, the FACT is that we’d never know. Privatization of electoral machinery is unaccountable, not verified, not audited. That is the point.
        “We’d never know” is damning enough.

        • I was, of course

          responding to the title of the thread…Things That Matter. I think electoral integrity matters a hell of a lot more than Elizabeth Warren’s handling of Red Sox minutiae. And I thought that BMG might agree.

          • OK.

            I do agree that electoral integrity is important, and that it’s important to do what we can to assure it. However, I think the article claims more strongly than you’re suggesting that something was amiss in last January’s election – and it’s claims like that (“SCOTT BROWN STOLE THE ELECTION!!!!!”) that make just about everyone (including me) throw up their hands and walk away.

            If election integrity is important, why not just make the case on the merits and pursue it in the usual fashion – by building support for it. IMHO it’s counter-productive to try to do so by casting doubt on the outcome of an election without any solid basis for doing so.

            • The article

              EXPLICITLY did not allege what you read into it. It went to lengths to say that the fact that we wouldn’t ever know is the issue.

  9. Two cents

    I agree that not knowing player’s names is unimportant to holding a seat in Congress. But I for one would like to know that my Senator received the best education available. Harvard graduate, never mind professor, tells me that in most cases they’ve had to prove themselves and learn from the best.

    Also, my 76 yr old grandmother, who I am on the phone with right now, told me this off the top of her head:
    Right field: McDonald; Center: Ellsbury; Left field: Cameron; 1st base is Gonzalez; 2nd is Pedroia; Lowry is hurt so Salt is playing shortstop; Youk plays 3rd; Pitcher depends on the night, and Veritek catches.

    WAY better than I could have done!!

  10. It just boggles my mind that people even ask her that question.

    I could care less about the Red Sox (OMG, I’ve just ruined my life – not). So I suppose she should also know what the number 1 movie playing in theatres is, the top songs on the radio, and the latest craze on the cooking shows. It is completely irrelevant. The only unfortunate thing is that this nonsense appeals to the uninformed voter who votes on such ridiculous information. I think this sort of thing shouldn’t even be in the media and such a question should NEVER be asked by a reporter. If they are curious about her interests, then ask questions about what she does in her free time. Honestly, the media is so pathetic I just can’t stand it. In the end, it won’t matter. I agree with David that she shouldn’t become a poser because that makes her look weak. Please Elizabeth Warren, you are awesome just as you are!!! Be proud of that and don’t cave.

    • Things that do matter...

      Elizabeth Warren just received the endorsement from Emily’s List.

      • The EMILY'S list profile...

        …fits the early money meme. You must be a pro-choice female Democrat in order to be helped by them.

        Was there ANOTHER pro-choice Democrat woman running?

        • Yes there is.

          Marisa Defranco

          • Marisa DeFranco

            has shown herself to be an articulate and determined candidate.
            Good job Christopher!

            And by the way, you forgot to mention to our friend, porcupine, that not every prochoice dem woman is endorsed – they must show viability and strength. Although naming baseball players is not a requirement, the endorsement from Emily’s List is still an important achievement.

            • Emily's list

              There is at least one instance where Emily’s List intervened in a race to choose a less progressive female candidate. I cite the race between Tammy Duckworth, a disasbled veteran with Blue Dog leanings, and a more progressive locally popular female candidate. The local candidate was doing well in the polls until Emily’s List and other national organizations sucked the oxygen out of the progressive’s campaign. Duckworth went on to lose in the general.

              I recall other cases (sorry, can’t cite) where Emily’s List endorsed a women who was running against a more progressive (and still pro-choice) male candidate.

              • If memory serves

                I believe they have endorsed Republican women over Democratic men, in a couple of cases. I might be wrong about that, but if I’m right I respect that about the list. They’re committed to electing women.

              • Their current mission

                According to their website their mission is to elect pro-choice Democratic women.

                Women who they have helped to elect can be found here

                Outside the reproductive rights space, the policies of their chosen candidates are all over the map. Recipients range from liberals Barbara Boxer and the late Ann Richards (gov of Texas) to Blue Dogs Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu, who both opposed a public option for health care.

    • Answering the Question Would Have Been Better Than Not Answering

      Unlike the Coakley’s Red Sox gaffe, which for some, showed her “out of touchness”, Warren’s refusal to answer the question raises issues about her being an intellectual elite and loyalty to Massachusetts. Correct me if I’m wrong but Elizabeth Warren was born in Oklahoma City, never attended a Massachusetts University and a big portion of her professional life has been in D.C. All I’m trying to say is that it would have helped to play down her Harvard elite / outsider issues by simply mentioning a few Red Sox players.

  11. but...

    Elizabeth Warren had to know about Coakley’s gaffe and that since August people have been joking about since August.

    She’s not in Washington anymore – this is local politics. The issue isn’t that she didn’t know the answer because no one cares about that (I can’t name one Red Sox player). The concern is that either she was unaware of Coakley’s gaffe which seems unlikely, or needs to get herself up to speed as a campaigner and politician. She should have anticipated the question and put that silly season to rest on day one.

    • No,

      I think that’s the wrong analysis. If she had memorized a couple of Red Sox names and pretended that that made her into a fan, she would have been a poser, and that would have come out eventually, most likely at the worst possible time. She’s doing exactly the right thing by not pretending to be something she isn’t.

      • Only time will tell exactly what type of person...

        the electorate will like and vote for. Much of this conversatoion is interesting but I can’t help wonder whether we “again” are talking about what should people care about or what will people care about.

        Following the logic of much of this post, many people in office (such as Scott Brown) should not be there… but they are!

        • You often cite a should vs. will difference.

          I would argue that while predictions (will) might be a fun exercise, those of us who want to use politics to better society are probably more interested in persuasion and recommendations (should).

          • I guess I just try to pragmatic about things.

            There are many things which I want to happen (a torrid affair with Jennifer Anniston?) but realistically they won’t so I usually don’t spend time talking about them. I guess I consider a “reality” based blog a place to talk about reality.

            I do often agree with the sentiments here concerning various sides of issues but are unrealistic. My own parade gets rained on just as much by this feeling.

            • "things which I want to happen (a torrid affair with Jennifer Anniston?) but realistically they won’t"

              Aw, don’t sell yourself short! ;)

  12. I'm as left anyone here

    and, as my name might suggest, I follow the Red Sox closely. I don’t think it’s a prerequisite for office; not knowing about the Red Sox certainly disqualifies no candidate who is right on the issues. But I groaned when Coakley did her thing and when Kerry referred to “Manny Ortez” in 2004.

    There seems to be an problem in this country, and maybe more so in Massachusetts than elsewhere, of people thinking liberal politics and sports fandom are mutually exclusive. I may be misreading this, but it’s almost like a badge of honor on this site and others to know nothing about the Red Sox. I’ll get ready for a barrage of recriminations, but perhaps this is part of our electoral problems? It’s almost certainly true that people SHOULD not determine a vote based on such things, but it’s equally true that many DO base the decision on factors like this.

    Thanks to a discarded paper on the Green Line, I saw Howie Carr’s recent column on Elizabeth and Setti Warren. It was more obnoxious even than usual, but it’s relevant to this discussion. He’s already suggesting not only that Elizabeth Warren is from Oklahoma, but that being from out of state and only moving here for Harvard will make her MORE popular among the “moonbats” (i.e. us), because we’re all from out of state too. It pissed me off, since I grew up here. But the Red Sox thing plays right into a certain narrative the GOP is using not only in places like Virginia but right here in Massachusetts. GOP = local, rugged, into sports, beleaguered by all the damn taxes too. Dem = transplant, wimpy, disdains sports and sports fans, happy to screw over the struggling folks with more taxes and regulations because they’re all doing just great in Newton or Lexington. This is a line of attack she should be ready for.

    I thoroughly reject that false dichotomy, but others don’t. Why do the Dems do better in Wellesley and Concord than Waltham and Southie? I’m local, white, male, straight, tall, athletic and I get seriously pissed when the Red Sox do what they’ve been doing lately (for the uninitiated, they’ve lost about 13 of their last 16 games and blown most of a once-comfortable lead-they might miss the playoffs, which would have seemed unthinkable two weeks ago). I’m also educated and very much on the left politically. I don’t see a ton of people like me in liberal circles. I’ve had liberal people in this state assume (because I’m white, male, straight, tall and like sports) that I’m conservative.

    It seems sometimes that our side’s been taken over by the rich suburban parents who won’t keep score and give everyone a trophy. I still can’t get over the hand-wringing when Capuano said the word “bloody.” We need some people tough enough to stand up to the GOP thugs who regularly commit the political and economic equivalent of a punch in the mouth.

    • Its no badge of honor to me

      I know the entire roster. I love the Sox. I’m very liberal. I’m also kinda smaht. :) I’m white, educated, and female. But no one assumes I’m a conservative, wonder why that is…

      I don’t think anyone here thinks you have to be ignorant, willfully or not, to sports culture and knowledge in order to be considered an intellectual liberal.

  13. Not a hard problem

    Senator Fratboy is bound to selfdestruct _per contrarium_ if only somebody over at the Palace of Public Television would ask him who plays for the Blue Stockings that he particularly likes.

    Happy days.

  14. You know what, I don't even care

    if someone is an “educated elite” if s/he does a good job. I doubt most people care either. People these days have bigger problems than the Red Sox underperforming line-up.

    Talking about the disadvantage of Warren being a Harvard professor or not knowing the Red Sox is aspiring to Cokie Roberts’ intellectual level. Martha Coakley’s advantage was supposed to be that she was a woman. John Kerry was supposed to have an advantage because he was somewhat of a war hero.


    I like the fact that she doesn’t care about the Red Sox or baseball. I LIKE the fact that she is part of an educated elite. I expect every Senator to be part of that group, and the appalling ignorance of Scott Brown (not to mention the rest of the Tea Party mob) is a significant part of what makes them so offensively unsuited for high office.

    I strongly encourage those who are put off by a candidate being part of an educated elite to consider residence in some Tea Party state, where you’ll be among peers and where you can happily bask in the stunning ignorance of your elected representatives.

  16. Authenticity Garbage

    This story is really about the continuing Republican effort to depict themselves and their voters as ‘authentic’ and to try to brand Democrats as inauthentic. The actual story is meaningless.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Fri 28 Apr 11:56 AM