The Herald reports today that current Middlesex DA and AG candidate Martha Coakley “told reporters that she was not formally endorsing Middlesex DA candidate Gerry Leone, although she introduced him at his campaign kickoff and has donated money to him.”
Obviously, Coakley is supporting Leone (you don’t introduce a candidate at his campaign kickoff if you’re secretly for the other guy). So I’m not entirely sure what it means for her not to “endorse” him. I suppose that if she becomes Attorney General (which is nearly a definite at this point), and if Barrios wins the Middlesex DA race, a Coakley “endorsement” of Leone could prove awkward, though why her obvious support of him would be any less awkward is a bit mysterious to me. Does this mean that she isn’t turning out her “troops” to work for Leone’s campaign? Does she even have troops? Anyone?
It’s a really funny bit of political kabuki I haven’t quite figured out. I think a formal endorsement carries with it a package of well understood meanings, whereas someone can support a candidate without necessarily wanting to imply they’re agreeing to the full package. Usually, “endorse” at the very least means the candidate can list you on their web site, flyers, etc. It means they can use the word “endorse”. It implies a press release of some sort. For some organizations, it may mean a vote was taken, or money is coming, etc.
<
p>
We ran into something like this with Jesse Gordon’s campaign, you may recall. Ken Reeves appeared at a public event that Jesse was at, and he explicitly pointed out Jesse by name and said “I support him”. Later on, when we put Ken Reeves’ name on a piece of literature we were distributing door to door, in a list headed “The progressive community supports Jesse”, Reeves publically denied endorsing Jesse, the Cambridge Chronicle put it on their front page, Jesse apologized for the mistake, and we had to sticker several thousand of our lit pieces with little strips that said “Anne Paulsen” covering the Ken Reeves line.
Coakley easily could have stayed out of the race. But because she has no real opposition there is no problem endorsing Leone. Especially with their history of working together.
<
p>
Her lack of political instincts, like her predecessor’s, shows here. She looks silly backing off, on top of looking weak.
<
p>
She stuck her neck out for Leone, now she should stand by it. Otherwise she pisses off both sides.
I agree – she looks a bit silly by saying “endorse? whatever gave you that idea?” It’s one thing to donate money, but to introduce the guy at his campaign kickoff? Please.
If you had heard Coakley’s comments at the Leone kickoff, you would not be confused in the least about who she supports as her successor.
<
p>
No doubt some of Barrios’ minions complained loudly to certain Democratic officials about her taking sides in this hotly contested DA’s campaign. Maybe the Attorney General-in-waiting heard some choice remarks from Barrios himself.
<
p>
No matter, it obvious to all that care about such things that Martha Coakley has “endorsed” Leone in every way that matters…and the good voters of Middlesex County will get the message, one in one form or another, before too long (maybe when the filing deadline for state-wide and legislatives races ends in early May?)
<
p>
As for Coakley’s organization, I don’t see much there. Without a primary or general election fight looming, campaign workers will most likely peel away to other races.
<
p>
But Martha Coakley’s personal support carries great persuasive weight, as they say in the law…
I agree this whole thing is silly. It makes me wonder if she’s got a backbone. I mean if she supports someone why doesn’t she have the conviction to say so?
How can she be tough on criminals when she so quickly becomes denies her endorsement in Clintonesque fashion because of a tongue lashing from Jarrett Barrios and Phil Johnson? Ridiculous.
<
p>
You see, like Tom Reilly, and unlike Gerry Leone, most career prosecutors are one dimensional. It is an easy place to hide your shallowness. Just constantly say crime is bad and be for every draconian law that comes down the pike. Also criticize anyone who questions the law as being a friend of criminals.
<
p>
I don’t believe Martha is like that, but this denial of an endorsement causes me much doubt about her credibility and character.
I think you’re leaping to conclusions. We don’t know what her reasons are, and we don’t know that it has anything to do with tongue lashings or Phil Johnston. I can imagine a bunch of other possibilities. Maybe there’s something she wants him to agree to in exchange for an official endorsement. Maybe she already plans to endorse him but wants to get the benefit of a well planned press conference with invitations sent out and releases prepared. Maybe she didn’t think about whether to endorse him and got miffed that someone announced it without asking her. Maybe, maybe, maybe, the point is, we don’t know.
show that she does not get it.
If she didn’t anticipate this then she doesn’t deserve to win. None of the reasons cos brought up are respectable. If any of them were true then she should have not done the kick off party. This just shows how little she’s thought this through.
She has no opponent. And even in the unlikely event that a credible Republican jumps into the race at this late date, she’ll still win – this is inside baseball and won’t affect the general election in the slightest.
<
p>
Perhaps that’s why she’s being so sloppy – from her perspective, it doesn’t really matter.