“Turning the page on the politics of the past….” What a good idea!
Atty. General Martha Coakley is doing a great job…no question about that…but,couldn’t her skills be put to better use as our United States Senator?
She has high name recognition, incredible favorable ratings, works hard, is not self-absorbed and would be an outstanding U.S. Senator.
It’s time…the hour is now…for the first woman US Senator from Massachusetts. For the first time in decades, Democrats could vote for a US Senate candidate that wasn’t just based on party loyalty, but rather, real enthusiasm.
What do you think?
Please share widely!
…a great idea to me!
And the state would actually have two senators instead of just one. The woman does have a work ethic.
I keep hearing again and again that Coakley’s dream is to be GOVERNOR someday, not US senator. She’d be a helluva candidate in a D-Gov primary, quite the opposite of the basketcase candidacy of Tom Reilly.
<
p>How does the first elected woman governor of the Commonwealth sound?
There’s a reason AG stands for “Aspiring Governor”. I agree, I can see her much more as a gubernatorial candidate sometime down the road than a US Senator. Though with the lack of success of former AGs here in MA getting the corner office, it may not be easy.
U.S. Senate is where it’s at…
<
p>(AG’s don’t end up as governor in MA)
<
p>She would be a terrific US Senator who would focus on the people who sent her to DC…not ask the people who sent her to focus on her!
sounds like I’m being punished for a certain incorrect vote I cast on Tuesday! ; )
<
p>Anyways, I think if she ran she’d have a shot, but incumbents are tough to beat. My guess though is because Coakley is a smart politician, she waits until there’s an opening either in the Gov’s office or one of the two senate seats….and jumps on it. Risk to her is much lower, potential benefit much higher, because as #3 elected official in state gov’t (sorry, Galvin) she instantly becomes front runner if Deval takes a pass. Plus, if she goes now, she looks TERRIBLE having just been AG two years. Running AS the establishment usually works better than running against it.
<
p>I agree that she’d likely be an excellent US Senator, perhaps more effective than Kerry, even without his seniority. But my question is this- why the level of vitriol against Kerry? Sure, he’s not the most inspiring speaker, he’s kind of easy to make fun of, he’s been in there a while….but his voting record, as far as I know, looks pretty damn good. Coakley, or any other constitutional officer for that matter, trying to unseat him in a primary would be a bitter, divisive, and expensive battle uphill battle. Is that really where our money and energy would do the most good? I’m not saying no it’s not, I’m just not sure. There are a whole bag of repub and ‘democrat’ state reps who are rock-solid pro-live, anti-marriage equality, anti-buffer zone, anti-revenue in any form who I’d really like to see go down in this cycle. The question is, which would make more of a difference?
Dave…I was responding to your original post that seemed to state with apparent authority that it was a known fact that Martha Coakley was dreaming of Gov…I think that is untrue…
<
p>And I disagree that it would be a bitter battle…I actually think it would be pretty cut and dry…I would love to see poll numbers on such a match up…
<
p>There is a great children’s book, Dr. Seuss..”Marvin K. Mooney”…I think John Kerry is this year’s Marvin K. Mooney…it’s time…as Kerry himself points out.
Sorry for the misimpression. Just passing along what I’ve heard, for whatever it’s worth. I got no direct line to Coakley’s career plans…but if I get one, I’ll let you know first!
I was joking about that first but. No need to defend yourself.
PS Dave…I have no idea whom you voted for last Tuesday, so I can’t punish you for it.
<
p>Also…”vitriol” is a tough word, and overstates the case against giving Kerry another 6 years… I don’t think people hate Kerry, they just are tired of him and may not want 6 more years of being tired of him. You don’t have to be against one candidate to be enthusiastic for another…
<
p>When considering why Democrats and Independents would choose to support a new candidate for US Senator, you would have to consider a desire for positive change re: constituent services, attention to Mass. interests, fresh ideas and new energy for the job…a new face, a new page.
I think she would be a fabulous candidate against John Kerry. She has high name recognition, a positive image and no baggage. She is a dynamic woman who could take Washington by storm. When can we sign up to work on the campaign?!
…the Progressive Leader in Massachusetts (sorry Gov). She would be fantastic at any level of government. I would love to see Kerry step aside for her.
Many progressives wouldn’t even have her on the short list. Shall we poll the self described progressives? FWIW, My IRV vote for the Progressive Leader in MA:
<
p>Gov. Patrick
Rep. McGovern
Rep. Frank
Sen. Kennedy
Sen. Kerry
Chris Gabrieli!
Rep. Tierney
Rep. Capuano
…
and the list goes on with no sight of Coakley.
McGovern, certainly. Frank, yes. The rest have had their moments when the compromise took precedent over the progressive principle. The Immigration Bill and the reasons it went down to defeat is illustrative…it actually protected neither American workers nor the immigrant workers from being abused by greedy (and law breaking) employers…but the deal was cut, leaving unions no alternative but to kill the entire patchwork bill.
I don’t know what district she lives in currently, but I wouldn’t mind seeing someone replace Lynch.
Coakley lives in Medford, before her marriage she previously has lived in Arlington and Boston…BUT she is from North Adams and has a huge constituency in Western MA….perfect demographics.
<
p>Why not US Senate/ and why do we have to wait 7 or 8 years to make that happen? Kerry does not “own” this seat.
Winning Kerry’s Senate seat would be a real stretch for her and would make her at least one powerful enemy if she is not successful. Kerry is rich and has a large campaign war chest which she won’t be able to match. She would also need to bone up pretty quickly on all of the national and international issues that would be important in a Senate race. I also don’t think that being from North Adams is a big advantage in a Senate race because most of the population is in the Eastern half of the state.
<
p>I also really don’t see why she can’t just finish out at least one term as AG before moving on to bigger things.
’cause I thought the same thing about Obama. I couldn’t understand why he couldn’t just finish out one term as a Senator before moving on to better things.
I was also surprised that he ran. Perhaps he was really just running for VP and ended up having a shot at the #1 slot. Of course, people had been talking about a future Obama run ever since his convention speech, so it wasn’t that big of a surprise. I have never heard that Coakley had Senatorial aspirations. I always figured she would go for the Governor’s slot when Deval is done.
<
p>
Any volunteers?
She will have all of the Democratic and Independent “Mature” women who drove the race for Clinton here… plus the younger women who were with Obama…and instant field and fundraising organization to add to her already established group.
<
p>She will have a network of law enforcement leaders (mostly male) across the state who respect her work and resolve.
<
p>She will not need a personal fortune or huge war chest because she has name recognition and the respect of media statewide.
<
p>People like her. National and International issues are easy to master if you are smart and she is smart…
<
p>And, Kevin…if Obama is qualified to be President of the United States without finishing his first term as US Senator, why would you quibble about a qualified Attorney General moving up to US Senate?
but whatever. I really don’t think she is going to run this time around.
<
p>I never actually said that she wasn’t qualified, but I would like to see her finish the good work she has started as AG and I think she would be a much stronger candidate with a few more years on her resume.
Mr. Obama. Evidently, there is a gold standard for women – and something all together for the guys.
is thought to be useful in the Senate, as Kevin thinks the Coakley is in the AG’s office. Some would argue yes, some would abstain from making a judgment… I see this as more a question about the candidate’s usefulness in their current position as opposed to their sex. (Not that there isn’t frequently a double-standard applied to women, but I don’t see it in Kevin’s argument.)
and it is unfortunate that we will have to lose one or both of them from that house in January when we seat the next Democratic president.
<
p>My point about her value as AG, is that I think she is leading the department in a new direction and is making a real difference there.
Didn’t I say that I was surprised that Obama ran? Sure more years would help Obama’s resume a lot, but for whatever reason he decided to run and has caught fire. However, Obama was not challenging an incumbent in a primary as would be the case here. I think that if Obama were going up against a Hillary Clinton with 4 years of the presidency under her belt, he would have no chance at all. I think that Coakley would be facing a similar challenge in MA. Like it or not, Kerry still has a lot of support in this state and would be very difficult to beat.
<
p>
Martha Coakley is a long time Democrat who isn’t going to run against any incumbent in the US Senate, Congress or constitutional office.
<
p>Look for her to make a move if we have an open seat statewide (federal or state office) but til then Attorney General Coakley is kicking butt as the state’s chief law enforcement officer
Striker57…I am thinking about it…even Kerry is thinking about it! “Let’s turn the page of the past…” if only he would, problem is he will not volunteer to take his own advice…every 6 years he returns to MA and tells us we need to vote for him yet again…you can’t find 3 people who say they are enthusiastic about doing so…even when he ran for President people felt they had to be with him for the party’s sake or the state’s sake…
<
p>Coakley is a solid Democrat…the unions love her because she has the guts to stand up for them (prevailing wage, PLAs)… and she does the work to make things happen.
<
p>Why do we need to wait until Kerry gets bored with the Senate? Why can’t we stop acting like these folks OWN the job we elected them to and for once be excited about “turning the page on the past…”
that if a person kicks butt in one position, we have to gobble them up and have them run for a higher position they might not be fit for? The AG, from my point of view, is doing a fantastic job. I want her to keep working on holding the Big Diggers accountable and other such projects. I don’t want her to become a 1st term Senator with relatively little power in a body which is generally slow moving and in a place where our majority hinges on Sen. Lieberman not completely turning Republican.
a stagnant, do little or nothing senator because he has so much power? Or do we roll and dice and try for some vigor and enthusiam? What the hell is up you “hope” and “change” Democrats? You only seem to want hope and change…for some seats but not others.
All I was saying is that the AG has pretty much just been elected. I think she’s doing a good job. I think she should continue to do that good job. I like her for the much the same reason I dislike Romney. Hear me out: Romney was a guy more concerned about using his job as a stepping stone for his own ambition than doing a good job. Coakley seems genuinely to care about the citizens of MA and wants to do a good job for them. I wouldn’t want her leaving that position any time soon.
<
p>I am a “hope and change Democrat.” I like the ring of that. But I’m also, or at least, I like to think of myself as, a pragmatic Democrat. There are many, many, many progressive battles to fight in this state. Fighting Senator Kerry is not high on my priority list, especially when he’s been very good on most issues.
John Kerry quit the Lt. Gov. job mid-term to run for US Senate in the first place….started running for president after only serving 1/3rd of one Senate term.
<
p>They moved when they saw the opportunity to movew forward. that’s politics. Why should Coakley be held to some different “finish all of your homework first” standard?
revise to: Obama started running for president after serving only 1/3rd of one term in the US Senate…I met him when he came to DC looking for support to run for US Senate…12 months later I met him again when he came to say thanks for the support and 12 months after that I met him again when he was asking for support for a presidential run…fast curve…
<
p>there are half a dozen potential and very viable candidates for AG from both parties in MA…should Martha decide to go for a very winnable US Senate seat.
It really ought to be abolished. I mean, a warm bucket of
pspit ain’t in it.I agree Coakley is doing a great job as AG…but, she is also supremely “fit” as you say and extremely qualified for the job of US Senator, too.
<
p>The current system clearly favors incumbents who have 6 years to pad their campaign coffers (if they are not wealthy enough to self-fund)…that discourages most people from even considering a run…without the money you cannot build name recognition high enough to be taken seriously, even if you are qualified.
<
p>Martha Coakley, although not wealthy, has the high name recognition, positive favorabilty statewide and solid work ethic reputation already…she would not have to introduce herself to the voters from scratch.
<
p>She has the ability to raise the money required to compete.
<
p>Kerry has no field organization. He has traditionally piggybacked on the Dem. Party or the organizations of supporting pols…Coakley has a statewide organization and that would swell to overflowing if she entered this race.
The chance to be FOR someone is magnetic.
<
p>As far as your contention that a new/freshman US Senator would be a waste…I don’t agree…next year the Senate will no longer be hanging by Joe L’s hubrus…and there will be a Democratic President…different place altogether…great year for change…
<
p>
that a new/freshman Senator would be a waste. Let me clarify. She has much more power as an AG for the state than she does as a first year Senator. Even in a Democratic Senate, even with a Democratic President, the Senate still moves slowly, and you are just one out of 100 voices. A new freshman senator is not a waste — that’s why I have volunteered for US Senate campaigns. But it’s important to think about picking our battles as progressives wisely.
Now that his presidential aspirations have ended, his record in the Senate puts him among the most reliably liberal. He’s a very good and influential voice for the progressive agenda, and he has loads of seniority, which is especially important in the Senate.
Sounds to me like this unrealistic suggestion is only being offered as a poke in the eye to the Obama supporters to catch them in an “out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new” contradiction, this time with a gender reversal. Congratulations.
The only other reason I’m hearing here is that some folks seem bored with Kerry. That’s beyond silly.
<
p>…I think Kerry is bored with his job. And yes, he votes right — most of the time — but, do you ever see him in your city or town, showing any interest in his job? I don’t.
<
p>I think Kerry is a prime example of someone who has been in office too long and has grown tired with his job. He wanted to be President, it didn’t happen, and so he’s stuck in the Senate. And that’s not such a great thing for his constituents.
<
p>Of course, I will support him over a Republican, but if a qualified and viable progressive challenger came along, I’d be happy to take a look.
he is a true progressive with great ideas and a passion for Dem ideas.
<
p>Then why the trips to Florida?
<
p>Why the new book?
<
p>Why the high-profile endorsement?
He’s doing all those things because they allow him to bask in the spotlight for doing little more than piddling on himself. It is much easier than trying to actually accomplish anything.
Why the trips to Florida?
<
p>To push for progressive causes in the rest of the country. If O’Reilly got elected as our Senator, I’d want him doing that too. We want progressives in the limelight. We don’t want them to swear an oath of silence and not appear unless modestly and locally.
<
p>Why the new book?
<
p>It’s a reasonable effort to change the debate on environmental issues. Why the f isn’t that laudable?
<
p>Why the high-profile endorsement?
<
p>Again, if you think Obama would be better for progressives, that would be a very good thing. No?
in terms of the Big Dig racketeers, and I was also put off by the way Turner Broadcasting/CNN/Time-Warner sleazed out of responsibility for the Mooninite Hoax last year by paying what amounted to a small fine (relative to Time-Warner’s yearly income), all the while leaving their two employees to absorb the vitriol of the city and the disgrace of actual imprisonment, arraignment, and sentencing (even if it was only to community service/probation).
However, I think Attorney General Coakley has done a better job than most others would have done in her position. I would hope that if she did go to Congress she would maintain her prosecutorial mindset and drive a wooden stake through Dick Cheney’s black heart.
Constituent services are for city councillors and selectmen, as far as I’m concerned- United States Senators and Representatives should be concerned with forming just equitable national policies, furthering the ideals of democracy, and investigating matters that affect the nation as a whole- not attending ribbon-cuttings and steering military contracts toward local mercenaries.
Using the term “constituent’ relative to Congressmen or US Senators does not mean the same thing as a local constituent who calls a mayor for a pothole repair…These constituents are industries, organizations, municipalities, educational institutions, home state agencies, etc., who are looking to their US Senator for help in advancing federal initiatives helpful to the people they serve.
<
p>For the most part, Kennedy’s office has a great reputation for these “constituent services”, Kennedy’s staff is top notch and they respond. Senator Kerry and his staff do not have that reputation. The examples are legion from municipal leaders and local organizations and even individuals who have disappointing stories to tell. They have learned to go to Kennedy’s office first if they need to get any quick help and reliable attention.
It’s also the little old lady who’s social security check didn’t come in the mail. It’s the kid who wants to go to a military academy. Its the family who’s trying to adopt a child overseas.
<
p>That is a very narrow view of constituent services HL.
it is all of the things you mention, as well. I was just trying to refute the notion that it was a pothole/local thing.
<
p>But, on the services/problems you mention, Kerry still does not get high marks…Kennedy’s office or Congressman McGovern’s and Congressman Lynch’s offices have the “most responsive” reputations.
His lack of constitutent services will probably be a huge issue in this race. Just thought your characterization was somewhat off base.
<
p>Kerry is very vulnerable this year. The 527 ads write themselves if in fact 527s get involved.
Is there any evidence that she actually has any interest in the job? Has she expressed any interest in any legislative position in the past?
Can someone point me to more info about Coakley’s track record? All I can think of is a pretty poor job on the big dig and the national embarrassment of the “lite brite horror of ’07”.
<
p>I’m not saying she hasn’t done anything good, I’m admitting that I can only think of the headlines and my disappointment in her in those instances.
The only other thing I can think of is the effort she has made to stop auto insurance competition from coming to the state. Her resistance to the limited competition being encouraged by Patrick appointee Nonnie Burnes seems to be predicated either on a commitment to keep suburban drivers subsidizing the premiums of urban drivers, or carrying the water for politically powerful insurance companies committed to maintaining her market share.
<
p>I like Martha a lot, and expect her to be governor someday. But you’re dreaming if you think someone who jumped from DA to AG virtually without competition and has never faced a tough campaign is going to challenge an incumbent Democrat, especially with only half a term in statewide office under her belt.
When Kerry was running for President in 2004 and there was a chance of a vacant Senate seat here in Mass., Coakley sent out a trial balloon and expressed interest in running for that seat and heading for DC.
but it is a realistic one. As far as I know, establishment Dems don’t run against incumbant establishment Dems.
<
p>There would need to be an outside challenger, and thankfully, there is already one in Ed O’Reilly.
it is not a realistic one
Weee!!! We got ourselves another messiah! Gore is the one… No, wait, It’s DEAN! Wait, wait… Wes Clark! No no no no no no Obama is the NEW JESUS !!!… ‘Cept, now that we got Coakley, Obama has to be the OLD, NEW JESUS.
<
p>Special guest appearance by Bill Clinton as the NEW, OLD JESUS!!
<
p>Let’s all play jigsaw politics! That’s the part where we pick the pieces we like and try to substitute that for actual fucking work!! Instead of blood sweat toil and tears, let’s just genuflect and coronate that particularly lovelly human who’s got all the right angles in all the right shapes to be inserted abso-fucking-lutely perfectly and precisely into the contours of the problem!! Whoopee! Problem solved in time for dinner!
<
p>Let’s just forget, that little slice of inconvenience where politics is a human endeavor… That way, when the Republicans piss down our backs, they can tell us it’s raining… AND that our NEW JESUS is turning it to wine on the way down.
Petr: at almost 3 AM, you are diatribing gibbrish (not to mention, blaspheming the name of Christ and using profanity to do it)..get some sleep, the Ripple has you addled…
<
p>You clearly don’t know anything about Martha Coakley…or you would know the most compelling and obvious thing about her: unlike so many of the flavors of the month in politics today, Martha Coakley does not believe she walks on water. She is down-to- earth, intelligent and steady.
I enjoyed Petr’s comment. The point — stated with less profanity, blasphemy, and wit — is that we should reign in our eagerness to worship heroes and to imagine they can solve our problems as if by magic.
reign -> rein
😉
<
p>Ah, the days of grain alcohol and cheap wine.
: )
Not saying Petr is one, but I wouldn’t expect anyone but very religious Christians to care about “blasphemy”, and this is not intended to be a “Christian” blog (“Blue Mass” does not refer to an arcane Catholic rite).
<
p>You also appear to totally miss his metaphorical point, which is not that Coakley thinks she is Jesus, but that you think she is.
<
p>
Kevin…I just have never developed a taste for kool-aid although I hear it is the beverage of preference this year…
<
p>I do not idolize any politician…male or female, black or white, Democrat or Republican…I’ve met many, I’ve worked to elect many…but I’ve never run into one that came remotely close to a messiah (anywhere but in their own mind)…
<
p>I also do not need profanity it make a point. I think it’s the sign of a limited vocabulary, there are so many insulting words to choose from right in the Merriam-Webster…
<
p>I also don’t berate or denigrate ANYONE else’s religion (whatever it is) or religious beliefs or religious leaders to be funny or glib…it’s a respect thing..call me old-fashioned, I can live with that label.
… Blasphemy? No. I’m a Christian thru-and-thru… Wouldn’t dream of impugning the messiah I already got. Point is, I just don’t need another one. And, quite apart from the fact that you’re simply not gonna get another one, neither do you. That’s the most frustrating part. (And… I do believe He’s got a sense of humor…) No, there’s no blasphemy on my part, but there is the beginning shades of idolatry on yours.
<
p>The point, stated elsewhere in this thread, by others besides me, is this constant, counterproductive desire for ‘magic button’ solutions… where the perfect is made the enemy of the good. I saw it in 2004, where everyone positively gushed over Dean… and again and again with the patently absurd argument that Dean was the only one with all the right attributes… as though he was some sort of skeleton key that you could pick the lock of the campaign and whom everybody would just suddenly be compelled to elect. The sheer force of the logic of the choice was unassailable, I was told. Other made precisely the same arguments about Wes Clark. Now I hear the exact same arguments for Obama.
<
p>But the worse is just this: John Kerry wasn’t supported precisely because he wasn’t messianic. Precisely because he wasn’t an absolute perfect fit, he was viewed as no fit at all…
<
p>No “new Jesus” here..? …Next!
<
p>Kerry got short shrift because people focused on his flaws and refused to admit the other guy wasn’t perfect. Quite a serviceable candidate and probably a quite excellent president but since he’s not perfect, let’s despair… It’s quite one thing to want perfect and altogether another to downgrade good.
<
p>Now somebody comes along and says Coakley has all the right bits that Kerry lacks and then some. The new key to pick the electorate lock… Therefore the electorate will be compelled to vote for her and she’s sooo ready to solve all our problems…. You’ll have to forgive a little frustrated profanity…
<
p>
<
p>Funny… Those’re exactly the things I like best about John Kerry…
Petr…we are clearly on the same page on the messiah issue…there are no political messiahs, not now, not ever…we agree on that.
<
p>I admire, respect and like Coakley, I do not idolize her.
<
p>You express your support for John Kerry, I respect that. We disagree on your characterization of why Kerry did not win the presidency and what kind of Senator he has been for the state as he has pursued his life-long quest to be president. That debate is another thread altogether.(maybe John Edwards will post)
<
p>That aside, my frustration is that with all the talk of “breaking through ceilings” (glass and cement) and “making history and progress” and whatever else they are selling this year, the fact remains that most elected officials once elected think they OWN the job for life…they hang on to the position and power and the longer they do, the harder it is to get them out… and they have created the stagnant, money-driven, influence-dominated system we are now left with…they talk change, as long as someone else is doing the changing…Kerry included.
<
p>Marvin K. Mooney
<
p>
It’s hard to imagine that she would do this.
<
p>it may not be fahsionable, but it needs to be said:
John Kerry is a good Senator with good positions on most key issues.
<
p>Coakley most likey has a bright political issue, and she will probably run for another office, some day, and possibly the Senate but not this year.
if the only 2008 messiah wins, he may take his great supporter Sen. Kerry into his Adm…Secretary of SomethingOrOther…and we wouls have an OPEN Senate seat for which Martha Coakley would be the favorite…and once she won it, she could keep it until she retired or died….keep hope alive.
I just had a truly bizarre dream where Riley mounted a primary challenge to Patrick in 2010 and became the Ed King of the 21st century. I know as a political junkie I have truly odd dreams indeed.
<
p>Perhaps Coakley could do it instead. But more likely she will wait until Deval is out to run for Gov.
<
p>Wouldn’t Murray be the shoe in though?
Murray will be Governor
Kennedy will only quit when the good Lord thinks its time for him to quit and he has looked youthful and energetic on the stump for Obama so I don’t think thats gonna happen anytime soon. And Kerry as much of a loser as he is still votes the right way for this state, still has some seniority and clout, and a huge warchest to scare away challengers. These senators have been my senators for as long as I’ve lived, and Im pretty sure they will probably still be senators when my kids first start breathing which is a good 10-15 years away (according to plan anyway).
<
p>As much as I’d love a fresh face like Coakley, and as much as having a female Senator would be great for the state, I just don’t see it happening.
to quote a Kennedy (the man not the myth)…..
<
p>why do we have to count on God to impose term limits or open up the system for us to get new leaders? Isn’t that why we have elections and terms…and the right to change our elected officials from time to time? We have been cowed into complacency and acceptance…pretty sniveling of us to expect God to bail us out because we won’t do it for ourselves at the polls.
Yes, that would be when Kennedy is up and I’m not suggesting that she or anyone else run against him. However, I have noticed since the 2006 election cycle that his age is starting to show. He will be 80 in 2012 I believe and while others (Byrd, Thurmond) have served past that milestone I’m not sure it’s ideal. Also, he was first elected to fill his brother’s vacancy in 1962, which means in 2012 he will have served 50 years, which seems like a nice clean stopping point. To be clear I will absolutely support him if he runs again.
<
p>On Coakley’s record I think she has been a good AG, but I have one pet peeve about her ADA days. She ran for Middlesex DA touting how she had prosecuted Louise Woodward, the British nanny who shook baby Matthew Eppen(sp?) to death for murder. I believe she went too far as my understanding is that murder requires intent to kill. I never knew of evidence that suggested that Woodward was guilty of more than manslaughter, that is, an accidental homicide.
I remember that televised trial…District Attorney Tom Reilly broght the charges against Woodward. The current Middlesex DA Gerry Leone was the lead Prosecutor. Coakley was a second back up attorney who dealt with medical testimony. Coakley’s big trial was the grandparents in the northern part of Middlesex County who went after their grandchildren, but I do not remember the details of the case.
A Coakley-Kerry(-O’Reilly?!?) race would be a fun race to watch, but I just do not see her running for a higher office 1 year into her first term as AG. Sure, other politicians do it, but I would be surprised if Coakley did.
<
p>However, she is a politician and must have a healthy ego. I think it’s time for Kerry to go and would be supportive if Coakley decided to challenge him.
<
p>However, there is always Ed O’Reilly to support in the Demcocratic primary.
Did you guys hear that Al Gore is NOT running for President in 2008? Even though you dearly wished upon a star that it would happen?
<
p>Martha Coakley is not going to run against a sitting Democratic US Senator. She is loyal to the party. For her to run against Kerry…she’d be giving up a lot of support from a lot of people and money who’ll be lining up to help her when there is an opening.
<
p>Don’t get me wrong…I will be very thrilled to vote for her for US Senate when she actually does run. But that won’t be until Kerry or Kennedy don’t, not before.
<
p>She is obviously well respected as no one in the entire Democratic Party even ran against her for AG. Handed it to her on a silver platter. They knew she could not be beat.
<
p>When there is an open seat, it won’t be easy. Several of our current Congressmen want a promotion too.
<
p>Her speeches at recent State Democratic Conventions have been great. She has it in her. Right then I said She IS going to be our US Senator one day. But today is not the day.
Katie, I can agree with everything you said except for one thing. You say one reason she will not run is out of “party loyalty”…party loyalty is the reason we hold our nose and turn a blind eye when we vote for a candidate of our own party against a GOP candidate, even if we do not like them…party loyalty and all…
<
p>but, “party loyalty” should not factor into interparty primaries that were created to let Democratic Party members choose our candidate to carry the banner…unfortunately, over the years of incumbents who think once elected it is theirs for life, those opportunities come every decade or so rather than every term or so…
<
p>Once in for a term they play the seniority card as if to even consider someone else would cause the end of the world…
<
p>If they leave, I will miss them some. But, how can we miss them, when they just won’t leave?
So now we are ginning up Martha Coakley for US Senate eh?
You guys are grasping at straws…it is sad really.
we are having a conversation, for fun…this is a blog …people discuss possibilities, match-ups, politics, sports, and the sport that is politics…lighten up…if you seriously were intending to start a fire for a candidate or candidacy, this would not be the best place to do it…this thread was about taking on a US Senate incumbent that in April, 2007 polled well under 50% on the Suffolk poll “deserves reelection” question…that was reported in the Globe at the time and raised eyebrows…so it is fair to discuss…unless we believe that even discussing the possibility of running against an incumbent in a party primary is now prohibited, too.
I didn’t say that you had to have party loyalty or Ed has to have party loyalty or even if party loyalty is a good or a bad thing. I just said that SHE has it and She isn’t going to run this year for that and many other reasons. I expect you will see her at the convention supporting Kerry.
“Party loyalty” has to do with FINAL elections against the OTHER parties…it should not enter into the Primary or Party Convention process…everyone in that process is a Party member and has a right (and even obligation) to run for the party nomination if they think they can be the better standard bearer and officeholder.
<
p>It is not “disloyal” in any way to run against an incumbent…that notion is only promoted by incumbents who want a free ride unscrutinized in primary season.
Well then forget about Martha Coakley, she isn’t gonna give up a job she only just obtained a bare two years ago for some doomed kamikaze gig.
Nope I recommend you have a chat with Cameron Kerry, because lord knows he makes as much sense as Martha Coakley at this point.
Elias…comparison not possible…CK is not in the stratasphere as Coakley…it’s a laugh riot that you would even put them in the same sentence!
<
p>You have a sense of humor after all…
I’d rather draft Kirk Cameron.
have all had ample opportunity to cast a vote for the boss, I think the thread poll is complete.
<
p>But, even with the staff votes, wouldn’t you have expected an incumbent US Senator to have exceeded at least 75% on a decidedly progressive/liberal blog poll?
… perhaps she might be considered as the occupant for the other seat, in the event that’s needed, and Kerry can become the Senior Senator. It’ll be a bit of a consolation prize since he never got to be President.