There is the other progressive in the race, Alan Khazei, and I hope he runs for office in the future. A lot of my progressive friends are on board with his campaign, but I have two major problems with him: one, that on a practical level, he’s highly unlikely to win; and two, some of the missteps in his campaign, though understandable, make him look rather green. For instance, I applaud his stance on casinos, but the forums in which he brought the matter up were inappropriate, and also, irrelevant. The only power a Senator would have in the state debate about casinos is the bully pulpit, and a freshman Senator, not even much of that. A lower office would suit Khazei so that he can gain the experience needed to move further up, but I just don’t see the “ready for prime time” practicality necessary to make something happen in the mess of a Senate.
I am sincerely skeptical about Coakley, and moreso the longer this campaign goes and she listens to her consultants and “plays it safe.” That’s not to say she might not turn out to be a good progressive, but the manner in which she has run her campaign doesn’t showcase this potential whatsoever. She has failed to reach out to the grassroots, or the netroots, and I’m really kinda sick of the only way I actually hear about her campaign: ads on TV, and press releases to my email like every day or so. It would take very little for her to change the impression that we out here in the ‘roots have of her, but no effort so far. More’s the pity. I want to ask: How will she govern, if this is the way she runs?
Her reversal on the increase of troops in Afghanistan is nothing short of bewildering. First she says she’ll wait to hear the President’s evaluation (a “safe” though actually defensible position), and now, that the other candidates say they are against increasing the troops without a timeline for withdrawal, now she is. Way to stick to your guns.
Pagliuca is dismissible, if not for his gobs of money which makes him a household name now. Anyone else tired of Pags ads? Doth protest too much? His is a vanity campaign, except he has spent so much cash that he actually has a bit of a shot. My friend Ryan (who has endorsed Khazei) does a good job running down the reasons why this guy is in fourth place for the progressive vote. I have no use for a guy whose first indication of progressiveness is his ads on TV, when all his previous actions say something different.
But enough about why not to vote for the other guy. Why should you vote for Mike Capuano?
For me, it’s about the combination of practical attitude and steady principles. The man who held this seat for so long had a lot of both of these elements. Kennedy’s time in the Senate was about holding the line against conservative and neo-liberal policies, many of which resulted in the mess we are in today. A shift of the conservatives to the right corresponded with a shift of the Democrats to the right (even right of center) with devastating results. But not for Ted, and a vast majority of his constituents thanked him for it.
That’s why I want someone with similar principles, and similar practicality, to hold this office again. We need to adhere to our ideals…not because we want to be extremist, but because in reality, on issue after issue, we have the American people on our side. If we want to be rewarded with the trust of the people, we should stand for something. And then follow through.
Mike Capuano has a history of working with others to accomplish goals. He seems to know when to compromise, and when to stand firm. (Hint: eroding our civil liberties was one of latter.) Kennedy knew how to garner the respect of his peers, even as they took opposite sides on an issue. I believe that Mike Capuano is best able to replace that man who held constituent services as dear as passing a health care bill.
Finally, Capuano has shown he is of the grassroots. He has held event after event, out on the streets, unscripted. He is knowledgeable on the issues, answers questions from anyone, has deigned to interview with such rabble as bloggers and podcasters (gasp!), and generally displayed an attitude of listening as much as talking. He is down to earth and not driven by consultants (though I’m sure he employs some), and doesn’t apologize for being himself. All of these things make him the best Democrat to replace Ted Kennedy as our second Senator from Massachusetts.
(Edit: Crossposted from my blog, of course…)
I think Chris Cillizza hits the nail on the head with Khazei. He used the NBA Draft as the example and talked about his “potential”, or if you ever watched the draft, the big joke is how often the commentators talk about the “Up side” of a player. Switching to baseball, he’s that young kid in AA, that could be a star (or not).
<
p>A line I like from Duke’s endorsement (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>That’s Capuano in a nutshell, fighting for progressive ideals not matter the circumstances. No limelight, health care reform seemed dead, doesn’t matter, Capuano had still fought for those ideals. That’s the reason why a good amount of folks at BMG gave been vocal about him.
Between what you’ve laid out here so nicely, and the endorsements by some of the people I trust most — Jim McGovern, Mike Dukakis, Kate, etc. — I think Capuano is the way to go.
…she has shown courage since the beginning of the campaign that no other candidate was willing to show. One her willingness to fight for the seat, to fight for choice, to stake out a strong position on Afghanistan now that the tragic direction is clear. Sorry Lynne if the campaign didn’t kiss your ring, but plenty of us have been hard at work knocking on doors and calling friends. She hasn’t had a year to build what Deval did in 2006, but there is plenty of grassroots enthusiasm. I am confident that she will emerge victorious on December 8th.
You’ve commented here and at my dkos diary with the same chip on your shoulder. That hardly helps your candidate.
<
p>Let me reiterate what I posted there:
<
p>
<
p>Let’s address the new angry points you raise here:
<
p>”One her willingness to fight for the seat”
Ok…this is a prerequisite for a good progressive candidate? To my mind, she’s been ambitious from the start, and while this is not a bad thing, it is obvious to me that every move by Coakley has been calculated. Carefully. Not exactly a candidate of passion and conviction to me.
<
p>”to fight for choice”
As safe a position as you can get in MA, and all the other candidates do the same.
<
p>”to stake out a strong position on Afghanistan now that the tragic direction is clear”
<
p>THe direction was clear weeks ago. I actually think she should have stuck to her guns on her original position (the “safe” one) rather than flip flop right before Obama was slated to speak to the issue. At least her previous safe, hedging position was defensible. But now she’s coming out with principles? Sorry, principles are saying what you believe from the get-go. If she REALLY wanted to hear what Obama had to say, her PRINCIPLES should dictate she shut up and comment after he speaks. Since he has NOT made his case yet at all.
<
p>”Sorry Lynne if the campaign didn’t kiss your ring, but plenty of us have been hard at work knocking on doors and calling friends.”
<
p>LMFAO. Yeah this is all about ME. Right. I didn’t say she didn’t have people volunteering for her. However, she is very isolated and running her campaign on press releases. Of course, it’s the “safe” thing to do as front runner but it certainly is NOT desirable. I’m not looking for her to come to me personally, but to see SOME indication that she’s getting out of her damn consultant bubble – that is what I am not seeing. Sorry but attacking me doesn’t make her a grassroots candidate.
<
p>Is that really necessary? This is EXACTLY the sort of petty bullshit that makes people view Martha Coakley even more negatively, fairly or unfairly. After seeing her supporters’ behavior on this site, I can say it’ll be a long time before I view Martha Coakley in quite the same way I did before all this started. Anyway, can’t Lynne simply favor Mike Capuano and still remain a decent human being? Why are YOU taking Lynne’s criticism so personally? It’s a fucking campaign! I, personally, will thank the cosmic dust when this primary is over.
Aside from one particularly egregious example, I’ve cringed equally at Khazei, Capuano, and Coakley supporters around here.
<
p>However, that’s on their supporters’ shoulders, not theirs. I think we have three good Democrats trying out for a job that best fits only one of then. In my ideal world, two years from now would see Senator Capuano, Governor Coakley and Lieutenant Governor Khazei. Laughable, I know, but still…
Two years from now…the fates play out their special surprises…
<
p>US Senator Martha Coakley, (unafraid to take on the Wall St and investment bank and credit card gougers…no looking the other way….stands with us, not K St.)
<
p>Congressman Mike Capuano, (continues to be a good congressman but does not bow to Pelosi as much because she has been replaced.)
<
p>US Speaker of the House Jim McGovern, (the cream of the MA delegation rises)
<
p>Governor Tim Murray,(takes over after Deval takes DC Obama appointment…Murray cleans house and gets the state humming again)
<
p>Lt. Governor Kim Driscoll (current Mayor of Salem, rising star who Gov. Murray puts in charge of increasing real help to cities and towns…Murray-Driscoll: a great team effort…a strong, decisive and politically saavy team),
<
p>Attorney General Jon Blodgett (current outstanding Essex County DA defeated DeLeo’s professional politician appointee to replace Coakley)
<
p>State Treasurer Tom Ambrosino (current Harvard educated mayor of Revere brings new energy, innovation and intelligence to treasurer’s office)
<
p>Secretary of State Jennifer Flanagan (current State Senator- replaced Bill Galvin after Galvin appointed Resort Casino Czar of the Commonwealth)
because much of the antipathy is not engendered by policy differences, but by an undertone of crass sexism . In the Reilly/Patrick/Gabrieli wars, the issues were philosophy and policy, centrist versus left, etc. Race was not an issue. I don’t recall a lot of nasty debate about not supporting a candidate because he’s black, but I may be wrong.
<
p>In the Obama/Clinton primary, the sexism was evident again, with Clinton supporters–at times appropriately–pointing out the flagrant sexism in her treatment in the media. Sometimes, however, that card, if you will, was played a little too freely by some, and tempers flared again with OUTRAGE, I TELL YOU! splayed across many a comment. I remember times when critical comments in “front of” some rather ardent Clinton supporters got you labeled sexist in ten seconds flat.
<
p>In this race, I have to say that I find the sexism issue egregiously overused and exploited to the point of damage. I wouldn’t want to be left in a room alone with some of these Coakley “feminists.” The tenor of their support for her candidacy is offputting and nasty. If you notice, some of the worst offenders have fled the scene–thankfully. Personally, the night I was called a “swift boater” because I was arguing Coakley’s treatment of the Amiraults was problematic was one for the ages.
<
p>So I respectfully disagree with your assessment, but it’ll soon be over.
I think I need to add certain Coakley supporters to my comment below!
<
p>I can’t wait for this primary to be over. I consider myself rather hard-skinned, but I’m surprised at how squeamish I’m getting over the nastiness being thrown around.
I’ve been so focused on Lowell’s races that I wasn’t even reading as much here (maybe just front page stuff) and certainly not commenting…so I missed a lot.
<
p>But I remember nastiness at a high level whenever there’s a contested primary…like the Reilly/Gab/Patrick primary. I think we all forget in between races just how emotional these things get. đŸ™‚
I found your endorsement very insightful. I am one of those progressives supporting Khazei, but I’ll be honest in that my support is soft.
<
p>I will also be upfront in admitting that I have had a hard time supporting Capuano. Not because of his positions, or really anything to do with him, but honestly due to the nature of some of his supporters. I understand the obvious immaturity underlying a statement such as that, but I find myself constantly aghast after reading the snarky comments made by some of his more vocal supporters on this site. It’s as if everything is a fight, as opposed to a discussion. While there are those who have taken issue with Caps temperament on air, I would venture that the temperament of some of his supporters are doing him a deep disservice.
<
p>Thank you for your views, I am always looking to read what others have to say (as long as they are in good spirit) as I finalize my decision over the next week.
I would respectfully suggest that this perception might be based, in part, on the experience of supporting a minority candidate on this site. I remember, as a supporter of a non-Patrick gubernatorial candidate, feeling as if this site, and the Patrick base, was populated by the meanest gang of bullies this side of middle school. Afterward, I could recall only one or two people being truly obnoxious, and the idea that it represented something inherent to the Patrick candidacy seemed ridiculous.
However, I feel my attitude is less due to my feelings towards Khazei (as I said they are weak) and more so my lack of intense passion for Mike Capuano.
I actually think Khazei scored some points on casinos — it certainly got him some press when he had none of it. Plus, there are certainly national implications to the casino issue, most particularly being will-they-or-won’t-they change the tribal casino law, they being the federal government, since the Supreme Court ruled that the old policy violated statutory law (and therefore banned most tribes from building casinos w/out a state’s consent). That’s a key vote on casinos our next Senator is likely to make, which could impact us at home; I’m glad to know Khazei’s on the right side of them.
–
<
p>If the argument is ‘we need to support Capuano because Khazei has no chance,’ what happens if the next poll shows Khazei and Capuano tied for 2nd, with Coakley likely bleeding support should that happen. That’s not so far-fetched given that Khazei was already showing some momentum even before the Globe endorsement. Who do we ‘kick out’ to have the best shot at winning then?
<
p>Given that Coakley actually fits in the progressive camp, as much as I don’t think she’s a good fit for a legislator, this becomes even more complicated for progressive activists. This isn’t even Thunderdome, where two may enter and one may leave. We have three progressive candidates in this race and one of them is going to win.
<
p>-
<
p>I enjoyed reading this; I’m not sure if any of my questions or points can be answered, at least with so few days left in this election. I truly wish we had another month or two to flesh this thing out, but alas, this is the nature of a special election. At least, no matter how any looks at it, the voters of Massachusetts have had a decent choice on the ballot box, instead of having this seat appointed till I’m almost 30 (ugh).
<
p>I’m sure we’ll have some good banter on this and other topics on the next podcast. For the record, I think this is the first time the three of us have made endorsements in a race and not endorsed the same person. New LeftAhead record! =O
<
p>If anyone wants to listen to our next show, it’s live on Tuesdays at 2:30. We sometimes do take calls, too đŸ˜‰ Visit LeftAhead.com for more information.
Lynne, I am one of those undecided unenrolled people who will be voting on Tuesday and I will vote in the Dem primary as it has been, by far, the more interesting to follow. Your thoughts have helped me to reconsider some of my earlier leanings and call into question what could have been assumptions on my part.
<
p>I think I am between Capuano and Khazei. No offense to Martha, but she has seemed more impersonal in this race than in previous elections, and this from someone who has contributed to and volunteered for her in the past. Capuano brings considerable experience, but I am torn as to whether that experience is better as a junior senator or as a more senior and influential congressman. As for Khazei, I am not sure he has much of a chance to win, but that would not stop me from voting for him. I do hope that he will seriously consider a run for governor and challenge Deval. The Commonwealth would be much better for his getting into that ring early next year.
<
p>Again, thanks for taking the time to put your thougths out there and help me further my thinking as to whom to vote for a week Tuesday.
Good endorsement post.
<
p>There are two candidates who definitely seem to be progressive, and two who have too many marks against them to be put in the progressive category. Khazei has been impressive throughout.
<
p>To me, I think it comes down to this:
<
p>Of the progressives, there is one who has a proven track record for voting progressive even when it was dangerous, and taking leadership on progressive issues. There is another candidate who has done some cool things outside of government, and now is running as a progressive. Why vote for the person who’s progressive stands we’ve only heard about for the last 12 weeks when we can vote for the candidate who has earned his credentials as a hard core liberal over the last 12 years of Congressional service?
<
p>I really hope Khazei becomes a political leader in our state. But in thinking about who I want over the next decade or two, I want someone who has proven their political reputation when not running for higher office. There is no way he could have known voting against the Iraq war or the Patriot Act would be the politically beneficial thing to do in 2002. It could have been political suicide, in fact. He took those stands because they were the right stands to take.
<
p>Compare that to Martha Coakley suing the feds over DOMA as she prepares her senate campaign. I would have been a lot more impressed if she’d done that before Senator Kennedy took ill. I’m not saying I know her motivations. I only suggest that her timing appears opportunistic. If that’s what is defined around here as an attack, I’m sorry it comes off that way. It’s just how I feel.
“I Like Mike”… He has something the others don’t and it is called a record. He has voted on key legislation and isn’t afraid to take on anyone if need be. His style is such that he has won friends and supporters which is critical in building those relationships required to pass legislation and on more than one occasion I have heard him say that one of his jobs in the senate will be in persuading the president when he disagrees with him.
<
p>”If you don’t look evil in the eye and call it by it’s name then you have no right to call yourself a peacemaker.” Mike Capuano.
http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…
<
p>Has the Herald’s editorial page every agreed with a BMG poster before?
<
p>Boston Herald endorses Capuano
<
p>By Boston Herald Editorial Staff | Monday, November 30, 2009 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Editorials
The reality is that as smart – and committed – as the Democratic contenders for U.S. Senate are, no flesh-and-blood human being can duplicate the four decades of experience the late Sen. Ted Kennedy brought to the job.
<
p>And while this newspaper often clashed with the senior senator on issues, what we admired most about him was his steadfastness to the causes in which he believed and his unparalleled devotion to this state, its people and the institutions which make it so special.
<
p>Those should be benchmarks by which voters choose his successor. And by that standard it’s U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano who stands out as the best qualified of the Democratic candidates to fill that seat at a critical juncture in this nation’s history.
<
p>As Capuano is fond of pointing out himself, he is ready to do the job, because he has done the job. These aren’t theoretical issues to Capuano. He has already voted on the health care bill in the House. He has made clear his opposition to increasing military troop strength in Afghanistan, even if it means opposing a president of his own party.
<
p>”We have accomplished our mission in Afghanistan,” he said during a debate yesterday co-sponsored by the Boston Herald and Suffolk University. The mission was to rid Afghanistan of al-Qaeda, he added, and not to “protect a corrupt regime.”
<
p>And in 2002 he was one of only 19 House members voting to reinstitute a pay-as-you-go system aimed at cutting deficit spending, something he insisted, “was not a new issue to me.”
<
p>As congressman from the 8th District Capuano has among his “constituents” 34 colleges and universities and the lion’s share of the state’s health care facilities. Not surprisingly the 8th District gets more National Institutes of Health grants than just about any other district in the nation. And while Capuano has not tended to their needs single-handedly (Kennedy and Sen. John Kerry were always leaders on such things), he can claim some of the credit.
<
p>Capuano has also demonstrated throughout his decade of service in the House that he – and his staff – can deal with the nitty-gritty of constituent services the way Kennedy and his office were so good at.
<
p>But what we like best about Capuano is what others find so off-putting – his fire, his passion, his take-no-prisoners way of dealing with issues. It’s, well, Kennedyesque.
<
p>The Herald is pleased to endorse Michael Capuano for the Democratic Senate nomination.
… Lynne, your post is (as usual) well-reasoned and cogent. However, since it comes to the wrong conclusions, I must therefore denounce it as a misbegotten spawn of a withered and corrupt ideology, crassly proffered, breathlessly naive, slightly noxious and a danger to children. I have proof, also, that your first paragraph alone was responsible for the death of a really really cute puppy. Your second sub-clause in the third paragraph caused Tiger Woods one-car accident. And, immediately after this post went live, three stand-up comics and two Shakespearean actors returned to waiting tables. I hope you’re proud of yourself. I also note that a certain amount of money, labelled “interest” (wink, wink), obviously laundered in Columbia and funneled through Rupert Murdochs empire, ended up (one wonders how…) in your bank account sometime in the past month, but certainly prior to posting this at BMG. Hm…
<
p>All seriousness aside. I’m voting for Coakley, but would gladly live with Capuano as a Senator: either would make, IMHO, a good progressive Senator. So I disagree with your assesments there. Insofar as outreach is concerned, Martha Coakleys’ ‘events’ page lists a ginormous number of phone bank events and lotsa travel. So I think she’s conducting a ground war in that respect and an air war via TV. While I would like her to get to the blogs more, that’s simply not how some people roll, so it never occured to me to fault her for it. I think, too, that Coakley is also conducting a truly statewide race. So she’s not so much ignoring the netroots as conducting a campaign on fundamentals. Given the abbreviated schedule, I don’t see anything wrong with this, and a lot that may be right…
<
p>But basically, when it comes down to it, I look at Coakley and I see tempered steel. I get a sense of strength and resolve, coupled with a first rate mind, that reminds me of John Kerry, whom I admire and respect immensely. (Yes, I’m aware of my minority status in this regard:, Kerrys’ image amongst many here and in the blogosphere in general… naivete which I won’t make answer either for or to…) So, too, I think being a prosecutor is a hard hard job and she’s done it rather well, if you ask me. I think it’s time for her to write the laws, rather than enforce them. It seems a natural progression.
<
p>And I think that, going back to the issue of ‘progressive’ for a moment, I’m concerned, again, at the conflation of outlook and outcome. Teddy Kennedy’s career is really only consistent and progressive in hindsight: 2009 is a vastly different place from 1962 and Kennedy has a lot of ‘flip flops’ along that path. His outlook, while always progressive hasn’t always been neatly aligned with the outcomes. Or, put another way, Coakley isn’t very different from the last half-dozen or so Democratic Presidential candidates: Obama, Clinton (Hillary), Kerry, Gore, Bradley,Clinton (William J), Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, etc… All of them share one simple trait: personally liberal/progressive and professionally cautious. One has to go back all the way to LBJ to find a Democrat who was both personally and professionally and unabashedly progressive. And it was a disaster. Frankly, that combination of outlook/attitude of personally liberal an professionally cautions seems to be what sells best outside the ‘hard-core’ blog-o-sphere. It sells well because it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Nor do I think such professional caution stems out of cowardice or timidity: most of these people had to deal professionally with people like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Trent Lott, a prospect I find thoroughly abhorrent. They have had to cultivate a patient approach to change, even to the extent of making many ‘flip-flops’… But here’s the thing that’s important: most of what Thurmond, Helms and Lott fought to implement for nearly their entire adult lives are falling away. They are the losers in the march to progress (and deservedly so..) This, I contend, is due to the politicians we’ve seen who are personally very liberal but professionally cautious: flip-floppers every one. Even Ted Kennedy came around to opposition to Vietnam at what many here would have considered a glacial pace. And, it seems to me, that if we progressives are going to drag along unwilling conservatives into a bright progressive future, in effect asking them to perform their own ‘flip-flops’, we’re going to have to get over this inane and childish commitment to absolute consistency. Or, to put it yet another way; did you know that Martin Luther King Jr. lobbied aggressively against the repeal of the poll tax, in 1964, on the grounds that it if was going to scuttle the whole civil rights bill, it was best not to tackle it. That would have been the cause of some screaming headlines today: “MLK flip-flops on poll tax… “.
<
p>If you think about it, you can’t get from where we are today to where most progressives wish to be, without a majority of lawmakers holding different positions than they do today… I suppose one solution is to replace them with more progressive pols… But if anyone had tried that in 1964, with Ted Kennedy, he wouldn’t have had so long a career and we’re back to square one…. The other solution is to get existing pols to ‘flip flop’ on the issues over time, like Kennedy, and nearly all great pols, did.
<
p>I can tell things about Capuano that give me pause, but that would open myself up to charges of ‘tearing down one to build up the other’… I’ll just say that I don’t get the sense of purpose and steel as I do from Coakley and leave it at that. I won’t, however, be devastated should he upset Coakley. I think that would be just fine. Not my first choice, but not the end of the world.
<
p>Khazei doesn’t do much for me either way. I simply can’t bring myself to get that excited about him.
<
p>Pagliuca is dead to me.
<
p>Epistemological rectitude aside, I trust you’re not so blinkered that you’re immune to attempts at humor, however hamhanded…
… as a stickler for logic (I think it should be a required course in High School), a well reasoned, valid argument can come to erroneous conclusion if they start from wrong premises,… not that I think this is what’s going on here.
<
p>On what petr said, I agree about the fact “…that’s simply not how some people roll” with respect to the blogs. I think at some point in the near future it will absolutely be something that can be criticized about a campaign because it’s the simplest and cheapest way for a campaign to stay engaged… presumably with people more likely to vote and be active in any advocacy. The Patrick campaign certainly took notice of this efficiency early on. As such, it does seem like an oversight, unless you’re strategy is to be the ‘inevitable’ candidate, which for those who like to see ideas actually compete seems unsatisfying.
<
p>With regard to here ‘steely resolve’, I’d point out that there are ways to be ‘personally and professionally and unabashedly progressive’ – I’d cite Wellstone as the obvious example. We really need to remember that the biggest fear of the GOP isn’t that liberal legislation get’s passed… it’s that it gets passed and actually works.
<
p>Put a different way: is exuding a steely resolve simultaneously with a willingness to compromise on progressive issues really resolve at all, or does it rather betray that such issues were never really the point in the first place?
<
p>I think Obama’s ‘professional caution’ is more an acceptance of the structural impediments to progress in our Government. This is a fine stance for the executive or Senate leadership, but as a Senator the starting point has to be for fighting for the core principals. I know I’ll get that from Mike. I might get it from Coakley, but I’m not convinced. Her ‘steely resolve’ hasn’t been tested in the arena of a legislature. ‘Steely resolve’ for me is much more demonstrated by sticking to unpopular stances. In the mix one must be willing to be flexible for the sake of progress, of course, and Mike has demonstrated an understanding of this as well.
<
p>All that said, I can see where you’re coming from, but I too feel you have come to the wrong conclusion.
know who you are getting. He has had 10 yrs to prove himself. I also thought he was great as mayor. I like Coakley and think she has been an fine AG. He also has a great street style flair as he showed in the bank hearings in congress.