Even yet still more interestinger: (h/t Bernstein)
The difference, we believe, lies with intangibles, a sense of which of the candidates would be most likely both to meet the challenge of service in the Senate and also add something new. Ms. Coakley, Mr. Capuano and Mr. Pagliuca have all achieved much in their respective positions, and possess attributes that would serve them well in the Senate. But Mr. Khazei appears to offer something a bit different. He has a deeply genuine and expansive vision of public service that he calls “Big Citizenship,” and speaks of creating an “opportunity society.” He is a student of history who has traveled widely, has dealt with power brokers on both sides of the political aisle, and is a man who has retained the youthful energy that led him to co-found City Year.
More or less what we said. My personal feeling is that any of the other three will be fine Senators, but Khazei alone has the potential to be a great one: Not a Ted Kennedy, perhaps; but as an outside-the-lines figure like Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold, or Bernie Sanders. A real “maverick”, but one with a consistency of values. (A politician should be predictable, I would submit.)
The other fascinating thing about this and the Globe's endorsements, is how Coakley and Capuano have failed to seal the deal with these two editorial boards. I know Coakley's still way ahead, and that is frankly unlikely to change in the next few days. She hasn't made any fatal stumbles. But neither has she really articulated strongly why she wants to be the next Senator, or what her animating values are, or why she is the person to follow Ted Kennedy. Capuano gives a better sense of his motivations, but his temperament seems to have given the Globe pause.
Is the race fluid enough to make MA Khazei-land?
The number of undecideds is astounding.
<
p>The ease with which undecideds become Alan Khazei supporters is also pleasantly surprising–but really not so surprising, b/c he is a great candidate.
<
p>Will it be easy? no. Is it inevitable? No.
<
p>But it’s entirely possible and outside of the land of the politically hard-boiled, we’ve got a lot of open minds to work with, who very much like what they hear and see and read about Alan. đŸ™‚
in the realm of the “entirely possible”
to predict the future with certainty?
<
p>Now I’m sad.
Mocking the editors for putting up a post about another Kaz endorsement when their’s was met with such “broad support” from their readers.
<
p>You don’t try to predict the future with certainty so much as leave it open as a possibility and I suppose I agree with you on that.
But it doesn’t seem weird to me at all to list endorsements in new threads… ???
<
p>There certainly seems to be a Capuano contingent on BMG that is pretty vocal and, ahem, prickly.
<
p>That shouldnt chg the general coverage practices, right? i dunno i’m new here
We like passionate.
The worst reason to get behind something is because it’s “the most likely to succeed”
not my “man”.
But it’s an angle the Capuano people have been working to try to dissuade support against Khazei. An observation.
In answer to your question: “Is the race fluid enough to make MA Khazei-land?”, I don’t think so.
<
p>I feel the momentum shifting as well, I think it’s shifting away from Martha Coakley and the shift is benefiting both Alan Khazei and Mike Capuano. I think this will ultimately work to Mike Capuano’s benefit. I think Steve Pagliuca isn’t a factor. I’m beginning to wonder if he really does have his eye on next November (as Sabutai has been speculating). Given the role of Doug Rubin in his campaign and Deval Patrick’s dismal poll numbers, it makes me wonder what Deval Patrick has in mind — perhaps he really is on his way to Washington DC by way of President Obama.
<
p>My sense is that Mike Capuano’s support is firmer. I think folks who gravitate towards him are unlikely to be peeled off by Alan Khazei.
<
p>In short — I think whatever changes are happening in the electorate this week hurt Martha Coakley, help Alan Khazei a bit, and will end up providing the margin of victory for Mike Capuano.
Congrats to Khazei on this recent momentum. But the endorsements themselves just confirm why I’m so solidly with Capuano and his New Deal Democrat style, which seems to fill certain high-minded people with so much discomfort.
<
p>In the next paragraph of the T&G endorsement, the candidate says: “It’s innovators and entrepreneurs who drive the change,” he told the Telegram & Gazette’s editorial board, adding that while government has a role in setting the tone, the nation’s problems won’t be solved by government alone, but through public-private partnerships.
<
p>I just think this is very very dangerous. It sounds like privatization-talk and ultimately that’s what it moves us toward. It appeals to people who think of themselves as isolated individuals who want to be free to participate or not in such solutions, depending on whether they agree with them or not. Compare funding Americorps to funding foodstamps and extending unemployment benefits. I’m sure Khazei would vote the right way on those issues but I don’t see him putting his energy into fighting for them. In his imagination, as he’s described it for us, a group of bank employees serving food at a shelter on Thanksgiving is his ideal, instead of the invisible, truly selfless act of simply using the power and money of the federal government and the American economy to protect the dignity of people to feed themselves.
I think we have definitely seen a split between town and gown MA progressives. There are those of us that grew up in working class towns and neighborhoods that support Democratic values because they are instilled in our blood, and those of us who vote for Democrats because their policy papers are better. The policy paper crowd has swung to Khazei, the working class voters, who tend to actually know and respect their local politicians, are swinging to Capuano and Coakley.
<
p>I think Coakley is losing some support, but more likely the undecide’s are finally looking at the race and making up their mind. I really don’t see Khazei having a broad base of support outside of the Boston area since his base is with academics, students, and the ‘creative class’. So he will still be a non factor, though one who has an impressive showing and could run for the House or a state office down the line. Frankly we need a competent progressive as auditor and Khazei could fit that mold quite easily. Remember my criticism of him is that he is entirely unqualified for the Senate but I certainly think he can serve in other capacities.
<
p>But yeah privatization, and the presumption that because Capuano is a white ethnic politician and has served for a long time he must be a hack.
The Globe OWNS the Telegram & Gazette.
<
p>Was that editorial board independent?
The Boston Globe doesn’t and never has owned the T&G. There are separate newspapers that are owned by the same parent company, the New York Times Company.
<
p>The only evidence to suggest bias would be your own conjecture. There are thousands of independent subsidiaries throughout the country.
But I thought it was a bit far fetched.
The Worcester Telegram and Gazette is NOT owned by The Boston Globe. It is an entirely separate newspaper that happens to be owned by the same parent corporation, The New York Times Company.
<
p>The Telegram and the Globe absolutely positively could NOT have more different editorial perspectives if they existed on different planets.
I’m starting to see the following dynamic in the recent big-media endorsements:
<
p>
<
p>This isn’t even the best being the enemy of the good…we’re now looking at the possible best being the enemy of definitive excellence. Only in Massachusetts.
That’s why that 20 year old in Double A can’t be traded for a CY Young winner in the major leagues. Because he has the “potential” to be better. Sometimes we place too much emphasis on potential rather than a known commodity.
We have been consistently throwing tested and progressive public servants under the bus in favor of outsiders that end up doing a less than stellar job (Nikki Tsongas, Deval, and as of yesterday President Obama) instead of truly experienced progressives.
The editors have erred in precisely this fashion before. The difference is they’re now backing potential over proven candidates. It seems odd.
from the same cloth as the Wall Street Journal’s and the wacky Washington Post. They are extremely conservative, so I am surprised to see they did not endorse the law-and-order type among the candidates. I’m beginning to wonder if Coakley hasn’t pissed some people off somewhere along the way.
If you’re right, nobody cares — it was obvious. If you’re wrong, everybody laughs at you.
<
p>Why not take a long shot?
…seizing the rhetoric of our foes.
He’s a plant.
<
p>He might talk nice, but he’ll be holding Tea Parties, talking about Death Panels and will hang out with Michelle Bachmann if elected.
<
p>Don’t fall for the trap! ; )
The Providence Journal endorses Coakley.
<
p>http://www.projo.com/opinion/e…
<
p>Umm, I think someone made a mistake.
said he’s staying out of the endorsemnt game because the people of MA should decide (as he met for a photo op and a conversation about the credit card bill reform with Mike Capuano… 16% max with an opt out and a trigger effective 2019 ;-P)
The Providence Journal is in Rhode Island.
<
p>You’re gonna get a lot of disappointed people in Cvanston and Waw-wick when they discover they can’t vote for her.
This is finally an exciting race. Let’s get one of the two Democratic candidates with passion (albeit very different styles of expression) to the US Senate to represent Massachusetts.
It might just be that Khazei could experience a Kerry style surge. Remember in 2004 when Dean and Gephardt savaged each other on the airwaves in IA turning everyone off to their candidacies allowing Kerry to consolidate both groups? In a similar way Khazei might be benefiting from people tired of the air war between Coakley and Capuano.