Yes, yes I know. The opinion I hold is a rather rare and controversial one among many Democrats, especially those who attend the caucuses. Four years after a stunning loss to Scott Brown, many in the party seemingly still hold the loss against her. Martha however, is not lacking in intelligence or political know-how. She’d be the first one to tell you that she didn’t run the campaign she wanted to, or should’ve run. The story of the 2010 Special Senate Election is the story of a “perfect storm” of sorts- a culmination of dissatisfaction, even in liberal Massachusetts, with Washington, with the powers that be. Coakley doesn’t shy away from her past mistakes, but it’s unfair to place blame for the loss solely on her.
In recent years, it’s been commonplace for any mention of the Attorney General to mention her failed Senate bid. But Martha Coakley, unlike many of the voters in Massachusetts, hasn’t let that election define her. She’s tough. She’s resilient. Getting back on her feet, Martha Coakley buckled down, re-won the AG’s office and got to work. She continued to fight for LGBT rights, protected thousands who were at risk of losing their homes, and continued to pressure the big-banks that ruined our economy. Coakley enjoys the highest approval ratings of any Democrat in the state, but her Senate loss still seems to plague her.
But yes, it is time to forgive Martha. She knows what it’s like to lose a race. She knows what it’s like to have people mad at you. But more than anything, Martha Coakley has been a tireless advocate for all Bay State residents, especially the poor, marginalized and disenfranchised. Martha embodies progressive values. For a state that stands ready to build on the accomplishments that Deval Patrick has brought to fruition, Coakley is the clear choice to bring Massachusetts into a new-era of greatness. Martha is resolute, she’s caring, she’s the right choice for Governor, and yes, it’s time to forgive her.
The very fact that whining posts like this are offered during a primary campaign epitomizes what’s wrong with this candidate, this campaign and — for that matter — our party this time around.
I, for one, have written NUMEROUS TIMES here that I *don’t care* about her loss. She lost. She got booed. Some people still boo when she appears. So what? It’s long past time for Ms. Coakley and her supporters to grow thicker skins and move on.
What I *do* care about is her eagerness to shred privacy rights (except her own), her willingness to protect corrupt Democratic officials (especially when she is among them) as the O’Brien scandal unfolds, her willingness to use the power of her office for her own political gain (as exemplified by her use of the McLaughlin scandal to purge Tim Murray), and the constant and relentless WHINING of her supporters and her campaign about how badly she’s been treated.
Not to mention her COMPLETE DISCONNECT with me, and voters like me, on the issues that we care about in this campaign. Her response to Mr. Lehigh’s question about taxes and funding was classic (no, I don’t have time to go find the link for it … it’s in the recent BMG archives).
The more I hear about this candidate, the more energized I find myself to actively work against her.
You seem to forget that the necessary first step towards forgiveness is *repentance*. And not for losing an election, either. Repentance for squandering whatever assets she arrived with on a relentlessly self-serving and ultimately failed political career.
The next step for Ms. Coakley to take towards forgiveness is to announce her immediate retirement from public service. Then — and only then — I’ll forgive her.
This is a bit harsh, but pretty much in line with statements Tom has made elsewhere. A little respect for the ratings system, please. Disagreement is disagreement.
This isn’t Daily Kos. I’ve never taken downratings to be only for the most offensive.
… a graduated ratings system here at BMG that ran from 0 (remove this offensive trash) to 6 (nearly complete agreement). You will still see someone say things like ‘six 6’s for you!’ in almost violent agreement…
I lliked that ratings system.
I, too, preferred the greater nuance of the old ratings system.
Nevertheless, I understand the downrates to mean that those voters simply disagree with me. I don’t take offense.
It is less easy to forget.
I don’t hold a grudge against Martha Coakley but i will never forget the complacent attitude of her 2010 campaign, and whether it’s right or wrong to do so I can’t say but, that loss left a terrible taste in my mouth.
She didn’t have a complacent attitude. The whole country thought she was going to win until two weeks before she lost. We in Arlington didn’t take it for a done deal. We did phone banks, we did visibility, and we even did some door knocking even though it was freezing. At one point we had over 80 people in our house making phone calls. And you know what she won in Arlington. Imagine if all the grassroots activists who are complaining about her now worked as hard for her as they did for Warren.
As ldavidson said it was a “perfect storm”. No one thought Scott Brown was a threat. She was way ahead in the polls until the very end.
Even more important she is campaigning her @#% this time around. She would make a great governor so I’m working even harder for her this time around.
So, maybe my experience is closer to yours because Coakley won Watertown as well. We had people come out of the woodwork to phone bank for Coakley in the last 10 days of that election. We had multiple phone banks in multiple locations using that terrible auto-dialer system. People really stepped up and answered the call after the call was put out. The problem was that the call was never put out until it was too late!
It was obvious to everyone that in the last 10 days the Coakley campaign was in panic mode. No less than John Walsh has described that auto-dialer we were all using as just a way to “do the wrong thing faster.” If you were on those phones you know why — everyone has a story of getting cursed out for being the 4th or 5th or 8th or 12th call someone got in that election.
And what did the Coakley campaign do with all that data we were collecting via phone? If they did anything, we didn’t see it in Watertown. We were not asked to do any targeted GOTV. Maybe in less liberal areas they did something more sophisticated than a blind pull, but we were told just to flyer every house, not even door knock.
So, sure, maybe more dedicated activists at the local level who ignored the campaign’s instructions to rescue it from itself could have made a couple percentage points difference, but I reject the implication that on the ground workers were the cause of Martha Coakley’s loss to Scott Brown. Her Senate campaign owns that loss.
For what it’s worth, I’m undecided on governor and I like the AG and it seems to me that she’s learned from her mistakes, so I’m not trying to tear her down to pump someone else up.
I was not trying to be negative about the people who worked so hard. I’m just tired of the “story” that she lost because she was “lazy”. I think her campaign was poor and nobody thought they were going to have to work hard until the last few weeks. Working with her campaign people was frustrating. I often felt at odds with them. Her campaign didn’t go all out like Warren’s did. In Arlington we started working early and kept working through the primary all the way to the general. Some communities stopped after the primary.
Martha has said she made mistakes. She even poked fun at herself at the St. Patrick’s day breakfast. She’s learned.
However, it remains the case that one of the criteria Democratic activists are likely to have when judging which candidate to support is their ability to put together a winning statewide general election campaign. Coakley has one real contested general election under her belt (no, her token GOP opposition in her AG & DA races doesn’t count) and it was in your own words poor, frustrating to work with and didn’t go all out. It is reasonable for people who want to see a Democrat as governor to be skeptical. It is also silly for her supporters to pretend to fellow activists that her campaign was merely a victim of circumstances.
Luckily for Coakley, the best way to prove to people that you can build a winning campaign is to do just that, which also happens to be a great way to win an election.
…by going away for Christmas and making snide remarks about shaking hands outside of Fenway.
I always do that on Scott Brown quotes.
All I remember is a Martha Coakley quote:
If someone is quoting Brown (and I wasn’t) that doesn’t mean he or she agrees with it.
Sorry to sound cynical, but I reject the premise that this “story” plays a significant role in the distinct lack of enthusiasm for Ms. Coakley. I think the campaign prefers to spin it this way, because this “story” is far easier to address (as in this thread).
This whole meme strikes me, more and more, as a strawman erected to deflect attention from a number of far more important issues facing Democratic primary voters.
I would appreciate more indication that the campaign actually HEARS the far more substantive concerns that many of us raise.
I know many grassroots activists and DTC members who wanted to door knock and phone bank and were experienced veterans at doing it, but who were turned away by the Coakley campaign.
The campaign asked them to sign hold instead, which was a waste of their time. These activists had never been turned away like that in their lives.
I’m not holding that campaign against her because I think people learn. In fact, I think it could be a mistake to automatically dismiss her based on past results; past isn’t necessarily prologue, so if she learned from those mistakes, she could be a formidable candidate.
But let’s not have revisionist history. She was far from the only complacent person, for sure, but her campaign was complacent and did little in the important ID phases of the campaign, where messages could have been communicated early enough to stick in the minds of voters.
I say all this not because I would automatically dismiss her, but because I worry that enough people like you will say that the campaign was actually good or strong or in tuned or focused or other such nonsense to the point where she and her campaign may believe it.
That’s a recipe for a Governor Charley Baker, should she win the primary.
So, I hope Coakley runs a terrifyingly good campaign and blows the socks off anyone, just like I hope the same from all the other candidates. I want the best candidate to win so we can beat Charley Baker, who would be no good for our state. But that starts at each campaign making an honest assessment of their strengths and weaknesses and, where applicable, how they can learn from past results. Honest assessments and taking constructive criticism here is key. That’s how to win.
What you really should be doing here is asking why Coakley couldn’t organize every town like Arlington was organized, if your organization there was so strong.
I forgot how many hands she shook and phonebanks she coordinated on the Carnival line.
After all, Coakley’s loss led to our having a much better Senator when Warren defeated Brown. If Coakley had beaten Brown, Warren would not have tried.
Like Tom, my problems with the idea of Coakley as Governor have nothing to do with her Senate campaign, and everything to do with her AG record. I do not trust her to protect us ordinary people from the police industry.
If the message is that Coakley didn’t “try hard enough” in 2010, no, I’m not satisfied. I’d like to hear a convincing account of the lessons learned and not be required to believe that some abstract, unnamed lesson was somehow learned by someone somehow.
I also don’t think the Coakley campaigns have given us a clear explanation for the campaign finance mess into which they ran.
Come on kbusch why do you hate woman? Quit being a sexist!
She has yet to explain or take any meaningful responsibility for her campaign finance violations. Not good. Does anyone think that the Republican challenger isn’t going to be dredging this up again and again if she is nominated?
This is sort of a reverse-Godwinism, in that the concept distracts from the premise.
Also, forgive implies a clean slate. There is no such thing in politics.
How about this: let’s let Martha rise or fall based on her campaign, the record she runs on, and whether she connects with voters?
getting sticky on the particilar string….like flypaper in the kichen
Don’t know, that is. Not if you honestly think Martha’s problem is that she ran an awful campaign versus Brown, though she did.
Maybe what you really know is that focusing on the fixable issue of campaign dynamics (just add money and technique) works better for your candidate than her record and play-it-safe lack of vision.
That’s clever, but dishonest.
And if that doesn’t work insist that actually it’s not even her fault she lost and that if we still question her on that campaign, her record, and play it safe lack of vision we are sexist.
I have seen this playbook played by nearly every Coakley supporter on this site, Kate and FWIW Doug Rubin are notable exceptions to this. At least those two owned up to the fact that their candidate made clear mistakes last time.
… or are you, somehow, possess and immunity to sexism the rest of us don’t?
You’re unwillingness to even countenance such and idea speaks volumes.
It is what it is. It’s not an unfounded accusation thrown in merely to distract and deny. It’s what I truly believe. I daresay I’ve seen more sexism, and therefore I am better adept at recognizing it when it happens. than you.
If she cant handle the heat she should stay out of the kitchen and out of politics. Hillary would never ask me to handle her with kid glooves, ditto Warren, it is you who is sexist presuming your candidate can’t be critiqued for mistakes or honestly assessed for them. But sure call me a sexist. You’ll have one less ally when the real sexists get out of the woodwork.
… you’re mis-characterizing what I’ve said. I said a lot more people, including your favored candidates and the entire Democratic establishment, and I as well, made the mistakes.
And I’m completely and comprehensively certain that A) no male politician would have acted any different in December ’09/January ’10 and 2) that no male politician would be on the receiving end of such vitriol in March ’14.
Which is why I’m equally certain that no sexist is going to ‘forgive’ Martha Coakley for the mistakes she’s made… that’s not why they hate: her.
Thanks for this post — I really appreciate it. (And apologies in advance for typos — I’m on my phone.)
I think you’re right–Martha Coakley’s loss was due to some forces beyond her control, even though she did make plenty of unforced errors in 2010 and did not run a good campaign.
With that said, this post seems to me to miss a fundamental feeling that I’m not sure our political elite in Massachusetts or in DC seem to get. I’m not saying this is right. But among some Democratic activists I’ve talked to who know a little bit about how the political system works, but aren’t “muckety-mucks” it is there.
It’s a feeling that, in politics, it doesn’t really matter how much you screw up your job. If you’re a pundit on TV making all sorts incorrect predictions, it doesn’t matter, networks will still pay to put you on TV to make another prognostication. If you’re a consultant who loses some major campaigns, it doesn’t seem to matter because there is always some other candidate you can find who needs direct mail and polling. Martha Coakley seems to fit in that system. If you lose a pivotal election that, yes, *everybody* took for granted (including many of the people bemoaning her loss now)…it’s okay. Just hunker down, do your job, wait for an opportunity and you can run again later for another office higher up on the food chain. Most of us don’t get those kind of second chances in our careers. (To a lesser degree, this fits in with an anti-elite sentiment that resents Wall St. bankers getting paid after they wreck the economy.)
I’m not saying that opinion is right and I’m not saying it’s wrong. After all, most politicians have to lose a campaign to become better candidates. But it is there.
So, I agree, ldavidson. The question in 2014 should be: baggage aside, which is the best candidate for Governor?
But that nagging feeling–that sense that political failures should have consequences but don’t seem to–festers. For her part, I think Coakley has done a pretty good job of trying to address it and move forward. But it is there.
Even if I, typical grassroots activist, relaxed and took the 2010 election too much for granted, Martha and her paid campaign staff should not have. Period.
No argument there!
Recently read a story in the Globe about a Methuen high school wrestler who just won his fourth consecutive All-State championship.He’s only the second person in over 20 years to do so. In his entire high school career, he only had two losses and those were to out of state opponents in the championship rounds of the New England championships. Against opponents from Massachusetts he holds a perfect record.
I’d be willing to bet big money that this kid didn’t slack off in his training when his next opponent was expected to be pushover. I think that we should be able to expect the same kind of discipline from our Constitutional Officers, especially those who want to get promoted to the corner office.
But please be consistent. Coakley cannot be forgiven for mistakes her supporters are still denying she made. I can begin to forgive her for 2010 if her supporters on this thread stop insisting in spite of a preponderance of significant evidence allayed against her that it was not her fault. It was. It was in fact her primary fault, dynamics, environment, and turnout aside. And since Coakley and Doug Rubin have owned up to this and apologized it’s time for her supporters to do the same and stop assailing those of us who feel she blew it. We can forgive but it’s ridiculous to ask us to forgot or to ask for forgiveness while making up excuses. It’d be far easier for me to forgive and not keep this as an issue if her supporters stopped defending her indefensible performance.
That said I am prepared to move on.
So here are some other rules I want Coakley supporters to follow.
1) Actually answer our questions.
It’s insulting that all we here from the candidate and her supporters is platitude. Especially since those supporters, like petr, like HeartlandDem, like Kate, are some of our best and most articulate activists and policy minds. Surely you guys can do better.
So answer the same question I’ve asked all the candidates and their supporters:
What does your candidate do better than their opponents?
What specific issues are they going to prioritize and in what order?
How are they going to win the general?
How are they going to get those priorities passed by the legislature we have (not the one we want to have but the one we actually have)?
I’ve asked that of Dan Wolf, Juliette Kayyem, Don Berwick, and Steve Grossman. I’ve actually gotten answers from Wolf and Berwick themselves and gotten supporters of Kayyem and Grossman to answer for me. Every time I’ve asked this of Doug Rubin I’ve got platitudes, like the bad Lehigh answer, and legalese. Every time I’ve asked this of Coakley supporters I get branded a sexist, leading to my second ruke.
2) No Warren voter is a sexist
All of us worked our asses off for Liz, voted for her, donated to her campaign, walked and canvassed. No matter where we stand on the 2014 Gubernatorial race we all stood by Liz. In fact many of us stood by Coakley even though we didn’t like her. I got my mother, father, and brother to the polls when they were thinking of staying home calling them from Chicago. I email blasted and facebook badgered all my college and high school friends registered in MA and told them ACA and Obama’s entire administration was on the line and part of political maturity is holding one’s nose from time to time. The notion any of us are sexist for asking basic political questions sets up a perverse double standard where women are not expected to be politically competitive as men and need to be handled with kid glooves. I honestly don’t think that’s what anyone believes or wants, but that’s the standard you create and it chokes honest conversations.
3) None of us are voting for Baker
It’s up to Coakley critics to affirmatively state we will not vote for Baker or a third party candidate that has the effect of voting for Baker. Any warm Dem will do in the Corner Office, but those of us that care know that a Berwick is way better than a Coakley, but if we get stuck with Coakley we got to go to bat for her like in 2010. The stakes are too high.
4) Progressives need to be courted
The fall in line argument is getting real tiresome, especially since we have a competitive field with diverse candidates. Tell us why progressives should back Coakley in the primary and why she is the most progressive. Address our concerns about civil liberties rather than dismiss them, address our concerns about politicizing the office, and address our concerns that her record and her priorities are the most risk averse and tamest of the candidates. Think we are wrong? Then prove it with hard data, links, and evidence.
…
jconway took a paragraph to explain himself, you just snipped the one partial line that took it out of context.
… just because you once voted for a women doesn’t mean you’re not sexist.
As jconway votes, we did way more than vote for Liz. We worked for her, gave her cash … and never once cited her gender as any sort of disadvantage (or advantage for that matter).
I guess I can imagine a scenario where a sexist person votes for a woman … but I can’t imagine that person going all out for a woman candidate. And if they did … guess what?
n/m
It’s important to note that neither Coakley nor any of her supporters routinely shy away from the mistakes she made. She owns up to it, as do many of us who support her. She’s stated numerous times that she screwed up, but it is, in my humble opinion, time to move on. It’s also important to note that Martha is the only candidate running with significant experience in elected office. Sure, Grossman has been Treasurer for just over three years, but Martha Coakley has served either as ADA, DA or AG since 1986. She has the experience and know-how to work with others and to mediate between differing opinions.
Tm Cahill, John O’Brien, paying her sister tens of thousand’s of dollars, hiring her brother-in-law as the office librarian, defending her probation job recommendations for friends, neighbors, and campaign donators, because, unlike the others, they were women and they were qualified?
That’s dangerous talk from a prosecutor who wields the rawest of power over our civil liberties.
How about her actions in the Fells Acres trial. Compare that case with how the rest of the country has dealt with aftermath of the slew of wrongful prosecutions of day-care providers based on junk science.
Martha is alone in defending the prosecution and the junk science.
So as far as Martha being the apology type I must respectfully disagree when you apply it to a person, like Martha, who does not understand the difference between right and wrong.
Martha Coakley had zero involvement in that trial. She didn’t become Middlesex DA until 1999.
But this isn’t the first time I’ve heard someone make this false implication here on BMG. Time to stop slinging the same leftover hash.
she had sole discretion and chose to pursue well after others jurisdictions were releasing and apologizing.
For time served of Cheryl Amirault in 1999.
The appeal was 1995, four years before she became Middlesex DA.
For time served of Cheryl Amirault in 1999.
The appeal was 1995, four years before she became Middlesex DA.
You can just read this thread to find many supporters shying away — if not completely ignoring them.
You’re right that she owns up to them. That’s why I’m not upset with her as other people are here. But those frustrated aren’t responding to Martha Coakley owning up to it, they’re responding to her supporters who are “shying away,” which just in turn ramps up their anger and frustration more.
So no supporter *should* shy away from those mistakes and if that was the case, these conversations would have gone more smoothly.
Look upthread-all of Coakley’s mistakes are due to my sexism, and the sexism of all the Capuano supporters who cruelly secretly wanted Scott Brown to win and sat home. That’s your shitty argument not mine. And the OP still insists on blaming the circumstances of the election rather than the ineptitude of the candidate.
At least Doug and Coakley apologized for the loss. Whatever happened to the buck stopped here? Apparently asking a basic democratic standard since Truman is now sexism.
Was directed a ljdavidson-not Rye or Ernie who have both been on point throughout this entire discussion.
Nobody has ever said that Coakley’s mistakes are due to your sexism. That is simply not what is being said.
What is being said is that sexism maybe distorting your view of Coakley and of the mistakes (made by all of us) in 2010 and that same sexism might very well be the exact and only thing preventing you and others from forgiving her…
That’s all you got and it’s weak tea. It’s also insulting to me, Tom, Rye, and others who have made specific point by point arguments about why she loss and are terrified many of those same mistakes are being made again.
Among them:
-A bland, risk free, centrist vision of government
-Refusing to articulate how her record as AG translates into efficacy in other offices
-Failing to be passionate about progressive policy
-Given terse, substance free statements to the media and to people that ask questions
In addition to that every defense attorney and civil libertarian on this thread, that I know personally in this state, and in some national publications are severely troubled by her center-right stances on privacy, police power, and the rule of law. Ignoring that criticism or calling the men and women making it sexists does not address it at all or make it go away.
Our arguments are a lot more advanced than ‘that broad lost in 2010, her turn is over’ which you pigeonhole it as. Particularly since all of us strongly backed Warren for Senate and have backed other female candidates. Why would a sexist be begging for Kim Driscoll to run against Teirney? Begging for Lisa Wong to run for higher office? Have a long talk with Sonia Chang Diaz convinced I’d be calling her Senator or Governor Chang Diaz down the line? I’ve mentioned this before and you just don’t respond, or somehow argue I am only sexist against Coakley. It’s tired and if it’s all you got than I won’t respond anymore. It’s frustrating since I know you are capable of better arguments.
If and when I get a chance, I want to start a thread addressing Paul Ware’s 2010 independent counsel report regarding the probation scandal. It describes yet another department (like Mr. McLaughlin’s housing authority and Ms. Dookhan’s lab) where flagrant and blatant corruption had been going on for YEARS. Yet, somehow, each was a complete shock that Ms. Coakley learned of by reading the Globe.
That report enumerates multiple offenses of state law. How many of us here remember that among those hired by the probation department was a *felon*, convicted of drug offenses, who was a family member of a state legislator? A felon who relapsed WHILE ON THE JOB and left? We’re talking about a rigged interview process that fabricated *THOUSANDS* of interviews!
We’re talking about a thoroughly and pervasively corrupt department (let’s not forget that their chief legal counsel and deputy commissioner was non other than the son of William Bulger) who happened to handle “recommendations” from both Martha Coakley herself and also Bob DeLeo.
Aside from a vague promise, what did Martha Coakley — the sitting Attorney General — actually DO about anything in this report?
It isn’t “sexism” to be gravely concerned about her behavior and the cultural attitude that behavior embodies. I also thought that Spiro Agnew was a TERRIBLE choice for VP. Does that make me anti-Greek?
I want to know what Martha Coakley knew about this scandal and when she knew it.
I’ve nearly given up on Petr, but feel free to take a crack at it
What does your candidate do better than their opponents?
What specific issues are they going to prioritize and in what order?
How are they going to win the general?
How are they going to get those priorities passed by the legislature we have (not the one we want to have but the one we actually have)?
Surely, if some of the ‘best and most articulate activists and policy minds” (your words) are on one side of the issue and you are on the other… you cannot suddenly say we’re not doing our best just because it is in opposition to you.. if what you say is true, why then don’t you at least give it a listen? I, for one, have offered no such thing that, in any way, could be confused with a ‘platitude’. In fact, the bulk of my argument has nothing whatsoever to do with Martha Coakley and everything to do with others: Jane Q. Candidate gets a certain species of venom and vehemence that would not exhibited towards a male politician. afterig wrote a thoughtful post (above) on how many many politicians get a pass… well, it seems darn strange to me that the first politician to not get such a pass is a woman… does that not strike you, also, as strange?
I’m not (necessarily) defending Martha Coakley. I’m denouncing you.
It is because Martha is a woman I do not want her in the corner office.
This has been a come to Jesus moment for me.
Thank you
… Jesus says you have a little farther to come.
.
As as sexist along with Tom, and Rye, and any other liberal democrat who has the temerity to suggest that Coakley-as someone who botched a historic failure of a race, as someone who has a conservative record as AG, and as someone who has taken the most bland, uninspiring, centrist positions in this race is not the best choice nor the most progressive going forward.
I am saying you are clearly an articulate policy mind and I’ve agreed with you and liked your posts elsewhere-but on this topic all you’ve done is denounced and name called your opponents without offering any shred of evidence or answering any of our concerns directly. If I was Martha Coakley or Doug Rubin I would recognize that you are losing votes for her.
… as a sexist. Nothing more. I don’t care if you don’t vote for Martha Coakley. I do care that you refuse to vote for Martha Coakley purely out of sexism. I’m not denouncing you and others so as to spoil the race or sway any votes. I’m not doing it because I think Martha Coakley is perfect. I’m not doing because anybody else is imperfect.
I’m doing it because sexism is wrong and it is distorting your perspective. It is causing you to say things that are wrong. It is causing you to misread the situation and throw casual misdirections in all directions. It is causing you to mis-characterize my arguments in new and, each time, different ways. It is making you dig deeper into defense and hints of calumny. You are all over the map on this… I contend that you are all over the map exactly because you have a different view of female politicians then you do of male politicians.
I would imagine that, from what you know about me, you know that I would not hesitate to call out Martha Coakley as ‘as someone who botched a historic failure of a race‘ if that, is in fact, what I think that she did. I do not think that. I do not think, and here is the sum of my argument, that Martha Coakley, alone and by her lonesome, botched the race. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, likewise, she does not deserve the bulk of the condemnation for a botched race. I do not say the race was not at all botched. The race was botched. I do not hold Martha Coakley blameless but I do not give her the vast bulk of the blame.
That you, and others, simply refuse to even countenance this idea, and absolutely require that she carry the whole and entire burden of losing the race, alone and by her lonesome, is sexist by a far margin more than I can put up with. And so I denounce you.
To paraphrase Conrad, life is short, politics is long, and success is very far off.
Put another way, living well is the better path.
… But I breath pretty well all the time and life is good.
Put another way:
You have made the argument she is blameless. I might add the bulk of our argument against her is based on her present race. You have never addressed that. You have never addressed our concerns about her deeply troubled record as AG.
If we had a male candidate who took a vacation in the middle of a competitive election, who made the PR mistakes she made, and who ran on the bland and uninspiring platform she did, we would be making the same arguments. Furthermore, if we had a male candidate who always sided with police, who had several botched prosecutions to his name, who consistently defended the Patriot Act and expanding the surveillance power of the state, who made politically motivated law enforcement decisions we would still call them regressive and question their progressive bona fides. If we had a male candidate who failed to take clear, articulate, progressive positions on the pressing issues of this campaign we would be making these same arguments.
The only person consistently bringing up the candidates gender is you. Perhaps because you have no grounds to argue any of the other points? Perhaps you do, but you haven’t advanced them. A lot easier to call me a sexist, or Tom a sexist, or Rye a sexist. A lot easier to call people names than address their actual points. A lot easier for Coakley to duck these issues and hope history won’t repeat itself-but it will-if and only if she let’s it. Which she is, and which you are. I want Coakley to do well, I actually want her to beat Baker if she is nominated, but I am saying that if she and her supporters don’t address these flaws now that is not happening. It is not sexist or regressive of me to point these flaws out and beg the candidate and her supporters to address them.
… that if I think sexism distorts your perspective on Martha Coakley then I, also think, that your entire perspective regarding Martha Coakley is distorted. I don’t think that her record is as troubling as you say. I think you want it to be troubling… wishing it to be so fervently…
How about that…?
That must be it. I’m fully outta things to argue about so I’m just gonna to pick a fight to pick a fight.
I will play on your terms Petr. Let’s dismiss any discussion of 2010, it is entirely tainted by my sexism and not worth you’re time.
I invite you instead to answer this series of questions I have asked every candidate:
So answer the same question I’ve asked all the candidates and their supporters:
What does your candidate do better than their opponents?
What specific issues are they going to prioritize and in what order?
How are they going to win the general?
How are they going to get those priorities passed by the legislature we have (not the one we want to have but the one we actually have)?
Additionally feel free to offer the following:
A defense of Fells Acre and the Amirault prosecution
A defense of the Light Brite prosecution.
A defense of the Murray prosecution.
A defense of her strong record as a Patriot Act supporter, Wiretap law sponsor in the legislator, and broad government surveillance and detention powers. Her always siding with police against civil libertarians.
Go for it. I’m all ears.
Go for it.
Additionally I wou
If you didn’t keep repeating things that have already been responded to that are false. There was no “lite-brite” prosecution. There were charges that were dropped in exchange for an apology and a few hours of community service. The fells-acre Amirault prosecution was under Harshbarger, years before Coakley became Middkesex DA. The civil liberties fears appear to be something Capuano desperately tried to stoke when he ran his losing primary race, but appear based on very little.
It makes me think you are simply disingenuous – that you will keep saying things that have already been answered because you don’t care about their accuracy, you just want some negativity to stick.
I’m supporting Coakley for many progressive stances and accomplishments as AG. Leading a multi-state coalition that successfully sued the Bush EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Champion of anti-bullying laws in Massachusetts. First AG to sue the federal government to overturn DOMA. Many successful suits to hold predatory lenders accountable. Foreclosure prevention unit that helped over 30K residents secure loan modifications to stay in their homes. Pushed Apple to fix iTunes to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defender of women’s reproductive freedom and the MA buffer law.
She’s got actual progressive accomplishments to offer from her time running the AG’s office. The other candidates just have a bunch of progressive words, in several cases little or no experience with state and local government at all.
n/m
As someone who despises sexism, do you merely choose to condemn it or do you attempt to combat it, as well? If the latter, how exactly does haranguing jconway combat sexism? If he’s truly motivated by sexism, the tone of your exchange has done nothing to invite him to engage in the kind of self-reflection necessary to recognize his supposed bias. If he isn’t, motivated by sexism, you’re alienating a potential ally.
I’m not sure what your end game is here. As much as it may allow you to feel that you’re standing up for your principles, I don’t think that telling jconway that he’s an sexist S.O.B. goes very far toward making the world (or BMG, for that matter) a better place.
Denounce? Really?
I’ve always been one for a good drama. Out, out, brief candle!!
Now if only you could find a leather glove so you could challenge JConway to a duel.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
The Inquistion, what a show
The Inquistion, here we go
We know you’re wishin’
That we’d go awaaaaaaay
But the Inquistion’s here and it’s here to staaaaay
Strange? It’s positively groundbreaking! Once again, Martha Coakley has boldly gone where no one has gone before. Every male politician – ever – has been given a pass for having run a crappy, lackadaisical campaign. Dukakis, Gore, Stevenson, Dewey, – all those guys skated by with no criticism after they dropped the ball. Coakley’s achievement really deserves a place of prominence in her campaign. it’s great that you’ve pointed this out!
Just FYI, up until about a month before her loss to Scott Brown, Coakley also enjoyed the highest approval ratings of any Democrat in the state. These things can change fast.
A lot of press, virtually all of it about helping people out, getting cash settlements for the state, or prosecuting “bad guys” (some of whom are in fact bad).
Scott Brown, IIRC, was the most popular overall about three months before he lost by 8 points.
Coakley’s campaign is a referendum among the dems for forgiveness. For the learn-from-mistakes- platform. The earned-it-back agenda.
Hi-jack the narratives before it becomes a referendum on her pathetic career.
Yet so far none of her Democratic opponents have taken on the elephant in the room. C’mon gang.
and forgiven by the citizenry in the fall of 2010 when she was re-elected AG by a wide margin. Nonetheless, the whole story does behoove me as an individual democrat to scrutinize the whole gubernatorial field very closely to discern the best nominee & governor. Citizen Coakley is owned nothing more or nothing less.
Elias
Vladimir Putin was also re-elected by a wide margin, are we honestly going to call either of those ‘competitive elections’. Pretty easy to get a wide margin when you are unopposed. It’s this kind of intellectual dishonesty that characterizes a lot of Coakley defenders here and I am sick and tired of it.
And before I get the sexism charge Timothy Cahill was also elected and re-elected by a wide margin for Treasurer, he picked up only 8% for Governor. It does not make a freakin difference since it’s a different office and she had no opponent in any of her AG/DA races. The election where she had an opponent-one where she expected to have a 25pt lead-she lost.
But I am even willing to drop it, it’s the Coakley supporters that keep whining about how they were robbed, when really every single Democrat in this state was betrayed by the candidate.
A Republican did run against her. I looked it up, but it was someone I never heard of, who disappeared afterward (seriously – the guy’s Wikipedia page was taken down), so I forgot his name immediately. I think it was McCann, or something like that.
…he didn’t even make it on to the primary ballot. He became the GOP nominee by virtue of receiving 10,000 write-in votes, equal to the number of signatures he would have needed to get on the ballot.
PLEASE FACT CHECK
Not this HeartlandDem! I did not support MC in the senate primary but worked hard and contributed in the general which was an utter waste of my time, talent and precious little treasure. I warned the party brass and the Coakley campaign about Scotto and it fell on deaf ears.
I have boldly gone where no man has gone before and called out DR and the candidate on BMG on almost all of the missteps, wrongs and and calculated low-hanging fruit upon which she has built a career. As a matter of fact, I have probably pissed off as many as eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii with my comments that are admittedly hard-line (not quite at the screed point except in my head) in opposition to the candidate for the office of Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Let’s keep this articulate blogger in the correct column!
FWIW, I have about zero passion for the 2014 governor’s race based on the lackluster abilities and/or policy deficient field of candidates. If Berwick doesn’t make the primary ballot, I don’t see a reason to vote unless I write in Wolf, Eldridge or Chang-Diaz (as of today…..)
The hot air from the “leading” candidates amounts to poorly recycled rancid platitudes.
I am not sure why I lumped you in with the other two and I profusely apologize.
My only response to the rest of your post is a hearty ‘Amen!’
“best and most articulate activists and policy minds,” thing!
😉
n/t
Let me ask that again: Who chose the frame of this post?
If Coakley supporters do not want to keep fighting this issue, why make that the centerpiece of a post? Why do you keep bringing it up? If you select the as the frame of the conversation the lost 2010 election, putting you on the defensive from the get-go, ask yourself why the heck you are doing that. The response here should be no surprise.
How about, instead, a post titled “Why, as a progressive, I support Coakley” or something like that. At least if you have to go on the defensive, it will come from better footing: Her record, what type of governor she’d be, etc. It certainly would have a better effect on undecided folks like me.
That’s all this critic is asking. 2010 is brought up by her own supporters who have some kind of martyr complex around, as well as by her critics, but only part of a much wider critique of her record on civil liberty and her lack of a substantive platform or narrative thus far. I am even willing to drop discussion of 2010 and focus on her contemporaneous liabilities. And even if we presume she has no liabilities, she and her supporters certainly have not offered a particularly robust reason to vote for her.
I suppose after being denounced, jconway, it is perhaps easy to dip in to martyr complex and other colorful terms, but maybe this discussion could get easier if it weren’t being conducted as a trial before the Committee of Public Safety.
I made it pretty clear up thread I want the exact same basic set of questions answered by Coakley, Doug, or one of her supporters I’ve asked of every candidate. I am even willing to drop 2010-which they keep bringing up not me. The Coakley specific questions I do want answered have nothing to do with 2010 and everything to do with her campaign finance issue, her record on civil liberties, and her handling of some politically motivated cases. I would love to stop having the same argument and instead have those arguments, since it is those arguments that will matter for her candidacy in 2014 if she is nominated.
This was a terrible frame.
Remember “the economy, stupid”? It seems many here on BMG and in our current gubernatorial campaigns have forgotten. Frame everything in terms of a subject that you want to talk about not a subject that your opponents/detractors want to talk about! It’s political communications 101, but a lesson that seems to be being missed by quite a few of us these days.
“You are a sexist!” “No, I’m not! So stop saying it.” “Yes, you are!” “Am not.” “Are too.” “Am not.” “Are too.” “Am not.” I think it’s fair to say that this constant jousting gets on one’s nerves. I know it has mine. Can’t we just agree that sexism is sometimes only in the mind of the beholder and let it go at that? The bickering over who is the real sexist among us is leading us nowhere.
We can’t let it go at that. petr leveled accusations. Those accused have the right to refute them.
It seems to me that the evidence has been submitted and the jury is in and that only the most Coakley-blind finder of fact would find jconway guilty of sexism. So why is this continuing? Just for one side to get the last word? Petr has overcharged and both petr and jconway have over-tried. It’s over, over, over.
No. In a global sense, maybe, but not when people in this community are accusing other people in this community. It’s not over just because you want it to end.
I go off line for a few hours and look what happens! Sixty-five comments in a few hours. Emotions are still running high more than four years later. And then, as I am trying to compose a response, another thread pops up, generating even more comments.
I am a supporter of Martha Coakley as I have stated here. I was also a proud supporter of Mike Capuano when he ran for U. S Senate. Tyler and I worked closely together. I remember Tyler and I talked his parents into letting him skip CCD to phone with me and then hear Mike speak.
From the moment the primary ended, I and other supporters were working hard to get Martha elected to the U. S. Senate. Although I will admit that I spent the first weekend after the primary hosting my annual holiday party, the next weekend I was phone banking at a unity phone bank. I continued to phone bank, with other Capuano supporters between Christmas and New Years Day. After New Years Day I began working on setting up my own phone banks, and yes eventually canvassing.
Were mistakes made? Absolutely. Are there things that people would do differently? No question. There are special challenges in the short time frames of special elections. Mistakes are magnified. There is no time to recover and regroup. Because of the short time frames certain decisions were made about strategies and approach.
Martha’s record of leadership on the issues that matter to people in Massachusetts speaks for itself. From successfully challenging the Defense of Marriage Act to taking on the big banks to keep 30,000 families in their homes, to suing the EPA to ensure enforcement of critical environmental regulations, Martha has used her position as Attorney General to create real, positive change for everyone in Massachusetts. It is this record of leadership, of working across a wide range of issues and with a wide range of stakeholders that prepares her to successfully tackle the challenges we will face in the next eight years. Martha has articulated a clear vision of her priorities as Governor: building a broad-based economic recovery by improving our workforce and reducing barriers to development like the high costs of health care and energy, transforming our education system by providing universal early education, expanded learning time, and student support counselors, and working with businesses and non-profits to develop curricula that prepares students to enter today’s workforce and, finally, continuing our work on health care to reduce cost while improving access and quality, especially on behavioral health care, which is critical to so many people here in Massachusetts.
Martha will be committed to working closely, not only with the legislature, but with community members, non-profits, businesses big and small, labor, and other constituencies to advance this progressive agenda, both through legislation and innovative partnerships.
For your considerate and thoughtful comments and for owning up to the past failures of your candidate and why you think they are the best going forward. It is appreciated and in marked contrast to the OP and petr.
One follow up I have regarding her priorities as Governor-do they strike you as sufficiently ambitious? I am impressed with Berwick’s down the line commitment to strong progressive values. Holding the line against casinos and charters while also making a strong commitment to public education, single payer, and funding the t and making it better. I am equally impressed with Grossman’s firm commitment to family leave and Kayyem’s climate change fight. I am not getting that same sense of issue based drive and focus from Coakley and wonder if you could enlighten us further.
Without time to research I would list he following accomplishments;
Created the HomeCorps program that helps people who are having trouble with their mortgages.
Filed first in the nation lawsuit challenging DOMA and won
Defended the constitutionality of the buffer zone
Helped people with disabilities get greater access. Worked with Apple to make sure people with visual impairments had equal access to iTunes.
Supported the Transgender Equal Rights Bill
Urged Congress to pass ENDA
Has run a very successful AG office. All of the people who I have met who work for her have the most positive things to say about her. Good strong manager.
If Coakley wants the progressive vote, she clearly still has a lot of work to do among Democrats. Conway is completely correct in asking for affirmative reasons to vote for her.
I’ve forgiven Coakley. I won’t forget, but I’ve forgiven her. Is it sexist for saying so? I’ll vote for her if she’s the eventual nominee and probably work for her. The more I get to know Grossman, the more I prefer Coakley. I hope that’s not some misplaced chivalry on my part.
I prefer Berwick, however, and will probably support him at the convention. I want to see him on the primary ballot. Still, I’m worried about his campaign. Deval Patrick had Doug Rubin. Who does Berwick have? You can’t win a campaign without the right advisers and organization.
Had John E. Walsh and a ton of charisma to back his brains and skills.
Also had a shiny all-American kid Mayor from Worcester who delivered central, western and middle of the road Democrats and Independents.
I remember that race so very well. I supported Mike Capuano. We debated a lot during that primary, and it was often rather hostile. When all was said and done and Martha Coakley won, those of us who supported someone else went back to our corners and pouted. We did not enthusiastically support her the way we should have. We assumed she would win. I did hold a sign for her on election day, but that is about all I did. It’s pretty disingenuous to place the blame entirely on Martha Coakley, when it was her activist base that turned their collective back on her. Some, I’ve heard, even voted for Scott Brown.
Also, it’s entirely possible that Martha Coakley’s loss gave us Elizabeth Warren’s win! Sometimes things happen for a reason. I am going forward believing that fate stepped in to help us out here. If Martha Coakley had won that Senate seat, Elizabeth Warren would not be the Senator from Massachusetts today. So even though things happen in sort of jumbled and upsetting ways, try to believe that all of it was meant to be.
Every loss is a learning experience. You have to give her credit for dusting herself off and getting back on the horse. It’s really awful to see so much lack of forgiveness over that loss. Did we forgive Senator Ted Kennedy for his failed primary against President Carter, who then went on to lose the general????? Yes, we did forgive him, and treated him with the utmost respect for decades to follow.
As Governor, Martha Coakley will do great things for this state. Please, let’s collectively help her get there.
You cannot blame activists for not rescuing your campaign from itself. We all have lives, families, jobs, other interests and you cannot blame us for not doing what we were not asked to do. No one was asked to do anything until 10 days before the election. At that point it was too late, and the things they were asking us to do were things that many of us knew were not helpful.
“You didn’t support us hard enough” is just about the worst thing you could say to explain why a candidate lost. It reeks of entitlement and if you’re trying to convince us to support a candidate it is entirely unhelpful.
I just jump in there and do it. Really, an activist does not simply wait around for the phone to ring to get their orders. So when you say that “no one was asked to do anything until 10 days before the election,” it sounds like a massive case of passive-aggressive sabotage.
If voters have to be asked for their vote, volunteers have to be asked for their time. Simple as that.
But it’s not a great idea, in general.
A bunch of activists running around doing what they each personally feel is in a candidate’s best interests without any centralized guidance on strategy, messaging, etc. is a surefire recipe for disaster … and a telling symptom of a poorly run campaign.
If anything the campaign bred and fed complacency not pouting. Likely people didn’t work for the campaign because it didn’t seem as if the campaign required it.
…but this Capuano supporter most certainly did not. I worked my ass off for Coakley, and I know a LOT of other activists who did so as well.
Forgiveness has no bearing on this race. We have numerous candidates who have a vision for Massachusetts, and Martha is not one of them. And, oh yeah, she did lose to a cypher the last time out!
…are parroting the Scott Brown tactics that defeated her,
I mean really? The “Fenway” line again?
(cough, cough)
Putting aside the premise of your comment (which is incorrect), the famous Fenway incident was not “a Scott Brown tactic.” It was an unforced error by Martha Coakley.
Although this thread asks for “forgiveness” (see my objection above), some of the comments seem to ask for denial.
Did she lose and learn it was it not her fault?
Either way I’m sick and tired of the excuses and double standards. Is much rather spar with Kate over the issues-she has the right tactic, so does Doug and presumably Martha herself. Admit fault and regroup on this race. The only sore loser/sour grapes comments I hear from people re litigating the debate are her hard core supporters who are so myopic they are out of touch with their own candidate on this one.
And I am invoking the Mearsheimer Rule named after my old Poli Sci prof. He wrote “The Israel Lobby”, an AIPAC critique, and refuses to debate anyone who calls him an anti-Semite. The Conway Corollary to that rule is I won’t debate anyone who calls me a sexist. I’m done engaging. Martha has my best wishes as do her more sensible supporters, but I won’t deny the truth that she has offered nothing new or substantial for progressives the way Don Berwick has, that she has consistently supported expanding the police state at the expense of freedom, and that she is likely our weakest general election prospect at present.
Yes, every single one of us opposes the Obamacare.
You have unmasked us!
Scott Brown’s anti-Obamacare ranting that defeated her?
What happened to your “she’s the only reason she lost” theme?
Pure trolling. Foul, I say.
You said that we were parroting Mr Brown. The centerpiece of Mr Brown’s campaign was his opposition to the ACA. One of the things the Coakley campaign was demonstrably inept at was making the case for the ACA.
That’s an important skill you want in a progressive politician. A progressive governor unable to explain the issues is not going to get much done.
I think, though, jimc nailed it. You’re trolling a bit here. This happens during primary season when everyone gets really emotional.
1. First off sexism is important and we tend to underestimate it.
2. In matters of hiring, supporting candidates, and the like, sexism represents a bias not a single choice. This is what is always crazy making about any form of discrimination: it is very difficult for the potential victim to know whether he or she didn’t get hired, promoted, or chosen because of sexism or racism or because of fair competition. Sexism is by its nature crazy-making. It is also pervasive and systemic.
3. Petr’s arguments here are somewhat circular. The structure of Petr’s arguments runs like this: A. The objections to Coakley as a candidate are lame. B. The most plausible explanation for people making such lame objections must be external. C. The most plausible external explanation is sexism. Therefore is jconway a sexist.
The problem is that not everyone agrees with point A, that the objections are lame. So it’s a leap to arrive at C. Without looking at jconway’s history of endorsements, a charge of sexism is difficult to maintain. Since everything hinges on the argument that objections to Coakley as a candidate are not just wrong but obviously so, perhaps discussing A would make a lot more sense and trying to convince most of us of C is not going to work.
And I also provided my history which included my strong and early support for Warren, strong support for Pat Jehlen my old State Senator, Majorie Decker for State Rep, strong and consistent support for Sonia Chang-Diaz whom I expect to call Governor or Senator Chang-Diaz down the line, I expect and an excited to one day say Mayor Pressley, strong support and excitement for Katherine Clark after she was nominated, early and strong support for Suzanne Bump in the last primary, and I really want to see Mayor’s Wong and Driscoll attain higher office. I’d love to elect a female Democrat to the Corner Office, I just don’t think Coakley is progressive enough and I don’t think Kayyem has the campaign experience this time around.
As for Hillary, I had a lengthily post apologizing for the way I treated her and her supporters in 2008 and basically admitted I would’ve voted for her in 2008 if I could do it again. I want a progressive primary challenger but fully expect her to get nominated and will do everything in my power to help her win. So the long and short of it is that this attack is total bullshit. More importantly, while I warmly appreciate the defense of my character, petr also broadly implied any opposition to Coakley was a form of sexism and that has the function of either shutting off legitimate debate and critiques about Coakley or worse really cheapening the accusation and making it harder to oppose actual sexism down the line.
I wasn’t arguing that you were or were not a sexist — merely that Petr’s argument about Coakley had gotten oddly entangled in ad hominem.
It is not sufficient evidence for being non-sexist to say that you are always for women when they are the clearly superior candidate. The test is what one does when male candidates and female candidates are roughly equal.
And one I don’t think I’ve consciously confronted, though I am sure we can dig up some anti-Hillary stuff I wrote during the heat of the campaign that wouldn’t shed a positive light on my attitudes at the time, I know for a fact I belittled her service as first lady as not ‘counting’ towards government service which I wish I could take back. But the war vote was a big gut check for me that she clearly failed. Going forward into 2016 I don’t see any male candidates that are her equal but can think of one female candidate that is her superior…
We’re all pretty sure jconway’s not a sexist.
We all are, and jconway no more than the rest of us.
Even though you’re essentially correct, I object to the label being applied unfairly to jconway, and for that matter all of us. Yes, we all have sexist tendencies, and as you note above sexism is prevalent … but let’s not beat ourselves up. We do our best, and the record says we do pretty well.
On another day, in another context, I’m happy to have the “We’re all sexist (and all racist)” conversation. But sorry, petr muddied the waters.
I made my Tuesday 9:08 am comment exactly to unmuddy the waters. Petr veered into ad hominem on grounds where sexism can be neither established nor refuted. It’s also a trifle unsightly to have a bunch of men proclaim how marvelously nonsexist they are. With the wage imbalance and female under-representation in so many areas, it would seem to call for some kind of modesty. Better saints don’t advertise.
But my original point was that blaming jconway in this regard was not merited, and I thought I stated that with some clarity. I certainly haven’t retracted that.
I doubt any men on this thread would have written word one about not being sexist if Petr had not accused of sexism all men who believe Martha Coakley messed up in the Senate race.
.
It’s one thing to say “Everyone’s a little sexist.”
It’s quite to another to reply to an accusation of sexism with “But we’re all sexist,” because no matter what you think you meant, that validates the accusation. As to the maleness of the respondents, that’s really not our fault.
You parse brilliantly, kbusch, but sometimes you parse too finely.
How many times are candidates truly “roughly equal”? Isn’t there nearly always something other than gender – in the record or on the issues – to differentiate them? An example might help.
So perhaps looking at a liberal’s political endorsements isn’t going to be a particularly productive route if you really want to measure how much of the culture’s sexism has seeped into one’s soul.
It’s lame in the extreme for any Coakley supporter to claim sexism when a fellow progressive isn’t supporting her. Many of us on here have supported Shannon O’Brien, Elizabeth Warren, Niki Tsongas, HRC, K. Clark, and, yes, even Coakley herself; in addition to many other female candidates. In my view the sexism charge being brought against anti-Coakley people should be beneath the crowd on BMG. Nevertheless, it seems that the table pounding claims of sexism are going to persist.
But if supporting a female candidate doesn’t prove that someone’s not a sexist, opposing a female candidate doesn’t prove someone is one.
I don’t think any of us (on this site, at least) are saying “I won’t vote for a woman for office” or “I won’t vote for a woman if there’s an acceptable man in the race.” Both you and petr have argued that sexism nonetheless is pervasive, if unconscious, even among liberals. In that case all we can do is evaluate someone’s choice based on the reasons given. Personally, I think there are valid reasons not to support Martha Coakley’s candidacy. Some of them concern the lost Senate race, some concern other aspects of her record. As you suggested, it’s not a good example upon which to base a charge of sexism.
I do not agree with petr’s contention that we give male candidates who lose after major campaign mistakes a pass. Many of us thought the Swift Boat attacks were reprehensible, but still took John Kerry to task for “I was for it before I was against it.” Many of us thought the Willie Horton ads were reprehensible but still criticized Mike Dukakis’s death penalty answer and the tank photo. And none of those gaffes implied an apparent contempt for the very concept of asking voters for their support.
I can think of losing general election candidates getting a subsequent nomination and winning (Nixon 1960 and 1968, Dukakis 1978 and 1982, Romney 1994 and 2002, Tammy Duckworth). Generally they had run better than expected, lost a very tight race, or there was a political shift in the interim. I can’t recall any candidate, male or female, who lost a race expected to be a sure win being nominated for the same or roughly equivalent office.
We’ve wasted a lot of digital ink over the sexism issue and 2010 that Coakley supporters should’ve used to make affirmative cases for their candidate in 2014. If she is the nominee, I hope for all our sakes she is able to make that case.
Petr and I certainly agree to the pervasiveness of sexism. Again I stand by my comment titled “On Petr’s accusation of sexism”. So agreeing on pervasiveness doesn’t necessarily lead to the same conclusions, and certainly not about the estimable jconway.
There are a lot of institutions chock full of men who will swear up and down about how nonsexist they are where women nonetheless have not achieved equality. So while I like my criticism of Petr’s arguments, we should remain aware that gender equality lies a ways off — and some of the forces that keep it far off are unconscious.
I tend to agree with your observation. I freely confess (and have done so here before) to owning more sexism (and racism) than I like in myself.
Rightly or wrongly, I distinctly remember how I came to my 2008 support for then-candidate Barack Obama. My “logic”, sexist or not, is that the largest reason — far and away for me — why I was even considering Hillary Clinton was because she was Bill Clinton’s spouse. I realized that when I attempted to evaluate her separately (things like her performance as Senator or her role in the failed attempt to pass “HillaryCare”, I was far more impressed by Barack Obama.
I *like* Hillary Clinton. I am, frankly, unable to separate my admiration for her from my admiration for her husband. Truthfully, I think it is the combination of Bill and Hillary Clinton, together, that I so greatly admire. I am reminded of the synergy between FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt. I suspect that that reaction is, fundamentally, sexist. As another datapoint, I see no hint or even inkling of a similar synergy between Barack and Michelle Obama.
In any case, I am VERY confident that my disapproval for Martha Coakley has everything to do with her public record (and I really don’t care about her 2010 loss, I voted for Mike Dukakis after he lost) and nothing whatsoever to do with her gender.
…I don’t think it is necessarily wrong or sexist to take into account who one’s spouse is. Even you refer to evaluating “Hillarycare” as part of her record, a record she would not have had if she had not been First Lady, which generally means being married to the President. For that matter she would not have been Senator, presumptive nominee, or SoS had she not been First Lady. It’s completely natural, and not wrong IMO, for your admiration of both Clintons to be intertwined. It certainly is for me.
Here’s why I struggle with it in myself, as “sexist”.
I agree that she would not have been elected Senator in NY, nor would we have debated “HillaryCare”, had her spouse not been president. We don’t know, of course, because that “counter-factual” cannot be exercised. I can’t think of a single MALE who I would vote for based on the performance of his wife in elected office. Not Mr. Warren. Not Mr. Ferraro (if there even was one, I don’t remember). Not Ian Officer Cameron, husband of Susan Rice. Not to mention Alaska’s former “First Dude”, Todd Palin.
I understand that this disparity itself reflects the de facto sexism of US politics. Nevertheless, it seems clear enough to me that the spouse-of-an-elected-official path to nomination is available only to women. It strikes me as all too similar to the spouse-as-helpmate stereotype that has been so damaging to professional women for so long. How many husbands of women who die in office (or or otherwise forced to step down) take over their wife’s seat, in comparison to the number of wives who take over their husband’s seat?
This all feels sexist, somehow.
None of those husbands have taken on highly visible roles in their spouse’s political jobs. And I’d think only a spouse holding high executive office would have the high-profile jobs to offer that would make it possible. Even a VP’s or a Senator’s Chief of Staff doesn’t have that kind of media prominence.
Not since Eleanor Roosevelt (who lived in a very different time) has a political spouse, of either gender, taken on a role as visible as Hillary did. But if Elizabeth Warren were (not saying I expect to happen) elected President and her husband, a Harvard Law professor in his own right, took on a high-profile role, I could imagine him being prominent afterward.
Perhaps the closest example is RFK, like Hillary elected to the Senate from New York as a “carpetbagger,” because of his brother’s record as much as his own record. Of course the recent assassination was a huge factor, but people were talking about RFK as a plausible candidate for office even before JFK was killed.
There sure was: John Zaccaro. I thought he’d be hard to forget since the GOP and some of her 1992 primary opponents spent a lot of time accusing him of being a mobster. But then again, I lived in NY for years.
“None of those husbands have taken on highly visible roles in their spouse’s political jobs.”
But that’s because they can’t– because the optics of it would be completely different, for exactly the reason described by ‘tom.
Bill Clinton could easily be the Big Guy In Charge, and the active role taken by his spouse buttressed rather than undermined that perception.
Contrariwise, Dennis Thatcher, whose spouse candidly acknowledged that he was her single most important advisor, was compelled to maintain a low public profile. Had he done otherwise, Ms. Thatcher’s “Iron Lady” political persona would not have gelled.
I am not saying that this is right, just that it is.
My point was that it only works when you have a spouse in high-level executive office. Even then, you have anti-nepotism laws closing off many cabinet-level and similar positions.
So far, the examples of women in those offices have been too few to constitute a valid sample. Most women married to political men don’t have any desire to run for office or to take on prominent roles in their administration. They have their own pursuits. Likewise, I imagine many men married to women who hold high office don’t want to be in the political game. It’s hard to tell right now who “can’t” and who just isn’t interested.
Dennis Thatcher is an interesting example, but it was 30 years ago. In 1992 even Hillary’s high-profile role was controversial in some quarters. As more women enter high executive office and rigid gender roles continue to dissolve, I believe it won’t be a major issue.
NM Gov. Susana Martinez was running for DA in 1996 at the same time her husband was running for sheriff. The major issue cited was conflict of interest, not gender.
Kathleen Sebelius’s husband was from a political family and became a federal magistrate judge, which is a little different but still prominent.
I don’t see Bill Shaheen or Bill Forry hiding in the shadows.
I think we can all agree that Hillary and Bill Clinton are sui generis. The Presidency is unlike any other office. We’ve had other very capable First Ladies, but none with the education, ambition, and interest in politics/policy of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Michelle Obama’s very capable but far less interested in political life.
So let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine Juliette Kayyem is our next governor. Her husband, David Barron, is a Harvard Law professor. He’s clerked for the Supreme Court and worked in a high-level position at the DOJ. He’s been nominated for a position on the First Circuit. He’s only 46 right now.
Imagine Juliette Kayyem takes office next January and wants to appoint him to head some major commission. Would she not do so? Why? Because his subordinate position would make him seem “less of a man?” Because having him in a key role would undermine her authority as a female governor? I don’t see it.
Imagine he served on that hypothetical commission and was in the papers regularly. He’s got a certain charisma and wants to run for office himself. Toward the end of her time as governor the idea of him as, say, AG, is floated and he’s immediately considered a bona fide contender. He’s talked about as a potential governor a few years down the line. Do we really think none of this could happen because he’s the man in that couple and she’s the woman? I don’t.
Gabby Giffords’s husband, Mark Kelly, was being talked about as a potential candidate in her stead.
For the Clinton’s. I am sure the added advantage she got as his spouse was more than cancelled out by the negative attention she received because of it. I feel like, as bad as the partisan vitriol is against Obama, the right wing hatred was for both of the Clinton’s in a way we don’t see for Michelle (other than the terror fist bump and occasional attacks on her spending). So as much as she profited from the association she paid a high cost as well.
Studies of moral decision-making show that it happens very quickly — it’s part of the fast thinking Kahneman describes in Thinking Fast and Slow. Moral reasoning comes in after the fact to provide justification.
So a model of moral judgment is that we judge then rationalize and not that we reason then arrive at a considered conclusion.
Yes, I’m familiar with the judge-then-rationalize model.
I do tend to also edit myself, however, perhaps because I’ve become aware of that model. I often follow a process like:
– Judge (guess)
– rationalize (investigate)
– revise and repeat
Perhaps because of my engineering training, (a) I’ve learned that my initial intuition is reliable enough that I pay attention to it, (b) my self-investigation reveals biases and prejudices more than I like, and so (c) I quite frequently revisit my initial reaction.
I’m not arrogant enough to believe that I’m the only one who has discovered the utility of that final revise-and-repeat step, and so I suggest that for many of us, it may often follow the fast-and-slow process you reference.
Even if I have to act on something, I consider the information I am using incomplete and my view hypothetical. Anything anyone tells me is automatically considered hypothetical, even if it’s my wife or my best friend.
This is what I try to do. As Kahneman and KBusch suggest, it’s not always that easy and it doesn’t always happen.
I’ve forgiven Coakley. Anyone can make mistakes. Not like I’m holding a grudge. I’m not going to forget. Now, if she was the only candidate in the race that could beat Baker, I’d take her despite her senatorial campaign. But Grossman is every bit a heavyweight.
John Kerry doesn’t get another chance, nor do Howard Dean or Al Gore. Why would Coakley? We have too much talent to invoke a retread. It might be harsh, but governor of the Commonwealth should be a hard job to get.
It’s like one of those Daily Kos polls where you get to eat dinner with the birthday boys and girls. Put Berwick, Kayyem and Avellone at one table, and Coakley and Grossman at the second (and I guess we could put Charlie Baker there too). Now I really like Martha Coakley as a person and I’ve also met Steve Grossman and he seemed like a nice guy, but I still think table #1 would be more fun.
Then you read IG Glenn Cunha’s new report on the Annie Dookhan case and you just want your governor to be as much of a total detail-oriented manager as possible.
I guess I want my Attorney General to value right and wrong above our-side-or-their-side.
I don’t have any direct evidence but news stories say that Berwick really raised morale when he was at CMS, and out on the stump he’s mentioned his desire to empower employees. The very first thing to notice about the Dookhan report is that her coworkers had nowhere to go with their suspicions. They needed a different environment where they were not so afraid of retaliation.
But I’m sure a new IG/Dookhan megathread is about to be spawned here where these reflections would be more appropriate.
I have heard excellent things about the AG’s and Treasurer’s offices, and I imagine Avellone and Kayyem are good managers too but would like to know more.
Jasiu and others upthread suggested raising the 2010 campaign again was poor tactics by a Coakley supporter. Over breakfast I made some back of the napkin hashmarks to quantify how off message the thread has veered. Unless someone beats me to it, this is comment # 140 on the thread, and it’s not a pretty picture for Coakley.
I make no claim to perfect accuracy, and some comments were counted in multiple categories, but here you go.
1. Sexism, accusations of; responses to same; general discussion of: 59. I was going to say this isn’t the fault of Coakley or her supporters, but remembered petr is a Coakley supporter.
2. Coakley’s 2010 campaign loss: 51. Not surprising, since it was the topic of the post.
3. Other perceived negative aspects of Coakley’s record: 20. These include failure to prosecute corruption, support for expanded police powers, Fells Acres, Light Brite, campaign finance issues.
4-T. Poor tactics by Coakley supporters in discussing 2010 campaign again: 8. This includes Bob’s promotion comment and this comment.
4-T. Internal BMG issues: 8. The comment rating system and HeartlandDem’s posting record.
6. Lack of accomplishments and vision expressed by Coakley and her supporters: 7.
7. Coakley’s accomplishments and vision: 4
I’m sure the redundant “Myth of Martha’s Mistakes” will have a similar count. Maybe because her record is so bland and uninspiring they think this martyrs complex will somehow endear her to the base? At this point I’m tired of talking about it-Berwick is my first choice, Grossman my second choice. That isn’t changing until the week before the primary when I will re-evaluate their respective chances. And I’ll support whomever the nominee is.
Thanks for the statistics Fenway-sure puts it in perspective.