Hey, there! Log in / Register

Cautious Coakley out of step with MA Democrats?

High in the seats at last year’s Democratic National Convention, Attorney General Martha Coakley rose to register her vote for Hillary Clinton. The vote carried no mathematical weight - Barack Obama had already secured the nomination - but was a symbolic show of support for the woman who had come closest to the presidency.

In fairness, Coakley is not asked why she favored Clinton over Obama and maybe she has reasons that go beyond gender.

In an "interview, [Senate President Therese] Murray, an ardent Clinton supporter in 2008, showed a little of the fight she may bring to Coakley’s side.

She called Pagliuca a "Republican" and "this guy who nobody knows." She referred to Khazei as "a public activist." And she accused Capuano, and others who have called Coakley cautious, of being sexist. More here.

Martha Coakley is wise to secure her base. The question is whether her base is voting women or progressive Democrats irrespective of gender.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

I am already not liking how the Coakley people are framing the debate. It is becoming about gender and it is the Coakley camp that is cooking it up.

up
Voting closed 0

Oh yes, almost forgot, I said cooking while talking about a woman! Oh man guess that makes me a sexist.

Oh boy I did it again by saying oh man, I'm sorry.

Yikes I just said boy, how silly of me.

I wouldn't want Coakley supporters to get their aprons all bunched up over nothing.

Now that last line is sexism, please do not confuse the two.

up
Voting closed 0

There's nothing out of step with her choice. Hillary Clinton won the Massachusetts primary.

The selective editing of Murray's interview and the labeling of Coakley as cautious strikes me as an attempt to stir up some anti-woman backlash.

In that very same article, Murray said:

“Will she maybe get a bounce from women because she’s a woman? I think so. But it won’t be enough to get her elected.’’

There's no illusion, on the part of Coakley or her supporters, that the issue of gender will carry the day. Nor has there been any implicit or explicit statement by Coakley that she is more meritorious solely because she is a women.

Yes, there is a buzz being created by other women and men who are excited about a qualified female candidate being in the race. Female candidates don't participate in every federal election race - male candidates almost always do. No one can disagree that a woman being elected to the Senate is a rarity - today there are seventeen female U.S. Senators out of one hundred.

The novelty itself creates a large portion of the buzz in the media - this occurs in nearly every high profile race with a non-incumbent female candidate. See Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin. They don't ask reporters to cover their gender, their hair, or their wardrobe - it's a standard part of the media's coverage. Regardless of the buzz, there is no suggestion that voters are voting or do vote based on gender alone, or that the candidate is encouraging such a thing.

Leaning Coakley.

up
Voting closed 0

I promise, I am being neither snide nor misogynistic in asking this question: what legislative experience does Martha Coakley have that makes her a more qualified Senate candidate than Michael Capuano, a six-term congressman? I mean, great, she's the Attorney General, but how does that experience translate into being an effective senator? I like Eric Holder too, but I'm not convinced he'd do a good job as a legislator.

She's certainly a preferable candidate in comparison to Steve Pagliuca, who is a joke. But I certainly wouldn't claim that she's the most qualified candidate in the field.

up
Voting closed 0

His com mershalsare pain ful tolistento.

up
Voting closed 0

and I would not have thought it was snide or mysogynistic. Legislative experience alone doesn't determine which candidate in a field is most qualified. But since you asked, Coakley has as AG and DA drafted countless bills and advocated to pass legislation (concerning crime, economic matters, consumer protection, etc.) at both a state and federal level. You can do an internet search or go to mass.gov/ag to read more.

Moreover, Coakley gets an edge because as a law enforcement official for the last twenty-three years, she has been in the trenches. She knows how legislation is implemented and whether it's effective and enforceable. This gives her a perspective on legislating that is unique and valuable, and one that many congresspersons don't have. Capuano didn't bring this kind of experience to the House, where he was elected after serving as town alderman and mayor.

up
Voting closed 0

The qualifications you've listed make her sound like an ideal candidate for the House of Representatives, which generally is the chamber that takes a more active part in economic and law enforcement legislation. I would fully support her if she were running for a house district. (What district does Coakley live in, anyway?) But -- and I fully admit that I'm saying this as someone who's been proud to vote for Mike Capuano all these years and who is supporting his candidacy -- it still doesn't say to me that she's more qualified to be senator than Capuano is. Mike is a strong progressive vote and he and I are on the same page on the issues that most concern me. I can't say that about Martha.

up
Voting closed 0

This whole gender thing is making me not want to vote for her. I'm currently leaning towards Capuano because Coakley seems to be implying that gender is one of the credentials that should be considered when weighing your vote... It's not! I voted for Hillary Clinton because she was the best candidate, in my opinion. Not because she's a woman... Shame on any woman who voted for Hillary and who will vote for Martha based on what's between her legs. What's up top is what counts...

As a side note, I am supporting Capuano for reasons other than anti-Martha feelings...

up
Voting closed 0

One of the reasons I won't be voting for her is that it is so wonderfully unfeminist to exploit moral panic over daycare on two separate occasions to further your career.

up
Voting closed 0

besides Fells Acres?

up
Voting closed 0

Hillary Clinton won the MA Democratic primary last year. So I wouldn't call Coakley's vote "out of step".

(I'm currently leaning towards Capuano.)

up
Voting closed 0

Good point, keep in mind Martha Coakley was a super-delegate and not obligated to vote for Hillary.

Either way, the vote went on until Hillary Clinton told them to stop when it got to her state - New York. So I agree - what's out of step about her voting for her choice?

up
Voting closed 0

She was elected at the state committee as an uncommitted delegate who then endorsed Mrs. Clinton.

And her convention vote actually occurred after Clinton released her delegates and urged them to vote for Obama in a show of unity, so there was something somewhat calculated about Coakley's vote on the DNC floor.

up
Voting closed 0

Are women in Massachusetts excited about having the most qualified candidate happen to be a woman? You bet your booties we are-It's been 221 years and no women- But it is hardly the main reason for our excitement= This is a lady who spent 23 years in public service- for little money-working with those who need it the most- She combines heart and head in a way that is unique and exactly what we need now to heal a country torn apart by major, major issues- Wars, unemployment, poverty, violence, Those who are trying to rip her candidacy to shreds may have ulterior motives- no doubt another horse in this race. We will not let lies and misconceptions invade this race- Is it about time we had a woman- for sure- the right woman- no question.
Get the facts- don't listen to political dirt- that's all it is- I never heard anyone say that they were supporting Deval Patrick soley because he was black- did the historic nature of the campaign excite people- definitely- racism -not acceptable- sexism- no problem- Not anymore-

Go to http://womenforcoakley.com

up
Voting closed 0

As a life-long MA resident and liberal female voter, I hope with all my heart and soul that my fellow women voters don't vote on this extremely important race based on gender. We're too wise for that, aren't we?

Gender does not a good Senator make. Issues and character do.

up
Voting closed 0

If you're a woman, vote for Coakley.

Hillary didn't become President, therefore Coakley deserves your vote.

If you feel there is anything wrong with statements above, then you'll disagree with 98% of Coakley's backers.

Let's judge the candidates on their merits and their abilities to be our next US Senator, not on their gender, race, skin color, or creed.

up
Voting closed 0

Leaning Coakley, and I agree that each voter should judge the candidates on their merits (in whatever way we each define meritorious).

Is there a specific reason you assume "98%" of Coakley supporters don't support her based on her merits and/or support her based on gender alone?

up
Voting closed 0

People who post on this board are crazy.

First, I read the Boston Globe article. Where does Martha imply that you should vote for her because she's a woman? She doesn't say it. Her supporters may argue that, but hey, they are just supporters. Until it comes out of Martha's mouth or her official campaign, you can't attribute it to her.

Second, I'm a Coakley supporter. And it's not based on gender. Why? Because I know her, personally and professionally and I know the good that she's done. Capuano? What has he done for me? I know what he hasn't done...I've written him several letters over the years about a variety of issues. Did I ever get any response at all whatsover? Nope. Not even a form letter. After the last non-response, I vowed that he was never getting my vote.

And Coakley needs legislative experience??? Hellooo, she was the enforcer of laws. She not only proposed legislation, she also saw the effects of its implementation which, unfortunately, many legislators never see. And really, there have been plenty of senators who were never legislators (Ted Kennedy comes to mind) and governors with no executive or legislative experience.

Seriously...

up
Voting closed 0

Ted Kennedy didn't have any legislative experience either. Seemed to work out well.

up
Voting closed 0

It didn't work out well right away. He came asking JFK for favors and JFK told him to shove his requests up his ass. And they were brothers!

Ted only became a good senator after Jack and Bobby were killed. He only became a great Senator after he lost the presidency, 20 YEARS AFTER HE WAS FIRST ELECTED!

up
Voting closed 0

Right now I'm inclined to vote for Capuano because I'd prefer to have a generally progressive person in there who knows how to operate in a legislative setting. I also think that he has genuine empathy for, and understanding of the challenges faced by, everyday folks.

I know very little about Coakley's qualifications to be a U.S. Senator. The fact that she hasn't been a legislator before doesn't eliminate her from consideration for me. However, I haven't been blown away by her performance as a D.A. or A.G. Right now, I think of her as competent but not compelling.

So...because all things being equal, I, too, would like to diversify the delegation we send to D.C., I wish that her backers would say less about why we need to elect a woman to the U.S. Senate and more about why this particular individual is the person we should send.

up
Voting closed 0

Coakley should run for Capuano's seat. After two or four years or representing a congressional district, we'd have a basis for judging her legislative skills.

That there is a caucus of women who will vote for Coakley is great. I am not a woman so what is my compelling reason? One thing it is not, is her experience as a legislator.

up
Voting closed 0

While I agree it makes more sense for Coakley to run for House, it's not practical because she lives here in Medford, Markey's district.

I went to City Hall to see her speak a few weeks ago. To my ears, she ducked the two questions of merit that came from the audience (particularly one about Cape Wind) and said nothing that indicated to me that she was the right candidate to go to Washington.

up
Voting closed 0

Full disclosure - I am a woman who votes and about as politically progressive as they come. I have also worked for AG Coakley since 1999. I had to laugh, ironically when I read SP Therese Murray’s comment that if Martha Coakley weren’t being accused of being indecisive (and no, I don’t think that’s inherently sexist) then they’d be labeling her as something far worse (I think it starts with aggressive and ends with a work that rhymes with witch)
Indecisive ????…. Timid ????… Martha was neither indecisive or timid when she used her regulatory, investigatory and litigation authority to go after the perpetrators of predatory mortgage lending, securing a first-in-the-nation injunction against one of the major perpetrators and following that up with aggressive action on foreclosure rescue and load modification scams. The work done under Martha’s leadership has provided models for some of the most forward thinking and progressive action in Washington.
Martha was neither timid nor indecisive when she created a dedicated health Care Division to address the significant consumer issues and aggressively work to protect consumers during the momentous changes implemented during health reform in MA. Martha’s activism and creative application of law and policy has lead to significant verdicts and settlements against big pharma and under her leadership we continue to look at ways to prevent fraud and seek redress for consumers who have been harmed
Martha was neither timid nor indecisive when she created a victim services division to ensure that MA residents who were defrauded or denied fair wages had support to negotiate the intricacies of the system.
Martha is deeply committed to the protections afforded to each person by our constitution. Her respect for the power of government assured fairness in prosecution. Her advocacy for a woman’s right to choose is unquestioned. The proudest day of my working career was the day that Martha announced the office’s suit challenging provisions of DOMA that deny rights to gay and lesbian couples.
As a boss, Martha leads an office committed to public service and Martha leads by example. She turns on its head that old saw about being “good enough for government work” and asks whether we are good enough to work in the government – b/c it is the highest honor to serve. She takes her work seriously but not herself.
As for questions about Martha’s legislative experience, I have seen her work with the legislature on comprehensive crime bills, to develop proposals to address the crisis of abandoned housing and to address huge loopholes that allow corporations to escape real responsibility for homicide. I have seen her work and lead us working with agencies to develop effective regulation that balances the needs and rights of consumers while recognizing that in order for Massachusetts to thrive we need a vibrant economy.
I am a progressive woman supporting Martha Coakley because I believe that she will most effectively represent the most vulnerable among us, that she will advocate for a healthy business climate that respects the environment and the rights of consumers and because in this case, she is the right person, at the right time to work for me, for my kids, for my community and for our Commonwealth.

up
Voting closed 0

"I believe that she will most effectively represent the most vulnerable among us"

Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens were arrested and charged under domestic terror statutes - planting a hoax device - for which there was no basis in fact or motive. Yet when the charges were dropped they were dropped only after the two suspects agreed to apologize and perform community service. Why, if they are guilty of no crime, can they be subject to a forced apology and the performance of 1.5 and 2 weeks community service?

I don't consider this justice. This is sticking it to two young enterprising-that was their motive-guys who didn't stop to think about how local public safety officials would overreact to Turner Broadcasting's advertising campaign in whose employ they worked.

Was any of the $2,000,000 Coakley negotiated from Turner for the BPD - $1,000,000 to cover the investigation’s cost and $1,000,000 for good will - given to Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens to cover their legal fees?

It seems to me Coakley clearly did not "effectively represent the most vulnerable among us" in this case.

up
Voting closed 0

I would not ask Martha Coakley what men do any more than I'd ask Mel Gibson what women want.

"They throw their hat in the ring because that's what men do."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-yKOI9udpE

In fairness, Coakley is talking about her perception of male motivation as compared to women. I don't know if she has any formal education in gender studies, psychology or social psychology but her comparison is neither nuanced nor narrow, instead it is broad and categorical. I think it does a great disservice to both men and women.

up
Voting closed 0