Keynoting BlogHer White House Project
Print This Post
Jan
17
Yes, I would vote for her if I was eligible to vote in Massachusetts. And yes, I do expect she will win. I could be wrong – wouldn’t be the first time (I wanted Joe Biden in the 2008 primary), but that’s my prediction.
Regular readers can guess why:
I’m a reliable left of center voter except on a few issues (I vote against casinos and am very independent when Israel is involved, rarely going into the move all Israelis to Siberia territory but also reliably against settlement expansion).
And Scott Brown is an untenable option for me just on the basis of his positions on pretty much every single issue that matters to me:
He is anti-choice bordering on being anti-woman (see more here, where the Boston Globe compares the candidates’ positions on choice), he thinks Obama was born out of wedlock, he espouses a position that denies decency to rape victims, anti-immigration groups love him, gun rights advocates want him, he opposes same-sex marriage, disparaged and then apologized for disparaging lesbian adoption, supports the federal DOMA and is considered anti-science.
Many left of center folks have come up with reasons to be extremely miserable with Martha Coakley – Taylor Marsh’s posts exemplify that group’s discontent. Amy Siskind of The New Agenda, in an entry at The Huffington Post called “The Coakley Hangover,” conveys similar sentiments.
But as Digby says in her post, “Hitting the Wall” (read PunditMom’s post, “Am I Angrier at Martha Coakley or the Democratic Party?” for a variation on the same theme):
I think a lot depends upon this election in Massachusetts, frankly. If Martha Coakley loses, it will be very bad for progressives. Worse than we can imagine. After the so-called lessons of Virginia and New Jersey, there will be no fighting back the perception that the party is in big trouble, regardless of whether it’s true — and it’s hard to argue at that point that it isn’t. Sadly, the lesson that will be taken from losing Ted Kennedy’s seat to a right wing Republican is not that the Democrats have been too liberal, I guarantee it. What will follow will likely be a sharp turn to the right.
So, job one is to make sure that Senator Playmate is defeated. If you live in Massachusetts, and I know I have readers there, please do what you can to get out the vote. The consequences are quite dire if Coakley loses.
…
Seriously, if you live in Massachusetts, do get yourself out to vote for Martha Coakley and volunteer to help if you can. A loss will be so devastating that I’m afraid the Democrats will end up calling to invade Yemen and institute shoot to kill orders for illegal immigrants if they don’t win this race. They will panic, bet on it.
Not surprisingly, Coakley has been treated with sexism from the start, been analyzed on her “babe factor” (for real) and she gets nothing but grief for being a serious campaigner. Sounds reminiscent of how Hillary Clinton was treated by the pundits as well. Women are too mushy if they cry, or they’re faking, and they are cold if they are serious. Cannot win for losing.
Feh.
So what can you do?
I personally know two people who live hundreds of miles from Massachusetts who either have gone to MA to help, now, or are phonebanking. Here’s a post about the hard work of the phonebankers. I can tell you from my own experience, nothing is more effective than face to face, one on one, final days get out the vote efforts. Daily Kos, which most WLST readers know I almost never never never read or link to, has some suggestions, you can visit her website and you can also join and work through Coakley’s Facebook groups:
If you have more suggestions, drop them in the comments. But most of all, if you know a registered voter in Massachusetts, please make sure they vote. As I’ve written before, although I do care about who people vote for, I care more that people engage.
NB: Not once have I mentioned the abomination that is the 17% of women in the U.S. Senate and the fact that she would be the first woman to represent Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate. However, these are both critical milestones that bring our country’s federal government closer to a truly representative body.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:00 pm January 17th, 2010 in Campaigning, Congress, Democrats, Gender, Government, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Predictions, Sexism, Social Issues, Voting, Women, leadership, senate
Comments
15 Responses to “Martha Coakley will win, and I’d vote for her”
Leave a Reply
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
Excellent piece, Jill.
You’ve covered all the pluses and minuses very well.
And yes, let’s acknowledge it IS important to move the needle toward more equality in gender balance in Congress. Especially since the studies indicate the guys start to behave better when there are more than 30% women and decisions made by bodies with greater diversity are of higher quality.
I believe Coakley will win as well, but the fact that the race against a [namecalling I can't allow] hack like Brown tightened this much underscores the need to be ever-vigilant. …they must not be allowed to get away with their attempts to change their shades when an election rolls around. [edited for namecalling]
Unfortunately Clinton was treated this way by her party as well.
Seriously Jill, you are good at reminding me why I do not support anyone you promote on this blog. You are ONLY promoting Coakley because she is a woman, and no other reason.
Do you seriously believe you are someone special and do you believe your opinions should be held above all others (ie – more than 50% of Massachusetts voters)?
You neither live in Massachusetts currently, nor have you ever lived there. In fact you have been residing in conservative bastions, such as the great state of Lieberman (aka – Connecticut) and of course Pepper Pike, Ohio.
With that in mind, what gives you any right or reason to deem yourself as some sort of informed expert on the state of affairs related to Brown v. Coakley in far away MASSACHUSETTS (of all places).
You’re doing the deeming.
I believe I can justify deeming you as inexperienced and thus substantially uninformed regarding issues related to far away Massachusetts. This is especially true as you write like you talk from your Pepper Pike ivory tower, 700 miles west of Boston.
It is obvious your opinions, on this topic, are unworthy of serious consideration. Especially since you have been exclusionary and unjustifiably accusatory of men as you have been making broad generalizations while assuming your chosen narrow minded advocacy role on behalf of women.
You should try to disclose what issues your narrow mind is constantly fixated instead of play acting as if you are omnipresent and thus somehow supremely objective.
@6 I have your IP, I have the name of the employer from which it comes. If you want to keep up what you’re doing, you do so at your own risk. The rules are the same as ever – find another place to voice your parallel universe.
[...] of other issues are at stake. Take a look at what Jennifer Nadeau or Jill Zimon has written about this race. You can also read a deconstruction of the candidates’ positions [...]
Editing words that come nowhere near swearing, threatening people…. I hate to agree with the right wing poster here, but I do. I usually see this kind of behavior in their bastions; we of the left tend to be more, uh, tolerant?
There is no need for you to send my info to DHS-I most assuredly will never post, or even read, here again.
Jolly – that’s your prerogative, this blog is mine. It has my name on it and everything else. Tolerance has nothing to do with the making sure the content here reflects what I approve.
If you want to publish the words you tried to publish on this blog, please, start your own blog.
You are not the commenter whose IP I investigated – the commenter in #4 and #6 is.
I appreciate you voicing your disagreement with my stance on the edited out words you submitted (do you remember what they were? you left me an email that doesn’t work and bounced back to me, so I couldn’t notify you and ask you to change it).
Jolly – just to be double-sure, I re-read what I edited out of your comment and I stand by it. It’s a nasty name and your allegation tied to that name was simply gratuitous.
I also see that you do in fact appear to have a blog. So seriously, publish that thought and that name for Republicans there. You don’t need to put it here or need me to allow it here.
One of the reasons blogs are wildly popular is because we offer such a variety of tones, even on the same point on the political ideological spectrum. I’m glad that’s the case, but again, it doesn’t mean I have to allow the kind of name-calling on this blog that you showed a preference for in your comment.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
I’m a life-long Democrat, but I would have been unable to vote for Coakley in good conscience. Her conduct regarding the Amirault case shows her to be unfit for public office.
Jason, I don’t think she was the best candidate ever and I am pretty sure I haven’t suggested that I do. I tried to highlight how I feel between the two. The reality: 1) I don’t live there so who knows? Maybe if I was there, I’d feel differently. 2) I don’t “not vote.” Which is to say, I always expect to vote and not abstain, skip or otherwise use my vote in a way that I feel doesn’t contribute. Would I protest vote? Maybe – but again, I’m not there.
Like I wrote somewhere, the best news is that the MA state senate can get someone more progressive than Brown.
“Jason, I don’t think she was the best candidate ever and I am pretty sure I haven’t suggested that I do.”
You’re right, Jill. You haven’t. If I gave the impression that I was accusing you of thinking Coakley was the best candidate ever, then I apologize.
“Like I wrote somewhere, the best news is that the MA state senate can get someone more progressive than Brown.”
That’s true. There’s also the probability that Brown will be vulnerable in 2012 or 2018. If Coakley had won, we likely would have been stuck with her until she decided to retire.
Jason – see how good we’re getting at seeing the silver lining!?
And I’ve already spotted a couple of references to GOP people getting very nervous that Brown is some wolf in sheep’s clothing regarding the conservative agenda. From what little I’ve read, that does seem like a possibility. Who knows.