Nora O’Donnell just now on MSNBC:
I’ve spoken with a number of people in both campaigns, both parties. And I’m shocked, stunned frankly by the information I’ve received from a Democratic Party official already blaming Martha Coakley the candidate even before the polls close. This official telling me that in between that key period from December 19th when Coakley had a 20 point lead, and then January 5th when her lead was cut in half, that Brown — excuse me, that Coakley was “literally on vacation.” This is a Democratic Party official blaming her, saying that she went to the Carribean while Scott Brown was able to define this campaign. I don’t recall a time Rachel when I’ve covered House and Senate races, and even Presidential campaigns, when one party official has been dissing the candidate even before the polls close.
Howard Dean followed and as Rachel noted, he was the only one who said there was plenty of blame to go around.
I wonder why the DNC and the White House (who began torching Coakley on Sunday night) don’t mention the fact that Coakley’s drop in the polls started when they demanded she bow down and kiss the feet of President Ben Nelson over abortion:
Coakley’s lead dropped significantly after the Senate passed health care reform shortly before Christmas and after the Christmas Eve “bombing” incident. Polling showed significant concerns with the actions of Senator Nelson to hold out for a better deal. Senator Nelson’s actions specifically hurt Coakley who was forced to backtrack on her opposition to the abortion restriction amendment.
Pollster Celinda Lake says it’s ludicrous to blame Coakley:
Asked about reported criticism from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, pollster Celinda Lake said she had seen the stories. “I think it’s a circling squad to protect the White House. I don’t think it’s very useful,” she said, mixing a metaphor while getting across a clear message.
Lake said that the problem for Democrats is that voters are blaming them for the nation’s poor economic conditions. “2010 is fast turning out to be a blame election and I think that either we are going to characterize who deserves the blame – whether that’s banks and lobbyists and people who still want to hold on to national Republican economic strategies – or we’re going to get the blame. And that’s a very different tone than, often, the administration is comfortable with,” she said.
The feeling among voters, said Lake, is that Washington prioritizes Wall Street over Main Street and that, despite Coakley’s credentials as a state attorney general who has taken on and beaten Wall Street banks, sending her to Washington would not make a difference.
“There’s a lot of blame to go around, but the point of the matter is there’s a wave. And that wave, it hit Virginia; it hit New Jersey; it hit Massachusetts,” she said.
Cue the Boy Band Apologists who conclude that it’s All Coakley’s Fault, based on the whisperings of little more than their fellow members of the Boy Band. Just like Creigh Deeds was a bad candidate. And Jon Corzine was too. And FDL destroyed Vic Snyder with the very first 600 call “push poll” (most others take 80,000 or 100,000 calls to move public opinion in a single congressional district, who knew all it took was a few hundred).
What can you say. Hangin Tough! Maybe mullets will come back too. I wonder who gets to be Joey?



154 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Um, is Noron right? Did Coakley really spend 2 weeks on vacation in the month before the election?
Coakley was a hideous and embarrassing candidate. The national party failed to support her until it was too late.
I just don’t believe that the corrupt, rotted edifice of the national Democratic Party is going to be able to address this staggering loss for them. Kennedy’s seat just went to a knuckle-dragging Republican who successfully harnessed the deep anger of the public at the Democratic response to the economic inequities and despair of the day.
If the Democrats do not learn that people are angry at the injustice in the health care “reform” legislation … that people are angry at bankers awarding themselves huge sums of money in lavish bonuses after being bailed out on our dime, while we face imploding wages and no opportunity … if the Grand and Mighty Honchos of the party don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel in the various Middle East conflagrations the US is embroiled in …
… then they can look forward to a bloodbath later this year.
If, on the other hand, all it took was Kennedy’s seat going to a knuckle-dragging Republican to start to go in the right direction, then the loss of the single seat will have been worth it.
All in all, nobody who is angry at what the Democrats have done with their power so far should be too upset about this one seat being lost. The absolute worst faced now is the party’s leadership not changing and losing power further and therefore becoming more harmless.
I believe with near 100% certainty that this is the breaking point for this administration, and their behavior after this result will determine their fate.
Either they move further to the right, and seal their fate as one-and-done when the progressive base at best stays home or at worst works against them in 2012…or they realize that they’ve got to bring the base back around and start pushing for more liberal/progressive items.
I am one person who would be thrilled if they were even trying for a left-of-center agenda and it just wasn’t happening thanks to recalcitrant Senators. If Obama and his crew were actively fighting for me, I’d be mad at only Congress. But Obama is shooting himself in the foot here, and if he doesn’t stop, he won’t have a leg to stand on, literally and figuratively.
Your base is watching, Mr. President. Ball is completely in your court.
(Really, what loss is it? We have a supposed feminist respecter of reproductive freedom rights who is willing to enhance her career opportunities by turning her back on that commitment when it is convenient … and a knuckle-dragging Republican who is just open and upfront about his backwards economic and social justice views. What loss do have if either loses or either wins? If anything, it is better to have an enemy who clearly identifies himself as such rather than an enemy who keeps telling you she is your friend.)
Interesting poll (NBC-WSJ) out. 55% disapprove of Obama’s handling of “health care reform”, and the Dems are now tied with the Repugs in favorability.
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/55-percent/
(Linky thing is still not working.)
Forced? I think she would have been in much better shape if she’d spent the last month saying, “You know, I really believe in health care reform, but I also really believe that if you’re not going to do something right, you shouldn’t do it at all. And letting one old man from Nebraska have the power to strip American women of their right to choose doesn’t count as doing something right.”
Jane,
Isn’t it our fault here at FDL for defying Rahm’s master DLC plan?
Yeah…. that’s what I thought, too.
I still don’t see how it takes 60 votes for a bill to legitimately pass the Senate. I thought it was 50 plus one?
These little bands of so-called “patriots” (teabaggers) are going to have this country in a knot by November.
Creigh Deeds really was a bad candidate. Not that he would have won if he’d been a good one, but he really was dismal.
The Lieberman presidency came to a bitter, jowly end tonight in the staple in Scott Brown’s centerfold.
Jane, I’ve admired you greatly ever since I read somewhere on Orange about your denunciation of the “Veal Pen.” Now that I’ve looked more deeply at what you’re doing here, it seems to me that you haven’t gone far enough in your criticism of the “Veal Pen.” Why bring this up now?
Looks like everyone is calling it for Brown.
They’ve already made it as ungovernable as California.
People – in particular the female kind – really react poorly when someone backtracks on the reproductive freedom issue.
A year ago, I was convinced that there would never be any serious and likely-to-succeed attack on abortion rights in the national US government. The Bush administration, which was a nasty, evangelical, rightist power, tried and failed to mount it challenges.
I guess I couldn’t imagine that the Democrats would make a much more likely successful attack via health care “reform”. To be honest, I thought that the legion of NARAL-endorsees in the national party’s ranks of officeholders really would simply say “no” to ever voting against abortion rights, even if they made no move to further cement those rights.
But, I guess we have a legion of NARAL-endorsees who are showing us they are just corrupt and weak as any other figure.
If anything, I don’t know what NARAL’s endorsement means any more. After health care “reform”, it really holds no credibility.
I can hear Rahm muttering to himself in the WH now.
Should have moved Harold Ford to MA.
Brown is pro choice.
KILL THE FILIBUSTER NOW
Well played, Rahm. Well played.
Heh!
I was wondering if Scott would do a strip tease during his victory speech…
Sidecar Reconciliation -
With a robust PO to save $$$ -
The only thing that saves their bacon.
Are they smart enough to realize it?
……
Well, hell! Serves me right for making an assumption based on something I thought I read!
Thanks for correcting me on that very important fact.
Christ, if I was a single-issue voter (reproductive freedom) then I would probably be happier that Brown won tonight, given the other figure’s demonstrated willingness to backtrack on her commitments.
A question, then: why didn’t NARAL endorse Brown? He would be the more credible candidate in terms of abortion rights alone, if he claims to be pro-choice while clearly what’s-her-face turned out not to be.
I can hear him muttering that the party needs to be more moderate … meaning more Nelsons and fewer Frankens.
I’m wondering whether we should take over the Greens from within; they’re in need of voters and money, and there are more of us than them.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but I really think the Dems need to just make the GOP filibuster every now and then. Schedule the cloture vote for 4:30 on a Friday afternoon, and if it fails, just let them hold the floor for the next 60 hours. Saturday TV is usually pretty dull, anyway, so it’ll probably boost CSPAN’s ratings.
The Lieberman presidency came to a bitter, jowly end tonight …
There’s always a silver lining, I guess.
We’ll see how long that lasts.
NARAL is to abortion rights what the HRC is to gay rights. At best, totally useless.
And so is Olympia Snowe IIRC.
McConnell’s party discipline has a three-year fuse on it. He’ll fall in line if he wasn’t MittShitting for the locals.
Coakley = Ben Nelson = Rahm = Obama = Loss
No real progressive should lose any sleep over the Coakley loss.
Obama and Rahm are working for the corporate elites to destroy the progressive movement.
Scott Brown is a complete MORON, yes a MORON can win in MASS, when progressives don’t care and don’t see any benefits in electing another Ben Nelson.
Most intelligent dems will now recognize the simple fact you either support progressive ideas or lose to tea baggers. Welcome to the new football games guys. You either are on the team of glenn beck, rush limbaugh or Keith Olberman, Ed, Rachel,Jane, etc. (the day of the conserdem is over thank god)
Obama is the one that is now terrified! Without the Progressive base he cannot and will not when the primary in 2012.
The other great news of the day, is that 51 becomes the majority again. No more B.S. about 60 votes being a majority.
Obama, Rahm, conserverdems, use 60 votes to hide their corporate agenda.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are the happiest people in Washington tonite!
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can now tell their members NO ONE will cheer for you if you vote for this HCR scam Bill.
America is GREAT!
Yeah, so now blog world will blame Coakley’s loss on FDL.
How bout we primary Harry Reid so they can blame us when he loses too?
I hope you ask and report back.
It will last longer than Coakleys planned vote for HC with Nelson Stupak.
i used to live in massachusetts. i hated that it was a state ruled by an oligarchy.
perhaps there are others in massachusetts who feel the same way.
the oligarchs said that coakley would be ted’s successor.
the people said, f*ck you.
but, as brad friedman would say, there is this issue of electronic voting and its susceptibility to fraud that no one seems to want to address. why is that?
I don’t think is martha’s fault,is Obama,Rahm,congress and senate fault.
crooked health care reform,main street strugling,Obama’s unability to deliver change. Obama and senate to blame.A big blow to Obama due to angered
people and false promises.Still, no democrats will go to reconciliation.
I saw Teddy’s comment in the previous thread and didn’t understand it there either. You clearly do.
Clue me in?
That is visible to me completely this year.
Look: I used to be somebody as recently as last year who believed that abortion rights were a done deal due to organizations like NARAL and the candidates they endorsed. That the Obama administration, the Senate Democratic Majority, and probably the majority in the House, would have sacrificed what I really believe was a settled matter of progress on basic social justice, shocked me. As a result of the Democrats this year, I am having to reconsider my previous belief that reproductive freedom doesn’t need to come back to the center stage as an issue. I really thought we were passed this.
I acknowledge that you tell me NARAL has been useless; but all I needed was the way the legion of their endorsees in the Congress – these gleaming scimitars of the social justice world (yeah, right) – simply dropped their commitments the moment it became politically convenient.
How bout wet take down Jim DeMint and Chuck Grassley instead.
If Brown can win in a “safe Dem” state, then every incumbent is vulnerable.
Scott Brown posed nude in Cosmo; 20 odd years ago…have a look!
http://blogs.nerve.com/scanner/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/scott-brown-new3.jpg
True dat.
Rage on the incumbents!
Should have moved Harold Ford to MA.
Ford is a non-starter according to the latest Sienna poll out a few days ago. He loses against every challenger they asked about in NY.
There are plenty of folks with “D”s next to their names, who could run to their Right.
I looked this up – notice the date (mid-December 2009) – health care “reform” turning its back on abortion rights was well-understood at this point in time, so it really seems to me that NARAL happily endorsed an untrustworthy asshole candidate.
WE don’t have 60 votes anymore, so have to pass what we can with 50+Biden. Don’t need to compromise for Leiberman, Nelson, Bayh, Lincoln votes anymore.
There’s 51 votes in the Senate for Public Option. Let’s do it!
Whether people believe Coakley’s defeat is a good thing or a bad thing (and I understand there are strong feelings on that front), this is a referendum on the health care bill, the bailouts and the corporatism of the administration. The scapegoating of Coakley is an attempt by the Dms to get out from underneath that, but it’s undeniably true.
Agree – and it’ll be quite the signal if they DON ‘T do it.
Sounds wonderful! but I think you’re dreaming.
Oops, I missed that. Do really for sure and totally straight men do that?
geez – listening to Coakley’s speech – she still doesn’t get it.
Talking about how she’s been out on the campaign trail “for the past couple of days”, and how her dogs will be happy she’s back home.
I’m happy for her dogs.
No real surprise, is there? Right down to the talking heads on television not getting it. Sure Coakley deserves some blame, but they could have ran Obama himself and he would have lost and they still don’t get it.
Excellent reply Jane, and spot on. This is a first year official report card on what the populace thinks of the Obama Administration so far. Will they understand it? Obviously by listening to the talking heads on tv, nope.
We never had 60 votes unless somebody was willing to bend over for Short Ride.
My past crush on Joe aside, fine. Let’s do it? I’m not feeling very optimistic right now. And, it’s not All About Martha, but in fact if she didn’t want to Do It, why did she run?
When would you say Dems started the effort to pin all the blame for the loss on Coakley? Seems like I started seeing a lot of press about how bad a candidate she was sometime last week.
Only his stylist knows for sure.
Well, how else are you going to get your bearings checked?
I agree Jane
Mayhaps Mother Jones will do an analysis. The Nation will follow the WH spin.
And how would running to the right of Grassley and DeMint be change?
Did Brown run to Coakley’s left?
Even now, with the gray hair, he looks like a narcissist to me. Doesn’t really say anything about his preferences and it doesn’t really matter unless he’s being a big fat liar, and then that does bother me.
Well, he doesn’t set off my gaydar. But he does fit, what I’ve called over the years, a “sexportunist.”
A fence jumper who will “make a conquest” if he feels like he can get away with it. In my mind, that type is also likely to view relationships as possessions, and non-important-people-to-him as objects.
I’ve seen a lot of it. It’s more common than you might think.
I normally use a compass and map.
OK. What you are saying, then, if I read you correctly, is that Coakley’s loss can be used as an opportunity to hold the DLC responsible for having ruined Coakley by pressuring her to accept the Nelson amendments.
But what do you think can be done about this? The election is over, Brown won, and the DLC doesn’t really care about abortion rights. I understand that as a blogger my obligation to my readers is to be proactive, and to offer a course of action which will promise a better future. If I can use any of your material to do that, I will.
The man that lives in the white house is the one to blame for this mess, this was all about rejecting Obama. You cant have three straight losses and blame all three candidates can you? It is time for the Obama administration to look in the mirror and point the finger at the real reason the dems have lost the last three elections. Obama made a classic salesman mistake, he oversold what he was going to do as president. It is always better to under sell and over perform than it is to over sale and under perform. His bailout of the banks, his insurance company give away bill, his back room deals with blue dog senators to just get anything passed, his escalation of the Afghan war, his back room deal with PHARMA, all of these things contributed to what happened tonite. He can continue to listen to Rahm and Pelosi and push this thing thru if he wants but it will be a huge mistake. Obama needs some straight shooters in his circle who will tell him the truth instead of how wonderful he is, the bottom line is he has seriously fckd up the democrats in a little over a year.
Look,
The boys in the whitehouse ARE going to learn that the problem is Obama’s unpopularity.
The only question is – how long will it be before the white see the light?
Maybe tommorrow,
Maybe next month,
Maybe next sept.
People are angry; people will tell you they are angry for this or that reason,
But what they’re really is the lack of leadership, in this case leadership
In the form of caring
And in the form of describing a future we can and will strive for.
That’s the function of a leader. Unfortunately Obama is not a leader, at least not yet.
The American people don’t pay loads of attention to politics,
But they, like all humans, have an in- built sense of when they are being well led.
The lad from hawai’i can jet about the world, appear striding confidently on stage with his smirk of a smile and his patent leather shoes,
but for some reason that ain’t cuttin’ no ice with ordinary folk,
The rubes just aren’t showing sufficient appreciation for this most deferential of presidents.
At some point,
How about feb 14?
the white house will need to do a st. Val’s day massacre-
The knuckle-popping knucklehead of a chief-of-staff will have to go, as will Obama’s rodent and mssr. Plouffe.
My choice for the new chief of staff ?
why bill Clinton, of course.
I’d have to find out where the ex is, I assume they’re still in her trophy case.
Oh, you haven’t known me long enough to hear my rants about my ex, the former male stripper and fence jumper extraordinaire. Don’t color me shocked.
So, if Obama surprises us and goes for the “rush” version of passing the bill and also, as reported by Politico (I know, poor source) Obama intends to be more combative, here’s a suggestion. After passing the Senate HCR bill in the House and signing it into law, use the war supplemental bill to repeal Stupak and use reconciliation since both the supplemental and Stupak are spending at heart. Let’s give the Republicans a vote that really tears them apart: do they want to regulate uteri more than they want to kill brown people?
Huh?
The national party [Democratic Party/DLC controlled establishment] put her in there in the first place… Do you think DNC head Tim Kaine [anti-choicer] who basically [on orders] dismantled everything Howard Dean setup for the 2006 and 2008 elections was busy recruiting precinct officers to organize the GOTV in the primaries — Nah~! — They wanted a ‘NO contest’ against their ‘pliable DLC rubber stamp candidate’…
With regards to her possible vacation … well I can just hear it now:
Rahm: “…Hell it’s MA, and those liberals will have no choice but to vote for Coakley?…”
Male stripper? Was he a pole dancer? Have a trapeze and mirrors in the bedroom?
Brown’s win gives a new meaning to the term that “America is center-right,” and Coakley doesn’t deserve “Under the Bus” treatment. The key for the DNC is the loss occurred in Massachusetts, right under Their nose.
Nope. But, it sure gave me some fodder for some nasty accusations after he left me.
(who me, did I say that?)
More combative? What’s he gonna do? Roll his shirtsleeves up one more turn?
So here comes the fun part:
After Brown is seated … let’s watch what he actually does. A teabagger is taking office. Let’s look and see what they actually say and do with power.
“Rahm: “…Hell it’s MA, and those fucking liberals will have no choice but to vote for Coakley?…””
heh heh heh.
Have a trapeze and mirrors in the bedroom?
doesn’t everybody?
All I care about is that they go forward from here to enact real reform in the health care and financial services industries and deliver on change.
If what you say is “undeniably true,” and I believe that it is, then let them say what they want, so long as we see them doing what they have to do to fix the messes they’ve created.
David Sirota has an insightful post up at Huff Post that hits the emotional nail on the head:
bullseye, as per usual.
Yeah, that should have read “become combative” since now he’s been entirely accommodating to insurance companies, investment banks, all Republicans, etc.
I’m sorry but Coakley deserves the bus as does the Democratic establishment that allowed a dullard to run for office. This isn’t 1884 where some person who can barely keep their own eyes open can run for office and win. If a candidate can’t properly articulate a position in a way that resonates with the public then they should not be running for office no matter the size of their fragile ego.
Coakley and her campaign sucked if for no other reason than they seemed to have been stunned by the attacks coming from Brown. Really? Shocked by a Republican attacking you? Say it ain’t so because that’s all Republicans do. If Democrats can’t respond in kind they should get the hell out of politics.
She was a MA insider, there was no stopping her. And even if she was picked by “the man” they didn’t do anything to support her for weeks, while she was failing all on her own.
Mebbe he’ll resign his seat and move to Tel Aviv. bwahahahahahahaha It was fun while it lasted. *sigh*
Can we throw the DNC under a honking big truck?
Jane’s right: Obama’s presidency is unraveling after one year because Obama and Rahm abandoned the campaign positions that he campaigned and won on. Rahm, who was also central to the Democrats losing election in 1994, has done it again! He needs to go. Pitiful that the White House is blaming the Democratic party candidate for their own misdeeds.
I recall an article at the Boston Globe that called Coakley a lackluster candidate because she failed to campaign or run campaign ads in the 5 days around Christmas Day. I think that was smart of her: who would have gone to a campaign rally on Christmas Eve or watched her ads on Christmas Day.
Rahm Obama fail to admit that: 1) the economy and unemployment are NOT getting better for average Americans (yes, for Goldman Sachs and big bankers) and that this frustration over no jobs and Wall St. bailouts was huge in the Mass. election; 2) they have failed to deliver on change and all Americans have noticed that.
Rahm and Obama only have to look in their mirrors to see the reason the Democratic party squandered its big win only last year.
That would be great, but throwing Coakley under the bus indicates that they have no intention of learning anything from Mass.
Sure, you wanna hold ‘em while I get the truck or the other way around?
If you really want to see what message the Whitehouse will get out of this, do a browse from blog to blog. The big ones. The ones that call themselves progressive sites. A pile of members on these sites don’t get it either. It’s a first year report card on the Obama Admin. Nothing more. Has absolutely little to do with Coakley at all. But reading the blogs, there are a bazillion excuses, just like will be shown in the corporate media. Might as well muddle the message. This is what you get when you get both major parties comprised of moronic rich people out of touch with reality.
“I got 99 problems,
But bitch ain’t one”:
(On Obama’s iPod according To his campaign manager in spring 2008.)
Wwls*
*what would Lincoln say.
Regardless how capable Coatley was or was not, the WH knows why this happened tonight. Last week, Brown received $1 million a day from small donors across the nation – from people who could give a rat’s a$$ about MA politics.
That’s a message to the party, not about Coatley!
Let’s hope both our sides get the message. Think what you may about the Tea Party movement, but we are committed to ridding our party of corruption and two-faced politicians.
I have to think the sliming of Coakley is coming right from Rahm. Obama will not take the fall. Is there a snowball’s chance in hell that Rahm retires/gets fired/gets investigated for Freddie Mac?
She was a MA Establishment chosen candidate… absolutely… Hence my my second para. Kaine, Van Hollen, and Menendez from what I can see are just puppets — the real power behind the scenes are still [ex-DCCC & ex DSCC) Emanuel and Schumer -- the guys that bankroll the party.
Rahm's arrogance is legendary which is why I wouldn't be at all surprised if he really thought we basically had no choice but to bow to his game play [and save $ in the process]. After all it’s not the first time we’ve had to put up with his bluff.
Plus, I believe part of the reason she was such a bad candidate because of the ‘lines’ she was basically given — showing beyond any reasonable doubt what a freak’in establishment rubber stamp candidate she was.
You might be right. But it might also be that they know they screwed up, that they think they’d ruin themselves and Obama if they were to say they screwed up publicly, and that they know they have to change course.
It’s just one thing I’ll have in mind as I watch what they do going forward.
Pjevans @83 and ratfood
That’s a really funny routine.
Thanks for a laugh in a tough moment.
Thanks.
He will probably ramp up the rhetoric to meet the challenge.
“I’m very very disappointed in the actions of some of fat cat bankers.”
“We really will help save peoples houses and jobs this time. And I really, really mean it.”
“We should consider protecting Americans rights as provided by the constitution at some point.”
“Republicans are not always as nice as they seem.”
“Foreign conflicts could lead to non-optimal results under certain circumstances.”
That sort of thing.
Happy to be of service. :-)
Of COURSE, there is blame to be spread, but Coakley CANnot and WILL not escape from her spineless caving-in to Obama’s moronic attempt to wish-fulfill a positive response to his “reaching across the aisle.” It is ONE thing to reach, but self-destuctive to reach and continue reaching for something that CANnot be HAD. To then BECOME the enemy, by agreeing to COMPROMISE all principle, in order to get approval from the boytoys of Cartel America_ aka, the Republican Party_ approvalthat the Dems DID not NEED, isnot only inSANE, but mortal SIN! The Health-care bill COULD have been sent to “reconciliation,” RIGHT from the START, and done so, successfully, with only 51 votes needed.The Country’s dissatisfaction with not much “change,” does not surprisingly result in too many of the ignorant_ self-imposed_ masses thinking that they should go back to the other side_ a side that IS, and REPRESENTS, every sociopathic special interest known to MAN! You don’t COMPROMISE with vermin_ you put a PITCHfork in them. Don’t try and make excuses for Coakley; she doesn’t DESERVE them. You WANT a heroine?_ then it BETTER be Sigourney WEAVER_ who knows how to deal with “Alien” behavior.
It is also time to stop making excuses for Obama. He is NOT one of US!_ and any Democrat that does not demand that Health-care reform be IMMEDIATELY taken to reconciliation_ is NOT one of us, EITHER!The GOOD people are not mad that health-care reform was undertaken_ they are furious that Obama and Congressional Dems have not put their FOOT down about how the Bill must be WRITTEN! To confuse the latter two things is the most egregious stupidity anyone can imagine.
The major player now, becomes the Unions. If they announce publicly that they will not give one DIME to any elected, or YET to be elected, public official, who does not ACTIVELY support a public option, through reconciliation, then “CHANGE” can be jump-started. And if that means putting Obama against the WALL, then, JUST all… right with… ME!
The ball is in the HOUSE’S court now, and NOT just with Health care. The Bank tax, repealing Bush’s giveaway tax breaks to the super wealthy, then using the money to fund TARP loans to small businesses_ loans that the banks are NOT making_ can ALL be made possible through reconciliation. It is the ONLY way, and CAN be done. NOT with OBAMA’S lead, but the House does not NEED his attempt to act like a person with a spine.
I don’t GIVE a damn about Coakley, or the campaign the Party ran. PLEASE, Jane, DON’T run misDIRECTION plays on us. You’re MUCH too smart for that. We either FORCE House Dems to pass an uncompromised health care reform bill, through reconciliation, NOW!- or all is lost. HEY!_ they perform HEART transplants_ NOW is the time for SPINE transplants! And if it means, performing the operation on a patient who is looking down the wrong end of a semi-automatic, then so BE it!
Don’t forget how much O is looking forward to working with Brown in a bipartisan manner.
“you say you want a revolution”
Well, Buttercup,
You just got yourself one*.
*Va, nj,ma
Rahm and the DLCers accept that they might have made a miscalculation in trashing their base, even in private?
I’ll believe that when they give up on pushing Ford in NY.
No problem. Run it around a couple more times ….
(Glad to be of service!)
Here’s where I agree 100% This referendum was extremely important and sent a powerful message to Obama.
Southern dragon @72
” more combative? what’s he going
To do? Roll his shirt sleeves up
One more turn?”
That is funny as hell. I’m still laughing.
There’s a diary up at the Great Orange Satan saying that this mess was, at least in part, due to an intraparty squabble, Coakley being from western Mass and the party bosses being from Boston. I don’t know whether that’s true or not, but it sounds possible. (In CA it’s North vs South.)
Yeah, I can just hear him spewing that line with his aversion to conflict.
No.
This has been another edition of …
Just hit me.. perfect time for resignation of Rahm.. throw in Axelrod as well.
I’m Massachusetts born, displaced to the Midwest. I was trained from an eary age to talk in an New England accent. My mother’s family is mostly all still there in and around Concord, Ma. They were mostly instinctive Democrats, but they could see a scam from a mile away.
Well, we all can, and we have.
No need for me to check in with my cousins who still live there. I know that they are outraged in an elemental Yankee way at how things are going.
Sure, the West has all the macho pioneer types. But New England has, and the rest of our country has never grocked on this, a close connection with the founding of our country. That is to say, the liberals you know exist in Massachuselts, march or gather to watch patriotic parades down main streets in countless towns, the way most Democrats would think only the far right would think of doing … Or that is what I remember from when long ago I would return.
This is to say that Massachusetts has always been instinctively conservative. I’d like to thin as a part Irish American that they have had a true feeling for the under dog, and thus a link with Democratic ideals.
Yes. let the House sit on the bill, until the Public option is restored..and they expand medicare.. This would have been the case, until Lieberman threw his tantrum.. and then Nelson pouted about abortion. Looks like that is all
flim flam now.
lol no kidding!!
: )
Vroom-vroom!
I say, that Brown was the secret weapon to stop the corporate welfare HCR..he served his purpose.
Yup, a good clean hit.
Excellent point. Something to watch.
Either way, Ford’s finished in the NY Senate race.
In addition to his really bad missteps when putting his name forward, I saw a poll last night that showed Gillibrand way ahead of him.
The more Obama spins the Coakley loss as the outcome of inadequate compaigning, the more he will anger voters on all sides of the political spectrum.
Sand @68
Yeah.
I can just hear the best-and-brightest
at the house that is the whitest
Saying:
Get martha out of the country
For two weeks, that way, she can’t mess anything up.
Then, in jan, it’s
“martha, where the he’ll were you.”
He did the same thing with DADT at one of his glitzy appearances.. all talk, no walk.
I’ll bet many of the Dem. House members and Senators are shaking in their booties.. wondering about who’s gonna go next.
Short Debbie Schultz on Rachel Maddow: “I deny reality”
Un-fucking-real, she manages to observe democrats need to find why Coakley lost.
I. Fucking. Kid. You. Not.
Obama’s line to MA voters was, I know you’re angry, but “have patience.” And then you have Krugman
selling this crap as well, saying Obama’s problem is that he didn’t keep harping on what he inherited from Bush. Thank goodness, Bob Kuttner who lives in MA, and was a classmate at Oberlin, woke up after he got robo calls saying
that voting for Coakley was standing up to insurance companies. I couldn’t believe Kuttner’s position on Moyers, where he was questioned about whether he would vote for HCR if he were a senator and he said YES because, “Obama has staked his presidency on it.” And if it doesn’t pass the country will swing to the right. I guess Kuttner decided against voting for Coakley and nullified his original position.
In that regard, I am growing weary of Air America, Maddow and the others.
They have all caved in, in one form or another. Now you have Franken saying we will pass HCR..
because it’s really important to make it easier for the cat food commission?
Corzine was a terrible candidate but was dead even with Christie, with the momentum, in Oct. before the DC geniuses took over the campaign. In-fighting became public. The spinsters subsequently buried Corzine’s effective campaign against Christie’s bogus health insurance plans. Instead, they changed course and went with the overtly, “Christie is fat” tactic. I guess they didn’t realize fat people vote.
Well, thanks to all of these clowns, Christie is now governor of Blue Jersey and Bret Schundler is the state’s new (anti public) education commissioner. Good times ahead in the Garden State.
Sorry to be so uninformed, but Coakley ran on the issues. Really. Spin your stuff. It’s interesting, but just spin.
Listen to Brown’s “graceful” acceptance with the chanting jackboots in the background.
I’m so sad the the negatives have won. Just obstructive, no ideas to advance the human condition.
What a f***ing dumb country we live in. Check the demographics of the places where Coakley won. Where would you want to live?
The problem the administration has now is that it’s an all-or-nothing proposition for them come November. The cleft in the stick is just this: since they’ve squandered so pointlessly all the good will they had coming in to office one year ago, no one is going to give them the benefit of the doubt. So they have to come out swinging, and swinging hard to make real, tangible gains by November: real jobs, real health care reform, real financial regulation, and some real zeal in punishing the banksters. But otoh, they are now more reliant than ever on corporate money. If they don’t dance to the piper’s tune, that’s forfeit.
Thus, if the administration quits it’s corporate sponsors now, they will – very probably rightly – view the strategy as a rather chancy gamble.
The irony is that for an administration that seems hell bent on playing it safe by their lights . . . they really didn’t. If Team Obama had come out swinging last January, I believe the odds are he would have been wildly popular at this point. If his cronies had wanted a piece of the pie, they would have had no choice but to play ball(to mix my metaphors) and continue to contribute to Obama’s campaign chest.
Of course they know they made a mistake. But it’s just the dance you do in public. I’ve seen mooks beat up five ways from Sunday who will still use the line “Yeah, well you should see the other guy.”
So, yeah, they know. But the lesson they’re apt to take away(Rahm at least) is not that they should listen to their base, but that they didn’t invest enough energy in pulling the wool over those ungrateful wretches eyes.
They really ought to know that a year is long enough for them to produce results voters can see. And that the results we do see don’t come anywhere near what they promised last year.
Rahm is an idjit, but so is everyone who believes him.
Justme @124
Your comment is thoughtful, eloquent, and sad.
Coakely did in fact run on
The issues and there is no reason at all to think
She might not
Have been a fine senator,
Whatever you hear to the contrary,
The vote was about prez Obama, not ms. coakley.
Americans don’t have any subtle tools/weapons to use in their
Opposition to the direction of a presidency.
Their choice Is :
vote for or vote against the bastard.
That is what
Happened IMO in ma,
The vote was not against coakely or the issues she stood for;
It was against Obama,
Possibly for not
Keeping
His “promises”,
Maybe for The health Insurance reform debacle.
Love it!
Is it possible, dare we consider, that the Dems meant to lose the MA special so that they could kill a health care bill they know is a disaster and, oh, joy, blame the Republicans? Truthfully, how enthusiastic were the Dems ever about health care reform? How eager to offend those huge corporate sponsors? Health care reform for all but a few in congress has always been a loaded gun at their heads. Will be very interesting to see what congress and the WH makes of this.
I like Dean’s response. The others are really showing fear, trying to blame anyone but themselves, and hoping the public buys their stating “its her (Coakley’s) fault as we cannot make a mistake and if we ran her campaign we would have never lost”. Did they ever think that people are simply fed up with them talking out of the side of their mouths.
You might also ask yourself if its correct if believing that President Obama is simply being misled by his staff. He has a mind of his own, did you ever think the policies he has been proposing is what he actually believes. I wonder if Rahm Emmanuel subjects him to waterboarding so that President Obama does what Rahm wants? Of course not, the decisions made are President Obama’s whether your agree with them or not. You may want to wake up and realize that he is not the person the left believed he was. People want their politicians whether left or right to at least try and follow what they preach, and perhaps President Obama would have been better served if he had actually spoken what he believed in on the campaign trail so that he doesn’t look like you can’t trust him. But then he might not have won if he had but at least he gets to say he was a President.
Will Obama move to the right? “Find himself”, move to the left and become the guy we voted for? Don’t know, but there’s always the tried and true third way -
“I regret to inform you, my fellow citizens, that after weighing all the options we have no recourse as a nation but to prosecute a war with (Venezuela, Yemen, Iran, you choose). I am your war president.”
It always works.
Time the use reconciliation to pass HR676
“When in trouble at home go adventuring abroad.”
Metternich? Or one of the 19th century prussians, Clauswitz?
Again abandoning their own, no surprise.
The president campaigning for her was a mistake. It just reminded people of how they were duped.
The WH will probably conclude wrongly from this and move further right and maybe even not pass any healthcare. They will wrongly go for more bipartisanship, hate that word.
Reconciliation is the only option if they really get the message MA sent them and then public option can go back in or medicare can be opened up at least for those without it. Hoping !
Maybe she should have been thrown under the bus because of her obscene complicity in the persecution of the Amiraults.
Now there’s a campaign!
Oh yeah you say…
Well watch the pieces of $hit on my side crawl out from under the rocks tomorrow claiming how much they have been in support of Scott Brown. If I were Brown, I would walk into the Republican chamber and say okay I’m here now and I’m your 41st vote…and this is what it will cost you. We stop all this madness now and reach agreements both sides can live with on the major issues our country is facing today.
I’m sorry Jane but you have to take some responsibility for this. First off, blaming Coakley’s loss on the abortion issue is being in denial. If that’s the case please show the poll numbers proving that stopped people from voting for her. But even more important is that by going after Obama’s attempt to reform healthcare and stoking the Gruber issue as if it was Bush II in action played right into the anger at all incumbents and business as usual.
Until you understand you were a rider on that bus that ran her over, progressives will continue to lose ground while idiots like Brown benefit from your unfortunate hubris.
Newsmax has a collection of pundit quotes this evening – the usual you would expect from each side – but this one is telling of what is happening within my party:
“The next battleground for these new conservative leaders against the establishment big-government politicians will be in Republican and Democratic primaries. These new conservative leaders are gearing up to challenge the political establishment regardless of party.”
I suppose different people can hear or read the same thing and have different takes:
they demanded she bow down
To me, this is much more important than one’s position on an issue where they haven’t the courage to stand for their beliefs. Isn’t this the essence of what you all are arguing where the cave-ins have allowed for this vehicle to go totally off track? The payoffs are the only winners and the value items have had to be watered down so much, they are no good for anyone.
This is what started the Tea Party movement where my party lost it’s identity and courage.
If you read the link, you will see that it is the internal memo leaked to Politico that asserts that Nelson’s abortion provisions caused Coakley troubles,
The Politico piece is titled “Coakley adviser memo: D.C. Dems ‘failed’ Coakley”
From that memo:
and not, as you say, Jane’s doing. Coakley’s own internal polling.
And wow, the first sentence of the Politico piece begins:
…finger-pointing from the White House and Washington Democrats…
Further, “Obama’s attempt to reform healthcare…” as you call it was feeble at best.
Finally, Jonathan Gruber’s work for the White House is suspect on its face, partly based on his affirmative failure to disclose his relationship in signed documents allowing him to opine in the New York Times. Please draw a line, however crooked, between these disparate events.
I thought not.
You have 20 point lead a month before the election…and you lose the election…and it is not even particularly close. And it is Ben Nelson’s fault? The DNC’s fault? The President’s fault? Everyone’s fault but the candidate and her campaign. Coakley goes on vacation, all the while the Brown campaign and their candidate work their tails off. Brown presses flesh (sorry about that) in the cold at Fenway Park and Coakley is like…ewwww, not for me. And Brown had a national television network stumping for him.
Yeah I feel the DNC dropped the ball a bit but ultimately the people who cost Coakley this election are her campaign staff and the one the looks back at her in the mirror.
You have to remember that there really is no point for Democrats further, except “we’re better than the Republicans,” since the Democratic Party political class has nothing to offer its political base. All legislation is to save corporations from bankruptcy while the people starve.
Coakley is only one instance of the massive stab-in-the-back being given to an entire electorate, as America slips into Third World status.
Your reading of my post shows you didn’t take the time to understand it. I did not say it was Jane’s doing. I specifically stated she was in denial and should accept her part of the responsibility for this political debacle. A lackluster candidate, belief in the sacrosanctity of Kennedy’s seat, a poorly run campaign, reactionary fear produced by the Underbomber and many other issues all contributed to Coakley’s defeat.
Using a Coakley advisor’s memo to somehow claim that is proof that the abortion issue kept progressives and women from voting is a non-starter and has no basis in fact. That memo was a defensive ploy to divert blame when it became clear they were sinking. The fact that people were concerned about Nelson’s actions has no correlation to those who voted. I too was “concerned” but it would not have discouraged me form voting, and if it did or would have you I suggest reexamining your priorities in the bigger picture.
Jane’s push for a better healthcare plan was admirable but you have to know when you are doing more damage than good. IMHO she clearly got caught up in her own righteousness. Although she claims she never teamed up with Norquist, that was the perception it produced on the left and right. The message got away from her and shows she’s not ready for prime time politics. Repeatedly attacking Obama and making Rahm the bogeyman only served to empower our foes while inflaming our base and people like you without anything constructive to show for it.
Your claim that Obama’s attempt at healthcare reform is feeble is just empty rhetoric. No one has been able to explain how any reform can be attained without compromise. Lieberman, Nelson, et al were maddeningly difficult barriers he had to manage. No matter how much people tore their clothes and gnashed their teeth over it, it was a reality that had to be solved. Obama was willing to spend the political capital and take the hit in the polls for something he believed in. There was a point where the left needed to cut its losses and rally around the president for the sake of at least a start in reform and to keep momentum for the other issues he faces. Instead Jane pushed ahead aiding the fracture of what is always a tenuous relationship between pragmatists and ideologues.
One of the worst mistakes was the manufacture of a scandal where none existed. Gruber had received federal grants like thousands of others for research and was not beholden to the White House. There was no quid quo pro implied or otherwise and to play the “what if” game is just another form of Russian Roulette. Sure the case can be made it should have been disclosed but in the end what was achieved? The better choice would be to have waited until the bill was passed and then point out the seeming impropriety, no matter how innocent, the lack of disclosure presents.
In conclusion, while I can understand the reactive emotion behind your post, I fail to see any reason or logic to your method of discourse.
What is President Obama and the Democrats doing? There was so much good will for the democrats after the 2008 election and they have turned it all around and gave it back to the republicans. I see two silver linings from this election and they are the democrats now know what they are doing wrong and two they can finally get rid of Republican Joe Lieberman and give that chairmanship to someone who deserves it.
Where the hell is Tim Kaine and the DNC. Howard Dean was on Rachael Maddow last night giving reasonable comment and advice as the way to proceed now tha MA seat went Repub. Kaine is still the invisible man. They did nothing to protect the 60th Democratic seat. The only contribution to this mess that I can see are statements that are being made, that are not attributible, about who is to blame.
Kaine ahould resign or be removed. He has been silent on all pertinent issues to this point. DNC chair is not an honorary position. He is being paid for nothing.
You are a conspiracy theorist. I’m sure it all makes sense in your head.
Great point.
1/20/10 The day after, two new ways to blame Coakley I’m hearing on “progressive” talk radio: 1) Coakley threw the fight for money; 2) voters didn’t know Brown’s party affiliation and thought HE was the Democratic candidate.
More DLC delusions for the politically damned?
Well, if it’s really a statement on the Obama corporatist agenda and not about Coakley as a candidate, then I don’t see the relevance of mullets and boy bands.
I think if people really want politics to be about policies, then they need to learn to leave their cultural prejudices–which are really class prejudices– at home.
Frankly, I think the larger point–and larger problem–is that people *say* they’re about policies, but really they’re not.
I hope that the sometimes tone deaf WH, those who think that the DLC agenda has any merit to speak of, get a strong message if H Ford makes no impression on New Yorkers.
I thought FDL wanted the senate bill killed. If throwing Martha under the bus is a metaphor, then Martha threw us under the bus. What a farce of a campaign she ran, including her untimely trip to the the sun and the beach weeks before election day. This certainly jams the Repubs who WANTED THE SENATE BILL TO PASS WITH THE ATTENDANT INCREASE IN PREMIUMS. NOW PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL SIMPLY LET THE REPUBS VOTE IT DOWN, JUST WHAT JH WANTED THE house to do.
Scentofviolets @125/126
Comments I enjoyed, With the proper balance of caring and skepticism.
Obama did squander his political capital.
Personally, I think
It is because he had no experience as a political executive cum leader.
He was’t sure, based on experience ( because he hadn’t any), What to do with His victory loot.
A year latet, has he learned from va, nj, and ma?
We’ll see in time.
The problem as I see it is that Obama had no
Internal compass of caring. He’s all analysis and no cattle.