A Partial Defense Of Martha Coakley

Brother Pierce makes two eminently fair points here. First of all, while there’s no excuse for a Democrat losing a statewide election for federal office in Massachusetts, Republican governors have been more the exception than the rule in the Bay State. So, it’s entirely possible that she’s running a decent campaign this time in a way she didn’t in 2010; Charles says she is and I’m obviously in no position to contradict him.

In addition, none of my previous snark should be construed as an argument that Democrats should abandon Coakley or reflect any sympathy for the Globe endorsing her opponent. As Tomasky said in re: the 2000 campaign:

Second, some voted for Nader because they just weren’t inspired by Gore personally. Fine. But it should be obvious today that a candidate’s personality is one of the last things serious people ought to be thinking about…And that’s only the stuff you hear about. In every agency of government, at every level, there are political appointees who are interpreting federal rules and regulations and deciding how much effort will really be put into pursuing federal discrimination cases, for instance, or illegal toxic dumping. These are the people who are, in fact, the federal government. The kinds of people who fill those slots in a Democratic administration are of a very different stripe than the kinds who fill them during a Republican term, and the appointments of these people have a bigger effect on real life than whether Al Gore sighs too heavily or speaks too slowly.

Yes, yes, the stakes are lower in a state election. But a lot of people get hurt when Republicans are in charge of enforcing laws even if a Democratic legislature can limit the statutory damage.