The Coakley Hangover
January 17, 2010
by Amy Siskind
|The following op-ed is featured at The Huffington Post.
The Massachusetts special election feels like the sorority parties we used to have in college. It’s 1 a.m. and the party is in full swing. The music is thumping and the crowd is building up steam. We pause for a moment to get a drink and all that’s left is coffee brandy (generic, not Kahlua) and ginger ale. And the question is whether we say what the heck, let’s mix it and chug-a-lug. Or pause for a moment and think, hmm, how will we will feel in the morning?
Before we imbibe this Tuesday, can we take a moment to look at what’s at stake in Massachusetts? It might feel like the voters there are deciding on Obama’s health care reform, but they are not. This is a special election to select a senator that will represent Massachusetts voters for the next three years.
Let’s face it: voters are very angry. Make that VERY angry about health care reform. The blogosphere is chock-full of folks who are exasperated that their voices are being ignored by Obama, Reid and Pelosi.
And so folks want to make a statement and there is a way to do this: put a Republican into a seat that has been held by Democrats since the 1950s. That will show Obama, Reid and Pelosi. Or will it?
The answer is no. If they cared about the public opinion, we wouldn’t be here to begin with. Let’s face it: electing Scott Brown will not stop Obama’s health care reform. If there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate, they’ll find a way to do it with 51. Or they’ll rush it through before Scott Brown can be seated. The special election is not going to single-handedly stop them. The special election will, however, select an individual that will be representing Massachusetts for three years.
The Coakley Campaign has been caught flat footed by the populist outrage over health care reform. Her advisors thought they were running a campaign to represent Massachusetts. They were wrong. And they have realized all too late what has been building on independent blogs for weeks.
Much like Hillary Clinton’s advisors misread sentiment in the weeks leading up to Iowa. The sure thing not so certain. The inability of Hillary’s campaign to right itself. Hillary finally stabilizing things herself in New Hampshire and finding her voice. Coakley, unfortunately, does not have the luxury of time.
There’s another similarity to Hillary and Coakley: our country’s unconscious bias that female candidates must be perfect. We hold women politicians to a higher standard. If they can’t be everything we want them to be, it’s a no go. For Hillary, her Scarlet Letter was a vote for W. Bush’s war. For Coakley, her support of Obama’s health care reform.
But not so fast Democratic and Independent voters. This Tuesday, you’re not voting against Obama’s health care reform, or even against Obama. You’re voting for Martha Coakley. A woman who showed loyalty, a trait so rare these days, to Hillary until the end. A woman who has an impeccable list of credentials and experience. A woman who would be an advocate for so many issues important to women and our daughters.
After all, do we really need another male senator? Our country is 51% women, yet only 17% of our senators are women? Has this imbalance been working for our country? Or have we created one big fraternity that is leading our financial system and our country generally down a dangerous path?
So please give some thought to what is at stake here beyond a single issue – granted that issue looms overwhelmingly large at present. Yes, Coakley might not today be 100% of what we want her to be. But I’m giving my word here to do my part as President of The New Agenda to hold Coakley’s feet to the fire on issues impacting women and our daughters. And we can hardly afford to squander the chance to get a qualified woman to the senate.
This sounds as bad as Obummer showing up in Massachusetts to help Coakley win the election. This desperation does not fare well for this administration. It reaks of something much more sinister that we the people cannot even imagine. Go Scott Brown!
Amy, so well said. that is the statement I am trying to get out one by one on the phone banks. people think Brown is anti establishment and Coakley is all corporate funding. but not only tea party funding but the complete conservative funding machine is supporting brown. they have no problem with his blending into liberal Massachusetts. they would have him for 6 years. you really think he will be remembering the women who voted him in? luckily on the phone bank some people are listening and rethinking. i don’t like this health care bill, find it a windfall for insurances, bad for most Americans, but would vote for Martha Coakley in a heartbeat. She knows after the senate and house vote, one or another version will pass. so pretending to stop this bill is so dishonest of Scott Brown.
And Amy you are so spot on, that her campaign management is agreeing to make this election an election around the health care bill. this is suicidal. Scott brown needs to be exposed as the conservative candidate he is, and where his campaign finances are coming from.
Just one thing, Amy. This seat will be up for election again in 2012. That’s one of things that is fueling the vote for Brown. Some voters think that they can stick to Obama, Reid, and Pelosi by voting for Brown now and take the seat back in ’12. I believe in Coakley, but this is a perfect storm.
“..people think Brown is anti establishment and Coakley is all corporate funding”
Exactly the same theme that was pushed about Hillary. She was viewed as the status quo, part of the system, corporate. And people were so angry at Bush they were willing to vote for an empty slate. This same dynamic is playing out in Mass. The woman with all the experience and the actual track record is the focus of everyone’s anger, while they are prepared to vote for the empty suit who they think will deliver “change.”
Bush disappointed people and Hillary paid the price. Now Obama has disappointed people and Coakley is paying the price. Just once I’d like the people’s anger to be directed towards the boys that did the damage. Too often women become scapegoats for the country’s anger.
Amy, love your pieces as usual.
Factcheck: the winner of Tuesday’s election will not be representing Massachusetts for six years. He (or she) will be filling out the term aborted by Teddy’s death and face voters again in 2012.
I’m urging my friends in Massachusetts to support Brown. He can be gotten rid of in two years if need be, but this is definitely a referendum on Obama.
Democrats need to stop hiding being the 60-vote hoax and pass a real reform bill. If forced to pass a bill with 51 votes — good! That will leave no excuse to hold onto this bill’s regressive, anti-consumer, anti-women policies.
Coakley’s loyalty to Hillary was commendable. Unfortunately, her disloyalty to voters who supported her in the primary — on the strength of her principles opposition to the nasty women’s rights restrictions in the health bill — is not so commendable. I have thought of the Hillary comparison too, but I doubt Hillary would sell out abortion rights so cravenly.
“If there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate, they’ll find a way to do it with 51. Or they’ll rush it through before Scott Brown can be seated. The special election is not going to single-handedly stop them. The special election will, however, select an individual that will be representing Massachusetts for six years.”
I would have to disagree with you. First off, the seat is up for reelection in 2012, not six years. Secondly, I do not believe the Dems would commit suicide by delaying the certification of Brown, if he wins. Also, you are speculating that they’ll use the reconciliation process to pass the bill with 51 votes. Your arguments are not strong and one could easily see the Dems that don’t like the HCR bill would use Brown’s win as an excuse to let the bill fail. That would be the best case scenerio, IMO. The HCR bill is its current state is awful.
Patti, the HC bill is awful agree. but why should Martha pay. She is trying her influence to get the worst for women out. Brown is sponsored by big corporate, pro life, anything most dems don’t vote.
why is nobody giving a primary concern to only 17 female senators over 83 male? don’t we know how much male representatives care about our issues from the left liberals to the extreme right. Martha will be a strong voice for women.
yttik,
once again, you hit the nail on the head! It’s deja vu all over again — a woman is taking the hit for something a man did.
It’s starts when we are children blaming mothers for a father’s deficiencies and for not being there, while expecting the mother to always be there no matter what.
I suspect it’s because mothers/women usually give of themselves unconditionally, while men have conditions to giving much less of themselves. Despite this disparity, respect and value are still given in greater amounts to the man, rather than the woman.
Doesn’t make sense does it?
Thanks folks. I will correct it from 6 to 3 here and have Huffpo do the same.
Sober criticism of Coakley is fair — I myself have called her a flip-flopper and an inept campaigner. But some of more vitriolic, borderline sexist language and name calling coming from Clinton Democrats is dismaying.
My decision to oppose her was painful and carefully considered. I think that is true all Hillary Democrats opposing Martha. We fully understand the implications of turning our backs on a female progressive, especially one that stood by Hillary. I really can’t describe how much it hurts to not be able to stand by her at this time. I am disgusted by the tiniest possibility that we may doing to Coakley what the left did to Hillary.
But after much reflection, I have decided that we have to keep our eyes on the prize. The misogynistic Obama-Pelosi-Reid health industry non-reform bailout scam bill must be defeated or replaced with a better bill. Unfortunately, a Coakley victory makes this impossible.
Oh goody, once again the dudes have shown up here at the New Agenda to tell us poor benighted women how to vote. I’m beginning to think the only way women will ever gain any real power is to start aborting all male fetuses.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, I’m voting for the smart, hard-working, liberal woman candidate, not the far-right-wing, addle-brained, nudie-centerfold, empty-suit Republican with the dangly bits. Anyone who believes that a Brown win will be seen as a left/progressive protest and not as a victory for the conservative tea party right is beyond naive.
Did it ever occur to any of these boy geniuses that if we’d had anything close to gender parity in Congress in the first place, we would have had real health care reform instead of the current “health industry non-reform bailout scam bill” (which, btw, will be passed with or without Coakley)?
Martha Coakley has a stellar record in support of women’s rights. Anyone voting against her and for Brown is no friend to women.
Of course, Nell’s sexist, violent, and vile comments are completely out of line and completely wrong.
I assume, Nell, you’re referring to me, so I will only say to you to take your misandry and shove it.
I don’t know what you’ve been doing the past three years, but I’ve spent most of them supporting the hardest working, most qualified, female progressive, one Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I did so not because she was a woman, but because she deserved it. For my efforts I had to move (having Obamabots throw bricks at my windows), lost friends, and faced down cyberattacks. I spend thousands of dollars making sure Hillary’s delegates had their voices heard at the convention and in the media. What have you done lately for a female candidate besides spew anti-male hatred?
The smart, liberal, hardworking woman in this case is supporting a healthcare non-reform bailout bill that sets abortion rights and a women’s right to choose back forty years. I’m not supporting her or that bill.
I don’t think Coakley deserves to win, but she certainly does not deserve misandrysts like you among her supporters. Your comment that male babies should be aborted is twisted and sickening, and I’m appalled this site would even publish it.
Unfortunately, nastiness from people like you has run off many otherwise sympathetic folks from supporting feminism. You can run your mouth, but you will not run me off. Nor will you change the fact that this health bill is a crap sandwich.
DK,
I think Nell is expressing a lot of the anger and frustration women feel primarily as a result of the 2008 primary and GE and how two extraordinary women were treated by the obama supporters, the MSM, the DNC, political pundits and everything else in between. Where were you when they were expressing the kind of nastiness that makes anything we say here pale in comparison?
Her anger reflects our determination to stop the kinds of attacks any woman running for office receives, no matter what the circumstances surrounding her campaign, she is to blame and can be attacked with impunity. Brown is clearly benefiting from the country’s anger at obama’s HC plan. Coakley is the unfortunate recipient of this anger, when it should be obama. But we all know that obama and any male for that matter, would never receive the kind of treatment Coakley, Hillary or Sarah have received.
Brown, like obama, has achieved very little in his political career and no one is focusing on his lack of experience or achievement like a laser beam like they do whenever the candidate is a woman. Like obama, he is given a free pass on that one.
Women make up 51% of the population, yet, we are still treated with the utmost disrespect, primarily by men, but also by many women, who still buy into the idea that women have to be perfect or its open season to attack them in any way you want.
I’m certain were the tables turned and men represented 51% of the population but hold only 17% of elected office, combined with women were treating male candidates like female candidates are treated with an impossible standard that no man could ever meet, you would be feeling exactly like Nell. I bet you’d even call such disparity in governing “taxation without representation” because that’s what it feels like to women. Our voices are not only not heard, they are silenced any time we stand up and defend ourselves against this most egregious injustice. Martin Luther King said “injustice to one is injustice to all.” I don’t think he meant that to be for “men only”.
But men like you only see injustice when it affects them.
Kathleen,
Your generalization about “men like is” is first of all sexist, and second of all a lie.
You don’t know me. You don’t know what I have and haven’t done to combat the injustice you speak of. And you certainly don’t know how I feel about it.
To suggest otherwise is the height of arrogance. Anger does not excuse hatred and misandry.
Now I could explain how in high school after the school’s administration playing Eminem’s violently misogynistic lyrics unedited at a school dance I cause a firestorm by demanding a formal apology (imagine my surprise when some of Eminem’s biggest defenders turned out to be my female classmates). I’m not goign to detail my role how the abhorrent sexist attacks against Hillary spurred me to help found PUMA/JSND. I’m not going to rehash the weekly arguments I have with misguided friends feeding tired lines about Sarah Palin.
I don’t have to prove myself to you or anybody else when I have had Hillary personally thank me for my “support and sacrifices” and when the women (and men) who were with me, who were there, and who DO know me know exactly how I feel about what went down. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to make up facts about me.
The truth, of course, is nuanced. There are men and women who are sexist. There are men and women who are not. It is pretty sad that some hateful ideologues don’t recognize that and prefer nastiness, sexist attacks, and pathetic backwards generalizations.
But like I said before: it will not change the truth nor stop me from speaking it. This health bill is not good for men, women, nor anybody in between. Martha’s support of it is untenable. And yes, she must take responsibility for her choice to support it just as she received deserved praise when she opposed it.
Both this issue and election are important and very personal to a lot of us. However, I would like to ask that we try to keep a welcoming spirit for newcomers to this blog. One of the main strategies of The New Agenda is to bring people, who might disagree on some women’s issues, together to work on things we can agree on. I understand and share the frustration felt on both sides of the discussion, but can we please try to stick to civil disagreement on the issues and avoid personal comments and attacks.
BOO. HISS. BOO. HISS.
Nope. You’ve missed it by a mile. This sounds exactly like the racist banter that was used to belittle people who were black and didn’t want to vote for Mr. I’m sorta Black Obama. The fact that Ms. Coakley shares two things with me–a vagina and a vote for Hillary does not mean she is a proper representative. In fact, those two shared things pale in comparison to what I share with Mr. Brown, and that is the knowledge that the Democratic Party and ANYONE assisting them is my enemy.
The New Agenda is not bringing anything new to the table by telling me to support women no matter what. That is exactly what all of those old feminist leaders told me years ago when I challenged their inept hurtful to most women politics.
Brown will win, and it will be a victory for all American….women. Defeating Obama is the first and foremost feminist act and until this is accomplished blah blah blah.
GO BROWN. GO BROWN. GOOOOOOOOOOO BROWN!!
To Marille,
NOPE. People KNOW Coakley is an OBOT and thus will vote for a dead skunk in the road instead of her. TNA is really missing the boat on this one….
DK,
I apologize for putting you in the same group of men, both personally and all over the media, I had to deal with during the primary when they attacked Hillary and Sarah every dim dam day. That was not fair.
However, I think you give too much credit to the majority of men having willingness to achieve equal parity with women. If the majority were for it, we would not be having this conversation. The majority of men have been conditioned from birth to believe that they are inately superior to women, both physcially and intellecutally.
Coakley is the unfortunate victime of a society conditioned to believe that any mistake by a woman, negates everything good she’s ever done in her career. obama is proof that this is not expected of the men.
You cannot refute the fact that women are 51% of the population and therefore, have every right to be angry at the ongoing efforts by a predominantly male run government to find any and every reason to destroy women who seek higher power.
Throughout the primary we heard from our progressive brothers that they would love to see a woman become president, but not Hillary because she’s so “polarizing”! With Sarah, she was too pretty to be smart enough to compete for the highest office; yet, no one was allowed to question obama’s qualifications or lack thereof. His judgment was all that he needed to be qualified to be the most powerful person in the world.
Now, Coakley is arrogant, ran a stupid campaign, is an obot…any excuse will do, just so long as she is destroyed. The MSM is now asserting that the reason MA is voting against Coakley is not because of obama’s HC plan, but because of Coakley. As expected, obama throws her under the bus and all of his media minions are rushing to put all the onus on Coakley.
I agree with Nell, if women had been equal with the men in power, I believe we would have a real HC plan that would benefit all; we wouldn’t be in debt; higher education would be available to all, and on and on.
I refuse to put all the onus on Coakley. That’s just what they did to Hillary and Sarah and that argument just doesn’t hold water any longer for me.
DK,
I apologize for putting you in the same group of men, who both personally and who were giving commentary all over the media, that I had to deal with during the primary when they attacked Hillary and Sarah every dim dam day. That was not fair of me.
However, I think you give too much credit to the majority of men having the willingness to achieve equal parity with women. If the majority were for it, we would not be having this conversation. The majority of men have been conditioned from birth to believe that they are inately superior to women, both physcially and intellecutally. I grew up with 2 brothers and no sisters and my father made it clear that my brothers should go to college and I should just worry about getting married!
I view Coakley as the unfortunate victime of a society conditioned to believe that any mistake by a woman, negates everything good she’s ever done in her career. obama is proof that this is not expected of the men.
You cannot refute the fact that women are 51% of the population and therefore, have every right to be angry at the ongoing efforts by a predominantly male run government to find any and every reason to destroy women who seek higher office.
Throughout the primary we heard from our progressive brothers that they would love to see a woman become president, but not Hillary because she’s so “polarizing”! With Sarah, she was too pretty to be smart enough to compete for the highest office; yet, no one was allowed to question obama’s qualifications or lack thereof. His judgment, alone, was all that he needed to be qualified to be the most powerful person in the world. No woman would EVER be given that kind of a free pass.
Now people are piling on, participating in a feeding frenzy like sharks when they smell blood in the water calling Coakley is arrogant, she ran a stupid campaign, is an obot…any excuse will do, just so long as she is destroyed. The MSM is now asserting that the reason MA is voting against Coakley is not because of obama’s HC plan, but because of Coakley. As expected, obama throws her under the bus and all of his media minions are rushing to put all the onus on Coakley. All of these critiques could have been made of obama and other male candidates, but society is conditioned to always give a certain amount of respect, even to the worst of male candidates. The oppposite is true for women and this is what I am against. If you don’t like Coakley, don’t vote for her. But I don’t agree with the visceral attacks.
I agree with Nell, if women had been equal with the men in power, I believe we would have a real HC plan that would benefit all; we wouldn’t be in debt; higher education would be available to all, and on and on.
I don’t see any reason that I’m wrong for refusing to put all the onus on Coakley. That’s just what they did to Hillary and Sarah and that argument just doesn’t hold water any longer for me. If we don’t stop this kind of behavior towards women running for office now, then when would be a good time?
first kathleen agree completely with your statements.
jenniffer in texas, can you please stay with the facts. denouncing somebody is OBOT is not helpful here.
and DK great that you were a Hillary supporter like many of us. so what i don’t understand how you dismiss the similarities between what happened in 2008 with the special election in MA. both campaign were scolded. the relatively unknown male with thin voting records were hyped up as the ultimate solution to any political angers. the funding sources and the campaign strategies were uncritically praised as supurb, inspriring. as independent I get the emails from fund drives for brown. there is nothing new and anti establishment. the conservative right has no problems with his pro gay and pro choice stands. it seems to me they know brown better than all the new enthusiasts who see brown as the solution against obama.
that the race is tight has awakened the democrats.
we need Coakley to gain female representation. imagine where the civil rights movement would be would the AA community and their supporters been as negative and dismissive to their candidates as some of us are against female candidates.
Kathleen – just curious. You mentioned higher education for all in your previous post and I’ve never understood what that would accomplish. As it stands, a four year degree is a requirement for entry level on most white collar and even some blue collar jobs. But if everyone gets a four year degree wouldn’t that in effect just be adding four years to high school? Some companies have already shifted to a Masters for certain jobs, and I think if a four year degree became standard everyone would just shift to a six year degree requirement. Currently a high school diploma is a requirement for almost any job, but a four year degree will get you a better job, a six year even better and so on. Why wouldn’t the requirement simply shift up and in effect just add four years to high school and cost an staggering amount of money? I know that is what has happened in the past with the shift from high school required to four year required as part of the weeding process. What would keep the “norm” from just continuing to shift up?
Marille, I think the conservative right has huge problems with Brown’s position on social issues, it’s just that he is the best (and only) they can hope for right now especially in a state like Mass. That only speaks to the part of the party that focuses on social issues though. Right now the energy in the Republican party is focused wholly on fiscal issues and on those Brown is much more in line with the party standard. In fact most of the Republicans I know don’t even want to hear from the social conservatives right now. Many see the social issues fight as a distraction from what the Republican platform is supposed to be about – smaller gov, more personal freedom, less taxes…
Marille,
Sure. Martha Coakley has stated publicly and for the record that she will vote for the health care sham bill. Since it is well established that the health care sham bill is a farce of a bill concocted by Mr. Obama, monied interests whose agenda is anti-the-average-American, and the health care companies this single act defines her as part of the Obama Administration and part of the problem. Even worse is the fact that she had stated earlier that she would not support said bill. She is a liar and will sell out voters for the Democratic-cum-Obama party. In my book this is unacceptable on every level.
This election is all about the woman in one way: it is about Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Democratic-cum-Obamacratic party. As an American woman there is only one person I should vote for and that would be for the person NOT supporting Mr. Obama and his agenda. What is it about you people that you do not seem to understand that the Democratic party is dead. Obama is the new Democrat and the party is his so you have a choice it appears to either be on your knees begging for abortion rights or standing tall waiting for the last Obamacrat to leave Washington, for the Democratic headquarters to move away from Chicago and expel the word OBAMA from every part and parcel of its being, and for new, better people to move in and reclaim this party for the people (and maybe even for the women people). Until then you are on your knees begging or standing tall voting for the other person–your choice but I know that on my knees you will never find me.
And I would love to talk about what supporting the black person no matter what has gotten black people in America….Barack Hussein Obama as a messiah and fools like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton allegedly leading them. Don’t even get me started on the black family, welfare, the rise in black children dropping out of school, rise in numbers of black children born with no father figure, etc., etc. There are many people who would say that that policy has failed them too…
Oh, and she did run a really bad race. really really bad. She needs to own it now women because, once again, I would have had her back forever until she joined team Obama. And if stating for the record that she ran a beyond bad race makes me unfeminist, well then perhaps we need a new definition of feminist.
If Mrs. Coakley had said these three things she would be sitting pretty: I will not vote for any health care legislation that is hurtful to this country, raises taxes, or redistributes money from seniors and as such I will not be voting for the current health care bill. I will not support the Democratic party policy whatever it may be if it hurts MA or the country at large, and I will only vote for legislation that I have fully read, understood, and that benefits the people who elected me to represent them.
But, she didn’t. She is just more of the same old baloney blah blah blah. And if you will re-read my three points you will see how inane this argument truly is because my three points are the epitome and should also be the litmus test for any decent politician. DO THE RIGHT THING PEOPLE. STARING NOW.
Thia,
You ask “what is the norm” in education? Good question. The norm is what those in power make it, I suppose. The majority of companies are still run by men and they can set the bar anywhere they want, but in the end, when a man and woman are competing for that job and who have the same level of education, both from a reputable university, which one has the better chance of getting the job?
Historically, education has been the stumbling block keeping women from attaining equal status in society, separating them from their male counterparts. I believe higher education is still the foundation of the empowered women of today and I believe that women in politics are more likely to fight for legislation that makes higher education affordable.
However, until we achieve more parity at every level of society with men, women will not benefit from their education as men have and that kind of change is dependent upon women recognizing that to get respect from men, we first, must learn to respect each other. No amount of education can overcome that obstacle and that’s the most valuable lesson women must learn, if they ever want equality with men.
I was watching FOX news this morning and their female commentator said that some 25 states AGs intend to sue the Feds the second the Health Care “Reform” bill passes. Someone needs to sue on behalf of all women who apparently are being singled out to have their right to make legal health care choices handed over to other peoples religious establishments. Does anyone have a law suit prepared that you all know of? Or are we the selected group to just keep quiet because if we make our needs known no one will get anything? Maybe men’s cancer treatment decisions should be handed over to the Jehovah Witnesses?! That would be equality wouldn’t it?
Kathleen: I think you are right about higher education if you are referring to upper class women. We need to fight for all job training for women not just higher education. Our public schools have abandoned everyone who knows there is no one who can or will pay for their college. We also need to fight to make certain that girls can graduate from public high schools and be employable at a living wage.
Sorry to hog the board but the way I take what Jenniferintexas writes is that if you get women representatives to government who do nothing but ape corrupt male behavior then you just have the SOS and you have gained nothing. Martha pretty much stated point blank she plans to rubber stamp the male Dems unpopular health plan regardless of what The People think, want or need. So it is hard for people to see her as anything but the SOS. Women who just ape male behavior are not good enough. We are hoping for the change real women can bring.
Bes,
Yes. Yes. Yes. And that would be the case EVEN IF this election was not more about STOPPING Obama than electing a woman. Just like PUMAs and other put country above party last year in the selection of Mr. Obama, women must but country above women until Mr. Obama and those supporting and propping him out are run out of this country.
JiT
I guess you are right that Obama did not bring that much to the AA community. but banding together has brought them a lot. there is no lynching any more, but there is rape and sexual violence. racist comments and jokes have at least tremendously declined, derogatory sexist vile comments on women and girls have a hayday.
and i see a lot of anger from where ever directed at the female candidate and no screening or helding accountable of the male.
Thia, do you think it is just chance that the socially liberal female candidate in the new york race (socciafora) got the republican critics up and had to withdraw against a conservative male independent. and here the socially liberal Brown gets a free pass from the republicans.
I am inclined to interpret this as the same old. use anything to smear a women, she is an easy target. and remember the bikini pictures of palin were even used by liberal democrats to diss her. but a nude male republican does not raise a flag for conservative republicans and sure not for the liberals.
Marille-
Don’t get me wrong, I do think there is a double standard about the skeevy pictures. A woman would never have gotten off the ground with those in her background. The NY race was different because she was also fiscally liberal and well, just liberal. That was such a weird one because if you looked down her list of issues and org. even on her own website you just thought, well she’s a Dem of course. It was an anomaly.
Here is a quote from a Malkin article from the same time. http://michellemalkin.com/2009.....-clothing/
Honestly I don’t know any Republicans who even care about social issues especially now. It’s all fiscal fiscal fiscal. You can get away with being a social liberal (most places) but not a fiscal liberal which Scozzafava was.
I accidentally deleted (not enough coffee) a comment from Octogalore on this thread. Sorry! Please repost, I just saw it at the bottom of the spam pile as I was deleting them and screamed “wait…” As you can imagine, that didn’t help.
I have to say I disagree with Amy on this one. I am not a MA voter, but if I was voting, Brown would have my vote. This country is on the wrong track PERIOD. I wish desperately we had more women in government and frankly if Ms. Coakley had done the things jenniferintexas had listed I would have flown to MA to support her campaign personally. But we do not need another go along with the establishment representative right now.
Denise,
What you says is logical and makes sense. However, I think the core problem with any new member of the “establishment” is that they first must agree to support the party leaders agenda before they will get the necessary support (i.e., money from the DNC specifically for democratic races).
Coakley is a victim of the system and is being held acountable for things that are not entirely her fault. She’s in the middle of a perfect storm of voter outrage over the obama administration’s total disconnect to their concerns. This same accountability is not expected from male candidates. Brown is telling voters what they want to hear (just like obama did) and many of us question whether he will live up to his campaign promises or will he fail miserably just like obama has.
If he doesn’t, will you hold him accountable or will you make excuses for him to justify your support for him? At some point, women have to break the cycle of expecting perfection from the women who run, but are still willing to accept as face value the promises made by male candidates, no matter how many times we’ve been disappointed by broken campaign promises. Men dominate Congress because men don’t hold such impossible standards for menvote for men and women are more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than a man would for a woman. Isn’t it long past time to give women the same consideration as the men have been given since the beginning of time?
Kathleen,
I do not expect perfection from female candidates -but I don’t excuse them for toeing the party line for financial support any more than I would excuse a male candidate. I am vehemently against this current health care legislation and extremely concerned about the fiscal direction this country is heading. I will not support anyone who is willing to support the current direction we’re headed – no matter the excuse.
I also have to disagree that men aren’t facing the same accountability that Coakley is facing – the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia certainly showed a similar backlash against the Democratic candidates. And to answer your final question – I would absolutely hold Brown accountable if he breaks his campaign promise to block the current health care bill.
Ms. Coakley should have won this election – and if she had been clear that she will be an independent voice in the Senate I think she would have.
Cheers to Kathleen….
Yes, Coakley lost because she said she would vote for the health care sham bill. Period. Don’t blame this loss on misogyny blame it on her inability to keep her word and her lack of ethics. Health Care Sham Bill is garbage and ANYONE who tells you different is your enemy…..
I am not your enemy. Are you aware in Massachusetts we have never elected a woman to high office? Coincidence? Hardly.
I was and am a Hillary Clinton supporter who never cared for Obama, who worked very hard to elect a progressive woman to the Senate who supported Hillary at the convention.
Martha had 3 male opponents in the primary, who did not help her very much for the general election in January. In fact, none of the male elected officials really put their organizations behind her except in Boston, where we did it ourselves.
It is horrifying that you thought that throwing a progressive woman and Hillary Clinton supporter under a bus is an acceptable way to show your discontent for Obama. I worked very hard for Coakley, and was horrified to read this thread of emails.
Jeri,
You did not mention whether or not you support the Health Care Sham Bill, because that is ALL that I am talking about in regards to ‘enemies.’
Supporting Hillary was commendable, but most of America voted for her and that was then and this is now. NOW we have a to deal with the dismantling of this country and the give away going on in Washington of billions and billions of dollars we don’t have. At the moment, Health Care Sham Bill is the newest scam and Martha Coakley flip flopped and went from saying that she would not vote for it to saying she would vote for the Senate version and this makes her my enemy. I don’t give a damn about whether she is progressive, conservative, democratic, or an alien I am not voting for anyone that supports this crooked inane sham bill. And I do not even really have to discuss her piss poor answer regarding terrorism in Afghanistan or her beyond poor commercials that actually were embarrassing. And PLEASE don’t make me talk about seeing her hug and kiss on Mr. Obama or her attending that pharma lobbyist party that Sunday night before the election….
I didn’t throw Martha Coakley under the bus, she put herself there by flip flopping, allowing the Obama Administration to take over her campaign, and by forgetting that it is not Ted Kennedy’s seat (or Obama’s) or the woman’s seat–it is the People’s Seat. Martha would be sitting there but for the fact that she didn’t keep her word and didn’t listen to her constituents. You may not like what I am saying but it don’t throw me under the bus for speaking the truth.
If women want to win we better get smart pretty darn quick because a child could have told you how this race was going to end. Mr. Obama and the sell out Democrats have destroyed the good name of the Democratic Party and that transparency thing is letting us see it all and it is as ugly as I imagined. If you want to win in politics for the next 3 years you better hope no one alligns you with the progressive democrats and if they do you better spin that and change it pretty darn quick. Truth, responsive government, and listening might be a good starting point for people wanting to go into politics and actually win. Martha Coakley lost because she didn’t keep her word and we don’t want what Mr. Obama is selling, and as a woman I am under no duty to vote for the worst candidate just because she has a vagina. This is still America, isn’t it…
Oy Vey !
I do not support the health plan…It doesn’t help most people. Martha really didn’t support it either. Ironically, she was the one who told voters she had alot of problems with it. She was being criticized by the party for not supporting it lock, stock and barrel. Scott Brown doesn’t support anything. He wants no reform, and feels that Wall Street should not be regulated. Great choice you are making with Scott Brown. No thank you. I will take Martha any day!
PS: I live in Massachusetts
Not to mention Scott Brown wants to keep the tax breaks going to millionaires. He is definitely not my cup of tea.
Jeri,
You missed my point, and maybe most of my points. You said I called you my enemy but unless you support the health care sham bill that does not apply. Furthermore, saying Martha really doesn’t is like saying you are sort of pregnant and during these times when people are losing homes and losing hope we need straight forward clear talking leaders. And as far as tax breaks to millionaires goes Mr. Obama and the Democrats have 12 straight months of giving our money away to them so he will be no worse….
AND he will not vote for the Health Care Plan. When will you hear the voters Jeri–WE DO NOT WANT THAT BILL. I am not pro-Mr. Brown and I am simply against Mr. Obama and the Democrats. As a life long democrat until last year, a Hillary supporter from way back, and a feminist, you might want to listen to me if you want to win. Martha Coakley became a Obamacrat and that is why she lost. Period.
Independent will rule for the next few years….thank god I went Independent after Denver.
Jenniffer,
Just like Jeri there are many here who support Martha Coakley over Scott Brown. Many of us are independents after Denver just like you, disagree on a wide range of issues with Obama, but find Scott Brown not a solution, but the same old. male with hardly a record, spouting opinons where the wind blows, hope and change.
man of us share the disgust with the current health care bills and as Jeri said Martha Coakley did not make that bill nor liked it. Running as democrat without the support of your party through most of the campaign is not easy. don’t remember Pelosi and the establishment had endorsed her opponent in the primaries.
having the 18th women in the senate another missed chance.
any female democrat will be given the treatment of the establishment and incumbant. the guys drop out because they can’t win. the republicans don’t support women running for office in droves. when will women in the senate be extinct in 2010? or 2012? or 2016?
Jennifer, you are mistaken about Martha Coakley. She is not an Obot–not even if you would like her to be, to make your point. I understand every point you are attempting to make, but I do not agree with your premise re Martha, even though I am right there with you in your frustration with the democrats. I share this frustration. I am not working for very many candidates at all right now. And after Hillary, I pledged never to work for anyone again. And along came Martha, and I jumped into it because of her history backing Hillary and that she wasn’t part of the machine. I hope you understand that she was never part of the machine, and this is why she got little if any $$ from the national dems. As a life long feminist, I am with you in frustration, but I do not share this electing people who will make it worse for everyone and for women strategy as the solution.
Be well.
jeri and marille,
I sense we are good women here missing the major point–at least as I see it. NOW just came out and said that NO health care bill was better for women and they would NOT SUPPORT any candidate who votes for it in 2010….
To Jeri,
Martha let you down and for that I want to apologize. She could have won easily if she had not tried to use Mr. Obama’s coattails. I am mad at her for that as well as her flip flopping. I just don’t want you to blame sexism for her loss because as must as sexism is a barrier for women’s success this time it was not. I and many I know would have sent her as much money as she needed if she ran on a pro-woman campaign–BUT SHE DID NOT. As a woman running as a Democrat talking like someone entrenched in Obama talk she is as dangerous to me and all women as Mr. Obama himself, in my opinion. If she had run as an old school Democrat talking truth, she would be a winner. The polls clearly show this to be the case, which is another reason I am mad at her because it was almost like she wanted to lose. Why say you are going to support something the MAJORITY of the electorate does not want unless you do not want to win….
To Marille,
Same as above and yes you made an excellent point about the rampant sexism in the Republican party. I would like to state here and now that I do not think Republicans are not part of the problem, it is just at this point country over gender is the obvious choice for me. I think that the way they treated Sarah Palin was horrid, and at this point she is their shining star. And yes I am very concerned about the lack of women in elected office but I do not think that voting for any woman no matter what is going to help women. And I have thought about this for a long time….
What is the answer, I do not know but I would like to talk about it more. I also want to thank Jeri for putting it out there again. After Hillary and what we put on the line I don’t know if I can go back out there again this soon, so thanks for that type of courage and heart. I just don’t think she deserved it….
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 22, 2012 at 11:22 am
February 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...