Republican Scott Brown's upset win in the Massachusetts senatorial election to replace the late Ted Kennedy has Democrats pointing fingers at their candidate, Martha Coakley. Widely considered a shoo-in before the election, Coakley ran a less-than-impressive campaign and many Democrats are criticizing her for that. One of President Obama's top advisers refuted the claim that Brown's election serves as a statement that the United States public are not happy with the proposed health care bill by saying "Campaigns and candidates matter," hinting at the fact that Coakely lost the election because she was not a strong candidate and did not campaign well. Brown's win means that it is most likely back to the drawing boards for Democrats regarding the health care plan, as Republicans now have the 41 members in the Senate required to filibuster. I tend to agree with the claims that Coakley's loss is more her fault than a statement by Massachusetts citizens. I have a hard time believing that the Democrats still would have lost this seat if they had fielded a stronger candidate. Massachusetts is, after all, one of the most liberal states in the nation. At the same time, however, the Democratic party and Democratic voters could have chosen a different candidate to run, so the blame is kind of split between Coakley and the Democratic party (as an organization). Read more of this scintillating story at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/20/coakley.brown/index.html?hpt=Sbin.
No comments:
Post a Comment