Opinion of Martha Coakley

[IceSpear]

FF.

I think the only reason Coakley is so hated among Democrats is because her loss was the canary in the coal mine for the 2010 GOP wave. Instead of facing the reality that we were in for a huge shellacking, we instead chose to pin it all on Coakley to make ourselves feel better (I should know, I did it as well). It was a similar dynamic with Alex Sink. Instead of accepting her loss was the harbinger of a decent GOP year (even if not a wave), Dems chose to blame her for everything as well rather than taking into account the national mood and the implications for the upcoming midterm.

Don't get me wrong, Coakley ran a horrible campaign in 2010. And while it's been much better this year, she's still not exactly setting the world on fire. But I strongly believe this is why she's hated with such vicious intensity among some Democrats.

[IceSpear]

Horrible. When you run a complete disaster of a campaign, you go away. Her running again would be equivalent to Todd Akin running again. I'm sure she's nice and has decent political views but she has damaged the party by being a failure.

Feingold's campaign was a disaster (he refused to accept outside help) but most people want him to run again. Most people correctly assign the blame to the political climate, not to Feingold even though he made some mistakes. Why isn't this true for Coakley as well? It's hard to think of a time more politically hostile to Democrats than January 2010 (except maybe November 2010). Yes, Massachusetts was much bluer and Coakley's campaign was much worse, but can that really explain this huge difference in sentiment?

[IceSpear]

I realise that this is a long shot, but maybe the fact that she's an evil c**nt* is one of the reasons for her unpopularity (as well as her (lack of) campaigning skills).

*Of course her being a Democrat makes that irrelevant to certain people.

Except she was still despised here (and elsewhere) long before anyone was talking about her involvement in this particular case, so that logic doesn't really work.

What exactly is Coakley's side of the story in all this? I'm not going to take the word of an Atlas poster who cited no sources (besides a WSJ hit piece written 5 days before the 2010 special election...what a coincidence!) as fact. Maybe Coakley really is a horrible person, but I'd like to hear her side of the story before indicting her. If it doesn't satisfy me, maybe I will change my mind and support Baker.

[IceSpear]

I realise that this is a long shot, but maybe the fact that she's an evil c**nt* is one of the reasons for her unpopularity (as well as her (lack of) campaigning skills).

*Of course her being a Democrat makes that irrelevant to certain people.

Except she was still despised here (and elsewhere) long before anyone was talking about her involvement in this particular case, so that logic doesn't really work.

What exactly is Coakley's side of the story in all this? I'm not going to take the word of an Atlas poster who cited no sources (besides a WSJ hit piece written 5 days before the 2010 special election...what a coincidence!) as fact. Maybe Coakley really is a horrible person, but I'd like to hear her side of the story before indicting her. If it doesn't satisfy me, maybe I will change my mind and support Baker.

lol, Dorothy Rabinowitz has been writing about the Fells Acres case since the 90s (for her reporting on the case, she won the Pulitzer Prize in 2001); that piece was just a very brief summary of her earlier work (it being rather relevant given that Martha Coakley was back in the news).

Then why not publish it as soon as Coakley entered the race? Or as soon as she won the Democratic primary? Why only do so after Brown's momentum was already readily apparent? It reeks of opportunism, particularly coming from the WSJ.

But it doesn't matter, that's neither here nor there. From what I read about this, there's plenty of blame to go around. Most notably, the attorneys who were in office before Coakley (you know, the ones that were actually there as the trial was going on, not over a decade after the fact like Coakley), the governor of the state (at the time, Jane Swift, a Republican), and the mass public hysteria surrounding the case. To pin all the blame on Coakley strikes me as ridiculously hackish.

[IceSpear]

Fair enough. I will admit my opinion of her has gone down pretty drastically since reading about this. But if public opinion had turned so sharply in the other direction, then what political motive could she have for doing it? That would be the only plausible explanation, correct? I think it's safe to assume her motive wasn't "I'm evil, hahaha!"

[IceSpear]

Probably the only democrat who ran for governor this year who had a chance against Baker.

LOL Berwick would have destroyed Baker

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/governor/ma/massachusetts_governor_baker_vs_berwick-3867.html

[IceSpear]

Bump. We need more opinions on Martha Coakley.

[IceSpear]

I really thought her 2010 loss was a fluke generated by the harsh political environment. I guess I was wrong.

2010 was because she ran a horrible campaign. 2014 was because of the wave, and any Democrat would've lost.