significant baggage. Something involving a child abuse case that she totally mishandled, IIRC. Has that come up yet in this election.

I don't think it came up when she ran against Brown. I haven't really followed all the times she's run for AG since that case. If it had been a big issue for voters, though, she probably would not have been re-elected AG or been nominated for Senate or Governor.

Adding link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fells_Acres_Day_Care_Center_preschool_trial

would not have been re-elected to be AG in 2010, not to mention all the times she was re-elected AG since the 1980s, when that case was big news.

Will Baker try to make it a big issue and, if so, will he succeed? I don't know.

I did a little digging, and it involved a toddler who was raped with a curling iron. Coakley went VERY easy on rapist.

seems to have no purpose other than to discredit Martha, though.

Too harsh on one group of accused child rapists, too easy on another.

What's what's your point?

I knew there was something I heard surrounding the 2010 election that was a little disturbing. She's obviously much better than any R, IMO.

reporters who ask about the issue "sweetheart." He's tone deaf on women's issues.


And MC has Warren's endorsement.

Frankly. I wished I knew why you feel necessary to bring this here.

This said, the good people in the Boston media are still big fans of Baker. F*ck them. They have a hard time thinking a woman can be a good public servant. They did that to Warren and do it again (and sadly, again and again, MA people fall for it -- Warren only won by 7 against this dummy of Brown. Obama won by a lot more.)

I'll stand w/Warren and endorse Coakley without any hesitation.

Baker polls very poorly with women, because he's a sexist ass.

That doesn't mean she makes a good candidate, though.

I think she will make a good Governor, and certainly better than Baker.

I think we're better off dancing with the one we invited than criticizing their moves at this stage of the game. It's just not helpful. Focus on the weaknesses of the opponent, and he has plenty of them.

Senator Warren has the right idea. When you talk about Martha, this is how you should be talking:

Let's keep beating that "sweetheart" horse:




Charlie Baker on NFL domestic violence....



No contest.

That is light years more important than what kind of campaigner she is. Besides, I don't think her campaigning is big news to anyone here.

When I post here, I assume that I am posting to people who are not going to vote for Baker. I don't say she is not a good campaigner off the board except to one person--and I am 100% sure he is not voting for Baker.

But, here, I'll post what I want, just as everyone else does.

with what I posted on this thread, I cannot help but be bemused that it was my posts and only mine that you chose to "should" on.

taken my comments the "wrong" way.

I'm interested in seeing Martha Coakley take the oath as the first female governor of MA elected in her own right. That's the sum of my involvement in this thread, such as it is.

I did not remark at all on the content of your posts on this thread, just your apparent focus.

I remarked on your seeming more concerned with my posting about her campaign skills, while praising her more important attributes, while others on the thread are posting things about her alleged baggage as a public official, and in connection with child rape cases, no less.

If I were worried about which posts on this thread might dampen the vote for Coakley, mine would not have been the ones I zeroed in on, and certainly not the only ones.

That's YOUR opinion, and you are welcome to it, but I don't share it. We've chosen our candidate, she's "good enough" for Elizabeth Warren, she's "good enough" for Deval Patrick, she's good enough for a number of union endorsements, and she's good enough for me. I'll drive people to the polls--like I did on primary day (another day where you gave me some noise, IIRC) --to get out the vote for her. I'll keep talking her up, not talking her down. And Baker? So far, he's made a lousy candidate, with his NFL-enabling "sweetheart" stumbles. I'll keep pointing THAT out when I have anything to say about him.

But that's me.

explained all I am going to explain about it.

But, you continue to prove my point.

and you need to OWN them. If you think damning someone with faint praise is the way to GOTV, your approach to political science is unique. It's not my method, though, and I will say as much.

You also shouldn't "accuse" me of not responding to comments that were written after I wrote my initial remarks.

And you continue to prove MY point with every response you make to my posts.

you need to OWN them

Oh, please. Spare the cliches. My name is on the OP and I have not denied saying what I said. I've owned the OP since I posted it.

You also shouldn't "accuse" me of not responding to comments that were written after I wrote my initial remarks.

Only some of them were written after you instructed me about what I should and should not be posting. And you responded to none of them until I commented on be bemused by your focus.

And you continue to prove MY point

It's odd that you think my commenting on your focus proves some point you think you made.

This isn't about ME, either--it's about a thesis you put forth in YOUR OP.

Own it.

You are saying nothing new and I've already stated that I've owned the OP since I posted it and never disavowed a word of it---despite several efforts on your part to make posting it seem wrong. So, what is the point of Reply 22? Just to have the last word?

Besides, where you chose to focus and whom you chose to instruct about what to post is definitely about you.

Your reply to this, if you make one, will be the last word because I will not reply. So have at it. Or not.