Let's get this out of the way. You might not want to vote for Martha Coakley. You might think she deserves what's she's getting after an absentee, self-satisfied campaign (why should I bail her out?). You likely want to send a message to everyone from the attorney general all the way to every Democratic official in Washington, DC. Odds are you didn't vote for her in the primary. And, you might be wondering if it'll make a difference who wins this Tuesday.
You got every reason to be pissed, but it needs to be clear: not voting for Coakley is the same as voting for Brown. And voting for Brown is a very, very bad thing.
sabutai :: Yes it sucks. Yes you have to vote Coakley.
That article is really a pep talk for all the dejected and disgruntled Massachusetts liberals who aren't all that excited about Tuesday. The blogger is hoping they see the bigger picture.
I remember articles just like this by Conservative pundits in both 2006 and 2008 saying the same thing to conservatives. These sorts of pep talks only happen when the leadership knows that the rank and file aren't all that excited.
That's as clear as you will get that all the energy, excitement and momentum is with Scott Brown in this race with 48 hours to go. Coakley continues to make gaffes, meanwhile. The latest is less serious though not knowing that Curt Schilling was a Red Sox hero is a major no no.
Rea: But Scott Brown has Curt Schilling.
Coakley: Another Yankee fan.
Rea: Curt Schilling a Yankee fan??
Rea: Curt Schilling a Yankee fan? TheRed Sox great pitcher of the bloody sock?
Coakley: Well, he's not there anymore.