Green Room

Aw: Martha Coakley lost because she’s a girl!

posted at 9:27 pm on January 21, 2010 by

This argument was simply inevitable. Rather than taking responsibility for any of of the many reasons why voters didn’t want to vote for Martha Coakley — her abysmal campaign, her elitism and arrogance, the fact that she was in complete lockstep with Obama and the extremist liberal Democrats in Congress — the Daily Beast columnist James Carroll takes the easy way out and blames… misogyny. That’s right. According to him, it wasn’t any of the above reasons that Massachusetts voters didn’t elect Martha Coakley. They didn’t vote for her because she’s a girl!!

That the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy lost to the Republican non-entity Scott Brown is a moment of reckoning for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The current discontents do not explain this staggering defeat. Tea-baggers, disgruntled independents, an electorate made weary and confused by the health-care debate, the unemployed pissed-off, anti-establishment nay-sayers—add it all up and you still don’t have the explanation for what happened. The short of it is that the most liberal state in the nation (“Don’t blame me,” we crowed when we alone went for George McGovern in 1972, “I’m from Massachusetts”) practices the politics of misogyny. When it comes to positions of real power, no women need apply. Martha Coakley was croaked by an electorate that could not get past her gender.

… Now the wise guys say that Coakley blew it. A distinguished attorney general, and the victor in a hard-fought primary against formidable opponents, she lost the general election to the lightest of lightweights, the centerfold Scott Brown. For weeks, the press had unloaded on Coakley (inconsistent on the death penalty? Flip-flop on the health-rights bill? Isn’t her net worth awfully low?); over the course of the same weeks, the press had given Brown a pass. That he was elected only proves the point: No one knows diddly about this guy. About Coakley, meanwhile, everyone “knows” what happened. She “didn’t want it enough,” “didn’t work hard,” “didn’t ask,” “didn’t talk up Ted Kennedy.” Wrapping herself at the end in the double aura of Clinton-Obama, they say, only diminished her. Or made her seem too much of the club. Damned if she did. Damned if she didn’t. Anyway, she was sort of cold, don’t you think?

Right. The voters of Massachusetts ignored everything they knew about Martha Coakley and voted in Scott Brown because he’s a man and she was just a girl. Nevermind that she was voted Attorney General of Massachusetts over a man, Larry Frisoli. It didn’t matter that Coakley went on vacation in the middle of the campaign while Scott Brown was out pounding the pavement and meeting voters. It didn’t matter that Coakley snubbed voters and instead was hobnobbing with DC elites, union activists, and lobbyists. It didn’t matter that she just assumed that the seat belonged to her simply because she was a Democrat. It didn’t matter that she all but promised to vote in lockstep with Democrats who are currently pushing an agenda massively unpopular with the American people.

No, the only reason she wasn’t elected is because she’s a woman. It’s the patriarchy again!

This is quite frankly an insult to the voters of Massachusetts. Considering Hillary Clinton came incredibly close to winning the Democratic nomination and Sarah Palin could’ve been vice president. It’s completely typical of liberals to avoid any responsibility for their actions, though. I’m surprised Coakley herself hasn’t been playing this card. To be fair, Coakley herself seems to be owning up to the loss completely. Liberals just can’t accept, though, that perhaps Americans don’t like their socialist, extremist, big government agenda. So instead, they use discrimination as a crutch. Don’t like Obama’s agenda? You must be RACIST! Didn’t vote for Martha Coakley? You must be SEXIST!

Honestly, libs, give it a break. When you look for prejudice everywhere, you’re going to find it. But we conservatives don’t think that minorities or women should get special treatment because of their race or gender. We think they are good enough to be judged on their merits, their character, and their achievements. Isn’t believing that minorities and women are so inferior as to need special treatment to get ahead a form of racism and sexism in and of itself? What does Mr. Carroll expect — for voters to vote for Coakley just because she’s a woman, regardless of where she stands on the issues? It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

Seems to me like the oh-so-typical cry of misogyny is nothing more than another sexist man projecting his issues onto everyone else.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I can only hope my fellow Californians are just as misogynistic in November.

malclave on January 21, 2010 at 9:35 PM

This would be tiresome, except;

There is a small germ of truth here, that doesn’t get explicitly stated. It’s observable truth that progressives/liberals/democrats (and their media vassals) treat women in politics unfairly.

Hillary Clinton – tossed aside when convenient.
Geraldine Ferraro – ditto.

This doesn’t even address the savaging of Sarah Palin (by the side that is putatively pro-women.)

Funny; the party that celebrates women, and the philosophy that holds them to be equal (both in the sense of celebrating their successes, and in holding them fairly to the same standards,) is the one broadly portrayed as the party/philosophy of knuckle-dragging misogyists.

massrighty on January 21, 2010 at 9:54 PM

I don’t know about you angry white males. Seems as if you’re responsible for everything that goes wrong. :)

jeanie on January 21, 2010 at 10:41 PM

May be true.

Obama and the Dem officials are really MISOGYNISTS,

to Coakley, may be

to Clinton, partially

to SARAH PALIN? Damned Right. Liberal/anti-woman Mysogynist hell of the breaks lose to that woman from Alaska.

TheAlamos on January 21, 2010 at 11:17 PM

misogynist not mysogynist.

Oops.

TheAlamos on January 21, 2010 at 11:18 PM

When Coakley conceded immediately to Brown, I realized that some on our side owed her some apology.

Some of us labeled her as “cheater” like the Party she’s in.

But Coakley has more class than the rest of the Dems.

Kudos to Coakley!

TheAlamos on January 21, 2010 at 11:45 PM

Maybe it was being gracious. Or maybe she was just tired of the whole thing and wanted to go home. Don’t think she was cut out for hard core politics. Used to the court room where some etiquette exists.

jeanie on January 21, 2010 at 11:51 PM

There is a glass ceiling in Massachusetts. Women have talked about it for a long time. That state is as old-fashioned a “boys’ club” as there is anywhere in the country. It goes back to the historic denial of women as leaders in the Catholic Church. Ted Kennedy was revered as this great champion of women’s rights, but he never did a thing to promote any women to political leadership in Massachusetts.

Martha Coakley was actually thought to have shattered the ceiling when she was elected AG. So it’s pretty disingenuous to try to reconstruct it now. She proved she could win a statewide election; she just couldn’t win this one.

rockmom on January 22, 2010 at 1:44 AM

And how, exactly, did Hillary get tossed aside when she ran for and won as a NY Senator? This is a case of selective anecdotal evidence. The glass ceiling has been broken for everything BUT the presidency, and that is just a matter of time (3 years??).

GnuBreed on January 22, 2010 at 4:45 AM

I presume that the Daily Beast columnist has been protesting similarly for more than a year about the November 2008 election, and believes that Sarah Palin should now be vice-president? Right? Oh, wait…

jwolf on January 22, 2010 at 8:52 AM

Women have talked about it for a long time. That state is as old-fashioned a “boys’ club” as there is anywhere in the country. It goes back to the historic denial of women as leaders in the Catholic Church.

rockmom on January 22, 2010 at 1:44 AM

Just wanted to point out that historically Massachusetts was founded by Puritans, not Catholics. The Puritans didn’t exactly encourage women in leadership positions and, in fact, accused more than a few strong-minded women of being witches.

The Irish Catholics didn’t arrive until the 1800′s and weren’t part of the political structure until later. Joe Kennedy Sr. wanted desperately to be recognized and accepted by the Boston Brahmins–who were WASPs.

March Hare on January 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

If MA voters don’t vote for women, how did she win the Democrat primary?

Techie on January 22, 2010 at 2:48 PM

All of present day New England was founded by and governed by early religious groups(Protestant)–none of whom saw women as anything but chattels. There’s always Anne Hutchinson, but even she eventually had to leave MA for RI. So…it does look as if the tradition goes back a long way. But in the case of Coakley, she was so clearly the lesser candidate that I cannot fault the MA voter for preferring Brown. Sometimes it’s no contest and this was one of those cases.

jeanie on January 22, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Martha and the Democrats thought they had Massachusetts in the bag and never thought Scott Brown had a chance to win. They were unprepared for the growing anger from Republicans and Independents of the ever expanding government.

yoda on January 23, 2010 at 5:40 PM