Aw: Martha Coakley lost because she’s a girl!
posted at 9:27 pm on January 21, 2010 by Cassy Fiano
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.
Recently in the Green Room: