We have reached the final Saturday of this tremendous race, and both campaigns are hitting the trail with force. In what has become an absolute toss up for the Senate, it all comes down to the next four days.
On to the morning roundup:
--The Globe's Adrian Walker wonders how Martha Coakley got to this point, while his colleague Frank Phillips talks to people inside the Coakley campaign who admit to complacency (and also take some veiled shots at their candidate).
--The Herald's Dave Wedge has more on Coakley's emergency room comments from Thursday night's radio appearance in New Bedford.
--Boston.com lays out six things to watch for on election day.
--The Herald political staff says the Tea Party movement from all over New England is rallying to help Scott Brown in the campaign's final days.
--The New York Times says the fate of health care reform and Democratic control of Congress rest in Martha Coakley's hands, and even Barney Frank is criticizing her campaign.
--Matt Viser and Andrea Estes report in the Globe on yesterday's Bay State visit by Rudy Guliani and President Bill Clinton. Hillary Chabot and Jessica Van Sack do the same in the Herald.
--And strangely, the Herald also has Senate campaign stories today involving both UPS and FedEx. Apparently the Democratic party has been mocking Scott Brown in campaign pamphlets that rip off UPS, while Jay Fitzgerald reports that Martha Coakley told the Teamsters yesterday that she will support efforts to unionize FedEx.
3 comments:
You missed this one:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Coakley_and_Schilling.html
Writers really need to be careful in their selection of words. Your reference to "both campaigns" with no further clarification makes it appear that there are only 2 candidates. Of course, that is incorrect. Such errors might simply be poor grammar, but it gives knowledgeable readers the distinct impression that the writer is either biased or is practicing dishonest journalism. This specific error or deliberate tactic has been rampant in this election. The "third" candidate (actually the FIRST of the 3 to qualify for the Ballot), Joe Kennedy, is very significant to this "exciting" political race, even if he doesn't get many votes. Careful analysis shows that his presence changed the dynamics of the race from a Democratic "slam-dunk" to a true three-way race that quickly became a close two-way race because of the overwhelming funding of the 2 "major" candidates. If his funding had been equivalent to Brown's and Coakley's, this would have been an exciting 33/33/33 race instead of an exciting 47/47/5 race that some polls now indicate.
In any event, Scott Brown has a chance to win only because of Joe Kennedy and rising voter backlash. It is nice that the voters of Massachusetts for once seem to have a practical choice of two candidates instead of just one. It would be even better if they had a practical choice of 3 candidates. We should all thank Joe Kennedy for doing the former and trying to do the latter.
Understood, and it makes sense. But Brown needs to win for the sake of the United States. A Coakley victory would ONLY ensure the demise of this great country. Coakley is a rubber-stamp liberal that supports the take-over of our country by the marxist in the White House.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.