Politics
More PoliticsCoakley's Lessons for Women
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women's issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
Steven Senne / AP Photo
Massachusetts' Senate upset has left political players wondering what it will take for women to win races in 2010. Dana Goldstein on the implications of Martha Coakley's defeat—and female candidates to watch this year.
From Rep. Bart Stupak’s successful grandstanding against abortion rights to Martha Coakley’s stunning upset at the hands of the heretofore unknown Scott Brown, it’s been a tough few months for women in Democratic politics. All the bad news—and the sense that the Beltway women’s organizations were caught off-guard, feeling complacent after Barack Obama’s 2008 victory—has left institutional feminism’s top players wondering what it will take for female candidates and women’s issues to win in 2010, and how they can help.
“Women who run as women, proudly announcing that their life experience matters, it informs their judgment and their policy beliefs, and they’re proud to be women? Those women win.”
“Look, in terms of what happened [in Massachusetts], I think we all need to look at ourselves and point the finger at ourselves a little bit,” said Jonathan Parker, political director of EMILY’s List, which donated more than $460,000 to Coakley’s Senate campaign. “At EMILY’s List, we need to do more analysis of independent voters and work with our candidates in terms of being attuned to them.”
• Peter Beinart: Democrats, Don’t Despair Although strategists agree that independents’ frustration with Washington contributed to Coakley’s upset, there is no consensus on how to salve the anxiety. Liberal groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee are publicizing polls demonstrating that even Scott Brown’s voters were in favor of a public health-insurance option. The lesson, they say, is that the White House and congressional Democrats have been too quick to compromise with insurance companies and centrists. Meanwhile, those at-risk centrists, such as Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, are arguing that the lesson of Coakley’s defeat is that Democrats should move further to the middle.
Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, whose political action committee endorsed Coakley, sides with the liberals. “Hammering out legislation in Washington behind closed doors in a nontransparent way? People don’t want that,” she said, going so far as to compare the health-care reform process under Obama to President George W. Bush’s way of doing business: “Voters already said no to that in 2008.” She added, “Coakley’s numbers started going down precipitously after the Senate version of health care came out, which was just a huge giveaway to the insurance companies.”
• Lloyd Grove: The Kennedys React to Scott Brown’s Win
• Dana Goldstein: Martha Coakley’s Stunning Gender GapBut O’Neill acknowledges that Coakley, who has been roundly criticized for running a lethargic, entitled campaign, was less than a perfect candidate. Coakley’s advertisements were stiff and played it safe, never highlighting that she could have been her state’s first female senator or promising to be a proud voice in Congress for reproductive rights, which are under attack.
“The tendency is to say, ‘Well, I’m a human being, I have ideas, and capacity, and I know I can do this job and be a good public servant!’’ O’Neill told The Daily Beast. “So it is tempting for women to say, ‘I’m not running as a woman.’ But women who run as women, proudly announcing that their life experience matters, it informs their judgment and their policy beliefs, and they’re proud to be women? Those women win. Hillary Clinton did that, and I know she didn’t win the nomination, but it absolutely worked for her. She came back in New Hampshire. She came very, very close.”
They key now, though, will be to find a feminist politics that looks forward, not back at the 2008 Democratic primary. Independents’ unpredictability, as well as the Tea Party movement’s newfound online organizational capacity, have emboldened Republicans, so at EMILY’s List, “for us this cycle, we’re really watching our incumbents carefully,” Parker said. Two of the most at-risk Democratic women are Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy of Columbus, Ohio, who in 2008 became the first Democrat elected from her district in more than four decades, and Rep. Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, who owes her 2008 victory in large part to the involvement of her opponent, Tom Feeney, in the Jack Abramoff ethics scandal.
YOUR FRIENDS
Joy Behar Was Right
Jeff Shesol is the author of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court. He is also a founding partner of West Wing Writers, a speechwriting and strategy firm and the author of Mutual Contempt. From 1998 to 2001, Shesol served as a speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. A Rhodes Scholar, he holds degrees in history from Oxford and Brown universities. His comic strip, Thatch, appeared daily in more than 150 newspapers from 1994-1998.
Dragon Tattoo Star Narrowed to Final Four
Gina Piccalo spent a decade at the Los Angeles Times covering Hollywood. She's now a contributing writer for Los Angeles Magazine and her work has appeared in Elle, More and Emmy. She can be found at ginapiccalo.com.
A former editor of Men's Journal, Claire Martin has written for Outside, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times magazine.
Inside Chelsea's Wedding Party
Lynnley Browning is a frequent contributor to the business pages of The New York Times and is a former Moscow-based correspondent for Reuters, where she covered energy and commodities. She grew up in Tulsa, Okla., majored in Slavic Languages and Literatures at Princeton University, and is fluent in Russian. She lives in Hamden, Conn., with her son.
The New Abortion Outrage
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women's issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
Will Your Pills Be Covered?
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women's issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
The Coming Birth Control Battle
Dana Goldstein is an associate editor and writer at The Daily Beast. Her work on politics, women's issues, and education has appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, BusinessWeek, The New Republic, and The Nation.
richard003
Hmmm. That seems pretty easy. For women to win, they need to campaign at least as hard as men. Women candidates need to learn that they can't take vacations three weeks before an election. And women candidates need to learn that the fact they they're women Democrats doesn't mean that they automatically win. What a joke this Coakley woman has been. I hope other women will not stoop to follow in her path, and will intead actually work to get elected. Then, and only then, will we have more women elected to positions of power in this country. Winning is not a right!
whipmawhopma
I think you touched upon the key element, working for it. A some remove it certainly seemed that Coakley was out of touch with the essence of politics, that being selling herself to people, and she came across as another member of the entitled political class.
galeso
1) Coakley did not lose because she was a woman as this article implies.
2) They do win, look at our local government, Babs Boxer, ...
galeso
3) Do not run on health care when it's the economy - OK, Brown may have made it look like Obama was fiddling with health care as the economy burned. Did Obama concentrate too much on long term solutions too a short term problem? Where are those "green shoots" he planted in his first 100 days?
sophia5
Ms. Goldstein,
This is your third article on Martha Coakley and her " Woman " angle.
YOU ARE NOT getting It.
You seem to continue insisting
Coakley's loss was about her being a woman.
Like Ms. Coakley, you seem to be completely TONE DEAF.
Her loss was a referendum on Obama and the entire
Progressive Movement. Period.
If Coakley were a man and had the same Progressive policies,
he too would have lost.
Let's try this again.
The United States is a CENTER RIGHT country,
with many
Independents turned off by Obama's / Progressive BIG Government.
Try to
absorb that for a few minutes.
Progressives keep trying to pin Coakley's loss on anything,
and everything . . . other than
the REAL REASON . . . Obama's Overreaching BIG GOVERNMENT.
anghiari
Are all of you people brain dead? Don't any of you remember what Obama did to Hillary Clinton because she thought she had a lock on the Democratic nomination? Please Scott did to Martha, what Obama did to Hillary...Dana please....this is not brain surgery...elected officials who have won often, get complacent....She thought she knew the voters and they knew her. She also forgot that women have to work harder and longer than men...II suspect Martha needed a newcampaign team for this election and she was probably loyal to her old team. and she paid the price...remember Hillary used her old team too!
flyoverland
I think she marks the end of the "woman" candidate. She looked like every other professional political woman. Said the same stupid, inane platitudes they always say. I remember about 20 years ago a young Democrat who worked for me was excited about a candidate for State Senate. I asked the qualifications, and he said, "she's a woman". I think those days are over. the novelty is gone. You are going to have to be a quality candidate to win going forward. Its going to take more than buzz words. The press may give liberal women a pass (at least till they lose), but the voters won't anymore.
whipmawhopma
flyoverland - "I think she marks the end of the "woman" candidate."
I think you're right. For most people the novelty has worn off, at least in terms of all offices except POTUS and maybe VPOTUS. And even then it's not that it's inconceivable, but rather who will be the first ones, who has it within them. Many women do not, as many men do not, but I am sure we could all come up with a name or two, whatever the rest of us think of those particular names.
johnchaney3
Women will not vote for a woman.
Hard pill to swallow.
Woman have been inundated with the idea that they are inferior to men for GENERATIONS. They cannot see their way to voting for a woman...Women have less than stupendous egos...their gifted in other ways. They can't see themselves in power...how can another woman be powerful...against a man? Forget it with the male ego big as it is?
Hillary against Obama is the perfect example....
Women have NEVER had a woman in such a powerful position...not in the last century...Men do not see women powerful...Sorry its true. I watch women try and excercise power over dogs...funny. If a woman cannot see herself as powerful in the eyes of their father, or mother for that matter...she surely won't be able to see HERSELF as a powerful force.
Even Obama as a black MALE had to adopt the role of a powerful black well spoken preacher to find the energy required to lead on such a scale...
The powerful image of the late Martin Luther King was probably where most Americans found the acceptability to elect Obama.
Women did not give Hillary their votes against Obama...
A poll would show that men like myself voted for Hillary, and the MACHINE, she could bring to the White house...
Blacks voted like sheep based on skin color...and self reflection...someone should conduct a poll.
Hillary is looking like the entre' we should've been happy to have for umpteenth time...
'cause the shiny exotic crap we did order sucks.
Women will only be able to win leadership roles when women can see themselves as something different than how women have seen themselves since time began.
whipmawhopma
I think you're underestimating women. And unless your analysis is strictly America in the generations before the current ones in early to middle adulthood, then I believe you are wrong. It's only a matter of time before the right woman captures enough voters to propel her into the White House.
I don't know if we'd be better off with Hillary in the White House versus Obama. I haven't thought much about it, mostly because I would have voted for her had the Democrats made her their candidate, chiefly because I wasn't interested in a war with Iran, nor a war with the New Soviets over Georgia, nor interested in McCain after his self-confessed lack of expertise in the economy, the heart of America, or his lack of interest in picking a creditable running mate.
Slamlander
The minor detail of not being a stone cold bitch would have helped her more. She doesn't care who she steps on.
Coakly Amirault (Google it)
That's the reason she lost.
reardongalt
I think you might be right. Maybe the people of Mass. knew enough about her past to know they just didn't like her.
newswoman
As usual, Slam is doing his ad hominum attack which ruins his arg;ument. She was an inept campaigner, that's all. She didn't know that she had to meet and greet people to get votes.
This user is no longer registered.
Aranxa
What are you smoking?
ThinkAgain
Probably bitch slapped regularly.
flyoverland
That's absurd and you know it. Most women just want a rich husband.
whipmawhopma
And most men want to be rich husbands. It all works out.
jojo12
squareyellowpaper: Time to return to the hospital & don't forget to ask them when they will give you another half day pass written on a piece of square yellow paper.
newswoman
Straight out of the 6th century! (squareyellow)
annemass
Coakley was a prosecutor and prosecutors win 99% of the time. That tends to make them think that they've got a golden touch, and it certainly was the case here. I'm a democrat and held my nose and voted for her, despite who she is. She's not respected among the lawyers in mass (I'm one) and everything that has been said about her sense of entitlement and coldness that I've read is true. She didn't deserve to win, she ran a horrendous campaign. APPARENTLY SHE WENT ON VACATION FOR 2 WEEKS AFTER THE PRIMARY!!! she did act as though the senate seat was her birth right. It should be a wake up call for democratic candidates, whether they are male or female. don't be arrogant, don't be lazy, don't take anything for granted.
Even Kennedy almost lost to Romney when Romney ran against him for senate in the 90's.
MadCharles
Hillary is on the way to smash that glass ceiling once and for all.
Aranxa
Actual statements overheard in a Mass bar:
"Coakley hasn't had an orgasm in a 100 years"
"She's as soft on crime as my d!ck is looking at her"
"She needs to get laid, but I wouldn't do it for a fukin' million dollars"
There's no more sexism in politics. Yeah, right.
flyoverland
And that was in a lesbian bar. Rough crowd up there.
ChanRobt
Aranxa, sexual vibes count whether you're a man or a woman. Why do you think Jack Kennedy beat Hubert Humphrey -- because of his policy statements?
AlanD2
You must know a lot of lesbians with d!cks, flyoverland.
dooreen
I don't know if ChanRobt is totally right, but attracting verses pushing away is everything.
I guess there are a lot of construction workers in the Democratic Party, and I guess Joe the Plumber was never a plumber, from GOP right?.
I think despite of government, and silly road furniture, we will sooner or later stick to the principle of taxation only with representation. Somehow we will do that.
Cforchange
The "women's movement" has failed as it has been either the root cause, complicit or ineffective in battling the destructive forces of popular culture for the past 20 years.
Look at rap lyrics, the Brittany boob/belly fashion, the resurgance of teenage mothers. Teen girls are mostly a mess - who afterall are the willing "subjects" of sexting? Dudettes are so liberated, they're giving it away for free. Feminity is so exploited and confused how would it be expected that the youth would understand equality. The culture of woman has become one big Hooter's swirl.
There certainly does need to be a new initiative for women's issues. Time to admit the Murphy Brown moment was the waterloo - sure women can raise children alone but who wants to? Only affluent women could successfully withstand this trend. Woman who need to scrap to pay the bills have been resorting to Brittany fashion and worse. Plus they're alone and working so hard, it's difficult for them to pass along any values to their children.
Murphy Brown opened the door to what many men want - dismissing the responsiblility of child rearing. It's time consuming and expensive. Funny how the popularity of single parenting and golf moved in similar trajectory.
Why cling to one political party? This could be blamed for the now killing political polarization. Hasn't health care revealed that issues of woman and children really should stand on their own.
Issues of the woman and child should be lead by an independent movement that requires a response by a political representative rather than an imbedded componenet of one particular party. Here women would immediately migrate to a powerful voice and the mission and message would stand a chance of being more practical and effective.
nortonclybourn
You have to be over 70.
jojo12
Cforchange: You do know that Murphy Brown was a fictional character.
I liberated myself on the day my First Generation American mother informed me that a woman's role in life was to wait on & see to the needs of her husband & sons. My response to her comment was, "not this woman". I would have burnt my bra in protest to her comment, but I wasn't old enough to wear one.
Cforchange
norton - I'm splitting my sides. I'll take that has a compliment since usually wisdom accompanies age.
jojo12 I too would have vigorously rebelled had my family mentors advised me to submit at all costs but one extreme doesn't always counter another. It's time to find balance and moderation which time will only tell if that is what Mass elected
Jeopardy: Who is Candace Bergen for $200.
nortonclybourn
Coakley is no proud feminist, just a leftover Daycare Witch Hunter from the 1980's, an attorney who has open contempt for the rules of evidence and due process. Feminism is better off without her disgusting and self-aggrandizing "advocacy" of women as victims. In the long run, her defeat is better for the Democrats. If she had one, they would be stuck with a demagogue who makes Glenn Beck look reasonable.
Maezeppa
Oh, please. Coakley's lesson is not "for women". It's a lesson for any candidate who enjoys a 30 point lead - PICK UP YOUR FEET AND RUN TO WIN.
ChanRobt
Coakley was just a bad candidate. If she had been like a Sarah Palin or a Michele Bachmann, even espousing a Left agenda, she would have done a lot better. And might have won.
She lost it with that moronic remark, "I should be standing in front of Fenway Park shaking hands in the cold?"
srroop
The key lesson for women out of the Coakley defeat is that a candidate has to RUN. It's a lesson that applies to ALL candidates. Coakley was Massachusetts' Prince Hal, glimpsing the crown, coveting it, awaiting it. But there is no royal succession in democratic politics. She committed the fundamental errors of letting Brown define himself and failing to define herself. That's why, when she turned negative, it did not work, though negative ads demonstrably can work when the proper prior framing has been done.
AndyMay
Here is a question for Ms. Goldstein: If Coakley were a man would she have won? I say absolutely not. Why? She took the voters for granted. Her background is a bit shady. She has not been forthcoming with the voters on the credibility issue. Also, maybe the people are sending a message about what is going on with the Democratic party and the Speaker and health care. I do not know but for you to question the voters in this manner is to do the same thing that Coakley did: put them down. Sorry but no thanks. We are not buying that and we are not buying your lousy rhetoric.
JeffreyinLA
Dana, stop being ridiculous. The lesson for women in Coakley's defeat is put on a better campaign, do the work, and don't be an arrogant party hack who thinks she's entitled to a Senate seat because she has "support." This election was not about man vs woman. It was about a bad candidate getting beaten by a candidate who didn't care about being cold outside of Fenway.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.