I'm jaded and not because it's trendy

I'm going to vote for Martha Coakley tomorrow. I wish I could get excited about it, energized by her, inspired by sending Massachusetts's first woman to represent us in the Senate. Sadly, she's no Hillary Clinton and inspires nothing in me. Truly, I think that she has vocally espoused more progressive views across the board than Clinton did when she was campaigning - but hey, this is Massachusetts here, not the whole nation, so of course she does. Despite her mostly-good official positions, Coakley is dull. Madame Secretary has proven her commitment to the disadvantaged people in the world in the last 12 months and that's all I can ask.

Of course, Coakley has to have her flaws, and they are doozies. Her arguments in Melendez-Diaz were bad enough, but her name on the amici curiae regarding the prosecutors in the Terry Harrington case strikes me as disgraceful. I recognize that I'm no legal scholar and can't possibly understand the nuance of such argument, but what it fundamentally comes down to is a person's right not to be framed. If it doesn't exist in the Constitution, we are beyond repair. It's clear that Coakley doesn't believe this right exists, and quite likely doesn't believe it should.

I am glad we have such a strident proponent of a woman's right to abortion and of gay rights on the ballot, and it also pleases me that she will stand her ground on unjust wars and oppose Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan. She says all the right things that so-called liberals are thought to want to hear. The only paper trail she leaves, however, is one that does not exactly speak to her progressive credentials. It is difficult when considering voting for a candidate who has not held a voting office in the past. In the primary, I dug deep on Capuano trying to find some mark in his record and came up with nothing. Every vote he'd cast as a lawmaker was exactly the choice I'd want my representative to make; how could I not reward him with my vote to bring him to a higher office? Of course, I couldn't know how Khazei or Coakley would have voted if they'd had the same privilege to do so. I just don't like the case Coakley has made for herself by way of her career.

But that's not what matters today. I wish it could be just a regular election and I would refuse to hold my nose. The more I thought about it in 2006, the more I realized that Bob Casey was in fact scarcely an improvement upon Rick Santorum. He was an insult to a base that has consistently voted for progressives and why he identifies as a Democrat is beyond me - and even further, why Democrats would be willing to welcome him. The truth is that Martha Coakley is not that candidate, but even more, I'm not sure I would stay home even if she were. This month the Senate has the chance to improve the healthcare situation for a few million Americans with pre-existed conditions and who are over 55, people whose difficulties I can't dream of, and probably will never have to because of my privilege. If Martha Coakley is not elected, it is nearly a sure thing that those people won't yet see those changes, and may not for a long time to come if ever. If she is, it is a sure thing that they will. Any failures she has on civil rights issues will not come to light in the Senate for ages, because she will be the juniormost, and will have little clout. In the meantime, she could be replaced with a better AG. In the meantime, this flawed incremental bill will pass, and increments of shitty policy will improve for some people who need it.

In the end, that's enough that I may not even have to hold my nose.

(Besides, if she loses, the embarrassment will likely be enough that the Dems trot out another Bob Casey in 2012.)