1/20: #41

Conservative bloggers are portraying Sen.-elect Scott Brown's (R) upset victory over AG Martha Coakley (D) in the MA SEN special election as a devastating rebuke to Pres. Obama's agenda -- especially his health care reform bill. "Obama's agenda, chiefly health care, took a beating in Massachusetts," declares Fred Barnes. "In fact, it was the chief cause of Coakley's defeat." Ed Morrissey adds: "It's not just that Obama can't help Democrats -- he's killing their political prospects." Righty bloggers are warning Obama that unless he chooses to follow Bill Clinton's example and "scale back his liberal agenda," he will "subject his party to further losses."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are mostly blaming Coakley, accusing her of being "a horrible and lazy candidate" with "a terribly run campaign". That said, some lefty bloggers are defending Coakley and blaming her loss on nat'l issues. Jane Hamsher describes the election results as "a referendum on the health care bill, the bailouts and the corporatism of the administration."

Speaking of the health care bill, it remains a hot topic in the blogosophere, with liberals pleading with cong. Dems to "finish the job" and conservatives boasting that the bill is "dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Michelle Malkin thinks Brown is the "obvious" choice to deliver the GOP response to Obama's 1/27 SOTU address, but Morrissey warns that doing so "would undermine the sense of independence that he carefully cultivated during his short campaign." In another disagreement between the two bloggers, Morrissey praises the NRSC for quietly supporting Brown's campaign, while Malkin slams the NRSC for "exploiting" Brown's victory.
• Liberal bloggers (Greenwald, Cole) are still buzzing about Scott Horton's report that three alleged "suicides" at Guantánamo weren't actually suicides. Lefty bloggers (BooMan, Willis, Serwer, Black) are also buzzing about yesterday's Washington Post article reporting that the FBI conducted 2,000 illegal phone record searches between '02 and '06.

MA SEN: Suck It, Obama!

Not surprisingly, conservative bloggers are portraying the MA SEN results as a referendum on Obama's agenda -- especially health care reform:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "There's no way for the Democrats to spin this one. On Sunday, the President himself made the election a referendum on his and the Democrats' agenda. Congratulations, Senator-elect Brown."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "If you had any doubt that Barack Obama is not the political savior, it was clear tonight. A year in, he is clearly just another politician, and America sent him a message, via Massachusetts."
• The Weekly Standard's Barnes: "Obama's agenda, chiefly health care, took a beating in Massachusetts. In fact, it was the chief cause of Coakley's defeat. Without the intrusion of national politics, she would have defeated Brown. But Obama and Democrats in Washington have created a hostile environment for Democratic candidates even in liberal and Democrat-dominated Massachusetts."
• Hot Air's Morrissey: "It's not just that Obama can't help Democrats -- he's killing their political prospects. His own approval ratings are plunging, and his agenda is so toxic that Democrats can't run on it in Massachusetts and win. And if that agenda can no longer play in the bluest of blue states, where can Democrats feel safe by sticking to it? Certainly not in Indiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, or even California."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "As Barack Obama completes his first year in office, observers may wonder how his hope and change thing is working out. Tonight, Massachusetts voters provided the answer. Americans are hoping for change, alright, but the change they desire is change from the leading policies of the Obama administration."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Scott Brown is dropping the bomb on socialized medicine -- which should remind people that it was the pivotal issue of the campaign and even in Massachusetts, health care is a huge loser despite the fact that Dems across the country have been using [ex-Sen.] Ted Kennedy's death to sell it."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "[I]n a sense, the midterms came early for Obama. On the one-year anniversary of his presidency, he'll have to decide whether he'll continue on his current course, which will cause further erosion of support among independents and subject his party to further losses. Or, like President Clinton, decide to scale back his liberal agenda and attempt to govern as the moderate many Americans though they were electing."

RedState's Moe Lane warns other vulnerable Dems that they're next: "If the President, the DSCC, the DCCC, the DNC, the SEIU, ACORN, and the netroots couldn't manage a win in Massachusetts... what do you think that they can do for you?"

MA SEN II: Terrible Candidate, Or Worst Candidate Ever?

Most liberal bloggers think Coakley deserves most of the blame for her defeat:

• BooMan: "[Coakley] was a complacent candidate and it cost Obama and the Democrats dearly."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[T]his was a terribly run campaign. Not just that, an irresponsibly run campaign. Yes, it's the national climate. It's a lot of stuff that's going on today. But I don't have much question that another Democratic nominee would have come out with a much better result. I really believe that."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's old-fashioned thinking, I know, but winning a primary and then dropping out of sight -- while your opponent is working hard to reach out to voters -- tends to be a bad idea. [...] 19 events in 40 days is evidence of a Senate candidate who was taking victory for granted -- and in the process, throwing victory away."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Teddy never took his voters for granted, no matter how big an icon he was in the state. Brown didn't take them for granted either. He was aggressive, engaged, effective, and ... lucky as all shit. It's not every day you get to go up against a candidate who takes everything for granted, neglects to negatively define you, and heads out for vacation while the race is still on. There's several messages to learn from this fiasco, but chief among them -- if you decide to run for office, then respect the freakin' voters and work your ass off for their vote."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "This is not the fault of the adminstration and Barack Obama, because if Coakley had Obama's numbers in Mass., she would be the next Senator. This is about an arrogant state party, a horrible and lazy candidate who was unprepared and unmotivated, out of touch with the voters, incapable or unwilling to put in the work and shake the hands and massage the egos and put in the hours, and they got their asses handed to them. I'm sure the exit polling will give us more information, but right now it looks to me that this was about the fundamentals of running a good campaign. Coakley and company didn't adhere to them."
• Daily Kos' Laura Clawson: "Coakley was beyond complacent, she made little effort to connect with voters, she seems to have quit raising money after the primary, and her campaign took all of her complacency and magnified it with disorganization and incompetence. While Scott Brown campaigned, she disappeared, doing just 19 campaign stops to his 66 between the primary and Sunday. Her online team did virtually nothing -- less than you would expect from a second-tier House race."

An exception is Firedoglake's Hamsher, who argues that nat'l issues are to blame for Coakley's defeat: "Whether people believe Coakley's defeat is a good thing or a bad thing (and I understand there are strong feelings on that front), this is a referendum on the health care bill, the bailouts and the corporatism of the administration. The scapegoating of Coakley is an attempt by the Dems to get out from underneath that, but it's undeniably true."

Hamsher's colleagues at Firedoglake (Walker, Eli) are also defending Coakley and arguing that she was hurt by nat'l issues. Meanwhile, Ian Welsh agrees with Hamsher that MA voters elected Brown in order to voice their opposition to the Senate health care bill.

Open Left's Chris Bowers has a different take: "What does this mean for Democrats? It means that the situation in the country sucks, and Democrats are in charge. Unless Democrats pass legislation that will make the situation less sucky, they will get creamed in November. If you think this is about bad messaging, or abstract ideological disagreement with how Democrats have governed, then you are just wrong. [...] If you are not facing scandals, and times are good, then you will be popular no matter what you pass into law. This is about being in power when times are bad."

Meanwhile, Moulitsas isn't too upset: "Yeah, it sucks that we lost our 60th vote, but really, what did 60 get us last year? It empowered [CT Sen.] Joe Lieberman, gave cover to [AR Sen.] Blanche Lincoln, provided excuses to [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid, and gave a free pass to [MT Sen.] Max Baucus. Now we don't have 60. And like the Republican Senate of the 2000s, if Democrats want to get anything done, they'll have to do it via reconciliation. Given last year's track record in the Senate, it certainly can't make the Senate any less effective."

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Stay The Course, Dems!

Several liberal bloggers are cautioning cong. Dems not to give up on health care reform in the wake of Brown's victory:

• Benen: "If Dems think the midterms will be difficult, they should try to imagine how much worse it will be if they spend a year working on health care reform, get a bill passed by both chambers, and then run for re-election on the heels of failure."
• The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "There's nothing about Scott Brown's victory that needs to derail health-care reform in particular, or the rest of Obama's 2010 agenda in general. But if Democrats decide to cower and hide, they can end Obama's presidency on Brown's behalf. That said, I really wonder what the Democratic Caucus thinks will happen if they let health-care reform slip away and walk into 2010 having wasted a year of the country's time amidst a terrible recession. It won't be pretty, I imagine. If health-care reform passes, the two sides can argue over whether it was a success. If it fails, there's no argument."
• Marshall: "People don't like politicians who are weak and don't know what they believe. If the bill was worth passing yesterday, it's just as worth passing tomorrow. [...] For a whole variety of reasons voters clearly have a lot of hesitation about this reform. I think the polls make clear that the public is not against it. But the reticence is real. If Dems decide to run from the whole project in the face of a single reverse, what are voters supposed to draw from that? What conclusion would you draw about an individual in an analogous situation in your own life? Think about it."

In a separate post, Marshall writes: "'If it's the end of health care, it's the end of the Democratic majority.' That's Paul Begala from a few moments ago on CNN when asked whether a Brown win meant the end of health care reform. So true. It really is nothing to fear but fear itself. The Dems have no choice but to finish the job. No choice. And I strongly suspect that means the House has to pass the senate bill."

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Deader Than A Doornail

Conservative bloggers are portraying health care reform as effectively finished:

• Barnes: "The health care bill, ObamaCare, is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection. Brown ran to be the 41st vote for filibuster and now he is just that. Democrats have talked up clever strategies to pass the bill in the Senate despite Brown, but they won't fly. It's one thing for ObamaCare to be rejected by the American public in poll after poll. But it becomes a matter of considerably greater political magnitude when ObamaCare causes the loss of a Senate race in the blue state of Massachusetts."
• Klein: "As a journalist, I feel the need to avoid declaring the health care bill dead until it in fact is dead. But at the same time, it's hard to think of a viable option for Democrats to get it passed."
• Reason's Peter Suderman: "[G]iven the number of Democratic legislators who've already said they're not too interested, I'd say that chances are that Democrats will to have to call off their health care reform efforts shortly -- perhaps even by the end of the day tomorrow. As they say, predictions are hard, especially about the future. But I don't see any plausible options for reform supporters. [...] For Democrats, it's fourth down, 99 yards to go, they need three touchdowns, and a home run too, but all they have on the field are ping-pong players."

However, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff isn't so sure that health care reform is finished: "To my knowledge, you can't 'buy' [ME Sens. Olympia] Snowe and [Susan] Collins as you can some of the so-called moderate Democrats. But neither have they been 'tough sells' when it comes to cooperating with the liberal Dems. For me right now, the five words I dread are 'Obama to meet with Snowe.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Try To Get Some Perspective, Guys

The Atlantic's Megan McArdle:

"Please, will the liberals stop complaining -- and the conservatives crowing -- that this is effectively the end of Obama's presidency? I seem to remember a fellow named Bill Clinton who suffered a crushing defeat on health care and a stunning electoral reversal in 1994, and yet still managed to have a very successful presidency, as these things go. He won't be FDR II. But that was never very likely to begin with."

LEST WE FORGET: "The Choakley"

WAG assesses the pain that Dems are suffering today:

"Bill Simmons' ingenious 'Levels of Losing', which ranks the myriad ways a sports fan can have his heart broken by a crushing loss, captures a universality of emotion with which any fan or political junkie can immediately empathize. Watching Martha Coakley surrender Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican, I couldn't help but wonder where Coakley's epic fail would fall in the levels of losing. [...]

Is there a sports analogy? A star player who'd led his team through the playoffs, only to meet with a tragic accident and have to watch from the sidelines (or heaven) as his hapless replacement choked away the chance for greatness? Texas's Colt McCoy comes to mind, the winningest quarterback in NCAA history who had to sit out the 2010 BCS national championship game after pinching a nerve five plays into it. McCoy was replaced by a true freshman, who showed his inexperience by throwing a crucial interception that was returned for a touchdown with less than 20 seconds left in the first half. But even that analogy only goes so far. The freshman at least grew up quickly, and gave Texas two second-half touchdowns. That's more than can be said of Martha Coakley's choke-job.

So it looks like we have no choice but to create a whole new level of losing based on recent events: 'The Choakley.' Definition: When a team's star player is injured in the final game of his career, either (A) in a championship game in which the player's team has a big lead, or (B) after a long playoff run but before the championship game, in which that player's team is heavily favored... and that player's replacement proceeds to throw away the game through sheer ineptitude."