Can anyone explain the profound loserosity of Martha Coakley?

The Democratic Party's candidate for governor in the famously liberal state of Massachusetts weirdly lost a Senate race to a Republican in 2010, and now she's not just losing to her Republican opponent, she's 9 points behind in the new Boston Globe poll. Is this lady poison? Come on! It's just plain mean to be so rejecting of this poor woman. What's going on?

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, 2 new polls came out yesterday, one putting the Democrat Mary Burke a point ahead and the other putting the Republican Scott Walker a point ahead. That's a good way to make everybody feel respected. Good work, Wisconsin. Everybody is a winner. Of course, in the end, one or the other candidate must win. But it's basically a crap shoot, right? It means nothing. Just a tie, out here in the land of peace, love and understanding.

Unlike Massachusetts, where there's some mysterious anti-Coakleyism raging. That poor woman...

The return of Martha Coakley.

"Coakley is still scarred from her 2010 Senate defeat, and many Democrats shudder at the thought of her running again."

"Should President Obama have gone to Wisconsin?"

Asks WaPo's Chris Cillizza:

The majority of Democratic strategists we spoke to over the weekend, however, insisted that the combination of Obama’s personality (and that of his political team) as well as the unique dynamics in the Badger State lessened not only the likelihood of a presidential visit but also its potential efficacy.

“If a recall race becomes purely partisan, there is a strong backlash from independents,” said Steve Murphy, a leading Democratic media consultant. “Obama was smart to stay away, for both himself and Barrett.”

That's too vague. What's wrong with "Obama's personality" (and the "personality" of his "team") that  would have been bad for Barrett?

This week, Paul Clement argues that a federal statute is constitutional.

After last week's superb performance attacking the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court, former Solicitor General Paul Clement was in federal court — the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals — yesterday, defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

There are 2 cases on appeal:

In the case brought by Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney general, [Feder District] Judge Tauro found in 2010 that DOMA compels Massachusetts to discriminate against gay couples who are legally married under state law in order for the commonwealth to receive federal money for certain programs.

The other case, brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, focused more narrowly on equal protection as applied to federal benefits. In that case, Judge Tauro agreed in 2010 that the law violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by denying benefits to one class of married couples — gay men and lesbians — but not others.

On the equal protection ground, Clement argued that Congress's legitimate interest was to have "a uniform definition" of marriage rather than to use state law, which varied from state to state (even though marriage laws have always varies from state to state, and Congress otherwise relies on state law to determine who counts as married for federal purposes).

Maura Healey, the assistant attorney general who argued on behalf of Ms. Coakley, told the panel that DOMA requires Massachusetts “to live with two distinct and unequal forms of marriage.” She added, “This is a burden that Congress has imposed on Massachusetts simply because it doesn’t like the fact that gay people are getting married.”

Stuart F. Delery, the Justice Department’s acting assistant attorney general for the civil division, also argued before the panel, saying that the court should hold DOMA to heightened scrutiny because it targets “a group with a long and deep history of discrimination.”

Here's the recorded argument, which I have not yet listened to.

Isn't it wonderful that we have this opportunity to examine what we've been saying for the past week about the role of the judiciary and deference to democratic decisionmaking? I assume many people who want the ACA upheld want DOMA stricken down, and many who want to keep DOMA want ACA crushed. So have at it. And please be consistent.

As a law professor, it's easy for me to argue any of the 4 possibilities, so I'll let you start the conversation. First, a survey:

DOMA and the ACA...
	Both are constitutional.
	Both are unconstitutional.
	DOMA is constitutional but the ACA is not.
	The ACA is constitutional but DOMA is not.
	I haven't done the legal analysis to know.
	The answer is whatever the highest court says in the end.
pollcode.com free polls

Explain your answers in the comments.

Interestingly, nothing big happened yesterday in the Coakley/Brown race.

I was expecting some shocking, hard-to-deflect shot at Brown. The lack of any dirt to throw is evidenced by the bizarrely lame use of a remark about a curling iron that Scott Brown may either have heard or not:

A video is circulating in which Republican ScottBrown seemingly smiles at a violent, sexist taunt directed at his Democratic challenger Martha Coakley at a rally.

"Shove a curling up HER butt," shouted one attendee off-camera. Brown, holding a bullhorn, seemed to smile and nod in acknowledgement.

Didn't Jerry Seinfeld teach us not to nod and smile at things we haven't heard?

(Kramer's girlfriend starts to mumble out some words, but Kramer's the only one who seems to hear her. Jerry and Elaine both bend forward, trying to hear what she's saying)

ELAINE: What's that?

JERRY: Excuse me?

(She 'talks' some more. Jerry and Elaine still can't hear her. They give up - leaning back in their seats)

JERRY: Yeah.. yeah.

ELAINE: Yep. Yeah..

KRAMER: You know that, uh, Leslie (Points to her) is in the clothing business? She's a designer.

ELAINE: (Interested) Oh?

KRAMER: In fact, she's come up with a new one that is going to be the big new look in mens fashions.. It's a, a puffy shirt. (Leslie mumbles to Kramer) Well, yeah,

it - it's all puffy. Like the pirates used to wear.

ELAINE: Oh, a puffy shirt.

JERRY: Puffy.

KRAMER: Yeah, see, I think people want to look like pirates. You know, it's the right time for it.. to be all puffy, and devil-may-care..

(Leslie starts 'talking', Kramer laughs. Jerry and Elaine have no clue what she's saying. They lean closer)

KRAMER: (Still laughing) That's true.. (Gets up) I'll be right back. (Walks off laughing. Jerry and Elaine are left with the low-talker. A moment passes)

ELAINE: Uh, oh! (Remembers something they could talk about) Jerry's going to be on the "Today" show on Friday.

JERRY: Yeah, that's right!

ELAINE: Yep.. yep. Um, he's promoting a benefit for Goodwill, you know, they, uh, they clothe the poor, and the homeless..

JERRY: (Points at Elaine) And the indigent.

ELAINE: And the indigent, yeah.. I, I do volunteer work for them. I set the whole thing up, and I got Jerry to do it.

(Leslie starts talking. Of course, Jerry and Elaine can't hear her voice)

JERRY: Sure.

ELAINE: Ohh, yeah. Yeah.. yep.

(Leslie talks some more)

JERRY: Uh-huh.

ELAINE: Yep.

JERRY: Yep..

ELAINE: Mmm

That's where Jerry agreed to wear the embarrassing and humiliating puffy shirt on television.

You think you're maintaining your friendly image, but you're nodding at the wrong thing.

Now, there's some hope for the Democrats. Maybe, if Scott Brown goes to the Senate, they can get him to vote for things by not letting him hear what the vote is about, and he'll just nod and smile. Actually, they kind of already do that amongst themselves. They are always voting for things they haven't heard/read... like that 2,000-page health care bill. If they do pass it and we find out what it is, it may be a lot worse than wearing the puffy shirt on TV.

Speaking of not hearing things, the Coakley pushers have specialized in tone-deafness. Obama dissing trucks and so forth. The effort to pin the curling iron remark on Brown is another example of this tone-deafness, because once you bring it up, you bring up what it refers to: a real case where a man raped a baby girl with a curling iron:

The shouter's threat is in reference to a sexual abuse case, covered at length in the Boston Globe, involving a curling iron that critics say Coakley, as attorney general, did not aggressively prosecute.

Here's that article from the Boston Globe:

In October 2005, a Somerville police officer living in Melrose raped his 23-month-old niece with a hot object, most likely a curling iron.

Keith Winfield, then 31, told police he was alone with the toddler that day and made additional statements that would ultimately be used to convict him.

But in the aftermath of the crime, a Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Martha Coakley, then the district attorney, investigated without taking action.

It was only after the toddler’s mother filed applications for criminal complaints that Coakley won grand jury indictments charging rape and assault and battery.

Even then, nearly 10 months after the crime, Coakley’s office recommended that Winfield be released on personal recognizance, with no cash bail. He remained free until December 2007, when Coakley’s successor as district attorney won a conviction and two life terms.

So what's worse: 1. Brown nodding and smiling at something that he possibly heard (which he'd be an idiot to smile at, so only people who already oppose him will infer that he'd heard), or 2. the way Coakley handled the Winfield case?

But it was the last day of the campaign, and something was needed. Falling, you grab onto what you can, and that was it. That was, at best, desperate and pathetic. At worst, it was a tone-deaf reminder of the Coakley's laxity in case of the guilty Keith Winfield case... and, once we are there, we may think once more of her perverse aggressiveness toward the innocent Amiraults.

Ah, but that last desperate day is over. The voting is on, and the time for dredging up dirt is thankfully over.

"Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?"

That's Chris Van Hollen, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, meaning to help Coakley win Teddy Kennedy's seat, and running right off the road into a ditch called Chappaquiddick.

Let's read the full text of Obama's pro-Coakley speech.

Ah! I found the full text of the remarks Barack Obama made in Boston yesterday. Reading earlier news reports, I was struck by the lack of anything actually about Martha Coakley, the candidate he came to support. That's why my blog post last night reads — was I too enigmatic? — "The personal touch turns chillingly impersonal." I got the impression that he mainly said the Democratic Party needed another vote in the Senate, and Coakley was the Democrat. Did he have anything specific to say about her? It was personal to travel to Massachusetts to help her out, but when he got there, it seems, he went impersonal, and only characterized her as a Democratic Party vote.

Now, I want to check out that impression by reading the whole speech.

The first section consists of generic cries of "Fired up!," introductory thank yous, references to his time living in Boston — Cambridge, really, wasn't it? — and an indirect reference to the Red Sox in the form of a reference to the White Sox. And that was an indirect reference to Coakley's cockup about Curt Schilling.

Finally, he's ready to talk about Coakley.

And today I've come to talk about one thing.

Coakley?

I've come to talk about Tuesday.

Oh, Tuesday!

On Tuesday, you have the unique and special responsibility to fill the Senate seat that you sent Ted Kennedy to fill for nearly 47 years. And I am here to tell you that the person for that job is your attorney general, Martha Coakley. (Applause.)

Finally, the name has been spoken.

Now, there's been a lot said in this race about how it's not the Kennedy's seat -- it's the people's seat.

He quotes Scott Brown's best line.

And let me tell you, the first person who would agree with that was Ted Kennedy.

Good. Play off Brown's line.

See, the only thing he loved more than the people of this commonwealth was serving the people of this commonwealth.

Huh? He loved the people, and he loved serving the people even more than he loved the people. Well, okay. Ted was a people guy, a man of the people, a servant of the people, really into serving. Servile as all get-out.

There follows a paragraph about all that Ted did for the people. That segues into the representation of Martha Coakley as a woman of the people — "raised in North Adams, one of five kids... worked her way up..." — who has worked for the people. This is the part of the speech that is specifically about her as opposed to Obama's agenda and the need for another Democratic vote in the Senate. It is 2 paragraphs long and — I counted — about 7% of the total verbiage. He says:

Look at her record. As a prosecutor, she took on cases most of us don't even want to think about, putting murderers and child abusers away.

And the Amiraults too. Who wants to think about that?!

As attorney general, she took on Wall Street and recovered millions for Massachusetts taxpayers -- (applause) -- took on predatory lenders that were taking advantage of Massachusetts families. She went after big insurance companies that misled people into buying coverage only to deny it when they got sick. She went after big polluters who put the health of your family at risk. Time and again, Martha has taken on those who game the system at expense of hardworking, middle-class families.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Let's go, Martha! (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: That's the kind of leader the people of Massachusetts need now more than ever. (Applause.) You need somebody -- (audience interruption) --

Oh, here's where that heckling takes place and Obama takes forever to end the disruption, with the audience eventually coming in with booing and then a "Fired up!" chant. You can look at the clip here. I can't figure out what the guy is yelling. "One more [???]!" One more Chevy?

Hmmm. I kind of get the feeling Obama is glad to be interrupted there. Sort of: Oh, good, now I don't have to talk about Martha Coakley anymore. Just let this play out. Maybe I'll look like the underdog and people really will get fired up.

Hmmm. Any chance the interruption was a scripted part of the presentation?

Finally, he gets back to his prepared remarks. Conveniently, he's through with the details about Martha. He tells us we need "somebody who has fought for the people" because times are tough. He's got something to say about "Martha's opponent":

He's driving his truck around the commonwealth -- (laughter) -- and he says that he gets you, that he fights for you, that he'll be an independent voice. And I don't know him, he may be a perfectly nice guy. I don't know his record, but I don't know whether he's been fighting for you up until now, but --

So he doesn't know anything about the guy he's about to tear down, but please laugh at the man who drives a truck. He doesn't worry that the truck might backfire. It becomes a theme in the next section:

Forget the truck. (Laughter.) Everybody can buy a truck. (Laughter.)...

... I'd think long and hard about getting in that truck with Martha's opponent. (Laughter.) It might not take you where you want to go....

Now, the repeated recurrence of the truck may be a good distraction, because this section of the speech is incoherent. Obama wants to tell us that the Democrats will build up the economy and cut taxes the right way, but he also demonizes business and wants us to reject Republicans because they are on the side of business. The key seems to be to distinguish between small business and Wall Street bankers. In this framework, it's hard to explain all the money — tax money — that we — including the Democrats — handed to bankers:

It was your tax dollars that saved Wall Street banks from their own recklessness, keeping them from collapsing and dragging our entire economy down with them.

But today, those same banks are once again making billions in profits and on track to hand out more money in bonuses than ever before, while the American people are still in a world of hurt.

So you helped the banks, but you don't want to say it was great that the help worked. Do you want them to succeed or not? Would it be better if we all suffered together?

Now, we've recovered most of your money already, but I don't think "most of your money" is good enough. We want all our money back. We're going to collect every dime. (Applause.) That's why I proposed a new fee on the largest financial firms -- to pay the American people back for saving their skin.

What is the connection between a "new fee" and getting all our money back? Isn't it great that we've got most of the money back, and isn't it enough to get the rest the money back? Why the fee? To punish success? To my ears, it's a non sequitur.

But instead of taking the side of working families in Massachusetts, Martha's opponent is already walking in lockstep with Washington Republicans, opposing that fee, defending the same fat cats who are getting rewarded for their failure.

But you didn't explain the fee. You're demonizing the bankers — "fat cats" — the very people that you gave our tax money too. And how are they "getting rewarded for their failure" if the bailout worked? Why aren't you pleased with the effective use of our tax money? It's incoherent.

Now, there's a big difference here. It gives you a sense of who the respective candidates are going to be fighting for, despite the rhetoric, despite the television ads, despite the truck. (Laughter.) Martha is going to make sure you get your money back. (Applause.)

Get our money back or impose that "new fee"? Scott Brown isn't against getting the bailout money back, is he? This is deliberate obfuscation, it seems.

She's got your back. Her opponent has got Wall Street's back. (Applause.)

That sounds nicely slogan-y, but what does it mean? You can count on Democrats to be hostile to business? How is it defending us to attack Wall Street, and if it is, why did you give so much of our money to Wall Street?

Obama wants to say that he's helping the economy:

We're forcing the banks finally to start lending again on Main Street, and not just worried about profits.

That's an attitude about the economy that people ought to examine. Forcing lending? Isn't that what led to the mortgage crisis? Don't we want banks to worry about profits so they don't go back to making all those bad loans? And don't we want the hope of profit to motivate people to take risks? Apparently not.

So understand what's at stake here, Massachusetts. It's whether we're going forward, or going backwards.

AUDIENCE: Forward!

THE PRESIDENT: It's whether we're going to have a future where everybody gets a shot in this society, or just the privileged few. If you were fired up in the last election, I need you more fired up in this election.

And with that, Obama makes the special election in Massachusetts into a referendum on the work he and the Democrats in Congress have been doing for the past year. You were excited about me, he says. You wanted change. If you want us to keep moving on in the direction we ran after you gave us the power, we need you to elect Coakley. The election transcends anything personal about her — or Scott Brown, whom Obama purports to know nothing about other than that he's a Republican (and has a truck).

Obama wants that vote, and that vote comes in the form of Martha Coakley. It's the "people's seat," as Scott Brown called it, but it's the Democrats who are for the people — and against business (unless it's small!) — so fire up and vote for Martha.

So the President traveled to Massachusetts to deliver the news that Martha Coakley is a Democrat.

"Martha's opponent already is walking in lockstep with Washington Republicans... She's got your back, her opponent's got Wall Street's back. Bankers don't need another vote in the United States Senate. They've got plenty. Where's yours?"

The personal touch turns chillingly impersonal.

Oh, no! It's men in trucks! Plowing in from Texas! Running down all the women! Rape!

"They’re sending people from Texas."

An attempt to scare some enthusiasm into Massachusetts voters.

And it's not just the fear of Texan outside agitators, there's a gender war a-comin':

At a Friday rally with former President Bill Clinton and again Saturday, Coakley ... raised the 4-wheel-drive factor, quipping that just because somebody drives a truck doesn’t meant they’re headed in the right direction.

That's a quip because Scott Brown drives a truck.

But Coakley, who despite a modest background carries herself with a patrician bearing...

Does she also bear herself with patrician carriage?

... has compounded the problem voters with a series of gaffes that suggest she’s out of touch, most recently on Friday when she appeared on a Boston talk radio show and seemed not to have heard of former star Red Sox star pitcher Curt Schilling.

Some Democrats worry that there is something deeper at work.

“I think it’s a man-woman thing,” said Robert Cullinane, a Teamsters local leader in the Boston area.

Teamsters!

Cullinane, speaking following the Clinton rally Friday, said some of his own members know that Brown opposes their agenda but are telling him, “'I’m not voting for that broad.’”

Those louts! Those unnamed louts that Cullinane — does he have patrician bearing? — must stoop to represent. Those brutes say "broad"... at least as paraphrased by the union leader who surely has their interests at heart.

“Unbelievable,” he said. “Here is someone who has voted against them on state issues yet they’re going to vote against ‘that broad.’”

"Here"? Where? Are you pointing at someone? Who is that horrible trucker?! Unbelievable!

Despite its liberal tradition, Massachusetts has never elected a female senator or governor.

OMG! Liberals might be sexists! Sound the liberal alarm! Liberals, prove you are liberal by voting for a woman!

See how that article — by Jonathan Martin in Politico — tried to flip you? First, nonentities were presented as prejudiced against a woman, ready to vote against Coakley because she's a woman, and then, suddenly, liberals are supposed pushed to feel that they ought to vote for her because she's a woman.

Oh, no! It's men in trucks! Plowing in from Texas! Running down all the women! Rape!

Should conscientious public servants resign when their job conflicts with their religious principles?

There's been a lot of talk about Martha Coakley's blunt statement that those who want to adhere to religious scruples against abortion and birth control "probably shouldn't work in an emergency room." I put up a long post about it earlier today, and I'm not going to repeat myself here. The point of this post is to compare Coakley's statement to something John F. Kennedy said about the conflict between public service and religion back when he was running for President and questions were raised about his Catholic religion:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all....

I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise....

So, according to JFK, the President is supposed to make decisions "in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates," and if, because of religion, he can't do that, he should resign. Kennedy doesn't limit his resignation imperative to the presidency. Such a limit would make sense, as there is only one President, and the nation's reliance on his judgment and action is extreme and unique. Kennedy applies his imperative to "any ... public servant." If you take a public service job, that is, then what you owe the public is service according to the public interest "without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates."

Is an emergency room employee a "public servant" to whom Kennedy's resignation imperative should apply? That job is not an "office." You aren't elected to it, but you are, by taking that job, holding yourself out as ready to perform the duties associated with it. Is it right for you to take exemptions for your own sake at the expense of the public you were hired to serve? Maybe your need for an exemption from part of the job is a conflict between personal and public interests that should lead you — if you are conscientious — to resign.

I think Kennedy's imperative becomes too harsh at this point. For one thing, there is a long tradition of religious health care workers serving the public. There is a special energy and altruism that comes from religion that we shouldn't want to lose, even as government money and mandates reach deeply into health care. Nor should we want to alienate and marginalize citizens who belong in the mainstream of American life. Even those of us who believe in the importance and the right of access to abortions and birth control should want to find ways not to brutalize these workers. We shouldn't want to demand that they give up their livelihood unless they are willing to commit what they believe is murder. I hardly think John Kennedy meant for his vision of the separation of church and state to include something so perverse.

"Curt Schilling? The Red Sox great pitcher of the bloody sock?"

Martha Coakley blunders horribly/hilariously, either not knowing who Curt Schilling is or — if you believe her spokesman's explanation — making the dumbest "very, very deadpan" wisecrack in political history. If it's any consolation, Martha, I didn't know who Curt Schilling is either. Bloody sock sounded interesting. I had to look it up. Now, would you excuse me? I cut my foot before and my shoe is filling up with blood.

Let's take a careful look at what Martha Coakley said about abortion and religious freedom.

This dialogue — with interviewer Ken Pittman — took place on the radio last Thursday:

Pittman: Would you pass a health care bill that had a conscientious objector [sic] toward certain procedures including abortion.

Coakley: I don't believe that would be included in the health care bill. I don't understand exactly what the question is. I would not pass a bill, as Scott Brown filed an amendment, to say that if people believe that they don't want to provide services that are required under the law and under Roe v. Wade that they can individually decide to not follow the law. The answer to that question is no.

She's a lawyer, and she ought to know that Roe v. Wade — along with other abortion cases — does not require services. There is a world of difference between having a right to do something and having the power to make other people do things for you as you try to exercise that right. If you don't know the difference between those two things, you don't understand how rights work. Other people have rights too. Refusing to perform an abortion is not a violation of the constitutional right to privacy.

Now, Coakley said "under the law and under Roe v. Wade." By "the law" she could have meant the law that might be passed. The new statute might require health care workers to provide abortions. But the question is whether she would vote for that law. It doesn't make sense to say I'd vote for it because after it passes it will be the law and then individuals couldn't decide they don't want to follow it. The question is whether she would vote for that law, so slipping "the law" in there with Roe v. Wade was — if not a mistake — a trick to make you think a requirement was already in place.

Yet even if a law were already in place requiring health care workers to participate in abortions, there would be an argument that the right to the free exercise of religion trumps or should trump that requirement. There would be a legitimate conflict in the law that politicians would have opinions about, and it would be wrong to portray the workers as people who merely want to say they are above the law. Just as the right of privacy trumps laws that ban or impose harsh barriers on the access to abortion, religious freedom rights might trump some laws that require abortion services. It isn't lawless to prefer religious freedom. It is a position about what the law is or should be. It is the very question under discussion as the people of Massachusetts decide who, in the future, will have the power to vote on what the law is.

Coakley: And let's be clear, because Scott Brown filed an amendment to a bill in Massachusetts that would say that hospital and emergency room personnel could deny emergency contraception to a woman who came in and had been raped.

Coakley is choosing to press forward on the importance of abortion and contraception rights. It can be effective political argument to focus on rape victims. (Remember "Rape Gurney Joe"?) I imagine Coakley believed at this point that she was making a powerful argument that would win political support and make Scott Brown look like an unsympathetic lout and/or a right-wing extremist. But that was to be blind to the appeal of religious freedom.

Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. You don't want to do that.

Coakley: No, but we have a separation of church and state here, Ken, let's be clear.

In American constitutional law, we have a proscription of federal laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is difficult to coordinate the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and anyone who serves in the United States Senate will need to have some idea of the meaning of both clauses. Coakley invokes the "separation of church and state" as if it has obvious meaning and a simple reminder should end the debate. But the meaning of religious freedom in America has been the subject of endless debate, a Senator will be an important participant in that debate, and the issue right now is whether Coakley should be a Senator.

Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Coakley: Uh, well, uck, u, uk, the, the law says that people are allowed to have that. And so then you.. you can have religious freedom. You probably shouldn't work in an emergency room.

Pittman: Wow.

Why the horrible stammering? The followup is utterly obvious. The answer should have been carefully prepared and couched in real sympathy for the workers who would be caught in the terrible dilemma between giving up their jobs and following their religion.

It is, in fact, permissible under the current interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause to make a general rule like this and impose it on people who will have to violate their religion or quit their jobs. There are also federal statutes — like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — that give people a higher level of protection for their religious freedom, so that they do get special exemptions from generally applicable laws. So it's up to a Senator to have a position on what that law should be. A Senator will also have a vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices, and that will have an impact on what the constitutional religion clauses mean in the future. Coakley has revealed how she balances free exercise and establishment clause values, and voters should take note.

It is especially important to think about these values in the context of an expanding government role in areas that were traditionally left to the private sphere — medical care, for example. It's the separation of church and state, so the dimension of the state is very important. A legislator who wants the state to run more of the economy and wants a strong separation of church is threatening to have a much greater effect on religious freedom than a legislator who believes in the strong separation of church and state but also believes in small government. Now, I want to give Coakley credit for bluntly stating the import of her position: You can have your religious freedom, but you'll have to give up your job. That elicits a "wow." That is, the truth is a slap in the face.

Tomorrow, the (purportedly) honey-tongued Barack Obama comes to Massachusetts to promote Coakley. I hope he submits to questioning and is asked what Pittman asked Coakley. Presumably, his position is the same, and presumably, he can say it in a less "wow"-eliciting way. But the truth is out, and his words — however elegant — can be distilled into the straight, stinging You can have religious freedom. You probably shouldn't work in an emergency room.

The evidence Martha Coakley still finds "formidable": "the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest..."

The horrific prosecution of the Amiraults.

A "well-connected Democratic strategist" thinks Coakley is "is destined to lose."

"I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers.... If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout... So right now, she is destined to lose."

Interesting. When everyone knows turnout is important, how do polls affect what people do? Why do people lose "intensity" when they think their candidate is likely to lose? Do people lapse into the passive observation of what seems to be destiny — and forget that they are voters? Or is there something particular about the Coakley/Brown race, in that people assumed Coakley should easily win and never thought too much about her, never bonded with her or worked for her? Now that Scott Brown is surging, they are inert and fatalistic?

But what this unnamed strategist is really talking about is how we should interpret a Coakley loss:

"With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says.

Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.

The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

And Obama has decided not to travel to Massachusetts to help Coakley out. It's all about cutting her loose to sink on her own. Strange to give up and look ahead beyond the predicted loss when her vote is so crucial.

UPDATE: Obama will go to Massachusetts.

"She is so tone deaf that she made fun of her opponent for standing outside Fenway Park shaking hands 'in the cold.'"

"A week before the election, Coakley was off the campaign trail entirely in Washington for a fund-raiser that was packed with the usual suspects. But undoubtedly it was well heated."

Ouch! That's Gail Collins in The New York Times.

Martha Coakley: "The Scott Brown stalkers, who have followed me around..."

"... the people from the Brown campaign, who've been very aggressive in their stalking."

You already know that I don't think the shoving incident is a big deal. I also think the slanting in this Fox News local news clip is embarrassing:



But Coakley's "stalking" theme is lame... or it would be lame if it weren't devious. "Stalking" is a word that I think is deliberately chosen to signal that the man — here, Scott Brown — is dangerous to women.

Or, I should say that it's devious and lame, because it's unlikely to have the desired effect of getting voters to rally around the threatened woman. A politician needs to be strong and not easily pushed back. It's one thing to champion the weak — taking violence against women seriously, for example. But the champion of the weak can't herself be weak.

Since there is no real stalking — if there is, show me the evidence — all Coakley is doing is displaying that she can be intimidated, and what sort of representative will she be? She'll be what her opponents say she is: "a sock puppet for Harry Reid and the Democrats." Now, for voters who above all else want to preserve the 60th vote for healthcare, that's just fine. But those are the voters Coakley already has a lock on (though they may be too uninspired to vote).

I doubt if the more independent voters will feel like rushing to protect her from those (phantom) stalkers. Even if their protective instinct is stirred, there's no reason to put a fragile flower in the Senate.

ADDED: Here's a closeup detail from the photograph of Coakley looking on just after McCormack goes down:

It's not fair to judge an individual by one photograph, but this is what the voters are seeing as she frets about "stalking." Another thing that's not fair is the way Scott Brown looks.

AND: Thanks to lucid in the comments for pointing out that it's not Fox News. It's a local news show on Fox.

Why am I avoiding ShoveGate?

There's this story acting like it's a big deal, and I've been avoiding it. Why? Because after watching the video twice, I can't tell what really happened. Witness accounts vary. Apparently, there was a bustle in a tight space, with the reporter — John McCormack — trying to get at the candidate — Marsha Coakley — and the Democratic staffer — Michael Meehan — doing something — maybe just trying to protect her and create space around her, maybe deliberately shoving McCormack, or maybe something in between. So, I guess I'm not avoiding it anymore. I just want to say I think it's a distraction. (And I hate the tendency to call things a distraction!) I don't think it has any value in helping Massachusetts voters decide whether to vote for Coakley.

ADDED: I'm getting comments and email about Meehan's "apology." Shouldn't that change my view? Absolutely not! I can read:

Last evening I was a little too aggressive in trying to help the Attorney General get to her car and catch a flight.

I clearly did not intend to cause John McCormack to trip and fall over that low fence.  As the video shows and he confirms in his blog, I stopped to help him up and make sure he was OK.

I talked with Mr. McCormack this afternoon and apologized for my part.

He does not admit to shoving McCormack here. He apologized the way we all apologize when we bump into somebody.  Saying you're sorry they got shoved is no admission that you hurt them on purpose. There's nothing in Meehan's statement that is inconsistent with the original post.

MORE: An emailer writes:

But the word was not "careless", it was not "clumsy", it was "aggressive".

Even the rest of the disclaimer supports my interpretation. He does not deny shoving, or intending to shove. He only denies intending to cause a fall:

"I clearly did not intend to cause John McCormack to trip and fall over that low fence."

So, we have video which you find inconclusive but which seems at least to indicate contact. We have the reporter saying the contact was a shove. We have the Coakley campaign first saying the fall was a stunt -- not that it was an accident. And then we have have the man accused of shoving saying he was "too aggressive" and carefully not denying it was a shove.

ADDED: This video does, in fact, make Meehan (and Coakley) look very bad.

Understanding misspelling: "Massachusettes" — perhaps it's the feminine form of "Massachusetts"...

... as the female candidate goes on the attack in her effort to become the next... Senatorette!

(Via JammieWearingFool, via Instapundit.)