Conjecture - Could one reason for Kerry specifically including Dean and Olberman be to give Coakley

[karynnj]

cover?

The election is next month and it is possible that one of her first votes could be on the conference bill - unless the Senate ratifies the Senate bill without change. I would assume her opponent, like all Republicans, is against the bill. Is it possible that he or others will try to use Dean's strong rejection to create a wedge between MA Democrats. Remembering Tay's explanation of the MA party, could there be an effort to force her to argue against Dean (annoying some of the liberal wing) or worse, rejecting the bill - making it important to have the final cloture vote before Kirk leaves?

If so, Kerry (and Kirk today) along with Vicki Kennedy strongly supporting the bill would make it easier for her to say that that she disagrees with Dean.

[MBS]

1. Since she said during the primaries that she would have voted

against the House bill because of strictures on abortion, I really really hope that they get those votes done before she takes office (assuming, fingers crossed, she wins). On the one hand, I would guess that she'd be a good soldier, respect the outcome of the tortured negotiations so far and not hold up the bill, even if abortion provisions are less than ideal. On the other hand, the situation (that is, her publicly absolutist/purist position on this issue) makes me nervous. We really really need to get something passed, even an imperfect something: I'm 100% with Kirk, Kennedy and Kerry on this one (even Krugman, not normally a fan of compromise, seems to be on board).

[MBS]

2. she's taken the good-soldier route

Front page article in today's Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/12/21/coakley_accepts_abortion_restriction/

Coakley accepts curb on abortion coverage

State Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee for US Senate, reluctantly threw her support yesterday behind the Senate health care bill, even though it contains restrictions on abortion coverage that abortion rights groups are calling unacceptable.

During the primary campaign, Coakley said she would not have supported the House health care bill because of provisions designed to prevent federal funding of abortions that abortion rights advocates said went too far. Her stand was a major point of debate during the campaign; several of her opponents criticized her for being willing to sink the health care bill over a single issue, but she insisted that there were some things on which she would not compromise.

“Let’s be clear on what’s principled here,’’ she said at the time of her opponent, US Representative Michael Capuano. “If it comes down to this in the Senate, and it’s the health care bill or violating women’s rights, where does he stand?’’

Obviously feeling the pressure, Capuano pivoted a few days later and said that while he voted yes in the House, he would vote no on final passage if the abortion restrictions did not change.

Coakley used her stark position on abortion rights to appeal to supporters for donations; in an e-mail, she declared her decision to make her position “a defining moment’’ in her campaign.

Asked last week whether she would vote against a bill that went beyond current law in restricting abortion coverage, Coakley said, “Yes, that’s right.’’

In a statement to the Globe yesterday, Coakley said that although she was disappointed that the Senate bill “gives states additional options regarding the funding mechanisms for women’s reproductive health services,’’ she would reluctantly support it because it would provide coverage for millions of uninsured people and reduce costs.

“It is a reminder that the battle for a public option and choice goes on,’’ she said.

An aide to Coakley said there is an important distinction between the House and Senate versions of the abortion language: The House would effectively bar any insurance plan accepting government subsidies from covering elective abortions, while the Senate would allow such insurers to sell plans covering abortions but require women to pay for that portion of the coverage separately.

Abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America say the Senate bill would go well beyond longstanding federal policy prohibiting the use of federal funds for elective abortions and impose undue administrative burdens on women. As a result, Planned Parenthood opposes the overall health care bill, and NARAL has withheld its support.

But it would be extremely difficult for Coakley to be willing to be the only Democratic senator standing in the way of the party’s most important priority this year.

. . . .

At least one leading Massachusetts abortion rights group seemed to sympathize with Coakley’s political plight yesterday.

“Her position is understandable, given the impossible choice that antichoice extremists have put members of the Senate and future members of the Senate in,’’ said Andrea Miller, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. “With that said, this is one round, and we have confidence that moving forward, we’ll continue to work to remove these extreme provisions in the conference committee.’’

[TayTay]

3. Martha is going to get a pass on this

Because she will represent a good solid liberal base in MA with good credentials. There are a great many people in MA who want to see a woman elected to high State-wide office and she will get a lot of sympathy for her evolving view on the bill.

This was inevitable. No one feels betrayed because no one believed she would ever be the vote that killed the health care bill. Never was going to happen.