This Tuesday, Massachusetts voters head to the polls to fill the US Senate seat laid void by Ted Kennedy’s death last August. Technically, Tuesday is just the party primaries, but no doubt the Democratic victor will triumph in January’s special election. Because this is Massachusetts, where the Democratic hegemony can only be usurped by really exciting Republicans like Mitt Romney.
The four Democratic candidates are Martha Coakley (entrenched Massachusetts pol/current Mass. Attorney General with lefty white-collar appeal), Michael Capuano (entrenched Massachusetts pol/US Congressman with blue-collar appeal), Alan Khazei (social entrepreneur/City Year founder with grassroots appeal) and Stephen Pagliuca (venture capitalist/Celtics owner with rich asshole appeal). Coakley is the front runner, with Capuano safely at her back, and Khazei gaining enough momentum to poll equally with Pagliuca, who is wasting his money on countless 30-second commercials that do nothing but remind me of my relative poverty.
The primary race is receiving a fair amount of media coverage, although Massachusetts is still in shock that no Kennedy — not nephew Joseph, nor widow Vicki — stepped up to claim a nearly guaranteed trip to the Senate. Yes, Caroline, I think we would have even taken you. Farcically, there is a Libertarian candidate named Joe Kennedy, who does attempt to “preempt any potential confusion caused by my name” by stating clearly in the nether regions of his website that he is not one of those Kennedys. Potential confusion? Why on Earth would anyone be confused if they saw the name “Joe Kennedy” on a ballot for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat?
I watched the final debate last Monday night, when the candidates tangled (at times, ignobly — Capuano and Pagliuca, I’m looking at you) over the Patriot Act, abortion, health care, and foreign policy. All four attempted to show that they were ready for big-time Washington politics, with only Coakley pulling off a convincing senatorial demeanor. One frivolous but telling question: “How has your household changed since the recession?” Capuano said “Lightbulbs. We’ve changed to energy-efficient lightbulbs” (evidently he was re-purposing his prepared response for a question about how his household has become more green.) Pagliuca, a millionaire, said he was donating more to charity (props for not trying to spin some BS about clipping coupons, but he is hopelessly out of touch). Khazei earnestly prattled about his family’s grave economic hardships (touching and probably truthful, but a bit pitiful). Coakley gave a pat response about her family eating out less (believable and empathetic to the choices that many other well-to-do Americans have made).
The debate reaffirmed my decision to vote for Coakley, with Khazei my second choice. I hate to admit this, but my main reason for voting for Coakley is that she is a woman. Now you may say that I should vote on the issues, not on gender… but the under-representation of women in Congress is an issue. It’s a huge issue! There are currently 17 women in the Senate. Since the Senate was established in 1789, only 38 women have served (seven of whom were appointed after their husband’s death). Times have changed since the Eighteenth century, and it’s crucial for female representation in Washington to keep the pace with larger social progress, less the focus of politics remain a warped periscope, looking out for the interests of whatever it is that white male millionaires are interested in.
Given this, I don’t think that it’s wrong to vote for a qualified, smart candidate based on her gender (plus, it assuages some of the guilt leftover from all my Hillary and Sarah hate during the last Presidential election.) As Coakley herself once said, “Women always did all the work anyway, so we might as well get credit for it.”
