Going to guess that the slight error is that technically Kirk is the successor.
I caught Vennochi's column on Thursday and I thought she came off as pretty balanced on the Coakley gender issue. I would agree that it *shouldn't* be about gender, but I'd also say that firsts are important, so it's sort of a double-win if she happens to be the right person.
What I feel even MORE strongly about is that if we start painting every critique of Coakley that comes from Capuano as some type of "code word" we're stepping into pseudo-intellectual psychobabble world. Campaigns are by nature competitive and personal... one pol calling another "cautious" or "indecisive" sounds to me like, well, politics.
Going to guess that the slight error is that technically Kirk is the successor.
ReplyDeleteI caught Vennochi's column on Thursday and I thought she came off as pretty balanced on the Coakley gender issue. I would agree that it *shouldn't* be about gender, but I'd also say that firsts are important, so it's sort of a double-win if she happens to be the right person.
What I feel even MORE strongly about is that if we start painting every critique of Coakley that comes from Capuano as some type of "code word" we're stepping into pseudo-intellectual psychobabble world. Campaigns are by nature competitive and personal... one pol calling another "cautious" or "indecisive" sounds to me like, well, politics.