What would I have written if Coakley had one? Massachusetts politics as usual. Coakley should be in jail. She has no business being anywhere near a position of power. She's far more interested in image over justice.

I was simply postulating on ways the Democrats could benefit from Brown's victory.

There was so much negative campaigning on both sides that you couldn't really tell WHAT EITHER candidate was actually FOR. About all you got on the 'positive' side was:

Coakley: I'll continue Ted Kennedy's legacy.

Brown: I won't be part of the Democratic machine (and I drive a truck, and I know who Curt Schilling is and I know how to spell "Massachusetts").

There are SO many really odd ironies in this race.

For example, I disagree with what appears to be Brown's stance on what degree of rights *accused* terrorists have (convicted ones are another matter). I may have misinterpereted his statements, but it appears as though he wants to throw out the entire Constitution if you are *accused* of being a terrorist. (And of course, the government would NEVER get it WRONG, now would they? Ask the sad-sack of a guy who was accused of the Atlanta Olympic bombing). On the other hand, you have Coakley who not only refuses to go along with parole recommendations when it's discovered that someone was improperly convicted, but CAMPAIGNS AGAINST LETTING JUSTICE PREVAIL.

So who do you vote for from that point of view?

Coakley talks about continuing the push for 'Obamacare', while Brown is against it (fair enough) but doesn't talk about what he WOULD do to fight even SOME of the problems in the health care system. That's where the whole "Party of NO" slogan gets it's start.

Some worry that Coakley would have meant socializing banks and other industries, while Brown think they should be left to run free - and next time we might not be able to bail them out, IMO.

Not a pleasant view.