Is the Coakley-Brown race about ObamaCare or not?

The St. Petersburg Times has finally done something substantial to increase its readers' political awareness:  It printed an AP story about the Massachusetts special election that will fill the seat formerly held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (aka "Kennedy's seat").

Because of the AP's hypersensitivity about having its stories quoted by bloggers, please read it at the Times' site.

The story never says anything direct about the special election serving as a referendum on ObamaCare.  But if anyone has the least ability to read between the lines, that thread runs implicitly throughout the story, starting with the headline:  "Mass. Senate race may kill health bill."

The story quotes Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to the effect that a victory by Republican contender Scott Brown win will kill the health care legislation currently on the table.

It quotes the Massachusetts secretary of state, who suggests that if it takes two weeks to certify Brown as the winner then it may provide enough time for Congress to pass the legislation before Brown can affect the outcome.

The story sounded a single note out of tune with that message, reporting Vice President Joe Biden's criticism of Brown for opposing tax hikes on the banking industry.

The content bias is clear, and conveys the editorial message:  The special election is about ObamaCare.

What conclusion do we draw from Brown's "unexpected" strong challenge to Democrat Martha Coakley?  I predict that most left-leaning editorials will make the story about Coakley's failings as a candidate. 

Funny how those aren't on display in the reporting.

The early Martha Coakley campaign video

Browsing YouTube, I ran across an older video extolling Martha Coakley for Massachusetts senator.

It's an interesting piece of work.  It presents Coakley as "A Different Kind of Leader for Massachusetts."  But at same time, Coakley emphasizes that her service will resemble that of Ted Kennedy.  Coakley also claims that she will not serve as a partisan, and follows that with a laundry list of partisan causes that she intends to support.




Sounds like she's from the "say what you think you need to say to get elected" school.  Damn the contradictions and full speed ahead.

That's different.

Here's to a Scott Brown victory on Tuesday.

Afters

"Adding comments has been disabled for this video."

Smart idea.

The Democrats have continued to disappoint.

US Senate endorses Iraq troop withdrawal timetable
WASHINGTON: Defying a veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate has narrowly signaled support for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March.

Republican attempts to scuttle the non-binding timeline failed on a vote of 50-48, largely along party lines. The roll call marked the Senate's most forceful challenge to date of the administration's handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.
(The News)

A number of these Senate Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have previously said that setting a date for withdrawal is a bad idea. They were right then, and now they're acting stupidly by supporting this bill.
On the good side, the president is sure to veto the bill, and it's unlikely to ever garner sufficient votes to overcome the veto.