As expected, here's Liz Sidoti's "this is a referendum on Obama" column.

Suddenly close Mass. race threatens national Dems

By GLEN JOHNSON and LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writers Glen Johnson And Liz Sidoti, Associated

BOSTON – In a contest with major national implications, Massachusetts voters chose a successor to the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on Tuesday in a down-to-the-wire election that became a referendum on President Barack Obama's sweeping health care overhaul and his first year in office.

A loss — or even a narrow victory — by once-favored Democrat Martha Coakley to insurgent Republican Scott Brown in this Democratic stronghold could signal big political problems for the president's party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

(SNIP)

--------------------------------------
So frakkin predictable.

"We lost independents in Virginia, we lost independents in New Jersey and we’re losing independents in Massachusetts,” said one Democratic campaign strategist. “The only thing those three states have in common is Obama.”

Indies are 51% of voters in MA.

It can mean people who are way to the right or left of the two parties (e.g., Glenn Beck is an independent because he's more batshit crazy than even most Republicans) or it can mean people "in the center."

To say that a candidate lost independents means nothing. In both NJ and VA, many "independents" were Republicans who were too embarrassed to affiliate themselves with the GOP.

But when their numbers are such a high percentage of registered voters - when you lose them it follows that you will lose the election.

WBZ really pushing Brown.

and the Senate health insurance bill.

Martha won the primary while against the HCR bill. In the general she was forced to flip to support of the HCR bill to get funds and support from WH/DCSS. How can anyone be surprised this turned into a horse race?

... but the Obamanauts must convince themselves otherwise at any cost.

And then when the midterms come along and they are a disaster, that won't be Obama's fault either.

It's going to be even more difficult to understand how people can deny this when exit polls come out and voters identify health care are one of their major voting reasons.

I hope that Democrats learn the right lessons from these failures.

Capitulating to the right and trying to spinelessly hold the center does the following things, contrary to conventional "beltway wisdom" (an oxymoron of the highest order):

1. It disenfranchises independent voters. Pundits tell you that independent voters want muddle of the road, weak, spineless politicians that try to have it both ways and hug the political "center." That's false, and we can see that it is false as we historical observe independent voters swing from one charismatic leader promising bold change to another - independents are moved by courage, determination and guts, not kum ba ya capitulation and compromise.

2. It angers the left - and rightfully so - cause the left to either sit home in disgust and defeat or actively work against democratic capitulators.

3. It's like blood in the water to the sharks of the right. They can smell gutless wonders ten miles away, and it completely charges up their base.

The worst thing that has happened to American politics is the perpetuation of this myth by political pundits that in order to win independent voters you have to play the hold the center at any cost game, and you have to be "bi-partisan" than you have to speak softly and timidly and spend all your time trying to be peace maker and reconciler of all political factions - that you can't get to bold in any one direction because independents will abandon you.

No one ever asks for evidence or challenges this meme. But the history of elections shows a much different picture. It shows that when independents overwhelming break for one candidate over the other, they break for a guy promising bold, uncompromising leadership, promising definitive change, and promising to end the old "petty politics" of the past.

The broke for Regan because of that, they broke for Obama because of that. And you LOSE independent voters by being be afraid to LEAD and trying to coddle and compromise your way to victory.

Americans value guts, and bold action. Capitulating, hand-wringing, we have to try to please everyone nonesense is the ultimate turn off to independent voters. And it has the added effect of infuriating the base.

wants to spread propoaanda.

Is there anything we should take notice of as a lesson since Democrats are about to lose Ted Kennedy's seat?

Do you think his seat would be in danger in Mass. If Democrats had shown spine in Washington and given voters something to believe in? Or do you think the strategy of rushing to the middle, capitulating to republicans and business and avoiding getting tough on much of anything that must any turn numbs the hearts and minds of independent voters, angers the left, and is like blood in the water to the sharks of the right?

The point of this article is that people in the so-called "middle" are opposed to HRC because they are receptive to the arguments made by the teabaggers. That's the point. Liz Sidoti, she of McCain's doughnuts, loves to be a stenographer for any bit of "scoop" sent to her by GOP operatives. The idea that HCR is unpopular because it doesn't go far enough has never and will never cross her mind.

i NEED a win tonight. i think we can pull it out. i hear it's a dead heat. let's just get some final votes out there and pull this through!