...

you are just a troll.

Coakley lost for one of the main reasons Hillary lost - overconfidence

Coakley left the country for weeks during the election instead of campaigning.

Hillary didn't plan for after Super Tuesday becasue she thought it would be over, and her people didn't even know the ins and outs of the caucus rules in various states because they didn't think it would ever get to that point.

THese people need to realize that you have to work to get elected and it is not a birthright

HCR would be right were it is today, VA and NJ would have gone Republican, and NY-23 would have gone Republican.  Oh, and Scot Brown would have won MA-Sen.

political obituary was written the day she chose to leave the Senate.

She's done with electoral politics. She has said so on at least two occasions. I doubt anyone will challenge the President in 2012 so you'd be better off devoting your energies to other more realistic pursuits.

Clinton will serve out this term as SoS and then likely retire in 2013 whether Obama wins re-election or not.

Congressional negotiating strategy would have produced a different result.  Bonus points if you could tell me how Joe could be leveraged when he IGNORED A PRIMARY and how Conservadems would have voted for a healthcare bill that could have been called (regardless of its merits) "Hillarycare II"

Somebody let the PUMA's out of Alegre's Insane Asylum...

in 2012, I'd vote for her. I think Obama (and the Dems) have made several big mistakes biggest being they are not concentrating on new jobs and that the stimulus plan helped banks rather than people and small businesses. The transperency that O spoke of doesn't exist (that I can see) and there is a lack of leadership on the HC issue. I am NOT for either HC bill (house or senate) in it's current form  - mainly because BOTH bills further restrict a woman's access to abortion and are anti-choice. How in hell can a Barbara Boxer who has stood solidly for (ever) years for a woman's right to choose support either of these bills?

Those of us that supported Hillary saw in O a lack of experience and therefore leadership. Talking the talk is not walking the walk. While we will never know what would have been had Hillary be Prez; we do know that the opporutnity to keep dems in power could be seriously jeapordized if O's poll numbers continue to slide.

Meanwhile the latest polls clearly show that Hillary has a very high job approval rating (77%) which includes Dems, Ind and Rep (so who's polarizing?). This is actually good news for the Dems if they choose to wake up in time for 2012 should O's poll numbers continue to slide in the wrong direction.

At this point - the best option would be for O to do as Arianna Huffington advises and make a "course correction" - but imo, this would be to make the base happier, not the right. Afterall - 22% of Dems voted for Brown in MA and there are only 12% Rep registered to vote in the state!! This would indicate that Dems are equally angry with O's leadership and the Dem congress.

Hillary was - and still is - a great speaker.  Did you notice she never has to use notes...because she knows her topics.  Mr. Obama can't even follow his beloved teleprompter.

for coming up with the dumbest post Coakley diary I have read today.

Any sign of it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbIN3GLynXk&feature=related

While I supported Clinton in the 2008 election and believed she was the better leader, Obama is our President. We would never know what a Clinton presidency or McCain presidency might have been. People can claim that Clinton would have been in the same position, McCain would have make things worst, but frankly, we do not know the decisions these leaders would have made.

Personally, I feel the last year was wasted. What have Obama and Congress actually done for the country? There is not a single signature issue passed last year. Jobs should have been number 1, pass the things Democrats and Republicans agree on on Health Care. Work on the core of the legislation at a later date.

As a side note, I'm sick and tired of people calling others troll for simply stating a valid opinion. It's not like the OP is chanting "death to America" and pledging support for Al Qaeda. Enough already.

I remember a couple of years ago when Obama sneered that Reagan was a transformative president and Clinton was not. After one year, Obama's biggest legislative achievement was a modest budget stimilus bill which will expire at the end of the year. His next biggest acts were the bailouts which were passed by the Bush administration. His most lasting biggest achievements were getting tobacco classified as a drug, and violence against gays as hate crimes. Those two new laws were nice pieces of legislation, but hardly transformative. In contrast, in one year, Clinton had passed America Corp, the Family Leave Medical Act, legislation that ended the ban on federal workers to attend political caucuses, The Violence Against Women Act, and whether you like it or not NAFTA.

The problem with Obama is his kumbya politics. It demonstrates that he does not understand the conservative mind. Conservatives look at kumbya politics as a sign of weakness. Democrats in Congress are at fault, too for not using tit for tat strategies against the Republicans. As long as their obstructionist tactics keep rewarding Republicans with great electorial victories, Democrats will never be successful in passing progressive legislation. They've got to show to Republicans what goes around comes around. I believe that Hilary Clinton would have been more willing to do that.

and what do I find upon my return?

   THIS!

Tragedy upon tragedy.

Except, as in the primary, she would have lost the general, and we'd be looking at President McCain and VP Failin.

No thanks.

I'm on vacation. I log in to see how people are talking about the Senate loss, and this is what I find?

What is it with MyDD and PUMA trash? Why do they seek this site out?

There are 10 recs for this piece of crap excuse for a diary. And I'm supposed to believe that Martha Coakley who made every mistake Hillary Clinton made and then some somehow shows that Hillary Clinton would have been the better choice?

Take a hike, PUMA trash. You got beat and nobody will ever care or listen to you. Nobody cares.

GO OBAMA!

During the tsunami there was a small group of folks who followed the animals and headed for the hills because they saw impending danger. Not one of them perished.

There were several fishermen who stayed in the middle of the ocean and rode out the storm; they were also spared.

Finger pointing is an easy art. Doing something effective is not. If Democrats refuse to do as their constituents ask, and pass a decent healthcare law, curb the greed on Wall Street, or at least allow them to waste their own money, and actually govern, the States will not only run red in the mid-terms, but it will be a tsumani.

Regardless of whose fault it is or isn't, something went terribly wrong. Learn from it!

Hillary would have had the same problems, except the right would have been able fit negative frames to her more quickly, since they've been working on them now for eighteen years.

She and Bill already tried healthcare once and got their ass kicked--and they were responsible in no small measure for the bank deregulation.

They're both corporitists just like Obama, so how would it have been any different?

AND, in spite of all that, Hillary's probably the best hope for 2016, when she'll only be 68.

There is no need for the Hillary vs Obama fight (again). The likelihood of Hillary actually quitting her job and then running against a sitting President who for all his lack of leadership qualities still has about a 50% approval rating - it just isn't gonna happen. She's already proven that she's a loyal democrat and she quit the Senate to work for Obama. Her quitting and then running against him would simply cause the Repugs to win and she knows that. So unless Obama wants to leave office and asks her to run, it simply isn't gonna happen.

IMO, Hillary would have been a much better President because she is a Leader and by that I mean is not afraid to fight (with passion) and take a stand even if it's unpopular on issues. I think her time in the Senate and on the committees she was on taught her to negotiate and her loss on HCR round 1 also taught her this. Furthermore, I think she knew enough (based on primary interviews and her statements about the mortgage crisis) to start off on the economy (mortgage crisis/jobs/"it's the ECONOMY STUPID") and she spoke about an energy policy that would create jobs ~ so my guess is that is how her 1st year would have gone. It's unlikely she would have even tackled HCR until further along, but we will never really know.

Unlike many in these comments I do not believe her political career is over ~ she happens to be younger than a whole gaggle of politicans from Biden, Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, etc. But if the way America is now that we seem to go from flavor of the month to flavor of the month (I include Obama as a "flavor" to Palin to now Brown) then there will be another "flavor" that America goes "gaga" over, just like O.  But at some point, when nothing gets done, we'll wake up and realize that experience and knowledge of how Washington works may actually be an advantage - not a detriment and that rather than "Change" brought on by an "outsider" that doesn't have the wherewithall to bring it about may be better by a progressive insider who's been around the block a few times, taken a few knocks here and there and has proven HERself as a leader. HER purposely capitalized because there reaches a point where Women will want to have their voices heard and have their turn at history (herstory).

regarding Clinton's steadfastness regarding Iran...

Does anyone really think that she is a rogue secretary of state, and would be conducting foreign policy that is not approved, endorsed and directed by her boss, the President of the United States of America?