I’ve been avoiding hopping on the “Martha Coakley is a terrible candidate” bandwagon since (a) I’m reasonably confident she’s going to win and (b) it reeks of somewhat lame precriminations spin. The reality, though, is that the substantive consequences for the progressive agenda of Massachusetts electing a Senate who’s sworn to oppose the main progressive ideas on health care and climate change are so dire as to render spin about the “meaning” of the election irrelevant.

Dana Goldtsein has a great column on the subject of Coakley’s weak campaign and the larger context of women’s groups needing to recruit candidates who have more of a flare for the game.