Having voted yes or no is not necessarily experience…

Coakley calls for mission clarity before sending more troops into Afghanistan.  She also takes stands in favor of capping credit card rates, an earmark for an educational institute honoring Ted Kennedy, limits on executive compensation for companies that take taxpayer bailout money, and passage of a health-care reform bill as long as it provides a basis for a future public option.

And then at about 2:15 remaining, Braude asks about Capuano’s use of the word “timid,” and about Capuano backing off of the term after bloggers (who, me?) objected to the it as  gender condescension.  I loved Coakley’s response, in which she said of the “timid” label:

It’s just wrong…  I’ve always been out in front… In getting out in this race early, before anybody else was in, regardless of who else was in the race…  I’ve gone after predatory lenders.  I’ve gone after Goldman-Sachs…  I filed a lawsuit saying DOMA’s unconstitutional.  You know, those aren’t timid…

That video shows Coakley last spring at an event sponsored by UMass Boston’s McCormack School’s Center for Women in Politics & Public Policy.

Poke around the center’s website and you’ll find a wealth of information on women in politics. I was particularly struck by this chart showing that “progressive” Massachusetts doesn’t fare better than next to last even in New England, much less in the rest of the country:

the appearance of a “pay-to-play” exchange of campaign money for earmarks

then why would you yank that skeleton out of the closet by appearing at a fundraiser for one of the other lawmakers implicated in the scandal? Moreover, why would you jingle that skeleton around by stating on camera that if donors don’t like the way you vote, you’ll refund their money? Doesn’t really contribute to the image of a principled man who can’t be bought, does it? Check out what Capuano says at about 3:15:

Capuano: If you make a determination it’s a bad bill and I vote for it for any reason, yes, I will refund the money because if that’s what you want, that’s fine.

In fairness, after saying that, he has second thoughts:

It’s almost a quid pro quo… it’s a little uncomfortable.

Uncomfortable? How about illegal? He goes on further and does state as a third thought that he won’t do anything against the law. Whew. Glad he finally got around to that third thought of his.

On whether Eric Holder’s investigation of US interrogators’ handling of terrorists should include those as high up as the (former) Vice President:

…If he’s opening the investigation, and that seems what it is at this stage, he’s got to go where the facts and the evidence lead him.

Regarding whether abortions should be covered & subsidized under the new health-care bill:

I’m pro-choice… My own personal belief is that the constitution allows it, permits it, and when we recognize a constitutional right, we have some responsibility to make sure people have access to that right… The short answer [on subsidizing abortions] is yes.

On an individual’s right to own a gun:

I think there’s a huge countervailing public safety issue.  Having said that, look, my husband’s a police officer; I understand and support the right of well-trained and responsible gun owners.  That’s not the issue…  I believe in public safety that controls guns in an appropriate way.

My story’s a lot like others across Massachusetts.  I grew up in Western Massachusetts in North Adams.  My dad owned a small insurance agency and my mom was a full-time homemaker.  Together they raised five kids…  I first started scooping ice cream at the Howard Johnson’s in Williamstown… 

I’ve been priviliged over the past 20 years of my life to serve the public as a District Attorney, as a federal prosecuter, as the Middlesex DA and now as your Attorney General…  I wanted to make sure that government would work, and that it would work for you…  And now, with your help, I hope to bring my experience to Washington…  Once I get into a fight, I do not quit.