January 13th, 2010
11:13 PM ET
8 years ago

Coakley endorsed by The Boston Globe

Democrat Martha Coakley was endorsed for U.S. Senate by The Boston Globe Wednesday.

Democrat Martha Coakley was endorsed for U.S. Senate by The Boston Globe Wednesday.

(CNN) - The Boston Globe endorsed Martha Coakley for Senate Wednesday, saying the Democrat is more qualified to serve in Washington than her Republican opponent Scott Brown.

"She is by far the more qualified candidate, in experience and judgment," the Globe contended in the editorial released on its Web site late in the afternoon.

The newspaper's endorsement argued that it would be misguided to think sending Brown to the Senate, ending the Democrat's filibuster proof majority in the Senate, would satisfy Americans' frustration with Washington.

"A vote for Brown is hardly a symbolic protest against congressional gridlock and the ways of Washington," the Globe contended. "It's a vote for gridlock, in the form of endless Republican filibusters, and for the status quo in health care, climate change, and financial regulation. That's what will happen if Brown gives the Republicans the additional vote they need to tie up the Senate."

Brown had previously been endorsed by the Boston Herald and Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

Filed under: Extra • Martha Coakley • Massachusetts • Popular Posts • Scott Brown • Senate
soundoff (141 Responses)
  1. LacrosseMom

    We are supporting Coakley! Massachusetts wont allow the senate seat of the Lion of the Senate to go to the GOP!

    With all the talk of a GOP sweep in 2010, the Dems picked up another seat for Virginia's state legislature.

    January 13, 2010 07:23 pm at 7:23 pm |
  2. Lori, ND

    If Bill would move out of the way, maybe President Obama could do his job. Jeesh.

    January 13, 2010 07:32 pm at 7:32 pm |
  3. Albo58

    It makes sense since the Boston Globe is hardly a credible source for honest journalism! Vote Brown!

    January 13, 2010 07:32 pm at 7:32 pm |
  4. Kevin in Ohio

    More qualified in JUDGMENT????? This woman who thinks the terrorists have left Aghanistan? This woman who sees nothing wrong with courting big Washington lobbysists? This woman who loks the other way when her staffer attacks a reporter? This woman who believes she is ordained to hold on to "Kennedy's" seat? COME ON, Boston Globe....what kinds of idiots run your paper?????? And how is your readership lately?

    January 13, 2010 07:34 pm at 7:34 pm |
  5. obama the liar

    NOW, this is breaking news!!! the biggest surprise ever!!!! Republicans are stunned by this liberal endorsement by a liberal paper......

    January 13, 2010 07:34 pm at 7:34 pm |
  6. Mavis, NH

    Coakley should be endorsed by the world. Anything is better than another Republican at the helm.

    Please Massachusians don't mess up a good thing. If the Dems were good enough for you for over 40 years, take them into the next century. Kick the GOPers out of the Northeast, its sacred ground.

    January 13, 2010 07:36 pm at 7:36 pm |
  7. m smith

    Good for the Globe . They are right Brown will ty up congress forever. Plus he doesn't have the qualifications.

    January 13, 2010 07:38 pm at 7:38 pm |
  8. Fitz in Texas

    Looks like The Boston Globe got it wrong when they endorsed Martha Coakley.

    January 13, 2010 07:40 pm at 7:40 pm |
  9. Jon Skillings

    As a native New Englander, I can assure you that there was never any question as to who the Globe would endorse; the Globe is a liberal, left-wing newspaper. Always has been, always will be.

    January 13, 2010 07:48 pm at 7:48 pm |
  10. Texan for Democracy

    Wonderful! I agree on all points with the Globe endorsement!

    January 13, 2010 07:49 pm at 7:49 pm |
  11. Coakley is just another socialist........

    and will be rebuked next week by the good citizens of Mass.........

    It is the era of the Tea Party....back to our roots....back to the ideals of the founding fathers.......it can't be stopped......

    January 13, 2010 07:51 pm at 7:51 pm |
  12. Anonymous

    What makes The Boston Globe think they are qualified to be called a newspaper? They're just part of the liberal PropOganda Machine that's trying to takeover our healthcare system.

    Go Scott go!

    January 13, 2010 07:59 pm at 7:59 pm |
  13. The Clear Thinking Independent

    A vote for Brown is a vote to undercut the efficacy of President Barack Obama.

    As a proud American, I would rather see the President have the legislative support for his foreign policy, energy, healthcare, education & fiscal agenda. Then, if I don't like what he achieves, I fire him.

    I will not allow the backstabbing, corporate America game of trying to make him impotent and then claiming he didn't accomplish anything.

    America has had enough of that tactic.

    January 13, 2010 08:02 pm at 8:02 pm |
  14. Objective Thinking

    The Boston Globe gave no arguments specific to Coakley herself, and only used partisan (Democrat versus Republican) logic to argue in favor of her.

    Looking at the actual individuals, you see one candidate who claimed that we no longer have terrorists in Afghanistan, and one candidate who stood up to everyone to say that the Senate seat in contention belongs to the people. I'm not a MA citizen so I won't tell MA voters who to vote for, but I know which one I'd vote for if I lived in MA.

    January 13, 2010 08:02 pm at 8:02 pm |
  15. Sheri

    FORTY-SEVEN YEARS, FORTY-SEVEN YEARS OF KENNEDY RULE, a vote for Brown IS A PROTEST against the status quo, not all Massachusetts residents bought into the Kennedy mystique, Coakley, if elected will follow the former senator's same old, same old............ half of this state has not been represented in Washington for many years, I hope we will elect Brown and find some balance.

    January 13, 2010 08:09 pm at 8:09 pm |
  16. TOTUS

    This is great! Whatever the Globe promotes, the opposite should be embraced by all independent thinkers.

    The Globe wants to preserve "the Kennedy Seat" and business as usual – and just where has that gotten Massachusetts???

    January 13, 2010 08:10 pm at 8:10 pm |
  17. Keith in Austin

    The Liberal-rag Boston Globe's endorsement of Coakley is just a lot like alQueda' endorsement of Osama Bin Laden! There is NOTHING remotely newsworthy about this! Nice work CNN

    January 13, 2010 08:11 pm at 8:11 pm |
  18. liberal wingnut

    Big Suprise! no liberal media? Why are newspapers endorsing anyone anyway?

    January 13, 2010 08:16 pm at 8:16 pm |
  19. Watchdog


    January 13, 2010 08:20 pm at 8:20 pm |
  20. liberal wingnut

    I'm sure the globe didn't question Obama's experience.

    January 13, 2010 08:20 pm at 8:20 pm |
  21. Ted

    This is not news.

    The Boston Globe is so liberal it would endorse Castro or Chavez for the Senate.

    January 13, 2010 08:28 pm at 8:28 pm |
  22. D-SEA

    Imagine that, a liberal rag supporting a liberal candidate. Anyone who is stupid enough to vote for a pol based on a newspapter article is just they type of uninformed voter that these crooks in Washington pander to.

    January 13, 2010 08:28 pm at 8:28 pm |
  23. Cary from NJ

    How is this even news?

    January 13, 2010 08:29 pm at 8:29 pm |
  24. tim

    The election of brown would show the disaproval of The Dems in congress and show them that they are responcible to American citizens. Boston Globe should not endorce cadinates it only shows that they are completely partian. i have lost respect for the globe

    January 13, 2010 08:29 pm at 8:29 pm |
  25. Candid

    Great news,huh?Endorsing a political establishment whose political pockets has been filled by pharmaceutical lobbyist is so refreshing?Sometimes you wonder if these stupid editors view readers as all morons that will follow their politically motivated view points.The reason why the founding fathers created the house and senate numbers that way was to prevent this so called overwhelming majority,thus preventing one political party from ramming everything through.But,then these dimwits so called journalist want us to believe it is so refreshing where there is no checks and balances.

    January 13, 2010 08:30 pm at 8:30 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6