You already know that I don't think the shoving incident is a big deal. I also think the slanting in this
But Coakley's "stalking" theme is lame... or it would be lame if it weren't devious. "Stalking" is a word that I think is deliberately chosen to signal that the man — here, Scott Brown — is dangerous to women.
Or, I should say that it's devious and lame, because it's unlikely to have the desired effect of getting voters to rally around the threatened woman. A politician needs to be strong and not easily pushed back. It's one thing to champion the weak — taking violence against women seriously, for example. But the champion of the weak can't herself be weak.
Since there is no real stalking — if there is, show me the evidence — all Coakley is doing is displaying that she can be intimidated, and what sort of representative will she be? She'll be what her opponents say she is: "a sock puppet for Harry Reid and the Democrats." Now, for voters who above all else want to preserve the 60th vote for healthcare, that's just fine. But those are the voters Coakley already has a lock on (though they may be too uninspired to vote).
I doubt if the more independent voters will feel like rushing to protect her from those (phantom) stalkers. Even if their protective instinct is stirred, there's no reason to put a fragile flower in the Senate.
ADDED: Here's a closeup detail from the photograph of Coakley looking on just after McCormack goes down:
It's not fair to judge an individual by one photograph, but this is what the voters are seeing as she frets about "stalking." Another thing that's not fair is the way Scott Brown looks.
AND: Thanks to lucid in the comments for pointing out that it's not Fox News. It's a local news show on Fox.
