Obama, referring to the "narrow window" of time when he had 60 votes in the Senate: "after Franken finally got seated and Arlen had flipped, but before Scott Brown won in Massachusetts."

Arlen had flipped.

Happy/sad.

Scott Brown is "sad" that Barack Obama was "amused."

Senator Scott Brown calls the Democrats' push for health care "bitter, destructive and endless."

Well... you know, sometimes they get bitter, and they cling to health care...

$750 pink leather shorts.

= what Senator Scott Brown wore on his first date with the woman he went on to marry.

Slogging through Evan Bayh's NYT op-ed "Why I'm Leaving the Senate"...

... so you don't have to. Here's the text. Let me edit it down and supply a little commentary:

BASEBALL may be our national pastime... Ben Franklin...  David Letterman... Milton Berle...

Man, that first paragraph telegraphs that the man has nothing to say!

Challenges of historic import... Congress ... dysfunction...

Many good people serve in Congress...

I don't want to attack any particular individual, but as a group, you people suck.

My father, Birch Bayh...

Everett Dirksen... asked what he could do to help...

A Republican displayed cooperativeness toward a Democrat, back in the old days.

When I was a boy, members of Congress from both parties, along with their families, would routinely visit our home for dinner or the holidays...

The parties partied. Back then. Chez Bayh.

... Sept. 11.... There were no Republicans or Democrats in the room that day...

That golden day...

Let’s start with a simple proposal: why not have a monthly lunch of all 100 senators? 

Sounds good, but I'm not that hungry.

... the current campaign finance system that has such a corrosive effect on Congress....

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, allowing corporations and unions to spend freely on ads explicitly supporting or opposing political candidates, will worsen matters. The threat of unlimited amounts of negative advertising from special interest groups will only make members more beholden to their natural constituencies and more afraid of violating party orthodoxies.

Help! All that vigorous free speech will make us even bigger pussies than we already are!

... the Senate should reform... the filibuster....

Admittedly, I have participated in filibusters. If not abused, the filibuster can foster consensus-building...

.... filibusters should require 35 senators to sign a public petition and make a commitment to continually debate... Those who obstruct the Senate should pay a price in public notoriety and physical exhaustion....

And, eventually, we will be hungry enough to eat 100 Senators for lunch.

What’s more, the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster should be reduced to 55 from 60....

During my father’s era, filibusters were commonly used to block civil rights legislation and, in 1975, the requisite number of votes was reduced to 60 from 67. The challenges facing the country today are so substantial that further delay imperils the Republic and warrants another reduction in the supermajority requirement.

The challenge = Scott Brown got elected... and a couple very elderly Dems are not feeling so well. And the majority of Americans don't like what you're trying to do, so you need to get this thing through before the next election. That's like the Civil Rights Act, isn't it?!

What does Sarah Palin owe John McCain... and what would she be without him?

Why is Sarah Palin "supporting a candidate [John McCain] that's held in very low regard to the tea party movement"? A caller asked Rush Limbaugh that on yesterday's show, and he said:

[I]f you're Sarah Palin, the one thing you know is that if it weren't for John McCain, nobody would know who you are right now.... And there's, you know, she has some loyalty there. I'm more puzzled by Scott Brown endorsing McCain and then having McCain come into his district so Brown can campaign for him.

I know why she's doing it. Look it: I haven't spoken to her about it, and I don't even want to put words in her mouth. I can only address this were I to be in her shoes. And she's a Republican, and she's made the case that she's a Republican, and this guy put her on the ticket, and had that not happened, she'd be "Sarah Who?"  She owes him something....

Okay, now, look, those of you out there in the tea party that are miffed at Sarah Palin and at Scott Brown, I just want to remind you of one thing, like I said the other day.  If Sarah Palin had not endorsed McCain, can you imagine what the press would do to her?  Can you imagine the refrain: "Oh, he's perfectly fine to be president, you'd run on the ticket with him as president, but he's not good enough to be Senator from Arizona?"  They would kill her.  And in the case of Scott Brown, McCain was the first senator to openly support Scott Brown.  He was being totally ignored by every other Republican in the Beltway.  It's the same deal, folks, it's just loyalty.  It just is.

Now, I think that's plenty of explanation for why Sarah Palin is supporting McCain and not helping J.D. Hayworth (who is challenging him in the Republican Primary).

But I want to talk about the idea Palin is indebted to McCain for bringing her into the political spotlight when he did. Is Palin better off because of that? She is what she is now because of that — because she was plucked unripe, tasted, and sneered at. She and we will never find out what would have happened if she'd been allowed to ripen through a term or 2 as Governor of Alaska and attempted a run for President on her own, building support, gaining seasoning, practicing dealing with debates and interviews while the stakes were still low and the press would be disarmed and friendly.

Just as we will never know The Other Hillary — the Hillary who would have evolved without Bill Clinton — we will never know The Other Sarah. The woman with a male sponsor, subordinate to a man — she may get very far but can she gain the ultimate trust, the Presidency? I have an intuition that our first woman President will be someone who fits the set with The Other Hillary and The Other Sarah.

The embarrassing expression of outrage at an elected Senator demanding to be seated...

... to displace an unelected man who would otherwise continue to sit in the elected man's seat and vote in the United States Senate.

Democrats were scrambling to respond to [Scott] Brown's gambit. By tradition, Vice President Biden would be the one to swear Brown in, but any number of folks could do it. And Democrats who are wary of being seen as hyper-partisan might not be able to come up with an excuse to deny Brown the seat.

Gambit? The notion that it's a "gambit" that the Senate Democrats are too pusillanimous to parry is based on a previous agreement to do the swearing-in on February 11th.

Brown's reason for moving the date up is, according to a source, that the Senate was "moving forward with controversial issues and nominations... votes where his vote is the deciding one." With the unelected Paul Kirk voting as if he still represented the people of Massachusetts!

Whatever the extent of the agreement about February 11th, it could not displace the responsibility Brown owes to the people who elected him. They should be outraged at Kirk's illegitimate occupation of their seat.

The Senate Democrats "might not be able to come up with an excuse to deny Brown the seat"?! There's no decent excuse. The failure to seat Brown immediately would not merely be "seen as hyper-partisan." It would be hyper-partisan — and a shameful abuse of power.

"Why Is Senator Kirk Still Voting on Legislation?"

The answer seems to be: because the GOP isn't saying anything about it. I assume it has a reason. That is, I assume it is competent. Is that wrong?

(Via Instapundit.)

I coin a phrase — "Find Your Todd Palin" — in this new Bloggingheads, with Emily Bazelon.

Topics:

Why did Scott Brown win?
Health care bill: too extreme/not extreme enough
Brown’s keys to victory: sexiness and a pickup truck
As wives become the breadwinners, what happens to sex?
Ann’s husband chimes in on powerful women finding mates
Retroactive matchmaking: Elizabeth Edwards and Todd Palin

Ann's husband chimes in... ha ha...

"I had no idea he was going to do that. I saw the script and there was definitely no mention of that. It was totally off script."

Charming? Dorky? Creepy? ... Scary?!

“I want a chastity belt on this man,” [Glenn] Beck said. “I want his every move watched in Washington. I don't trust this guy. This one could end with a dead intern.”

And keep an eye on Beck too. Something's not quite right with that man's brain. For one thing, Gary Condit did not kill Chandra Levy.

Drudge sees Scott Brown driving that truck on to the White House.

We've seen conservatism in the idealized female form, the lovely Sarah Palin with her moose. And now, we see conservatism in the idealized male form, the handsome Scott Brown in his truck.

Evan Bayh: "if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up."

“[M]oderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren’t buying our message. They just don’t believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems. That’s something that has to be corrected.... Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country— that’s not going to work too well.”

In short, the Democrats have gone way left of the American people, and they need to come back.

Barney Frank: "Our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened."

"Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process."

ADDED: Josh Marshall is perplexed:

So I was genuinely surprised, really shocked to see this statement [Barney Frank] put out tonight that is just an embodiment of fecklessness, resignation, defeatism and just plan folly. The gist of his point is that that's it for health care reform. If a few Republican senators will come across the aisle and help maybe it will happen. But if not, that's it. Amazing. Just amazing.

Barney Frank is a politician, a smart one. Work it out from there.

Brown wants you to marry his daughters.

"You've just witnessed a wicked political pivot..."

Says Sarah Palin (speaking just now on Greta Van Susteren's show).

Brown wins!

By a lot. Coakley has conceded. Astounding. What does it mean? What will the Democrats in Congress do now? What will Obama do?

Poor Obama! It's the eve of the anniversary of his inauguration. The State of the Union was supposed to be very grand. And now what? He has been repudiated! He made this election a referendum on the Democrats agenda, and the people of Massachusetts, the most liberal state, gave him a resounding no.

Now, I think that could be good for Obama. He's a man of change. Let him change. I hope he becomes the President I thought he could be when I voted for him. With the midterm elections looming in the fall, he can readjust, set himself apart from Congress. Take the people seriously.

Interestingly, nothing big happened yesterday in the Coakley/Brown race.

I was expecting some shocking, hard-to-deflect shot at Brown. The lack of any dirt to throw is evidenced by the bizarrely lame use of a remark about a curling iron that Scott Brown may either have heard or not:

A video is circulating in which Republican ScottBrown seemingly smiles at a violent, sexist taunt directed at his Democratic challenger Martha Coakley at a rally.

"Shove a curling up HER butt," shouted one attendee off-camera. Brown, holding a bullhorn, seemed to smile and nod in acknowledgement.

Didn't Jerry Seinfeld teach us not to nod and smile at things we haven't heard?

(Kramer's girlfriend starts to mumble out some words, but Kramer's the only one who seems to hear her. Jerry and Elaine both bend forward, trying to hear what she's saying)

ELAINE: What's that?

JERRY: Excuse me?

(She 'talks' some more. Jerry and Elaine still can't hear her. They give up - leaning back in their seats)

JERRY: Yeah.. yeah.

ELAINE: Yep. Yeah..

KRAMER: You know that, uh, Leslie (Points to her) is in the clothing business? She's a designer.

ELAINE: (Interested) Oh?

KRAMER: In fact, she's come up with a new one that is going to be the big new look in mens fashions.. It's a, a puffy shirt. (Leslie mumbles to Kramer) Well, yeah,

it - it's all puffy. Like the pirates used to wear.

ELAINE: Oh, a puffy shirt.

JERRY: Puffy.

KRAMER: Yeah, see, I think people want to look like pirates. You know, it's the right time for it.. to be all puffy, and devil-may-care..

(Leslie starts 'talking', Kramer laughs. Jerry and Elaine have no clue what she's saying. They lean closer)

KRAMER: (Still laughing) That's true.. (Gets up) I'll be right back. (Walks off laughing. Jerry and Elaine are left with the low-talker. A moment passes)

ELAINE: Uh, oh! (Remembers something they could talk about) Jerry's going to be on the "Today" show on Friday.

JERRY: Yeah, that's right!

ELAINE: Yep.. yep. Um, he's promoting a benefit for Goodwill, you know, they, uh, they clothe the poor, and the homeless..

JERRY: (Points at Elaine) And the indigent.

ELAINE: And the indigent, yeah.. I, I do volunteer work for them. I set the whole thing up, and I got Jerry to do it.

(Leslie starts talking. Of course, Jerry and Elaine can't hear her voice)

JERRY: Sure.

ELAINE: Ohh, yeah. Yeah.. yep.

(Leslie talks some more)

JERRY: Uh-huh.

ELAINE: Yep.

JERRY: Yep..

ELAINE: Mmm

That's where Jerry agreed to wear the embarrassing and humiliating puffy shirt on television.

You think you're maintaining your friendly image, but you're nodding at the wrong thing.

Now, there's some hope for the Democrats. Maybe, if Scott Brown goes to the Senate, they can get him to vote for things by not letting him hear what the vote is about, and he'll just nod and smile. Actually, they kind of already do that amongst themselves. They are always voting for things they haven't heard/read... like that 2,000-page health care bill. If they do pass it and we find out what it is, it may be a lot worse than wearing the puffy shirt on TV.

Speaking of not hearing things, the Coakley pushers have specialized in tone-deafness. Obama dissing trucks and so forth. The effort to pin the curling iron remark on Brown is another example of this tone-deafness, because once you bring it up, you bring up what it refers to: a real case where a man raped a baby girl with a curling iron:

The shouter's threat is in reference to a sexual abuse case, covered at length in the Boston Globe, involving a curling iron that critics say Coakley, as attorney general, did not aggressively prosecute.

Here's that article from the Boston Globe:

In October 2005, a Somerville police officer living in Melrose raped his 23-month-old niece with a hot object, most likely a curling iron.

Keith Winfield, then 31, told police he was alone with the toddler that day and made additional statements that would ultimately be used to convict him.

But in the aftermath of the crime, a Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Martha Coakley, then the district attorney, investigated without taking action.

It was only after the toddler’s mother filed applications for criminal complaints that Coakley won grand jury indictments charging rape and assault and battery.

Even then, nearly 10 months after the crime, Coakley’s office recommended that Winfield be released on personal recognizance, with no cash bail. He remained free until December 2007, when Coakley’s successor as district attorney won a conviction and two life terms.

So what's worse: 1. Brown nodding and smiling at something that he possibly heard (which he'd be an idiot to smile at, so only people who already oppose him will infer that he'd heard), or 2. the way Coakley handled the Winfield case?

But it was the last day of the campaign, and something was needed. Falling, you grab onto what you can, and that was it. That was, at best, desperate and pathetic. At worst, it was a tone-deaf reminder of the Coakley's laxity in case of the guilty Keith Winfield case... and, once we are there, we may think once more of her perverse aggressiveness toward the innocent Amiraults.

Ah, but that last desperate day is over. The voting is on, and the time for dredging up dirt is thankfully over.

Let's read the full text of Obama's pro-Coakley speech.

Ah! I found the full text of the remarks Barack Obama made in Boston yesterday. Reading earlier news reports, I was struck by the lack of anything actually about Martha Coakley, the candidate he came to support. That's why my blog post last night reads — was I too enigmatic? — "The personal touch turns chillingly impersonal." I got the impression that he mainly said the Democratic Party needed another vote in the Senate, and Coakley was the Democrat. Did he have anything specific to say about her? It was personal to travel to Massachusetts to help her out, but when he got there, it seems, he went impersonal, and only characterized her as a Democratic Party vote.

Now, I want to check out that impression by reading the whole speech.

The first section consists of generic cries of "Fired up!," introductory thank yous, references to his time living in Boston — Cambridge, really, wasn't it? — and an indirect reference to the Red Sox in the form of a reference to the White Sox. And that was an indirect reference to Coakley's cockup about Curt Schilling.

Finally, he's ready to talk about Coakley.

And today I've come to talk about one thing.

Coakley?

I've come to talk about Tuesday.

Oh, Tuesday!

On Tuesday, you have the unique and special responsibility to fill the Senate seat that you sent Ted Kennedy to fill for nearly 47 years. And I am here to tell you that the person for that job is your attorney general, Martha Coakley. (Applause.)

Finally, the name has been spoken.

Now, there's been a lot said in this race about how it's not the Kennedy's seat -- it's the people's seat.

He quotes Scott Brown's best line.

And let me tell you, the first person who would agree with that was Ted Kennedy.

Good. Play off Brown's line.

See, the only thing he loved more than the people of this commonwealth was serving the people of this commonwealth.

Huh? He loved the people, and he loved serving the people even more than he loved the people. Well, okay. Ted was a people guy, a man of the people, a servant of the people, really into serving. Servile as all get-out.

There follows a paragraph about all that Ted did for the people. That segues into the representation of Martha Coakley as a woman of the people — "raised in North Adams, one of five kids... worked her way up..." — who has worked for the people. This is the part of the speech that is specifically about her as opposed to Obama's agenda and the need for another Democratic vote in the Senate. It is 2 paragraphs long and — I counted — about 7% of the total verbiage. He says:

Look at her record. As a prosecutor, she took on cases most of us don't even want to think about, putting murderers and child abusers away.

And the Amiraults too. Who wants to think about that?!

As attorney general, she took on Wall Street and recovered millions for Massachusetts taxpayers -- (applause) -- took on predatory lenders that were taking advantage of Massachusetts families. She went after big insurance companies that misled people into buying coverage only to deny it when they got sick. She went after big polluters who put the health of your family at risk. Time and again, Martha has taken on those who game the system at expense of hardworking, middle-class families.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Let's go, Martha! (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: That's the kind of leader the people of Massachusetts need now more than ever. (Applause.) You need somebody -- (audience interruption) --

Oh, here's where that heckling takes place and Obama takes forever to end the disruption, with the audience eventually coming in with booing and then a "Fired up!" chant. You can look at the clip here. I can't figure out what the guy is yelling. "One more [???]!" One more Chevy?

Hmmm. I kind of get the feeling Obama is glad to be interrupted there. Sort of: Oh, good, now I don't have to talk about Martha Coakley anymore. Just let this play out. Maybe I'll look like the underdog and people really will get fired up.

Hmmm. Any chance the interruption was a scripted part of the presentation?

Finally, he gets back to his prepared remarks. Conveniently, he's through with the details about Martha. He tells us we need "somebody who has fought for the people" because times are tough. He's got something to say about "Martha's opponent":

He's driving his truck around the commonwealth -- (laughter) -- and he says that he gets you, that he fights for you, that he'll be an independent voice. And I don't know him, he may be a perfectly nice guy. I don't know his record, but I don't know whether he's been fighting for you up until now, but --

So he doesn't know anything about the guy he's about to tear down, but please laugh at the man who drives a truck. He doesn't worry that the truck might backfire. It becomes a theme in the next section:

Forget the truck. (Laughter.) Everybody can buy a truck. (Laughter.)...

... I'd think long and hard about getting in that truck with Martha's opponent. (Laughter.) It might not take you where you want to go....

Now, the repeated recurrence of the truck may be a good distraction, because this section of the speech is incoherent. Obama wants to tell us that the Democrats will build up the economy and cut taxes the right way, but he also demonizes business and wants us to reject Republicans because they are on the side of business. The key seems to be to distinguish between small business and Wall Street bankers. In this framework, it's hard to explain all the money — tax money — that we — including the Democrats — handed to bankers:

It was your tax dollars that saved Wall Street banks from their own recklessness, keeping them from collapsing and dragging our entire economy down with them.

But today, those same banks are once again making billions in profits and on track to hand out more money in bonuses than ever before, while the American people are still in a world of hurt.

So you helped the banks, but you don't want to say it was great that the help worked. Do you want them to succeed or not? Would it be better if we all suffered together?

Now, we've recovered most of your money already, but I don't think "most of your money" is good enough. We want all our money back. We're going to collect every dime. (Applause.) That's why I proposed a new fee on the largest financial firms -- to pay the American people back for saving their skin.

What is the connection between a "new fee" and getting all our money back? Isn't it great that we've got most of the money back, and isn't it enough to get the rest the money back? Why the fee? To punish success? To my ears, it's a non sequitur.

But instead of taking the side of working families in Massachusetts, Martha's opponent is already walking in lockstep with Washington Republicans, opposing that fee, defending the same fat cats who are getting rewarded for their failure.

But you didn't explain the fee. You're demonizing the bankers — "fat cats" — the very people that you gave our tax money too. And how are they "getting rewarded for their failure" if the bailout worked? Why aren't you pleased with the effective use of our tax money? It's incoherent.

Now, there's a big difference here. It gives you a sense of who the respective candidates are going to be fighting for, despite the rhetoric, despite the television ads, despite the truck. (Laughter.) Martha is going to make sure you get your money back. (Applause.)

Get our money back or impose that "new fee"? Scott Brown isn't against getting the bailout money back, is he? This is deliberate obfuscation, it seems.

She's got your back. Her opponent has got Wall Street's back. (Applause.)

That sounds nicely slogan-y, but what does it mean? You can count on Democrats to be hostile to business? How is it defending us to attack Wall Street, and if it is, why did you give so much of our money to Wall Street?

Obama wants to say that he's helping the economy:

We're forcing the banks finally to start lending again on Main Street, and not just worried about profits.

That's an attitude about the economy that people ought to examine. Forcing lending? Isn't that what led to the mortgage crisis? Don't we want banks to worry about profits so they don't go back to making all those bad loans? And don't we want the hope of profit to motivate people to take risks? Apparently not.

So understand what's at stake here, Massachusetts. It's whether we're going forward, or going backwards.

AUDIENCE: Forward!

THE PRESIDENT: It's whether we're going to have a future where everybody gets a shot in this society, or just the privileged few. If you were fired up in the last election, I need you more fired up in this election.

And with that, Obama makes the special election in Massachusetts into a referendum on the work he and the Democrats in Congress have been doing for the past year. You were excited about me, he says. You wanted change. If you want us to keep moving on in the direction we ran after you gave us the power, we need you to elect Coakley. The election transcends anything personal about her — or Scott Brown, whom Obama purports to know nothing about other than that he's a Republican (and has a truck).

Obama wants that vote, and that vote comes in the form of Martha Coakley. It's the "people's seat," as Scott Brown called it, but it's the Democrats who are for the people — and against business (unless it's small!) — so fire up and vote for Martha.

Oh, no! It's men in trucks! Plowing in from Texas! Running down all the women! Rape!

"They’re sending people from Texas."

An attempt to scare some enthusiasm into Massachusetts voters.

And it's not just the fear of Texan outside agitators, there's a gender war a-comin':

At a Friday rally with former President Bill Clinton and again Saturday, Coakley ... raised the 4-wheel-drive factor, quipping that just because somebody drives a truck doesn’t meant they’re headed in the right direction.

That's a quip because Scott Brown drives a truck.

But Coakley, who despite a modest background carries herself with a patrician bearing...

Does she also bear herself with patrician carriage?

... has compounded the problem voters with a series of gaffes that suggest she’s out of touch, most recently on Friday when she appeared on a Boston talk radio show and seemed not to have heard of former star Red Sox star pitcher Curt Schilling.

Some Democrats worry that there is something deeper at work.

“I think it’s a man-woman thing,” said Robert Cullinane, a Teamsters local leader in the Boston area.

Teamsters!

Cullinane, speaking following the Clinton rally Friday, said some of his own members know that Brown opposes their agenda but are telling him, “'I’m not voting for that broad.’”

Those louts! Those unnamed louts that Cullinane — does he have patrician bearing? — must stoop to represent. Those brutes say "broad"... at least as paraphrased by the union leader who surely has their interests at heart.

“Unbelievable,” he said. “Here is someone who has voted against them on state issues yet they’re going to vote against ‘that broad.’”

"Here"? Where? Are you pointing at someone? Who is that horrible trucker?! Unbelievable!

Despite its liberal tradition, Massachusetts has never elected a female senator or governor.

OMG! Liberals might be sexists! Sound the liberal alarm! Liberals, prove you are liberal by voting for a woman!

See how that article — by Jonathan Martin in Politico — tried to flip you? First, nonentities were presented as prejudiced against a woman, ready to vote against Coakley because she's a woman, and then, suddenly, liberals are supposed pushed to feel that they ought to vote for her because she's a woman.

Oh, no! It's men in trucks! Plowing in from Texas! Running down all the women! Rape!

Scott Brown wants to rape every woman in Massachusetts.

Or something.