How did voting for Brown help with that? WTF? Do they not understand that, as Barbara Boxer put it, elections have consequences? They have just torpedoed the healthcare legislation, and probably the financial industry regulations that were just starting to get discussed as well. And if they want to complain that, oh, Obama is too hung up on healthcare when he ought to worry about jobs -- well, they've just made it nearly impossible for the Senate to take any actions towards job creation, too.
Yes, Coakley was a lousy candidate and a lousy campaigner. But the fact that Scott Brown seems like a nice man is not a reason to vote for him, given that he has publicly made clear that he wants to help a nihilistic minority paralyze the government.
And of course, the dozen or so moderate Senate Dems will likely take this as an excuse to say that this is a message to Dems to be more moderate (which is to say, conservative, since the media-defined "center" in this country is ludicrously far to the right, compared to where it was even in the '80s -- IIRC, Saint Ronald only scores 40% on the 10-question purity test recently proposed by a couple GOP house members). The truth is, they need to grow some f*ckin' stones and start actually passing the kind of policies Obama campaigned on. A healthcare bill with a real public option, accessible to any American (including those who want to opt out of their employer's lousy plan) would be a good start. The bank liability tax would be an even better follow-up, considering the current popular rage at the banks. That would be good policy and good politics, a great opportunity -- but the Dem leadership, as they used to say about Yasser Arafat, never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.