STAFF EDIT: Levelheaded, evenhanded

Following the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy in August, not only was a chair left unoccupied in the Senate, but also, Massachusetts lost one of its longest-running and most recognizable officeholders ever. Today, Massachusetts will vote in the Senate primary election for two people who will vie to officially fill his void, and although no candidate will ever be able to call him or herself the new Ted Kennedy, it is important that the chosen candidate embody both his gimlet eye for progress and his tenacity. Keeping in mind Massachusetts’ voters’ tendencies to keep their selection in office for extended periods of time ‘-‘- Kennedy was running on his 46th year ‘-‘- the person elected today must be someone with enough experience, clout and strategy to be able to aptly represent their constituency for as long as they remain seated in the Senate. Today’s election is not about the next Kennedy; it’s about picking a candidate that can start a new chapter for Massachusetts and do it with sophistication, so as to nod to Kennedy and then look to a long future, without getting locked in the past. Attorney General Martha Coakley stands out among her fellow Democratic candidates as the one opponent who can maintain that balance.

The three other Democratic candidates vary in strengths and weaknesses. U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano has the closest relationship to Congress, but his staunch positions on current issues ‘-‘- a quality which some may call ‘principled’ ‘-‘- make him appear to be unable to open himself up to the compromises essential to being a successful Senator. Especially now, at a time during which the Senate is sorting out some very significant issues such as health care and abortion, a cooperative mindset is integral. Capuano, while experienced, is too concerned with putting on a show of his political ideals, and would likely end up isolating whichever Massachusetts voters do not agree with him. It’s one thing to be passionate, but Massachusetts cannot afford a ‘too hot’ candidate occupying one of its only two’ seats in the Senate, especially not for 46 years.

City Year founder and so-called ‘social entrepreneur’ Alan Khazei may be called the idealist of the race, although he was dubbed ‘too wonky’ during the final Senatorial debate held last week. He appears to be the most progressive of the candidates, particularly in terms of his views on the environment, but his infamous denial to accept funding from lobbyists and Political Action Committees makes his campaign platform seem lofty and unrealistic. His uncommon politicking ‘-‘- strange commercials featuring talking babies, for instance ‘-‘- obscures the value behind his otherwise agreeable stances on some of the more controversial issues. Khazei might be compared to businessman Kevin McCrea, the dark horse contender in this year’s Boston mayoral election, and should he prove to be unsuccessful in today’s election, his downfall will mirror McCrea’s. Being a political figure ‘-‘- especially on the national stage ‘-‘- requires a degree of approachability and something of a ‘politician’ mindset that Khazei does not fully offer.

Co-owner of the Boston Celtics Stephen Pagliuca is the least politically viable candidate. Despite his wealth and savvy, he has had no political experience and with little more than his social clout to ride upon throughout the course of the campaign. He believes his businessman background will give him the foundation to deal with the monetary side of occupying a seat in the Senate, but he neglects the host of other attributes that are required to compose a functioning senator. His bold and far-fetched arguments are little more than embarrassing, as he behaved cinematically in debates and slung insults when he should have been trying to translate to his would-be constituents his worth as more than just a businessman. That he couldn’t do that makes him perhaps the weakest character in the race.

The Republican candidates face even more contention, considering Massachusetts’ history of favoring democratic partisanship. State Senator Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, and politician Jack Robinson III are not practical for consideration because, based on their conservative views and on this state’s affinity for democrats, their political views fall short.

During the final debate, Coakley noted that the vote would come down to a matter of each and every voter’s ‘personal choice.’ She made a valid point ‘-‘- this race ended up being less about politics in general and more about personality. Though nicknamed ‘too cold,’ Coakley represents the temperance of a sound leader ‘-‘- she avoided the major political mistake of being too radical or too isolating. While the other contenders spent a majority of their debate times arguing, Coakley remained removed from the superfluous insults and sniggering, and focused on getting her points across to the people who should matter most ‘-‘- her possible constituents. She showed her evenhandedness by straddling the line between pandering voters and measuring herself up against her motley crew of opponents, and she did so with low-key grace, that suggested her goal was not to shock, spend or dream, but to work for the people of Massachusetts.

Truly, it has not as of yet been a strong campaign for any of the candidates. Perhaps morale is still burdened by the lingering weight of the loss of one of the most prominent names in politics, Ted Kennedy, whose death impacted politicians and voters regardless of party affiliation. But now is the time to look forward and make the wisest choice for a new Senator, not a new Kennedy. Coakley stands out as the contender with the character, the determination and the levelheadedness that may best revive the Massachusetts democratic seat in the Senate.