I do know people at the Herald and I’m sure they were coming to the defense of a fellow reporter. Why is is so strange that I “know” them?

The fact that she “cleaned houses” and “married a cop” and “lives in a blue collar town” does nothing alter my opinion of her as an arrogant person. One’s background does not necessarily inform their humility or sense of self. Arrogance is not class-specific. It shows some ignorance on your part to believe that humility is always a foundation of those who grew up in a certain place in a certain economic group.

It’s the political equivalent of Dan Duquette’s “more days in first place” comment of several years ago

Calling her Ice Queen is perfectly acceptable in the tabloid, Herald, Murdoch-liberal journalistic style even if not so much in Dow Jones acquired publications. . . of course with an exception to outstanding writer Alan Abelson in Barons.

The style of calling people Mumbles and Ice Queen is not acceptable in more serious to adherence to style newspapers such as The Globe and New York Times.

In this case, Ice Queen is fun, appropriate, and thankfully there is more to journalistic style than just the Globe.

There are many relevant issues to discuss about Martha’s candidacy. Defending the Herald’s sexist name-calling isn’t one of them. I won’t. at The same time, it doesn’t excuse Coakley’s position on the issue of answering this question.

Martha herself has said a women must be twice as good to compete. If that is so, why won’t she answer the question? Candidates half as good as her would.

She said she could not answer it according to campaign law. That is transparently false. What are we to make of that?

She fails on two fronts here; she is unable to handle the question and she relies on a falsehood that hurts her creditability as a lawyer.

When it comes to an elected leader, I want one who is accountable to their constituents. What does this say about Coakley’s sense of accountability?

Coakley doesn’t have to answer the Herald’s questions. Perhaps she would make a splendid senator. But if she truly believes there are circumstances under which she’d be breaking the law if she answered those questions, then she knows less about the First Amendment than any ordinary citizen ought to know.

According to the Herald and it’s readership-besides being such a grandstander, a careerist, an opportunist-she’s arrogant (how dare she run for higher office)-a piece of crap-a piece of s…- Wicked Witch- ignorant- empty pantsuit-has a cougar aura-she should get a political spanking-a complete moron.-gosh 23 years in low paying public service jobs is such a devious way to weasel yourself into the Senate. A guy would never stoop that low.

And “_Bunk” you “know” people at the paper- what’s that supposed to mean? They have all agreed not to support in unison? If Martha Coakley is giving off “an air of arrogance” that’s more as seen through your eyes not all of us. She cleaned houses for goodness sakes- she’s married to an ex-cop- she lives in a blue collar town- she grew up in a big family in western MA-this is no Diva- Sure she’s smart and if a smart woman is intimidating- I’m sorry but it’s not her fault.

Dan- ask your mother- Ice Queen by anyone’s standards is not an appropriate label for a newspaper reporter to use- whether it’s for a woman or a man-it’s just plain below the belt- I do understand that that columnist is on the “pop culture” beat. At least the Herald is admitting they are treating this contest like a reality tv show- Who will be our next American Idol? Stay tuned.