Just a follow up on Obama's trip to MA: a lot of people seem to think that it's a "risk" for Obama to go up there, starting with the NYT (the word "risk" is in the front-page teaser, not the blog post, which uses "peril"), and John Nichols in The Nation, and Steve Benen, and many others.
Nonsense. There's no risk here. If Coakley loses, everyone is going to blame the president. Oh, she'll get blame as well, but no one cares about that; it has no effects outside of the state of Massachusetts. If she loses be a narrow margin and he doesn't go, then he gets blamed; just as he would if she loses by a narrow margin and he does go.
When something has only upside and no downside -- and that's pretty much the case with a trip to Boston for the president this weekend -- then it's not a risk. Even if the overall situation is bad (for him and the Dems), this particular move has little if any downside. It's far better for him to be able to say that he did all he could than to try to claim that it had nothing to do with him -- whether or not it actually has anything to do with him.