Before this thread gets locked, I'll just say that Martha Coakley may have run one of the worst major election campaigns I have ever seen. She may still pull it out, and I hope she does. But she deserves to lose, and she has no one to blame but herself if she does.
That being said, Coakley's errors don't change the fact that the Democrats have validated the stereotype of them that they can talk and campaign but not actually close the deal. The White House needed to be out in front of the message from the beginning, giving at least a clear framework of what it wanted in healthcare reform, the stimulus or any of its other initiatives, and clearly state how they would benefit the American people. President Obama then needed to be willing to get down and dirty, and twist arms if need-be, to get that accomplished. I initially thought using reconciliation wasn't worth the other political risks. But hindsight shows that he should have been prepared to go that route from the beginning, and then done so once Lieberman began acting up (I can excuse Ben Nelson, since he has to run for re-election in a very red state). Basically, Obama needed to LEAD and do the dirty work, and demanded that Harry Reid do the same.
Instead, Obama didn't want to do the dirty work. It seemed like he didn't give a damn what the final product was as long as he got something he could slap a "reform" label on and use as a trophy in his next campaign. He left a large message void, one the Republicans were very willing to swoop in and fill. And once the political narrative is set, it's VERY hard to break.
President Obama didn't lead the way in the beginning and wasn't willing to get tough in the middle. And he and his party may pay a VERY steep price in the end.