The Boston Herald‘s Margery Eagan may have written the entire narrative of the upcoming election to replace US Sen. Ted Kennedy in two sentences. She thinks that Attorney General Martha Coakley has the edge, even if former US Rep. Joe Kennedy gets in the race:

Bottom line: This time around, if you’re a Democrat or independent woman, you’ll need pretzel-style contortions to explain to yourself why Martha isn’t good enough. That’s why if it’s Joe vs. Martha, Martha wins the women, then wins the Democrat [sic] primary.

I think this is a strong argument, but I’m not so sure about Eagan’s theory that one reason we don’t have more women in elected offices in Massachusetts is because “We just don’t like schlumpy and shrill.”

I can’t think of many women candidates in Massachusetts over the past few years who could be described as “schlumpy and shrill” — or, to put it in more positive terms, down-to-earth and boisterous. Evelyn Murphy, Shannon O’Brien, and Kerry Healey all had measured, professional demeanors. What I find more curious is that Massachusetts hasn’t had more candidates like Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, or 1970s Connecticut Gov. Ella Grasso — all full-throated, fiercely partisan women especially popular among urban, working-class voters.

Massachusetts has had successful male candidates who looked like rumpled beds (Barney Frank), cultivated pugnacious personalities (Joe DeNucci), or yelled their way through campaign speeches (Ted Kennedy himself). Where are their female counterparts, and would it really be impossible for them to win elections?