The health care canaries in Mass.

Jake Tapper:

Political operatives say the Senate race in Massachusetts between Democratic state attorney general Martha Coakley and Republican state senator Scott Brown is too close to call. But the fact that President Obama felt the need to fly to the Bay State to campaign for a Democrat in one of the most Democratic states in the nation speaks volumes about the ugly climate for Democratic candidates.

Coakley has run an imperfect campaign and has had a rough couple weeks. But, as one senior White House official acknowledged to me, "in Massachusetts, even after a rough couple weeks the Democrat should be ahead." Polls have Coakley and Brown neck and neck.

...

Last week President Obama attempted to reassure House Democrats that health care reform would be a political winner.

“If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have," he said. "I'll be out there waging a great campaign from one end of the country to the other, telling Americans with insurance or without what they stand to gain about the arsenal of consumer protections; about the long-awaited stability that they're going to begin to experience. And I'm going to tell them that I am proud we are putting the future of America before the politics of the moment -- the next generation before the next election.”

But in Boston -- a fairly hospitable "one end of the country" -- the president did not directly mention the health care reform legislation, opposition to which Brown has made one of the signatures of his campaign. He talked about Coakley being on the side of the people, and Brown on the side of the insurance industry, but there was no direct reference to Brown being the key vote against passage of the health care reform bill.

This was an obvious sign that the White House knows just how unpopular the legislation currently is, regardless of what the president told House Democrats last week.

The president acknowledged voter anger in a more stark way than I can recall him ever doing. (And again: this is in Massachusetts!)

"The anger there is real," a White House official told me, and it's replicated all over the country.

"People are frustrated and they're angry, and they have every right to be," President Obama said, "I understand. Because progress is slow, and no matter how much progress we make, it can’t come fast enough for the people who need help right now, today."

He went on to paint Brown and the GOP as exploiting that "pain and anger to score a few political points. There are always folks who think that the best way to solve these problems are to demonize others. And, unfortunately, we're seeing some of that politics in Massachusetts today.

...

It’s not that the White House has been unaware of how ugly the 2010 midterms could be for Democrats. But however this race turns out, the closeness of the Coakley-Brown race is an ominous sign for Democrats.

...

There is more.

The President's response to voter anger is cynical. The anger is not caused by the Republicans but by Democrats ignoring the wishes of voters. These voters are going to be even angrier if Democrats push ahead with a bill the voters do not want. The hostility toward Democrats will only increase. That Republicans are taking advantage of that anger is smart politics.