Last week, First Lady Michelle Obama traveled to Dorchester’s Strand Theatre to endorse Martha Coakley for Governor.  A bevvy of Boston and Massachusetts Democratic All-Stars preceded the First Lady in lining up for Coakley at the event:  Governor Deval Patrick, Senator Ed Markey, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, and Councilwoman Ayanna Pressley all got in the mix.  And Hillary Clinton’s team just announced that the former Secretary of State, Senator, and First Lady will be making her way to the Bay State to campaign for Martha Coakley.   

The critique from the right has been predictable and swift:  Coakley is bringing in the all-stars to “save” her campaign.  This strikes me as about as genuine as each party’s outrage over a Presidential vacation …when their guy is not in office.

The fact is just about any politician except for Charlie Baker would love high wattage appearances with popular, national figures in their political party.  Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton fit this bill for Coakley – they are wildly popular in the Democratic Party and their favorability numbers are comparatively strong amongst regular Americans.  In addition, the current and former First Ladies remind Massachusetts women of the potentially historic nature of this governor’s race –putting the first popularly elected female in the Governor’s office.  The polls show the race a deadheat with a substantial gender gap – if Coakley builds on it, she wins, and if Baker closes it, he wins.

So why the vitriol toward Coakley for her ability to get the “big guns” to campaign for her?  I dare say that if Steve Grossman managed these gets it would be considerably more likely it was read as a sign of his support in the Democratic Party and the strength of his campaign…

But the biggest reason Republicans cry foul at these endorsement appearances is Baker can’t utilize them.  If Republican All-Stars like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul come to the Bay State, it only reminds the moderate Democrats and Independents that are vital to a Baker victory that he is a Republican.  And the national brand of Republicanism is not purchased in Massachusetts.  So if he can’t throw his own party, discredit Coakley’s.  It is smart politics.

Because these endorsements do matter -- but rarely in a direct, causal “appearances produce new votes” way that some expect.  Rather, appearances motivate the base to turnout, volunteer, and contact others to vote all while providing free media and filling campaign coffers.   Campaigns gain the names and contact information of motivated potential voters/volunteers and the money follows the marquee names.  Reports are that Michelle Obama netted the Coakley campaign 150K and that a Clinton visit can be expected to raise 500K.  Given that Coakley trails Baker substantially in the money race, these amounts would have a substantial impact.

So Republicans are correct to dislike these visits and frame it as negative for the Coakley campaign.  Republicans know the research:  high-wattage associations do move some votes in rare cases.  But, more importantly, these kind of endorsements convey legitimacy upon the candidate and the money and motivation can follow the stars when properly timed. 

Will all this decide the race?  No.  Will it make a difference in a tight election, where money matters and both candidates desperately need women to turn out for them?  Yes.  Highlighting the historical significance of this race helps Coakley and closing the money gap is vital.  Charlie Baker has other advantages but calling in the Republican All-Stars is not one of them – doing so would fracture the fragile coalition he is trying to pull together.