Why won’t gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley (D) debate opponent Scott Brown (R)? That’s the question voters in Massachusetts must be asking themselves today. It’s certainly the question Brian McGrory of the Boston Globe asks:

If you’re a registered voter in Massachusetts, your friendly Democratic Senate candidate, Martha Coakley, is sticking her thumb in your eye.

Coakley, in exquisitely diva-like form, is refusing all invitations to debate her Republican opponent in the race, Scott Brown, unless a third-party candidate with no apparent credentials is included on the stage. She may also require a crystal bowl of orange-only M&Ms in her dressing room, but we haven’t gotten that far yet. Her demands have led to an astonishing result: there will be just one — that’s one — live televised debate in the Boston media market this general election season.

One scheduled debate in a Massachusetts gubernatorial race. And I’m sure Coakley would’ve wiggled out of that one if she had any change of getting away with it politically. The big question: Why does she refuse to debate her opponent without a no-name competitor on the stage?

Answer: Because she’s afraid of debates. As McGrory writes, Coakley refused to hold any debates when she ran for attorney general. She can’t defend her policies or record under any real, direct pressure. So she minimizes her exposure, relying on Massachusetts voters to reflexively vote for her as a Democrat.

How is someone who refuses to debate her convictions and record supposed to serve as a United States Senator? If she can’t even defend her own political positions under direct pressure, why should Massachusetts voters support her? Debating is a major part of the senate job. Clearly she can’t carry out (what would be) her obligations.