Friday’s Wall Street Journal was a total Brownsheet – jumping into the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race and jumping on Martha Coakley (D-Is the President Here Yet?).

The Journal ran three – count ’em, three – pieces about what’s being called the Scott Heard ‘Round the World.

Piece #1:

Democrats Fight to Keep Kennedy Seat, 60

Senate Votes

NEW BEDFORD, Mass.—This is supposed to be friendly territory for Democrats, even in this year’s hostile political climate. But the suddenly frenetic and competitive race for the Tuesday vote to replace the late Sen. Edward Kennedy suggests Democrats could be in for tough fights across the political map.

Massachusetts hasn’t elected a Republican to the Senate since 1972, and a few months ago the state didn’t seem to present an opportunity for Republicans. Late Thursday, Republicans touted a new poll showing Republican Scott Brown, a state senator, with a clear lead over Democrat Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general. The Boston Herald reported a survey by Suffolk University/7News that showed voters preferring Mr. Brown by a 50% to 46% margin.

Then there’s Kimberley Strassel’s Potomac Watch column, which lost some impact because it’s nothing but a jumble of half-baked speculation and rumination. Here’s the lede:

Republican Scott Brown is running strong in Massachusetts on a promise to be the 41st vote against health care in the Senate. Democrats’ bigger worry right now is whether Mr. Brown might prove the 218th vote against health care in the House.

It just gets more opaque from there.

But most damning is the latest installment in a series of scorched-earth essays by WSJ editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz about the notorious Amirault case.

(To the Few, the Proud, the Campaign Outsider Commenters: I really really don’t want to reargue the Amirault Rubik’s Cube. I’m just saying that, to the WSJ readership, it looks very bad for Coakley, which only stokes the Brownmania that’s sweeping Tea Bag Nation.)

Meanwhile the New York Times, which conventional wisdom says should be furiously defending – no, promoting – Martha Coakley, ran one lame piece on A15:

3rd-Party Candidate Named Kennedy Could

Tip Senate Race in Massachusetts

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. — In most elections, a politician calling himself the Tea Party candidate would cheer Democrats, raising hopes that he would siphon votes from Republicans by attracting some of the disaffected anti-Washington, anti-Obama electorate.

But when the election is being held to fill a seat that was left vacant by the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and the Tea Party candidate happens to be named Joe Kennedy, things get a little murkier.