Associated PressScott Brown won a key victory for Republicans Tuesday in Massachusetts, defeating Democrat Martha Coakley in a special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy. Still undecided is the lasting impact of Brown's victory on health care reform, economic policy and President Barack Obama's agenda.Democrats today were looking for ways to save President Barack Obama's health care reform plan after losing a key Senate seat in largely Democrat Massachusetts.

[snip]

Up for debate is why voters embraced Brown. Massachusetts Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3-to-1, and initially, he was seen as a sure loser.

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said this morning that the outcome is a clear message from voters, that Americans were breathing "a sigh of relief" over the potential derailing of the health care bill.

"People across the country are saying, 'Slow it down," Steele said.

But David Plouffe, who directed Obama's presidential campaign, rejected calls to scrap the bill. "We have a good health care plan," he said. "We need to pass that. We have to lead."

Brown said he did not see his victory as a referendum on Obama's first year in office.

"It's bigger than that," he said. "I just focused on what I did, which is to talk about the issues — terror, taxes and the health care plan."

Commentators were divided on both why Brown won and the impact it will have. Here's some of what they say.

A toxic political climate: The Wall Street Journal's Gerald F. Seib argues that tying Brown's victory to the debate over health care reform is oversimplifying. "Political analyses often walk straight past the most obvious answer on their way to more exotic ones, and that’s a danger here. Any analysis has to start with the simple fact that the economy is in bad shape—and is widely seen as being in even worse shape than it probably is. Significantly, the Massachusetts campaign may come to represent the event that showed their ability to lay the blame on the previous Republican administration is nearing its end."

A nuanced picture: Politico's Glenn Thrush writes that polling data indicates health care was the biggest issue for voters, but that their opposition to reform isn't a slam dunk. And, the result doesn't seem to be a referendum on Obama. "Coakley was done in by the intensity of the anti-health care activists -- not overwhelmed by their sheer numbers -- and she was doomed not by Obama's unpopularity but by her own incompetence and subpar communication skills."

When the going gets tough: Michael Russnow writes for the Huffington Post that the message Obama should get is that it's time to play hardball and get tougher. "Hopefully he's begun to learn that's not how things are done. The GOP opposition has been mostly against him, no matter how affable he was to them, and they vote in lock step on most matters, fueled by Tea Party fanatics, who have proven Shakespeare's depiction of the masses was so right. Julius Caesar's the best example, wherein people can be swayed depending on oratory or events. Because of Obama's out and out failures or seemingly never ending negotiations to effect sought-after policies, mostly born out his fear of playing hardball, the public now views Obama as inept or considers his proposals outrageous and out of touch."

A message for Republicans: Tim Mak argues for the National Post in Canada that Brown's victory should be a warning for conservatives who are demanding ideological purity in the GOP. "One oft-repeated criticism of the Tea Partiers is that they demand unblemished GOP 'purity'. But on Tuesday the Tea Party witnessed the spoils of allowing ideological flexibility; they learned the benefits of backing moderate candidates when they run in moderate jurisdictions. After all, this is Massachusetts, and Senator-elect Scott Brown is no Tea Partier."

Dirty tricks vs. tough politics: The Economist posts its opinion that any effort to delay Brown taking office would be wrong, but if Democrats hustle health care reform to passage ahead of time that's fair play. "Legal or not, one of these is stupid and undemocratic, the other is not. ... That bill was passed by a healthy supermajority of senators, after most of those senators, most House Democrats and the president spent 2008 and 2009 telling everyone in America who would listen that they planned to overhaul health care. Regardless of whether that process alienated many voters, some of whom took it out on Martha Coakley, pushing it through the House would be legitimate."

"