can anybody give me a reason emily's list isn't a total crock?

not only did they have a stunningly low track record of picking winning candidates in the '06 landslide... but endorsing less progressive primary candidates based solely on their gender practically seems to be their modus operandi at this point.
what are they good for? potentially sending pro-choice dino's to congress to lobby blue dogs and rino's? seems like they must have an agenda to divorce abortion rights from progressive policies writ-large...

It is difficult to get the news from poems, but men die miserably every day for lack of what is found there. --William Carlos Williams

---

by: RichardPlatypus @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 16:27:40 PM CDT

Spite

As soon as I read the first sentance, I said to myself this is nothing less than spite for the Glenn Close comment.  This organization just lost my respect.

---

by: sicembears @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 16:32:46 PM CDT

Campaign Manager is Right

From EMILY's List mission statement: EMILY's List members are dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office.

It's kind of like with EMILY's List endorsing Clinton and NARAL endorsing Obama.

Looking at their full candidate listing, there are other more important races this group could be focusing on.

---

by: TXObserver @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 16:39:14 PM CDT

Pathetic endorsement

What I find most laughable about this endorsement is that Nikki Tinker is hardly some liberal champion.  Rather, she is a corporate lawyer who has never been a big presence in the district.  

Say what you want about Steve Cohen -- personally, I happen to like him -- but the guy has ably represented the people of Memphis for many years.  This type of endorsement is stupid and counterproductive, even if there is no way TN-09 ever flips to the GOP.  

---

by: Andy Dufresne @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 16:39:57 PM CDT

So...

The mission statement of EMILY's List is to elect pro-choice Democratic women. Why shouldn't they take sides in a contested primary where the winner is virtually guaranteed to win the general? It's not as if they're jeopardizing the chances of a Democrat keeping this seat.

Is it the best allocation of resources? Probably not. Is it within their rights to do so, and consistent with their overall mission? I would say yes.  

---

by: DaveSund @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 17:16:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's an interesting question

because this is about replacing a pro-choice Democratic man with a pro-choice Democratic woman. Of course, that's what they did when they weighed in on behalf of Donna Edwards against Al Wynn, and I assume most of us here applauded that.

But if they were really consistent with their mission... (and assuming they only were able to get involved in one more primary)... wouldn't they get more bang for their buck (by picking up both the 'pro-choice' and 'woman' parts) by getting involved in the primary in GA-12 instead, where they could support a pro-choice African-American woman in a Dem-leaning southern seat against a conservative and sometimes anti-choice white guy?

---

by: Crisitunity @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 17:49:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No one is questioning

EMILY's List's "rights". We're questioning their use of resources and, indeed, their overall mission. While electing more women to office is a laudable goal, electing less-progressive women over more-progressive men is not.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 17:50:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

okay

This is now offically my LEAST favorite district in the entire United States. Racism, sexism, anti-Jewishness, what other cheap, unfair, and just ultimately un-Democratic Party slur is going to be thrown around in this district. This race feels like Cohen is running against a sleezy Republican, but he's not, these are members of his party. He's not the right gender, he's not the right race, he's not the right religion. Good lord.  

---

by: Venslor @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 17:38:10 PM CDT

yes BUT

he will still win by a landslide;if anything, i think after he wins his re-election here that we should applaud this district,NOT denigrate it

---

by: jackdawkins @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 19:37:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed

All of those things may be true, but the fact remains that the sexism, racism, anti-semitism, etc. are due to a few bad apples.  Looking at the big picture this African-American majority district is going to send a white Jew back to congress for a 2nd term because most voters, regardless of race, knows that he represents their interests.  

---

by: ChadInFL @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 19:55:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Last cycle (2006)

Last cycle eight Democratic women were elected to the House and one, Cynthia McKinney, lost her seat to a Democratic male.  Of the eight, four defeated Republicans and four were elected to fill Democratic openings.  It is notable that one of the eight, Carol Shea-Porter ran on a shoe string and took none of the big money.  A second, Nancy Boyda, was elected pretty much due to the late influx of IIRC over $700,000 in DCCC expenditures.  As for the other six:

Maizie Hirono, Kathy Castor and Yvette Clark were shoe-ins in the general election.  Betty Sutton was a heavy favorite.  Gabrielle Giffords put it away early and only Kirsten Gillibrand went down to the wire.

I don't know whether their money made a difference in the primaries but it seemed they may have been more invested in some of the high profile losers like Diane Farrell, Francine Busby, and Lois Murphy.

$250 K would have put Linda Stender over the top and the same can be said for MaryJo Kilroy.  For goodness sake, Ellen Simon made a heck of a showing in AZ-1 and she was pretty much entirely self financed.  Vic Wulsin, anybody.

As for Republican women, they are certainly not gaining seats.  They had 18 women in the House after the 1994 election and after this election they will probably be below that number (17 after retirements and half of those are in some kind of danger).  Nothing over 14 years while the number of Democratic women in the same time has doubled.  Is Emily's List deserving of the credit?  Mostly not, I think.

Btw, the US House has lots of information on women in Congress since 1917.  Look it up under "Members" via a google of "US House clerk".

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 17:51:47 PM CDT

Perhaps not.

I would like to disagree with your statement that the GOP in the House isnt going to gain any women.

The GOP has good chances to nominate women that can win in the general election in AL-2, FL-16, KS-2, KY-3, LA-6, MO-6, NJ-7, and PA-4. GOP Congresswomen who are at risk include seats in CO-4, NM-1 (a for sure loss since the GOP nominee will be a man), Oh-2, OH-15 (a sure loss since the GOP nominee is a man), WY.

The math is there for possible GOP women gains. Even better if the publisher of this website is correct and that woman in AL-5 has a chance.  

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.

---

by: Kyle98632 @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 21:20:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some disagreements.

You cite some good examples, but others seem quite a bit off.

In KS-02, state treasurer Lynn Jenkins is FAR behind former Congressman Jim Ryun in the polls.  And as James L. asked before, will the Kansas GOP nominate the more moderate Jenkins over the more conservative Ryun?  Right now she's gotta be considered a serious longshot to win the primary, especially when running against the guy who represented the district just two years earlier.

In LA-06, Laurinda Calongne only got 38% in the GOP primary against Woody Jenkins.  Since they're both running again, what sign is there that the Republicans in LA-06 are ready to cast aside Jenkins?  5th loss's the charm?

I agree that a woman stands a decent chance of winning MO-06, except that woman is DEMOCRAT Kay Barnes, running against GOP incumbent Sam Graves.  Unless you know of a serious female primary challenger to Graves, a Republican woman is not winning that seat come November.

I won't disagree that a GOP woman can win this November, in a specific race.  But to say there will be MORE GOP women come January in the House than there are right now?  For all the others you list, in AL-02, FL-16, KY-03, NJ-07, and PA-04, you also have to recognize that they are going to be running as Republicans in an environment where the American people as a whole are not exactly fond of your party.  It's also unclear if those GOP women in even those races will win the primary in the first place.  You'd basically need the perfect storm where basically all of them win their respective primaries, and then win the general in the face of the national mood, in order to make actual gains.  Add to that, the failure to win a single Democratic-held seat in 2006, and with the NRCC facing a MASSIVE cash disadvantage to the DCCC, I just don't see how you can make a good case for there being more GOP women in the House come 2009.

More women, yes.  But they'll be Democratic women.

---

by: BruinKid @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 23:11:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My bad

I mean MO-9, not MO-6. Sorry.

I think because Jenkins is such a loser Calongne has a second chance at life in this district. I also think that for the short time period she had in the special election, she didnt do too bad in the run off. The LA primary isnt for a long while away and the National GOP is finally dumping their policy of not getting involved in primaries, so they could start backing her as well.

I think in Al-2 if we nominate Smith she will be the favorite in November. In KY-3 and FL-16 yes, I think we have a 50/50 shot at winning those seats. NJ-7 and Pa-4 will be a little harder but not unwinable for the GOP. Whitman and Harnell still havent won their primaries, but I think at least Whitman will.

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.

---

by: Kyle98632 @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:44:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does Emily's List even matter in the south?

This district is solidly democratic, but it's still the south where even African-Americans are somewhat socially conservative, so I doubt a pro-choice group's endorsement would matter.  Harold Ford was staunchly anti-choice and held the district for as long as he wanted.  Cohen will win, and quite easily at that.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 19:10:13 PM CDT

Ineffective

Emily's list spent a stunning $11,128,005 in the 2006 cycle of which $254,971 went for winning House members.  Six of the eight Democratic women got basically little or no help from Emily's list but still won.  They spent $155,746 on Betty Sutton's primary campaign and $67,275 on Yvette Clarke's campaign.  Clarke won her primary in a scattered field by 1,783 votes.  Sutton won by 4,353 in a multi-candidate field over Capri Cafaro,Tom Sawyer and Gary Kucinich.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 19:28:03 PM CDT

EMILY's list.

   This just provides me with more evidence that it is not a progressive organization.  Sure, our interests may overlap sometimes, but we should no longer pretend that EMILY's list is a progressive organization.  They gave Hillary Clinton money last month.  Hah!  "Early Money Is Like Yeast" my a$$.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 21:28:02 PM CDT

you can't be

surprised that emily's list supports hillary

---

by: jackdawkins @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 23:09:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No.

   But their NAME is "Early Money Is Like Yeast."  They are going against their own organization's principles by giving Hillary money a month ago.  They're supposed to support female candidates who need an extra money boost to become competitive.  Hillary is not one of those candidates.  EMILY's List is like a ship without a rudder.  I don't think they know what they're doing.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 23:37:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

they support females

that's no surprise. The problem is with giving all this money to Hillary is precisely that Hillary has plenty of high level donors, while women in IL-11, WA-08, NV-03, AZ-01, MO-06, OH-15, OH-02, NJ-07, FL-24, CO-04 and the list goes on. Forget these stupid high-money, pointless races where your money isn't going to impact it. Donate to the campaigns that NEED it.

---

by: KainIIIC @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 23:47:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly.

   That's what I was trying to say.  

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 23:52:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tinker got $172 k in 06 from Emily's

In 2006, Nikki Tinker was the fourth biggest recipient of aid from Emily's List with a whopping $172,001.  The top three were Claire McCaskill ($327,525), Darcy Burner ($298,154) and Patty Wetterling ($240,911).

Several of their biggest involvements were in campaigns that did not result in a nomination: Nikki Tinker and Peggy Lamm ($165,903).

Otoh, they gave $5,000 to Linda Stender who lost by 3,000 votes.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:09:35 AM CDT

Cohen seems like he has to take a lot of crap

I know he tried to join the Congressional Black Caucus and they wouldn't let him in.  Now, I know it may seem a bit silly for a white guy to join, but given his district it makes perfect sense.  He wasn't doing it to embarass anyone.  But a lot of the time it seems like black groups are embarassed by him and the fact that he represents a majority African-American district.  I find this position to be totally crazy, since to me him representing TN-09 says great things about both him and TN-09.  

John McCain: Healthcare for kids?  Not for a Bush-McCain America.

---

by: bosdcla14 @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:57:10 AM CDT

EMILY'S List needs new leadership

if they want to restore their standing. Personally, here's what I always thought EMILY'S List stood for and should stand for but maybe I was mistaken:

- support 100% pro-choice women in Democratic primaries for open seats
- support 100% pro-choice women in a Democratic primary against an anti-choice incumbent (no matter if incumbent is male or female)
- search for and support 100% pro-choice women to run against Republican incumbents

That's pretty much it. Obviously, Nikki Tinker doesn't fit this criteria so I really wonder what the heck has gotten into them at EMILY'S List.

---

by: Sven @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:47:44 AM CDT

Cohen's Vile Misogyny

I write as a man and a progressive and a feminist.

Cohen's remark about HRC does not fit into the category of "gaffe," in that it shows a FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH WOMEN IN POWER.  It's that simple.  How can EMILY's LIST support a man who harbors such vile notions?  And, how can the PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY tolerate such an idea?

There is no way possible to put Cohen's remark into any context, other than women in power are emasculating, murderous and psychopathic.  No one who even harbors such beliefs can be truly called a progressive.

In this election, it seems frighteningly clear that many in the "progressive" community do not consider sexism to be a problem.  I disagree vehemently and morally.  Failure to stand up against blatant and vile sexism should not be acceptable in anyone calling themselves "progressive."

---

by: borlov @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 19:14:38 PM CDT

For crying out loud...

It WAS a gaffe, unless you have other examples of some sort of pattern of sexism, which I seriously doubt.  Cohen is a solid progressive on every issue I can think of.  His comment on Hillary was in poor taste, but out of character.  I'm progressive on pretty much every issue and even I will slip up and say something stupid about a group of people from time to time.  No need to call out the PC police.  

I'll take a guy like Cohen, whose voting record is solidly pro-women over politicians like the last reporesentative from this district, Harold Ford, who was very much the opposite on women's issues.(anti-choice, etc).

---

by: ChadInFL @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 21:34:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cohen's "Gaffe"

Dear ChadInFL,
1.  Agreed on Harold Ford.
2.  I don't buy your argument about writing it off as a "gaffe."  My point here is two-fold:
    1.  You don't say things you aren't thinking.  You may call me the "PC Police," but that doesn't obviate the issue.  As a matter of fact, I think it reinforces point 2:
    2.  The progressive community has been very poor--especially this year and in regard to Hillary Clinton--at calling out sexism in our midst.  It should be just as unacceptable as racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc.  And, frankly, in the blogosphere and the MSM, the trivialization about the rank sexism is frightening to me.  This is about much more than Cohen's comment.  It's about the failure of our community to demand higher standards (regardless of whether one supports Sen. Clinton or not).  
Thank you.

---

by: borlov @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 00:28:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What do you want?

Many of the progressive sphere were angry with Cohen, and I'm pretty sure he apologized for what he said.  What do you want the guy to do, resign or something over one comment?

From what I've read of Tinker she'dd be a far less progressive representative, so I'll support Cohen despite his one error in judgement.  

As far as congressmen go I'll take the man or woman who  occasionally makes a stupid statement but consistently votes the progressive line over a person who talks progressive but sells us out in Washington.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:38:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cohen's Gaffe

Dear ChadinFL,
Re-reading my post, it occurs to me that when I wrote "you don't say things you aren't thinking," it may come off as a personal attack.  I meant "one" or "people" in a general sense.
Sorry about the lack of clarity.
Good night.

---

by: borlov @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 00:30:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

cohen made a mistake yes

BUT;his record is clearly a PROGRESSIVE record(no way he would win in that particular district otherwise);i'll take cohen over tinker any day(i also think harold ford has been given a bum rap; i think his race for the u.s.senate was courageous AND ground breaking; in the future, folks like artur davis(AL) and michael thurmond(GA),etc.(other southern black democrats running statewide) will be thanking harold ford for going first)

---

by: jackdawkins @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Absolutely right about Ford

His run was historic and courageous.  That being said I cannot support him as far s his record of representing TN-09 went.  That is a solidly progressive district and Ford VERY often sold out his district by voting with republicans in order to make his record seem moderate to conservative in order to further his statewide ambitions.  He's a good fit for the Senate out of TN, but was a HORRIBLE fit for TN-09.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:42:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i'm glad cohen has that seat

for many reasons

---

by: jackdawkins @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 17:51:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are wrong

Cohen made one ham handed cultural reference.  That is the context.  To say it means he finds all women in power emasculating, muderous and psychopathic is simply unfair.  You cannot know what he thinks based on one comment especially this comment.

To use your logic Hillary is a flat out racist that would like to see Obama assasinated.  Remember Bill talking about Jackson winning South Carolina, Hillary mentioning that she and only she could appeal to white working class voters and her really really unfortunate reference to the assasination of RFK.

Of course against these STUPID STUPID comments by both Bill and Hillary we have both of their records on race relations and other issues of importance to the black community so I am pretty confident that neither Bill or Hillary is in any way racist.  I think it is also fair to take Hillary at her word about the RFK comment.

Given Cohen's solid record on all progressive issues including those important to feminists why are you not willing to take his apology on this at face value?

I think all of us would like to think we are better people that the dumbest thing we ever said or the worst thing we ever did.  I know I certainly hope that is true about me and I'll bet you would not want your life and character judged on the most foolish remark you've made or the dumbest joke you've told.

Why are you willing to judge Cohen on one remark?  Should we not judge based on his whole record?

---

by: Johnny C @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 23:08:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

EMILY's List has choices & is making poor ones

EMILY's List has only 3 criteria for making endorsements: the candidate must be a woman who is Democratic and pro-choice.  And they are willing to remove an endorsement. Every single elected Democratic woman Senator was first elected with the EMILY's List endorsement (no small fundraising matter), but the PAC's endorsement was removed from sitting Senators Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lambert Lincoln when they voted to support the ban on all third trimester abortions (the so-called Partial Birth Abortion ban).  Despite their own PR, EMILY's List is not a progressive organization because they refuse to weigh in on ANY other issue except the issue of abortion; hence the PAC is willing to endorse women ranging from Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) who opposed the Afghan war to Rep. Ellen Tauscher(CA) of Bluedog Democrat fame.

Supposedly, EMILY's List will only support competent and qualified women who can run viable campaigns, but those adjectival descriptions are very subjective standards.  And quite frankly, the unstated requirement they would never admit is that the decision and support of founder and executive director Ellen Malcolm is required.  In fact, it was the strong behest of Malcolm that resulted in the above very public and official endorsement recisions of Landrieu and Lincoln.  That is the 800 pound gorrila sitting in the living room of this primary contest that EMILY's List has waded into.  Ellen Malcolm and EMILY's List endorsed Hillary Clinton in January 2007 before, I think, Hillary even formally announced as a candidate.  EMILY's List has squandered large amounts of money conducting independent expenditure campaigns in primary state contests for Hillary (and have angered a substantial number of current and former members in the process, something the organization does not care about and something I know first-hand).

Their track record from 2006 was pathetic.  Their major, competitive successes in the primaries were Betty Sutton in Ohio (big emphasis on this race) and Mazie Hirono in Hawaii (which EMILY's List staff unofficially wrote off - as a staffer personally told me).  On the other hand, they were heavily invested in races like Peggy Lamm's primary in Colorado when political junkies like you and I were reading the polls and everything else and saying, I don't think so.

The only two competitive general races that they won were Gillibrand's and Gifford's races.  Other significant races where they were heavily involved were Diane Farrell's, Lois Murphy's, Mary Jo Kilroy's, and Patricia Madrid's among others.  They were there early for all of those races.  However, they arrived late to the party for other races which could have used their early assistance badly like Judy Feder in Virginia and Victoria Wulsin in Ohio.  (And where are they now for these women?)  Notice that, of the 4 competitive general election races won by Democratic women, they only were involved in 2 (Gillibrand and Gifford) while Boyda of Kansas chose to not resort to their assistance (like she did in 2004) and Shea-Porter (to their embarrassment!) came in under the radar (and they were soooo embarrassed that a pro-choice Democratic woman who they ignored won).

EMILY's List has its own brand of Kool-Ade, and they're proud of it.  This year the ingredients of that Kool-Ade includes their Hillary obsession and, as always, Malcolm's personal interests and therefore organizational dictates.  So, I am strongly suspect that Malcolm has taken offense at what Cohen said about Clinton, and that is the motivation to support a woman, Nikki Tinker, who has resorted to racial appeals (Cohen's not black!) to compete a second time.  I'm not even a Cohen fan, but I hope Tinker goes down in flames and EMILY's List chokes on its Kool-Ade.  It's time for some changes to made to its recipe.

---

by: phonatic @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 21:10:58 PM CDT

Im gonna be frank

If I were to magically get to live in a district that is 60% gay like TN-09 is for blacks, I would feel pretty damn screwed over if my Congressman or woman weren't gay as well.  I really would.  As a group that is still so oppressed, especially in the South where racism is still prevalent, I would just be pissed that the straight man kept us down one more time when the demographics heavily favor us, and the law intends it.

The anti-Semitism is really unjustified, as is the sexism.  I think the race really should have just been about the issues and let it be unsaid of the blacks needing to support the black candidiate, it's what the district is intended to do.

---

by: Andrew @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 19:00:54 PM CDT

Then try on this one...

Assuming there was a 60% gay district.  Which representative would you rather have represent you?

A. A gay representative who consistently votes to oppose gay rights.

B. A straight representative who is 100% supportive of gay rights.

Sorry, but just because someone is of the same race like you or has the same sexual orientation as you do does not mean they have very much at all in common with you.  And no, majority black districts are NOT created to elect black candidates.  They are created to give black voters a voice.  Sometimes that voice is in the form of a white candidate who is in-touch with the views of that district.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 19:26:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But

your question just isnt plausible.  Sure it's possible we elected a more conservative gay person, but I doubt that would happen.  Memphis is a bit more conservative and Ford and Tinker would be good ideological fits.  The gay community is easily the most liberal community in the country so I know we'd be capable of electing someone as such.  So I would be miffed if I didnt have that.

---

by: Andrew @ Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 13:48:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]