AMERICAblog: "I will never support Emily's List again."
cmpnwtr
· 1 year ago
I supported Emily's list for many years. I stopped supporting this year because of their blind genderism. Support the one with the right genitalia, forget their values and policies. Malcom's piece pretty well confirms my decision a few months back. Forget Hillary's neocon militarism, forget her racist appeal, forget her pandering to the right wing, forget her incompetence. Vote for Hillary because she's got the right sex organs.
Indigo
· 1 year ago
scottinsf said it all. I used to carry Emily's List into the polling booth but someplace along the line I lost that energy. Local recommendations didn't' jibe with what I knew of the candidates and I just stopped looking on Emily's List. I'd like to think it's an important part of the liberal landscape but maybe not any more.
Andrew A. Gill
· 1 year ago
I think I've come up with a good analogy.
It's the second half of a basketball game, and there's one minute left on the clock. Obama has 100 points, while Hillary has 91 (those numbers are to scale), and Obama has the ball.
Close game.
But it's over. Hillary would need three three-pointers to tie, and at least four baskets to win. The only thing that Hillary has going for her now is that she can hope that Barack accidentally calls a time out with none remaining, giving her a technical foul and bringing it down to a 7-point lead, and only requiring two three-pointers and a basket.
jimfromthefoothills
· 1 year ago
Netroots is the future of progressive politics. Emily's list is an anachronism. We should determine who we vote for based on their character and positions, not their sexual identity or preferences.
lilyannerose
· 1 year ago
The way some of these women are behaving it could make me feel ashamed of my own age, sex and race. Then again, they have no power over me.
Do I want to see a woman behind the desk of the Oval Office, sans the kneepads, hell yes. However, I want a woman I believe in, who possesses among other desirable traits honesty and integrity, and Hill that just isn't you.
JMOHR
· 1 year ago
It is too bad that there can only be one candidate for the presidency on the Democratic side. I started out as a Hillary supporter. I took a serious look at Obama after Iowa but still leaned toward Hillary. However, Obama proved to be the better candidate despite the vast superiority in campaign experience, debating skills and financial support that Hillary started with. I shifted to the Obama camp by the time that I had to vote in Ohio's primary.
I do not begrudge Hillary her shot at the top spot any more than I would have called for Obama to drop out when he was in bad shape. However, the race has come to the point that Obama will have a majority of the popular vote and pledged delegate count. Normally, even then I would say that Clinton should continue the fight. However, her increasing use of smear tactics more suitable to Republicans than Democrats, her increasing unpopularity and lack of creditability makes it clear that she is no longer the best candidate to face McCain. It is the damage that she does to the Democratic party and the candidate who will receive the nomination barring some totally unlikely series of events that compels her to leave the field now.
There is a difference between waging a fair and honest campaign and adopting a scorched earth policy against your opponent when the outcome is clear. Clinton chose the second path. This has nothing to do with women versus men. For God's sake, African Americans and women have both gained great victories out of this year. Clinton can look forward to a distinguished career in the Senate and a 2012 candidacy should Barack lose this election. But Clinton has damaged her own right to complain about those urging her to drop out now. It is her failure to place the good of the party and the nation ahead of her own ego that has cost her the moral high ground in this race.
Andrew A. Gill
· 1 year ago
Clinton can look forward to a distinguished career in the Senate and a 2012 candidacy should Barack lose this election.
Not really. She'll have all the bitterness of the people she alienated, plus a reputation as a loser. The press will smell blood in the water, and at that time, they really will be out to get her.
Nigel Elliott
· 1 year ago
Here's a fantastic quote from a dKos diary:
Sure - there are voters out there who are so racist they won't vote for a black candidate. You know what they deserve? 100 more years of war with John McCain. 4 more years of Bush-like policies. If they can't look past their own racist bullshit to vote for the better candidate - hand them an army sign-up form - because we're going to need THEIR boots on the ground in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and wherever else John McCain decides to send troops. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/11/14177/3...
DoctorJ
· 1 year ago
This primary has given us a sad reminder of how divisive and stupid identity politics is. I've never supported Emily's List, and I certainly never will now.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
as i do every mother's day, i have been thinking of my mother today, 8 years after her death from a drunk driver. she was raised fundamentalist but as an empty nester with a gay son, she traveled to washington to join the 1993 GLBT march and was active in PFLG.
she stopped supporting the human rights campaign when they endorsed alfonse d'amato in 98. d'amato was a regressive on every social issue except gay rights. i think HRC needed a token republican to appear non-partisan, but the endorsement branded them as having a too-narrow agenda that didn't even seem to have any legislative payoffs. i am quite sure that she would have abandoned EL by now as well.
Enjoy and honor your mothers today -- if you still can.
bowseat93
· 1 year ago
I think this anger with EMILY's List is misplaced. Until Obama has the delegates needed for the nomination, he doesn't have the nomination.
So I don't fault the Clinton supporters (I'm not one actually) for wanting her to stay until he has the delegates. I fault the cowardly superdelegates who are remaining on the fence, most likely because they too fear that somehow Clinton will get the nomination and their political futures will be toast.
Or maybe they are afraid that even if she doesn't get the nomination, they'll still be at risk. So they are waiting for the other uncommitted delegates to make their vote a moot point. One they can toss at Obama with a "just going for party unity...wasn't me who denied the Clintons."
I realize we still have some states left to vote, but let's get real. The superdelegates could actually end this. If they won't, then we shouldn't be blaming Clinton for fighting on.
193army
· 1 year ago
Ok , look we are in uncharted land here...I can forgive her on this one and even putting on web site that Hillary Clinton President of United States...I'm sure if any one going to fight for womens right will be Michelle Obama...
KatherineHepburnEyes
· 1 year ago
I don't like the idea of trashing a progressive group because of one or two statements made by one person there. It's stupid. How are we supposed to be a tight party if we are nitpicking all the time?
Hillary has lost and if Ellen Malcolm believes otherwise, so?
jr
· 1 year ago
EMILY's List will now be known as McCain's List
ericgoldman
· 1 year ago
Emily's List is a fantastic organization. My guess is that it has a donor base that is somewhat analogous to Hilary Clinton's base, and that it would be self-defeating for Emily's List to throw Hilary under the bus.
Then again, maybe I'm just being cynical and there truly are people out there who believe the race is too close to call.
One thing I'm certain of, we need to come together as a party in order to win, and unless we want to see McCain pick up Hilary's voting bloc we're going to have to start putting a priority on unity.
maryfromabluest8
· 1 year ago
I have had that reaction about Emily's List for a while now. They have definitely jumped the shark with the Hillary candidacy. Very disappointing, however there is less need for this organization now.
mirth
· 1 year ago
OT:
Look at this pic of Bush and his just-married daughter. http://www.nypost.com/gossip/celebp/05102008_je... Notice that only his fingertips touch her back. Cold bastard. * I agree with Andrew A. Gill. There is no "distinguished career" left for Hillary. To unseat her from Congress will be a goal of many, including myself.
Andrew A. Gill
· 1 year ago
Notice that only his fingertips touch her back. Cold bastard.
To be fair, that's probably at the direction of the photographer.
To be cruel: Ha ha!
scottinsf
· 1 year ago
Andrew A. Gill Today 01:58 PM-------- NARAL has made some poor endorsements in recent years. They should not be endorsing anybody that is not UNEQUIVOCALLY for a woman's personal reproductive rights. They have become bloated at the top and did not fight or push many elected leaders hard enough during the Alito and Roberts confirmations. A real let down.
scottinsf
· 1 year ago
Hilzoy summed it up perfectly. I'm going to repost one of my posts from yesterday because I think it's pertinent:
Here's my personal opinion of EMILY's List: They have become a bloated, special interest fundraising machine that rewards the mucky mucks higher up in the organization while accomplishing very little considering the money they take in. The whole while they have lost sight of their original (and very commendable) purpose and mission. The same can be said for the Human Rights Campaign. They started downhill after getting Joe Solomnese from EMILY's List. NARAL is really starting to suck big time too. I used to give a lot of money to all three. I haven't for a while now.
Some might think that sounds "right-wing", but trust me, I'm a progressive liberal to the hilt.
Andrew A. Gill
· 1 year ago
scottinsf,
How has NARAL been sucking?
mirth
· 1 year ago
scottinsf,
Nothing rightwing about it - your comment is righton. I'm glad you reposted it.
scottinsf
· 1 year ago
Thanks mirth. It's good to have my opinion on this validated, as unpopular as it may be to some people. And I'm certainly not suggesting people not give to progressive groups and/or candidates. That's one of the joys of the internet. I can give directly to candidates like Tom Allen in Maine (on behalf of Ablog's ActBlue page even), instead of giving money to the Human Rights Campaign while they endorse Susan Collins. Fuck that.
All Comments
It's the second half of a basketball game, and there's one minute left on the clock. Obama has 100 points, while Hillary has 91 (those numbers are to scale), and Obama has the ball.
Close game.
But it's over. Hillary would need three three-pointers to tie, and at least four baskets to win. The only thing that Hillary has going for her now is that she can hope that Barack accidentally calls a time out with none remaining, giving her a technical foul and bringing it down to a 7-point lead, and only requiring two three-pointers and a basket.
Do I want to see a woman behind the desk of the Oval Office, sans the kneepads, hell yes. However, I want a woman I believe in, who possesses among other desirable traits honesty and integrity, and Hill that just isn't you.
I do not begrudge Hillary her shot at the top spot any more than I would have called for Obama to drop out when he was in bad shape. However, the race has come to the point that Obama will have a majority of the popular vote and pledged delegate count. Normally, even then I would say that Clinton should continue the fight. However, her increasing use of smear tactics more suitable to Republicans than Democrats, her increasing unpopularity and lack of creditability makes it clear that she is no longer the best candidate to face McCain. It is the damage that she does to the Democratic party and the candidate who will receive the nomination barring some totally unlikely series of events that compels her to leave the field now.
There is a difference between waging a fair and honest campaign and adopting a scorched earth policy against your opponent when the outcome is clear. Clinton chose the second path. This has nothing to do with women versus men. For God's sake, African Americans and women have both gained great victories out of this year. Clinton can look forward to a distinguished career in the Senate and a 2012 candidacy should Barack lose this election. But Clinton has damaged her own right to complain about those urging her to drop out now. It is her failure to place the good of the party and the nation ahead of her own ego that has cost her the moral high ground in this race.
Not really. She'll have all the bitterness of the people she alienated, plus a reputation as a loser. The press will smell blood in the water, and at that time, they really will be out to get her.
Sure - there are voters out there who are so racist they won't vote for a black candidate. You know what they deserve? 100 more years of war with John McCain. 4 more years of Bush-like policies. If they can't look past their own racist bullshit to vote for the better candidate - hand them an army sign-up form - because we're going to need THEIR boots on the ground in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and wherever else John McCain decides to send troops.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/11/14177/3...
she stopped supporting the human rights campaign when they endorsed alfonse d'amato in 98. d'amato was a regressive on every social issue except gay rights. i think HRC needed a token republican to appear non-partisan, but the endorsement branded them as having a too-narrow agenda that didn't even seem to have any legislative payoffs. i am quite sure that she would have abandoned EL by now as well.
Enjoy and honor your mothers today -- if you still can.
So I don't fault the Clinton supporters (I'm not one actually) for wanting her to stay until he has the delegates. I fault the cowardly superdelegates who are remaining on the fence, most likely because they too fear that somehow Clinton will get the nomination and their political futures will be toast.
Or maybe they are afraid that even if she doesn't get the nomination, they'll still be at risk. So they are waiting for the other uncommitted delegates to make their vote a moot point. One they can toss at Obama with a "just going for party unity...wasn't me who denied the Clintons."
I realize we still have some states left to vote, but let's get real. The superdelegates could actually end this. If they won't, then we shouldn't be blaming Clinton for fighting on.
Hillary has lost and if Ellen Malcolm believes otherwise, so?
Then again, maybe I'm just being cynical and there truly are people out there who believe the race is too close to call.
One thing I'm certain of, we need to come together as a party in order to win, and unless we want to see McCain pick up Hilary's voting bloc we're going to have to start putting a priority on unity.
Look at this pic of Bush and his just-married daughter.
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/celebp/05102008_je...
Notice that only his fingertips touch her back. Cold bastard.
*
I agree with Andrew A. Gill. There is no "distinguished career" left for Hillary. To unseat her from Congress will be a goal of many, including myself.
To be fair, that's probably at the direction of the photographer.
To be cruel: Ha ha!
Here's my personal opinion of EMILY's List: They have become a bloated, special interest fundraising machine that rewards the mucky mucks higher up in the organization while accomplishing very little considering the money they take in. The whole while they have lost sight of their original (and very commendable) purpose and mission. The same can be said for the Human Rights Campaign. They started downhill after getting Joe Solomnese from EMILY's List. NARAL is really starting to suck big time too. I used to give a lot of money to all three. I haven't for a while now.
Some might think that sounds "right-wing", but trust me, I'm a progressive liberal to the hilt.
How has NARAL been sucking?
Nothing rightwing about it - your comment is righton.
I'm glad you reposted it.