EMILY's List - Where History is Made

by: Maren Hesla

Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 14:50


This post is a response to yesterday's article, Why Did Democratic Women Do So Poorly In 2006 House Elections?. I also would like to personally thank EMILY's List for coming to Open Left and moving this conversation forward. I hope that other groups and organizations will take up our standing Right to Respond offer as Open Left develops--Chris

In many ways 2006 was an extraordinary year for pro-choice Democratic women and for EMILY's List.  We helped elect two new women to the United States Senate, all of our incumbent Senators and Representatives were re-elected, and all three of our Democratic women governors won re-election.  Additionally, eight new Democratic women were elected to the House.

We take very seriously our responsibility to level the playing field for women candidates, and seek to continually do better. After every election for the past 22 years, EMILY's List closely examines the election results to better inform and educate Democratic women candidates as they run for office in the future; this election was no exception. In fact, we use outside analysts to do this, so that the examination can be as fair and balanced as possible.  As we continue our research we will make sure our candidates are fully briefed because our ultimate goal is to win.

So far our analysis of the 2006 election has shown no single unifying explanation for why women candidates lost in these extremely close House races.  Indeed, in many districts there were factors specific to that race that made a difference.

Keep in mind that if only 11,411 votes had gone the other way seven more pro-choice Democratic women would have won.  These races were that close.

If there is a factor worth noting it's that these close races engaged early, and Republicans therefore were prepared to go on the attack early and did.  Some of the races involved rematches from '04, many others were targets very early on.

Over the past two decades, no one has done more than EMILY's List to create a greater voice for Democratic Women at all levels of government. We have proudly helped elect 67 U.S. House members, 13 Senators, and eight Governors as well as hundreds of women at the state and local level over the years and look forward to helping elect many, many more in 2008 and into the future.

Check out more about EMILY's List at  www.emilyslist.org

Regards,

Maren Hesla
Director, EMILY's List WOMEN Vote!

Maren Hesla :: EMILY's List - Where History is Made

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Weird. (4.00 / 1)
So the best way to beat a Republican is to not let him know he's threatened for as long as possible?  You can't really do that in expensive districts like PA-6, IL-6 or CT-4.

Are rematches the problem?


A little different take (4.00 / 1)
I think it suggests that Emily's List should put more early money into less obvious races, not the ones everybody has on the radar.  There are a couple in MI, IL, NY and OH to look at this time, plus So Calif where the corrupt GOPers are going to probably not run again. 

Last time I kept flogging Jonathan Krasno's piece about the Redistricting Myth and Ruy Teixeira's on Spreading the Field that suggested putting less money into more races, rather than another $1 mil into races like NM-01 or PA-06 that were saturated.  Make more marginal races competitive, and then if/when voter dissatisfaction materializes, those marginally GOP seats will fall our way.  This happened in places like NY and parts of PA.

The Emily's list letter is mostly PR (I say this as having on occasion contributed) but does not discuss the substantive questions of candidate selection, early targeting and better campaigning/messaging that were brought up in the comments to Chris' piece.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Emily List criteria (0.00 / 0)
I have been a member of their Majority Council which means I've been to lots of their briefings. 

They have at least one criteria that the candidate has to raise a sufficient, minimum amount of money to even be considered to be on their list.  This means that strugging 3rd and 4th tier races like Shea Porter and Boyda would not meet that criteria.  We here on the internet have the opposite view, we looked for progressive, dynaimc Dems real early.  It does make for a more mainstream kind of campaign.  People like Farrell in Ct and Murphy in Pa. were not assertive about issues like Iraq, though I don't know whether to ascribe it to Emily or to the DCCC.

They also do provide campaign operatives and sometimes they insist on using their person or it's no go.  I can't evaluate the impact because I don't know all their campaign operatives or the impact that they had on particular races. 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
I was around and active in the days when Emily's List got launched, and comments made in this post show just how far they've drifted from their original methods and purposes.  I made a comment elsewhere in this thread about them losing track of the "Early" part of Emily, from what you say here they've also abandoned the "Yeast".  Emily's List was not supposed to be about people that could already raise gobs of money themselves, it was supposed to be a source of early funding for people exactly like Shea Porter so that they could show potential individual contributors fundraising numbers that would seem competitive enough to leverage additional contributions. 

No wonder the partisan political scene has seemed so constricted and stagnant to me in recent years, if even groups like Emily's List that once served to open up the game have adopted such ultra-cautious establishment modes of operation.

Iraq Moratorium Day


[ Parent ]
curious (4.00 / 2)
This comment is from sdedeo in Chris's earlier post.

So, the hypothesis that on average female Democratic candidates had the same chance of winning as male Democratic candidates, the chances of the final make-up that (or even more) tilted are 1 in 75,000 by my calculation -- ((21/30)*(20/29)*...*(2/11)*(9/10))*21, etc.. It's still a statistical certainty that there's some pattern here.

The actual ratio is staggering; men in races as you note nearly 9 times easier to win. The sample is small, though, so statistics are hard to do; as far as I can tell, at 95% confidence, male Democratic candidates were in races that they were more than 3.3x liklier to win than the women, still an impressive tilt, and still something that needs to be explained.

Are you sure there was no pattern?  Can you go more specifically into how you determined this?


Let me second (4.00 / 3)
that call for more details on your analysis.

While I think it is great that Emily's list took the time to respond, I am dissappointed it was not more substantive.  This adds up to little more than nope, sorry, we looked at your theory already and it is wrong, but we are doing great work and you should support us.  You may find that this type of response creates more problems than no response at all.  At the very least, it is prompting a lot more questions.


[ Parent ]
Unanswered Questions for EMILY's list: (4.00 / 4)
1.)  To what extent does EMILY's List exercise micro-control over campaigns in exchange for it's public support?  Will EMILY's list release its past candidates to participate in this discussion to answer this question from the point of view of their own experiences, without fear of repercussion?

2.)  Is it fair to say that the recommendations of the organization are to portray a candidate as a kind of unthreatening soccer mom type, emphasizing domestic issues while changing the political conversation away from strong stances on matters like the occupation of Iraq?

3.)  Does the organization have any explanation as to why, for example, Carol Shea Porter was able to win her race without the organization's support, and are there any lessons that can be learned or generalized from her successful campaign, in light of the very poor performance of EMILY'as List candidates during what was otherwise a cycle of historic realignment?

4.)  What are the criteria the organization uses to measure a potential candidate's worthiness for support, based on campaign activities, positions, advertising, etc., and does the organization engage in threats to candidates to drop them from the List if they deviate from the approved script?

Thank you.  I look forward to your responses.


How EMILY's List Treated Us (4.00 / 5)
Since, so far, Maren hasn't responded to these questions, I'll try to speak up for her. (Although I'm eager to hear her response).

I was the communications director for Victoria Wulsin's campaign in OH-02, and we finally got real EMILY's List support in October of 2006. As I wrote yesterday, Vic Wulsin was going to be outraised and outspent quite dramatically if it hadn't been for EMILY's List. They made about $250,000 in independent expenditures on our behalf and solicited perhaps another $100,000 in direct contributions. They did give us a campaign consultant for the final month of the campaign, but she was excellent -- she understood that we needed to tailor our message to our very conservative district and she helped us do that better. By no means did EMILY's list put bad outside control over us -- they certainly did not pressure us not to highlight Iraq. Of the three direct mail pieces that they sent out, one was a positive piece of Vic as a physician, and two were relatively hard-hitting pieces attacking Schmidt -- one of them, I'm almost sure, was about Iraq/National Security stuff.


[ Parent ]
That's great feedback. (0.00 / 0)
Thank you for it.

I also hope others will jump in as you have.

The whole OpenLeft concept is to bring this stuff out so we can get to the truth.

Thanks again!


[ Parent ]
But it proves my point (0.00 / 0)
October 2006 is way late in the game.  They should have been looking at this race months earlier.  Too much was spent on the obvious, high-profile races where the marginal value of another quarter mil was very low, and not enough spread around to more races earlier.  Expectations everywhere but here were too low last cycle.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
The irony there (0.00 / 0)
is that the original premise that made it "Emily's" List is that EMILY = EARLY Money Is Like Yeast.

Iraq Moratorium Day

[ Parent ]
Choose a different "most important issue" (0.00 / 0)
Abortion is a red-herring. It is an important issue, but is it in the top 5? In the top 10?

I can think of several issues which will have a direct effect on more people than the legality of abortion ... the Iraq war, the environment, the effects of globalization on the working class, immigration, public education, the deficit, reliance on foreign oil, etc.


That's not a reasonable suggestion (4.00 / 1)
The point of EMILY's List is to elect pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office. It's like asking the NAACP to stop working on African-American issues because there are other issues out there affecting more people.

Are you saying that Emily's List candidates should not use choice as their primary message? I don't think that's what all (or even most?) did, but I could be wrong.


[ Parent ]
I have a small problem with the gender specificity (0.00 / 0)
I get that EMILY's List is about pro-choice Democratic women.  And it's certainly an angle on its own. 

But I still have a small problem with only working on behalf of female candidates.  Convince me again that the angle is a good one.


[ Parent ]
Only working (0.00 / 0)
on female candidates addresses the problem that there is a severe dirth in the number of females elected to office.  There should be a group working to rectify that situation.

[ Parent ]
I guess the question is... (0.00 / 0)
...is EMILY's List about making sure pro-choice is the electoral majority or about getting more women into elected office?

Either is a valid answer - but would result in different approaches.

I'm not antagonistic to either.  I'm just curious. 


[ Parent ]
They (0.00 / 0)
want to get a progressive America by electing pro-choice women. 

It's not an either or.  Keep in mind that they work on the state and local level too.


[ Parent ]
speaking for myself. . . (4.00 / 1)
I advocate no compromise on choice.  That's part of our calculus in developing the Blue America List:  http://www.actblue.c...

That said, we don't shy away from a fight on the occupation or on foreign policy, and we promote candidates who fight on both those fronts.  As it turns out, our strategy proved surprisingly successful in 2006.

I respect EMILY's List immensely, though I tend to think it needs reform.  But in the meantime, they do what they do (which promotes choice, or at least, aims to), and we do what we do (promoting choice and other progressive issues) with Blue America. 

People can choose to give to either candidate list according to their beliefs about success or the values they want to promote.  In other words, people can choose Coke, Pepsi or both.

I should point out, we missed Carol Shea Porter last time, too.  We got some others right, and did pretty well, but our main focus is ideological, with likelihood of winning a given race in a given cycle secondary. 


[ Parent ]
Hm. (0.00 / 0)
"I can think of several issues which will have a direct effect on more people than the legality of abortion."

I'll go ahead and take a wild guess that you'll never need an abortion.

I'd also mention that as far as I know EMILYs List hasn't patented their organization structure, so you're welcome to start your "No Reliance On Foreign Oil List", and if it really has a much larger constituency it ought to be able to raise more funds, yes?

Also, everything the commenter above said.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
Re: Hm. (0.00 / 0)
"I'll go ahead and take a wild guess that you'll never need an abortion."

I'll go ahead and take a wild guess that you drive an alternative fuel vehicle, don't know anyone in the armed services, don't know anyone who has ever been laid off from a manufacturing job, have your kids in private school, and live in your own bio-dome.

You make an interesting statement about the large constituency (and fund raising ability) of EMILY's List. I think that's not surprising given the overwhelming majority support for abortion rights. But, does that mean voters think politicians should be spending their time on abortion rights? Right now, in the middle of a war, and everything else? I think that if abortion rights are a central campaign issue, then it will not resonate with voters.

Fine, don't compromise on supporting Pro-Choice candidates. But, leave it at that. Then, campaign on more important and more pressing issues.

By the way my original post is mostly in response to this statement in yesterday's article about why EMILY's List supported candidates fared so poorly:

"As the nation's largest PAC, EMILY's List offers a second layer of outside control-at least the level of control instituted by the DCCC-over the campaigns of Democratic women running for heavily targeted Republican seats. Women candidates are thus even less able to tailor their message to their district-and to themselves-then male Democratic candidates."

It was "at least the level of control instituted by the DCCC" that caught my eye. Other posts have stated that EMILY's List isn't the message-gestapo that is implied in this article. If that's the case, then maybe I'm wrong about why all those candidates lost.


[ Parent ]
On 2nd thought ... (0.00 / 0)
"Other posts have stated that EMILY's List isn't the message-gestapo that is implied in this article."

There have been two posts stating this, but both by just one person ... AdyBarkan, Victoria Wulsin's comm director in OH-02 ("How EMILY's Treated Us" the most recent). She states that EMILY's wasn't pushy and understood about tailoring the message (though without specifics about the content of EMILY's direct mailers). Other posts have suggested vastly different experiences (but only via hearsay). So which is it?

It should be noted that Wulsin was running against Jean Schmidt, who is 1) female, and 2) famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) for calling Rep. Murtha a wuss (or whatever it was). Perhaps this isn't a representative sample for analysis of the entire election?


[ Parent ]
The math, boss, it's the math (0.00 / 0)
Working from memory here-----

For 2006, there were several close races.  Three of the closest were Tester, Webb & McCaskill.  It is significant that the GOoPerz did not challenge the returns in these elections, demand recounts, go to court, challenge voter certifications--all normal, standard procedures for the rethuglicans.  Out of character, they walked away & let the winners win.

When an astute observor can spot such statistical improbabilies as the zero for nine results of the Emily's List preferences, it is/was time to look at the possible application of Karl Rove's special math.

RFKjr & his folks could perhaps be helpful, historically & retrospectively, in these elections.


and what about the GOP (0.00 / 0)
and how did their financing figure into all of this?  Did races with women get more attention and money from the RNCC?  That's a pretty big factor the DCCC and Emily's List doesn't have control over.

Women v Women (0.00 / 0)
I'm curious... when a Democratic candidate is running against a Republican woman does that effect how much support is given by Emily's list?

please say more (4.00 / 1)
I'm a big fan of Emily's List staff, their professionalism, their research and analytic work. I have worked with them for many years on races around the country. I think they absolutely kicked ass in their MO and MI work this year, and have a great deal of doubt that Granholm, Stabenow, and McCaskill would have made it without them. And their executive director Ellen Moran is one of the best people working in politics I have ever known.

So all that said, here's what I want to ask of my friends at Emily's List: give us more. You are great at analysis, so I know you have to have come up with some really thoughtful ideas as to what happened in House races. I want to really urge you to be honest with us. Do you have some theories on this? Do you feel like you made some mistakes on your approach to House races last year? Since I have been on so many boards over the years, I understand there is a tendency in organizations to not air this kind of stuff in public, but I think having some honest and open dialogue about what happened, what went right in the statewides but wrong in the House races, would help the entire progressive community work this through.

Mike


It is interesting that the early-start campaigns (4.00 / 4)
have a pretty poor win-loss record.

At the beginning of 2005, Jim Gerlach, Chris Shays, and Heather Wilson were at the top of every list of vulnerable incumbents, along with Rob Simmons, John Hostettler, and Clay Shaw.  We lost the first three, the fourth was our narrowest victory of the cycle, the fifth was indeed a blowout, and the sixth was pretty damn close (51-47).  Of those top six, we only had a clean win in one, maybe two of them.

Meanwhile, incumbents who were surprised include Jon Porter, Jim Leach, Robin Hayes, Jim Ryun, Jeb Bradley, Melissa Hart, Gil Gutknecht, Dick Pombo, Barbara Cubin, Jim Walsh, Randy Kuhl, John Sweeney, Henry Bonilla, JD Hayworth, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Anne Northup, Deborah Pryce, and Chris Chocola.

Also interesting, the open seats that were forecast as close fights back in 2005 we did win in blowouts.  CO-07, AZ-08, IA-01, and NY-24, which were considered marquee fair-fight open seats back in 05, we walked away with.  But the similar "marquee fair fights" from 05 that included incumbents, we didn't.  An incumbent Republican who knew he was vulnerable and knew he had a target on his back was our strongest enemy in that cycle.

Which I guess just goes to show that actually running a campaign does matter.


CW Watch (0.00 / 0)
As of April 15, 2005, here's who Charlie Cook was vulnerable among the Republicans:

* the Nussle seat was a toss-up (Dem WIN)

* then this list of "lean GOP":

AZ-01 Rick Renzi
CO-04 Marilyn Musgrave
CO-07 Bob Beauprez (WIN)
CT-02 Rob Simmons (WIN)
CT-04 Chris Shays
FL-22 Clay Shaw (WIN)
IN-02 Chris Chocola (WIN)
IN-08 John Hostettler (WIN)
IN-09 Mike Sodrel (WIN)
LA-07 Charles Boustany
MN-06 (OPEN) Kennedy
NV-03 Jon Porter
NM-01 Heather Wilson
NY-29 Randy Kuhl
PA-06 Jim Gerlach
PA-08 Mike Fitzpatrick (WIN)
WA-08 Dave Reichert

* then these:
FL-09 OPEN (Bilirakis)
FL-13 Katherine Harris
IL-06 Henry Hyde
KS-02 Jim Ryun (WIN)
KY-03 Anne Northup (WIN)
NE-01 Jeff Fortenberry
NH-02 Charlie Bass (WIN)
NM-02 Steve Pearce
NC-08 Robin Hayes (WIN)
NC-11 Charles Taylor (WIN)
PA-15 Charles Dent
VA-02 Thelma Drake


[ Parent ]
General Analysis Election 2006 (0.00 / 0)
.
Women of the House (and Senate)

"Now it is not so much sexism that stands in the way of electing women," said Ramona Oliver, communications director of EMILY's List, a political action committee that exclusively supports female Democratic candidates who favor abortion rights. "The two biggest obstacles are incumbency and finances."

New candidates, as a rule, have a hard time raising money and getting elected. Even in this year of political turnover, incumbents carried 94 percent of House races and 79 percent of Senate races. Incumbents on average raised more than four times as much as their challengers.

Once a female candidate receives her party's nomination, she is no less able to raise funds than her male counterparts, according to 2006 results.

Female contributors to the 2006 election (Opensecrets.org)

Women in the 2006 Elections (pdf)
Partners Celinda Lake and Alysia Snell
Politically, 2006 was the year of the woman. As women voters secured victory for Democrats at all levels of government and women leaders take on new roles, the impact of the midterm election is women's expanding influence. Women came back to the fold this year, as they tipped control to Democrats and determined the victor in the three closest Senate races. Looking to the future, women approve of the Democratic legislative agenda and are eager to see the results of their votes for change.

"Challenging the status quo"


Very interesting (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for the links.  Interesting that as contribution amounts rise, the proportion of women giving to Dems rises.  GOP women give to PACs, but Dem women give to candidates and the party.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Emily's List Rocked for Governor Granholm! (0.00 / 0)
Emily's List was both an awesome and important strategic force in the Michigan Governor's race.

Their staff team and members raised money for both the campaign directly and for an independent, sophisticated WOMEN's Vote! effort. 

WOMEN's Vote! was replete with sophisticated micro-targeting and voter contact tactics that gave Governor Granholm a distinct advantage over a billionaire opponent, who was heavily favored to win.

While many in the Democratic Party questioned our strategy, Emily's List did not micro-manage the campaign, but was a savvy and supportive partner.

Gov. Granholm's campaign was called one of the best managed in the nation by the Washington Post, and it won several "Poli Awards" from the Natl. Assoc. of Political Consultants. That wouldn't have happened without Emily's List, and we are grateful for all of their efforts since 2002.

Regards,
Jill Alper, Granholm Campaign Strategist


Emily's List filtered out strongly anti-war candidates (0.00 / 0)
I was watching the '06 primaries closely and I couldn't help but notice several situations in which there were two excellent democratic women candidates with strong support for women's issues.  In all cases Emily's List gave significant money in the primary to the candidate that was much more muted about ending the Iraq war.  I conclude that the group felt that a strong anti-war stance wasn't a winner.  I support Emily's List's agenda, but personally I don't think they should be picking winners in primaries when there are two candidates that are equal on women's issues.  Let the voters decide.

Tom Zeller
Bloomington, IN


From first-hand experience... (0.00 / 0)
I'm a political consultant who's worked directly with EMILY's List, and also with campaigns that EMILY's List was supporting.  There seems to be a little confusion here about what they do, so I thought I'd share my experience.  EL supports pro-choice Democratic women.  They support them with technical assistance, by raising money for them, and sometimes by independently mobilizing women voters on behalf of the candidates.  What they don't do -- ever -- is dictate positions or messages.  They only support pro-choice women, but they don't expect their candidates to run on a choice platform, nor do their own mailings necessarily emphasize choice.  Instead, they do everything they can to level the playing field for women candidates.

I've heard precisely the opposite. . . (4.00 / 1)
from rather reliable people, though I won't presume to speak for them.

They only speak off the record because they fear retaliation.


[ Parent ]
As have I (0.00 / 0)
Which is why I wrote what I wrote yesterday.

But this deserves more examination. I can't imagine that EMILY's List is the entire reason for what happened in 2006, even if they may or may not be part of it. I want to keep hearing more perspectives and analysis before drawing any conclusions.

[ Parent ]
Not sure they'll continue the discussion. . . (0.00 / 0)
These legacy groups from before 2000, for the most part, are pretty focused on controlling their messages and are unused to the kind if community dialogue we take for granted. 

They don't feel comfortable in a medium like this, and while I give EMILY's list credit for coming here to post, the post was pretty much a press release drive by, and rather unresponsive to the core issues raised. 

Now, with those issues still in the air and several questions unanswered (including the ones I raised above), there's still been no response from a member of the organization, and no word that they're willing to absolve their past candidates from any repercussions if they were to jump in and participate themselves. 

So, another day has just about passed, and no reengagement.  My guess is they don't feel they should have to respond, and they see this as a nuisance, or some attack agenda, and hope it will go away.  I hope I'm wrong.


[ Parent ]
Quick Question (0.00 / 0)
Have either of you worked with EMILY's List on any campaigns?  I have on two (state level) campaigns, with extremely progressive women.  The staffers they sent were of mixed quality (like any campaign) but they didn't try to force any particular strategy or message.

This whole conversation seems to be based on a misconception of what EMILY's list does.  They are a great asset to the Democratic Party, and frankly keep a lot of money from going to backstabbers like NARAL.


[ Parent ]
Asking the Right Questions (0.00 / 0)
Whether I've worked any campaigns or not is, of course, irrelevant.  I've never represented that I have, and have always described my role as a movement activist, not a campaign staffer or operative.

That said, the core of your question is to question my competence to have input in the conversation.  I've said explicitly that I have sources, as in, more than one.  These are people with precisely the direct experience you cite as being necessary, but I've also said I won't name them.

Furthermore, I've said that they won't come forward because they fear retaliation from EMILY's List.  I have explicitly called upon EMILY's List to make a public statement that any of their past candidates or their staffs in the last cycle are free to speak out about this without fear of any repercussion, a call for openness that has so far been ignored.

If you'd like to ask a really helpful question, and you want more input into this conversation, then I would suggest you join my call to EMILY's List to declare an amnesty for past campaigns, candidates and their staff members to participate openly in this discussion.


[ Parent ]
So (0.00 / 0)
So you've got active members of the blogging community who have worked with emily's list supporting them, and "sources" who aren't even here to tell us their problems with emily's list bashing them.  I think the burden is on you to demonstrate your problems with the organization since everyone here who has worked with them has nothing but positive things to say.

[ Parent ]
It's intellectually dishonest (0.00 / 0)
to ignore the reason I have stated and restated why these sources aren't coming forward.

They could come forward, and it's in the power of EMILY's List to create the conditions for that to happen.

If you want to rely on the data available to you in this thread, that's your right, but it doesn't make you rational, given all the power vectors in play.


[ Parent ]
Retaliation (0.00 / 0)
What kind of retaliation are people afraid of?  Does EMILY's list put out hits on people?  I can tell you that if I had a bad experience with them I would not fear telling you about it here.  I just happened to have a good experience with them.

[ Parent ]
retaliation (0.00 / 0)
If a staffer from a campaign speaks out, that person is far less likely ever to be hired by a campaign again, let alone the repercussions if that person's candidate wants to run again. 

As for the candidates, well, in the event any of them wanted to speak up (and I note that none from the list of lost races in 2006 have in this thread), being denied EMILY's List support is no small matter.

The contacts of the EMILY's List organization are deep, loyal and large.  Ellen Malcolm is influential, well established and has a lot of well connected friends in politics.

So, to speak out, careers would be at stake, unless EMILY's List were to invite such people to speak up.  If the List were confident the feedback would all be good, I suspect they would have responded to my invitation by now, but they haven't.  People can conclude from that whatever they choose to.

I apologize.  I thought the career implications for those who might want to speak out would have been clear, and so I did not spell them out. 

Thanks for asking.


[ Parent ]
Yeah, or (0.00 / 0)
Maybe they aren't responding to your invitation because they don't religiously read comments on blog posts.

It's not possible to win an argument here, because you're saying that the fact that you have no negative evidence about emily's list should be taken as evidence that they are scary and mean.

If you're good at your job pissing off emily's list isn't going to get you blackballed, even if ellen malcolm were the most heinous person alive (beats me, never met her).  If you believe that emily's list hurts the progressive movement, you should feel compelled to speak up about it.  It sounds like your friends worked on losing races and want to find someone to scapegoat.  If they even exist at all.

Why don't you have them come post anonymously here?


[ Parent ]
bad faith (0.00 / 0)
Now you're suggesting I'm lying, and I guess, you're also suggesting Chris Bowers is lying.

I think he and I both have established our reputations for credibility online, so since you're going to impute bad faith, let me ask you a question:

where are your letters of reference?  Who can vouch for your word, or say that you're not a sock puppet put here to run interference for EMILY's List?

I don't guess we have much left to say to each other.  You're all but calling me a liar, with no provocation and no proof, and though my usual response to such an insinuation is far more colorful that what I've just offered, I'll be a good boy and leave it here.


[ Parent ]
You didn't respond to my question (0.00 / 0)
Why won't those emily's list haters post on here anonymously?

[ Parent ]
Donna Edwards (0.00 / 0)
I'm curiouis when they're going to support my friend, Donna Edwards.  They skipped her last time, which was pretty lame.  But to have ignored her so far this time is beyond lame.  She's smart, talented, African American, progressive, and proved she runs a good campaign.

What's the holdup?  OpenLeft, can you ask?


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox