EMILY's List Exec. Dir. Named Obama Director Of Communications

While the naming of Robert Gibbs as Obama White House Press Secretary was an expected move, the naming of the EMILY's List Executive Director as President-Elect Obama's Director Of Communications was a positive surprise:

Ellen Moran w[ill] serve as director of communications. . . . Moran . . . is currently the executive director of EMILY’s List, an abortion rights advocacy organization that seeks to elect female candidates to office.

This is a great appointment by President-Elect Obama.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Gitmo Detainees to Get Culture Classes and Movie Nights | "Twilight" Sets Box Office Record For Female Director >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh, President-elect Obama! (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 02:42:48 PM EST
    You know the key to my heart, don't you? First, competence in the Cabinet, then HIllary as SoS...now this! Fabulous. I can't wait for January.

    Somewhere last night I read this (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 02:50:14 PM EST
    appointment is to try and heal the wounds of Hillary supporters.  Good move, huh?

    If he keeps trying....:) (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    This is a welcome surprise.

    (But I still want Donna Brazile booted.  Maybe Obama "suggest" she be replaced?)


    Gotta agree about Donna. (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:31:23 PM EST
    Threegree! :) (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:35:59 PM EST
    four (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Burned on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 04:30:19 PM EST
    I really admired her control when she was up against some Republican hack. And then, she chooses to lose her cool with a good portion of her own party. She seemed very defensive in a way that made me think she knew she was wrong.

    I'd like to think the election is over (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:35:25 PM EST
    and he's picking the best for the jobs and his vision vs trying to appease the likes of me or anyone else (Republicans!) ;) That said, I would like to think he is considering the likes of me when governing. Bringing in strong, capable women is a good sign for me since he had trouble (imo) addressing women/women's issues during the campaign. We seemed to be more "token" in mention.

    Has darlin' Claire been mentioned for any positions?


    No, but maybe her daughter will head (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:37:33 PM EST
    up the teen dept.

    Ohhhhh! She could start now for (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:47:57 PM EST
    the re-election! All that textin' and all ;)

    Uh, no. . . . (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:20:21 PM EST
    It's hardly going to heal wounds -- it's a reminder that Emily's List did not serve its mission. . . .

    Or rather that the recipients of (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:56:25 PM EST
    EMILY'S List sponsorship did not give a rat's about supporting other women AFTER they were safely ensconced in the Senate.

    (Did you hear that Claire and Amy?.... can I have my money back now?)


    CC, could you elaborate? (none / 0) (#45)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:28:12 PM EST
    I appreciate your perspective.

    Yes, but they donated lots of money (none / 0) (#72)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:35:11 AM EST
    So he must pay them back.  It's the NEW politics, doncha know?  

    Yes, this is great news... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 06:26:05 PM EST
    The appointment of pro-choice advocate Ellen Moran will help dispel the aftertaste of a statement Obama made during the primaries about a ban on so-called "partial birth" abortion and an exception for the health of the mother.

    Obama said something to the effect that he supported an excetion for the health of the mother, but not when a woman was just "feeling blue".

    The appointment of a few more die-hard progresssives may enable Obama to put stuff like that behind him.

    BTW, The Hill wasn't doing us any favors when they characterized Moran as:

    the executive director of EMILY's List, an abortion rights advocacy organization that seeks to elect female candidates to office.  

    Emily's website describes itself more expansively, as an organization that is:

    dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office.

    Great News (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    That should quiet the forces that were sure Obama was going to rollback abortion rights.

    I thought she was going to be in the (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 02:51:00 PM EST
    press office--such power!

    That position is not a power job (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Pepe on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:57:53 PM EST
    Director Of Communications has no power. There are chosen for above all loyalty to the message. They must be competent; be able to mold the message in words both spoken and written; and be an occasional face on TV and radio.

    So it is an important job as you are one of the public voices of the WH, but it holds no real power in the sense that you call the shots on policy or anything like that.

    Her appointment was a nice bone thrown the the Left. It hardly blunts the appointments of Geithner or Summers though.


    No power, but (none / 0) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 05:04:32 PM EST
    I can't even imagine she would take the job without pretty convincing assurances of his undying devotion to the cause.  And I would also expect that if he wavered in that, she would not be willing to continue as comm. director.

    So it is definitely encouraging on that issue.


    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Pepe on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 04:03:23 PM EST
    still leaves one ambivalent as to where he stands personally on the details of abortion. But that was never a big worry for me because he doesn't call the shots on that. Congress does to a degree and the SCOTUS does to a larger degree. Obama really has little personal say. His biggest voice on the subject will be any SCOTUS appointments which is no little thing but in the end if he appoints centrist judges who snooker him on abortion things could turn the wrong way.

    I'd say Obama currently (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:34:29 PM EST
    holds almost all the cards as he will be nominating future justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

    Segue: Presidential appointments. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 02:53:11 PM EST
    I read Obama plans to appoint Jim (?) Steinberg assistant secretary of state.  I also read Hillary Clinton will have free reign to appoint State Dept. people.  Which is it?  And is it unusual for the President to choose the appointees under the Sec'y of State?

    Steinberg is (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:00:33 PM EST
    close to Hillary Clinton. It seems to me that Obama and Clinton have agreed on appointing Steinberg.

    Your buddy Al from The Field has (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Teresa on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:03:50 PM EST
    a post up at DK wishfully thinking that Axlerod was sending signals today that the Hillary deal isn't done at all. What's his problem with her?

    He has always detested the Clintons (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:22:12 PM EST
    and loved Hugo Chavez. Take your cues.

    It's funny that he says the "drama" will (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Teresa on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:32:30 PM EST
    continue on now while he and others like him are creating the drama.

    It was disappointing to me to see who rec'd that diary.


    Who disappointed you? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:41:52 PM EST
    MB, Elise, kath25. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Teresa on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:11:51 PM EST
    Now that the primary is over, I would think they could see the value in HC as a prominent member of the party and an ally of Obama.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:42:16 PM EST
    I have lower expectations than you.

    Chavez on PBS Frontline (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:14:16 PM EST
    BTW, there's a pretty hair-raising program on Chavez on PBS's fantastic "Frontline" broadcast coming this week.  It's by filmmaker Ofra Bikel, who's as progressive as they come, but Chavez really comes off as a buffoon and quite a stinker to boot.

    It should dispel any lingering lefty sympathy for the guy (which I confess I had).  I'm still happy to buy his less expensive gasoline at my local Citgo, though. :-)


    See, this is the kind of thing (none / 0) (#59)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:04:28 PM EST
    that makes me not want Hillary to be SoS. These haters, like Hateful Al especially, have already thrown down the gauntlet and declared that they are gleefully ready to stalk her every move and continue the trashing of her for however long she is in the public eye. They are giddy about it.

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:01:20 PM EST
    Of course (none / 0) (#73)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:39:09 AM EST
    The President has hundreds of appointees at State and every other cabinet department.  He appoints his people, not the Secretary of the department.  

    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Spamlet on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:16:10 PM EST
    I did not support Obama during the primaries, but since the election he has been winning my respect and my support in a big way. Another good move.

    I thought we were down on EMILY's list (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:14:36 PM EST
    Is there something special you like about Moran?

    I was never down on EMILY's List (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:15:39 PM EST
    You are confusing them with NARAL.

    Well, not exactly (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:18:21 PM EST
    EMILY's list doesn't have the problem of supporting Republicans, but I have personally found them to run very safe, predictable, and often awful campaigns. Witness what they along with the DCCC foisted on Linda Stender this cycle and Lois Murphy in the last one.

    Well that's your critique (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:19:26 PM EST
    Not mine.

    I like EMILY's List a lot.


    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    Their mission I happen to like a lot.

    I love their mission and I continue (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    to support them...big time...BUT there are times when I think they have zero political smarts.  For example, when they support primary challenges to elected Democrats who happen to be male (Rahm Emmanuel).  Or when they backed that heinously anti-Semitic woman for Congress and ended up with major egg on their faces.  

    Furthermore, they do not vet their candidates for issues beyond reproductive choice.  One of their candidates whom I unwittingly supported turned out to be a huge NRA-nut.  After that, I decided to always do a little research before signing on.


    Good point Radio, cause for pause... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:25:26 PM EST
    Perhaps they support (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Pepe on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 04:08:25 PM EST
    the best women that they can who happens to be running. According to their website their mission is to help elect pro-choice women. That leaves a lot of room in other areas that are apparently not of big concern to them but are for others.

    You have to consider that they are strictly a special interest group andgarden and they behave as such.


    Emily's List supports Democratic pro-choice women (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 06:39:58 PM EST
    who are running for elected office. Just to be clear...

    I think I was clear (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 06:56:07 PM EST
    in how I differentiated EMILY's list from NARAL.

    I was initially confused by this... (none / 0) (#49)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:33:53 PM EST
    EMILY's list doesn't have the problem of supporting Republicans

    I understood what you meant after I reread it. But at first I thought you were saying they didn't have a problem supporting Republicans.


    There you go (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:37:09 PM EST
    I will not say it but (none / 0) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    did "we think she was a _ _ _ _?

    (ok I have to tease you on this one) all in good fun.  


    Details (none / 0) (#22)
    by koshembos on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 04:03:45 PM EST
    There are people like me who don't know anything about the lady; could you add a short bio or something so we can enjoy your opinion?

    How do I know that tomorrow Obama is not going to nominated a poisonous snake (i.e. GOP) to some position and that was the softening artillery round?

    Someone like Larry Summers? (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:23:01 PM EST
    Yeh, sorry, but even putting Gloria Steinem in the Cabinet could not compensate for putting Larry "Listen to Me Talk Just Like Barbie -- Girls Don't Like Math" Summers.

    That's why this Moran appointment came out now . . . along with Summers.


    um, completing the thought -- (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:24:14 PM EST
    Make that putting Larry Summers in a position of power with the NEC.  Good that his big mouth cost him the Cabinet, but he's probably going to continue to have more sway with Obama than a lot of Cabinet officers -- and especially with the economy now.

    Larry Summers is pretty suburb (none / 0) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:21:30 PM EST
    on economic issues, one of the few recently willing to call for really massive stimulus.

    His one supposedly anti-women comment, IMHO, is way, way, way overstated.  He's been a big supporter of women staffers, women's rights, programs to bring girls into math and science, etc., for a very long time.

    He's been entirely unjustly made into a poster boy for misogyny, and it simply doesn't square with his record.


    I really disagree (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:36:35 PM EST
    In his efforts to build up departments at Harvard, 4 out of 36 faculty targeted hirings went to women during his presidential tenure, for which he was heavily critiqued given how male-heavy the faculty was already. Part of his response to this criticism was his absurd pontifications about women not moving up the ladder in these fields at the same rate as men potentially due to inherent ability discrepancies. He also was famous for discounting the problems women in academia face with career vs. family balancing acts, and for not being in favor of extending the tenure clock for women who have kids while working towards tenure. He was also critiqued for that. Summers is no friend of women.

    That, of course, has nothing to do with whether he's a brilliant economist, and I don't know the answer to that.


    Dr. Molly, this is the one area (none / 0) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:00:57 PM EST
    I think you and I disagree on.

    I know something about Harvard and tenure issues since my dad was a department chairman at Harvard.  In fact, my father hired the very first female full professor on the Harvard arts and sciences faculty other than the one chair that was restricted to women.  He was very proud of being able to do that, but I know the extraordinary effort he had to put in to find a female scholar who could meet Harvard's standards, and that was in the liberal arts, not the sciences.  I cannot fault Summers for wondering, I can only fault him for lead-footedly expressing his wondering in an environment that would inevitably be hostile to the very idea.

    Making him into a some kind of anti-feminist ogre is just absurd-- IMHO.


    well, one area of disagreement (none / 0) (#74)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:46:19 AM EST
    is not bad at all!

    (BTW - I don't fault Summers for wondering either, but he did a lot more than wonder, as I mentioned above. I also know a lot of Harvard professors there during that time - perhaps the culture is different between the arts and sciences. There are plenty of female scientists who meet Harvard's standards - that was what the flap was all about to begin with, prior to his remarks.)


    I Know Faculty There As Well (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 07:51:48 AM EST
    And it was my impression that Summers has nothing to do with tenure or hiring. That was up to the very sexist departments. One department had never hired given a woman tenure until a friend of mine clinched it.

    None of the male faculty in that dept even knew the first name of any of the secretaries, not to mention anything about their families or personal life. My friend knew them all rather well as she was interested in people and not haughty.

    The day after she was hired one of the secretaries asked her out to lunch. During that lunch she  pulled out a list of all the Professors pay. Later that day she was going to have to negotiate her salary.

    Sounded to me like many of the men in that dept and elsewhere had their head up their butt. Summers was not the problem, imo. Not that I am condoning his awful sexist bell curve bs.


    During Summers' tenure (none / 0) (#76)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 08:20:11 AM EST
    he initiated a targeted hiring program. Targeted hiring means you have a lot more hiring leeway than normal, and usually universities do that when they want to increase diversity or take other things into account than just the person with the best CV, highest number of publications and grants, etc. - IOW, you can look at targeted opportunities. At my university (at the time - I've moved on) and many others, this was done to increase the number of aa's and women across several white male departments for example. Summers hired 4 women during that program out of 36 targets - and he was very involved in the hiring. This fact is what started the revolt against him prior to his absurd explanation for why he couldn't find any appropriate people to hire. So he used a 'targeted hiring' program to hire the same old kinds of hires, and then explained it to the disgruntled faculty with his now infamous explanations.

    As I also mentioned previously, he was skeptical about the challenges women face during tenure and resistant to the idea that most universities now follow of putting a hold on the tenure clock (usually 6 years before you have to go up for tenure) for women who've had kids and had to take a time out.

    Look, if people want to give Summers a pass, that's fine. I won't. I have to live this stuff all the time. He's a sexist jerk IMO, plain and simple. All the faculty I know there in the sciences hated him and were glad to see him go.

    One last thing - I'd love to see people give him a pass on his remarks if the same kind of remarks had been made to explain why the numbers of aa's were so low in math and science. Riiiiiight.

    What you say about your friend's department doesn't surprise me either!


    Not Giving Him A Pass (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    Just pointing out that he was not the only problem. The male dominated faculty in many departments was overtly sexist. And I guarantee you that is part of the reason that there was targeted hiring, also they are not the types of elites that take kindly to being told who to hire, ergo the failure of the program.

    Usually agree with you, gyrfalcon (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:46:24 AM EST
    but in this case, you're not getting all the info -- as I know, as a woman in academe.  There's more to Summers' history at Harvard. . . .

    Plus, yeh, one li'l standard boyzbartalk comment, maybe.  But his comment, and in the context of his position and where he made it, was breathtakingly bad.  


    Sure, Summers is (none / 0) (#66)
    by Spamlet on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:28:35 PM EST
    a sexist douche.

    But is it possible that he's a douche who just happens to know a lot about how to deal with this economic crisis, and who won't be in a position where his douchitude will have any influence on policy that specifically affects women?


    A bad economy affects women more (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:44:13 AM EST
    than it does men, because women have less money, make less money, etc.  Nope, your reply doesn't fly -- an administration tone-deaf to women does not bode well.  Well, except for men.  There 'tis.

    Actually, (none / 0) (#80)
    by Spamlet on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    I asked a question. I take it that your answer is "No, that's impossible." OK. Who, then, would be your recommendation for the post that's going to Summers?

    Dunno. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:22:55 PM EST
    Just responding to the secondary part of your comment.  I didn't run for president, I'm not an economist, so I don't have a suggestion on that.

    What I do know a bit about is public opinion formation, feminism, women's issues, etc.  And Summers would be a disaster on the first count of public opinion.  And his tone-deafness on women would suggest that they could lose under his economic policy-making, too.


    You Mean Someone Like (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 04:10:20 PM EST
    Jeffrey Dahmer as surgeon general?

    Like nominating Robert Gibbs to anything (none / 0) (#25)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 04:22:25 PM EST
    ... whoops! too late on that one.

    Is This Why (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 04:37:13 PM EST
    In his communications role, Gibbs became known as "the enforcer" because of his aggressive rapid-response methods for countering disinformation tactics from opponents.


    I saw a clip of him on C&L taking down Hannity which seemed right on  target, imo.


    Gibbs did his job (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 04:38:48 PM EST
    if she was involved in the decision (none / 0) (#31)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 06:25:36 PM EST
    to have EMILY's List endorse and raise money for Nikki Tinker over 100 percent pro-choice Democratic incumbent Steve Cohen in the TN-09 primary, then I don't think much of her judgment.

    Steve Cohen? (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 06:56:34 PM EST
    Who compared Hillary Clinton to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction (after the Clintons campaigned for him in 2006 and help him get elected in the first place)?  That Steve Cohen?  

    I have no idea why women's organizations wouldn't be behind him.  pffft.


    Well, he screwed up there for sure, but he (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Teresa on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:34:35 PM EST
    wrote a terrific pro-Hillary as SoS on Daily Kos. It didn't go over very well with a lot of them as I'm sure you can imagine.

    Sure... (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:48:13 PM EST
    When the election was over, he wrote something nice.  That doesn't change the fact that DURING the election, he said something horribly sexist.  And I don't recall him apologizing for that or being taken to task on the vast majority of lefty blogs.

    In fact, I read that whole thread and I don't believe anyone even mentioned it in their comments.

    Totally ridiculous and I wouldn't hold him up as an example of someone women should support.

    (To be clear, women don't HAVE to support other women and progressives don't have to support women.  But progressives should refrain from comparing highly intelligent and accomplished women to psycho stalkers from one of the most anti-women films of the past 30 years.)


    He did apologize, but not directly (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:53:04 PM EST
    to Hillary Clinton.

    That's just goofy (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:03:38 PM EST
    He insulted Hillary Clinton.  If he didn't apologize to her, who did he apologize to?  

    This is the kind of crap I hate about politics.  Apologizing for a statement without actually doing it.  Or apologizing "if anyone was offended" - like it's their fault they were offended.

    An apology is supposed to be directed to the person or people you wronged.  If he didn't apologize to Clinton, then he didn't actually regret what he said or try to make it right.

    Another example of the frat house atmosphere that pervaded the Democratic primary with few to no repercussions for those who participated or cheered it on.  


    to me actually (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:12:30 PM EST
    It was weird.

    Plus (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:26:34 PM EST
    the apology for this kind of thing only comes after major negative blowback, so it's very suspect, IMHO  His mouth, seems to me, got ahead of his brain's ability to censor what he really thinks.  I thought the comment was outright, flatly disqualifying.

    That Steve Cohen (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:31:42 PM EST
    is far superior to the race-baiting Nikki Tinker that EMILY's list backed. (Thanks for reminding me of another of their decisions I didn't like).

    oh there are other reasons... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:52:46 PM EST
    to oppose Cohen than just his comments about Hillary.  He made some very divisive comments about African American voters after he lost a 1996 primary.  Oddly, those comments have been erased from the public's memory after his actions this year.  

    I'm not saying Tinker was a good candidate to support but Cohen has several significant blots on his record and opposition to this guy should not be seen as crazy.


    I don't have any problem (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:56:46 PM EST
    with opposition to Steve Cohen or any other candidate. But I wouldn't vote for Nikki Tinker if you paid me a lot of money. How EMILY's list came to support her in the first place is a big question  mark for me, as she seemed pretty squishy on the issues (unlike Steve Cohen, who seems to be out of step with his district on gun control, but nothing else).

    Sometimes Girl Power overwhelms common sense. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Burned on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 06:29:12 PM EST
    Just like any other Power.

    Do tell... (none / 0) (#34)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 06:36:38 PM EST
    Their mission statement (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:29:34 PM EST
    is not yours.

    I supported Steve Cohen but I understood why EMILY's List made the mistake it did in that race.

    Let's see if we can play this game with you - you supported John Edwards - any regrets?


    What on earth is the comparison? (none / 0) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:27:49 PM EST
    Blatant, grotesque woman-hating and CDS versus being unable to keep your pants zipped?  I don't get any parallels at all.

    EMILY's List (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:41:02 PM EST
    supported an apparent anti-Semite.

    Tthis was discovered after the EMILY's List endorsement.


    I must confess I don't get the vitriol (none / 0) (#81)
    by ChrisO on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 08:45:53 PM EST
    I found Cohen's remark to be offensive, as well. But "Blatant, grotesque woman-hating?" To me that's equivalent to reacting to Hillary's sniper fire comment by calling her an untrustworthy congenital liar.

    Are we now at the point where all it takes is one statement for someone to be a pariah forever?