So how do you feel about EMILY's List now?

[undeterred]

They've been helping women get elected to office since 1985, and I have no doubt that the makeup of Congress would be less diverse than it is without this group. "They are dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office".

http://www.emilyslist.org/about/

And they are recommending Hillary Clinton for President.

Last year I campaigned for a pro-choice Democratic man running against an anti-choice Republican in a Congressional race. I know that Emily's list keeps data on pro-choice Republican women in every Congressional district- and I asked how we could get it- but they only help female candidates.

Do women still need help running for office? :shrug: This kind of help?

[liberalnurse]

1. Only you can own your feelings.

I'm thrilled myself that Hillary has the endorsement of Emily's List.

[DURHAM D]

2. YES ! n/t

[Totally Committed]

3. I stopped donating to Emily's list in 2004 when it became obvious

they saw nothing wrong with endorsing DLC candidates, and called them 'progressive'.

I have better things to do with my money than subsidize the DLC, thank you.

TC

[coalition_unwilling]

11. Emily's List endorses war mongers and imperialists. Thank you

for withdrawing your support from them.

[Raine]

43. I used to be a regular contributer

I became disenchanted with them an election or so back and no longer support them. :-(

[murielm99]

4. Yes they do need this kind of help.

And if the misogynist comments are DU and everywhere else are any indication, they will continue to get my help.

They have a right to endorse anyone they want.

I know now that I need this disclaimer: I haven't chosen a candidate yet.

[undeterred]

5. I asked them for help electing a NARAL endorsed candidate

and they said no. I don't think its wrong to focus on supporting women, but when there are no women running and you have a great Democratic male candidate, how does it help women to say no?

And on the same lines, as a woman, I no longer believe that electing a woman is what is best for women. Womens issues matter a great deal to me, but I haven't found that women are necessarily better at fighting for womens rights than men. In 1985 I'm not sure I knew that.

[OzarkDem]

9. Yes there are still major barriers for women running for office

Things have improved somewhat, but not much. Oddly enough, the GOP does a better job of getting women elected than Dems do.

Of course the GOP women don't support an agenda that helps women, but at least they understand that raising the profile of women in their party attracts women voters. Dem leadership's inability to do the same has caused them to lose a lot of women voters. :shrug:

[undeterred]

17. I don't see that many GOP women running.

Other than Elizabeth Dole, when was the last time there was a Republican woman considering the presidency? And that's been a while.

Here's a cool thing that some Democratic women in my state just started:
They're having an Eleanor Roosevelt Tribute to women which involves giving awards to 4 Democratic women-

# Grassroots Activist: A local woman who has worked to organize her area and gone above and beyond to better serve Democrats. She is first and foremost a member of the community, and she works as hard as she does not for a paycheck, but because the issues and the people matter to her.

# Local Elected Leader: She must be an elected official either currently or in the past at the municipal, county, or legislative level. In her capacity of leadership, she has worked to improve the lives of her constituents in every way possible, and has especially been mindful of the issues that affect women most.

# Statewide Impact: This woman has had a far-reaching effect on state politics and government. She has championed Democratic causes and ideals, and her activism and passion are inspirational to all.

# Rising Star: She must be under the age of 30 and someone who has a significant amount of potential. She has worked above and beyond to further Democratic causes and has, time and time again, displayed outstanding commitment.

http://www.wisdems.org/ht/d/sp/i/1046018/pid/1046018

And a lot of the top elected women in my state are endorsing Hillary.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

19. My theory is that's it's easier for a conservative woman to get elected

Men aren't as put off by voting for a woman if she's got an "R" by her name. Conservative values are seen as masculine, while progressive ideas are considered feminine.

I've always believed that our best chance of having a female president was if she was a conservative Republican. This is why I think Clinton adopts some fairly right wing stances on things like the war. She can't afford to be seen as soft on certain issues.

[Totally Committed]

23. Just to be clear: Disagreeing with their policy is not misogyny.

They most certainly DO have the right to endorse anyone they see fit, but so is my right not to fund candidates I feel vote against my best interests without being labelled "misogynyst".

I just wanted to clear that up.

TC

[slampoet]

38. Attack the messanger instead of the message. You loose a point.

[frazzled]

6. Yes, women still need help getting elected

I recall reading an op-ed piece several months after the 2006 elections. We were all elated that the Democrats won so many races. But the statistics in the article surprised me. I paraphrase only vaguely: something like 80% of all the Democratic male candidates won their races; 20% of the women Democratic candidates won theirs. Now, there were certainly some explanations based on the specific contests and demographics of districts--but that is a stunning discrepancy nonetheless. A complete inversion of success.

My conclusion is that it is still much harder for women to get elected.

That doesn't mean you have to support Emily's list, if some of their support has bothered you. But it should make you aware that women candidates still face more obstacles than their male counterparts do. Put it in your pipe and smoke it.

[OzarkDem]

13. Its harder for them to raise money

and they don't always get good support from their party leaders and donors. Women are usually more willing to run in tougher races where they need to appeal to swing voters. Those kinds of campaigns are more expensive, yet often underfunded.

In strong Dem districts, there's usually a long line of Dem candidates jockeying for position and men usually win out in those primaries.

There are a lot of things Dem leaders can do to help get more women elected - appointments to key positions in government, and other forms of political mentoring. But once again, its usually a good ole boys network.

[undeterred]

14. If somebody had told me in 1985 that our Congress in 2007

would still be as disproportionate as it is in every way, I would have found it hard to believe.

And if somebody had told me that one president would screw the country up so badly in two terms that most of us feel we need a "heroic" leader elected in 2008 in order to begin to repair it, I would have been too scared to think about it. This is not a job for any ordinary person.

[saracat]

7. No more support from me. Done. Women need help still but I won't support

their endorsed Presidential candidate. Can't do it.

[KoKo]

25. Emily's list is good for keeping tally of Progressive Women Candidates...

and Hillary has been a part of that organization forever...and is friends with many of the original founders and those there today.

I can understand why they would endorse her...don't hold it against them at all. And, I'm not a Hillary supporter, but am glad that Emily's List is out there as one group among many fighting for womens rights to be upheld against the RW Repugs.

[undeterred]

39. I'm sure there are old loyalties that run deep

and Emily's list means something to the first generation of women elected into the Senate that is hard for some of us to understand.

[supernova]

8. Yes, women still need help running for and winning office

There's nothing wrong with the concept of an "EMILY's List."

I wish it were more progressive, as someone else mentioned. But It think that's more a function of our potential female candidates following the "conventional wisdom" that moving to the poltical center is where the winner's circle is.

[emilyg]

10. I support them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Their endorsement deserves a huge..shrug.

[terisan]

15. The Democrat in GA who ran against Perdue scapegoated Emily's list thought he'd get white male

votes by doing so no doubt-so he lost them and some women too and lost the race by a huge margin.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. I have always admired Emily's List

and stil do. Good for them and good for Senator Clinton.

[MH1]

18. I cancelled my recurring contribution when they endorsed Hillary

It wasn't as much the endorsement, as that they did it WAY too early, in my opinion.

It told me that the only thing that matters to them about a candidate is gender. As much as I want to see increased diversity in public office, I cannot support outright reverse discrimination.

[Baby Snooks]

20. Well who else were they supposed to endorse?

It's not Emil's List. It's Emily's List.

[undeterred]

22. How about drafting the lovely and progressive Senator

Barbara Boxer!

[mondo joe]

26. EMILY's List doesn't draft - and they are simply being true to their mission by promoting

women who are pro choice.

[undeterred]

27. Even if they aren't really all that "progressive".

[mondo joe]

28. So you disagree with EMILY's List on whether HRC is sufficiently progressive.

:shrug:

I'll bet they're tearing their hair out over it.

[undeterred]

29. She's not a progressive candidate.

So they could have chosen to endorse no one, or endorse Hillary.

But don't try to tell people she's a progressive candidate when she's not. Do they think people are too stupid to know the difference?

[mondo joe]

30. Try to read their mission again. I'll help.

"They are dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office."

Endorsing Hillary meets their mission.

[undeterred]

32. Try to have a discussion without personal insults

and condescension. I don't believe a progressive America can be achieved by a non-progressive president, male or female.

[mondo joe]

33. You weren't insulted. You were just confused about their mission.

It's not to support the most progressive candidate. It's to support pro choice Democratic women.

[undeterred]

34. Oh I get it. You're just hanging out in this thread

because you know how progressive women love hostility, condescension, and sarcasm- it makes you look brilliant and we just can't get enough of it. Please, unconfuse me some more. I have no brain of my own and I just love to be "corrected" by men who think they are always right.

:sarcasm:

"EMILY's List does more than just recruit and fund pro-choice Democratic women candidates. We also help them build and run effective campaigns. Additionally, we mobilize women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation."

http://www.emilyslist.org/do/

[mondo joe]

35. Quite honestly I'm not concerned with your feelings in the least. I do think EMILY's list

is a good organization with an important mission. Women are very inadequately represented at all levels of government.

I responded to the OP.

If you want a gender segregated thread go start one - but GD isn't a good place for it.

[undeterred]

36. You're not a very careful reader, are you?

I am the OP. And if you want to accuse someone else of being confused, you'd better know what you're talking about.

Guess what, the posters on this board are real people. If you're not concerned with other people's feelings in the least, you should be in that other political party.

[mondo joe]

37. I knew you were the OP. I still don't care one way or another about your feelings.

Your feelings are your business - not mine.

This isn't a support group. It's a political discussion group.

And if you don't want to deal with people answering your questions in ways that don't make you happy, don't ask.

[Katherine Brengle]

21. Yes, women do still need help.

It amazes me how oblivious our society STILL is to the second tier status of women.

[papau]

24. Hillary is an excellent and obvious choice for Emily's List - and we still need Emily's List n/t

[Ellen Forradalom]

31. Yes we do

Half the population is still far underrepresented in the halls of power. And we haven't had a woman President...yet.

[LWolf]

40. I would assume that an organization dedicated to electing women

would endorse the only woman in the race. :shrug:

Personally, I think we need more women, and there is still a glass ceiling.

The fact that I don't think Hillary Clinton is the RIGHT woman for the job doesn't negate that.

[riverdeep]

41. They can endorse whoever they want I guess.

But when faced between a choice between a centrist, corporatist woman and a true progressive like say Kucinich, well I'm not sure going with the woman will further their agenda in the long run. Thank God Kucinich finally went pro-choice in '03.

[undeterred]

42. I didn't know he had been on the other side

of that, although I can see why it would be a difficult decision for him.