Emily’s List goes after Sarah Palin in the name of . . . women


From USA Today:

Emily’s List, a fundraising group that has raised and spent more than $43 million to elect Democratic women to office, is taking on Sarah Palin.

Leaders of Emily’s List are holding a press conference in Washington tomorrow to unveil a campaign targeting Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, and the candidates she has endorsed.

The group says it wants to counter Palin’s appeal to women: “Sarah Palin has predicted a rising tide of mothers and women voters will support her so-called ‘Mama Grizzly’ candidates,” says a just-issued Emily’s List press release.

“We call upon women — and men! — to let their voices be heard and to reject Palin’s reactionary candidates and backward-looking agenda.”

(Cuz we all know that feminism is only for the right kind of women.)

I dunno. I was raised by a feminist single-mother who was (and still is) pretty conservative on most issues. Maybe that’s why I like and admire Sarah Palin while disagreeing with her on almost everything.

I think Emily’s list is making a mistake. Feminist groups should be pushing candidates like Hillary Clinton, not bashing other women they don’t agree with. The circular firing squad hurts all women.

But what do I know, I’m just a guy.

YMMV



MANDATORY DISCLAIMER:

The Confluence is a liberal blog and does not support Sarah Palin blah blah blah.

She is a conservative pro-life Republican yadda yadda yadda – do I really need to keep explaining this shit?

Here at The Confluence we don’t drink any flavor of Kool-aid.

About these ads

173 Responses

  1. I guess they figure Palin is a more important “issue” than the conscience clause Lipinski(D) is looking to codify into law with Smith(R).

    Doh.

    I guess Emily’s List has two chances of convincing me they have anything relevant to say-slim and none.

  2. You are right. This is a mistake by Emily’s List. What are they thinking? Bashing women one doesn’t agree with is the wrong tactic. TIme and $ spent on promoting their own candidates and agenda would be wiser.

    The left is making Sarah a heroine.

    • The pro Left NEED Sarah and they just can’t quit her… without SP, they are left with Obama alone…no can do. He HAS to have someone” scary ” next to him to shine in the least… even for his fans

  3. I guess the Kewl Kidz will never let me in the Klub now, but oh well.

    I just can’t hate on Sarah. She didn’t steal my vote, call me a racist or throw me under a bus. She has a likeable personality and I admire the way she has endured through everything that has been thrown at her.

    Sue me.

    • Guess they have to sue me as well. My Mother would have loved Sarah Palin, though like me, she would not have agreed with her on much.

    • I can’t understand why Obot people are so obsessed with her, and in such a negative way. It’s very unattractive to see people behaving that way.

      Sarah Palin doesn’t hold elective office and she’s not running for anything. If they want her to disappear, they should ignore her. But they just can’t help themselves. It’s exactly what they did to Hillary.

      • Why? Here’s a hint:

        V_ G _ N _

        Now buy a couple vowels.

        • :shock: Now it’s all clear.

        • Sanjay Gupta?

        • “Now buy a couple vowels.”–Bozo McClownheimer

          Who can spare the $500 these days? :razz:

          • I love this site and the people who post here! Inteliigent humor to keep us going through these worst of times! Yep, I always thought feminism meant women getting to make their own choices and certainly having a career and kids should count i those feminist ideals. Just ’cause some of her beliefs are different than what some of ours doesn’t detract from her worldly accomplishments. And she certainly didn’t foist those beliefs onto her constituents. Why the rage against this woman? It’s irrational.

      • I’m as liberal as they come, and I just don’t hate Sarah Palin. While I think that many of her political positions are simplistic and cliched, I haven’t seen any indication that she is particularly hostile to feminist issues- certainly not more so than Obama, anyway. She seems kind of like a “regular” person, which in many ways is refreshing.

        And Ms. Palin has earned a lot of respect from me, standing up to all the negative propaganda about her that is thrown out there on a daily basis.

        • Besides, Sarah Palin didn’t enshrine the Stupak amendment in Obama’s healthcare law.

          That was Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

          Does Emily’s List think we’re too stupid to know that?

          • Exactly!

            …off to send an email to them saying just that. Not that they’ll pay attention.

    • I’m with you on this one, myiq2xu! I think BO and his faux feminists have done more harm to women than Sarah has or ever could.

    • I too like Sarah. She’s got stamina, intelligence, and governed Alaska for all of the people. She didn’t move to stop termination of pregnancy for other Alaskan women just because she’s personally opposed. She’s never said women need their husbands and pastors to decide on their medical procedures.

      I’m not too happy with some of the stuff she’s saying now. But she’s not any worse –and might be better — than Romney or any of the other leading R’s. Yet the Obots have issues about politicians with scarey ladyparts.

  4. Rarely comment, although I read every day – with that stated, I find Sarah Palin an opportunist – and I don’t like her “Mama Grizzlie” campaign. It’s appealing to the base reactions of women, and that pisses me off. Women have constantly been used as political tools, and that really pissed me off. To the two bleeping identical parties, with apparently the same marketing agency and communications idiots – STOP IT. WRT Palin, get outside of your bubble – try inner cities and find out how women in various socio-economic worlds live before you purport to represent all “Mama Grizzlies” and quite frankly, I find the term repulsive – a mama grizzlie will eat her cub in times of starvation. As a single mom (by choice) who raised two humans (not grizzlie cubs), never relied on any government agency because I was fortunate and had a good job, never relied on the father, I am sick and tired of being put into pigeon holes and marketing sub categories.

    • A politician who is an opportunist? :shock:

    • I think the crass opportunists here may be Emily’s List. They are probably choosing to target Palin because they know that will bring in lots of donations from people whose hackles rise at the very sound of her name.

    • You’ll have to send a link to the “fact” that a mama grizzly will eat her cubs in times of starvation. Male bears will eat cubs, but even starving mama’s typically won’t. I suspect this is something a good progressive told you while hating on Sarah Palin to prove that her mama grizzly analogy is wrong.

      I find your “facts” repulsive.

      • Agreed. We were just watching a grizzly documentary recently and it showed a mama grizzly carefully guarding her cubs from a male grizzly that kept following them around because if the male kills the cubs it can often send the mom into estrus.
        Stalker male grizzly – ugh.
        Mama grizzly — awesome.

    • An admittedly quick search turned up no references to mother grizzlies eating cubs, though there are numerous attestations of males killing or attempting to kill cubs when they come into a new territory. Mother bears of all species defend their cubs ferociously. That’s one reason, among many others, that we NDN’s revere bears in general and female bears in particular.

      Grizzlies mate earlier in the year, but zygote implantation doesn’t occur until hibernation. At that time, if there is a nutritional shortage, the zygote may not implant, or a fetus may be aborted or resorbed by the mother’s uterus. Perhaps someone misunderstood the actual process and passed on inaccurate “facts.”

  5. imo. Emily’s List once was a vital means to promote Dem women. It is now a franchise name that was bought up to fluff BO non existent fem creds …and it continues its mission today.

    The circular firing squad hurts all women.

    I kind of think that’s the new management’s idea

  6. What’s great is that EMILY’s list’s slogan is, “When women vote, women win.” (And the Democrats scream in rejoinder, “Not on our watch they don’t! Kucinich will pay for 1000 recounts if necessary!”)

  7. This so-called strategy is going to backfire. They should spend money ON candidates they endorse. Glad I don’t give them any of my money any more.

    • It doesn’t really seem like Dem women are doing all that well. It seems pretty likely that they’re going to be offered up as scapegoats to appease voter anger and preserve the hides of Dem men whenever possible. So way to prioritize, EMILY’s list. Use your resources for the circular firing squad and see who’s standing when the smoke clears. Oops!

      • After 2008 and Stupakistan I don’t see how any feminist could support the Democratic party.

        That DOES NOT mean they should support the GOP.

        Neither party deserves their votes.

        • If the Dems are so hysterical over the possibility of Palin “stealing” “their” votes, they have other options besides reverting to type. They could stop kneecapping their own female candidates, hanging them out to dry, and running sexist campaigns. They could, instead, recruit and support female candidates to challenge for those votes. They could stop fearmongering and throwing their supporters under the bus and instead advocate for their issues. They could actually try to earn their votes.

          • That makes too much sense, it will never happen.

          • It’s called “presenting an alternative.” I learned about it in an antique version of the Democratic Party handbook that I found when I went to empty out the shredder.

        • Honk Honk

    • They should spend money ON candidates they endorse.

      Indeed…but they are now in the business of making sure women are not elected…and I say that’s the idea. Instead of helping electing Dem women, they scuttle that and do this shit? Then their purpose is now to keep women generally from being elected.
      war is peace

      • or even better on issues.

        As I stated above, right now there is a bill in the House which makes the conscience clause LAW.

        Why isn’t Emily’s List spending their money to defeat the bill? Why didn’t they spend money to defeat or at least fight Lipinski, an anti choice Dem or Smith?

        The only reason I can come up with is they are an irrelevant fund raising arm for Dems.

        Kind of like the NRA is for the GOP.

        • Excellent question!

        • Why isn’t Emily’s List fighting AGAINST removing Avastin (breast cancer drug) from the FDA’s approved list of Obamacare drugs?

          Chickensh*ts.

          • Avastin does NOT work on BC. Take a look at Breast Cancer Action’s info:

            FDA Advisory Panel Recommends End to Avastin for Advanced Breast Cancer

            Avastin for breast cancer – no evidence of improved overall survival, no improvement in quality of life, serious side effects, all at $50k a year. We didn’t think this was an improvement for women needing treatment for breast cancer, and as of yesterday, neither does the FDA’s Advisory Committee. Although we’re in agreement with the committee’s recommendation, we’re saddened that after all this time there is still nothing helpful to offer patients when current treatments have failed. We hope the pharma industry takes this message to heart and can find treatments that truly make a difference for all in need. You can read our letter to the FDA regarding full approval of Avastin here. http://bcaction.org/uploads/PDF/BCA%20Comments%20re%20Full%20Approval%20070610.pdf

  8. Sure, any liberal group should talk about issues and argue against things they disagree with. But when it comes to women’s issues, I don’t really see that much difference between Palin and Obama. On second thought, sadly Palin is probably better on some women’s issues.

    So why isn’t this group going against stupakistan and anyone who supported that anti-women legislation? There are actual people in power or more likely to get into power that they should go after. And what ever happened to them spending most of their effort helping women get into office. And I seem to remember they would occasionally support more conservative women. What’s changed?

  9. If you’re entire existence is to support and promote women in power, then go after the thing that is in power and doing the most to thwart that aim.

  10. Here at The Confluence we don’t drink any flavor of Kool-aid.
    Except grape (aka, purple drink). Got to love the grape.

    • Shhhhh!

      (It is really good with vodka, though)

    • I haven’t drunk real Kool-Aid in years, but when I did, cherry was my favorite, although I also liked grape and orange quite well. :)

      As for the metaphorical varieties–I did go slightly into Randism for a while in my teens, but I outgrew it by age 20, IIRC. (I’m 47 now.) :razz:

  11. Marshall Auerback on Social Security from corrente. Leenk

  12. They must believe attacking Ms. Palin and every woman candidate she endorses is a way to raise money. So what if it contradicts what they supposedly stand for.

  13. I guess I should point out that EL isn’t going after Mitt’s Missionaries of Mike’s Huckleberries, they’re only targeting Mama Grizzlies.

    Obviously, it ain’t just the message..

  14. Sarah Palin reminds me of Phyllis Schlafly, who did nothing but use her own training in the law to argue against other women having a career. Both are Queen Bees.

    • Was that your best shot?

      Better trolls please!

      • Sigh. They just don’t make them like the used to. They just don’t have much spunk any more.

      • Hey, come on, I just joined Emily’s List! I don’t want Queen Bees! Or Mean Girls. Or h–. If the only way to prevent Queen Bees is to have a no tolerance policy, sign me up.

    • Since when has Palin argued against women having a career?

      I’ll give Palin this. On choice she is ideologically consistent and only allows for exemptions in the life of a mother. Furthermore, unlike the male contingent Palin can at least speak on the subject with some expertise considering she’s experienced 5 pregnancies including a complicated one. Furthermore, she appointed a pro choice justice to the bench despite ideological differences with appointee. She also supports access to birth control which is apparently a step above THID Presedent, who took out funding in stimulus bill and codified it asan abortofactant like his predecesor.

      • Exactly, cwaltz. She also didn’t go after HRC the way that BO and his “feminist” thugs did. The attempted comparison to Shlaffley (sp?) doesn’t hold.

  15. People say I am ruthless. I am not ruthless. And if I find the man who is calling me ruthless, I shall destroy him. — RFK

    I’d like to be nice. I really would. But these groups are really starting to tick me off.

  16. I’ve thought I saw it all, this is fuckin’ stupid.

  17. Well, this is a little confusing and thanks for the heads up on the issue. I thought emilys list was bipartisan. Maybe not. I will have to learn more. If dem solely, I don’t mind them opposing Palin. I will be f ing crazed howver if they throw their resources behind bashing as opposed to countering.
    I also was under the impression that emilys (early money is like yeast) list was solely to get money to female candidates. So I don’t understand a move on their part to enter into debate or message making. Go figure. I will get educated. Thanks again for info.

    • Hmmm. According to the Emily’s List website they are committed to electing “pro-choice Democratic women.”

      Republican and/or pro-life women need not apply.

      • Thanks my, I’m going to their site now. Don’t know why I thought them bipartisan. My iPhone refuses to play the video you posted so missed whatever that contained.

      • In November 2008, Ellen Moran, the executive director of Emily’s List, resigned to become Barack Obama’s communications director.

        • Wikipedia:

          On January 20, 2007, EMILY’s List endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. The endorsement came within hours of Senator Clinton’s announcement that she was forming an exploratory committee to run for president.

          During the Democratic presidential primaries, when pro-choice organization NARAL endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, EMILY’s List was strongly critical. President Ellen R. Malcolm said, “I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton – who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade – to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”[5]

          After the conclusion of the Presidential primary, EMILY’s List moved their support to Barack Obama and was vocal in their protest of the McCain/Palin ticket.

          • They should have pro-choice in quotes when attributing that to NARAL.

            At least Emily’s List did that bit well. Now that they’ve seen Obama in action, they should clearly and publicly be against what he has been doing. When then do, I will consider them a pro women’s group again.

        • With membership list in hand.

    • Sadly it looks to be either a shallow money raising tactic, or they have been turned over to the current DNC. They indeed used to be more bipartisan though pretty strictly pro-choice, which was find and dandy. And yes, they used to be all about helping women win via funding them (and letting them decide what to do with money). So this is very different and new.

      And it’s most telling, as myiq noted, that they aren’t doing the same effort to any Republicans more likely to get into office like Mitt, or even Mike. That’s the most telling and sad part.

      • Ah, thank you Dandy… I thought they had a history of bipartisanship.

      • Personally, I don’t think it makes any difference if they’re bipartisan or not. They’re supposed to be about electing women, and there are very few on either side. If they want to spend their resources attacking Repubs or anti-choicers aren’t there enough men to keep them occupied for the foreseeable future? Myiq is right, why not Mittins or Huckabee or Newt or any of 900000000 others? They’re just carrying the Dems’ water, playing their games while inoculating them from charges of sexism. “Even Emily’s List thinks Palin is the worst Reoublican ever in the world,” “This is EL’s initiative, nothing to do with us. Still, how much of a threat to humanity must these women be when a group dedicated to representation for women is singling them out above and beyond…”

        • Honk, honk!

          • Basically, Emily’s list is tapping into the misogyny that already exists on the “Left” as a way to raise money. Indeed, why not go after any of the guys on the right who could be the GOP nominee for president?

        • That’s how I see it. Going after Sarah is against Emily”s List mission, as I understood it.

    • (((Hello Angela)))

  18. Here we go again. Another round of women bashing women. We all saw how ugly this got the last time around. These groups are destroying themselves by lashing out at the very gender they’re suppose to represent and promote.

    I’m not a Palin supporter. But I hated the raw sexism that was hurled first at Hillary, and then Palin. And often it was women doing it. And attacking Palin’s family? Please. Confronting her positions, her lack of policy information is all fair game. But sending a clarion call to “take Palin on” doesn’t sound like anything more than same old, same old.

    Dumb. Very dumb.

    • I respected how Hillary handled the issue. She disagreed with Palin on issues, and stayed on issue. Vigorous intelligent debate between women (and everybody- for that matter) will only do us good. I don’t fear that. I would so like to see that actually. The bashing, the destructiveness of personalizing the issues- that I don’t want to see.

      • Exactly. The battle is with issues and policy. Real debates in that area would be fantastic. And the best and only way to move a cause IMO.

      • Oh, I absolutely agree. Debate on issues, policies and zeroing in on Palin’s reliance on cliche and platitude [in the absence of real substance] is all fair game. If that’s what they’re planning, I say bring it on.

        But my instinct tells me that this “take on” will devolve into the very ugly scenario we watched and listened to last time around. And that fiasco served no one. Least of all women.

        In this case, I’d be glad to be proven wrong. So, I guess we wait and see.

    • It is all mind boggling isn’t it. They put a lot of money and effort towards one goal, stopping Palin from helping Republican women get into office (see SarahPac video above).

      I understand helping pro-choice only women, or even just Dem women, whatever, but really, your biggest threat is not Republican control in general, or anti-women Dems, or Stupakistan, or misogyny in elections, or loss of civil liberties under this administration, but it’s Republican women. Really.

    • Yeah Peggy, the misogyny was horrible and clearly used on both women. Disgusting stuff. And just so frustrating when women do it.

  19. Okay… Emilys list is going with that rhetoric of “Sarah Palin’s radical agenda.” disappointing and cheap. And if I analyzed it I think it wouldn’t be hard to find the misogeny in it. It kind of reeks of that woman out of control thing a bit, no? Or maybe it’s just late at night.

  20. OT– Great photos of all the businesses and activities within the same distance from the WTC “ground zero” in NYC. Not exactly “hallowed ground.”

    http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

    • Hey BB, have you heard that mosque is not to be built on planned site? Is story true on noquarter?

      • It looks like conjecture at this point. Haaretz reporting that Muslim leaders might be changing the location. Nothing firm as of yet.

        • Oops.. In moderation. Odd.. I guess I don’t know trigger words. No more caffine late at nite for me. Nite all.

    • Yeah, Carville was on Anderson Cooper last night and he referenced the off-track betting parlor several times. ;)

  21. Ah lost one to the spamminator. Just saying I would be so happy to see good faith debate between women on the choice issue — like on tv where maybe our country could see the issue presented a little more intelligently than what we’re used to. Women disagreeing and still respecting each other. Oh my wouldn’t that just set a precedent for everyone else (fellas). Hillary and Palin could do it I bet. Here’s hoping.

  22. Only one thing for it, motorcycle ride tomorrow:

  23. It’s 2010 with 1984 characteristics. I always thought that the Ds were my friends, but in 2008 I found out I was wrong, and now the GOP doesn’t seem so scary.

  24. How are they attacking/going after Palin? Emily’s list works in electing Dem women. They see her as a threat. This should be expected. Wait until they call her ugly names and then call it an attack. I honestly don’t see anything wrong with what they have done. Not every woman will support or like Palin.

    • Leaders of Emily’s List are holding a press conference in Washington tomorrow to unveil a campaign targeting Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, and the candidates she has endorsed.

      What else do you call “targeting?”

      BTW – when Sarah talked about targeting they accused her of fomenting violence.

      • When they start calling her names, then they can be blamed. You are judging them before they have actually done something. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing. Palin supporters overreact.

        • “Palin supporters overreact.” Sure. Pot meet kettle.

          • I’m not an Obama supporter. I am just telling it as I see it. Some Palin supporters remind me so much of Obama supporters.

        • We’re definitely getting a poorer quality of troll today. This one clearly has never read Confluence.

        • No offense, but when your slogan is “When women vote, women win,” yet you’re trying to find 3 women in a 3000 mile radius to single out for opposition, you know you’re going to get criticism. You just don’t care, because it’s a cheap and ultimately self-defeating way to raise tons of cash from the “c—” t-shirt crowd. Let’s just hope EL never realizes what fundraising records they’d shatter if they start selling Hillary nut crackers.

    • Why aren’t they going after Newt Gingrich who is busy campaigning for his presidential run. I personally would puke at the thought of such a heartless man in office.

      Think about it, a man that can serve his wife divorce papers while she is recovering from cancer surgery is a man we don’t need as president. Not to mention his ‘faith’ morals can be put on hold while he has an affair with a staffer.

      Personally, I think Sarah has become a money raising tool, but the ‘power’ people are missing the fact that when they say ‘ewww scary Sarah’ they are also subliminally sending the message of ‘ewww scary are the women’. The latter to me is going to leave us wimmin folk with long lasting misogyny and anti-women sentiment that we can do without.

      Emily’s List should concentrate on POLICY, and they should look long and hard at the ‘Stupak Executive Amendment’ signed by President Obama. If they give him a pass on that, they really do need to deflect and go after the ‘scary woman’….sad is it not.

      • “[...] but the ‘power’ people are missing the fact that when they say ‘ewww scary Sarah’ they are also subliminally sending the message of ‘ewww scary are the women’.”

        Basically, Emily’s list is tapping into the misogyny that already exists on the “Left.” Indeed, why not go after any of the guys on the right who will more than likely be the GOP nominee for president?

    • If they think a few dozen Repub women candidates/office holders/former officeholders are the biggest problem we have and that’s the best way to fulfill their mission, I disagree, personally. If they’re so obsessed with this little group, they’d be better off trying to recruit Dem women to run against them, considering their mission, though even there it seems like they could find bigger fish to fry. Seems like we’ve got a long way to go and a few strides to make in terms of female representation before this should be on EL’s radar, frankly.

    • And I don’t understand why it should be “expected” that they’d see this as a threat. Especially not more of a threat than the far more numerous Republican men or Democratic men who work against women’s interests. Why is it some sort of women-against-women zero sum game where we’re locked together in a very tiny broom closet to battle for the tiny pittance of seats we’re allotted? As far as I know, there aren’t a whole lot of districts drawn to specifically facilitate the election of women reps (and that would be pretty hard to do, although technically many districts are majority female). No one is asking Emily’s List to like or support Palin. Merely to not play into the Democrats’ grimy hands by going out of their way to single out the small percentage of Repub women that get the new base going, blowing their importance all out of proportion while giving all these men a free pass and acting as if they’re accomplishing something.

      • Women Dems would be doing a lot better if not for this kind of thing. Republican women seem to be doing well now and I’m all for them. I’m a believer in the 30% rule.

        What possible harm could it do to EL’s cause to have a GOP governor of South Carolina? This is either a fund raising scheme, completely stupid, or both. I vote for both.

      • Emily’s list supports Dem women. They want to counteract Palin’s popularity towards women because it is expected to be her largest base. It is the group Palin is going after and who better to do it than Dem women? They know she is going to become the Republican nominee in 2012.

        • Frankly, I will believe she’s going to be the nominee when I see it. I doubt she has a shot in hell. Again, Emily’s List supports Dem women candidates, supposedly. Not carries water for misogynist male Dems. Is Malia Obama going to take her father’s place on the ticket? If she does get the nomination, she’ll be running against a man and subject to another misogynist tidal wave, so again, the threat to Dem women is where? A female President would inspire lots more women running, Dems too. This threat thing makes no sense, again it is not a zero sum game where everytime a bell rings, a Repub woman goes up and a Dem goes down. It’s silly. They need to go back to working on behalf of Dem women and stop this foolishness. “When women vote, women win–god damn it! How are we going to stop it? Not on our watch! 20 women is 20 too many, we won’t rest until we get to zero!”

          • How many female Democrats have they found to oppose Sarah’s “mama grizzlies?”

            What are they doing about the anti-choice Democrats WHO ARE ALREADY IN OFFICE?

          • Exactly. I mean, I’d rather see them find female Dems to run against male Repubs first (considering how FEW women of any party there are in office), but Jeebus, if they’re so bound and determined to single out the women, at least find other women to run against them. So at least we don’t lose even more freakin’ ground, if we can’t gain.

            Did they throw away their mission statement and now they think they’re the Sierra Club, or something? Many groups don’t see the value in representation–EL kinda does. Or at least, they’re supposed to.

  25. Emily’s list lost me after they began their shilling for Obama in 2008. Prior to that, I had been on the “list” and even attended some meetings.

    I don’t see why they need to keep going after Palin. She is not running against their Holy One. At least not that we know of.

    Leave it alone, ladies. Support YOUR candidates … and let the women of the Right support theirs.

  26. .I have a draft on Democrats and women’s rights, that I hope to finish up by the weekend, so I’m reserving comment on this.

  27. FWIW, myiq, just want to add in one more voice agreeing with you. I get so fed up with the Palin bashing.

    She did a better job running Alaska than Huckabee did in Arkansas. Where’s the Huckabee bashing? Hmmm?

    How many more failed Presidents before people start thinking it might be a good idea to pay attention to what people do, not what they say.

    • Here, Here! Honk, honk!

    • Huckabee is nuts… Exhibit A…

      • Emily’s List called–does he have a sister who’s running for anything? A niece? A beautician he talked to at the Magnolia Steak Festival one time? They can’t take him on, but if you can find a proxy, they’re in.

        • Deadly Sexist Ad of the Day: Proenza Schouler h/t GWT
          http://tiny.cc/r3xs4

          They have turned the above discussion in to a ‘Sarah Hate’ thread, when the real threat are the ones you are pointing out.

          Wonk The Vote,

          Please Oh please consider doing a post about RUSH moving to Costa Rica over Health Care….Costa Rica has Universal Health Care, and is rated amongst the top for health care and prostitution is legal. :shock:

          • Count me in, for UHC anyway. I don’t think I would make much money as a prostitute :shock:

          • Is it not hysterical that RUSH NUT is threatening to move to COSTA RICA who has Universal Health Care over Health Care Reform (NOT) here. I think he is giving cover for the Insurance Give Away, cuz we all know Obama Kept Real Reform out; The Public Option and The Medicare Buy In.

            RalphB,

            You are too funny. :lol:

  28. I don’t think it’s a mistake.
    $arah acts like she is talking for ALL women, when she is NOT. The women who don’t agree with her…alot of women, need a voice too.

    Or as $arah would say, ALSO TOO.

    • LOL! Also too you missed the point of the post.

      I agree that Sarah is NOT talking for all women. But, Em’s list needs to be spending more energy supporting women who do speak for them.

    • That’s great. Maybe they should use that “voice” for positive advocacy instead of attacking other women to serve the cynical interests of misogynist Dems. It wouldn’t be as fun, but it would have a positive impact in all 57 states.

    • BTW–also too, it’s a lot. Not alot. The universal truth of the Internet, when attacking others as stupid or illiterate, always, always proofread.

  29. Palin on Ewoks…

    On this anniversary of women’s suffrage, let’s take a moment to be grateful for the diversity of the debate. Women don’t walk in lockstep with each other in politics, any more than men do. We should be proud of our ability to engage in a civil discussion and healthy debate. I know I am.

    First, ladies, it’s hard to take a critic seriously when they lecture you wearing a bear suit. So, it’s difficult for me to drum up much outrage at this latest ad. But, really, lying about a sister while wearing an Ewok outfit is no way to honor our foremothers on the eve of the 90th anniversary of their victory. But, that aside, I’d love to know where you got those get-ups. Halloween is just around the corner, and Piper and Trig would look adorable as little grizzly bears.

    We may disagree about how to get there, but I’d like to think that we all want an America that is strong, prosperous, peaceful, and free.

    So, ladies, let’s lead. In the words of that great American woman, Abigail Adams, “We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them.” Let’s get things done.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 414 other followers

%d bloggers like this: