Skip to main content

Promoted from the diaries (with much more below the fold). I judge EMILY's List by the company they keep. This is despicable. - smintheus

EMILY's List, known for funding female candidates for public office, has two main qualifications for getting their endorsement. You have to be female and you have to be pro-choice. The organization recently endorsed Nikki Tinker in her run for Congress from Tennessee.

PhotobucketTinker is running against sitting Representative Steve Cohen, a fellow Democrat.  Cohen is one of the most liberal members of Congress with a history of supporting pro-choice and LGBT issues.  Why would EMILY's List work to defeat an incumbent Congressman with a history of working in favor of their chosen issue?  The answer has to be sexism; he's a man. No other explanation can possibly make sense.

After all, Tinker's campaign has been engaging in one of the most vitriolic anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic campaigns in Tennessee history. Black Baptist ministers have publicly called for Cohen's defeat because of his race, a flier declaring "Steve Cohen and the Jews Hate Jesus" has been circulated throughout Memphis, and Tinker's campaign has refused to denounce or repudiate these tactics.  EMILY's List has invested resources in this campaign - and they did in 2006 too.

"In 2006, EMILY's List endorsed Tinker and spent $500,000 on her behalf in the form of negative direct mail pieces with scores of lies about Cohen's record," Cohen campaign director Jerry Austin told me. Austin suggested that more of the same could be expected before the August 7th primary.  One flier condemned Cohen for missing a few votes as a state legislator, but neglected to mention that the Congressman was in the hospital recovering from an illness.

The anti-Semitic flier

The Memphis Commercial Appeal started their editorial on the anti-Semitic flier with this scathing opening:

What does Nikki Tinker think about anti-Semitic literature being circulated that might help her unseat 9th District Congressman Steve Cohen in the Democratic primary next August?

A fair question, which Tinker declined to answer this week after a flier stating that "Steve Cohen and the Jews Hate Jesus" began circulating in Memphis.

The question goes to the character of the woman who wants to represent the 9th District, and 9th District voters deserve an answer. But Tinker declined to return a phone call about the flier.

Tinker spokesperson Cornell Belcher commented to the paper, "We'd be interested in denouncing this sort of nonsense as well but, again, we haven't seen it," and eventually Tinker did acknowledge the document.  The flier's author is an African-American minister from a Tennessee town outside of her district, so she claimed that she couldn't do anything about it.

Racial politics and homophobia

The Anti-Defamation League says that the flier "attempts to incite tension" between the African-American community and Jews.  A local television news report on the racial overtones to this race took Tinker to task.  This election has devolved into racial politics at it's worst with another Baptist minister declaring:

"He's not black and he can't represent me, that's just the bottom line," said Rev. Robert Poindexter of Mt. Moriah Baptist Church. "I don't care how people try to dress it up, it always comes down to race and he can't know what it's like to be black."

African-American Baptist ministers seem to be at the bottom of most of these racial overtones.  The Memphis Baptist Ministerial Association is a strong backer of the Tinker campaign.  The MBMA is known for blatantly homophobic statements.  The National Black Justice Coalition recently showcased one MBMA press release that reads in part:

Mr. Matthew Shepherd, as unfortunate as his death was, was not killed because he was gay, he was killed by two (2) fellow drug abusers who wanted his money for more drugs.

Less than one percent of the 800,000 thousand plus aggravated assaults took place against American citizens because of sexual orientation...

We go on record that we detest the alignment of African-Americans with homosexuals and lesbians as being equal. There is absolutely nothing immoral about being African-American.

The MBMA recently invited Representative Cohen to a gathering to address the ministers over his vote in favor of hate crimes legislation.  The meeting turned so racist and volatile that the ministers apologized to Cohen for the actions of some of their members.

After the meeting Cohen told the Commercial Appeal, "I was not treated the way a congressman or an elected official or an invited guest should have been treated.  It was supposed to be my time to come and address this issue. I never expected anything like this.  This all about LaSimba Gray and Nikki Tinker. It's about a small group trying to find a wedge issue that they hope will get Tinker elected."

Representative Cohen's record on LGBT issues

The MBMA also opposed any recognition of same-sex relationships and opposes non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation or gender identity.  Representative Cohen opposed the Defense of Marriage Act and co-sponsored the trans-inclusive version of ENDA.

"Name one bill relating to gay and lesbian issues that Congressman Steve Cohen voted wrong," challenged Austin in response to the EMILY's List endorsement of Tinker.

"The answer," Austin continued, "is zero".

"As the most liberal and supportive member in the Tennessee Senate and now as the most liberal and supportive member of the Tennessee Congressional Delegation, Steve Cohen's record of fighting for gay and lesbian issues has been disrespected by EMILY's List, again," Austin stated.

He continued, "Tinker has stated that her Bible does not allow her to support certain gay and lesbian issues. She is supported by many homophobic preachers and has never denounced their outrageous statements. Many of these pastors have stated that they do not oppose Cohen because he is white or Jewish (wink, wink) but because of his stand on moral issues like choice and gay rights."

Cohen's Fundraising Director, Bryce Timmons, went even further.  

"The Congressman has an A+ record on every issue EMILY's List is concerned with.  He's been out front and won awards from Planned Parenthood.  Congressman Cohen is responsible for including sexual orientation in every peice of LGBT legislation introduced in TN.  He did that.  As a state senator he was the guy who made sure sexual orientation was included in every piece of Tennessee anti-discimination legislation.  Steve Cohen put it there - and continued proposing it when it was shot down," he said.

"He's made numerous speeches where he's repeatedly said he doesn't understand how anyone could be a Democrat and not stand up for everyone's civil libertieis.  Steve is the guy for these issues in Tennessee."

Timmons recalled attending a 2006 house party for Tinker's campaign where he asked her specifically about her stance on Proposition 1, Tennessee's proposed marriage amendment.  The amendment passed.  Timmons paraphrased Tinker's response: "As an attorney I fully respect people's contract rights.  I'll draw up a contract for any two people with regard to property rights.  But as a Christian I believe marriage is between a man and woman."

"Half of her supporters are running a racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic campaign.  The rumor has been floated that Steve is 'too gay' to represent them.  He's good on gay issues and has never been married so they had to start rumors about his sexuality.  He's been taking the heat for it.  That's the campaign she's running.  She's allowing her proxies to go out and say things that are defamatory and absurd and then attacking us for taking positions.  At election time that's going to shine through," Timmons stated.

Does gender trump race, religion and sexual orientation?

The Black Agenda Report editorialized in a piece entitled "When NOT to Vote Black (at least in Memphis),":

The unfinished African American journey out of Jim Crow and its narrow political mindset has reached a critical juncture in Memphis, Tennessee. There, in the city's 60 percent Black Ninth Congressional District, a first-term white incumbent whose voting record would place him solidly in the political bosom of the Congressional Black Caucus, is challenged by a young Black female corporate operative - an acolyte of Harold Ford, Jr., the worst Black congressman in modern history.
...
It is a perfect storm of corruption: Nikki Tinker, a physically attractive but intellectually vapid lawyer for regional boss-man Northwest Airlink/Pinnacle Airlines - whose principal duty is to keep unions in check - backed by a gang of gay-baiting preachers who never saw a Republican Faith-Based Initiative check they wouldn't cash. If elected, Tinker can be expected to act as a surrogate for her sponsor, Harold Ford, Jr., the Bush-loving former representative of the district, unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Senate, and now nominal chairman of the corporatist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
...
Since his swearing-in in January of this year, Cohen has voted his Black district's interests as diligently as 23 of the 40 voting members of the Congressional Black Caucus, earning an 80 percent grade (a "B") on the CBC Monitor's latest Report Card. Six Black congresspersons scored lower than Cohen, eleven higher. In contrast, the CBC Monitor named Harold Ford, Jr. "Lawn Jockey Emeritus" for consistently ranking at the bottom of every Black congressional class he attended since the watchdog group began tracking votes in September, 2005. In fact, Ford veered sharply to the right in his second term, in 1998, which means Cohen is the best - and "Blackest" - congressman the Ninth District has had in nearly a decade, and as progressive a representative as most Blacks on Capitol Hill.

However, literally nobody but the CBC Monitor keeps methodical track of such things, so Cohen must resort to behavior that some might consider, pandering. He has issued a document called "Steve Cohen's Position on the Covenant with Black America"; applied to join the Congressional Black Caucus but withdrew after noting the resulting discomfort among CBC members; and takes every opportunity to ceremonially show allegiance to the majority of his constituents. But most importantly, he votes correctly most of the time, and is careful to display a range of issues-positions on his web site, to prove it.

If racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism are the hallmarks of Tinker's campaign, why is EMILY's List endorsing her?  The answer can't be simply that she's pro-choice.  Cohen is the incumbent who already votes in favor of a woman's right to choose.  He has built up experience and connections that are more valuable than a freshman Congresswoman wouldn't have.  This isn't a primary where there is no incumbent so they would automatically endorse the female candidate.  

The answer has to lie in Tinker's gender.  That amounts to sexism and, supposedly, EMILY's List was created to help end gender inequality.  Perhaps someone needs to remind the org that they also represent lesbians and Jewish women.  After all, they seem to have overlooked that minor detail.

EMILY's List should retract their endorsement immediately and ask for the return of any money contributed to Tinker's campaign.  Instead of providing funding and attacking the Congressman on her behalf, they should denounce a campaign besmirched with anti-Semitism, racism and homophobia.

If you'd like to help offset EMILY's List's endorsement, you can donate to Representative Cohen's campaign.

Calls to the Tinker campaign and EMILY's List about this issue were not returned.

(Originally posted on my home blog, The Bilerico Project. Feel free to join the discussion over there too. We like newbies and don't bite too hard!)

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:37 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips! (205+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Sharoney, Kimberley, Anthony Segredo, Superskepticalman, chrississippi, Ducktape, muddy paws, pucknomad, yellowdog, mwm341, teacherken, Marie, Ivan, AlanF, Oregon Bear, mickT, burrow owl, peggy, Rolfyboy6, tommurphy, thumperward, Eman, wu ming, shayera, GayHillbilly, phenry, xynz, Sandy on Signal, RoIn, prfb, theran, sardonyx, DWKING, dhonig, smintheus, eastlake, RichardG, BlackGriffen, peace voter, Pithy Cherub, AlyoshaKaramazov, chuckvw, melthewriter, jeff06dem, peraspera, TheNightfly, Swordsmith, itskevin, MadEye, TLS66, michael1104, andreww, CocoaLove, Boris Godunov, ChristieKeith, Janet Strange, bigmama, webweaver, Dittoz, Nancy in LA, pakaal, MattR, jamfan, GN1927, defluxion10, Greg in TN, sarakandel, DH from MD, alizard, 4jkb4ia, JayDean, boran2, lalo456987, lcs, Treg, TexasTom, Lepanto, babatunde, Isara, FunkyEntropy, Tarantula Lady, wiscmass, leftynyc, evenson, golden star, esquimaux, tarheelblue, fizziks, Wary, fiddler crabby, Tiny Wurlitzer, sailmaker, Lashe, twigg, plf515, max stirner, filmgeek83, absalom2, Party Line Voter, mmiddle, kurious, HGM MA, audemocrat, mariachi mama, Tensegrity, mapman, Opposite Reaction, GoldnI, PerryA, marykk, camlbacker, lordcopper, EdSF, edsbrooklyn, Norm DePlume, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, Tenn Wisc Dem, DennisMorrison, Strabo, getlost, jedennis, ubertar, thursdays child, Got a Grip, The Red Pen, FatOldGuy, Neon Mama, nom de paix, Lady Bird Johnson, Sicembears, NYContrarian, Baron Dave, wayoutinthestix, brklyngrl, geez53, homoaffectional, bythesea, royce, Ocelopotamus, icebergslim, Populista, Maura Satchell, Dean Barker, noddem, kempsternyc, echatwa, joy sinha, OrdinaryIowan, omegajew, nklein, Four of Nine, newton123, RevenantX, glynor, moondancing, Tennessee Dave, oldliberal, Finck II, archer070, sad pony guerilla girl, ManahManah, Libertaria, RandomActsOfReason, velvet blasphemy, earicicle, Mercuriousss, Parallax857, dRefractor, Ohiobama, Jyrki, EbenezerSeattle, Crookshanks, oxfdblue, soms, KyleDS, MAORCA, Keith Pickering, majhula, Munchkn, dalfireplug, Jameson, Anarchofascist, PoliticalJunkessa, iampunha, SheaG, Lord Sphere, Dragon5616, joe from Lowell, Tricky, Frances Nicole, AussieJo, stefanielaine, liberate, paul94611, browneyes, Amber6541, p gorden lippy, JamesEB, TFinSF, serendipityisabitch, Spruced Alien, Spaceboy, ryoung07, electrum

    Thanks!

  •  You can't claim sexism... (5+ / 0-)

    when they're supporting a woman for office. I don't know anything about this race, and I'm not defending Tinker, but it's a little much for me to see a man claiming sexism because another man is being "discriminated" against.

    Can we just say that EMILY's list's identity politic is a little... essentialist? I think that's more what you're going for.

    Just sayin', you can't plug into the history of sexism in this country in the absolutely random situation where a man actually has to notice his gender as an impediment to participating in politics.

    •  Wrong, wrong, and wrong. (59+ / 0-)

      Sexism is defined as "discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex."

      Not just towards women, because women don't hold an exclusive stranglehold on discrimination or abuse.

      This is sexism. Period. The fact that it's sexism by women is irrelevant.

      Help Colbert: donate to needy students in PA!

      by liberate on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:13:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's silly (8+ / 0-)

        There's an extensive history of sexism against women. There isn't one against men. When you use the word "sexism," you're trying to plug into a larger narrative of oppression, no matter what a dictionary says about the word.

        I'm not defending the endorsement. I'm just saying it's completely different than sexism against women.

        •  sexism is sexism (41+ / 0-)

          no matter how you parse it. Yes, there is a longstanding history of sexism against women, but treating anyone differently because of their gender is sexism. Period.

          Same goes for racism. Do you also say that a white person being refused service in a black bakery also isn't racism? (and it did happen frequently here in Oakland, CA, at one particular bakery)

          What does it matter who is pointing out the inequality? Does a man pointing it out somehow make it less important?

          I can haz sound economic policy?

          by Isara on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:19:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  fine, it can be sexism. (4+ / 0-)

            Then we just have to admit that sexism isn't so bad.

            I'm saying that "sexism" is a word with a punch, and that punch is there for a reason - thousands of years of oppression of women.

            What EMILY's List does in general makes no sense if we ignore misogyny and history. To say that the opposite is just as bad, when Cohen, because of his gender, has more career options open to him than Tinker does (assuming all else was equal, which it isn't), demonstrates a lack of understanding of reality.

            It's funny that everyone here is presenting the exact arguments against affirmative action - start with the assumption that no discrimination exists, and then move on to complain about the few instances of black-against-white, jew-against-christian, etc, discrimination. Soon we'll all understand that the most oppressed people are Christian, straight, white males!

            •  Actually, you're wrong. No other way to put it. (13+ / 0-)

              The word means what it means, regardless of what you want it to mean.

              Help Colbert: donate to needy students in PA!

              by liberate on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:28:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you, Humpty Dumpty :) (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus

                I use the Lewis Carroll quote often:

                When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

                So feminists can be sexist and it doesn't count because of how they parse the words.

                Accusing people of sexism when none exists is sexism, no matter how it is spun.

                Supporting a lesser-qualified woman over a more qualified man is sexism, plain and simple, regardless of the spin.

                And that continues to be my objection to EMILY's List as well as certain supporters in this race.  Gender was and is a criteria for their support, and when called for it they screech "sexism."

            •  what the heck is your argument, anyway? (31+ / 0-)

              EMILY's list clearly is supporting Tinker not on the issues or on her character, which is repulsive, but merely because she's a woman. How is that (i) not sexism, and (ii) a good thing?

              What do you have against Cohen? And why would you support trying to replace him with an ass like Tinker? As far as I'm concerned, primaries are for replacing bad candidates with better ones, not the reverse.

              These candidates are applying for a job. How is it any of your business what their gender is?

              •  besides that fact that i said above (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                maryb2004, StageStop

                that they shouldn't have endorsed against cohen, what I am saying is that sexism against women reduces their options greatly, the rare discrimination against men does not.

                I would say that they have an insular, essentialist identity politic, not that they're sexist.

                The job comparison makes sense. As someone who's in favor of sensible affirmative action programs, I think that when looking at a field of qualified candidates, that a woman or minority should be given priority.

                Clearly Tinker isn't qualified, but if she were, supporting her because she's a qualified woman isn't a bad thing.

                And I don't know why people are just saying that the only reason she's being supported is because she's a woman. Some of the other threads here are pointing to other reasons, and I've read otherwise on other blogs.

                •  nonsense (18+ / 0-)

                  Rejecting somebody because he's a male obviously does him harm. How you can possibly claim to know that it's "rare" is beyond me. It sounds to me like you're inclined to dismiss it whenever you do encounter it, so your judgment on the matter of rarity probably isn't worth much.

                  And you might want to consult federal statute regarding employment discrimination. It's illegal to discriminate in hiring and promotion based on a whole range of personal qualities, including gender, race, and ethnicity. It's called the Civil Rights Act. Doesn't matter if you call gender/racial/ethnic discrimination "affirmative action" or anything else that suits your fancy. It's still illegal.

                  •  I didn't know you were a fan (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    StageStop

                    of Justice Roberts' reasoning in the Parents Involved case.  

                    Seriously.  You seem to be using his reasoning.  

                    Maybe you did agree with it, I don't remember if you blogged about it.

                    The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

                    by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:46:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  CRA is clear as can be (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MrJayTee, earicicle, liberate

                      in prohibiting gender/racial discrimination in job hiring.

                      In fact, it was intended to be as explicit as possible - both because critics accused the bill's backers of trying to promote what could be called reverse-discrimination (which the backers insisted was neither the purpose nor the effect of CRA), and because explicit provisions were necessary to ensure that bill's provisions were respected rather than subverted.

                      Those who think that executive orders on affirmative action give them carte blanche to ignore the CRA prohibitions against gender/ethnic job discrimination are just dreaming.

                      •  The accusers were right wing hacks (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Party Line Voter, StageStop

                        who use reverse-discrimination claims as a way to keep white men in power.  I won't argue with you over the CRA but I will argue with you that you should be buying into their reasoning right here on the front page of Daily Kos.

                        Your reasoning above was essentially Justice Roberts' reasoning - the way to end gender discrimination is to not discriminate on the basis of gender.

                        I prefer paraphrasing Justice Blackmun:  In order to get beyond gender we must first look at Gender.  

                        Although of course Blackmun himself never lifted women's rights to the same level of scrutiny as he did race discrimination.  

                        The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

                        by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:23:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  so you suppose I can't think for myself? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MrJayTee

                          Your condescension isn't really much appreciated. And who the heck are you to be telling me what I can and can't say, here at DK or anywhere?

                          You do have to address CRA - because it's the law of the land. If the law prohibits discrimination in hiring clearly (and it does) it doesn't matter what you would like the law to mandate.

                          •  using the 'condescension' meme (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Odysseus, GayHillbilly, StageStop

                            doesn't phase me.  I'm arguing with you.  If you find that condescending that's your problem.

                            You seem to be asserting that candidates running for office are applying for a job and therefore the CRA applies to them.  Can you cite me a case that says that?  I doubt that you can.  People make decisions on how to vote all the time.  If they want to vote based on gender that's perfectly fine under the law of this land.  If they want to monetarily support candidates based on gender that's also perfectly all right.  And you know it.

                            I'm saying that your reasoning with respect to the discussion of sexism on this mirrors Justice Roberts reasoning in Parents Concerned.  I find that troubling because I've always seen you as more progressive than Justice Roberts.

                            This is a terrible candidate that EL is endorsing. Everyone is right to call them on such a stupid endorsement.  But to allow an attack EL for sexism on the front page of dKos when it's purpose IS to elect women and it has endorsed a women is very troubling to me.  Attack them for stupidity.  Attack them for disorganized vetting. Attack them for a very poor strategy.  But when they are attacked for sexism, it shows that there is a lack of knowledge of how sexism has permeated and still permeates the electoral process and demeans the women who continue to fight against it by getting women elected.

                            The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

                            by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:16:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  nothing of the sort (0+ / 0-)

                            You seem to be asserting that candidates running for office are applying for a job and therefore the CRA applies to them.

                            I never said nor implied that. It would be absurd.

                            As far as Roberts' views are concerned, you're making an ad hominem argument. It's condescending, esp. when you state that I'm "buying into their reasoning"...as if I have no faculties of my own.

                            You seem to assume that the EMILY's List types are incapable of sexism because they're promoting female candidates. Because sexism is a one-way street? Because electing women candidates is a good thing per se?

                            The diarist makes a legitimate point, that promoting a terrible candidate because she's a woman to replace a good candidate who's male is sexist.

                            That has nothing to do with "a lack of knowledge". It's called a different perspective. If you refuse to consider that trying to defeat candidates simply because they're male is sexist, that's your business. But I'm not going to assert that you've reached that position through a lack of knowledge of by naively buying into somebody else's arguments.

                          •  ok (0+ / 0-)

                            My intent is not to insult you but to engage in a discussion or an argument that is a debate. I'm used to having these kinds of discussions at forums smaller than DailyKos and I forgot that at DailyKos any disagreement of more than 2 sentences devolves into an argument (in the sense of a fight).  I did not make my original comment as an ad hominum attack but I see why you may have taken it that way.  And after this comment I'll go back to my quasi lurker status here and refrain from attempting these kinds of discussions here.

                            I am comparing your view with Justice Roberts view.  If you object to my phrase "buying into" I retract it.  But I stick with 'mirrors'.  You have yet to tell me why your view differs from his view that the way to remedy discrimination in race is to be racially blind (and in this case, by analogy, blind as to gender too).  That IS what you seem to be saying.  

                            I disagree with him and I disagree with you.  Discrimination exists.  It needs to be remedied.  Being blind to it only keeps the non-discriminated group in power.  In this case that would be white men.

                            Perhaps you don't think you are using his reasoning but it really does seem to me that you are. And I question that.    

                            I really am just incredibly surprised at your viewpoint.  I've been reading you for a long time now and ... well, I'm just surprised.

                            I'm not checking back after this - I'm terrible at checking responses.  But I wanted you to know that I don't intend to attack you but I DO intend to question you.  Because I really do disagree with your reasoning on this.

                            The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

                            by maryb2004 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:01:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not interested in Roberts' views (0+ / 0-)

                            Why should I be? I've reached my own view on employment discrimination, and I've explained what that is: The CRA prohibits it clearly, emphatically, decisively.

                            If you disagree, show me where the CRA permits employers to treat job candidates differently based upon their gender, race, and ethnicity. There is very modest and narrow wiggle room with regard to gender - when gender is a bona fide job qualification (such as in hiring female guards in a womens' prison). Otherwise, the law takes the point of view that a job candidate's gender, race, and ethnicity is none of the employer's business.

                            Executive orders do not trump law.

                            And even if that were not the law, in my view it's the way things should be.

                            Why are you surprised that I'm in favor of upholding the clear meaning of the law? I have an unequivocal record on upholding law as law.

                            You seem to fetishize affirmative action, as if it were such a purely good thing that there must be something a little wrong with anybody who doesn't share your appreciation of it. Well, I've seen it in play from both sides of the hiring table and the more I've seen the less attractive it looks to me. In any case, many people will disagree with your attitude on affirmative action, including many Democrats. Doesn't mean they're ignorant or in thrall to right-wing reactionaries.

                            Maybe you should think about why you find disagreement with you on this issue surprising. Perhaps you've never heard anyone say, as I have heard, "I joined this search committee to make sure they hire a woman." If you had encountered such gross discrimination as that, I'd hope you'd reject it as illegal.

                          •  We are talking past each other (0+ / 0-)

                            and I don't know if that's intentional or unintentional on your part.

                            I have no idea why we are discussing the CRA when we both agree that it doesn't apply to candidates for public office.  But yes, I recognize it as the law of the land in hiring decisions that it covers. It doesn't cover elections.

                            What does it have to do with Emily's List?  What does it have to do with any organization whose purpose is to  promote the election of women to public office?  

                            I even hate to ask these questions because discussing the CRA takes us further and further from what I think the point of this conversation is.  But maybe I'm wrong and I'll let you explain it.

                            I do not "fetishize" affirmative action.  But I also do not think that affirmative action is by it's very nature unconstitutional.  Do you?  That's really what I'm asking you.  That is the point of my original question.

                            Do you think that affirmative action is unconstitutional?  

                            The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

                            by maryb2004 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:59:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know what "affirmative action" is. (0+ / 0-)

                            It is not defined in law, and various executive orders use the term in ways that flatly contradict each other. It's the source of so much that is wrong with affirmative action, the lack of a clear and coherent definition of what it is.

                            Some types of behavior done under color of affirmative action clearly are against the law. Others are not.

                            I'm not the one who linked CRA to elections. All I said is that candidates are applying to us for a job. We should treat them as we should treat job candidates - hire the best person without regard for their gender. EMILY's List clearly places gender first, even to the point of trying to unseat a much preferable candidate just because he's male. That's the kind of nonsense you're likely to get sooner or later when you discriminate according to gender.

                  •  Silly (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    maryb2004, StageStop

                    C'mon, people.  Didn't everyone have enough of this argument in college?  Emily's List is stupid in this instance.  But sexist?  Please.

                •  "sexism' versus 'discrimination" (10+ / 0-)

                  I ditched the sad, tired term 'sexism' decades ago. I am a 60 year female, civil rights, women's rights era, to put in into perspective.

                  And here's why I ditched the term 'sexism' its a highly charged political term of my era, like 'racism' but both have characteristics that are politically similar and both are discrimination--and yes, men can and do experience this form of discrimination as well.

                  What are the characteristics? To hold a group or groups of people below the standard of the ruling class.

                  I know what real 'sexism' was when growing up, and it doesn't exist today. What exists is discrimination based upon characteristics other than mere gender.

                  This highly charged campaign where a candidate has made a comeback of the word 'sexism' is not healthy at all and will produce blow back upon the womnen's hard fought movement I think is a possibility.

                  We strive to teach our children to be the best, fairest, compassionate, people they can be, regardless of the gender, race, gender orientation AND we teach them to not discriminate PERIOD.

                  All of a sudden we now have these political terms being bandied about again, dredging up the past with polarizing names from the past is what the Republicans have done all these decades through the southern strategy. I reject it strongly and have fought against it for decades now here in the south.

                  What Emily's list is doing is one of the worse forms of discrimination I've seen and I really dislike what they are doing and doing on the 'name of women' --it is totally disgusting because they are falling right into the bait that the Republicans set with their faith based initiatives that hit right at those 'cultural values' of homophobia.

                  I totally reject Emily's list now, with their SEXIST promotions of women at the cost of EVERYTHING of anti discriminatory values that the Democratic party has fought for and stood for since Civil Rights era.

                  "People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving"

                  by Wary on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:15:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I prefer to focus on transcending obsolete (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fizziks, Libertaria, Dragon5616

                    categories. Well said, Wary. I'm a 60-year old female as well.

                    My kids and grandkids think all this type of debate is so "old-age stuff." They live and work in such diverse circumstances.

                    I hate the "political correctness" that is fostered on us by people who want, often for their own interests, to maintain the old categories.

                •  so what's the antidote for sexism (0+ / 0-)

                  what I am saying is that sexism against women reduces their options greatly, the rare discrimination against men does not.

                  I absolutely agree with you about women's options being reduced. (Although men are discriminated against in our society in many ways--but that is for another blog). So because of sexism does that mean it's okay for women to use racism or antisemitism (even "passively so as in Tinker's case) in order to even the playing field?

                  An enemy is one whose story we have not heard -Gene Knudsen Hoffman

                  by cloudwatcher on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:24:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Isara, dRefractor, Munchkn

                    So because of sexism does that mean it's okay for women to use racism or antisemitism (even "passively so as in Tinker's case) in order to even the playing field?

                    "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

                    (Although I suspect you were being rhetorical, it is sage advice to keep in mind.)

                    Help Colbert: donate to needy students in PA!

                    by liberate on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:00:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Uh, where? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  IM

                  Some of the other threads here are pointing to other reasons, and I've read otherwise on other blogs.

                  Uh, what blogs?  I wrote the article.  I've watched it spread elsewhere and, well, I've tried to keep track and follow along.  What blogs are pointing out other reasons that EMILY's List endorsed her other than the fact that 1) she's a woman and 2) she's pro-choice?

                  I'd truly like to see them so I can follow up.

              •  You do know... (0+ / 0-)
                ...what Cohen said about Hillary Clinton, right?

                When you say that they're supporting Tinker "merely because she's a woman", you're discounting the likely effect of Cohen's remarks on their decision, which the diarist completely failed to mention.  

                Reporting only one side of the story is dishonest and contemptible.  

            •  By your logic, racism can only be perpetrated by (11+ / 0-)

              white people.

              The ends do not justify the means, and bigotry is wrong no matter who perpetrates it. To argue otherwise is, frankly, absurd, as it undermines your outrage against injustice.

              •  Exactly! (0+ / 0-)

                if that wasn't true (the first part of what you said), then affirmative action would be a completely racist practice, wouldn't it?

                •  You lost me. Are you seriously arguing that (0+ / 0-)

                  racism can only be perpetrated by white people? And that sexism can only be perpetrated by men?

                  Apologies if I misconstrued your response, it seemed rather tangential.

                  •  Yeah, that's what I'm arguing (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    StageStop

                    I'm surprised that seems like an out of the mainstream viewpoint to you.  I've always considered racism and sexism to be connected to power and oppression -- it can't be perpetrated against a white man (like myself).  If someone dismisses me because I'm a man or I'm white, do I burn with anger?  No.  Honestly, I dismiss it -- because I'm in no way trapped by it -- society's got my back, and in the long run this won't have consequences.  The same can't be said for members of a group who are routinely or historically the subjects of discrimination.    

                    •  It relates to minority and majority groups (0+ / 0-)

                      If you are a minority (politically, economically, culturally, NOT STATISTICALLY, subordinant), you can be a victim of sexism and/or racism.

                      •  True but only as a specific case of a more (0+ / 0-)

                        general truth, which is that anyone can be the victim of discrimination of any sort, be it sexism, racism, ageism, or anything else. The meanings of the words have nothing to do with minority status, regardless of to whom, and by whom, they are usually inflicted.

                        Help Colbert: donate to needy students in PA!

                        by liberate on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:02:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  So there is nothing inherently wrong (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Isara, liberate

                        with sexism or racism? It is only wrong when exercised by a majority?

                        How does this not lead directly to a "separate but equal" argument?

                        I am curious what you believe the roots of power imbalance and injustice are, if they are not rooted in incorrect prejudicial attitudes.

                        •  There isn't anything inherently wrong with it (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          VelvetElvis

                          I have no problem with an organization that exists solely to get WOMEN elected to office.  Or an organization that's stated goal is the "Advancement of Colored People."  Or with race based affirmative action (well, I have some problems with it, but they're not fundamental).  Do you?  Isn't that, by definition, sexism and racism?  But isn't it different than an organization that wants to get more White Men elected to office?  Why?  

                          I don't get your separate but equal concern AT ALL.  maybe someone can explain it to me.  

                          And to answer your question, I believe power imbalances are fundamentally rooted in economic factors like division of labor, slavery, control of capital, etc...

                    •  Once again, we come up against ends vs means (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FunkyEntropy, Libertaria, liberate

                      You seem to be arguing that there is nothing inherently wrong with judging merit based on skin color or genital configuration, and that prejudice itself is not the cause, but merely a side-effect, or perhaps a result, of injustice. This seems both counterintuitive and ahistoric to me. In fact, you seem to set up a defense of prejudice and bigotry when exercised by an oppressed group. I wonder, then, what is the source of your moral outrage against oppression in the first place?

                      Wittingly or not, seem to be setting the stage for a defense of "separate but equal".

                    •  BTW, your argument is internally inconsistent (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      liberate

                      You defend as "mainstream" the notion that prejudice is only bad when applied by...the mainstream.

                    •  In other words (5+ / 0-)

                      Injustice and discrimination is A-OK, as long as it's only against certain people.

                      I can't believe anyone claiming to be a progressive would even consider holding such a repugnant idea in their heads.

                      Honestly, people seem to have no idea what it means to fight injustice.

                      I finally put in a signature!

                      by Boris Godunov on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:17:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I would say (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Odysseus

                      that there's an issue of definitions here. If you define racism or sexism as a power relationship, OK, but if you define them as bigotry, as the belief that someone is inferior or unacceptable because of gender or race, well, than anyone can be racist or sexist in any situation.

                      Conservatives believe evil comes from violating rules. Liberals think evil comes from violating each other.

                      by tcorse on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:40:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I think you're right (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Odysseus

                        and my point, I suppose, is that the bigotry without the power dynamic is something separate and far less insidious.  I have my own bigotries -- almost all of us do.  to paraphrase Alvy Singer "yeah, I'm a bigot, I know -- but for the left!"    

                        •  Speak for yourself (0+ / 0-)

                          Don't presume to excuse your bigotry, nor your overt support for it, by claiming everyone else shares your values.

                          Since you seem willing to drastically redefine words at will to suit your worldview, rather than seek common terminology to further understanding, there is no point in continuing the conversation.

                          Oh, by the way, don't take offense at the above - in my language, calling someone a "bigot" is merely an expression of my great love for the Red Sox.

                •  That would be true (0+ / 0-)

                  according to the conservative members of the current court.

                  The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

                  by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:18:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I'm really pissed at... (12+ / 0-)

              ...those flyers!

              Whether Emily's List is right or wrong to back only one sex is one thing (personally, I think they're right to take that issue on, there is a historical inequality that exists to this day), but using the black/Jewish divide to gain points against a fellow Democrat is sickening.

              EL could have simply not endorsed anyone for the race, rather than endorsing such a divisive candidate over someone who so solidly supports women's rights and GLBT issues.

              (-4.88, -3.74) Treat everyone as they deserve - and who doesn't deserve a whipping?! -Hamlet 2:2

              by pakaal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:58:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think you are making (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              StageStop

              good points sad pony guerilla girl.

              The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

              by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:01:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Supporting any candidate (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Odysseus, Isara, liberate

              just because they're a woman is ridiculous, especially if they're racist/homophobic. The best candidate should be the one to get the nomination regardless of whether they're male or female. Steve Cohen has a good Democratic voting record and does not deserve to lose his seat in Congress to someone who is less qualified just because she's a woman. Emily's list makes some really bad choices on which candidates to support because all they care about is electing women. Aren't there enough women running in districts that don't already have good representatives that they could support?

              The real reason the Government wants to have a war in Iraq is TO HAVE A WAR IN IRAQ - Keith Olbermann

              by thursdays child on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:42:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Was that "one particular bakery" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            burrow owl

            Your Black Muslim Bakery? I used to work about a block away from there, and from what I understood, it was always more of a front for the owner's - ahem - "other business activities."

            They sure did have a good fish sandwich, though.

            •  yeah (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              liberate

              A friend of mine (who is white) has a habit of trying out new places, particularly smaller shops, to support local business. They refused to serve her because she was white.

              I can haz sound economic policy?

              by Isara on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:43:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I heard... (0+ / 0-)

                similar stories about the place before, but it seems it really depended on who was working the counter that day and what kind of mood they were in.

                YBMB's founder, Yusuf Bey III (and his son Yusuf Bey IV), have had several well-publicized scrapes with the law, including being brought up on charges of shaking down liquor stores under the pretense of Islamic law. They're an interesting crew, to say the least.

        •  Oh for the love of God, are you really making (7+ / 0-)

          this argument? That's as stupid as saying that a person in outer space is still on earth because there isn't a history of people being in outer space. Give me a frigging break.

          Help Colbert: donate to needy students in PA!

          by liberate on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:26:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sorry that the history of misogyny annoys you (4+ / 0-)

            but it still exists.

            •  And it is as unfortunate as your views. n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wary, jjmn

              Help Colbert: donate to needy students in PA!

              by liberate on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:33:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Strange (5+ / 0-)

              that you continue to push this logic. To suggest that because sexism against women so extensively outweighs sexism against men, that we can never call sexism against men "sexism," is not only special pleading, it also supports bigotry. That some African-Americans insist that discrimination against homosexuals can never be mentioned in the same breath with discrimination against African-Americans helps to perpetuate homophobia. Homophobia in turn is a fundamental prop in the structure that upholds authoritarianism. Authoritarianism, the insistence that there is an inviolable social order that must never be breached, with anointed elites who must never be challenged, underlies homophobia, racism, and misogyny. By insisting that discrimination against you must never be addressed so long as discrimination against me has not been expunged and its legacy washed away, ultimately only divides us and grants power to those who would uphold the authoritarian status quo. I for one don’t plan on standing on someone else’s neck in order to reach a little higher.

              Conservatives believe evil comes from violating rules. Liberals think evil comes from violating each other.

              by tcorse on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:22:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You confused your argument (0+ / 0-)

                Homophobia?  How is that related?  If you were arguing that African-Americans can be racist against whites, then fine, let's hear that argument (and I'll disagree with it).  But equating this to Black homophobia?  Apples and Oranges, tcorse.  

                •  Simple (5+ / 0-)

                  Bigotry=bigotry. It all comes from the same place - fear. And no form of bigotry is privileged over another. You must be against all of them, or you are for all of them, for if you say "well that bigotry is OK, that bigotry is not so bad" you are leaving in place the structures of the authoritarian status quo. You’re playing the authoritarian’s game, allowing them to stand on your neck so long as you get to stand one someone else’s.

                  Conservatives believe evil comes from violating rules. Liberals think evil comes from violating each other.

                  by tcorse on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:56:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  How can you possibly form a coheret argument (0+ / 0-)

                  that blacks are not able to be racist to whites, to use your purportedly bulletproof argument, without redefining the very meaning of the word "racism?" It is, by definition, prejudice based upon race. The tremendous irony is that your view seemingly exhibits, of all things, prejudice by definition.

                  Help Colbert: donate to needy students in PA!

                  by liberate on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:10:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So what about affirmative action? (0+ / 0-)

                    That would, by your "According to Webster" argument, also fit the pure definition of "racist."  Sometimes, liberate, words have meanings beyond their definition (that was lame, but I don't have time to write something more intelligent right now).  

                    •  No, it wouldn't necessarily. Affirmative action (0+ / 0-)

                      is, in its most extreme form, a form of preferential treatment, but it is not, by my "English language" argument, prejudiced or racist. And more frequently than not, it does not allow choosing one person over another on the basis of their race, merely providing advantages for getting close to the finish line for the presumably more disadvantaged person.

                      Please don't speak patronizingly to me, Shibboleths, or presume that I don't know what I'm talking about.

                      Help Colbert: donate to needy students in PA!

                      by liberate on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:01:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  You're making great points. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              maryb2004, StageStop

              I'm trying to let some of these comments go, but I just can't hold my tongue. I feel like some of the men on this blog are using this diary as an excuse to unload all their resentments against women. So much for progressive men being better than conservative men. sigh

              vacuumslayer.deviantart.com

              by vacuumslayer on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:36:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why try and hold your tongue? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                StageStop, vacuumslayer

                We need help on here!

              •  how do you figure? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus, liberate

                I'm not seeing resentment, but a pointing out of inequality (I'm a woman, and others upthread have identified themselves as such as well)

                Just because someone calls a group on their discriminatory practices doesn't mean that the individuals have some sort of vested interest. Yes, by definition EL has a bias, which is fine. But they cross the line into sexism when they endorse someone strictly on gender, regardless of any other merits of the person. THAT is the type of position which America has come to condemn (through its laws), and by endorsing a poor candidate strictly on gender, it leaves EL open to criticism.

                It's clear that EL is looking at one very small piece of a very large puzzle, and shooting themselves (and us) in the foot because of it. That is where the charge of discrimination lies, because they're not promoting the values of women intelligently.

                I can haz sound economic policy?

                by Isara on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:48:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Great points? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                liberate

                A few of you are really exposing yourselves for who you are, and I, personally, find it fascinating.  It turns out that you're not against discrimination in all its forms, as one would hope a progressive would be; rather, you're against discrimination against you and people who look like you.  Amazing, and quite disappointing.

                •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm against discrimination against Blacks, Jews, Latinos, Asians, the disabled, and gays and I'm none of those things.

                  I'm disappointed by your ham-handed "analysis."

                  vacuumslayer.deviantart.com

                  by vacuumslayer on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:03:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let me ask you, are you against discrimination of (0+ / 0-)

                    Jews in Israel? Blacks in Africa? Asians in China or Japan? If that discrimination was perpetrated by a white man, for instance? The aforementioned would certainly be in the majority population in these instances and thus, by the feeble redefinitions heretofore, no longer able to be discriminated against.

                    Help Colbert: donate to needy students in PA!

                    by liberate on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:15:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Heh. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    liberate

                    So you're against unfair, discriminatory practices when applied to anyone...except men?  There's a word for that.  It's 'sexism.'  Same goes for the suggestion that it's okay to discriminate against people of a certain skin color (in your case, white folks -- that one's 'racism'), religion (I'm guessing Christian, since they're the dominant religion in the States), straight people, etc.

                    •  Oh goodness. (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm afraid you've got me! Touche! I should pay more attention of the plight of White Christian males.

                      vacuumslayer.deviantart.com

                      by vacuumslayer on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:27:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Weak (0+ / 0-)

                        That's one of the saddest strawmen I've seen in a while.  Nobody has said a word about the "plight" of white Christian males.  My argument, as I'm sure you're well aware when you're being honest with yourself, is not that white Christian males need any sort of special attention.  My argument is that sexism and racism are bad things, whenever they occur and to whomever they occur.  How you can argue differently -- that there are exceptions where racism and sexism are okay, or even good -- and claim to be a progressive is really quite unbelievable.

        •  I wonder if you have you read (0+ / 0-)

          States of Injury by Wendy Brown?

      •  A woman can be sexist as against women (12+ / 0-)

        To say one can't is silliness.  Look at Phyllis Schlafly: "women belong in the kitchen" is sexism regardless of whether a man or a woman utters it.

    •  Why not? (17+ / 0-)

      If a woman discriminates against a man, simply because he's a man, isn't that sexism?

      If an asian discriminates against a white person, simply because the person is white, isn't that racism?

      If a Jew discriminates against a Christian simply because that person is Christian, isn't that (whatever an equivalent to anti-Semitism is when it's anti-Christian?)

      Minorities can discriminate and be prejudiced.

      I'm not saying that this is or isn't sexism, but I am saying that just because it's a woman being supported doesn't disqualify sexism.

      -Fred

      Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz

      by FredFred on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:19:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's the short version... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mworkman, liberate

        If a woman discriminates against a man, simply because he's a man, isn't that sexism?

        Apparently, the answer is no, no it is not.

        If an asian discriminates against a white person, simply because the person is white, isn't that racism?

        I'll have to go to the judges on that one, the commenters didn't really address that, but my guess is no, based on the logic of the commenters' reasoning so far.

        If a Jew discriminates against a Christian simply because that person is Christian, isn't that (whatever an equivalent to anti-Semitism is when it's anti-Christian?)

        I'm going to go with no, as a logical extension of the arguments presented.

        Minorities can discriminate and be prejudiced.

        Apparently, that is indeed the wrong answer.

        But we do have some lovely parting gifts for you...

        Any group in a position of power that uses that power against another person or group based on a group identity is discrimination.  At least to me.

        But apparently, I'm in the minority in holding that view.

        Know your enemy - Rage Against the Machine

        by duck on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:21:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  WAIT JUST A MINUTE (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wary, liberate

      Sexism cannot go the other way?  Disregard for anything but someone's sex is sexism just as much as prejudice against someone because of their sex.

      That's why I never bought the Hillary Clinton sexism thing.  You can't scream sexism when you are being sexist.

      "My Momma always taught me to play by the rules, and if you don't that's called cheatin'." - Donna Brazile

      by jjmn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:15:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you dismiss sexism against men (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Libertaria, liberate

      Just because it's against men, you'r insulting eveything that women who have fought for equality have stood for.  Equality is just that--equality.  

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:15:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Have you any idea how completely ironic and inane (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Munchkn

      this comment is?  Here's a clue - google "Bilerico," and learn something about the dairist. I can assure you he has some experience with the concept of bias based upon gender/sexuality matters.

      If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

      by dhonig on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:32:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hey Emily's List (36+ / 0-)

    How about a 3rd criterion for people you endorse:

    does not engage in, or tolerate, the use of racism, sexism, anti-semitism and other forms of bigotry?

  •  Excuse my french, but there is no place (22+ / 0-)

    for this "shit" in politics.  This type of campaign tactyics should be roundly denounced by anyone with a voice.

    "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

    by lordcopper on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:10:45 AM PDT

  •  I have a couple of questions. (0+ / 0-)

    How can you hang that vile ad on Tinker? She didn't sponsor it and she denounced it.

    Second, is this diary about Emily's List or the MBMA?

    Seems to me you have a whole lot going on here and in all directions.

    Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar. Edward R. Murrow

    by Pager on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:10:47 AM PDT

    •  In the first paragraph of the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pakaal, alizard, esquimaux

      body of the diary, the diarist says Tinker has refused to denounce. Do you have information to the contrary?

      I agree, the diarist seems to be against both groups. I added a third, the Ford family, in a comment you discussed and I responded to below. To me, all signs point against Tinker, and I don't have a problem with her making all possible arguments.

      •  Perhaps I'm reading it wrong. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wary, Tenn Wisc Dem

        Tinker spokesperson Cornell Belcher commented to the paper, "We'd be interested in denouncing this sort of nonsense as well but, again, we haven't seen it," and eventually Tinker did acknowledge the document.  

        I guess I read that as, "okay, we've seen it and we don't approve." If that isn't the case, then my mistake.

        And I think it is healthy to ask questions and to demand proof, don't you? We've sort of been under a cloud of "ask no questions, ask for no proof mentality" for the last 8 years and it has not been beneficial.

        When someone writes a diary and asks me to support their candidate, the least they can do is stick around and answer questions and make their case and offer proof.

        None of that has been done here.

        You have been far more helpful and informative than the diarist and for that, I thank you.

        Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar. Edward R. Murrow

        by Pager on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:49:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sounds like she was interested in denouncing... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wary

          ...if she could first acknowledge.  Then when she saw it, she acknowledged it, but backtracked on the denouncing part.

          (-4.88, -3.74) Treat everyone as they deserve - and who doesn't deserve a whipping?! -Hamlet 2:2

          by pakaal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:07:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, it doesn't sound like she stepped up (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wary

            which is sort of sickening. If this wasn't offensive enough to speak out on, what is?

            Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar. Edward R. Murrow

            by Pager on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:13:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  IF she was denouncing she would have said: (0+ / 0-)

          We have not seen this, but it is simply something that we do not condone, believe in or support.  Any kind of homophobic, racist, sexist behavior is something Tinker is totally against.

          THAT is denouncing.

          Not saying, well we have not seen it, oh, well we have and now we ACKNOWLEDGE IT?

          That's the same as saying I have seen racism and I acknowledge it.

          Where is the denouncement there?  It sucks and I am getting madder by the minute at this obvious obfuscating of the facts by this candidate.

          "My Momma always taught me to play by the rules, and if you don't that's called cheatin'." - Donna Brazile

          by jjmn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:21:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So politics are still politics (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            expatjourno, sjs1959

            What it sounds like Tinker did is what we have seen and will continue to see throughout this election year.

            "I don't like it but I can't do anything about it," would seem to mean..."It may not be something I would ask others to do but since they did it and it will probably hurt my opponent and help me...oh, well. They did it, not me."  

            I believe we used to call this Swift-Boating!

            An enemy is one whose story we have not heard -Gene Knudsen Hoffman

            by cloudwatcher on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:39:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I'm the author (6+ / 0-)

          I meant what I said in the article.  She acknowledged the document.  She said she was aware of it's existence.  She did not denounce it as far as I was able to find.

          I should also add that Rep Cohen is not my candidate.  I don't live in Tennessee.  I can't vote for him.  I'm not employed by the campaign or the Congressman.

          I own The Bilerico Project - a good sized LGBT group blog.  We cover stories from around the nation.  This just happened to be a piece that I covered.

          To answer your question about EMILY's List or MBMA, I'd have to answer "both."  The MBMA should be called on the carpet for the blatant homophobia and racism that it's members have been engaging in.  EMILY's List should be taken to task for endorsing a campaign that is using the MBMA to put out racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic tactics while claiming their own hands are clean.

    •  9th district voter (9+ / 0-)

      She only denounced it after it was exposed and everyone associated with investigation have said that this was initiated and proably approved by a Tinker who recently moved to Tn and hasnt voted or taken a position on anything. As one person that posted said - she's a bad choice period she hasnt done anything to deserve to be in Congress.

  •  Tipped and recced for this disgusting event. It (17+ / 0-)

    really illustrates what I've warned for some time: assuming that a candidate is better (or voting for her) just because she is female is jejune and irresponsible. Further, it hammers home the fact that, despite whatever (naive) hopes women of the past might have had, they must surely acknowledge now the perfect degree to which some women now are willing to, disposed towards, and even gleeful in, acting as have some of the most abhorrent men of the past.

    Help Colbert: donate to needy students in PA!

    by liberate on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:11:24 AM PDT

    •  um no (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vacuumslayer

      assuming that a candidate is better (or voting for her) just because she is female is jejune and irresponsible

      And how many men are in office because people assumed they were more qualified than any woman out there?

      How often does this mentality work in favor of men? Oh, like 95% of the time. And yet you're choosing one of the few times it works in favor of a woman to criticize it as "irresponsible."

      And thanks for the naive comment. Really shows where you're coming from.

      •  Well, it's clear that you're open to discussion. (16+ / 0-)

        The number of men elected just because they're men is irrelevant, unless you're really trying to argue that we want to continue and escalate sexist politics and corruption. By that argument, we should tax people without representation and be sure to go on genocidal killing sprees, since other people have done that in the past too.

        The fact that discrimination has presumably worked for men in the past -- although I don't claim to know any statistics thereof, but still doubt it to be 95% in the present day -- and that I am pointing it out about a woman does not make me sexist. It makes me observant, and it highlights the irony in your claims of my naivety.

        Take a deep breath and say it with me: not everything that women do is right and not everything that men do is wrong, even if it's men pointing out the bad things about women.

        Help Colbert: donate to needy students in PA!

        by liberate on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:24:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  *Sigh*, guerilla girl, this really disappoints me (14+ / 0-)

        just as it does when some Hillary supporters imply that all women should vote for Hillary out of solidarity. Feminism isn't about doing exactly what men have done, just in reverse, i.e, voting for women just because they're women. It is irresponsible to vote based on gender alone, whether that's voting for men because they're male or women because they're female.

        Now, I'm all for supporting and promoting progressive candidates who are also women and ethnic minorities, and I am both of those. If there are two strong candidates who share progressive Democratic values, I often will take into consideration a candidate's race and/or gender because I believe a more diverse group of elected officials who are also progressives benefits our country. But ignoring the fact that a candidate is a hatemonger and not a progressive simply because she's female is untenable.

      •  No, I do not agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        liberate

        We cannot pick someone because they are male or female.  we must pick them on their personal merit.  Anything else is SEXISM.  Sexism goes both ways.  To automatically assume that I must vote for a woman candidate because I am a woman is not only inane, it is  as sexist as saying that I need to vote for a man because men are better.

        Either one sucks.  

        "My Momma always taught me to play by the rules, and if you don't that's called cheatin'." - Donna Brazile

        by jjmn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:23:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  OK--my own former GOP female Representative (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks

        ANNE NORTHUP was voted out of office by a man, Democrat John Yarmuth--

        now ya think that happened merely because he was a 'man'?

        How dare you to say that men are selected 95% of the time just because they are men--no, sometimes because they are in the party--

        and like Northup, female, that's why she got in in the first place, she came in under the Clinton era where the country threw out the Democrats in '94--her gender didn't matter, her Party identification did.

        you think the voters are so STUPID we don't take time to learn about candidates and party platforms and party VALUES and supporting a candidate just because they are of a certain gender, like Tinker who does NOT up hold those PARTY values of the Democratic Party is DESTRUCTIVE to the entire Democratic Party and NOT to a mere cause for 'women"--this is going to back fire STRONGLY against the Democrats BUT women in general!

        This is NOT good in any way, shape or form and going around with the claims of 'sexism' and misogyny as to why this candidate won't make it, or ANY female candidate will HURT women for their "whining" about it!

        It's sickening me even a 60 year old woman civil rights and women's rights era--and this must be stopped NOW with in the Democratic Party!

        "People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving"

        by Wary on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:49:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  are all of your comments in this diary snark? (0+ / 0-)

        It turns out that Bush IS a uniter... he united the good half of the country virulently against him.

        by fizziks on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:48:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks (14+ / 0-)

    I'm in Nashville but like to pretend Steve is my Rep because Cooper sucks goat balls.

    I assume the EL endorsement is about the "Glen Close should have stayed in the tub" remark.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

    It was unfortunate.

    It also got lots of pissed of Hillary supporters to donate to Niki Tinker.

    ---
    Fight the stupid! Boycott BREAKING diaries!

    by VelvetElvis on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:14:32 AM PDT

  •  Did you really expect anything better (9+ / 0-)

    than this from the Fords?

  •  Sounds like Emily's List only supports women who (14+ / 0-)

    use destructive, divisive kitchen sink strategies right out of the GOP/Rove playbook. Someone should tell Ms. Tinker that her tactics were recently used and did not work, just ask Hillary CLinton!  

    Also, someone should tell Cohen to use the example set by Obama, respond quickly to call out the  attacker on their use of the old politics of fear and remain above the frey.

  •  Despicable (6+ / 0-)

    How in the world can you think that you need to see garbage like this in order to denounce it?

    Support our troops--end waterboarding!

    by Christian Dem in NC on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:29:59 AM PDT

  •  very important diary!!! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wary, royce, bilerico, KyleDS

    wasn't it emily's list that was helping with mailers full of lies and misrepresentations about obama's record on abortion, etc., in NH and elsewhere?  if not, who was it? (apart from the clinton campaign, obv)

  •  Terrible (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IseFire, Christian Dem in NC

    Shame on them.

  •  EMILY'S List Screwed Us in Lowell, MA, too. (7+ / 0-)

    When Marty Meehan retired as our Congressman, we has 2 absolutely great female candidates at the top of the ticket.  Nikki Tsongas was Paul Tsongas's widow, and was a highly respected lawyer and community do-gooder, but she never held elected office.

    Eileen Donoghue was a City Councilor and former Mayor, with about a decade of experience.

    They were both reliable liberals, pro-choicers, and otherwise indistinguishable on the issues.  They were both strong candidates, and it was tough for a lot of people to decide between them.  EMILY'S List should have just left well enough alone.

    But Nikki Tsongas was on the social registers in Washington, so they endorsed her and a flood of out-of-district money came in.  She ended up winning the primary by just a few points, but losing Lowell (both candidates' hometown, where they were known best) by a large margin.

    Don't get me wrong, I love Nikki Tsongas, but that was totally inappropriate of EMILY'S List.  I think they're a bunch of Washington insider back-scratchers.

  •  As a black man myself, I'm not entirely surprised (7+ / 0-)

    to see this kind of gutter politics.  It goes back to an old canard dating from slavery days that the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus.

    Support our troops--end waterboarding!

    by Christian Dem in NC on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:58:42 AM PDT

  •  this is really disgusting (5+ / 0-)

    I noted it on my site today.  If the goal of EMILY's List are more pro-choice legislators, why would they challenge a pro-choice Congressman with someone who is personally anti-choice?

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:45:01 PM PDT

  •  Supporting Tinker,Bell gone off yet? nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alizard

    Saying the Iraq "Surge" worked is like saying Thelma & Louise had a flying car.

    by JML9999 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:43:21 PM PDT

  •  Harold Ford Jr: Lawn Jockey Emeritus (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    icebergslim

    Too funny.

    '1984': "Big Brother is watching you". 2008: You're going to end up on YouTube.

    by jhecht on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:45:30 PM PDT

  •  9th Rep Voter (19+ / 0-)

    I am appalled also at the endorsement with the work Cohen has done since he was elected and will work very hard to see Cohen reelected and hope that these political tactics do not work and are rejected. As an African American its discouraging to see a majority African district have certain leaders suggest that noone but an African American can represent the district because its majority African American. If you turn that on its head then Obama could not represent the Unites States which is majority white. This race talk and dirty politics must stop and anything anyone can do to help this campaign please do .WHen you look at Cohen's record he has an excellent record and has keep the district well informed

  •  This is the bane of... (8+ / 0-)

    ...single issue politics.  I know Kos has written extensively about it.  When you focus all your attention on a single issue to the exclusion of all others, you can end up running into all kinds of problems.

    This should be denounced by any democrat, whatever the issues.

    This space for rent.

    by DawnG on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:47:21 PM PDT

  •  The Jews "hate Jesus"?!? (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xynz, theran, mlecin, MadEye, Ohiobama, soms

    Uh... I always thought they didn't give him much thought at all, which is how I look at him too, even though I'm neither Jewish nor Christian.

    Yep. That's pretty low.

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:50:26 PM PDT

  •  Disgusting (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie, MadEye, alizard, Ohiobama, newdem1960

    Its disturbing to see Emily's List play gender politics, but it is even worse to see them tacitly approve this garbage.

    If at first you don't succeed, your name is not Chuck Todd.

    by Larry Madill on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:53:45 PM PDT

  •  Here's the key paragraph (8+ / 0-)

    Forget the silly, pointless arguments over what is sexist and what is not. In this context, it's like arguing over what the meaning of "is" is.

    Here is the key to this entire diary.

    If elected, Tinker can be expected to act as a surrogate for her sponsor, Harold Ford, Jr., the Bush-loving former representative of the district, unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Senate, and now nominal chairman of the corporatist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

    Reason enough to support Cohen, denounce Tinker, and denounce Emily's List. Everything Harold Ford Jr. touches has turned to shit.

    "Lash those traitors and conservatives with the pen of gall and wormwood. Let them feel -- no temporising!" - Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1835

    by Ivan on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:56:16 PM PDT

  •  Daily Kos is on the wrong track (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StageStop

    by promoting this diary.

    I'm not a huge fan of EMILY'S List and, in fact, stopped giving them money long ago.  But there mission IS, in fact, to elect WOMEN.  

    And the diariest takes an organization whose goal is to elect WOMEN to office to task as being sexist.

    So we can't have organizations who are committed to electing women?  Or blacks?  Or Latinos?   This is a PROGRESSIVE point of view?  

    I take no position on the actual race itself.  This diary is not balanced enough for me to judge exactly what is going on in this Congressional District.  But it concerns me that DailyKos would promote a diary that excoriates an organization committed to getting women elected to office for being sexist.  

    The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

    by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:56:18 PM PDT

    •  Speak out or (8+ / 0-)

      If we dont speak out again an organization that does something thats clearly wrong in the eyes of many of the member who have personally stopped given or gotten out of organization. Its like the democratic party because we are democrats does that mean we support all democrats because they have a D behind name . Neither should we support a group that just because they advocate woman canidates . We would never have the Daily Kos, or move on community if we go down that line of thinking when you research the race and I live here and see Cohen's race on female issues against someone that has NO legislative record dont see how you could endorse them. And the diarist did a good job in pointing this out with factually information. If you need more information on race let me know will be glad to email it to you.  

      •  That's not my point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StageStop

        I agree that we need to speak out against an organization that does something stupid.  And this was, as someone else pointed out above, a stupid move by EMILY'S List.  

        But this diaries said in the first two paragraphs:

        Why would EMILY's List work to defeat an incumbent Congressman with a history of working in favor of their chosen issue?  The answer has to be sexism; he's a man. No other explanation can possibly make sense.

        Of course there are other reasons.  A bad vetting process is one.  Pure stupidity is another.  But sexism?  Emily's List EXISTS to elect more women.  And now DailyKos is putting on its front page an opinion that that goal is sexist.  

        I express no opinion about the race or the rest of the diary.  But based purely on that sentence, this diary should not have been promoted.

        The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

        by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:09:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not sexism (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FirstValuesThenIssues

          I respectfully disagree as a man - what he was saying is that if you have a canidate that ranks the highest on women's issues its crazy to advocate for someone just because they are a female

          •  Well (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            StageStop

            he specifically said they were engaging in sexism.

            I object to having that discussion on the front page of DailyKos in this context where there are so many issues with this race.

            The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

            by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:25:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hardbw is correct (5+ / 0-)

              As the author, that was my intent.  When you have two qualifications for your org 1) Must be a woman and 2) Must be pro-choice and you are faced with endorsing a candidate who matches those qualifications but is running a homophobic, racist and anti-Semitic campaign against an incumbent Congressman with an A+ record from Planned Parenthood, gay groups and Jewish groups, do you...

              A) Endorse her anyhow?
              or
              B) Find another pro-choice woman running against a Republican or anti-choice Democrat?

              By picking to endorse Tinker, aren't they necessarily saying that gender trumps the pro-choice qualification and that gender also trumps homophobia, racism and anti-Semitism?  What else do you call that but sexism?

              Seriously.  I'm not a feminist and I'm not a woman.  But I don't know what else to call it.  The dictionary says giving preference to one sex over the other is sexism.  When there is no other reason left, why doesn't this qualify as sexism?

              •  You need to do some research (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                StageStop

                on the term sexism as a political matter then.  We women see sexism as discriminating between men and women so that women are demeaned and kept out of power as a class.   Men have not been demeaned and kept out of power as a class. You cannot use the term sexism in the political context and then claim that you were using it only in the dictionary sense.  

                Truthfully my real anger is that this was promoted to the front page.  Because if the biggest Democratic so-called blog is going to state on its front page that promote one of the biggest organizations existing for the purpose of getting women elected to office is engaging in sexism - they ought to give that a little more thought.  It shouldn't just show up in the second paragraph of a a diary that gets promoted that is discussing a lot of other real issues.

                The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

                by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:28:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I have mixed feelings (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not overly fond of the angle the diarist uses here. On the other hand, the stuff that's gone on in this race has been really despicable and I've been clamoring for it to get more front page attention for a while.

                  Ignoring the Glen Close remark was fundamentally dishonest, IMHO.

                  ---
                  Fight the stupid! Boycott BREAKING diaries!

                  by VelvetElvis on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:26:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  My momma and the internet (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Neon Mama

                  are my source of knowledge of "feminism" as a topic, mary.  I've not had any classes, etc on the history of sexism.

                  I don't know the political meaning - I know the plain English meaning that's in the dictionary.  Sexism is giving preferential treatment to someone based on their gender.

                  We women see sexism as discriminating between men and women so that women are demeaned and kept out of power as a class.

                  I thought that was misogyny.  I'm not saying EMILY's List is trying to keep men down.  Hell, I don't think misogyny can even happen to a man - the definition is man demeans woman.  

                  Sexism though, is just the generic blanket term for this situation.  Correct?

        •  There's some similarity between: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ssgbryan, thursdays child

          "And the diariest takes an organization whose goal is to elect WOMEN to office to task as being sexist."

          ...and the idea of a Clinton supporter voting McCain in the General as a spoiler for Obama - problem is, McCain is worse on women's issues.

          While Emily's List has an obvious (and commendable, IMO) goal, if the only criteria is physical criteria (e.g. "female"), there are times when that goal will be counterproductive to what the group wants to see happen in America.

          (-4.88, -3.74) Treat everyone as they deserve - and who doesn't deserve a whipping?! -Hamlet 2:2

          by pakaal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:16:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't disagree with you (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pakaal, Pager, StageStop

            And, in fact, as I've said many times in this diary I don't give money to Emily's List.

            But to promote a diary that says that the Emily's List is engaging in sexism by promoting a woman.  I object to that.  A diary that says that Emily's List is stupid for picking this woman would be fine with me.

            The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

            by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:27:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm fairly certain (3+ / 0-)

              the diarist is asserting they are being sexist in promoting this specific candidate over a male who has a long history of voting for progressive causes and women's rights, which the challenger does not seem to have.

              Know your enemy - Rage Against the Machine

              by duck on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:28:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes. Thanks. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                IM, Strabo

                You're correct.  I'm not trying to argue that EL is a sexist organization.  They have other qualifications other than gender and even that's a slippery slope.  (After all, I support the Victory Fund which supports gay candidates only.)

                I'm saying that it was a sexist decision to endorse an obviously non-progressive candidate in this case.  Gender apparently trumped all other considerations.  

    •  How about the best PERSON? (5+ / 0-)

      Sometimes it isn't a woman! Sometimes it's not that particular woman. The point should be to promote issues that support women. Again this is privileged white women deciding what is best for them and everyone else who disagrees be damned.

      •  That's one reason I don't give (0+ / 0-)

        money to Emily's List anymore.

        But I object to calling Emily's List choice sexism.

        I'm ok with calling it stupid.

        But to call it sexism means you are attacking the whole idea of an organization existing to promote getting more women elected to office.

        The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

        by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:10:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They were needed in the past (0+ / 0-)

          I fully understand that just 16 years ago, how needed they were.  There were only 2 women in the Senate, and neither on the judiciary committee.  I recall EMILYs list growing out of the debacle that was the Clarence Thomas hearings.  

          There are now 16 women in the Senate and 3 states have 2 women Senators.  That is a huge difference, and EMILYs list has played a major role in that.

          They should be thanked for that.  But I think their raison d'etre has passed.  We have now progressed to a point where qualified women candidates don't have the issues of raising money that they did just 16 years ago.

          Stagflation, here we come

          by smoosh21 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:30:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is an entirely (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            StageStop

            different argument than what the diarist is making.

            Arguing that they are not needed anymore because their goal has been reached (and I'm not saying you're right) is different than saying that they are engaging in sexism.  

            The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

            by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:33:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'm cool with organizations promoting minorities, (4+ / 0-)

      But, sheesh, they could stand to get a scruple. I mean, should they really have to formally write "non-racist" as their third criterion?

      McCain will add hot water to dehydrated babies.

      by Michael D on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:07:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This was an incredibly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StageStop, soms

        STUPID decision by Emily's List.  I'm not impressed by Emily's List for many reasons and I don't give them money anymore. I haven't for years.

        But I don't think DailyKos should promote a diary that says at the beginning that Emily's List is engaging in sexism.  

        The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

        by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:11:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you're missing my point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, IM

          My point isn't so much that EMILY's List is being sexist - although that has been the most picked up on point.

          More than anything my complaint is that EMILY's List is endorsing a candidate that is running a homophobic, racist and anti-Semitic campaign.  They are supposed to be a progressive org.  

    •  You have a valid point here. (7+ / 0-)

      However, my experience in 2006 with Emily's List has left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Yes, they do work to promote women in politics and I really applaud them for it.

      However, they often endorse a candidate (as the case here appears to be) that is not a progressive, is downright racist or right leaning, or has absolutely no chance of winning a primary. By endorsing a woman like this, they enable her campaign to continue by the fundraising mechanism they are well known for. Money pours into the campaign, forcing the better opponent to spend and raise more money to win their primary, when those funds and that time could be better spent taking on the Republican opponent.

      If Emily's List can't do their homework, they should at least have the decency not to endorse.

      Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar. Edward R. Murrow

      by Pager on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:07:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I completely agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ssgbryan, StageStop

        They should vet their candidates better and not endorse if they don't.  I really don't like Emily's List.

        I'm only objecting to promoting THIS particular diary to the front page when it says that what Emily's List is engaging in is sexism.  That calls into question all organizations that exist to promote a greater proportionality representatives among gender and race.

        The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

        by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:12:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I hear you. (0+ / 0-)

          Particularly since this diary is about the MBMA nearly as much as it is Emily's List. A whole lot of topics going on at the same time here.

          Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar. Edward R. Murrow

          by Pager on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:14:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No, that is not the point of the diary. (8+ / 0-)

      Here is what you claim is the point of the diary:

      ....the diariest takes an organization whose goal is to elect WOMEN to office to task as being sexist.

      So we can't have organizations who are committed to electing women?

      This is the point of the diary:

      ....the diariest takes an organization whose goal is to elect WOMEN to office to task as being sexist, because it is supporting a female challenger against a male incumbent who is much better on the issues than his female opponent.

      "As the most liberal and supportive member in the Tennessee Senate and now as the most liberal and supportive member of the Tennessee Congressional Delegation, Steve Cohen's record of fighting for gay and lesbian issues has been disrespected by EMILY's List, again," Austin stated.

      He continued, "Tinker has stated that her Bible does not allow her to support certain gay and lesbian issues. She is supported by many homophobic preachers and has never denounced their outrageous statements. Many of these pastors have stated that they do not oppose Cohen because he is white or Jewish (wink, wink) but because of his stand on moral issues like choice and gay rights."

      Cohen's Fundraising Director, Bryce Timmons, went even further.  

      "The Congressman has an A+ record on every issue EMILY's List is concerned with.  He's been out front and won awards from Planned Parenthood.  Congressman Cohen is responsible for including sexual orientation in every peice of LGBT legislation introduced in TN.  He did that.  As a state senator he was the guy who made sure sexual orientation was included in every piece of Tennessee anti-discimination legislation.  Steve Cohen put it there - and continued proposing it when it was shot down," he said.

      So we can't have organizations who are committed to electing women at the expense of all other considerations.

      McCain mortgage policy shaped by banking lobbyist.

      by xynz on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:23:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree with you (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IseFire, Odysseus, MadEye, arielle

      Emily's List, by the nature of their choice in this race, has invited scrutiny and criticism.  You can have organizations dedicated to promoting the election of certain groups of people, but when those organizations demonstrate a lack of common sense and good judgment in their endorsements, you have to question their purpose for existing.

      If EL exists to elect any woman at all, regardless of her positions and regardless of her opponent's positions, then I think it's fair to question their progressiveness.

      Surely there are more productive races that EL could invest in.  Here it seems like they are burning money on a staunch ally in favor of a much poorer choice simply because the two candidates are of differing genders.  By most peoples' understanding of the word "sexism", this act would qualify.

      Their chosen candidate's use of her opponent's religious views and race against him simply add insult to injury.

      •  I don't disagree with anything you say (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StageStop

        I especially agree with this:

        I think it's fair to question their progressiveness.

        I am objecting to the promotion of this diary to the front page with a conclusory statement in the first two paragraphs that this must be sexism.  

        I have no problem in questioning their judgment in choosing this particular woman.  I have no problem in questioning whether they should have endorsed anyone in this race.

        I object to DailylKos affirming that conclusory statement that they are engaging in sexism and the effect of that statement on organizations that are promoting gender equality.  I question DailyKos' progressiveness in promoting this diary with that statement in it.

        The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

        by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:22:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Racist, anti-semitic, homophobic women? (5+ / 0-)

      THAT'S their mission? To elect women like that? OK, so Emily's List is not sexist, or it IS sexist, but in a good way, if you prefer. But it's also racist, anti-semitic and homophobic if it promotes candidates who are racist, anti-semitic and homophobic.

      And here I thought it was a liberal organization. Silly me.

      "Every vote must be counted before the superdelegates overrule the result and give me the nomination!" -- Hillary Clinton

      by expatjourno on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:03:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As is evident by the heat some of us are taking (0+ / 0-)

        above, liberalism has no real correlation with a sense of universal justice.

        (But I'm sure happy to know that as a white man, I simply cannot be discriminated against! /snark)

        Help Colbert: donate to needy students in PA!

        by liberate on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:23:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And I have not objected (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StageStop

        to them being called out for their choice of candidate based on those issues.  

        I am objecting to the conclusory statement on the front page of DailyKos that EL is engaging in sexism.

        They are engaging in stupidity and a bad strategy. But they exist to elect women.  So saying that they engage in sexism is a charge that shouldn't be made on the front page of DailyKos by just promoting a diary that makes that conclusory statement.

        The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

        by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:31:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IM, Strabo

          Seriously - because this just doesn't jive for me...

          I stand behind what I wrote about this being a case of sexism.

          They don't just endorse women.  They have screening criteria and only endorse pro-choice women - 99.9% of which are progressive.  In this case, they endorsed a pro-choice woman who uses racist, etc campaign tactics against a pro-choice man.

          So if you look at this from a political benefit POV:

          Both man and woman are pro-choice.  No gain here in flipping the seat.
          Female runs racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic campaign.  Man does not.  I'd say "progressive" goes to the man.
          What else is different between them?  One is a man and the other is a woman.

          If I chose the man because he's a man, wouldn't that be sexism?  So how is choosing the woman just because she's a woman not sexism?  Sexism is giving a preference based on gender.

          I'm not saying they are being misogynistic - that's when a man oppresses a woman.  I don't think women can be misogynistic.  They can, however, be sexist.  We all can be - no matter how evolved we consider ourselves...

          •  (Mostly) Correct (0+ / 0-)

            If I chose the man because he's a man, wouldn't that be sexism?

            Yes it would.

            So how is choosing the woman just because she's a woman not sexism?

            Indeed, it is.  For it not to be, one has to resort to twisted definitions and spectral evidence.

            Sexism is giving a preference based on gender.

            Except when a "feminist" tells you it's not, apparently.

            I'm not saying they are being misogynistic - that's when a man oppresses a woman.  I don't think women can be misogynistic.  

            For the sake of accurate definitions, misogyny is a hatred of women.  The "hater," if you will, is not specified.

        •  It's more than stupidity to endorse racism. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IM

          It's more than bad strategy to endorse anti-semitism. And homophobia. Emily's list has endorsed all three in this campaign.

          How you define sexism is not relevant. Whether Emily's List is sexist or not is not relevant. The diarist's statement that Emily's List is sexist is not relevant.

          Emily's List has proven to be a disgusting, amoral organization that is willing to engage in the worst forms of demagoguery to achieve its goals. That's what is relevant.

          "Every vote must be counted before the superdelegates overrule the result and give me the nomination!" -- Hillary Clinton

          by expatjourno on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:54:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  There is NOTHING progressive (6+ / 0-)

      about single-mindedly pursuing the election of a woman at the expense of a better candidate.  It is utterly self-defeating to endorse a candidate who is obviously and sorely inadequate compared to her rival just because she is female.  If the ultimate goal is advancing women's rights in equality, choosing someone like Tinker over Cohen is abominable.

      EL can't see the forest for the trees on this one.

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:23:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  EMILY's List (4+ / 0-)

      I agree with you that it's kinda silly to attack EMILY's list as sexist just because they support the female candidate.  But, their stated mission is to also promote pro-choice candidates.  And, wasting limited resources on trying to take out a pro-choice Democratic incumbent who is progressive on the issues to replace him with a squishy pro-choice female who's a tool of the Ford family and likely DLC sympathetic.  If that's what EMILY's list has become, they fully deserve to be condemned by progressives of all genders.

      •  I completely agree with you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IM

        The St. Louis Orange gang is having a picnic on June 21. You should come!

        by maryb2004 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:32:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think the context is an issue here... (0+ / 0-)

        in the sense that the interpretation of the term sexist/sexism isn't quite the same in both locations. It is correct to assert that EL is sexist in the sense that it exists to promote female candidates; by the "plain meaning" sense of the term, that is true, but it is a relatively value-neutral definition. When a statement is made that a decision is made based on sexism, at that that point, to me, at least, the term seems to take on a negatively discriminatory connotation. It's a touch ironic that, had EL supported Cohen, that decision could also have been seen as sexist, in the sense of promoting the candidate who advances womens' issues, even if said candidate is not a woman. The flip between plain meaning and pejorative happens under the radar, as the meaning changes from "promotes women" to "discriminates against men." We all discrimate in some fashion; the difference (I hope) between us and the Dark Side is that we discriminate in favor of social justice and personal liberty, though we might disagree on how to achieve those goals. And thanks to all for the intense, but civil, intellectual jousting.

    •  Your wrong track is my right track (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neon Mama

      Daily Kos is on the wrong track

      by promoting this diary.

      I disagree emphatically.

      According to Kos, Daily Kos is "a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog."

      You can't have those discussions without being willing to examine some of our institutions and discuss their merits and demerits. This is exactly the kind of discussion I want to see here, and it's why I come back. If we can't discuss Democratic institutions, we can't reform them. If we can't reform them, then I'm going someplace we can.

  •  Identity politics (8+ / 0-)

    can be poisonous.

    No one can judge my politics by my or anyone's gender and no one should try. (I am left/libertarian but could you tell that by a glimpse at my genitalia?)

    Anyway, I wish there was a lot less of that in progressive politics.

    You've got to vote for someone. It's a shame, but it's got to be done.--Whoopi Goldberg

    by Libertaria on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:56:21 PM PDT

    •  Off topic, but holla back (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Libertaria

      for liberaltarianism.

    •  wonderfully said (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, Libertaria

      I think that this is a major factor in what is going on right now.

      I am gay and have supported Obama since late last year.  I know he is not perfect, but I thought he was the best overall.  And unless Barney Frank decides to run for President, there really isn't going to be the candidate we want on gay issues.

      Now, most of my friends have also supported Obama, but some were (still are) huge Clinton supporters.  Most of those were much more heavily into identity politics.   I know that to oppose identity politics has been against the grain in most left causes since the 60s, but I think it is time to move on.

      We can fight for liberal causes without having to resort to identity politics and that is exactly how we are going to win the middle back to our side.

      Stagflation, here we come

      by smoosh21 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:35:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I missed the link earlier - Donate to Cohen (5+ / 0-)

    As a 9th Rep Voter - I am calling on the Daily Kos Community to help out
    Come on Daily Kos members I have donated to numerous causes on here . Lets show the entire district in Tenn that we do not approve and show our support for our Congressman here in Tenn that has been a progressive and is being taken to task only because of his race. Forward the link to your friends and family and anyone you know and tell the story and lets defend him from this. Whether its $5 or $500 dollars every penny will make a difference in this campaign. I know we will do it Thanks in advance

  •  Gave up on Emily's List...not progressive. (11+ / 0-)

    The world has likely grown past Emily's list. When it was founded being female and being pro-choice meant you were progressive.

    With 70% of America pro-choice, Emily's list requirement of being female leads to non-progressive choices simply because they women.

  •  still glad I voted against Ford in 2006 (6+ / 0-)

    my one and only Green vote, and I'll never regret it.

  •  Contact the Obama campaign about this (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie, xynz, alizard, thursdays child, liberate

    As our party's nominee and unquestionably the leading black political figure in the country -- and a true progressive -- Sen. Obama could squash this crap in 5 minutes. Steve Cohen was an early Obama endorser (and superdelegate), and Rep. Cohen may well have already asked Sen. Obama to campaign with him. Nevertheless, I think it would also be helpful for us to urge Sen. Obama to rescue a good progressive from a DLC Democrat using the most despicable tactics.

    The Obama campaign's phone number: (866) 675-2008.

  •  I see Emily's List using Clintonian methods (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alizard, Vicky, liberate, jjmn

    More "Feminism" at work?

  •  I met Steve Cohen last weekend (11+ / 0-)

    At the TNDP's annual Jackson Day fundraiser.  I went up to him and told him that as a fellow Southern Jewish Democrat, I consider him my political hero.  He probably thought I was totally whacko but I'm really glad I got to tell him.

    If you doubt that there's a connection between Tinker and Ford, consider this...Ford had fully supported the hate-crimes bill when he was in Congress, and none of these Baptist ministers had a problem with it then.  It was only once Cohen was supporting the same thing that they suddenly opposed it.

  •  Ugh, the ignorance (10+ / 0-)

    I'm black, and am fully aware of some of the blatant homophobic ignorance that comes out of a small minority of fundamentalist black preachers' mouths.  This "Jews hate Jesus" mess is plain old hateful ignorance.  Nothing I despise more than a ignorant, hateful preacher.  Backwards mofos.

    •  Let's be honest; it's no more "small minority" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus

      in the black fundamentalist church than it is "small minority" in the white fundamentalist church.

      I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm just saying that this is a real problem for Democrats as we try to hold on to African American votes here in the south. There are forces here in the community that fly directly in the face of progressive Democratic values, and it's an issue.

  •  I contacted Emily's list. They always ask me for (13+ / 0-)

    donations, and I think my parents give them a LOT of money.  My Mother is horrified about this, and she is a fireball.  She will kick some serious ass over this because she cannot stand any kind of intolerance.  Nothing makes her angrier than to give a donation and to find out that they are misusing her money..

    Emily's list started off as a noble cause, but it has turned militant.  They don't seem to care anymore WHO it is, as long as it is a woman and pro-choice and that is TOTALLY sexist, and far removed from trying to get great female candidates elected.

    I am also going to contact this woman's campaign and ask what is going on.

    "My Momma always taught me to play by the rules, and if you don't that's called cheatin'." - Donna Brazile

    by jjmn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:06:04 PM PDT

  •  Organizations like this... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KyleDS

    ...have their DNA, founding and continuing, in their mission statements.

    EMILY's List members are dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office. We believe in the power of women as candidates, as contributors, as campaign professionals, and as voters to bring about great change in our country.

    As the diarist states, there are two qualifications for being an Emily's List candidate. And this endorsement is perfectly in line with their mission statement. If you disagree you either need to work against Emily's List (this time) or you need to lobby to change their mission statement. But complaining about their mission statement now will yield no results.

    I think everyone who has ever been involved in a non-profit will agree with this, and with the realization that mission/structural inertia becomes all at a certain point.  

    (-2.75, -4.92) | Hillary isn't the opponent anymore.

    by Addison on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:12:34 PM PDT

  •  Done with EMILYs list (5+ / 0-)

    I am done with them.  I used to support them.  I was very happy to see them work hard in the early 90s to help get people like Boxer and Feinstein and Murray elected to the Senate.

    I have to draw the line in the bashing that they are doing against Democrats, just because they are men.

    Ellen Malcolm has gone off the deep-end this year.

    Stagflation, here we come

    by smoosh21 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:13:09 PM PDT

  •  Isn't it obvious (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, ssgbryan, justiceputnam

    that if you don't agree with the vocal right 100%, you hate Jesus  (Clue: Jews don't consider Jesus as God.  They're not going to consider Him as important as Christianists say they do.  In actuality, they probably show Him a lot more respect than most Christianists.)

    Same deal with gays supposedly being anti-Christian.  Just because we're not as sexually obsessed as the church-y types doesn't make us anti-Christian, just less obsessive.

    Julius Caesar fed the Roman masses; John McCain feeds the MSM asses.

    by grada3784 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:16:18 PM PDT

  •  Don't underestimate the ford family's... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xynz, ssgbryan, VelvetElvis

    influence in this race. They have their fingerprints all over Tinker's nasty tactics. Harold Ford, Jr moved his miscreant brother from CA back to Memphis to run against Cohen in the 2006 congressional race & stirred tensions between black churches and the Jewish religion. The Fords have used racial tensions for decades to exploit poor, African American voters who have kept the Ford family in local, state & national office.

    The Fords have not served their constituents well. They have used their positions in politics for their own self interest; a fact well know by most Tennesseans including Democrats. Harold Jr's Uncle John was just convicted of taking bribes and was forced to leave his state senate seat.And don't forget Jr is a regular on Fox news pandering to anyone who will believe his "moderate, Christian" veneer.

    Steve Cohen was the ONLY PROGRESSIVE voice in the TN state senate for years and he is the ONLY reliable PROGRESSIVE from TN in congress. It is outrageous Emily's List would oppose him and support his opponent and her anti-semetic message without giving the history of Memphis politics including the Ford family's pernicious influence more scrutiny.

  •  Maggie Thatcher, Liz Dole, Condi Rice... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xynz, MadEye, alizard, Isara, thursdays child

    Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin are reprehensible human beings, not because they are women, but because of their actions; and it is not sexist to point it out.

    A Poet is at the same time a force for Solidarity and for Solitude --Pablo Neruda

    by justiceputnam on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:17:34 PM PDT

  •  This is really sad (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KyleDS

    Emily's List is an outgrowth of the National Women's Political Caucus.  The NWPC began in the 1970's, when women officeholders were a rare commodity -- it was virtually impossible for women to break into the game, because the major parties wouldn't support them in primary challenges against male incumbents.

    So their original mission, to support women and get them into elective office, was a noble and necessary one.

    But the NWPC lost me in the 1980's, when they actually supported antifeminist women over progressive male candidates. That's stupid and self-defeating, and hurts women most of all.

    I really hope that this type of idiocy will fade away eventually.    

  •  Everyone email obama campaign or call (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xynz

    As its been pointed out Cohen was one of the first Democrats even when it was very unpopular to come out and support Obama. Lets get Obama to do a campaign event with him or at least help in someway in this race.

  •  How close was this primary in 2006 ? n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Does not play well with others is not a sound foreign policy.

    by camlbacker on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:18:38 PM PDT

  •  Emily's List sucks. (6+ / 0-)

    They used to support challengers to incumbents, but usually do not any more and just raise money for safe re-elects. So why they're doing this is beyond me, but I guess taking a look at where a candidate's reproductive organs are, to the exclusion of things like Anti Semitism and the like, makes for some odd company.

    Emily's List sucks. That's all there is to it. Now can someone start up a REAL pac that will support women candidates and not become part of the DC Problem?

  •  That flier is mind-blowing. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, ssgbryan, MadEye

    It's almost hard to believe that it could have any effect, it's so over the top -- but you know it mostly likely will have an effect, which is extraordinarily depressing on several levels. And it really disgusts me that the guy who circulated that is from my hometown.

    "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." -- Gandhi

    by akasha on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM PDT

  •  ALSO Contact Emily's list (5+ / 0-)

    If we all send them an email about this today, this might make them at least take notice:

    Contact  Emily's List

    "My Momma always taught me to play by the rules, and if you don't that's called cheatin'." - Donna Brazile

    by jjmn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:30:38 PM PDT

    •  Here's what I wrote to Emily's List (4+ / 0-)

      I thought that the point of Emily's list was to get qualified candidates into elected positions.  Specifically, candidates who were women and had pro-choice views.

      I am very shocked to see that you are supporting Nikki Tinker, who is NOT pro-choice, has very homophobic views and is running against a very good pro-choice congressman, Steve Cohen, who has been a friend to women since his election.

      I am wondering if you have lost your way.  Are you choosing any candidate, no matter her positions as long as she is female?  That is appalling, when she is running against someone who has given a great deal of support to women and women's issues.

      Nikki Tinker also refused to denounce a flyer that was sent out to the district saying "Steve Cohen and the Jews Hate Jesus".  She finally said something when everyone in the world came after her, but it was too little, and way too late.

      Please remove your support from this very unworthy candidate.

      "My Momma always taught me to play by the rules, and if you don't that's called cheatin'." - Donna Brazile

      by jjmn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:39:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I just sent a message expressing my concern (0+ / 0-)

      Thanks for the link.

      Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the [U.S.] media - Noam Chomsky

      by LarryO on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:32:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

    National Women's Political Caucus does the same thing, you have to be a woman to receive an endorsement.  Locally, the Austin Women's Political Caucus has resisted the heavy hand of the NWPC to require such endorsements, particularly in Austin where there are very pro-female, progressive male candidates...it is a folly of these organizations to do this...sometimes you endorse who follows you, not based on arbitrary charter rules...but organizations still try...it follows into the "it sounded good at the time"...

    TexasDemocrat
    Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

    by TexasDemocrat on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:34:29 PM PDT

  •  well, i won't be giving to EMILY's List anytime (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal, MadEye, icebergslim

    soon.  Repulsive.

    Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

    by thereisnospoon on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:37:25 PM PDT

  •  I just e-mailed a buinch of people asking them (0+ / 0-)

    to boycott Emily's List

    Thanks for this diary.

    Sexism is sexism, racism is racism and biogtry is bigotry..... no matter which way iut's directed.

  •  This is just childish (0+ / 0-)

    I'm shocked to believe after all these years we still have these kinds of neanderthals alive and kicking.

  •  And yet... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GayHillbilly, LarryO

    They haven't endorsed Diane Benson for Alaska's House seat. She rocks. Yet they ignore her and endorse this person? Seems their priorities are poorly defined. I hate having to defend a good Democrat against a stupid primary challenge. I will add Steve Cohen to my Progressive Primaries Act Blue List.

  •  The Harold Ford Crowd (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal, sjs1959, GN1927, Dave925

    The people opposing Cohen are the same creeps that put Ford in that seat.

    I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

    by davefromqueens on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:48:13 PM PDT

  •  I haved given to Emily's List. (5+ / 0-)

    I stopped this primary season, but this is beyond the pale.

    I am a woman and they will NOT be receiving a check from me.

    This propaganda crap is divisive to say the least and that candidate, to endorse and embrace this?  

    I agree with the diarist.  To me, this is reverse sexism, of the worst kind.

  •  I live in Memphis. And sadly this is very true.We (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM, GN1927, Dave925, icebergslim, Ohiobama

    are to COGIC. The largest AA domonination in country and the third largest in the nation. People here take the bible literally the problem is half of children here drop out crime is on the rise and the most pressing issue "is the homosexuals." I am sick of it. Please see COGIC's website and their statement our gay brothers and sisters..

    COGIC

    BTW, Nikki Tinker is on facebook..

    We are watching John McCain decompose right before our very eyes..

    by TennesseeGurl on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:01:44 PM PDT

  •  Obama should intervene on behalf of Mr. Cohen (0+ / 0-)

    He should endorse him. I know it will be preserved as sexist and that he is endorsing the man against the woman – but this type of race baiting and overt discrimination should not be tolerated in the Democratic Party. Principle before political comfort.

  •  Forget about Emily's list, contact the Obama (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal, Ohiobama

    campaign. This is outragious. We should fight against this.

  •  point of information (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus

    I often read here people suggesting we "contact the Obama campaign." What exactly does that mean?

    I don't fault the campaign for this, but I find them quite preoccupied. Calling the national number gets you either a volunteer who can't act on any policy issue, or voice mail. Talking to field staff is useless on any issue outside that individual's turf.

    Is there some means of contacting strategy or policy staff that we ought to know about?

    •  You're right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Christin, Ohiobama

      But I don't blame commenters for having that impulse.  Obama went through a variation of the same thing during his own primary, and I think he could offer tactical strategy to Cohen regarding dealing with someone who is trying to displace him through the use of identity politics.  How about contacting his TN campaign headquarters and just asking if they are keeping an eye on that race?  Because ginning up that kind of hatred and resentment is totally off of Obama's message, what should be the Democratic branding, and would prove unhelpful to Obama's own efforts in TN.

    •  If you donate to the DNC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927

      You'll find an input box at the bottom of the "thank you" page.  They promise that a real, live person will read it (and maybe they will, who knows?)

      If enough people donate $5 or $10 and bring up the Cohen situation,  they'll take notice.  

  •  The other side of the story: A partial rebuttal... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, GN1927, Bo G
    I hate that this comment is buried so far down in this diary, but I believe it's important:

    On May 13, Steve Cohen made an ugly, sexist remark about Hillary Clinton (for which he later apologized), comparing her to Glenn Close's character in Fatal Attraction.  (source)

    When the diarist writes,

    Why would EMILY's List work to defeat an incumbent Congressman with a history of working in favor of their chosen issue?  The answer has to be sexism; he's a man. No other explanation can possibly make sense.

    he is ignoring an obvious piece of the puzzle---that Cohen's remarks alienated him from many of Emily's List's supporters.  I'd have preferred for them to have made no endorsement at all, but I believe it is completely unfair for the diarist to suggest that the only reason for their endorsement is that Cohen is male.

    •  Thanks for that link (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Christin, osterizer

      That was a pretty bad remark.

    •  But does that justify (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Christin, osterizer, liberate

      then in turn backing a candidate who is using religious bigotry?  I know you are not defending this at all, but I have always found the argument that being subject to an .ism justifies one turning around and attacking others based on .ism characteristics.

      •  No, but... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GN1927
        I'm not defending their endorsement; like I said above, I'd have preferred they endorse no one at all.  

        On the other hand, I'm specifically attacking the diary as either a poorly-researched story (at best), or a one-sided hit piece (at worst).  Either way, it should not have been elevated to the front page.

        •  Okay, gotcha (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Christin, osterizer

          And I do think that the information you provided is a very important aspect of this story.

        •  As I said above (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IM

          I have no connection to the campaign and I don't even live in the state.  Apparently that means I did "a poorly-researched story" at best...

          However, I think you're using a red herring argument here.  Excusing an endorsement of racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism with "But he made a Fatal Attraction reference once" isn't apples and oranges.

          As well - (and talk about 'poorly researched') - EMILY's List made the original endorsement in 2006.  About two years before that remark.  They also endorsed Tinker in 2008 before that remark.

          Even if the remark had come first, are you arguing that a one-off remark he apologized for immediately would be grounds for supporting a campaign that engages in worse repeated remarks than that one?

          •  False. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IM
            You write, "They also endorsed Tinker in 2008 before that remark."

            That is false; I've already looked it up:  EMILY's list endorsed Tinker on May 30 (source).  Cohen's remarks were on May 13.  

            Also, you've claimed that "Tinker's campaign has refused to denounce" the anti-semitic George Brooks flyers you've pictured in the diary.  That is also false.  She told WMC-TV that "I would not stand for any attacks on the Jewish faith or any other faith for that matter and I just want to make sure everybody knows that Nikki Tinker doesn't play those types of politics." (source)

            That's two factual errors I've discovered so far.  

            •  I eat crow (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Odysseus, osterizer

              Actually, I have to bow to osterizer on this one - I screwed it up and looked too quick.  The order of the remark and endorsement is correct as osterizer states.  That's what I get for trying to go too fast.  

              They did, however, endorse Tinker in 2006 - two years before Cohen's remark.

              That said, what I'm hearing from your argument is that he made a distasteful remark (and immediately apologized) so it is okay to endorse a candidate that encourages and hides behind much, much, much worse remarks from supporters and surrogates.

              The end point is that Tinker doesn't deserve the endorsement.  Period.  There is no excuse for supporting racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia.  There is no "Well, her skirt was too short, so she deserved it" moment possible in this situation.  Not only have we all learned that blaming the victim is counter-productive, it's also become a tactic that's quickly noticed.

              •  Thanks for the retraction. (0+ / 0-)
                I'll clarify, though -- in my original comment to this diary, I said that I would have preferred Emily's list to make no endorsement  at all in this race, not that it's "okay" to endorse an unacceptable opponent.
                •  Question (0+ / 0-)

                  But then why does it matter if that quote by Cohen is included if it doesn't make it "okay?"  Why the juxtaposition as the possible reason why EL made the endorsement?

                •  Congressman Cohen has apologized for the comment. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  osterizer

                  That's good enough for me.

                  •  I'm glad he did, too. (0+ / 0-)
                    We all blurt out things we regret once in a while, and for a politician who's under the microscope 24/7, I think we need to make some allowance for that.  I'm willing to overlook his Glenn Close remark, Obama's "you're likable enough" remark, even Hillary's "hard-working white voters" remark.  (By contrast, her "Barack just has a speech" line sounded scripted and planned.)  

                    On the other hand, I think his remark may have been a factor in EMILY's endorsement, and it hadn't been mentioned at all in the diary, which is why I brought it up.

                    currently doing research for a future diary on sexism at dkos; you can contribute here.

                    by osterizer on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:19:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  More misinformation in the article. (0+ / 0-)
      The diarist states that "Tinker's campaign has refused to denounce or repudiate" the anti-semitic flyer attacking Cohen.  

      In fact, she has denounced it.  According to WMC-TV, she's quoted as saying, "I would not stand for any attacks on the Jewish faith or any other faith for that matter and I just want to make sure everybody knows that Nikki Tinker doesn't play those types of politics".

      Smintheus, since you've front-paged this hit piece, I'm calling on you to fact-check the diary.  

      •  Half true (0+ / 0-)

        She did make that statement to that one station.  As far as i could find, that was the only statement she really made that came close to denouncing it.  She did not call a press conference or send out a release.  The reporter cornered her, from my research.

        As you can see from the multiple links I provided in the article - to television news, newspapers, radio stations and Memphis/African-American blogs - there was nothing else other than, "Hey!  It wasn't me! Sucks to be him!"  (Okay - obviously a paraphrase!  grins  The other media sources all complained that she wouldn't return phone calls or e-mails about the subject.

        Seriously - thanks for the link.  I heard that she'd made one half-assed sentence about it to one station, but could never find the actual "statement".  I appreciate it.

        •  If you've "heard that she'd made one... (0+ / 0-)
          ...half-assed sentence", why didn't you acknowledge that in your diary?  

          I've found two other sources for the same quote she gave to WMC: The Tri-State Defender, Mediaverse:Memphis.

          In addition, her campaign spokesman, Cornell Belcher, also denounced the flyer, saying "We would have nothing to do with that" and "no one would approve that sort of thing."  (source: The Memphis Commercial Appeal)

          By dismissively characterizing facts that refute your hit piece as "half-assed", you're being intellectually dishonest.  Your attack diary is factually lacking, which undermines the case you're trying to make.

          I have no horse in the Cohen-Tinker race; I know too little about either candidate.  But I'm definitely taking on your lopsided, biased smear campaign against Emily's List.

          •  Dialing it back a notch... (0+ / 0-)
            I was typing this while you posted the mea culpa on the May 30 endorsement.  Thanks for making that concession; and in the spirit of reaching truth, I'm apologizing for the hostility in this comment.  

            Thanks for hearing me out.

            •  No problem (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Odysseus

              Look - I don't do a lot of investigative journalism - I write editorials on my own blog most of the time!  I did the best I could because it irritated me to no end that they would do this without any real gained benefit.

              I'd encourage everyone to go out and do more research than I did.  I looked into this and called for quotes for 3 days before writing it.  The whole thing started out with EMILY's List endorsing a homophobe for me (My blog is an LGBT blog).  The anti-Semitic and racist stones rather fell into my lap as extra "gifts."

              I have no problem being wrong.  Sometimes it happens and, well, I learn more that way.  :)  It still remains though, that EMILY's List needs to retract this endorsement immediately.  That's more important than being correct about the tiny details.

              Btw - I quoted Belcher fully in my article - and linked to the Commercial Appeal story.  You have to admit...  One sentence when cornered by a reporter does not constitute a full denouncement.  There were no press releases or press conferences or anything.  That's not making "sure everybody knows that Nikki Tinker doesn't play those types of politics".  :)

  •  A sister org, WVWV, scrubs website (0+ / 0-)

    I believe this is appropriate and not thread hijacking.

    WVWV is also an organization with women's interests and as we, and the AG of NC saw, questionable methods.

    Their President, Page Gardner, issued a statement about  robocalls.  For what it was worth, and many here found not worth much, it's gone from their website.

    Responding to questions raised over robo-calls and voter registration forms received by North Carolina residents, Page Gardner, President of Women’s Voices. Women Vote, issued a statement explaining the robocalls and voter registration efforts.

    http://www.wvwv.org/...

    try it, you will not like it.

    Anyone know where the investigation has gone? Adam B. where are you?

  •  Absolutely horrific (6+ / 0-)

    To see this going on dem vs. dem is horrific.  And this is what happens when people silently applaud national candidates engaging in milder versions of the same behavior.

    This kind of bs has no place in the Democratic party, period.

    Shame on Tinker.  I'm disgusted by her actions.

    Wish others would have posted when Clinton was clearly doing similar to Obama.  I am not a member of Emily's List, but I hope those who are use whatever threats, cajoles, carrots and sticks possible to force them to discontinue to their support of Tinker.

    This is not the f-ing GOP.

  •  EMILY Jumped the Shark a Couple of Years Ago... (7+ / 0-)

    ...and have been dead to me since.

    As a woman, I find this "support the female at any cost" tactic stoopid and degrading.

    Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

    by InquisitiveRaven on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:38:39 PM PDT

  •  There is plenty of antisemitism on the left. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fizziks, liberate

    As a Jew, I have seen antisemitism on the left as well as on the right.  Neither side is innocent.  Senator Obama has on his campaign his military adviser Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak  

    In a 2003 interview with the Oregonian, Gen. McPeak resorted to old stereotypes and unfortunate language by blaming the lack of progress with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process on the undue political influence of American Jewry. The problem, said McPeak is "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

    Do people on here really care about antisemitism or is it only against people who are members of the DLC?

    •  Anti-semtitism (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sagesource, Dave925

      I agree there is anti-semitism on the right and the left but expressing opinions in the US that Israelis feel free to express in Israel can get you called an anti-semite here. There is more diversity of opinion on Israeli policy in the Knesset then in the US congress. It seems if you don't tow the Likud party line that counts as anti-semtism in some quarters which would qualify a lot of Israeli Jews as anti-semites. A majority of Israeli's in a recent poll expressed support for direct negotiations with Hamas something that would be political suicide for any US politician to even contemplate.

      Neo-con Likud policies have been disastrous to American and Israeli interests and security and maybe it's time the dialog here was a bit more like the much wider ranging dialog in Israel about what the best way forward is to support and secure our ally Israel and advance US interests.

      I don't know the context of McPeaks remarks but politicians do pander to Cuban political organizations in South Florida on Cuban policy, Iowans on corn ethanol and being first in the primaries. It's not good policy but if you want to get elected you do what you have to.

      Support for Israel has morphed into support for right wing Israeli policies and that's been made a litmus test for the Jewish vote. I don't support Bush here but I support America I don't need to support the Israeli version of Bush (like Sharon and Netanyahu) to support Israel. Why should I be a liberal here and everywhere else but a neo-con conservative when it comes to Israel? They have Liberal and peace partise in Israel as well.

      •  Ridiculous (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks

        Support for Israel is what it's always been, support for the survival of Israel as the Jewish homeland.   You say you don't know the context of McPeaks remarks.  Under what context is antisemitism acceptable to you?  Blaming political influence of American Jewry (75% being Democrats) for the the lack of progress with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is anti-Semitic.  Obama supporters are going wild over the comments that weren't even made by Nikki Tinker but ask what the context was when it comes to remarks made by an Obama advisor.

        Somethings wrong with this.  I don't think anti-Semitism is an issue Obama supporters care about, rather it's something that is convenient to shout against this women because she is running against the chosen candidate of the Obama supporter.

        •  And Likud (0+ / 0-)

          has not used its resources to massively propagandise American Jews to support its version of Israel?

          My Jewish girlfriend says other wise.

          Shouting down disagreement as prejudice ultimately costs you credibility and cheapens real anti-semitism.

          Some people say not to worry about the air Some people don't know shit about the... Air...

          by Dave925 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:59:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unworthy remarks. (0+ / 0-)

            How little you think of American Jews that they are propagandized into supporting Israel because of a party that is out of power.  You should exam your own antisemitism chum.

            •  Support for Israel (0+ / 0-)

              Neo Con policies are a threat to the survival of Israel as the Jewish homeland as well as a threat to US interests.

              propagandized into supporting Israel because of a party that is out of power

              There you go again conflating support of Israel with support of right wing policies that are detrimantal to Israel's future. The split off party that Sharon formed is just the Likud by another name.

              Americans were fooled into supporting Bush and Cheney for 8 years because a campaign of fear made them believe that they were the only party that could keep us safe and keep Israel safe. It turned out those policies made us less safe. They also made Israel less safe. Why continue to support them?

        •  Support for Israel (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IM

          I live in Miami and for decades right wing Cuban groups have taken it on themselves to speak for all Cuban-Americans and declared that anyone who did not support their specific policy positions on Cuba was anti-Cuban and a closet communist. As they had an overwhelming influence on the Cuban vote you can legitimately claim that the lack of progress on bringing Democracy to Cuba and getting rid of Castro is due to the political influence of the Cuban voting block.

          Fortunately younger Cuban-Americans and more recent arrivals from Cuba are open to changing a failed policy and so finally we are seeing the consideration of a wider range of policies. Had Obama given the speech he gave at the Cuban American National Foundation 4 years ago he would have been booed off the stage instead this year received an enthusiastic reception and open minds for a policy that is different then what every politician has felt obligated to adopt to get the Cuban vote. I think the situation with American Jews and Israel is similar.

          I think Bushes policies are wrong and I think Sharon's policies were wrong but there are powerful right wing lobbying groups that have successfully been making the case to American Jewish voters that criticizing the policies of right wing Israeli governments is tantamount to not supporting Israel and anti-semtism. That has been an obstacle to peace and has not been good for Israel's security. It is not responsible for the lack of progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace process but it has certainly hobbled the dialog here and the consideration of other options besides the Neo-Con McCain options. Which have been making Israel less safe.

    •  Antisemitism (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sagesource, Odysseus, IM, Dave925

      Jews aren't Israel.

      Israel isn't Jews.

      •  WRONG (0+ / 0-)

        Israel is the Jewish homeland.  Anti-Israel Jews are a tiny minority. Whether Democrat or Republican, nearly all American Jews support Israel.

        •  Likkud Israel? (0+ / 0-)

          or democratic, liberal Israel?

          Frankly, you want to see Israel wiped out? Just keep doing what Likkud demands and see what happens.

          Some people say not to worry about the air Some people don't know shit about the... Air...

          by Dave925 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:55:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Likkud isn't in power (0+ / 0-)

            Haven't you heard, they lost the last election.  As a Jew I don't need you to tell me how to support Israel.

            •  Oh? (0+ / 0-)

              and whose policies are favored by AIPAC? Joe Lieberman?

              As an American you don't have to tell me how to discern my country's best interests nor what is and isn't prejudice.

              Some people say not to worry about the air Some people don't know shit about the... Air...

              by Dave925 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:09:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And besides the point (0+ / 0-)

              as I stated which version of Israel, Likkud or liberal deserves support?

              Some people say not to worry about the air Some people don't know shit about the... Air...

              by Dave925 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:10:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My support is for Israel (0+ / 0-)

                Not for a particular party.  The survival of Israel is my only concern, not which party is in power.   is not in power.  How many times does that have to be pointed out to you.  The people of Israel, not you decide who their leaders are just like the people of America, not Israel decide who our leaders are.  Now you may with hold your support for Israel because you don't like their leaders and you may wish Israel harm because you don't like their leaders. I'm sure the Jewish vote means nothing to you since all but a tiny minority unconditional supports Israel even if we don't agree with everything they do.  

                •  My support is for Israel (0+ / 0-)

                  My support is for Israel not for a particular party.

                  That is a sentiment I can agree with. We should support Israel even if we disagree with the policies of any particular Israeli government. But no one should suggest that support for the policies of right wing Israeli parties like Likud and the extremist settler movement is a condition  for support of Israel.

        •  And you wouldn't object (0+ / 0-)

          to a white homeland in any way?

          How about a Christian homeland?  

          I think you would.

          Further, when the state of Israel does something really shitty, is it fair to blame Jews everywhere for it?

          I think not.  

          One thing those stormfront assholes like to say is that American Jews put the interests of Israel over that of America.  Are you implying they have a point?  

          Here come the troll ratings...........

          •  In case you see this. sometime in the future (0+ / 0-)

            Take your troll ratings and shove them you know where.  As a Jew, I will never, let me repeat, NEVER allow the survival of Jews to be determined by gentiles.  Got it?

          •  And another thing (0+ / 0-)

            Are you saying Jews should not have a country of their own where they can protect themselves?  Are you saying Jews should put their lives in the hands of others like they did in Germany?  Maybe you think the Holocaust didn't happen or 2000 years of persecution by Christians and Muslims is just a Jewish lie?  Maybe you think Jews deserve everything that others have done to them.

            •  actually, (0+ / 0-)

              I expected loads of troll ratings to be coming my way for my opinion.  Hasn't happened yet.  I'm surprised a little.

              I just think there is a double standard here.  America should be multicultural and color blind, and not discriminate based on religion and yet Israel gets a free pass on the last part at least.  It seems inconsistent.  White South Africa and Rhodesia got loads of flak from right thinking liberals.  Change the White/Black thing to Jew/Non Jew, and the situations look a bit similar.

              Personally, I think the government of Israel is doing pretty much what it has to do to survive in the fucking snakepit that is the middle east.  If anything, were I in their shoes, I think I'd be ten times meaner.  Further, there wouldn't be any pretense of occupied territories.  There would be conquered territories and untrustworthy minorities would be living elsewhere.  Rocket attacks would be met with counter battery artillery fire that would not be overly accurate.  It would give the civilians incentive not to let hamas set launchers up anywhere near their homes.  

              I would not, however, rattle on about "liberal" values while I was doing it.  I would readily admit that, sad as it was, they were not applicable to the situation at hand.  Racial profiling of Palestinians? Necessary.  Land mines spread liberally along the borders?  Saves time and manpower.  War with Syria to capture the Golan heights?  Another great idea.  We'll offer to buy them a few times not expecting the Syrians to go for it and the next time we get shelled from there, fuck it, they're ours.  

              It's like there are two levels of values at work here.  The ones we espouse as progressives and the ones we think we put behind us.  Our progressive values are at root, like hothouse flowers.  They only thrive under uncommon and artificial conditions.  One of the reasons I bother commenting here is to try to help people see that.  

              It's late, I'm rambling. The Jewish Homeland thing struck a nerve not unlike that Christian Nation bullshit does every time I hear it.  Let's just call it a mutual misunderstanding.  

    •  Anti-semitism of the left (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Libertaria, rgold77

      Sadly, in recent months, I've become aware of the anti-semitism that exists on the left in this country.  Interestingly, in Europe, contemporary anti-semitism is primarily a left wing phenomenon

      It turns out that Bush IS a uniter... he united the good half of the country virulently against him.

      by fizziks on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:04:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The same book in Nikki Tinker's bible... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal, Dave925, bilerico

    ...that implies that homosexuality is wrong also says that women should be silent in public.

    These admonitions were written specifically by Paul of Tarsus to address unique issues being encountered by Christians in Corinth and only ignorant opportunists apply them outside this context.  Also to apply them so selectively is proof that she doesn't really believe in the primacy of Paul's edicts.

    As far as "old testament" admonitions against homosexuality go, those were obviated during second temple period Judaism.  The Israeli army permits gays to serve, so you can see that this is largely a non-issue among most modern Jews.

    It really pisses me off that she's hiding behind a religion that tells you not to act like a hateful asshole.

  •  discrimination (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10, Dave925, liberate

    I guess discrimination is okay if it's not being done to them. (Emily's list)

  •  I (0+ / 0-)

    live in Marsha Blackburn's TN-7 district that sits in between TN-9 and MS-1.
    Emily's list has blown it here BIG TIME.
    We now know that Emily's List is a leading force in the anti-Semitic/LGBT world of American politics.
    Why Emily's List just does not come out and support Marsha Blackburn and the forces that oppose civil right for ALL AMERICAN'S?

  •  Like HRC's '98 endorsement v. Chuck Schumer (0+ / 0-)

    This reminds me of the Human Rights Campaign's endorsement of Republican Sen. Al D'Amato in 1998 against Democratic Party candidate Chuck Schumer.

    Chuck Schumer--who as Senator has marched the length of the Heritage of Pride parade/march in NYC chanting for LGBT rights through a bullhorn, literally--is not unlike the Steven Cohen candidate in the above diary: a target of wasteful stupid effort on the part of a national special interest group that should know better.

    Granted, in the HRC case, the whole scenario was even worse: D'Amato was a Republican and fairly conservative. But he'd been--for a GOPer--sorta kinda open about LGB rights (no "T" in the acronym (sp?) then, that's for sure), so HRC wet themselves to support in him, in part in a misguided effort to prove how wonderfully non-partisan they were.

    THIS IS A WASTE of Emily's List's resources and a mistake that this diarist is to be applauded for calling them out on.

    I guess that, perhaps, as HRC was oh-so-keen on showing how oh-so-non-partisan they were in '98, and in the process making stupid mistakes, so now Emily's List is taking with some similar kind of defies-common-sense thinking. When a special interest group makes such an error, THEY DESERVE TO BE CALLED OUT ON IT! The diarest (sp?) seem to understand this.

    I haven't given HRC a dime since 1998. And I haven't given Emily's List a penny since 2004. I still get their e-mail newsletter things, but I will unsubscribe from it having read this diary.

    Thank you, Bilerico, for your work.

  •  Tinker is one of Ford's people. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal

    It makes sense now.  Too bad that particular apple didn't fall farther from the tree.  

    From what my parents tell me, the black leadership in Memphis sees their current majority status as a golden opportunity to screw over the whites any way they can.  Little thought is apparently being given to actually running the city properly. They moved out years ago and might not have the best sources for their information and will of course only think to mention the most egregious things they hear about.  Still, the place has problems and the Ford machine's attitude isn't helping.  

  •  If there is anything (0+ / 0-)

    that proves the commonality of all human beings its that we sure can, across the board, be ignorant, hateful, prejudiced and just down right stupid- regardless of ethnicity, skin tone, creed, sexual orientation, religion or any other false dividing line between us.

    Until we address this willful flaw in each and everyone of us there will be no progress towards justice and equality.

    Some people say not to worry about the air Some people don't know shit about the... Air...

    by Dave925 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:49:33 PM PDT

  •  This is an inherent hazard with identity politics (0+ / 0-)

    Any time you have an institution that promotes identity over policy, this sort of thing will happen. EMILY's list has made me uneasy from the get-go, because they have seemed focused far more on electing women than on promoting a pro-woman agenda.

    Prof. Obama once told his Race and Law class that if they weren't at least a little uncomfortable with Affirmative Action by the end of the class, then he hadn't done his job. Why? Because of exactly this tension between good policy and good identity politics.

    I consider the NAACP and Planned Parenthood to be excellent examples of organizations that advance a progressive agenda without falling into the seductive trap of favoring identity over policy. I think EMILY's list would do well to emphasize policy more.

  •  Coming together of corporatism and bible thumping (0+ / 0-)

    Aagh...

    I'm mad as Gravel, and I'm not going to take it anymore!

    by ceti on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:03:49 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site