Clearly and cleverly – or sleazily depending on your point of reference, the EMILY’s List marketing of Elizabeth Warren’s image paired with the candidate that they endorsed is a calculated and premeditated action. Dropped once before the holiday weekend, and then to the really raised eyebrows of observers, followed the first misleading mailer with a second surgically precise drop just as the Sox enter into the playoffs.
These gals aren’t messing around. They are willing to put their credibility on the line for a win.
Add this to the lack of decency and lack of political etiquette to endorse Clark over Spilka in a primary with two pro-choice Democrat women, especially when Spilka’s record (and the men in the race, too) exceeds the less experienced candidate’s record on a broad range of women’s issues.
One has to wonder, “What’s up with EMILY’s List?”
When the first mailer was dropped Bernstein was at the clutch and set-off speculation about the piece that has been discussed here at length. Some folks are outraged, some are complacent and others see it as fine and dandy that our popular US Senator’s face be used to at minimum subliminally project a close relationship and/or endorsement…….because it is legal for a third party to go shady and technically the candidate has not coordinated with the special interest group..
But let’s get real. Who for one minute doesn’t believe that there is a possibility that some PACs and other third party entities don’t have an inside line to a candidate that has actively sought their endorsement?
Who for one minute doesn’t believe that Washington insiders, 1% heavy-hitter, deep pocket-books backing the candidate and coincidentally EMILY’s List mega-contributors don’t have a part in this little drama?
How and why is it that the director of a foundation (how many of the 99% have directors of their foundations blog for them???) that has endorsed and supports both the candidate and the special interest in question has NOT spoken out against the tactic?
Slippery tactics do not lend “likeability” to candidates of any gender. Slippery tactics do not lend credibility to any of the parties involved when calculated silence is the action taken. Each hour without a statement from the candidate reflects her values and choices.
So, this little drama has given me the answer to my question raised above. EMILY’s List is afraid of candidates like Karen Spilka who are not easily manipulated and silenced to play insider politics. That’s what’s up with EMILY’s List.
God forbid we elect a woman who doesn’t pander to special interests and the elite.
The other real pisser here is that lots of people have trusted EMILY’s List to back the right candidates and contributed their $20, $50, $100 bucks only to see the insider game played blatantly with hubris and arrogance.
The wicked pisser is that the self-serving myopic or desperate tactic used by EMILY’s List and NOT denounced by the candidate or her influential backers is a distraction not only from the race but for US Senator Elizabeth Warren and her staff, when the freakin’ government is shut-down. That blows!
Disclosure: Update – I loathe pandering and my comments are my own. I support Karen Spilka for Congress. For Results, and don’t get paid. Ouch Stephen Drew…..Go Sox
For starters let’s remember that only two candidates even qualify for EMILY’s List consideration – Clark and Spilka. EMILY’s list has never been secretive about the idea that there are three things you must be to get their endorsement: pro-choice, a woman, and a Democrat. Given that Clark has chosen women’s issues as her niche in this campaign I’m not the least bit surprised she got EMILY’s List’s endorsement. Maybe there are other connections at work as well, but my reaction frankly is to get out the violin, though I can understand your disappointment as a Spilka supporter, whom for the record I favor over Clark as well.
I would agree that there is no factual basis that Emily’s List has it out for Spilka or are afraid of her. There is plenty of evidence now that they are essentially lying about Elizabeth Warren’s endorsement and obviously associating their preferred candidate with the Senator in these lame and misleading ads. The outrage over that is not being blown out of proportion. And it speaks poorly of Emily’s List.
Come on. They are independently making a comparison between two politicians. Nowhere in either mailing does it say Warren has endorsed Clark. There’s nothing wrong with trying to make a connection to a popular politician. Republicans always try to associate with Ronald Reagan, without his, or after his death his family’s, endorsement and this is no different.
Those mailers are clearly designed to give people the impression that Warren has endorsed/supports Clark. Of course they do not that there is an endorsement, but that’s what they want people to believe.
They know that a lot of people do not read the political lit they get in the mail. So they make something that is sure to be quite a bit larger than anything else in your mailbox with the pictures of the two of them prominent on both sides. Hard to miss it – and hard for the casual observer to not make the connection. They are counting on voters not reading the fine print.
You have to tell me how I can acquire that gift! The recipient IS supposed to make the connection, but that’s not the same as one endorsing the other.
Just a little connecting the dots.
Stop putting words into EMILY’s List’s mouth!
Some of us see the dots. Some of us don’t.
but come to the same conclusion on this matter. Emily’s List knows exactly what it’s doing. It’s no coincidence that these ads have come at the very end of the election.
They’ve been around awhile and they both want to and know how to win.
While I don’t think the flyer was all that outrageous, I also think there is really no question that it is intentionally misleading. They knew perfectly well when they did this that some people would come to the false conclusion that Warren was endorsing Clark.
So while I agree with you that this issue has been blown out of proportion, ENILY’S list doesn’t come out of this clean either.
Is Emily’s List being a little sneaky? Yes. But there’s no question that other camps are blowing it out of proportion. I’ve never seen two flyers garner so much discussion on BMG.
And by the way I’ve gotten a fair amount of Clark mail, and seen no mention of Elizabeth Warren. None.
If your argument is that Spilka is less likely to kowtow to a few wealthy donors, it seems like a fair point. Ultimately a progressive position is stronger if it is developed and supported by an economically diverse coalition. Wealthy donors (i.e. Swanee Hunt of the Hunt Alternatives Fund and Barbara Lee) are more likely to gravitate to Clark because of her record on a number of issues where she sided with Cambridge over Melrose, Malden and Framingham. This carries with it a risk in the November election, because Clark could be portrayed as a limousine liberal with too much attention paid to international issues and not enough on bread and butter economic issues affecting working families in Massachusetts.
Every major candidate in this primary almost certainly has donors who are wealthy and donors who aren’t and everywhere in between. I doubt Clark is unique in this regard. So did Elizabeth Warren, by the way who had a ton of donations from big names in Hollywood. I’m sure Spilka, for example, has many big donations from high tech executives in her district. And I’m sure she has lots of small dollar donors. Just like Clark and all the other candidates in this race.
Beyond that, Clark has done a lot for lower income and middle class folks in her district and this state. She’s been a strong advocate for services for seniors and children. One of the issues I often talk about when I’m canvassing for her, because it meant a lot to me, is that she sponsored and championed a bill to cap fare increases on the T — and she did so despite the fact that a lot of her district is suburban and not exactly transit dependent, unlike Malden where I live. Frequent T riders are overwhelmingly lower income and people of color, and yet she stood up for us during the last crisis involving T financing. I could give you other examples but those are a few that are important to me.
All people I heard from in my neck of the woods who are informed about things political are pretty upset about this mailing making it appear Warren is endorsing Clark. For many, it is a deal breaker.
I’m concerned however with the less informed voters, who will look at the pics and not check online whether Warren actually endorsed Clark. These sleazy kind of mailings actually work, and may very well tip the election for Clark.
Question is for the general election – who is going to campaign for Clark if she wins on the spur of these sleazy mailings? You’d have to hold the campaign sign with one hand, and your nose with the other.
Third party material I’ve seen usually says something like, “Paid for by…, not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.” The mailings don’t say there was an endorsement anyway, so nothing to check.
Bob, you can’t expect them to endorse a man. They have always said they want the trifecta: woman, Democrat, pro-choice. Anything else is a deal breaker. They clearly want more women in office. Of course they are not forced to endorse in any race so I’m sure if they found the woman insufficiently prochoice they would have stayed out of the race you are refering to entirely. I don’t think they are extreme at all, just consistent.
I think Emily’s List made a lousy decision with this lit. They could have chosen lots of other ways to promote their endorsed candidate, which they have every right to do. And no the lit does not state an endorsement or cooperation with the Clark campaign. Yes some voters might read it that way but many won’t. Nevertheless, the lit has to some degree not been helpful, for all involved, and therefore I think it was ill advised and doesn’t speak we’ll to Emily’s list’s judgement.
I can see why Spilka supporters would be upset that Emily’s List chose to endorse Clark, but it was a choice they made. If they’d endorsed Spilka I can’t imagine I’d be spending time her at BMG bemoaning that they didn’t endorse Clark for whatever imagined reason. They’re both qualified candidates with solid records, both of whom are women, pro-choice and Democrats. As far as I can tell, Spilka has run a very strong campaign despite not getting their endorsement.
Frankly, what bothered me most about the Emily’s List lit was that it implied Senator Warren was putting her finger on the scale behind the scenes, which as she’s stated on the record she absolutely isn’t. But I’m sure there are folks who will still believe she was taking sides in a Democratic primary, facts aside, and that is something Emily’s List should have thought long and hard about. Lots of prominent Democrats have not publicly endorsed any candidate in this primary for exactly this reason, all it does is upset activists supporting the other candidates and engender ill feeling. That helps no one. Warren and Markey are both well aware of this and have stayed out of this primary, rightly. Apparently Emily’s List needs a refresher in politics 101….
I think your above comment is well-taken, but this one point is what bugs the heck out of me regarding this kerfuffle. I hate when anyone whether my side of the issue or not plays the perception game, buys into the “perception is reality” concept. Messangers should not have to worry about the false impressions taken from their message. I often say don’t suggest to me why something might look bad; prove to me that it actually IS bad. I have no patience for those who take away the wrong message “facts aside”.
In my opinion, Emily’s List operates like a sorority. In order to be chosen, a candidate needs to friends with the “right members”. So, Katherine Clark is friends with with a couple of major Em List donors. That’s why she was chosen over Karen Spilka.
And should own up to it. I have never been a big fan though. They cost us seats in the 2010 midterms that we should’ve had (I know a lot of people here weren’t fans, but Bart Stupak voted with Pelosi 70% of the time, far more than the Tea Party Republican who is there now, just to name one example). Their three core issues are important, but I do not see how they were advanced in this race. It seems the money would be better spent in areas of the country that have more difficulty electing pro-choice women, or to take out Dan Lipinski or other DINOs. Their strategic goals are wise, their tactics completely suck.
I came to this post via my RSS feed. I’m amused that when I clicked over to view this post on the BMG site, I got a popup ad for… Emily’s List!
This race has been instructive to me. Based on how they operate, I’m not sure why someone would actually give money to Emily’s List. Why not donate directly to a candidate you want to support, like Wendy Davis, instead of giving money to EL and hope they spend it wisely?