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