How EMILY's List is killing the Democratic Party

We need more women in positions of power in this nation, no doubt about that. I hope I live to see the day when the first female president is sworn into office and I couldn't be prouder to have my congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi, as the first woman to hold the title of Speaker of the House. All of that said (sad that I feel I have to clarify that so as not to be branded a misogynist, sexist, woman-hater) I abhor the actions of EMILY's list when getting involved in Democratic primary politics.

As an organization there seems to be an assumption that simply being a woman who is pro-choice means you are the best and most qualified candidate for EMILY's List to endorse. Newsflash, having more estrogen than testosterone does not make one a progressive feminist. Not only is it reverse sexism to make such an assumption based solely on one's gender but more over it is a slap in the face to male candidates who have a more progressive, pro-feminist agenda and/or voting record than their female counterparts.

EMILY's List has already endorsed Senator Clinton, a very strong candidate to be sure, in the Democratic primary process. Is it a monumental thing that Hilary is running for president and she may well win but is there nothing more important about her as a candidate than whether or not she has an XX chromosome? Let me sight a more crystal clear example.

Want to know why Mitt Romney is a viable presidential candidate? Blame EMILY's List. In 2002 there were five candidates for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Massachusetts; Steven Grossman, Warren Tolman, Tom Birmingham, Robert Reich and Shannon O'Brien. Four of these candidates, according to numerous polls published at the time, had a strong chance of beating Mitt Romney, one didn't. Who did EMILY's List endorse and funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to? The one who didn't, Shannon O'Brien. What's more, O'Brien was clearly less of a feminist than at least three of her male opponents. All four men had been consistently pro-choice their entire careers, not so for Mrs. O'Brien. Birmingham and Tolman had sponsored numerous bills in the Massachusetts state legislature designed to protect women involved in cases of domestic violence and the Bay State's rape shield laws. Reich was the leading voice in the Clinton Administration who pushed the family and medical leave act through a resistant Republican Congress. I could go on and on but O'Brien was criticized time and again for her record on women's issues. O'Brien won the primary largely due to the money pumped into the state by an organization blinded by her gender rather than the clarity of her record. She was promptly throttled by Mitt in the general election. Had Romney lost the Governor's race in 2002 do you think he'd be able to run for President right now? I think not.

We need more women in elected office, but not at the expense of real feminists and the party as a whole.