Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: EMILY's List blunders on New Hampshire's "Pledge" politics

Want the scoop on hot races around the country? Get the digest emailed to you each weekday morning. Sign up here. Leading Off:

' NH-Gov: The politics of New Hampshire's infamous anti-tax "Pledge"'the pledge not to institute an income tax or a sales tax that politicians from both parties are continually browbeaten into accepting'may be unfamiliar to outsiders. That makes it easy for unsophisticated meddlers to really step in things, which is exactly what EMILY's List just did. You'll recall that about a week ago, Democrat Jackie Cilley courageously opposed the pledge at the state party convention, to much adulation; her rival for the nomination, Maggie Hassan, meekly went along with it. Hassan rather controversially also scored EMILY's endorsement in April, even though it was never clear why the group chose her over Cilley, whose pro-choice record is equally strong.

EMILY never even tried to offer a satisfying answer to this question, but the Concord Monitor gamely decided to ask again'and this is where the group went off the rails:

Emily's List president, Stephanie Schriock, was in the state Thursday to campaign with Hassan. We asked her how the organization made its choice.

"When we got to looking at the New Hampshire race and recognized there were two pro-choice women, we took an incredibly serious look," Schriock said. "We look at those who can make it happen. Those who have the fortitude, the organization, the communication, the resources to pull it together and win the election. And we felt Maggie Hassan was the best candidate to win this governorship."

And about that Pledge Hassan took and Cilley refused?

"We do look at the overall political situation of the state," Schriock said.

The only way to read this is that EMILY's List, at least in part, went with Hassan because of, not in spite of, the fact that she kowtowed to the pledge, which is a tool of conservative oligarchs who want to keep their own taxes low while starving the state of needed revenue for the less well-off. (If the pledge didn't matter at all, then Schriock could have just said so.) Given how excited Democratic activists were when Cilley rejected pledge politics, and considering how much blowback EMILY received by picking sides in a race where doing so wasn't warranted, this sounds like another serious blunder that could energize progressives against EMILY's pick even further.