Audio: Hillary Privately Blasted "The Activist Base Of The Democratic Party" For Caucus Defeats
Well, this should get anti-war voters angry with Hillary Clinton -- and be a real political headache for the home stretch in Pennsylvania.
The Huffington Post has gotten their hands on a secret tape from a closed-door fundraiser held just after Super Tuesday, in which Hillary lambastes "the activist base of the Democratic Party" and their views on national security:
"We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."
MoveOn executive director Eli Pariser has already responded in very strong terms:
Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points.
Advertisement
I could take her being sore at MoveOn.org for endorsing Obama.
But peddling the right wing smear about MoveOn not supporting the war in Afghanistan is intolerable.
April 18, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
this was said before any endorsement
April 18, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
no this was said at a point after Super Tuesday. (For reasons unknown, the article does not specify when and where.) Move On endorsed Obama on Feb. 1.
ttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/moveon-endorses-obama/
April 18, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about time somebody bitch-slaps MoveOn. Eli Pariser says:
Hey, Eli, guess what? I'm a member of MoveOn! And just like I fiercely resent your hijacking an organizational endorsement for Obama from me (even though I voted for Clinton), you don't speak for me now, either. Surprise! In fact, it turns out you're a piss-poor speaker for 3.2 million. So please don't count on all 3.2 million being loyal to you ever again!
April 19, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, we had a vote and "your girl" (good God, that is a creepy phrase about a distinguished woman 60 years old) lost by OVERWHELMING 70.4% to 29.6%.
He might not speak for you, but in Move On, YOU are the one whose out of step with the organization. I think he spoke pretty well in this article.
April 19, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must have gotten your percentages from MoveOn because they are wildly misleading. 91% of MoveOn's total membership didn't even get to vote. Obama's "win" reflects only 6.2% of the total membership. The vote was rigged, and Eli Pariser is a liar.
April 20, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see the problem. What she said is 100% true.
Weren't you Obama supporters ranting and raving that what Obama said about "typical white people" was true?
Please... Give it a rest.
April 18, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better trolls, please!
Unless this is an attempt at dada trolling, it helps if your comments are internally coherent even if they're totally disconnected from reality.
What, pray tell, does the claim that Obama supporters all think something about "typical white people" have to do with Clinton's claim that the activist base of the Democratic Party is voting for Obama because they're opposed to the war in Afghanistan?
(Incidentally, this would be a rather odd way of showing opposition to the war in Afghanistan because there's no indication whatsoever that Obama opposes the war in Afghanistan, either.)
April 19, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have just done some reading, and this Afghanistan charge does seem inaccurate, but I wouldn't say it's wholly untrue. It seems that MoveOn's current chief Political Action’s Executive Director, Eli Pariser, launched an anti-Afghanistan petition shortly after 9/11, which became quite popular, and as a result of that he was invited to join MoveOn shortly afterwards.
Incidentally, I'd agree with Hillary that she does worse in caucuses because of the anti-war activists who cannot forgive the Authorisation vote. Things were never as black and white as some like to make out. If you actually read her speech (the whole speech), which she made on the Senate floor, it is intelligent and reasoned. The last paragraph in particular sums it up well:
"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783
Bush let us down, not Hillary.
April 19, 2008 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
It should be quite easy for MoveOn or anyone else who wants to defend MoveOn to produce examples of MoveOn's support for CIA and military operations in Afghanistan after 9/11.
We know that when MoveOn supports or opposes something or someone, they are very vocal about it, e.g., their position on General Petraeus.
I think she nailed them and they are making the usual whine of people who get nailed. Rovian talking points. Republican talking points. MoveOn has found that that's a code that works with their supporters.
MoveOn executive director Eli Pariser is a significant voice in MoveOn. In many ways, he now is MoveOn. If he opposed operations in Afghanistan, it's fair to say that one of the most powerful voices now in MoveOn did oppose them.
Why doesn't he explain why he opposed going after al Qaeda and the Taliban?
April 19, 2008 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't oppose going after al Qaeda and the Taliban. In fact, what he said was that blind support for the Iraq War took our eye off the ball as a nation and a military. The ball being Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda where they actually were, which was in Afghanistan.
April 19, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You want to frame this as a need to 'defend' MoveOn because you don't know how to try to defend Hillary Clinton's dissing of a large base of Democratic activists.
April 19, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't oppose it. He was in favor of exhausting other possibilities before going to war. So am I. So are most people.
April 19, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, even Bush pretended to believe that.
Not that anyone who wasn't naive and/or politically motivated believed that he really thought so.
April 19, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
What adult goes by "Billy" ?! Sounds like Leave it to Beaver.
April 19, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This a fairly good defense of HRC and the war but as much as I would like to believe it, it still falls a bit short. She authorized it without reading the NIE, without thought to the big-picture consequences of invasion and without insisting on accountability. I remember what things were like then, and I understand the mind-set of the American public and Washington - people who opposed the war needed a lot of guts to go against the President, even questioning Bush was considered unpatriotic... so in some ways I understand and can forgive her.
However, that is the kind of thing that I can tolerate in a Senator but I expect the POTUS to have those guts.
No Obama wasn't in Washington then so we don't really know how he would have voted, but we do know how she voted and she failed the test. I would rather vote for someone where there is a chance they would have the guts (and there is a fair amount of evidence to indicate that he would) than vote for someone who I know doesn't.
But that is just me. I respect that you feel differently.
April 19, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's cool, and I can understand that point of view.
My only response would be that in her speech, Hillary did set out what she thinks the President should subsequently do - and as such, what she would do as President. It involved first bringing the UN to vote on a resolution scrapping the 1998 restrictions, and demanding unfettered access, and goes into detail about building an international consensus.
She also said in her speech:
"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783
I think that if she had been President, she wouldn't have gone to war when Bush did, but would have genuinely exhausted all diplomatic avenues. That's the kind of President I'd be happy to have in the white house.
April 19, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is fine to speculate about what someone might have done, but that does not provide a sound argument. I know what I would have done - not might. I would have read the NIE before giving Bush the keys to war. I knew it was wrong. My kids knew it was wrong. Also, given Bush's history, Cheney, etc, it was obvious what these folks were capable of.
War is the worst possible thing. Before approving war powers, you should have a certainty. It is not the presidents job to declare war. It is congress' job.
Hillary was obviously making a political move. She, like a wave of other cowardly democrats, was trying to play both sides at once, out of fear - fear of being perceived as unpatriotic, fear of being perceived as weak, fear of losing the next election. I would rather go to war based on facts than fear.
She can claim she was against it. She approved it. Those are the facts. Actions speak much louder than words.
Do you no who was really against it? Those who voted against it. Feingold, for example, was against it.
April 19, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
i completely forget how senator clinton ALONE voted for war (in a one-woman congress, i am assuming?) and is the SOLE cause of this endless war-mess!
get real. this argument is so over. you damn hypocrites should be attacking the UNLAWFULLY ELECTED man at the top (bush) for waging ILLEGAL war before attacking a LAWFULLY elected official acting on her LAWFULLY given powers.
April 19, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why, is Bush running for reelection again?
Well, there is McCain, who's the closest thing to Bush since Lieberman. Maybe we should get this nomination wrapped up, go for the strongest candidate (the one who's been in the lead for ages in spite of ugly attacks, not the one who voted to give Bush his goddamn war), and start hitting McCain, instead of wrangling over whatever Republicanesque bullshit Clinton has spewed lately.
April 19, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is just a stupid comment.
Going after Bush (who is undoubtably the main culprit responsible for the war and should be held responsible) is not mutually exclusive with electing a President that will make good decisions about future wars.
The difference between Hillary and the rest of Congress is that I am not being asked to vote for them for President of the US - with the exception of McCain and I am not voting for him either.
I am not demonizing Clinton just as I didn't demonize Edwards, Biden, Dodd or the rest - I just believe that Obama is a better choice and has shown wisdom on this topic that others have not. He isn't a dove, but he isn't a hawk either and isn't that what we want in the leader of our country?
April 19, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re "it is not a vote to rush to war":
Yes it was, whether she wanted it to be or not.
She should have been alert enough to know how the
vote would be used. Many of us were.
April 19, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Hillary showed phenomenally bad judgment to expect Bush to have a weapon and not use it. Many, many people who were watching the march to war unfold knew that he could not be trusted, knew that the diplomacy was all a sham long before later discoveries revealed the truth.
Is her judgment of world leaders really that bad? In Lincoln Chafee's new memoir, an unnamed Senator (widely thought to be Jack Reed, D-RI) said that many Dems got on board the war-wagon because they thought it would be over quickly and easily and would result in cheap gas. In the Republican-controlled Congress they did not want to be on the losing side of an issue that would have such positive consequences.
I really cannot approve of a candidate who thinks war is an acceptable for of foreign policy.
April 19, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is everyone a troll who disagrees with you.
Here is Pariser's petition.
The next day, September 12, Pickering wrote a petition calling on President Bush to use "moderation and restraint" in responding to 9/11 and "to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction."
At the same time, Pariser, who had graduated from college the year before and was working at a liberal nonprofit organization in Massachusetts, was writing a similar petition, which he put on a website he created called 9-11peace.org. Pariser noticed Pickering's work and e-mailed him to suggest that they merge their sites. Pickering agreed, and 9-11peace.org featured a petition which read:
We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction. Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. . .
Meanwhile, across the country in Berkeley, California, MoveOn founders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades were writing an anti-war petition of their own. Entitled "Justice, not Terror," it read, in full: "Our leaders are under tremendous pressure to act in the aftermath of the terrible events of Sept. 11th. We the undersigned support justice, not escalating violence, which would only play into the terrorists' hands."
April 19, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
my goodness! what kind of activist nuts would prefer international law to war in order to bring al qaeda to justice? and does that mean they were opposed to the war, or just that they wanted to exhaust all other options first?
April 19, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad doesn't make finer distinctions, because his defense of Hillary depends upon dumbing down the discussion into a whole-cloth conclusion.
April 19, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
April 20, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, bin Laden pretty much spelled this out as his plan, and our Glorious Leaders went along with it anyway.
April 19, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
Hillary justified her vote by saying it was exactly like the decision Bill made to go into Kosovo. Ethnic cleansing was going on and the UN would not give the OK. So the US acted unilaterily, without UN approval. She placed the security of our country in jeopardy because she thought the US has to be the human rights police. Since that turned out more or less OK, Hillary thought this adventure would be the same.
She did not do her homework for this situation because she equated it with a past conflict and would not listen to any information to the contrary (NIE). The reliable information she based her decision on was from Bill. Period.
Hear it in her own words - 2 weeks before the invasion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZcY6TGfAxE
April 19, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy;
I want to apologize for any vitriol you may have received. As you know emotions are running high on both sides here. But I think the passion that both candidates have inspired is worth it because I think it is that passion that will carry one of our candidates to the White House.
I think after the Primary it will get much better when we all focus on McCain and the general.
I do not hate Hillary although I am disappointed in the way she has used Republican talking points to attack Obama. But he can handle it now and later when it comes from the Republicans directly.
My main reason for not backing Hillary is that she is too much of a hawk for my liking. Although I am now dismayed if MoveOn is being disingenuous if they are backing down from their stance during the build-up to Afghanistan.
Hillary's signing that Iraqi Resolution and now criticizing MoveOn for being against Afghanistan Invasion is typical of a hawkish stand and I am one who believes that war should always be the last stand against tyranny because one needs to weigh the loss of innocent life against the toll of the war. The question must always come down to” which course will save the most lives."
According to the Lancet report our bombing of Iraq has killed many more times more civilians that Saddam did.
I have read some comments from Hillary intimates that she felt had to support the resolution or they would use it against her in this election. Do you think the loved ones who have lost soldiers or the survivor family members of Iraqis would find any comfort in that rationale?
This why I support Obama. He stood up even though it was unpopular and he could have stayed silent. I want a leader who does not rush to war for expedience.
I do respect your choice though and I wish we had more reasoned discussions here. Hopefully it will end soon!
April 20, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
very true, left. i agree with you 100%, hills! maybe she's been reading the obamabot's comments on TPM?
April 19, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, we weren't. The joke's on you: Your complaint regards a "typical " remark, yet your assertion reveals your view of another group as "typical".
Typical is related to the word "type." While it is a convenient shortcut to reduce members of a group to typical, i.e., being of the same type, it is inherently a perception-limiting behavior. Further, it is indicative of survival-based behavior, suggesting that the person using type to classify members of a group is experiencing desperate feelings and mistaking these for a threat to his or her survival.
This is a common mistake made by human beings under stress. Confusing a threat to one's paradigms with a threat to one's personal survival is at the heart of modern culture.
Just ask Rush Limbaugh.
April 19, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
left,
oh yeah? well my dad can beat up your dad, so there!
April 19, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the scoop on Pariser and his petition. Notice that, according to this account, Pariser's 9-11Peace.org was merged with MoveOn.org because MoveOn was so impressed by it. This artical says that Pariser's petition only opposed invading Iraq. I'm still looking for the petition itself.
http://interventionmag.com/cms/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=181
Over 200 comments here already without anyone citing a contemporaneous source. Blogs like this can be a source of information or they can be an echo chamber for rants. They can seldom be both.
April 19, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction. Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. . ."
From the original petition.
Looks like it opposes the invasion of Afghanistan or anyone else.
Here is the Right's take on the petition and on Rove's comments about it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200506241146.asp
April 19, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well? Looks like what she said about MoveOn is true.
Unless Blades is lying.
Pariser and MoveOn both opposed using military force against Afghanistan after 9/11.
Who knew?
Guess that's history for you.
April 19, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a different concept. Folks within a party could disagree. Folks within a movement could disagree. Activists could disagree. That is how individuals are. For example, if you are a democrat, do you agree with all other democrats?
Meanwhile, if you are a candidate for the democratic party, is it not better to find a way to be more inclusive, to hear more voices, to not perceive opposing opinion as a threat within your own (supposed) party? Wouldn't it be better to find ways to include everyone?
I am against Clinton as president. Shouldn't she still want my vote? If not for activism, even activism I disagree with, not much would be done. Ultimately we would still be under British rule.
There is a spectrum of democratic opinion. From the far left to the more libertarian, we need to take the Whitehouse away from these insane neocon, new world order war mongers. They have all but destroyed this country and are working on the rest of the world. That will take all of us. It would be better to find ways to persuade folks to join the team, than discard out of hand anyone who disagrees with you.
Case in point: There are Hillary supporters who were are part of moveon. Some of them, after hearing this news, are no longer Hillary supporters. So was it good to be, once again, divisive?
April 19, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
And your rant is to 'prove' an untruth by your own narrow interpretation of those linked statements.
April 19, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't have to lie about Moveon.org on Afghanistan.
April 18, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah she did. The truth isn't her friend.
April 18, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you mean that this comment didn't do her campaign a lick of good, you're right.
April 19, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is going to hurt her not with voters in PA, but it will with the activists in the party and it certainly won't help with the supers.
Friday night on Huff Post. That seems to be where the action is lately.
April 18, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree that HuffPo does seem to be where it's at these days. Which is too bad bcuz I've always been a TPM fan. But Josh needs to step it up. The flunkies aren't helping.
April 18, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It turns out Josh is an amateur. I was disappointed, too. Politico is much better.
April 19, 2008 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
and at last the mask comes off.
April 19, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy said: It turns out Josh is an amateur. I was disappointed, too. Politico is much better.
Billy, that was SO rude. Josh just won a huge award. You are showing your no class no taste now.
April 19, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just getting ridiculous. Please make it stop.
Obama = presumptive nominee.
April 18, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
MoveOn is becoming a serious detriment to the Democratic party's chance for success in the fall elections. Clinton is right to address this as she has. I listened to the audio of her comments earlier this evening and find there is really nothing controversial in her comments. I'm sure, though, that others will want to use of this to stir up folks--preaching to the choir as much as anything else because the rest of us see MoveOn as pushing an agenda that is increasingly very much out-of-step with mainstream Democrats.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 18, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
As predictable as Bill Clinton on an intern.
June 3rd. See you then.
April 18, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's going to last until June 3rd, myself.
April 18, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree, I saw end of April.
April 19, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Matthew, she either lied or was mistaken about the fact that MoveOn.org opposed military action in Afghanistan (they did not oppose action in Afghanistan). So there, in fact, was something wrong with what she said.
However, you are correct that her comments will fall on deaf ears to the average voters. Activist voters, however, will hear her loud and clear.
April 18, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If, as has been stated, MoveOn executive director Eli Pariser circulated a petition opposing operations in Afghanistan and MoveOn hired him right after that wouldn't you infer that they agreed with his petition?
April 19, 2008 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why keep repeating your lie, Billy? Try some deeper thinking about what was written, and you may discover some very deep principles of humanity in those writings, principles which are a bedrock in the Democratic party, principles which separate us from both knee jerk war-mongerers and the terrorists who carried out 9/11.
April 19, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this our own friendly neighborhood Matthew Weaver?
He won't confirm or deny, so I'm beginning to think it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaSPQnHUnLQ&feature=related
April 18, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. theres another video of him jamming the guitar. sweet.
April 18, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loved the 'Illi-NOISE' pronunciation. I could only listen for about 40 seconds before I had to turn it off.
April 18, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of how people view MoveOn... the only thing you ever seem to say is: Clinton is great, that uppity negro is bad.
What does it mean to be out of step with mainstream democrats? I have yet to get that democrats rarely get past tributaries.
On top of it all, you sure seem to have a lot to say about mainstream democrats for a guy who will vote for McCain should Obama win the nomination.
April 18, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo, watch the video I posted. You're trying to reason with a lunatic.
April 18, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not the same guy. But I agree with you in terms of trying to reason with Matthew. He runs when you hold his thoughts to the light.
After I posted a comment with every piece of garbage he had on theproblemwithobama.com, he promptly stopped using it as a reference. I just checked the site - he takes his crap down after people call him out on it.
That does not reduce my desire to step on his feet when he walks in the room.
April 18, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep on telling you. Bite his ankles, kid.
April 19, 2008 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
you mean that in the same way that we all listened to obama's comments about small-town bitterness and didn't hear anything that was inaccurate or inappropriate, matthew? glad you can understand where we're coming from.
and for what its worth, i would prefer to have a President who, when you hear them say 'ya know,' or 'i mean,' you don't have to reasonably expect an exaggeration or outright lie to follow. the white house has seen enough lies and exaggerations for the past 8 years.
April 18, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Weaver creep is a racist troll. He comes on here and pretends that he is worried about the future of the Democratic Party, but his self posted profile reveals that he is not a Democrat. This sewer rat blogs diatribes against Jews and Blacks. Do not be fooled by this Aryan Nation Troll(ANT)
April 18, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam, when you start using language like that as needlessly as you do, you're at least as bad as he is.
April 18, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, Matthew's brilliant commentary on the state of the Democratic party.
Take your ignorance and move on, Matt. I don't give a rat's ass about party unity anymore. I want Matt and his HRC support to go where the kitchen sink will land when she winds up crying when she loses. If it means Obama gets beat in the general so be it, at least my car will proudly be wearing a bumper sticker that proclaims "Don't blame me, I voted for reality" when the world comes crashing down because McCrazy brought it down on us.
Good work Matt. And stop shilling your idiotic blogs for everyone's sake. At least have the decency to advertise with obligatory Flash nonsense, if all you're going to do is beat us over the head with standard idiocy.
April 18, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is news that might actually help her Pa. But it going to hurt big time with the super delegates in the next few weeks. I notice she lied about MoveOn's Afghanistan position while not mentioning Iraq.
April 18, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. Did you see a petition from MoveOn executive director Eli Pariser opposing the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11? Did you sign it? Or is the claim that such a petition was circulated a lie?
April 19, 2008 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy - I appreciate your pursuit of balance in discussion of these issues. You quoted language from the petition:
"We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction. Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. . ."
If you parse this paragraph it does say "wherever possible" which isn't to state an absolute opposition to any use of force, rather its use as a last option. Secondly, given the very different circumstances in Afghanistan and Iraq, I would have to say the second sentence seems to more clearly refer to Iraq. The language "may operate" jumps out since it was widely accepted that al qaeda was operating in Afghanistan while only the Bush administration was "certain" of a connection to Iraq. However, al qaeda was supported politically, logistically and financially by the Taliban government of afghanistan. This fact would make the petition's second statement something of a moot point in the case of Afghanistan so I really doubt this is what they had in mind.
The petition is a statement of principles, not one of opposition to any particular policy so perhaps some credit for nuance is due. The view that use of military force should be a last resort in many cases was widely supported. Gordon Brown voiced it upon becoming UK Prime Minister when he endorsed the idea of treating terrorists as a criminal problem rather than constantly evoking a "war on terror" that much of the muslim world sees as code for "war on islam".
April 19, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy doesn't do nuance. Billy needs his interpretation to build his case.
April 19, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
OT, but I noticed in the debate that Hillary used the exact phrasing that Sean Hannity did in the comments about William Ayers in that she mentioned the comments on 9-11 as if they were about 9-11. The only relationship is that those comments were published in the NYT on that day, which is nothing more than irony. It was a rhetorical piece of garbage, and she learned it from the GOP.
June 3rd.
April 18, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she was tipped off that the Ayers stuff was going to come up. I really do.
April 19, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, she learned it from the GOP, namely Cheney. Just like Cheney tied Iraq to 9/11 and still, some odd percentage of Americans believe that link.
I think she was tipped off too. Ayers was not talking about NY on 9/11 and yet she kept doing that Cheney thing by attaching Ayers’s statement to 9/11.
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/
April 19, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The comments were not even really "on" 9/11, he made them before 9/11 and they were published that day... but they were even published before the attacks.
Making it sound as though the comments were on 9/11 is totally dishonest.
April 19, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you give us a link to the petition?
April 19, 2008 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton answered the question as it was framed by the moderators, not by Sean Hannity. But wtf does it matter where the question came from?
Obama's comeback on the Ayers question was a cheap shot that Clinton, unfortunately, passed up the chance to clarify before Gibson broke for commercials. Bill Clinton didn't pardon Ayers and Dohrn. Ayers got off for prosecutorial misconduct. Dohrn actually served some time. Both are unapologetic and unrepentant about their roles in the Weather Underground group that planned bombings and executed the Brinks armored car robbery, which resulted in fatalities. Hillary also passed on pointing out that they threw a fundraising party for Obama in their apartment, which he attended, when he was running for the Illinois state senate. I think these facts are relevant to people in assessing his powers of personal judgment and discretion, as is his association with Rezko. (Obama's name has come up in Rezko's ongoing Chicago trial.)
In the online posting world, it is sometimes difficult to know who is who and what s/he really represents. That includes age and memory, which really seem to be prominent factors this year. So I apologize if this sounds condescending; it is not meant to be. I am a veteran of Bobby Kennedy's and George McGovern's campaigns. I remember those times well. I remember the Greenwich Village explosion; I saw its wreckage. I was vehemently against LBJ, Nixon, and the Vietnam War, but I never personally knew nor associated with anyone who advocated for what the Weather Underground was doing. It's been a long time, but Obama doesn't get away with that "I was only 8-years old" crap when he accepted these people's hospitality and allowed them to advocate and raise money for him. Judgment, not vindictiveness, that's the point.
April 19, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Shoveler shovels what? A perspective that says that no one is redeemable or capable of changing, ergo, who Ayers was when Obama was eight years old has to be who Ayers is 30+ years later. Nicely simple punitive world view, Shoveler.
April 19, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Clinton's criticism followed MoveOn's endorsement of Obama in early February."
This is old recycled news from another off the bus reporter trying desperately to counter bittergate.
It is time to stop linking tabloid journalism at the obama post.
Its sad.
April 18, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You loved Huffington when they were reporting bittergate...
April 18, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
no one takes you seriously, gotalife. its sad.
April 18, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But seriously, does anybody know of a candidate running for President that had so many radical friends.
Do you actually think America will support that?
April 18, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has a ton of radical friends, and you support him, so yeah, I think people can forgive these things.
April 18, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just hate Obama. Getalife.
April 18, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I leave the hate for the Obama supporters with the Clintons.
April 18, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I lost respect for gotalife when it didn't enter the trollathon. Neither did Weaver. As a result, we were outnumbered and shouted down at the trollathon. It's not easy to troll alone.
April 19, 2008 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
But you're not a troll. We disagree, but you're trying to push your arguments with facts and logic. The others? Not so much.
April 19, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy we saw the toll-a-thon for what Allsburg wanted it to be. A way to make fun of Clinton and anyone that supported her. Don't take the bait in the future.
April 19, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Radical friends?
Just because Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh thinks something is news doesn't make it so. If I listened to them in the 90's, Bill Clinton was a fucking communist. I didn't then, and i don't now. If you do you're hanging out in the wrong neighborhood.
That's the difference. Hillary is willing to lie down with them just to satisfy what can now only be described as electoral lust.
June 3rd this will be over. Can't wait.
April 18, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
john mccain is friends with george w bush. he's pretty radical himself. in fact, gotalife, i challenge you to find polls that rate george w bush's approval rating higher than any arbitrary obama 'friend' you choose to name.
April 18, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt Obama's radical friends are polled silly.
April 18, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Radical friends" must have polled well in a Frank Luntz focus group it would seem.
I don't think any true Dem would be taking talking points from the GOP (Grope Our Pages). You could at least try to pretend to be a Clinton supporter instead of being such an obvious troll.
April 19, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I can think of several candidates for the presidency who had a lot of very radical friends (actual friends, too yet still managed to do okay. Not just guys who they kind of knew because they taught at the same school and were members of the same board).
Let's see, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe . . . all guys who consorted with dangerous revolutionaries.
And jumping round a bit, we've got Andrew Jackson and his radical ideas about democracy. Abraham Lincoln--hell, the number of radical friends he had is nothing short of astonishing. Then, of course, there's Franklin Roosevelt and pretty much everyone in his whole Administration. Heuy P. Long was really radical, in a creepy megalomanical kind of way. Oh, and let's not forget Robert F. Kennedy and some of the dangerous radicals he hung with in his later years.
Then of course, there's Barry Goldwater and his spiritual descendant Ronald Reagan. Oh, wait, nothing radical there.
And you know, I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that just possibly William J. Clinton, Albert R. Gore, Jr. and Hillary Rodham may have had a radical friend or fifty in their time as well. Indeed, I think Bill even pardoned a few radicals in his time.
As for Obama, well, there's his preacher, who tight-ass scared of everything white people think is a radical based on seven minutes of stuff culled from twelve hours of sermons but who most black people, and most of the members of the mostly white UCC seem to think is pretty mainstream and . . . who else? Hmmmm. Not aware of any other friends of Obama that even meet that defintion. Who else did you have in mind?
April 18, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife, you have radical friends too. Friends like Fox Noise and all the wingnut sites you're always quoting from.
April 19, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has far more "radical" friends, namely all the crazy-ass republicans like Mitt Romney. How is a guy who wants to double Gitmo not a "radical". How are people like Hagge who preach the need for war in order to bring about the rapture not radical?
They are all radicals and completely crazy.
April 19, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know one with a lot of criminal friends:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e
April 19, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe when she loses the nomination, Sheberman/Lieberwoman will take a page from her pal's book and run as the candidate of the "Americans for Clinton" party.
April 18, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary didn't lie about Move On and Afghanistan. No, she just said something she knew was untrue, late at night, when was sleep deprived, and she only said it once and immediately corrected herself, and she only said it becuase she thought she would benefit from it politically.
That's what happens when you turn bitter.
April 18, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and you have to understand -- she's 60 years old.
And I imagine she's still suffering from PTSD from all that sniper fire...
April 18, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
She says an awful lot of untrue things, no matter what time of day it is.
April 19, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the petition itself.
The next day, September 12, Pickering wrote a petition calling on President Bush to use "moderation and restraint" in responding to 9/11 and "to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction."
At the same time, Pariser, who had graduated from college the year before and was working at a liberal nonprofit organization in Massachusetts, was writing a similar petition, which he put on a website he created called 9-11peace.org. Pariser noticed Pickering's work and e-mailed him to suggest that they merge their sites. Pickering agreed, and 9-11peace.org featured a petition which read:
We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction. Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. . .
Meanwhile, across the country in Berkeley, California, MoveOn founders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades were writing an anti-war petition of their own. Entitled "Justice, not Terror," it read, in full: "Our leaders are under tremendous pressure to act in the aftermath of the terrible events of Sept. 11th. We the undersigned support justice, not escalating violence, which would only play into the terrorists' hands."
April 19, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, you have a problem with this statement?
"We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction."
How about, for a welcome change, you try getting specific about your disagreement with that statement, rather than pretending that the statement should be seen as an indictment of MoveOn?
April 19, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Notice her pathological inability to admit that she has lost because she has run an awful, uninspired campaign. Rather than admit that it was a huge mistake to ignore "small states" with caucuses, to have no organization in post-Super Tuesday states, and to rely on fat cat donors who quickly reached their contribution limits, Clinton blames Moveon.org. Maybe if she had actually put some resources into competing in North Dakota she would not have had to go there after the caucuses were over and ask the elected delegates to ignore the wishes of those who elected them. Simply pathetic.
April 18, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If John McCain had made equivalent statements about the Family Research Council and/or Focus on the Family, he would have lost the evangelicals in one fell swoop.
I am not a MoveOn member - they lost me at Betrayus - but HRC's is biting on of the main hands feeding the Democratic party. Something tells me she is going to get bitten back, hard. Maybe not in PA, but I agree that this will not sit well with the supers.
April 18, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This happened months ago and they lost many Americans with Betrayus except "progressives".
April 18, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see repeated comments here that MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, which seemed a bit odd to me as I've always thought of them as being pretty blanket anti-war. A quick search using Google finds numerous references about the back and forth of their opposition to war in Afghanistan. A lot seems to be more personal views and efforts of the founders and early members but just the same it isn't as easy to discern that they as a group did not oppose the war. Nothing suggests they ever supported the war, thus the lack of, their overall views, and the early history leaves an arguable position that they opposed the war in Afghanistan.
It might surprise some readers, but I am a member of MoveOn myself. I've never agreed with all of their positions and often strenuously disagreed with many, such as their support of Obama. It is not a monolithic organization. Regarding Afghanistan, I think there is a strict view which might be valid that the never technically opposed the war but I think that in more general terms this would be untrue.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 18, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew - your own words call you out. MoveOne supported the war in Afghanistan, or at the very least did not outright oppose it. Provide a link to support your crap, or troll elsewhere.
April 18, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christ, has the war in Afghanistan become some sort of sacred cow now? It was a damage control publicity stunt to begin with, is now a total failure, and was a useless idea to begin with -- and I wish even Obama would stop talking about it. (See we are not a cult, and we do not groupthink.)
I mean, really, if this country wants to continue its ridiculous obsession with "getting" Osama Bin Laden, I hope someone figures out that using my tax dollars on intelligence and undercover ops makes far more sense than pissing it away on stealth bombers. This idea of conventional warfare against Al Qaeda is dumb as dirt.
But best of all would be to change our Middle East policy entirely and start talking to those folks who aren't oil sheiks and aren't Israelis, and I'm telling you the president who makes peace with Iran is going to go down as having made the most brilliant move in foreign policy since Nixon made peace with China.
Even if Obama can't pull that off because of the pinheads who still want to pose for history in big boots, he has my vote because he at least knows a new kind of dialogue has to start.
April 19, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! Everything we have done in the name of "war" has been a disaster. We have maimed and killed thousands, we have massive debt, and have destroyed our military, so even if Move On had totally opposed Afghanistan, they would have been correct to do so. This all is moot. HRC is done for, Obama will win, McCain is too old, dementia moments, and out of touch. Rant away Weaver and Billy......maybe you guys should look into moving to a new country. Hey, how about Afghanistan? There you go, problem solved.
April 19, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200506241146.asp
http://interventionmag.com/cms/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=181
Even a blind chicken can pick up some corn. I think there is evidence here that both Pariser and MoveOn opposed military action against Pakistan.
April 19, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even a blind person can make sweeping conclusions if that person, like you, Billy, is interested in misconstruing to maintain an untenable position. How many times are you going to pretend that the very statements which you repeatedly link to support your conclusion when they, in fact, do not?
April 19, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
None.
April 19, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy;
You are loosing me here. If MoveOn opposed the war and have denied it now, what is the big issue? I thought that progressives were generally against wars that are not considered just in terms of human rights standards and until there is no other alternative. In any event Hillary made a blunder to criticize the democratic activists. I am certain it will not help her cause.
Of course without a war we would not have mobilized so much money and manpower, but where would we be now if we had treated Al Queda as a police action. What if we had mobilized a small portion of the money and human power to root them out throughout the Middle East?
Wouldn’t we be in a far better position right now? We would have presumably have captured and knocked out Al Queda, and perhaps we would still have been able to win “the hearts and minds” of the general public throughout the Middle East?
I have a great idea to help minimize wars generally. This is not a cure all, but in today’s culture this would be effective for a while. Let’s pass an international law that in order for a country to declare war, every one of the elected leaders children would have to go the front lines, as well as specific percentage of the officials themselves. After all, if 60 is the new 50; 50 is the new 40’ 40 is the new 30. . . well you get the picture. Many of these officials could go to the front lines with rifles on their backs. Do you not think such a rule would gather massive international support from the world public!
April 20, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
'moveon are anti-war and therefore have opposed every war in the history of war' is a fairly strong positive declarative statement, matthew. i don't know how much education you have, but when you make a strong, positive declarative statement you can't just flap a hand around and say 'ehhhh i haven't seen any evidence negating my proposition so its probably true' ... the burden of proof actually lies upon the party making the strong, positive (and therefore falsifiable) declarative statement.
that would be you.
see you next week, class.
April 18, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they did oppose every war in history they'd be getting it just about right.
April 19, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did the members vote to endorse Obama?
If I recall right, I think the owners came out against the endorsement.
April 18, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a member, I voted against the endorsement. I haven't followed too much any of the discussions about the endorsement other than that among the members voting, a substantial majority did vote yes to endorse Obama.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 18, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least you have experience being in the minority voting against Obama. That empty, losing sensation you'll feel around June won't be an unfamiliar one.
April 18, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You doofus - do you know why MoveOn was created?
It was created expressly to defend Bill Clinton for once again not being able to keep his pants zipped.
That's the whole reason the site was put up on the web in the first place.
Boy the Clintons have one bloody knife out for just about everyone who ever crossed their paths and failed in the end to kneel and kiss the ring.
April 19, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, WE ALL VOTED. Barack was the winner. WE THE PEOPLE VOTED HER DOWN.
April 18, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama "won" 6.2% of the total membership. 91% of the membership didn't vote.
Not a landslide, and not democracy in action.
April 20, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=278779
Final member vote was a 70/30 split for Obama. No mention of this being forced down the leaders' throats or whatever you're referencing, though. Given the fact that Hillary got 30%, though, I'm sure you could find a quote by at least one person who disagreed with the endorsement.
April 19, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is nonsense on stilts. "There is no evidence that they ever supported the war" does not equal "they opposed the war." Nor does the fact that one or more of their members opposed the war equal a position of opposition to the war on the part of the group.
My father and all of my uncles and both of my grandfathers and all of my great uncles are members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The IBEW has not endorsed either Sen Clinton or Sen Obama; does that mean that they endorse Sen McCain? Of course not. To fail to endorse one position is not an implicit endorsement of the opposite position - it is simply a lack of a formal position.
April 19, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has become a Trojan Horse.
April 18, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say it again,
Mayhill Fowler,
eat.your.heart.out.
April 18, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
More off topic, but the new comments free Ambinder has a cool piece up.
Matthew, Gotalife, don't click it, it will just piss you off.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/philly_ignites_for_obama.php
April 18, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Just wow.
April 18, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a beautiful thing.
April 18, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This deserves it's own blog post. Thanks for sharing.
April 18, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the text of Obama's Philly speech this evening: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/caitlinharvey/gGCxFF
Doing the Founding Fathers proud...
KNOW HOPE!!!
April 18, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting link.
That was a beautiful speech.
April 19, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing. Thanks for the link.
April 19, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
This just gets better and better guys, doesn't it?
She's lost the AA vote and now she loses the base of the party.
Even if she had one the primary, to what end?
I can't wait for it to become official. Enough of this monster.
April 18, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I was clear. Despite their protestations, the founders and many of the groups positions are clearly anti-Afghanistan war even if they never took a formal position. They are an anti-war organization as much as anything else. Besides, there is nothing to suggest they ever supported the war.
FYI, I have absolutely opposed the war in Iraq but did and do support the war in Afghanistan. It is one of Bush and Congress's great failures that the war in Afghanistan is unfinished and at such apparent risk.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 18, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're delusional.
April 18, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allow me the comfort of my delusions. At least I haven't drank the Obama Cult's Kool-Aid!
Matthew
April 18, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kool-aid drinkers?! How dare you!
April 18, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly you're an elitist who looks down your nose at salt-of-the-earth regular foulks who actually drink Kool-Aide, and can't afford the designer lattes, 19th century merlots, and arugula infused wild goji berry juice I'm sure you drink.
April 19, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's kool aid is spike with Crown Royal.
April 19, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, w admitted the next attack will probably come from that region.
They usually wait for somebody new to take office.
April 18, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are disgusting. DISGUSTING. This is first of all a verifiably untrue statement. Secondly, since when does anyone take their terrorist threat marching orders from W? Just who the hell are you?
I just vomited a little in my mouth.
April 19, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess they have no rebuttal to your argument, just name calling as usual.
April 18, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I haven't noticed anyone posting the irony that the MoveOn that she's slamming is the organization that as founded in '98 with the explicit purpose of defending her husband during the Monica/impeachment mess!
April 18, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, right?! The irony is killing me.
April 18, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
you beat me to it.
I just can't come up with answer to WHY?!?
April 18, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does that have to do with anything? Did MoveOn executive director Eli Pariser circulate a petition after 9/11 opposing US military operations in Afghanistan or didn't he? In all fairness, I have to invoke the Richardson defense for Clinton.
April 19, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because the last thing you'd want, Hillary, is the support of the "party activists."
April 18, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know, the sheer colossal stupidity of this didn't really didn't hit me until you rubbed my face in the obvious.
The woman's running a campaign out of Rove's playbook, prides herself on running a campaign out of Rove's playbook, says that we are doomed to dismal defeat if we don't run a campaign out of Rove's playbook and then she . . . let's herself be recorded attacking the base?
April 18, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has no use for the party activists -- that explains why she's been running as a republican this primary season.
April 19, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
She will say anything and do anything.
But talk about biting the hand that once fed you!
Why, again, did MoveOn get started?
April 18, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keith brought up a good point about this on his show tonight...that MoveOn.org was originally founded as 'Censure and Move On" during the Lewinsky debacle.
http://www.moveon.org/press/pr/September%2022%20Release.htm
Nice way to Judas MoveOn, Hillary.
April 18, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironic, isn't it.
MoveOn.org was founded as a citizen-level response to the Republican witchhunt against Bill Clinton that led to his impeachment.
Hillary's getting old, and so are her excuses.
The Clintonistas never expressed any problems with activists, or the web, or the caucus process, until all of them looked elsewhere to pick our next Democratic Presidential nominee.
Get out some more Kleenex, Hillary! But like everything else in your diminishing bag of overreach, you ran that card into the ground too.
April 18, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and Arianna from the obama post first site was calling for the resignation of President Clinton.
April 18, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!
April 18, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
ZOMG!! YOU SHOWED UP IN THE NICK OF TIME TO BEAT MY IDIOTIC TRIBUTE!!!
April 18, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And deserving of bonus exclamation points!!!! 8-)
April 19, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
INDEED!!!! HER CHANCE OF WINNING THE NOMINATION JUST WENT FROM 10% TO 2%!!!!
April 19, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Attacks MoveOn.org. Becomes John McCain's Running Mate. News at 11.
April 18, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton will do good to diss moveon after they gave her the finger. The left blogs have done everything to undermine her candidacy. Going so far as to use Drudge as their main source.
They do not deserve better... they deserve worse.
April 18, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Screw 'em," right?
April 18, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yepp... she made it this far inspite of their opposition and negative campaigning against her. She doesn't need them in the GE, they will need her. If she wins the nomination that is(which is unlikely tho).
In either case, she doesn't have to care what moveon the left blogs think. These "activists" undermined the party than any other factor in this primary (using right wing sites like drudge and foxnews to undermine a fellow democrat in their hate toward clintons).
April 18, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's no fun when you reply to my snark with a reasoned reply :)
April 19, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Careful, the devil speaks with a forked tongue.
April 19, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rank hypocrisy + repudiating your party's base: THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!!
April 18, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
MoveOn is the Democratic Party base? Give me a break. I canvassed for MoveOn in 2004. They have drifted so far left since then they are practically coming from the right.
April 19, 2008 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/caitlinharvey/gGCxFF
April 18, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
tennisball:
Guess I am getting old. I thought everybody knew that :)
MoveOn.org was the first social movement solely founded on the net. I contributed moola to it back then; solely to help Billy the Fornicator continue on as President.
And no, I don't regret the money spent. MoveOn.org is doing great work today.
But there is a second social movement afoot.
It is Barack Obama's campaign. And it will have a footprint at least as large as MoveOn.org as we go forward.
Which reminds me: Time to click and give everyone. Fund his campaign-- Now. Money talks. The best way to shove a fist down the throat of gotnolife and Russ Limbaugh and Billy O and George Staphacoccus... is with money.
We Obama people have got game.
Make it $o.
Contribute now.
April 18, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever happened with that $1 million in a minute thing he was doing?
April 18, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gave another $100 after that debacle of a debate. I was thinking of giving to moveon after this latest news, but I think you're right - the money's better spent with the Obama campaign.
April 18, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you. I gave $100 to Clinton.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 19, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
But there's only one of you.
April 19, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO.
April 19, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am still donating to Obama but I have started spreading my donations around a little lately.
I have donated to Moveon because they can hit McCain in ways that the Obama campaign can't.
I am also donating to the DNC and Blue Majority because a presidency isn't complete without the house.
April 18, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG! OMG! At Last! This is It! This is the Big Thing that will bring her down at last! Yes, finally all of her supporters will WAKE UP and see what a fraud she is. She's doooomed, dooooomed I say! Muahahahaha . . .
Sorry. I just wanted to see how it felt to react the way Hillary's supporters do whenever something like this breaks.
Turns out, it makes you feel kind of desperate and ridiculous.
April 18, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh Marshall on Liebermann on the homepage:
To quote Homer and Bart: Doh.
Now Josh... when are you going to take the next logical and complete step with Hillary?
April 18, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Hillary hate the Democratic Party? :)
April 18, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because they're starting to hate her?
April 18, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that she hates the party nor is she a Republican. What so many miss is that the Clintons only care about one party - the Clinton party. You're either with them or against them.
Truly, this saddens me. For months before HRC declared her candidacy, I've tried to find a way to vote for her. I find her a brilliant, capable woman. The problem I've never been able to shake - that what's good for the Clintons will always trump what's good for the country. Grievously, she's never proved me wrong.
In all her electability arguments, no one's stopped to mention that, should it be Clinton vs. McCain, HRC will not treat him as her "friend," especially if it's close. Towards the end, the Clintons will hit McCain with no less force than they're hitting Obama. The difference? America doesn't like to see national heroes - especially former POWs - attacked. McCain will handily win the White House. In the process, the Clintons will commit political suicide, grievously wounding the Democratic party in the process.
April 18, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's really a good point, one I hadn't considered before. I mostly thought it would be her defending herself aggressively against Swift boat type ads run against her about her past.
Obama will be astute enough not to make the same overreaching mistake. As so many others have mentioned in other posts, he excels at political jujitsu and pivoting, but also plain human decency.
[I just got done watching Jonathan Demme's documentary on Jimmy Carter, "Man from Plains" (highly recommended) and "plain human decency" just comes off the screen.]
April 19, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
She doesn't hate it. She's trying to save it. Unfortunately, she's doing the saving the same way we "saved" villages in Vietnam.
April 18, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that this will hurt in dovetailing with the "Screw em'" comment being reported on which was directed at another constituency after the '94 elections.
It reinforces the "It's not me it's you" perception in terms of voter support. Rather than asking the hard questions: "What's wrong with my
platform/
message/
delivery/
personality/
record/
hairstyle/[Feel free to add your own]"?
the question becomes "What's wrong with the dumbass electorate"? - then we get PO'd: "Well F'em all".
That's the way it seems to me.
April 18, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's base has now shrunk to only having 100% of the Short Bus Trolls, such as Gotalife, Marginal Player, and Matthew Weaver supporting her.
When she attends her next fund raiser at their Aryan Nation Compound, she better make sure to wear her whitest makeup.
April 18, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The really amazing thing to me is that as the number of vocal Clinton supporters around here diminish, gotalife and weaver simply post over and over within single threads to pick up the slack. The number of pro-Clinton posts remains basically constant as the number of people willing to defend Clinton decreases, just now there are like two people making them.
April 19, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this picture: 35,000 people turned out to see Obama speak in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia tonight. It's an amazing picture! His speech is great too. Obama 08!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/caitlinharvey/gGCxFF
April 18, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was so great !! The man inspires.
April 19, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama spoke in front of 35.000 people in Philly tonight. The biggest number for him so far. from AP.
April 18, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marc Ambinder has a nice write up about this. Apparently a bunch of the people from the rally decided to march through the streets of Philly chanting O-bam-a and Yes we can!
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/philly_ignites_for_obama.php
April 18, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a mistake. It will turn people off. Especially the good people of Philadelphia who want some peace and quiet in their apartments on a Friday night. You know those buildings aren't movie sets. People live in them.
April 19, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, how dare people disturb the quiet of Friday night of Philadelphians for something so frivolous as saving the world's oldest republic from Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
April 19, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we wouldn't want to disrupt Ghost Whisperer with something as frivolous as Democracy!
April 19, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is worse than that.
Those pricks are all one person!
My stinkin' campaign is broke. Can't even afford to hire a decent and diverse stable of trolls. I got one friggin' hamster gulping whites... posting around the clock.
SHIT!
April 18, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!
April 19, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. I don't know why (no offense) but I really laughed at that too.
April 19, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great! Yet another visual to carry with me this weekend as I wait for Tuesday... (:-)
April 19, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck me... I am fucked!
I hate the fucking Democratic party.
God fucking fucking damn...
April 18, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is amazing reading the comments here and the other Obama blogs on this old story.
No intellectual questioning of the timing or facts, just trolls spewing hate for Hillary.
Is this the new kind of politics Obama is talking about?
Hell, the old style arguing with the wingnuts is more of an intellectual exercise.
Sad.
April 18, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. What are the facts? What does the timing have to do with them?
April 18, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thought so.
Off to bed. I'm expecting one shit-covered fan come morning.
April 19, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Obama's position on foreign policy/national defense is one of his attractive qualities...but is it the primary motivator of his supporters? I've never presumed that. Personally, I prefer Obama over Clinton for lots of other reasons. The primary ones are my confidence in his leadership style, political intuition, policy judgment, and sncerity.
Oh, well. I guess she was able to sell this explanation to her fundraisers for at least the last few months. Wonder if it's still working?
April 18, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe not so much. Maybe that's why she is in debt. Maybe that's why he can outspend her in PA.
Maybe she has no leadership style, political intuition, policy judgment, or sincerity.
Have you seen her campaign?
April 18, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This statement was just her way of shifting the blame onto the base. She is justifiably criticized for voting to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and she responds by attacking the activists by portraying them as a bunch of antiwar pansies. Tres gauche... tres Goldwater.
Thie biggest visible difference between the two candidates is foreign policy. Even in the last debate they had a crucial difference: Hillary wanted a crazy nuke umbrella over the region... straight out General Jack D. Ripper's diary.
So, obviously, the problem isn't fraulein Hillary... it's all the pinko hippies with their Soros $$$ hating on her hawkishness. Patently bogus.
April 19, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary just lost whatever chance she ever had to be president. Let's say she somehow gets the nomination (improbable, but whatever), how does she win the general after she ticked off the activist base?
Hillary is an idiot.
April 18, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right, but will this issue even get play beyond the blogs? It doesn't have the primary-color appeal of Bittergate, and requires the reader or viewer to know what MoveOn is, for instance. Or to have heard of Afghanistan.
"Senator Obama, do you believe in the flag?"
April 19, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see -- person who lives in glass house and has been throwing stones now has a tape out there of her doing the same thing as the guy she threw the stones at. Let's see how she handles it, shall we?
April 18, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
We got video of Obama's rally tonight?
April 18, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posted by hyperRevue:
Hadn't heard of it. But thanks for the tip. Did a quick search. Doesn't look like the idea is Barack's per se... but rather "some fans":
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/million-dollar-minute/
The minute starts at 1 p.m. on Monday, the day before the presidential primary in Pennsylvania, though donors can preregister through AnObamaMinute.com.
Interesante!
April 18, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I first heard of it through Andrew Sullivan.
Here is the site: http://anobamaminute.com/
April 18, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO videos, yet?
April 18, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could this be a calculated attempt by Clinton to bait Move On Supporters, wait for the storm of publicity, and then present herself to PA voters as the more moderate candidate?
April 18, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what Kos supposed - since Wolfson seemed to embrace the comments.
April 18, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
How? Wasn't this another one of those private fund raiser statements?
Wolfson embraces them after the fact - well that's no surprise. Of course the Clinton camp is going to try to say MoveOn is a radical org and somehow evil.
Fact is, we are raising money like nobody's business online and the party knows it. She - once a champion money raiser, is broke.
April 19, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
April 19, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspected that too when I first heard it, because after Kitchen Sink and surrogate slurs I suspect anything they say or do.
I just with there was a clear debunking page about the Afghanistan charge on the MoveOn site but I don't see it. I heard this crap before when Michelle "let me give W a smooch" Bachmann used it to smear Patty Wetterling in the 2006 House race.
April 19, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
ZOMG!!! Hillary threw MoveOn under the bus!!
April 19, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think MoveOn thru her under the bus first.
April 19, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
HRC is such a friggin hypocrite.
I think this is really going to hurt her in PA. Not because of the substance and who she offended but I don't see the people of PA looking too kindly on the hypocracy considering the stink she made over Obama's comments.
I am also getting a sense that Obama is a lot more popular than polls are showing. My head is telling me that he will lose PA by 15pts but if I listen to my intuition, it says that the turnout for Obama (those darn activists) is going to be huge and the good people of PA are going revolt against the negative campaigning.
April 19, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
But will the good people of PA even hear about it?
April 19, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good night.
She's so over. Goodnight, Hillary-Joe.
April 19, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could this be a calculated attempt by Clinton to bait Move On Supporters, wait for the storm of publicity, and then present herself to PA voters as the more moderate candidate?
It's certainly possible - it could help her in PA - but if it was intentional, it really smacks of desperation, since it will hurt her badly in the long run.
Wait - if it was planned I don't think she would have included the Rovian lie about Afghanistan. And she could have picked a better "radical left" target than the one that was formed for the express purpose of defending the Clintons against Ken Starr & Co.
April 19, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 19, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It talks like a Republican, walks like a Republican, smells like a Republican...I'd say there isn't much question as to her true nature anymore.
April 19, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
For those dissing MoveOn for endorsing Obama:
They had a vote. Obama won.
It's called Democracy.
Maybe Clinton should study up on it, instead of assuming she is the Queen who just needs to be Crowned.
April 19, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This just in: Hillary opposes voter turnout, says Obama has too many people supporting him.
April 19, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with SCMadden insofar as there is no real need to diss MoveOn. I'm a member and while I disagree with their endorsement, I haven't walked. It has its place in the discussion, though it should step back from the politics of selecting, endorsing, and supporting a specific candidate. It has more value as an issues-oriented organization.
Now, Grover M, you write "for Hillary just lost whatever chance she ever had to be president. Let's say she somehow gets the nomination (improbable, but whatever), how does she win the general after she ticked off the activist base?" How many times can you all write such statement like this every time Clinton does something you don't like? The activist base is not that big and will not win the election. It can lose the election. Especially as it now pushes Obama into a nomination he can't win.
The mainstream, traditional Democrats will walk or not vote before they vote for Obama once they become focused on his character, inexperience, hate & racism, lies, misstatements, and ommissions. Consider how you all worry about how Clinton is adding to his negatives. This is child's play and pretty time compared to what the Republicans are going to do. And he is already whining. What a loser.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 19, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are lying Racist scum Weaver.
April 19, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. Weaver's a troll. But your response is out of line.
April 19, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
How am I doing this morning? I think I'm beating them up pretty good, don't you? They never research anything. I think they're afraid of what they'll find.
April 19, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dream on.
April 19, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I notice most of the Clinton supporters are trying to keep the focus on MoveOn, and off "the activist base of the Democratic Party."
April 19, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"the activist base of the Democratic Party"
She's a more twisted piece of work if ever.
After the fantasy about dodging sniper bullets, I thought it couldn't get any more tragic.
April 19, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife,
The online Obama Cult here is too immature and haven't been given any new scripts to read and write from. Eventually they will realize that their derogatory and offensive insults are counterproductive and truly paint them for how shallow and pathetic they are acting on behalf a character-deficient candidate. Worse, where will they be if they manage to pull off is nomination to see him lose in the fall and joint the dustbin of history like Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Dukakis, and McGovern?
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 19, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
... says the man who calls Obama a racist.
Look, I don't mind constructive criticism. And there are issues I don't agree with Obama on (ethanol quotas that are driving up food prices being one of them).
But to link Obama with that long list of "failed" candidates, some of which were better than others...
How is Obama like them?
He is Popular. More popular than Hillary. He will be more popular than McCain, once he gets the 10 point bounce expected when the Democratic nomination is over.
I understand you hate Obama. But please try to understand this: your rhetoric has done NOTHING to advance your cause. You have become a joke, a mocking example of the worst politics that Hillary employs.
I wish you would stop pretending to endorse Hillary, and just start supporting McCain, as you say you will when Obama becomes nominated.
April 19, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I link Obama with the long list of failed candidates in that elements of the party pre-disposed to support losing candidates rather than those capable of winning. Each have their own reasons for failing--Kerry who wouldn't defend himself and allowed others to define him, Gore who didn't fight hard enough for the win he had in his hands, for Dukakis who became a joke, for Mondale who campaigned on raising taxes, etc. Obama has his own problems, most on inexperience and character deficiencies. Supporters are putting up a flawed candidate and will lead the party to defeat because traditional Democrats and Independents are not likely to vote for him. McCain is a maverick and moderate Republican who will garner votes over Obama who will be tarred for his deficiencies more than Clinton has so far dared do.
Clinton has her own baggage but she's head and shoulders above Obama as the better Democratic candidate.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 19, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is 71 years old, consistently confuses Iraq and Iran and can't control his temper. He is dry as dust and has no idea what to say if his teleprompter has a gap. He looks forward to continuing us down this road that is ruining the economy and pushing middle class people closer to poverty. He defines himself in terms of war and is happy to mortgage our grandchildren's future in dept to China and sacrifice our young men and women' lives in support of a senseless war that we never should have waged.
Oh yeah, he's gonna kick ass.
April 19, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Prove it.
April 19, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew, Don't insult the whole community. That's not participating in the site, that's just being a troll. You can disagree, argue, pontificate, advocate. But if you're simply here to insult and denigrate the entire community, you're not welcome.
April 20, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, you're saying that "the online Obama Cult here" (Matthew's words) is one and the same as the TPMCafe community? Thanks for letting us know what your idea of the preferred community here is.
A mho tip: when you allow members to insult other members, it becomes a game, and gangs form and make a straw man of certain members. And it's typical that such targets, even if they started out with reasonable commenting, eventually fight back with more trollish anger after being continually baited. This is the raison d'etre for many forums having the rule that one may not insult other members, the escalation of trollishness. If you think that this is going to disappear with the primary ending, I think you will be surprised. There is entrenched gang culture here and it's not going away without management doing something, much less pronouncing it "the community."
April 22, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Won't you be in the same place?
April 19, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I went over to HuffPo to check this out. I don't go there very often. Wow. That's a mean crowd over there. I mean, nothing but nasty comments flying around that board. Makes this place seem like disneyland.
April 19, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anh...I don't think this is all that shocking. She was giving potential donors an explanation for her campaign's troubles. The folks she was talking to were free to research the strength and accuracy of her argument.
But I think it was kinda dumb to link MoveOn.org to her super-dove-anti-war-activist-base explanation, though. That part was apparently demonstrably false.
April 19, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."
This is a facinating view of the democratic nomination process of the Democratic Party. Hillary is actually complaining about the fact that more people show up who do NOT support her than those who DO support her. She also implies that her supporters do not have the courage of their convictions to stick with her through a caucus process. Sounds like a personal problem to me.
Is it elitist to expect to win with less popular support than your opponent? She's now jumped over an entire school of sharks. Quite stunning.
April 19, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many have signed up to Moveon.org because of their disapproval of the Iraq war. I'm one of those who doesn't pay attention to moveon.org anymore after they declared support for one candidate and openly opposed and criticized another who has her mission to end the war and bring troops home.
MOveon.org has lost sight of the issue and has become partisan and opposing someone who's also on the same side of the issue they claim to be supporting.
I'm quite certain many others have stopped paying attention to moveon but moveon continue to include them in its number.
April 19, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Understood you don't agree with the majority of MoveOn membes, and I'm sure you've noticed the ability to close off certain emails from them (ie, ones about the Democratic primary) and focus only on other issues, such as ending the Iraq War.
There is really no reason to be angry at MoveOn for following the recommendations of most of their members.
April 19, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
It I am not mistaken, they said that 300,000 votes were cast (about 10% or moveon). That is not the majority, but I may be wrong... i can't find the numbers on their site to post a link.
Their leadership has lost sight of their initial goal and are spending millions supporting one democrat against the other. And THEY are the ones blaming clinton for being divisive.
April 19, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not a surprise that the netroots activist portion of the Democratic Party has turned on Clinton. Organizations such as MoveOn promotes aggressive partisan tactics. It is in direct opposition to the post-partisan politics that Hillary Clinton has been attempting to play while she has been in the senate.
It is the same criticism that Bill Clinton's centrist politics received from a portion of the left, who substituted the word centrist with the word appeasement.
The only thing they have in common with Obama's post-partisan lets all get together message, is Obama's past position on the war in Iraq. There is nothing unifying and feel good about netroots. They would rather win at all costs.
If Obama is authentic to his message and he wins the nomination, he will have to turn his back on the netroots crowd. I wonder how they will feel then.
April 19, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's an interesting point.
I've actually thought if MoveOn would turn moderates off from Obama.
I can only hope that Obama will be able to distance himself from them, without costing him the left-wing vote.
My main complaint against Clinton is she is pissing off both the far-right, and the far-left.
That is NOT a winning strategy.
April 19, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the outside chance that Hillary wins the nomination, I don't think she needs to worry about the far right. They are going to vote against her no matter what she says. The far left will be a different problem but I think she can still get enough of the those votes. Certainly not any less than what Obama can expect from the "Reagan Democrats"
April 19, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply