Clinton Blames Increased Democratic Activism for Her Struggles

I'm decidedly in the camp that believes that increased Democratic activism is a good thing, both for the party and the nation as a whole. With more of the Democratic base voting and volunteering and contributing, the Democrats have a much better shot at winning the White House with more than 50.1 percent of the vote -- a feat they haven't accomplished in 44 years -- and thus begin to enact much of the progressive change this country so desperately needs at this juncture. Apparently, though, some believe that increased Democratic activism isn't wholly a good thing, that there are negative consequences to these voters becoming more engaged in the American democracy. Here's The Huffington Post:

At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "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."

Senator Clinton's remarks depart radically from the traditional position of presidential candidates who in the past have celebrated high levels of turnout by party activists and partisans as a harbinger for their own party's success -- regardless of who is the eventual nominee -- in the general election showdown.

The comments also contradict Clinton's previous statements praising this year's elevated Democratic turnout in primaries and caucuses, and appear to blame her caucus defeats on newly energized grassroots voter groups that she has lauded in the past as "lively participants" in American democracy.

[...]

The disclosure of Clinton's remarks disparaging the prominence of party activists in the caucus process comes after she repeatedly suggested that Obama's electability had been compromised because he had allegedly offended other key Democratic constituencies.

This is pretty remarkable audio, Clinton attacking MoveOn -- incorrectly, in fact -- for purportedly opposing the Afghanistan War when that was not at all the case.

But even more astounding than Clinton's specific attacks on MoveOn, a grassroots organization founded to defend her husband against the Republican power-grab that was the 1998 impeachment, an organization that is made up of more than three million activists, most of whom are diehard in their loyalty to the Democratic Party, is the fact that Clinton is maligning the Democratic base, specifically those who have been driven to the polls at least in part in response to the Iraq War.

It's not clear to me what it is about the view of American foreign policy held by these party regulars that Clinton disagrees with -- whether it was the view that Congress should not have authorized the Bush administration to commence military action against Iraq, whether it is that Congress should stand up against the Bush administration so that it cannot do the same against Iraq, or something else. I would actually be interested in hearing what that disagreement is.

I would also be interested in hearing more about this so-called "intimidation," if Clinton believes that it is a bad thing that voter turnout in almost every primary and caucus this year has set new records.

It could be that there is a valid explanation for these comments, that they were taken out of context, that they don't really reflect her views of the Democratic base and the netroots, that they were merely the result of the inevitable exhaustion brought on by near-constant campaigning. I'd like to hear it. But until I do, it's hard not to come away from these comments with the sense that Clinton holds a key part of the Democratic base in contempt.



Display:


The upside down world (2.00 / 10)

MoveOn has done a lot of good since their founding.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:18:28 PM EST

Re: The upside down world (2.00 / 1)

I don't think the average Central PA voter will care about this . . . but HRC does not need a distraction like this. It will eat up time on the Sunday AM shows, and Obama's base will raise a few million off this insult.

I am not big into Moveon.org, but I welcome progressives and anti-war conservatives into my tent.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:13:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hope she pulls out of this. (none / 0)

This is the kind of talk that marked the beginning of the end of Joe Lieberman's sanity.


by dystopianfuturetoday on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She's not only slamming MO (2.00 / 3)

She's slamming party activists in general, and she uses MO as an example. How many MO members live in Iowa? Enough to bring her to third place there?

She has lost the core of the democratic support tonight. No candidate can win without the party activists, they are the heart that pumps blood up in the body.

Moreover, she is again using the Republican talking points. If she wants to run as McCain VP, she is doing well. But is she wants to run as democratic nominee...


by Fairy Tale on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Again and again with the "misstatements" (none / 0)

MoveOn never opposed the Afghan invasion.  She just keeps pulling stuff out.  Way to piss off the base, Hillary.  


by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:39:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is bad for her. (2.00 / 5)

It's going to be tough.

Thank you, Jonothan, for FP'ing this.


by nwgates on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:18:50 PM EST

Re: This is bad for her. (2.00 / 1)

I think most of the people offended by this aren't really in her camp to begin with.  And since her winning the nomination is pretty much not gonna happen at this point, I'm having a hard time seeing why she'd even say it.  Is it just sour-grapes whining and ass-covering excuses for why she lost?  Seems pointless.  Actually seems like something Bill would have said.


by Whash on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is bad for her. (none / 0)

She said it a couple months ago, after super-tuesday.


by nwgates on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is bad for her. (2.00 / 1)

It is hard to reconcile this statement with the claim by her supporters that she leads among registered democrats.  Now, if you think about it, that isn't exactly a reason to think she's a lot more electable -- the democratic base is going to support the party nominee, so the one group she cites a lead in are actually the easiest ones for Obama to pull on behind him when he unifies the party next month -- but going after the party base is a recipe for disaster.  
   
by Headlight on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:41:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't it obvious? (2.00 / 10)

Sen. Clinton clearly feels that you're either with her, or against her.

Sound familiar?


by RidleyGriff on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:19:55 PM EST

Re: Isn't it obvious? (1.00 / 6)

yep same drum beat we hear from BHO's camp


by zerosumgame on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:22:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't it obvious? (2.00 / 1)

Mmmm.... That would be an interesting point if it was borne out by actual events.

Would you care to elaborate with some examples?


by RidleyGriff on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:30:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't it obvious? (none / 0)

Can you please document your silly comment.

The reference of course was to GW Bush.


by vermontprog on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:32:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is she trying to create a Sista Souljah moment? (2.00 / 7)

It wouldn't surprise me. But it sure fits into her history of triangulation. You can bet that, instead of apologizing, she will go all Faux News and run with this and try to make it a Sista Souljah moment.

Considering how Faux News has become the darling of Hillary supporters lately, you can bet she will cater to them by trying to ride this to her advantage.

I'll have my popcorn ready.


by John Campanelli on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:21:33 PM EST

Re: Is she trying to create a Sista Souljah moment (none / 0)

That's what I was thinking. The problem is that Sista Souljah was one random poet and rapper who went overboard and MoveOn represents millions of core Democratic voters. She's already lost Dem-leaning Independents. This strategy just attacks registered Democrats. Believe it or not, a lot of liberal Democrats have voted for her and will vote for her in PA. She is not and has never been a real Reagan Democrat candidate, even though she has backed into advocating for them as she's lost support from other parts of the party.

The anger she has here is that she failed to organize for caucuses, and so she is blaming it on committed party activists who got the vote out. We can argue the merits of caucuses until the cows come home, but the assumption going in was that Clinton would dominate them with all of her institutional support. She just never counted on how weak that institutional support was outside MA, CA and OH.


by elrod on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:11:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow (2.00 / 3)

This is obviously not as harmful to her as Bittergate was (potentially) to Obama.  But this is bad.  So she basically is saying that she wishes fewer Democrats were voting.  The only thing is, very few of her supporters are true blue liberals; she is working on the centrist/conservative part of the base, so this probably won't hurt her that much (just as Obama is working with the more liberal part).


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:22:09 PM EST

Re: Wow (2.00 / 5)

This may be more harmful than "Bittergate" in the short term because we're still in the primary contest and she's bad mouthing people who actually participate in and effect the primary results - i.e. democractic activists - whereas Obama merely insulted rednecks as a whole.  


by ruskin on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:24:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some of her supporters are (none / 0)

actually entertaining the fantasy that Hillary is more progressive than Obama.  I would hope that this incident will put paid to that pipedream.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:53:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Blames Increased Democratic Activism f (2.00 / 10)

I just posted a summary of how Moveon was not against the Afghanistan war in the open thread:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/4/18/1 84931/076/23#23

Jonathan made my points a lot better than I did, but I do have some links backing me up on the non-opposition to the Afghanistan war.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:22:19 PM EST

Umm (1.50 / 2)

they did.  There were Obama intimidators all over my caucus in CO.  


by linc on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:23:14 PM EST

Re: Umm (2.00 / 4)

I have seen various posts from both sides alleging voter intimidation without an iota of evidence to back up the charge...

It makes me nervous because I am back in Ohio now, where I was in 2004 where there were documented cases of voter intimidation in Democratic districts...

Substantiate the claim with details or cease... we may need to investigate voter intimidation this g.e.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At my Washington State caucus (2.00 / 1)

the turnout was so great we had to have several precincts meet outside the building.  I've been around a long time, and I've not seen anything like it.  Hundreds of people showed up.  The Hillary supporters who spoke were treated with the utmost courtesy.  No eyeball rolling, no snorting, nothing.  Many, many people spoke, but the best was one youngster who got up and gave a little testimony about what the Obama candidacy meant to him that had the whole lot of us tearing up like babies.
 We then proceeded to hand Obama a crushing victory, which we hope to improve on tomorrow at the state convention, as several delegate slots are on the bubble.

See you there, Washington State delegates!

As for the charge of intimidation, that's just so much desperate horseshit, in my estimation.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:06:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At my Washington State caucus (2.00 / 1)

We had a similar experience here in West Seattle - no bullying by either side.


by ruskin on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Umm (2.00 / 4)

Did you report it?

Let's see some verified proof...otherwise, you're full of it.


by Elise on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:47:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is a crap argument (1.00 / 2)

about something very subjective.  Prove to me that there were not- otherwise you are full of crap.


by linc on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:31:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is a crap argument (none / 0)

voter intimidation is not "very subjective."  It is against federal law and a crime.


by shalca on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is a crap argument (none / 0)

Linc, you are nothing if not consistent.
Never substantiating anything and then challenging others to prove your BS wrong.
by haystax calhoun on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:53:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0)

and you rule reason and substantiation.  Perfect Obama and his perfect supporters- can do no wrong.


by linc on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is a crap argument (none / 0)

No, that is not how these things work. The burden falls upon those who make the claim to show its truth.


by tessellated on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:22:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is a crap argument (2.00 / 1)

It could be that the very presence of new and diverse voters was in and of itself intimidating to Clinton supporters.  This whole election would have been a lot more fair if all those crazy Obama activists had stayed home and allowed nature to take its course.


by anevarez on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:51:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is a crap argument (none / 0)

Spot on.


by interestedbystander on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:59:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please expand upon this (none / 0)

I think voting against Clinton at a caucus = intimidation.  There certainly haven't been any news reports of thuggery, so far as I know.


by rfahey22 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Umm (none / 0)

Same thing in Houston


by suzieg on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:21:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (1.00 / 12)

You have to admit that some of what she says is true. Obama has offended lots of key democratic constituencies. And isn't she talking about caucuses not primaries. No one would dispute that caucuses are more about getting activists to vote than representative of the party as a whole.

I think no one has more comtempt for democrats than Obama. He even goes so far as trash the party. Obama acts like he's ashamed to be a democrat.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:23:29 PM EST

Re: Clinton (1.33 / 3)

True, and a lot of what Obama said about rednecks was true but, he still shouldn't have said it.  She'll pay a price for this - it's just a question of how big a price.  


by ruskin on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, she will pay (none / 0)

All of 2 dollars and forty seven cents...

plus tax!!


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:28:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hmmm.. (2.00 / 11)

Who is growing the party, bringing in new people?

Who is energizing younger voters to vote Democrat?

Barack Obama.

If by "has contempt for", you mean "re-energizing and setting up the future success of", then sure, Obama's all over it.

Otherwise, you are incorrect.  The only person betraying Democrat ideals is Senator Clinton.


by RidleyGriff on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:26:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hmmm.. (1.00 / 7)

Obama isn't growing the party. He's actually shrinking the party. Look at his demographics. They aren't good. He's not setting us up for success, he's setting us up for failure. He's energized the Dukakis coalition and that's about it.

Obama has betrayed Democrats continually. Does he even put the fact that he's a Democrat in his ads? He didn't here in GA. You have a wierd defintion of things.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hmmm.. (2.00 / 1)

Shrinking the party?  You got a link to that?


by RidleyGriff on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:04:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hmmm.. (2.00 / 3)

About the only thing that seems shrunk around here is your capacity to reason.  There are higher turnouts now than there have been for any democrat.  Given the numbers supporting Obama, I think it's fair to say that the numbers today are better than they were in 1992 or 1996.  


by zadura on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:11:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama field offices have been... (2.00 / 1)

registering new Democrats for months.

Blasting Moveon is a GOP talking point. Screwing up their position re: Afghanistan is straight out of Rush Limbaugh's play book.

Hillary lost the nomination 6 weeks ago. And Bill tarnishes his legacy more and more the further we move along.


by johnnyappleseed on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:30:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hmmm.. (2.00 / 1)

He's running in the Democratic Primary for President, I think people figured it out a long time ago.  How about your ballot?  Did it say Democratic, because mine sure did?

You're trying to tell me that the person who insulted a major segment (3.2 million) members of the party is more loyal to the party because other didn't mention he was a Democrat enough times?  I am sorry this is utter horseshit.  Say didn't mean; say she did; I don't care.  But don't tell me she is more loyal to a party that she just insulted.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 4)

ga6thDem, you're being pathetic in this thread. first you said it wasn't true, it must be from the Obama campaign. you were proven wrong, but ceetainly didn't issue a retraction or apology for your dishonest smear of the campaign.

then, in response to CLINTON saying the Democratic acivists are the problem, you claim Obam acts ashamed to be democrat.

would it kill you to tell the truth?


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:31:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (1.33 / 3)

I scanned the article. That's what I get for that.

Obama does act like he's ashamed to be a democrat. Has he ever said that he's proud to be a democrat? Not that I've heard. Of course, that's probably not a bad thing in the long run.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:49:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Ga6thDem -- You conclude that because you've never heard Obama say "I'm proud to be a Democrat" that he's ashamed of being a Democrat?  That's ridiculous!  He is what he is.  I don't go around saying "I'm proud to be a Democrat."  My very being a Democrat should be proof enough.  If I wasn't proud I'd be an independent or something else.  

Ga6thDem, it'll soon be over.  Obama nation will accept you when you decide to join us.    


by froggyman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:37:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

You have issues with logic. In particular you seem to be having trouble with negative proofs/appeals to ignorance.

Try reading this


by anevarez on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:00:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

Maybe he should have a frickin pin made that

says "I'm proud to be a democrat." This should be

worn right next to the flag pin that he should be

wearing at all times!!!


"Beauty, more than bitterness, makes the heart break." Sara Teasdale
by april34fff on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:40:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 1)

If it doesn't harm Obama...then yes, it would kill Ga6th to tell the truth.


by Elise on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:50:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"trash the party" (2.00 / 1)

What the hell are you talking about?


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Unlike the "bitter" statement, this wasn't a poorly phrased observation easily taken out of context for political gain.

This was an direct verbal assault on a key democratic constituency.


by Huck on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (1.00 / 3)

Are you kidding? The "bitter" statement wasn't taken out of context. You can listen to the whole audio. And I don't know why Obama supporters think it's okay to trash blue collar democrats.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:03:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 1)

I'm not an Obama supporter. I am a blue collar Democrat from a longtime union family. I've listened to the audio. Not only do I disagree with your assertion, but polling taken on the subject disagrees.

However, that's distracting from the matter at hand -- Democratic activists being trashed by Hillary.

So, by your own statements, it's okay to trash some Democrats. Hypocrisy at its finest.


by Huck on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (2.00 / 1)

In 1995 Hillary said "Srew Em" talking about blue collar workers.  Hillary has contemtp for blue collar workers and moveon.org voters.  What democratic voters does Hillary not have contempt for??  


by Spanky on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:20:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

And that's why I wouldn't express fake outrage, real outrage, or even surprise that Hillary made those anti-activist or "screw 'em" statements.

People who feel entitled do that when they feel they've been crossed by the "little people".


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:38:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

Ah. When pundits and politicians refer to single-issue voters and wedge-issues you're offended?


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

What democratic constituencies has he offended and how?


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Does not compute (2.00 / 1)

Let me get this straight.

"Nobody has more contempt for democrats" than Obama.

Also, Clinton is right that Obama is getting his support from Democratic activists.

Wow.  Democratic activists must be awfully stupid.


by TL on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:20:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Blames Increased Democratic Activism f (2.00 / 6)

I wish Moveon had a card I could down load.
Then I could say "I am a card carrying member"
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:24:37 PM EST

Re: Clinton Blames Increased Democratic Activism f (2.00 / 1)

you could photo-shop one..  I doubt they would mind...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Won't matter really.... (2.00 / 1)

This won't hurt her but it is kind of demoralizing toward party activists.

Also, is Moveon.org really a caucus powerhouse?  I always assumed that was local people with no affiliation to a grassroots org beyond their respective candidates.


by Homebrewer on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:25:48 PM EST

Re: Won't matter really.... (2.00 / 2)

No, they aren't.  I think this is just scapegoating and whining and offering excuses for why you lost.  Basically a continuation of the whole "the press hates Hillary and loves Obama" stuff we've been hearing from Bill.


by Whash on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It will matter because Moveon will make it matter (2.00 / 6)

to its members. Remember, they can shoot off e-mails to 3 million devoted followers, who will all be insulted. They will take their insult and channel it into action. You can bet Obama will get a HUGE stream of donations from Moveon members. And foot soldiers in the PA contest.

There's nothing like a Democratic activist spit on.

This won't matter to the average voter. But the foot-soldier activists will say, "Fuck you."


by John Campanelli on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:31:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It will matter because Moveon will make it mat (2.00 / 4)

and who does the actual heavy-lifting grunt work in an election...?  Oh yeah, the party activists...

Bad move on her part...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:34:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not to mention, quite a few supers (2.00 / 2)

are probably MoveOn members.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Remember when Lieberman criticized Moveon (none / 0)

during his primary campaign. Look what happened to him.


by John Campanelli on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This one could hurt (2.00 / 6)

Does Hillary Clinton not want my vote either?

Seems as if Jane Hamsher over at firedoglake might be reaching her breaking point.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/18/hillar y-clinton-attacks-moveon/#more-21991


by bookish on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM EST

I am a member of MoveOn.org (1.50 / 2)

and their mailings go straight to my spam folder...


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:26:45 PM EST

Re: I am a member of MoveOn.org (none / 0)

Well, at least you're a member...


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:38:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am a member of MoveOn.org (none / 0)

LOL

I would feel better if I knew what they stood for.  Taking out newspaper ads bashing Gen Petraeus does not do much for me.


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:42:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They stand for progressive causes (none / 0)

Maybe that's why you don't get it.


by bookish on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:49:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I must not be a progressive then... (1.50 / 2)

because I dont feel the urge to bash the commander of US forces in Iraq.


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:58:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean (2.00 / 1)

the sycophantic military commander who has been an enabler for a rogue president? The one who it constantly speaking out of both sides of his mouth?

I totally agree with them.


by bookish on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:27:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Troll rated for that ? (none / 0)

Wow, we must believe in free speech around here...


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:53:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Troll rated for that ? (2.00 / 1)

Ya seriously.  There was absolutely nothing offensive about that.  The troll rating is for, well, trollish comments, not ones you disagree with.  


Vote Change in '08!
by iowa dem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:03:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Troll rated for that ? (2.00 / 1)

I guess beauty lies in the eye of the beerholder

So

Offense must lies in the eyes of the offendeer...

or something!!


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:09:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary stood up for MoveOn.org (1.50 / 2)

While Barack Obama sat in his office and refused to cast a vote in defense of free speech.  Hillary showed up, Barack did not.

And then MoveOn.org endorsed him?  Pathetic.  Hillary is/was justifiably angry.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:52:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am a member of MoveOn.org (2.00 / 1)

Petraeus is a hack.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:31:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am a member of MoveOn.org (none / 0)

Petraeus isn't a hack, it's just that the war is unwinnable and peace is impossible for us to bring. He DID beat away the wolves at the door, it's just that the whole pack is circling the house. But he deserves credit for doing something to help at a time when things were looking bad. If we were in a just war that we had a shot at winning, we'd absolutely win with him in charge.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:50:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am a member of MoveOn.org (2.00 / 1)

He's dishonest about what's going on. He pushes the administration line not the truth.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Way to go (none / 0)

Why don't we go on from there...

lots of other heroes we can denigrate!!


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:16:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Way to go (2.00 / 1)

Your hero is a liar. His lies will get more people killed.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton is a hawk on foreign policy. (2.00 / 4)

Not even close to a progressive.  She has always been a hawk, and surrounds herself with "muscular" foreign policy types like Holbrooke and Albright.   Moveon has a different agenda, and rightly so.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:27:43 PM EST

Re: Clinton is a hawk on foreign policy. (none / 0)

You clearly aren't familiar with her voting record. She has one of the most progressive voting records in Congress. You are at odds with historical reality.

Anyway, take a look at her voting record, if you have the nerve.
http://www.progressivepunch.org/members. jsp?search=selectName&member=NYI& ;chamber=Senate&zip=&x=31&y= 11


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:33:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton is a hawk on foreign policy. (2.00 / 4)

I think the commenter was limiting the view to Clinton's foreign policy votes... which are going to be skewed because of Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman...

But, her statements in the debate the other night, do lead me to believe she is playing dove-ly now, but is actually quite hawk-ish...  I had my suspicions before, but they grow a little every day.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't forget the Levin amendment. (2.00 / 1)

That's the one that really showed her stripes.


by bookish on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:30:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't forget the Levin amendment. (none / 0)

Kyl Lieberman was nothing except a hammer for Dems to use against each other, and then for Pubs to use against Dems - that's all it was.

We are not one step closer to war with Iran than we were before the vote. It's most effective use has been on the internets.

Before  you disagree with me, tell me what step Bush wouldn't have to take because of kyl Lieberman, if he wanted to go to war against them. What wouldn't he have to do?


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't forget the Levin amendment. (2.00 / 1)

Why are you replying to me? I was talking about the stopgap Levin amendment that would have forced a second vote before we went into Iraq.


by bookish on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:41:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't forget the Levin amendment. (none / 0)

Feingold voted against Levin as well. Clinton, the day after the authorization, offered up an amendment that would have sunsetted the authorization and forced Bush to come back after a year. I notice that never gets bandied around.


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:12:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't play that way (none / 0)

Well, instead of trying to change the subject, why not clarify what you think was the matter with the Levin amendment?


by bookish on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:28:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't play that way (none / 0)

I just know Feingold voted against it (and I don't think he was the only senator who opposed the authorization that also opposed Levin, but I haven't looked it up in ages) but I've never seen an explanation as to why. For that fact, I've never seen an explanation as to why people voted against Clinton's sunset amendment.

All of this is the problem with trying to turn the vote for authorization into a pro-war vote without any nuance. Obviously, it's not as simple as voting against the authorization and voila! no war.

Once Bush was determined to go to war and willing to go there the way he was, getting the US out of that trap became almost impossible. Our only hope was the inspectors certifying him disarmed before Bush had a chance to invade and it almost worked. Bush forced them to leave.


by Little Otter on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:07:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fine, I'll indulge you (none / 0)

Feingold and Clinton both gave the specious argument that the Levin amendment would make the US "subordinate" to the UN. Utter horseshit that line was; I say it and so did their colleagues at the time.

Your suggesting that Clinton could do nothing so that she may as well have gone along with it gets to the heart of my problem with her. That's not leadership. That's cowtowing and following the pack in the most egregious way. "Well, there's nothing I can do, so I may as well make this as painless as possible," is not indication of leadership qualities.

The Levin amendment would've forced Bush to return to the congress for approval after the inspectors made their judgment on WMDs. Hillary caved to the GOP narrative. Simple: she did not lead, and helped to send Americans to their deaths.


by bookish on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:09:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fine, I'll indulge you (none / 0)

No one said anything about going along with the pack.

The fact of the matter is that the only hope for stopping the war was certifying Hussein as disarmed. Hans Blix wanted the authorization because it was the only way he could achieve unfettered inspections. Blix was right - it worked. As the vote on the authorization neared. Hussein threw all the doors open and Blix began an aggressive inspection process.

The Democrats shared power in the senate with the Republicans. The election was three weeks away and we knew we were losing the senate. Had the authorization not passed in October with it's UN mandates, it would have passed in january with no restrictions whatsoever.

Clinton's vote was legitimate and progressive. There was only one chance of stopping Bush and that was finishing the inspections. She voted for time. That Bush didn't abide by the standards of the authorization and forced the inspectors to leave isn't her fault. That's on Bush.


by Little Otter on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She is a dyed in the wool hawk (none / 0)

if you'll permit me to mix a metaphor.  She is now and always has been.  And I'm quite familiar with her voting record, thank you very much, one of the most anti-progressive of any democrat, aside from a few votes on women's issues.  I'll spare you the laundry list, you wouldn't pay any attention any more than you have already.

If you wish to ignore her record for reasons of your own, that is your perfect right, but don't try to sell me a bill of goods.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:51:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She is a dyed in the wool hawk (none / 0)

Clearly, you aren't familiar with her voting record and you're too afraid to find out what it actually is. She is a genuine, full throated progressive in every sense of the word - her platform is to the left of Obama's on virtually every issue. Her voting record is pretty much to the left of him as well.

If you don't Hillary's progressive then you sure as heck shouldn't be supporting Obama - because not by any objective standard is he more progressive than she is.


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:34:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She is a dyed in the wool hawk (none / 0)

Did you not hear her in the debate the other night?  She promised that we'll be massively involved in any Middle-East conflict involving Israel.  Guess which candidate has gotten the most contributions from the military industrial complex?  Hillary.  She wants to create an "umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than Israel."  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/ 24191522#24191522


by froggyman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a common fantasy (2.00 / 1)

among Hillary diehards, that she is a progressive.  
Today's attack on MoveOn is just the latest broadside against the left wing of the Democratic party.  You know, the base.
by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a common fantasy (none / 0)

People who are well informed are very aware that she is progressive - that's an objective statement rooted in historical reality. It's a common fantasy among people who are afraid to even LOOK at her voting record that she isn't progressive. Ignorance is as ignorance does.


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Blames Increased Democratic Activism f (2.00 / 4)

Ya linc...at my  North Denver caucus all we had was an overwhelming vote for Obama Delegates...
In 2004 we had 26 folks...this year we had over 400.
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:28:56 PM EST

Re: Clinton Blames Increased Democratic Activism f (2.00 / 2)

Hey, where did you caucus?  I was at Skinner Elementary on 41st and Irving, in the Highlands.  Precinct 413.  My precinct went 80-20 Obama.  The only intimidation was the OVERWHELMING amount of Obama support.  Everyone was gracious and positive on both sides.


by nwgates on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:37:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Blames Increased Democratic Activism f (2.00 / 4)

Up here in Anchorage we had close to 4,000 show up at our Dem caucus. In prior years it was 100 at best.
And yes, it was intimidating to see all those smiling, enthusiastic progressives in their parkas and snow pants.
Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:45:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Blames Increased Democratic (none / 0)

Well...that's a big matzo ball.


by rfahey22 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:28:58 PM EST

Re: Clinton Blames Increased Democratic Activism (none / 0)

The media's response to this will say a lot about whether there is in fact a media bias in favor of Obama.  If there is, then she'll get nailed and we'll hear about her statements for the next few days.  If there isn't, this story will never see the light of day (which may suggest a Clinton bias).  It will be interesting to see how it plays out.  

My gut tells me that it will be too tempting for the media not to try to turn it into a story - especially since the circumstances (insulting statements made behind closed doors at a fundraiser) are so similiar to bittergate.  


by ruskin on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:29:53 PM EST

Karl Rove, Hannity, Oliely will all Ruuuun with it (none / 0)

You don't think they won't use this story to confirm their smears of MO? ABC will probably Run a 5 day mini series around this story!


by eddieb on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:31:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Blames Increased Democratic Activism f (1.00 / 1)

Is this the breaking news story Huffington post had blaring on its homepage lol.

Desperation.

She didn't even say anything remotely controversial.

I know Huffington Post is trying its best to make up for the uproar it caused over Obama's comment but this doesn't even measure up.

More like a joke to me.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:30:04 PM EST

the definition of denial (2.00 / 5)

"She didn't even say anything remotely controversial."

hahhahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahah ahhahaha!!

she said that DEMOCRATIC ACTIVISTS were the PROBLEM.

no, that's not at all controversial, to Republicans, who agree 100%. but this is OUR BASE she is slandering. if you think the Democratic BASE is the problem, you are a Republican.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:35:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the definition of denial (2.00 / 1)

Actually I am glad she doesn't agree with moveon.org , frankly thats why I am having issues with Obama.

I am not interested in moveon.org


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:40:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the definition of denial (2.00 / 5)

I think a more honest phrasing would be you're not interested in Obama and that's why you're having issues with MoveOn.  But no matter how you may feel about Obama or the Petreaus ad, MoveOn has done remarkable work in grassroots organizing and was a tremendous force during the 2006 elections.  To bash MoveOn is exactly the type of splitting the Party that people are worried about.


by Piuma on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:48:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

An outfit that was formed to get people (2.00 / 3)

to "Move On" from obsessing about Clinton's impeachment.  We're really through the looking glass now.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An outfit that was formed to get people (none / 0)

Here is Hillary Clinton with nothing but praise for the group:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/


by mady on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:03:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the definition of denial (none / 0)

I think a more honest phrasing would be you're not interested in Obama and that's why you're having issues with MoveOn.  

- The fact that you think that doesn't make it so .

I am a conservative democrat and some folks I know refer to moveon.org as commies ( albeit in a friendly manner ).

Any politician that is being pushed by moveon is one that would be less appealing to me.

It is not very polite to question the honesty of others , especially if you have no idea who they are or where they are coming from .


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:02:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the definition of denial (2.00 / 2)

I just posted above the video of Hillary Clinton praising Move On pretty effusively.


by mady on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:04:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the definition of denial (2.00 / 3)

My apologies then.  I don't recall you expressing an opinion on MoveOn but your opinion of Obama certainly predates their endorsement of him.  Now of course Bill was the very first politician "pushed" by MoveOn but I guess that doesn't matter as much as the opinion of your friends who are still locked in the thinking of the Cold War.


by Piuma on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

she dissed WAY more than moveon (2.00 / 8)

she dissed the base of our party, DEMOCRATIC ACTIVISTS.

i'm no moveon fan, either. they were formed to take up for Bill Clinton's sleazy antics in the oval office. i still don't know why we didn't just let Gore take over.

and the General Betray Us ad was stupid and counterproductive.

but again, she's dissing ALL Democratic activists in this clip.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, brother another whiner... (2.00 / 5)

She is whining and frankly jealous because moveon.org has provided boots on the ground and money.  Money that she desperately needs and don't have.

Sure, she will win PA, but we all know this is over.  The Supers are going Obama's way and many want this over by June.  We can not afford this to keep going, especially since she in not paying her campaign bills.

HRCs major mistake was underestimating Obama, relying too much on conventional media and not organizing her ground game.  She has no one to come to in the blogosphere, they are behind Obama.  She never understood the netroots, blogsphere and how stories are pushed.  She turned her nose up on us.  She thought big donors were everything, when the small ones sustained Obama and pushed him forward.  And she did not believe we would show up to help him win this, and we have in the millions.  That is what a book need to be written about HRCs horrible campaign front, how she did not understand 21st century technology and how it took her down.

Yes, keep denouncing the Democratic Activists, we are the ones who DO show up and DO hit the donate button, hell she just may not have a seat after 2012.


by tracey webb on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:57:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, brother another whiner... (none / 0)

It would be a shame to lose one of the most reliably progressive and effective senators we have because Obama supporters feel the need to punish someone for daring to run against the precious.

Your post is the kind of nasty rhetoric that will make it very hard for Obama to turn out Clinton supporters should he be the nominee. We're in blue states. We like Clinton. We always vote and we always vote Democratic. And Obama and his supporters have insulted us and our candidate over and over and over again. Remember, obama mostly wins red states that he won't take in the general. How do you expect to win blue states when you're insulting the activist base in those states?

Has he called Clinton and apologized for Rhodes going postal on his behalf? No? Well, that's a whole 'nother slice of women who won't show up to vote for Obama because he hasn't earned our vote. Unlike Elise, I won't vote for McCain, but I won't vote for Obama either. You might want to think about that before you go off gloating like you are here.

And you know what, obama can still lose.


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:44:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, brother another whiner... (2.00 / 1)

Threatening people with your vote again......geesh.....


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:47:21 PM EST
[