Clinton Condemns Moveon Ad

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:31


She did it on on Meet the Press, and she did it on Late Edition.  Here she is, on the Cornyn amendment condemning Moveon.

I have voted against it. I mean, I've voted for Senator Boxer's resolution, which condemned that attack, and also condemned the attacks on Senator Cleland and Senator Kerry. I don't condone it. I voted to condemn it.

But again, I would underscore, let's be clear what's going on here. This is an effort to focus on an ad that I condemned and don't condone in order to avoid having to deal with the tough questions about our policy in Iraq.

I'm a little worried about upcoming fights over funding for Iraq, inasmuch as they might distract us from discussing the Moveon ad.
Matt Stoller :: Clinton Condemns Moveon Ad

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Clinton Condemns Moveon Ad | 40 comments
Look on the bright side (4.00 / 2)
She's badmouthing MoveOn to prove her toughness, but at least she's only a Senator and not a Governor.  If she was a Governor she might do something more drastic to prove her toughness like fly home three weeks before the New Hampshire primary to watch the execution of someone so mentally incompetent that he put away the pie from his last meal to save for later.

Voter Genome Project
True, True (0.00 / 0)
Senators can't kill people in such an intimate fashion.  Perhaps that's why it's harder for them to get elected President.

It's remarkable, really, that Clinton could get elected by presiding over the execution of just one man, albeit a mentally retarded one--Ricky Ray Rector--who didn't eat the dessert of his last meal because he wanted to "save it for later".  In contrast, Bush had to kill over 100, including one woman--Karla Faye Tucker--who sobered up and found Jesus just like he supposedly did.

Once again, Clinton shows how much more efficient a Republican he is, as opposed to the brand-name ones.  (I'm writing this after having heard Allan Greenspan on Democracy Now!, where Amy Goodman questioned him about calling Clinton a "Republican President.")

Heck, Clinton's so good that Rector even said he'd vote for him!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Twice on Fox too! (0.00 / 0)
Along with all her comments on leaving troops in Iraq for at least her first administration ...

from the transcript: 

WALLACE: President Bush said that you and other Democrats are more afraid - his word - afraid of irritating the left wing and MoveOn than you are about insulting the American military. Does he have a point?

  H. CLINTON: No, he doesn't. But I think it's clear I don't condone attacks on anyone who has served our country with distinction and with honor, and I have been very vocal in my support of and admiration for General Petraeus.

  I did vote for a resolution that made it clear I do not condone and do condemn attacks on any American, impugning their patriotism, and that includes people like Senator Max Cleland and Senator John Kerry.

  I think we need to call a halt to any kind of attacks, from wherever they come, that would go after anyone based on their service to America.

  WALLACE: (snip) So let me ask you specifically. Do you repudiate the MoveOn.org ad?

  H. CLINTON: I have said, and I have voted for, condemning anyone who goes after the patriotism and service of any American.

  But let's put this in a broader context. You know, there are many people who have assaulted over the years the patriotism and service of other Americans. I think it's time to end all of that.

  And what I voted for in the Senate did that. It was balanced and it said, very clearly, we condemn attacks on anyone who has served honorably in our country's uniform. And I am absolutely of the mind that this should not be part of our debate.

http://www.firedogla...

Clinton clips (0.00 / 0)
Clips of HRC on the Sunday shows condemning MoveOn are all over the Cable TV news shows this AM.

In hindsight, the Boxer amendment was the Hillary Clinton CYA amendment because on Meet the Press it was HRC's goto talking point - 'I voted against any language against our uniformed leaders' or something like that.

Thanks Hillary. If MoveOn existed in 1951 and ran an ad "Hey McCarthur you crazy SOB, don't nuke China" I guess she would have condemned that as well.

OT: Somebody should ask Sen. Clinton (and every candidate) why the U.S. needs to have more troops in Iraq moving forward than Afghanistan when Afghanistan has more people and more area.

There are 41,000 NATO troops (including aprox. 15K US troops) + 8,000 US troops doing a separate mission. Without getting into the policy details if candidates are going to commit to some security forces in Iraq then the Afghanistan figure should be used as context to get something more than vague numbers out of the Democratic field.

http://www.nato.int/...

John McCain

Thanks, Hill (0.00 / 0)
In retrospect, I wish they'd impeached her sorry husband after all. We wouldn't have to deal with this egotistical, pathetic, self-serving ghoul of a woman polluting our campaign trail today.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
Well Obama (0.00 / 0)
didn't even vote on the Cornyn amendment and has been pretty silent on it. From Edwards I have heard nothing. Why bash Hillary for answering questions? Would it have been better that she dodged the question or even worse endorsed MoveOn for their ill thought out ad?

The fact is that it is dumb dumb dumb to attack anyone in the military because it is guaranteed that it will come back and bite you. At least Hilliary, Boxer and others pointed out the hypocrisy of the GOP in this whole matter.

[ Parent ]
Get real (4.00 / 1)
The fact is that it is dumb dumb dumb to attack anyone in the military because it is guaranteed that it will come back and bite you.

  Yes, those attacks on Cleland and Kerry just blew up in the Republicans' faces, didn't they?

  Are you a real person, or just an automatic DLC capitulation-points-generator?

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Do I have to spell it out? (0.00 / 0)
When "Dems" attack the military it is guaranteed that it will come back and bite us. Especially given the media bias.

I think that will change some but not enough as the Dems are just not the animals that the Repubs are.

[ Parent ]
She didn't have to endorse the ad... (0.00 / 0)
  ....but she didn't have to take the bait and condemn it, either.  And what's with all the asinine praise of Petraeus? She doesn't have to slam him if her focus groups tell her it's a bad move -- but what's wrong with using neutral words like "competent" and "capable" to describe him, and then moving on? Gushing over that worthless political hack dressed up like a general only legitimizes him.

  I hate our leadership. I absolutely hate our leadership. All of it. How DID this country last 230 years?

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

special thanks for doing so on fox (0.00 / 0)
Maybe some interested parties (ahem) will finally stop referring to her as a "fighter"?
Oh, She's A Fighter, All Right (0.00 / 0)
It's just that you never can be too comfortable, knowing that one of the folks she'll be fighting is you.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
HRC? (0.00 / 0)
NEXT.
Moveon needs to Move On (4.00 / 2)
Their ad was idiotic, and gave aid and comfort to the repugs.

It is not the end of the World.  It will be forgotten in about month.  But it was stupid.

And this hangwringing among the blogs about it seems overdone.  How many fp articles have been done defending this ad versus fp articles on Jena in the last week.

Time to move on.

Totally WRONG! (0.00 / 0)
They are pushing the theme of betrayal, which George Lakoff long ago pointed out was the fundamental violation perpetrated by the Bush Administration.  The Patreaus Ad was just the first step.

Rather than condemn the betrayal, Clinton has seen fit to defend it. It's her version of triangulation.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Which argument do you want to have (4.00 / 1)
1.  That the mission in Iraq is a failure
2.  That Petraeus has betrayed the country

To ask the question is to answer it.  Lakoff is plain flat wrong. Moveon has walked into the right's frame that liberals hate the troops.

[ Parent ]
No, MoveOn Is Contesting The Right's Frame (4.00 / 1)
The Democratic leadership is simply too chicken to take MoveOn's side in this fight.

And it's precisely this sort of moral cowardice of the Dems (Kerry failing to respond to the Swift Boaters, etc.) that hurts them so deeply, not the sort of criticism that MoveOn mounted.

Besides, that was never the choice we faced.  The Democratic leadership had already per-surrendered on (1). 

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
I have to agree (2.00 / 2)
with fladem. There are other ways to take on the Repubs. Flaming the military is not one of them. There were many other ways to run that ad that pointed out the failure of the surge and Iraq in general. Attacking by name calling someone in the military was the last way you would want to do that. It would have been better and more acceptable to attack Bush for cooking the facts on the ground. And if Petraeus' name came up in the aftermath then he was just following Bush's orders as everyone knows he was anyway.
[ Parent ]
Sure there are (4.00 / 1)
There are other ways to take on the Repubs.

  Notwithstanding that the Democrats have not bothered to employ any of them.

  Here's a hint: Praising the guy to the skies prior to questioning him at a hearing isn't exactly the best way to set up a challenge to his credibility.

  Ad or no ad, the Dems in the Senate didn't even try to lay a glove on him. So it remains MoveOn's job to at least do SOMETHING.

  Sounds like you like to capitulate. Congratulations. You'll be a Democratic Senator someday!

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
You Miss The Point Of Course (4.00 / 1)
The thing to do was to not challenge his credibility in such a blatant way - i.e. the ad as it was written.

Sounds like you like to capitulate. Congratulations. You'll be a Democratic Senator someday! 

Don't be a jerk. I was not even addressing you in my post and if I had been I wouldn't have flamed you the way you are me. I'd suggest in the future if you want me to respond to your posts you stick to the subject matter and refrain from the personal remarks. It is no wonder why you condone the MoveOn ad based on how you post.

[ Parent ]
And you miss MY point (0.00 / 0)
  Perhaps, if the Democrats in the Senate had bothered to avail themselves of these "other ways" to attack Republicans and challenge their credibility -- not the most difficult task in the world -- maybe MoveOn wouldn't have felt it necessary to publish the ad.

  But given the Democrats' history of never, ever challenging the Republicans on anything more controversial than ergonomic standards, MoveOn did what they felt they had to do. The Dems' questioning of Petraeus was limp and pathetic. Criticize the ad if you must -- but don't ignore the fact that such an ad would never have happened if the Democrats had been doing their jobs all along.

  SOMEBODY needs to push the Overton window. MoveOn stepped up to the plate when the Democrats wouldn't -- and in the process did the Democrats a favor by taking the inevitable heat. ALL the Dems had to do was keep their pieholes shut and keep the "outrage" over the act directed at MoveOn -- an independent citizen-activist organization unaffiliated with any political party. "It's MoveOn's ad -- why don't you talk to THEM about it?" That's all the Dems had to say. They didn't, because they're idiots.

  But now, of course, that the Dems have duly obeyed the Republicans' orders to condemn the ad, I'm sure the media will do an instant about-face and paint the Democrats as nothing but strong supporters of the troops. That's the way it always works, isn't it?

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
I was referring (0.00 / 0)
to MoveOn having other ways to make their point other than with the ad they did, which is still a story in it's third week. Talk about screwing up.

If you belong to MoveOn as I do you got the email from them acknowledging that many members like myself gave them feedback that we thought they screwed up. And they haven't exactly been tooting their horn about the ad but instead giving some rather weak and short responses before trying to move on to other topics when interviewed.

[ Parent ]
It's only still a news item... (0.00 / 0)
  ...because the Democrats let it become one.

  If Harry Reid had told John Cornyn where he could stick his silly resolution, we'd have nothing but the typical nonstop Republican bleats on Fox. In other words, the usual. They would have whined and whined, but with no "event" to move the story beyond that, the public would have eventually tired of them. But by passing that idiotic resolution, the Democrats made sure it remained a story.

  As always, you can always trust the Democrats to maximize the negative fallout from ANYTHING.
 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Yeah Right (0.00 / 0)
Of course the MSM would have not said a thing about it.

The fact that the ad was ran on Monday 9-10-07 and was already a raging story a week before Thursday 9-20-07 when the amendments were voted on , a full week and a half after the fact, and only 4 days ago, totally negates what you are saying.

Really guy I done. If you were someone who dealt with facts and reason we could have a conversation but to claim that this would have been a non-story without Cornyn when it already was one tells me you are willing to try to win arguments even if it means twisting the facts. I'm too busy for such nonsense.

Go hate on the Dems with someone else.

[ Parent ]
Read what I said (0.00 / 0)
  WITHOUT the Democrats indulging Cornyn's idiot resolution, the story would have died on its own. There would have been nothing new to MOVE it. Stories have to move, or the public loses interest. (In fact, given the Iraq polls post-Petraeus, the public had already moved on. It was only the beltway insiders who were freaking.) The media would have looked increasingly ridiculous bleating about a two-week-old ad in the newspaper day after day after day. It would have continued to flicker in the wingnut media, but who cares.

  The resolution gave the story a new angle and new life, and we had to go through that crap all over again. The Dems took Cornyn's bait, and in the process (a) burned their bridges with an activist organization that's helped them immensely over the years (not to mention a good chunk of their base), (b) reinforced the Republican frame that the Democrats are weak and stand for nothing, and (c) gave the story new legs it wouldn't have had without any action. That it what you call hanging yourself with a custom-fit noose.

  But not to worry -- I'm sure there'll be an avalanche of media coverage now praising the Dems for their strong stand in favor of the military.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
The Democrats Had Already Given Him A Gold-Plated Free Pass (4.00 / 1)
How many times do they have to do the Charlie Brown/Lucy football thing???

They knew that Bush had canned any general that didn't agree with him.

They knew that Patreaus was gung-ho for the surge.

And yet, they decided months ago to wait until September for him to bring his tablets down from the mountain, and tell us all what they said.

So, I have only one question:

Just what part of "I'm a fucking idiot" didn't they understand?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
What Choice (4.00 / 1)
did they have Paul? It was the Repubs who decided to wait until September. Without their votes we could do nothing in a bill prior to that of any consequence. We got the benchmarks in a compromise and several agencies made clear those were not met. But Petraeus/Crocker and the press minimized the Benchmarks to some extent. The public really didn't buy it but the people who count with the votes, the Repubs, did.

I don't see how some of you can keep placing this on the shoulders of the Dems with no mention of the Repubs role. We may be in the majority but as slim as it is we don't hold the power some think we do. With Bush having commander-in-chief powers and the presidential power of the veto - and the Senate Repubs having the power of the filibuster we are clearly out-powered on each flank. Through in the House Repubs power to hold up a veto proof majority even if we could get 60 votes for anything and toss in a Right leaning Judiciary and it is clear who still holds the "real power" in the government and it isn't the Dems.

[ Parent ]
Oh, for heaven's sake (4.00 / 1)
  There's a HUGE difference between whining that "we don't have the votes" and using that as an excuse for complete inaction and impotence, and acknowledging that we don't have the votes but using that fact to maximize the political cost to the Republicans of obstructing. By, for instance, actually forcing them to filibuster.

  Narrative-building is a HUGE part of winning the battle of public opinion, and the Democrats, as always, are out to lunch. When the Dems quietly withdraw bills because of "filibuster threats", the headlines are "Democrats fail to pass X". When they force the Republicans to carry out these threats, the headlines become, "Republicans block and obstruct X". Anyone who can't see the value of that has no business in politics.

  But I'm sure that the Dems' curling into their fetal positions at the first raised eyebrow from the Republicans will result in thunderous victories in 2008. Just like in 2002.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Actual Filibustering (0.00 / 0)
is just a show in this case. In the end the result would be the same - not enough votes. So there is no point IMO. Plus it holds up other matters, not to mention that you could count on the Repubs to use their uninterrupted voice during the filibuster to advance their agenda and denigrate us much to the MSM's delight. Why hand them that opportunity?

FYI we already own the public opinion. The pubic by double digit figures prefer the Dems over Repubs on all issues except terrorism which we are even or now have a slight lead.

In fact the public supports the Dems in the polls more than the hard-core base. Clearly they understand what the Dems are up against in regards to the distribution of power more so that those who purport to be politically savvy.

I'm done on this subject as you speak more from emotion it seems than reason. I have no desire to keep reading that view.

[ Parent ]
Good! (0.00 / 0)
In the end the result would be the same - not enough votes. So there is no point IMO. Plus it holds up other matters

  Yes, we can't stall on renaming those monuments!

 

not to mention that you could count on the Repubs to use their uninterrupted voice during the filibuster to advance their agenda and denigrate us much to the MSM's delight. Why hand them that opportunity?

  You're right. It would suck if that started happening.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Master Jack Has The Right Answer To This (0.00 / 0)
All I have to add is:

I don't see how some of you can keep placing this on the shoulders of the Dems with no mention of the Repubs role.

Do I also have to say that water is wet???

At the very least, the Democrats should have been spending all that time denouncing Patreaus ahead of time as Bush's sock-puppet.

But, really they simply should refuse to appropriate any more money.  It's really just that simple.  And when the GOP and the media harpies scream and yell that the Dems are abandoning the troops, just say, "Nonsense!  We're cutting off funding so that Bush will be forced to bring them home, since they never should have been there in the first place."

Bush doesn't hold the power of the purse.  The Founding Fathers gave us the means to stop him.  And the Dems are refusing to use it.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
The military (0.00 / 0)
Petraeus is not the military.  He has become a political hack in a costume.  Democrats support military pay raises, body armor, better health care for the military and their families.  That's supporting the military.  Get it.  The rest is using or rather abusing the military to support the Republicans and Bush.
[ Parent ]
Thank you Hillary for keeping the meme alive. (0.00 / 0)
Of course HRC should condemn the ad. The consequences for the world are neither here nor there. She is positioning herself as a centrist candidate for the Presidency, and condemning Petaeus Betrayus is appropriate in that position. Did anyone expect anything different?

Highly visible press is highly effective press, even when it is negative as long as they spell MoveOn correctly. So thank you Hillary for keeping the Petraeus Betrayus in the public mind.

As far as MoveOn is concerned, the ad was a brilliant piece of re-framing, and keys into the anger we feel about the establishment support for the war. The more people condemn it, the more national attention MoveOn receives, the more mind-share the betrayal theme will get, and the more people will believe that MoveOn might be able to do something against the war.

Despite support from 2/3 of the public the anti-Iraq war activity and pressure on Congress has been amorphous and uncoordinated. The outrage of the ad builds MoveOn's identity as a vocal and powerful anti-war organization. By gosh! MoveOn has got Fox news all atwitter, so they must be doing something right.

Let MoveOn membership go to 5 or 10 million vocal, anti-war members.

Matt -- I agree with your last statement with a snark icon (4.00 / 5)
And I'm not talking about Hillary, but us.

I'm a little worried about upcoming fights over funding for Iraq, inasmuch as they might distract us from discussing the Moveon ad.

The blow up on the blogosphere about the Moveon vote was way out of proportion to its importance.  The blogs BLEW IT this week, as did the Dem base.  We didn't stay focused on lobbying, calling, and writing to senators to vote for the Webb amendment or even to control the bleed on Reid/Feingold, or even Levin/Reed.  The conservative base sure did a good job on applying pressure to kill immigration reform.  We showed we did not have the focus to do a similar job on Iraq.  We need to do better next time.  And stop getting distracted on trivialities.

I agree we lost focus... (4.00 / 2)
...but it's hard to stay focused when your own people kick you in the stomach like that.
[ Parent ]
Who's Losing Focus? (4.00 / 1)
The Dems passing this resolution means that Reps will be using it to attack Dem candidates everywhere next year when MoveOn tries to support them.  This is a potential long term political disaster that will severely threaten the capacity of the Dems to accomplish anything--and not just with regard to Iraq.

In contrast, the Dems had already pre-surrendered, regardless of anything we might do to lobby them.

Bottom line: the ones who lost focus were the ones who voted for this abominable resolution.

Except, of course for the ones who never had focus to begin with, or who always hated MoveOn, and were just waiting for an opportunity like this one.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
I disagree (4.00 / 1)
Why? I don't remember hearing that any of the Dem senators changed their votes on the Webb Amendment or Levin-Reed. The problem was that not enough Republicans voted for these measures, and the progressive blogosphere does not have much influence over them.

The fight over condemning MoveOn was worth fighting, as that's not something a Democratic senate should do. We lost the fight and in a big way, but it was worth fighting and it helped show who is really on our side and who isn't.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Two Dems changed their vote. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Get over yourself (0.00 / 0)
"I'm a little worried about upcoming fights over funding for Iraq, inasmuch as they might distract us from discussing the Moveon ad."

Are you insane?!?? You REALLY want to keep talking about this, in lieu of everything else? Are you really that narcissistic?

Come on, buddy. Get over it. The sun doesn't rise and set on the netroots. Grow up and move on.

Why the upset? This is great! (0.00 / 0)
What I am not seeing discussed here is the nature of the Cornyn "sense of the Senate" Amendment itself. It was an amendment which sought to discourage free speech! This is a huge victory on MoveOn's part! So many birds with one stone!

What better grounds for attacking Senators voting for it than to be able to say that they have broken their oath's to the Constitution by seeking to abridge the First Amendment. "The Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech." Bring in Habeus Corpus votes etc., etc. and you have a real and substantive debate on the issues that even Republicans can't ignore, much less Blue Dog Democrats.

I can see the political ads now...If you wanted a George Bush Republican, why didn't you just vote for one...

May I remind you (0.00 / 0)
That moveon was formed orginally to defend her husband Bill after he got his penis sucked by and intern named Monica Lewinsky?  She is attacking her own base.  Talk about backstabbers.
Clinton Condemns Moveon Ad | 40 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox