Breaking: Moveon Members Endorse Obama 71-29

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 05:49


And here we go.  From a press release.

In a resounding vote today, MoveOn.org Political Action's members nationwide voted to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President. The group, with 3.2 million members nation-wide and over 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states, will immediately begin to mobilize on behalf of Senator Obama. The vote favored Senator Obama to Senator Clinton by 70.4% to 29.6%.

Senator Obama accepted the endorsement stating:

""In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. From their principled opposition to the Iraq war - a war I also opposed from the start - to their strong support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows what Americans can achieve when we come together in a grassroots movement for change. I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead."

Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org's Executive Director, issued the following statement on the group's endorsement:

"Our members' endorsement of Senator Obama is a clear call for a new America at this critical moment in history. Seven years of the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration have left the country desperate for change. We need a President who will bring to bear the strong leadership and vision required to end the war in Iraq, provide health care to every American, deal with our climate crisis, and restore America's standing in the world. The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country, and someone who will be willing to change business as usual in Washington. Senator Barack Obama has proved he can and will be that President."

"With 3.2 million members nationwide and over 1.7 million members in states that vote next Tuesday, we'll be able to immediately jump into action in support of Senator Obama's candidacy. We've learned that the key to achieving change in Washington without compromising core values is having a galvanized electorate to back you up. And Barack Obama has our members 'fired up and ready to go' on that front.

It's not quite as skewed towards Obama as it was in the Dailykos poll, where Obama took 76% to Clinton's 11%, but it's pretty close.

UPDATE: I just spoke with Ilyse Hogue, communications director for Moveon, and she tells me that the group is going to mobilize volunteers for Obama in key states and use call for change technology.  That's the stuff that lets their members do phone-banking with their browsers to targeted individuals, and often what Moveon will do with this is have Moveon members in non-key states call other Moveon members in key states for GOTV.  We'll see what they do.

I have a few more thoughts on this, one meta and one just a small practical observation.  Practically, this is a boost for Obama's campaign, but it is driven by Moveon's members.  Moveon members have never been 'far left'; the group was started to censure Bill Clinton.  These are mainstream liberal Democrats, and they are driving the leadership of the group to endorse Obama.  Part of it is cultural and creative class driven, but part of it is Clinton's conservative actions in the Senate and failure to lead.

On a larger 'meta-politics' level, it's interesting that Moveon is using tools developed, in particular the call for change tool, in the last few years to generate political power and organizing help for Obama.  There was not a lot that individuals could do prior to 2006 to help campaigns, since most politicking was organized around large media buys and direct mail.  You could hold a sign, maybe, or go into a local office and make phone calls, many of which were wrong numbers.  This has radically changed, as I wrote about for the Nation.  Individuals at Moveon are going to be the ones who make this endorsement meaningful, since it's those people who are the ones who are going to do the work for Obama, or not.  It's not like AFSCME, where Gerald McEntee can just get his people to work on behalf of Clinton.  Obama needs to motivates Moveon's people to work directly, but the upside is that it's possible for each person to have a real and measurable impact.

UPDATE AGAIN:  Interestingly, the numbers for Moveon-style Color of Change, if Edwards swings over completely to Obama as they did here, are more Dailykos-like than Moveon-like.

Matt Stoller :: Breaking: Moveon Members Endorse Obama 71-29

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
So, what are they going to do... (0.00 / 0)
on Obama's behalf? 

The most important thing you can do in a political campaign (4.00 / 1)
Send emails!

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Gah (0.00 / 0)
And here I was, just yesterday, saying they wouldn't be able to do it: http://openleft.com/... That'll teach me to try to make predictions.

You, on the other hand, were spot on. I wonder if this and the "Most Liberal Senator" ranking will move any significant numbers of votes among white liberals.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


i love you samL (0.00 / 0)
It's not easy to admit error, so thanks for doing it.  seriously, thanks, it raises the level of discourse.

[ Parent ]
Cheer up (0.00 / 0)
I wrote a whole blog entry on why this was a bad thing for MoveOn to do -- succinctly because keeping a movement in being to push whoever the nominee is to the left is more important then jumping into the primary.

But that isn't where the people are -- as usual, gotta get used to ordinary folks' priorities.

Can it happen here?


[ Parent ]
A Joke! (4.00 / 4)
What a joke!  Obama gets rewarded for skipping out on the MoveOn vote while Clinton gets no credit for standing up for them.  Sigh.

Or... (4.00 / 1)
Perhaps MoveOn.org members accepted Obama's explanation for not voting on it.

Or perhaps they focused on something more relevant when deciding who to vote for.


[ Parent ]
Not much is more relevant than (0.00 / 0)
standing up for those who stand up for you. They're following some blowing breeze just like I'd expect from some chicken shit leftist organization.

[ Parent ]
Move on Endorsement (4.00 / 1)
Ralph B your remarks are sour grapes.

If this organization had endorsed Hillary your view would have been different.

The vote was not even close.

I believe their vote was based on the Iraq war and Hillary's vote.


[ Parent ]
Obama: Iraq funding, leadership (0.00 / 0)
Where has that been?  Clinton made a terrible mistake, but Obama--the man with "judgment"--voted the same as her on providing a blank check for the invasion.  As a senator, e never led in any way against the invasion--until 2007.  Even that famous 2002 speech was politically advantageous since he was running in a liberal, anti-war district.  Why is he not held accountable for his voting record and cowardice, especially considering that she's running on a stronger, more progressive platform than he is?  I just don't get MoveOn at all.

[ Parent ]
Are you clairvoyant? (0.00 / 0)
How on earth do you know what Ralph B's motives are?

[ Parent ]
Sounds like you want to dissolve the electorate (0.00 / 0)
And get a new one.

Obama explained that he thought the whole Move-On censure vote was cs and he wouldn't participate, wouldn't give it more oxygen.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
C'mon. That's childish (0.00 / 0)
Just because someone stands up for me doesn't mean I have to stand up for them.

That's Bush's way of thinking.  That's bully thinking.

If you've done something shamefully, wicked bad, there's no way I'm standing up for you.  It's sophomoric.


[ Parent ]
Childish. Really. (0.00 / 0)
MoveOn's foolish decision to back a candidate in the primaries is childish and vain.

And where do you come off branding Hillary Clinton as satan's right hand?

Now that's childish as well as sub-rational. A twofer.


[ Parent ]
Call for Change isn't new (0.00 / 0)
During the 2004 campaign, MoveOn used a Call for Change type of program on behalf of John Kerry -- it may have been called something else, but it was the same principle.

The MoveOn precinct walk lists and organization was better than the Democratic Party's, at least in my neighborhood. They targeted new and low frequency voters, but at least they had a plan -- I volunteered for both, and MoveOn seemed more organized than the Dems.


Mistake (0.00 / 0)
As a Moveon member, I think getting involved in the Dem primary is a big mistake. Maybe if they'd done it for somebody like Kucinich it would have made more sense. What we'll get now is just more division, and more lasting division, among Democratic voters. It also hands Clinton a golden opportunity to bring up the Betray Us ad and tie it to Obama.

To me, the meta thought here is that the Wisdom of the Instant Mob is no substitute for "elitist" strategic thinking.


Clinton (4.00 / 5)
voted no on condemning Moveon, Obama didn't vote. Don't really see how she can attack him from the Right there.

On the other hand, it is a strategic mistake because of what Chris said earlier. It sends the signal that politicians can walk all over the group, and that voting with the group gets you nothing.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
It wouldn't make sense for Clinton to... (0.00 / 0)
bring up the ad, considering that she voted against the censure of Move On.  It would look like she was grasping at straws (not to mention, throwing the left under the bus...). 

[ Parent ]
John McCain will bring it up (0.00 / 0)
so will Romney.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Three words: Bring it on. (4.00 / 3)


[ Parent ]
I think it helps Obama vs McCain (0.00 / 0)
Romney has more weasel-like characteristics and might be able to squirm a bit more effectively on the Iraq issue.

Obama will need a good plan for countering this attack - because that Betray-Us ad has now been pinned to his campaign.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Disagree (4.00 / 1)
C'mon -- her campaign is brilliant at dropping the meme without having it stick to her. I guarantee "sources" will be pointing out the connection, and the media will pick it up. If you recall, the political liberal/left was scared to death of the whole issue. I don't like Clinton much, but her vote against censure was courageous and should have been rewarded with at least neutrality.

[ Parent ]
These are two different conversations (4.00 / 2)
I agree with you, to a point, on the second argument (if Obama had voted for censure instead of refusing to dignify the process with a vote, I would fully agree). 

But in terms of the Clinton campaign's ability to turn this into a negative for Obama, I don't see it.  I don't see how it hurts him with people who haven't already decided to vote for Clinton (i.e. people who are hawkish, and who think she was more-or-less in the right with her AUMF vote).  He needs to do well with "liberal" and "very liberal" voters, and a smear campaign against Move On would, if anything, help his chances in this regard (I think). 


[ Parent ]
MoveOn's Huge Mistake (0.00 / 0)
I agree with DaveW, the MoveOn endorsement is criminally stupid.

The implication that the entire 'membership' was involved was a lie, only a subset of about 280,000 people were asked to vote. To my knowledge, no one was asked whether it was advisable to make an endorsement.

This act will only divide liberal activists and degrade MoveOn's influence in the future.  

A real irony is that Clinton voted against the Senate's censure of MoveOn.  So much for loyalty.

This really exposes the type of people who run MoveOn. It ain't pretty.

I will never again make a contribution to MoveOn.

Blogs and activist organizations should stay out of the endorsement business and instead promote party unity after the convention and then get on with the vital business of preventing another Republican from further desecrating the White House.

Anyway, I prefer Atrios' "endorsement"

Unity '08
Tancredo/Sharpton

That's some ticket that Unity '08

It's the best there is

*


[ Parent ]
I think wow is the word. (4.00 / 2)
This is such a huge turn around for rank and file democrats. This is the base being the leadership.

=This is I think the push over the top.

Its Obama in '08 for the Democrats.

I am excited to wait for who will be the VP.

Please Barak, pick a candidate that emphasizes your vision and the coalition you represent. Do not balance for old-style  politics. Go green.

Ha ha --pick Gore!

Go Obama / Gore 08! (seriously)

(Just think what Gore could do from a Cheney enhanced Vice Presidential Office.
Just think what Gore, the winner of his election, could do for the ticket too.)

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


Agree on Gore for V-P (4.00 / 2)
Picking Gore would be a real insurance policy for Obama like Cheney is for Bush, and he could have the environmental portfolio, speaking of course on the same page as Obama.  I think this would be a great ticket.  Al would only have to campaign for 3 months and get into a position of real leadership, given the foreign and domestic problems that Obama will face.  Plus it would go so far to convince the rest of the world that the US is back in the world.

There is no constitutional impediment, btw.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Can one be VP for 3 terms? (0.00 / 0)
Not that I think Gore would agree to such a thing, but does the term limit apply to VP?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
No. Gore is ok. (4.00 / 1)
The 22nd Amendment is solely about the office of President.  That's why I fear that Romney or another nominee would pick Cheney.

But McCain will pick Huckabee.  He doesn't like Cheney.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Goodbye, MoveOn (4.00 / 2)
I sent an email yesterday pleading with them to stay neutral, but my voice is a lonely one. I have cancelled my meager monthly contribution to MoveOn, and I will no longer act on their action alerts. This disappoints me.

Barack Obama was too chicken shit to show up for the Senate vote condemning MoveOn, and Senator Clinton stood with them. Some thanks. Glitz and sizzle over substance, I suppose, but it's wrong.


MoveOn, Not Worthy of Support (4.00 / 1)
I agree rickroberts. I sent MoveOn a comment expressing my anger and asked they remove me from their email list.

I will never again make a contribution to MoveOn.

It's been a real disappointment that this primary season has exposed so much bitterness and sub-rational hatred.

I believe that certain blogs (especially Dailykos) and activist organizations like MoveOn have damaged themselves permanently.


[ Parent ]
Well, clearly I disagreed (4.00 / 1)
And was hoping that no one would reach the 66.7% threshold, thus resulting in no endorsement. However, I also accept democratic decisions in groups where I am a member, so I'll go canvass for Obama in Delaware tomorrow, and maybe New Jersey on Monday.

I still can't shake the feeling that by endorsing Obama, we are throwing ourselves under the bus. He seems just as likely to refer to grassroots progressives as engaging in 1970's anti-military love-ins as he is to accept their endorsement. As someone who was attacked pretty severely in the media for an activism campaign I started (Googlebomb), I have absolutely no faith that Obama would come to bat any more for me than be did for MoveOn. And if someone won't stand up for us, throwing our support behind him in a primary campaign just feels very wrong.

I agree (0.00 / 0)
After reading this story in the NYT about Obama's opposition to help from special interests, I don't know how he does anything other than condemn everything Move On does on his behalf.  Not to mention that they are the positioned somewhere to the left of the Socialist Worker's Party in mainstream American consciousness.  His reaction will be interesting to see.

[ Parent ]
Obama reaction (0.00 / 0)
From a MoveOn email:

As we were about to click "send" we received the following response from Senator Obama. We wanted to share it with you: "In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. From their principled opposition to the Iraq war-a war I also opposed from the start-to their strong support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows what Americans can achieve when we come together in a grassroots movement for change. I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead."


[ Parent ]
That's fantastic - good for him n/t (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Kool Aid Overload (0.00 / 0)
So your precious innocent will accept help from "special interests" after all.

Now that you've digested that you might want to take a stroll to www.opensecrets.org to see where Obama gets his campaign loot.  Hint: It ain't from hordes of little donors at least not the real lucre.

Trivia: Same sources as Clinton and in roughly the same amounts.


[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.00 / 2)
Honestly, I don't understand the logic behind this at all.  Clinton and Obama are overwhelmingly political twins in terms of their voting record.  Clinton's domestic policies are more progressive, considerably stronger than his (e.g., health care, economic stimulus).  Is it truly Iraq?  Again, they have identical voting records on that issue (with one exception: Clinton voting against the Mukasey nomination; Obama not there).

Clinton even stood up for them, while Obama ducked the issue.  Obama doesn't stand any more chance of winning in a landslide against McCain than Clinton does (They both run about even against him).

I just don't get this--at all.  I don't see how this was based on anything other than bias or the belief that somehow in spite of the polls Obama will be a "game changer" for the Democrats in '08.


Anti-war (0.00 / 0)
Obama fits their anti-war, creative class profile.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

[ Parent ]
style (0.00 / 0)
It isn't a matter of policy.  It is a matter of style. 

Democrats like honesty and they don't get that with clinton.  They want to be the good people.  They don't want to support someone using reprehensible tactics to get ahead.


[ Parent ]
It is partly generational (4.00 / 2)
People old enough to PERSONALLY remember the hope of the Kennedy years, that is, to a politics pre-Gingrich and Clinton and Bush, understand what Obama is trying to do, IMHO, as do younger people for whom, as Dave Eggers said, hope is the only horse they have in the race.

It is a real testament to how cynical and depressing politics has been for the last 20-25 years that it is so hard for those in the middle group to overcome their cynicism and resignation that they will be thrown under the bus.  But thanks for following a democratic vote, Chris.  Just remember how good Obama is on things like transparency and new media and all the stuff you understand so well.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
thanks (0.00 / 0)
for putting my thoughts into words, Mimikatz.  I am torn between betting on the hope that Obama is different vs. my cynical side which thinks he might be worse.

I am going with my hope side because otherwise I will feel futile and depressed.  If Obama wins it and doesn't represent his voters any better.....well I will be depressed.  But then angry. 

The consolation will be the knowledge that there is other voters like me who are demanding more (whether they get it or not).


[ Parent ]
You Can't Speak For People Who Were There (0.00 / 0)
Mimkatz, I've read so many comments from people like you who GUESS at history.

I'm 65 and was looking forward to casting my first ever vote for Kennedy in the '64 election. I was there. I have to tell you that Obama is NO JFK despite what brother Edward says.  His endorsement has more to do with infighting at the highest levels of the party than any resemblence to JFK.  So far as Caroline is concerned she was too young to remember anything that her father did politically.

If you're looking for inspiring Kennedy stuff, it's really all around you, maybe you missed RFK Jr's endorsement of Clinton.

The rancor of the last quarter century can be laid directly at the feet of the Conservative Movement.  Their relentless war on what was once called the vital center (the general consensus about what government would do) has brought about divisions in this country that haven't been experienced since the civil war.

The reason for all the partisan wrangling is because the basic sides are so far apart and they're far apart because of the strident, relentless, power for power's sake political right and their attempt to castrate government.

Barack Obama will not be able to do anything to change that situation and clever, glib rhetoric doesn't mean anything.  Controlling both houses of Congress and the White House and a willingness to do take no prisoners battle is the only way to establish a new consensus and reduce the partisan rancor. As Mr. Jefferson wrote to Mr. Smith: the tree of liberty must be refreshed ... That new consensus will be opposed by the right with every bit of strength they can muster.

There is one area though where Obama (IF he's nominated and elected - a very big IF) might resemble JFK.  Like JFK, Obama would also fail to get his agenda through Congress, especially if he wants to be Mr. Reconciliation.


[ Parent ]
The Irony! (4.00 / 1)
Moveon, if you'll remember, was founded in response to Bill Clinton's then-pending impeachment.

I guess supporting one Clinton was enough for 'em.

OK, I voted for Obama, too.


I'm never coming here again (4.00 / 1)
Stoller your anti-Clinton bias is just amazing. Obama's 70.4 gets rounded up and Clinton's 29.6 is rounded down to become 29! You're not even trying to hide it anymore and I hope you enjoy your job in the Obama administration.

Hopefully that's snark (4.00 / 2)
If not, you should calm down a bit...

[ Parent ]
! (4.00 / 2)
That's the first comment I've laughed out loud at in ages! You're a funny guy.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Stoller's a shoo-in for VP (4.00 / 1)
I know if I was Obama no reward would be too great for someone who scammed me an extra six tenths of a percent, thus saving me from getting merely a 70 percent majority.

[ Parent ]
The MoveOn poll didn't allow for "None of the Above" (0.00 / 0)
I wonder how many MoveOn members failed to return their poll because it only allowed voting for either Hillary or Obama and neglected to offer a "None of the Above" choice. I know I didn't return mine. Frankly, I was rather pissed when I saw only two choices and emailed them back about it. For all we know, the majority of MoveOn members wanted to sit out the primary without an endorsement. We'll never know now.

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

Fix the grammar mistake in the thread title (0.00 / 0)
I canceled my membership in MoveOn today as a result of this endorsement.  Can't believe the organization endorsed the guy who didn't show up to support MoveOn when they were attacked by the right, especially when Clinton was there fighting.

If this is the way "post-politics" works, I don't want any.


I call foul! (0.00 / 0)
I am a (soon to be ex, if I have anything to do with it) Moveon member who was sent a ballot to vote.  Frankly, since the decision to have this vote was only announced last minute and only really through email, and I was busy working this week and didn't check the email account I gave to moveon, I didn't have a chance to vote.

Anyway, this afternoon I received an email from moveon announcing that Obama had won the vote and the endorsement.  In that email, moveon claims that 197,444 people voted for Obama, while 83,084 voted for Clinton.  That comes out to a total number of votes of 280,528.

Now, Moveon claims to have 3.2 million members.  By my reckoning, that means that less than 10% of Moveon members voted!! 

I'm sorry, but this is disgusting.  How can they claim that Moveon members endorse a candidate when less than 10% of said members even had a say in the decision. 

This smells like a cheap stunt of someone in the leadership of the organization.  I'm really surprised, moreover, that the media, and bloggers for that matter, didn't look into the percentages.  Very sloppy.


6.2% not 71% (0.00 / 0)
Your headline is a bald-faced lie.  You added 1% to MoveOn's own phony results, but that's not the biggest problem.  When you actually run the claimed vote for Obama against the claimed membership, you get 6.2%.

As another commenter noted, less than 10% voted.  She pointed out the short turnaround, but there's a much more sinister reason.  Only two alternatives were provided, Obama and Clinton.  There was no way to vote for another candidate or for no endorsement.

My guess is that more MoveOn members are for another candidate or no endorsement than voted for Obama.  MoveOn arranged to get the decision already made top-down apparently ratified only by disenfranchising large numbers of their members.  The poll required a 2/3 vote.  There's no way Obama would have got that if more options had been allowed.  He was only 3% over it as it was.

See also MoveOn's 6.2% Landslide at http://www.opednews.com/articl...

Bill Samuel Silver Spring, Maryland, USA


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
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search