Clinton and Moveon

by: Matt Stoller

Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:35


By now you've probably heard that Hillary Clinton was on tape dissing Moveon.  It's from a few months ago at a private fundraiser, but here's the quote.

"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."

I love that Clinton is granting so much credit to Moveon and the activist base, explicitly saying that we are why she is losing.  That's a concession towards our political power that I wouldn't expect, and it's welcome.  Here's Moveon's response.

"Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."

What I find interesting is how Clinton insists that she does not agree with Moveon with regards to foreign policy.  What exactly she mean by that?  I know she hasn't apologized for her Iraq war vote, and that her surrogates seem to think that is purely tactical.  This seems to belie that analysis; Clinton really doesn't think her vote was wrong and does not see the importance of a political consensus for a different foreign policy apparatus.  And that's why she thinks Moveon is such a problem.

Matt Stoller :: Clinton and Moveon

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Clinton and Moveon | 56 comments
Reinforces my beliefs that Hillary will do or say anything (4.00 / 11)
It is remarkable that her comments come as a surprise to anyone after the past 3 months.  You would think that any democratic candidate would want to cultivate the progressive netroots groups like Move on or Act Blue.  However to Hillary it seems that they are not part of "her" democratic party. Ironically, Moveon was established to defend her husband against the impeachment proceedings in the 90's. If you read her statement, you would think that it was Joe Lieberman or Karl Rove talking to a bunch of wingnuts. Like misquoting actual facts on MoveOn's position Afghanistan. And in her statement making excuses and blaming people in her own party as to why she is not doing well in some races.  Doesn't she realize, that she has to win over a MAJORITY of people in her party including groups like MoveOn and Act Blue.

I voted for Bill Clinton 2x and supported gore and Kerry.  I am continually astonished at the train wreck that has become the Clinton campaign.  At this point, the nomination is pretty gone, unless Obama makes a complete FU. What Bill and Hillary are working on now is completely destroying what ever legacy they would have in the party.  I don't see how they offer Majority Leader to her after ALL of the crap that they have pulled.  It is disgraceful.

Hopefully the end will now come sooner than later, as most democrats will come to view her tactics as poison for our party, and our chances in November against old man McCain.

Speaking of Lieberman... (4.00 / 5)
   ...I'm sure everyone here remembers his Senate floor speech condemning Bill Clinton for the Monica affair, which gave Democrats the "moral cover" to pursue the witch hunt.

  Meanwhile, MoveOn and other progressive groups organized to defend Bill.

  Since then, Bill Clinton has stumped for Joe Lieberman in Connecticut when Holy Joe got challenged by an actual Democrat, and Hillary Clinton has trashed an organization that stood by her husband in his darkest hour.

  Do DLCers have ANY self-respect at all?

  Lord help us if this craven opportunist gets the nomination.

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

[ Parent ]
Hillary Clinton jumped the shark a long time ago.... (0.00 / 0)
Kos realized it (albeit a bit late). Others realized it. But many netroots bloggers (including those on this site) took a lot longer to come around to it. They were giving Clinton WAY too much credit.

Chris Bowers even thought that Clinton would agree to a "fair deal" with Florida and Michigan. Well it's now become clear that a "fair deal" for Clinton means counting 0 votes for Obama in Michigan. She would never agree to any other deal.

Clinton jumped the shark a long time ago, but her long-time supporters are just now being able to come to terms with it. I understand, its like watching someone you once revered slowly self-destruct before your eyes. Very tough. We saw some bloggers like Mike Lux here lament having to make this decision.  

Hopefully this will remove any doubts that any of her loyal followers once had about jumping ship. The only people that will remain are the ones that follow her blindly like the 26% of people left who still approve of Bush.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
Matt nails it (4.00 / 1)
The crux of the statement is that MoveOn and we activists don't agree with her views on foreign policy and Iraq.  She really doesn't think her vote on iraq was wrong and she won;t end the war.  It's that simple.

Forget the small towns; how will this play in the Philly suburbs, which would seem to be MoveOn country, if they are anything like the suburbs here?

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

[ Parent ]
2005 (4.00 / 2)
That is when MoveOn clarified their Afghanistan position when Rove made his statement. Frankly as a long time member of MoveOn who has volunteered for them many times I couldn't remember what their position was if asked last week about it. And I certainly had forgotten about the dustup in 2005.

To bash Clinton for not knowing what I and many people here I am sure could not have answered themselves a week ago is grasping at straws and fabricating something for "political gain" as Obama would put it. You should all be ashamed of doing the same thing you bash others for. Seriously you should.

In fact as always the opinions of MoveOn members on such matters always differ - some would have been for going to Afghanistan as I was and some would have not.

The same stands true for this primary - some members support Clinton, some support Obama, and some supported earlier candidates like Edwards who dropped out.

Moveon is not made up of a monolithic lock-step opinion. Far from it and MoveOn know that which is why they always poll their members.

Clinton spoke the truth about Caucasus and even Chris here has addminted that Caucuses are not the most democratic method for a state to choose a candidate. In fact they are the least democratic method when compared top primaries and not a person here can make a good case against that comment.

Obama always tries to play the card saying people are doing things for "political gain'. And I take it most of you buy into that message. But yet here you are being hypocrites. Shame on you.

[ Parent ]
I wonder if she even knows the origins of that which she bashes (0.00 / 0)
No person here can make a good case against caucuses being less democratic than primaries because there isn't one. That is not the point. Everyone knew before the campaign started that they were part of the nominating process and Obama took advantage of that. If there had just been primaries he would have changed his strategy accordingly. She might have had a point if they had uttered a single complaint before voting started but the situation is similar to MI/FL - they had no problem there either until they started losing.
[ Parent ]
??? (4.00 / 1)
"No person here can make a good case against caucuses being less democratic than primaries because there isn't one."

I can. Chris Bowers has as I said in my post. In fact he has commented on that many times here. Others have made the case too so you are just flat out wrong on that. In fact if you by yourself cannot see and figure out how caucuses are less democratic than primaries then you need some serious lessons in democracy.

[ Parent ]
Read that again dude (0.00 / 0)
I was agreeing with you.
[ Parent ]
My apologies (0.00 / 0)
I'm working on a deadline this morning and shouldn't even be looking at this blog. But while taking a coffee break I read the MoveOn post and had to respond. I simply read your post too fast and missed you point. My error.
[ Parent ]
No problem (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
WTF??? (0.00 / 0)
you guys were not agreeing. What the hell is going on here. When can we start troll rating Super Delegate?

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
I agree with Super Delegate that caucuses are inherently less democratic (4.00 / 1)
than primaries. That is all.
[ Parent ]
well thats not what you wrote... (0.00 / 0)
do you think that NOT COUNTING the states that CHOOSE the caucus system is Democratic?

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
Where did I say that? (0.00 / 0)
I said a primary is more democratic than a caucus but that it is irrelevant because both sides new the rules at the start of the campaign. So of course you count caucus results.
[ Parent ]
You needed to put your first sentence in quotes, (0.00 / 0)
otherwise it appears that YOU were making that statement.  Equally important was your second premise: that the problem with caucuses is irrelevant because the point of fact is that all players understood caucuses were part of the nominating process---and they knew it before the nominating process began.
[ Parent ]
Move on (4.00 / 2)
Wow, talk about, "biting the hand that feeds you"? Mrs. Clinton has finally painted herself in the (last) corner. She has run-out of excuses for her poor performance, now She blames Move-On for her uninspired walk through the primaries. As a early supporter ($$$$) of her campaign, and of Bill's presidency, I cant help to feel sorry for her and her husband, it's very sad.

MoveOn... (4.00 / 2)
   ...came into existence as an organization dedicated to defending Bill Clinton from the Republican impeachment witch hunt. That's the source of its name -- "censure and move on".

 This is how she pays them back. How classy. Imagine if this rage were directed at John McCain.

 Hillary's comments on MoveOn, I would think, are the final nail in the coffin for the apologists who continue to insist that she's a progressive at heart. Leaving aside the fact that if she'd bothered to campaign as a progressive, she'd be coasting to the nomination right now, one would think that any Democrat with a brain in his head and an ounce of intellectual honesty about him would stop making excuses for her and disavow her for good.

 Hillary Clinton is not a Democrat. She is not a progressive. She does not stand for or speak for the public interest.

 If Hillary Clinton manages to finagle the nomination, I might have to leave the top of the ballot blank, for the first time in my life. I don't vote for Republicans.  

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

Great post except the last paragraph. (4.00 / 1)
No matter how bad it gets in our primary, any repiglican, I repeat any repiglican is far far worse than McSame. I have made a promise to my self and my children's children, America and the Planet to do everything I can to put a DEMOCRAT in office. As was made all to obvious in 2000 any protest vote or NON-vote is a defacto vote for the REPIGLICANS. Do you want endless war, a SCUS packed with Scalias, Privatized Social security, outlawed unions? These are just a few of the things that awaits America if we don't win!
[ Parent ]
For Clinton to earn my vote... (4.00 / 1)
  ...she has to convince me that she'll be different enough from McCain to make her worth putting into office.

  I know McCain wants endless war, a SCOTUS packed with right-wing loons, privatized social security and weak unions. The problem is that the evidence that Hillary has any different vision for America gets weaker every day.

  If she wants to regain the trust of progressives (and other core Democratic voters, like African-Americans), then she's got her work cut out for her.  

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

[ Parent ]
And the last time around, (4.00 / 1)
Under Bill, we got NAFTA, the "end of welfare as we know it," don't ask--don't tell, the collapse of any possibility of health insurance for us masses, and a Republican Congress. What good came out of his administration except a balanced budget and a surplus (which isn't exactly a typical Democratic objective and is maybe more due to Ross Perot's charts anyhow)?

Yes, I'll vote for the Democrat, whomever, but I don't expect anything better from a Hillary Clinton White House than from Bill's. I'm not surprised by this attack on the only people to mobilize support for Bill when he needed it.

[ Parent ]
"You'll eat your shit sandwich again this year--and like it!" (0.00 / 0)
Did you notice that you Freudian slipped and said McSame where you meant to say Hillary?
[ Parent ]
No one dictates my vote (0.00 / 0)
As unlikely as it is that I would ever support Sen. McCain with my vote it is equally unlikely I will let my party tell me who to vote for.  At best, primaries narrow the field of viable candidates; at worse they work together to perpetuate entrenched political figures and ideologies.  In this primary season we have two viable candidates who represent preservation of the old political machinery and ideologies; we have one new face who may represent the drive to invoke change.

When it comes time to cast my vote in the general election I alone will be responsible for my vote.

[ Parent ]
It's Too funny (4.00 / 1)
how people here forget that when the Senate voted whether to censure MoveOn for their NYT Petraeus ad that it was Clinton who voted NO for the censure while Obama didn't have the guts to vote at all.

Yet Clinton supposedly hates MoveOn while Obama not only didn't vote for them he has distanced himself from the blogosphere and the label Liberal or Progressive - both of which have been discussed on these pages.

[ Parent ]
not "supposedly" (0.00 / 0)
Clinton said herself she doesn't agree with MoveOn. On what exactly? We don't know. We would hope she agreed with them about her husbands blowjob. We know she agrees with them about Afghanistan. So the only thing left is to think she doesn't agree with them about IRAQ.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
She also doesn't agree with their (0.00 / 0)
support for Obama.  That is the crux of her position and behavior toward many people and organizations who support her opponent.  Petty..., just plain petty behavior.
[ Parent ]
Hoe does she agree (0.00 / 0)
with MoveOn about Afghanistan?

MoveOn claims they were not against Afghanistan but they were. A litllte research proves that. Their previous explanations back in 2005 were less than truthful because they did on fact circulate a petition that didn't support going into Afghanistan.

Here is an archive of the actual petition:

http://web.archive.org/web/200...

Here is a link from an old online article mentioning the MoveOn petition (scroll about 1/2 way down):

http://findarticles.com/p/arti...

And her is a link from a Peace Site that links to a now removed MoveOn page with the petition. Again go about 1/2 way down to the links and look under the letter J:

http://www.positivepractices.c...

There are plenty of other links online also in email archives and such.

So I am afraid that MoveOn didn't tell the entire truth about this and in fact Clinton was right that MoveOn was against an attack. I'm not judging if that was right or wrong to be against it but that is not the issue here. The issues was did they circulate a petition saying they were against the attack and they no doubt were.

[ Parent ]
What's changed? (4.00 / 1)
She's no longer the front runner for the nomination.

When the going gets tough, she instinctively starts trashing and undermining the progressive base.  Both Clintons do it as easily and naturally as breathing, it seems.

[ Parent ]
You forget (4.00 / 1)
that Obama runs from the word Liberal and progressive as has been written about on these front pages. He also says he does not bother to read blogs as has been written about here.

As for Clinton she is rated #18 overall out of 100 Senators for being Progressive. Votes are what matter not talk.

Obama is #24. that is less of a rating than Clinton.

If you want to see how Clinton rates in some of the individual categories then look at this link and the post it takes you to and a couple of mine underneath that.

[ Parent ]
Hillary is in deep trouble with the base with this one. (0.00 / 0)
Frankly I'm more depressed than suprised. The Clintons have deep roots in the DLC mind set. When it comes to foreign policy they believe the more they can out Liberman lieberman the better. I truly am disheartened when a Clinton, someone we Democrats held with such high esteem has too often sunk to using Repiglican talking points against a fellow Democrat. Sad, sad sad
but the question is...are you surprised...after the last 3 months (4.00 / 7)
It started wit the SC whispers and Bill...then it went to she and McCain had passed the Commander in Chief threshold, but Obama gave a speech.  Time and time again, the Clinton campaign is using the same tactics that the republicans and Lee Atwater have perfected over the past 30 years.  Finally they turn on their own.  This is akin to shitting on your family...and she just doesn't get it.  If you would have told me that  I would be writing this about Bill and Hillary Clinton 6 months ago, I would have said you were crazy.  It is sad.  Very sad...
This is a pretty good sumation of how I feel (0.00 / 0)
Obama was actually my third choice behind Edwards and then Hillary. Since Super Tuesday I have become more and more impressed with him while my attitude towards her has now hit rock bottom. If she somehow ends up with the nomination now it is going to take some willpower to even keep an interest in this election. In the final analysis though McCain has to be defeated and I would reluctantly support her but I won't like it one bit.
[ Parent ]
My question too: What EXACTLY are her disagreements with the (0.00 / 0)
activists of the Democratic Party Base? I hope someone in the press asks her this question at every opportunity.
She wants the war to continue (0.00 / 0)
Because she's a very serious person, and like the others in the know, she has to have it continue so she never has to say she was wrong.  If we stay there long enough, somedsay things will be ok.  The difference between her and McCain is that at that point she'd leave and he'd stay.

Anyone remember her embrace of Arafat's wife?  She learned her lesson on that one.

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

[ Parent ]
No lemonade to be made from these lemons (0.00 / 0)
She'll have to settle for making manure from shit.

Not really sure what she can do on this one. It plays into all of her negative memes: hypocritical, untrustworthy, ruthless, and lost cause.

Oh yeah, and 'conservative' n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Netroots Thugs (2.00 / 4)
Whatever Clinton thinks about the activist base, it pales in comparison to the vile attacks launched daily at her and her supporters by MoveOn, Kos, and the netroots.

Remember, it was Clinton who had the spine to send Wolfson on O'Reilly to defend Kos. Remember, too, that it was who Clinton voted against censuring MoveOn, while Obama skipped out of the Senate just minutes before the vote was held.

Yet, despite these efforts, Clinton has received nothing but scorn from these thugs.

Further, Clinton supporters are quite familiar with the nastiness and small-mindedness of the netroot's thought-police.

We have been threatened, attacked, and banned across the internet from the beginning of this campaign. The bullying of Clinton supporting caucus-goers is well-documented. They believe that they alone can judge who is and isn't a "real Democrat", and woe to those who dare to advocate against or exercise their right to vote contrary to their draconian precepts.

I cannot speak for how Clinton really feels about the activist base. As for this life-long Democrat, they've done little to earn my respect, and much to earn my disdain.

Well, you're welcome here ;-) (4.00 / 3)
Of course this is the pro-Obama netroots, too so I guess you're calling us a bunch of draconian vile spillers but that's okay. We can take it :-)
[ Parent ]
Vile attacks? (0.00 / 0)
Have you read MyDD? Bans? I recall a ridiculous ''strike'' over at Kos but I doubt any Clinton supporter has been banned without good reason. Wolfson going on O'Reilly was appreciated at the time but they have shown their true colors since. I have seen the most absurd spin I think I have ever seen in any political campaign come from her supporters and the only threats I have seen have been people saying they will vote for McCain if Hillary doesn't get what is owed her. The only people who have lost my respect during all this have been the Clintons and their minions.
[ Parent ]
Don't forget Taylor Marsh .. and TalkLeft ... (4.00 / 1)
they are even worse than MyDD
[ Parent ]
So Far Into Denial... (0.00 / 0)
about Barack Obama that you can't even see it. You can't even admit his serious errors of judgment. Man, I can't believe that progressive voices have fallen right down the rabbit hole for this unvetted, arrogant question mark who has little in the way of national credentials to serve as POTUS, and who has been so seriously not vetted nobody has any clue what or who he is.

Even during the 60s progressives were smarter than this! The way I see it you're pounding the nail into the Dems coffin, big-time in November, by buying into Obama's hype.

And then, here's what's rich: You talk about the hatred in the pro-HRC blogs! I just don't know what to say, except WOW.

[ Parent ]
The self-pity (4.00 / 3)
brings back decades of hearing exactly the same kind of whining from rightwingers, starting back in high school with the Young Republicans. Why can't you speak for how Clinton feels about the activist base? She's made it clear that she despises them and is willing to lie about their stance on Afghanistan. Or do you think she's just making stuff up again?

Seriously, give an example of something Obama said that even comes close to Clinton's statement that the US would be safer with McCain than with Obama in the White House. As another lifelong Democrat, I started this primary season happy that I could cheer for any of the candidates. That changed as time went on, entirely because of Clinton's channeling of GOP talking points and total indifference to what she was doing to her party's prospects in the coming election. The time has come to ask, do we really want somebody THIS desperate as our president?

[ Parent ]
That's the heart of the matter (4.00 / 3)
  Hillary Clinton was never my first choice, but as late as last December I would have been OK with her as the nominee.

 Then she started praising John McCain, courting right-wing media, and launching attacks on Obama from the right. She gave me no positive reason to vote FOR her. Just beware-of-the-scary-black-radical crap.

 That did it for me. I had no problem with Hillary competing for the nomination as long as she had a mathematical chance to win it, but when she started employing Republican arguments to weaken Obama (and don't get me started on that "Rove will do it too" canard -- these attacks are FAR more damaging when they come out of the mouths of putative Democrats), it became obvious that Hillary's campaign wasn't about winning the White House for the Democrats this fall, but about the DLC desperately trying to retain control of the party apparatus.

 At that point, Hillary became just another Republican shill to me. Because that's what DLCers are.

 

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

[ Parent ]
What a surprise.... (0.00 / 0)
Clinton picking up a Rove talking point to attack millions of Democratic activists. Whoda thunk? Actually I wouldn't have, half a year ago when I still respectfully disagreed with her. Now she's descended into Lieberman land. Maybe they can do a joint keynote at the GOP convention. Maybe McCain will have a heart attack and she can become their emergency replacement. Worth a try when you're as desperate as Hillary.

I wonder if she cares at all that she would still be in the Senate minority party except for MoveOn and other evil Democratic activists working their asses off to elect more (and not always better, as it turns out) Democrats last year.

I joined MoveOn when it formed to push back against the impeachment move by --you'd think ironically-- Rove and the gang. Now I'm starting to wish the impeachment had succeeded. By cleaning house after Bill's shameless irresponsibility, we might never have had Bush in the oval office. So to that extent, maybe MoveOn and its allies do owe the nation a mea culpa.

Her journey to the dark side is now complete. (2.00 / 2)
It's official -- she is a Republican..
She was once .. (4.00 / 2)
a Goldwater girl .. so it's more like a circle .. if you believe that she is no longer a Dem ... I just think that they are really made because she wasn't coronated .. like her and her top supporters(meaning DLC'ers) thought they should be
[ Parent ]
That is just rude (0.00 / 0)
I'm sorry but the Clintons are obviously NOT Republicans by any measure of votes, positions and policy.

That's just beyond the pale rude behavior and is completely disrespectful of the good things they have done.

No, they are certainly not Progressive enough or Populist enough for me (although Hillary has so many policy plans and positions that truly have moved far in that direction, which is a damn good thing).

But she is NOT a Lieberman or a Melissa Bean
or a Zell Miller

The primary is in a nutshell, neck and neck.  That means ~50% of the Democratic voters support Hillary.

To try to make that kind of a statement not only is absurd by any metric, it alienates a huge percentage of the Democratic party members, never mind is a turn off to independents and cross-over Republican voters.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Voters (0.00 / 0)
"We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. "

Translation:  This election is great, except for the voters.  

Don't worry, Hillary, if you can convince enough superdelegates to join you it won't matter what those pesky voters think.

Obama certainly is good for the netroots (0.00 / 0)
That being said Clinton certainly does not view herself as part of the democratic party.  To her it is merely one competing interest that might help her win.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
MoveOn (0.00 / 0)
MoveOn's move to endorse an unvetted candidate was stupid, effectively helping to divide Democrats and worse to reduce its own effectiveness as a progressive organization.  At some point MoveOn should publicly admit its mistake and work to support all candidates.  If McInane wins in November MoveOn and Dean will be amongst those who are primarily responsible for that loss, and will be correctly identified as such by history.
1968/1972 (4.00 / 1)
Frankly I have to agree with Clinton on this one.  Some of the blogs are absolutely out of control.  The misogyny, the hatred of Hillary is just plain uncalled for and I believe is going to guarantee a McCain win in the general and it will not be Hillary's fault.  Nope, it's this constant rude, misogynistic hatred, and frankly originating from some blogs (not this one, Openleft is fairly rationale).

The MSM too constantly is ripping Hillary a new one frankly and for someone who doesn't like either candidate, both of them are not Progressive or Populist, especially on trade, but Hillary does have much stronger policy plans published and a slightly better voting record.

Yet those facts have been completely thrown out the window this entire season and for the life of me, I've yet to really find out, from policy positions, why the enthusiasm to this level for Obama and why such outright hatred for Hillary?

But, more to the point, regardless of who gets the nomination, no doubt the online left is going to blame Hillary for a McCain win but frankly, I don't think so, I think the fault will reside with this constant unacceptable, unDemocratic cultism anything goes biased posts and slams going on.

It's like no one has studied history to realize the 1968 Democratic convention turned off so many voters to the Democratic party, the result was Nixon.
Then, this constant need to push out the old FDR style Democrats with philosophies and statements that are just outside the mainstream heartland values is yet another political suicide.

People are never going to get the majority of Americans to suddenly believe in some global village mentality and to ignore national security issues, or a general feeling of Patriotism, an Americans for Americans perspective, well...let's just say over and over again, Democrats just don't get it and these groups in particular are busy alienating the majority of American voters with this crap.

Just great.  Only the war, health care, the middle class and the entire US economy are on the line here.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

I love how Hillary wants to... (0.00 / 0)
disenfranchise caucus states of having a say in the election and at the VERY SAME TIME make the argument that Obama is disenfranchising Florida and Michigan for not counting them (not his choice btw) even though she agreed to it and he didn't even have his name on the ballot.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
She can read my mind. (0.00 / 0)
Hillary says:

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.

HRC knows exactly why I didn't vote (in the caucus!) for her even though I'm not a MoveOn member - their ads suck.

I do think her 'secret' comments to donors are more closer to the mark than Obama's.  She should get a blog.

Kind of Ironic really (0.00 / 0)
They are both an assault on American populism.  Clinton is the old power elite and Moveon is the new power elite.  Those of you who think that a few grossly over simplified polls a year from Moveon constitutes using the internet as a platform for the voice of the people have missed the boat.  It does not matter that more times than not I agree with the stances that Moveon takes, they do not speak for me.  They are the clear channel communication of left politics.
I have stopped listening to Clinton (4.00 / 1)
She is no longer of consequence.
Who? (0.00 / 0)


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Too Sad (0.00 / 0)
That the left hemisphere feels so intimidated by Clinton and her staying in this race that she's branded a traitor, a Republican, and every other adjective so that the left can fully pummel her and bury both she and Bill Clinton.

For a group that talks at length about hope and unity and "transformational" politics, they/you are the most hateful, destructive, antagonistic, inauthentic, and creepy so-called progressives I have known in my 40+ years.

Really, you are no better and no different than the right wingnuts you hate so much; no better and no different at all...

Clinton and Moveon | 56 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox