Take care, Jesse.
MoveOn's endorsement? Couldn't hurt, although I can hear O'Reilly salivating.
What I'm saying is, please no more than a couple of posts from the same person about why Clinton is bad bad bad. GNB is not a place to bash people. Focus on the political implications please.
Some respectful questions. I know that Jesse will not be able to address them since he is traveling but how do other bloggers/commenters feel about this?
1. Ok I think I get what this is about but are we allowed to talk substantively about why we are so opposed to her?
I've already posted that the more emotional part of my revulsion come from the vicious racial attacks by her campaign on my people.
I understand that you don't want GNB to devolve into the choas that sites like DailyKos have become but at the same time given that politics are as much about emotion as they are about policy (like it or not) and given the absolutely disgusting tactics that have been used in the campaign so far I think that it is impossible to think that posters shouldn't or won't respond in kind.
2. Since when is GNB a place not to bash people? Are you talking about candidates or fellow posters? Because if it's about candidates there are alot of posts you would have to remove and on the political side of things LM would be practically censored. 
3. What are the political implications that you are talking about? Are you talking about those of us who have talked about not voting in Nov. if Hllary's nominated? If so you're trying to close the barn door after the horse is about 20 miles away. Perhaps a better thing to do would be to post about those political implications of the diviseness of the campaign because while we've had arguments over the idea in comments not one of the GNB bloggers IIRC, has addressed this potential problem for the Democrats in a substantive way.
Thanks.
Oh and on the subject of the Moveon's endorsement I guess I'd have to say "Meh." Why would anyone think a group that takes out a full page ad in the NY Times trashing Bush and his pet general would be for Hillary anyway.
The real endorsements most are waiting on are John Edwards' and Al Gore's.
I have just 'unsubcribed' from MoveOn and requested they remove my name from their donor list.
I think they should have stayed out of the primary, and would feel the same if they had endorsed Clinton.
The left blogosphere is doing more to splinter the Democratic party than the GOP could ever do in their wildest wet dreams.
I suppose there is an element of sour grapes since I support Hillary. (Though obviously I would not expect Move-On to choose her. That's not a criticism, she is too far to the right of them.)
Even with that acknowledged filter, I don't see it as a good "move" for them. Yes, they raised funds with it and built up an email list. But I don't see where they covered themselves with a lot of glory. One, everyone expected it. Two, it's not like this a little race where their endorsement supports a progressive down on funds.
Frankly it looks weird because there is limited difference between her and Obama on most policy questions. Yes, he trumpets his anti-war credentials but was not in the Senate for the vote. Apparently he has given conflicting arguments as to how he would have voted. After he arrived in the Senate their votes are fairly similar similar on war issues.
The best choice would have been staying out of it. An alternative - and more intriguing choice in my mind - would have been to endorse Edwards' platform.
Too much of the Obama/Hillary split has focused on personalities. (I admit my guilt here.) But that is driven in large part by their similarities. It also gets raised up by the ugly factors in our society of racism and misogyny.
That type of fight is hard to win. If you don't need to get into it, why bother? That's why this blog's owners were smart to stay out of it.
After we take our country back for a few years, we can more opening engage each other. But now it's just too damn personal.
i 2nd the "meh" on moveons endorsement, but i have to respectfully disagree w/ lectric ladys last statement in her post...to my mind it's the very distinct possibility of having such an uber-DINO as clinton be our nominee that's splintering the party...if the left blogosphere wants to point out all the well-documented ways in which hillary has betrayed democrats & sucked-up to republicans in her career, good on 'em...it's relevant, & it's what they should be doing...i guess i'm just biased, as a liberal...
That's right, Jesse. I know who I am, and I'm proud of it.
BTW, MoveOn obviously knows who Hillary Clinton is. :o)
70-30!
Al? John? :o)
My point about MoveOn is they have pulled a 'bait-and-switch.' MoveOn is supposed to promote the election of progressive candidates. No one can argue that Hillary is not progressive while Obama is. There is just not that much difference between them. MoveOn should stay out of races like this and focus on those we are running against Blue Dogs and Republicans. ALERT!!! HELLO!!! The Blue Dogs and Republicans are our enemies. Hillary, love her or hate her, is not.
When people join an organization like, say, Emily's list, they know going in that they are supporting a group that has a real bias for a subset of progressive candidates. They know where there money is going, and make a choice to spend it there.
MoveOn, to my knowledge, has never stated this kind of bias in its member recruitment. I certainly didn't hear it or read it when I signed up. I could be wrong... am I?
Is there any example of MoveOn actively supporting one progressive candidate over another?
So, I think this is a bait-and-switch. "Join us and give us lots of your bucks to support progressive candidates" has become, four days before SuperTuesday, "OOPS... what we really mean is that we still want lots of your bucks, but we will only support 'some' progressive candidates."
I expect that if MoveOn had endorsed Hillary, I would be hearing the Howls of Outrage from Obama supporters all the way up here in the sticks of Northern Wisconsin. Like I hear the howls of wolves. Hummmm.
Now I have to figure out how to get MoveOn to give back the money that I, in good faith, contributed to them. In the future I will only give my hard earned money directly to the candidates of my choice.
lectric lady, I've never been a member of MoveOn but if I can put myself in their shoes I think their vote depended on how you define a progressive and how much a person thinks the Iraq war should define Clinton's ideals.
Given MoveOn's strong opposition to the Iraq War I would think that for many of their members, the issue of her support for the war, which I think we can all agree wasn't progressive at all, would be enough to overshadow many of the other progressive issues she says she stands for.
That may seem unfair but I think it's kind of hard to say she is a progressive if on the one hand she argues for universal health care, feminist issues, environmental issues and such while on the other hand she made a decision that helped usher in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of Americans, ignited ethnic cleansing, is causing a refugee crisis and basically made the world we live in much less safe.
For many of MoveOn's members I believe those things just don't balance out.
balto-
I think you hit the nail on the head re MoveOn's endorsement - it's much about the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That's the real ball-breaker for me with HRC, and why I'm not supporting my "sister". However, I do like some of her positions on issues that seem to be more clear than Obama's.
But let's be real - both of them left standing owe their current platforms to the progressive chutzpah of John Edwards.
I am so detached from the primaries - had my Howard-lovin' (despite his warts) heart broken in 2004, lost John E this time, and will wait to see who is left in a couple months.
Sometimes I wish I were again in my 20s ... unjaded, unsullied, inexperienced, and willing to follow the Pied Piper's tune to bipartisanship.
Ain't gonna happen to this woman in her 40s.
I miss Mr. Gilliard in a big way right now. Props to you, Jesse, for some lovely writing in this post. It comforts and inspires me.
"The netroots are not the Democratic Party"
baltogeek~
Would you please comment on the morality/immorality of the bait-and-switch? Right in the middle of a heated primary?
They should have let their bias against Clinton known long ago. After all her one bad vote was 6 years ago. They have had plenty of time to make her an exception to their policy. Sort of like... "Our purpose is to promote and support progressive candidates, except for Hillary Clinton, so please send us your bucks." Then I could have made an informed decision about contributing or not.
I contributed MONEY to this group believing that it would go to progressives who are in races against Blue Dogs and Republicans. I did not expect them to say, "OOPS, changed our mind. Turns out Clinton sucks. Too bad for you." That is the kind of behavior I expect from Republicans.
Over to you....
After all her one bad vote...
lectric lady, Hillary's entire political career has been about bad votes and worse positions, taken for all the wrong reasons. Frankly, to my way of thinking, she is the prisoner of her own obsessions.
Now, IMHO, EVERYBODY who is in politics on that level is going to be obsessed by power. The litmus test that distinguishes potential statesmen (note that adjective, because most of 'em fail) from hopeless hacks is the ability to look into a mirror frankly.
Hillary can't do that.
That being said, John McCain is an even more hopeless and pitiful case of the same malady - Potomac Fever. The thing that amazes me is that he's coming close to winning the nomination. I went on record six months ago as saying that was hopeless. I completely underestimated the extent to which the Republican nomination process has turned into a circular firing squad, with McCain as the last man standing.
Stormcrow~
I, wistfully, asked, "Would you please comment on the morality/immorality of the bait-and-switch? Right in the middle of a heated primary?"
I know you all Hate Hillary's Guts. I think Jesse's request was that we discuss MoveOn's endorsement.
Again, I am simply asking, why didn't MoveOn state, many-on years ago, "We support progressives, all except Hillary cuz she sux and we are 'men/women' enuf to say that, up front, but still, pleeze, send us your bux?"
All I'm askin. Over to you....
StormCrow, you nailed it about how crazy it is to see McCain come back from the grave.
It's a yardstick for just how little chance the repubs have, unless we nominate Clinton.
Obama's not perfect. No one's claiming that. Neither was Edwards, but think of the issue-turds hanging around republican necks in this election.
And the biggest of all, is Iraq. It's most of the reason why the economy is tanking. It encompasses the economic issue.
Anyone here think it's going to get better?
Anybody here like to discuss whether Obama or Clinton can best take advantage of it?
All that's happened on MoveOn and Kos, is that the progressives, the real ones, are sick of Clinton's triangulating, and they don't trust her.
And they were her natural base. If they've abandoned her, think what will happen in the general election. We will lose every battleground state.
We can't pick her. Just can't. It'll be political suicide if we do it.
lectric lady, Hillary IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE. So why on earth should MoveOn be obliged to support her?
If I had my 'drothers, I'd be voting for Edwards in the primary. Since I don't, I'll be voting for Obama. I cheerfully despise him as a latter-day Neville Chamberlain, in a period when we just cannot afford one. As I don't think I really need to tell you, we are presently engaged a knife fight in a phone booth with our own domestic home-grown fascists, and any compromise with these people is a lethal mistake. As the history of the last century has lavishly illustrated.
But Obama knows how to campaign. And his record is not a millstone around his neck. Yet.
Whereas, Hillary is, just possibly, the only Democratic contender who might lose in November. The consequences of that disaster don't easily bear thinking about, but we'd all better do so anyway.
I believe that the Democratic Party made a fatal mistake by not going with a bona fide anti-war candidate like Howard Dean four years ago. I worry that we'll make the same mistake this year.
One commenter noted that Hillary Clinton had just "one bad vote" six years ago. But that was a vote that went against the pleading of millions around the world. Remember those marches in London, Paris and Rome that had over one million participants. And the pleading of the Pope and Nelson Mandela that we not go to war.
Despite the fact that we were subjected to a barage of media propaganda most of us knew clearly that the war was instigated on the basis of a pack of lies.
Maybe Hillary's vote was just one of hundreds of other votes...but it was a vote that has led to the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands. Does that kind of "mistake" make her a desireable candidate for to be President of our country
Here's a little preview of what I dearly HOPE will happen, after Al Gore and John Edwards lock in a BIG republican ass-whipping, by endorsing you-know-who. :o)
http://apnews.myway.com//article.../
D8UHS3HG0.html
Stormcrow~
***banging head against wall.. it hurts, hurts!***
"lectric lady, Hillary IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE. So why on earth should MoveOn be obliged to support her?"
My question IS: "Would you please comment on the morality/immorality of the bait-and-switch? Right in the middle of a heated primary?"
Please read above comments.
Maybe your teenyweeny brain can formulate an answer. But I am beginning to doubt it.
***crickets***
"Please read above comments.
Maybe your teenyweeny brain can formulate an answer. But I am beginning to doubt it."
Thank you for the personal attack. Personal attacks usually yield information that can be had in no other way, and that one was no exception. It clarifies my mind no end as to where you are coming from.
Please tell me what moral yardstick you are applying to MoveOn? The article Jesse cited has a relevant quotation:
"Obama led the final tally 70.4% to 29.6%, clearing the supermajority required for the endorsement."
That seems clear enough. They voted to endorse Obama.
For everyone who lost the thread (like I did) of lectric lady's question, from up above:
"My point about MoveOn is they have pulled a 'bait-and-switch.' MoveOn is supposed to promote the election of progressive candidates. No one can argue that Hillary is not progressive while Obama is. There is just not that much difference between them. MoveOn should stay out of races like this and focus on those we are running against Blue Dogs and Republicans."
From what I read here, lectric lady has addressed the question in Jesse's post.
lectric lady, I did not answer about the particulars of how the vote came about because I am not a member of MoveOn. However, let me ask you since you were a member, what has been MoveOn's reaction to the Iraq voting records and other supportive measures towards the war by Democrats, Blue dog or not?
Have many members expressed any particular dislike of Hillary especially about her Iraq vote?
You seem to be making 2 arguments, first that MoveOn has deviated from it's mission, which you define as going after ONLY the GOP and conservative Dems. My first question should answer if that has been the group's practice to ONLY target non progressives.
Second you seem upset about their criticism of Hillary. My 2nd question addresses if there is any longstanding anger at her amongst the members.
Because if MoveOn and its members have been openly critical of any Democrat and of Hillary then it's not a bait and switch.
For myself, I find it interesting that MoveOn decided to step away from their neutral position as an action-alert mechanism. First step away was to create campaign ads. Now they endorse a candidate -- although if you tilt your head to one side and squint, it could look like they asked their "progressive" audeince to tell them who they thought was more progressive.
My own action is going to be to remove myself from their lists. I get plenty of other action alerts from other progressive organizations.
cherish - are you saying hillary is more progressive than Obama?
cherish - don't worry its already in the bag with the nom which was apparent "on day one". I agree that they really should have ensorsed on that day to be clear. All the silence and repeating the new "dean scream" for unity "to make history" really is an endorsement for hillary. They really could have been more clear earlier. That's what primaries are about after all...... make you pick, state your case, FIGHT for it.
Asking people to "support the candidate" is really such a pubbie construct. That's a different decision to be made after the nom. Asking for it and saying "yes" now gives the power to the very people who are running the carnival. You give up your power by doing that. They only asked so they could forward clinton in such an uncontested way. Lots of people agreed with them. Lots of people endorsed Hillary by doing that. At least MoveOn declared something! Good for them.
Not to worry, cherish..... the dean/dnc board of clintons loyalists/msm and their repeaters did a fine job with the labels-are-us firewall; Hillary will be the nom.
MoveOn..... too little too late. They couldn't possibly have endorsed a clinton though...... that's not really "moving on", now is it?
baltogeek:
...let me ask you since you were a member, what has been MoveOn's reaction to the Iraq voting records and other supportive measures towards the war by Democrats, Blue dog or not?"
None that I know of. I read the emails that are sent weekly (or so). I 'don't recall' (how very Alberto Gonzales of me?) any mention of Iraq voting records one way or another. If anyone else does, please chime in. I admit I could be wrong about this. Since I don't save old political email, all I can say is that 'I do recall that' the message I got was that "we support progressive candidates." and "Give us your money,"
...Have many members expressed any particular dislike of Hillary especially about her Iraq vote?
Sadly, I now realize, I never looked into this, since I didn't recognize it was a 'problem.' I rarely looked at their website, and never in detail. Maybe something was going on that I was not aware of.
I do know that Hillary Clinton voted AGAINST the censure vote on MoveOn and that Obama was... absent?... present?... out of town? ... whatever, he, conveniently, didn't vote... again.
...You seem to be making 2 arguments, first that MoveOn has deviated from it's mission, which you define as going after ONLY the GOP and conservative Dems. My first question should answer if that has been the group's practice to ONLY target non progressives.
That is what I was led to believe. One of my questions: has MoveOn EVER supported a progressive vs progressive campaign? ***crickets***
...Second you seem upset about their criticism of Hillary. My 2nd question addresses if there is any longstanding anger at her amongst the members.
I have never heard of any. Again, can anyone else? Really, I would like to hear.
...Because if MoveOn and its members have been openly critical of any Democrat and of Hillary then it's not a bait and switch.
I absolutely agree with you, and if this is the case, then I stand corrected.
Please show me the evidence.
More endorsements:
LA Times for Obama
http://news.aol.com/elections/
st...S00010000000001
Ann Coulter endorsed Hillary today over McCain. Says she'll vote for her.
Stormcrow~
..."Obama led the final tally 70.4% to 29.6%, clearing the supermajority required for the endorsement." That seems clear enough. They voted to endorse Obama."
The POINT, Stormcrow, is that they voted to change the rules AFTER 'many people' had contributed money, in good faith, that said funds would go toward "us vs them" campaigns rather than to "us vs us" campaigns.
I now realize that the money I contributed is going to actively promote Obama when that was not my original intent. I would GLADLY have my HARD WORKED CONTRIBUTION go to Obama in an Obama vs McCain/Romney/Hucabee contest.
I cannot accept the fact that my HARD WORKED CONTRIBUTION is going to an Obama vs Clinton contest.
Looking forward to seeing how you would see it if it was the other way around.
cherish~
Thanks... this is a pretty frustrating place to be right now.
Gotta go.
Wolves are howling outside and I need to go listen.
Real wolves?
Obamabots?
We will see.
Jesse, I tried.
Good night everybody.
'lectric, You don't know what frustrating is. Imagine if you were one of the Iraqi families of those 80-odd people who were killed in the two bombings in Baghdad today.
20% of Iraqi families have had an immediate family member killed since george bush pull the trigger, with Hillary Clinton's unapologetic help.
She's STILL supporting the surge.
A million Iraqi's have died in the mayhem opera. I say, she's got blood on her hands up to her elbows, for not, at the least, making an upfront apology for her vote to authorize, and for her continued support of the surge.
Are you and Cherish and Cath and her other defenders on here supporting it?
Let me ask her defenders, straight up, if they think we're "winning" in Iraq, and then I'd LIKE to ask her that question.
Same old questions:
ARe you in favor of making flag-burning a federal crime?
She supported the Kyle-Lieberman amendment to declare the Iranian guards a "terrist organization". I think that was another vat of the same koolaid that bush used to whip up the war fever. She helped peddle it then, and she was obviously willing to peddle some more of it.
I think that makes her either a slow learner or a warpimp.
What do her defenders think?
Are you OK that she attended the FauxNews birthday bash, and let Rupert Murdoch hold a fund-raiser for her, in 2006?
Do you think that the "Iraqi Goverment" hunkered down in the green zone to escape the hell-on-earth that bush (again, with Clinton's help) has made of their country, is to blame for not "doing more" to stabilize the country?
Because Hillary has done, or supported all of these positions, and I'm really starting to wonder if her defenders care a tinker's damn what her track record is. In fact, when they're defending her, it's about getting to the level of denial that we hear from the bush supporters when we call them out for HIS bullshit.
Crickets.....
I'd like to hear ONE good arguement for HRC being progressive in any way, and antiwar, and anti corporate.
One. Good. Arguement.
She's a pure 1%er in it for condensing the wealth upwards into her hands and the hands of her corporate handlers. United Corporate States Of AmeriKa.
Obama ain't much more progressive that her, either.
Kuch, he's progressive. Even Edwards is progressive.
Moveon put their money, YOUR money, OUR money, where it belongs, to as progressive as a candidate as there is, left in this farce.
Why Jesse, or any of the rest of you, would question that, is beyond the life of me to understand.
And frankly, till GNB (Jesse) grows some balls and stands for something politically progressive of any value to ME, I find it absolutely conflicting, double faced and downright stupid and ignorant to cast aspersions against readers with opinions whom you say you WANT to air it out and clik yer site, and keep your site's VALUE up.
Cuz that's just pure jive ass fuckery, Jesse.
Yer as dangerous to the progressive causes as Dick Cheney is.
Harumph.
As an immigrant I do not get the whole endorsement big deal.
So an actor or an organization endorsed a candidate.
Whoop-dee-doo, I shrug my shoulders and vote my beliefs and conscience.
Seriously, what's the big deal?
cherish - are you saying hillary is more progressive than Obama?
Myrte June | Homepage | 02.01.08 - 6:26 pm | #
No. I'm saying it looks like MoveOn asked its audience to tell it who THEY thought was more progressive.
larue -
Where in Jesse's post does he question MoveOn's decision?
All I'm seeing there is "this is what they did". I don't see where he passes judgment on that decision, just where he reports it.
americangoy -
The importance of an endorsement is twofold.
(1) Most Americans look to others for their cues to action. They most emphatically refuse to admit this, but they do. So getting an endorsement from a high-profile personality is going to sway everybody who looks to that personality.
(2) An endorsement from an outfit as large as MoveOn demonstrates the ability of the politician getting that endorsement. Ability to persuade, influence, and shift opinion. It's a mini-primary, a public demonstration of raw electoral power.
Now, reason (1) doesn't mean squat to me. I don't subscribe to the myth that the opinion of celebrities means a goddamn thing except that they have mouths and access to the ready ears of media whores.
But reason (2) does indeed weigh with me, because we need to win this thing.
Mind you, I think this country is done for in either event. It's just a matter of time. Like metastatic cancer - how much tissue must you cut away when the berserker cells are in lungs and pancreas and gut and lymph glands and bone marrow and everywhere else you do a biopsy?
But I'd like to see final nightfall staved off until I'm comfortably dead. I don't owe this country much, but I really don't want to watch it burn.
I voted for Obama last night in MoveOn.org’s online ballot. They asked for a comment, so I said this:
‘Unfortunately, the few important remaining differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties are support for women's choice and workers' unions, and opposition to homophobia and racism. The Clintons crossed the racism line, not grossly, but it's supposed to be a bright line.’
3. What are the political implications that you are talking about? Are you talking about those of us who have talked about not voting in Nov. if Hllary's nominated? If so you're trying to close the barn door after the horse is about 20 miles away. Perhaps a better thing to do would be to post about those political implications of the diviseness of the campaign because while we've had arguments over the idea in comments not one of the GNB bloggers IIRC, has addressed this potential problem for the Democrats in a substantive way.
Yep.
Dems have more problems on their hands then they realize if Hillary gets the nom.
Sorry Jesse but you'll be pulling that wagon by yourself...or at least without a lot of Brown people...
larue -
You don't listen well.
I didn't ask your opinion about what i said. I asked you not to do it. But you went ahead and did precisely what I asked everyone not to do.
Don't do that.
It's not a question of balls. Tell you've been been in EMS for thirteen years, kid, including in Houston, South Tucson, Oakland, and flying dustoff, you don't get to talk about my balls.
To repeat word for word some of what I said in my post:
GNB is not a place to bash people. Focus on the political implications of MoveOn's endorsement...that doesn't mean bash Clinton. I'm NOT kidding about I don't want to hear with the Clinton hatred..
You didn't listen to this crystal clear instruction. You did your own thing. In addition, you went ahead and took a shot at me, and it isn't the first time. It stops here.
I don't know why you think you're special. You're not.
Don't do it again. Ever. That's a warning.
PS. You and everyone else have NO clue who I'm for or not for. Or whom the rest of the GNB bloggers are for or not. As I said in the post, none of us are saying who we're for. By design.
Specifically to avoid this kind of crap.
JJ --
With all respect, if you REALLY would refuse to vote for Clinton if she got the nomination, you lose all my respect.
Preventing the Republicans from being in charge of the United States for another four years -- the Supreme Court, letting the Congress suck up to the White House and give them veto power over everything through a super-majority, control of the Executive Branch appointments, keeping all of the secrets hidden for yet another four years with no prosecution through the AG's office... not to mention leaving a religious nutcase in office (or in the VP's office during the upcoming depression.) If you really see no difference between Clinton and McCain, then all I can say is, you're the same as the idiots from Nader's camp who got us into this mess in the first place.
I will support whoever the nominee is with everything I have. The Supreme Court alone is worth everything I have, and likely two liberal Justices will retire during the upcoming four years. If McCain is president, that will be it on the Rule of Law as we know it for the United States through the life of my children.
If you don't get that, you're truly so filled with nuts you should apply to Hershey's to be an Almond Joy.
The Supreme Court alone is worth everything I have, and likely two liberal Justices will retire during the upcoming four years.
DINGDINGDINGDING
We have a winner!
Look, I was completely nauseated by Kerry, even more than I was by Al Gore in 2000, which is saying something. If we were living in Utopia, they both would have had their campaign managers peremptorily fired. Personally, I wouldn't have griped if they'd had them taken out in the parking lot and savagely beaten. That's just how badly they failed. In my world, fuckups that bad are career-ending. If you're lucky.
But I live in a world where culpable folly has consequences. Unlike fair-haired golden boys like Terry McAuliffe, who can fuck the dog from here to breakfast and never get handed the butcher's bill.
Does anyone here seriously think that either Gore or Kerry would ever have nominated Roberts to the Supreme Court, to say nothing of Strip Search Sammy Alito??? And how about Harriet Miers, a Supreme Court nomination so raw that even Bush's own supporters choked on it and spat it back up?
Other nominations? Tommy Thompson, whose own appointment of Julie Gerberding as head of the CDC has wrecked that organization? Chertikoff? Michael Brown?
Does anyone here present really need me to go on? Can anyone here present bear it?
Don't give me that "not a dime's worth of difference" crap. I have to swim in a lake full of patently obvious bullshit so deep I need an aqualung, every day I go to work. I'm damned sick and tired of reading it here.
Ah, Jesse. You edited them. Thanks.
I saw the author given as "Anonymous", but I figured that was you.
lectric lady
- I humbly disagree. Moveon has always always always set their agenda by what their members wanted. My friend is one of the small team of actual paid move on employee/founder types... they have been getting thousands of emails calling for a vote and an endorsement. DFA did the same their earlier.
Moveon's agenda has always been set by majority voting and proposing from the membership. SO it makes sense to me that they would hold the vote, and let the members endorse.
I understand that you didn't want it, but I love that Moveon lets members set the course and the majority of members were calling for an endorsement and voted and voted BY a Landslide for Obama.
Cherish
No. I'm saying it looks like MoveOn asked its audience to tell it who THEY thought was more progressive.
exactly.
that is how they run the org. and always have. and actually they only asked the question because of the tons of emails asking them to run a poll...
Has everyone forgotton that it was Moveon.orgs primary back in 2003-4 that started us deaniacs on our path! they have always let members weigh in on the primary.
I will vote democrat for the very first time ever in this election and it doesn't matter who they nominate. There is no doubt in my mind that the republicrats must be defeated soundly and, if possible, humiliated to the point where we can drive a stake through the parties blackened heart.
I have no delusions about the democratic nominees being progressive or liberal in a traditional sense. They are both centrists, yet the political spectrum in this country has been so distorted by a powerful minority of right wing authoritarians that we need to recover our balance.
We let this happen and it is up to us to insure the corpse stays buried. No more letting bygones be bygones and in our civility and for the good of the country we must not allow this wound to heal one more time.
Mr.Wendel, you are an exceptionally perceptive person and a gifted writer. I enjoy reading you as much as I enjoyed your predecessor.
Pax Mares
Moveon's agenda has always been set by majority voting and proposing from the membership. SO it makes sense to me that they would hold the vote, and let the members endorse.
I understand that you didn't want it ...
I didn't want Kerry to fuck up in 2004, either. He did.
But I'd have had to contribute anyway.
Same as the thousands of hours I spent working up log analysis data to report upstairs. 99% of that was wasted time and effort. But the other 1% .. I know we blackholed the source IP of a blackhat hacker who knew his stuff entirely too well, because of that 1%. And I'm pretty sure it helped put the skids under a vendor who was fucking us raw.
I've had some personal issues with MoveOn in the past. Including first and foremost to their selling of their phonelist to some firm enabling said firm to call me at home 3 times a day for like a month. Shit like that really sticks in your craw.
Having said that, this organization has been an effective opposition force within whatever can be said to make up the "Progressive movement". Most of the notable online activists of today share one thing- they opposed the Bush administration and its policies when very few other people did. And for us 10 percenters or even 8 percenters- meaning those who opposed Bush at the very height of his rally around the flag fuelled patriot days- their existence and dissent early on meant and still means quite a bit.
We all remember when Bush walked on water for allowing 3000 of our fellow countrymen to die. To even state this fact at the time put you in a world of hurt. I had my peace signs ripped down, my house and car vandalized, was harassed in traffic for the "wrong" type of bumper sticker and even had a family member run off the road for the same infraction. Make no doubt about it, we 8 percenters were in PHYSICAL danger for not supporting Bush, and the scars of that persecution are still with us. I mean fuck... Daschle, Leahy and media guys like Jennings were getting WEAPONIZED ANTHRAX in the mail. Some fucker tried to kill them to prevent them from ever joining the 8 percent. And the person who did that never got caught and is barely ever even discussed. All that post-9/11 ugliness seems to have gone down the memory hole.
Having MoveOn there early on did matter as well as the primordial pool that became the left blogosphere. Their nomination is fully within what they are trying to accomplish with Obama being the only candidate left who originally opposed this war in Iraq. I feel sorry for lectric lady but fortunately MoveOn isn't the only progressive group out there and hopefully your money can be spent helping other groups. I'm a big fan of Democracy Now! and contributing to them is always money well spent. Creating a new media is probably more important than issue action groups anyways.
With Edwards out of the race, it's now very simple for me:
If Obama gets the nomination, he gets both my vote and my support (MoveOn provides a nice vehicle for this, and I don't mind that they're setting the tone early by endorsing him). I don't agree with everything Obama says and think he lacks the experience and partisan street-fighting ability of Edwards, but he's the best option given the severe limitations of the Democratic Party.
If Hillary gets the nomination, she does not get my support. And she only gets my vote in the unlikely case that November shapes up to be a close (3% or less margin) race. I loathe her pandering to religious nuts and panicky safety moms, her bent toward a public-private partnership surveillance state, her arrogant refusal to even apologize for her part in enabling of the Iraq war (not to mention her support of the "surge" and Kyl-Lieberman), and her continuing alignment with the failed triangulation policies of the DLC.
If some are questioning the "morality" of the MoveOn endorsement, they might first question the "morality" of large-circ media outlets endorsing candidates (especially since their Dem narrative is mainly the brain-dead "black man vs. white woman" inside-baseball one). After that, the outraged critic might consider that MoveOn, instead of making a top-down decision to endorse, actually made an effort to have its members vote between 2 remaining nominees. And then went further and demanded a supermajority before issuing the endorsement. Next time you see that happening in the MSM or with a union, let me know.
As for the "bait and switch" accusation, it's important to remember that the Democratic Party is the only organization that is officially obliged to stay out of the "us vs us" battle. At the moment, they (like this blog) are focusing soley on "us vs. them". MoveOn, on the other hand, has not been and does not have to be neutral on "us vs us", and made no promises to that end. Rest assured, however, that they are and will be on the same side as the Dems when it comes to "us vs them."
That's a good thing. I'm glad that the secular and individualist Netroots is becoming a viable alternative to (though not a replacement for) creaky big unions and race- and religion-focused groups when it comes to mobilizing phone-bankers, GOTV efforts and district walkers. The Netroots is still a piece of a larger Dem mosaic, but with every election it gets a bigger voice.
This little debate about MoveOn's endorsement of Obama is what's known as an indecent dialogue.
All they did was take a poll asking their supporters to choose between Obama and Clinton. They did it two days before what may be the most important primary date in our history. Aint it awful? :o)
Hillary Clinton got hammered. AS SHE HAS ON EVERY PROGRESSIVE POLL THAT I'VE SEEN TAKEN IN THIS ELECTION.
She took a giant shit on us when she went haring off after rightwing support which simply does not exist, for her.
And now she's found out that we progressives have memories, and can read, and that we shit back.
And her supporters AND her defenders are upset, and acting and posting as if there were some "big left wing conspiracy" (that was fun, typing that. :o)) that's coming out of the woodwork to deny her her birthright.
It's abject nonsense.
She got on the triangulatin' bus and found out that it didn't go anywhere, and she thought she had us penned up like good little sheep-democrats, for her to shear us whenever she wanted to.
Now, she's coming back to the paddock, with nothing to show for all of the gluterubs she's given bush and his war, and the sheep have morphed into 700 pound Siberian tigers.
Goodness! Who'd a thunk it? :o)
Excuse me; 4 days before big Tuesday.
:o)
I don't get all the harumphing from the Billary fans about this endorsement. Clinton ain't progressive, and if 70% of their fellow members support Obama and thus trigger a super-majority endorsement, argue with your fellow members, not MoveOn. 70% can't all be wrong.
Tanbark,
There are no real "progressives" left in the race. Even Edwards was a stretch given some of HIS past votes.
Those of us who support Hillary chose the one we considered most experienced and willing to fight. Her overall record in life leads me to believe that she will deliver for most liberal (not progressive) causes.
Those who support Obama see him as someone who can unite the country to overturn generations of Republican "leadership" (damage). His overall record in life leads to me to believe that he will deliver for most liberal (not progressive) causes.
Huge differences exist among the supporters - at least in the blogosphere. Hillary supporters don't understand why democrats would not pick the person most capable to govern from day one. Obama supporters don't understand why the democrats would risk the election on someone who stirs up such animosity.
You wish to make the issue the Clinton's "betrayals" of the progressive movement. But an honest look would show the Obama's voting patterns are similar. Shrug. After all he merely voted "present" for Move-On's recent proposal.
But objectively we should be embarrassed by the riches presented us. We have two bright, articulate, and passionate candidates who turn out voters. People are excited by our campaign and tuning in to watch our debates.
If Obama gets the nomination, I will work my ass off to support him. It pains when I hear some Obama supporters refuse to same the about Hillary.
Then I remember that this is the attitude that kept the Democrats in the wilderness for so many years until the Clintons delivered the White House to us. Was it perfect? Of course, not. But it was pretty damn good for most Americans.
Tanbark,
Hillary even supported torture. I don't trust her.
Clinton's transformation on torture now aligns her perfectly with the voters she's trying to woo. A Zogby International poll this month found 64% of Americans oppose the interrogation tactic - and an earlier ABC poll showed more than 70% of Democrats are against it.
Clinton aides said she changed her mind after meeting in April with a group of retired three- and four-star generals.
Btw, some Gitmo lawyers endorsed Obama.
Clinton's transformation on torture now aligns her perfectly with the voters she's trying to woo.
And guess what? They STILL WON'T PISS ON HER IF SHE CATCHES ON FIRE.
Sometimes I think that she is so obsessed with capturing the Presidency that she has actually lost her mind.
It's a funny thing: I likely would have voted for Nader in 1996 had I been an American citizen. A vote in 2000 for him would have been a lot trickier to justify, but if I'd lived in an area where it would've been "safe" to cast what would have amounted to a protest vote, I might have. Since then, as Nader's antics have become increasingly desperate and self-defeating and he's ventured further and further into Kook-dom, I've really come to despise the man. As ever, these are times that call for useful action, not self-indulgent posturing and symbolic gestures. If you're not capable of actually doing something that affects politics in Real World terms, then you should be gracious enough to step out of the way for people who try to genuinely effect change for the better. In that sense, it's long past time that Ralph stepped aside, as he is now utterly useless.
So I'm now relieved that I never had the chance to vote for ol' Nader as I'd definitely have come to regret it. And I've truly come to hate the man on top of that. Nevertheless, I still very much resent this kind of comment, Jesse:
"If you really see no difference between Clinton and McCain, then all I can say is, you're the same as the idiots from Nader's camp who got us into this mess in the first place."
Right...The Democrats had absolutely nothing to do with the events and aftermath of the 2000 election. It was all wicked Nader - and by extension, the Left - who's to blame for Bush stealing 2000. Nothing to do with a corrupt media, Supreme Court or "opposition party" that couldn't be bothered to oppose, and certainly nothing to do with a worthless, gutless piece of shit named Al Gore, whose idea of "campaigning" seemed to be sitting in an ever-widening pool of his his own urine, sobbing and boo hooing (with snot on his face and shit in his pants) that he didn't dare fight back, he didn't dare, oh, he simply didn't dare! because then...the bad men would be mean to him !!!!! Oooh hoo hoo hoo!
But then, I'm one of those idiots who sees very little differentiating Hillary Clinton and St. McCain. They're both "moderate" right wingers and warpimps, aren't they? Don't get me wrong: If I were an American voter, I'd hold my nose and vote for Hillary this time out - if necessary - for no other reason than to publicly slap the GOP in the face, but I sure as hell wouldn't expect much from her. Those of you squawking about the Supreme Court are being almost shockingly naive and stupid IMO; you actually seem to believe that the Dems - and Hillary specifically - would never betray you on that front. It must be comfy inhabiting that dream world.
John D --
Rather than get lurid about Gore's lousy campaign, I usually just run down the list that the Blame-Nader Lazybuns love to forget:
1. Jeb Bush
2. Katherine Harris
3. 50,000 names illegally purged from Florida voting rolls
4. Voter intimidation and misinformation
5. Voter lockout at polls
6. Stolen ballot boxes
7. Butterfly ballots
8. Gore would have won Florida if the recount had continued, but
9. Gore agreed to end the recount and not fight for its completion
10. Supreme Court.
Finish with, "Yeah, all THAT was Nader's fault, all right!"
The Blame-Nader meme is obstructive deadwood. Clear it. Avoid it. It's useless. In fact, I'm sorry it showed up on this topic. But whenever anyone threatens a "protest" vote, it's throbbing there in the background. Feh.
"Crow:
"...They still won't piss on her if she catches on fire."
Hammer-nail-bang...
Majorly coffee-spewing! :o)
Here!:
L.A. Times goes for Obama. (Huge endorsement!)
Sacramento Bee; ditto.
San Jose Mercury--Obama!
Starting to look like a bandwagon to me. :o)
How about you guys, John and Al? :o)
Psssst...Guys! Monday would work fine. It would give her less time to recover.
:o)
Cath: "Willing to fight..." How can you put up something like that, when Clinton has rolled for bush and the warbots like a wheel?
You lose cred, 70-30 :o), by posting nonsense like that.
For the better part of the past five years, she hasn't "fought" for a damn thing, except conservative support, which is the best yardstick for how "politically savvy" she really is.
Cath, I think bush's war is an abomination; it IS a crime against humanity. I think that turning one ageing, toothless old tyrant over to a Shiite lynch mob was not worth the million-odd people that have died in the debacle.
It was not worth our troops being caught in what is beginning to resemble the world's largest hostage situation.
But what do YOU think? And can you give us the links to illustrate how willing Hillary has been to fight against the clusterfuck? I've missed those, and I'd really like to see them.
see video: MoveOn.org Pushes the Worst (Clinton and Obama) while ignoring Gravel for President
MoveOn is doing such a disservice to the American people. MoveOn is undermining efforts to end the war. MoveOn pushes candidates who ignore the US Constitution and International Law. Obama openly violates international law by threatening Iran with an attack.
http://representativepress.googl...com/
MoveOn.html
I want no one to misunderstand me; I WILL vote for the Democratic nominee in November, whether that be HRC or Obama.
However, I do not labor under the delusion that electing EITHER of them will bring forth a Liberal Millennium. Both of them represent the sane wing of the corporate plutocracy.
This still would make either of them a vast improvement over the Elephascists, who represent the INSANE wing of the corporate plutocracy.
I don't know how to make links, and I am too intractable a Luddite to learn how, but in the comment thread at Driftglass's "Breaking-Edwards Out" post, CMike at 4:39pm linked to a useful article from Z magazine's site, which showed Obama is another corporate servant, just like HRC.
After skimming that, I no longer worry for Obama's safety. The plutocracy will not arrange his death, nor allow some genuine nut to kill him, for he serves them too well.
It is possible that Obama, and HRC, and Bill C. for that matter, all started out as genuine liberals, and then someone took them aside and gently reminded them what could happen to them. If that be the case, I don't blame any of them for refusing martyrdom. I would not choose martyrdom, either, were I confronted with that choice.
Vote for Obama in the primary if you like, and BY ALL MEANS vote for him in November if he's nominated. But please, folks, don't insult my intelligence by telling me he's going to save this country.
Nothing can save this country, or, I suspect, this world.
But then, as the old song says, this world is not my home.
Ivory Bill, you need to stop setting up straw horses. We're not expecting a "liberal millenium". All we want is the best candidate to get the people out of office who've dragged us into this debacle, that can be elected.
And we want one that doesn't have blood on his hands, up to his elbows.
And if you think that Obama and Clinton are equal in those things, then I really don't know what to say to you.
If you haven't been paying attention, there is a tide building for Obama. Whether or not it's enough to get him the nomination, remains to be seen, but it has already become apparent that practically every progressive organization worthy of the name wants practically nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, and her supporters and defenders need to stop:
A: pretending that she and Obama are equal in electablity...
and B: that they bear the same responsibility for helping bush create and sustain the clusterfuck.
Both of those are lies, no matter who speaks them.
Here's a good'ern...:o)
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/i...s/
yard_sign.gif
As a member of the reality-based community, I distrust emotions and try not to heed them, for they cloud the faculty of judgement. Hence, the very intensity of the emotional tide for Obama makes me suspect he is less than his enthusiasts believe him to be. Reagan and Bill Clinton were both popular and charming, so popularity and charm mean nothing.
I will vote for Obama in November if the Democrats nominate him, but I will vote for my OWN reasons, not because I drank anyone's Kool-Aid.
Ivory Bill,
Every leader is less than they seem to be. It's called humanity.
It includes the irrational heart.
A path without a heart is death.
Ivory Bill, the very fact that you imply that the enthusiasm for Obama is "Koolaid", which term has practically been copywrited for describing the unending lies and bullshit that bush spread to get us into Iraq, is a perfect yardstick for how distorted is your view of what is happening in this election.
Neither John Edwards, nor, Barack Obama used anything like "Koolaid". And for you to imply or say that they have, is itself, almost obscene.
There is a fair chance that, next Tuesday, Barack Obama will effectively end the possibility that the republicans will be able to keep the white house and regain the House and Senate, by the expedient of denying Hillary Clinton the nomination, and if you are too cyinical, or just too obtuse to know it, and to be excited about the possibility, then, I feel sorry for you.
Were some people talking to me? I have a peculiar hearing disorder: I'm deaf to indignant lectures. 
Here's a good'ern...:o)
Obama yard sign
LOL
ROTFLMAO
tanbark, that is a work of authentic genius.
Say what you will about Obama. And I've said plenty, most of it derogatory. I wish I could vote for Edwards.
But the man can campaign. If anyone on Planet Earth can rip the Repubs a new one in November, it's Obama.
I just hope that he turns out even half as good a president as he is a campaigner.
Stormcrow; grazie. :o)
All I did was put it up, with help from Myrtle June. (Ivory Bill's not the only computer luddite on here...:o) )
Wish I'd thought of it. :o)
As you point out, he's a dynamite campaigner. :o)
And if we nominate him, we have a GREAT chance for that tsunami, and with that, we can sho-nuff kick ass and take names. :o)
@ Jesse
You don't get it. And that's fine. Many White progressives don't and you still (like baltogeek said) haven't dealt with the very real effects of Clinton's race baiting int his campaign and how that may affect the party in Nov.
I know many of the "progressive" blogs basically keep telling Black folk to shut up, sit down, and know your place but this Black girl has never been good at taking orders.
It's okay though that you don't get it. And if calling me nuts makes you feel better then alright.
But like my momma used always tell me "I can show you better than I can tell you."
And come Nov. with Hillary at the helm...I think democrats and "progressives" may be shown a lot. And I will do my part to make sure that's the case.
John D.: Those of you squawking about the Supreme Court are being almost shockingly naive and stupid IMO; you actually seem to believe that the Dems - and Hillary specifically - would never betray you on that front. It must be comfy inhabiting that dream world.
Are you implying that Hillary would nominate someone like Alito? Bill sure as hell didn't.
Tanbark: he's a dynamite campaigner
I have a feeling that Obama's act is going to get old real quick.
I suspect GV is correct. If and when the masters of the Corporate Holodeck Media conclude that Obama will be the nominee, they will give their legions of orcs their marching orders to smear Obama like they've smeared HRC for years.
JJ -
Gee, thanks for your racial strawman of the "have you stopped beating your wife" type.
Either I agree with you, or I'm just a dumb white man who doesn't get it because of my lack of racial understanding of the black experience. And worse, given my background, I must be genuinely obtuse not to see what you in your wisdom are seeing. Thank the Gods I have you and your buddies to show me the truth.
JJ -- I'm not blind to a damn thing the Clinton Campaign is doing, and I include here, and I especially include here, both the Big Dog, and their surrogates.
But it's a LONG way from there, to go as you apparently have, to claiming the Clinton campaign has turned racist. Wow is that a loaded word. I don't think you said it. But I sure as hell listened it, in everything you said and are saying it.
Is that not the claim you are making? If not, be clear please, that is what I am listening in what you are saying. And while people can not be responsible for every damn fool's listening, I am a careful and responsible listener, and I am listening to you with a great deal of care right now, as you deserve as a honored reader of GNB. So be clear, this is what it is I am listening. If this isn't what you want me to listen, please change what you are saying. Clarify your remarks. Do something.
A campaign can do really really stupid things in the heat of battle, trying to win, getting down in the muck. Including play the race card, without being racist. I don't believe either Clinton, Hilary or Bill, is racist. That does not mean I don't think the actions of their surrogates and Bill himself especially in SC didn't suck.
If you don't think the Clinton's are willing to play brutal hardball politics -- and has -- you weren't watching when they let 500,000 Iraqi children die. Was that racist? More so than what the Clinton Campaign has done against Obama.
This is Presidential Politics.
Finally, it was the US Supreme Court, in the end, after all the Nader bullshit, the Florida official vote counting horseshit, the Al Gore incompetence which would have made everything else moot, the illegal suppression of the vote in Florida to the tune of over 50,000 documented votes, after EVERYTHING else, it was five Republican Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States who violated their oath (read the Vanity Fair article for the ugly details) and stole the election, ordering the counting of votes be stopped. And yeah, Al won.
THE SUPREME COURT IS THE WHOLE BALL GAME, which means the White House has to go into Democratic hands this cycle. Has to.
I've lost count of how much more damage the Supreme Court has done in the last seven years, especially with the latest two Bush appointees on the bench.
If you truly -- not simply because you're upset -- don't think there is a major difference between the Justices a President Clinton would appoint, and the Justices a President McCain would appoint, starting with abortion, social welfare programs, moving to affirmative action, and continuing right down the line, then yeah, I think you're a nut-job. And not up to serious analysis. That you're someone so overcome with emotion, that while I appreciate you telling me what you're doing, I'm not going to argue with you, because you live in an emotional world, not in one where logic, strategy, or long-term thinking matters.
You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. That's plain nutty. It's not paying attention to what matters, and what matters, is getting a Democrat into the White House.
Also JJ -- if you think for one moment you have figured out who I'm personally for, who I've been for, or who I'm likely to be for... you don't.
What I'm pointing to here and in the articles I've been running, is that supporting the Democratic candidate, even if you have to hold your nose and vote (in your case, for Clinton), is still enormously better in terms of overall outcome to the communities which deeply matter to you, than voting for (or letting be elected) a Republican candidate.
And you should know that. You got your feelings miffed. Enormously. Which I understand.
But the difference in this between a pro such as myself and you who are not, is pros keep our eye on the ball. And the ball here, is everything which gets delivered when our guy is in the White House v. everything we lose when their guy is in the White House.
Keep your eye on the ball.
Either I agree with you, or I'm just a dumb white man who doesn't get it because of my lack of racial understanding of the black experience.
I didn' say that.
Nor do I expect you to agree with me. Nor do I expect you to see my point. You obviously cannot.
I get that.
You're the one who called me nuts remember and accused me of not geting it and this go around of not being a "pro."
I didn't set up any sort of strawman. If you think I'm the only one who feels this way and that I'm just "upset" and can't see the "big picture" then you don't spend too much time in the Black blogsphere or in Black America.
Whether you agree with it or not the Democratic party has a problem on their hands if Clinton gets the nomination. Period.
And the unwillingness of the democratic party (even though they have been coming around) to deal with that in a REAL and SUBSTANTIVE manner may very well be the party's downfall in the general election.
And as long as people continue to say a whole race of people are simply "upset" and "don't get presidential politics" and are being "irrational" and aren't keeping "their eye on the ball," the greater the chances that what the Clinton's are doing wreck real havoc on the Democratic party for many elections to come.
So keep name calling. And telling me I'm not a pro. And calling me irrational and incapable of seeing the Big Picture.
I see the Big Picture. I'm not the ne with the blinders on.
Oh and I don't pretend to know who you support. You could be a close Obama-stan and that wouldn't change anything I said here.
Commenting by HaloScan
