Hillary SLAMS Move.On and the "activist base" of our party

Hillary: "I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them."

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



Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign, verified the authenticity of the audio, and elaborated on Clinton's charge that these same party activists were engaged in acts of intimidation against her supporters: "There have been well documented instances of intimidation in the Nevada and the Texas caucuses...

In fact, the Nevada caucuses occurred prior to MoveOn's endorsement of Obama, and when Clinton made her remarks, the Texas caucuses had yet to take place.

MoveOn's Executive Director Eli Pariser reacted strongly to Clinton's remarks:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/clinton-slams-democratic_b_97484.html

Is it POSSIBLE for me to become more furious at Hillary supporters who CALL themselves "Democrats"?!

They're leaving the DLC and the Democratic Lite mob behind.

and I feel like I've already read several articles on it. Discussed it on DU and with people in the real world. I love how much information we have at our fingertips. This is a fascinating time that we live in.

The poutrage festival over this story was last week. Maybe you need to get the central committee to send you the new talking points.

Thought that's what happened whenever Clinton's mascara began to leak after New Hampshire.

the people are just like some of the Obama supporters on DU in their lack of debating skill being offset by attempts at intimidation

I appreciate the distinction being made.

MoveOn Vote: Clinton a "No," Obama a No-Show

September 20, 2007 04:43 PM

Presidential hopeful and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is claiming that he deliberately sat out a vote mounted by Senate Republicans to condemn the group MoveOn.org. Obama said that he was taking the high road by staying out of the GOP-driven fray over the group's "General Betray Us?" advertisement.

"The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements," the senator said in a statement e-mailed to the Huffington Post. "This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq. ... By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics."

Obama and Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) both missed the vote on a resolution sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) to condemn MoveOn for its advertisement last week that criticized Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq. The ad has been the focus of Republican attacks on Democrats in Congress for the past week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/20/moveon-vote-clinton-a-n_n_65241.html?view=print

"If we retaliate by bombing Kabul and kill people oppressed by the
Taliban dictatorship who have no part in deciding whether terrorists
are harbored, we become like the terrorists we oppose."

Hillary: "MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan."

You dropped two sentences from that very short letter:


Hell... I'd sign that right now. I'll bet Senator Obama would attest to it. Everything predicted in that letter has come true: we failed to catch "those responsible", we killed millions of innocents, we created countless martyrs, and thus countless new terrorists, and we became like the terrorists we oppose by instituting torture at the highest levels of our government. By every measure there are more terrorists today, and we are less safe.

But for all that, the letter does NOT say that we should not go into Afghanistan. It says that we should not lose sight of our humanity.

Since when did being a Democrat mean forgetting our humanity?

Whether you agree with MoveOn's position or not is irrelivant.

"If we retaliate by bombing Kabul and kill people oppressed by the
Taliban dictatorship who have no part in deciding whether terrorists
are harbored, we become like the terrorists we oppose."

It opposes bombing an urban city. It opposes killing innocents. It opposes forgetting our humanity in our actions.

Conflating that with "they didn't want us to go into Afghanistan" is reprehensible.

My agreement with the MoveOn statement is relevant to this conversation in general, in which a number of comments have been made to the effect that MoveOn is for "far left liberals", and not for Democrats. That, too, is a reprehensible lie.

Seriously though, for folks on the Right, any attempt to constrain American violence is tantamount to treason - especially after 9/11. Even to take a picture of a soldier's coffin is an act of treachery. "Support our troops" is equivalent to supporting Bush/Cheney/Rove policy, and is imperative for any patriotic person - along with wearing a flag pin.

So while I don't fault you personally for your intellectual reading of that MoveOn statement, the sense in which Rove used that interpretation, and Hillary used that interpretation, is simply that "anybody who disagrees with us is beyond the pale, and deserves to be treated as such." I'm really sick of having my patriotism questioned. And I will not abide by a Democrat who questions my patriotism for her political gain.

I don't see it as a questioning of one's love of country.

it implies that we would not protect America - that we had no stake in what happened on 9/11, no guts, and no patriotic instinct.

Were talking about Karl Rove here.

"Is it POSSIBLE for me to become more furious at Hillary supporters who CALL themselves "Democrats"?!"

MoveOn wouldn't be an issue if they weren't extremely effective advocates for core Democratic principals. The Democratic Party that I'M a member of does not gratuitously threaten to "obliterate" whole countries. It does not regard positive activism, and the involvement of young people in politics, as a threat.

Am I "divisive"? YOU BET. I sincerely hope you leave our party. Joe Lieberman needs your support.

several decided they wanted to help shoose a candidate for us. They went with B. Hussein Obama and if I am correct they are the extreme left wing of this party.

This is some of the radical crap you can find at Kos these days and it is pretty damn scary. Kos did not write the following but I would not wish to associate myself with folks like this:

"This election is a battle between Beta (Clinton, McCain) and positive Gamma (Obama).
The forces of the status quo however do not realize that they can not stop Gamma, they never do.

This election, and the way an Obama administration is going to perform, is the crossroads for the
American Nation. Either reform or revolution. The powers to be are not going to cede their powers
voluntarily. They never do. If Obama fails, there will be someone else and there is no guarantee that
this is not going to be someone like Lenin, or worse, Hitler.

The United States of America are on the brink of a major revolution. I am not talking about some
fuzzy "internet revolution" or similar hogwash but the real McCoy. I mean armed uprising, riots, civil war."

My reply to the above:So if Obama fails, the Kossacks are going to riot? Gee, if *I* made $10,000 a day, I'd have a smile on my face. Christ, $10,000 a day? That's like Halliburton money. Why is Kos so angry? Why are obama supporters so damn angry?

Shalom
Ben

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Kos did not write the following but I would not wish to associate myself with folks like this..."

Folks like WHO?! Talk about raising straw men.

and "B. Hussein Obama"...

and you dare call anybody but yourself "radical"?

Oops, never mind, I got one.

What right do you have to call Barack Obama "B. Hussein Obama"?

I just want to know - and I know you will not answer.

Hawkeye-X

and it's not cute either. It's SICK.

Kitchen sink and all. As for AIPAC, he's got issues.

maybe I'm a communist, or a socialist at the very least. Is the good of the many more important then the greed of the few? Peace be with you.

Yes she does.

Got it, Chaosian.

Whatev.

:nopity:

I can't help but think that that's... what's the word?... "democratic".

MoveOn does indeed contain many ultra liberals... and I suspect I am one of these Ultra Liberals.

That's why I voted for Obama anyway... because I find Clinton to be far too conservative and status quo for my tastes.

That's also why I laugh when Clinton tries to call herself an agent of change... the only change I could see coming from her is a change back to an administration like her husband's. It wasn't a bad presidency, but it really wasn't all that much different from Pappa Bush's...

Maybe Obama won't be a revolution, but he's a better bet for change... as I see it.

Maybe "real" Democrats are more moderate than I am. Then again, it could also be argued that those "real" Democrats are habitual election losers. I only registered as a Democrat because I felt like Obama might actually be a voice I could stand to have represent me. Record new registrations this go around might well be an indication that I'm not alone in this sentiment.
If the "real" Democrats feel their moderation is being threatened, and they want to reject those of us who have no real love for the status quo... well that's a question to be debated.
I could always go back to writing in Cthulu, or voting for wingnuts like Ralph Nader.
Is that really what the "real" Democrats, and candidate Clinton, would like to go back to?

thank you.

that's the criterion.

What exactly about MoveOn.org do you consider to be "far left liberal"?

Is it their stand on Iraq?

Is it their stand on the "war on terror"?

Is it their stand on health coverage?

Or is it because they aren't supporting Hillary?

it is fine that you agree with them.


we all have the same general interests, and are all dems, we just differ on details and that is fine with me.

I never said that we have to all agree on the same thing.

However, you labeled MoveOn as a bunch of "far left liberals", and I'm curious which of their positions qualifies them for that RW-slam.

Do tell.

Anyway, I agree with the sentiment. The ideologically pure party faithful have killed us every time.

Particularly when the "that" is an outright lie. MoveOn never opposed the invasion of Afghanistan.

n/t

"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."

She's right of course that MoveOn's members have voted to endorse Obama, and that the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party" (Howard Dean's description) wants as little to do with Hillary as possible.