Top Clinton Strategist Defends Clinton Slam On Democratic Activists

Hillary Clinton's senior campaign strategist on Sunday defended as true private remarks made by the senator in which she blamed her electoral defeats on a Democratic activist base with whom she has disagreed.

Geoff Garin, who took over the reigns of the campaign several weeks ago from Mark Penn, sought to diffuse anger and concern over Clinton's comments -- which were reported by The Huffington Post -- by casting them as nothing more than legitimate political analysis.

"The truth is that we agree with MoveOn [the Democrat group Clinton singled out] on lots of issues, disagree with them on some," said Garin. "One of them is they've endorsed Senator Obama and they have been very effective in these caucuses."

Asked to specify exactly which issues Clinton and Moveon had disagreements, Garin demurred, saying simply it was a "particular set of foreign policy issues," not "everything." Pressed to discuss when, as Clinton claimed, MoveOn had "flooded" caucuses and "intimidated" voters into supporting Obama, he attempted to sidestep the question.

"I don't want to... I'm here for two weeks now, so this comment was made in, I believe, at the beginning of March," he said. "But, look, the truth is Senator Clinton, as she said in that other clip, respects the right of MoveOn to be involved in this process, and respects the role that activists play in our party. I think the larger point is that when you move from the caucuses to the primaries where participation is much, much greater, she has done extremely well."

Garin's appearance on Meet The Press came two days after the Huffington Post reported on Clinton's remarks, which were made at a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday.

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said at the 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."

On Saturday, the Clinton campaign was first asked to address the issue. During a conference call with reporters, the senator's chief spokesman Howard Wolfson noted that he too was a member of MoveOn, and that any differences between Clinton and the progressive group would be resolved should she end up the Democratic nominee.

"I am a member of MoveOn... I participated in the Moveon primary where they endorsed Sen. Obama. I obviously voted for Sen. Clinton... Sen. Clinton agrees with MoveOn on some issues she disagrees on other issues," he said. "I assume and believe [that if] Sen. Clinton [is the nominee], that we will be able to unite the party behind us and go forward with unity and strength in the general election....we believe that progressive organizations like MoveOn do and can and will play a critical part in that process..."

Comments

[unpaidpundit]

I would like to see some investigative reporting about how much intimidation was going on at the caucuses. Given the sad state of American journalism, I won’t hold my breath waiting. I did read a post on one of the HuffPo boards from someone who claimed he witnessed such intimidation. This intimidation issue appears to be another reason why caucuses should be replaced by secret ballot primaries.

[nibblybits]

Other than individual acts of nuttiness, in which both sides had nuts, there was no systematic organized intimidation, which is why there will be no investigation. The thought that moveon somehow organized some kind of bullying campaign is a fiction, which is why Garin couldn't provide even a shred of evidence on air, not even anecdotal.

Caucuses have been in the system forever. To think that you suddenly think they are so unfair when people have nary said a word in previous contests prove that it's just a case of bad sour grapes. You want to blame someone, blame Mark Penn, Patti Solis Doyle and their terrible campaign strategy. They should have organized in caucus states and they simply did not. Piss poor planning which cost Hillary the race.

[kettletop]

Pffffft!
the real reason she did poorly in the caucus states is that she blew them off.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1713270,00.html
In my precinct, there was no presence of moveon.org. There was a guy who started agroup on myObama.com. More people joined. The OBama campaign gave us access to a database to make phone calls. The Obama campaign gave us the list of the Obama delegates to call them and remind them to go to the next step. It was the Obama campaign teaming up with local. Because they know how to organize a campaign and involve people.

Clinton just thinks she can collect money fro big donors, spin some catch phrases on fox news and everything will just fall into place.

As quoted in the Time article(Time has been sickingly biased toward Clinton with this exception)
This is not the race that Clinton thought she would be running. Her campaign was built on inevitability, a haughty operation so confident it would have the nomination wrapped up by now that it didn't even put a field organization in place for the states that were to come after the megaprimary on Feb.

[HowietheScreamer]

Here in WA we had BOTH caucus and a primary. The caucus counted, the primary didn't. Obama won BOTH handily. There was NO intimidation at the caucus I attended. Speechifying, yes. No intimidation at all. It wouldn't have gone down well with the crowd in my caucus. We had a few Hillary supporters, but mostly Obama.

You Clintonians are just going to have to get used to the TRUTH. That is that Hillary ran a shitty campaign. She had NO plan for post Super Tuesday, what little plan she DID come up with consisted of blowing off caucus states and ridiculing them as "little states". She claims that she wins in "big states", but all her wins are in FIRMLY blue states that will vote for a Dem in Nov anyway. Obama has broad appeal, and pulls in independants and some Repubs. That will win in Purple states, and some Red states. Hill and Bill CAN'T pull that off.

[JackNasty]

In the Edmonds, WA caucus I attended, Hillarrhoids covered the front doors of the school cafeteria where we met with Hillary posters and became self appointed chairs of each table. In spite of their efforts to co-opt the caucus, they still lost by a large majority. Where exactly was this intimidation by Move On the Hillarrhoids now claim?

[Actionmac]

Caucuses require thinking to and the democratic distraction candidate's supporters can not articulate real substantive issues support her... in short they can not compete.

Therefore, your investigation has been done and once she is out you will hear that truth told. Good thing is that is NOT long.

[ampay]

Secret ballots promote racism.

[BlackmaninAmerica]

What's sad about this is that if she is the nominee, she'll need Moveon to help her.

[TonalCrow]

In light of her comments, I have to ask Sen. Clinton about the "national security and foreign policy" issues on which she disagrees with Democratic activists. Is it:

1. On the invasion of Afghanistan (which, BTW, almost all Democratic activists supported)?
2. On whether we should have invaded Iraq?
3. On whether she should have voted to "authorize" Bush to invade Iraq?
4. On warrantless (and felonious: read 50 USC 1809) wiretapping?
5. On torture?
6. On rendition?
7. On signing statements?
8. On Bush's other crimes and abuses of power?
9. On other issues (please describe in detail)?

C'mon Sen. Clinton, let's hear all about how you disagree with Democratic activists! And please tell us whom you were addressing (e.g. DLC-ers, neocons, Rupert Murdoch, Richard Scaife, etc.) when you made these remarks.

[MartinEdwinAndersen]

Hillary "won" the endorsement of Pennsylvania newspaper owned by the man she used to excoriate as the godfather of the "vast rightwing conspiracy."

Did she join up?

Or was he so taken with her wartime exploits in Bosnia that he just had to enlist in her campaign?

[nibblybits]

When Obama won the endorsements of all the biggest and legitimate newspapers in the state, Hillary was forced to go to Scaife (which is like getting an endorsement from the Moonies-run Washington Times) and the school paper of UofPenn. Her campaign actually crowed about getting the endorsement of a school paper. Sad.

[IntelligentDesign]

I watched this segment on MTP, this poor guy was practically clueless about the Clinton campaign, you know the one where he is the chief strategist - his entire shtick consisted of clichéd retorts, begging new-guy forgiveness or outright yielding to his opponent to answer questions posed to him - several of the bloggers on this site could have been more convincing as a Hillary surrogate/advocate - the lack of preparation was shockingly unprofessional, what an utter embarrassment to him and to the Clinton campaign.

[MichiganJFrog]

PERFECT replacement for Penn.

[S1m0n]

He's the stand-in for Penn, not the replacement. Penn's still making all the calls.

[ampay]

It's a testament to her train-wreck of a campaign. At the most crucial time for her (two days before PA primary) she's got someone who doesn't have a clue going on TV for her. To me, it was a reminder of what an incredibly dysfunctional and incompetent leader she is.

[valkyrie607]

I'm not a moveon.org member, but I always knew Clinton didn't like me and folks who think like me. Both she and her husband are triangulaters par excellence, and Bill Clinton did what he did by moving the Democratic party to the right, excluding the Democratic base from the national dialogue.

To be truthful, I'm not completely confident that Obama doesn't think the same way, given that his policies are so similar to Clinton's. But at least he's making an effort to engage voters like myself through grassroots organizing, and to capitalize on, rather than avoid, the energy of the Democratic base.

Clinton is on her way to becoming a Lieberman. Out-righting the right.

[tiredofhillary]

This man is not the person I would send out to defend me on tv. He was horrible. Axelrod showed him up on every question. He stumbled thru the whole show and was not up on his candidate.

But I guess it would be hard to defend HRC. What the hell has she done, but tried to tear down the dem party and side with the repugs.

[ampay]

I know, it became crystal-clear that her actions are indefensible, if you're a decent and fairly honest person. This guy's obviously too nice to be on her team.

[desmirl]

What is it with the Clintonistas? Don't they know that Hillary voted to authorize military force in Iraq, EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD NOT READ THE NIE? Talk about ignorant and indolent. Don't they know she has voted to authorize funds for the BUSH/CHENEY OIL WAR every time an appropriation bill has come up? Talk about being a Stealth Republican. Don't they know that she voted for KYL-LIEBERMAN, which is a BACKDOOR TO WAR WITH IRAN? Talk about a WARMONGER! But I can't call her a CHICKENHAWK because she faced down the snipers in Bosnia. What a warrior!

[PrdAmerican]

Why read the NIE report when Bush's word is as good as gold...

[williamg]

What do Hillary and the GOP have in common?

They would both like to suppress voter turnout.

[ghostwriter5]

are you serious--it's obama that doesn't want Florida and Michigan to count.

[Obamacan]

You pay for it and they would've done it again. But don't ask Obama to pay for your snafu. Time's up. Polls are closed. You can vote for president in Nov.

[ampay]

I'd still like to know why over 85 precincts in NY reported not one vote for Obama, including one in Harlem. I wonder how many Obama voters the Clintons managed to suppress.

[c1ee]

Gosh, the dead horse argument once again. This has been refuted literally a million times. She signed a pledge before the primaries began that Florida and Michigan would not count.

[JMorgan]

This is not an issue for a Clinton campaign staffer to be addressing, no matter how senior. This is an issue for the candidate herself to come forward on.

Hillary Rodham Clinton said in her own voice that MoveOn "floods" and "dominates" caucuses, and "intimidates people" who support her. Those are extremely serious charges which, if true, are a threat to all Democratic voters. If it is possible to do, then wouldn't it call into question the continued practice of caucuses in the primary process? If Clinton believes it's happening, why isn't she taking this problem up with state Democratic parties in the states which are caucusing, or challenging the results in court?

This may be the best Commander-in-Chief test voters can expect from HRC: How carefully does Hillary Rodham Clinton consider and assess information before she starts accusing and takes a nation to war? On Wednesday's debate, she failed miserably in this regard by incorrectly stating that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, which is NOT what the consensus statement by US national intelligence agencies state:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFFUhnR6bjM

We're seeing a habit and pattern of provocative and slanderous speech by Clinton, and this latest against Democratic voters accuses citizens of criminal acts when their only crime seems to be that they would prefer someone else as their President.

Where were these caucuses, Senator Clinton?

[PoliticalDookie]

I felt sorry for Garin, he just seemed lost during the whole segment.

[nibblybits]

He seems like a half-way honest guy, so he couldn't lie as easily as the rest of the campaign. Notice how Wolfson lies in a robot's monotone. I think in his mind he's in his happy place while spewing such gross inanities and prevarications.

[PrdAmerican]

I would like to know WHICH caucus(s) they supposedly attended. In other words, where is her proof? Frankly, I think the high-turnout in Caucus states exactly matches the high turnout of voters in primary states. What the hell...are we supposed to stay home just because it's a caucus? Those of us who live in Caucus states didn't have any alternatives for voting, it's obscene that she is accusing us as being activists, nothing more. There was no bullying, there were not harsh words exchanged, it was very civil and very democratic....shame on Hilliary for LYING and TWISTING the TRUTH, yet again.

[Dorian]

In Nevada it was the Clintons who were doing the bullying. Bill Clinton was over at the casino caucuses having temper tantrums and making accusations with no basis in fact. More lies.

[vat6948]

The big question seems to be, what is HRC going to do after she loses this primary??? I think she bombed, then burned every bridge she crossed???

[sangsue]

It doesn't matter. Clinton will win. She and other bomb throwers like her will hijack the Convention, claim that it doesn't count unless FL and MI are counted. Then if there is a revote and Obama wins that, she'll come up with another reason, including holding the Democratic party hostage unless they give her the nomination. Obama, the gentlemen will capitulate to save the party. Then when McCain wins in November, she'll find a way to blame Obamacrats. Nothing is ever her fault after all.
However, we'll all remember. We will all remember. And although Obamacrats love the Democratic party more than Hillicrats who only love Hillary do, we will remember. We'll hold our nose to vote for Hillary. But we will remember this lesson. And we will do everything in our power to show the Queen that her uppity subjects can dish out the consequences.

[Beninn]

"We'll hold our nose to vote for Hillary."

Who's this "We"?

If that's what the party faithful and superdelegates are counting on, I think they're going to be sorely disappointed.

With each new day, Hillary does something to prove these primaries aren't about the better of the two candidates, but that she's totally unacceptable. With her plans for the mid east (stated during the debate), she's to the right of McCain. She's a unitary executive lovin' hawk!

No, a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bush-Cheney 3. Let's stop kidding ourselves.

[maxdenn]

Why is it that I have such a difficult time liking and trusting Senator Clinton?

[SuperBunny]

Good instincts?

[JeremyO]

Is Hillary a neo-con or what? Here Hillary's vote for war. She just amazing! Now she's against it?

Hillary's Civil War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK_fXnubsm8

[MoreCowBellNowPlease]

She voted for the war (with an impressive floor speech impressing on the importance of "last resort)" but you are correct that she voted for it all the same. See here speech here, it was pretty convincing that it was a renching decision for her and that she was doing it with all the trust in the evidence Bush gave and his committment to work with the UN and only go in as a last resort http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

However as far as calling her neo-con: that's just anti-Hillary negative attacking at it's best. She's actually considered a radical left democrat--see here. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022

[MoreCowBellNowPlease]

I guess only you can answer that but if you're being honest, do you think it's because you don't want to like her?...maybe because her personality isn't particularily likeable? I have a hard time with people that don't trust her because of the Bosnia gaffe. I have loads of thinks Obama has done and said that question his honesty. In fact look here for the misrepresentations of BOTH candidates at the last debate http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/taking_liberties_in_philadelphia.html.

I am not pointing his lies out to spread negativity but just to point out that all candidates lie/mislead at times for political gain so perhaps if you take that element out of the equation you may better be able to figure out why you don't like her.

[MoreCowBellNowPlease]

If you take the Bosnia lie out of the equation, the faults of her husband lying about his infidelity you may be forced to admit that you like Obama because he is cooler, hipper, younger, more atractive and has a more likeable personality. Hillary doesn't make you feel cool or hip and like you're one of the wealthy elite wine drinkers. I am not trying to insult you, I just think it's really hard for people of intellect to let themselves admit that they are voting for the most important role on planet based on popularity.

They are the same on the issues, both mislead, both are negatively campaigning so I think that's what it comes down to.

[deb813]

Naive bitter person, it's not just Bosnia. It's Schip and NAFTA and Colombia and bringing peace to Ireland and pretending to be working class Hillary while she's out there giving speeches in jewelry that costs more then a working class person makes in a year. it's carrying a gun as a child to gun owners and strict gun control with those who don't see the allure of guns. Nothing about Hillary Clinton is AUTHENTIC. Nothing at all. And worst of all she's already LOST and yet she convinces all her bitter supporters that she can still win. She can't win the only way she can get the nomination is to STEAL it. Face it she's toast. NO superdelegate will put their political future on the line to put the LOSING candidate in when the winning candidate has brought all those voters we need in November to WIN! So they are just waiting till she either embarrasses the party enough to shove her out or until she gets out on her own. YOU ARE ALL BELIEVING THE GREATEST FAIRY TALE OF ALL.