Who Will be Thrown Under the Clinton Bus Next?

Posted April 19, 2008 | 01:32 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Back in the late 1990s, I joined a small but growing group named "Censure and Move On." At that time, when the internet was a relative toddler, Wes Boyd and Joan Blades had an idea. In the midst of the impeachment of President Clinton, they would use email and the internet as a tool to quickly and fiercely organize activists to give a dose of backbone to Democrats in Washington, to fight the Republican attempts to unelect Bill Clinton.

Some might not remember, but initially, the Congressional Democrats were stunned by impeachment, paralyzed with no idea what to do - defend this guy when he did what he did? Stay silent? They were embarrassing in their inaction. "Censure and Move On" quickly boomed into an effort that flooded Capitol Hill with phone calls, petitions, protests, which gave Democrats what they needed to fight. And thus, the group played a key role in saving the Clinton presidency.

That's why the tape, uncovered by HuffPost, of Senator Clinton slamming Move On and activists is so troubling. Without Move On, she would not be Senator Hillary Clinton. She would be the wife of disgraced-and-removed former President Clinton. If there is one group that doesn't deserved to be tossed under the bus by the Clintons, either in public or private fundraisers, it's MoveOn.

It's a pattern, of the Clintons tossing aside key supporters, when they believe the political situation calls for it. It happened when President Clinton slapped the Gay and Lesbian community across the face by signing the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It happened when Bill Clinton passed a harsher-than-needed Welfare Reform package that hurt the single mothers and children that Hillary Clinton once worked to defend, as part of the Children's Defense Fund (Marian Wright Edelman's husband, Peter, called it "the worst thing Bill Clinton has done").

And, of course, there is Bill Clinton playing cutsie racial politics with his Barack-Obama-as-Jesse-Jackson statement in South Carolina. If there's another group largely responsible for rallying behind Bill Clinton and saving his presidency, it's the African American community.

That Hillary Clinton is frustrated with activists who now are turning out for Barack Obama is not news. The news is that the Clintons apparently are still guided by triangulation - tossing key constituencies under the bus, deriding them and playing them off as the enemy, rather than reaching out and trying to work with them and understand them. It's a strategy that was called "amoral", somewhat ironically, by George Stephanopoulos.

Who's next? In a third Clinton term, who will be the next core constituency to be steamrolled when the Clintons think the situation calls for it? Labor? Latinos? Who knows?

But, if this tape proves anything, it's that, indeed, the Clintons learned the wrong lessons from the 1990s, and that everyone should watch their backs.


Comments
266
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)



Clinton should have thrown MoveOn under the bus back when those idiots let Karl Rove write the headline for the General BetrayUs ad which nobody read because those idiots let Karl Rove write the headline for it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 04/21/2008

I'm sure Moveon.org was going to work hard for HIllary if she is the nominee before you guys heard the tape. Yeah! Did I mention I have a bridge to sell?

PS since when do you guys care about people throwing people under the bus. I have read this blog enough to know most of you thought Obama did not throw his grandma under the bus in his speech, and Bill Richardson did not throw the Clintons under the bus in exchange for a cabinet post or VP. So let the cat not call the kettle black. Shall we?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:50 AM on 04/21/2008

You pretend that Bill Richardson throw the Clintons under the bus in exchange for a cabinet post or VP
Prove that.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:40 AM on 04/21/2008

I think she "leaked" this on purpose - a Friday release - very similar to the Obama 'bitter' gaffe - it's too neat, too pat, so I think she wants it out there. She knows her days are numbered and so she's setting it up to blame the "leftists" of the Democratic Party for her failure - this is the DLC narrative as well. it will also play nicely into the Republican strategy for the general election to paint Obama as a radical left-wing ideologue. (I half expected the word "pinko" to come out of McCain's mouth today on This Week.)

It's ridiculous that she complains about the caucuses when she made a strategic decision to ignore them at the beginning of her campaign - mostly because she didn't think she'd need them and she knew John Edwards was counting on them, since he had the early support of the "activists" in the party. (She wasn't paying any attention to Obama at that point - another poor judgment call on her part .) Certainly, Bill Clinton didn't complain about the caucuses in 1992 when they were instrumental in his winning the nomination - as they almost always are with the lesser known candidates.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:25 AM on 04/21/2008

I am so saddened by the great trust that anyone places in the Clinton's. It's well meaning trust, but
trust that will inevitably be betrayed.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:46 AM on 04/21/2008

terragazelle See Profile I'm a Fan of terragazelle
...So those who have a problem with what is human nature...hopefully we will get over ourselves and having a black man as president will go a long way to free us from our demons. I have a sincere belief that if Obama was a white man with a black grandmother making the same statement, you all would think nothing of it. Our bigotries sneak up on us. THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO WOULD SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT!!! Thanks.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:26 PM on 04/20/2008

NanWhit- "if Obama was a white man with a black grandmother"

In our country anyone who has a black grandmother is still considered black. Wouldn't it be nice if we were all post race? I'd like to think we are all human.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 AM on 04/21/2008

It's amazing how many various and sundry voting blocs *owe* support to the Clintons, while the Clintons seem to owe nothing to anyone. To use Hillary's phrasing, I was "taken aback" by her comments regarding MoveOn. Where's James Carville crying "Judas" when the betrayal is done on a massive scale?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:26 PM on 04/20/2008

At least MoveOn (and Reich and Richardson and Nunn and Boren) didn't endorse Hillary, and then announce she can't ever be elected, like McGovern did:
http://digits.hrblock.com/ssDigits/digits.php?rType=1&sPath=1839&sNode=1839&uId=289

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 04/20/2008

Back in the late 1990s, I joined a small but growing group named "Censure and Move On." At that time, when the internet was a relative toddler, Wes Boyd and Joan Blades had an idea. In the midst of the impeachment of President Clinton, they would use email and the internet as a tool to quickly and fiercely organize activists to give a dose of backbone to Democrats in Washington, to fight the Republican attempts to unelect Bill Clinton.

WHY DIDN'T YOUR GROUP GO AFTER BUSH AND CHANEY OVER THEIR LYING ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR???? THANKS

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:11 PM on 04/20/2008

You know what -- MoveOn chose to get involved in this primary campaign by endorsing Obama, so they should get over it. If they didn't want to play politics, then they shouldn't have played politics. It wouldn't be the first time that MoveOn shot themselves in the foot, now would it? Anyone remember the Gen. Betrayus ad? While there was nothing wrong with the sentiment and they were well within their right to buy the ad the end result was to give something for the Neonuts to distract millions of people who do not think of themselves as progressives and who do get their information from the corporatist media. The echo chamber of the corporatist media was so loud that the real message that the progressives were trying to get out got drowned out and voila, the war went on. Now, MoveOn has become another distracting issue in this primary campaign to the detriment of coverage about the real issues of this campaign.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 04/20/2008

Let me see if I understand you. Lies to get us into an obscene war in Iraq are fine. Lies to keep us in that war are fine. Lies to start a new war with Iran are fine. But when someone dares speak the truth to stop this madness, they are shooting themselves in the foot?

I agree with you that the corporatist media is a big part of the problem we face. I believe it is the biggest part of the problem but I very much disagree that appeasement is part of the solution. The appeasement approach you advocate has made the problem worse, not better. It has allowed the corporatist media to frame issue after issue and drag the entire political debate to the right because the American people are only presented a centrist viewpoint and a far right view point and we end up compromising ourselves further and further to the right.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 PM on 04/20/2008

BitJam, are you sure you're responding to my comment? The reason I ask, is that most of your comment doesn't seem to relate to anything I wrote. I didn't discuss appeasement. I'm pretty sure that I was indicating I think the war is a bad idea and that I would've liked for it to have ended a long time ago.

If you are responding to my comment, then you missed my point. The point I was trying to make is that MoveOn, a generally successful progressive organization does seem to be developing a bad habit of making some less than positive decisions. Decisions that sometimes end up creating a situation that is contra to what they're trying to achieve. In this case I was very much against the decision to endorse Sen. Obama before the primary was over. That decision created some very hard feelings on the part of the millions of MoveOn members who are supporters of Sen. Clinton. An endorsement of whoever gets the nomination would've been better, I think. And, now this endorsement is being brought up in the campaign. So, you tell me why it was a good decision. Why is it better to have a conversation about MoveOn members who support Sen. Obama and whether or not they were a problem in caucuses than it is to have a conversation about what the two candidates plan to do about investigating and prosecuting, if necessary, the criminal acts of the Bushies?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:11 PM on 04/20/2008

Don't you think if the support for HRC was in the org, they would have either endorsed her or would have endorsed no one if the support for her and Obama was nearly even.

It wasn't nearly even. It wasn't even close. Despite the fact that a few still voted for Edwards, about 70% supported Obama. Given this sizable majority, they went with it.

You think that's wrong? Why -- other than the fact that your candidate lost?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:52 AM on 04/21/2008

I agree that they have painted themselves as far left activists. Their choice. And it will be a problem for Obama, in that he'll have a hard time redefining himself to attract the moderates and conservative Democrats.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:29 PM on 04/20/2008

The only problem with your assertion is that every candidate for either party in the history of forever has to run to the extremes in the primary to get the support of their party's base.

Then, the candidate must run to the middle in the general to get elected.

It's always been true and always will be. Nice of you to notice.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:23 PM on 04/20/2008

Moveon seemed to be a general liberal group. However, now it is obviously an Obama support group. No ads were taken out when the media smeared Hillary with sexist remarks. No outcry when Russert clobbered her unfairly during his debate.

MoveOn hardly should complain if she noticed. That is their own choice to back one candidate rather than stick to backing principles,whether they apply to either or both candidates.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:27 AM on 04/20/2008

You have totally missed the point. The problem isn't that Clinton *noticed* that MoveOn endorsed Obama over her, the problem is that she decided to *trash* MoveOn after she found out. The same thing happened when Governor Richardson announced his endorsement of Obama. A Clinton surrogate compared Richardson's endorsement to Judas' betrayal of Jesus Christ.

The Clinton camp has demeaned group after group for the "crime" of supporting Obama instead of Hillary. You have captured this Clinton meme perfectly: "either support Hillary or stay the hell out of our way".

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:11 PM on 04/20/2008

Thanks for the reminder of the genesis of MoveOn. Your points are well taken.

However, I'd like to go a step further and argue that your argument makes a strong case for everybody to put principles over their leaders. What Bill Clinton did was plain wrong, regardless of who was pointing out the wrong. When he lied as a president--even though it was over what otherwise a personal, trivial matter, he ought to be thrown out of the White House. Instead, he was defended and he remained office. So he, the leader, triumphed over the principle of honesty and decency.

Look the kind of precedent Bill Clinton has set.

Now, the Clintons are asking people once again to support *them* over principles. She lied about Bosnia and expected, not surprisingly, that people would come to her defense, as they had done for her husband. And some have indeed.

As you have rightly pointed out, under this assumption that she, the leader, trumps the cause, throwing undesirable supporters under the bus is a necessary part of the equation--stay in power at whatever the cost.

This perhaps should serve as a cautionary note to supporters of all leaders, including supporters of Obama (of which I am one), that one must not tolerate violations of basic principles by the leader, however "great" he may be.

Who was it that said, dissent is the highest form of patriotism? The same can be said of support of leaders.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:17 AM on 04/20/2008

Hopefully Obama.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 AM on 04/20/2008

Read this and you will see what you are really getting into with Hillary Clinton
http://www.jzeifman.com/

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 AM on 04/20/2008

It's almost the reverse, they don't do squat for any person or group left of Zell Miller _unless they momentarily need them._

You have to be on the bus to be thrown off it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 PM on 04/19/2008

Last I checked, MoveOn was fighting to defeat her. Given this, I think her comments have been decidedly measured.

MoveOn should never have taken a position in the primary.

BTW, Clinton supported MoveOn when they were attacked by the Right. Obama was a no show at the vote.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 PM on 04/19/2008

She doesn't sound too stable to me.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:23 AM on 04/20/2008

She didn't mind them at all when they were created in order to save her husband from being ousted from the White House. I joined MoveOn back then and ardently argued for Bill Clinton along with them. Just because people across the nation supported Bill Clinton does not mean that we are required to back Hillary. We were investing in hope and change with Bill and we are now investing in Obama in a similar vein.

Sorry Hillary, but, Senator, you're no Bill Clinton!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 AM on 04/20/2008

Sorry Hillary, but, Senator, you're no Bill Clinton! I WISH EVERYONE COULD REMEMBER THIS!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 PM on 04/20/2008

About a month and a half ago, MoveOn polled its members and they overwhelmingly returned a vote in support of Obama. I was one of those polled.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:42 AM on 04/20/2008

You made a mistake!!! Thanks

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 PM on 04/20/2008

Problem is, she was complaining after the Nevada caucuses and before MoveOn came out in support of Obama. That puts her time frame in question.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 AM on 04/20/2008

"Move On" are a bunch of wack jobs who occasionally compose a rational thought. They would have zero relevance without the internet. You would hope no Presidential candidate would want them as a key supporter.

Those who want to be a part of this group, are the same people who don't have a problem with the Weather Underground.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:03 PM on 04/19/2008

thanks for piping up from the far right...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:11 AM on 04/20/2008

People like us are in the middle. It seems far right from where you are standing , way out on the far left. Moveon's people have launched some of the most vicious attacks on Hillary this campaign. The bottom line is we in the middle will Moveon to McCain if your fellow radical Obama is the nominee and you will be in the same position as always, hating the guy who stole your lollipop.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:31 AM on 04/20/2008

Such as?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 AM on 04/21/2008

I don't have a problem with the farcical accusations about Obama and the Weather Underground. It was, and is, pure political theater. But I am no "wack job". It is no worse than Bill Clinton's pardons or any contributions Ayers may have made to the Clintons.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 AM on 04/20/2008

I think the problems HC has is that 1) she very much want's to control the message, not have it intetrpeted by others and 2) she fears that connections and support from 'liberal' wing groups will hurt her now and in the fall election if she wins with gettng the moderate middle voters.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 PM on 04/19/2008

Earth to Clintons: Obama is outdoing you.

Obama's track record is that he's drawing more moderate middle than the Clintons EVER did.

If their goal is the party's goal, the contest needs to be stopped with the one who's consistently done the best at it.