Hillary Clinton Slams MoveOn With Karl Rove's Lies
The Huffington Post has Hillary Clinton on tape disparaging Barack Obama and his support from MoveOn, saying that the organization "didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan.
I've tried to stay out of the pie fights of late, but as a long-term defender of MoveOn and other progressive organizations -- this is completely unacceptable.
"MoveOn opposed military action in Afghanistan" is a Republican talking point, articulated specifically and purposefully by Karl Rove:
Rove went on to say that conservatives wanted to "unleash the might and power" of the military against the Taliban in Afghanistan, while liberals wanted to submit petitions. He cited a petition he said was backed by MoveOn.org that called for "moderation and restraint" in responding to the attacks.
"I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the twin towers crumble to the earth, a side of the Pentagon destroyed and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble," he said, according to the text.
I defended Hillary Clinton when she refused to bow to right wing pressure and condemn MoveOn over the "General Betrayus" ad (and was sad when she finally capitulated). MoveOn are valuable progressive partners who have been with us on children's health, net neutrality, trying to bring an end to the war, FISA, and other issues we've been fighting for.
They've accepted the challenge of organizing the left in the virtual arena and done an amazing job that the right struggles to replicate. They now have 3 million members, of which I'm one. And their skill at online organization and movement building has developed a model that both of the Democratic candidates have been able to copy and learn from, acting as a democratizing influence and making candidates more responsive to the public at large and less to high dollar donors.
MoveOn may not have opposed military action in Afghanistan (according to Eli Pariser in the Washington Post) but I did, because I was quite certain George Bush would bungle it and we'd just wind up spending billions on a bunch of junk that would make his buddies rich and a lot of poor people in the poorest country in the world would die senselessly. Sadly that turned out to be right, and disparaging anyone for challenging this country's unrelenting bellicosity during the Bush administration is wrong.
Does Hillary Clinton not want my vote either?
Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com
Follow Jane Hamsher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janehamsher
Loading comments…
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
Jane: THANK YOU for beginning to see the light here. I highly recommend that you read the Bernstein bio of Hillary. I did in the hopes that I would find something there to like about her (afterall, it was described as being sympathetic) because I don't like the feeling in the pit of my stomach when she speaks these days.
Alas, that was not to be. The book simply refreshed my memory of all of the bad things she was involved in, including the loss of congress in 1994. And I hadn't realized that when she took a back seat afterwards when it came to giving bad advice to Bill, she replaced herself with Dick Morris!
Caucus Election as completely rigged by grass roots organizations.
The Constitution grants every citizen over 18 the right to vote... not the right to vote after being bullied and announce your initial vote in a public forum.
like we care what the sociopathic senator from NY says. Pity, pardons, and prostate cancer (really not hers) got her into the senate; her arogance, entitlement, and mendacity will get her out. what scum.
lolllll...
But unless you have at least $100 million, remember your place and don't bother her once the election is over...
Hillary has narcissistic personality dosorder. She is charter member of the Hillary party. It stands for whatever she wants whenever she wants it. Condemning MoveOn is tantamount to eating the seed corn. Cultivating a base of young progressives is the best way to get to a future that isn't The Sorrows of Empire. She gives opportunism a bad name. Her desperation has taken her far out of bounds.
Hillary, STFU!
BO was a community organizer on the South side of Chicago after finishing law school. By what stretch of the imagination does he not have credibility on poverty issues?! While I know that Senator Clinton is more able to hit the ground running, Senator Obama is a quick study. For god's sake, quit catastrophizing our candidates.
According to the "Official Story". Sept 11 was pulled off by 15 Saudis and 4 assorted Arab "Types".
The attack was Supposedly "Masterminded" by another Saudi.
Wouldn't it have made sense to attack Saudi Arabia ?
I opposed war in Afghanistan. It's simple. Afghanistan didn't attack us. Violence begets neverending violence. Thou shalt not kill. It's murder wrapped in a flag. It's a shame and a wrong you can never right. And it makes us dead in turn. Chickens come home to roost.
If we really believed in the Constitution, we'd spread democracy easy enough by treating everybody everywhere as if the Bill of Rights was equally theirs too. That should be self-evident. Like Eliza Doolittle said, the difference between a lady and a flower girl is how she is treated. Start a peace instead of a war. Earn respect. Start there.
And for Pete's sake, investigate 9/11 first! Too much is funky. If we had treated this as a police action instead of a war, who knows what evidence would have been presented, and what would come out at a fair trial. Probably something we need to learn.
The Taliban government of Afghan actively sheltered and supported the people who actually attacked us and refused to give them up to the international community. That would have been a police action. Their refusal led to action by the international community, not just the US. This was a justified response under the circumstances. It was executed by a REAL international coalition that includes NATO and was welcomed by a large portion of the population who suffered nearly complete social repression under the Taliban. It had a very real opportunity to succeed.
Until the administration shifted its focus and resources to Iraq leaving the perpetrators of 9/11 at large and allowing the Taliban to become resurgent in the south east of the country. Ms. Hamsher is absolutely correct on the point of Mr. Bush screwing it up but only in retrospect.
HIllary was not too far off because one of the leading figures in Move On did oppose the US actions in Afganistan. She was wrong that it was the organization. Of course, that misstep is not as serious as others maintaining that she was working for the lawyers for the Black Panthers or lying about Bill Clinton pardoning two of the Weathermen women. Clinton did not pardon them, but commuted their sentences after they had served over 15 years in prison for transporting explosives. Those are virtually the same lies from Rove and the GOP. Obama's people take them at face value and use them as though defending the Panthers against police attacks was wrong. THAT is using the GOP values, NOT progressive ones.
As for Afganistan being a bad idea, you have a short memory since most of the population of Afganistan were MORE than happy to see the Taliban gone. That would NOT have happened if the US had not gone in. Of course, the women of Afganistan loved the fact that the US came as well. They can walk around without being beaten and having to wear the burka. Let them say what they think of the US actions. The problem is that Bush left Afganistan to go for the oil of Iraq and gave nothing to rebuild Afganistan. THAT is the real problem, NOT that the US liberated the population of Afganistan from the tyranny of the Taliban.
"Of course, the women of Afganistan loved the fact that the US came as well. They can walk around without being beaten and having to wear the burka."
Yeah ... maybe in Karzai's office and at the U.S. Embassy ... but outside Kabul's puppet government enclave, no, not so much.
Moveon.org was interesting initially. But quickly it has become nothing more than an Obama money-raising machine. It doesn't focus on principles. No outcry when the sexism was so bad.
I wonder sometimes how women still support that organization at all. I wonder if they feel that they are on the fringe now.
But in any event, it's hardly a group that focuses on progressive ideas. It is an Obama PR arm.
So why did this organization yield to the mind control methods of the Obama Campaign? Why do women yield to it? Maybe there's something in the American life style that makes people vulnerable to certain uses of advertising and the media, but I would have thought that the average American had enough experience to withstand even high pressure political campaigns like the one Obama has been paying big dollars for in Pennsylvania?
No progressive ideas, huh? Well, since the build up to Iraq, MoveOn has been an anti-war organization. So, you have one candidate who voted for the war, voted for Kyl-Lieberman, and reinforced a link between Saddam and Al Queda. And you have the other who came out publicly against the war early. Hmm...whic
They chose to endorse him over shrillary through an anti-democratic "voting" process, where they had the nerve to actually ask their members who they should endorse.
Obviously overzealous Obama-bots elbowed their way through the process, just like in the caucuses, and intimidated the poor victimized shrillary supporters - as they sat alone in front of their computers and decided who to vote for.
Excuse me, but right now our choices are Hillary or Obama. Considering that an obvious choice doesn't make me, or thousands like me, Kool Aid drinkers, and I'm tired of that particular smear. The Clintons have dragged the election process into the sewer, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that will repair their standing with me.
This latest baloney -- that saying McCain would be better than Bush is a sign of weakness -- has to be the bottom-out point for these pious hypocrites. This is the Democrat who said McCain was more qualified for the Presidency than Obama. Does she really think we can't remember even that far back? The truth is, a roadkilled squirrel would be better than Bush. And being commander in chief requires better qualifications than finishing last in your class or lying about snipers.
Most people berated in a public forum about who they wish to vote for will cause enough pressure to change their vote just to shut the people from MoveOn.org up.
Voting should be a private action to where you only have yourself and your soul to deal with... not a bunch of shouting peer pressure wielding 'activists'
Moveon.org stopped being progressive a long time ago. I am no longer a member of that organization and I was surprised that many of my friends and colleagues stopped supporting Move.on as well when they decided to curtail the election process and crown Obama the heir apparent. I also downgraded my cable package because I couldn't stand another minute of listening to MSNBC's biased coverage.
I live in Scranton, PA and I can tell you that Obama has saturated our mail with negative smears against Clinton. Clinton's mail outs only state her solutions to the issues and make no reference to Obama. Obama's tv ads are akin to the republican adds and down and out lie about where Hillary stands on the issues.
I was honestly on the fence until about a week ago...a combination of media bias, Obama's poor performance in the debate, his whining about it afterwards
I find it amusing that the media is saying that Clinton uses republican tactics...
p.s. when you deactivate your membership on moveon.com, in the parting survey one of the drop down answers for why you decided to leave was "because of our presidential endorsemen
Just beause Hillary is a woman dos not make her the right candidate for the nominee of the democratic party. All you ladies over 45 think about it; you don't just vote for someone cause they have the same female anatomy as you do. Get real. Do the right things for your kids and your grandkids. They need a more secure future. Just think things through before you go into that voting booth. Obama has raised his money by people like me and my husband who send $25 about 3 times in the last year. Forget moveon.org.
And he pays his bills. Just think things through when you go to vote.. Sexism and racism are bad, but vote for the best candidate who is trying to unite everyone.
Why is the Hillary campaign so short sighted. If she gets the nomination she will need moveon. She has done this repeatedly in her campaign. It is week by week with her. Does she think she can just smile and everything will go away. Is she a fake?
No, she is not a fake. But I have noticed no one has addressed her comments for accuracy, just attacked her for speaking up against an organization that has attacked her.
I'm THRILLED to get Obama before DC wrecked him.
Moveon.org was formed to oppose Bill Clinton's impeachment.
Who's the "Judas" now? (Not to mention, as always, a master of doublespeak and pandering).
What is going to happen when you all get what you are after?
I've been reading this sort of stuff for just long enough to realize that maybe the most important person two or three years down the line is someone whose name has not even yet been seriously mentioned . That would be McCains's vice president.
Because by insisting that the rest of the country get Obama, underqualified and under experienced, shoved down our throats a s a presidential candidate this is what may happen.
McCain gets elected at 64-36.
Then since he is quite old, stress does him in and voila.
Won't it be something for all of you who could have had a competent female president to end up with someone like Condi Rice literally calling the shots instead.
Why do you think Republicans have been so quiet, so far?
Why do you think Karl Rove is partially under wraps ,as far as you know?
So just look back and remember,. By insisting that Americans opt in wartime and financial stress for a candidate that is ultimately and obviously rejected because he has nothing other than rhetoric, you all made the improbable possible for yet another GOP president to be elected.
What was true on Day One is just as true today- Obama has no experience and nothing tangible to put on the plate.
But it is touching to see what sheer hope can make people believe.
gala
My question is "How red-faced are you going to be when Obama wins the general election?:
Thank You Gala1, Many good points.
You do make some good points about McCain and the Republicans, but I just think you're mistaken about Obama. It's not like the guy just fell off the turnip truck. We're talking about somebody with a twenty-plus year career in public service, a decade-plus as a legislator, a distinguished background in constitutional law, and real-world experience on the ground. And if you've ever had the opportunity to close-up contrast the work of, say, your district's representative versus the work of your community organizers and social service leaders at getting things done, you know that the latter folks are easily as qualified to lead if not more so. The guy's had at least ten high-profile bills passed in Illinois and the U.S. Senate that I can stand behind, and there's every reason to believe he's going to assemble a "dream team" from both parties for his cabinet. I'm a convert from the HRC team, so maybe I have a convert's zeal, but the more I looked into it, the more I just couldn't buy anymore the "no experience story." My $.02, anyway.
gala1, I would like to thank you for your post. It makes several points logically and with passion. However I must completely disagree with each point. First let's talk about electability.
Obama is FAR and away more electable that Hillary. Polls have consistantly showed Barack ahead of McCain. Hillary's negative are so high that she will never be able to get above 50 percent approval in the mass population. People are tired of the Bush / Clinton reigns. This is without a doubt a change election, Barack is the ONLY candidate that can offer true change. Hillary will bring Bill part 2 and McCain will bring Bush 3, either way it is not change from the past.
Now the experience factor. I truely beleive that Barack has far MORE experience than Hillary does. Hillary was in the White House, but she was the first lady, not a member of the of the administration . She was given one task and that was to bring in Universial Health Care, and on that task she failed. She visited many countries, but so has my travel agent, and she is not qualified to be POTUS. Hillary has only been in the Senate for a single term and is just starting out on she second term. This is the first pubvlic office that she has held. Barack has been in the State Legislature as well as the USSenate. I have researched his activities in both and the list of accomplishments is impressive.
With the highest negatives of any serious presidential contender ever, certainly Hillary has virtually zero chance to win the general election. I can just imagine now the questioning in the general election debate by tools like Gibson and Stephanopolous (Ms. Clinton, did you kill Vince Foster, and, as a followup, why did you kill him? Was it because he knew of your illegal activities
So if Hillary is really worried about the Democrats losing in the Fall, one would think she would immediately pull out and urge all her pledged delegates, her supporters, and the superdelegates to support Edwards or Gore or someone electable. Fat chance she will do that!
Not a Judas when the organization has gone so far off the deep end that they no longer stand for one's rights but now have their own agenda to force people to agree with them
I have a theory about The Clintons. I believe they were so traumatized by the right wing smear campaign in the 90s that they may be suffering from *Stockholm Syndrome*, which Yahoo describes as "the behavior of kidnap victims who, over time, become sympathetic to their captors".
and BTW Ms Hamsher, I fail to understand why you are surprised by the Moveon lie. Did you not notice that The Clintons have been smearing Obama with Rovian lies?
Well, I have to respectfully disagree, BatedBreath. They always have been this way. They're DLC'ers, and have been since before they got into the WH.
I agree completely.
BatedBreath, I've thought that SAME thing myself!.
It's been heartbreaking to watch because there was a time that I really loved the Clintons.
That's all over now, baby....
LOL.......
Obama smears himself. He only speaks well and without 'mistakes' unless he is reading a teleprompter
I hope this gets the same amount of play that the Obama "bitter" tape has gotten....
Only a totally insane person would claim Ms. Clinton is the darling of the media. McCain has Fox. Obama has MSNBC, NBC, CNN, and Ms. Clinton has no major network.
Obama has CNN? Hillary Clinton is going on Larry King Monday night, the eve of the PA election. I will not watch, but please do so yourself and you will find her handled with kid gloves while she throws out some unfounded accusation against Barack Obama which he will not be able to answer at the last minute. It will be just like the ABC debate only Obama will not even be there to defend himself. And as far as Democrats go, Hillary has Fox.
ABC proved they were for Clinton on Wednesday night (if proof was needed). From the editing (constant shots of Clinton supporters) to the choice of questioners (a Clinton friend, advisor, and former top political / policy strategist for 4 years, plus an anti-Obama Republican). AND even dredging up some woman from PA who'd been quoted as hating Obama in the newspaper so she could ask her crucial "flag pin" question.
No doubt Clinton has ABC (plus, how many emails and calls did Stephanopoulos get from Bill and James Carville--maybe Hillary, too--prepping him with questions? I doubt that mess was ALL Sean Hannity's fault.)
And turn on CNN almost any time (except for the 5 minutes a day Jack Cafferty is, fortunately, on) and its ALL slanted for Hillary.
No joke! I left move on when they did not stay neutral. This coming out in such a strong way before everyone has had a chance to vote has made me wonder if I even want to be part of this screwed up party. Then I think well if we give it over to the Obama supporters there will be no party for centrist democrats and no party that cares about poverty. The youth who are supporting Sen. Obama seem pretty angry and self involved to me and they appear to want to just put boomers on the ice flow and be done with them.
Most networks and controlling moguls fear a Hillary win. Why? We should follow that thread.
I believe it would help her if it did.
When did Hillary become the media darling? She has remained the punching bag of media since her announcement of running for president. Obama is slowly losing his media darling status and we are beginning to see the real Obama
It is obvious that move on is in total cahootz with obama.Now hillary knows how it feels to be a republican
buckeye59 says - It is obvious that move on is in total cahootz with obama.
__________
If you were a member of MoveOn.org you would know that there was a vote whether to support a specific candidate and which candidate. Obama won the vote. If Hillary had won the vote they would have supported her.
This is not some secretive organization that is out to subvert our vote. They actually do things the old fashion way - majority rules! As it should be.
Hey super leftie,I do belive that move on voted for it and the reason obama won was because he is much farther left than hillary and now move on is treating hillary like a republican
The Clintons and their supporters can't take that.
Not when it comes to general elections. Who gives a crap how republicans feel?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
