MoveOn: Hillary Gets it Right, Elizabeth Edwards Gets it Wrong, and Rudy Gets It In the Eye

It seems like only yesterday in these very pages I wanted to put my head through a wall when Hillary Clinton decided to pile on John Kerry on the eve of the 2006 election, just as the right wing was swarming him over his bad joke. It's just such a basic, elemental principle at play here -- you don't help the right wing out by repeating their talking points, ever. Why was this so hard to grasp?

But here we are, almost a year later, and Hillary seems to have internalized that principle very well. Because when baited by Rudy Giuliani and offered the chance to frag MoveOn over their Petraeus ad, she thought the better of it:

Rudy Giuliani is dropping in the polls and is unable to defend his own support for George Bush's failed war. Instead of distorting Senator Clinton's record in the campaign's first attack ad, the Mayor should tell voters why he thinks sticking with the Bush Iraq strategy makes sense. The country wants change and while Hillary Clinton is focused ending the war, Mayor Giuliani is playing politics.

Bravo. Hillary seizes the opportunity to pivot and attack -- forcing Rudy into embracing George Bush and his horribly unpopular war. She sticks the landing.

Elizabeth Edwards? Not so much. You would thinks that she of all people should know about the asymmetrical intimidation problem that Paul Krugman talks about -- the one where the media is afraid to go after Rudy Guiliani for claiming he's a rescue worker, but they'll try to demolish John Edwards over a haircut because they know that they'll get hammered by the right wing noise machine for the former and pay no price for the latter.

But I guess not, because she decided instead to join with such leading moral barometers as Diaper Dave Vitter and John "McCarthy" McCain to attack MoveOn. So did John Kerry, whom one would expect to know better by this point in time. Granted, we really don't expect much better from Joe Biden -- somehow he continues to find the obvious quite elusive. So I guess we have to say it once again until everyone gets it -- you never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a cudgel to beat the left with.

Just. Don't. Do. It.

The quite simple fact of the matter is that last week's carefully orchestrated dog-and-pony show just bought us several more Friedman Units of war, and all that cabbage on Petraeus's chest had its desired effect -- politicians were so afraid of criticising a military man they couldn't say what needed to be said, namely that Petraeus is betraying the trust of the American public by using his credibility as a General to present George Bush's politicized and inaccurate facts to Congress. The war is not going swimmingly, it's a full on, four-flushing disaster and the entire country knows it. Rather than turning around and kicking MoveOn in an overweening desire to have the right wing pat them on the head, maybe everyone should remember that their failure to criticize Colin Powell for the very same reasons five years ago bought us this mess in the first place, and be thankful that someone is injecting some skepticism into the conversation this time around.

Much hand wringing has ensued in the wake of the ad, and Enron Ed and Karl Rove's short term strategy to pillory MoveOn may have George Bush's desired effect of driving all the Republicans to his defense. As Digby observed, it certainly hornswoggled the media into missing the real story. But what did they really buy along with those Friedman Units? In forcing all the Republicans to rally 'round George Bush, they've left them no room to run in 2008. Says Bill Schneider:

It probably contributed to the affect that I described earlier, which is that Republicans were expected to rally behind the president. This probably gave them a little more fire.

And as you indicated and as Candy said, that could be very damaging to Republicans in the long run because they feel like they're forced to stick with this president and this policy and the political damage could be catastrophic.

I don't expect useless DLC consultants who are advising Harry Reid to hump the leg of the GOP like a neutered terrier to understand it, but driving Republicans into the waiting arms of George Bush and making them take ownership of this war could be the best thing to happen to Democrats in 2008. That MoveOn plans to go straight at uber fraud Rudy Giuliani today for the same betrayal of trust he displayed when he decided to abandon his responsibilities on the Iraq Study Group is to their credit.

Nobody wants to deal with this messy war, but our representatives are not going to be allowed to punt this time around. Many are going to get banged up and bruised in the process but that's just how it's going to go down.

Good for MoveOn for being willing to say what needs to be said and take the hit. Democrats should take their cues from Hillary Clinton when asked about their efforts and seize the opportunity to wrap this war around the exposed necks of the GOP.

Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com.

Comments

[SONWABO MDA]

Well, Hillary may have internalized the principle of not helping the right by repeating its talking points. But bear in mind that Hillary is just as calculating as her husband , and she is good at sensing a political opportunity. Knowing she could easily get away with it, she kicked John Kerry while he was down following the botched joke. She could not do the same to MoveOn because MoveON would not have let her get away with it. She would have paid dearly for it . She needs MoveOn at this election time. She needs all the supports she can get.

However, there is a longstanging practice among Democrats of turning against their own either believing that by so doing the issue at hand would simply go away, or, as an effort to placate the right. Democrats used to join the Republicans in critcizing Howard Dean for his outspokeness in his eary days as chairman of the DNC, and Howard has since resigned himself to perpetual silence even in the face of abounding issues for verbalization.

[ljsfolly]

Amen. There is real media issues at work here when they also follow the leader over the cliff. When this country needs real people in the media and on the street to see what the republicans are doing as a result of one ad. Amazing that one ad would send republicans running for all they are worth to back up bush. Even Anderson Cooper, who I had respect for, ran to Iraq and pointed out how much more safe the Iraqis are when it is no more true than the congress members going over with full protection of all that can be done to protect them. It turned me off Anderson and what I thought he represented. I don't like being lied to. His co worker Michael Ware tells it like it is and he should know as he has been there for years now and knows the truth. I ask again what are we allowing those who lie to teach the children? Who will pay when they grow up?

[bobdob]

I'm one of those who would be very happy if MoveOn simply disappeared from the face of the Earth. They're not helpful. What they are is shrill and ridiculous. They serve as a lightning rod for everything the right hates about the left, and while they provide endless talking points for the right, they do virtually nothing to help the left. If their ideas weren't so dependably STUPID, I might have a different opinion. But their ideas are dependably stupid.

[GenericBlogger]

Jane Hamsher condemns Elizabeth Edwards, Joe Biden, and John Kerry for their remarks against other progressives. However Jane fails to see that her attacks undermine the progressive stance and provide the right with potential ammunition.

I am a progressive and feel the MoveOn ad is in bad taste and unwarranted. Petraeus deserves criticism but sophomoric attacks can backfire. I don't believe Petraeus betrayed the country but I believe he is not telling us the whole truth. He doesn't have the backbone to resign and tell us like it really is. That does not mean he is traitor.

[smileyinutah]

Jane:

I like your post but very often I find that there is more criticism of the Democrats in these blogs than needed and this just feeds people like Malkin and others. But I also think that they need to develop some spines.

I also think that the Democrats can simply say that this is a free country and Move On is free to express their opinion through advertisements. All of us as Americans should respect their right to say what they want and there is no reason for any Democrats to condemn the ad.

[burneb]

We should not expect any leading Democrats to apologize for anything MoveOn says until leading Republicans apologize for the Swift Boat smears.

True, the MoveOn "BetrayUs" ad was provocative. Petraeus is a respected and probably honorable general, but so was Colin Powell until his WMD testimony before the UN. The Bush administration squeezed and used him like a dishrag and ignored him thereafter. What credible reason is there to think the same is not happening to Petreaus?

Even is Petraeus is telling what he thinks is the truth, it is not likely that he is getting the truth from his officers in the first place. Remember the body count problem in Vietnam?

[splashy]

Well said. I thought the MoveOn ad was brilliant! The rightists had no real defense, so they kept the rhyme going.

[NoContest]

Awesome, Jane.... Thanks!

[starwheel]

Elizabeth Edwards is warm and fuzzy but she is also very shrewd and political. She blasted Anne Coulter for lowering the level of political discourse and now she is trying to play both sides of the same coin by criticizing MoveOn.org.

She understand perceptions matter even if not based on facts. And based upon some of the responses to Jane's post, she is right on. The perception is MoveOn.org attacked the military and called a soldier a "traitor".

The facts don't matter. The perception does. As wonderful as Elizabeth Edwards may be, she is helping to enforce that perception. But Jane is working to correct it. And so should we.

Anyone who asserts MoveOn.org attacked the troops or called Petraeus a traitor are simply seeing something that is not there.

Our military people must stop internalizing criticism of the President's strategy that created this mess in Iraq. And they must begin accepting the fact that the war was, in fact, a costly error. But that is no reflecting on THEM.

[goofy2]

It is sometimes amazing to me that liberal partisans and progressives can't admit a mistake. I thought that was the territory staked out by President Bush. MoveOn screwed up. They gave the right-wingers a good excuse to change the subject. Just like Bush's bullying foreign policy, they are creating enemies with some tactics.

[MoNut]

It had been said by the WH they were going to edit/re-write Patraeus' report a week or so before the General took to mic....

I, personally, think the ad served it's purpose. It got the wheels turning in Patraeus' head, perhaps giving way to that much played answer he gave to Warner's "Are we safer because of Iraq?".

Granted, it gave feed to W's typical henchmen for their opening remarks. But even Ileana's hour-long gas bag didn't even help. Overall, the beginning and lasting impression was that we were probably not going to be told the truth in this report.

While I'd rather have seen ads about Bush hiding while Patraeus was in town or how W basically threw him on the tracks, I didn't find the ad offensive or disrespectful in any way. The propaganda and twisting of facts to continue this war is what's offensive.

The apologist brigade's ranting for an hour on how offended they were over an ad over any concerns over their dirty war was also very telling to the viewers in itself.

[dora_rice]

my kind of girl.

[cutter258]

"..and all that cabbage on Petraeus's chest had its desired effect.."

But she supports the troops!!

[Producer1]

I mean no disrespect to General Petraeus, but no one forced him to take job. He may in fact be a very good general who has the misfortune to have a lousy commander-in-chief. He took a calculated risk not because he needed to, but because he is ambitious and his future is made if he's successful. If he's not successful he can always blame his lousy CIC. Too many good general officers that preceded Petraeus spoke their minds to GWB and lost their commands rather than their reputations. Petraeus put himself in the public eye and he deserves the scrutiny he's getting. If he had an ounce of integrity he'd retire, but he's too ambitious-Admiral Fallon had it right. He's certainly fair game for MoveOn.

MoveOn.org is a viable alternative to what the congressional Democrats are doing in Washington. It voices the frustration and outrage that we all feel. It is not perfect and it does make mistakes as we all do. I personally do not feel that the ad was the least bit offensive and I thought it was spot on. In fact, I joined MoveOn as a result of the ad. If everyone on this post would join and give their input and support we can make MoveOn better and we can all effectively counter the right wing in ways that are just starting to happen now.

I'm certainly not afraid of making Republicans angry or galvanizing their base. The angrier they get the more mistakes they will make and that only works to our advantage. They are basically cowards and we need to keep driving this point home.

[guajiro]

Right on! This strategy from MoveOn has made me up my contributions to MoveOn. They are right on the money and so is Jane Hamsher in her observations.

[jeff]

jane you are so right and gen. Petraeus is wrong and just says whatever mcchimpy tells him to.

i wish you could be a general.