Start A Petition

Hillary Clinton Slams MoveOn With Karl Rove's Lies


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: Afghanistan, Bush, Fisa, Hillary Clinton, Hillary MoveOn, Hillary MoveOn.Org, Karl Rove, Moveon, Schip )

Blue
- 4076 days ago - huffingtonpost.com
Jane Hamscher: 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.



   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Blue Bunting (855)
Friday April 18, 2008, 11:38 pm


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
 

doris m (4)
Friday April 18, 2008, 11:48 pm
Clinton needs to bow out gracefully (if that is a possibility). Times have changed, wars are in progress, people are aware. As a peon in the system, I do not want to be represented by an oil man, a $100 million dollar ex-presidential wife and as a woman over a certain age, I embrace change and a young man who has the energy and wisdom of what needs to be done NOW. PAST is PAST and Experience in the past does not mean it is relevant in the future...in fact it is irrelevant now. Those days are over for all of us! Get with it Hillary; TIME OVER and if you wish to spend your personal $100 million it would be so much more honorable than asking for $5bucks from the under-employed and unemployed! Have you no shame????
 

C G (63)
Friday April 18, 2008, 11:55 pm
I can understand why some progressive women could have stood behind Hillary Clinton earlier in the campaign, but I can't for the life of me understand how any "progressive" person could continue to support her after she has become a gun totin', MoveOn-bashing, race-baiting, war-mongering, won't meet with my enemies, flag burning amendment supporting hypocrite who has used the Karl Rove playbook to run a campaign of slime. Would any progressive woman support a man running such a campaign?
 

Past Member (0)
Friday April 18, 2008, 11:58 pm
Right on CharlieG!
 

Blue Bunting (855)
Saturday April 19, 2008, 11:05 am
how many reasons have we heard now for why she underperformed so severely in caucus states? she didn't lose the caucuses because of the activist base of the party, she lost the caucuses because her campaign didn't think they would need the caucus states, just another part of her flawed campaign strategy. she got her butt kicked in the caucuses because her organization on the ground was lackluster at best. success comes when preparation meets opportunity, her campaign people knew how the caucus system worked and that a good ground game was needed to win them long before a single vote was cast, they had the money and time to do well there, they simply failed to prepare. she needs to stop blaming everyone else and realize that her opponent was simply better prepared on the ground in the caucus states. the obama campaign saw the opportunity, prepared exceptionally well and consequently won.
 

Blue Bunting (855)
Saturday April 19, 2008, 4:03 pm
Dem Polls: Gallup: Clinton +1 | Newsweek: Obama +19 | Ras: Obama +2
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday April 19, 2008, 4:14 pm
As Hill has said herself, IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HEAT, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN. Save some face Hillary, get out now!! Thanks Blue
 

Blue Bunting (855)
Saturday April 19, 2008, 4:40 pm
For Clintons, a Time to Find Truest Friends

Another reason Hillary Clinton is losing may be explained in tomorrow's NY Times. The Clinton campaign seems to spend a lot of time figuring out which disloyal Democrats to hate -- and to what degree they should hate them. The Clinton campaign is on life support and they are busy making an enemies list.

Last year, word was that Team Clinton basically went around to donors and others with a clear message, which I'll paraphrase here:
Get on the bus, NOW. If you don't get on the bus, NOW, you will never get on the bus. This is the winning bus and we're going to remember who didn't get on early because when you try to get on, there won't be any seats left.
Despite the warnings, a lot of people took a different bus.

It does sound like the crew at the Clinton HQ puts a lot of time into tracking who, in their minds, has screwed them over. John Kerry is currently at the top of the hate list (a top Clinton supporter says Kerry is now "dead" to the Clintons):
Mr. Kerry, his top aides and family members have received varying degrees of tongue-lashing from Clinton surrogates, chiefly two top fund-raisers — John Coale and Peter Maroney — with previous close ties to Mr. Kerry.

(Quick aside: Mr. Coale is married to Greta Van Susteren from FOX News. Oh, and for what it's worth, they're both Scientologists.)

Now, I'm just saying that it might have behooved the staffers, fundraisers and consultants associated with Team Clinton to put some time into being decent to those who could have helped them. However, Team Clinton took a different approach -- and look where it got them. The arrogance of that campaign, and the sense of entitlement, permeated everything they did. John and I learned first-hand that if you weren't 100% with them every step of the way, even if you went far out of your way to help them on numerous occasions, you were persona non grata - not needed. Not that we ever wanted to be needed by Team Clinton, but we saw how they treated people who ever strayed from the reservation. And we weren't the only ones to experience the special charm that is Team Clinton. Lots of political types -- and reporters -- we've spoken to have similar stories of how they too were mistreated by the campaign. It's a window into the character of the campaign, and its leader - and it isn't pretty.

This arrogance and vindictiveness of the Clintons is important to understand. It helps explain why Hillary won't get out of the race even though she can't win it. The world revolves around Hillary and Bill. They're willing to destroy anyone who gets in their way. And if the majority of the Democratic voters, the majority of the states, and the majority of the delegates get in their way, then they'll be on the top of the list. Right after John Kerry.

Labels: hillary clinton

 

Blue Bunting (855)
Saturday April 19, 2008, 5:56 pm
Report: Hillary Clinton Slams Democratic Activists at Private FundraiserSen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) had harsh criticism for the "activist base" of the Democratic Party during a private fundraiser for her campaign

"We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party," said Clinton, heard on an audio clip at Huffington. "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.

"[T]hey are very driven by their view of our positions," continued Clinton, "and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Eli Pariser of MoveOn.org, which officially endorsed Obama's candidacy this February, released the following statement to Huffington in response to the report:

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.

Reaction among progressive bloggers has been swift.

Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake writes that she's "tried to stay out of the [Clinton-Obama] 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."

Quips Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (a.k.a. Kos) at Daily Kos, "Well, for a campaign that has morphed into nothing but 'Republican talking points,' it shouldn't come as any surprise."

Jonathan Singer at MyDD says that "even more astounding than Clinton's specific attacks on MoveOn, a grassroots organization founded to defend her husband against the Republican power-grab that was the 1998 impeachment, an organization that is made up of more than three million activists, most of whom are diehard in their loyalty to the Democratic Party, is the fact that Clinton is maligning the Democratic base, specifically those who have been driven to the polls at least in part in response to the Iraq War."

Oliver Willis writes, "You don't become the nominee of the Democratic/progressive movement by undercutting the Democratic/progressive movement."

The full story is available at this link.

 

Thomas Panto (364)
Sunday April 20, 2008, 6:49 pm

Hillary is running out of people to blame for her stupidity.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't





 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.