I used to be a Contributing Editor at daily kos. For a long while, daily kos was perceived as Far Left. But reality caught up to perception - people now understand that daily kos is a partisan Dem website that believes in a Big Tent Democratic Party. Some of the leaders at daily kos have endorsed Democratic candidates like Bob Casey (I personally endorsed Chuck Penacchio) and other conservative, or perceived conservative, Dems, like Heath Shuler and Jim Webb. People understand that the leaders of daily kos are about electing Dems.

Move On has sold itself differently. And still seems to want to. But the reality is Move On is now moving itself, or trying to, to a daily kos partisan Dem position. And there is nothing wrong with that. But Move On is NOT there yet. And as such, its positioning on the Iraq supplemental funding bill IS problematic. They have move the Left flank further to the middle, ironically, making the Congressional leadership's attempts to end the war more difficult, not less difficult.

Move On argues:

He failed to report that the reason MoveOn and others could pivot to help leadership in Congress, in the face of likely criticism from some anti-war activists, was because of the strong support we all felt from MoveOn members and the progressive base. This deep foundation of support is a new thing. And a hopeful thing. Because it means that a base-grounded movement can push leaders hard, yet be nuanced and strategic, because people are tuned-in enough to understand the nuance. I think the blogs are playing an important role here -- there are millions of new political mavens who really understand the details of what's going on now. And they help ground the movement. We've moved beyond sound-bite politics.

I think Mr.Boyd is wrong on this and will soon discover that.

Moreover, Move On is simply endorsing bad tactics imo:

Wes Boyd: Yeah. The quick analysis was that if the Democrats can maintain unity against the president, we will succeed . . . Things will continue to get worse for the president and the GOP, and finally Republicans will break away from the president, and he'll have to deescalate and redeploy. And the pressure mounts every day. . . . Our campaign strategy in this context is to go as deep as possible in isolating the president. Show "moderate" members of Congress that the American people are against the war, in their districts. . . . And most of all, while screaming bloody murder about this disastrous war and occupation, support unity, not division, among progressives and Democrats. This was the new challenge.

What's wrong here? I think it is in the unstated premise - it takes Republicans breaking away from Bush to end the war and that enough Republican WILL break away from Bush to end the war.

The idea, in a nutshell, is count on Bush and the Republicans to end the Iraq Debacle. This idea has no chance whatsoever of success. None. Zero. It will never happen.

Like Bush, Move On appears to have created a fact scenario that will allow it to do what it favors -work to keep the Dems unified. But unity as a goal will not end the war. Too often we hear from Dem Party groups and partisan Dem sites that unity is the overarching goal. I think it is IN ELECTIONS!!! I vote D almost no matter what. I support D no matter what.

But on issues, we must have principles and ideas even if they cause short term disunity. It is how positions are changed. The Overton Window in action. It's funny that Move On, which was a major force is moving the debate on Iraq, now forsakes its great success.

Of course, what will happen wil be predictable, as Move On becomes more of a Party oriented Dem Establishment organization, someone will fill the void on its Left.

But back to Iraq, the reality is if the war ends, it will be because Dems are forced to end it, through the NOT funding power. The proposals Move On endorses are not intended to achieve an end to the war by Democrats. It is intended to force the GOP and Bush to end the war. And since Move On's strategy has no chance of success, and is bad politics to boot, I can do nothig but condemn it.

I do not question their commitment to ending the war, I question their judgment.