Move On Endorses Obama

By Big Tent Democrat


In a resounding vote today, MoveOn.org Political Action's members nationwide voted to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President. The group, with 3.2 million members nation-wide and over 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states, will immediately begin to mobilize on behalf of Senator Obama. The vote favored Senator Obama to Senator Clinton by 70.4% to 29.6%.

I am not a fan of Move On, as a result of its capitulation on the Not Funding issue on Iraq. Your mileage may vary. Does it matter? In a word, no. Not one bit.

< Why The Dems' Matt Santos Night Was Good For Hillary | Krugman Accuses Obama Of Going Harry and Louise On Health Care >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think MoveOn shouldn't have endorsed anyone and (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by derridog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:13:29 AM EST
    that's because, by remaining above the fray, they would have  continued to be much more effective on non-election issues.  I am a member and I voted for Hillary, but even while voting, I knew they were going to go for Obama.  But now I no longer really feel part of the group and I imagine they will lose people that way, who otherwise would have strongly supported them in other things.  Unfortunately, I think this contributes to splitting the Democrats in the general election, because there will be bitterness, no matter who wins at this point.

    Same here -- won't help Obama much (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:16:18 AM EST
    as he already has that demog -- but could hurt Move On more.  I also was a member but have been neutral on it for a while . . . and now they lost me.  They ought to have stayed neutral, too, to keep building the netroots.  With it and DKos endorsing a candidate at this point, they may have done in the potential of the netroots now.

    For those who missed it (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:22:42 AM EST
    I have been blistering Move On for a while now.

    This is not about Obama for me.


    i agree so much (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by english teacher on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:46:02 PM EST
    with so many of you here.  it's not about clinton or obama.  it's just awful, awful strategy.  let the voters decide the nominee.  endorse "the nominee" and the process.  

    moderate swing voters and fence sitting republicans will not jump onto a personality movement in the fall just because obama says so.  in fact, if that's the best he has, i do expect many will go for mccain based on, yes - "experience".  

    again, this is just an awful strategy with the potential to become a tragedy, imho.


    Certainly (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:22:03 AM EST
    But Move On is about Move On's managing group, Parisier et al.

    I think we have solid proof that Move On is not very committed to issues.


    I'm a MovOn member but (none / 0) (#84)
    by felizarte on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 07:15:31 PM EST
    I noticed they just sent me a ballot link to vote on the same day they endorsed Obama.  Leads me to agree with another poster that this organization's agenda is controlled by its founders. I have signed a few of their petitions regarding the war and the confirmation of Ileto for the S.C. The size of the organization is an illusion as far as I am concerned.    I'm certainly not going to be a "foot-soldier" for Barack.

    I am voting for Hillary in California.  


    Re: (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:14:23 AM EST
    I wonder how Hillary feels now about taking a bullet for MoveOn by opposing the vote to condemn them in the Senate.

    Bet She Wishes That She Used The Obama Strategy (none / 0) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:19:57 AM EST
    Obama Strategy = Don't Vote

    Heh (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:20:56 AM EST
    Re: (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:35:32 AM EST
    According to OpenLeft this was based on a vote of the membership, something like 71-29 with a 66% majority needed to endorse anyone at all.

    So obviously, the membership cares about the issues that matter to them, not so much about the institutional brand of MoveOn.org.

    It's kind of like what happens when a union polls its membership instead of making a top-down endorsement.  You get a more democratic outcome, but you don't necessarily get the result that is best for the union as an institution or for the labor movement.


    Oh come on (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:51:12 AM EST
    They knew how the vote would turn out.

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#77)
    by womanwarrior on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 05:07:58 PM EST
         And they would not allow for "none of the above," or "don't do it now," or any other candidate.  They are just not a "democratic" bunch, in the "let the people express their views" sense.  They are just manipulators.  
         Notice they did not announce the results of "will you vote for a Democrat, no matter which one" in the fall election question.  Probably didn't like the result.  
         Maybe they are actually FBI agents provocateurs, set up to take the energy out of the net roots and give them a bad name.  
         Big brother is everywhere.  

    vote (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by tek on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:06:18 PM EST
    It seems kind of weird to say it's an endorsement, when it's just a grassroots (supposedly) organization and people voted on it. What is different about that and an election or primary, except it's not official.

    I got the vote message and voted for Hillary. I find a lot of the partisan dirty politics going on in the Democratic camp during this election are quite hard to swallow and I think I will be a lot more careful from now on who I believe and support, even if they do call themselves liberal or Democrat. In my opinion, Ted Kennedy's behavior is shameless, and Keith Olbermann springs to mind, too. I won't watch him anymore. I unsubscribed to MoveOn.


    MoveOn's Bait-and-switch (none / 0) (#80)
    by lectric lady on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:07:03 PM EST
    I did too. How do we get our money back?

    Influence (none / 0) (#36)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    And when MoveOn wonders why Congress people blow them off and don't worry about the consequences, they'll have only themselves to blame.

    That doesn't mean they should've supported Clinton, but I think it would've been better for them to refuse to support Obama because of his skipped votes.  Although from what I've read on the internets, very few of us seem to care about the Senator's penchant for avoiding tough votes.

    I do wonder how much good it does.  Aren't a lot of MoveOn members probably already volunteering for Obama, will they be able to mobilize anyone who isn't already.  And it comes awfully late to move the polls in Feb. 5th states.

    I think this endorsement along with SEIU is good for Obama in a PR way.  But I'm doubtful about the practical effects.


    Skipped Vote, Not Votes (none / 0) (#37)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:06:52 PM EST
    In terms of MoveOn the skipped vote I think they should've been upset by was the censure vote.

    BBC (none / 0) (#64)
    by tek on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:09:20 PM EST
    I read an interesting article from BBC yesterday in which the reporter said they covered an Obama event and volunteers were out in the streets distributing pamphlets and carrying sign. When their reporters approached these people to ask questions, they were told the volunteers were not allowed to speak to anyone, just hand out material. Later the BBC learned that all the so-called volunteers were paid to work for Obama's campaign.

    Big tent, it is actually fun to watch you guys as (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by georgeg1011 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:14:52 AM EST
    any pro news that comes our for Obama is dismissed.  So if Hillary would have been endorsed, your comments and reaction would have been exactly the same?  Come on.

    I think that the primary on Tuesday is going to be very close.  I think that momentum is swinging Obama's way.  However in CA there has been a lot of early voting.  Long story short, it will not be over by Tuesday.  It will go on Maybe Until March or so.    It was refreshing to watch a debate last night that was about the issues for once.  To echo your post, at the end of this ALL of us in the democratic party should be proud and United.  And on to November to kick John McCain's old ass up and down the coasts.  Enough of the petty crap.  A bit more objectivity...that's all.

    assume that the reason someone one has an opinion that something is not favorable for Obama is because we want to spin it against him.

    And of course the evidence strongly supports your view. I mean we have been Rezko all day all the time here.

    When people wonder why the Cult of Obama is so offputting, I point to people like you.


    Really so you reply yesterday to him raising $32M (none / 0) (#19)
    by georgeg1011 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:28:45 AM EST
    Jan was not biased.  Even you said it was newsworthy but you made no other mention of it.  Who's drinking the cool aid now.  

    I mean you really have to agree that momentum is breaking his way.  However is it too little too late? That's going to be the question.  One way or another I will support the Democratic nominee.  Hopefully everyone can say the same.


    About the 32 million (none / 0) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:35:23 AM EST
    Any analysis of the sectors that donated?

    not part of a financial statement (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jgarza on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 08:40:50 PM EST
    This is probably a bit confusing, but at the end of this month all campaigns had to release their there financial statement for the quarter ending on Dec 31st.
    Obamas campaign released the 32 mil for Jan number, because it makes him look good, but since they haven't reported there won't be any analysis till the end of the current quarter.  

    Any analysis of the sectors that donated?

    There were 250,000 people that donated, and most of that was on the internet, so my guess is it is pretty broad based across industries, since it is from a lot of small donors.


    I said I was waiting for Hillary's numbers (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:50:28 AM EST
    and I also defended Dkos' reporting on it.

    That's ome kool aid.

    BTW, you do know I have stated I think Obama is the person I will vote for right?


    Your said you're voting for him (none / 0) (#50)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    because of the unfair media bias towards him.  It's an inverted strawman position.  It's not much better than saying I'm supporting Hillary because she's a better liar.

    big mo (none / 0) (#67)
    by tek on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:18:20 PM EST
    Where do you get that momentum is breaking his way? People see through what's going on with the D. C. Dems. The bloggers aren't the country; there's a whole nation out there that wants Hillary, that's why Rahm and the boys are trying so hard to push their Manchurian Candidate on us.

    I dont undestand (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jgarza on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 08:33:14 PM EST
    how you can complain about him when you have called so many bloggers Obama biased, even though all the ones you have mentioned have criticized him.  Most times in numerous posts on the same subject. In fact i don't think there is an establishment you haven't accused of being anti Hillary.

    And of course the evidence strongly supports your view. I mean we have been Rezko all day all the time here.

    Right... I'll point out that none of the bloggers you have accused of being biased against Hillary are all white water/ travel gate/ Monica gate/ Clinton library donors all the time, or at all for that matter.  

    ON top of that read down any chain of comments at this blog, notice the repeated personal, not criticisms, but insults directed at Obama.  Reading your blog fans these days i don't really understand how you can accuse anyone of being in a cult of Obama because you appear to be the leader of Hillary's cult.  


    and I dont understand (none / 0) (#97)
    by Judith on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:01:42 PM EST
    why you come here to twist words.  What is in it for you?  You end up looking like you cannot read.  Didnt you say you want to go to lawschool?  Dont you think reading content and making accurate assessments thereof would be a useful skill to hone first?

    Move On Party Apologist? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:00:12 PM EST
    I dont, I believe it will be a blow out for Hillary, as Fla was Feb 5th is more reflective of the smae demographics, but it would not have been a good thing for Hillary to receive a Move On endorsement.  Her Iraq vote has been well known by her supporters there is no news there.  And this push that We the People were not the ones at fault for this blunder is disingenuous it is We who have the power in this country, We who need the foreign oil, We who did not march on Washington and were too timid to demand Bush be impeached for fabricating the Lie of WMD, and We who, lets face it, did nothing but rant and tens of thousands have died.  We have more power than any Hillary.  And Move Ons Betray Us Ad was unwise it hurt instead of helped and blew some momentum that Reid was capturing.

    All the way to comment #34 (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    before General Betrayus makes an appearance.

    if.... (none / 0) (#66)
    by tek on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:15:03 PM EST
    There are about only two blogs in the whole blogosphere that allow people to support Hillary without being called names and dragged through the mud. If you're so hot for Obama you should go to any number of other sites and bask in the glow of Obamania.

    BTW, I just came from our college rec center. While I was exercising Tyra Banks had Hillary on. I think it's a re-run, but it was good coverage and I noticed that the young women in the room stopped and watched her. (We're old fogy faculty).


    Moeveon vote (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:25:58 PM EST
    as relevant as the Dkos votes.

    Anyone who tries to downplay this (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    would seem to have never seriously worked on a campaign or have any understanding of the ground game importance. Whether the name/stigma of the organization, their stances, etc. helps or hurts is debatable. But there's no question that if MoveOn.org seriously dedicates its resources to the Obama campaign it has the potential to make a big impact.

    Ask anyone who was in New Hampshire or Nevada what the difference was and almost to a person they will say the Clinton team was much more organized and way better at GOTV.

    If MoveOn.org can use their infrastructure and resources to GOTV, and in this case for one candidate, the same way they did in 06 and 04 there's no question it'll effect the results. Anyone worth their salt in the political campaign world knows that the experience, organization and sheer number of names, numbers, volunteers, not to mention money that MoveOn.org brings to the table is worth more than any Richardson, Edwards, or even Gore endorsement would ever be.

    moveon (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by tek on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:19:46 PM EST
    It seems to me the Clintons have won four very difficult elections without MoveOn.org.

    and... (none / 0) (#75)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 04:00:57 PM EST
    ... somehow that means that this endorsement won't help?

    no one is denying that the clinton's run very good campaigns and know how to win.  but that isn't the point, or the question.

    the question is whether or not this endorsement will help obama.


    And (none / 0) (#87)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 07:47:43 PM EST
    did the Republican candidate get it?

    Yes. I guess. But (none / 0) (#68)
    by derridog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:19:45 PM EST
    only a small minority of their membership apparently took part in the voting (I was one and voted for Hillary).  People aren't going to change their votes just because MoveOn says so.

    I think it could hurt Obama with so called "moderates," who buy the conventional MSM view that MoveOn is made up of a bunch of commie radicals, not to mention he was endorsed by Teddy Kennedy - whom we all know is the antiChrist.


    moveon used to get my attention. (none / 0) (#94)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:40:34 PM EST
    i came to their support during the general betrayus bruhaha. in the future, i'll just let them sink. no wonder members of congress pay them no mind.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:20:51 PM EST
    Actually I have done both.

    But you go with the "importance" of this.

    It means NOTHING. Less than nothing.

    It is a cheap stunt to promote MOVE ON, not Obama.


    Maybe they can get him a good ... (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by robrecht on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:20:01 PM EST
    ... rate on a full page ad in the NYT.

    The media coverage of the huge margin of the membership vote will indeed help him with the perception of momentum going into Super Tuesday.  But he won't win the nom so it won't hurt him as VP for the GE.  

    When my wife called to tell me about the endorsement (she's trying to dissuede me from voting for Hillary), my first thought was thank God they didn't endorse Hillary--that would realy hurt her in the GE.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    It will also hurt Obama should he make it to the generals

    Stated Membership vs Regular Activists (none / 0) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:05:57 PM EST
    MoveOn has a stated membership of 3.2 million people. Anyone who has ever signed on for whatever reason is added to their membership list. Based on my own experience, the 3.2 million number does not reflect regular activists members. The last signature petition drive that I could find numbers for had 400,000 signatures and those people had to be spread over the entire country. While 400,000 is not to be sneezed at, it is nowhere close to 3.2 million.

    I would really be interested in the number of people who actually participated in the online poll.


    I just finished (none / 0) (#86)
    by standingup on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 07:39:33 PM EST
    reading a post on Dkos   with some discussion on the way the vote was conducted.  The majority had no issue with it since the majority on Dkos support Obama.  

    I think this comment from Larry Bailey has the the numbers you want to see.  


    this matters (none / 0) (#91)
    by english teacher on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:00:57 PM EST
    but florida doesn't?

    Love this comment -- brilliant (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:09:40 PM EST
    and succinct, Teach. :-)

    Thanks For The Info. (none / 0) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:22:29 PM EST
    It was basically what I thought. A relatively small percentage of their stated membership voted and they made it sound like millions of people chose Obama.

    I call foul! (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by dk on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 07:20:21 PM EST
    I am a (soon to be ex, if I have anything to do with it) Moveon member who was sent a ballot to vote.  Frankly, since the decision to have this vote was only announced last minute and only really through email, I didn't have a chance to vote.

    Anyway, this afternoon I received an email from moveon announcing that Obama had won the vote and the endorsement.  In that email, moveon claims that 197,444 people voted for Obama, while 83,084 voted for Clinton.  That comes out to a total number of votes of 280,528.

    Now, Moveon claims to have 3.2 million members.  By my reckoning, that means that less than 10% of Moveon members voted!!  

    I'm sorry, but this is disgusting.  How can they claim that Moveon members endorse a candidate when less than 10% of said members even had a say in the decision.  

    This smells like a cheap stunt of someone in the leadership of the organization.  I'm really surprised, moreover, that the media, and bloggers for that matter, didn't look into and report the percentages.  Very sloppy.

    Funny (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:23:36 AM EST
    I watched the debate again last night and have watched all but one.  As an Obama supporter I remain disappointed with his debate performances.  In my mind, he has not won any of the debates and more importantly, he has provided almost very little relative to his book on hope.  

    So as I watch the debates and listen for just what "change" means, other than a non career politician, which in and of itself may be strong enough, I come away disappointed. So it is hard for me to see why moveon would endorse him on the heels of yet another ho hum performance.

    Really? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:24:53 AM EST
    I thought he was really good last night.

    Try closing your eyes and listening (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    to him (sounds silly but makes you focus only on what he is saying.)  He stammers and labors through, it is disappointing to me.  I think Hillary has been far more fluid in her conversations...Or maybe I want more from Obama because I am not seeing the man i read in the book.

    Language and campaigns (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:25:03 PM EST
    My husband has only been in America for 3 years. And he has real trouble understanding Obama, but not Hillary. I find that Obama starts strong, then drones on and on and cannot close it. The times last night Hillary did not do well, was when she did not do her style of making the point and stopping. I think on the immigration question the anectodal story was bad for her. Left the wedge impression where there was no wedge.

    Nicely put Stella (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:34:58 PM EST
    That is what i am feeling but could not put my finger on it.  He drones and does not finish strong, and when he has a very strong moment, he doesn't shut up, he tries to outdo it.  I should know, in all of my public speaking, i am the same darned way....

    Well, it's really good that you (none / 0) (#43)
    by derridog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:20:49 PM EST
    are attempting to be so objective on this. I wish everyone would follow suit, no matter who they support.

    hey, I do that to.. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:45:07 PM EST
    whenever I try to really focus on the exact question being asked of me, and to answer it in the most thoughtful way that I can.

    Geez, are we now going to praise people for having robotic talking points that can be spewed forth on command?


    ho hum (none / 0) (#70)
    by tek on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:21:27 PM EST
    It was vote of members, supposedly. That's why I say it doesn't mean much. It's a popularity contest, not an expert analysis of the candidates.

    What is an election? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 07:49:16 PM EST
    If it were an expert analysis of the candidates I don't think that Bush would have been a two-term President.

    Rumors, rumblings... (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:03:11 PM EST
    Richardson may make an Obama endorsement today.

    Richardson won't endorse Obama today (none / 0) (#74)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:46:08 PM EST
    Richardson just made it clear in a statement that he is NOT endorsing Obama today. He did however, let them know that he will be watching the superbowl with Bill Clinton on Sunday.

    Take that however you like.


    The endorsement itself doesn't change the game. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Geekesque on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:06:17 AM EST
    But, it is either revealing or confirmation of something.

    The Move On (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    wanted some publicity is what it confirms to me.

    To Hussle Donations (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    donations. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by tek on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:10:53 PM EST
    Exactly. Right after the vote page a donation page came up.

    Agree - it doesn't matter. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Satya1 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:07:15 AM EST

    Gee (none / 0) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:07:26 AM EST
    Surprise...how predictable. Move-on is web based. Move-on is Obama's voter profile. Heh, that would be great for the GE.

    Move On Has (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:25:32 AM EST
    Been Obsolete for quite some time now. Just a marginal club imo.

    So what (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:26:45 AM EST
    Anne Coulter endorsed Hillary last night, so there.

    She Also (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:38:57 AM EST
    Said previously that the vote should be taken away from women, which I took to mean that she was afraid of HRC becoming POTUS.

    Given that, and belief that she is the focus of everyones attention 24/7, I think that her endorsement was meant to move Dems away from HRC to Obama or to just stay home.


    Her endorsement was meant only (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:43:06 AM EST
    to get herself back in the headlines.

    It never is about issues or anyone else; Ann Coulter is always about Ann Coulter.


    against John McCain. (none / 0) (#21)
    by georgeg1011 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:30:09 AM EST
    Coulter (none / 0) (#72)
    by tek on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    LOL. The she-devil is trying to tar Hillary. The neoCons are scared to death of her. What's funny is that if Hillary and McCain are the candidates, that could come back to haunt Coulter (but then she'll probably just turn into a bat and fly away).

    A Couple Of Thoughts (none / 0) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:28:28 AM EST
    I'm not completely sure it won't matter since they plan to use their resources to phone bank etc. for Obama in Feb 5th. states and beyond if necessary.

    Also, I wish that they would have given the number of people who voted rather than stating how many members they have.

    Needless to say, I won't be phone banking. Nor will I be contributing any time soon.

    My condolence to the Obama team (none / 0) (#20)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:29:39 AM EST

    ...makes one feel sorry for Obama fist the specter of JFK and MLK 60s grudge match with Ted endorsing, then National Journal names Obama as the number 1 most Liberal Senator knocking John Kerry out of first and now General Betrays US Move On lefty wing bats.  This will hurt him in my State of course but what does it do in California?  Is it really possible that the Left Liberal wing of the Dem Party dose not understand it is they who caused folks to leave the Party for dead not long ago with  all this group grievance ranting?

    Obama Disbuting Nat'l Journal Designation (none / 0) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:45:50 AM EST
    Obama Pushback on National Journal Rankings

    The Obama campaign is taking serious issue with the National Journal rankings of him as the most liberal Senator in 2007. ABC

    Never crossed my mind that the MoveOn endorsement might hurt Obama in getting the independents and moderate Republican votes he has been so activily pursuing. Guess it will depend on how much this endorsement is reported and how the more liberal people in the party view this.

    I belong to the more liberal group and this will not change my mind but then I tend to do my own research and don't pay much mind to endorsements period.


    Same Old Same Old (none / 0) (#30)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    Sen Obama camp's attempt to stop any momentum for Sen Clinton from last nights debate.

    Media is (none / 0) (#48)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:25:59 PM EST
    playing it up. Can't change chanels without running into the endorsement.

    Not a member of Move On (none / 0) (#32)
    by rilkefan on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:55:47 AM EST
    But I don't see how it's not at least a short-term plus for Obama from a PR standpoint and a longer-term plus in terms of boots on the ground (well, hands on phones) during the primary.

    My view is that (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:59:57 AM EST
    for whomever this endorsement is favorable is already with Obama and whomever does not like Move On will be given pause.

    No upside for Obama for this. Good pulicity though . . . for MOVE ON.

    Which is the point of this.


    Which begs the question (none / 0) (#44)
    by standingup on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:24:27 PM EST
    If Hillary wins the nomination, where does this leave Move On?  Do you think their membership would finally see that management isn't necessarily representing their interests but using their support to further the people in charge?    

    I can see the positives of having the support of their resources but agree it is probably negligible in terms of changing minds on the vote.  


    Like Florida (none / 0) (#45)
    by rilkefan on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:24:41 PM EST
    I would think Obama gets some favorable reporting out of this - "Important D Grass-roots Organization Overwhelmingly Endorses O" is too long to be a headline but.  Plus those phones.  And maybe some Edwards supporters neutral on Obama and HRC will be swayed.  Ok, maybe it's just 0.1% on Tuesday all else equal - certainly it's not measurable.

    I'd be surprised if the Clinton camp privately thinks, Eh, whatever.  I wonder if there's any evidence they tried to influence the outcome.


    good move for MoveOn (none / 0) (#73)
    by tek on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:26:59 PM EST
    I think that's absolutely right. I really don't think endorsements mean much at all. You'd have to be pretty much of a sheep to wait for some pol or organization to tell you how to vote.

    Move-On Endorsement (none / 0) (#35)
    by wasabi on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:04:39 PM EST
    It's hard to say how much benefit a MoveOn endorsement will have.  
    One could argue that this may drive some of the Independents/Republicans from his camp.  Then again, perhaps the I/R's he might have garnered wouldn't be the type that have negative feelings for MoveOn and the ones that did would never vote for him anyway.
    Generally the MoveOn members are from the liberal netroot wing of the party and Obama already may have most of those voters.
    Perhaps their GOTV process will change some voters minds.

    Not To Mention (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:20:46 PM EST
    Driving away democrats from Obama, who see MoveOn as trying to be the WallMart of politics.

    only meaningful if people act on it (none / 0) (#39)
    by neilario on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:09:45 PM EST
    the thing about these big endorsements as could be seen by nevada culinary workers is how the vote was and how many people are really behind it. if move on has like 1 million members and 2000 people voted on the website or email then that means nothing because it is about their ability to mobilize ground forces. so i think the impact remains to be seen. i do agree they should have stayed out of it.

    news today from taylor marsh is bo has already gone negative with a disingenuous mailer on health care. he really does not understand the democratic party unity things at all and is provied repub talking points. a real problem i have with him...

    they just wanted (none / 0) (#40)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    some attention and I don't think it hurt Hillary whatsoever....

    MoveOn Endorsement (none / 0) (#41)
    by wasabi on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:16:32 PM EST
    I believe I read somewhere that with 2.2 million members, 400K voted in their endorsement election.

    I'm a member but (none / 0) (#49)
    by ding7777 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    I haven't even read the email for a long time

    Stop with the Obama is Anti war (none / 0) (#51)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:50:54 PM EST
    It would not have been a good thing for Hillary to receive a Move On endorsement and so what if Obama made a speech on the War he has also funded it since he came to the Senate and has to my knowledge not demanded Bush be Impeached or tried for war crimes any thing less than that deserves nothing other than Faux Wedgie status.  

    This is just Cons stuff Falwell would be pleased...

    Bill was right (none / 0) (#52)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:01:28 PM EST
    It was a fantasy.

    Um... (none / 0) (#71)
    by derridog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:22:50 PM EST
    "Fairy tale."

    Bye Bye MoveOn (none / 0) (#56)
    by lectric lady on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:25:58 PM EST
    I have just 'unsubscribed' to MoveOn and asked them to remove my name from their donor list.

    why? (none / 0) (#57)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:27:51 PM EST
    because they responded to a vote by their members?

    I seriously believe (none / 0) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:47:50 PM EST
    that undecideds and Hillary supporters abstained, because many (like me) are sick of the most vocal online Democrats.

    I don't vote in any online polls anymore...excluding the ones about dog versus cat.  (btw: dog)

    If Moveon wanted to endorse based on a poll, they needed to pay the money and conduct a poll, rather than relying on rabid Obama supporters to skew the vote.


    well... (none / 0) (#76)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 04:02:06 PM EST
    ... being that moveon is internet based, and all of their members have come from the internet, it would seem that their methods were sound.

    and if the Clinton supporters intentionally didn't vote in their endorsement poll, that is their fault and not moveon's fault.


    the fact is (none / 0) (#92)
    by english teacher on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:11:06 PM EST
    if you could that number to his total in florida he would still have lost to hillary by almost 150,000 votes.  again, kos and the so called progressive blogosphere want to treat this as a substantial indication of obama's movement but at the same time argue florida didn't matter.  it's intellectually dishonest.  

    what... (none / 0) (#102)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:04:34 AM EST
    ... does the moveon endorsement have to do with Florida?

    florida (none / 0) (#103)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:26:55 AM EST
    is the absolute most reliable data sample so far.  it is a real vote of actual voters, with a huge sample size.  that real actual data from real actual people that voted representing a comparable demographic breakdown of the general electorate was overwhelmingly for clinton.  

    move on just stepped in front of a clinton landslide.  time for obama to get out of the way before he gets hurt.  


    haha... (none / 0) (#105)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:12:33 AM EST
    move on just stepped in front of a clinton landslide.  time for obama to get out of the way before he gets hurt.  
    If you say so.  I guess we will see in a few days.

    But I still don't get what MoveOn has to do with Florida.  MoveOn doesn't represent the American people.  MoveOn represents their members.

    They are not supposed to endorse who the American people want.  They are supposed to endorse who MoveOn/Moveon's members want.


    please, moveon sent out ballots after (none / 0) (#95)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:43:45 PM EST
    the game was called. they didn't give members time to vote.

    Bait-and-switch (none / 0) (#81)
    by lectric lady on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:15:56 PM EST
    Because they performed a bait-and-switch.

    "Join us and give us lots of your bucks to support progressive candidates" has become, four days before SuperTuesday, "OOPS... what we really mean is that we still want lots of your bucks, but we will only support 'some' progressive candidates."

    I think it is downright immoral of them to change the rules in mid-primary season. If I join Emily's list, I know going in that they have a bias, and that I choose to support it.

    MoveOn has never presented itself this way. Until now. After they have my money.


    Re: (none / 0) (#78)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 05:13:34 PM EST
    My wife also dropped her MoveOn membership today.

    I just (none / 0) (#62)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:55:48 PM EST
    unsubscribed from Move On and in the comment as to why, I said that I was unimpressed with their loyalty since she was strong for them in not voting for the comdemn legislation...that is disgraceful and i want no part of them...

    I pretty much did the same thing (none / 0) (#99)
    by Nowonmai on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:34:16 AM EST
    And left them this comment as to why.

    After watching the debate Clinton/Obama debate, I found I could no longer support Obama. Some of his answers weren't outright lies, but were sneaky. When asked about DREAM Act. Wolf asked Obama whether Hillary supported it or not. He  says "some people" didn't support it and doesn't answer. He knew damned well she did support it, and I am very glad that Mrs Clinton had a chance to rebut that.

    He has been videoed saying one thing to one group to garner their votes, and then saying something diametrically opposite to another to get their votes.

    He waxes on and on about inspiration, but there seems to be nothing solid behind it.
    You are throwing your 'endorsement' behind Obama. If that is true, then it would be hypocritical for me to subscribe to your newsletter, as after his snit-fit when Ted Kennedy extended his hand to Hillary, and to his petulant behavior, that is too reminiscent of the current person in the White House, I find I can no longer support him with my vote. I had had hopes, but he by his own actions has lost my support.


    bottom line is (none / 0) (#83)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 07:03:47 PM EST
    Obama is willing to use GOP talking points in order to sink a more liberal candidate and risk the election going to the GOP....Nice Guy...NOT!!

    The Ultimate Liberal Uniter...is this an oxymoron? (none / 0) (#96)
    by indifferent on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:50:51 PM EST
    The most liberal of liberal are heavily backing Obama. I can really see Conservative Republicans "reaching across" party lines to work with the most liberal Senator in Congress! Better get several of those sappy, hot-aired, long-winded, ridiculously rhetorical speeches pre-prepared in case by some chance you do slip into the White House, Mr. Obama. I don't think change will be something that you can achieve with your wand and your whimsicle words!

    Buh-by MoveOn (none / 0) (#100)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:21:53 AM EST
    I unsubscribed to MoveOn when they sent me a ballot. I didn't want them endorsing anyone! They should have waited until the voters selected a candidate and then supported that person. If we are not smart enough, and well informed enough to make our own choices in any election we would do our country a favor by staying home.

    I have voted in every election since I was old enough to vote. I do everything I can to inform myself on the issues and where candidates stand. All too often I end up holding my nose and voting for someone I don't like, don't respect, and don't believe will be a good president.

    I voted for John Kerry because he was so far superior to George Bush that the choice seemed easy. But I didn't like him and thought Howard Dean or John Edwards would have made far better presidents. I supported John Edwards and when he dropped out I switched my support to Hillary Clinton. I will not hold my nose and vote for Obama. I don't like him. I think he is an arrogant, silver-tongued phony. That's my opinion and is important to me alone. But I am not going to be a phony again and vote for someone I don't respect as I did when I voted for Gasbag Kerry. Not this time.  

    am I the only one (none / 0) (#101)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:52:20 AM EST
    who thought that MoveOn had already endorsed Obama?  I think that people assumed they would, probably even the Clinton camp.

    Someone asked if they thought Hillary would've voted against the Petreaus censure if she'd known they would stab her in the back over it.  I think that she still would have.  From everything that we have seen, she is all about what is right and what is wrong, not who did this and who did that.  We can see that in her voting record, we can see that from her working with jerks like Gingrich and we can see that from her long record of public service and testimonies from folks she helped over 30 years ago.  (By the way, where are all the endorsements from folks Obama helped as a community organizer?)


    I got a mailer today (I'm in GA) from Hillary's campaign and it was all about how her healthcare plan will help families, how to save homes, how to put America back on track as far as innovation...not one mention of Obama, except in the headline, and that's veiled, "The ONLY candidate with the experience to deliver solutions for American families."  The only person she overtly attacks is Bush.

    Contrast that with what Obama is sending out and tell me who the unity candidate is.