home

Obama Parties to Flood the TX Caucuses

Move-On just sent its Denver members an e-mail asking them to host an Obama party on Sunday where everyone brings a cell phone:

On Sunday, March 2, we're holding the biggest phone bank in presidential primary history. Folks everywhere will come to parties armed with cell phones—ready to call thousands of Texas MoveOn members whose votes could put Obama over the top on March 4.

...."we'll make sure folks know about the unusual primary-plus-caucus system in Texas, which allows voters to double their impact. If we can get our 125,000 MoveOn members in Texas to flood primary and caucus locations, Obama will win.

And the disclaimer: "PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."

900 people have already signed up to host parties across the country. Their goal is 1,000 parties. And Obama complains about a 527 PAC for Hillary in Ohio?

< Electability | Accusation: Rove Targeted Siegelman >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Surely not (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    Move On is a legally incorporated entity formed to raise money for specific causes, or to use your parlance, create a slush fund.

    One is people powered, meaning that they are people working for Obama now, or lobbyist powered, which mean they are people working for Hillary.

    Just as when reaching out to the GOP is pure and goodness unity when done by Obama and dirty and evil DLC triangulation when done by Hillary.

    Just thought your comment need some amplification.

    BTW Jeralyn, I am not going to further participate in this thread and if you are not going to monitor it, I suggest you close commentsd immediately.

    Nothing but lies and nonsense comes form this topiv.

    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    I always thought that Move On was the group of people who supported Democratic causes and candidates. When Move On endorsed a specific Democratic candidate in a PRIMARY, I felt it no longer was representing all Democrats belonging in its organization. To me, it was just another personal lobbying group using it power not against the Republicans but against other Democrats. In as much as I did not feel that they should have done this, I choose to leave their pact. I doubt that they missed me at all as they have so many that believe they did the right thing. I wonder how right it would have been if they had endorsed Hillary or John.  

    Parent
    BarnBabe (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:26:47 PM EST
    I agree--and I think others here felt betrayed by MoveOn for the endorsement as well.  It was meant to be an arm of the democratic party, not a knife that slices it apart.  If they are going to claim to support democratic candidates and democratic values, then they should help ALL candidates.  There is no reason for them to endorse anyone but the dem party.

    The endorsement, for me, really crossed the line.  It also reflected a tone that I've read on certain blogs where they say they want to support democrats, but only "their" democrats.  To borrow some language from the Chimp in Chief: you are either for us or against us.

    Unity, indeed.

    Parent

    I left move on too, 'cz of the same thing. (none / 0) (#167)
    by mexboy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:35:18 PM EST
    I deleted the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:22:56 PM EST
    it contained a dubious personal opinion presented as fact and was misleading. That commenter is warned.

    Parent
    you STILL don't understand what triangulation is? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    Triangulation is an exercise in political positioning. It means you take positions that co-opt your opponent on particular issues, by being, as in the case of Bill, more Republican than Republicans. It is Bill Clinton proclaiming that the "era of big government is over", or championing NAFTA and welfare reform.

    Obama is doing none of that, as should be obvious when you see that his platform is almost identical to Hillary's. His outreach to independents and Republicans is not about adopting their policies, it is about not declaring them evil enemies, its about showing them some respect, trying to charm and disarm them to facilitate their acceptance of our ideas.

    It is an outreach to Republican VOTERS as people who have the same kind of underlying concerns as anyone else, seeking their support, not to Republican IDEAS or POLS, as was the case with Bill.

    Maybe you don't recall how dispirited so many of us were when, at the moment of the greatest progressive triumph in a generation, the reelection of Democratic president, we found ourselves voting for a guy whose platform was all about supporting school uniforms, and crap like that. Bill Clinton had no real vision after a while. That was the origin of the view of the Clintons as people interested in power for its own sake.

    Parent

    uniforms? (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by eric on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    Maybe you don't recall how dispirited so many of us were when, at the moment of the greatest progressive triumph in a generation, the reelection of Democratic president, we found ourselves voting for a guy whose platform was all about supporting school uniforms, and crap like that.

    School uniforms?  Do you remember this because you were in school in 1996?  Reelecting Bill Clinton surely wasn't a "progressive triumph" but it wasn't about school uniforms, either.

    Parent

    no (none / 0) (#151)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:08:33 PM EST
    I remember it because, having grown up in the sixties and having come to associate progressive Democratic leadership as being about civil rights, women's rights, the beginnings of support for gay rights, support for the environmental movement, and efforts to dislodge the corrupt establishment of the time, just to name a few, I thought that the moment, 1996, when the nation reaffirmed its support for a new generation of Democratic leadership, might actually move the ball forward in our society in some significant way. Or at least aspire to.

    Parent
    Moving the ball forward (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by eric on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:24:04 PM EST
    This is getting a bit off topic, but I have to ask, why the mention of school uniforms?  I remember 1996 differently, I guess.  Bill Clinton was never my idea of a progressive, but he did do many great things as president.  The "ball" was moved forward.

    Specifically, I remember the campaign theme that year - "Building a Bridge to the 21st Century".  Plenty of vision there.  And practically what the 1996 election meant was 4 more years of peace and prosperity.

    Parent

    Moveon (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    has gotten their last dime from me which I told them after they endorsed Obama...What is stupid, is that Hillary supported them in Congress with the condemn vote and Obama avoided it...For that Loyalty, this is how she is repaid...I am not impressed...

    Yup (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by ineedalife on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:28:21 PM EST
    I quit too that day. For the same reason.

    Parent
    Endorsing Obama was a tactical error (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:29:09 PM EST
    on their part. They are screwed no matter what. Obama now knows he can count on their support even if he does not support them. And Clinton has no reason to support them in the future, because she knows they might just stab her in the back.

    Parent
    You realize (none / 0) (#43)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    that it was a vote by their membership to endorse. It had to pass a 66% threshold. It wasn't just decided by some secret cabal at the top. If their members want them to support Obama, they support Obama. Just like any other membership organization.

    Parent
    That is a lie. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by dk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    I was a MoveOn member and voted.  The email I received from MoveOn announcing the Obama endorsement stated that they received about 300,000 total votes.  MoveOn claimed a membership of 3.2 million.  Therefore, by my math, less than 10% of MoveOn members voted.

    Parent
    Are you saying that (none / 0) (#134)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:53:48 PM EST
    a low turnout delegitimizes an election?

    Clearly the point being made was that all memebers had an opportunity to vote, and the endorsement went to the candidate that won the vote, if and only they garnered 2/3 of the vote.

    Just like any other democratic election.

    Parent

    Polls open for one hour would be (none / 0) (#181)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:49:46 PM EST
    a democratic election?  Not in my precinct, I hope.  It took pollworkers 20 minutes to find my daughter on the list, with one guy so hard of hearing, and then he dropped the list and forgot the first letter of her last name and had to have it yelled out again so he could start over. . . .

    Parent
    they held the "elections" (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:42:55 PM EST
    within an hour of sending out the emails asking for votes.

    If we are going to hold voters to a specific time in order to have their vote counted, then I suppose you are arguing to throw out caucuses?

    Parent

    My beef (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by muffie on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    was that there was no option to not endorse.  If there had been such an choice, I would have opted for that rather than Obama.

    Parent
    Why would this bias it toward Obama? (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    I don't get why this would change the outcome at all. Unless you want to argue that Obama people are faster at checking their email?

    What makes you think if they'd opened the voting for a longer period of time there would have been any real shift?

    Parent

    I'd bet most of her demographic support (none / 0) (#70)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:00:40 PM EST
    isn't even a member of MoveOn. One has to be pretty plugged into the whole netroots thing to even know what it is, and the netroots (rightly or wrongly) has broken strongly for Obama. So I'm sort of surprised it was as close as it was.

    Parent
    One hour to vote.....like a caucus? (none / 0) (#78)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    That's more democratic (none / 0) (#52)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:43:12 PM EST
    than my labor union. The national officers chose to support H. Clinton without asking the membership.

    Parent
    I was just responding to the lie (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by dk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:47:58 PM EST
    that 66% of MoveOn members voted for Obama.  In fact, about 6% did.

    Parent
    Most of MoveOn's members aren't really active (none / 0) (#61)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    This is the trouble with a loosely affiliated group like MoveOn. If they required a true supermajority of all their listed members to do anything important, they'd never ever get it. 300,000 is a pretty amazing turnout in that light (about the same as turnouts in primaries this year actually).

    Parent
    So you're admitting you agree with me (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by dk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    that Obama only got about 6% of the vote?  Then why did you even bring up that bogus 66% threshold number and try to pass it off as truth, when it isn't?

    Parent
    66% of those that voted (none / 0) (#75)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Given the general demographics of Obama's support and the general demographics of MoveOn, I really doubt that if they'd actually polled every member the result would have been materially different.

    Again, it was a member-driven decision. No one at the top made a decision and forced everyone else to follow it.

    Parent

    That makes absolutely no sense. (none / 0) (#170)
    by dk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:45:41 PM EST
    On what basis was it a member-driven decision?  I was a member, and I didn't drive it.  The decision to have the poll was made by someone, and I assume that was the leadership.  And just because you personally doubt that the result would have been different if more than 6% of MoveOn members actually had voted, why does that make it true?

    Parent
    The Obama Rule (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    I thought the Obama rule on outside participation was already clear from his treatment of union support for Edwards.  

    Outside groups who spend money on behalf of democrats not named Obama are special interests interfering in an election.  Outside groups who support Obama are only doing what is good and right.

    that was my point (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    Outside groups who spend money on behalf of democrats not named Obama are special interests interfering in an election.  Outside groups who support Obama are only doing what is good and right.

    thanks

    Parent

    The optics are really bad for the 527 (none / 0) (#47)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:39:48 PM EST
    It's a small group of Clinton's maxed out donors seeking a way around the $2300 primary donation rule. I really doubt that most of the MoveOn people are maxed out Obama supporters.

    Somehow big donations to a slush fund from probably corporate interests are somewhat more concerning than a couple thousand people volunteering their time.

    Parent

    are you a tad concerned (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:41:58 PM EST
    that of all the senators reviewed, Obama had the third largest PAC fund of any of them?

    Why does a first term senator who has no challengers in his district need a PAC fund at all?

    Parent

    Well... (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    What did Senator Clinton need the $40 million senate reelection campaign funds for in 2006, when she creamed the token Republican? If I recall correctly, she was pretty miserly about donating it to other Democrats in need that year, as opposed to Obama.

    Parent
    What does Clinton have to do with (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:56:38 PM EST
    my question, which you still did not answer?

    To continually respond to questions about Obama with, "well, Clinton did---" (fill in the blank) does not work for me.  My question was about Obama and it remains: why did a first term senator need so much money in his PAC, and--more importantly--where were those millions coming from?

    (As for Clinton being miserly: that statement strikes me as incredibly petty.  Both she and her husband have given their time and their money to help raise millions for fellow democrats, Obama included)

    Parent

    Sorry about that (none / 0) (#79)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    To reformulate. Obama's PAC gave out most of its money to Dems in closely contested races. (Before anyone brings up the bribery thing, someone did a study and it turns out that most of the people he gave money to ended up endorsing Clinton). He could have saved that money for his presidential campaign, but did not. I think that's a reasonable use of a PAC - giving to Democrats in closely contested races to help engender a Democratic majority.

    Clinton, on the other hand, sucked up a huge amount of resources for her reelection bid and gave out almost none to Democratic challengers in need (presumably saving it for her presidential bid).

    Kos, MyDD, and others were quite upset about this in 2006 and there was a lot written about it then.

    Parent

    You still did not answer my question (none / 0) (#87)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    Why did he need that much money in a PAC and who gave it to him?

    (and try to leave Clinton out of your answer)

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#97)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:24:07 PM EST
    1. Your point in bringing up Obama's PAC wasn't relevant to my post to begin with.

    2. It's all here: link

    You have to do a pulldown tab for the 2008 election cycle, as most of the money was raised and spent in 2006.

    The total amount pretty much pales in comparison to the $40 million Clinton raised, and almost all of the money Obama raised was given to Democrats in close races that year.

    Parent

    he could not use it for his presidential campaign (none / 0) (#88)
    by nycvoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    What does his presidential campaign have to do (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:20:36 PM EST
    with ANYTHING?

    The question is simple: why does a first term senator in an uncontested seat have the third largest PAC in the senate and where did the money come from?

    I have asked this question three times now and only gotten excuses and "Well, Clinton did X" as a response.  This is an issue that speaks to the core of his message, and NO ONE CAN ANSWER IT.

    Parent

    The largest donation (none / 0) (#102)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    Was from some Goldman employee for $5000; most of the rest above $250 (mandatory reporting limit) was from random individuals and is a small chunk of the total.

    Almost all the money raised, it seems, was from small donors. Which isn't surprising, given the base of support he has now.

    Parent

    Whoops (none / 0) (#113)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    Was reading the wrong disclosure form. There are lots of $5000 donors (the max donation); but good luck if you can find a pattern in the givers. About 1/2 the total take for the fund was raised by less than $250 donors.

    Parent
    and-a-one-and-a-two-and-a-five... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:39:31 PM EST
    Why were they giving him money for a PAC when he was uncontested in his seat?

    Why would someone in NY give a first term IL senator money for his PAC?

    Why would someone in CA give a first term IL senator money for his PAC?

    Why would so many people outside of a first term senator's district give money to his PAC?

    Why did he even have a PAC?

    Parent

    Uh (none / 0) (#124)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:44:24 PM EST
    because he became a Democratic celebrity after the 2004 speech, and wanted to use that celebrity to raise money to get Democrats into office? That was the stated purpose of the PAC, and people gave to it with the idea that this is what the money would be used for.

    Occam's razor and all.

    Parent

    oh... (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    because he wanted to use his power for good?

    Boy, I wish I were a celebrity and lots of folks gave me money because they liked me and not because they expected anything back or wanted me to do anything.  Way cool.  Hope.  Unity.  Change.

    Parent

    So what did all those (none / 0) (#138)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:54:48 PM EST
    who donated the $40 million to Clinton for her reelection expect, given the fact that it was clear she didn't really need it for it's stated purpose? For comparison, Obama's PAC raised only $4 million. That's practically chump change in politics.

    And yes, I do think some people are altruistic. I think some chunk of Clinton's max donors are altruistic (and, of course, some aren't). But Clinton's got a lot more of them than Obama has.

    Parent

    and so it comes back to Clinton (none / 0) (#153)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    when I ask a perfectly valid question about Obama.

    Parent
    My original point was about Clinton (none / 0) (#157)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:12:05 PM EST
    that you took the opportunity to sidestep into this PAC thing.

    Parent
    so... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:25:02 PM EST
    now it is my fault for not sticking to your original point?

    Parent
    Get elected and give a well-received speech (none / 0) (#148)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:03:59 PM EST
    And maybe you can have your own PAC.

    Parent
    Am I the only one who (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:31:30 PM EST
    hates getting phone calls from strangers? I find it incredibly intrusive. I hang up the minute I get one. It's like a telemarketer call to me.

    No! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    You are not!  I hate it too.  And making cold calls I hate it even more.  It's why I dislike volunteering for campaigns.

    Parent
    I have gotten calls from both camps (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:37:43 PM EST
    I have to admit I am more amenable to the Clinton folks, but the Obama folks are very energetic and polite, and when I say that I am firmly in the Clinton camp, they'll say, "She's a great candidate, isn't she?"  Which impressed me the first time--and kind of did the second--but the fifth time, I was like, "get a new script."

    But, these exchanges are the sorts that I think of when I hear about telephone polling.  I'm sure there are folks out there who game it just for fun.

    Parent

    Most phone banking (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:35:15 PM EST
    isn't to persuade undecideds. It's to make sure those in favor of you actually come out and vote. Would you hang up on a Clinton supporter informing you of where your polling place is and confirming that you will vote?

    Parent
    I asked them to stop calling me (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:46:47 PM EST
    when I got two calls in one night.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#81)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    I just suspect that most people feel that phone banking from the friendly side is usually much less annoying than other types of unsolicited calls.

    Parent
    No, you're not. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    Yesterday I got a call from a defense of marriage robocaller. Me, I'm living in sin with a woman but if my girlfriend's daughter wants to marry her girlfriend I want her to have that right.

    A couple years ago people used to call across the room, "Bob, you've got another call from Bill Clinton." That was actually funny. Like maybe he wanted to play a round of golf with me or go out clubbing.

    Clearly, a MoveOn activist will be more likely to take a call from MoveOn than the average person will be motivated by a robocall.

    Parent

    jeralyn maybe you should be nicer (none / 0) (#147)
    by nycvoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    it's tough enough being a volunteer trying to do this work, it wouldn't hurt to take a minute to say you aren't interested in a nice tone, take is from a volunteer.  I don't even hang up rudely on telemarketers, I'm just firm, direct and get off the phone

    Parent
    point taken (none / 0) (#158)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:12:06 PM EST
    thanks.

    Parent
    Influencing the Dem Nomination (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:12:38 PM EST
    ******************

    It troubles me that MoveOn is this invested in influencing the nomination process. Is there any polling as to whether MoveOn represents the opinions or interests of most registered Democrats?

    Also, is anybody out there concerned about the fact that so-called independents and Republican shills are 'helping' select the Democratic nominee in states with open or semi-open primaries/caucuses?  


    I think (none / 0) (#122)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:43:57 PM EST
    I think that any group that supports a candidate in a political race runs the risk of losing the support and goodwill of the followers of other candidates. That's the nature of the game.

    MoveOn doesn't have to represent the opinions and interests of most registered Democrats. Supporting Obama, however, does represent two-thirds of its members.

    Towards your greater question, about Republicans and independents, no President has been elected without votes from people outside of their party. As far as open primaries and same-day voter registration, those are issues that you and people of like mind can argue against, state by state, between now and 2012. Good luck. Right now, as with the question of caucuses, it just sounds like whining.

    Parent

    two-thirds? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:45:37 PM EST
    300K out of 3.2MM equals two-thirds?

    Parent
    registered democrats (none / 0) (#154)
    by nycvoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:10:53 PM EST
    that are newly registered voters who choose to be registered as democrats or have been registered democrats for at least one primary. In NY, if you registered n the last few weeks you could vote in the primary, if you wanted to switch parties you were not able to vote as a Dem but had to wait until the next primary election

    Parent
    See Reply Downstream, under comment by tek (none / 0) (#169)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    Divide and conquer (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:27:26 PM EST
    is not good for any "participant" group in the Democratic party...

    It's not good for Moveon.
    It's not good for the Netroots.

    It's being done, and I think the end result will be an implosion, or at least a severe cratering of their charters.  Those left picking up the pieces will have to start all over again.

    There needs to be a voice of reason on the Obama side -- someone to say, hey, this isn't good for Democrats.  Until there is?  well IMHO, he's taking advantage of an implosion, and I consider it greedy, self-centered, and bordering on corrupt.

    And BTW, that Moveon "vote" was more like a caucus than like a fair election.  And the whole notion that 66% of Moveon members chose to endose Obama is simply bogus.

    voice of reason? from whom? (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:36:31 PM EST
    michelle, nah! obama,nah. axelrod? not in a million years! so there is no one. and put the democratic party first? i have seen no evidence that the campaign does.

    Parent
    Given the demographics of MoveOn (none / 0) (#105)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:31:19 PM EST
    are very similar to the blogosphere in general (which, like it or not, has broken hard for Obama), what makes you think that if they polled every single member of MoveOn the results would have been different?

    Parent
    BTW: (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:59:10 PM EST
    Several of the A-list bloggers were actually Republicans when the Clintons were elected.  They don't know how to quit (hating) the Clintons.

    Parent
    which ones (none / 0) (#150)
    by eric on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    I am not being snarky - which ones?  I am curious.  I think Aravosis used to be a repub.

    Parent
    Wikipedia links (none / 0) (#161)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    (and BTW, my notion that they don't now how to quit (hating) the Clintons is simply my opinion based on observation and knowing when they were  Republican and switched to being Democrats.  But I believe it bears out with the anti-Clinton stuff they tolerate, even while IMHO, I think it's harmful to their cause.)

    Yes, there's Aravosis.  In addition:

    Markos

    Huffington

    Parent

    We'll never know, will we ;-). (none / 0) (#128)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:46:34 PM EST
    All I know is that I never received an voter's email from them.....

    Besides, I don't think the vast blogosphere is behind Obama, contrary to KOS' very unscientific polling.  I think that the rest of us have just scattered to other parts.

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#1)
    by Cycloptichorn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:54:04 AM EST
    What's wrong with holding house parties in support of a candidate?  Specifically.

    I don't understand how you can compare thousands of people getting involved with the political process, legally, to a 527 funded by about a hundred very rich people?

    Not that it will matter in the slightest, though.  Ground game like this can't be bought with 527 money and it is light-years more effective then crappy commercials.

    Still here trolling for dKos diary topics? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:03:34 PM EST
    Interesting (none / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:54:05 AM EST
    His campaign seems to have, if not invented new ways for the ground game to work, then seriously updated the old ones.  That alone is, IMHO, likely to win him the nomination.

    If that comes to pass, let us hope he can keep the machine working through the general, so it can do the same kind of work there.

    This is the key (none / 0) (#8)
    by jcsf on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:03:13 PM EST
    And it would be nice if Jeralyn or BTD acknowledged it.

    The ground game that Obama has run - both online, and in the states - has been phenomenal, amazing.  Really, just incredible.

    That GOTV - it's ESSENTIAL for the November contest, especially if it can be focused down-ticket as well.

    The campaign he has run IS a people-powered campaign, IS the campaign that we as the internet left, have been hoping for.

    Yes, we would prefer that it be more in OPPOSITION to the repubs - but opposition doesn't inspire.

    Given the nature of the campaign - the topdown nature of the Clinton campaigning, versus the 'build a coalition' of the Obama campaign, get out there, meet people, etc - can't you see that Obama is our most effective candidate?

    Parent

    No, to me the key is whether (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM EST
    the candidate has the tactics to win not just the nomination but the tactics to win change in Congress.  I'm trying to imagine house parties to march on Congressional offices. . . .

    Parent
    Cream City (none / 0) (#67)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:58:03 PM EST
    That's what the Democrats need to do. We need to think outside the box. The way Clinton ran this campaign was by the old book, and it didn't work. That's why people are turning to Obama.

    Maybe not house parties, but there are ways to get representatives and senators to bend to the will of the people and Obama and his people have repeatedly shown that they can more effectively can things done, specifically so far, to get Obama the nomination.

    Parent

    Nope, not my members of Congress (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:20:57 PM EST
    or any I've ever seen.  Dave Obey really took it well when one soldier's mother marched on him, huh?  And just try these tactics even with a Kerry or Kennedy.  

    Members of Congress are in the box, they built the box, and they really like the box they built.

    I've talked with a lot of "people turning to Obama," and many are dear souls with wonderful wishlists, but I have found very few with previous political experience.  They are going to get their hearts as well as their souls broken, thinking they can change Congress.

    The only way to change it even incrementally for us is to get a solid Dem hold on it, and I've looked closely at returns in my state, and the coattails aren't going to be there.  And I think that means that even if nominated, and even if elected (I think that is very chancy), Obama probably would be a one-term president.

    Fine if we can run Clinton again in 2012, if she would be willing to go up against him for us --  but the Kerry-Kennedy box won't allow that . . . so then I see several terms of the GOP again, goddess help us all.  It's just not about all-0bama-all-the-time; it's not just about the executive branch; and long-term, larger-picture thinking is needed.  And it's looking dismal.


    Parent

    He's upgraded HoDean's Net-wise ways ... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ellie on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:11:12 PM EST
    ... and is speaking directly to the Text-Messaging / FlashMob / Got This Multi-Function iPhone That's been A Purposeless Waste of Time & Money Till Now generation.

    How many times can they text deep'n'meaningful stuff like "Dude, I'm 3 rows behind U [at a screening of, say, Juno] and your laugh is totally recognizable."

    My generation's version was the cellphone call: "You'll never guess where I'm calling from ... " for the umpteenth time of the freakin' day.

    Which predates the jerk behind homeplate at ballgames waving at the camera for three hours or the tropic camera critters jumping behind the nightly newshound doing a standup at Some Event.

    It's always about how one of the monkeys in 2001: A Space Odyssey hits that bone, isn't it?

    Parent

    Moveon.org (none / 0) (#4)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    Was not formed to support Obama's candidacy.  The American Leadership Project was formed to support Hillary's candidacy.  That's the difference.  Here's the campaign's memo and the ALP's response.  

    That is not a legally significant difference (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:02:52 PM EST
    and it certainly is not a morally significant difference.

    The legal issue is whether Move On is doing CANDIDATE advocacy or ISSUES advocacy.

    Parent

    People powered versus topdown (none / 0) (#9)
    by jcsf on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:05:06 PM EST
    If you can't see the difference - and want to stay within your definitions ("it's not a legal difference"), well, you are missing the forest for the trees.

    Parent
    Please do not present (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    your opinions as fact. Please present them as the opinions they are and without denigrating another's views. Thank you.

    Parent
    with all due respect (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    I think he's saying what seems to be intuitively obvious to many people.  One is a grass-roots organization with gobs of members, and they voted by over 2/3's to go with Obama.

    The other is a couple of guys agreeing to chip in $100K each in order to help a candidate.

    The former existed long before the election.  The latter was created solely in order to help a candidate in this election.

    Seems kinda intuitive to me.

    Parent

    While I don't disagree (none / 0) (#152)
    by standingup on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:08:51 PM EST
    with the context of your statement, stating that 2/3's of Moveon's membership voted to endorse Obama is not accurate.  There was a discussion on this at Dkos shortly after Moveon announced their endorsement.  Several members expressed discontent objecting to the methodology and subsequent claims by Moveon following the vote.  This comment explained the problem  

    Actually ltrs, 7% WOULD be meaningfulif it was systematically drawn to represent a random sub-set of the entire MoveOn membership.  Tens of millions of voters are sample this way in sizes of sometimes 1,000 to 2,000 and their results are (mostly, depending on other underlying methods) highly representative and predictive of the total population being surveyed.

    However, there is no indication from MoveOn that this was anything but a self-selected sample.  Perhaps MoveOn could provide its methodology and disprove concerns about its poll being shoddily self-selective.

    To me, there is a bigger problem and it is the way MoveOn presented its information.  Many of us have now read the entire press release, here...

    http://moveon.org/...

    That document uses two key numbers -- total size of MoveOn membership (3.2M) and the proportion who selected the winner (70%). It clearly implies that 70% of 3.2M MoveOn members selected that winner.  The fact is that only 280,528 MoveOn members participated in that poll -- that's only 8.8% of their claimed total members.  They failed to do what EVERY poll does -- cite their sample size.  Which also makes me suspect their methodology, for had they used a professional methodology, they would have been thrilled to cite 280,000 as sample size.

    For those who doubt my use of the 280,528 sample size, I got that from a direct-to-member email that I received after I voted in that poll.  I believe all of you who voted got that email too.  So, we could examine the email and see the total vote, but MoveOn would not cite it in their press release, which will become (absent some public stink about this) the final record of how MoveOn members feel.

    It was for this reason (objecting to deceptive practices) that I too left MoveOn earlier this evening.

     

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by superjude on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    I was a Move-On monthly contributor. I was totally taken by surprise when I heard we had voted to endorse Obama. I emailed them that I did not approve and subsequently stopped the monthly contribution. As a Hillary supporter I am dismayed to hear how shoddy their poll and how deceptive their announcement was.

    Parent
    Opinions (none / 0) (#86)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:14:36 PM EST
    not welcomed here?

    I thought that last night Big Tent D said that Hillary whupped Obama. No footnotes. No proof. A NAKED OPINION. Followed by a few hundred more naked opinions in the comments section.

    I understand the need for Clinton supporters to rally around a failing campaign, but if that's the function of this website, how about just banning everyone with an alternate position? That way we know officially that we're not welcome.

    Not sure about the grass roots nature of The American Leadership Project, but I'm sure, Jeralyn, you or BTD can fill us in. MoveOn.org has been around for a few years now, and was not formed for the purpose of getting Obama elected.

    Jeralyn, if you go back and look at all the opinions posted here you will find that there are almost only opinions here. Comments = Opinions.

    Telling someone that if he can't tell the difference between MoveOn.org and the American Leadership Project he's missing the forest for the trees is not exactly fighting words. Jeez.


    Parent

    Funny Bob (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:19:35 PM EST
    Do NOT present your opinion AS FACT was Jeralyn's quote.

    As for the rest of your comment, do you think Obama can tell the difference between AFSCME and Change To Win? Can you?

    What is your OPINION on that?

    Parent

    That is incorrect (none / 0) (#20)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:26:28 PM EST
    The "major purpose" of a 527 and the nature of its fundraising pitch are legally significant.

    But the distinction matters even more morally than legally.  There is a huge difference between an existing organization with an existing constituency choosing to support you versus a group of your rich friends creating an organization to support you.  Otherwise you get the silly conclusion that there's no distinction between union 527s and ALP.

    Parent

    I believe that you are accepting (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:31:52 PM EST
    characterizatons of the Obama campaign.

    FWIW, this whole thing is a joke, as is most campaign finance law, but I am positive that the new
    "Clinton" 527 is not stating that its express purpose is to help Clinton. No candidate supporting 527 EVER DOES. That is what makes it a joke.

    As for your moral distinction,I strongly disagree. IF the law is intended to prevent independent expenditures, then it does not matter if the independent expenditure comes from a preexisting group of individuals or not.

    The issue is not who the indepenedent expenditure is from, it is what is the independent expenditure FOR.

    This is all so much stuff and nonsense. I really do hate discussing this issue because, no offense, people who are unfamiliar with "campaign finance reform" spout things that are simply not correct.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#48)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:41:45 PM EST
    I'm accepting the characterizations of Rick Hasen.  And note that I said it's "significant" not decisive.  But I agree, this is not the place to debate campaign finance law.  If you think the SEIU and the American Leadership Project are morally equivalent with respect to campaign finance, I respectfully disagree.

    Parent
    Rick Hasen (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:47:15 PM EST
    does not speak for the organization.

    And with due respect to him, if he is pretending that 527s are not basically a joke, then he is not being honest.

    And as a matter of fact, I do not believe there is something sacrosanct about union money.

    I LOVE that it is all for the Dems, but that does not make it purer.

    BTW, did you think Obama was wrong to attack union spending by say AFSCME? Or was it immoral of Obama to do so?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#74)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:02:22 PM EST
    I think there is a contradiction between attacking 527s like AFSCME and accepting the support of 527s like Moveon and the unions.  

    Parent
    You are wrong (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    AFSCME has a PAC.

    Move On has a PAC.

    A 5237 is completely different and operate under different restrictions.

    It so happens OBAMA hypocritically attacked ALL outside expenditures while benfitting fromt hem himself.

    The entire campaign finance discussion is a morass of nonsense.

    Parent

    AFSCME and MoveOn (none / 0) (#98)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:24:39 PM EST
    spend money on elections outside their PACs.  Those expenditures are similar to 527s in they purport not to be subject to contribution limits.

    I agree that it was hypocritical for Obama to attack all outside expenditures.  However, it is legitimate for him to attack ALP.  

    Parent

    And it is legitimate because? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    For the reasons stated above (none / 0) (#110)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:35:38 PM EST
    Restate them please (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:38:21 PM EST
    Surely not because it is illegal.

    Anything else?

    Parent

    Here (none / 0) (#129)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    "But the distinction matters even more morally than legally.  There is a huge difference between an existing organization with an existing constituency choosing to support you versus a group of your rich friends creating an organization to support you."


    Parent
    Why is there such a moral difference? (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:53:16 PM EST
    Explain what you find morally questionable in that please.

    Is it the fact that they are, by your account, Hillary's friends?

    Is it that they are rich? And if so, what was your view of  the funding for America Coming Together in 2004? What is your view of the 527s organized RIGHT NOW by RICH FOLKS to support Democrats in the 2008 general election?

    You are going to have a LOT of criticizing to do.

     

    Parent

    Ironically one of the biggest (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:54:01 PM EST
    will be run by Tom Mattzie, the former political director for Move On. Guess he is not so moral now.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#145)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:02:39 PM EST
    I don't like any of 'em.  But it's worse in a primary campaign.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#108)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:34:39 PM EST
    I was wrong about MoveOn.  

    Parent
    Moveon.org (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by huzzlewhat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:24:06 PM EST
    I find Move On's status is a bit questionable at the moment... I regularly donated money to them, and then was rather taken aback when they endorsed Obama and started working for him before the primary was over. As a supporter of another candidate -- and a regular donor to Move On -- I felt betrayed by it, and quickly dropped my name from their mailings. As long as they were a general democratic/left organization, all was well and good, but they made a specific choice, and are now campaigning and organizing on behalf of one candidate. They may not be over the line, legally, but to me, it looks like they're skirting dangerously close.

    And... hello everyone! My first reply to the site, ever!

    Parent

    And why does that distinction matter? (none / 0) (#5)
    by demschmem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:02:18 PM EST
    Didn't I learn recently MoveOn (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:02:35 PM EST
    endorsed Obama?

    Parent
    something that's often overlooked... (none / 0) (#14)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:16:30 PM EST
    Well, the one thing that people aren't counting on here is the near certainty of a huge discrepancy between the results of an actual, standard vote in the familiar voting booth, and the results of the caucus.

    Suppose that Obama gets, say, 10 or 15% more votes relatively in the caucus than in the polling booths? What does that say about how much of his advantage throughout the nation is based on the anti-democratic process of caucuses, as opposed to the real will of the people.

    It's going to be a pretty clear indictment of the caucus system if there are enormous discrepancies.

    My sentiments exactly (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:19:58 PM EST
    So far Obama's strength has been in the caucuses and mostly in states that are red.  This may be people power, but it is CERTAIN people power and like MovOn doesn't really reflect an honest assessment of the democratic voter.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#96)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:23:25 PM EST
    And I thought he was also leading in the national popular vote? Does that count? And he certainly has gotten more votes more recently, which would suggest more people now support him.

    Or maybe there's yet another determining factor.

    I thought the determining factor has been delegates.

    Parent

    A number of National polls of all voters? (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    If obama leads with all voters then I stand corrected.  However, the caucus system that allows crossover votes from Independents and Republicans is a sham to me as we are already learning from the Washington state vote. In Texas it is open to mischief as indicated by a recent memo of the Texas Republicans for Obama whose main goal is to bring out the GOP to defeat the hated Clintons. Those votes will never transfer to Obama. That is the sham in this election.

    Parent
    i had the same thought. (none / 0) (#23)
    by demschmem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:27:39 PM EST
    i wonder if there's much history of that in texas.

    Parent
    I want to see the TX numbers (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:31:20 PM EST
    of people who turn out to caucus and those who turn out to vote.  Washington state, to my opinion, showed almost twice as many participated in the primary as did in the caucus.  Statistically, it was a much closer race.

    My dream primary season: no caucuses, no open primaries, no republicans ever.  (last bit is really a dream, but it's my list)

    Parent

    yeah, the results from Wash state were (none / 0) (#83)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:12:08 PM EST
    very revealing.

    Here's a link describing them.

    It turns out that there were 514,527 voters in the Democratic primary, but only 32,220 in the caucus -- one fifteenth as many. The vote was 50%-47% in the primary in favor of Obama, but 68% to 31% in the caucus. The difference is 3% in the case of the election, and 37% in the case of the caucus. Yet, of course, it was only the caucus results that counted.

    Now at least these were on different days, so one might say that voter sentiment changed a bit -- though, in fact, given the current "momentum" of Obama's candidacy, you'd expect that he'd do even better in the later election in Washington than he would have done on the caucus date.

    But in Texas we won't even have that perturbing factor to deal with. It will be the same day, the same underlying voter sentiment. It will be as apples to apples as you can get.

    Parent

    frankly (none / 0) (#89)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:17:06 PM EST
    I think that the number you cite for caucus turn-out is low.  You may be quoting delegate turn-out.  My understanding was that it was closer to 250K, which means twice as many showed up to vote in the primary that did not count.

    Parent
    I looked at the link, (none / 0) (#141)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    and you would seem to be right as to the 32,000 figure being delegates of some kind.

    In any case, the discrepancy in the overall results stands as before.

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#155)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:10:59 PM EST
    the doubled number of voters in a primary that doesn't even count seems pretty significant to me.

    Parent
    Are we arguing (none / 0) (#92)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:20:03 PM EST
    Are we arguing caucuses versus primaries again?

    Shouldn't Clinton supporters have fought to eliminate caucuses before the election season? Kinda late in the game to be complaining. Sounds like whining. Sort of like agreeing not to count primary results as a matter of principle and then changing your position after you won those primaries.

    Parent

    or very like saying (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:30:15 PM EST
    that SC should count but FL should not...or that the super delegates should not decide who the nominee is when that is the only point of having super delegates.

    Bend all the rules or bend none of them.

    Parent

    I've deleted my comments (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:38:13 PM EST
    that were off topic.

    Please (none / 0) (#54)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:44:53 PM EST
    There are a million places on the web that you can write nasty and abusive comments.  You'll live notwithstanding the fact that this isn't one of them.

    MoveOn is the enemy now? (none / 0) (#58)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:47:19 PM EST
    It's lucky for the Democratic party that the people on the internet are not representative of the population as a whole or the party would be over.

    The popultion as a whole (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:18:46 PM EST
    hasn't the faintest idea who or what MoveOn is. And furthermore, they don't care. It's only us political and Internet Junkies that do.

    I also asked MoveOn to remove me from their mailing list when they endorsed Obama.

    Parent

    Move On stinks (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:51:19 PM EST
    and has for some time.

    Their capitulation to Congressional Dems on Iraq in 2007 was a disgrace.


    Parent

    I will never forgive them (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    for stabbing Clinton in the back.  She stood up for them.  She fought for core democratic values.  Obama didn't even bother with "present."

    I am getting so tired of people who say that history and experience do not matter.  They seem to matter when Obama is comparing himself to JFK or MLK.  They matter none when you are talking about people who took up the mantle of change after the most horrendous period of social and political upheavals of the last century and made something good out of it.

    Parent

    Who's "them"? (none / 0) (#77)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:03:54 PM EST
    MoveOn's decision was not made by the top leaders of the group.

    It'd be more accurate to say that MoveOn's members voted to stab her in the back.

    Parent

    So it was spontaneous? (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:37:57 PM EST
    I assume that Move On's leaders decided to hold a vote and determined the rules of the vote. Whether it was the leaders or the overwhelming 6% of their members who expressed a preference for Obama doesn't matter to me. I took my name off their roles on the day they announced the endorsement and I won't donate to them again.

    Parent
    I can't really imagine (none / 0) (#119)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:41:00 PM EST
    a way in which the scheduling of vote would have disenfranchised only the Clinton supporters.

    Fundamentally, the demographic of MoveOn is the same demographic that Obama draws his strongest support from. I'm not sure why it's such a big shock that he'd win an endorsement that was put to a vote.

    Parent

    That's the point! (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:53:51 PM EST
    I agree, it's not a shock. And the leadership of Move On knows their own demographic and that of Obama.  Unless they are complete dolts, they knew that putting an endorsement up to a vote--especially a vote that was taken quickly and without a "don't endorse" option--would result in the organization endorsing Obama. It was a no-brainer.

    Parent
    So... (none / 0) (#139)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    they're doing the bidding of their member's wishes. This is nefarious of the leadership how?

    Parent
    You miss the point (none / 0) (#143)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:02:26 PM EST
    Who decided to hold the vote? Were the members clamoring for Move On to endorse? I don't actually know; do you? They don't typically endorse, do they?

    To imagine that an organization like Move On is just a bunch of granola eaters trying to do good in the world is silly. I think they can do some good, as many political organizations can do some good. But they are a political organization, not a friggin' church group that feeds orphans.

    Parent

    I never said they were some kind of humanitarian (none / 0) (#159)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:15:56 PM EST
    They're just like any other membership organization. The leadership sensed that a supermajority of the members supported a candidate and called a vote to see if it was true. In fact, the membership did. It's not nefarious, that's what these groups do.

    If you should be mad at anyone, its the members of MoveOn that voted for Obama. The directors were doing what any prudential executive staff should do in this situation. If they purposefully didn't hold a vote given that they suspected Obama might win it, I'd be mighty pissed off at them.

    Parent

    Ok, that wasn't you (none / 0) (#165)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:29:15 PM EST
    Others in this thread have drawn distinctions regarding Move On being more legitimate than other political organizations, to which I object. But I should not have attributed that attitude to you.

    It isn't that they shouldn't have held a vote in order to avoid endorsing Obama. It's that they shouldn't have endorsed anyone. That it was trumpeted as reflecting a supermajority of the membership, is just silly: 6%. My goodness, how could Move On possibly have refused the will of that overwhelming majority of its members? Baloney. The leadership knew what they were doing and did it to get the result they wanted.

    Parent

    Well that sounds comparable to the number of (none / 0) (#180)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:36:13 PM EST
    Americans who pick presidential nominees...

    Parent
    that's actually not (none / 0) (#166)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    what these groups are supposed to do.

    Have you considered what will happen to Kos, MoveOn, Huff and others should Obama not win the nomination?  As in, if actual voters choose the election rather than blogging heads?  How are they going to back off their horrible statements, their commenters feeding like jackals, and realign themselves with the democratic party?

    MoveOn is supposed to be the answer to the republicans, not a group that splits the party.  If it had remained neutral and pledged to support the democratic nominee, then it would still have its integrity.

    And I really am befuddled by your "sensed that a supermajority" supported a candidate statement because it does not logically play out.

    Parent

    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#104)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:30:18 PM EST
    Yeah, but Brutus always gets the bad rap.

    Parent
    How do you feel about (none / 0) (#72)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    Russ Feingold?

    Parent
    Love him (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:09:41 PM EST
    Unlike Move On, he stayed strong on Iraq.

    See the difference?

    Parent

    Wait a minute Big D. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    You're supporting the candidate who stayed strong on Iraq so much that she voted to give that psychopath in the WH war powers, right?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:40:36 PM EST
    I tepidly support the candidate who opposed the war because he is more electable.

    At the same time, I hold him to account for his lack of partisan spirit.

    I also loathe the unfairness levelled at Hillary by the Media and the blogs.

    Let me ask you this, I spent a day ripping the NYTimes for its McCain "story."

    Do you think I support McCain now? Is that the way you think? Could principles NEVER be involved?

    Parent

    You support Obama (none / 0) (#146)
    by clapclappointpoint on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:03:26 PM EST
    but I haven't seen you say a single positive thing about Obama or his campaign (except for a couple of lukewarm backhanded compliments).  Maybe I missed it or maybe its a hold-your-nose sort of thing, but you seem like more of a Clinton partisan than Jeralyn.

    Parent
    Tepid is the operative word (none / 0) (#149)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:04:36 PM EST
    I am a Clinton partisan (none / 0) (#162)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:21:59 PM EST
    BTD is not.  Why is it that folks who see both sides equally and try to fairly represent them are called partisans?  I didn't call BTD an Obama partisan when he said that he finds Obama more electable.

    When did fairness become a liability?

    Parent

    He supports Obama. n/t (none / 0) (#118)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:40:48 PM EST
    I admire him immensely (none / 0) (#171)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:58:51 PM EST
    and like you he supports Obama though I imagine more enthusiastically but it seems unfair to MoveOn to expect them to be perfect on the war issue when neither of the candidates has been no?

    Parent
    Actually it is much easier for Move On (none / 0) (#172)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:00:46 PM EST
    to be strong on Iraq. Indeed, it is their ROLE to stay strong on Iraq.

    When does Move On face the voters?

    Parent

    The members vote with their pocketbooks. (none / 0) (#186)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:06:56 PM EST
    Every organization has to weigh the costs and benefits of their positions. Even disagreeing with them on Iraq doesn't make them the enemy They're not supporting the GOP despite what some in this post might imply. Nor is a people powered organization such as Move On the moral or legal equivalent of a 527. Increased participation by regular people would seem a positive rather than negative but this post suggests the opposite.

    Parent
    A 527 and a PAC are not the same thing (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ozium on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    Jeralyn and BigTentDemocrat have made this mistake before.

    MoveOn is not a 527, which accepts unregulated money and, for that reason, cannot do express advocacy for a candidate.  That's why those ads are so ineffective.  Even though everyone knows the ALP was formed to help elect Hillary, their ads can only be fluffly "Call Hillary Clinton and tell her to keep being her wonderful self."  

    In order to do express advocacy for a candidate, you must be a registered political action committee, Campaign finance rules apply to PACs, which means there are limits to how much they can accept for single individuals.  MoveOn specifically chooses to not have a 527 because they want to do legal and ethical election work that is regulated.  

    This 527 Hillary's people put together are just a bunch of rich people who can write 100K checks at the drop of a hat.  To compare that with the small dollar contributions that go into MoveOn PAC is just ludicrous.  

    I made no mistake (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:09:10 PM EST
    So please withdraw your claim.

    My argument isd about OBAMA's hypcrisy.

    HE criticizes ALL outside expenditures, not just 527 expenditures.

    He criticized union PAC spending in Iowa and Nevada and elsewhere.

    As usual, the Obama rules apply.

    And FWIW, Move On did not do a 527 why? Because 527s are illegal? Pshaw. Thanks for the "objective" analysis.

    Parent

    Big D (none / 0) (#111)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    I don't think anyone said that 527s are illegal. I think that you did not make a mistake but deliberately made a false statement, pretended it was someone else's position, and then knocked it down. Think they call it making a "straw man." Thanks for your objective analysis.

    Parent
    I don't think I've ever written about (none / 0) (#160)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    527's and PACS before.

    That said, you are right that in this post I am combining 527's with PACS because they are both outside support groups, and I find it curious or noteworthy that Obama criticizes Hillary for an outside group supporting her while outside groups are supporting him.

     

    Parent

    I think Obama will use the TX 527 (none / 0) (#95)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    as an out on his campaign finance statement.  He can have his campaign "meet" with McCain's and declare there was no solution on 527's so, unfortunately, he will have to forego public financing.

    party time (none / 0) (#120)
    by eric on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    One has to wonder what good these parties will do, anyway.  A bunch of college kids at a party calling people in Texas to tell them who to vote for?

    "Hi, my name is Heather and I am, like, calling from this really cool party where we are all, like, calling people from Texas.  It's really cool.  Obama is cool..."

    I agree with the sentiment (none / 0) (#123)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:44:00 PM EST
    (and those nasally yankee accents will grate) but they will have scripts to read from and won't sound silly like that.  At least, if the calls I have gotten are any indication.

    Parent
    I guess we'll find out on March 4. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:45:29 PM EST
    Again (none / 0) (#127)
    by andrewwm on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:46:31 PM EST
    most of the time the calls are targeting those who already support Obama, or who demographics would suggest supports Obama, so I doubt the accent matters that much (they are 'friendly calls'). It is to make sure they know where to vote and how the caucus thing works. Clinton's team does the same thing.

    Parent
    This (none / 0) (#144)
    by tek on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM EST
    is the stuff that worries me for Clinton. It seems the caucuses and even primaries are so open to corruption, or at least, some very shady antics.

    So-Called Indies & GOP Shills (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:41:28 PM EST
    *******************
    Tek, I share your concerns. The following response addresses some of those issues in relation to a prior post upstream from Sheri Z.

    Sheri Z, Respectfully, with regard to "winning anyone over", I didn't have you in mind.

    You also misread, and mis-characterized, what I wrote. That is a classic Republican "meme" (to use your word). I DIDN'T CALL NEW VOTERS GOP SHILLS, NOR DID I EQUATE NEW VOTERS WITH SO-CALLED INDEPENDENTS.

    When I wrote "GOP shills", I actually meant what I actually wrote: GOP shills. And when I wrote "so-called independents", I was referring to GOP partisans who are posing as independents.

    As for your: "Question: If you want to close the primaries what would your criteria be for deciding who gets to participate?"

    Here's my Answer: I would use the same criteria that the DNC already uses in states where the primaries are CLOSED: only registered Democrats are allowed to vote in Democratic primaries. The idea being that, in states with open primaries, Republicans are free to be shills - meaning that they can vote in the Democratic primary - for the candidate who they think will be the weakest opponent in the GE.

    This has become an even bigger problem now that McCain has secured a lock on the GOP nomination. In other words, Republicans can now, freely, use their vote in a Democratic open primary to vote for the guy who'll be weaker against McCain.

    As for your suggestion: "Going forward I think it would be helpful to define what a Democrat is". Why don't you help define that for us, starting now?

    Parent

    1/3of the country identifies as independent (none / 0) (#174)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    it seems foolish to exclude them even if you exclude republicans.

    Parent
    why? (none / 0) (#179)
    by eric on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:20:53 PM EST
    Why would it be foolish?  If you aren't a Democrat why should you have a say in the Democratic nomination process?

    If you are an independent, good for you but by being so, you don't have a place in my party.  Sorry.

    Parent

    Because you can't win without them. (none / 0) (#182)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:52:34 PM EST
    If you don't take them the GOP will.

    Parent
    They exclude themselves from the party (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    processes.  No one excludes them at the polls.

    They want to have impact on the party process, they can get involved more than a day here, maybe a day there (or maybe not).

    Parent

    There isn\'t even supposed to be a party (none / 0) (#192)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:08:46 PM EST
    process or parties that is but that being said since there are if you choose to exclude them then they will go to the GOP and you can't win elections with just the 1/3 of the electorate who identify as Democrat.

    Parent
    If they go to the GOP, then (none / 0) (#195)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:36:46 PM EST
    they must not hold Dem values.  Why would you think they would vote Dem, then?

    Parent
    to me, core dem values are (none / 0) (#183)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:54:03 PM EST
    social services, social safety nets, social security, universal healthcare, protecting the middle class, fiscal responsibility and protecting the rights of women (including but not limited to reproductive rights) and minorities.

    Parent
    This is a sign (none / 0) (#178)
    by Baal on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:20:42 PM EST
    of Obama's ability to mobilize a diverse group of people.  You react as if this is a bad thing.

    Note that the number is donations (none / 0) (#191)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:08:06 PM EST
    not donors.  Repeats count each time -- each $5 or $10 at a time (or each order for buttons, stickers,  signs, etc. -- a difference in Obama's campaign).

    Sheri Z (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:27:40 AM EST
    turned out to be a banned poster. Her account here, including all ten comments today, have been deleted.