Hillary Criticizes Moveon.org at Fundraiser
[Guest post by DRJ]
Ben Smith at the Politico addresses Hillary Clinton’s criticism of Moveon.org at a private fundraiser and briefly compares it to Obama’s comments about bitter small-town Americans:
“In a weird mirror image of last Friday’s “cling” revelation — though perhaps without the same general election implications — this Friday afternoon brings a Huffington Post tape reportedly from a closed-door Hillary fundraiser in which Clinton scorns her opponent’s supporters — the liberal activists who make up a pillar of the Democratic party:
“MoveOn.org endorsed [Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,” Clinton said to a meeting of donors. “We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”
Huffington Post says the comments — of which it provides tape, and which the campaign doesn’t dispute — came from a small, closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday but before March 5; slightly oddly, it doesn’t say where or when.”
Smith notes the irony in Hillary’s scorn for Moveon.org because it was “founded, after all, to save her husband from impeachment.”
There’s a lot of irony in Democratic politics right now.
– DRJ
Arianna’s memo went out, signed by her Eds… “give us some audio, any of yoose. We need raw audio!”
Funny.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 4/18/2008 @ 8:24 pm
I need to stock up on popcorn again.
Comment by daleyrocks — 4/19/2008 @ 11:30 am
We need to branch out into other snack foods if this goes on much longer because I’m getting tired of all this popcorn.
Comment by DRJ — 4/19/2008 @ 11:58 am
I think Hillary may have been looking for a “Sister Souljah” moment.
Comment by proof — 4/19/2008 @ 12:32 pm
DRJ, it’s pricey but you can widen your popcorn horizons here.
Comment by Pablo — 4/19/2008 @ 12:36 pm
That looks like good popcorn, Pablo. Plus, I’m always on the lookout for food gifts to mail to my college kid. Harry and David is the current favorite but it’s nice to have other choices.
Comment by DRJ — 4/19/2008 @ 1:15 pm
The irony of the name “MoveOn” attached to an organization that was ostensibly founded “to save [Bill Clinton] from impeachment” around a decade ago is also priceless.
Comment by Apogee — 4/19/2008 @ 1:21 pm
“The irony of the name “MoveOn” attached to an organization that was ostensibly founded “to save [Bill Clinton] from impeachment” around a decade ago is also priceless.”
It was founded to argue for censuring and moving on. Pretty much the mainstream position back then.
Comment by stef — 4/19/2008 @ 2:50 pm
Pretty much the mainstream position back then.
You have a link stef?
Comment by daleyrocks — 4/19/2008 @ 2:55 pm
You don’t remember the lunacy?
http://www.democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls
Comment by stef — 4/19/2008 @ 3:01 pm
If they ever were, MoveOn left “mainstream” behind long ago, and in supporting Obama, they’ve not returned to it.
Comment by SPQR — 4/19/2008 @ 3:38 pm
“If they ever were, MoveOn left “mainstream” behind long ago, and in supporting Obama, they’ve not returned to it.”
Obama polls just about even with mccain. Within the margin of error. How much more mainstream does one get?
Comment by stef — 4/19/2008 @ 3:53 pm
Obama polls just about even with mccain. Within the margin of error. How much more mainstream does one get?
If Move On was mainstream, they woud have supported Joe Lieberman instead of Ned Lamont.
Comment by Paul — 4/19/2008 @ 4:04 pm
“If Move On was mainstream, they woud have supported Joe Lieberman instead of Ned Lamont.”
Both of those guys are within the mainstream.
Comment by stef — 4/19/2008 @ 4:17 pm
In Berkeley, maybe.
Comment by DRJ — 4/19/2008 @ 4:22 pm
“In Berkeley, maybe.”
The guy got 40 some % of the vote in Connecticut. Lieberman got 50 some. That’s both within the mainstream.
Comment by stef — 4/19/2008 @ 4:38 pm
Stef’s idea of mainstream is “if it exists, its within it.”
Comment by Paul — 4/19/2008 @ 4:42 pm
Hey stef, is GWB in the “mainstream”?
Comment by Another Drew — 4/19/2008 @ 4:55 pm
Lamont got 40 some percent of the vote. Lieberman 50. The gop candidate got like 10. I’d say 2 of those guys are ‘mainstream.’
Comment by stef — 4/19/2008 @ 4:55 pm
Well, that was Connecticut, which last elected a GOP Senator in IMSMC during the Reagan Administration.
They only seem “mainstream” if compared to Massachusetts.
Comment by Another Drew — 4/19/2008 @ 5:01 pm
I’d say 2 of those guys are ‘mainstream.’
So when the public is only allowed three choices, whoever of those three choices get the most votes is mainstream.
Riiiiight.
Comment by Paul — 4/19/2008 @ 5:18 pm
The public also had a hand in picking what those 3 choices would be. You don’t get results like that without being somewhere within the mainstream. Now, if you happen to be the most disliked president ? thats going to count against you being in the mainstream, at least on some fashion.
Comment by stef — 4/19/2008 @ 5:25 pm
Obviously, the definition of mainstream is subjective. Thats always convenient.
I’m curious how old stef is.
Comment by Dana — 4/19/2008 @ 5:29 pm
Like I said:
Comment by Paul — 4/19/2008 @ 5:32 pm
So stef, when Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in the 1976 Presidential election in 1976, he was “within the mainstream?”
And when Carter got waxed by Ronald Reagan in 1980 (Carter made his concession speech before the polls on the West Coast were closed) he was “outside the mainstream?”
Comment by Paul — 4/19/2008 @ 5:37 pm
Carter got 40% of the vote. If 40% of the population supports someone, its hard to say they’re out of the mainstream.
Comment by stef — 4/19/2008 @ 5:47 pm
Okay stef, give us an exact definition of “mainstream.” Include everything that defines it; no weasely crap that you can wiggle out of later.
Comment by Paul — 4/19/2008 @ 6:17 pm
Moveon.org is whatever Soros wants it to be. Trying to classify it as “mainstream” or “not mainstream” is something of a waste of time, as it’s the creature of one man’s ambition.
Comment by Eric — 4/19/2008 @ 7:52 pm
Party affiliations all but guarantee that anyone who makes it through either party’s primary will get around 40% of the popular vote. Even George McGovern, who lost every state but Massachusetts, still managed to garner 37.5% of the popular vote. was he “mainstream,” too? And if so, WTF is gained by even having such a meaningless word taking up space in our dictionaries?
That said, I seriously doubt that Carter could get anywhere near 40% of the popular vote if he ran for President this year. So even if he was “mainstream” by your tortured definition of the word back then, it doesn’t follow that he is “mainstream” in anybody’s book today.
Comment by Xrlq — 4/20/2008 @ 6:59 am
“Party affiliations all but guarantee that anyone who makes it through either party’s primary will get around 40% of the popular vote.”
Yes. The results of the two party system means we have two mainstream candidates facing off against each other, rather than the fringe vs. the rest. I can see how a landslide for one party in a state that doesn’t normally have them might mean that the loser is out of hte mainstream. But if 40% of the country supports someone, that person is within the mainstream.
“And if so, WTF is gained by even having such a meaningless word taking up space in our dictionaries?”
Because there are people who are outside the mainstream. Like the green party, or the libertarian party. But the way our system is made, in a two party matchup we’ll have two candidates within mainstream politics facing off against each other. Barring like someone dropping out or a process not working.
“So even if he was “mainstream” by your tortured definition of the word back then, it doesn’t follow that he is “mainstream” in anybody’s book today.”
Right. Someone pointed to the 1980 and 76 elections. The country and carter have changed since then.
Comment by stef — 4/20/2008 @ 11:12 am
Yeh, they changed on 9/11 - The Country learned that it was right to reject Carter in 1980, and Carter became more bitter over that rejection.
Comment by Another Drew — 4/20/2008 @ 11:25 am