MoveOn is NOT moving on from supporting Clinton, no matter what a dubious post here claims

[wyldwolf]

Last edited Wed Aug 13, 2014, 01:38 PM - Edit history (2)

EDIT: After vehemently denying his post title was dishonest several times in his thread, the poster referenced here has now decided to change his dishonest title.

This post isn't to discuss whatever transgression you may or may not feel Hillary Clinton has committed by publicly disagreesing with President Obama's foreign policy. Rather, it's to call attention to a deceptive post that currently has 77 DU recs and counting.

The post's title is MoveOn's moving on from Hillary support and the post's author has defended the disingenuous nature of it several times in the thread. But as I've said many times, paraphrasing an effective pro-ACA talking point, if Hillary is so bad why do some feel the need to make up stuff about her?

1. MoveOn did NOT say they were 'moving on' or pulling support from Hillary Clinton. This is an important point. What they said was:

“Secretary Clinton, and any other person thinking about seeking the Democratic nomination in 2016, should think long and hard before embracing the same policies advocated by right-wing war hawks that got America into Iraq in the first place and helped set the stage for Iraq’s troubles today. These hawkish policy stances are also threatening to undermine the peaceful international resolution of Iran’s nuclear program.

Voters elected President Obama in 2008 to bring the war in Iraq to an end. MoveOn members will continue to stand with elected officials who oppose military escalation that could put us back on a path to endless war.”

What this is is a threat to pull support from any politician, not Hillary specifically. This is going to be a difficult promise for them to keep. If President Obama's poll numbers continue to dip, candidates will most definitely distance themselves from the President. Further, President Obama himself has commenced military strikes in Iraq (ok, 'humanitarian measures.' ) Will MoveOn now warn the President?

2. MoveOn has replaced their top-down decision-making process with a member-based decision-making model. The new system asks members to start their own campaigns by creating a petition on the MoveOn site. Only if the signatures continue to grow will MoveOn leaders eventually join in on the campaign.

As of this writing, there is no anti-Clinton petition on MoveOn (though there soon could be after someone reads this.) Further, the MoveOn.org article has underwhelming 35 replies of mixed reaction to MoveOn's threat. If they are true to their "top-down decision-making process," there will probably be no action on their part.

[Capt. Obvious]

1. Sweet, another thread by you calling out another DUer

[leftstreet]

2. So it should have been 'MoveOn threatening to move on...'

Is that what you're saying?

[wyldwolf]

5. it would be more honest

... or, even, 'MoveOn issues empty threat..."

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Ok then.

[conservaphobe]

4. They're not stupid enough not to hitch their wagon to the winner.

Because then the winner would have no obligation to ever lend them an ear during her presidency.

[DonViejo]

9. Correct....

If Hillary wins the nomination or, MoveOn members vote to endorse her in the primaries, the organization will endorse her. To think otherwise is, to me at least, a total waste of brain power.

[bigtree]

6. ha!

. . . smooth move - badmouthing dissent and advocacy against militarization in some sort of nebulous support of your candidate.

Inspiring.

I think you lost sight of the fact that the President isn't contemplating running a campaign anymore; Hillary is. She (and any other candidates) will be ultimately held accountable for militaristic positions in those elections, not President Obama. Their mention of the President looks to be highlighted for comparison, contrast, and clarification of where they stand.

I take your semantic point, although I think it's a mostly inconsequential and meaningless one.

[djean111]

7. That's how I understood it - MoveOn was warning Hillary specifically and any other candidates

in general. It was interesting, but I do not look to MoveOn to tell me who to support.

Almost looking forward to being told that being against war and the TPP and other trade agreements is caring about ponies and unicorns.

I am curious - evidently Hillary was a FANTASTIC SOS or she was just an Obama puppet (when something she advocated was unpopular). Was she merely a fantastic puppet?

[TheKentuckian]

13. Fantastic? In what way? What makes her a particularly stand out SoS?

Why is she much better than Albright or Warren Christopher?

Like everything else to sell Hillary Clinton, it is inflation, exaggeration, and empty assertion.

She is nothing special in any area and warmed over Republican crap in many.

Even on women's health issues, I've yet to see what separates her from mainstream Democrats. She is the most puffed up candidate in modern history, riding the wave of name recognition and a lot of fucking money.

[djean111]

14. Oh, I agree with you!

I just keep reading that her years as the SOS make her qualified because she did such a stellar job.
Like working on the TPP. I mentioned that, and was told the TPP was really the president's thing, and she was just doing what the president wanted. Let's see if she champions it now.

[TheKentuckian]

19. Gotcha

[morningfog]

8. Well they should!

[bigtree]

10. what the heck does 'ACA' have to do with their statement about militarization?

I'll change the title to 'threatens,' since you said in this thread that it would be more appropriate - just so you can rest easy.

All is well, then.

[wyldwolf]

11. reading is fundamental.

but if you need an answer - nothing.

And why do you consent to change the title now when you argued so passionately in favor it in your thread?

[bigtree]

12. 200 recs so far on the other thread

. . . the recs weren't for my title.

You're fighting the wind.


MoveOn Warns Clinton After Knocking Obama On Foreign Policy : By DonViejo

200

[wyldwolf]

15. you should be so proud.

[bigtree]

16. best of luck, wyldwolf

. . . and, best regards.

[Union Scribe]

17. Thanks for reminding me to rec that thread. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Is MoveOn "supporting" Clinton while "warning" her?

Have they been supporting her nomination up until now?