Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

Hillary Clinton Caught Being Two-Faced, Offends 3 Million Die-Hard Grass Roots Democratic Voters

avatar

HOLY CRAP!  WAY TO GO HILLARY!  THIS GROUP WAS CREATED TO DEFEND BILL and HILL IN THE 1990'S.  SUPERDELEGATES KNOW WE NEED THEIR VOTES!



At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.


"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack 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."


Clinton's remarks depart radically from the traditional position of presidential candidates, who in the past have celebrated high levels of turnout by party activists and partisans as a harbinger for their own party's success -- regardless of who is the eventual nominee -- in the general election showdown.


The comments also contradict Clinton's previous statements praising this year's elevated Democratic turnout in primaries and caucuses, and appear to blame her caucus defeats on newly energized grassroots voter groups that she has lauded in the past as "lively participants" in American democracy.

"You've been asking the tough questions," Clinton said in April of last year at a MoveOn-sponsored town hall event. "You've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves... I think you have helped to change the face of American politics for the better... both online, and in the corridors of power."

Clinton's criticism followed MoveOn's endorsement of Obama in early February. The group was initially established in 1999 to oppose the Republican-led effort to impeach President Bill Clinton, and now claims 3.2 million members.

In a statement to The Huffington Post, MoveOn's Executive Director Eli Pariser reacted strongly to Clinton's remarks: "Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."

Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign, verified the authenticity of the audio, and elaborated on Clinton's charge that these same party activists were engaged in acts of intimidation against her supporters: "There have been well documented instances of intimidation in the Nevada and the Texas caucuses, and it is a fact that while we have won 4 of the 5 largest primaries, where participation is greatest, Senator Obama has done better in caucuses than we have." About Clinton's remarks suggesting dismay over high Democratic activist turnout, Wolfson said, "I'll let my statement stand as is."

In fact, the Nevada caucuses occurred prior to MoveOn's endorsement of Obama, and when Clinton made her remarks, the Texas caucuses had yet to take place.

The disclosure of Clinton's statement disparaging the prominence of party activists in the caucus process comes after she repeatedly suggested that Obama's electability had been compromised because he had allegedly offended other key Democratic constituencies.


Comments (53)

avatar

This is utter rubbish. For 2-3 months, Mrs. Clinton has been getting pilloried by moveon.org and media groups like TPM.

And you expect her to smile and say nothing? Fox has been fairer to Mrs. Clinton than moveon.org.

Fox has been fairer to Mrs. Clinton than moveon.org.


I clicked "reply" to this, but then I figured why bother.

avatar

Fox has been "fairer" to Mrs. Clinton because Mrs. Clinton has done a lot more for the Republicans than for the Democrats during this campaign, and is continuing to do so.

Chico;
MoveOn is tough on Clinton because they do not have a double standard and neither do I. (Anddo not forget that they were formed to protect Bill from the impeachment debaucle.)

If Obama starts slamming Hillary in a way that McCain can make a videos and use them against her (should she be the candidate) in the general such that he can say “see, even the Dems think I am better,” I will excoriate him too.

Hillary's problem is that many of Obama's supporters are young and idealistic - things like character and integrity matter still for many of them (us).

Let’s talk about Kool Aid for a sec. I know that none of you really believe that she misspoke about Bosnia. NOBODY who has not been engaged in live gun fire-such as a policeman or soldier-could POSSIBLY "mis-remember" such an incident.

I am willing to state categorically that if you interview multitudes of civilians who actually have been shot at, not one of them would trivialize it, and in fact they would probably say things like they emptied their intestines from pure fear. Someone in my office told me of such a story. It is simply beyond credulity that anyone could accidentally misremember such a traumatic event.

So if you want to turn your heads because in sum you support Hillary, then be honest and admit that it is ok if she lies because she is still the best candidate in your opinion. I could accept that. But do not pretend that you believe such hooey! But do not be surprised that people who are not Hillary partisans reject this baloney and call her out on it.

And one last point-if Obama or any other candidate for that matter was pulling all the stunts that she is right now-the ENTIRE Democratic Party would be on them to bow out for the sake of unity and the general election. Makes one wonder what the Clinton's have on everyone behind closed doors that so many are keeping silent.

But that is about to change-if Obama is within 5 points in Pennsylvania although I am certain Hillary and her camp will move the goal posts again, the rest of the party will not. The end is near for HRC.

We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction. Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. . .

That is Eli Pariser's petition that he put on the web after 9/11. It was picked up by MoveOn and he was hired by MoveOn right after that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200506241146.asp

More facts about Pariser, MoveOn, Rove and Afghanistan.

Eli Pariser is a liar.

By the way, MoveOn.org was founded to promote the idea of censuring Bill Clinton, not defending him.

LMAO! Keep that sense of humor.

Due to the powers that only I possess, I've managed to use my computer to peek inside your brain. This is what I saw.

avatar

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!
FOR HILLARY!!!

T-SHIRTS HERE
http://www.zazzle.com/tre2k3/product/235456910823818404?ZCMP=ProductPageRecs2

This kind of stuff is getting ridiculous. But I would just like to point out that MoveOn is a political organization that has actively campaigned against Hillary. She is not accusing them of being culturally inferior. Instead she saying that they are aggressive activist, who are playing a major role in defeating her in caucus states. Can anyone say that MoveOn is not doing that?

Can anyone say that MoveOn is not doing that?

Yes.

LOL! Yes you can!

Well played, sir. Well played.

Hmm. I get all MoveOn's mailings and participated in the vote to determine who MoveOn would endorse. I get all the mailings about petitions to my representatives in Congress. I get all the mailings begging for more money, which unfortunately I haven't got.

I can confidently say that I don't see any evidence of MoveOn having an impact on the primary elections, but I can't speak for the caucus states since I'm in MA and we don't do it that way.

But, somehow, if MoveOn were so influential I'd be expecting to see more information about that. They've never specialized in keeping their light under a bushel.

More lies from you? I'm not a MoveOn member, never have been, but your statement that they campaign against Clinton is 100% crap. They can not campaign against Clinton. It's against the law. If they, they'll get slapped with serious fines. They can advocate for positions and policies, but they can not advocate against a candidate. The furtherest they can go is an endorsement and using their own power to create ads and promos for a candidate, but they can not coordinate with the campaign. That's basic knowledge.

Brilliant strategy! If there's one thing the Democratic nominee must do to win in November, it's to keep those dastardly liberal voters away from the polls.

avatar

The Bawl and Pillory Partners in Pathos made an enormous mistake this time around. They usually make many, but without Ross Perot to split the opposition so they can squeak into office, this boo-boo proved electorally fatal.

Normally, these DLC "centrists" wait until after they have secured the Democratic Party nomination to betray all the liberal activists who delivered for them in the primary. This time they decided to just skip the "Democratic" part of the process and just head straight into appeasing Republicans (who loathe and will never vote for them) in the general election. Bad move, that, what with Senator Barack Obama deciding to actually campaign everywhere the liberal activists wanted him to contest for their votes in the Democratic Party primary. Thus, a little commemorative rhyme:

"Gullible's Travails"

Bawl and Pillory,
Partners in Pity:
Two-for-the-price-of-one
Penis and titty

Each worth a half-a-loaf;
Crocodiles crying
Tears for poor Israel,
Our soldiers dying

Our taxes fund The Wall
Stealing the water
Our foreign legion fights:
Sheep to the slaughter

What of this don't you get?
What part of "bumpkin"?
Yahoos scare Houyhnhmnms stiff
Heads like a pumpkin

Wide-staring glassy eyes
Bullwinkle grinning
Pointing at "something there"
Sycophants spinning

Brobdingnag ain't the place
We should be going
Lilliput neither,
With her knickers showing

Poppy’s adopted son
Nouveau corruption
Monica’s pizza man
Bimbo eruption

Reckless abandonment
Liberals cheated
Kiss up and cave-in to
Those we defeated

Piss on her palace, though,
That ought to do it
Turn out the night-light, kids,
Then just say "screw it."

Only two families;
Name recognition:
Monarchy! Monarchy!
Spark the ignition

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2008

Funny stuff. I made a comment about this topic on a similar topic and you seem to be an example of the activist that I wrote about. I guess it is worth repeating.

It is not a surprise that the netroots activist portion of the Democratic Party has turned on Clinton. Organizations such as MoveOn promotes aggressive partisan tactics. It is in direct opposition to the post-partisan politics that Hillary Clinton has been attempting to play while she has been in the senate.

It is the same criticism that Bill Clinton's centrist politics received from a portion of the left, who substituted the word centrist with the word appeasement.

The only thing they have in common with Obama's post-partisan lets all get together message, is Obama's past position on the war in Iraq. There is nothing unifying and feel good about netroots. They would rather win at all costs.

If Obama is authentic to his message and he wins the nomination, he will have to turn his back on the netroots crowd. I wonder how they will feel then.

Organizations such as MoveOn promotes aggressive partisan tactics. It is in direct opposition to the post-partisan politics that Hillary Clinton has been attempting to play while she has been in the senate.

1) Organizations such as MoveOn DO promote aggressive partisan tactics. Their party is Democrat. That's kind of understandable, since MoveOn was formed to fight the Republican hate machine in defense of the Clinton administration.
2) I think Hillary Clinton has made an excellent senator. I believe she should still make an excellent senator, maybe even majority leader someday. But her attacks against Obama have been significantly partisan... and awfully Republican at that.

Both of your points are correct. But I think you miss the point of my comment (maybe on purpose).

Sorry about misreading your comment--I got stuck on post-partisan :-)

I understand that you're saying it's kind of netroots vs. Obama, but I'm still not quite sure I get why.

What did Hillary actually do as a senator that you think was "excellent"?

avatar

Seems kind of weird to blame your losses on the fact that more people prefer your opponent.

Seems kind of weird to blame your losses on the fact that more people prefer your opponent.

That, and then there's the fact that many more people have consistently preferred her opponent in many small states that don't matter.

Also, the fact that Jesse Jackson did well in the state.

Oh, and don't forget the fact that caucuses were rigged (even if she won, like in Nevada).

She must be tired late at night at lot these days.

Here's the line that worries me:

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.

What am I missing? What is it about the Democratic view of national security and foreign policy with which Clinton doesn't agree, other than their (IMHO) ill-chosen "General Betray-us" taunt?

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200506241146.asp

Good summary of the argument.

Evidence that MoveOn did oppose invading Afghanistan right after 9/11. Evidence that Pariser is, in fact, a liar.

She should have make it clearer that she was just talking about MoveOn, not everyone who is anti-war.

avatar

Clinton defenders getting their talking points from National Review...

The circle is complete.

It's not a talking point. It's a reasoned argument. Refute it if you can. If not ....

Attacking Pariser as a sack of crap doesn't make her comment about MoveOn any less ridiculous. Your core fact is correct, but utterly beside the point. Bitching about MoveOn is amazingly tone deaf, though concerted with Hassan Nemazee ordering Howard Dean about. If only the party activists, and chair, and African-Americans, and white liberals didn't matter, she might be relevant as a candidate today.

Earth to the bunker, time to close ranks, not flame MoveOn.org and Howard Dean.

Easy enough to do: whether you are gung-ho about war or not, calling on the administration "to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction" is not an anti-war position. It's a position advocating a preference for international law over military force as a way to resolve international conflict, and it explicitly acknowledges ("wherever possible") that this may not always be possible. It was never an official moveon.org position, and it didn't constitute opposition to invading Afghanistan in the first place.

Here are links to the webarchives of those petitions.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030207124844/http://www.moveon.org/justice/

http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3

If we weren't against the Afghan war, they sure fooled me.

Furthermore, I don't apologize for it, nor should MoveOn.

We were right.

This isn't about Afghanistan. It's about "massive retaliation" on Iran.

avatar

I respectfully think the blog misses the point-- Senator Clinton's comments are offensive to all of Obama's supporters as it unfairly and innacurately suggests his support is limited to a group which did not even support him until February. That is the real story line in my mind together with her lack of candor in saying one thing in private and another in public.

avatar

MoveOn voted about who to support in the current election. Over two-thirds of the members (the criterion) voted for Obama so he got the endorsement. That does not mean that all MoveOn members voted for Obama in the prmaries/caucuses. I don't believe there was a policy decision on Afghanistan.

From this point in time, I WISH we had gone to Afghanistan, wiped out the Taliban fighters, THEN GONE TO TORA BORA AFTER BIN LADEN instead of attacking Iraq. But we did not because the Iraq attack was a pre-2000 plan for the neocons. The rest is history.

I am a member of MoveOn, I am anti-war, pro-diplomacy. I support spending money on US needs particularly energy alternatives and infrastructure. I guess that makes me a radical. So be it.

That's just the thing, you aren't a radical. Our work re environmental energy issues is something I'm very proud of.

Sometimes I think we need to hear more from John and Wes and less from Eli.

:(

That's just me tho.

I joined MoveOn in their early days, before they even numbered 10,000. At that time, we even counted moderate Republicans in our numbers, and did a lot of phone banking and brainstorming. It wasn't hard not to respect and admire Joan and Wes and their sincere efforts to prevent the divided politics we see now.

When MoveOn joined with 9-11 Peace and Eli, it became decidedly non-partisan, and much more proactive. I have stayed with them, and while phone banking have run into a lot of suspicion from people that have heard the GOP talking points against them.

At this point, MoveOn has become synonymous with "zealot" in too many circles. What started out as a way to bypass extremists and employ common sense has become part of that machine.

While I will continue to back most of their efforts, some of their recent actions do concern me. I think we were better offf not endorsing anyone but "progressive" candidates using sound principles. Now it seems to me whomever speaks loudest wins, and that's unfortunate, as it was the quiet voices, the common sense voices that made MoveOn what it was.

That said, Hillary should have known better than to name them. Anyone that knows anything about the organization would know that they also support Hillary and any candidate that offers at least some progressive leadership.

Her bad.

Arrrgh, "It wasn't hard to respect and admire" Joan and Wes."

My kingdom for an edit feature.

FWIW I still do respect and admire them greatly.

avatar

Justifably because Hillary is masquerading as a Republican. She thinks the Democratic voters dont see the many faces of Hillary?

avatar

This organization was formed for Hill and Bill during the 90's when they were being pummelled by the Republicans,Shows alot of loyalty to her party as well as her grassroots org. Hillary has two many faces for me.

avatar

Well, let's see: She doesn't like people who participate in democracy; Wolfson says Move On did her wrong in Nevada and Texas, except it turns out they didn't because C campaign got their dates wrong--again; It was Clinton campaign who worked very hard to subvert the caucus votes in Texas;She got it wrong about Afghanistan--Move On was pro going after Al Quaida and Anti her vote for attacking Iraq who did nothing as it turns out; She doesn't think it's fair that grass roots democrats donate money--it should only come--to her--and then only from lobbyists and PAC"s; She did all this behind closed doors--which we all know is evil because we heard her say so ad nauseum all last week; OH AND the reason she hasn't done well in caucuses is because she made no plan to consider those states worth bothering with. She was all about big states and big money. Even in PA which is supposed to be her big gotcha state, she missed the deadline for naming her state delegates and still didn't really know who they might be after the second deadline her pal Ed arranged for her. Can we say disorganized? Oh poop, why bother. Tomorrow will bring a new spin. Logic and documentation don't really come into play with Mrs. Clinton. She's all about slip sliding away--like an eel.

Here's the problem with the war in Afghanistan: It's a war against the people of Afghanistan, who by and large had and have nothing to do with the attacks of 911. Those who spoke out against war as the response to 911 were right. To think that Iraq is the wrong war whereas Afghanistan is the right war is wrong headed and muddle minded. Neither war can be "won," and neither should be. The US and NATO is in Afghanistan for reasons of geopolitics and economics, with 911 the excuse, and the sooner we recognize this the better off we will be. As for the people of Afghanistan: They have born the brunt of aggression by the British, the Russians, the Soviets, and now the Americans for over 100 years and it has been inexcusable. The war in Iraq is wrong and so is the war in Afghanistan.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

Can someone explain to me why Hillary Clinton did this? Why Eli is doing this? We protested the war. We had plenty of good reasons to. We have been, if anything, vindicated.

Good grief, it's enough to make me go out and buy a tin foil hat!

If the U.S. maintains a military presence in southern Afghanistan to hunt for bin Laden in and across the Pakistan border, and did nothing else, that would be, in the view of an overwhelming majority of Americans, appropriate.

While you state your position more broadly, you also appear to assert that even war to the extent of removing the Taliban that fostered bin Laden and refused to hand him over, is wrong.

I think that intervention was the first just and moral use of our military in fifty-six years. It appears you believe that there is no just use of it except defense within the literal territory of the U.S., a position unlikely to win many converts.

No, I didn't think that war was an appropriate response to an Act of Terrorism. I still don't. It's a Law enforcement issue. At one time, I thought there were close on a million people that agreed with me.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030422200047/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3?lang=famous

I think the results of going into Afghanistan speak for themselves
We don't have Bin Laden, and we have a busted gov't that abuses it's own people.

Now Eli says it isn't so, we were never against the war, and Hillary herself, as well as, some Obama fans denigrate me for holding that opinion. Good thing I've got such a thick skin. :)

avatar

"Organizations such as MoveOn promotes aggressive partisan tactics. It is in direct opposition to the post-partisan politics that Hillary Clinton has been attempting to play while she has been in the senate."

Hillary's post-partisan politics: she seems to transcend the partisan divide by becoming a Republican while nominally a Democrat. Hillary is the Lieberman of this election, only I don't think the U.S. population at large will make the stupid mistake people in Connecticut did.

Word up!

avatar

Have you seen today's daily Gallup Poll? Obama has dropped 12 points in just 4 days, and now is a point behind Hillary. The poll was taken over three days, two of which were after the debate in which Obama performed so poorly. Meanwhile he continues to complain about how unfair the debate was.

He's not complaining. He's brushing the dirt off.

well stated. I'm going to make a t-shirt with this one. "he's not complaining. he's brushing the dirt off." luv it.

I think there's a small segment of people who didn't get the symbolism and inherent self-deprecating humor in Obama doing that. Frankly, I thought it was brilliant. He acknowledged that he was scuff in the battle, but it's okay, because he's back up on the horse.

avatar

" I have endorsed Republican War Monger, John McCain for Commander in Chief, but not my fellow Democrat, Senator Barack Obama"

Hillary Janus Clinton

avatar

Americans are such idiots! It really becomes hard to give a damn.

avatar

More 2 face comments from Hillary:

Obama said Ayers is "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" and not someone who has endorsed him or talked to him regularly.

"And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense," Obama said.

Clinton said the relationship was deeper than that because both men served together on the board of a charity.

Ayers, she said, made comments "which were deeply hurtful to people in New York and, I would hope, to every American, because they were published on 9/11, and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more.

"And what they did was set bombs," she went on. "And in some instances, people died."

THE FACTS:

Clinton's implication that Ayers made hurtful comments connected with the terrorist attacks is wrong.

By coincidence, a story about Ayers and what he called his fictionalized memoirs appeared in The New York Times on the day of the attacks.

The story was based on an interview he had done earlier, in Chicago, in which he declared, "I don't regret setting bombs," and "I feel we didn't do enough," even while seeming to dissociate himself coyly from the group's most destructive acts.

Clinton is correct that both men served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that develops community groups to help the poor. Ayers joined the board in 1999 and is still on it. Obama left it in December 2002 after nine years.

Ayers was clearly more than someone Obama just ran into in the neighborhood on occasion. In the mid-1990s, when Obama was making his first run for the Illinois Senate, Ayers had Obama to his home to introduce him to others.

But a flub by Obama in the debate suggested he does not know him that well: He called Ayers an English professor. Ayers teaches education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and has been an education adviser to Mayor Richard Daley.

Ayers disappeared after the 1970 town house explosion, although he was not charged in that episode. He and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, surfaced in 1980.

They both faced charges stemming from Chicago demonstrations in 1969 but his were dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct while she pleaded guilty to aggravated battery and bail-jumping.

THE REPLY:

Obama said Clinton was not one to talk about guilt by association because "President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act than me serving on a board with somebody for actions that he did 40 years ago."

THE FACTS:

Obama correctly sketched out the details of Bill Clinton's acts in the case. However, senior Obama strategist David Axelrod went too far Thursday when he said the two cleared by President Clinton had killed people. They were not convicted of that.

Bill Clinton created an uproar with New York lawmakers from both parties and with police when, on his last day in office, he pardoned Susan L. Rosenberg and commuted the sentence of Linda Sue Evans.

Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years after being caught unloading 740 pounds of dynamite and weapons from a car in New Jersey in 1984. She was wanted on charges related to the deadly Brink's ambush but never tried on them, and Clinton's order released her after 16 years behind bars.

Evans was captured in 1985 along with one of the fugitives from the Brink's robbery, whom she was accused of harboring. Evans was sentenced to 40 years on a variety of weapons and terrorism-related convictions, including the 1983 Capitol bombing plot.

Although Hillary Clinton publicly disputed her husband's offer of clemency to Puerto Rican nationalists in 1999 because they had not sufficiently renounced violence, she is not known to have objected to his freeing of Rosenberg and Evans in 2001.

Post a Comment

Cafe Features



Cafe Features


July 7-11

David Sirota The Uprising

July 14-18

Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam Grand New Party

July 21-25

Bill Bishop The Big Sort

August 4-9

Book Cover

August 11-15

James Galbraith The Predator State

August 25-29

Book Cover











Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Al Shaw



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address