Clinton suffers virtual defeat in MoveOn vote on Iraq

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The Hill

By Klaus Marre
April 12, 2007

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, lagged behind her main competitors, as well as some lower-tier candidates, in a straw poll taken after a virtual town hall meeting on Iraq.

Seven Democratic White House hopefuls participated in the April 10 event, sponsored by the influential MoveOn.org Political Action PAC, and MoveOn members picked Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) as the candidate who “would be best able to lead the country out of Iraq.”

Obama received 27.87 percent of the vote, followed closely by former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards with 24.84 percent. A total of 42,882 MoveOn members participated in the vote.

Clinton finished a distant fifth with 10.7 percent, also trailing Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) with 17.18 percent and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson with 12.26 percent.

Read more: http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-suffers-virtual-defeat-in-moveon-vote-on-iraq-2007-04-12.html

---

This will certainly give a boost to Obama. Four years ago Howard Dean really started getting momentum when he won MoveOn's poll.

[Captain Hilts]

1. She got the roughest questions also. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. I guess people didn't like her answers

[William769]

3. I did.

[papau]

7. So did I - but moveon is a crowd, like much of DU, that wants only to dump on her. n/t

n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

18. It almost sounds like you are saying, "Clinton good; MoveOn, DU bad." Is that

a fair reading?

[Cha]

19. hillary gives reasons to dump

on her if you don't like war and I don't.

"For example, she opposes the international treaty to ban land mines. She voted against the Feinstein-Leahy amendment last September restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas. She opposes restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses, such as Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Israel, Pakistan, Cameroon and Chad, to name only a few. She insists upon continuing unconditional funding for the Iraq war and has called for dramatic increases in Bush’s already bloated military budget. She has challenged the credibility of Amnesty International and other human rights groups that criticize policies of the United States and its allies.

Mrs. Clinton has been one of the Senate’s most outspoken critics of the United Nations, even serving as the featured speaker at rallies outside U.N. headquarters in July 2004 and last summer to denounce the world body. She voted to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq despite its being a clear violation of the U.N. Charter and in July 2004 falsely accused the United Nations of not taking a stand against terrorism when it has opposed U.S. policy. She was one of the most prominent critics of the International Court of Justice for its landmark 2004 advisory ruling that the Fourth Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War is legally binding on all signatory nations. She condemned the United Nations’ judicial arm for challenging the legality of Israel’s separation barrier in the occupied West Bank and sponsored a Senate resolution “urging no further action by the United Nations to delay or prevent the construction of the security fence.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0309-23.htm

[Captain Hilts]

8. Questions were selected ahead of time. Nice try. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Yes, but the answers were up to the candidates

And it would appear that MoveOn members likes Obama's and Edwards' answers.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

4. 17% for Kucinich... very nice

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. That is worse than he did in the 2003 MoveOn.org straw poll

Dean 43.87%
Kucinich 23.93%
Kerry 15.73%
Edwards 3.19%
Gephardt 2.44%
Graham 2.24%
Moseley Braun 2.21%
Lieberman 1.92%
Sharpton 0.53%

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0627-01.htm

[eridani]

17. Votes were much more evenly divided this time

No clear consensus, as opposed to 2004 where Dean and Kucinich were way out in front.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. It would appear than Kucinich did not pick up many Dean supporters

[eridani]

37. In WA state he did n/t

[Robbien]

5. She has always ignored anyone to the left of the moderate position

Why would anyone think she would place well in an online contest.

[ryanmuegge]

9. How is she the "frontrunner"

It's too damn early to tell that.

Of course, we can tell that the media has chosen Guilani as the Republican candidate.

[Jersey Ginny]

20. My question exactly. She hasn't endeared herself to the grassroots primary-voting dem

I'm not endeared. She doesn't speak from the heart - too measured.

[primavera]

38. She's only the "frontrunner" because...

... many Dems are conditioned to believe that only right-wingers are electable, so even though few Dems actually like her, many support her as the "electable" candidate, because she can get the big corporate money and is sufficiently right-wing to be accepable to centrists.

[Robb]

10. I expect she's virtually concerned. n/t

[Sirveri]

11. Didn't Dean get trounced once the Primaries actually started.

In a way this doesn't bode well for Obama if the same holds true.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Only because the M$M obsessed on his "Dean Scream" n/t

[karynnj]

30. He came in a weak third in Iowa before the scream

Kerry had 38%, Edwards 32%, and Dean 18%. This was a race that the media tought Dean or Gepheart would win. I've seen articles, written 2 weeks before the caucuses that got everything wrong.

One predicted that Kerry would be out possibly after Iowa, but certainly after NH - even if he did as well as he could coming in third in Iowa and second (or third - to Dean and Clark) in NH.

It is difficult and useless to map 2008 candidates into the 2004 candidates. You can argue that Edwards (with the economic issues) is Dean2008; that Obama is the sunny Edwards2008. Resumewise, Dodd is the closest to a Kerry2008. But, then who is Hillary - I doubt she is Leiberman2008. Every year is different. We also haven't had the debates yet.

[Psephos]

43. The trouncing came before the screaming. n/t

[burrowowl]

12. Kuncinich and Richardson did well!

They would make a good pair: President and Vice-President!

[w4rma]

13. They wouldn't get along. One is a 'free' trader and the other isn't. (nt)

[lyonn]

14. Here are some results from the e-mail I got from MoveOn:

Now, here are the full results from the Virtual Town Hall vote (remember, this does not imply a MoveOn endorsement):

Sen. Barack Obama 28% www.BarackObama.com
Sen. John Edwards 25% www.JohnEdwards.com
Rep. Dennis Kucinich 17% www.Kucinich.us
Gov. Bill Richardson 12% www.RichardsonForPresident.com
Sen. Hillary Clinton 11% www.HillaryClinton.com
Sen. Joe Biden 6% www.JoeBiden.com
Sen. Chris Dodd 1% www.ChrisDodd.com



"P.S. MoveOn members who watched the Town Hall at one of the parties voted differently from those who did not. Here are how the folks who attended the event ranked their choices:

Sen. John Edwards
25%

Gov. Bill Richardson
21%

Sen. Barack Obama 19%

Rep. Dennis Kucinich
15%

Sen. Joe Biden
10%

Sen. Hillary Clinton
7%
Sen. Chris Dodd
4%

I voted for Biden. The questions had to do with the war and I liked his ideas.

[bklyncowgirl]

29. Moveon voters who attended Town Hall House Parties: Edwards 25%, Richardson 21%, Obama 19%

I'm not saying that other voters didn't watch all the presentations but Edwards & Richardson were more substantive with my vote going to Richardson for his clear out by 08, work for a diplomatic solution statement.

[lyonn]

33. I didn't read all their statements, skimmed some but,

they all seemed to want out by 08. I liked Bidens idea of separating the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish areas and allowing the locals to do the policing, securing, etc. and divide the oil among the 3. One thing he said that bothered me was that the oil rich arab nations should help pay for the reparations in that country. Nice if they would participate but we destroyed the country, we need to put Iraqis to work in that effort, not Halliburton or Arab counries. We are giving billions now for reparations and it is not happening. And Iraqs unemployment is off the charts. Of course they are going to hate us since they can't even provide the minimum for their families.

[Tom Joad]

16. Wait until its real, Hillary! Lookin forward to her eventual defeat. eom

[EFerrari]

21. MoveOn is far less influential today than it was

when they bailed on their volunteers in 2004.

[ShortnFiery]

24. Oh, I don't know about this ... I think HRC is going down hard. n/t

[EFerrari]

27. She may but it won't be because of MoveOn. Members

have been leaving them in droves for a long time now.

[lyonn]

34. I read most of her speech and she is doing the same dialog

she has used for years and that is not being out front with her ideas. She skirts around issues and says she backs this or that and has for several years now, but was not a straight forward as Richardson, Edwards, Biden and most others. That is why I believe many are holding back on Hillary. She is too cautious. Dems are ready for some straight forward presentations of their goals. No more down the middle talk, covering all bases in other words.

Maybe Edwards is the real deal this time. Not sure about his foreign policy savvy but he could put people in place that can guide him in those areas. The guy is smart. One problems with Edwards is that it took him too long to start bashing bush's policies.

Richardson is very impressive, one thing that bothers me is that he was born in Calif. but raised in Mexico City. Each of us has grown up in an area and will carry that special affinity for our Home turf. If he could explain his philosophy on the two countries it would help.

[MODemocrat]

40. Maybe she will go down, but I will not be rooting for her downfall

It's pretty ironic that we see all the anti-Hillary comments on a DEMOCRATIC forum. Those who are still holding a grudge against her for her "war vote", don't mind being selective in their opinion, and giving all the others a pass who voted Yea. I don't like some of the Democratic candidates very much either, but one thing I won't do is tear a fellow-Democrat down, especially when our country has fallen into a Hell-hole under the present administration. :crazy: :crazy: :shrug: :dem:

[BenDavid]

22. Excuse me! But , don't you

believe the vote over at MoveOn was kinda slanted. It proves nothing except the fact those that hate HRC for not apoligizing for her vote found a poll they could influence.
Never seen so much haterizing of one person by so called liberals, democrats then I've seen here on this forum. I take that back. The hatred for HRC is about as bad as the hatred for bush. Oh, I can take whatever you all dish out about HRC, because I know come 08, HRC will be the nominee and the eventual President OF The United States.

Oh, and I will leave you folks with this: Obama came up to Conn. to campaign for Lieberman before the primary, very carefully timing his
appearance to try to kill Ned Lamont’s antiwar primary challenge before it got off the ground. Then in the general election, he refused to lift a finger for Lamont. For a guy like Obama who runs around bragging about his antiwar credentials, yet who then spent most of his first year in Congress absolutely silent on the war - his behavior in the Connecticut Senate race says a lot about him as the supposed post-partisan conviction candidate.

And what was HRC's stand in the 2006 Senate race in Conn.? When Lamont won the democratic primary over Lieberman, HRC supported Lamont. As did Sens. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd,and Frank Lautenberg. All abandoned Lieberman after the primary and endorsed Lamont.

So what do you say about HRC support of Lamont over Lieberman? I guess in your sphere, party loyalty means jack......

[ShortnFiery]

25. The American People are tired of "swagger" ... regardless of gender, it's unattractive. n/t

[Trajan]

26. As much as I admire Move On ....

They arent the last word, and do not model or represent the behaviour of the electorate at large ....

Clinton will win the primaries, and would need to 'reintroduce' herself to win the general ....

Im a bit concerned, any way you look at it ....

[ShortnFiery]

28. I know from the right wingers around me here in kool-aid land, HRC will lose the General Election ..

IF nominated. :(

Especially now that she's "pretending to be a tough gal" (it's so contrived) she's disliked by both the liberals and right wing.

Being that polarizing of a figure, HRC doesn't stand a chance in hell. :thumbsdown:

[ryanmuegge]

36. It's not a lock. Obama's going to be pretty tough.

Just sayin'. It's still really early. And even based on the early polls, Not that I'm a huge fan of either one. There's nothing to suggest she's got this in the bag yet. I'd support either one over a Republican, but they don't really represent the huge change that's needed to get this country off its current track that's headed straight to hell.

I'm hoping someone else will emerge. Someone who hasn't let us (the people on the left) down with authorizing the war in Iraq among other things. New blood.

[2Design]

32. Her war support for the war does give me pause about her too - and the fact

that the media and everyone else will spend more time trying to get her like they did Bill
She voted for the war and still supports it mostly -

I think kunich is the only one who has his head on straight about the war and I sure wish he could get ahead and get more publicy and a following

[rec_report]

35. And, Bush suffered an *actual* one, in two elections!!! n/t

[arikara]

39. And yet the big 3 all say exactly the same thing regarding the invasion...

The Pentagon’s most likely next target is Iran. Hillary Clinton says “no option can be taken off the table.”

Barack Obama says that the Iranian government is “a threat to all of us” and “we should take no option, including military action, off the table.”

John Edwards says, “Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.” And: “We need to keep all options on the table.”

A year ago, writing in The New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reported: “One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.”

For a presidential candidate to proclaim that all “options” should be on the table while dealing with Iran is a horrific statement. It signals willingness to threaten — and possibly follow through with — first use of nuclear weapons. This raises no eyebrows among Washington’s policymakers and media elites because it is in keeping with longstanding U.S. foreign-policy doctrine.

This year, with their virtually identical statements about “options” and “the table,” the leading Democratic presidential candidates — Clinton, Obama and Edwards — have refused to rule out any kind of attack on Iran.

If you’re not shocked or outraged yet, consider this:

<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/12/467/

So if the main issue is the war, better to look beyond the ones that the media is supporting.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. This poll was about Iraq, not Iran

[arikara]

44. War is war

These 3 are warmongers showing their true colours. Please, don't be fooled.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Don't forget the warmonger Dennis Kucinich

He has voted for war also.

[Martin Eden]

41. I voted for Biden

I'm not saying he would be my choice in the Democratic primary.

I'm saying I think of all the "plans" put forward by the candidates at the meeting, Biden had the most detailed and workable plan for leaving Iraq in the best possible shape after the departure of US combbat troops.