Big News - MoveOn.org To Work For Obama

[mefoolonhill]

Source: MoveOn.org Press Release

MoveOn Endorsement Throws Progressive Weight Behind Barack Obama

3.2 Million Members Nationwide Mobilize to Get Out the Progressive Vote for Senator Obama

Group Has Over 1.7 Million Members In Super Tuesday States


Read more: http://moveon.org/press/pr/obamaendorsementrelease.html

---

Wow ! MoveOn has a great track record. They know how to do outreach and they have a great database. This is a major boost for Obama.

[norwespatriot]

1. Is this true???

If so, this is a MAJOR slap in face for Hillary. Didn't she say she helped found MoveOn?

[Hekate]

19. If so, it's news to me. The VRWC would have had her for breakfast during the impeachment....

...It would have been all over that she was involving herself in a far-lefty group.

Hekate

[AllyCat]

23. Yes. Even CNN radio news was reporting it this afternoon

MoveOn's poll came out yesterday by email asking us who we supported. I said Obama, but it is not enthusiastic support on my part. The second question was asking us whether or not there was a candidate that would cause us to NOT vote in the Gen. election. I answered yes. Wonder what others said.

[JanusAscending]

26. You have that slightly wrong.

The question was, will you vote Democratic no matter who the nominee is. Big difference !! I also voted yes ! Your yes vote meant a NO!according to the question as you saw it! Did you write anything in the comments box? I did.

[Tellurian]

64. They CANNOT by LAW as a 501(c)(4) Endorse ANY candidate..

or work for one..

STRICTLY FORBIDDEN IN THE IRS CODE..

IF THEY DO THEY ARE SUBJECT TO FINES AND LOSING THEIR NON-PROFIT STATUS!

MOVE ON is a 501(c)(4)...The same rules apply as the 501 (c)(3)


http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=156362,00.html

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici02.pdf


Election Year Issues

"During Senate consideration of what became the Revenue Act of 1954, Lyndon Johnson, then Senate Minority Leader, added a floor amendment to provide that IRC 501(c)(3) organizations may not "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office." Johnson stated ". . . his amendment seeks to extend the provisions of section 501 of the House bill, denying tax-exempt status to not only those people who influence legislation but also to those who intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office." 100 Cong. Rec. 9,604 (1954). The amendment was accepted; no debate or discussion took place. The Conference Report (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 83-2543, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. (1954)) contains no further discussion of the amendment."

"There is an obvious disconnect between the language of the provision and the stated intent of its author. The 1954 amendment prohibits political campaign activities by IRC 501(c)(3) organizations while the provision to which it is analogized only restricts attempts to influence legislation by those organizations. This is a knot no one has been able, or even attempted, to untangle."

...I looked them up on Wiki..and they are a 501(c)(4).. Good I hope they LOOSE BIG TIME..

[D23MIURG23]

67. Maybe thier lawyers know something you don't?

[Tellurian]

69. Well let them sue their lawyers.. The IRS doesn't budge for anyone..

and I spoke to the IRS about this last year, when I applied for a non-profit status!

And Obama IS a lawyer...

[D23MIURG23]

72. It seems to me that they have endorsed candidates before

And I don't recall it having been an issue. Maybe I just don't pay close enough attention. In any case it will probably become news if they get hit by the IRS this year over it, so I guess we'll see.

I wouldn't hold my breath though. I don't think organizations make it to where they are by making gigantic mistakes that could otherwise be rectified by five minutes of googling.

[Tellurian]

76. I don't believe I've ever heard of them actively campaigning for a candidate before..

they may have gotten away with the endorsements.. which if you read the pdf document, is also forbidden. If someone makes a call to the IRS.. If they go forward with this campaign..I would say at the least they would loose their non-profit status.. and perhaps pay a fine..And if the IRS decides to go further they may be subject to more penalties seeing they've already admitted to participation in previous political campaigns..

[I Have A Dream]

92. They worked to get Kerry elected during the 2004 election. nt

[Tellurian]

95. HA!

Well, "good luck" to them then!

[juajen]

108. That was after he was nominated. They ran ads against

the pugs. They also ran ads pro democrat, but I do not remember them ever endorsing an indiviedual candidate.

[I Have A Dream]

160. Yes, I'm talking about the general election. I worked as my voting...

precinct's coordinator to get out the vote. We definitely had Kerry/Edwards material that we distributed.

However, I also do not recall anything like this during the 2004 primary.

[populistdriven]

109. In 2004 MoveOn was much better organized in Florida than the Kerry campaign was. nt

[MadAnne]

133. They certainly were. The local Dems absolutely

refused to work with MoveOn. (Indian River County) They wouldn't even let us have yard signs.

[I Have A Dream]

161. I feel that the same was true in Pennsylvania. nt

[D23MIURG23]

110. Like the Republicans and DLC wouldn't sink their teeth in at the first opening

Move on hasn't accidentally gotten away with anything because no one bothered to make a phone call. The republican attack machine has smeared them, an attempt was made to strip them of tax exempt status at one point (they successfully fought it), and congress even voted to censure them at one point. The republicans hate them, and the DINOs would love to squelch them as well. They would never get away with openly running an illicit campaign.

[robinlynne]

147. Well they sent us all voer the country to get out the vote for kerry in 2004. It was a great

campaign. I went to a swing state. maybe that's what they're doing. nothing illegal about that. I doubt they are campaigning. That is probably the wrong word. they're probably doing get out the vote.
Campaigning time is pretty much over anyway for the super tuesday states.

[EV_Ares]

126. LOL, I imagine they know how they are going to be doing this. I wouldn't worry

too much if I were you just because they didn't pick Hillary.

[Gin]

74. Good........and they lost me as a member.

Move on Moveon!

[tabasco]

77. Is that what you're going to say to the Democratic party

if Hillary is not the nominee? :shrug:

[EV_Ares]

127. Does this mean you are mad at Teddy too? eom.

[rdmtimp]

79. Actually, their PAC can endorse candidates...

....as any PAC can.

[Raine1967]

88. I looked it up as well...

501(c)(4)

501(c)(4) exemptions are given to civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.<7> 501(c)(4) organizations differ from 501(c)(3) in that they are permitted to lobby for legislation.

The exemption applies so long as "...no part of the net earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual."<8>

Deductibility of donations to 501(c)(4) organizations

Unlike donations to the more prevalent 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, donations to a section 501(c)(4) organization are not deductible by the donor under section 170 of the code unless the recipient organization is a volunteer fire department as described in revenue ruling 80-77 or veteran organizations with at least 90% of its membership consisting of war veterans as described in IRS Revenue Ruling 84-140.

Prominent 501(c)(4) organizations

* AARP
* National Rifle Association
* MoveOn.org
* League of Conservation Voters
* Christian Coalition

=====================================================================================
IF the NRA can endorse, Why can't MoveOn?

Just curious.
the (3) and the (4) are different.

[populistdriven]

107. It is spelled LOSE not LOOSE moran, and I doubt they are in any trouble here

so much sour grapes is a waste of time, they will support Hillary should she get the nom.

[ingac70]

121. Here is how they get around that....

MoveOn.org Civic Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, formerly known as MoveOn.org, primarily focuses on education and advocacy on national issues.

MoveOn.org Political Action, a federal political action committee, formerly known as MoveOn PAC, gives contributions to candidates across the country to advance causes in Congress and help elect selected political candidates.

[Liberty Belle]

130. They have another entity that is a PAC now, and PACs can endorse.

[JanusAscending]

142. What has this to do with my post???

Nothing, because if they had supported Hillary, it wouldn't bother you AT ALL ! I didn't even bother to read your whole post, because I am considering the source. Did you vote in their survey? Are you a Move on member? You could have voted for your girl. If you didn't........shame on you!

[DavidMS]

162. I was under the impression they are a 527

and can engage in partisan political activity.

Personally, I am glad they endorsed Obama.

[CANDO]

165. Maybe I'm the ignorant one, but aren't they a 527?

?

[primavera]

169. They're both - 2 separate legal entities

MoveOn has a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization and they also run a 527 PAC. Two different organizations with separate officers and finances.

[AllyCat]

148. Faulty memory. I answered such that it was clear that I would NOT

vote for the eventual nominee no matter what.

[krkaufman]

94. Yeah, I voted but commented that they shouldn't endorse anyone.

The endorsement isn't going to persuade all that many people, I would think, and is more likely to result in a mass exodus of members.

[Fredda Weinberg]

2. So now they're gone hyper partisan ... willing to rip the party apart

They were useless during the impeachment hearings, in 2000 and now ... how sad.

[MH1]

3. Their members voted

In a resounding vote today, MoveOn.org Political Action's members nationwide voted to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President. The group, with 3.2 million members nationwide and over 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states, will immediately begin to mobilize on behalf of Senator Obama. The vote favored Senator Obama to Senator Clinton by 70.4% to 29.6%.

From the link in the OP.

From other posts I saw here recently, they weren't going to endorse at all unless the margin was over a certain percentage - I believe one candidate had to get 66% or they wouldn't endorse.

[Fredda Weinberg]

8. Big deal. Useless then, useless now ... they pay to play

w/mainstream media. I know that's a waste - so sad.

[nbcouch]

10. that is correct, it had to be at least 2/3rds n/t

[JanusAscending]

25. WOW !!

I can't believe it was that HUGH a margin!! I got a reminder to vote on my email last night, and I did thinking Obama needed every last vote he could get!!! Glad I was proved wrong. It seems the expectations for my State are really low. Ever since they let Joe Lieberman get away with his political shit, I trust NO ONE in Hartford!! Up where I live in Litchfield County, I expect the dems to go for Hillary. There are silent undertones that racism is alive and well up here. God, I hope I'm wrong !!!

[ChiciB1]

135. I Didn't Get Asked To Vote... They Just Showed Me The Stats AFTER

they emailed me the information! I un-subscribed! And the numbers they sent me nothing CLOSE to 3 million. Only in the thousands! I don't know what is going on, but I'm NOT buying it!

You know this WHOLE campaign for the Democrats has gotten way out of WHACK! I find it VERY offensive that THEY said "we" voted, when I was never even asked!

[JackORoses]

47. actually, Hillary is the one ripping the Party apart. MoveOn is doing its best to save it.

[rocktivity]

54. DING DING DING! JackORoses, you're our grand prize winner!

Actually, Hillary is the one ripping the Party apart...

Of the two candidates, Obama is more likely to embrace the progressive end of the party--and the party wouldn't be where it is if it weren't for the progressives. Though I'll vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, I don't see why I shouldn't at least try to protest her corporate/DLC ties.

:headbang:
rocknation

[EV_Ares]

128. Thats right & MoveOn has always done what they could for the party, can't believe

the sour grapes on anyone who doesn't endorse Hillary here. They better get over it because a lot more will be coming out in the next few days as well.

[Orsino]

154. They're betting on the least-corrupted of the two candidates.

I would prefer that they focused on issues instead. Their resources are finite, and I hate to see any wasted in campaigning.

[JAbuchan08]

59. Didn't Hillary vote to censure them?

she's all about unity when it suits her.

[JAbuchan08]

81. Again I have to apologize

I was wrong and I'm sorry.

[MilesColtrane]

156. Your error is understandable, given that Hillary herself said this three days after her vote:

"MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you an ad that has caused a lot of controversy in this debate about Iraq. MoveOn.org took this ad out, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?: Cooking the Books for the White House.” Do you believe that General David Petraeus has betrayed the American people?

SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely not. He is a man of great honor and distinction who has served admirably. I don’t condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country. I don’t believe that that should be said about General Petraeus, and I condemn that."

So she voted against the MoveOn censure, before she was for it?

[sendero]

152. LOL....

.... "hyper partisan". How can you go hyper partisan in your own party.

MoveOn is doing what they SHOULD do, polling their MEMBERs and getting behind a candidate.

All the sour grapes around here because they didn't pick your horse is amusing, call a wwwwaaaaaahhhhhmbulance.

[russian33]

4. so let me get this straight

basically, its a big 'screw you' to 30% of their people that voted for Clinton?
it's one thing to endorse..entirely another to mobilize...30% of those 3.2 million members didn't vote for Obama, what they gonna do, force them to vote for him?

[Duke Newcombe]

6. Of course..

After all, MoveOn.org owns the Party. Or didn't you get the e-mail?


Duke

[D23MIURG23]

41. Right, which is why their principles are so often upheld by Congress...

[Duke Newcombe]

71. only shows...

that you only get what you (bought and) paid for... :(

Duke

[D23MIURG23]

Its an endorsement.

The way I expect it to play out is that they will put their apparatus behind Obama in the primary, and then campaign to support the nominee (Obama or Clinton) in the general. I've been a member since 2003, and I'd be shocked if it went otherwise.

You can argue that Move On should have closed the door on backing a primary candidate, but I think its ridiculous to point to Hillary's level of support to make that point. 70% in a group of 3 million is as close as you will ever get to consensus; there isn't a better justification for them to endorse someone.

[onehandle]

5. Not good. They should not endorse anyone. MSM will use this to hurt Obama. nt

[lostnfound]

61. I totally agree.

It will do more damage to Moveon AND to Obama than it will do good to either one.

I am personally undecided at this point but all I care about is not having a President Mitt nor the President-formerly-known-as-McCain.

[quakerboy]

105. You're right

Anytime Progressives and Democrats come together, it is hugely damaging to both.

oh.. right.. last chance for status quo and all... hmmm.

[lostnfound]

151. I am not in favor of status quo

and I am strongly in favor of the Progressive caucus taking the reins or the control of the Democrats in congress, for example.
My opinion is that Moveon endorsing Obama is helpful to him in the primary and dangerous for him in the general election. The corporate media will twist it into something bad; and there will be rightwing ads attacking the fact that the 'far-left' group Moveon endorses Obama. Obama is playing to the center effectively, and I personally have heard from moderate republicans who like Obama and will vote for him even though they voted for Bush TWICE.

If it works, great. I remember CNN's creation of the 'Dean scream', the swiftboat attacks against Kerry, the distortion of comments made by Gore, etc. The corporate media is the enemy of progress and its viewers are easily duped.

[Divernan]

7. 3.2 Million Members nationwide; 1.7 million in states voting next Tuesday.

Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org's Executive Director, issued the following statement on the group's endorsement:
"Our members' endorsement of Senator Obama is a clear call for a new America at this critical moment in history. Seven years of the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration have left the country desperate for change. We need a President who will bring to bear the strong leadership and vision required to end the war in Iraq, provide health care to every American, deal with our climate crisis, and restore America's standing in the world. The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country, and someone who will be willing to change business as usual in Washington. Senator Barack Obama has proved he can and will be that President.
"With 3.2 million members nationwide and over 1.7 million members in states that vote next Tuesday, we'll be able to immediately jump into action in support of Senator Obama's candidacy. We've learned that the key to achieving change in Washington without compromising core values is having a galvanized electorate to back you up. And Barack Obama has our members 'fired up and ready to go' on that front.
"We congratulate Sens. Clinton, Dodd and Biden, former Senator Edwards, Governor Richardson, Congressman Kucinich and former Senator Gravel on running tremendous campaigns. . . . .
ON EDIT: OPer should change heading to "MoveOn Endorsement Throws Progressive Weight Behind Barack Obama (as per DU requirement to use actual headline of news story/press release).

[blayne]

43. Right!

I didn't know it was a policy here, but I did think that the heading was a bit misleading. Thanks for the reminder.

[Desertrose]

9. I tried to send a comment w/out voting ...yeah rite.

All they wanted was my vote...not my voice.

I wanted to tell them I didn't think they should be backing ANYBODY but it wouldn't let mesend without choosing one candidate or the other.

I didn't vote.

Screw you MoveOn

[karlrschneider]

11. Same here, I was NOT pleased.

Screw them.

[blayne]

14. Same here.

[Desertrose]

35. I just unsubscribed and left a message for them

Told them "Shame on you".

I hope more people do this.

I am so tired of being forced into choosing candidates I don't want.

[jbm]

91. I just followed your example..

I hope they get many such messages.

[murielm99]

36. I didn't vote either.

I unsubscribed.

Isn't it funny that they never really invite feedback?

[primavera]

172. MoveOn already asked for your voice

Several months ago, they sent out a round of emails, asking members whether they thought MoveOn should get involved in the primary process or should keep out of it until the party had selected a nominee. The overwhelming majority of members who responded indicated that they thought MoveOn should be involved in the primary process. Maybe you overlooked those emails or they got lost in your spam folder, but I can assure you, MoveOn did ask for members' thoughts on this issue. I know because I received and responded to those emails, as did many other people of my acquaintance. You may not like the outcome, but you can't fault MoveOn for that: they exercised due diligence in contacting their membership and soliciting their preferences and are merely honoring those expressed preferences.

[JoFerret]

12. Shame.

If this is true they have lost my support.
To support Obama after the nomination is one thing. To do so now is a disgrace.

[smiley_glad_hands]

13. Who cares?

At this point all I care about is crushing the repugs.

[aquart]

15. Figured.

They asked if we thought they should endorse if the vote went over 2/3 for a candidate. I said, yes. Because I DO believe in democracy.

[juajen]

113. Well, it isn't as if we can verify the vote in any way, is it. Funny, how it just

turned out to be over 70%. I do not believe the vote and I will never trust this group again.

No one should be endorsed before the primary, period.

[Hekate]

16. Lot of snarking here. I joined Censure and Move On during the impeachment fiasco & am a member still

I would like to get something DONE. Imagine that.

Look in the mirror, fellow DUers: the place that's hyperpartisan is DU. MoveOn called for a vote, and the vast majority of those who answered went for Obama. Nowhere did I read that they then told the Hillary supporters to screw themselves.

Edwards has dropped out of the primaries. It makes me sad, but frankly it made my choice for next Tuesday very easy: I'm going to vote for Barack Obama, and my husband is going to write in Obama on his Green ballot. As of yesterday, I have an Obama yard sign, too.

I don't demonize Democratic candidates, the way some DUers do. Neither does MoveOn.

Hekate

[blayne]

17. Nicely put.

[juajen]

115. So, you're saying that the money i donated, if I donated,

should go to a candidate that I do not support? There's a big difference if my money goes to get a dem elected in the GE. This is wrong, and I have unsubscribed w/comments.

[primavera]

163. Umm, yes, that's what a PAC is

PACs combine resources of their supporters and apply those resources to targeted campaigns around the country based upon their assessment of how those resources can be most effectively applied in order to further the goals of the PAC. That's what a PAC does. If you give money to Emily's List, they will spend your money on races they feel will benefit women politicians; if you give to the Sierra Club, they will spend it on races they consider to have the greatest impact on environmental issues; if you give money to Hillary Clinton's HILLPAC, they will use your money to advance Hillary's cause. If you don't share the priorities of the PAC, you don't have to give them your money, it's that simple. MoveOn's PAC bases its decisions upon the votes of its members, which is uncommonly democratic for a PAC, I gurantee you that most Republican PACs don't seek their members guidance in how they spend their resources. In this case, over 70% of MoveOn's membership favored supporting Obama, so MoveOn is complying with the wishes of its members. Why do you have a problem with that? If you don't share the values of the majority of a PAC's membership, you don't have to support it, but I fail to see why you feel that they've done something wrong by honoring the expressed wishes of the overwhelming majority of their members.

Perhaps you're unaware that MoveOn consists of two organizations, one of which is a nonprofit public education organization, which, in compliance with the laws governing nonprofits, does not endorse candidates, and a separate PAC, which does not enjoy nonprofit status and which exists for the express purpose of doing precisely what they are doing: supporting political candidates. If you gave money to MoveOn's nonprofit education organization, then be reassured: not one penny of your money is being used to support any candidate, neither yours nor anyone else's.

[juajen]

118. Of course they told Hillary supporters to screw themselves.

She was the only other one on the ticket and is still the front runner. Ya'll are freakin' crazy. If this decision was reversed you Obama supporters would be killing our eardrums. Ya'll are hypocritical in the extreme. Two can play that game, but you seem to think you need no other democrats to get this man elected if he wins the nomination.

[Hekate]

123. It's a democracy. It's an election. It's the primaries. Someone loses. Get a grip on yourself

ANY Democrat will do. When MoveOn asked if I would support the nominee no matter what I said YES.

My gods, the hysteria. Please go play in the GDPrimaries sandbox.

Hekate

[primavera]

164. Exactly

This is what democracy looks like. If all it took to get someone into office was any single group deciding whom they favored, it wouldn't be a democracy, it would be totalitarianism. If Hillary wins the nomination, fine, she'll have my vote in the general election, but she doesn't have the nomination yet and may not ever get it, so why should I feel guilty because I still have hope that a candidate who better represents my priorities may yet gain the nomination?

[stimbox]

18. Bye bye MoveOn.

No more money from me.

[primavera]

166. That's your choice

It's a free country. If you give money to Sierra Club, NOW, Emily's List, Democrats for America, Human Rights Campiagn, etc., you should probably also check to see how they're spending your money as well, as they too are PACs and that's what PACs do. If you're uncomfortable with them doing that, you'd better reserve your support for individual candidacies you pick yourself.

[paganlib]

20. I've already asked them not to send me anymore e-mails..

and explained why. What has happened to liberals?:cry:

[Bodhi BloodWave]

42. would you mind going into more details on the

'What has happened to liberals' part?

[NashVegas]

21. I Didn't Vote

Got an email about it yesterday, asking me to vote.

I declined because I remember what happened in 2004.

[mefoolonhill]

22. MoveOn

A lot of grumpy people in this thread. I think y'all ought to get over yourselves and realize that MoveOn is a powerhouse outfit that can make a huge difference for the Democratic Party. They do great outreach, they know how to get new voters registered, they have a ground operation that will help us run the Republicans out of Washington.

Here's my case for Obama-

OBAMA = DEMOCRATIC TURNOUT

The best reason for the Democratic Party to nominate Senator Barack Obama for the Presidency is that he generates extraordinary turnout at the polls among two demographic groups that have traditionally under-performed; youth, and African-Americans. Younger people are voting in the Democratic primaries at three times the level of prior years, and most of their support is going to Obama. The numbers for black turnout in 2008 far exceed previous years, and I think it is reasonable to expect that the participation rate of both youth and African-Americans will increase even further in the November general election if Obama is our nominee. The hotly-contested 'swing' states of Ohio and Florida both have significant concentrations of minority voters, and Obama's presence at the top of the ticket will likely put both of them in the Democratic column.

If we take the Democratic base of liberals, enviros, labor unions, and various progressives, and add in a huge youth componenent, plus millions of newly energized black voters, plus the rapidly growing Latino consituency..... Voila! We have the recipe for a tidal wave that has the potential to make the Democratic Party the dominant political institution in this country for the next century and beyond. With Obama's ability to drive voter turnout there are also favorable implications for all of our downticket races, from the White House through the Congressional contests, the Governorships, State and County officials, all the way down to local municipal races. We have seen many close elections in recent years that would have gone our way with stronger turnout.

There is no equivalent scenario on the Republican side; their 'big tent' is already in tatters, and they simply cannot produce the sort of turnout that Obama can. And whatever her other qualities might be, Hilary Clinton does not attract huge numbers of previously disenfranchised voters into the pool the way Barack Obama does. The Obama campaign raised a spectacular $32 million in the month of January alone, and he has received powerful endorsements from many of the most visible and respected Democratic politicians, which will lead to further endorsements, and an enhanced ability to raise money down the stretch. 90% of Obama's donors have given less than $100, which tells us that the Obama movment has populist roots that translate into real votes.

After eight years of Bush and Cheney, the GOP is struggling to raise money and its members are disillusioned. Many of their sitting Senators and Representatives have chosen not to run again. The prospects for a Democratic takeover of Congress are encouraging. This is not the time to do the Republicans a favor by nominating the one candidate (Hilary) who pushes their buttons and who would surely serve as a lightning rod for right wing organization and fundrasing. We should also be aware that the corporate media have a well-documented love affair with John McCain, and their bias would be a powerful weapon against us should Hilary be the nominee.

If Hilary Clinton were to be elected President and serve two terms, it would mean that the Bush and Clinton families could boast of an occupant in our White House for thirty-six consecutive years, beginning with Reagan's first term in 1980 and stretching until the year 2016. The sequence would look like this: Bush / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton. Enough, already. We are not a 12th-century monarchy.

The end of the Bush-Cheney era will be a beautiful thing to behold, but I think we ought to aim higher and leap at the opportunity to have a transformative, once-in-a-millenium election that dramatically alters the voting dynamics in this country for the long term, and Obama offers us that chance. The Republican strategists who are looking at the electoral landscape for the coming decades ought to be shaking in their boots, and we are damn fools if we don't seize the moment and make the most of it. There is some contrast between our two candidates on the issues, but the principal difference lies in Obama's ability to dramatically expand the base demographic for the Democratic side, thus winning the general election in November and reducing the Republican Party to a quaint irrelevancy for the forseeable future.

[UALRBSofL]

24. This is not breaking news

But it is a political power move influenced by the Obama camp. Comparing what Obama has done for moveon to what Clinton has done for moveon it is literally a "stab in the back".

[iantepoot]

49. Ah, So MoveOn should be a personal 520? I see...

MoveOn was founded to help Clinton, so talking about "what they did for them"...

And its interesting to hear your take on the way our democracy should work. All "you scratch my back..." eh? So because Clinton helped MoveOn in your view, that means that the organization should ignore a majority of its members, not look for the best candidate, and basically be the Clinton's personal campaign org?

Let's see: cronyism based on favors, holding to a single personality independent of merit, ignoring the people... sure sounds familiar. Where has that gotten us the last 7 years?

[D23MIURG23]

116. Wrong. it was a vote by Moveon members.

[ChiciB1]

136. NO IT WAS NOT!! I Was Not Asked To Vote!! They Just Sent An Email

giving me "some" numbers! I un-subscribed!

[D23MIURG23]

150. These reports are confusing the hell out of me

I noticed that only 200000 moveon ballots were cast, out of 3.2M . The sense that I got from the email was that everyone was included in this process. Here is what the email said about the process:

Here's how MoveOn's endorsement process works:

Everyone who is a MoveOn member as of noon Eastern on Wednesday, January 30th, and will be at least 18 years old by November 4th, 2008 gets one vote.
Voting lasts now through 11:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow—Friday, February 1st. This will allow MoveOn to make an endorsement in time to make a difference on Super Tuesday.

MoveOn will only endorse a candidate if more than 2/3 of our members select that candidate. These are the same rules MoveOn has applied in contested Democratic congressional primaries. If MoveOn endorses a candidate, we will immediately start campaigning for that candidate.
If no candidate receives more than 2/3 of the votes cast, MoveOn will encourage members to vote and play an active role in the primary process, but will not endorse at this time.
We are taking extra security measures to protect the integrity of the vote. A random sampling of voters will get verification phone calls after voting. We've also ensured that each ballot is unique to one MoveOn member—so forwarding links will not allow more people to vote.

Could omitted members like you have been a screwup on their part, or do you think something else was going on? Care to post the email about numbers or whatever you got?

[Hekate]

168. Their first couple of notices of the vote ended up in my spam filter. The final one made it through

...and that's when I voted. Have you checked your spam filter this week?

As previously noted, when asked if I would support the Democratic nominee in the GE regardless I said YES. Will you?

Hekate

[inMD]

29. Well said

[Hekate]

30. Excellently stated

:applause:

Hekate

[LaStrega]

65. ding ding ding!!! bravo! n/t

[RazBerryBeret]

75. I agree!

I volunteered for MoveOn in 04. I was a precinct leader in a predominately republican area (not easy or fun!). I was impressed and amazed at the organization. they are so incredibly mobilized, organized and grounded. the "leader" for my County had taken a leave of absence from his job in CA, so he could come to a swing state and "make a difference" ...oh yeah, I live in OHIO...(sigh)... but what dedication. It was one of the most intense experiences of my life. I would volunteer again for them...but I don't want to canvas (!)... ha ha ! Oh, we did have to state when canvassing that we were not affiliated with any candidate, just trying to get out the Democratic Votes--what a worthy cause!!

[NashVegas]

85. Of Course! You're Absolutely Right

And Obama will magically turn around now and stop using RW arguments against the Democratic / Progressive / Liberal coalition.

Personally, I still think their method was quite shitty.

They only announced the poll yesterday morning. Less than 10% of their membership voted.

[Geezus]

97. Couldn't have said it better myself

:applause: :applause:

[PassingFair]

27. Who could have foreseen that the anti-war voters would spurn Hillary?

WTF?

This SURPRISES ANYBODY?

[catgirl]

28. Most members of MoveOn are anti-war. Obama is the right candidate.

The huge amount that went for Obama is a surpise. Of course MoveOn is
going to actively promote an anti-war candidate. This is a America, afterall.
Poor Hillary. She didn't think of the consequences when she voted for the
war. She could care less about the innocent civilians that have been killed,
maimed, or lost their homes.

[krabigirl]

143. Obama is anti-war? Since when? Didn't he say he wanted to bomb Pakistan?

[Uben]

31. This was a massive screw up

I have sent them money for years, thinking they were a bastion for the democrats, and they never tried to drive a wedge between them.
Of course, they will never see another dime from me. I unsubscribed today. Now, if Clinton gets the nod, they have no leg to stand on. I wish they would have stated their decision to not remain neutral years ago.

Oh well, that just means more money for DU from me! That is, unless they too try to start driving a wedge between democrats. I think the guys here are more intelligent than that.

[Fredda Weinberg]

32. It is a bitter disappointment, but I'm not shocked

This was started by Mac screensaver developers ... it's a warped sense of reality.

[politicallore]

34. agreed.

They got all fruity, and now they are trying to divide.

[politicallore]

33. This ruins the whole point of a unifying effort? dosnt it

Move on... lost me a long time ago anyway...

[SquireJons]

66. Funny thing...

I feel the exact same way about DU.

Go Obama!

[FATCATs]

37. You Go MoveOn.org :)

[RoccoR5955]

38. When I questioned MoveOn

As to why the OTHER Democratic candidate, Mike Gravel was not included, they sent me the following:
-*-*-*-*-*-*-* begin forwarded message -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
As we have tracked our member's preferences over the year, Senator Gravel has never risen above a couple percentage points at any time. That, combined with the fact that he is only on the ballot in 20 states, made it obvious that MoveOn members are only considering between the two remaining national candidates.

We very much respect Senator Gravel and his lifetime of commitment to public service.


Thanks for all you do!

-Marika Shaub.

Member Service Manager, MoveOn.org

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- end forwarded message *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Are there any other Move On "members" in the same boat as me? So I guess had Kucinich or Edwards still had been in the race, they would not have included them on the ballot. I find this rather exclusionary, and MoveOn, though a good organization, has lost my support on this important issue!

If anyone else is in the same boat, I would like to know, so that we can get a group together, and take this up with the powers that be at moveon... message me here. Thanks.

[ChiciB1]

138. I've Posted A Couple Of Times Here... My Two Emails Were Sent

with number totals! I un-subscribed BOTH of my emails addresses.

[NoodleyAppendage]

39. AWESOME. I knew they wouldn't swing behind the DINO/DLC candidate.

MoveOn.org is smart enough to realize that Clinton spells a defeat in the general election.

J

[Sadie5]

40. I am finished with move on

No more donations and no more petitions will be signed. Obama knows no more about being president than Bush did. Their emails pleading for money and help will now be sent to the junk email box.

[NoodleyAppendage]

84. Good riddance and good luck...clearing your conscience when Clinton tanks in the general.

You're delusional if you think the Repukes are just going to sit back and let Clinton take the WH. You seriously underestimate their hatred for her. You will see MASSIVE get out the vote just to vote against her.

J

[Geezus]

100. Can you really say anyone knows about being president

without having been one first?

[juajen]

120. I was never told by them that they would decide who my nominee is.

I wonder how they count their votes. Do any of you even know? Are we just supposed to accept that they wouldn't pad it for their own biases.

This is why they should never endorse a candidate before the primaries. It is too easy to be partial. Not for profit, my ass. Doesn't Obama have to list the amount they spend in his money for the primaries? I thought everything counted, even a free plane ride. This is a lot more than a free plane ride, isn't it?

[primavera]

171. Maybe you haven't been reading your emails carefully

MoveOn made a big point of soliciting responses from their members quite a while ago, inquiring whether MoveOn should get involved in the primary process or should keep out until the party had decided upon a nominee. The overwhelming majority of responding members felt that MoveOn should be involved at the primary stage. Again, MoveOn is simply complying with the will of its membership. And, as is elsewhere mentioned, the MoveOn organization whose actions you're questioning is not the 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, but the separate 527 PAC bearing a similar name, but using separate funding.

[iantepoot]

44. MoveOn's decision was DEMOCRACY -- what part don't you get?

I see a lot of people pissed because their favorite candidate didn't get endorsed, or they thought MoveOn shouldn't have endorsed. So, have you guys just determined that the model for democracy should be: majority is fine except when it doesn't agree with me, then I'm taking my ball and going home?

MoveOn asked that, if a supermajority voted to endorse a candidate, should we do that? Answer: yes...

So then, who gets the supermajority? Obama.

Democracy in action. I know its been a long 7 years, but I think some people are starting to forget what it looks like. I'm glad they endorsed Obama. But if a majority of people in MoveOn had voted against endorsing/mobilizing, or endorsed Hillary, then I would have lived with it. I might not have actively PARTICIPATED in doing it, but I wouldn't get all twisted up.

Do you want MoveOn to actual move on issues or just be a gripey coffee klatch? I think DU has that part covered.

[MagsDem]

51. What democracy?

That group sends me several emails a week, but no email about this member vote, which would explain why the vote total is about 7% of their total membership. Which means about 5% of their members voted for Obama. What balls they have to base on endorsement on that kind of bullshit, and pretend it comes from 3.2 million people. They will get not another dime from me.

[anamandujano]

63. "the vote total is about 7% of their total membership"

Thanks, that's good to know.

Safe to say there will not be 3.2 million working on behalf of Obama in the Super Tuesday states

[Desertrose]

149. If you unsubscribe- you can leave a message as to why.

Thats what I did.

They want my vote, they need to hear my voice.

I'm done with MoveOn.

[primavera]

167. Well said

And welcome to DU (aka "Gripey Coffee Klatsch)! :hi:

[rocktivity]

45. That's why they call it "people powered politics"

I think it's very nice that SOMEBODY cares what we think.

:headbang:
rocknation

[workinclasszero]

46. Moveon.org rocks!

They are looking toward a progressive future and I applaud them for that.:applause:

[blayne]

48. If anyone here isn't a member of Move On, this is the email they sent out:

Dear MoveOn member,

With hundreds of thousands of ballots cast across the country, for the first time in MoveOn's history, members have voted to endorse a presidential candidate in the primary: Barack Obama.


A few weeks ago, MoveOn members we surveyed were split. But with John Edwards bowing out, progressives have been gravitating toward Senator Obama. Obama won over 70% of the vote yesterday, and he's moving up in polls nationwide.1 Here's how Patricia S. in Wisconsin put it:

"While I'm impressed with Clinton and believe she would make a very good president, I'm actually MOVED by Obama. In the end, I believe if Obama is elected he has the potential to bring the country together behind him."
To be clear, we won't always agree with all of Senator Obama's positions. And MoveOn members said overwhelmingly that, regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, we'll work hard to win the White House in 2008. Whatever happens in the primary, we'll push the Democratic nominee to campaign progressively and then we'll push them to fulfill their promises after they win.

Here's some more of what MoveOn members see in Obama:

This country needs real, progressive transformation. Barack Obama is the candidate who gives us the best hope of uniting and inspiring the nation to move in that direction, while also restoring America's dignity and standing as a member of the global community. —James M., Connecticut

He was right on the biggest question of the era—opposing the war from the start. —Jacob S., Washington, D.C.

I support Barack Obama for the same reasons I support MoveOn.org: the more people are inspired to get involved, the better the outcome for our country. Senator Obama has demonstrated a unique capacity to inspire participation and to make public service 'cool' again. He is also sound on all the issues that matter to me and my family. —Liz B., New York

I live in a red state, and I see my conservative neighbors and friends showing a positive interest in Barack. They like him. They are ready to be swayed. And I see my Democratic friends and family members getting excited like never before...With Barack as our candidate, I am convinced that we can win in a landslide in 2008 and usher in a new era of progressive politics.—Desirina B., Georgia

Beyond this vote, it seems clear that progressive momentum has been building around Senator Obama. Earlier this week, John F. Kennedy's daughter Caroline Kennedy said Obama is the first presidential candidate to be as inspirational as her father.2 Yesterday, progressive magazine The Nation said that electing Obama is "a chance we can't pass up."3 And then DailyKos.com, the most widely read progressive blog, announced Obama won 76% in a reader poll this week.4

That said, not all progressives agree. The important thing is, we will stand united in our drive to end the Bush era and win the White House in November. Thanks for all you do, and will do to change our country for the better in 2008.

–Eli, Wes, Joan, Justin, Adam G., Adam R., Ilyse, Karin, Nita, Noah, Marika, Laura, Peter, Anna, Matt, Daniel, Carrie, Tanya, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Friday, February 1st, 2008

P.S. As we were about to click "send" we received the following response from Senator Obama. We wanted to share it with you: "In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. From their principled opposition to the Iraq war—a war I also opposed from the start—to their strong support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows what Americans can achieve when we come together in a grassroots movement for change. I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead."

[D23MIURG23]

50. Oh those horrible haters

Shame on them for being so bitter and divisive. How will they ever recover their good name?

:sarcasm:

:eyes:

[rocktivity]

55. FYI, Vote results

Total votes 280,528

Obama: 197,444 (70.4%)

Clinton: 83,084 (29.6%)

:headbang:
rocknation

[Shadoobie]

52. I voted for Hillary and I will still stay with MoveOn.

I can't believe some of the responses from people on this thread. I voted for Hillary in the poll and she lost. I honestly thought there was no way anyone would get 66%, but Obama did. Oh, well.

What I have liked about MoveOn is their support for democracy with a little 'd'. All this talk about splitting the Democratic Party is just crap. Besides, where is it written that MoveOn must support the Democratic Party above all else? This poll at least demonstrates their support of an open process. Something from which our government could learn.

Obama seems to really be energizing progressives and getting more people involved. I guess Hillary is not really succeeding in that area. I still think she would be better able to handle the inevitable attacks from conservative (and their media facilitators) that will come our way no matter who gets the nomination.

Tuesday is looking more and more interesting.

Greg

[blogslut]

53. Thanks for the info

I just made a donation to MoveOn. :)

[Catherine Vincent]

56. It's iornic that the Moveon organization is endorsing someone other than Clinton.

Their organization started because of Clinton. :crazy:

[boricua79]

57. It was a democratic vote of the memberhsip

I'm a member. I voted Obama. I'm anti DLC establishment and THEIR candidates.

Now my organization is working toward the goals WE voted for.

What's wrong with that?

[JAbuchan08]

58. Hillary voted to censure Move-on.

you reap what you sow.

[mdmc]

60. MOVEON!

:yourock:

[JAbuchan08]

80. I have to apologize

it seems that she voted against the Move-on censure.

I'm sorry.

[blogslut]

83. I see you caught your mistake

Good for you. :hi:

Clinton voted Nay on the Cornyn amendment. Obama did not vote on the amendment:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344

[JAbuchan08]

112. Hey, I try to be honest.

I have gotten a bit caught up in campaign rhetoric lately. Hillary is probably not even the worst of the Democratic party, but I get so caught up in my passions that sometimes I'm not entirely fair.
Having said that my vote goes to Obama or "other." Of course the GOP is quite likely to nominate McCain who makes my skin crawl, so Hillary *may* get my vote yet. It's too early to see.

[blogslut]

117. It's cool

I support Obama but if Hillary gets the nom I will vote for her. I stopped being idealistic about politicians a long time ago. The fact is, the kind of person who should be president would never run for the job.

[MilesColtrane]

62. They've got a pretty good track record of helping the candidates they endorse win.

Of the 22 candidates they picked to endorse and support in 2006, 18 won their races.

[Tellurian]

68. See post #64.. MOVE ON is in for a big surprise.. a Bigger Movement...

[water]

70. As a supporter, this is going to hurt him.

The new "buzz" on talk radio/cable news is that Obama is a radical-leftist with while Hillary is running to his right.

I can't imagine him government anywhere from the center as president, but this is going to fuel that fire.

[Tellurian]

73. Who knows who or what Obama is...

One week he's praising the Republicans as the Party of ideas with Reagan as the representative of the ideal Presidency..completely dissing the Democratic Party and their values.

[Prayingforrain48]

78. ::sighs:: context is everything

If you can give me a quote of Obama saying (or even implying) that Reagan's presidency was anything near "ideal" then I'll give you a pony!

[beezlebum]

86. context indeed

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.- barack obama http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/17/obamas_reagan_comparison_spark_1.html?nav=rss_email/components

ideal? perhaps not. near ideal? maybe. praise? yeah. probably a little more opportunistic and politickery on his part. the post on DU regarding the reagan administration a week or so ago was more eloquent than i could be in criticism of that statement. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2715254

that said, i still choose obama over clinton- though with a grimace and a pinched nose, as, while he is labeled more progressive than hillary, i still see him as right of center, especially after his iran remarks which i posted on another moveon vs clinton thread (moveon whitewashes clinton's iran posturing http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=10808).

i will pass on the pony, since "ideal" is not exactly the same as "praise."

[primavera]

170. Out of curiosity, do you really think that was "praise"?

I honestly don't know quite what to make of Obama's Reagan comment, but I didn't hear him say anywhere that the way Reagan changed the trajectory of America was necessarily a good thing. I mean, he's right, Reagan did have a huge impact on the direction of American politics. Swiftboat Veterans for Lies had a huge impact on the 2004 campaign. Adolf Hitler had a huge impact on world history. In every case, the impact was a profoundly negative one, but stating that they had an impact is only being accurate, it isn't necessarily saying that Obama thinks America's a better place for it, is it?

[Tellurian]

93. Look, if Obama can change the context...So can I..

He's a public servant that isn't serving the public very well..so many present votes, so little time!

Friday, January 18, 2008

Barack's Blunder

Posted by Robert Justin Lipkin

Senator Barack Obama, championing a unifying progressivism, or so one thought, praised Ronald Reagan for in effect blocking the cultural dynamism of the sixties, namely, a greater concern with racial justice and the role of woman in American culture. Check out Democracy Now's report: "In campaign news, Senator Barack Obama is coming under criticism for appearing to slight the civil rights and feminist movements while expressing admiration for former President Ronald Reagan. In an interview with the editorial board of the Reno Gazette, Obama lauded Reagan's challenge to what Obama called the 'excesses' of the 1960s and 1970s.

Senator Barack Obama: 'I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people--he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.'

Obama did not specify what he believes those 'excesses' were. But Reagan is widely credited with leading a rightwing backlash against the gains of the civil rights and feminist movements that preceded his 1980 election.'"

Reagan wasn't the "ideal" candidate as an example of Democratic values!

http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/2008/01/18#a2311

[RetroLounge]

82. 3,000,000 MoveOn Members did NOT vote for Obama

Duh.

Unsubscribed. Will never donate.

RL

[blogslut]

87. True

3,000,000 did not vote. The ones that voted were the ones that chose to vote. Maybe if more folks had chosen to vote, the result would be different. Sort of like if more Americans chose to vote in real elections, our country would be different.

[RetroLounge]

96. Not all 3.2 million got ballots...

Get your facts straight.

RL

[blogslut]

106. So, provide me the stats

...that detail how many members were left out of the vote. And then provide me with stats on how many of those that were allowed to vote, chose not to vote.

The fact is, you don't know what the facts are any more than I do.

[RetroLounge]

129. Geez, find it yourself

3,200,000 members.


Total votes 280,528

Obama: 197,444 (70.4% of total votes)

Clinton: 83,084 (29.6% of total votes)


So 3,000,000 didn't vote.

:eyes:

RL

[blogslut]

131. No thanks

It's okay to admit you don't have the stats. I'll forgive you.

[RetroLounge]

134. You're a condescending f*ckwit

90% of their 3.5 million members did not vote for Obama.

It's okay you have no grasp of simple math.

I'll forgive you.

RL

[blogslut]

139. Made you lose your cool, didn't I?

bummer

[RetroLounge]

141. Actually no, I was laughing at you

sorry you didn't notice...

:rofl:

RL

[blogslut]

146. Okay

Well, you enjoy yourself. :)

[MilesColtrane]

157. Quote from their email linking to my ballot:

"Here's how MoveOn's endorsement process works:

Everyone who is a MoveOn member as of noon Eastern on Wednesday, January 30th, and will be at least 18 years old by November 4th, 2008 gets one vote.
Voting lasts now through 11:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow—Friday, February 1st. This will allow MoveOn to make an endorsement in time to make a difference on Super Tuesday.
MoveOn will only endorse a candidate if more than 2/3 of our members select that candidate. These are the same rules MoveOn has applied in contested Democratic congressional primaries. If MoveOn endorses a candidate, we will immediately start campaigning for that candidate.
If no candidate receives more than 2/3 of the votes cast, MoveOn will encourage members to vote and play an active role in the primary process, but will not endorse at this time.
We are taking extra security measures to protect the integrity of the vote. A random sampling of voters will get verification phone calls after voting. We've also ensured that each ballot is unique to one MoveOn member—so forwarding links will not allow more people to vote."

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Am I to believe, that this was a massive rigged Obama love fest simply because most people didn't bother to read their email, or they weren't current members, or their spam filters didn't get their ballot to their inbox?

Most people don't vote in real elections either, but they do like to bitch about them.

[populistdriven]

103. I Donated to MoveOn, Volunteered in 2004 and voted for MoveOn to endorse Obama

In 2004 MoveOn was much better organized in Florida than the Kerry campaign was.

[Bill Samuel]

114. No landslide

Supposedly all members were invited to vote, and they claim 3.2 million members. 197,444 voted for Obama. That's 6.2% of the claimed membership. It was phony anyway because there was no way to vote for anyone other than Obama or Clinton, or to vote for no endorsement. So all members who opposed vendorsing either one were disenfranchised, not even counted although very possibly there were more of them than those who voted for Obama. See MoveOn's 6.2% Landslide for more information.

[Been Fishing]

89. MoveOn Vote is a Sham!

You had a choice between Clinton and Obama. Your input was not accepted if you did not choose a candidate. No other choice, nor were you able to select "None of the above." A separate question was if you would support the party nominee no matter who it was.

I deleted the initial message, and I replied to the follow-up "Why didn't you vote" message with a reply that this wasn't a vote! It was a sham!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

101. this is what we had

a choice between Obama and Clinton. Moveon is hardly going to endorse Romney or McCain!

[RestoreGore]

90. I am so sick of these endorsements

Why even bother to vote at all? Just count them all up and crown the winner. After all, I can't think for myself so I have to vote for who Move on endorses. What baloney. It sure doesn't change my vote coming up Tuesday for John Edwards who was the REAL progressive in this race.

[superconnected]

99. Bingo! I'm sad to see Move On endorsing corporatists.

My candidate was Edwards too.

[jlake]

98. They better work real hard because their fundraising is gonna suck.

They have alienated the members who have deep pockets.

[qnr]

102. Well, I just quit MoveOn n/t

[McHatin]

104. Good news nt

[populistdriven]

111. I voted for MoveOn to endorse Obama

nice to be on the winning side for a change

[Jersey Ginny]

119. Me too. I'm surprised that the vote was not even close.

I'll vote for Hillary if she wins, but Obama is inspiring and special. I'm tired of Bush/Clinton for the past 20 years.

[BeatleBoot]

122. I left the organization today because of it.

Nothing earth-shattering, I know, but I'm done with them.

[jyaples]

124. Who betrayed who?

Hillary stood up for MoveOn.org's right to free speech by
being one of the few Senators who voted against the resolution
to condemn MoveOn for their Gen. Pratreaus ad. Obama, although
present, abstained from voting. Personally, I would prefer to
support a candidate who will stand up for what is right over
one that stays on the sidelines where it is safe. I am no
longer a MoveOn.org member.

[Vadem]

125. I've been a Moveon member since its beginning and I did not

receive a ballot to vote for anybody; I have donated to Moveon many times; I am an Edwards supporter and I am resentful that I did not receive a ballot.

I just sent an email to Moveon about the above facts and I unsubscribed. Whether I join again in the future, remains to be seen.

[ChiciB1]

132. The Only Problem THEY Have Is So Many Of Their Members Have Been

"Un-subscribing!" At first I thought I had un-subscribed, but got emails at BOTH of my email addresses. I, ONE PERSON... have TWO email addresses, so THEY may "think" they have X number of members! My daughter canceled hers too!

MoveOn.org may find that what they have done has REALLY hurt THEM more than it HELPS Obama! When you un-subscribe they ask WHY? You can then "let them know" what you think! And WE did! I know MY comments WEREN'T very complimentary... nothing nasty, just told them I found that as an ORGANIZATION such as theirs... Mr. Eli, you SHOULD NOT have done this!

I just wonder what their reaction will be. Lots and lots of people have "un-subscribed" and they might want to "think" again when they do something like this again.

Sorry to put a damper on this thing, but it will be interesting to see what might happen now.

[texastoast]

137. I wish MoveOn would have had Kucinich, Richardson or Edwards to choose from

But we didn't.

But we did vote for the candidate who doesn't bring a big, divisive bag with her. Folks need to understand that Obama has the best chance of winning because lots of "Dems" will not vote for Hillary because of her Bill baggage (this is what I've heard from folks who will vote Democratic if the candidate is not Hillary).

[Honeycombe8]

153. It did. Everyone did. The people chose the final two. There wasn't much

interest in DK or Edwards or Richardson. They had fervent supporters, but not many of them.

I'm sure Duncan Hunter's supporters feel the same way you do.

But it's not that there wasn't a choice that included DK, Edwards, or Richardson. It's that there was, and people made their choices.

[DRoseDARs]

140. Your thread title violates LBN forums rules; I echo others in that MoveOn shouldn't endorse anyone..

...additionally, your title invites rightwing smears along similar lines as making non-existent connections between George Soros and everything under the liberal sun.

[TriMetFan]

144. Well they just lost this family.

We had been with MoveOn since 2003. No more money from us. I will never will forget when I took my oldest kid to his first meeting. My kid was only 7. This boy went door to door here in Portland to get the vote out for Kerry. I just got through telling him that we wouldn't be doing any work for MoveOn this year.

[andyrowe]

145. What better way to move on from the era of their inception?

:toast:

[bluestdogest]

155. They will do more harm than good.

[usregimechange]

158. boots on the ground

[allisonthegreat]

159. that's huge..n/t

[David Zephyr]

173. Great news! Great organization!

K&R.