MoveOn Warns Clinton After Knocking Obama On Foreign Policy

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

By DANIEL STRAUSS Published AUGUST 12, 2014, 11:41 AM EDT

The liberal group MoveOn.org issued a stark warning to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in response to her not-so-subtle knock on President Barack Obama's foreign policy approach.

In a statement on Tuesday Ilya Sheyman, the executive director of MoveOn Political Action, said that Clinton or "any other person thinking about seeking the Democratic nomination in 2016, should think long and hard before embracing the same policies advocated by right-wing war hawks that got America into Iraq in the first place and helped set the stage for Iraq's troubles."

-snip-

Read the full statement from Sheyman below:

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

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

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/moveon-org-warns-hillary-clinton-iraq

[louis-t]

1. Good....For....

Them. Glad to hear it.

[broiles]

2. Good

[Purveyor]

3. Indeed!

[PoutrageFatigue]

4. Good!

[CherokeeDem]

5. Good

As a previous SOS, she should not comment on the current situation during this crisis.

I am glad Move-On called her on her statement.

[calimary]

38. Totally. She's not actually the anointed one just yet.

I would hope she'd remember what tipped the scales for a LOT of us in 2008 - who wanted very much to support her and with our majority vote to make her the first woman President. But we went with Barack Obama instead. The ONLY thing that differentiated them to that degree, that it would tip the scales in the race for the White House - was that we all remembered she voted for the war and Obama was vocally against it. That was certainly the "decider" for me. I hope to God she remembers.

But then again, I'm wondering whether the same sort of concern weighs, or will weigh, on her as it's been speculated President Obama has had shadowing his every move. What comes with Being The First.

Being The First - is difficult. First of anything. Eldest children are the ones with whom parents cut their own parenthood teeth, and are the lucky recipients of all our early inexperience, the stumbles, first tries, mistakes, wild guesses, rookie assumptions, and other assorted fails. I've read analysis of the Obama Presidency, wherein there's speculation that he was advised, having won his first term as First Black President, that there were certain things he probably shouldn't do because of the shit that blacks in this country have to withstand. Don't be uppity. Don't be like those scary Black Panther or Black Power figures. Don't push it. You may be President but you better not get in their faces or rattle their cages too much. They're really seriously uncomfortable with you and you unlike the average white Chief Executive have an unfair extra weight on your shoulders going in. I wonder if maybe that's what motivated him to try to be so conciliatory and so willing to compromise in the first years of his Presidency.

So too with Hillary Clinton, if she, too, becomes The First. First Woman President. Will she be reminded that, you may be President but you're still a li'l gal and don't you go being uppity or anything. You're a GIRL. Bet you throw like one... or some such. She's a woman - will she be a pushover for Putin or Hamas? Who'll take her seriously? Isn't she supposed to be meeting with the delegates' wives while the menfolk do the REAL business? Or she'd get the Streisand treatment. Assertive, powerful, no-bullshit men in Hollywood were always lauded as ballsy and brilliant and objects of admiration. When Streisand acted that way, she was buttonholed as a bitch. Hillary Clinton may feel as though she needs to respond to some of the reactive/reactionary stereotypical thinking by showing how tough she is - how seriously SHE wears the proverbial pants in THIS White House, assuming of course that she winds up grabbing the BIG brass ring in 2016. Heck, we're still trying to figure out a redefined "woman's place" in our own neighborhoods, grocery stores, and local fast food joints!

This would be new territory for her, and for all women, just as Barack Obama cleared new territory for the Presidency, and for Black Americans. That ultimate glass ceiling no longer extends over their heads. There was no template for that specific circumstance, so he was the one given the job of creating and defining one - and a BIG job it is. If Hillary Clinton wins, she'll carry the weight of defining that particular circumstance. Because there'll be no template for her, either. She can certainly study Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth the 1st, Queen Victoria, Catherine the Great, Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto, Angela Merkel, and a select few others. But there aren't many female heads of state. And there's no head of state on earth that compares to the American head of state, in size, scope, power, influence, global impact, all of it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

106. Agree completely. Glad MoveOn called Hillary on her bullshit; bout time someone did.

[eissa]

6. Did she forget

that Gore's strategy of distancing himself from the President didn't work out too well for him? I remember Bill being pretty perturbed that Gore not only didn't run on their record, but took a few shots at him during the campaign. Now Hillary is doing the same thing. If she's trying to get Warren or Sanders to run by engaging in these "appeal to the right-wing" tactics, it's working.

[billhicks76]

41. Already Lost My Vote

Took me a decade to wake up. Hopefully it won't take primary voters as long as it did me. Her hawkish views are downright filthy and she cares about herself way too much more than the citizens and that will spell trouble when she's asked to bend to the power brokers plans.

[Voice for Peace]

84. I'm afraid she lost me at Monsanto.

[emsimon33]

100. Yep!

[7962]

127. Arrrgghhh!!

[wildbilln864]

128. I completely agree! n/t

[appal_jack]

44. 100% Agreed.

I posted this in another thread, but I think I'll reprise it here:

Hillary distancing herself from Obama is as stupid as Gore's 2000 distancing from her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Now don't get me wrong, I am not an unabashed fan of either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, but they each deserve credit where it is due.

During the 2000 campaign, the economy was doing pretty well, the world was relatively at peace, and and WJ Clinton was quite well liked even after the impeachment hearings, blue dress, etc. Why Gore chose to hold that legacy at arms' length is completely beyond me. Some Party apparatchiks around here love to hate on Nader (rather unjustifiably) and/or the Supeme Court's awful Bush v. Gore decision (entirely deserving of hate and contempt), but above and beyond all that, Gore ran a truly awful campaign, and (I hate to say it) pretty much deserved to lose.

I hate to say this too, but I predict that if Hillary gets the nomination, she too will run an awful campaign (if 2008 and the present is any reasonable foreshadowing) and then will lose. She is already squandering her legacy and the resources available to her. A former Secretary of State has no good reason to run against her former boss, especially given that he will not be on the ballot ever again.

I'll add one other point: Gore's choice of Lieberman was an awful one, whose only conceivable purpose was to cater to the right wing. How did that work out for Gore?

-app

[Cartoonist]

57. I take issue

Hating on Nader is totally justified. He gave us Bush.
Gore got more votes than Bush, so calling his campaign awful is just what Nader says.

[whereisjustice]

59. Gore lost because, in Florida alone, about 200,000 Democrats voted for Bush

less than 34,000 Democrats voted for Nader.

If the Democratic Party wants to point fingers, it will need to look into the mirror.

This Nader fact continues to have influence the Democratic Party's continued shift to the right.

Most of what is said about Nader's influence over that election is pure bullshit and a transparent attempt to shift blame away from the real reason Democrats lost (besides the Brooks Bros. riot)... Democrats lost because they ran a shitty campaign against Bush and the side effect from Clinton's sexual escapades caused friction between Clinton and Gore - Gore distanced himself, Clinton decided he better lay low and that fucked up dynamic lost the election.

[Cartoonist]

60. I don't mind repeating myself

I'll say it again.
Nader had the power to deny Bush the Presidency. That is without any doubt. It is an incontrovertible truth. You can point fingers at others all you want, but it's debatable because those arguments have no quantitative substance. The one big truth that Naderites will never acknowledge is that Ralph's candidacy cost Gore the election and gave us Bush. I guess the truth of that is so blinding that even 15 years later, people here still try to apologize for Nader.

[whereisjustice]

63. And I repeat the fact that nearly 200,000 Democrats voting for Bush cost Florida. That trumps Nader

and is the only fact that matters. Democrats voted for Bush, not only in Florida, but across the country. Those Democrats had the power to defeat Bush, but instead they elected him. Democrats decided Bush was more likable than Gore.

And the absolutely wrong lesson learned by the Democratic Party was to double down on making itself more appealing to conservatives.

[Cartoonist]

65. Wrong Lesson

Here we agree, so let's be friends.

The other point is still debatable. You can't say for certain how things might have been different had Gore done anything different. What can be said without any refutation is that if Nader had not run, Bush would not have been president. That is 100% true, then and now. Not only is it 100% true, there can be no talk of hindsight. Nader was told from the get-go that he was helping Bush, but that couldn't stop his ego. When the GOP gives money to your campaign, the message is clear.

[whereisjustice]

80. That Gore would have won is speculation... we don't know what would happen

because we can't rerun the election. Those votes could have gone to other 3rd party or voters not even shown up.

At one time I had similar views as yourself about 3rd party going back to way to Anderson as spoiler in 1980 and Nader as spoiler in 2000. I've grown since then, refuting the idea that an old dog cannot learn new tricks.

There needs to be competitive pressure to force our monolithic and insular political system to do the right thing and they should accept the consequences of their own mistakes.

I also remember very well a major fight over an airport or airbase smack in the middle of sensitive Florida wetlands that was handled poorly by Gore. It was a big deal, attracting national attention as make work project for corrupt developers. Gore was advised by his Democratic wonkheads to avoid looking like he was controlled by environmentalists. Instead he looked like he was controlled by douche bags.

Not only did it piss off his base, guess how that worked out in terms of votes and ultimately Iraq?

This conversation is just digging up bad memories of that crappy campaign.

Deja vu Ms. Clinton.

[Cartoonist]

123. Valid point

True, one cannot make a hypothetical change and say with certainty what the result would have been.
I also agree with another poster that it is now about today and not Nader. The thing is though, that we might be facing the same situation in 2016. Hillary has ruined herself in my eyes with her stance on GMOs, her blind support of Israel, and her recent blast at Obama. I will not support her in the primaries. However, I will not vote for John Lennon should he return from the dead if it means a repub in the White House. The reality back then was a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. It certainly wasn't a vote for Gore. I like Bernie, but if he runs as an independant, I hope I die before they swear in Jeb or Sarah.

[GeorgeGist]

83. Eliminating Nader as a candidate ...

would eliminate votes for Nader. That's a fact.

Assuming those votes would have gone to Gore is not a fact.

Why would someone who didn't believe there was a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans vote for either Gore or Bush?

[Ash_F]

119. How do you know that is 100% true?

Maybe those Nader voters would have voted for Bush.

Maybe they would have voted for the Libertarian.

Maybe they would have wrote in a communist, or Mickey Mouse.

Or stayed home. <---- Hint

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

107. Didn't help either that Gore lost his home state of Tennessee.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

71. It ain't about Nadar anymore!

It is about the stark facts of what is actually happening to the human race and this planet! Right now!

[appal_jack]

91. A good campaign would have beaten B*sh by hundreds of thousands.

Last edited Wed Aug 13, 2014, 12:57 AM - Edit history (1)

A good campaign would have beaten B*sh by hundreds of thousands. We're talking Shrubya, the dimwit son of a truly criminal one-term president. Had Gore run anything resembling a populist, progressive, decent campaign, Nader would not have had a leg to stand-on. Even if Nader had still gotten 34,000 votes in FL, that should have been a drop in the bucket compared to Gore's margin.

Plus, Gore lost his home state of TN. Can't blame Nader there. But had Gore's campaign been popular enough to even win his OWN (*&^$$%##** STATE, Florida would not have mattered.

I refuse to believe that the Gore/Loserman campaign of 2000 was the best the Democrats could do. It was DLC-driven, tepid, corporatist crap. If the Dems decide to learn no lessons from 2000 and again run a tepid, widely-disliked, polarizing candidate with a wooden campaign that tilts toward a right wing that will NEVER vote for the candidate in question, then they deserve to lose.

I myself would prefer to learn the lessons of the past, embrace the populism and progressivism that the nation craves today, and elect a viable, liberal, truly Democratic president in 2016. The Democrats can and should do better than Hillary Clinton in 2016.

-app

[rhett o rick]

92. Using Nader to be the scapegoat for the Bush years is the lazy excuse.

And we are looking at a similar situation. If H. Clinton-Sachs is nominated, don't blame the left or Nader, or the stars or whatever. If you don't want a Republican to win in 2016, DON'T NOMINATE H. Clinton-Sachs.

[rpannier]

94. His campaign was awful

To blame Nader without looking at states Gore lost is kind of baffling

Gore lost New Hampshire... With NH he wins the presidency (provided the one delegate doesn't cast his/her protest vote against him)

Gore lost Tennessee (his supposed home state). He lost West Virginia (a state that Bill was/is very popular in)

Gore played defense throughout his campaign.
Then when he tried to go on the defensive in September it looked desperate (the debate against Bush where he stood next to him was pathetically lame)

Gore should have won the election.
But his exasperatingly weak campaign was his fault

[tularetom]

7. It's either a cynical political move or she really believes the neocon bullshit

The first possibility is that she assumes as Clintons always do, that left leaning Democrats will vote for her because they really have no choice.

Alternatively, she has totally bought into the wing nut fantasy that we can bomb anybody in the world we fucking please, with no consequences.

Either way, she's painting herself into a very tight corner. Republicans will never vote for her, and she's alienating a large part of what could be her "base".

She's not very politically adept and she's getting some really crappy advice from somebody. It will be fun watching her self destruct over the next two years.

[ebbie15644]

8. She has ALWAYS been a hawk!

This is a big reason I supported President Obama from the beginning. She aligns herself with neocons.

[roguevalley]

11. she was born and raised republican. sometimes when you get older, you revert.

GO, MOVE ON!

[candelista]

28. A Goldwater Girl.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillary-worked-for-goldwater/

[leftyohiolib]

40. whose running mate was stephanie miller's dad

[candelista]

56. Ah, William E. Miller, Goldwater attack dog!

I guess it doesn't run in the family.

[leftyohiolib]

64. yea it seems she's got a heart of gold

otoh perhaps it does if you hear the stories of steph's bro Bill

[calimary]

39. Sometimes. But my husband was born and raised the same way and he's as radical-left as I am.

He seems to grow MORE liberal, MORE progressive in his thinking, the older he gets. Much to my delight, btw. He won't be the angry old coot shouting at the kids to get off his lawn. He'll be the one out front in one of his loud Hawaiian shirts, poking fun at the angry old coot shouting at the kids to get off his lawn.

[roguevalley]

51. me too but i think older + $ = sometimes conservative sell out.

Me? Far left lib to the bone and more so with age.

[davidpdx]

61. Hi roguevalley

Long time no see

[roguevalley]

73. hi davidpdx. :D. good to see you back

[Nite Owl]

53. Republicans,

not the DC types or neocons don't want the US involved anywhere either. The stance she took won't get her their votes for sure.

She lost me a long time ago. Biden or Bernie are my choices so far (preferably Bernie but have doubts that he can make it)

[fredamae]

111. I agree

I'd support Sanders all the way....but, you're correct, he probably couldn't actually win.....unless you see the immeasurable value of him having the Platform in which he can and (I believe) definitely Will discuss the real problems we have, in the most magnificent "off talking points" manner. He will have the opportunity to bring up/discuss/debate the issues in the way we all would if we could on The national stage.
Not only that, but I believe he has one hellava platform of his own to run on...I also believe the response to him would be like a thirsty America finding water in the desert.

[Nite Owl]

121. Bernie did take a tour in the South

and from what I heard they loved him.
My concern is the money. He's not going to Wall St. or big corps. It costs a lot to run for Pres these days and small donations aren't going to do it.
And then there is the Democratic Party establishment, he's not their kind of guy.
Bernie/Warren or Warren/Bernie the dream ticket to save this country.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

9. She's really doing herself in.

I'm predicting right now OP that she won't be the nominee.

[harun]

70. Maybe the GOP nominee

[Voice for Peace]

85. ouch!

[kansasobama]

10. Better now than later

Good job, Moveon.

I do support Clinton but I am not going to sit and watch this kind of crap. Personally, I think this is posturing. But, these do not help. I am glad she has been warned early and she will wise up. She has also forgotten that there is an election in 2014. What she needs to do is go to Iowa and help us win

[jwirr]

26. You hit the nail. She is hurting Democratic candidates for 2014 by accepting donations from one

group who publically stated they will set 2014 out, by this kind of criticism of President Obama policies that she was a part of until recently and by distracting voters from what they should be worried about.



It was the MN primary today and I went to vote for Franken and Dayton. I have never missed and election since JFK.

[Duval]

12. Good!

She had best get a clue!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. I can hear her now saying, "If I don't use nukes they'll consider me weak."

[harun]

69. +1

[LoisB]

14. Three cheers for MoveOn.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. A shot across the bow is badly needed

Is the only reason to vote for Mrs. Clinton is that she'll be better than Bush? If she doesn't want to be a passably good president, then she can keep on reading from Dick Cheney's talking points.

I'm glad MoveOn is letting her know who flesh-and-blood people feel. Defense contracting corporations may have a lot of money, but we're still the ones that vote. This voter has a deep, deep distrust of Mrs. Clinton as it is. Whenever I see her and try to imagine her as president, I think of listening more lies to sell another bad free agreement, more "the cost was worth it" rationales for supporting the next Israeli bombing raid using American weapons on Palestinian families, more concessions to fossil fuel polluters and Frankenfood poisoners and more bailouts to bankers who lost our money at the casino. If I want that crap, I can vote for a Republican, but then I'd have to take the persecution of gays, pogroms against Muslim and general slut shaming of women with it.

[groundloop]

16. Good for Move-On.... Hillary should know better

What I'm afraid of is that she'll fracture the party just enough to let a repuke slip into the White House. If she wanted to be helpful she'd be out campaigning for Congressional races lauding the positive changes in healthcare, etc. and exposing the right wingers who are holding up the Medicaid expansion in red states.

[pangaia]

54. I don't think being helpful even enters her mind.

It is about her, and her only.
She wants to be president. Period.

[lark]

17. Whoohoo Move On - telling it like it is.

Clinton needs to know that she can't disregard the anti-war wing of the party without consequences. No neocons need apply!!

[blackspade]

18. K&R

[Bonhomme Richard]

19. I am so sick of the Clintons.

Bill was a major let down. Would Hillary be any different?

[hifiguy]

31. There should be a 75-year moratorium

on any Bushes or Clintons being allowed to run for any public office above city council.

[INdemo]

48. He gave us NAFTA

and our "made in America" disappeared.
Bill and Hillary now will or would benefit by the Republican agenda. Lower taxes or no taxes for millionaires.
Hillary is a Republican and if she should be nominated the Republicans will take over across the board because Progressive Democrats will stay home on election day.
She should just switch parties and run as a Republican, then she would add the Koch Brothers to her list of donors.

[zentrum]

20. Clinton doesn't care....

....about us or what we think. Because we (liberals) are judged to be ineffective and never driving the narrative. She's aiming to get the right wing vote which she sees as more important for her chances to win. Has everyone here forgotten the formation of the DLC? It was the end of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party and it was lead by Bill and company.

Hillary is nothing if not cynical. Remember how she couldn't figure out for sure if Obama was "Muslim" or not in the 2008 election? She's doing the same kind of undermining, for media purposes, now.

[leftyohiolib]

22. she knows she cant count on the left to vote since they have to be "motivated" to

vote or the left stays home (apparantly just keeping the right-wing out of the w.h. isnt motivation enough) - like in 2010- sounds like she needs a real lefty challenge to potus-ship

[MNBrewer]

24. I won't be staying home, and I also won't be voting for Mrs. Clinton.

[leftyohiolib]

25. even if she's the nominee?

[hifiguy]

32. Not this cowboy.

MN is dependably Democratic in presidential elections. I'd vote third party for POTUS if it's HRC and a straight Democratic ticket for all other offices. No way am I gonna miss a chance to vote for my wonderful Congressman - Keith Ellison.

[MNBrewer]

35. I will be voting whole-heartedly for Rep. Ellison.

And Gov. Dayton, and Sen. Franken, etc.

[hifiguy]

37. I am with ya there!

[zentrum]

68. Wish I could too!

He's terrific.

[MNBrewer]

34. Only one answer to that question is allowed on DU.

I didn't vote for Mr. Clinton's re-election (DOMA). I didn't vote for Mr. Gore's election (his choice of Lieberman sank that).

Draw your own conclusions.

[zentrum]

52. You may have to

...vote for her because of the Supreme Court. This is another reason I want Ginsberg to resign now. So Obama can get a young judge in there before the 2016 elections. Then, even if Hillary runs, and real Democrats can't bring themselves to vote for her, the Court may be safer. The thought of all three branches being right wing keeps me up at night.

[riqster]

108. I'd like a few more Senate seats, if possible.

Allowing for a more liberal justice than we can get through now.

[Nay]

21. Excellent. We need to be adamant about keeping out war hawks -- it's been

nothing but trouble, and has bankrupted the country.

[myrna minx]

23. No more neo-cons!

[wordpix]

140. not one of them pays for endless war as they hide their wealth in tax havens

and grow richer by the second.

The Clinton Foundation has done great things but really! Put your money where your mouth is. When pols publicly state the US should get further involved in war in the ME while we're still in Afghanistan and now back in Iraq, these asshats should add they'll donate a shipload of weapons or just STFU.

[Zambero]

27. Amen.

If Hillary wishes to distance herself from the President in terms of certain policy issues, fine and dandy. However, taking positions that remind us that she was initially in favor of the Iraq war at a time that Obama opposed it -- not such a great idea given the disastrous consequences of engaging in that war. Hopefully she will be able to offer some clarification if not reassurance that a 2016 Clinton candidacy would not be advocating "neocon lite" foreign policy or anything remotely close to it.

[Dems to Win]

29. Hillary's Sistah Souljah moment?

I wonder if Hillary isn't gleeful about this response by MoveOn, thinking it is her Sistah Souljah moment. Maybe she really wants to be seen as GWBush-lite, and thinks it will help her get elected.

Barf.

Look, over there in left field! A new leader arising to take on the Clinton 800 pound gorilla....and win! It's been done before.

Draft Kamala Harris!

[stillwaiting]

30. HUGE K&R. Hillary is WAY too hawkish for me. nt

[littlemissmartypants]

33. I watched her interview on Charlie Rose.

She was droll, monotone and reminded me of Cheney. Making her SOS was a big mistake. She is now inflated with importance. I don't know if I could, in clear conscience, support her.

I am a pacifist. Not everyone understands that concept and I certainly don't think she is warm and fuzzy.

Love, Peace and the Righteous Fight.
littlemissmartypants

[flamingdem]

36. She NEEDS TO HEAR this

Are you listening Hillary?

[enough]

42. This is exactly what Hillary Clinton wants, and part of the reason why she's doing

what she's doing right now. She WANTS the "left" to be angry with her so that she looks tough to the genral populace. Move On's reaction will have absolutely no effect on her behavior.

[flpoljunkie]

46. The Clinton camp felt the blacklash and know she will need liberal votes in the primaries.

Hence the call today to President Obama.

[winter is coming]

124. That's not really going to help her, though.

The people who are affronted because they believe she attacked the President are unlikely to be mollified by her assertion that she didn't mean to attack him. Basically, the choices are that this was a deliberate ploy she's now trying to disavow or she's so inept at diplomacy that she doesn't know how to criticize a policy without dumping on the policymaker. Neither option says anything good about the sort of President she'd be.

And criticizing Obama is only the part of the iceberg that's above water. The real killer here is that her foreign policy goes down badly with a lot of Dems.

[Uncle Joe]

43. Good for Moveon. Apparently doing stupid stuff is an organizing principle with Hillary Clinton.

"Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle," Clinton said in response.

Thanks for the thread, DonViejo.

[SoapBox]

45. Good move, MoveOn.

Finally, someone speaks up.

Come on Dems, get a backbone and let potential candidates know that if we wanted a PukeBagger, we could vote for one. We don't...we want a Democrat.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

47. k and r big-time. n/t

[Mira]

49. Proud to give this recommendation # 100

would like to give it 1000 more

[blkmusclmachine]

50. Good for MoveOn!

[Iamthetruth]

55. Screw Moveon

Sorry but I don't want any single group telling us who and what we should vote for and why. I don't want to turn into a single right wing type group. What I love so much about being Democrat is we take all views and all people.

[L0oniX]

76. LMFAO

[LoveMyCali]

79. Thank you

I was beginning to think I lost my mind, am I the only one who doesn't like being told what to think and do?

This is the reason I unsubscribed to Move On long ago and I have little use for them.

[otohara]

116. This Isn't About You

It was a stern warning to HRC and it worked because she apologized to our president.

Bravo MoveOn

[Iamthetruth]

126. And why is that good

I don't want my Presidential candidate to take marching orders from any organization, I want my candidate to be honest with the voters. If she thinks this way now do you think it will change once she wins, no. So you want your candidate to lie to your face just to win your vote?

[wordpix]

139. moveon has a right to make its voice heard as much as you do

We have a big tent. Let's hear from anyone who wants to speak truth to power

[Cha]

58. Tweet retort to Hillary from David Axelrod on "Stupid Stuff".. thank you, David!

Twitter
Just to clarify: "Don't do stupid stuff" means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision.
https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Ftalkingpointsmemo.com%2Flivewire%2Fdavid-axelrod-hillary-clinton-iraq&tw_i=499193669975834624&tw_p=tweetembed

cal http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025373902#post11

Thank you, Don~

[davidpdx]

62. K & R

I support Moveon

[ChiciB1]

66. Glad There Are Still Some People Who See What

I see! I'm not throwing my hat in to support her!!

[cantbeserious]

67. Good - Let's Hope She Receives Even More Encouragement To Self-Select Out Of The 2016 Race

eom

[PuraVidaDreamin]

72. Awesome! I dropped Move On years ago because they were so blind!

Maybe I might take a second look!

[Red Mountain]

74. Please don't run, Mam.

You don't need it and the nation doesn't, either.

[L0oniX]

75. STFU ...She's playing 11th dimensional chess damn it all!

[IDemo]

87. World of Warhawk n/t

[elzenmahn]

77. K and R!

Hear Here!

I'll drink to this - a nice warning shot to the bow of the U.S.S. Clinton Candidacy was long overdue.

[4dsc]

78. This won't change the mind of one Clinton supporter

EOM

[kelliekat44]

105. It has already changed my mind about her. My vote?,,,maybe if Sanders runs. nt

[Beacool]

135. No, it won't and for good reason.

Not doing squat in Syria gave us ISIS. Now Iraq is paying the consequences of our inaction.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/14/obama-stifled-hillary-s-syria-plans-and-ignored-her-iraq-warnings-for-years.html

[RKP5637]

81. Excellent! Her comments were over the top IMO! n/t

[catbyte]

82. I so hope HRC isn't the nominee. Something about her has always made me queasy.

I don't know what the hell it is. Maybe it's because she's too much like Republican-lite when it comes to foreign policy, but then again, she was a good SOS. What IS it?!? Arrgh!

[ALBliberal]

86. She should listen!! Move On was created in response to Bill Clinton's impeachment

Proceedings ... they urged Congress to move on! I like Hillary but I am angry that she would throw Obama under the bus! The things democrats do!

[Beacool]

90. She's entitled to not have to agree 100% with Obama.

[rhett o rick]

93. Did anyone suggest anything different? STRAWMAN.

She's proud to be to the right of Obama. But the DEmocrats don't need her conservationism. We need someone progressive. She has only indignation for the lower classes. Eight years of her and Wall Street will own the middle class.

[sendero]

104. Sure..

... but when she does she need to be right. She's not.

[Beacool]

134. That's a matter of opinion.

Ask the Iraqis how they feel about ISIS and the US dithering in Syria.

[Hoppy]

88. She should think long and hard before endorsing the policies that got us into Iraq?

Sorry. Its who she is. She can't help it.

[Beacool]

89. I'm sure she's trembling in her shoes that MoveOn disapproves.

[rhett o rick]

95. She relishes the hatred of the left. It will get her more support from the Right. And that's her

base. No Democrat should vote for someone that betrayed us by bowing down to Georgie Bush.

[Beacool]

130. Hatred?

I guess that's so. Thank goodness they don't represent the entire nation.

[rhett o rick]

131. And you seem to love the status quo. The hell with the lower classes and long as Goldman-Sach

makes a profit. I think you are going to find that most Americans are sick of Wall Street domination.

[Beacool]

133. Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't need you to interpret my thoughts. Keep dreaming that the woman on your icon will run or have a chance in hell of winning if she did.

[2banon]

97. Well, she should be trembling in her shoes, but not because of MoveOn.

The game she's playing is going to bite her on the ass big time, and it's not going to win her the white house.

[Beacool]

136. Well, only time will tell.

The Left is not the majority in this country and a Sanders type candidate will not win a general election.

[2banon]

137. No the Left isn't the majority in this country and no Sanders couldn't possibly win, so what's that

got to do with the price tea in China? Ya think those who voted for Obama has intentions of voting for her?

No, it'll be the people she relates to best, the NeoCon's and their ilk. cuz that's who she is to the core of her whatever she's got going for a soul. But it's the folks to the right of the NeoCons that she's going to be hammered by as well as the Left. Unfortunately for her, the Neo-Cons don't represent the "majority" of the ordinary citizen votes in this country either. The so called Center isn't holding worth a shit, as recent elections I think bear out.

[Beacool]

141. I beg to differ.

She is still the most popular candidate the Democrats have and plenty of Obama supporters would vote for her if she chose to run. DU is not a barometer of the voting public and thank goodness for that.

[2banon]

142. DU isn't my political barometer.

The "majority" of the "citizenry" in this country (not DU) seems to be rather Right Wing Reactionaries, Racist, Sexist, Bigoted, Misogynist, Maniacal-Bat Shit Crazy Religious-Fundamentalist, generally speaking, and easily susceptible to robotic brainwashing and manipulation by the Blood Thirsty-War Mongering, Uber Authoritarian, propaganda issued by the Pentagon/State Dept/DHS et al, delivered on a silver platter by the Department of Misinformation/Disinformation/Lies and More Lies/ Ministry of Propaganda, CNN etc. etc. etc.

DU isn't my bedrock of analysis on this score. I've been painfully aware for my entire life that the Left in this country is a significant minority. I would add, it is no secret to most Leftist I know personally. It happens that I do live in the Bay Area, so there's a small island of us one could say.

Just sayin' don't make assumptions. Hillary is loathed by "moderate" liberals who I interact with. Now, that the rest of the country will "vote for her" is not the point. Hillary will likely be engineered to be the next Prez. But not because "most of the people" support her.

[Beausoir]

129. My thoughts exactly. n/t

[jaysunb]

96. Dean/ Brown 2016 ! (Howard/Sherrod) dream ticket'

[brooklynite]

99. Dean supports Hillary Clinton...Brown doesn't want to run...

The problem with dreaming is that eventually you wake up.

[tridim]

113. I doubt Dean supports Hillary now.

Everything I've read says he will vote for her if she's the nominee, but he has many other candidates he would support first.

Did he say something recently or are you citing 2008?

[brooklynite]

114. "Howard Dean on 2016: 'At this point I'm supporting Hillary Clinton'"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/21/howard-dean-on-2016-at-this-point-im-supporting-hillary-clinton/

I haven't heard him say he's changed his mind.

[tridim]

117. That was from August, 2013.

An eternity in politics.

I still supported Hillary in 2013, before she started saying so many stupid things this year.

[brooklynite]

122. So find me a quote that supersedes his prior position...

From what I read here, any "real" Democrat should have been opposed to her years ago.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

98. Proud to be

168th rec. Hillary is just too damned hawkish and always has been. This is not the world that we want or need for our children and grandchildren, is it? No, it is not.

[grahamhgreen]

101. Agree.

[emsimon33]

102. If she loses MoveOn and DFA

she loses a lot of feet on the street, feet that money can't buy!

[brooklynite]

115. Can you point to an example where DFA and MoveON have influenced an election?

Or, for that matter, a policy issue?

I don't disagree with them philosophically, but I haven't seen any sign that either has much clout.

[MADem]

103. Clinton has had a conversation with Obama already.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/08/12/obama-hillary-david-axelrod-twitter-iraq-syria/13946497/

Former secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called President Obama on Tuesday to assure him that recent foreign policy criticism in a magazine article was not an attempt to attack him or his administration, aides said.

"Secretary Clinton was proud to serve with President Obama, she was proud to be his partner in the project of restoring American leadership and advancing America's interests and values in a fast changing world," said a statement from Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill. "She continues to share his deep commitment to a smart and principled foreign policy that uses all the tools at our disposal to achieve our goals."

Merrill added: "While they've had honest differences on some issues, including aspects of the wicked challenge Syria presents, she has explained those differences in her book and at many points since then. Some are now choosing to hype those differences but they do not eclipse their broad agreement on most issues." ... "Like any two friends who have to deal with the public eye, she looks forward to hugging it out when she they see each other tomorrow night," Merrill said.

[fredamae]

109. Any Politician Can

"promise" everything and anything they will/won't do Now---warnings from their base/supporters or not--the proverbial Rubber Meets Road with Trust and the politicians own credible history of politics, votes and position on any given issue.
So, for me-regardless of MoveOn's actions and HRC's response: Do I Trust HRC should she try to separate herself from This (imo)Huge mistake?

[Javaman]

110. Warren before hillary. nt

[MissDeeds]

112. Glad she got a warning

Last edited Wed Aug 13, 2014, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

but it shouldn't have come to that. HRC should not criticize our party's president while he's still in office. The GOP must be thrilled; just what they need to attack Obama during the rest of his term in office. I can hear the ads now.

Hillary is all about Hillary, and I trust her about as far as I could throw her.

K&R

[indepat]

118. Thank you, MoveOn, for reminding those candidates who feel they must show their macho

tough on crime, drugs, communism, and terra and strong on national defense stance that it was right-wing war hawks who got America into Iraq in the first place and helped set the stage for Iraq's troubles today. Any Democratic candidate who feels they mush brandish this swaggering militant bellicosity characteristic of militant, bellicose right-wing war hawks hell-bent on macho destruction and wars of aggression in violation of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws should be beaten soundly in the primaries.

[JDPriestly]

120. K&R.

I stand by Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders for president.

Hillary Clinton will mean more war, more war, more war. Hillary Clinton should be president of some country other than the US. We love peace here in the US. We are not supposed to be involved in so many foreign wars. George Washington is no doubt turning over in his grave along with most of the other men who founded America. For shame, Hillary Clinton. eeeeeee

If the mega-corporations have moved their headquarters and their income and the taxes they pay to places like Qatar and Ireland, then let Qatar and Ireland fight their wars for them.

I recommend an old book that I bought at a library sale. It's called Endless Enemies, was published in 1984 at was written by Jonathan Kwiertny. The subtitle: How America's Worldwide Interventions Destroy Democracy and Free Enterprise and Defeat our Own Best Interests. I haven't finished it yet, and I have to warn that he is critical of Democratic icons like Kennedy as well as Republican ones. But so far, my reading of it is that it is a must-read today if you don't know what happened, say in the Congo or Angola or what went wrong in Central America, the Middle East, and on and on and put us in the fix we are in.

[red dog 1]

125. K&R...Thanks for posting

and thank you MoveOn.org

[yurbud]

132. amen. Don't let the DLC take us for a ride again.

[wordpix]

138. YEAH & Warren would make a GREAT first female prez

She is not tainted by Monsanto and being in power for years and years. She's for the little guy.