No, not really. But she obviously thinks it is bad for her.HuffPo's OffTheBus has another big scoop, this time complete with audio:
At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.
"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."
How dare those activists engage in the political process! Just who do they think they are, citizens or something? My god... Hillary is most certainly right. If only the most committed members of her party would stay home so that she could win without them, the skies really would open, wouldn't they? Who needs activists anyways? They're always getting involved in things, demanding that they change. The horror!
In a statement to The Huffington Post, MoveOn's Executive Director Eli Pariser reacted strongly to Clinton's remarks: "Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."
Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign, verified the authenticity of the audio. When asked if Clinton's statement suggested dismay over high Democratic turnout and elevated activist energy, Wolfson replied: "I'll let the statement stand as is." But he elaborated on Clinton's charge that these same party activists were engaged in acts of intimidation against her supporters: "There have been well documented instances of intimidation in the Nevada and the Texas caucuses, and it is a fact that while we have won 4 of the 5 largest primaries, where participation is greatest, Senator Obama has done better in caucuses than we have."In fact, the Nevada caucuses occurred prior to MoveOn's endorsement of Obama, and when Clinton made her remarks, the Texas caucuses had yet to take place.
The disclosure of Clinton's statement disparaging the prominence of party activists in the caucus process comes after she repeatedly suggested that Obama's electability had been compromised because he had allegedly offended other key Democratic constituencies.
Will someone please hurry up and make this thing end? I don't think I can stand much more of this. Hillary Clinton clearly does not care if she destroys the Democratic Party. The emergence of the Netroots is a the kind of shift that takes place once every 40-50 years. It doesn't just have the potential to remake politics, it is already doing it. But because it isn't propelling her to victory, she think it is a bad thing? I mean... wow. Does she care about anything beyond herself?
UPDATE: I usually like Ambinder's analysis, but this makes no sense:
But doesn't MoveOn.org, which was formed in response to Republican attempts to impeach President Clinton, represent (for Obama) the type of polarized pressure group that Obama seems to decry when he talks about moving beyond the traditional encumberances of Old Politics? (General Betray Us? etc. etc.)
MoveOn didn't initially begin as a partisan organization. Their very name is a reminder of that.
MoveOn.org Civic Action was started by Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Although neither had experience in politics, they shared deep frustration with the partisan warfare in Washington D.C. and the ridiculous waste of our nation's focus at the time of the impeachment mess. On September 18th 1998, they launched an online petition to "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Within days they had hundreds of thousands of individuals signed up, and began looking for ways these voices could be heard.
Over the years, they became more partisan as a reaction to the partisanship of the Bush administration, but it isn't something that is a core part of their goals or beliefs. I could be wrong here, but I suspect that when the era of Bush ends, MoveOn will move back towards its original model - a bottom up, activist citizens group dedicated to progressive causes, not partisan politics.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
