When the MoveOn contretemps arose last week, Atrios made this observation:
Their power comes not from having a seat at any table, but they are instead empowered largely by the actions of its members. To dismiss Move On is to dismiss the large block of people that comprise it.
That's true, but MoveOn is also playing an increasingly important role in the progressive infrastructure. I know, big yawn. But bear with me here, this is actually really interesting.
There was an article in the NY Times last week on Catalist that didn't get much attention but it is worth revisiting, especially in light of the Ron Brownstein's recent article on "The First 21st Century Campaign" in the National Journal. Brownstein argues that the Clinton/Obama struggle "has triggered such a vast evolutionary leap in the way candidates pursue the presidency that it is likely to be remembered as the first true 21st-century campaign," but there were sweeping technological changes taking place with regard to how the Democrats identified and appealed to voters that were happening long before Clinton or Obama ever showed up.
Catalist was started by Ickes and others in 2004 to try and try to compete with the formidable GOP "voter vault." They went and compiled voter ID information from across the country from various campaigns that was to a large extent just sitting in boxes in people's garages, and organized it into one large data base. They tried to ramp it up quickly in time for the 2004 election, but over the past 4 years it has grown increasingly sophisticated, and now provides voter information for both the Clinton and Obama campaigns, among others:
Catalist is actually just one piece in a larger, and interlocking, network of independent liberal organizations that are acting almost as a shadow Democratic National Committee, now that the party itself can no longer accept unlimited large soft money donations. While these independent groups cannot communicate with the Democratic Party on strategy, they provide yet another way of getting the party's message out, even if not in the words of the party.
Its clients include groups like MoveOn.Org, the N.A.A.C.P., the Sierra Club, Emily's List, Naral Pro-Choice America and the National Education Association, along with the service employees union and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. All those groups were involved with Americans Coming Together in 2004 and are planning even bigger get-out-the-vote campaigns this year. Catalist does not do business with Republican-aligned groups.
Helping these groups coordinate their efforts -- and to prevent them from bumping into one another -- is a group called America Votes, which maintains close ties with Catalist. Until recently, America Votes, which has raised $18 million, shared office space with Catalist. Not only is it a Catalist client, but its mission is to help Catalist clients use the data they have bought to develop on-the-ground strategies in 19 crucial states.
And, standing in the background, but still linked to this effort, is a new group called Fund for America, which is solely a money-raising vehicle, somewhat like a foundation. Fund for America got off the ground late last year with donations of $2.5 million each from Mr. Soros and the service employees union. Since then, Fund for America has given America Votes $1 million for its work in helping Catalist clients. Both groups are tax-exempt organizations that can take nearly unlimited contributions and have limited oversight.
MoveOn is an important player in these and other efforts. In the attached video, Laura Quinn of Catalist explains how groups including MoveOn continue to work with these voter files to make them increasingly complex and accurate. In addition to everything else they do, MoveOn performs a critical function in keeping Democrats competitive. As such, they're going to be a more visible and enticing target for the right's attack machines.
Predictably, John McCain's good pal Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 is calling the whole thing a "scheme," and filed the complaint against Catalist's precursor groups -- Americans Coming Together and the Media Fund -- that resulted in a $1.35 million in fines by the FEC.
So to underscore my earlier point -- Democrats, be very careful about attacking MoveOn and other progressive organizations for fun and profit. The right has done a helluva job on the ACLU over the past decades. I cannot express how important it is that we not assist them in taking a hatchet to MoveOn.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
So, Jane!
Hey- that IS really interesting- thanks!
Has Fred Wertheimer ever seriously called out a right-wing organization?
The importance of MoveOn can not be understated, with their broad base of small donors and appeal across multiple constituencies. I think its success comes from being aware literally second-by-second of what’s important out here on the internet, and being able to focus on those matters with almost laser-like precision.
Hillary’s dissing of MoveOn was done at her own peril, and probably will come back to haunt her… after all, in what universe to you imply that your potential donors are fringe crackpots and expect them to support you with votes or more importantly (to her) money?
But what does Markos say?
I cannot express how important it is that we not assist them in taking a hatchet to MoveOn.
paging Senator Clinton . . . paging
How is it that the FEC could fine ACT in August of 2007, but they cannot fine McStain in 2008? Did they lose their quorum by design?
Actually, it is a measure of how effective Move On is, and will increasingly be, that the GOP attack dogs are after it so feircely. It’s a compliment actually ;-)
Good question.
Yes the new century of service jobs. Little did I know how many service jobs the DNC/RNC and their baby brothers create. Where do I sign up for the big bucks?
You prove you’re a real geek if you watch the video.
I thought it was fascinating. I’m watching it again.
My interpretation of the ‘dis’ is that it was an act akin to wildly flailing arms in free fall.
The unbeatable calculated Clinton political instincts which have been attibuted to both have not been effective as of late, but the determination has not wavered.
Of course, what do I know?
Pennsylvania may be a 20 point Clinton blowout and looked back upon as the moment of truth.
We’ll know by Wedsnday.
OK–I’ll go for geek and watch it.
Last week Move-On got over 200,000 signatures in 24 hours to send to ABC. That’s truly amazing and the GOP should be afraid of them.
In the end, it will be who can get the voters to the polling places. That is where the deal gets done.
i wonder if part of the problem isn’t that some (most?) of the old guard dems see these new centers of power as competition - and not as allies.
and in some ways, i hope that’s true. but i can see how someone who is a big fish in the dem party might prefer to have the dems loose more often if it meant that he/she could keep their position at the top.
… i actually think that one of our biggest challenges will be to find a way to proceed that doesn’t just replace the old guard with a new guard, but that works to level the field - and bring more people and more participation into the process of governance.
here’s recent bit from paul rosenberg (the whole piece is interesting for attempting to put today into an historical context):
Jane;
Who has been taking a hatchet to MoveOn?
What commenter here has done that?
You are going to provoke certain people because only one name is associated with the ‘assault’, from the supposed non-right, and everybody here knows who perceives ‘profit’ in that endeavor.
See, I didn’t mention any names. Either.
The GOP is terrified of them. Look at how they managed to get even Democrats (who should know better) to beat MoveOn up over the “Betrayus” ad.
>Has Fred Wertheimer ever seriously called out John McBush?
That was a disgrace - thank you, spineless Nancy.
And so-called ‘Democrats’, of which we have a surplus, who think it fun and profitable to apply Republican frames to us progressives. Both Barry the Ignorant and Sister Beezlebub show just how out of touch they are with us.
And make no mistake
We are the future.
Neither of them nor their posses will. Especially if McSame becomes POTUS. A dead certainty if Barry is ‘our’ nominee. Not so much with Clinton. She knows how to fight dirty.
Almost every Democrat went after MoveOn over the “General Betrayus” ad, a controversy manufactured by Karl Rove (who was on the phone reading to journalists from the dictionary about the meaning of the word “betray” in order to provoke them to write about the story).
I defended them then too, and earned myself a big O’Reilly segment for it.
It’s not a one-time incident. And the heavens were not aligned at the time as one might think, so I’d caution against making sweeping ahistorical statements.
OT - this week’s congressional hearings (short list in scarecrow’s thread, or full list)
While I believe you’re right that Hillary’s criticism of MoveOn will be at her own peril and will bite her in the ass ultimately, your basic question is easy to answer. You identify your potential donors as fringe crackpots when you no longer expect them to support you in the primary. She still figures if she wins we have no where else to go, but MoveOn has already endorsed her primary opponent, so she is using MoveOn as a surrogate for tearing him down.
Thanks for puting this out, Jane. I couldn’t agree more. MoveOn has done one Herculean task and I remain a supporter and get activists updates from them.
To take a sludge hammer to MoveOn is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
MoveOn has increased as a target of the rightwing. This year will be their stellar year for maligning MoveOn. The media will aid and abet the rightwing in their trumped-up accusations against MoveOn. It will be ugly. They will work from two fronts: 1) demean their reputation 2) drain them financially.
I’d forgotten ‘ahistorical’…good one Jane.
Many, mentioning no names, seem to have no real knowledge of history recent or otherwise. A most worrying situation.
But one we can fix if folks will pickup a book once in a while.
Sorry, I thought you were referencing a more recent event.
Did our current candidates join in the censure you mention?
I forget.
Except Clinton’s comments were made before the MoveOn endorsement of Obama.
My ignorance is almost as profound as it can be.
But I’m working on it, pretty soon I won’t know or remember anything at all …
OK
I watched the geeky thing…Pretty interesting..
You can see why a WHOLE CAMPAIGN needs to be tightly co-ordinated in order to maximize the effectiveness and size of the data base being built. It can’t be done by a bunch of individual groups- nor can it be done without a willingness to work as a team.
There is a big tension between the legal need for the campaign to remain detached from the 527s et al and the need for a co-ordinated and managed effort- and that- apparently- is what these people are tryin to do.
Thanks Jane.
This issue is a lot more important than which candidate said what about “Move ON” in my opinion.
do you know when and where they were made?
Actually Jane, it appears from the original HuffPo story that the comments were made after MoveOn had endorsed Obama.
Huff Post story
So, what was the final score on the Betrayus ad? The MoveOn folks loved it, the Demo Party Leadership was embarrassed by it, and it seemed like on balance, the public regarded it as over-reach. Is that assessment correct? Or what is the back story?
This was an important lesson going forward for the MoveOn.Org folks, in order to avoid a public backlash.
Bob in HI
Remember, the FEC is a Bush admin creature now. Here’s betting that it fluidly gains/loses its quorum depending on who it sees as needing to be fined or protected.
Don’t know how you score these things. If the goal was to get us out of Iraq, then it didn’t work.
Darn, she missed it. Bet she’s kicking her own butt now.
I do hope you wear that like a badge of honor, as Keith does! There’s certainly nothing to fault in getting criticized by O’Reilly. Even the otherwise uninformed know that he’s nothing but a crackpot!
i think that different people (here) have different views (what else is new? *g*) - no consensus i think.
Catalist is interesting for sure. My knee-jerk reaction is to skew any data collected and to rebel against being micro-targeted.
i really dont understand the animosity toward moveon and other progressive organizations in certain parts of the dem leadership…. do they think they will win without support of these groups? or they wish for a mcinsane victory? its too much for this kid to grasp……
selise, I think this is right on. a lot of what we’re seeing from the dem leadership these days is fear that they’re becoming irrelevant. MoveOn is esp’ly scary cause of their fund-raising ability.
OT re: McCrabass on with Georgie Softballs this weekend.
George actually asks a responsible question regarding health care and pre-existing conditions, offering up Mrs. Edwards comments for discussion.
McBush’s reply?
Drag your ass across state lines (the competition will lower prices) waving his $5,000 tax credit (as he said, “It’s a lot better than what they’ve got today!”)
And this person is running for President of The United States.
I’ve thought for at least 6 months that the primaries were going to be a slug-out between the DLC/Clintons and the DNC/Progressive Netroots. Is the DLC equally into CataList? After all, Ickes is a Clintonian, but has Catalist wriggled out of his grasp? Also, Catalist seems like a natural for the DNC’s 50-state project, although you mentioned a 19-state focus.
Has Obama been able to access Catalist? Or does he have his own networks?
There’s a lot going on here.
Bob in HI
I think it’s because MoveOn and the other new Progressive advocacy groups have not been co-opted by the Inside the Beltway/Kewl Kidz/VSP so they can’t be controlled as easily.
The fact that they hold Harry Reid, Lizard Brain Schumer, Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emmanuel, et al accountable means that they can’t be “trusted” by anyone but those of us on the outside/
I thought her comments, which have been on the news several times this weekend, were like, within the last week. I saw them on two separate occasions over the weekend. To their credit, each time I saw them, they also played the tape of her being very complimentary last year when she was seeking their support. It certainly appeared like she kissed up to them when she thought she could win their endorsement, but got really disparaging as soon as she realized they were supporting Obama. If that’s not the case, why did it appear this weekend instead of when she made the remarks?
If Catalist is going to co-ordinate the 527 type organizations, then I suppose the candidates can’t get involved with it. Lots of legal snares here- all created by “campaign finance reform”. This is the loophole .
He is running and the Republics are poised to steal yet another election, this time for him.
i wouldn’t go that far… not even close. in fact, i think most progressive advocacy groups have either aligned themselves with a faction inside the beltway, or been co-opted (at least partially) by one.
for example - i haven’t seen moveon hold speaker pelosi accountable, on the contrary, they even put out a push poll last year about this time in support of her.
the thing is that inside the beltway is not a monolith - groups like moveon can take sides and change the dynamic, earning both friends and enemies. the question, for me, still is - will the change be primarily a realignment of players that takes inside the beltway or will there be a realignment more fundamental than that?
Aha, you’re right. They did endorse before Super Tuesday. My bad.
Here’s what I don’t understand: when I did some research on Wiki about the parties (just for personal knowledge), it indicated that there are more (registered?) democrats than there are Republics. So how can the Rethugs be winning so much? Of course, they really only won one national election since Bush 1, Gore was the real winner of the 2000 race. It was the Supreme Court that gave that election to Bush. And the population woke up shortly after the 2004 race, but still! How did they win if we supposedly have more voters?
It was clearly a dump, and my guess is of the oppo research kind.
On another thread barbara reccommended to me the BBC documentary
Century Of The Self, most of which is at google video. It is rich
in the shared technique of focus group politics that runs elections
in the western world. It could be the great fear inside the beltway
is of a true grassroots insurgency at the polls that they cannot
manipulate, formulate, simulate, sell. They would be irrelevant in
a successor politics, and that might be hard to swallow, they have
living standards to keep up.
But..but he really just said “It’s a lot better than what they’ve got today!” to 47 million uninsured people.
MoveOn.org made the endorsement on 2/1/08. Clinton’s comments were made after Super Tuesday, 2/5/08.
This microtargeting stuff is what the goopers have gotten all excited about. It enabled em to do things like aim a specific message at owners of snowmobiles in a certain state alleging that the dem running has supported a bill that was bad for snowmobiles. It was a one issue message- so none of those receiving it would get caught up in opposing something that the gooper candidate supported…pretty slick. That, of course, requires having access to lots of public data bases- not just the ones generated inside of political campaigns.
I have a Republican friend who SWEARS that some news people went back and counted EVERY vote - and that Bush won by 200,000 votes or something. I would LOVE to have a link to information that unequivocally proves him wrong! (Yes I wanna shove it in his face!)
Can anyone help me out?
Bob, I think you’re about right on..although, among the non-political types I know, the “Betrayus” ad cut through-and not in a good way. Out here on the perimeter, it was seen as evidence that Democrats in general and MoveOn in particular were willing to slander an otherwise honorable officer to attack Bush.
It may have been accurate, but I don’t think that ad was strategically wise.
You hit the nail on the head!
That is why the Dems in Congress out-did the Repugs in condemning MoveOn on the floor, in public, in front of any camera they could get to focus on them. Of all the stupid things they did they demanded an apology - why? Because demanding an apology is a bully tactic to make the other party cry “monkey”, lose face, and shut up forever. That one gets my ire up.
I think it important to note that MoveOn ONLY endorsed Obama after polling its members on who they supported… and Obama took it running away.
A number of factors. A lot of the Dem lead in registrations is in states in the south where it is a residual.
There are still more Independents I believve and that group can throw the election to one side or the other.
The low info voters who buy the “I’d like to have a beer with (fill-in the blank) means of selections.
And the so-called Blue collar/Reagan Dems who started moving away from the Party for voting but kept the registration.
1)The advantage is dem registration is fairly new.
2) Historically, more registered goopers vote than registered dems.
i have seen that video. more than focus groups - it was about emotional manipulation for their own purposes - to sell a product, a candidate, an ideology or something else.
we are not immune.
It may not have been wise, but it certainly felt good. Don’t you get tired of all this politically correct mess? Why do the Dems have to be that way and not the Repubs? How about just the plain old unvarnished truth for awhile. It would be refreshing.
Agreed
iirc, it was reported on sept 12, 2002 by the nyt. but that the results were not as your friend described - but it was buried,. there was some thought of apparently of the “good” of the country at that time.
i don’t have time to look it up now, but if i’m remembering correctly, hopefully that will help you find it.
I disagree. See my #61.
I think the resurgence of Dem registrations is new but going back to the thirties and earlier, Dems historically maintained a lead over all in national registrations.
It dropped some in the late-sixties through the nineties but still was Dems in the lead overall.
This post highlights how these grassroots groups have come to be appendages of the (D) Party, and this is sad for their credibility.
Chris Hedges has a great piece about this over at:
http://www.truthdig.com/report.....t_its_way/
As we slowly work our way up to the general election in November- we must all bear in mind the magic words—-Electoral College.
It doesn’t matter how big a vote advantage the dems might have nationwide if they get their asses kicked in Florida and Ohio- and other points purple.
I agree. Additionally it really showed where the Dem leadership was on the issue.
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the Democratic party feels like a preacher who is losing control of his flock, and he know it. Or worse, someone like Jim Jones or Koresh. They want to feel that they have all the say…remember that they seem to have forgotten who works for whom! They don’t want to be the voice of the people, they want everything to flow downhill from them. Luckily, I do not consider the real head of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, as one of those people. That’s why they frequently denigrate him. I’m talking about Rahm Emmanuel, et al.
True, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. The same author did
another, The Power Of Nightmares, on the neocon fear techniques used in
the runup to the war, potent stuff.
excellent link. thank you.
lol. i watched that one too.
Beware the dog whistle references as well. Garry Wills’ “Two Speeches on Race” piece in this latest issue of New York Review of Books, while complimentary to Obama’s speech on race, takes a veiled poke at Obama’s support.
Wills’ says in his comparison of Lincoln and Obama, “The most damaging charge against each was an alleged connection with unpatriotic and potentially violent radicals.” He qualifies this comment, saying “Obama was suspected of Muslim associations and of following the teachings of an inflammatory preacher who damned the United States.”
I don’t think the radicals (plural) to which Wills referred was a singular preacher. Having been branded far too many times over the last 7-plus years as unpatriotic and radical, I’m sure that Wills dog whistled that larger relationship between the activist base of the Democratic Party and Barack Obama.
That’s the part the old school doesn’t get. WE are the base of the Democratic Party now, we folks out here behind keyboards as well as those of us who knock on doors and drop literature for the 50-State Strategy. Knock off the dog whistle, unless you want us to demonstrate exactly how much of the base we comprise.
Yes, I agree. Dems had a large lead in registration until relatively recently- but this advantage dipped, and as I recall, was actually overcome 10 years ago or so. It has now resurfaced thanks to Bush’s failures.
The propensity for registered goopers to actually show up to vote, though, may still be a gooper advantage. I can’t remember how 06 worked out in that area.
Democrats,org has a page of links documenting the various investigations
called Gore Won Florida, follow those links, especially Miami Herald.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, a THOUSAND TIMES, THANK YOU !
(w00000t!)
LOL?
It’s called ’stealing’.
RFK Jr. did an excellent piece on the Ohio shenanigans in 2004.
How we as a nation allowed this to happen and not investigate is beyond me.
This election will be decided by “independent” voters in Florida and Ohio. At the moment they may be going for McBush- but the dem candidate has a good shot at em.
Exactly, jacqrat. Democracy for America also polled its membership, launching the “Elect a Progressive” campaign promoting Obama, Edwards and Kucinich after its membership pointedly voted 96% in favor of these three candidates — and NOT Clinton.
I’m guessing that a hit against DFA would be too close to smacking Dean himself, and that’s why she’s limited herself to MoveOn.
jsut that we seem to have the same semi-obscure tv program view habits.
that doesn’t happen to me very often.
cheers, Selise. Impassioned writing, good points. Susan Thistlewaite seems to be a great voice of courage and faith…
many here have not lost the capacity to make moral judgements, but are bollixed by the lack of options presented by the rigged game of electoral politics.
That would be a good question for Pelosi.
it could also be more about ideology than moveon. her complaint about them was that they were not sufficiently warmongering (my interpretation)… i thought that was an odd complaint, given all the different ones she could have chosen.
it’s human nature to want to be an insider.
very few people can resist without prior preparation and moral support.
Members of Congress have a pretty cushy life, both sides. If a real Progressive or someone who is even Progressive leaning gets in they may have to work again. Congress worked under FDR. In fact, one could say, they labored.
I’m a member of both DFA and MoveOn and wish both orgs had decided to remain neutral and not do the polling/endorsing bit.
Even if the vote was overwhelming for Obama, it is still going against the wishes of some number of folks supposedly on the same side.
They should have followed the examples set by Ms Hamsher and FDL.
My $.02
YMMV
Your friend cites the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center (NORC) Study and here is a Media Matters article addressing it.
That is understandable, “television is a vast wasteland” forces one to
beat the bushes for good, sourced, insightful non-fiction television.
I much appreciate the link suggestions posters offer at FDL.
DING!
MMDV (my mileage does vary ;)
But, I understand the sentiment. This has been a tough primary season …
Like I believe it was Jack Kingston, R-
WingnutGeorgia who complained that the new Congress in January wasn’t going to stay with three day work weeks.dunno about tv … but I do like the suggestion to ‘beat the bushes’ …
thanks a bunch :)
HRC has to make her bones for the neocons to support her, not a mystery.
Freudian slip, my bad.
or bad pun.
Thistlewaite is as wrong as wrong can be. You are kidding, right?
Unconsciously done, either way, my bad.
She was doing a redirection — [Don’t look at my record on Iraq] “Look at MoveOn’s record on Afghanistan.” — and for the benefit of a warmongering audience to which she was pandering.
dakine01 — actually, I think DFA went the right route, by offering up 3 progressives. I may not agree with MoveOn’s single candidate endorsement, but they also are different organization and may have had a different legal entity, a PAC versus a nonpartisan non-profit. That’s a totally different situation, making comparisons between apples and oranges. MoveOn and DFA both used democratic tools to determine their next steps: they asked for the votes of their constituencies. Kind of hard to fault that.
<