I understand that more MoveOn members are Obama supporters, just like the population of this web site. MoveOn certainly has the right to endorse if they like, and I respect the fact they held an election, although one day to vote seems a bit rushed, but OK, plenty of people apparently voted.
I'd also like to leave aside the (valid, IMO) argument others have already made here comparing the way Hillary Clinton stood up for MoveOn when Obama was "present" (or literally, absent, in this case).
Here is my point. I wish that MoveOn had refrained from endorsing either person in this particular race. Judging from the number of people who have quit their organization over this today, their action is clearly dividing liberal/progressive forces in this country and diverting attention and resources away from the FAR more important fight against conservative ideology.
I prefer belonging to political organizations that focus their resources and strategies against the reactionary policies of the far right, not ones that choose between shades of liberalism. In this case MoveOn needlessly and harmfully divided the progressive base of the Democratic Party.
I know some of you believe that Obama is far more progressive than Hillary Clinton. Please know that other well-intentioned people believe Clinton is more progressive. I wish she had voted against the Iraq war at the time. But I find her approach to health care to more likely lead to universal coverage. I'm also worried that Obama's overriding desire to "unify" us will lead him to compromise more willingly than she would. But who can truly say with certainty which administration would promote our causes most successfully? None of us.
In comparison to John McCain, either one is vastly preferable.
So, back to my point, even allowing that Obama is more progressive than Clinton, he is only slightly more so, if at all.
Given that, why the urgency for MoveOn to pick a side?
Every nickle, every email, every phone call, every sign that this particular endorsement generates at the cost of similar efforts in the GE is a terrible waste of resources for the immensely more meaningful fight.
Finally, it's not clear what MoveOn hopes to gain from this organizationally. It surely won't be loyalty from politicians - it's obvious to anyone that Hillary Clinton's tough support for MoveOn was quickly discounted and dismissed. (You know, come to think of it, her willingness to fight for MoveOn is one more reason to believe she is the more progressive of the two, but I digress.)
My non-candidate money and efforts are headed in other directions.
I'm moving on.
Comments are closed on this story.