Friday, February 1, 2008

MoveOn's endorsement

Today MoveOn endorsed Obama. What irritates me about their announcement is their characterization of "Progressives" rallying to Obama...for what? Hillary is much more to the left in terms of rhetoric and domestic policy. There are two reasons why this endorsement makes sense*, but it reveals a shallowness and ignorance about domestic policy that saddens me.

*1) MoveOn was originated with the zeitgeist of "fogetting about Al Gore" and the '90's (hence the moniker MoveOn as a reaction to the other zeitgeist of challenging the 2000 election), and
2) The most extreme left of the party probably can be characterized as being a bit more idealistic (naive?) than the rest.

The fact that this is the first time MoveOn has endorsed a candidate in the primary is especially troubling, especially after the unity in the Democratic party so many have talked about after last night's debate.


kenmel said...

I agree. I don't find the 'progessive' very knowledgeable.

Anonymous said...

very concisely put Howard...and exemplary anger management (at least half a dozen units I make it).
Do they argue that now is not the time to show restraint in their enthusiasm for BO...who is just irresistibly charismatic or, that anyone who hasn't endorsed (we mean you JE) BO is an enemy in waiting?
[Have MoveOners been stained by this administration's general m.o. (ie comply & trust us or we'll detain you), in this haste to usher Dem delegates who might have a brain or 2 and not be so enthralled with The Unified Face?]
There is the 'All hat no cattle' and there is the 'All unified and no plan'.

Anonymous said...

Obama has not shown that he stand for any principle. He triangulates from the right, his health care proposal does not cover all and his alibi about showing concern for the poor is phony: a progressive would not leave the poor without.

In the meantime he has used Republican talking points about Social Security and lies shamelessly


Anonymous said...

"Progressive" and "Liberal" appear to be brands without much real meaning. Certainly they don't have anything to do with policy.

Sad to say, it's like a High School popularity contest with the winner crowned as most progressive.