If you're like me, you're probably sick to death of the election coverage that has been permeating television news for what feels like the last four years. And if you're Republican like me, chances are you're even sicker of hearing the accusations by liberal activism groups such as MoveOn.org. The Democrats have grown fond of accusing the Republicans of pandering to the far right, but the far left has proved equally influential in determining primary results, and even those in the Democratic Party are now beginning to realize it.
Hillary Clinton blamed MoveOn.org yesterday for her lost caucuses. She accused the pro-Obama group of bullying Clinton voters and said "they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."
Additionally, Clinton stated that she does not agree with MoveOn.org, claiming it is too far left.
"MoveOn.org didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with," she explained, according to audio released by The Huffington Post.
But to many, this simply seems like bitter whining. Clinton's feelings toward MoveOn.org have not always been so negative, and this shows in her comments from March 2007, following a forum hosted by MoveOn.org.
"[I] want to thank you for being such lively participants in American democracy," she said. "For nearly a decade... you've been demanding answers, you've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves and that you expect from us."
It seems like high praise from someone who now decries MoveOn.org as an extremist, bullying organization.
"I think you have helped to change the face of American politics for the better, she said. "I am grateful for your work."
Could it be that Mrs. Clinton is simply bitter and jealous over MoveOn.org's decision to endorse Obama over her?
Regardless of the reasons for the revelation, Clinton is now recognizing the downside of allowing the far left to become so influential, as MoveOn.org has given Obama, a candidate even further left than herself, a critical boost in the close primary race. But should Obama be proud to have garnered the support of so liberal an organization? MoveOn.org drew considerable anger earlier in the year when it purchased a full-page ad in The New York Times decrying the Iraq war and referred to four-star Gen. David Petraeus as "General Betray Us." MoveOn.org's methodology appears to rely heavily on its members patting each other on the back, as evidenced by the group's reaction to the release of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."
In Variety, MoveOn.org head Eli Pariser proudly stated, "When I went to Waterville, Maine and asked how many people from MoveOn.org were [in the theater], probably three-quarters of the people there said yes," demonstrating little more than the organization's ability to preach to the choir. Over the years, MoveOn.org, founded to tell republicans to move on from their push to impeach President Clinton, has drawn considerable criticism from all sides for its extremist policies and questionable tactics.
It is not difficult to see that MoveOn.org is extremely liberal or that Hillary Clinton was supportive of this organization when it was politically convenient for her to be so. Now that the extreme left wing has chosen Obama over her, Clinton has launched sour grapes attacks on MoveOn.org, somehow attempting to paint herself as moderate. Sorry Hillary, but MoveOn.org does not dislike you because you are not extreme. It dislikes you because you are not extreme enough. And that, in itself, is a problem.
Shane Carley is a freshman in the School of Public Affairs and a conservative columnist for The Eagle.
