Why the hit piece from Rolling Stone?

[2diagnosis]

They signed up 500,000 supporters with an Internet petition -- but Bill Clinton still got impeached. They organized 6,000 candlelight vigils worldwide -- but the U.S. still invaded Iraq. They raised $60 million from 500,000 donors to air countless ads and get out the vote in the battle-ground states -- but George Bush still whupped John Kerry. A gambler with a string of bets this bad might call it a night. But MoveOn.org just keeps doubling down. ..... http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7048293?rnd=1109796293515&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1040

......In fact, there appears to be an almost willful ignorance about who actually composes MoveOn. "We're pretty light on the demographics," Boyd says without apology. "It's funny, when we talk to people in Washington, that's the first question we're asked." He adds with note of self-satisfaction: "We've been largely nonresponsive."......
But Boyd's refusal to pin down who MoveOn is -- and who it isn't -- also makes it easy for Republicans to project an undesirable face on the organization. "The GOP is painting us as socialist radicals," Blades tells me with seeming disbelief over Thai chicken salad at the Berkeley Art Museum. "And if you'd been reading any of their publications, you'd think that we were a bunch of wildass lunatics." Does MoveOn have a branding problem? "I think it might," she says. ...........
Like so many other Internet start-ups, MoveOn has raised -- and burned through -- tens of millions of dollars, innovating without producing many concrete results. Any reasonable analysis shows its stock may be dangerously overvalued. Those banking on MoveOn had better hope it is more Google than Pets.com. Because should the group flame out, the Democrats could be in for a fall of Nasdaq proportions.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

1. And...

... your point is?

[evilqueen]

2. somebody thinks it's all about money n/t

[erpowers]

12. Conclusion is Ridiculous

[RFKHumphreyObama]

3. "George Bush still whupped John Kerry"

That should read "George Bush narrowly scraped in against John Kerry". Considering that * was a wartime President, had overwhelmingly favorable and fawning media coverage, was President during one of the worst and most horrific tragedies in world history and was recording ratings of over 90% just over a year before the election, the margin of his victory was exceedingly narrow to the extent that the circumstances of his victory are questionable. Bush did pick up Iowa and New Mexico but nowhere else and he lost New Hampshire. I wouldn't call it a decisive victory as the article implies

The article's other talking points are also dubious. For example
"They signed up 500,000 supporters with an Internet petition -- but Bill Clinton still got impeached"

While Bill Clinton was impeached, he was not removed from office. Using the flimsy standards that this article sets for success, this should actually be interpreted as a win for MoveOn

<They organized 6,000 candlelight vigils worldwide -- but the U.S. still invaded Iraq>

Yeah, as if * was ever going to take the concerns of protestors seriously. The whole country could have marched against the Iraq war and * would still have gone ahead with it.

[CWebster]

4. The Right has been planning this coup for years

Their years of setting up the game plan is now paying off. MoveOn, like DU, is on the front lines in formulating an opposing voice, which often is at odds with the establishment "opposition" party.

And let's face it please--In addition to all of Bush's advantages--media included, Kerry was an atrocious candidate as far as winning popularity contests. He was unattractive, unconvincing--and yes, an elitist pompous snob and a pontificating windbag who did not connect in a genuine manner. This ruffles feathers, I know, but the sooner folks recognize we were sold a bill of goods by buying into the "more electible" meme, the better off we will be in the future.

[sendero]

5. While I think your rhetoric..

... regarding JK is a bit harsh, I basically agree with your premise.

JK played into every negative stereotype of Dems that the right has been trading on for 20 years. Its just astounding to me how inept Dems are at understanding what motivates people to vote and for whom.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Because Kerry speaks in compound, complete sentences, he's an "elitist,

pompous" snub. He is also tall and has a long face. So fucking what, CWebster.

John Kerry would have made a great president who would have put people and the health of the planet first, not multinational corporations. He whipped Bush's sorry ass in the debates and did not look the least big "aloof or elitist."

Amerikuns were sold a bill of good by this corrupt, "do anything to win" crowd, and many bought it. We ought to be demanding a real recount and investigation of the vote in Ohio.

Where is the media consortium when we need them? Up Bush's ass, that's where. If exit polls had that Bush was winning, you can bet they would have started screaming until there was a full and fair recount and the machines would have been impounded.

[CWebster]

9. Yeah, right

that is why he stood up there bragging about free trade and welfare reform as being one of his great accomplishments.

Yeah, he has a clue.

One time I actually heard him describe how he was "tired" of hearing the common folks complain when he was first campaigning across Iowa. It wasn't intended to come out that way and he quickly tried to reframe in a sympathetic tone, but he had already let his annoyance slip out. Imagine him, a pampered and priviliged millionaire with millionaire wives, who spent the nickels and dimes of his small ABB contributors, booking rooms at the Four Seasons - when he wasn't windsurfing, doing JFK photo-ops or kicking back at his own personal ski resort.

Who the hell does he think the common people are that will resonate to those images?

Give me a fucking break.

[flpoljunkie]

26. More bile. The man probably did win the election, as we all suspect. Was

he perfect? No, but he would have made a great president.

[evilqueen]

10. One problem with Kerry...

was consistency. He did not stick to his guns and played right into the "I voted for war before I voted against it" crap. Every time he tried to explain that, it made him seem inconsistent. Any candidate we vet for office MUST vote his convictions consistently, regardless of whatever "deals" they think they have to make in Congress. If our candidates don't do this, they get hung out to dry by the opposition; and because the opposition has the advantage with media control, we cannot slip up even once. Kerry learned that. Gore learned that. Both of them learned that the hard way.

[LynneSin]

7. Like I"m going to take campaign advise from Joe Lieberman's manager.....

"It's electoral suicide," says Dan Gerstein, a former strategist for Joe Lieberman's presidential campaign.

Joe's campaign was dead & buried before it even started. I mean this guy swore the secret to winning the nomination was Delaware and he didn't even get an electorial vote in our state.

:eyes:

[zulchzulu]

8. MoveOn does need to rebrand and reshape itself due to this perception

The Right always painted MoveOn as desperate for using Hitler in the ad against Bush...which of course is a half-truth. The ad was a submission for a contest and actually not that far off the mark....but...

They need a fresh face for the next races in 2006 and 2008...perhaps a shakeup, a new name and brand but the same intent and mission...

[erpowers]

11. Conclusion is Ridiculous

The whole part that is reproduce he is ridiculous, but the conclusion is even more ridiculous. "Those banking on MoveOn had better hope it is more Google than Pets.com. Because should the group flame out, the Democrats could be in for a fall of Nasdaq porportions." This conclusion is just not true. A "flame out" of MoveOn will not have a great effect on the Democratic Party. I do think that MoveOn may need to learn how to put the money they use to better use; however, the number of people who voted in the last election may have been significantlly lower if not for the efforts of MoveOn.

To try to say that MoveOn was not effective because it did not stop the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the invasion of Iraq, or get Kerry elected is just foolish. First, the only reason Clinton was impeached was that Republicans controlled the House. Second, the invasion of Iraq happened is because this is something that the Bush Administration wanted from day one and nothing was going to stop them from starting this war. Third, there are multiple reasons that Kerry did not get elected. There is a strong possiblity that the election was actually stolen. In addition, Kerry himself did not run a good campaign.

What Rolling Stone should do is look at the effect of the things that MoveOn has done. MoveOn took away Bush's ability to say that everyone in America supported the war in Iraq. They helped to show that large amounts of people did not support the war. The fact that this group raised $60 million from 500,000 supporters is a great success in itself. That averages out to about $120 per person. I think that is a great thing.

[BlueManDude]

13. It is ridiculous

It's like saying anyone who votes for or works for a losing candidate has wasted their time? This mentality displays a fundamnetal lack of apprecition for "democracy". I've worked for and voted for a number of losing candidates and none of it was a waste of time.

[2diagnosis]

14. May be ridiculous, but part of the readership

of Rolling Stone may be the younger voters that we need to turn out and vote. There are not many positive stories in the MSM about MoveOn.

[kentuck]

15. "There are not many positive stories in the MSM about MoveOn."

?? ever wonder why???

[2diagnosis]

16. No,

I know why.

[kentuck]

17. Why?

Tell us more. :)

[AntiCoup2K4]

18. This article reads like it could have come right off of Al From's desk.

Sounds just like the bullshit coming from the DLC - "oh those damn leftist radicals cost us the election. What were they thinking, calling out Bush on the war?? silly libruls..."

[2diagnosis]

19. or David Corn's laptop.

or Joel Klein's or The American Prospect's.

[Teaser]

20. Move on is a failure.

They fail constantly. I worked for their stupid "leave no voter behind" drive. It was useless, and ill coordinated. They don't get another dime from me.

[2diagnosis]

21. What was so stupid about

the "leave no voter behind" drive? Just asking, I don't know much about it.

[Teaser]

24. It was managed by clowns...

They did everything last minute, didn't field enough help to those of us canvassing. They couldn't spare anyone to help me watch the polls in my neighborhood. Their efforts were highly redundant with those of the Democratic Party, which annoyed the people they were canvassing and made them less responsive to us...the list goes on and on.

[Bridget Burke]

22. Rolling Stone is worried about competition.

RS stopped being on the forefront of the music scene back in the 70's. (I read Crawdaddy for intellectual analysis of the music & Creem for fun.) But RS did sponsor some fine journalism--such as the recently departed Good Doctor. All that is in the past & they're worried about being left behind.

This reminds me of the latest Texas Monthly, in which the Editor explained that all that "blogosphere" stuff had to be read with caution. But major media sources "filter" their work, so the reader can accept it all as Gospel Truth--no critical thinking needed. This from a publication that has supported George Bush in every election...

[GOPBasher]

23. Yeah, let's keep alienating our base while the Republicans

shore up theirs. This is a good idea.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. By that analysis, the DLC should've died long ago.

Their track record is far more dismal than MoveOn's.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

27. it's a fair piece-moveon did miss several opportunities

especially in their production and placement of ads last year. I think they do need to get a bit more result-oriented

rolling stone was excellent in its political coverage in '04. i wouldn't take this as an attack, but constructive criticism