Why Is Cindy Sheehan So Upset With Move-On?

[ludwigb]

I was watching this video of Sheehan speaking with Amy Goodman...
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/52810/

..where she criticizes MoveOn as "not represenative" of the anti-war movement. Or that they aren't putting their "resources" to good use. Well, I suppose that's true if she means MoveOn doesn't represent anarchists, Greens, and the like. But how has MoveOn betrayed the anti-war cause? What is the source of her animosity?

Not trying to flame--I haven't been paying close attention to Move-On's campaigns lately and I'm wondering whether I missed something.

[wyldwolf]

1. maybe because they haven't been kissing her ass?

[WoodrowFan]

28. BINGO!

first response and the correct answer!

[Gold Metal Flake]

39. .

:eyes:

[NaturalHigh]

41. Two thumbs up.

:bounce:

[ComerPerro]

54. I would say this is the best assessment I've seen yet.

[polichick]

2. Good question...

She might be referring to their emails encouraging people to support the recent funding bills.

[ludwigb]

8. Huh?

http://pol.moveon.org/iraq/070523statement.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MoveOn Opposes Iraq Bill – Urges All Democrats To Vote Against

Voters elected Democrats in November to lead the way out of the mess in Iraq, but the supplemental bill to be voted on this week won't end the war. There are no real timelines or real accountability for the Bush administration -- just a blank check for an endless war.

A vote for this bill is a vote to continue President Bush's failed Iraq policy, and we'll be urging every last member of Congress to vote against it.

MoveOn members are asking us to consider all options for Democratic members of Congress who ran on ending the war but vote for more chaos and more troops in Iraq -- including in-district advertising and recruitment of primary challengers.

And we'll work hard so that Republicans who refuse to listen to the country on Iraq face a great political backlash in their home districts.

In an email this morning, MoveOn encouraged all 3.2 million of its members to urge Congress to vote no. In part, the email reads: "Every single Democrat must vote against this bill. This is a key test vote on whether your representative is serious about ending the war." The email was sent by MoveOn's Nita Chaudhary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did MoveOn support the earlier Democratic timetable bill? Is that perhaps what Sheehan is upset about?

[polichick]

9. They must have supported the earlier bill...

Because I remember deleting the email and thinking, "No way!"

(Unless I've confused them with another group.)

[bryant69]

3. Move On is somewhat middle of the road

And Sheehan has made it clear that she's not.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[jobycom]

5. When did they become "middle of the road?"

That's bizarre, I've always thought of them as far left.

[bryant69]

6. I guess I should say Middle of the left side of the road to be more clear

They certainly aren't far left.

Bryant

[jobycom]

11. Ah, okay, gotcha.

From here in Texas, they are far to the left. :) But I see what you meant.

[tammywammy]

7. nevermind

Bryant cleared up his statement

[NashVegas]

4. MoveOn Has Their Own Agenda

And it's not Cindy's to command or decide what that agenda will be.

Just as it's not our place to decide what Cindy's agenda will be.

[emilyg]

19. I agree.

[EFerrari]

21. MoveOn is an organization founded by rich people

and it's in drag as a grassroots organization when it's clearly not. While they are in grassroots drag, the grassroots have every right to express their opinion about MoveOn and their activities.

[NashVegas]

24. I Mostly Agree About MoveOn's Purpose

But that's getting besides the point. I never said she didn't have the right to criticize them, but that she doesn't have the right to decide what their agenda will be.

[EFerrari]

26. Sure. And that sort of gets to the heart of the MoveOn problem

which may be the growing pains of a young organization. They tend to overpromise their members in the area of their ability to influence the agenda when in reality, that doesn't happen.

[NashVegas]

34. Put It This Way:

MoveOn is more about harnessing the grassroots than it is about being tyhe grassroots. I'm supportive of what they're doing, in theory. Someone's gotta shepherd the cats and steer the action. And when one of the big cats, like Cindy, realizes what's really up it's her choice whether or not to remain in the harness.

I believe they can influence the agenda, but only if enough people willingly go along with MoveOn's. Yet, there will always be those who wish to splinter a large coalition. I'm not entirely down with MoveOn, I thought declining to support the 2004 candidate of their members' overwhelming choice was pretty lame.

[Matariki]

27. So if 'rich people' found an organization it can't be grassroots?

only poor people can start grassroots organizations? Your criteria doesn't make any sense.

Moveon has it's members vote on what issues they want to work on in a given time period. And then coordinates it's membership to action. That sounds like grassroots to me.

[EFerrari]

29. Who determines the array of choices and who determines

when the vote will occur?

Have they fixed their "discussion" forum yet?

Have you ever received a reply from their self-appointed leadership?

[Matariki]

51. My comment was on the absurdity that income level qualifies 'grassroots'

problems with MoveOn's leadership is another issue. Frankly, I have to wonder why we always 'eat our own'. I think MoveOn does a pretty good job overall.

[EFerrari]

52. But wealth isn't the only issue or, that would be absurd, I agree.

But the model of rich, self appointed leaders presenting me with an array choices that they construct, and then asking me for my time and my money and my support, lol, is a familiar one.

I'm not eating MoveOn. In fact, I used to work with them every week and I still go to actions when I can support them.

They're not a very interactive org and in a strange way, they seem to encourage passivity as much as they try to organize activism. Whatever. The more hands the better.

/oops

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Who runs the organization and how are they chosen?

:shrug:

[Breeze54]

49. Really? MoveOn uses members votes to determine direction of Move On.

Rich people? Maybe there are some but I'm still a member
and I'm not rich, although the supplemental vote was a
dissappointment, they have done a lot of good.

[EFerrari]

50. See my #29. I still attend some of their actions. They're

a young organization and there are always growing pains with those.

[Nikki Stone1]

10. Why the Cindy Sheehan threads today? Are some folks bored?

:boring: :boring: :boring:

[tabasco]

12. Apparently you are.

So why the compulsion to post on the thread?

[ludwigb]

15. Just Sheer Curiosity

From what I've gathered Cindy was probably referring to MoveOn supporting the initial Dem timetable proposal. I can understand this, since I too oppose staying in Iraq a day longer than is necessary (even if I probably would have voted for the bill if I were in Congress out of sheer pragmatism).

But it seems like a stretch to go from this to say MoveOn isn't genuinely anti-war. I haven't see anything suggesting that MoveOn organizers ever wanted this war and/or want it to continue one more day.

It's not productive. Just like it isn't productive to ignore the differences between the 2 parties, or the presence of genuine progressives like Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic field.

[MadBadger]

37. Have you seen the news we are getting today?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

40. wall to wall Paris not doing it for ya??

:evilgrin: pitiful, isn't it?

I have to thank you for a great 10 minute break ... clicked on your link there. WOOT!! :toast:

[Joanne98]

13. The minute somebody becomes legit they become.. well

Afraid to be the "fringe". I'll never forget how LONG it took Moveon to get involved in the rigged Diebold software. They only showed up when it was 'safe". I'm still a member but I'm totally un enthused.

[Cults4Bush]

16. lol.. nailed my experience exactly.

move on is about two steps left of Hillary at best. Funny thing is 5 steps to the left still isnt fringe these days it just shows how far right we've swung.

[OzarkDem]

17. Bingo $$

Some advocacy organizations stick to the middle of the road to raise more money. That works fine when it comes to long term sustainability for your non-profit corporation, but it comes at a high cost in advancing the agenda you once embraced.

The only real change that's ever been made in many areas of advocacy is by the groups willing to take a leadership role and advance an agenda no matter how much it might affect their ability to raise funds or get good media coverage. The rest are left with fuzzy agendas , no progress and lots of money.

[EFerrari]

22. Yep. They were dark for at least a month after the election.

And their very next activity was to set goals for the next election -- as if we weren't wrestling Ken Blackwell. It was unreal. That was it for me.

[karlrschneider]

14. She had her 15 minutes and wants 2 more hours.

...

[AuntPatsy]

18. I do admire Cindy but let us be honest, she seems to have a habit of judging

far too many others who fight this fight against the war differently from herself, I am honestly not attempting to lessen her very real extremely heart felt ways that she has used in order to bring our fellow american soldiers home from an illegal occupation this administration has forced us into but in my opinion it really doesn't help to denouce other organizations and or people simply because they are not fighting this criminal administrations actions in the same exact way that she herself has, some people fight in different ways and like it or not we need them all in order to win against such heavy odds and if one doesn't believe this fight is against such heavy odds take into account the very real fact that crime after crime is highly acknowledged and yet the war drum and these criminals have yet to actually be stopped or even slowed down if you look at each days headlines.

If you do read this Cindy this is not an attempt to take a cheap shot at you, I realize the frame of mind you must be in after all this time and I can only imagine the frustration you must feel but even if you feel someone irrevelant or lacking in true courage because of the way they are fighting either behind the scenes or in front take into account it takes a village of different ideas and strengths if one trully hopes to win especially when the enemy is obviously so powerful.

[ShaneGR]

20. Because they don't do exactly what she wants them to do?

Look, I like Cindy Sheehan. I respect her. But, enough is enough. She's not the boss of me or anyone else. If she's so burned out that she's going to take out her frustration on the entire left, then she needs to take a serious vacation and focus on her own well being.

[NastyRiffraff]

23. Uh, I thought Cindy was gonna take a rest...

so why isn't she? Just asking.

[ComerPerro]

55. she can't help herself. She needs the attention, LOL

[earth mom]

25. Yup lots of disrespect for Cindy on this thread-ya'll make me sick.

:puke:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. why? are we not entitled to have an opinion?

being blindly loyal to the dems is a crime, but to cindy is sacrosanct?

[jonnyblitz]

43. what a crock of shit.

As a Cindy supporter, do you want me to tell you WHEN i most definitely WOULD have criticized her? If she DIDN'T criticize those cowardly DEMS for voting for continued funding of the war I would have criticized her to the heavens!! I DO think that MANY of you party loyalists are PROJECTING when you go on like you do. You were all fine with her UNTIL she criticized your beloved politicians in DC or when she criticized DU. You all make it sound like we worship her as some GOD when it is all of you who worship your beloved politicians in DC like THEY are! Cindy's purpose as an anti-war activist is NOT to be a fucking DEM party HACK, ESPECIALLY when they act like chicken shits and go against the people who voted them in!!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. actually you are wrong. i find this whole attitude that cindy is beyond reproach to be stupid

and i found her resignation letter to be tacky.

she was criticizing the dems for a while and i thought nothing of it.

all of a sudden she resigns and blames the left for it. that i find ridiculous and tacky.

edit: fixed for grammar.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. not to mention that i dont worship politicians of any party at all

i have a very low opinion on politicians barring two.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

56. Actually...

...it seems to me like most people here were fine with her criticizing the Democrats until her melodramatics a few weeks ago. Personally I've never cared one way or the other, since the anti-war "movement" is utterly ineffective at accomplishing its stated goals. Honestly, this entire argument strikes me as akin to our own little version of the Paris Hilton media circus. Much ado about nothing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. exactly she has been criticizin dem candidates for a while now.

her resignation letting calling out people who had no equal opportunity to retaliate was tacky at best.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

62. I have no problem with her criticizing Democrats.

And honestly, I have very little problem with her criticizing DU because, as I said, I just don't see it as an important issue. At all. Whether or not she was the "figurehead" of the anti-war movement or not makes no difference. This kind of nonsensical sniping is endemic in the "netroots" or whatever you want to call it, and at the end of the day it doesn't make a damn bit of difference one way or the other. Whether or not Cindy Sheehan doesn't like MoveOn or DU, and whether or not people here take issue with her statements has no tangible effect on anything whatsoever.

Quite frankly, I see the whole thing as a bunch of angry mastrubation with no substance or point to it. And that's my two cents on this non-issue.

[Marrah_G]

35. Hypocritical much?

[Generator]

47. I agree

Whom to be more disgusted with, the -filll in worst name you can call a human being- on this thread that are implying that Cindy Sheehan did what she did for FAME-yes she did it for fucking 15 minutes of FAME, not because her kid is DEAD in an stupid lying worthless war that she has spent her life on trying to end for a couple years-yeah how many kids dead do the GREAT mighty bullshit Du'ers that get to pontificate about Cindy Sheehan have dead in IRAQ? Oh that's not releveant, I know.

Yeah, she wants to stop a war for FAME. And to these "liberal" "Democrats" on this thread she didn't RETIRE-she GAVE UP on the FUCKING WORTHLESS DEMOCRATS and POLITCAL WORTHLESS PROCESS because you see, your great representives that you love so fucking much do not represent you but they represent only themsevles and making sure they do anything to keep their JOB while Rome burns and people die. Congratulations, what's important is -----fill in name of worthless piece of shit politican here.....political future....not stopping a war. That's only for those interested in fame.

[Breeze54]

58. Right on!!

:hug:

[mondo joe]

32. I wish Sheehan would keep her focus on the enemy, not allies who only differ

on strategy.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. seconded. we cant all work in exactly the same way.

so long as our goals are similar.

[goodhue]

36. Because in late March, MoveOn broke with antiwar left and supported Pelosi supplemental

MoveOn moves in with Pelosi
The netroots group's support proved crucial to passage of the Democrats' Iraq spending plan. But antiwar activists say MoveOn has been co-opted by its access to power.
By Farhad Manjoo
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/23/move_on/index_np.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Howard Zinn Replies to MoveOn’s support for the supplemental

By Howard Zinn

03/23/07 "ICH" -- -- "I'm disappointed in MoveOn. We are not politicians, we are citizens. Let the politicians advocate half-way measures if they choose, but only after they have felt the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not what is winnable in a shameful timorous Congress. Timetables for withdrawal are not only morally reprehensible in the case of a brutal occupation (would you give a thug who invaded your house, smashed things up, and terrorized your children a timetable for withdrawal?) but logically nonsensical. If our troops are preventing civil war, helping people, controlling violence, then why withdraw at all? If they are in fact doing the opposite -- provoking civil war, hurting people, perpetuating violence -- they should withdraw as quickly as ships and planes can carry them home. If Congress thinks it must compromise, let it. But we should not encourage that. We should speak our minds fully, boldly and say what is right, whatever they decide to do..

"I would add this: To me it is tantamount to the abolitionists accepting a two-year timeline for ending slavery, while giving more money to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17397.htm

[noamnety]

44. Yep. I unsubscribed from MoveOn after that.

Don't run to the store and buy cigarettes - and leave a note on the kitchen table telling me you've decided to quit.

[ludwigb]

48. Thank You

After so many useless posts, finally someone answers my question :)

I tend to agree with above posters--MoveOn differs on strategy but not on the ultimate goal of ending the war. Cindy doesn't help matters by lumping MoveOn and progressive Dems together with the GOP.

From the Salon article

The plan is not perfect, Pariser concedes. It does not require complete withdrawal. Still, this week, MoveOn signed on to Pelosi's supplemental funding bill, citing a poll of its members showing overwhelming support of the idea.


MoveOn will always be imperfect to some observers because it has to be accountable to its members. In any case I don't see any reason to believe that the leadership has sold its soul.

[PassingFair]

53. MoveOn was also disingenuous to the media about how many of their "members"

were going along with this particular scheme.

I refused to answer their email vote on this one.

When their "spockspersons" were talking about percentages
it was CLEAR that they weren't counting the MASSES who didn't
vote at all.

Can you say SKEWED?

And the media brainiacs are too stupid to ask questions.

[Breeze54]

59. Thanks for not voting with me.

Your non-vote helped keep mine in the minority. :eyes:

[PassingFair]

60. It was "push-polled" crap. n/t

I thought at the time ...

WTF? This is MoveOn?

[Breeze54]

61. I don't know what you're talking about.

Move On was attacked by RWers.

I voted. I had all the facts.

[Bentcorner]

38. I thought she retired?

[NaturalHigh]

42. Her 15 minutes ran out...

after her "retirement."