An interesting question from Greg Stanko--vice president of Public Affairs for Ogilvy PR:
It got me thinking about the last several weeks since the MoveOn.org ran its famous, or perhaps more correctly infamous, "Will General Petraeus Betray Us?" ad. While almost everything that could be written about the ad and the political firestorm that followed has been written about the short term consequences, I started to wonder whether the ad could be politically fatal for the organization...
Moreover, among the Democrats who voted for the Republican resolutions condeming the ad (including those who received MoveOn.org money according to The Politico) how many voted the way they did for purely political reasons (highly competitive district) and how many did so because they though MoveOn.org crossed the line? How much good will was squandered because Democratic politicians felt they were unnecessarily put on the defensive? Will they be able to get any of it back?
At the same, the organization has announced that it has polled its members to see the group should support anti-War primary challengers to Democratic incumbants that they view as not sufficiently anti-War (likely exhibit 1, Rep. Brian Baird). If the membership votes to move forward, what will be the impact in Washington, especially if some of those seats end up in Republican hands?
Finally, MoveOn.org has gotten involved in other policy issues and as it has done so, its participation has made nonpartisan issue partisan and partisan issues highly partisan. Take, for example, net neutrality as an example of the latter. In the last Congress, supporters came within one vote in a committee of being able to get that provision included in the Senate's rewrite of the 1996 Telecom Act. With Democrats in control, at the beginning of the year it was assumed that the issue would have a better chance of passage in the Senate. But so far it has gone nowhere. While there a numerous reasons why, I have to agree with News.com's Declan McCullagh that MoveOn.org's assocation with the issue didn't help it attract support.
It's hard for Democrats in Washington to defy the wishes of a group that raises tons of money, wields significant influence in primaries, and is not well-known by the American people. But, as Americans gain a better understanding of MoveOn, they'll likely push their elected officials to reject the fringe organization and embrace the mainstream.
In 1992 Bill Clinton dared to criticize Sister Souljah at the Rainbow Coalition convention. Not only did the sky not fall, but Clinton became more popular than ever. His action convinced voters that Democrats embraced the values of the American mainstream, and the Rainbow Coalition never held the same influence over the Democratic nominating process.
The question is, how soon will it be before some Democratic presidential contender creates a Sister Souljah moment, to demonstrate his (or her) independence from MoveOn. Who'll be the Bill Clinton of the 2008 cycle?
