MoveOn just voted 81% to 19% to pit Elizabeth Warren against Hillary Clinton in the primary. But members were given only 24 hours to discuss and decide how to vote, and the ballot consisted of a strong but entirely one-sided argument for voting yes. What do we think of governments that only allow one side to have a say? And who would have guessed that Barney Frank opposed this? If MoveOn had run this election fairly, with someone like Barney Frank writing the opposing view so that MoveOn’s members could have heard both sides, the outcome could have been very different.
This is not an argument against MoveOn supporting Warren. The point is exactly the one made by the MoveOn leadership in their pitch to contest the primary:
“We believe that a contested primary is best for everyone—for the eventual nominee, for the progressive movement, and for the country.”
They just forget that this should apply to MoveOn just the same as it applies to the Democratic Party. And when they’re spending a million dollars of member donations, you would think they might show a little more consideration for those who donated and who may feel their views were not heard.
