Wasn't this a win-win for everyone? Another black spot on the NY Times. Less money in Moveon's coffers. Something to move the middle away from the far left. Fodder for starving rightwingers. What's the problem?

Moveon owner/management: Let's do it again!

But that misses the point of the cozy relationship the organization found with the NYT.

No surprise there. The NYT makes the Washington Post look conservative. The only time I ever read the NYT was when I was sent eight free Sunday editions (It was a "bonus" for something; I don't remember what). The Sunday edition costs five bucks! Wow. The editorial page was okay, but I'd rather buy the L.A. Times any day.

I still get a kick out of the Jayson Blair debacle.

The ad generated over half a million dollars in donations for MoveOn...

Who says crime doesn't pay?

Moveon.org is made up by the ordinary US citizens. I belong and voice my views and what I want to see happen w/ my beloved country.

Well, as long as democratic presidential candidates continue to be accomplices in this type of pubic relations nightmare, seemingly siding with (by their conspicuous silence) such organizations made up of "ordinary citizens,"  they will hurt themselves come election time. 

It's okay to be against the war, most Americans are, but when you start supporting the public dissing of well-respected, highly revered generals, you start to lose support.  Strategically, it's in the best interest of democratic presidential candidates to distance themselves from this organization and all of the extreme methods they use to play on the emotional reactivity of hard-core liberals. 

Fallon sounds like he'd be a straight-talker. http://www.navy.mil/navydat...

I believe it was on the Lehr News Hour recently where they were talking about presidents and their cabinets. FDR chose George Marshall for Army Chief of Staff because Marshall had the nerve to tell him he was full of beans. Marshall had been way down or not even on the list of candidates, but was the only one in a meeting of the brass that wasn't a yes man.

The ad generated over half a million dollars in donations for MoveOn

And thousands of emails from enlisted soldiers and their families supporting the ad.

You should read what the enlisted soldiers think of Petraeus. It's not flattering.

It's just in this challenged media revenue times,  newspapers should get every dollar they can

So that's why the Californian is becoming more like the National Enquirer.

“I am a very strong admirer of Gen. Petraeus and his record of service for our country and the dedication that he has brought to a very difficult job that many of us think does not have a military solution,” CNN

Name the person who spoke these words....  Wrong... it was Hillary Clinton, the same person who offered nothing but conspicuous silence following the running of the controversial ad attacking that very General.

None of them spoke out against the ad because they are afraid of losing the $$$$ that is contributed to their campaigns by Moveon.org.  If that isn't proof that each of them can be influenced (bought) by an organization, I don't know what is.

Yea, I guess it's all in the semantics, robb.  Kind of like trying to figure out the subtle difference between "is" and "is."  ;-)

That half-million in donations came in a single day.  I believe MoveOn is at about $1.6 million and still counting.  And my check hasn't gotten there yet either.

.

But the real "gain" is in the number of people who don't believe the Bush Administration any more on the war:  more every day.

Reality check, folks!  For those of you who bought into our (well, your) President that most Democrats supported this ad, it certainly wasn't the majority in either Congress or Senate.  They joined in voting to condemn the ad and Move-On.  I guess it was a rather rude shock to the organization which has been attacked by many on the left for being too pro-Democratic Party.  As for my take on this, I think the ad probably won't help in the short run (people respond with gut feelings at first before looking at an issue critically).  However, inflammatory ads are part advertising history.  Sometimes it takes shocking events to move a compacent society into a progressive direction.  It may be a turn-off at first, but it slowly sinks in over time and leads to a better societty down the road.  While I am generally against revolutionary movements, I sometimes think there's a benefit because they can  help spark a truly evolutionary change in society that can be far more lasting than a true revolution could ever be.

BTW, a lot of newspapers charge far lower rates for non-profits.  Is that possibly the case here?

because they are afraid of losing the $$$$ that is contributed to their campaigns by Moveon.org

MoveOn does not contribute to individual campaigns.

Want to try another wild claim?

I think the ad probably won't help in the short run

It helped MoveOn.

$1.6 million contributed to the organization since Friday, with contributions coming from enlisted soldiers and their families who supported the ad.

 For those of you who bought into our (well, your) President

Sorry to break it to you, linfestyp , but, whether you like it or not, for better or for worse, he's your president until the next election comes around.  Then you get to pick another one, hopefully a Republican. 

because they are afraid of losing the $$$$ that is contributed to their campaigns by Moveon.org

MoveOn does not contribute to individual campaigns.

Want to try another wild claim?

From the MoveOn.org website:  "MoveOn.org Political Action, a federal PAC, formerly known as MoveOn PAC, mobilizes people across the country to fight important battles in Congress and help elect candidates who reflect our values." [emphasis mine]

Okay, so MoveOn.org is the funnel through which campaign contributions flow.  It may not technically be MoveOn.org's money, but without their endorsement and assistance, those candidates would likely not be getting the amount of campaign contributions that they currently do.  Best not to p*** **f the big dog by criticizing it.

I still say that by avoiding commenting on the ad -- whether it be criticizing it or supporting it -- those presidential candidates have clearly shown their lack of integrity and weakness for succumbing to big *lobbyists.*

I use the word "facts" loosely

Only because of your own loose association with facts, Roy.