It's hard to quibble with the Clinton's assertion. Still, even though he is right, the MoveOn ad was lame. Decide for yourself.

According to Rasmussen:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.Self-identified liberals were evenly divided-45% approve and 39% disapprove. However, only 19% of moderate voters approve while 62% disapprove.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of all adults say that "stunts like the MoveOn.org ad" hurt the cause they believe in. Only 12% believe they help the cause while 17% say there is no impact. Twenty-four percent (24%) are not sure. Again, political liberals are divided with 27% saying they help and 32% taking the opposite view. Fifty percent (50%) of moderates and 57% of conservatives say that these sorts of events hurt the cause the group is trying to promote.

Of course this seriously smacks of all the polls on negative political ads. The ones where folks are asked how much they hate negative ads, and they say "A lot!". But they listen to them and vote according to negative ads anyway.

HT to Captains Quarters who had this to say:

It's an amazing sweep. MoveOn managed to unite most of the country -- against MoveOn. Eli Pariser planned on making this into a series of ads, but he'd do better by burying the Betray Us theme and hope everyone forgets about it -- and quickly

Let's recap, it did absolutely nothing to help Democrats on Iraq, or to stop the war, but it did embarrass a lot of Democratic candidates who were put in a tight spot of having to renounce the organization that has been a major source of funds. Well done!

I guess Hillary could see the political writing on the wall with regard to the vile MoveOn.org "General Betray Us" ad:

"I think it's important that we end these kinds of attacks on the patriotism of those who serve our country," Clinton said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program. "This is not a debate about an ad. This is a debate about the direction we should pursue in Iraq."

Pretty tepid and very un-Sister Souljah-like but a denunciation just the same. Of course the nutroots took this as a full-out turn by Hillary and a betrayal to the cause as laid out in highly unconvincing fashion here.

What Hamsher (the most solipsistic of the crowd who cares about small victories and has zero grasp of the larger picture) fails to see is that majority of the American public--you know, the ones who will actually vote for candidates--were appalled by the ad as well:

Twenty-three percent (23%) of Americans approve of an ad run in the New York Times "that referred to General Petraeus as General Betray Us." A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.

Pretty serious numbers, especially the "Strongly Disapprove". This just reinforces the theory that Americans want to win and do so with honor. Since Petraeus has taken over, things have improved dramatically and that's reflected by the consensus of nearly everyone who has seen events first-hand. Hillary does not want to get too entwined in the defeatist mentality that permeates the nutroot left and not be able to extricate herself when it comes time to woo the centrists in the general election.

Hillary Clinton spent some time on Fox News Sunday and told us that she would rather not be talking about MoveOn.org:

WALLACE: Senator, you have refused to criticize the MoveOn.org ad about General Petraeus. And in fact, this week you voted against a Senate resolution denouncing it.

President Bush said that you and other Democrats are more afraid - his word - afraid of irritating the left wing and MoveOn than you are about insulting the American military. Does he have a point?

H. CLINTON: No, he doesn't. But I think it's clear I don't condone attacks on anyone who has served our country with distinction and with honor, and I have been very vocal in my support of and admiration for General Petraeus.

I did vote for a resolution that made it clear I do not condone and do condemn attacks on any American, impugning their patriotism, and that includes people like Senator Max Cleland and Senator John Kerry.

I think we need to call a halt to any kind of attacks, from wherever they come, that would go after anyone based on their service to America.

Pretty standard so far, but at this point she does a perfectly disciplined Jane Hamsher pivot and attack.

But you know, this is not a debate about an ad. This is a debate about how we end the war in Iraq. That's the debate that I want to be participating in, and I think a lot of people on the other side don't want us to have that debate.

Nicely done!

Rudy Giuliani took the MoveOn.org ad calling General David Petraeus, David "Betray Us," and made it a campaign plus for him. He's gone after them hard and rightfully so. General Petraeus made our esteemed elected leaders look even more buffoonish than usual. He was calm, answered their questions with authority and acted as one would expect a high-ranking military man to act, with class and dignity. MoveOn attacked a good man for partisan political purposes and Rudy is now using it as a weapon:

As for the candidates on the Dems side, Richard Cohen takes them to task today:

Almost instantly, though, it got pretty hard to find a Democratic presidential candidate willing to dispute MoveOn.org. To his credit, Joe Biden did. "I don't buy into that," he said. "This is an honorable guy. He's telling the truth." But lonesome Joe, whose virtues have yet to come to the attention of the vast and apathetic electorate, was seconded only by Joe Lieberman, not a presidential candidate, and John Kerry, a man whose tomorrow is yesterday. When Clinton was asked about the ad, she avoided answering.

It may seem unfair to single out Clinton in this matter when the bunker in which she took shelter was crowded with her fellow quivering candidates. But Clinton is the front-runner, quite possibly the next president of the United States, so it is reasonable to focus on her and wonder if, as some allege, she does indeed have a spine. In this instance, it was nowhere to be found.

This was the opportunity for Hillary Clinton so show that she has what it takes to be commander-in -chief (shudder) of the U.S. military and she punted. A more astute politician -- such as her husband -- would have seen the advantage of defending a career Army officer and highly regarded leader and bent over backwards to make it known that they didn't agree with the offensive ad. Clinton failed and Rudy grabbed the ball and ran with it. That action may have cemented his cred with conservatives who abhor the MoveOn crowd and conservative Democrats who feel Hillary has wandered a little too far into left field for their tastes (note: link to NY Times piece for TimeSelect members until midnight tonight).

MoveOn has accomplished two things with this inane ad campaign, a campaign they will continue to run: they've alienated a good portion of the electorate and pushed them toward Rudy who could hold them with his unique blend of social liberalism and national defense conservatism.

This story at Fox might explain why Hillary Clinton and all the others missed their Sister Souljah moment.

In just the 2006 election cycle, MoveOn.org spent $27 million in advocacy to elect a Democratic majority in Congress and used its formidable fund-raising clout to propel numerous Democratic challengers to House and Senate victories. By comparison, the NRA PAC donated $11 million in 2006.

"They give away and raise about three times as much as the National Rifle Association," said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. "A tremendous amount of money, especially when you consider how quickly they came on the scene."

Jay Cost at RCP writes that essentially what MoveOn and others have done is to replace the national party system with a network of shadow parties. It makes much more sense to see MoveOn and their actions as a part of the Democratic Party.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has fired back at criticism put forth by Rudy Giuliani regarding Clinton's refusal to condemn the MoveOn.org NY Times ad which blasted General Petraeus by referring to him as "General Betray Us." This ad caused a major public outcry and Giuliani has capitalized on the situation as an opportunity to put Clinton on the defensive. Her tepid response was the following as noted by wcbstv.com:

"It's hardly surprising that Mayor Giuliani is running the first negative ad of the '08 campaign, given his inability to justify his unqualified support for President Bush's failed Iraq strategy."

How original.

There are two problems with Clinton's response. First, it is not a deep and profound statement rebutting anything that Giuliani has said. It seems more along the lines of a casual blow off. Second, Clinton does not condemn the MoveOn advertisement in her response in any way. This is going to cost her points with the public a public that has responded quite negatively to the controversial advertisement.

This has been a bad week for the Democrats with their treatment of General David Petraeus as said treatment has left a bad taste in the public's mouth. The MoveOn ad has piled on more public relations damage for the Democrats. Unless Clinton repudiates the ad, then she will suffer the negative public relations (and public opinion) fate as well.

As David and Scott argued yesterday about Rudy Giuliani's full court press on Hillary Clinton concerning the MoveOn.org ad, I thought this column by Charles Hurt at the New York Post highlighted the opportunity that Hillary missed:

It could have been her Sister Souljah moment, that turning point in 1992 when Bill Clinton showed his moxie by pushing back in outrage at the activist rapper who suggested there be a week to "kill white people."

But instead of standing up to extremists in her party, Hillary echoed the ad's accusation that Petraeus was "cooking the books."

...

She should instead be a front-runner and begin her long journey toward calming reservations about her among independents and even Republicans who are sick and tired of the GOP.

Exactly. Couple this with the hiring of Sandy the Burglar as part of her inner circle, she is definitely either not concerned with how she appears to the mainstream of the country or she is blowing several big chances that will hurt her in the general election. She certainly isn't calming any fears about her scandal-ridden past, why beg for more trouble?

Decrying MoveOn should be simple enough, but this post by Jay Cost indicates that MoveOn is becoming an integral part of the Democratic party infrastructure. With the loss of Hillraiser Norman Hsu, maybe she needs the money?

MoveOn.org, the formerly extreme, now mainstream organization published a despicable ad calling General Petraeus General "Betray-us" and generally demeaned the man and his command.

Petraeus has always been a great soldier and a stright-shooter and a soldiers soldier. Anyone who has read anything about his career knows that he has excelled at every commend he has held and unbeknownst to the military-hating Moveon crowd, not just anyone can become a four-star general. It takes intense training for years, incredible amounts of education and a small bit of luck. Petraeus holds a Masters in Public Administration and a PhD in International Relations. I would suspect that neithet Pinch Sulzberger or any of the leadership at MoveOn has even remotely the experience, education or credentials that General Petraeus has. Then man is also highly decorated, in fact, Petraeus is the best Commanding General we've had since maybe Omar Bradley.

The New York Times is complicit in the smear of Petraeus by not only running the vile ad but running it at nearly a 50% discount in the first section of the paper on the day the General briefed Congress. The Times ran an ad defending the President's policies and supporting our troops paid for by Freedoms Watch, which was made to pay much more for the same type ad.

In essence, the NY Times is shilling for an organization that smears our troops, their leader and America and doing it for pennie on the dollar. This should put to rest any argument about media bias.

The General handled it with the class a military officer should:

Petraeus called portions of MoveOn.org's ad "flat, completely wrong" and the rest "at least more than arguable."

Note he was not shrill or defensive because he has much more pressing matters--such as winning a war--to worry about than a whiny, solipsistic collection of communist hacks who are hastening the steady decline of a once-great newspaper. Enjoy falling behind the Newark Star-Ledger in readership Pinch.