I've been trying to get a handle on just why attacking Move On is problematic in a way that criticizing other organizations isn't. It's certainly fair to criticize the leadership of Move On, and specific actions the group takes, but dismissing and marginalizing the entire organization is something else entirely. The issue is, I think, that Move On basically has no credibility other than what its members give it. Their power comes not from having a seat at any table, but they are instead empowered largely by the actions of its members. To dismiss Move On is to dismiss the large block of people that comprise it.
In the late 90s, the dirty fucking hippies were the crazy people who thought that Bill Clinton should neither resign nor be impeached. They were marginalized by the corrupt elites in our mainstream media who felt otherwise. In the great wasteland of our mainstream media there was almost no place one could turn to find someone expressing the majority view of the American public, that this whole thing was insane.
