Matt Stoller adds some interesting info over at Open Left:

I just spoke with Ilyse Hogue, communications director for Moveon, and she tells me that the group is going to mobilize volunteers for Obama in key states and use call for change technology.  That's the stuff that lets their members do phone-banking with their browsers to targeted individuals, and often what Moveon will do with this is have Moveon members in non-key states call other Moveon members in key states for GOTV.  We'll see what they do.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=3572

To the Independents and Republicans that Obama is bringing to the table, is the MoveOn.org endorsement a positive development?

Wow.  I'm actually surprised he was able to get 2/3 of the MoveOn vote, that was a pretty high bar.  I think it's foolish for them to get involved in the middle of the primary and possibly alienate the Clinton supporters, but I'll gladly take it.  Mobilization of 3.2 members, or even the 2.2 who voted for Barack is nothing to dismiss as simply the educated liberals.

How foolish of MoveOn.

Clinton voted against condemning MoveOn's "Betray-us" ad, while Obama ran out on the vote.

MoveOn's endorsement sends a message to politicians everywhere that you can turn your back on their organization and still receive their endorsement.

Everything sure seems to be going Obama's way the last two weeks, huh?

South Carolina, the Kennedy endorsement, California SEIU, MoveOn, and closing in the latest polls.

I honestly thought he would be in a much tougher position right now, struggling to justify going past 2/5. Now there's no doubt in my mind that this will still be a hyper-competitive race on 2/6.

MoveOn and last night's debate pushes Iraq back to the front burner where it belongs.

To many "middle ideology" americans, moveon doesn't have a favorable image at all...

"Not shocking of course that Obama would win the educated liberal primary over Clinton, as both the MoveOn and Nation endorsements indicate. . ."

I wasn't aware that one needed a high level of education to become a member of MoveOn. From looking at their web site, anyone with an email address can join. Do you have any data whatsoever to back up your claim that its members are any more "educated" than average? I can't find any.

". . .that they'd put their considerable names and reputations behind him and try to galvanize their members and readers behind him is notable, however."

Actually, both MoveOn and the Nation are pretty much moribund institutions. Neither their "names" nor their "reputations" are held in a great regard in liberal, or any other, circles. So, I don't find it particularly "notable" that they would try to drum a little favorable PR by associating themselves with the flavor of the month.

It comes too late to have much on the ground impact for Feb 5th, might make a difference later. The MoveOn members who would be inclined to make calls for Obama already are. Same with CA SEIU.

These are more media hits, and self promotion for MoveOn, than endorsements that put a machine in gear for Feb 5th.

If the progressive movement wants to know why it can't get any traction with elected officials, all it has to do is look at the MoveOn endorsement.  Obama skips out on the vote on the censure of them and he still gets their endorsement.  

joc,

I don't think many people are going to change their mind about who to vote for based on MoveOn's endorsement.  But the real significance of getting support from a powerhouse organization like MoveOn.org is that they can put their very sophisticated database and their human and financial resources to work at helping to register new voters and turn out the vote for Obama.  This is a huge deal, and I imagine they are jumping for joy at Obama HQ.  Combine this with the endorsement of the California Service Employees Union, and we're talking real, on-the-ground horsepower for Obama.

Remember that during the "General Betray Us" fiasco a few months ago, there was a stupid Senate vote to criticize MoveOn.org for the NYT ad ...

HILLARY VOTED NO.

OBAMA DID NOT VOTE AT ALL.

He was given an opportunity to defend Petraeus's critics, but he decided to play it safe.

No surprise at all but actually this is a dumb move on their part. At least half their cash must come from Clinton supporters and I suspect it will be some time before it's forgotten if ever. They'd have been much better staying neutral.

It is the war and her vote for it contrasted with his early opposition was the difference in my opinion.

You have the most right wing democrats supporting Obama

and now

the most left wing democrats supporting obama.

Someone is going to be disappointed.

This is what happens when a person lies about "big change" without actually offering big change.

I would guess it is the move on crowd and the left that would be dissed.

I know you don't care, as long as he wins, but I thought that was the difference with the Obama campaign?

As I said in the other thread, my wife is a union steward in SEIU (SoCal) and got word of the endorsement today. She was furious with the Obama endorsement and made her views known to SEIU leadership.

I know there are a lot of women and Latinos in SEIU, apart from the AA male leadership, and a lot of them are solidly behind Clinton. Overall, though, I really don't think these union endorsements hold the power they once did. If anything, people seem to resent being told how to vote by unions that already take a big chunk out of their weekly paychecks and give them very little in return. There is a lot of defiance.

As for MoveOn.org, that isn't an endorsement I'd want. It will do nothing in the primary and will only hurt him in the general election.

Agreed. Moveon.org could hurt him badly in the general. Even though I don't think he'll be there.

As far as big union support, I think after Neveda it doesn't mean what it once did. People are not going to be told how to vote by their unions, especially is the decision is made by leadership and not the rank and file.