MoveOn.org -- Successfully Executing Its Vision and Answering Its Critics

A New York Times headline told the story: "Senate Supports a Pullout Date in Iraq War Bill: Democratic Measure Seen as Rebuke of Policy -- a Veto is Expected."

For the first time in the painfully long four-year grind of the Iraq invasion and occupation, members of Congress -- at least the new Democratic majority, along with a handful of Republicans -- finally caught up with the population. After the loss of countless lives, enormous costs, and widespread destruction of Baghdad and much of the country, Congress confronted Bush over the financing of the war and a real timeline for ending it.

This victory is hugely precedent-setting but also modest in what it will achieve in the short run given its inevitable veto by Bush. It is however, an important first step in a still longer struggle to prevent the president and the Republican Party from continuing their unpopular and destructive Iraq policies, and hopefully isolating them, as the country moves toward the 2008 election. The ability to win this first victory was difficult and complex. It was achieved in part with the energetic and savvy support of millions of progressives and particularly MoveOn.org, the powerhouse citizen's lobby, with 3.2 million email members and significant political capital among elected Democrats due to their prodigious fundraising skills and tactical prowess.

Yet this victory, and MoveOn's role, is not without controversy. The supplemental budget bill provides funding to continue the war, while setting a date to end it, and there is disagreement on its strategic effect. There are some -- and notably a small group of the most progressive House members, including four Democratic representatives from California -- Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters and Pete Stark -- who in the end did not support the vote, but nevertheless made sure that Speaker Pelosi had the votes to win.

As Barbara Lee said, "I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war." A number of peace groups also rejected the Pelosi strategy, and some activists were angry that MoveOn didn't hold out for what they feel is the more principled position.

But wanting MoveOn to stay out of the political give and take, and not take the best option the political process has to offer in the present, is to fundamentally misunderstand the organization. As blogger Matt Stoller at MyDD.com noted recently: "MoveOn was born out of an overt rejection of protest politics. The fundamental premise of the organization is based on empowering citizens to participate in the political process; it is institutionalist by nature, and has never misled its members on that point."

There has never been an organization like MoveOn, by far the most successful advocacy operation in the digital era, mastering the use of the Internet for organizing and fundraising, and holding the corporate media responsible for its misreporting and bias. But after all is said and done, MoveOn is an electoral animal, most committed to reshaping Congress to be more responsive to its citizens, and less to the bidding of insurance and drug companies, arms manufacturers, banks bleeding working class consumers dry via credit cards and overborrowing, and all the rest of the bad congressional behavior in the Bush era.

MoveOn, perhaps because of its multiple roles, is sometimes misunderstood: It is a powerful lobbying group; a sometime protest organization; and is especially well known for the tens of thousands of house parties thrown by its members across the country to raise political consciousness.

Furthermore MoveOn has a highly unusual organizational model which it calls "radical decentralization." They have a modest, "flat" organization, staffed with talented equals, all with tech skills, and with no assistants, or assistants to assistants. They operate without offices, spread around the country and think of themselves as "small and nimble."