Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail

Rasmussen's latest national primary poll, taken during the heart of the flap about Edwards, McEwan, and Marcotte, once again shows just how little blogger "scandals" hurt Democrats associated with them. 2/5-2/8, 435 LVs, previous numbers in parenthesis:

Clinton: 28 (34)
Obama: 23 (18)
Edwards: 13 (10)
Gore: 8 (10)

Keep in mind that Obama made up this ground without the huge media buzz surrounding his announcement. It makes me wonder if next week's poll will show Clinton and Obama tied, or even show Obama slightly ahead. Still, it would be wise to wait for other, non-Rasmussen polls before assuming that Obama has once again pulled nearly even with Clinton. After all, we have previously seen evidence that Clinton is sliding that later turned out to be outliers.

But I want to return to the point of this post, which is how the blogger "scandal" didn't hurt Edwards at all. This poll was conducted during the heart of the flap over the issue, from last Monday until last Thursday. Not surprisingly (at least from my perspective), it turns out that the advice of the conventional, establishment consultants who thought McEwan and Marcotte should be fired was completely wrong. Instead of facing any negative repercussions, Edwards actually ended up with a slight bounce in the polls. Maybe we should call it the Marcotte and McEwan bump, since the progressive netroots is chock full of Democratic primary voters.

Once again, Republican attempts to make Democrats look bad though guilt by association with us crazy bloggers were a miserable failure. The reason why is simple: the vast majority of voters will have no idea this "scandal," ever happened, and most of those who know it happened will have forgotten the next day. Bloggers, even the most prominent ones, have national name recognition numbers in the single digits. Even after 300+ newspapers picked up one of more of the various wire reports surrounding the flap, and even after numerous cable news network segments on the story, I still bet that less than 10% of the country knows this happened. Further, I bet there are basically no undecided, general election voters among that 10%. Anyone who knows about the story is already locked down hard into one partisan camp or another. As such, there is simply no way that this story will, in the long run, have any measurable, negative blowback for the Edwards campaign.

The development reminds me of all those press releases and fundraising letters Republican campaigns and national committees put out trying to describe how evil Markos is and how supposedly powerful he is within the Democratic Party. Good tactic, that. Are the people who put these press releases and fundraising letters aware that only 11% of the country knows enough about John Boehner to form an opinion? Try to extrapolate from that just how low Markos's national name ID is, or mine, or Amanda's and Melissa's. If you are going to attack Democrats for associating with evil bloggers, you better be prepared to back up that attack with a two hundred million dollar national advertising campaign to explain who that blogger actually is. Otherwise, you will just receive a lot of blank stares. Hell, last Friday, it took me five minutes to try and explain the story to some friends of mine when we were hanging out at Happy Hour.

This is actually one of the great things about how the blogosphere cuts low-information voters out of its equation. By speaking directly to the members of the electorate who are the most politically active and intense consumers of news, we can wield a lot of influence while simultaneously not playing the idiotic games of "gotcha" and faux outrage that have been used to try and sway low-information voters for the past several decades (no wonder low-information voters are dismissive of politics, considering how stupid people often assume they are). In essence, we focus on the middle tier of influence in American politics--the several million political activists--rather than just focusing on how the few thousand elites in the top tier are portrayed to the tens of millions of low information voters in the bottom tier. It is a type of triangle that explains the reach of blog power just as Peter Daou's triangle explained its limits. I can see how established consultants who are used to bypassing the middle tier altogether would want to fire junior staffers out of fear that it will result in backlash from the bottom tier. I can also see how many long time residents of the elite tier would view something as influential as the netroots as potentially vulnerable to attacks in the same way that actual members of the elite tier are vulnerable. After all, if you ignore the middle tier for so long, you might forget how it operates. The truth is that we are a different entity entirely, as our numbers and our activism allow us to boast influence without the baggage of name recognition.

How sweet it is. Being both powerful and anonymous is a beautiful thing.

Update: Another good example was the Lieberman onslaught against Jane Hamsher int he week before the Connecticut Senate primary. As a GQ reporter said in the documentary "Blogwars," I bet that influenced all of ten voters, even though Lieberman held multiple press conferences on the subject.



Display:


Lets go Obama! (3.00 / 1)

I'm excited to see him appear to be catching Hillary.  He'd be a better candidate and a much better president.


by Terryus on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 03:37:51 PM EST

Re: Lets go Obama! (none / 0)

Too earlier. The most reliable polls for this weekend's new cyle should appear on Thursday or Friday. I suspect newsweek will come out with another poll this weekend also.


by meliou2 on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:20:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Likely Democratic primary voters... (none / 0)

...aren't upset that John Edwards hired liberal bloggers.

However, Bill Donohue is hoping to hurt John Edwards in the general if Edwards is the nominee.


by Eric Jaffa on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 03:40:56 PM EST

Re: Likely Democratic primary voters... (none / 0)

and, as I said, none of them will know anything about this.
by Chris Bowers on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 03:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely Democratic primary voters... (3.00 / 0)

Edward's biggest problem (especially if he wins the primary)will be his pledge to raise taxes for healthcare without first detailing his plan. The pledge to raise taxes caused Walter Mondale the election against Ronal Reagan. Raising taxes should be a last resort never a pre-emptive strike. It was a costly pledge.


by meliou2 on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:31:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

I think the episode was important because Edwards stood up rather than caving in.  For most people, however, even political junkies, it was a VERY inside baseball story.  I know lots of people who follow politics and occasionally blogs, but thet had no idea what the fuss was about so its no surprising it did not move any polls.  


by howardpark on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 03:59:09 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (3.00 / 0)

Blogger-phobic elites: put Cokie Roberts at the top of that list, based on her general attitude and specific peasant-phobic screeds she has written (and undoubtedly said.)

I suspect strongly that half of these blogger-phobic elites will mellow out, though, if the netroots winner comes out and promises to protect the orderly flow of Tanqueray into Georgetown and related neighborhoods west of The Park in DC, with the help of the Secret Service, if necessary.  A little alcoholic pandering goes a long way, people.


by Crablaw on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:01:51 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (3.00 / 1)

It could also be that no one gives a shit.  Its early and by in large the blogosphere is an echo chamber (one I'm a part of), but to most people its just one more place for political discussion rather than THE place for it.  The attacks failed because no one notices much less cares.


by eeor on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:02:37 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

I agree--at this point, it's ludicrous for a GOP candidate to think that using the traditional media to attack a Democratic candidate's connections to the blogosphere will really hurt the Democratic candidate in any way, given how few people know who bloggers are or understand what they do.

However, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that attacking bloggers does work in GOP fundraising appeals.  Since GOP fundraising appeals presumably only go out to people who would potentially donate to a right wing campaign, I could see a certain segment of those people getting all riled up over us.  If that's true, then great!!!


by dal27 on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:10:26 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

Well, considering the paltry fundraising efforts of the NRSC this year, I don't think it worked much. I saw at least one letter from Elizabeth Dole trying to raise money off Markos.
by Chris Bowers on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

True the NRSC did poorly fundraising in 06, but that's not necessarily evidence that attacking bloggers in fundraising appeals doesn't work.  I would venture a guess that poor NRSC fundraising was mostly related to donors being angry w/ Dole for attacking Laffey, angry about runaway spending in Congress, etc.  In reality, we just don't know whether the NRSC failed because their donors thought the blogger fundraising appeals were lame or because their donors were disaffected for other reasons.  That said, my gut tells me the blogger appeals probably weren't effective--I bet NRSC donors are relatively older folks, which I would think makes them even more unlikely to know about us.


by dal27 on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 05:23:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It doesn't matter that blogger isn't known (none / 0)

If the blogger called someone an epithet in the past the public will want to know 2 things:

(1)  When is the miscreant leaving the campaign?

(2)  Why was the miscreant hired in the first place?

(3)  Does this mean that Candidate X is the same sort of biggot as the person he hired?

I think it's fair to assume that a candidate hires people with whom he agrees about things.  That's why I want the Clintons back:  Because of Ron Brown, Deval Patrick, Bill Richardson - people whom the Clintons hired because they agreed with their issues and advocacy.  I don't want a President who hires people sight unseen and then disavows those people's beliefs even as those people are implementing federal policy.


by francislholland on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:42:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

It's interesting to note that if Senator Obama is consistently shown to be running even, or better, against HRC in the polls it demolishes the only sound argument in favour of her candidacy, even among her supporters.  It's going to happen.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:22:18 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

Time for a female president. Might not seem a sound argument to you but look at the numbers amongst women. Both Condi Rice and HRC have astonishing numbers amongst women, which would seem to suggest that there is a significant block of women who think it is time for a female president.


by kundalini on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 07:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not just any woman (none / 0)

I would support a woman president in theory, and if someone like Janet Napolitano or Kathleen Sebelius were running for president, I would give them my serious consideration.

However, neither I nor any of my women friends are supporting Clinton for president this year. In fact, I am cutting off my donations to Emily's List because I'm pissed off they endorsed Clinton against candidates with equally strong, if not better, records on choice.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 08:41:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not just any woman (none / 0)

Well I respect your judgement. But I don't think it changes the point that I was making that a lot of women will vote for a woman because of her sex during the forthcoming primaries. And it is a perfectly sound argument for voting for someone, so this notion that HRC's support collapses once Obama gets close to her polling numbers seems, to my mind, to be unlikely to be true.


by kundalini on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:54:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

If you support a candidate, particularly a presidential candidate, at this critical juncture in our nation's history on the basis of their gender, race or any other accident of birth rather than the acuity of their vision and the resolution of their purpose than I fear you have underestimated the gravity of our present crisis.  

If you support Hillary for any other reasons than fine, but please, don't tell me that.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:54:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

Wanting a female president is a perfectly sound argument. It doesn't happen to be the criteria I use to make my own personal choice but it would appear, from the data, to be a major factor for many women, otherwise it is difficult to explain why both Condi and HRC's numbers amongst women are close to twice the repective figure amongst men.

People use different criteria for selecting their preferred candidate. Chris goes for the movement candidate, some people go for the person who made what they consider to be the correct choice on the war, others go for a candidate that can win certain states.

You're not going to change many minds if you tell people that their criteria for choosing a candidate are stupid.


by kundalini on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:47:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

I sincerely hope that anyone who supports Hillary does so on the basis of her stated policies or at least a faith in her based on her past performance.  However, one thing you can surely say for those who support her just to see a woman president, if she wins they can't possibly be disappointed.

I wish I could say the same.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 05:10:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

haha, I loved the gratuitious link to the GWB bio for "miserable failure"

Subtle comedy.

Yeah, this kind of thing will be such a non-factor for any general election voter.  It's ludicrous to think anyone would be inclined to vote Edwards in the general, but decide to vote Republican or 3rd Party because of this.

At best, The Catholic League is hoping to garner some more donations and members out of this.  


by scientician on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:22:48 PM EST

On the middle (none / 0)

Though somewhat tangential to the subject, this post gave me a good frame for political blogs: it empowers the political middle class, strengthens and broadens it.

Think about newspapers and the other conventional media. If there were no newspapers, the elites of each field would still find a way to get their information. Everyone else, though, would have next to zero capacity to get recent news and reliable civic information. Now, even with the existence of newspapers, there are those who can't afford them, can't read, or don't read the paper. But for many others, the newspaper is an affordable means to get lots of information -- information which makes it possible for collective action. The newspaper enables the political middle class.

Blogs, because they go much deeper (if narrower) than newspapers, and because they offer much more opportunity for feedback and organizing, serve to further empower this political middle class.

Comparing it to economics, the analogy that comes to mind is unions. The existence of decent jobs makes an economic middle class possible; the union strengthens this middle class and empowers it.

But blogs are more like a forum than an organization. So maybe the better analogy is the union hall or community center.


by tetraminoe on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:24:34 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (3.00 / 0)

Certainly interesting numbers and not at all good for HRC. But Rasmussen regularly shows her a lot lower than other pollsters which may be a more accurate reflection of the state of affairs or a less accurate one.


by kundalini on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:26:48 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

"Republican attempts to make Democrats look bad though guilt by association with us crazy bloggers were a miserable failure. "

Not sure that's accurate since the headlines were all "Catholics outraged at Edwards Bloggers".

All the public took away from it was that bloggers were insulting Catholics and Edwards was hiring them.

Even moderate Catholic groups objected to the blogger posts.

As for it not hurting Edwards, despite his small gains, he got even further behind the two leading candidates.  Zogby noted last week that Edwards' differential is getting so large that it is turning it into a two person race. And Edwards has been running for four years.

It looks like Edwards attempt to purchase blog appeal may be stunting his growth.


by BrionLutz on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:40:47 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

Frankly, I think that his decision to retain the bloggers transcended any judgement on the efficacy or otherwise of blogging or ethics.  He stood up to the Right-wing smear machine and the blogosphere stiffened his resolve, hopefully, to do so.  I think that is the message the outside world got, if that.

The things that still bothers me a little, as much as I respect his decision, is that his supporters kinda' gave him an ultimatum and seemed to put the positioning of the blogosphere ahead of his options as a candidate.  For those who are promoting the blogosphere as an emerging political medium that is a no-brainer.  For those intending to support their candidate and concede his judgement to run his own campaign and still retain their support it is less clear.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:57:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (3.00 / 0)

"Frankly, I think that his decision to retain the bloggers transcended any judgement on the efficacy or otherwise of blogging or ethics."

Edwards had no idea what the bloggers were writing, he wanted them for show, to try and purchase approval from the netroots audience.

Had Edwards known of their diaries he never would have hired them.  Once he had hired them, he was stuck. He made the best of bad situation and kept them on rather than alienate the audience he was trying to purchase in the first place.

As far as the bloggers turning back an attack, hardly. The right wingers wanted Edwards to keep the bloggers so they have a issue going forward.


by BrionLutz on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 07:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

Sure, the guy is ambitious, but apparently you think he is a demagogue.  Everyone who has ever run as a populist, particularly those who are apparently converted to populism late in life, as many say he was, are accused of being demagogues.  It hurts so much more when it comes from within the coalition.
I've heard Bill Clinton quoted as saying something like: "you fall in love during the primary, and fall in line for the general."  I wouldn't use such a commanding tone.  Try, "you fall in love during the primary, and do your best to love the eventual nominee."  After all, even if you don't particularly like Edwards, all of the Republicans are either neoconservatives, neoliberals, or both.  I'd pick a yellow dog first, wouldn't you?  I'd even go with Hillary or Biden, before any of that crowd.
"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 10:32:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (3.00 / 0)

"Sure, the guy is ambitious, but apparently you think he is a demagogue."

Hypocrite is what I think.

He hired two people sight unseen simply to curry favor with their peers.

But he found their views "intolerant" and "personally insulting".


by BrionLutz on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 10:45:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

Edwards and Obama will finish 1st and 2nd in the Iowa Caucus.

It's only February and we are already seeing the volatility in the primary polls. It's funny that Rammussen is stil polling Gore and he is still pulling in close to 10%.

However, the majority of Gore's support will go to either Edwards or Obama, with Edwards probably picking up slightly more voters.


by Djneedle83 on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 05:03:25 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

You would think so but the polling done on 2nd choices seems to suggest otherwise. Gore supporters break fairly evenly across the 3 main contenders.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm


by kundalini on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 07:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Politician name recognition and stand up comedy (none / 0)

Politician name recognition and stand up comedy, and bloggers.

Stand up comedy is a hard gig when it comes to national politics. On the road, you've got to appeal to different audiences from all different locations and cracking a joke about national politician X can often land you flat. Like the OP suggest by illustrating his difficulty explaining the blog sphere to friends over cocktails, try standing in front of 80- 120 people and tell jokes about Harry Reid, or Mike Gravel. Hairy Gravel, what kind of joke is that?

The point is, name recognition. Or in the case of celebrities and politicians, star power! My uncle named a star after his 7' pet boa, Percy. What a waste of money.

OP Bowers counters right wingers hate of liberal bloggers by saying they'll have to spend $200 million dollars in ad campaigns to even have the idea of bloggers enter into coffee table conversations. Well, no they don't need to spend $200 million, all they have to do is spread it word of month. Much like when the Christian action groups in the early 1990s started their attack on gays, it was at the grassroots, and at the state legislative level. "News Flash Oregon Citizens Alliance Lon MABON" Anti-gay local level movements became a national level headline with very little capital.

Somebody might bring up the Daily Show as a counter argument to my stand up comedy example. The difference is an audience elects to tune into a daily broadcast. It's like going to John, the familiar musicians concert and open mic down at Timmy's comedy club: Specialized v generalized crowds.

But don't take me too serious. I'm like a paradox. I'm the bottom tier guy who grew up "low information", but now blogs. I just can't wait for my next big tier jump: gated communities!


by Rob Price on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 05:40:03 PM EST

GO Obama!! (none / 0)

I am so excited to see this.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 06:18:08 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

I still bet that less than 10% of the country knows this happened.

My extensive research says even fewer.

From what someone familiar with the Lamont campaign told me though, it wasn't that the Hamsher thing was such a problem in itself - it was that time had to be wasted explaining it.  It seems the same sort of thing happened to Edwards to a degree.  I bet the tiny number of people who can explain the big ol' blogger scandal is rivaled only by the number who can explain his healthcare plan.  


by eRobin on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 08:30:06 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (3.00 / 0)

Oops--I think more than 10% know now--now that the story was on Bill O'Reilly.  I can't say that I would have voted for Edwards anyway, but the statements presented on O'Reilly by the two employees of Edwards were very offensive to me.  More importantly, Edwards certainly can't win on this issue.  There is no way I could be convinced that he did not know their views before he hired them--that's why he hired them.


by dd on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 08:43:48 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

Do you have any idea how many statements they've made in the past, particularly snarky ones that can offend people?  Should Edwards hire more people to read all of the things that his potential hires have said?
There is need to know the background of employees, but there is also a need to not spend too much time and resources on something like this.  Besides, even tolerant people make jokes as a form of criticism.  The "Catholic" Church has done plenty of things that merit criticism.  For example, naming it the "Catholic" church as a means of propogandizing people.
"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 10:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (3.00 / 0)

I do not have personal knowledge of Catholicism but I do have an understanding of what offends me.  Also, I know in my job I have to be very careful about the statements I write when I represent my employer.  Edwards knew what he was getting and unfortunately I believe he made a poor choice.


by dd on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:03:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's why he shouldn't 've hired them (none / 0)

No candidate should put anyone in a prominent position on a campaign without a thorough vetting of that person's history.  A person who is hired without a vetting certainly shouldn't announce their hiring on the blog, as Amanda did.

The Republicans have warned us that they are going to make an issue out of Democratic candidates' blogger supporters, particularly when they are hired by the candidate.  To believe that the public will ignore offensive statements made by these bloggers is willful folly.  After all, if the candidate hires a blogger, it must be because the candidate read and admired the blogger's opinions, if not the blogger's technical blogging skills and mastery of HTML.

Edwards supporters should take their heads out of the sand, stop defending this hiring and start toughening their campaign, identifying potential sources of embarrassment and dealing with them now, before they find their way onto thirty-second attack ads.  Remember Willie Horton and try, bloggers, not to be the Willie Horton of your candidate's 2008 campaign.

If the campaign doesn't want to vet all that has been posted in an aide's Facebook and blogs, then the aide should take those public displays down before joining the campaign.  People who are naive about this now are going to get schooled over the next 18 months and it isn't going to be pretty.


by francislholland on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:27:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

I have mixed feelings about drawing conclusions about blogpower.

We obviously have influence---It would be a big handicap to try to succeed without blog support.  

On the other hand it is just a medium.   I think the right-wingers were ahead of liberals.   I know how they use trolls to infiltrate liberal bulletin blogs but I suspect that liberal are a bit behind in disrupting conservative blogs.    

Am I wrong?


by phthalo on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 08:44:53 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (3.00 / 0)

Chris, you can't be naive.  Of course this isn't going to hurt Edwards right now.  The only people paying attention right now are diehards whose minds are made.

But this is going to destroy Edwards if he wins the nomination.  How?  It will be mentioned in every debate and in multi-million dollar ad campaigns.  What Catholic will vote for a man who has no problem hiring people who insult the Virgin Mary in such vile, horrendous language?

Catholics and Christians still vote Democratic in large numbers.  But I will not be at all surprised if those numbers drop for Edwards based entirely in the blog fiasco.

If we don't start preparing for this contingency now, the repugs are going to destroy Edwards.  We can't prepare until we stop denying what happened.


by supertroooper on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 08:54:26 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (3.00 / 0)

Proof that I was right (and that Marcotte knew she was a big liability):  http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/12 /D8N8H2D00.html,


by supertroooper on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:28:32 PM EST

Re: Why Attacks Against Bloggers Fail (none / 0)

Fixed link:  http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/12 /D8N8H2D00.html


by supertroooper on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:28:51 PM EST

No so fast! Remember Willie Horton?! (none / 0)

Willie Horton was an African-American convicted  rapist known only to his family, the courts and the Massachusetts Parole Board before George Bush (the father) turned Willie Horton into "Exhibit A" in a national ad campaign to prove that Mike Dukakis was "soft on crime", releasing convicted rapists to rape again.  The Willie Hortons of the 2008 election cycle might well turn out to be the progressive bloggers hired without sufficient concern for how their previous writings would sound if selectively quoted in the context of a 30-second attack ad.

The other Swift-Boating of Michael Dukakis came when Republicans insisted that Dukakis fire his chief political adviser, John Sasso, because Sasso had engaged in successful political adviser skullduggery that ultimately took a competitor out of the race.  John Sasso was virtually unknown to the public before he became the principal topic of national discussion, with public attention focused on whether Sasso would stay or go.  (He went, and then Dukakis sank like a stone.)

Bloggers and candidates have got to accept that in the Republicans efforts to peg Democrats as wild-eyed extreme leftists, the progressive bloggers will be Republicans' "Exhibit A".  The Edwards blogger flap was just a shot across the bow, a first scene in a long play that has only just begun.

I say this not to discourage bloggers but as a warning to be careful and circumspect.  Just as you would if you were a paid member of a campaign, you must consider yourself your candidate's ambassador and realize that everything you say and do may well be attribued and imputed to your candidate at some time in the future.  I'll bet that Mike Dukakis never imagined that zero name recognition Willie Horton would end Dukakis presidential chances, or that Mike Sasso would end up being the focus of a week or two of negative publicity, ending in Sasso's resignation and the decapitation of the Dukakis campaign.


by francislholland on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:13:53 PM EST

The only polls that matter (none / 0)

Nice to see national numbers. Meaningless, but nice.

These are the four instances of actual voting that will happen before Super Duper Tuesday:

Iowa.
Nevada.
New Hampshire.
South Carolina.

I don't see Hillary getting any higher than third in Iowa - and fourth at this point (Edwards, who basically lives there now, Obama and Vilsack beat her).
Obama probably ties Richardson in NV.
Hillary wins NH if she's third in IA - after Bill changes his residency again and campaigns there full time for six months. If she's fourth in IA and therefore doesn't win NH she's done.
Obama also wins SC - at which point Edwards (Mr. I Can Win in the South) is done.

That leaves Hil and Barack heading into the Mother of all Primaries, and the "frontrunner", Mrs. Clinton, has lost three of the first four primaries or caucuses.

When Barack wins the Democratic primaries in Illinois (of course), MO, NC, CA and Florida.

Game. Over.

The the Republicans, too stupid to actually nominate McCain, get to watch as the silver-spoon weirdo Mitt Romney gets the a*s-kicking he so richly deserves.


by ericd1112 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:40:03 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.