by D. Cupples | Over the last week, a number of anti-Obama blogs have been essentially shut down by Blogger, which is owned by Google. Bloggasm interviewed some of the affected blog owners.
A New York Times blog states:
"The bloggers in question, most of them supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and all of them opposed to Senator Obama, received a notice from Google last week saying that their sites had been identified as potential 'spam' blogs. 'You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog,' the Google e-mail read."
"Many of the bloggers were affiliated with JustSayNoDeal.com a Web site that opposes Senator Obama. They include http://bluelyon.blogspot.com, http://comealongway.blogspot.com, http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com and http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com....
"According to the bloggers, the Obama supporters had clicked on a 'flag' on the anti-Obama blogs alerting Google that they were spam.
"If so, that would be an embarrassment for Google. On its Web page explaining the 'flag' feature, Google says that 'it can’t be manipulated by angry mobs. Political dissent? Incendiary opinions? Just plain crazy? Bring it on.'”
"On Monday, Google would not explicitly rebut the idea that it had been tricked but said that the cause of the temporary blockage appeared to be elsewhere." (NY Times)
Two days ago, Larry Johnson listed 7 anti-Obama blogs whose owners had been recently locked out of their blogs.
If overly eager Obama supporters are responsible for getting anti-Obama blogs shut down, they might want to rethink their strategy.
I suspect that Sen. Obama -- who has for years taught constitutional law and no doubt understands the First Amendment -- does not appreciate having his name even remotely linked to activities that might result in the denial of citizens' free speech.
Memeorandum has commentary.
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* The Free-Style Flip-Flopping of John McCain
* Obama & MoveOn: Does "Centrism" Include Repudiation?
Search engine manipulation, spam labeling, and the like is a big issue in online ethics. Some things are obviously off-limits, but there are gray areas. For instance, there's been an effort by some Democratic supporters to get certain negative stories about McCain to rise up the google ranks on searches for "John McCain". They've gotten a couple stories (his "100 years" comment, comments on overturning Roe vs. Wade) into the top three pages. Is this unethical? I don't think so, but it's an interesting question.
Of course, Larry Johnson and company have absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone, and this seems like a case of seeing monsters under the bed. It seems a lot like the "Axelrod hired 400 astroturfers" story that circulated the anti-Obama blogs a little while ago; a story that started with one random blogger's speculation and quickly became accepted fact. (On the non-speculation front, I've personally had my comments blocked on anti-Obama sites.)
The bottom line on PUMA and similar groups is that they would not have significant exposure if it wasn't for right-wing groups in the MSM who see them as politically useful. The "Obama is having trouble with Hillary supporters" meme is useful for the networks, even though polls show Obama is already doing about as well with Democratic defections as other recent national Democratic candidates.
Posted by: Adam | July 01, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Adam,
It does seem more than a little coincidental. AT any rate, I don't know why you commented as you did, because I didn't accuse Obama's campaign re: this one. Here's what I said:
"If overly eager Obama supporters are responsible for getting anti-Obama blogs shut down, they might want to rethink their strategy."
"I suspect that Sen. Obama -- who has for years taught constitutional law and no doubt understands the First Amendment -- does not appreciate having his name even remotely linked to activities that might result in the denial of citizens' free speech."
Posted by: Deb | July 01, 2008 at 11:59 PM
I didn't mean to imply that you meant to imply that this might have been the doing of the Obama campaign. (wow, that's an ugly sentence...)
What I mean is, there's really no reason to think that this was the result of an organized action on the part of any significant group of Obama supporters. In open forums, people (incorrectly) spam-rate comments they disagree with all the time. This seems like, more or less, an example of this.
It's a fact of life on the internet, and not really a first amendment issue. Or at least, not any moreso than comments being blocked from appearing on a given forum.
Posted by: Adam | July 02, 2008 at 01:01 AM
Adam,
All it would take is a few maverick-ish individuals with clever minds. I seriously doubt that Obama's campaign would touch such a plan.
Some of his zealously bellicose supporters might.
Then again, maybe McCain supporters did it, so that nasty implications would hang in the air about Obama.
Who knows these days?
I understand why you didn't respond to my last huge email: sometimes, our chats get pretty long.
I am, however, curious about your thoughts on the fact that Obama has taken tens-of-millions more than McCain (actual dollars) from big donors -- given that Obama's campaign has made a point of emphasizing small donations, as though they indicate less beholden-ness.
Posted by: Deb | July 02, 2008 at 03:02 AM
I went on a rafting trip for a day, and I just never got back to our correspondence when I returned. It was more of a default decision than a conscious one.
Obama has more money from big donors, but despite this his big donors form a relatively smaller share of the pie. It's a function of having a lot more donors in general. The presence of large donors is not really remarkable to me. My larger point on that subject is that it's the broad base of Obama's fundraising behemoth that frees him from financial commitment to any particular special interest. The broad base, as oppose to the absence of a few pointy peaks.
Posted by: Adam | July 02, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Adam,
Proportion of small donors is a double-edged sword, which is why I look at actual dollars, too.
Truly small donors cannot be counted on to keep donating -- and it's not just the money donated in the past that buys "access" to politicians; it's the ability to count on them for future donations.
That's why large donors concern the ethics watchdogs and campaign-finance reform proponents.
Posted by: Deb | July 02, 2008 at 12:30 PM
On what basis do you contend that small donors cannot be counted on to keep donating, yet large donors can? Do you have any evidence that Obama's small donor fundraising engine has slowed down, relative to large donors?
Posted by: Adam | July 02, 2008 at 02:00 PM
Adam,
It's the math, and it relates to the size of donors' bank accounts.
GENUINELY small DONORS (those who can't afford to donate large sums, let alone repeatedly) are limited as to significant future donations for the same reason that they're limited as to present donations: they DON'T HAVE MONEY.
That's the bottom line.
RE: your second point: yes, I have come across evidence, though not proof.
The Campaign Finance institute suggests that Obama is not pulling in quite the money that he was before:
"As election day gets closer, Obama’s substantially slower fundraising pace raises questions about whether the endurance of his vaunted fundraising machine and its predominantly small donor base are being overestimated by pundits.
"Although some have argued that Obama’s small donor fundraising has spiked during Internet appeals around specific primaries, most of the recent decline has occurred during a period of intense primary competition with Hillary Clinton culminating in the contests in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina.
"Although small donations have become relatively more important to Obama since February, providing 63% of his contributions in May (they have supplied 49% of his funds overall since January 2007), they have NOT BEEN SUFFICIENT to maintain his previous level of receipts. "
http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=195
We have to wait a few months and see how the genuine small donors give to Obama.
And (again) we can't merely count the small donations, as anyone can divvy up a $1000 donation in to ten $100 donations -- it's especially easy if you donate online, like I did for Hillary.
Another point worth noting from CFI: Obama's small-donor engine started up only this year. It's NOT the long lived phenomenon that Obama's campaign and some media folks seem to think it is.
Please don't start arguing that he has a more impressive portion of money coming from small donors than other candidates. I already KNOW that, and that's not my point.
Simultaneously, Obama also has a more impressive actual dollar-amounts coming from large donors than any other candidate.
Posted by: Deb | July 02, 2008 at 04:33 PM
It seems the evidence you are pointing to proves the exact opposite of what you claim.
Note my question again (emphasis added):
"Do you have any evidence that Obama's small donor fundraising engine has slowed down, RELATIVE TO LARGE DONORS?"
I knew he hasn't kept up with his record February numbers of late - that doesn't really prove anything.
Now, note the data you cited:
"... small donations have become relatively more important to Obama since February, providing 63% of his contributions in May (they have supplied 49% of his funds overall since January 2007)..."
So, the relative share has increased, not decreased. If anything, it appears that the small donation engine has remained fairly strong while the BIG donators have dried up (or, more likely, hit the $2300 cap).
That said, I expect Obama's big money donations to increase again in June/July, in both an absolute and a relative sense, as former Hillary supporters cut $2300 checks.
Posted by: Adam | July 02, 2008 at 05:18 PM
I suspect that many online dirty tricks have been used by Obama supporters, for in addition to the never ending avalanche of nasty sarcastic posts from pro Obama bloggers ... the unprecedented online fund raising by the Obama camp ... the online dominance by several pro Obama websites, like Huffington ... and, this recent blocking of anti-Obama bloggers, several times, when I posted anti-Obama, Pro Clinton, pro McCain posts to sites who guranteed the aminitiy of my email address ... I ended up getting hundreds and hundreds of pieces of spam in my mail box shortly after each time I posted.
Posted by: Howard | July 15, 2008 at 01:54 PM
Whenever I post a pro McCain blog on CNN's 'Ask Jack Cafferty' blog, not only do they moderate my blog and reject publishing it ... I immediately get 300 to 600 pieces of spam in my mail box.
Posted by: Lee | July 29, 2008 at 07:28 PM
HI Lee,
I'm not a McCain supporter, but I think people should be allowed to support him without being bullied.
I'm unnerved by the way that many media and Obama supporters are outright taking it personally and turning against fellow Americans who don't support Obama.
It reminds me of those scary years after 9/11 and before Hurricane Katrina when people were afraid to criticize or question President Bush.
Posted by: D. Cupples | August 01, 2008 at 11:23 AM