Operation Chaos: online edition -- Is the person you are arguing (or agreeing) with an operative?

Many of us are aware of the various tactics of the right, whether official, clandestine or freelance. But it doesn't hurt to remind us that the two people fighting might be there just to suck others in.

From a Kos diary by publiusJ
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/5/02632/84007/663/490550





When an outrage reaches a certain level of stupid, or when a particular theme pops up simultaneously from several people at once, it could be a coordinated assault. You can often see clues, or copy a phrase and paste it in google to check if it has been copy/pasted from a nefarious source, etc. But what is the best reaction to these things? Do you join in, ignore, just laugh and push it toward the silly/surreal? I really don't know the best answer, and perhaps it is some combination of the above. regardless, it is wise to keep these things in mind, and try to discern underlying motives. Try to find ways to reach out to those you KNOW are good dems, and minimize the escalation of rancor, so that we can fight together for a dem victory this fall, no matter the nominee.

Let's keep our eyes on the prize.
The stakes are too high for anything less than a repudiation of Bush v3.0.

instead of Hillary. I've stated I'll never vote for Hillary, but I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR MCCAIN!!!
What a repulsion. One of the reasons I can't stand HRC is due to her love of the pasty POW.
If someone hates Hillary so, that vile would surely spread to McCain by association if nothing else.

I figured the poster was a freeper but no one called him out. Just ignored him. Good policy.

I'm sure I've read posts by operatives. Their bleating gives them away.

I read actually said he would vote for McCain. I'll try to find it when I get home later.

...oh what's another word for a person who presents the news? Oh yeah...a “journalist” :)

Provocateurs are very hard to root out. It would certainly be a smart and easy strategy for the opposition.

I mean the "refuse to tolerate" part.
What does that consist of?

on where they would say memes like "Nazi Germany was leftist nor right wing". You could also sniff them out when they "had just come back from a tour of duty in Iraq" when stop loss had been in play for months.

I'm sure there are a few on the DU. But what to do. As long as we keep taking our pulse and remind ourselves the GOP is the enemy..I believe we will all come together and vote them out come November.

It happens a lot in the private sector, people talking up products and the like. They are done by PR firms that then subcontract out the labor.

There are probably many different funding models for this, from the KRove/roger Stone types to college Republicans to self- collected freelance groups starting up their own little clubs. Some individuals are just shit-stirrers by nature, and tend to follow certain patterns, adapting as they see fit. Garden variety trolls, etc.


So we can't really "fight" them, just become immune to them and teach others to keep the salt grains nearby. This, in addition to just treating people respectfully in general, can go a long way in keeping our fellow dems/progressives from self-combustion.

His name is Peter Feddo

:evilgrin:

That site is high on the irony ladder.

First link just says he is a bit incompetent.

second, that he is treasurer for VoteHillaryPAC. I have no problem with that.
Unless there is some evidence of running a disrupter campaign with it, it's a legit part of politics.

third, that he is a web developer (using civicspace/drupal CMS) and graphic designer -- hey, me too!
Except that the company he works for, NGP, has an impressive client list, including both Hillary and Barack.


I am not sure how that translates to operative working to divide the dems up or undermine progressive netroots activism.
Maybe I am missing something?

More like a false front kind of fellow. Posing as an ordinary voter type thing. He's more than the treasurer for that PAC - he started that PAC and received some nice donations from Emily's list. The young man has been pushing her since at least 2005:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/06/sitroom.01.html - half way down the page.

Something's not right about it. Seems to me he poses as an average citizen but is really a professional fundraiser. Could just be me, but dude seems fishy.

But if so, it seems he is just a player within the dems, and not a gop party divider. I really want to keep this thread focused on outside influence, and not aimed at any candidate's agenda. The hope was to inform people in BOTH "camps" that the worst of each could be just playing us, though it seems that many who could benefit by acknowledging that have avoided this thread. Indeed, there is now a joke thread about being an operative for Hillary,HEHEHE, so maybe they thought it was aimed at them. It most assuredly was not, but what can ya do?

I am glad for the folks who did drop by, and you and they had some interesting thoughts.
I want to support DEMOCRATS, regardless of candidate preference.

But keep following your nose when you smell fish. We don't need Rove or Roger Stone types in our party.

I will not argue with it. Of course there are disruptors. Many of them not so hidden.

Take the professional pundits who are supposed to be liberals. Joe Klein, Maureen Dowd and Richard Cohen, just to name a few.

Turn around and hear radio blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, who rally their listeners to cross over the aisle and vote in our Democratic primaries.

Are there people in the shadows, posting on message boards or joining liberal groups in order to divide us? Absolutely. Do such people join DU in order to spread dissent? Probably. Should we fear them? Hell, no.

The thing I like most about the Internet is the never-ending sense of skepticism of its population. I expect to be challenged. I wouldn't have it any other way. It matters not to me if that challenge comes from an agent provocateur or from one of my fellow Democrats. I bow to all the cynics. They keep us on our toes.

As for the trouble-makers, they always end up exposed. That's fun too. :)

Ah my nose was itching, a sure sign someone was gossiping about me! As much as I appreciate miss blogslut's attempts to impugn my character and cast aspersions upon my work I think it necessary to set the record straight.

1) I work hard to get Democrats elected every working moment of every work day. I enjoy it, I love my party and our candidates.
2) I support Hillary Clinton for President. Deal with it.
3) I make no secret about who I am, and when I say something bold I sign my name to it. Thats more than can be said for anonymous comments on a blog.
4) I like to think of myself as an average person, I have no superpowers nor exceptional talents that could bring home the trophy at a talent show. I am a campaign professional, but I am still a grassroots activist at heart.

So blogslut or any other folks hiding behind pseudonyms, if you have an issue with me, or a question about my motives feel free to talk to me directly instead of casting shadowy speculation about on a blog. My email is Peter@PeterFeddo.com. My telephone number is 804-796-1875. I'd love it if you read my blog at http://www.peterfeddo.com, perhaps you'd develop a more informed opinion about me.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/exclinton_insider_launches_uni_1.php



Domain name: voteboth.com

Registrant:
Peter Feddo (KZWGX)
10 S Boulevard
Richmond, Virginia 23220
United States
Phone: +1 (804) 796-1876

Administrative Contact:
Peter Feddo (QFJD3)
10 S Boulevard
Richmond, Virginia 23220
United States
Phone: +1 (804) 796-1876

Technical Contact:
Peter Feddo (KZWGX)
10 S Boulevard
Richmond, Virginia 23220
United States
Phone: +1 (804) 796-1876

Billing Contact:
Peter Feddo (S3QPT)
10 S Boulevard
Richmond, Virginia 23220
United States
Phone: +1 (804) 796-1876

Record last updated on 2008-03-23 00:00:00
Record created on 2008-03-21 00:00:00
Record expires on 2009-03-21 00:00:00

Domain servers in listed order:
ns1.xname.org
ns0.xname.org 213.11.111.252

Looks like a public domain name registration with nothing obscured or hidden. I support Hillary Clinton, I help organize and support grassroots activities in my free time for her as I've done for several years. Your personal attacks lead me to suspect you are implying something shadowy is in play. Unfortunately there is no such excitement to share with you. I registered a domain and configured a temporary website for a campaign friend.

More to the point, why are you engaging in personal attacks on me? Meanwhile I notice your own site hides behind a veil of anonymity:


Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.

DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: BLOGSLUT.COM
Created on: 16-Nov-03
Expires on: 16-Nov-08
Last Updated on: 12-Sep-07

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration BLOGSLUT.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration BLOGSLUT.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599

Domain servers in listed order:
NS.WEBAIR.NET

So while I'm out doing positive things in the sunlight helping Democrats get elected you are operating in the dark and attacking fellow Dems. I kindly ask that if you have an issue with me, my volunteer activities, or a general political inquiry just shoot me an email. I'm more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

I hide behind privacy registration as a matter of personal safety.

So, you admit that you are responsible for the voteboth website. You are pushing for a unity ticket. You pose as a grassroots person yet you work as a professional online campaign organizer. Are you not employed by the Clinton campaign? Perhaps a contractor?

Can you explain why Patty Solis Doyle has domain that also resides on your hosting server? Are you still working for her?

I imagine that when someone makes thousands of scurrilous and anonymous statements on websites that they harbor certain paranoias. Obviously that paranoia isn't just limited to your personal security, but your world view.

I think you've really missed your point here and are now grasping at straws. Originally you argued that I wasn't a Democrat in good standing and out to hurt Democratic campaigns. Someone shot you down on that point and then you suggested that my activities on behalf of Democrats were dubious. That's the point when I stepped in and cleared things up. Now that these attempts to disparage my volunteer activities failed you are making a shameful attack by association.

So of course rather than talk about the merit for or against our candidates and selecting a nominee we are stuck here debating different ways for you to sully my character.

1) I support Hillary Clinton for President. Deal with it. I am not employed by a presidential campaign, never have been and honestly I never have a desire to work on such a staff. Nor as you imply do I have any connection paid or otherwise to such a campaign. I am and shall remain an online grassroots activist.

2) As an IT professional many people come to me for online advice. I'm sure that 90% of the people on DU are referred to as "my tech savvy friend". In this case I helped her former assistant with the task of registering her domain. I'd love to work for her, but unfortunately I have never had the pleasure.

I am glad we had this little back and forth, it really means a lot that someone is out there reading about my support for Democrats. If you should ever grow out of this paranoia and shed your anonymity I'd be delighted to share a civil conversation with you.

I am a private citizen from a very small town. My safety is important to me and protecting that safety has nothing to do with my political views.

I did not say you were a GOP operative. I said that you pose as a grassroots citizen but you are, in fact, a professional campaign consultant. You claim you are not employed by any campaign yet the company you work for lists both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as clients.

http://www.ngpsoftware.com/clients

You claim that you helped Ms Solis-Doyle's personal assistant register a domain for her. Would that former assistant be Adam Parkhomenko? The same Adam Parkhomenko whom Marc Ambinder says is behind voteboth.com?

Why is voteboth.com registered under your name? Are you denying that you are not part of this voteboth website?

Why is solisdoyle.com residing on a hosting server that you pay for?

I am not disparaging your character. I am simply suggesting that you are misrepresenting yourself.

As for me, I have no character. I am a bad, bad person. Some might call me bottom feeder. But in the words of famous bottom feeder, Larry Flynt:

"Yeah, but look what I found on the bottom."

My original post obviously is not about political consultants and/or activists at all, as you can see from this thread. I am glad to have skilled professionals working to bring democrats to the internet in a cost-effective way. It is a much needed service.

I can certainly "Deal with it" if you are a Clinton supporter, Biden, Kucinich, whatever. No need to feel defensive about that, regardless of the less than friendly reason for you finding DU. My concern here on Du's GDP forum (and a primary reason for this thread)is the rancor, whether aggravated by outside influences or human nature in general, as I think it weakens us (regardless of nominee) going into the election this fall. I am sure you would agree with that, and if you take a quick look around, you will find much evidence of this coming from both sides.


As to "hiding behind pseudonyms" being a gauge of a person's ethical standards, I have found that people who have a high standard will act with integrity whether they have a pseudonym or not. There are many here that have very high standards, as well as very low, and it is quite likely that carries over to their "real" life. There are legitimate reasons to prefer anonymity, especially in more conservative areas, and personal safety from stalkers is one of the obvious. I also appreciate your openness and transparency, and think it right to acknowledge that.

As I stated in an earlier post, I too am a web/graphics person involved in social media, and use drupal as my "go to" in open source CMS, so we have that in common. It is a very powerful and modular environment - hats off to you for being a part of that community, and spreading its footprint. As to your itchy nose, I am sure that drupal's admin modules or an email tip was as helpful as any psychic powers, so I can vouch that you were not using any occult means in finding us. ;)

I can see that you are a busy fellow, but when you have time, perhaps you could spend some time on DU providing some personal insight as we go through this election cycle and, hopefully, a new democratic administration.

for Obama in the GE. Some of those Hillary supporters are buying it hook, line and sinker. Poor stooges.

Go disrupt DU's GDP. Must pay a whole lot.

Because McCain will alienate people just as easily in the GE as he does now and even Clinton supporters that cant stand Obama will come around.

When they see the crap McCain has done they will come around.

:radio: :tv: :daily:

i wanna know too
im already on here
i may as well pick up a few bucks
if we all take DU disruptor money from the GOP maybe we can break their bank?

I think the important thing is not the focus on payscale or the individuals, but raising the awareness that there is more to outrage industry than meets the eye. We can get so close to it, and drawn in, that it creeps into our preconceptions of the "opposition" within our party.

A personal example - my tx delegation to our senate district convention has both Obama and Clinton supporters, but we got along perfectly well, and there was not the slightest bit of disagreement that we needed to pull together for whichever candidate was the nominee. We shared snacks and stories, and worked together to confirm vote counts and find each other among thousands of people. When I tried to explain that positive scenario to a strong supporter of candidate X, she accused me of spouting BS and being a cheater.

Was she an operative? I doubt it, but she was likely so manipulated over time that her ability to accept a narrative other than total battle mode to be an attempt at deception. Somewhat like hard core fundies that shun any info that disrupts their "faith" as the whisperings of the devil.

This is a real weak spot in human psychology, and can be exploited rather easily...

The internet masses are to elections what the folks in the bleachers are to football games, only the internet people actually have a shot at influencing the game. Case in point: Little Green Footballs and Rathergate.

Keep the folks in the bleachers too confused and/or distracted by bullshit, and they don't cheer at the appropriate times, they can't point out when the refs miss a foul.

DU has been gamed, and well. Isn't it odd that the one place Democrats and Democratically-minded people can't go to have rational conversations, among like-minded people of differing perspectives is Democratic Underground.com? For that matter, Kos, as well, is turning off people. Why on earth does anyone think these are accidents?

Beyond just the division/outrage angle, the loss of a place to compare/contrast and actually have some influence has been vastly minimized.
Some months ago, when I was in "warning" mode about what we would lose in the escalation of rancor, it was that we would lose our "collective intelligence" advantages. You summed it up quite succinctly.

But soon they will be muzzled to some extent...once Obama has been nominated.

once we are down to the actual nominee their antics become transparent
now they hide behind our own partisanship thinking they will drive us apart
i know in my heart that any real dem will vote for obama just as they would for hillary

this sounds like Karl Rove at his most brilliant. Until a few weeks ago, I never used the Ignore feature. Since then I have used it judiciously but frequently. What I have noticed is that, when there is a very good thread, that we should all be interested in as progressive Americans, that guy Ignore does not even show up. I have seen so many positive posts immediately countered by ridiculous negative comments. I honestly believe that there is more than candidate loyalty at play here. Let's not get sucked in.

You are good wordsmith, FightingIrish.
Pithy and to the point.

Have seen quite a few Obama supporters calling for it though.

Yes, it makes me wonder.

That we are not willing to flush this country for blind ambition and mindless partisanship?

You won't hear me call for Hillary as VP. If that makes you wonder, just ask. I'll gladly fill in the details.

What part don't you get?

I am not sure that makes a person an operative to want that, but it could be. Repubs are not too happy with Hagel either, and some "centrists" go waay too far to find some "unity ticket"...we agree that is not the way to go.

I think some of the people making outrageous racist and sexist remarks, or stirring up major outrage over relatively small things are more likely to be freepers, or general shit-stirrers. If we speak to each other respectfully and maybe even about policy differences (!) and even agree to disagree amicably, we can avoid much of the hatefulness here.

I have absolutely NO problems with your supporting your choice, and will work for the democrat this fall, regardless of outcome. I hope you will do the same, but if not, that is your choice as well. Democracy is like that. I think we both want similar things, for the most part.

Holding him in high esteem is hardly traitorous. Mentioning him as a potential name on the VP short list means nothing. Christ, McCain was mentioned in 2004 as a VP for Kerry -- should I have not voted for Kerry because some Democrats committed that crime?

Sometimes, you have to make friends and alliances wherever you can.

Did you really get that from what I wrote?
If so, I was not clear at all, sorry.
I don't throw around the term lightly, as some might. Not even sure where that came in.
I just don't think he would be a good VP for Obama.

I don't like Bill cozying up to Poppy, either.
We need to kill the idea of repubs being stronger on national security, and putting a Republican in Defense or State would not help in that. Don't take that as calling anyone treasonous.

We need to stop escalating our own rhetoric, much less each others, if we can help it.

:hi:

:evilgrin:

Or did they kill your little sock, pit viper?

I have Hagel's new book and he isn't insane or anything. He's anti-neoconservative and tried with some democrats to put restraints on their policies.

They hit my ignore list at first crossing. Why waste the electrons?

I am suspicious of sloppy 'fast' posts which lack logic or reason and have lots of highly loaded words. Of course all of us lose it sometimes when we get emotional about something, but when the tone doesn't change, I SUSPECT (but don't KNOW) a conscious or unconscious disrupter. Some big alarm buttons for me are phrases like "there's no way that . . . ", "Every sane person knows . . . " "I hate . . . ", ". . . race . . . kill . . . destroy . . . lie . . . race . . . kill . . .", etc.

A way to respond, I think--other than just alerting, which seems about right to me, sometimes--involves the following (IMHO):

o Do NOT allow yourself to be brought down to a level of hatred and namecalling, no matter how vile the post.
o Evidence, reason and compassion are remarkably powerful against hateful invective.
o Rinse, repeat. That is, these hit and run posters can usually be worn out and/or run off if you patiently keep responding in a calm and intelligent way.
o Keep in mind that, even if the poster is a disrupter, it is a good exercise to try disarm the disrupter calmly and skillfully. Why? Because in the general election coming up, the Rovian types are going to do everything in their power to get Americans (and the world at large) fighting viciously with each other. This is how conservatives win elections--by dividing the opposition and then creating an impression of hopeless chaos which makes a fascistic candidate seem attractive. Trying to out-hate the haters probably won't help. De-escalating the fighting just might help.

I'm not saying it's easy. It's easier to be a hate-flinging Republican than to be a reasonable and compassionate Democrat. I'm just saying that, in the long run, it might be worth the effort.

Of course, every sane person knows that....;)


Seriously, though....good tips.
Sometimes I have helped push a totally negative with high amounts of stupid into the silly/surreal, and not taking it all so seriously. Others use that technique too - the lounge raids are a big help on occasion. (That is, the Lounge folk are silly by nature, and occassionally come to GDP to lighten up the place.)

It is also incumbent upon us to be gracious when possible, give an honest compliment to good posts/posters when deserved, regardless of their candidate choice, and otherwise let folks know that we are not enemies, just allies doing that messy "democracy" stuff.

Agree that it is worth the effort.:hi:

"and not taking it all so seriously". Yes, key point.

It is always a beautiful thing to see someone defuse a tense situation with a little humor. Of course, one isn't always in the mood for playing rattle-snake judo, but it's great when it can be done.

And I agree with your point that a little simple civility goes a long way to avoiding 'accidental' flame wars between otherwise sincere and fair-minded people.

Or rattlesnake juggling, if you are fighting a team of 'em.
A tricky feat.

When I read that, I flashed on a movie I saw as a kid - "shakiest gun in the West" with Don Knotts. In one scene, he chases off some critter (maybe a skunk?) with a whip, and the crowd was acting all impressed. He shrugs it off, saying "It waren't nothin'" but then realizes that the "whip" was actually a rattlesnake.

Thanks for the term, the ideas, and the memory!

Which is one of the many reasons why anyone basing their vote on the actions of people online need immediate clinical help.

And not a single ignored poster on this thread.. go figure .... :shrug:

Of course I have no idea who is on your ignore list, or why.
I have zero ignores, so I am just swimming in it. ;)

I serendipitously tripped across an anti-Obama poster here who wrote a screed about delegates as if it were his own, but it sounded familiar to me. I put a paragraph from his post in Google and discovered he had lifted his whole post from another source without saying he had done so. Not only that, he was one of the indignant critics on Obama's so-called "plagiarism;" when I checked out what he had said about that, he had cut and pasted that, too.

I guess I'll just start responding to that poster's posts with "operation Chaos."

I used to keep that more hush hush, but it is so simple, what the heck.
There are other ways, best left unsaid.


By acting with integrity and teaching / reaching out, we can minimize the damage.
Sometimes, indeed most of the time, people spread viral memes without knowing they are doing so.
This follows standard epidemic growth patterns, with carriers unaware of their role, and the remedies are the same,as far as I can discern:
i.e. education and inoculation (show people how it works, with examples).

The recent "fauxtrage" about the "radical Palestinian" Yeshua bin Yusef is a classic example.
There are, of course, plenty of case studies right here.

the reparations screed. the constant pounding on the same theme even if not appropriate to the thread. i will now in bold letters write freeper alert. when they are so obvious.or when they are obviously race baiting.

The approved method of a rule-breaking disrupter is to hit alert.
But you can use some of the other methods suggested here, draw them out, and correct misinformation.

I do applaud your POV, just want to make sure you don't get punished by going to far in fighting back -- sometimes they will try to taunt you into going too far and getting banned yourself.

tricky devils. ;)

DU is a community that has been very valuable to many over the harsh Bushco cabal era, and we need to act like one.
Each primary we go a little crazy, but in general, there are many good people supporting each other.

Check the smaller groups for great examples of users helping each other cope with health, money, recipes and other special interests. GDP is not representative of the greater whole.

When we get the WH back, the work will just be beginning.
Shaping the future is hard work, after all. ;)

once we have a nominee, that person will either quit posting or be weeded out.

I love DU and the other blogs and forums I visit, but we really don't represent much of the total voting population, and I think it's just silly and a waste of time to post just to disrupt.

You are quite correct that the number of open disrupters should go down once the nominee is chosen, and the mods adapt the new rules that go into effect 7 days later.

The time to do divisive damage is now, while people's minds are still forming opinions within the party, and any doubts can be sown by voices supposedly within a spectrum of trusted sources.
As Rove said, the time to define your opponent is before people's opinions are fully formed.

At first look at the numbers of DUers and other net communities, you are correct - it is a small percentage of the total voting population.

BUT. These numbers don't reflect the true shape of influence and, ultimately, the framework within which the voters decide on our candidates.

In marketing and social media, getting your ideas (product) into the "influentials" is key to viral marketing. The liberal blogosphere is relatively small, but the consumers of that include second-tier influentials (that's us) who then talk to their families and friends, and link to others in chain mail fashion.
It also travels "UP" the foodchain, into the corporate media - many of the ideas that show up on cable pundit gabfests come from the like of TPM, Kos, ThinkProgress, and yes, even DU.

Take a look at this link and related ones to get a glimpse of the underlying structures of social media marketing.
http://www.conversationagent.com/2008/01/forget-influent.html

So when people say, "it's just anonymous discussion board, what's the big deal" you will know that it has more influence than a cursory glance would show.
After all, why do we buy the products we use?

I think the Pubs are very worried now and are going to throw every thing at us they can. It is a good thing to post a reminder such as this, every once and a while, for those that may be new or just get caught up in the passion of the moment. I have done so myself when I have seen numerous blatant flame bait threads. Just remember folks they desperate, they realize their arrogance, deceit and lies have caught up to them, they are rabid and frothing at the mouth.

:think:

end up as fodder for the republicans in the GE.

Though I'd be lying if I didn't suggest I think that most of the trolling comes under the banner of a faux clinton supporter.

There are at least two on this forum that work together to attack Obama supporters and the candidate himself. Some honest people have walked into their buzz saw.

And it can be turned on so that the public sees it...but I understand why they wouldn't do that.
I would bet that mods are allowed the proper permissions to see them, and that is how they can catch sock puppets pretty quickly.

Another complication is that if you have a small network connected to one router with NAT, they will ALL show the same IP address, so there's that.

I realize a lot of them can be imposters...on both sides. But, there are an awful lot of long time DUers and fellow Democrats that are attacking Hillary as if they were Karl Rove himself. They drag out every hateful RW talking point and use it against Hillary.
They started all the hate fest around here...and they aren't operatives I assure you. Many are my fellow DUers. And other DUers don't even bother to suggest they aren't playing fair and join in on the kill like a lot of jackals. And they wonder why we are mad when they say we are crybaby sore losers.

But all I can control is my own behavior, just the same as you.
Maybe if we do it, along with others, we can become the change we seek.

Last fall I got attacked by Clinton supporters who said that she was so inevitable that they didn't need progressives at all - I told them I thought we should welcome progressives, because a broad based party is far more capable of the deep changes we need now. It did not go over well at all. This was when I was still hoping for Gore to step in, and I was not rude in any way, nor arguing for or against a candidate - just saying we didn't need to "cut off" any part of our party.

I have seen rude posters across the spectrum here over the years, from DLC centrists to radical left fringe. Some folks just get so deep into ideology that they forget they are talking to real people. I hope we can change the tone for the better, Auntie Bush, I really do.

And you are quite right - not all of them are operatives.

If most the other Obama supporters thought/posted like you...we wouldn't have all these hard feelings and threats of not voting for our candidate.

It's too bad fellow posters can be so vile to each other on both sides.

I defended both Kerry and Clark from some pretty damn unfair characterizations, and it can really wear one out. And Gore before that, and the Clintons before that, actually. I guess it just goes with the rough and tumble of politics, but to me, politics should be more about ideas and comparing solutions than character assassination. We are all so very weary as we see the possible end to Bush era, and this last leg of the journey should be a celebration of our perseverance and a time for strategies on how we can turn this country around.

If it helps at all, I know many supporters of both Obama and Clinton who I respect and admire. The battleground on the nets is much more nasty in tone than my experiences in "the real world" - like you, I wish we could be interacting in a better way.



In the meantime, I am proud to stand by you as a fellow democrat. :thumbsup:

It's so sad we got into all this name calling and insults instead of each of us supporting our favorite candidate. Live and learn and hope it isn't too late. :thumbsup: and a :hug:

While I don't doubt that Republicans infiltrate progressive sites in an effort to stir up trouble, I also believe there are quite a few people who think of themselves as true blue Democrats but are in reality, more in line with the Green party or Ralph Nader. To them, Nancy Pelosi is a war criminal in cahoots with the Bush Administration, Hillary is "She-Bush" or "Hitlery" and John Kerry in the 2004 election was "Bush-Lite".

I have no doubt that some who support Obama now over "corporate-whore" Clinton will later train their guns on him come the GE (assuming he wins the nomination) and accuse him of becoming a sell out and a traitor to their idea of true Democratic party principles.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5410686&mesg_id=5410686

the cult meme wasn't over the top enough for those assholes.

the graphics are too cute in their inside joke hipness, and will not play well in other areas, such as Arizona because they will not get it.

Obama supports the Arts, the Arts support Obama. Only freepers would get their tighties in a wad over Art being *allowed*.

The feigned concern is a nice touch.

Good grief. This is too much paranoia even for me.

This is not about supporters of either candidate.
This is not about normal discourse, or even extreme views.
This is not even to classify ALL disrupters with one label, or to say they are all paid or not, etc.

This was just a reminder that trolls and operatives can an do work on the net, and that we as progressives (regardless of candidate choice) should not take some of the more extreme statements as indicative of either candidate's supporters in a broad brush way.


Most who have been on boards and blogs are aware of trolls.
I am pretty sure you would agree that they exist.
You probably know of past GOP operations involving phone jamming, fax machine jamming, falsely attributed flyers, whisper campaigns, etc etc.
My premise is that it is more than likely that they are using social media to make mischief, and that awareness of this is good.

You can dismiss it all you want, and your reading of it as "anything I disagree with is an operative" shows a lack of...something.
But sometimes they brag about it on those "other" sites - these are just freelance volunteers.
And outside of the political arena, PR firms do this to pump products ALL the time.

I am a social media consultant, and have talked about it (and the ethics of it - I am against it in principle) with clients and marketing professionals.
You can also read up on those things. It is just an unfortunate part of the real world.

...or would-be operatives. Fewer than we might suspect, I think--and they're welcome, IMO, to waste their time disrupting DU, which is not the center of Democratic operations.

Fewer than we might suspect -- I really don't suspect many to be paid, "genuine" operatives.
In one strategy session for a client, this subject was on the table about a product getting "blog buzz"...we discussed the target markets and their relevant blogs, how to get them on "digg" etc. My position is that it was tricky and risky for various reasons, especially pointing out that we should definitely avoid any negative comparisons to competitors. Overall, I thought it better to just offer bloggers samples with no strings on the outcome, and let chips fall where they may. Discussion group "advocate posts" just seem creepy to me, and that if a product is good there are other ways of getting word out. I ended with the plea that if we DID go that route, only people who really DID like said product should be involved, and reiterated no comparisons. We ended up not using that marketing technique at all, to my relief.

But the more germane bit is that it only takes a small team to make a pretty big impact. Usually 2 lead and 4 or more support, moving in rotation to several sites. Sock puppeting (multi-IDs) within same site is discouraged because they are easily caught. If it were a comparative, 2 leads would take opposing views, or at least complementary views as to the pros/cons of said product, and then go through why one was better, etc. Support as needed, and eventually coming to the "correct" decision as to the best solution. In a political situation, it might be to escalate and aggravate, rather than actually "win" on merits.

I am glad I am more of a graphic artist/tech support person, though I do like the strategy and big picture view of things. I just can't get in the gutter to do marketing. Kind of bill Hicks school of thought there, I would have to kill myself in shame.


For the most part the easy ones to spot are just "shit-stirrers" and are pretty easy to out, as a poster above stated, "It's fun!" - so it's almost an internet game/sport. The "self-styled" or "would-be's" are often pretty pathetic, but I guess I am just a "wannabe" analyst here, right now. ;)

I just come for the free and open source sociology lesson, and have "met" some really good people here in the cyberspace. It's all mind to mind communication, difficult to find here in N tx, or other places. So it is of some value, I think.

:* :radio: :redbox:

For talking civility