Thursday, September 07, 2006

Blog Wars

First, two posts. From the Lamont campaign blog, September 2nd:
It appears you’ll be able to comment. Please understand this is at least in part, a trap. ...

They are going to take whatever questionable comments might appear and pass them off in press releases to discredit our grassroots supporters who actively participate in politics online.

They’ve done it repeatedly w/ comments on other blogs, and they know your disappointment in his un-yielding support for President Bush and the status quo will likely manifest itself on joe2006.

Sure… express your disappointment. Tell him he’s wrong on the issues you care about if you must. Just know he isn’t listening, and anyone that crosses the line is either doing our effort no good, and I’d guess is probably even a Connecticut for Lieberman Party supporter trying to discredit you.

This post was actually commented upon by Dan Gerstein in his initial blog posting, and labelled "cynical."

Gloriously, four days later this piece appeared on the Lieberman blog:
Is this the Lamont campaign's idea of civil discourse?

"Joe Lieberman probably killed more Americans by Rubber-Stamping Brownie for FEMA than we lost on 9/11. They're still finding corpses now."

(Posted in our comments by LiebermanForLieberman at 1:23 pm on 09.06.06 - )


I have been checking out the Lieberman blog, and so far the big story there is the huge number of comments, most of which seem to be anti-Lieberman. The net is not his friend.

The blog itself is not bad, although the color scheme is kind of depressing. It is similar to the Lamont campaign blog in that each takes pleasure in attacking the other, and that each serves as a rallying point for Lamont supporters. There's a difference in tone and general atmosphere that I can't quite pin down. Both blogs have a lot of energy, but the Lieberman blog seems a lot more defensive and angry. In part, this is probably because Tim Tagaris is speaking to friends and supporters, while the Lieberman bloggers are at odds with most of their readers.

Then again, maybe the blogs are just reflecting the general mood of each campaign.


Anonymous said...

What I really find incredible about the Lieberman blog, is that it has overnight turned into the biggest blog on the internet. It is almost doubling the daily kos, and while I do love CLP, it is blowing you out of the water in terms of comments. Yes, the vast majority of them are negative, but to the Lieberman campaign's credit, and CT Bob hit this right on the head, the Lieberman Blog is distracting bloggers, and keeping their criticism largely concentrated in one place. Really quite interesting.

cgg said...

I think part of what's going on is that Tim Tagaris actually knows what he's doing. Say what you will about Ned Lamont but his campaign has utilized the Internet better than any major political campaign we've seen so far. The blog is particularly well done, and I say that as someone who usually hates offcial campaign blogs. There is a nice mix of cheer leading and rapid response. It's fun to read.

What I'm curious to know is why the Lieberman blog hasn't attracted more attention from supporters? We know they're online. Many who support Lieberman participate here as well as other blogs. My theory is that Joe's official blog is just that bad. They don't even blog about Joe. Mostly they throw spitballs at Lamont and his supporters. It can't be fun to read even for Joe's supporters. The comments section is hostile, but far more interesting than any of the posts.

I'm wondering how much longer Joe's blog will remain active.

Genghis Conn said...

Agreed about the Lamont campaign and the internet. They really do know what they're doing.

GC's Really a Lefty! said...

More Rah Rah from Genghis Conn for Lamont! You know GC, since you're obviously more far left than you originally portrayed yourself, you should take Gabe's place as a "progressive" poster and replace yourself with a true moderate. Really, why continue with this charade when we've all seen your true blueness.

bluecoat said...

InLamont softens stance on Iraq PETER URBAN , Lamont says:"If we withdrew immediately, it would, in fact, create an all-out civil war and possibly a regional war with Iran invading the southern part of Iraq,", which is in stark contrast to his soundbite during the primary campaign when he said we are stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war and he also quotes General casey out of context again in the article.

The CT GOP screwed up when the decided not to take on neocon Joe for whatever reason - probably on orders from Karl Rove.

bluecoat said...

Lamont softens stance on Iraq PETER URBAN
maybe I got it right this time.

Anonymous said...

Bluecoat - please note that the quote you attribute to Lamont about Iraq/iran etc. in your 10:59 post is actually a quote from Lieberman.

Also not that, despite the title of the article, there is no actual evidence cited that Ned changed any of his positions.

bluecoat said...

dumb me: I read it fast this morning and did it again; but I'll leave it up with this retraction on the misquote.