I've seen that somewhere else. Can't recall where, but I've seen it. It's a spam comment. It's selling you something, the meme, the idea that there is this huge conspiracy against McCain and Palin, for Obama and Biden.

Mark my word, this is going to blow in a few days. The perp is in for hard times.

Simon

The only thing "Sarah" left out is a claim that 6'4" dark-skinned black men are attacking McCain volunteers and scratching backward B's into their cheeks to teach them a lesson.

Maybe she'll include it (and you'll post it) in the next draft.

I'm suspicious too. I believe there are people deliberately making false comments in blogs. I've seen them, they're too obvious to miss and they claim to have been 'life-long conservatives' who have suddenly 'switched sides'. But these are individual efforts. An organized conspiracy of the size implied here though? Nah. Oh, I don't doubt that there are those who suggest to others to join in such activities, and some will, but I don't think they get enough cooperation to have any measurable impact. People are just too lazy.

I've seen many comments in conservative blogs, too, that are so far over the top (dare I say "nazi-like"?) by those claiming to be concerned conservatives and are obviously written by someone trying to make conservatives look bad. These, too, are individual efforts. But not a grand organized effort.

If there is any doubt planted in the minds of people, it's done by the media and the pollsters and it's done to present a picture of overwhelming support for Obama by the public that isn't quite true.

I'm with Oyster. Anyone who claims this phenomenon doesn't exist is either lying or not paying attention. Well, or maybe just need to 'get out' a little more, because it's all over the blogs. I even see it in the chain emails getting flashed around.

I'm not sure who they think they are fooling because they're never one of the 'usual suspects' on any given blog and their 'conservative credentials' evaporate once they are asked to espouse anything actually conservative.

Rumor has it that they are paid minimum wage to boost Obama.

BTW the trouble they have is one of psychology. Republicans tend to understand Democrats (many of them having been Democrats once - myself included), but Democrats do not get Republicans. So the fakers do not do a good job of impersonating Republicans.

The problem for the Oh Bummer! campaign is that the tactic works for about a week or two and then just leads to amusement followed by determination to vote no matter what. Had they saved the tactic for the last two weeks of the election it might have done them some good. At this point it is just working to increase McCain turnout.

Nobel, your reference to that crazy chick is the classic example of the cornered liberal argument retreat: Change the subject. It's such a desperate and immediate measure that you might have well admitted you're posting from Obama central.

Intersting that Alan and Nobel posted first. I guess if your full time job is to spam sites you'd probably catch stuff first.

Guys, the "I used to be a republican..." tactic is a couple years old (probably decades, but much more relevant in the internet age) and a campaign that's as flush with cash as Obama's has the resources to do this sort of shenanigans. It's in line with the corrupt chicago political style that's so famous as well.

So, how is the pay for this sort of work anyway?

Alan,

It is no conspiracy. It is a paid for effort.

This doesn't pass the smell test. If she was so uncomfortable, why wait until 11/5 to resign? I originally saw this posted on a PUMA website and the women there didn't believe it either. Dem trolls are so easy to spot.

dfenstrate

I'm not changing the subject at all. I was merely pointing out that this "Sarah's" comment was so obviously fraudulent that the only thing it really needed to be complete was something with a little more zazz.

I'm just trying to help, because if this is all McCain supporters have left in the tank, they need all the help they can get.

Well, unlike those who don't like to hear things that make them feel uncomfortable, I'm not going to flat out deny it's happening (like a couple here). Yes, it IS happening. I've seen it many times. I'm only questioning the magnitude of it and how they're all being paid. If you want to make a real impact, of the size and scope this woman is implying, that's a lot of people to pay - hundreds of thousands - perhaps more. hell, they'd be the biggest employer in the country.

Just want to make myself clear.

"I'm just trying to help, because if this is all McCain supporters have left in the tank, they need all the help they can get."

Well, Mr. Dynamite, I could imply the same for the Democrats. If this is the type of tactics some will use, then they too obviously feel they're in dire straights.

M.Simon

Who is paying for "Sarah's" heartfelt confession?

Oyster

"If this is the type of tactics some will use, then they too obviously feel they're in dire straights."

Wait, so you think "Sarah's" comment is a double-reverse? She's actually an Obama operative posing as a McCain supporter posing as an Obama staffer? Really?

I think it is well to be suspicious of the provenance of this letter. I consider it possible but unproven. Dr. Nobel Dynamite, OTOH, can have no possible knowledge that it is "obviously fraudulent" - it just seems that way to him and it feels cool to say, so he doesn't hesitate to...exaggerate?...overstate?...hmm, what's the word I'm looking for here?

Irony bites, Dr.

A.V.I.

"Dr. Nobel Dynamite, OTOH, can have no possible knowledge that it is 'obviously fraudulent'"

I guess you're right. The only thing that makes "Sarah" obviously fraudulent is common sense, past experience, and the fact that I have a functioning brain stem. If I didn't have any of those, I could see why I might think "Sarah" could be legit. I concede your point about direct, first-hand knowledge, however.*

C'mon A.V.I., I don't think you're gullible enough to swallow something like this.

* of course that's just what I would say if I were a paid Obama disinformation specialist

I would discount this if the fact that the whole astroturfing Ethan Winner video debacle. Someone was watching right-of-aisle sites 24/7 to respond that quickly in the middle of the night, and contact Winner personally to get the videos taken down.

That speaks to money and a command/control/communications network.

And why should anyone believe you're not a Republican plant?

Frankly, I don't think it's in Obama's interest to have the polls artificially inflated, because then large numbers of Dem voters may think they don't have to bother actually voting. And then he might lose.

It's a stupid conspiracy, and I think we all know he's not stupid.

Nobel, please. You know as well as I do that Moby advocated this sort of "I used to be a republican..." nonsense years ago, and Daily Kos and others gleefully pronounce their dominance of the web- the only thing less probable than people getting paid to do it is that you're not one of them.

dfenstrate

Let's get this straight--Simon posts a comment from a purported Obama campaign staffer that reads like a laundry list of Rush Limbaugh's favorite talking points, and you think this illustrates *Democratic* shenanigans? You're going to have to explain that a little better for me.

"the only thing less probable than people getting paid to do it is that you're not one of them."

I need to call the campaign and request my back pay.

Are you pretending no one is paid to troll the web in any campaign?

dfenstrate

"Are you pretending no one is paid to troll the web in any campaign?"

I suspect that it happens, but is very, very rare.

Now, assuming for the sake of argument that someone paid "Sarah" to make her confession. Which campaign would have done so?

Who is paying whom? we may get a clue when Dr Dynamite vanishes from the blogosphere on Nov. 5...

M. Simon,

Did I mention conspiracy? No, you assumed I was implying conspiracy. A conspiracy isn't even necessary, nor does the poster have to be paid. More likely an individual voluntary effort crossposted to many threads. Plain vanilla trolling in other words.

First let me say to Dr. Nobel that I welcome his input here, and that I would hardly call him a troll simply because he doesn’t appear to agree with the majority opinion at Classical Values. Further, I disagree with whoever suggested that Dr. Nobel will disappear when the election is over. No matter that many of us love to be surrounded by those who agree with us, when the blog is called Classical Values, surely we should expect to draw commentors who value free speech. Frankly, I came here hoping to find many more Dr. Nobels… people who could politely and firmly state their own opinion, albeit different than mine. Instead, and equally as wonderful, I found eric and Simon who seem to speak for me sometimes, because frankly, I couldn’t have said it any better.
The very neat thing for me is how eric and Simon have conducted this site’s dialogue through agreement and disagreement. Thank you for that. Classical Values? You betcha!

Now all that being said, I think we have a really hot topic on our hands with this entry about “Sara P.’s confession.” So far, I think that we all agree there are internet trolls, and that some internet trolls are paid. Before we can continue, I think we need to define exactly what we mean by “internet trolls”? I know Simon said before he has been unceremoniously relieved of his ability to comment on a few sites, and I, myself, have been so honored. In some cases, not before being labeled a “troll”, and subjected to all that word seems to imply. So? How would we describe “internet troll” here at Classical Values?