OVERBREADTH

You should include a warning to folks with this post. Something like; Listening to this crock of crap before coffee is sure to sour your day.

Or: Clicking here may cause you to grind your teeth into little nubs.

Or: Not for those with weak stomachs.

UGH.

She has not yet started eating puppies on TV. That is the sign for me to start the revolution, which will not televised, because we just inked a seven-figure deal with youtube.

By the way, what is the proper term for broadcast via online video? you-cast? iCast (ooh scary apple lawyers)? I give up.

The way to stop this is to get the word out, and fast. I’m going to try to spread this story to all that I know via e-mail and the blog.

Here’s when she did it before, in California:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/breaking-news-p.html

Shameful. Hopefully it’ll backfire on her this time, if word gets out soon enough.

I wasn’t sure what a push poll was when I read this story this morning. So I made a little post to define it for myself and others who might not be so politically aware.

Here are some of the keywords in the definition:

* Guise - cloak, cover, disguise, false colors, front, mask, masquerade, pretense, pretext, semblance, veil, veneer
* Propaganda - misinformation, distortion, lies, rabble rousing, fear-mongering, demagoguery
* Rumor mongering - Gossiping, scuttlebutt, innuendo, misinforming, calling fire in a crowded theater, crying wolf
* Masquerading - a false outward show, false appearance, pretend to be someone or something that you are not
* Innuendo - insinuation, implication, incrimination
* Negative campaigning - Bush, Rove, Clinton
* Condemned - wrong, guilty, worthless, unacceptable
* Illegal - against the law, prohibited, criminal

Listening to that really did ruin my mood on this once in a lifetime sunny day in Ireland, thanks for the definitions Deborah

Push polling is a pretty vulgar political stunt, evocative of Karl Rove politics.

If you think Obama surrogates aren’t doing it too, you’re sadly mistaken.

Ran some Google searches. I’m guessing if a Clinton supporter got a push-poll, they’d be inclined to report it to create a scandal for Obama. Here’s what we find:

“pro-Clinton push poll” : 1700 results

“pro-Obama push poll” : 0 results

Interesting. Lets try it the other way:

“anti-Obama push poll” : 158 results

“anti-Clinton push poll” : 5 results

Okay, so five results. Lets see who they’re from:

1. An email to Clinton supporters from Clinton’s campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle.
2. An accusation by Clinton’s staff.
3. A characterization of a poll by Zogby International (clearly not an Obama surrogate).
4. A comment in which someone makes the point that there aren’t reports of anti-Clinton push polls (”Until I see a diary here from someone who received an anti-Clinton push poll…”).
5. An anonymous comment on a blog “you seem to be blind to every anti-Clinton push poll out there,” in reference to a thread citing reports of an anti-Obama push poll.

Cameron, with all due respect, does that methodology really have any provenance? If anything, it could confirm the Clinton people’s complaint that Obama gets a free pass when he and his surrogates play political stunts.

I myself was not a recipient of a pro-bama push poll call, and I assume you weren’t either, but I know of several people who were, on the eve of the California primary.

It reminds me a bit of that old Carl Sagan quote, if four million americans are getting abducted by aliens, it’s strange none of my neighbors have noticed (or something like that). The Google searches are admittedly not scientific, but the point is there don’t appear to be credible reports of Obama push polling (as compared to actual recordings and numerous accounts of Clinton push polling). I think Occam’s razor is helpful for deciding why we’re not able to find more accounts:

One possibility you introduce is that the lack of reports is due to Obama getting a “free pass.” I’ve heard Clinton supporters make this argument in the context of television and print (though I don’t buy it), but I’ve never heard it made in the context of the internet. How would such an internet free pass be implemented? The search engines, I imagine, would have to be in on it. Is my site going to disappear from the internet if I post an audio recording of an Obama push poll?

On the other hand, there’s the possibility that the accounts of push polling aren’t coming up in searches, because Obama’s campaign isn’t push polling. Even if you believe everything negative you’ve ever heard about Obama, you might still come to the conclusion that a sneaky campaign willing to do anything isn’t push polling, because negative campaign tactics often backfire. Bear in mind, Obama is running a campaign that constantly decries the trivial distractions in politics. It would be a much bigger news event (and a disaster for his campaign) if he was caught push polling because of the hypocrisy it would create with his message.

Good points, well stated Cameron.

I would add one thing that I think is significant.

This particular push poll wasn’t done by some group Hillary can distance herself from or claim ignorance of.

“The poll is run by Geoff Garin, the new head of Clinton’s campaign team.”

Simple: if news reporters don’t want to hear about it, they don’t have to write about it, nothing ever gets published, nothing ever gets googled. One need not “implement” a free pass, as long as there is a collective will to ignore a particular situation, it will be the default state of affairs until someone takes action.

In other words, I counter your Sagan with my Newton.