Has anyone else noticed the rise, over the past two weeks, of a new breed of Clinton supporter here on TPM?
Now I'm not talking about the staunch loyalists who've populated this site for months. Specifically, just so there is no confusion, I am not talking about longtime contributors like BevD, Destor, Billy Glad and others, who have been outspoken and appreciated voices in our online community. I know that I, for one, have been having spirited discussions (and disagreements) with Destor for the better part of two years now. While I have frequently disagreed with them, I have never questioned their sincerity, their conviction, or their enthusiasm.
But all of a sudden, out of nowhere, we have a half dozen new Clinton advocates, spouting the daily talking points of Clinton internet guru Peter Daou. I am not naming names, but if you look at their profiles you will recognize them: you see no activity before early March, followed by a frenzy of posts. They are less interested in sharing viewpoints and having an honest discussion than in berating Obama and his supporters. They seem to believe that, if they can destroy Obama's character completely and utterly, that the superdelegates will have no choice but to side with Clinton at the convention no matter what the delegate count is. They have developed a sudden expertise in Rovian tactics such as marginalizing their opponent's strengths, manipulating facts and logic in support of their cause, accusing their opponents of shortcomings that only apply to themselves, and defying reason through willful obtuseness. In short, they use all the techniques of disingenuity that I have come to despise among right wing conservatives like Limbaugh and Coulter.
Who are these people? I am torn between labeling them as paid Clinton operatives and right wing subversives. Maybe they are actually Obama supporters trying to alienate the remaining undecideds from Clinton. Maybe Allegre has turned to TPM for refuge.
In any event, by posting this I have opened myself up to attack. I will be hailed as intolerant, sexist, and quite possibly a Nazi hell-bent on squashing free speech. But speech is useless if the speakers wilfully misconstrue facts, employ arguments that they don't honestly believe, and use speech only as a weapon.
Rhetorical tools that fail to respect truth and reason are beneath contempt, regardless of the political perspectives of those who employ them.
