Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Government Republicans Politics

Net War Room for Bush vs Kerry Debate 203

Posted by michael from the instant-spin dept.
ancice writes "Article by Wired. Seems like Bush and Kerry are going to battle in cyberspace. The Bush Team is going to have a War Room to provide live rebuttals to thousands of conversative blogs. Not much info on Kerry's response though. This seems like a good use of the Information Super Highway. Would be interesting to see how this War Room will affect the election. Will this tactic be successful or will it be information overload? Worse still, will technology be exploited? Tune in on Thursday."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Net War Room for Bush vs Kerry Debate More

Net War Room for Bush vs Kerry Debate

Comments Filter:
  • I've been wanting to check out President Bush's site for weeks but have not once managed to connect. Is this a case of a DDOS? Piss-poor capacity planning? Or is access from outside the US being blocked on purpose perhaps?

  • I'm Confused (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GypC ( 7592 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:12PM (#10396319) Homepage Journal

    "Worse still, will technology be exploited?"

    I don't get it. What does ancice mean by this? Am I just being dense?

    • Re:I'm Confused (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Golias ( 176380 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:38PM (#10396653)
      Well, if you read my comments elsewhere, it's pretty plain that I'm no Kerry cheerleader, but I think the concern here is that the "War Room" might really be just a tool for astroturfing the blogs, and that seems like a reasonable suspicion to me.

      You've basically got a whole army of spin-doctors who are going to seed all the conservative blogs (and maybe others, such as here at politics.slashdot.org) with RNC talking points.

      If that is the direction they choose to go, I think it's a bad idea for the same reason why it was a bad idea when Microsoft did it. For years after Microsoft got caught doing this sort of thing, nearly every pro-MS post (or FUD post about Linux or Apple) was suspected of coming from a Redmond employee, and how could anybody argue that it wasn't, once it was known that Microsoft actually did that sort of thing? It made it almost impossible for a fan of some NT feature, or a hater of some Linux build, to say anything without getting credibly accused of being a paid shill.

      If this "War Room" is used to respond to questions while carefully identifying themselves as Bush spokespeople, then it might be a neat new idea... but if they try astroturfing, then people like me had better get used to being accused of drawing a paycheck from Karl Rove every time we express the opinion that Bush was right to go into Iraq, because that's how it's gonna be from then until Election Day.
      • I make sure to identfy my affiliations in my sig.

        • I make sure to identfy my affiliations in my sig.

          My affiliations always become painfully self-evident within 2 sentences. For me, a sig would just be redundant.

          Well, the sig would be Redundant, but since most folks have usually already tagged the body of my post as Troll or Flamebait, the sig wouldn't get its proper due anyway, so I just leave it out.

          :)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:I'm Confused (Score:3, Insightful)

        by (trb001) ( 224998 )
        If this "War Room" is used to respond to questions while carefully identifying themselves as Bush spokespeople, then it might be a neat new idea

        I'm not sure how fond I am of this "War Room", but to answer your question, it's on Bush's website and is being heralded as a way for them to "address every lie that Kerry tells".

        It'll be interesting, though I don't think the bloggers need it. They've been pretty adept at spotting inconsistencies, if for no other reason than there are so many of them. Read a fe

        • Re:I'm Confused (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Masker ( 25119 )
          It's funny that those same blogs don't fact-check the Bush administration as much as they do the Kerry campaign. Here is an administration that has told more lies to the public (in the few press conferences that they've had; they're also very secretive) than any that I can remember (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II).

          "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction [disinfopedia.org], and we know where they are [alternet.org]."
          "Saddam is in cahoots [washingtonpost.com] with al Qaeda [factcheck.org], and could give WMD to them."
          "We went to war for the freedom of the Iraqi people [whitehouse.gov]."
          "These
      • The Kerry cheerleaders are worried that it could be "exploited." Coming from a techie (whoever posted the article), its safe to say its a lib (I am trying to be unbiased here, but bias is inherent in everyone).

        Whatever you think, its pretty clear that Bush has more of a supportive presence on the internet (blogs for bush, powerline, etc) than Kerry. Not sure how this happened, but it is very interesting.

        http://rupertzone.net/ [rupertzone.net]
        • I'm voting for Bush, but I'm not sure I agree. Sure, there are a lot of conservative blogs, but both this new section of /. and the gang at Fark seem to lean slightly leftwards, and they are two of the most popular sites of this sort out there. Also, moveon.org has been a massive money-raising machine, even after their favorite guy (Howard Dean) freaked out and abruptly ended his candidacy. It's still a site which draws a lot of attention compared to the freepers (at least, until the Dan Rather story.)
        • You have got to be kidding. On the Internet, Kerry enjoys vastly more supporters.

          Look at Internet polls (as opposed to phone polls) at places like CNN.com -- they regularly slant against Bush.

          Look at the majority of people on Slashdot and Kuro5hin.

          How many major pro-Bush forums are there -- FreeRepublic and RightNation? Now compare to the hordes of anti-Bush forums.
          • I love how the antiwar left supports a self admited war criminal, I really really do.

            • Re:I'm Confused (Score:3, Informative)

              by IndependentVik ( 582582 )
              So now you're against every single Vietnam Veteran who took part in free-fire zones? Like these men weren't patriots?

              To give your sig context:

              There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon again
              • Ah, the classic Nuremberg Defense. "I vas only following orders!!!"

                It didn't wash then, and it doesn't wash now.
              • So pointing out a mans own words is now dishonorable?

                Damn, did I wake up in Bizarro world this morning?

  • new politics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cinemabaroque ( 783205 ) <sophist112358@yahoo.com> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:16PM (#10396376) Journal
    its not about issues anymore, its about image. I feel like i'm being sold two brands, do you want pepsi or coke in the whitehouse? (me, i vote coke, but thats cause i like hard drugs more than soda)

    i'm impressed with the alertness the bush team is picking up on ways to use the internet.

  • "The Bush Team is going to have a War Room to provide live rebuttals to thousands of conversative blogs"

    If they're going to rebut blogs (seems like a waste of time to me), shouldn't the Bush team be rebutting liberals?

    (yes, i know, just a lame joke from a liberal who can't read).

  • not too many swing votes will decided by blogs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wwest4 ( 183559 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:19PM (#10396418)
    > Would be interesting to see how this War Room will affect the election. Will
    > this tactic be successful or will it be information overload?

    For the blogosphere to be anything but a wash, civility needs to evolve to enable people with conflicting ideas to actually talk and listen to each other.

    Most mainstream political blogs are echo chamber fraternities for like-minded people to impishly vent about the "loonies" on the other side. For all of the stuff being written, there is very little over-the-center discourse. There is, however, lots of censorship, ill-will for stray visitors from the "other side", and groupthink.

    Give it a few years - as more people arrive on the scene, a basic sense of civic decency might emerge and make blogging a useful tool for actual debate, instead of a big petri dish for idealistic bigotry.

    • Re:not too many swing votes will decided by blogs (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:23PM (#10396480)
      Give it a few years - as more people arrive on the scene, a basic sense of civic decency might emerge and make blogging a useful tool for actual debate, instead of a big petri dish for idealistic bigotry.

      You're new to the internet, aren't you?

    • In defense of ideological uniformity (Score:4, Interesting)

      by daviddennis ( 10926 ) * <david@amazing.com> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:36PM (#10396638) Homepage
      It's useful right now - look at how conservative bloggers were able to take down CBS news. No matter what you may think of the story, there's no question the memos were forged, and ineptly at that. This story would not have broken without the bloggers.

      There is actually enough controversy between people nominally on the same side in sites like Free Republic (right) [freerepublic.com] and Democratic Underground (left) [democratic...ground.com] to create effective debates. As a conservative site, Free Republic contains material of all kinds (from The Nation to National Review), and the conservatives who debate range from libertarians to fundamentalists. Democratic Underground is much smaller and ironically has much less tolerance of opposing views than Free Republic. Both sites will delete blatant trolls within seconds, but someone called Liberal Larry has survived on FR for years. He's civil, so he survives. In contrast, I wrote civil messages on DU which people seemed to enjoy responding to and I was deleted simply because I wasn't a liberal. I don't think that would have happened on FR.

      A major reason for the emergence of liberal and conservative enclaves is that liberals and conservatives are pretty darn nasty when put in the same web site together, and as a result very little productive discussion actually occurs. This is unfortunate but true.

      It's interesting that Slashdot has developed into essentially a liberal ghetto because intelligent conservative posts are moderated down. I have seen this happen to many of my posts, to the extent that I feel unwelcome. As a result, I don't post nearly as much as I did when the section was originally opened.

      D

      • Re:In defense of ideological uniformity (Score:4, Informative)

        by isaac ( 2852 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @01:06PM (#10397022)
        I wrote civil messages on DU which people seemed to enjoy responding to and I was deleted simply because I wasn't a liberal. I don't think that would have happened on FR.

        I don't self-identify as a either a liberal or a conservative, but my FR account was summarily deleted when I merely posed the question as to whether Jeb Bush could face eviction from the governor's mansion as a result of his daughter's conviction of a drug offense. (This was back when the US Supreme Court upheld a federal law permitting eviction of family members of those convicted of drug offenses from public housing even if they had no knowledge of the crime.)

        My experience doesn't suggest that Freepers are willing to put up with any sort of uncomfortable questions.

        -Isaac

      • It's useful right now - look at how conservative bloggers were able to take down CBS news. No matter what you may think of the story, there's no question the memos were forged, and ineptly at that. This story would not have broken without the bloggers.

        Really? That debacle didn't strike me as particularly useful for anyone; except, maybe, typesetting enthusiasts. :)

        Democratic Underground is much smaller and ironically has much less tolerance of opposing views than Free Republic.

        I don't see that as iron
        • Check out my posts and let me know what you think of the ones that were modded down. (I start at 2 due to high Karma and I don't want to lose that just because of my political views).

          The CBS debacle was a debacle because CBS lied. Credible sources say that there was doubt about the authenticity of the memos even before they were shown, but CBS ran with the story anyway.

          Then Rather stonewalled, saying the memos were authentic until he was forced to eat his words.

          If you look at the memos with any kind of
    • Blogs may not influence many swing voters, But blogs may help fire up the base.

      There are different election strategies at work here. The Bush strategy is to energize the Republican base. His campaign wants to get voters so angry about Kerry or some other issue (e.g. Gay Marriage) that they won't stay home on election night. One of the ways Bush fires up the base by demonizing and mocking Kerry. Blogs may help with that.

      Kerry's strategy is partly to sign up new voters (AKA "the ground game") and pa

      • That's a good point overall, but this US pres. election will probably see relatively high turnout anyway, don't you think?
        • That's a good point overall, but this US pres. election will probably see relatively high turnout anyway, don't you think?

          Yes, and that may a key reason why the opinion polls are more variable this year than most. Polls try to measure "likely voters," but how do you identify "likely" in a high-turnout year? Hence the argument between Gallop and MoveOn.org. But there's still room for improvement. Check out this table [nationmaster.com] of registered voter turnout. In the USA in 2000, it was 67.4%. Many nations hav

    • Most mainstream political blogs are echo chamber fraternities for like-minded people to impishly vent about the "loonies" on the other side. For all of the stuff being written, there is very little over-the-center discourse. There is, however, lots of censorship, ill-will for stray visitors from the "other side", and groupthink.

      Ever listen to Rush Limbaugh? It's the same thing. It's a means to distribute talking points, work on a uniform message, and organize support (blogs, naturally, do organization muc

    • So, given the events are basically just a joint press conference, infotainment at its best and worst, what exactly about the debates will convince undecided swing voters (demographic profiles?) to swing one way or another?

      The bloggers from either side are pretty much just preaching to their respective choirs

    • Did you see the blip in the polls the week after Rathergate? Seems like a surprising number of undecideds are paying attention to blogs this year.
      • I did indeed, but I have to admit that I didn't drill down into the poll trends by issue. Is there anything out there that indicates that the Kerry dip is directly attributable to CBS?
      • Or maybe you are once again deluding yourself into thinking the non stop stream of effluvium you write online actually counts for something.

        My experience from Slashdot is the right wing fanatics worship the posts of the right wing fanatics and left wing fanatics worship at the the posts of the left wing fanatics, and everyone else has a life and could care less.

        The "blip" in the polls could probably be better attributed to:

        - Increasingly savage and non stop attack ads from the Shrub crowd, on the heals o

  • Conservative blogs... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dameron ( 307970 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:22PM (#10396459)
    I can't imagine this swaying anyone. Holding on to the base maybe, but pimping live rebuttals to thousands of conservative blogs seems kinda masturbatory. I'm far more interested in the "real" live rebuttals that will be happening on stage.

    This is the first time W. has debated with a record to defend. It should be interesting.

    -dameron
    ----
    DailyHaiku.com [dailyhaiku.com], saying more in 17 syllables than Bill O'Reilly says all day.

    • Re:Conservative blogs... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by panda ( 10044 )
      > I'm far more interested in the "real" live rebuttals that will be happening on stage.

      Except that there won't be any live rebuttals on stage. It's a scripted non-event. It's not a debate, not even close.

      It's more like a joint press conference where the two candidates get to say what they want.
      • The two candidates got to say what they wanted, but it was very clear that one of them was prepared, articulate, and in total command. The other was ridiculously unprepared, looked nervous, kept demanding to speak out of turn, etc. I won't even say which was which, because if you actually watched the debates, you'd know.

        For the truly open-minded, this debate revealed a lot about the two candidates.
    • There wont be "rebuttals" in this "debate". The rules disallow it. [johnkerry.com]
      Personally, I'll be watching the coverage at Free Market News [freemarketnews.com], which will include rebuttals of the "major" candidate's points- just not by either of them.

  • GWBush argument fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Profane MuthaFucka ( 574406 ) <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:35PM (#10396618) Homepage Journal
    The Bush team keeps driving the point home that Kerry is a flip-flopper. Besides the obvious point that Bush and Co. twist facts and statements to smear Kerry, the more obvious thing is that the attack isn't logically sound. An ad hominem isn't a persuasive argument.

    The fact that some people take the Bush and Co. statements to actually mean something significant is just a sign of how poor our education is in this country.
    • the more obvious thing is that the attack isn't logically sound. An ad hominem isn't a persuasive argument.

      Ad hominem is only falacious if you are arguing about an issue by "attacking the man" who opposes your viewpoint. Presidential debates are all about getting people to decide that you are the better person for the job, so the man is the issue.

      This isn't Lincoln and Douglas arguing about slavery, it's Bush and Kerry arguing about who would be the better president for 2005-2008.
      • It's Bush and Kerry arguing about who's going to be 1) able to improve the terrorism situation
        2) able to improve the Iraq situation
        3) able to improve the economic situation (even in good times, we want it to get even better, so this is a constant concern)
        4) other issues

        The argument that Kerry supposedly waffles is an ad-hominem attack. Besides the argument that Kerry waffles (which is dubious) each candidate has laid out their plans. These plans and the virtues of each are not being addressed. Kerry waffli
        • If it were what you say, I'd be happy.

          But from where I sit and can perceive, the election is a horse race, and it's being reported like a horse race. Issues take a back seat, and so does any actual consideration of *which leader the country needs more, now.*

          For the moment, notice I didn't even say, "who would be a better leader," because I meant exactly what I said. Without stating who I think is a better leader, at the moment I don't think that's the critical issue before us. Sometimes the better leader
    • so anyone who supports Bush is uneducated? How elitist of you...
      http://rupertzone.net/ [rupertzone.net]
      • If a person supports Bush because they've eaten up what the campaign is shovelling, rather than examining the actual plans the candidates have, then yes, they are uneducated. Propaganda and fallacies aren't useful in educating yourself about the candidates.

        And you want to call me elitist? I am Profane MuthaFucka, damn it! You think your puny insults can affect me? (demonic laugh)
    • An argumentum ad hominem is perfectly relevant in this case, since we're voting for a "hominem". not for the arguments. I really doubt Bush is trying to say that the Democratic platform is wrong; his immediate goal is to say Kerry is wrong. Here, Bush is saying that Kerry has had a record of changing his opinion probably too often.

      Ad hominem is inappropriate when the target is an idea; e.g., it should not be used when discussing bills in Congress, since the bill's supporters have no bearing on the bill's i
      • I think we're arguing two different things here. What you say about the definition of ad hominem is correct, and really I can't add any more to that.

        We differ in the opinion that we're voting for a "hominem" (heheh). It is true in a literal sense, but these men also represent platforms and will institute policies. Your notion of voting for just a man strikes me as like voting for Miss America. Sure, she's talented, but the only thing that's important is how hot she is.

        But, my main point is that basing you
        • But, my main point is that basing your decision on who to vote for entirely on who waffles or who went AWOL is not logically sound.

          ven if a candidate espouses all the issues I care about in a way that is perfect to me... if he was just completely lying in order to get my vote, what good is that? You have to know enough about the person to trust they're going to do what they say they will. You have to know enough about the person to feel okay with their votes on future issues you haven't thought of yet,

    • Re:GWBush argument fallacy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @11:55PM (#10401858)
      I'm Argentinian. Last night i caught the Kerry-Bush debate on CNN. I honestly have no idea about the backgrounds of Kerry, but he managed to give a coherent response every time, to the point, and made Bush sound like a 3-year old for most of the duration of the event. Most of the time it was personal accusations to Kerry about exactly that, changing his mind over time. Some people seem to beleive it's a sin.

  • Kerry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Politburo ( 640618 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:51PM (#10396837)
    The Bush Team is going to have a War Room to provide live rebuttals to thousands of conversative blogs. Not much info on Kerry's response though.

    That's because Kerry's team is more bottom-up than the GOP, which is clearly top-down. Talking points are distributed by the GOP to Rush Limbaugh and other talk show hosts, as well as the blogs. The democrats do this to some extent, but with no where near the uniformity that the GOP does. You'll suddenly hear Rush, Hannity and the President all use the same talking point starting on the same day. Kerry gets some of his talking points from the blogs themselves. It's a known fact that the Kerry campaign reads DailyKos and cherry picks the good material.

  • Wired helps excuse the media (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jamie ( 78724 ) <jamie@slashdot.org> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:57PM (#10396907) Journal
    The Wired piece helps perpetuate a myth: that in 2000, after the first Bush-Gore debate, it was the GOP that changed the perception from "Gore won" to "Bush won":

    After the first debate, Gore advisers thought he had handily won. But a few hours later, the Bush campaign was able to change that perception by disseminating press releases on its websites, through faxes and in e-mails.

    Gore's advisers thought he won because he did win. As the Daily Howler points out [dailyhowler.com], the five "instant polls" of viewers after the debate gave Gore the win by an average of 9.6% -- a huge margin, especially considering more Bush supporters were watching.

    And that perception did change in the hours and days to come, until finally the American people were browbeaten into believing that Bush had won. But one can't blame GOP press releases and emails. The fault lies squarely on the media, as the Daily Howler has been demonstrating [dailyhowler.com] all week.

    Whether you think our media has a conservative bias or not, it's indisputable that it let Bush get away with murder after that first debate, refusing to do even basic fact-checking on his blatant errors, and it crucified Gore, mostly by focusing on absurdities and trivia like the color of his suit or his body language. Let's put the blame where blame is due.

    • The winner of the debate doesn't exactly have to come that night. For instance, in the Ford/Carter debate, everybody that night thought Gerald Ford had won, but it wasn't until the following days did the press report, and both Ford and the public realize how big a mistake Ford's "There is no Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe" line was. The "winner", as you would have it, was actually Carter - but only the preceding days after the debate told us that.

      I think this ties into blogs in that, as one blogger

  • Just a reminder (Score:4, Informative)

    by wizarddc ( 105860 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @01:01PM (#10396961) Homepage Journal
    The polls held directly after the first debate between Bush and Gore in 2000 had Gore winning, albeit it by a slight margin. But after the right wing spin machine got going with a full head of steam within three days those same polls showed Bush winning them by a wider margin than Gore had, and that's been the "result" ever since. Mechanisms like these, where the campaigns themselves directly distribute talking points and rebuttals directly after the debates were generally exclusively a Republican tool, while the Democratic party simple played ctach up and defense. It's interesting to see that the Bush squad has put together a better plan for distributing their version of the events than Kerry's team has, but it's not surprising. Perhaps they'll throw something together since this news has come out. I'm sure they're will be a recptive audience to it.
    • After posting this, I found an excellent write up on the events after the 2000 debates at Media Matters. Take a read [mediamatters.org].
    • I think you're giving Republicans too much credit. Spin machine? It could have been that some people, myself included, didn't feel comfortable with Gore on the issues. I went into the debates firmly voting for Gore, but then saw Bush tear him apart and no longer felt confident. That's why the debates are important and why i think it's stupid for anyone, left or right, to announce, even in jest, a "winner" before they take place.

      --trb

  • Technology being exploited (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Linux_ho ( 205887 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @01:43PM (#10397437) Homepage
    Worse still, will technology be exploited?
    You make it sound like the Bush Administration are the only ones exploiting technology. (Warning: Link contents objectionable) Technology exploitation [bunkermentality.net] is a huge problem pervasively spread throughout the Internet. You can't just blame the Republicans.
  • I would love to see Bush lurching around the stage like a Radio Shack RC car manned by a 3 year old. Walking into the Podium repeatedly like a broken robot. Buzzing and huming like that Futurama episode w/ Lucy Lui

    BURRHSPUTTERPURRBRUR911911911GODBLESSZZZZINZZGAM ER ICA0100101000101010100100001100****REBOOTBRINGITON SADDAMMNHUSSAINWMD
    WMDWMDWMDWMDPRETZELSPLEASECOKE ADDSLIFE /ROBOT VOICE

  • Conversative, eh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by St. Arbirix ( 218306 ) <matthew.townsendNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @01:58PM (#10397597) Homepage Journal
    The Bush Team is going to have a War Room to provide live rebuttals to thousands of conversative blogs.

    conversative

    \Con*ver"sa*tive\ (k[o^]n*v[~e]r"s[.a]*t[i^]v), a. Relating to intercourse with men; social; -- opposed to contemplative.

    She chose . . . to endue him with the conversative qualities of youth. --Sir H. Wotton.

  • I wouldn't worry about exploits... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mtrupe ( 156137 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @02:52PM (#10398129) Homepage Journal
    Blogs are proving to provide very good checks and balances. The reader has at his disposal all the tools he needs to verify stats, facts, and accusations. This is why the media is so fearful of the blogosphere... It doesn't allow them to have any kind of bias. Big media is dead.

    I think its cool that the candidates recognize the Internet as a battleground. I think the Internet is proving to be a more effective medium for getting out your message than television. Lib or Conservative, nothing wrong with that.

    http://rupertzone.net/ [rupertzone.net]
  • This is just blatant astroturfing. Here's the astroturf/shill detection formula:

    A sudden increase in pro-whatever [Bush in this case] comments by "new" users or users with "fresh" userid's. (AKA high user id's. Greater than 500,000 in the case of Slashdot; that's when MSFT took notice and sent their shills over here - but I digress).

  • Great way to preach to the choir (Score:3, Informative)

    by raider_red ( 156642 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:16PM (#10398993) Journal
    If they're pushing their live rebuttals to the convervative blogs, doesn't that mean that they'll only be going out to the conservative base? I think it would be more effective if they could find a way to get this on one of the mainstream news sites like CNN.
  • I think this would be interesting, but how do you actually rebut a hundred different blogs?

    Here's an example of a political blog [bsalert.com] that makes a lot of noise about political issues. Are these war rooms going to do a bunch of astroturfing, replying to peoples blogs, or are they going to serve as some central reference post that others can refer to?

  • Obvious Joke (Score:3, Funny)

    by andfarm ( 534655 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @05:09PM (#10399445)
    "You can't fight in here!"
  • Go Here [newsnow.co.uk] and watch the spin arrive around the country. Just let it update itself every 2 minute or so.

  • Torrent of the debate? (Score:3)

    by Fjornir ( 516960 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @10:44PM (#10401395)
    I missed about half of the debate d/t work. Anyone have a torrent? NBC preferred (they were showing more split-screeen than the others) but I really don't care...

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close