Indymedia, Washington Post: Deanies Sending Duplicate Posts and emails...

According to the Sept. 03 edition of Indymedia, Dean bloggers sending identical and near identical e-mails, posts, and letters to several media outlets who have been critical of Howard Dean.

There is something curious going on with some of the Dean supporters coming to Portland Indymedia. One has to wonder if all these Dean supporters are merely ordinary people who spontaneously post here, or they an example of a what is called an "Astroturf" operation--an organized political operation designed to create the image of a "grassroots" political movement.

I bring this issue up based upon Antiwar.com's recent article concerning Howard Dean and the response that it generated, and the subsequent response of Dean people to similar articles involving Howard Dean posted here on Portland Indymedia.

If you go to the Antiwar.com letters page for August 30, 2003 you see numerous letters from Dean supporters attacking Justin Raimondo's article "The Dean Deception." In particular, note the letters from Paul J. Gessing, John Timothy, Geoff DeWan, and John Pierce. Think about this. What are the chances of this happening? 4 people who (kinda) support Dean write letters to Antiwar.com, and then just happen to surf the internet and stumble across articles critical of Dean here at Portland Indymedia and spontaneously post messages almost verbatim identical to their original letters. This happens not once, but 4 times?! It seems this would be unlikely as any kind of "spontaneous" happening, bur rather be the result of an organized campaign.



http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1639740_comment.php

Dean Defense Forces: Lobbing E-mail at the Enemy

When Dotty Lynch, CBS's senior political editor, wrote a column criticizing Howard Dean on foreign policy, she was deluged with e-mails defending the Democratic presidential candidate, often in similar language. "They were all rather insulting: 'Why don't you do your research?' " Lynch says. "When anything's orchestrated, you sort of smell a rat."

The letters were indeed generated by Dean Defense Forces, a volunteer outfit affiliated with the doctor's campaign. Day after day, the DDF Web log, which is linked to Dean's official site, hammers reporters deemed critical of Dean and urges its followers to flood the in-boxes of offending journalists. "When negative press gets written, we'll ensure that letters to the editor get printed in response. . . . The last couple of months have proven the effectiveness of our efforts at media response," the DDF says.

Sometimes this is rough stuff. When New York Daily News columnist Zev Chafets slammed Dean's appearance on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press," the DDF denounced the piece as "crap," declaring:

"So here's what we're gonna do. First, we're gonna write Zev (zchafets@yahoo.com) and let him know what we think of his vitriol."
Suggested themes: "Russert used Republican lies for his policy research. . . . Anyone who saw Dean's performance knows it wasn't his best, but it was a hell of a lot better than Chafets's columns."

Says Chafets: "They were polite, but they took issue with the idea that Dean hadn't done well. They were not unintelligent, but it was pretty clear to me they were writing from talking points."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A47852-2003Jul25¬Found=true

How different is this from the "Many Soldiers Same Letter" story that broke this week on the identical letters being sent to newspapers about Iraq?

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031011/frontpage/121390_Printer.shtml

Or, the first time Republicans got caught employing this trick with the famous "Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership" letters?

http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20030125roddy102col2p2.asp

I suppose it was just a small handful of people who wrote all those thousands of letters to the DLC a few months back and that Dean hired thousands and thousands of people to show up at his rallies all over the country.

:eyes:

..everyday. But that is entirely different than a small group of people sending identical or near identical letters to media outlets who dare to be the least bit critical of Dean.

I would say THAT is almost identical to the Republican instances mentioned above.

Surely you see that?

However, you may not see anything wrong with it - whether it's Dean supporters or Bush supporters doing it.

If that is the case, you should have no problem with this. Don't get defensive. Just say "I have no problem with this."

simply because the media was reporting a bunch of horseshit that wasn't true. I am not a member of the Dean Defense Forces, either. I defend Dean because I believe in him. It doesn't matter how much those who support others try to convince themselves that Dean doesn't have the most impressive and influential grassroots support probably ever seen before in US politics...it's not going to change the fact that he really DOES have that grassroots support.

..everyone should. But are you sending identical or near identical (borderlines on form) letters as others like those outed in the two above articles?

This isn't an attack on Dean's grassroots campaign or a denial it exists. It's a criticism of something that grassroots campaign is doing.

Really, either you condemn the practice for Dean supporters or you find no problem with it for Bush supporters.

Some would say it is a good marketing tool though I find it a bit dishonest.

I'd just like you to see the similarities and either speak out against the Dean supporters who do it or say you have no problem with it even though the Bushies are doing it, too.

The duplicate soldier letters are akin to fraud, having soldiers sign letters describing their personal situation and feelings, in order to give the impression that things are going well in Iraq.

Multiple Dean Defense letters are more like the letters we all send through MoveOn or another organization to voice our disagreement with a policy or a activity of the administration. These are protest letters, not "personal letters" to our hometown newspapers.

The duplicate soldier letters are akin to fraud, having soldiers sign letters describing their personal situation and feelings, in order to give the impression that things are going well in Iraq.

And having Dean supporters "sign" identical or near identical letters describing their personal feelings about Dean isn't the same thing? (other than the fact that the Republican's letters were about Iraq and the Dean supporter's were about Dean?

How about the first instance I mentioned - on Bush's "leadership?"

Multiple Dean Defense letters are more like the letters we all send through MoveOn or another organization to voice our disagreement with a policy or a activity of the administration. These are protest letters, not "personal letters" to our hometown newspapers.

It's still the same thing. The "Bush has shown leadership" letters sent earlier this year were sent from a GOP website. I'm not sure if moveon.org's letter campaigns send out form letters, but if they do, how is that different than form letters from GOP sites (other than we would tend to agree with the content from moveon's?)

And how does the destination of the letters (hometown newspapers vs. Washington post, antiwar.com, and indymedia) diminish the fact that they were all still "form" letters?

Are you saying that if you agree with what is in the letters and they're not going to local newspapers that the practice becomes OK?

I still see VERY little difference.

My point was not about local newspapers per se, my point was that the GI letters were so deceptive, pretending to be a soldier writing to his hometown about his unique experience in Iraq. It appears even that the soldiers may not have had much to do with getting these letters out there, one of them claiming not even to have signed it.

The "Bush has shown leadership" letters are lame, but not as bad as this. Everyone can tell they are form letters.

And of course we aren't objective about this: I find the GI letters (and the "Bush leadership" letters) offensive because I believe they are full of lies. The Dean letters don't bother me because they are in protest of lies, just as those MoveOn letters protesting something in the administration don't bother me.

Any chance that your feelings for Howard Dean are affecting your opinion of this? Yeah, I thought so.

We both feel that the two GOP instances are a pack of lies BUT sending form letters is still a dishonest tactic - no matter whether YOU believe personally the material being sent.

Once discovered, the attention is turned away from the content of the letters and the focus is suddenly on the fact people sent form letters instead of writing their own. It's dishonest in itself to sign your name to someone else's work even if you have permission. By doing this, you're pawning someone else's work off as you own.

As for your swipe about my personal opinion on Howard Dean, I reject your premise.

My feelings about him in no way detract or diminish the dishonesty of this action.

Well, of course you do. :)

I don't know why I'm arguing this; I agree with you that form letters aren't the best way to do this. I like some of the activist letter-writing campaigns, because it makes it easier for people who wouldn't normally stop to write a letter. But I would prefer if they just made the sending part easier (auto-addressing) and encourage the writer to use their own words.

But I bristled at the idea that DDF defending Dean against media lies, is somehow the same as the army (or whoever) sending fake letters from GIs.

I beg to differ, but whatever.

Have a nice day. :)

Do I sound like someone who mimics what others say or do I sound like someone who says exactly whatever the hell they think? Some people don't write all that well and might opt to use "example" letters provided by whoever suggests that people write if they want to. That's where you sometimes will get such similar letters. It doesn't mean that it's all the same people who are writing. It just means a lot of people aren't all that confident in their writing ability and fudge it a bit. That's certainly not my style. I may share some views with people, but I'll put them in MY own words, thank you very much.

Just curious since I saw a lot of data devoted to Clark there:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/271764.shtml

As for Dean supporters responding to the media, unlike Republicans there's nothing covert or secret about it. As you've pointed out, independent from the campaign blogs such as the DDF that call attention to errors in the media and encourage supporters to respond have been reported in the mainstream media. I don't believe that there are any form letters being generated on behalf of Dean, such as the Bush letters.

..but why would having Clark information makes the source's credibility questionable?

Also, the info was posted there BEFORE Clark entered the race.

...and it is actually pulling info for this story from anti-war.com.

But if one still wanted to try and make a case for bias against indymedia, what about the Washington Post, who recieved a "deluge" of letters from dean supporters with "similar language."

The post went on the confirm the letters were indeed generated by Dean Defense Forces.

Is the Washington Post questionable, too?

Therefore independent blogs such as the DDF are not a secret as it's been reported in the mainstream media that they call attention to articles published in the media. That supporters letters would be similar and defense somewhat the same doesn't seem all that surprising to me. Nor should it come as a surprise a critical article would receive an influx of attention from supporters.

As for Indymedia, since anyone can post anything it may be credible or it may not be. To base a comparison to the 'fake' soldier letters on an opinion piece is a pretty weak argument. In other words, much ado about nothing, imo.

...the indymedia piece quoted letters from indymedia and antiwar.com.

The fact that someone unknown to us posted it isn't a real problem because they demonstrated verifiable proof of their assertions.

The comparison is sound. Instances of sending form letters to media outlets is dishonest, regardless of the content of them.

mission accomplished

I've been using myself Moveon, True Majority mailers and didn't bother editting the text. These articles make me think twice about that. I'll still use their mailers, but write my own.

At the beginning of 2002, a friend and I actually wrote a letter generator program for this very purpose.

At the time, I saw no problem with it. But after the first instance of the GOP form letters, I saw the negative publicity it got - effectively nuetralizing the letter's message.

I abandoned my plans to do it after that.

It says that 4 guys sent their letters in response to 2 different web sites.

It says nothing of the same letters having different sigs.

The later, unrelated "supporting" pieces in the orig post have nothing to do with connecting both identical letters and Dean supporters.

This is a useless smear and nothing more.

which cited a deluge of letters with similar language... obviously generated... and obviously taken from established talking points.

she was deluged with e-mails defending the Democratic presidential candidate, often in similar language.

The letters were indeed generated by Dean Defense Forces,

"When New York Daily News columnist Zev Chafets slammed Dean's appearance on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press," the DDF denounced the piece as "crap," declaring:

"So here's what we're gonna do. First, we're gonna write Zev (zchafets@yahoo.com) and let him know what we think of his vitriol."

Suggested themes: "Russert used Republican lies for his policy research. . . . Anyone who saw Dean's performance knows it wasn't his best, but it was a hell of a lot better than Chafets's columns."

Dean spokeswoman Kate O'Connor referred questions to DDF chief Matthew Gross, who works out of the campaign's Vermont headquarters. Gross did not respond to three requests for comment.

A Dean aide told CBS's Lynch that she had been targeted, so she wrote back to some of the 30 Dean loyalists who contacted her. "Dotty Lynch Is On To Us," a subsequent posting said."

I thought you didn't like it that some guys sent their letters to two different web sites- a very different thing than using the same letter with different sigs.

I like planning and organization. I think that it will help beat bush.

btw, Gross didn't isn't at ddf. The Post was wrong. They said Kate gave them the name but Kate knows that Gross is at the o-blog and not ddf.

In regards to indymedia, four different guys sent their letters to two different sites. Not a problem, really, but it is the Washington Post article that makes the charges of "generated" letters - letters bearing striking similarities yet with different sigs.

Your point on Gross has already been covered earlier in this thread, but still just because the Post got a last name wrong (there are two Matts)that in no way is a defense of the deluge of form emails Dotty Lynch got, or the immature response Dean Defense gave when they were "outed." (also earlier in the thread.)

And, again (and again and again) none of this is a problem unless the GOP's practice of it is also not a problem.

Yet, this week, when the similar situation with the Iraq letter broke, and earlier this year when the "Bush leadership" form letter was sent, we on DU decried such a dishonest tactic.

But all is fair in politics, I guess.

I can't find where Dotty said she got "form e-mails". Similar e-mails I could understand, as I'm sure you could, since they would all address the same article and logically cover some of the same points. What did the "form e-mails" that Dotty got say?

"We are the Dean Squad and we're coming to town...(beep beep)...FASHION!"

:)

and we are concerned for you all.

please send money (www.deanforamerica.com/contribute)

or donuts.

is all I ask.

Most of the time things look pretty bleak to me (especially when I watch mainstream news), but Dean gives me hope. Nothing wrong with that. It has motivated me to get involved to an extent I never thought possible. This can't possibly be negative.

This Saturday I will be writing letters to at least 10 Iowa Dems, and next Wednesday I will be with a group of local supporters writing letters to voters in NH.

This is organized by the campaign and is one of the best things they've done, to encourage individual participation in the campaign. I've written letters to people in Iowa and NH, and to elected officials. My own words, my own awful handwriting, my own stamps.

What a great idea! Thanks Joe Trippi!

I really don't have a problem with Dean Defense going after the media. We all know getting the story out is next to impossible these days. I only have a problem with Deanie's spreading out all over the web stifling debate with other Democratic candidates. The media ought to expect to have response to their articles. I don't see what the big deal is there.

...doing the same, as they have done in two instances this year.

Bushies have the edge on the media because of their tactics and have killed us because of it. Dean is fighting the media and I just can't find fault with it.

... as a media ploy, I find no real fault with it other than it's inherant dishonesty.

...besides the parts that point out the letters were generated and had similar language... was this:

"A Dean aide told CBS's Lynch that she had been targeted, so she wrote back to some of the 30 Dean loyalists who contacted her. "Dotty Lynch Is On To Us," a subsequent posting said."

up in post #16, you tried to call indymedia's credibility into question by saying "As for Indymedia, since anyone can post anything it may be credible or it may not be."

Yet now you post something from something called notgeniuses as some clarification of the Post article?

The two contend the Post article is "grossly inaccurate" because the Post got a last name wrong but the chatters there never bothered to dispute the premise of the article.

However, they make my point when NinPirates says: "the irony is now DDF (Dean Defense) has to (go) medieval on this article."

In other words, it was time to send more form letters!

Also interesting: the "notgeniuses" say Matt whoever hasn't taken any money, yet the Post confirms DDF appears to run on a shoestring operation, with a dozen or so volunteers posting items and six donors, who have contributed a grand total of $585.

It's the "dozen or so volunteers who post items" that made me take notice.

Notgeniuses pointed out a factual errors in the Washington Post article you printed whereas Indymedia offers a speculative opinion as to what constitutes 'grassroots' based on four Dean supporters that post on both indymedia and send letters to antiwar.com. To me it seems highly likely that four people that read and post on Portlandindymedia would also read antiwar.com. That doesn't seem as big a stretch to me as someone that compares an independent web blog (DDF) to the GOP.

To imply that it is somehow wrong for an individual to set up a web blog that encourages the public to respond to inaccuracies in the media seems more like a Republican concept to me. Individuals organizing for a cause is the very essence of 'grassroots'. You've made no direct connection with the sources you've provided to the Dean campaign or the Democratic party. You've made no connection between multiple letters pretending to be a soldier in Iraq and GOP form letters to enthusiastic supporters of a candidate. To put it simply, you've attempted to make a connection when there is none and so in essence this is bullshit.

notgeniuses pointed out a factual error in someone's name - they did not deny the charge of the article.

However, they make my point when NinPirates says: "the irony is now DDF (Dean Defense) has to (go) medieval on this article."

In other words, it was time to send more form letters!

You're fixated on the indmedia article and won't address the Washington Post article nor the DDF thread where they admit the post's author is "on to them."

All your longwinded spin, to finally end up proclaiming the story "bullshit" is typicle of the kind of Dean supporters these articles talk about.

...but where I'm from when you have to put on the muck boots to get through the crap that's what we call it.

As for the Washington Post article, if you fail to see the irony of an inaccurate article about a group that responds to inaccurate articles then you probably also don't see the sarcasm of "on to them".

You've said: "In other words, it was time to send more form letters!" So Clarkie, where does one go to get one of these 'form letters'? Can anyone get a 'form letter' or can only a select few people get these? Is this some kind of secret like Clark's whereabouts during Waco and do you actually have some proof these form letters exist? I'd like to have some of these 'form letters' to save myself some typing.

...if you continue calling it "crap" you might believe it but it won't make it so.

You call the Post article inaccurate bacause they got a last name wrong? :eyes:

And now, you've run out of options and are trying to divert the focus to Wesley Clark! bwhahahahahahaha

Were you one of those kids who pointed fingers at everyone else every time you got busted for something?

You can't provide any proof that the 'form letters' you mentioned exist.

Talk about divert and spin...

I was one of those kids that fessed up when I got caught because I'd look quilty even if I wasn't anyway.
So were you one of those kids that after being caught in a lie never admitted that you were wrong?

"Unless you can provide the EXACT words to prove what you are saying, it's false..."

No gray, just black and white. Even though the Post article strongly insinuates the obvious, because they didn't say "form" it must not be so.

Kinda like the Brady Bunch episode where they decided to live by their "exact" words.

Well, must be all true then. :eyes:

They constantly told stories on him and used weasel words to do so.

duh.

This is called organization. Such things aren't effective if you have hundreds of people writing on a hundred different ideas. The emails and letters need to be focused.

Is it astroturf? No. Astroturf are pre-written letters that may or may not have actually been sent in by individuals. This is merely coordinated defese. Like it or not, if Gore had this there wouldn't have been any doubt who won in 2000.

but aside from the talking points, the letters had similar language, were indeed generated by Dean Defense Forces, the Dean supporters were given suggested themes and exact wording to use like "Russert used Republican lies for his policy research. . . . Anyone who saw Dean's performance knows it wasn't his best, but it was a hell of a lot better than Chafets's columns.", and then, a posting on a Dean board said, "Dotty Lynch Is On To Us,"

... a little beyond just writing from talking points.

But all is fair in politics.

..but saying Why aren't those other campaigns orchestrated? is not even a defense of their actions. It's just saying
"well, so-and-so did it, too!" Childish.

And, obviously, those other orchestrated campaigns (whatever they are, I'm not clear) weren't directed at Dottie Lynch.

deandefense provides suggestion, other people act on it. Sometimes people copy most of the talking points, sometimes they don't. It's not a big deal.

nt

It's not some secret organization, you know. They just watch the media coverage and alert subscribers when they think something is unfair, then encourage people to write their own letters with suggestions. It's not run by Dean staffers, just Dean supporters who want to fight biased media coverage so he doesn't get "Gored"

http://deandefense.org/archives/001193.html

...and it is a worthy venture in principle, but they're obviously not writing their own letters all the time, and the letters aren't always original - as had been demonstrated.

But again, so what, right? And so what that the GOP also uses the same tactic to spread their message!

We can't condemn the republicans for something our side is also doing.

I believe this was their idea originally, to make the media gunshy about saying negative things about Republicans.

If Gore would have had this kind of rapid response, everytime someone repeated a lie about Gore on TV they would be inundated with emails. It would have prevented it from getting out of hand like it did.

...each time it happenned.

But as I've been saying all along, if you don't have a problem with it, everything is hunky dory!

can you provide examples of this outrage on DU?

I know there were a few issues of letters being sent out in people's name where all they had to do was sign up at a website and the letter would be sent to Letter to the Editors in various places. That is crass. But if a person sends it out in his/her name, even if it is a cloned letter, I have no problem with that.

as has been pointed out upthread. This:

"they're obviously not writing their own letters all the time" Prove that.

Show me two identical letters signed by two different Dean supporters. If you can't do that, I'll assume your whole point is as disingenuous as it appears.

First, I am utterly baffled as to the problem Indy Media has. I fail to see why I can't reuse my words from one letter to another. While a use of Web Tv I rarely if ever did that due to it being harder to cut and paste effectively than to just recompose. But now that I have a computer I have been known to cut and paste from my own posts on DU when I was responding to the same issue. Again, I don't see this as a problem. Copying ones self isn't plagurisn.

Second, I find the Washington post article very interesting for what isn't in the article. Just what were the Dean people complaining about and were they right? Of course the media doesn't like it when we tell them they did wrong. The fifth grader I sent out today didn't like that either. But if one does the wrong thing one should be prepared to face the consequences. In the CBS reporter's case it is that God forbid she be told to do her job competently. In the fifth grader's case it is to be sent to the office. I have yet to see a complaint about the DDF which contained a link to the article that the DDF attacked so it could be seen what the complaint was and if it was accurate. The press would rather be incarcerated with a musclebound sex offender than provide you that information.

Third, there is a huge difference between this and the letters from home. In our case we have actually read the articles, signed off on the letters, and presumedly mean what we say. In the case of the letters from home it is my understanding that some soldiers hadn't read them, they hadn't done what the letters said they had done, and that most hadn't signed them. That is in direct opposition to what the letters say the truth is.

Finally, this is typical of the press. The WP article contains no examples of letters (only the reporters characterization of them), it contains no link to her story so it can be judged if the complaint of the DDf is valid or not, and evidently was poorly fact checked to boot. This is a perfect example of the press we now have. They feel they should be unaccountable and if God forbid people try to make them accountable they will turn out stories about those people to avoid accountability. Then, the screw ups they are they will botch that story too. Thank God they don't build bridges. People would never be able to leave Manhattan.

does not have to resort to astroturf.

And if other campaigns don't have a "defense force" then they need one. And dumping on any defense force by another Democrat is utterly short-sighted, IMHO. We need to **promote** doing this with ALL Democratic candidates, not condemn it.

Yes, I can understand supporting your candidate-- I've done some of it myself. HOWEVER, when you do it, you should NEVER intimidate or threaten the person who wrote the story.

What you should do is THANK the person for reporting on your candidate, and then KINDLY correct the person with facts and other resources to support your case.

Blanket email attacks that question the reporters intelligence or methods ARE NOT EFFECTIVE and do more to hurt your candidate than you can imagine.

Of course, IMHO, some of those kids at DDF have had a little too much kool-aid. They should lay off it for awhile... :eyes:

I sure can't. Did I miss something?

BTW This was one targets characterization of the letters.

Says Chafets: "They were polite, but they took issue with the idea that Dean hadn't done well. They were not unintelligent, but it was pretty clear to me they were writing from talking points."

If somebody called me "incompetant" at a job which pays my bills, I'd call that a threat. I'd also say that somebody calling me "stupid" is an attack, which I would also perceive as a threat.

Good grief. I guess the Secret Service is going to get just about all of us by that standard.