Take, for example, this user comment on the Washington Post's 44: The Obama Presidency blog today:
Considering how many people donated small amounts to his campaign, I imagine it would be difficult to find people who couldn't be considered "backers" in some way. I mean one of these guys donated a whopping $250. Yay Matt Drudge! Yay Rush Limbaugh! Way to be more retarded than Palin's down syndrome baby.
The poster was responding to the blog item "Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Backers." That piece documented that at Obama's town hall meeting, his staff stacked the deck with the president's partisans.
Introducing Gov. Sarah Palin's special-needs child into the discussion shows how low Obamatons can go in defending their hero. I don't know if the Washington Post's blogs are moderated. I do know, however, that the newspaper maintains User Discussion and Submission Guidelines. The very first section states in part:
You agree not to submit inappropriate content. Inappropriate content includes any content that: . . .degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability, or other classification
Here's a screen shot of the comment. On the Internet, things sometimes have a way of getting scrubbed.
If the Washington Post doesn't moderate its blogs, it might want to give serious consideration to doing so. In this Golden Age of Obama, his backers obviously feel free to coarsely express their opinions no matter how despicable.
