TPM LiveWire

Facebook Poll: 'Should Obama Be Killed?'

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

A Facebook poll -- apparently advocating assassination -- has cropped up, with the question, "Should Obama be killed?"

Pam Spaulding points out the poll on her blog. The answer choices are Yes, No, If he cuts my health care, and Maybe.

These polls are part of an application run by an outside party, not Facebook itself.

An ancillary poll has also popped up: "Should the person who created the 'Should Obama be Killed Poll' be arrested?"

Late update: The application that hosted these polls has apparently been disabled. The links above now lead to an error message: "The application 'Polls' is temporarily unavailable due to an issue with its third-party developer. We are investigating the situation and apologize for any inconvenience."

Late late update: The Secret Service is investigating the incident and asked Facebook to remove the poll, Greg Sargent reports.

"We are taking the appropriate investigative steps," said a Secret Service spokesman. "We are aware of it."

Late late late update: As far as we can tell, a blog called The Political Carnival first flagged the poll Sunday night and called the Secret Service.

Another update: Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt tells TPM: "The application that enabled a user to create the offensive poll was brought to our attention this morning and was disabled. We're following up [with] the developer to ensure the offending content has been removed and that they have better procedures in place going forward to monitor their user-generated content."

Schnitt also tells us that it was not the Secret Service who brought the poll to Facebook's attention, but the social networking site did report it to them.

And another update: Schnitt clarifies that the Secret Service asked Facebook today to take down the poll, but it had already been removed.

Join the Conversation!

52 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

September 28, 2009 12:32 PM   

This shocks me. Is it legal to make this suggestion? I recall when people even sniffed at LBJ or Bush they went to jail...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 12:41 PM   

I am appalled.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 12:43 PM   

they should arrest everyone who has voted yes

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 12:43 PM   

I'm guessing that it's technically legal. One would probably couch their argument for it in the First Amendment.

That being said, the person who posted can be assured that his or her IP address will be traced, and that person will probably also receive a special visit from the Secret Service.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 1:03 PM    in reply to hewhohasnoname

Not a chance. In fact, you'd stand a good chance of prosecution if you posted a poll like this about anyone, much less the President with his extra layers of legal protection.

Speech is speech, but it's also an action and can have legal consequences. Threats have never been protected speech. I couldn't say, "How would you like it if I set your house on fire?" and then claim I was merely inquiring after your opinions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 1:30 PM    in reply to semiotix

But, from a legal standpoint, is it truly a threat? It's not a direct incitement to violence. It "merely" asks a question. Legally, the person could argue that he/she was "simply" acquiring information on the current state of American political sentiment.

Don't get me wrong... I'm certainly not trying to defend it. I think it's sickening. I think the person's intentions were sinister.

I'm just noting that the illegality of this despicable action isn't definitive.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 2:03 PM    in reply to hewhohasnoname

Oh, I know you weren't defending it. But I do think the bar is set much lower than you're thinking. Courts are pretty good at separating political speech from threatening speech, and at parsing what counts as a threat.

Remember, you don't have to present your plan to the person being threatened for it to count, nor do you have to have a particularly good chance of succeeding. The threat itself is the harm. Law enforcement takes even the mildest, most implausible threats to the president seriously because they damage the ability of all presidents to govern, especially if left unchallenged.

And the same principle applies to everyone else, except not quite as urgently. If I'm a 98-pound weakling and you're a ninja, my constantly threatening to beat you up might not be all that plausible, but the burden of having to keep an eye on me just so I don't sneak up on you with a knife isn't something you should have to bear--so the police step in. And if the way I'd threatened you was by handing out leaflets in your neighborhood and at your work that said, "Should _____ get a knife in the back? Vote in my telephone poll!" they wouldn't let me go on First Amendment grounds.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

September 28, 2009 2:13 PM    in reply to hewhohasnoname

I'm no lawyer, but speaking as a layman, it seems to me that putting that question in a public poll falls under the same umbrella as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater that was Justice Holmes's famous example of something that went beyond the allowed limits of free speech.

The unanimous ruling he was justifying was that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during the First World War. This, he said, presented a clear and present danger to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. It seems to me that the poll in question represents a danger to the country that is at least as clear and present.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 3:09 PM    in reply to hewhohasnoname

Sure, technically it is just asking a question. But that's Glenn Beck's M.O..."hey, I'm just asking questions...."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 2:05 PM    in reply to semiotix

That's actually a more complicated area of law than you might think. There was a big case in the late 60's called Brandenburg v. Ohio, which concerned a KKK guy who made a speech at a rally containing the following gem: "We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken." Sadly, the state of Ohio didn't have a law against butchering the English language, so instead they busted the guy for inciting violence. The Supremes said no: speech that advocates illegal conduct is still protected by the First Amendment unless the criminal action it advocates is likely to occur immediately.

"Immediate" and "likely" are two independent analytic elements. So if I publish something on Facebook saying "I think Obama should be shot if Congress passes a health-care plan with a trigger provision and the trigger conditions are not met after two years," that's clearly protected under Brandenburg, because I'm not advocating that anything happen before two years from whenever the plan passes, if it passes in that form at all. And if I say "I think someone should assassinate Obama TODAY by dropping a Bosendorfer grand piano on him out of a fourteenth-story window," that's also protected, because it's not likely to happen at all. I think the Facebook "poll" being discussed here is pretty far from advocating immediate likely action -- or advocating anything, really.

It's still appalling, and the First Amendment doesn't say that the Secret Service can't go investigate the jerks who posted this and generally harass them and make their lives hell, and I have no doubt they'll do that, because they're cops and that's what cops do. But I don't think whoever it is can be successfully prosecuted for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 2:10 PM    in reply to LegalCat

Thank you for more eloquently (and entertainingly) making the point that I was trying to convey.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 2:28 PM    in reply to LegalCat

"But I don't think whoever it is can be successfully prosecuted for it."

If they can take Siegelman down for politics as usual, they can put these creeps behind bars.

Regardless, who cares if the prosecution is successful (I would bet a plea bargain would stop it long before it ever was fought shamefully in a "higher court" ) as long as it exposes the guilty parties to the public?

And I disagree with everyone here who seems to think this falls under the 1st amendment right to free speech. Soliciting opinions that mortally threatens ANY elected official is far more egregious than distributing anti-war literature during wartime.

Seriously, if anyone is actually tried in court for this, and they attempt to fight it on a 1st Amendment defense, it will become one of the most publicly watched courtroom cases tried since Scopes or Bush V. Gore.

Maybe it should happen just that way, If they want to fight this as a 1st amendment issue let me quote the original monkey; "Bring em' on!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 29, 2009 8:05 AM    in reply to semiotix

If there is a statute that has apparently been violated,an aggressive prosecution should be pursued for reasons of deterrence. It is not the job of a prosecuter to try and read the minds of Apppeal Courts. If a conviction is later overturned upon appeal based on the First Amendment of the Constitution, so be it. All the prosecution has to avoid is any appearence of malicious prosecution.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 12:45 PM   

What I noticed on Facebook is that the majority of adults on facebook seem to be conservatives. I have seen plenty of STUPID polls were, when I voted in a manner that would be considered the Liberal of Moderate answer, I was always in the minority...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 12:49 PM    in reply to dave.1967

You know, being a conservative shouldn't make you any more in favor of assassination than being a liberal. I know that wasn't your meaning, but really the whole thing is getting more and more disgusting. They could not possibly hate our President any more than I do our previous VEEP, but I never wished that anyone kill him. If a poll had gone up like that about him, what do you think the consequences might have been?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 12:58 PM    in reply to CVille Dem

Outrage. I never liked the guy, maybe even vehemently hated his stances, but never would have wanted him assassinated. The president represents our country, something most Democrats and Republicans seem to get.

It's always the crazies that we have to worry about.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 12:53 PM   

FWIW I just called my local Secret Service field office and reported it. The gentleman I spoke to was not aware of it, asked for my name and number, and said that their computer guys would look into who created the poll. I gave him the links to Josh's Incitement blog post as well as Pam Spaulding's website.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 1:01 PM    in reply to LisB

As a follow-on, both polls are now unavailable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 12:54 PM   

This is a matter for the Secret Service, period.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 1:01 PM   

The Facebook "polls" app is now down.

And to answer hewhoha, no it is not legal. Threatening or inciting others to kill, kidnap or inflict bodily harm against the POTUS, VPOTUS, the Speaker of the House or anyone in the chain of succession, is not protected speech and is in fact a violation of law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 1:54 PM    in reply to Lestatdelc

As I noted above, the question about whether or not this constitutes a threat, from a legal perspective, is not clear.

U.S. v. Kelner: ""on its face and in the circumstances which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened as to convey a gravity of purpose, imminent prospect of execution."

Does this instance meet that definition? I don't think that that's clear.

I think people are conflating moral and legal aspects of the matter. Morally, I think an overwhelming majority (myself included) would find this "poll" to be disturbing, sickening. However, the legal aspect isn't quite so lopsided or definitive; arguably, there's some ambiguity about whether or not this constitutes a threat.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 2:38 PM    in reply to hewhohasnoname

You are ignoring the incitement case law. Which this fits under.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 3:29 PM    in reply to Lestatdelc

You think this question constitutes incitement, from a legal perspective?

I think it's a tenuous legal argument to say that it does. There is no advocacy of action here. Now, if all of the "poll's" options had all been "yes," or some affirmative variation, then I think you would have a sound argument of intent. But, even the simple inclusion of the "no" option muddies intent.

As it stands, one is left with ascribing intent to a "mere" inquiry (i.e., "Should...?"). Granted, the inquiry is incendiary; nevertheless, controversy alone isn't synonymous with incitement to violence.

Ultimately, this boils down to a question of intent. Was it this person's intent to incite violence? Was it this person's intent to gather information? (Or, something else entirely?) Certainly, arguments can be made for the former and latter questions. A cogent argument could be made (barring additional information, such as this person's connection to a hate group) that this was an attempt to collect information. That's why I think the intent, legally, is difficult to ascertain and/or ascribe.

Thus, legally, I think it would be difficult to do much about this; there is no clear effort to incite violence.

Distilling this, and putting it another way, absent any clear incitement to violence, is it illegal to ask a controversial and distasteful question? I don't think there's a court that would concur with the notion that it is. Such a ruling would encroach on First Amendment rights.

Again, we have to separate the distastefulness of this "poll" from the legal questions. I think this person has succeeded in landing himself/herself on a Secret Service list of people to monitor. But, I don't think there's much else that can be done about this -- barring the revelation of more damning information.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 8:33 PM    in reply to hewhohasnoname

Sometimes you can be so open minded that your brain can fall out. If this isn't incitement, what is? Making it perfectly okay to discuss the assassination of our President as a valid option? Actually - no; not an option: SHOULD IT HAPPEN - as in advocacy for assassination, with TWO of the responses out of 4 being, YES?!?!?!?!

A year ago, it was considered unpatriotic, and an offense against our military to simply disagree with our unelected president on any point at all, and if you did it overseas, it was considered an act of treason.

If you were riding on a bus, and someone had a gun pointed at your head, and decided to ask the others on the bus to vote: Should he pull the trigger? I think you would consider that to be something other than a legally defined effort to elicit violence? Well, you'd be too busy peeing your pants to decide, but I will answer for you.

By any normal rational human being, this is incitement -- try defending your non-action if the bullet was fired.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 11:18 PM    in reply to CVille Dem

"If you were riding on a bus, and someone had a gun pointed at your head, and decided to ask the others on the bus to vote: Should he pull the trigger? I think you would consider that to be something other than a legally defined effort to elicit violence? Well, you'd be too busy peeing your pants to decide, but I will answer for you."

Yeah, that was real classy, particularly the part about me "peeing [my] pants." Because, we all know that when we don't agree with someone, the best way to handle the situation is to revert to childish behavior or accuse the other person of being weak-kneed or feeble minded.

But, I digress...

Your "gun-to-a-bus-rider's-head" example isn't analogous to what's happening here. That would entail a distinct and immediate physical threat. This "poll" does not constitute a distinct and immediate threat; it's an incendiary, but still nebulous, inquiry. That is why I'm saying that, even though this "poll" is despicable, I don't think there's much that can be done about it legally, at least not at this point, unless the person has a history with assassination-focused propaganda.

I'm absolutely not condoning this person's actions. I'm just noting that, in the context of our legal system, the issue probably wouldn't be so clear-cut.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 1:03 PM   

Don't know if it has anything to do with this one, but at Facebook it now says:

The application "Polls" is temporarily unavailable due to an issue with its third-party developer. We are investigating the situation and apologize for any inconvenience.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 1:19 PM    in reply to midnight rambler

No it doesn't have anything to do with it. The "Polls" app is simply down. This happened to the "Polls" app on Facebook a week or so ago, and was down for an entire day, then came back up with all the polls and comments intact.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 1:03 PM   

For what it's worth it now seems to be gone. In fact all polls seem to be gone. You now get this message -

"The application "Polls" is temporarily unavailable due to an issue with its third-party developer. We are investigating the situation and apologize for any inconvenience."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 1:07 PM   

Wow.

But if you accept that Obama = Hitler (or the Joker), then it's a pretty short logical step to asking this question.

I hope this doesn't end badly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 1:10 PM   

Such polls are depressing and disturbing. Facebook is a great way to keep in touch with far-flung family and acquaintances, but it sometimes reminds me of why I was glad to move into my own place.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 1:42 PM   

I dunno. This sort of thing is apalling, yes. But for that very reason, I would like as much information about who posted that poll, how many votes it got, and what connections that person has, as possible.

Relentless, accurate exposure of the face of this kind of mentality is one of the best ways I know to drive normal people away in droves. I think there's great value in exposing this stuff, and the people behind it and their enablers in the media.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 1:50 PM   

There needs to be swift and harsh consequences implemented on those who are responsible for the posting and poll representations. And definitely all who are a part of this need to have their names and affiliations published. ASAP!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 2:08 PM   

I heard that the poll was up since 8pm last night - it is a shock that Facebook just took it down today. Even if it was about cheating partners/spouses or some insurance CEO, still!
We're not talking about someone on the death row, but The President of the country. But then again, some people in the country did not have a problem with going to war with Iraq and killing Saddam Hussein by hanging and publishing the picture of it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 2:18 PM   

Someone needs to be arrested for this.

Imagine if it had happened during Bush's heydey, just after 9-11?

It may not have been possible to remove the poll quickly, once it was posted, but it sure would be easy to make a public example out of the miscreants who posted it.

Facebook is a totally neutral entity in this matter, and it's administrators can't be held accountable for offering an open forum. But HOW that forum is used is another matter.

Everyone responsible (I doubt it is a single party) should be brought to the public's attention, exposed for their treason and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I can only hope some of the creeps I suspect might have encouraged this will get caught up in that dragnet. No doubt, the wingnuts will call it a witch hunt, but methinks they will protest too much, to the point that their complicity will become much more transparent.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 2:22 PM   

why is this even news. do we really need to know everything that the crazies amongst us are doing?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 3:25 PM    in reply to lamonth

"do we really need to know everything that the crazies amongst us are doing?"

Ignorance of the lawless is a lousy excuse?

(I'm in a paraphrase mood today,)

Seriously, you don't consider this "news"?

Sonds like "There's nothing to see here folks, please step away from the scene of the crime."

Maybe Facebook should have left it up and we might have snared a few careless "yes" voters in the dragnet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 2:23 PM   

And counting down to comments from from conservative blowhards and/or the MSM equating this to, say, anti-globalization protesters or Cindy Sheehan.

2:1 Rush has something to say about it tomorrow and it won't be whole-hearted, unequivocal denuciation. 3:1 he blames it on liberals trying to discredit conservatives because, of course, only liberals use Facebook.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 3:33 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Paging shooter242! False equivalency opportunity here! Don't miss it!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 2:30 PM   

"Schnitt also tells us that it was not the Secret Service who brought the poll to Facebook's attention, but the social networking site did report it to them."

Viva la blogs!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 2:31 PM   

"only liberals use Facebook."

So, Maybe Rush is on Buttbook?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 2:32 PM   

This is the farthest extent of tyranny. It starts at the polling booth, when people go to vote against equal rights for people, like they did in Arizona, Florida and California, voting against marriagee equality for LGBT Americans. The next step is taking guns to health care townhall meetings. The next step is letting the propaganda from Faux Noise fire people up to show up at teagagger rallies with racist signs. The next step is posting a poll giving people the idea that they belong to a tyrannical powerful majority. Hopefully no one will take the final step. But it all starts when the seed is planted that tyrannical voting blocs rule. Who reading this now was part of the first step to tyranny.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

RWN

user-pic

September 28, 2009 2:52 PM   

This kind of stuff is going on all over the "authoritarian" (err--ubber conservative reactionary) world. It is what the "authoritarian dynamic" calls the rejection response. First those who call themselves conservatives but who actually are authoritarians, do so to gain cover, they know they are politically incorrect to their core, but in calling for the killing of a president is what was done with Kennedy and Lincoln. Authoritarians actually do not hold to constitutional or modern democracies---they are intolerant of all differences and diversities. In this case the kindling of their inflamed responses are the change in what they think America is---unequal and entitled to those who the look to as being "right-thinking". It is pathological and dangerous.

As for the Speech, actually Facebook and is surrogates have their own remedies when you click OK....as for the secret service investigating let us see what turns up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 3:15 PM   

These people have to be reined in; freedom does not mean no consequences. A vote was taken, a mna elected. Whoever doesn't agree does not have the right to anarchy without consequences. lThis is just crazy and someone needs to step in. The GOP is beyond contempt for not stopping their people. I would like to see "representative government" held accountable for this. Send all elected officials who do not attempt to contain this visibly, verbally and aggresively to jail. There are plenty of statutes for this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

GME

user-pic

September 28, 2009 3:18 PM   

Facebook is in full freak out mode (as I would be if it were my company). I tried to post a link to Josh's article on my Wall and it was disappeared a few seconds later. I then tried to post an article to his home page with the note, read the 'Incitement' article. It woo was scrubbed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 3:37 PM    in reply to GME

That's interesting because I posted a link to the survey (commenting that I was sickened) and in the comments I posted the link to this TPM article. It is still on my Wall.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 3:50 PM   

Can you imagine the outrage by the Reich wing noise machine IF a "librul" had suggested this for booooosh?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 4:11 PM   

It doesn't surprise me. I have had to confront the dread that many African Americans and other minorities in the U.S. realized when he was elected and sworn in, attempts on his life will occur. People showing up outside rallies with guns, Hitler comparisons, communist rhetoric (MLK), and public disrespect by elected public officials. It's only a matter of time before some nut goes ballistic, I only worry about how the public will react. Tick, tick, tick. (Sad but true).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 8:58 PM    in reply to Suissebird

I am white and not a day goes by that I don't think about it. I don't know that our country would survive the aftermath. There will be some seriously pissed off people and I will be one of them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 4:12 PM   

Have all yea forgotten Thomas Beckets assisnation after King Henry the Young (according to Wikipeadia) is supposed to have asked "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" When some aids did they in turn executed because it was only a question.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 5:50 PM    in reply to bpalmer51

As I recall Henry submited to being flogged to show his contrition.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 5:40 PM   

I've seen many political "polls" on Facebook. It has been my experience also that most have had responses weighted in the right-wing direction, but one has to keep in mind that knowledge of these polls are spread from one user to another, so right-wing types circulate them among their Friends.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 10:20 PM   

Remind me, what did Jimmy Carter say about race and the Obama presidency?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on