In his post “Clinton Supporters are Utter Morons“, the Furry commented on the apparent use of message board commentary to push a political point. He was decrying the apparent stupidity and immaturity of pro-Clinton posters in comparison to those of her opponent, Barack Obama. I’ve noticed it too, but lately, we have been discussing an apparent change in tactics from the Clinton side of the campaign. Gone are the masses of vapid NOBAMA! spam, replaced by carefully articulated arguments against an Obama candidacy - maybe the Furry called that one right? - particularly on pro-Obama articles.

I’m not as trigger-happy as he is and hesitate to call shenanigans - he’s been calling it for a while - but if it’s true, then it bears some thought about what the respective web organizations say about the nature of the two campaigns.

Obamaniacs are, as a whole, an optimistic bunch (though they seem to have gotten slightly defensive of late). They’re active posters, often with decent online profiles and a good helping of wit with a side of sarcasm. Their comments tend to be level, (somewhat) more respectful and more “factual” than the average; typically falling back on known talking points, arguing with facts that are generally common knowledge. Their mode appears to be passive-aggressive. When on the defensive, they tend to act hurt and peeved that anyone, ANYONE, could conceivably call them drones and, oh, by the way, Clinton is SO destroying the party and should drop out now. Favorite gut-shots include accusations of racism, small-mindedness, selfishness and fear of differences.

The Clintonistas, on the other hand, are an angry, aggressive lot (understandably). They’re more likely to be “one-post-wonders” on social sites and are often free with their accusations of “media bias” and “pro-Obama propaganda”. They aren’t shy about calling their opponents “Obama-bots”, insulting the intelligence of an author, blogger or reporter and anyone in general. Their posts tend to center around innuendo, inference, “logical extensions” and other nudge-nudge wink-wink topics that are generally not carried on the mainstream media and blogosphere, if they appear anywhere at all. They’re the bitter aggressive, wantonly lashing out at anything they feel is working against their candidate, sometimes reasonably, sometimes not. The main talking points appear to be “unAmerican”, “Foreign, “Elite” and “inexperienced”. With emphasis on “unAmerican” and “Foreign”.

And McCainiacs? You hardly see em’. Maybe they’re the new “silent majority”.