America Rising and America Crossroads using social media so Dems will spread their message.

[Fla Dem]

The Right baits the Left to turn against Hillary Clinton

By Ashley Parker and Nick Corasaniti
Sunday, 17 May 2015 | 10:28 AM ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON — A Twitter post recently caught the eye of Bill McKibben, the environmental advocate and godfather of the Keystone XL pipeline protests. It included an image from “The Simpsons” showing Homer and his family basking in mountains of cash in their living room, followed by a report on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s appearing at a fund-raiser with a lobbyist from the Keystone fight.

Mr. McKibben’s environmental organization, 350.org, has been trying to raise awareness about the ties it sees between lobbyists for the oil pipeline and former aides to Mrs. Clinton. He promptly shared the post with his 150,000 Twitter followers, and the reaction was immediate.

“You expect different from a Clinton?”

.
And from another:


“Did you need another reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton?”

Lost in the response was the source of the offending tweet. It was not another environmental organization or even a liberal challenger to Mrs. Clinton. Instead, it was a conservative group called America Rising PAC, which is trying, with laserlike focus, to weaken the woman who almost everyone believes will be the Democratic Party’s candidate for president in 2016.

>>>>>>>>>>>snip>>>>>>>>>>>

Laura Hart Cole of Verbank, N.Y., whose father, Philip A. Hart, was a senator from Michigan and a liberal icon, was shocked to learn that she had, like Mr. McKibben, shared the meme from America Rising on Twitter. Republican groups, she said, "have a history of sleazy tactics." But she added: "I guess it's fair. If what they're saying is factual, then I guess it's fair play. It's a dirty game."

Conservative strategists and operatives say they are simply filling a vacuum on the far left, as well as applying the lesson they learned in 2012, when they watched in frustration as Mitt Romney was forced to expend time and resources in a protracted primary fight. By the time he secured his party's nomination, President Obama hardly had to make the case that his opponent was a coldhearted plutocrat; Republicans like Newt Gingrich had already made the argument for him in the primaries.

more>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102684946

We may love Hillary, we may hate Hillary, but we don't need to do the Rethugs dirty work for them.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. "I guess it's fair. If what they're saying is factual, then I guess it's fair play."

So, if I point out to a Tea Partier who hates the TPP that Jeb supports it, then I'm indulging in "a dirty game."

[Fla Dem]

3. I don't think that's the point of the article.

No you aren't engaging in "a dirty game" when you point out to a Tea Partier that Jeb supports the TPP. I believe what the article was expounding on was that RW PAC's are effectively flooding social media with criticism against HRC. Then Liberals/Progressives not realizing the twitter, or FB item is the product of a RW PAC shares the item with their like minded or maybe not like minded Democratic friends. So in effect doing the Republicans work for them. Is that fair, I guess so; all's fair in love and war. But will all those messages be accurate and truthful? Who knows. The means will justify the end in driving a wedge into HRC's support. Having said that I admire Bernie Sanders, and I also have a lot of respect for HRC. I have not made my mind up yet.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. I was speaking of truthful information.

Of course the RW has no standards other than those of convenience. But if a verified and damaging piece of information comes out about a candidate, am I to ignore it because some RW site picked it up?

Personally, I never knowingly bring anything here from a site like American Stinker--uh, Drinker--uh I mean Thinker . Not just because of their inherent untrustworthiness, but to avoid giving them traffic, etc., & wish others wouldn't as well. In this case, however, I already knew of the story from a different site, and it checked out, so the fact that it came here from a bad source didn't invalidate it with me; in fact, I didn't spot where this particular version came from.

On the other hand, a good way to discredit a story that has appeared in good sources with good validation might be to go looking for it on wingnut sites (where it will surely be in some form or another) and cite that sourcing as if it were the only place the story has appeared.

[okaawhatever]

2. There are some here on DU who have encouraged people to check out the America Rising

website. Sadly, not enough voted to hide the post. I guess it's okay as long as it's against Hillary.