In an April 12 article claiming that Hillary Clinton "will try to make more political hay out of the Don Imus controversy by visiting Rutgers University," NewsMax heaped more scorn on Hillary by using anonymous blog commenters to attack her:
After Hillary’s planned trip to Rutgers was reported by the New York Daily News’ blog Mouth of the Potomac, one posted comment read: "The Queen of Pander strikes again.”
Another read: "Maybe she’ll go to Duke University next?”
Why are the anonymous comments on a blog so newsworthy? For the ConWeb, it appears to be a way to attack enemies is a tactic we're seeing the ConWeb more lately; for instance, a March 14 WorldNetDaily article by Joe Kovacs repeats the statements several pseudonymous online commenters bashing Katie Couric. The apparent purpose of doing so is to serve as a firewall plausible deniability, to permit the likes of WND and NewsMax to put such attacks and other such sentiments it agrees with into wider circulation while claiming they themselves weren't actually saying that, they were just reporting what was posted on a blog.