Well, CG, your quoted statement is actually inaccurate. In the link you provided to Bloggasm:

"I suspect that it was Obama supporters because I think the block was timed to affect blogs prior to the unity event so that we would not `rain on the unity parade,' GeekLove said. "Also, Obama has ads out hiring people with no experience, except the ability to use computers. I presume these are the individuals responsible for silencing any opposition. His campaign has really harnessed the power of the internet and in the process learned to game the system in a way that I find frightening."

That's some high-grade paranoia that you're quoting.

Whether or not you intended to, your entire diary reads with a tone that indicates that Obama's proxies, whether "officially" endorsed by his campaign or not, are silencing all opposition. Perhaps it's that I'm used to see Fox News use the same tactic (asking a question rather than making a statement to create an impression that you can disavow ever actually saying), but all I see are conclusions without facts, only suspicions.

Blogger offers readers the opportunity to flag blogs as spam or complain about objectionable content.  And apparently someone has been using this to shut down blogs that are perceived as critical to Obama.

Fact one (there is a spam button) precedes fact two (some sites have been taken down as spam). That doesn't indicate causation, especially when fact three (there's an error-prone automated spam marking algorithm) offers a viable alternate answer. From what I've read in the comments, it seems like the primary cause of false spam blockings is the failed automated review. If anything, the "report spam" button seems to trigger a human review (which would, of course, not cause your obviously non-spam blog to be suspended).

But, to answer your next question (somewhere down thread here), it is possible for one group of blogs to be registered as spam together without nefarious human intervention. Take the next-to-last post before your "we're back from being suspended" post. There are large blocks of quoted text that one would expect would be quoted around the antiObamasphere. A large group of people posting a similar chunk of text with other unusual shared keywords could set off automated filters. Or, the fact that a lot of the posts are cross-posted (and, as such, a simple strict Google search will find exact matches) could also set off automated filters, especially since most of the spam diaries are copies of other web sites (especially Wiki) in the hopes of co-opting traffic intended for non-spam sites.

I guess what I'm getting at is that you're blaming human intervention for Obama's benefit (even if you never blame Obama's proxies, you've still got the question of who else would do it), when I don't see any indication that there's any evidence that this was a human triggered review other than a lot of sites with a similar goal quoting similar sources got pulled in together and yours got caught in the same net (even though you don't share their goal). And, like I said in the anti-PUMA PAC founder thread, I'm not much for attacking a group (in this case, Obama supporters or anti-anti-Obama forces), even if they're anonymous, without any facts to back it up.

(P.S. Sorry for the length, I've been without internet traveling for the holiday, so I've got some pent-up writing energy).