If this is true—that the Edwards campaign has caved to pressure from the right wing—he has lost my vote.
The right-wing blogosphere has gotten its scalps — John Edwards has fired the two controversial bloggers he recently hired to do liberal blogger outreach, Salon has learned.
The bloggers, Amanda Marcotte, formerly of Pandagon, and Melissa McEwan, of Shakespeare’s Sister, had come under fire from right-wing bloggers for statements they had previously made on their respective blogs. A statement by the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue, which called Marcotte and McEwan “anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots,” and an accompanying article on the controversy in the New York Times this morning, put extra pressure on the campaign.
I’ll want to see some confirmation from the targets of this rumor first, but if it’s true that Edwards would rather heed the screams of right-wing sleazebags like Michelle Malkin and Bill Donohue than the people he’s supposed to represent, then he has lost. We don’t need another timid Democratic candidate who flits away at every gust of noise from the Republican slander machine.
Zuzu says more, much more. Jebus, but I’m tired of craven Democrats.
A-freakin’-men. FSM help me, I may end up voting for Dennis in the primary after all…
But don’t forget to spare a nasty thought for the usual crap “reporting” from the Gray-and-way-past-her-prime lady.
Well, if this is true it def takes him out of the running in MY book. Although I’m still hoping (probably fruitlessly) that Gore will make an eleventh hour annoucement that he will run.
What in the fuck? Why would Edwards ever consider trying to appease people who are diametrically opposed to him?
If true, Edwards is dead to me…
Marcotte had it coming. She never would’ve gotten away this long with saying the things she has said about Catholics if she were targeting some minority group (Jews, blacks, etc.). Hate speech is hate speech, folks. Doesn’t matter if it targets Catholics and “fundies” or Jews and blacks. Wrong is wrong. Remember that you guys on the left made these rules and it really does suck to be you when you end up on the receiving end of them, doesn’t it? Suck it up and move on (dot org).
I thought Amanda just moved from texas to take this job.
If John Edwards has no problem firing a poor young person who moved across the country to work for him because of what gasbags like michelle malkin and the catholics say, I have no problem not voting for him.
I hope this doesn’t hurt Amanda too much.
I guess that liberal blogger outreach thing backfired.
Yeah, I may have to support Obama now. Fucking dweeb. Goofy on Iran and now caves to the fascist asshats.
Although Edwards’ campaign hasn’t confirmed, I hear.
And reciprocal archive-mining won’t do any good against the republican campaign-bloggers, because IOKIYAR.
Right- you have to be a wingnut to get away with that.
DSM… far from reality as one would expect.
So where was Edwards during the 2004 campaign? Does he remember it at all? ‘Cause you’d think he would be aware that any damn thing a Democrat does these days is met with howls and outrage from the crazy right. I mean, I get not wanting to be labeled as anti-Catholic before the campaigning even gets started, but how does this help? Doesn’t it just make the Catholic League asshats appear to be right?
Also, does anybody know whether this has actually *happened* yet or not? There seem to be some confusion on the matter, depending on one’s sources.
DSM wrote:
I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. What is hate speech? Am I committing that sin if I say that the KKK holds a vile ideology? OK, what if I say that Scientology is stupid, based on the absurd fantasies of a 19th century conman? Oh, wait, that’s a different religion — Scientology is based on the absurd fantasies of a 20-th century sci-fi author.
You can see where this is headed, of course. The rule of sauce for the goose applies in any direction. If I’m allowed to take a sharply worded stand against the KKK, why can I not also do so against Catholicism? It clutters the issue, in this regard, to lump racism into the same category, in your example, against blacks or ethnic Jews. Belief is different, precisely because I can attack the belief without suggesting that those who hold a belief are innately lesser.
I followed that link to Zuzu you gave, http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/02/07/this-is-really-getting-out-of-hand/ and clicked on that clip of Donohue talking about Jews and so on. I wish I hadn’t; now I am depressed. That kind of guy is influential in your country? Well, a comforting thought is that I don’t have to live in the USA– yet still, I need a drink.
It’s also a matter of presenting an air of sheer incompetence. If Edwards is now going to fire them he’ll have to (on pain of appearing to be an utter weasel) use the excuse that he was not sufficiently familiar with their writings before signing off on hiring them. If he doesn’t employ due diligence on such a relatively small matter how can he ask people to trust him to run the government competently?
Hmmm. Well I am not quite ready to say I would drop Edwards from my consideration just yet. I think he is probably our best chance at actually achieving some progressive policies. On the other hand, this would definitely be a big strike against him. Not because I am particularly fond of Marcotte but because caving into right wing pressure is always the wrong move. It is hard to trust the judgement of anyone who would do so, especially so readily. It probably wouldn’t really be an issue if not for the NYT article, but still…
The Catholic Church has positively medieval ideas of reproductive rights and a woman’s place in the world. This among numerous other reasons was why I turned my back on Catholicism. Amanda was right to criticize Catholic doctrine and she sure as fuck was within her rights to use profanity to do so.
Furthermore Bill Donahue is a loud-mouthed bigot. Anything he says can be immediately circular filed as the demented ramblings of a madman. Michelle Malkin, Dan Riehl, or any of the other conservative troglodytes involved in this bullshit witch hunt have called for the trial and execution of a NY times editor, the death of as many Muslims as it takes to make them feel “safe”, as well as continued violation of civil rights of any and all American citizens.
This was just the latest in a long string of dishonest attacks by a group of xenophobic authoritarians. If this is true and Edwards will throw his supporters under the bus to appease these loathsome individuals then I’m done with him. I don’t care what else he has to say about any issue, treachery like this is unforgivable.
DSM –
You’re wrong, I’m afraid; there is a fundimental difference between targeting racial groups, genders, sexual preference and the like and targeting religeons – one of choice. I’m white; I didn’t choose to be white, I just am. An accident of parentage. I should not to attacked as such. I am an athiest. I did choose that, and am more than happy to deal with people disagreeing with me on it.
Moreover, there is a difference between saying “all athiests are hateful and shrill” which is a gross generalization and unfair, and “this athiest is hateful and shrill, in a way that is informed by his athiesm.” I, as an athiest, am still responsible for what I say, and if what I say is related to my stated philosophy on life that’s fair game too.
Finally, most of the criticism’s I can find of Amanda are that she used “foul language.” Ooh. Not that.
So no, hate speach is not hate speach.
Will the bloggers for the Republican campaigns be subjected to the same scrutiny? Its a pathetic fight, but the left didn’t start it… so is it now fair to go where we wouldn’t have before?
And if we do uncover “objectionable” posts from Republican campaign bloggers, will anybody pay attention?
So – draft Feingold?
Liberal bloggers, welcome to the realities of national political campaigns.
“Jebus, but I’m tired of craven Democrats.”
And I’m tired of Democrats losing presidential elections.
And yet you’ve never made the connection between the cravnness and the losing…
But if you get rid of the craven ones, what are we left with?
Re Turcotte
Far more serious then the rantings of a**holes like Donahue and Malkin is Ms. Turcottes’ comments on the Duke rape case. See the attached links. Her vilification of the three accused Duke lacrosse players, even after it became clear that the case was a crock of s*** is outrageous. She should never have been hired in the first place, especially given that Mr. Edwards is an attorney and member of the bar. He should know better then to endulge in character assassination against persons accused of a crime, even before a trial.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/
http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/02/meet_john_edwardss_new_blogger.html#comment-8540
Just to emphasize the difference between Edwards and the Republican nominees, McCain hired a blogger whose history is, well . . . he’s cruel, deceitful, a borderline anti-semite, and no, McCain isn’t thinking of canning him.
Look to the following link for details: http://mediamatters.org/items/200702070007
What a craven lickspittle he is. Do none of the Dems realize that when they tell a right-wing racist pig-scum such as Donohue to Fuck Off they will immediately increase their vote by up to 30% (that portion of the electorate which simply doesn’t vote due to disgust at not having any candidate with a spine to vote for?)
John Edwards is an ambulance chaser and a promoter of bad science:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%5CPOL20040120a.html
in no way will he get my vote…
I also love how the wingnuts are trying to make criticism of the dominant political class (white, male, christian) racism.
One thing people seem to forget in this country is that hate speech is largely dependent on the power differential between groups, and different groups’ sensitivities have cultural and historic significance. So when Catholics or white protestants start claiming discrimination and hate speech, I have a lot of trouble giving it any creedence considering they occupy all the seats of power. Blacks were enslaved, Jews faced a 20th century campaign of extermination. What happened to the Catholics that was so horrible? Even if this were hate speech, which it’s not, what is the significance to white male christians? They had a Catholic president, and about 42 Protestant presidents. When was there a Jewish one? A black? A woman?
Conservatives hate this, they think if blacks make fun of whites for example that they should be able to reciprocate, but they simply don’t get it. If your group is not at all fragile, or disempowered, or lacking sympathy with the nation-at-large, you don’t have a leg to stand on to say that speech against you is harmful. They make it sound like if we mock the Pope’s hat (which I do), it will lead to some pogrom against Catholics. I call bullshit.
Calling Amanda a “liberal” is a bit of a stretch. She’s mostly into the culture wars and she has said some pretty undiplomatic things. I cn’t remember reading much she wrote that I would truly call “political”; she’s a long way from a poilcy wonk. I can kind of see why the Edwards campaign would not want to get bogged down with her kind of baggage.
Hey, Not the Droids…
We want a candidate with balls. Not one who caves to tirades from p.o.s. like Malkin and Donohue. This is exactly what democrats have been doing wrong. The right takes a swipe and you don’t cave. You stand up for your employees and you hit back at the critics.
You can’t cave because the MSM actually listens to this crap. Nedra Pickler is famous for spouting whatever the right has to say and Terry Moran’s brother is a right wing blogger.
If this is the kind of crap that has a candidate scared… they shouldn’t be running.
Don’t give me “this is reality” bullshit. You’re just reinforcing the same navel gazing, bend over and take it attititude that’s screwed us so many times.
Re: The Duke Lacrosse bullshit…
Only rich white men get to go on the Today Show and poison the well with their lawyers.
If he can’t hit back at assholes like this… then what’s the point of running?
http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2007/02/dont-talk-dirty-to-me-william-altar.html
stogoe- I’m sorry, but as a forensic scientist I have to put truth way above politics in such matters. That DA’s case was bullshit, his attempt to try it in the press was outrageous, and his attempts to suppress inconvenient evidence merit disbarment.
Check some more links – the story has moved…
I got 50 bucks for Amanda if she gets fired from Edwards, to help with moving expenses since she just moved to take the job. If Edwards still has her working for him in a month, his campaign gets the money. Anyone else with me?
Then can you see why they would have hired her in the first place, presumably after a thorough search and interview process, in which they would have examined her “baggage”? I mean, when you’re hiring a blogger to be a blogger, I can’t imagine that the due diligence process could be all that intricate.
Re stogoe
Well, we have Mr./Ms. stogoe, a clone of Wendy Murphy, determined to railroad the Duke lacrosse players into the slammer regardless of the lack of evidence. Apparently, like Ms. Murphy, he/she seems to be of the opinion that no woman in the history of the world ever lied about being raped.
Here’s what I wrote to Edwards on the contact page.
==
Firing your liberal bloggers is NOT the way to send the message that you’re trying to overhaul the office of the President.
Why give in to the shrill bleats of ultra right wing morons who’ll never vote for you anyway?
This isn’t a move to the center. It’s caving in to the right.
Shame on you.
David – I agree with you that Amanda was a bad hiring decision, but every campaign makes mistakes and then has to correct them. This isn’t the last time we’ll see something like this. We’ll never elect a Democratic president if we throw our candidates over the side for piddling stuff like this.
I have to say I wasn’t impressed with Amanda Marcotte’s comments on the Duke rape case. Whether that’s a reason to can her or not is another matter, but perhaps Edwards should have considered that before he hired her.
Hah! Like politicians are sincere and have ideals that they genuinely care about. It’s a power game and always has been. Their ideological mentor is Machiavelli, not Jefferson. You take the train that gets you where you need to go, and don’t get too cozy with the other passengers on the way.
You have it backwards Virginia. You’ll never win if you cave to this kind of piddling stuff.
Did anyone actually read what I wrote? Sweet Merciful Pasta-Fuck.
I stick by what I said. The rich white men got to go on the Today show and poison the well with their lawyers. Their side of the story got splashed all over the MSM, along with their racist trashing of the alleged victim. They got to frame and spin the story, because they have white male penis power and the accuser was a poor black female.
That has nothing to do with how badly the DA fucked up, or whether the charges were worth pursuing, or anything regarding the bringing of the case in a court of law. It was outright wrong to let the accused frame the story in the court of public opinion simply because they were rich and white and male.
I am saying that charges of rape should be fully investigated and judged on the evidence, because I would bet that for every one false accusation there are at least a dozen real sexual assaults that don’t go reported for fear of not being believed.
No one should be afraid to report a real sexual assault.
(I also find it odd to have my gender questioned simply because I am against the media bias towards the rich white male’s framing.)
She was hired to be a blogger, she has a web-presence and she will draw readers to a blog, partly BECAUSE of her style and the in-your-face attitude of her posts.
She is not his campaign manager or finance manager, she is not being asked to become a droid or a saint. Her job is to draw as many people as possible to a blog for the sake of getting Edwards’ name out there and on the lips of the voting public. I think controversy like this could only help. After all the Republican shrills wouldn’t vote for him either way so why lose a good person over them?
Amanda is not a policy wonk, unless that policy affects the war between men and women. Her main topics always deal with the hypocrisy regarding the treatment of women, women’s rights, etc and what she thinks is an effort to repeal all the progress that has come about over the last 100 years in favor of the typical mysognistic ways of wingnuts.
Which is why I thought her selection was way out in left field. Amanda’s as smart as they come and well aware of the issues even though she doesn’t discuss them 24/7, and in some ways she would have been a fine choice, but I have to wonder if her history regarding abuse of women wouldn’t have gotten her into trouble regardless at some point in the future.
MYOB’
.
OK, so if they were or are innocent of the crime, how else should they “frame and spin” the story? Particularly if they are being convicted in the media?
This is not snark, this is an honest question.
Re stogoe
1. I’m not questioning stogoes’ gender. I have no idea whether stogoe is male or female, nor do I care.
2. Mr./Ms. stogoe lambasts the defense attorneys for having the temerity to defend their clients. Mr./Ms. stogoe conveniently forgets that they did so only after Mr. Nifong went on television and trashed their clients, conduct which the State Bar Association has found reprehensible.
3. Mr./Mrs. stogoes’ claims that the defense attorneys racially trashed the accuser is totally unsupported. This type of crap is right out of the Wendy Murphy playbook. They merely said that their clients were innocent. As a matter of fact, Mr. Seligmanns’ attorney, Mr. Cheshire, just got throught with a case in which he defended a black man accused of raping a white woman. He used DNA evidence to prove his client innocent and got an acquital. By the way, he handled the case pro bono and received not buck one for his efforts. Doesn’t sound much like a racist to me.
Will the bloggers for the Republican campaigns be subjected to the same scrutiny?
Of course not. They don’t play by the same rules. In fact, they don’t play by *any* rules at all.
Why in the nine hells is Amanda’s opinion about the Duke rape case even remotely an issue? Last I heard people could have an opinion about an alleged crime that has nothing to do with their job and not get fired over it.
Donohue of the Catholic League is a big toxic gas-bag, who appears to give only lip service to the supposed founder of his cult. A year ago it was whining about the “war” on Christmas and “Seasons Greetings” from the Bush White House. More here.
Just curious…about the “anti-Catholic” tag, did any liberal Catholic groups complain about what Marcotte wrote or did any of them join in the recent brouhaha? In fact, did any prominent progressive/liberal/Deomcratic/leftist individual or organization make similar claims? Did it come from anybody beyond questionable characters like Malkin and Donahue?
I might swallow all this easier if the entire duststorm hadn’t been kicked up by folks as squirrely as those two. Odd, isn’t it, that no “extreme” comment by Malkin or Donahue has come up for scruitiny. Particularly Malkin, as foolish as she’s come across the past couple weeks. I mean, if I’m supposed to be outraged because a guy who think gay marriage is a danger to the white race or a woman who thinks internment camps are peachy-keen gets their collective knickers in a twist, I must respectfully decline.
It’s only an issue for SLC. And Duke fans.
If a known punk from down the street bangs on my door and accuses my child of beating him up, you can be sure that I’m going to investigate everything before grounding my kid, and be more inclined to believe his word over the punk’s, and am sure not going to tell the punk that he wins.
I don’t think any of what either of the two of them said on their personal blogs or how much a background check on them was done really matters. What matters is that an Edwards campaign employee was attacked by their most obvious and vicious opponents, and the initial response of Edwards was to take the complaints at face value and capitulate to the demands. He should have backed his supporters and at most said that he’d look into the allegations.
Isn’t there one fracking liberal presidential candidate with balls? Sigh.
McCain’s campaign blogger is a Dominionist who co-blogs with an ignorant racist and a climate change skeptic.
Re commissarjs
Mr. commissarjs asks a good question as to why Ms. Marcottes’ opinion on the Duke so-called rape case should be important. The reason is that her actions and remarks relative to that case show a lack of judgement on her part. The fact is that she continued sliming the accused Duke lacrosse players as late as February 3, 2007 which was after Mr. Nifongs’ transgressions became public knowledge and it became clear to any disinterested party that the case was a crock of s***.
Re Steve_C
So Mr. Steve_C considers prosecutorial misconduct to be of little moment. I certainly hope Mr. Steve_C never becomes the target of an unscrupulous prosecutor as I suspect it might alter his view of the situation.
you know what pisses me off?
People accusing Miss Marcotte of religious “hate speech”.
Not only do Christians themselves constantly belittle other religions, not only have they historically been incredibly oppresive to people of other religious, but their freaking Bible presents non-Christians (And, earlier, non-Jews) as at best imbeciles who should serve as lessons for us all on what not to do, and at worst, subhuman monsters who do nothing but create evil and should be wiped off the map.
When the whole crux of your religion is essentially “Anybody else is either stupid or evil” you loose the privelage of complaining when people call your religion stupid and evil.
Especially given that, unlike Judaism, there are not now and have never really been any powerful organisations trying to oppress Christians in this country.
Bunch of bullies who can’t take their own medicine, if you ask me.
I really don’t know what to make of the Salon article. I don’t see a source for the claim that they were fired, and the only response from the campaign when contacted for comment was along the lines of “I wouldn’t advise saying anything yet; we’ll issue a statement soon”. This comment is characterized as “maybe they will be rehired” rather than “maybe the original story was nonsense” for reasons they fail to explain.
I’m not saying that the article is necessarily wrong, rather that it makes assertions that are not supported by the evidence they choose to give us.
If the original story actually is true, Edwards might as well pack up his campaign now. If it isn’t, he’d better get around to issuing a statement very soon…
I have seen a lot of stuff about Marcotte (well, actually just the Duke thing). No one has said anything at all about McEwan.
Not that it matters. They were hired. If Edwards fires them just because two raving lunatics (who make their living by professionally getting offended) got offended, then he has lost my support, too.
John Edwards’s flag-waving jingoism completely undercut his “two Americas” populism, and the whole DNC of 2004 depressed me so much it drove me to my first GREEN PARTY meeting.
I voted for Dennis K. in the Texas primary and plan to do so again. Then I’ll probably vote for whomever the Greens put up, if they make it on the ballot in Texas. Or I’ll write in whomever the Socialist Party USA has nominated (since for sure THEY won’t make the Texas ballot).
I find it difficult to accept that some of you use ‘populism’ in a non-pejorative sense.
Edwards is now doing the bidding of that colossal asshole from the Catholic League?
Look on the bright side – that’s one less presidential candidate to worry about.
No way will I ever vote for him.
another minus in the Edwards category. What kind of guy camps out in Iowa for four years? not a man of any vision or purpose other than winning.
That’s because you also find it difficult to understand that the money and the power in this country are hogged by people who are above average only in their avarice and amorality, not by people who are elite in any substantive way.
hmm. I read the article you linked to, and it sure makes YOU sound like a plant.
In short, the article you cite does not support your contention. Rather it specifically mentioned that in some cases there has been contributory effects of OB Gyns on the development of cerebral palsey.
Did you analyze each of Edwards cases yourself to see if he argued junk science?
no?
why doesn’t that surprise me.
The Democratic party is worthless garbage, the Republican party consists of power-mad psychos and deluded true-believers, the Green Party is a little too far out on the fringe, and the Libertarian party is just plain off the wall. Based on that, I predict 2008 will bring us another horribly corrupt President, an increasingly impotent Congress (of which the party won’t matter because whoever follows Bush will complete the job of bypassing legislative checks and balances), and a Supreme Court hopelessly stacked with right-wing wackos.
Face it, people, we’re screwed. The Enlightenment project has failed, the Constitution really is just a piece of paper, and the United States is going down.
Parchment.
Like it’s really a worthwhile distinction to make at this point? From this point out it looks like US politics is going to be largely a case of paying lip service to the Constitution while running roughshod all over it (viz. Stalin’s “adherence” to Marxism-Leninism or China’s careful circumscription of Mao’s more disastrous policies while never actually outright condemning them).
I’m a registered Democrat, and I was hoping with the changeover in the House that Nancy Pelosi would show me something as a leader. A month in, and she hasn’t failed to disappoint.
Face it, people, we’re screwed. The Enlightenment project has failed, the Constitution really is just a piece of paper, and the United States is going down.
hmm, why don’t YOU run for president, Brian?
gotta start somewhere, right?
ichthyic:
Too young, too thin-skinned, and not reliable enough. First time someone publicly criticized me in Congress or the media, I’d lock myself in the Oval Office and cry until the VP had me dragged out and took over.
John Edwards, is that you?
all that means is you need to choose a good running mate.
Hint:
avoid people like Dan Quayle
Sure, a defense attorney should defend their client. But rich white boys get on the Today show, and the poor can’t afford to. That’s a fundamental iniquity of our justice system, that the rich can buy their way out of crimes. And they shouldn’t be allowed to.
hmm, why don’t YOU run for president, Brian?
gotta start somewhere, right?
I’ll vote for you, Brian. If you need a blogger who isn’t afraid to call a fucktard a fucktard, I’m your man.
Brian X for President!
PZ:
No, ‘fraid not. I’m an even bigger wuss than he is. That’s why he’s running for president and I have a “job” doing volunteer work at the local public access station. Politically, I’m basically this guy, except instead of being a poorly informed libertarian I’m a bitter and disillusioned liberal.
1) That’s not the justice system, that’s entertainment.
2) Unless you’re going to rule that everyone must accept government lawyers (which would quickly screw over everyone, not just the people too poor to afford quality), there’s no getting around money buying more effective defenses.
3) People can’t buy their way out of crimes. They can only hire lawyers of various qualities.
Re Stogoe
Mr./Ms. Stogoe is correct. There are two standards of justice and the folks who can afford good legal representation have an advantage, although the race of the accused is irrelevent if he/she has the resources (e.g. O. J. Simpson, Kobe Bryant). On the other hand, if the accused had been white working class young men unable to afford competent legal representation, Mr. Nifong might well have gotten away with his railroad job as there probably would have been a plea bargain.
Wrong, and correct, respectively. By and large our legal system avoids multiple standards. And people who can afford better representation do have the advantage.
If this is true–that the Edwards campaign has caved to pressure from the right wing–he has lost my vote.
Good, because he doesn’t deserve it. The guy is a Dem version of Dan Quayle.
What’s the difference?
(See “Simpson, O.J.” and “Blake, Robert.”)
That’s right, it’s come to this
It’s come to this
And wasn’t it a long way down?
Wasn’t it a strange way down?
Edwards isn’t going to get the nomination, regardless, but I’ll just copy something that I just posted over at Ezra Klein’s site:
Quite frankly the way that the Democrats are going, they deserve to lose the 2008 pResidential election.
Brian X | February 7, 2007 08:38 PM
Face it, people, we’re screwed. The Enlightenment project has failed, the Constitution really is just a piece of paper, and the United States is going down.
Buy Euros, learn a foreign language and be prepared to emigrate. We have.
raj: You can skip the learn a foreign language part. Most of us here in the enlightened Europe speak English perfectly well.
Being able to buy your way out of crimes would mean offering money to the court, having it accept it, and having the charges dismissed.
Am I the only person who thinks most people here are jumping the gun? Salon ran a piece saying Marcotte and McEwan had been fired — but the campaign denied it. I agree that it would be dumb, unfair, politically tone-deaf capitulation on Edwards’ part to fire them at the demand of Donohue. So it’s a good thing he hasn’t, isn’t it?
If Edwards comes out guns blazing to defend the two, I’ll be mollified, but not much. At this point, his hesitation at denouncing the claims is also an indication that he’s gutless.
To me the really disturbing thing regardless of the outcome is the amateur-hour quality of the whole thing- the campaign seems to have been caught unprepared by the totally predictable operation of the right-wing slime machine. It makes you wonder wheter the campaign, and Edwards personally, are really ready for prime time.
Much as I disagree a lot with Hillary on many substantive issues, at least she’s demonstrated some understanding of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” and how to hit back at it effectively. She leveled her right-wing-twit opponent in debates during her first Senate campaign. Does Edwards really have the stomach for that kind of fight? At this point I have to wonder.
“I voted for Dennis K. in the Texas primary and plan to do so again. Then I’ll probably vote for whomever the Greens put up, if they make it on the ballot in Texas. Or I’ll write in whomever the Socialist Party USA has nominated (since for sure THEY won’t make the Texas ballot).”
The RNC loves this flavor of liberal.
Has it occurred to anyone that this could be actually be a right-wing attempt to discredit Edwards’ campaign with a bullshit controversy?
Had no one on Edward’s staff ever read Amanda’s blog? Isn’t this pretty much the first thing they should have expected?
Amanda has a unique, consistent, viewpoint and voice, which is exactly what you would think to look for in a good blogger. If they weren’t ready to defend an easily forseen wingnut attack on Amanda, they shouldn’t have put her through all the trouble of uprooting her life for them.
Frankly, I hadn’t considered Edwards much of a candidate until he picked Amanda to run his blog. I had hoped this was a harbinger of a campaign that reflected actual democratic values and was prepared to stand up for something progressive instead of the usual right wing appeasement, but it looks like it may not be so.
I have to agree with PZ. Even if the campaign hasn’t fired Amanda and Melissa, their silence on the issue so far is disappointing.
Obviously, that’s exactly what it is. Again, the disturbing thing is that the Edwards campaign seems to have been so totally unprepared for something that was so totally predictable. We need a candidate who knows how to run a @#$%^&* campaign under current conditions- no more Kerrys, please.
Edwards just issued a statement:
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/2/8/113651/4503
from which I conclude that the Salon story was BS…
What a shitty response. He basically agrees with the wingmuts characterizations of Amanda and Melissa, but is gracious enough to “give them another chance” now that they promise to play nice. Bullshit.
That’s more or less my reaction. Democrats will continue to be toast as long as they fight by Marquess of Queensbury rules while their opponents fight by rules that demand hitting below the belt.
For example, where are the Democratic press releases about the wacko bloggers on some Republican campaigns, including McCain’s? Not to mention, the pess releases attacking the genocidal bigotry of Malkin and Donohue?
Breaking news: Edwards does the right thing.
He walks on eggshells a bit too much for my taste, but the man does have to win elections, so I’ll cut him some slack. Actions speak louder than words and his actions said “fuck you, manufactured outrage mongers”. Overall I think he handled it well, and I don’t blame him for his response time either – he’s not part of the Internet generation, “I’ll get back to you on that tomorrow” is perfectly reasonable provided it isn’t just repeated indefinitely.
At the link Chris provided, we see John Edwards saying the following:
Oops, posted too soon. I meant to add that I expected little better (though I’m still perplexed at why he hired people whose tone offended him — simple ignorance?).
Senator John Edwards:
“The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwen’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.”
Blogger Amanda Marcotte:
“My writings on my personal blog, Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.”
Blogger Melissa McEwen:
“Shakespeare’s Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don’t expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I’ve posted. We do, however, share many views – including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. It has never been my intention to disparage people’s individual faith, and I’m sorry if my words were taken in that way.”
At least he acknowledged that it was an attempt at hijacking the issues.
Basic diplomacy. Edwards-leaning folk who don’t read Marcotte or McEwen will feel assured that this is a non-story. Edwards-leaning folk who do read Marcotte or McEwan will be assured that their fav bloggers will stay on the team. Anti-Edwards strategists will think they’ve prevented Edwards from making effective use of Marcotte’s considerable negative campaigning skills.
So their maligning of people of faith wasn’t serious. Just satire. How does that sit with you religion-haters?
Shhhhuuuunnnnn the unbeeeleeverrrrr.
T
R
o
L
L
The Latest:
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=284
I’m not sure if I’m for Edwards or not, but it would be a shame if this turned into a flip-flop accusation!
“What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?”
I’m sort of sorry Edwards didn’t get rid of these boat anchors. I don’t see why he would want someone who writes like that representing him when he knows that he is going to need the support of people that it would offend. Getting your chuckles pissing off right wing religites is good sport, but it is not worth pissing off left-leaning religites when there aren’t nearly enough politically-engaged athiests in the country to elect a dogcatcher. Unless being smug about your 1st amendment right to take a hard crap on the feelings of people with whom you need to align to keep far worse people out of office is a substitute for, say, winning elections.
It’s the people with whom we will need to make common cause that I care about- this idea that the godless have no responsibility to be polite may be true metaphysically, but it’s fucking retarded politically. There just aren’t enough atheist/agnostic/indifferent to Jeebus voters to win an election for me to defend a goddammed PR flack (which is what a blogger who works for a politician is) for spewing the kind of atheist vulgar bravado we indulge in on blogs (and great fun it is!) Free speech is a core principle, but good manners are at least tactically important, when not being a raging, vulgar, offensive arsehole doesn’t compromise any important principle that I can think of.
Boohoo. The concern is touching.
Yeah, I mean the the media really goes after the right wing bloggers and talking heads on Fox all the time.
Please. They’re bloggers not school teachers.
As a Proud Fanatical Hater Of Religions, I am Deeply, DEEPLY Offended to learn that Marcotte’s satire was ONLY A JOKE. TRAITOR! AMANDA YOU TRAITOR!
We live in a culture that nearly worships figurative violence, be it an action movie, a sports game, or a blog war. Many people avidly follow winners of such contests. The textual viciousness of the reactionary columnists was of great benefit to the Republicans all through the 1994 – 2004 elections.
There are people who would rather see calm gentility in debate, but there aren’t enough of them to win an election. (Nor are theree so few that they can be ignored.)
In any case, it’s a mistake to assume McEwen or Marcotte is incapable of being diplomatic, or writing calmly reasoned pieces. I’m fairly sure they’ll align themselves with whatever tone Edwards chooses to set.