Ok, I`m not certain if they`ve been fired or not, but this is unbelivable.

If John Edwards can`t stand up to Michelle Malking and William Donahue, he shouldn`t be allowed on a playground. The other children will mess up his hair and take his lunch money.

If you punch Hillary, she punches you back, harder. John Edwards rolls into a ball, sells out his friends and associates and tries to make nice with bullies.

If Marcotte and McEwan are gone, I`m telling Edwards to take my name off his list of supporters.

Although I don't feel as strongly as profbacon above, I do agree it's a bad idea. But because Edwards has campaigned nationally before, and because he seems so savvy, I can't imagine bad judgment prevailing here. Like Kevin said, he had to know what he was getting before hand, in content, history and opinions from these two bloggers. There's no way this one small incident derials his judgment and campaign.

I think they'll just lie low and play neutral while the rest of the blogosphere takes this issue on.

Steve Benen: Indeed, it’s worth remembering that Rush Limbaugh would have been in the above photo, but couldn’t make the meeting. No matter — not long after the WH meeting, and a week after Limbaugh mocked a man for having Parkinson’s, the president sat down with the right-wing talk-show host for an interview.

Pretty much says it all... the POTUS aka, the *cough* "uniter") voluntarily sitting down with one of the most divisive, offensive, unpleasant, distasteful, disgusting, repellent, odious, insulting, rude, impolite, abusive, obnoxious, repulsive, foul, detestable, contemptible, loathsome, and objectionable media personalities in existence.

And the Edwards campaign has a problem with Marcotte and McEwan? Please.

I'm actually amazed at the consensus on this from the left side of the blogging world. I really expected moderate progressives like Drum & Marshall to give a half-hearted "well, but" excuse to cover up Edwards firing Amanda, but instead it's almost a blanket show of support. Hope Edwards is smart enough to realize that the only people demanding Amanda get fired are the people who would never vote for him and, like their dear leader Bush, only like fucking around with other peoples' lives for entertainment.

Apparently, one thing that Melissa McEwan said -- and she is certainly the less extreme of the two bloggers -- is that Bush needed to appeal to his "Christofascist base."

Is it just me, or does it seem to others that if you write a phrase like that, maybe you have no reason to expect you might be officially hired as a kind of spokesperson or liason by a major national political campaign?

Really, "Chistofascist base"? What does she expect?

And forget about Amanda Marcotte.

"Bloggers nearly all talk trash, and if Edwards sets a precedent by agreeing that you shouldn't hire a blogger who's ever said anything offensive, then that's it for hiring bloggers."

I'd agree with the Edwards campaign's decision to ax Marcotte, but not for garden-variety "offense" or profanity, but for sucking.

Mr. Drum, for instance, uses profanity sparingly and effectively, and is unapologetically partisan at times. The person from Pandagon, from my somewhat limited readings over there, wasn't only vulgar - she kinda sucked. IMO. Diffrent strokes for different folks an all.

I also don't know why Edwards campaign didn't know this already.

People seem to be focusing on who pushed for McEwan and Marcotte's removal -- namely right wing wackos.

But that misses the point.

The point is, what did these two bloggers actually SAY?

When you see a phrase like "Christofascist base", you realize there's a real problem.

I ask, how easy would it be for Edwards to convince Evangelicals to support him if he insists in keeping in his employ a person who is on record as using the phrase "Christofascist base"?

When McEwan wrote that phrase, and pressed the post button, she should have known she would have no real career in national politics. I would have guessed that that is what she expected and perhaps even wanted at the time.

You can either choose your words very carefully and do political work, or you can be free as you wish in what you say and stay out of official politics. You simply can't do both.

This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what anybody ever said in the past. Not a thing.

This is entirely about Edward's opponents trying to push his campaign around by applying a little smear pressure.

If his campaign can't figure this out, they can save everyone time and money by folding now, because Democratic opponents are going to get much viler and more vitriolic than this in the next few months.

American Hawk:

I'm a student at a small college in northern San Diego. The most life-altering course I've ever taken was a feminist course, because it showed me how much I, as a white male, take for granted in terms of tradition, religion and values. Society really is a male-centric construct, and that causes a great deal of oppression and resentment.

Are you familiar with "the other," or soft violence? They sound like feminist buzz words, but they do in fact have tangible effects. Try putting yourself into someone else's shoes, someone who plays the easy target, or is a kind of passive personality, and see if your ideas about tradition, religion and values aren't altered.

This is of course assuming you are an honest person, and not some antagonistic prick.

The very fact you assert, without defining, the values, traditions and religion of a country as vast and complex and historically rich (and tragic, at times) as the United States speaks volumes about the state of egotism of patriarchy. And that's what Amanda and people like her represent: the other - the indigenous people, the disenfranchised, the powerless, the outcast, the handicapped, all the people shut out from refined society that control the banks, the media, the institutions.

You're doing a great disservice to a lot of people in speaking for them, in essence, telling anyone who disagrees with you to shut up and sit down. And based on the trajectory of history, you're on the losing end of a cultural battle. You can't assume you represent everyone anymore.

I don't think this incident is such a big deal for the Democratic primary, but it will be a much bigger deal in the general election if Edwards is the nominee.

Mark my words: in this end, Edwards will keep them and it'll end up being a huge netroots victory for him...Lemonade outta lemons...
as for the what were they thinking question, well obviously a campaign has a lot of different moving parts.

Let me get this straight; The Right says that John Edwards is a bad man for hiring a foul-mouthed blogger, but they can live with the fact that G.W. Bush presided over the horrible torture incident at Abu Gihrab?

Huh?

"Bloggers nearly all talk trash, and if Edwards sets a precedent by agreeing that you shouldn't hire a blogger who's ever said anything that anyone finds offensive, then that's pretty much it for hiring bloggers.'

I don't think this is true; a candidate could, for instance, hire a moderate milquetoast bloggers like Drum.

The Republicans have long claimed a double standard where they are allowed the most insane offenses while reserving the right to feign outrage at any critique that doesn't follow their rules for acceptable criticism. Edwards should not endore that double standard. This IS about the people attacking these two bloggers. Edwards would be foolish to buy into the spin of his attackers and apply THEIR double standard on his allies. They get to call me evil? They get to call me a traitor? They get to accuse me of being a bigot just because I disagree with them? And using any similiarly colorful language in response makes me untouchable? Bull. We cannot enshrine the Republican rules for acceptable criticism. Because guess what? There isn't any.

people on the right say Islamofacist all the time, they get invited to the White House. I`m not a big Pandagon or Shakespeare`s Sister reader, I don`t agree, and in fact I seriously disagree about some of their posts, but this isn`t about those two bloggers.

This is about John Edwards.

He was fairly passive in the debate against Cheney. As soon as he could no longer make a difference, he took a `brave` stand against the war.

I`m going to assume he and his people knew that Marcotte and McEwan had said some pretty inflamitory stuff, but they weighed the options and realized these were the best people for internet outreach.

Now he`s going to throw them under a bus because two tiny little pissants don`t like their work?

How can we trust Edwards with important stuff like National Security? He`s selling out allies to opponants. He better find a spine real freaking quick. Because right now he`s developing a very serious wimp-factor problem.

It's worth noting that the people causing a stir over all this are worse than "far right voices" as Steve Benen calls them. They are the worst of the worst of the right wing loon-o-sphere. Bill "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity" Donohue, who has led the charge on this "controversy," makes Sean Hannity look like a reasonable moderate.

Jesus Christ. If Edwards fires these bloggers over this nonsense, his chances of winning my support in the primary will be put in Jeopardy. And I live 5 miles from his campaign HQ.

This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what anybody ever said in the past. Not a thing.

So let's see. You're John Edwards. You're in a debate. Wolf Blitzer asks you the question:

WB: Senator Edwards, last year a number of critics of your campaign pointed out that one of the liasons you hired for your campaign had made some very controversial remarks. She described President Bush's base as being "Christfascist". How do you defend your decision to keep her on your payroll to this day, and especially, what sort of message does that send to the millions of Christian Evangelicals that you are saying tonight you want to appeal to, and with whom you say you have much in common?

Now I ask, what does Edwards say to this? Why should he go to any trouble to keep someone on who might create the possibility of such a question?

(And, to address another argument, what kind of argument is it that people use the phrase "Christofascist" all the time? When's the last time you heard a politician use that phrase, or any of his staff members, or any of his PR people, or anybody remotely attached to his campaign? Get a clue.)

Edwards' poor performance at quickly handling and defusing this manufactured controversy already has made him look bad. He needs to learn how to handle the Right Wing's ability and willingness to make controversies out of nothing and, frankly, he needed to learn it in 2004, not in 2007. If something as idiotic as this has his campaign in bunker mode, he really really needs to learn from that or he'll just be mulch after the real Republican Slime Machine.

And I say that as someone who's watching this thing spiral out of control with some dismay, as I quite liked Edwards prior to this.

I can't believe they hired Amanda (whom I adore, to engage in full disclosure) without a plan already in place to cope with this.

BTW, what's the difference between "Islamofascist" and "Christofascist"?

Well here's one: if you say "Christofascist", you probably antagonize over 100 million American voters, many of whom might vote for you. If you say "Islamofascist", you antagonize probably only a few million, few of whom would vote for you anyway.

If you're a politician, it's important to understand that difference, even if in some larger sense each is as offensive as the other.

It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with anything McEwan or Marcotte ever said anytime in the the past. Or whether Edward's campaign knew. Or even how much worse the extremists the Republicans associate with are.

Voices on the extreme right are demanding that John Edwards run his campaign to their satisfaction. He shouldn't let them.

It's not like appeasing the extreme right has a track record of success.

It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with anything McEwan or Marcotte ever said anytime in the the past.

You keep saying this.

You keep not justifying it.

"Bloggers nearly all talk trash, and if Edwards sets a precedent by agreeing that you shouldn't hire a blogger who's ever said anything that anyone finds offensive, then that's pretty much it for hiring bloggers.'

I kind of hope Edwards doesn't fire the bloggers, but it probably should be a point for all of us. Just as college students are learning with MySpace and corporate execs have learned with e-mails, the things you write electronically are, in most cases, public. And you should be prepared to stand behind, or explain, those words, and accept any consequences that come from them.

Bloggers nearly all talk trash, and if Edwards sets a precedent by agreeing that you shouldn't hire a blogger who's ever said anything that anyone finds offensive, then that's pretty much it for hiring bloggers.

Marcotte and McEwan wrote really filthy and horrible prose. How hard would it be to find a blogger who never wrote that junk? How about Kevin Drum or Brad DeLong? Charles Johnson and Josh Marshall?

Sorry Kevin, this is your fault as much as anyone elses. Amanda turned Pandagon into a hate site. She viciously moderates her comments to keep any disagreement with her off her blog. She blames men for everything and refuses to take responsibility for anything. She is a vicious bully.

Read her views on Gardasil. She thinks the Gov't should keep its hands off her body when she wants an abortion, but she thinks the gov't should force a needle of an untested unproved drug into a 9-11 year old girl's body, because she agrees with the politics involved.

She is basically an authoritarian fascist who has bullied her way onto your blogroll.

And you and the other much more logical and progressive male bloggers refused to call her on her bullshit ages ago.

Amanda and her misandrist views have been an embarrassment to the left Kevin, and by your inaction, so have you.

Bill "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity" Donohue, who has led the charge on this "controversy," makes Sean Hannity look like a reasonable moderate.

Bill Donohue would be bad enough if he were the insane paranoid ranting loony seeing enemies of Catholicism everywhere that his bizarre attacks, considered alone, might make him seem to be.

But his equally selective defense of people on the right who make much more extreme anti-Catholic statements than the people he attacks make it clear exactly what he is—an extreme right-wing partisan who uses his position as head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights to promote the right-wing propaganda meme that the evil secular left is out to persecute Christians (for him, Catholics particularly) and thereby secure the Catholic community to shore up the Protestant Christian Right as a bulwark of the Republican Party.

If Edwards caves in to a thug like Donohue, he certainly isn't the kind of person I want to see as President of the United States.

And, really, characterizing one kind of people Bush acts as if he feels he needs—people like Donohue, even—as Christofascists is quite accurate and fair. Like the original fascists, and like the people the Right describes as "Islamofascists", they are self-promoting right-wing political activists seeking to advance their own factions totalitarian control of society, and using religion and religious identity as a cynical tool to advance those aims.

Frankly, if the voices on the extreme right weren't whining about this, they'd be complaining about something else. Nothing Democratic candidates say or do will appease them. That's why it has nothing to do with what anyone said.

In this country, they have a right to whine and complain and hypocritically feign offense - but they don't get to run their opponent's campaigns. End of story.

"Mark my words: in this end, Edwards will keep them and it'll end up being a huge netroots victory for him...Lemonade outta lemons..."

He's already fired them. Oh well, and I like you Johnny E. Sorry to see you go so soon. But if you can't hack it against Michelle Malkin, well, you're out boss. Better to see this early on I suppose.

Uh, Senator Webb, are you free for the next 4 to 8 years? We need a president who appears to have a backbone and courage.

Senator Obama, do you have what it takes? Are you afraid of wittle Michelle?

if you say "Christofascist", you probably antagonize over 100 million American voters, many of whom might vote for you.

Er, no, you don't. Most of us American voters who are Christian realize that when people talk about "Christofascists", they don't mean the term as equivalent to Christians, and are not offended by the fact that some people recognize self-serving authoritarians trying to wrap themself in the cross at the same time they are wrapping themselves in the flag.

Now, its possible that you could use the word "Christofascist" in a context which was disparaging of Christians more generally, but using the word itself is not a general affront to Christians.

If this is a matter of debate in the Edwards campaign, maybe they shouldn't have hired them.

But at this point, you have to stand up to the right-wing b.s. and stand by the decision to bring them on board.

Edwards really does need the netroots and he'll gain a lot more than he'll lose by not going wobbly, so to speak.

BTW, what's the difference between "Islamofascist" and "Christofascist"?

The problem was the whole phrase: "Bush's Christofascist base."

Islamofascists and Christofascists are small subsets of nominally Muslim and Christian believers who attempt to impose fascism in the manner of Nazis, by killing, beating, torturing and otherwise bullying their political opponents. The Taleban are Islamofascists, but the Muslim voters of America are not. In like fashion, though there may be Christofascists (like the people who murder doctors who perform abortions), there are not many in the U.S., they are not Bush's "base". McEwen was probably writing about some people that Edwards would like to vote for him in a close election.

What I will say about the Edwards campaign is that it showed itself an idiot by hiring Amanda Marcotte, whose offensiveness is so obvious that just the slightest due diligence would have revealed.

I think that McEwan's political flaws would have been harder to spot, but, again, once the "Christofascist" remark was uncovered, it was over for her.

The analogy with Rush Limbaugh would hold if a Republican candidate hired Limbaugh as a press secretary. It would be a disaster.

jerry is the precise example of the kind of people who we shouldn't kowtow to -- the folks who don't want their daughters immunized against a sometimes fatal virus because it is sexually transmitted, and they want to make sex more dangerous.

These people must be beaten, because otherwise people we care about will die of cancer. Simple as that.

The problem was the whole phrase: "Bush's Christofascist base."

Bush certainly has a Christofascist base to which he feels obligated to appeal; they aren't the rank and file, but they are propaganda directors (people like William Donohue, which is why his protest at the term is so heated) of political “Christianity” on which Bush, and the national Republican Party, rely.

One way to think about this whole episode is that, if you're a blogger, you probably shouldn't expect that any national political campaign should want to hire you.

Unless you have exerted extraordinary discipline -- not the usual thing for bloggers -- you've probably chosen at some point to express yourself in a way that would make you toxic to be officially associated with any political campaign.

Really, you've just chose a different career path, or avocation path, and should probably just come to terms with that.

It's true of pundits as well, I'd expect, and they at least exercise much more control over what they say.

This has NOTHING to do with which word anyone used or did not use.

It's about whether to appease the voices on the extreme right who don't like John Edward's campaign.

It's not as if they'll leave him alone if he appeases them.

and Frankly, it is sad that no-one told you others have opinions you might find offensive. But welcome to reality.

Now dry your little tears and stop whining so much.

I'll cut Edwards a little slack on his response time, since it seems he was out campaigning when the shit hit the fan.

But he better come out with something definitive tomorrow, and anything but standing by the bloggers will make it clear that he can be pushed around by the likes of Donohoe and Malkin.

He can offer a few choice quotes from either of them and say, "These are not people to be taken seriously. These are not people I or my campaign will take seriously. They're part of the hateful smear machine that has degraded politics in this country. They speak for ignorance, bigotry, and paranoid hysteria."

I really value Melissa McEwan’s work. As a regular reader, I was pleasently surprised when I learned about the new gig. I trusted that Edwards Inc. had done it’s due diligence (I would think that Lawyer Edwards would have this research thing down) and was aware of the edgy and irreverent style of blogging that I enjoy so much.

But no?

This is a leadership moment for Johnny Boy. Either he admits that important homework was not done or he stands by his decision and take on all comers. Let's see what kind of person this man who would be President is.

I will be watching.

What's good for the goose...

Edwards needs to use Dick Cheney's immortal words in response to William Donohoe's bitching:

"Go fuck yourself."

...is good for the gander.

Edwards should be grateful to Michelle Malkin and other righties who helped him get rid of these bloggers early in the campaign before they could become a serious embarassment to him.

I heard the divisive, dangerous, and creepy
KKK sympathizer Sean Hannity talking about this today--bad-mouthing the whole affair, quoting the bloggers and trying to detract from Edwards.
I felt badly that the right wing noise machine had something to jump on.

Did anyone else see Chris Bowers promising to become a "staunch" Edwards supporter if he keeps Marcotte and McEwan on the payroll?

Sheezus Christ, that's his criteria? The self-regard the netroots seems to hold itself in is amazing sometimes.

It was funny reading Atrios today, btw. His first post this morning approvingly linked to Zack Exley chiding Obama, basically for not turning his entire campaign operation over to the netroots.

A few hours later, Edwards' hiring of merely two netroots figures blows up in his face, leaving whatever average voters that are paying attention to this nonplussed, and getting him zero credit with the netroots itself.

I'm sure Obama's people are rushing to take Exley's advice.

Catcher on February 7, 2007 at 9:46 PM

On the whole, that episode diminished Cheney's appeal.

cmdicely: Bush certainly has a Christofascist base to which he feels obligated to appeal

Including suicide bombers? do they go about burning the newspapers they dislike? How about burning down the churces of religions they dislike, or the homes in which such religionists meet after their churches are burnt?

"Islamofascists" are people who do such things, and "Christofascists" are people who do such things, but such things are not done by Bush's base.

Well it's official, the professional trolls on Political Animal are unanimous. Letting right wing wackos dictate his campaign staffing is a good thing for John Edwards.

This little tempest in a teapot has blown up all out of proportion. Whether he keeps or fires the bloggers is no longer important. In a week all people will remember about this controversy is that Edwards jacked around with a minor issue in full vacillation for a full day. Edwards comes off looking like a wimp. After today I sure as hell wouldn't want him making war or peace decisions for me and my family. Would you?

If I were John Edwards I would call the women on the phone and tell them to report for duty in the morning. I wouldn't say a thing to anybody. Nothing. I would just let Salon cool its jets. I would then have a long talk with the leakers. They would be looking for work in the morning.

Message control is so important in today's world that it is intolerable for anybody to leak to the Times or to Salon. Edwards wants to be president. His big weakness is a lot of people think he lacks moral substance and mature judgment. Today doesn't help disabuse anybody of that impression.

"jerry is the precise example of the kind of people who we shouldn't kowtow to -- the folks who don't want their daughters immunized against a sometimes fatal virus because it is sexually transmitted, and they want to make sex more dangerous.

These people must be beaten, because otherwise people we care about will die of cancer. Simple as that."

Kimmitt, you're an idiot. A very significant number (if not the majority) of the posters on these threads over at C&L, TBogg, and even at Pandagon are against this mandate, not because of the sex issues but because of the gov't intrusion when it is not warranted.

If you want to claim all of those posters are secret catholics worried about their daughters sex lives than you are a fool.

This is a liberal and libertarian issue. Keep the gov't out of our bedrooms and off of our bodies.

It doesn't help matters that this vaccine is very flawed.

Including suicide bombers?

Suicide bombing has nothing to do with either the "Christo-" or the "fascist" part of the description "Christofascist", so the question is irrelevant.

The Christofascist propagandists that Bush relies on are, however, no less willing to sacrifice their follower's lives in attacks (including against innocents) designed to produce terror than the those they describe as “Islamofascists” are.

The society they operate in and the position they occupy in it differs from that of the so-called “Islamofascists”, and so naturally their tactics are different: but that's equally true of “Islamofascists” vs. the original fascists, so no one who considers the term “Islamofascist” valid in the first place has any non-hypocritical ground for complaint on that basis.

I'm suprised at all the intelligent people willing to make this non-issue THE defing moment of the Edward's campaign.

I think someone like Kevin D. would be a far better fit blogging for John Edwards, at least as the one out in front.

As far as offending posts go, one can either stick by their guns or apologize, depending on whether they're in the wrong or not. Seems simple enough, unless one wants to spin things out in self-defense. Then things can get pretty complicated indeed.

The above typo should say "THE defining moment".

It has NOTHING to do with defending or apologizing for any posts someone may have written in the past that someone else complained about.

It's purely a power play. The extreme-right complains loudly about Edwards campaign staffing decisions, and the NY Times and CNN pick it up. Does Edwards yield to the pressure for right-wing political correctness or not?

Trash talk trash.

It has NOTHING to do with defending or apologizing for any posts someone may have written in the past that someone else complained about.

As to the motives of the complainers, I agree. They're in it mainly to embarass Edwards. That doesn't mean that something offensive wasn't said anyway, and that it might be a problem for him now.

I'm suprised at all the intelligent people willing to make this non-issue THE defing moment of the Edward's campaign.

Sometimes I think that the blogosphere really needs to sit down for a very long time and try to figure out how to get over itself.

The notion that the blogosphere should go to the walls to defend the likes of this Amanda Marcotte, and seek down a major Democratic Presidential candidate over it, just astounds me. A lot of what she writes is just vile.

If you can't figure out that she would be some nasty baggage in a political campaign, what in God's name can you claim to know about politics? Why should anybody listen to you and your opinions about how to conduct a political campaign? All any politician with a brain would want out of you is whatever money you could pony up.

Doesn't the blogosphere get that when it goes into the breach for someone like Amanda Marcotte, that would be exactly what makes serious political people NOT take the blogosphere seriously?

Bloggers nearly all talk trash, and if Edwards sets a precedent by agreeing that you shouldn't hire a blogger who's ever said anything that anyone finds offensive, then that's pretty much it for hiring bloggers.

No, I don't talk trash and neither do you Kevin. I've been pretty hard on the Bush administration and I'm sure that some wingers have taken offense, but that doesn't mean I've given offense.

Sure, there are plenty of bloggers who hyperventilate if only to promote themselves. But there are others who don't think they'll do their credibility any good by throwing bombs. These include many of the sharpest bloggers.

Anyway, there's no reason why bloggers need to migrate into political campaigns, or why candidates need to hire them. They just become propagandists that way. It's cooptation, nothing more.

I can't see why bloggers shouldn't be judged by what they've written, especially if they're using their blogging as a springboard into the political arena. If these two bloggers didn't alert Edwards to the skeletons in their blog closets, and if Edwards' campaign didn't bother to vet their posts, then it's a sign of real incompetence. The decision to hire them strikes me as bone-headed, and the failure to act decisively when charges were leveled was pathetic.

Atheists are the most hated minority group in America. People who claim not to hate African Americans, Jews, and gays and lesbians still hate atheists. An atheist, agnostic or otherwise vocal non-believer cannot win votes. Christian believers pity, despise, and wish to eliminate atheists (by converting them). The most intense Christian believers claim atheists will go to Hell. Atheists must live in the closet; parents don't want atheists to teach and maybe convert their children.

A well-known and talented feminist blogger critical of Christian extremism is being trashed because Edwards' campaign doesn't want to risk promoting atheist views and alienating Christian votes.

If Edwards won't stand up for a non-believer and for feminists, will he stand up for gays and lesbians? Would he hire John Aravosis? (who is a more "professional" political type) Will he stand up for leftists? (Bye-bye progressive health care.) Will he stand up for African-Americans and Jews?

The rabid right will chip away at him bit by bit.

Um, the way things are going, I seriously doubt the Edwards campaign is going to set a prececent for ANYthing. First it was bomb Iran, then not so much. Now it's hire controversial bloggers, then back down to Bill Donahue (of all people). Edwards has been running for president for going on three straight years now. His campaign should be sharp and responsive, not timid and reactionary.

One can weigh the merits of the blog posts in question, but it doesn't change the fact that Edwards is in total free fall with his recent performance. The criticism of him has always been style vs. substance -- and he can't even get the style right.

Get serious, John, or get the hell out of the race. There are plenty of real contenders to pay attention to. Democrats are going to take the White House in 2008. We have no time for chumps.

Kevin - Marcotte made anti-Catholic remarks that are indefensible. And her vulgarity was way over the top.

Instead of bashing Edwards for rectifying his mistake in hiring her - maybe you should advise Lefty bloggers to check their prejudices and try to write with some decency.

Some arrogant bloggers like Kos and others have become very annoying. Kos took money and did the bidding for Dean w/o telling his readers. Some bloggers think they own the candidates and can force candidates into saying/doing what the bloggers wanted them to do.

Blogging is fun because it is free medium and is un-regulated but it is getting very annoying.

Candidates like Edwards wanted to call himself a netroot candidate so he deserves the bad fate he chose for himself.

Michelle Malkin, in her way, is every bit as extremist as Amanda Marcotte is in hers. Yet if, say, Rudy Giulani were to hire Malkin for his campaign, no one in the mainstream media would do so much as bat an eye.

That is the real issue here.

The monkey that walks like a man cavorts with someone who uses the term "Feminazi." I don't really see that much difference between that term and the term "Christofascist."

And not just Bush, but Cheney, Boehner, McConnell, all of them prostrate themselves to the walking Pilonidal Cyst. So I hardly think they get to lecture us on what terms are acceptable.

Good for the goose/gander and all that. I vote for giving just as good as we get. And I vote for those who give just as good (or better) than they get.

who wrote this first? BTW, what's the difference between "Islamofascist" and "Christofascist"?

cmdicely has the answer:
The society they [the Christofascists] operate in and the position they occupy in it differs from that of the so-called “Islamofascists�, and so naturally their tactics are different:

The question was first posed as though there was no important difference. cmdicely, as usual, clarifies issues through precise use of language. It seems to follow that Bush's base and the Taleban are really a lot alike, almost indistinguishable. Edwards must surely have understood this, so backing away from McEwen was cowardly on his part.

Is Michelle Malkin, evidently a bully in this affair, as much a fascist as the Bali bomber?

not because of the sex issues but because of the gov't intrusion when it is not warranted.

Yeah, and they're also taking powerful stands against mandatory measles, mumps, and other vaccinations.

Bullcrap. It's about sex, though I am amused by your Freudian anti-Catholic slip.

cmdicely: If Edwards caves in to a thug like Donohue, he certainly isn't the kind of person I want to see as President of the United States.

And, really, characterizing one kind of people Bush acts as if he feels he needs—people like Donohue, even—as Christofascists is quite accurate and fair. Like the original fascists, and like the people the Right describes as "Islamofascists", they are self-promoting right-wing political activists seeking to advance their own factions totalitarian control of society, and using religion and religious identity as a cynical tool to advance those aims.

Hear, hear! Excellent post, Mr Dicely.

Bloggers nearly all talk trash,

Is that really true? Are there no bloggers who present challenging ideas in well-crafted language?

Steve Benen makes an excellent point:

I don’t know what the Edwards campaign is going to end up doing, but the fact that this is even open to debate suggests the double standard that exists isn’t going anywhere for a while.

Michael Savage
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Bill O'Reilly
Ann Coulter
Laura Ingraham
Neal Boortz
Pat Robertson
Jerry Falwell
Etc., etc., etc.

GMAFB!

"Edwards was foolish enough to show the mainstream Americans how hateful the Democrat base is."

You are foolish enough, almost every day, to show us how hateful, ingnorant, and antidemocrat(ic) your base is, Insignificant Chickenhawk. And yet you are still allowed to spew vomit wherever you go.

Ain't America great?

Maybe what happened is that some lower net-roots manager hired them, and the publicity has brought them to the attention of the top campaign manager, or Edwards, who've overruled the decision.

Protesting whackos doesn't mean Edwards should keep them on any more than Osama's tauntings mean we should stay in Iraq.

Another point that is lost on Lefties: the bitterness and vulgarity common on Lefty blogs doesn't play well in middle America.

John Edwards recognizes this, why can't the rest of you see it?

I should be asleep right now, but I feel the need to make a comment about the term "christofascist."

Out in the world, there is another term that expresses a similar concept - clerical fascism, or clero-fascism.

The term refers to fascist regimes in which the clergy played a prominent role. Examples include Franco's Spain, pre-war Slovakia, the Iron Guard in Romania, and so on. At this very moment there are clero-fascist groups making life miserable for vulnerable people in Poland, Serbia and elsewhere.

There is a significant portion of Bush's base (a portion of that hardcore 30% of the public who believe every word he says and support him no matter what) whose views qualify as fascist and believe in the fusion of church and state. Just because we understand that "it can't happen here" doesn't mean these people are any less extreme than their European counterparts.

I don't know the context of Marcotte's comments, but to call some of Bush's supporters clero-fascists or christofascists is not a slur, its a fact. Its unfortunate that some people are offended by the term, but like any number of distasteful topics ignoring the truth doesn't make it go away.

Apologies for the sleepy grammar.

jerry -
I read Pandagon regularly. Please support your outrageous claim that "a significant number, if not a majority" of people oppose mandatory vaccination for HPV. Because although it's not entirely unanimous, as far as I could tell, opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of mandatory vaccination.

The double standard of Frequency Kenneth:...maybe you should advise Lefty bloggers to check their prejudices and try to write with some decency.

And more FK pontification at 1:47 AM: ...the bitterness and vulgarity common on Lefty blogs doesn't play well in middle America.

Oh, really? Last time I checked bitterness and vulgarity played pretty well on conservative talk radio in the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, etc., etc. Are you saying middle America doesn't listen to the hate-mongering of these RW spewing heads?

As for the blogosphere, maybe you ought to advise the RW bigotsphere to "check its prejudices and write with some decency." You want examples? Here are some racial smears in reaction to Coretta Scott King's funeral for starters. And then there's Little Green Footballs and the "dick slapping" of Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom at 2:18 AM at the previous LGF link.

And what about the blessed chosen party of the be-sainted GOP? Remember George Macaca Allen? Dick "Go fuck yourself" Cheney? How 'bout Tramm Hudson:

"I grew up in Alabama and I understand, uh…I know this from my own experience; blacks are not the greatest swimmers, or may not even know how to swim."

And while you're at it, FK, pass on some of your advice about prejudice to the GOP pandering pols of the homophobic Religious Right wingnut contingency, too.

Run along, FK. You've got a lot of "prejudice and decency consulting" to do on the right side of the aisle. And BTW, shove your double standard up your arse.

If Time Magazine can hire a blogger who spent her first 2 years on line using the word "a**f***ing" in every other sentence, I really don't see why Edwards can't hire someone who accuses the Catholic Church of self-interest in its opposition to birth control.

Well, let’s hope Edwards doesn’t mess up and hire someone that would do this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3699-2004Jun24.html

And heaven forbid he would hire someone that gets caught on tape doing this:
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/09/04/cuss_word/

After all, we have to hold people to high standards.

I'm late to the party, but since when should Edwards -- or anyone else, for that matter, including the so-called "liberal media" -- let Michelle Malkin and Bill Donohue, not to mention "Confederate Yankee", Rick Moran and their ilk, define what constitutes "civil discourse"?

I think I have to echo the sentiments of several people here: Yes, Marcotte and Ewans might have said some pretty damn ridiculous things.

But look at the people heading the charge against them and against Edwards. They are some of the most vile, indefensible human beings ever to speak for the right-wing. Most everything they say tends to drip with sheer ruthless hate for anything remotely left of their personal political compass, and they say so without impunity and without little regard for what the mainstream will say about them. Why? Because the media never calls them on it, no matter how many people complain. Yet now, we have liberal bloggers who are being bashed, dragged through the mud, and villified, along with Edwards, at these baying hounds' beck and call.

This is beyond ridiculousness. Rarely a person outside of the liberal blogosphere would be incensed if Donahue or Malkin were hired by, say....Tom Tancredo. No one would know the wiser because the media would blissfully ignore it unless they were absolutely forced to. Yet this has become a national firestorm at the minor prodding of the likes of right wing bloviators who spit out more hate, bile, and revulsion in one TV apperance then Marcotte likely could in a weeks' worth of posts, or more.

This is as Max Powers said: a power play. We shouldn't be hemming and hawwing over what Marcotte and Ewans say. We should be tackling the hypocritical double standard when it comes to people on the left consulting candidates for political campaigns, and people on the right. Especially in regards to Michelle "Jamal Who-ssein?" Malkin, or "Godless Hollywood" Donahue. No matter what ridiculousness Marcotte might have said on her posts...the fact that the ones who are criticizing her are considered valid enough to be the 'mainstream' right thinkers is outrageous and shows just how fucking far the deck is stacked against the left. We need to fight back right now, and eat our own later, because this is a double standard that needs to stop NOW, and I mean Yesterday.

Let me see if I understand frankly0 correctly:

"Islamofascist" = completely acceptable word in American discourse.

"Christofascist" = unspeakably offensive.

Bloggers coined the word "Christofascist" as a counterpart to the absurdity that is the word "Islamofascist". The meaning is essentially the same as Andrew Sullivan's "Christianist". So where do we draw the line here? Is it not acceptable to point out the fact that the right-wing Christian base of the Bush administration is fascist? If they don't like the word, they should stop behaving the way they do.

And no, this silliness has nothing to do with what these two women have written in the past. (Trolling archives for the most offensive tidbits is a pathetic way to judge a person, but I digress.) It does have a lot to do with the gender of the people involved. But mostly what this is about is power. Can a handful of extreme right-wingers dictate terms to John Edwards? If they can, then Edwards has succumbed to the "wimp factor" problem that has been plaguing Democrats for decades.

mattsteinglass said: If Time Magazine can hire a blogger who spent her first 2 years on line using the word "a**f***ing" in every other sentence, I really don't see why Edwards can't hire someone who accuses the Catholic Church of self-interest in its opposition to birth control.

Maybe the difference is that Time Magazine is not running for President.

And if you've read much of Amanda's stuff, you know that her rhetorical excess goes way beyond this. There's no way Edwards can allow his campaign to be associated with some of the things she has written. Yes, the made a mistake by hiring her, but campaings are run by human beings and they do make mistakes - this won't be the last. We'll never elect a Democratic president if we throw are candidates overboard over stuff like this.

You can either choose your words very carefully and do political work, or you can be free as you wish in what you say and stay out of official politics. You simply can't do both.

Uh, frankly0, you forgot to finish that last sentence. Let me help you out:

"...unless, of course, you're Dick Cheney--then you can drop the F-bomb on the floor of the US Senate and yuk it up afterwards."

Once again, IOKIYAR, but being a Democrat means always having to say that you are sorry.

Edwards should tell Donahue to go Cheney himself.

Last time I checked, no serious Republican candidate for president has ever hired Malkin or Limbaugh.

But anyway, neither have either of them, to the best of my knowledge, said anything as hateful as some of the stuff Amanda has said. But that's irrelevant.

Frankly0 is right, what matters is electability. And until you figure that out the blogosphere is doomed to remain on the margins.

It's been amateur hour at the Kerry campaign...the really good news for them is that this didn't happen in the general election.

Can anyone name a campaign that's hired any of these people?
Michael Savage
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Bill O'Reilly
Ann Coulter
Laura Ingraham
Neal Boortz
Pat Robertson
Jerry Falwell
Etc., etc., etc.

Because we really should protest if so.

No? Not a one? Frankly's right, bloggers who speak their minds should have no expectations that a campaign that wants to curry favor with a wide spectrum of Americans should hire them. That's politics, folks. There's a HUGE difference between people from outside a campaign speaking out and people who are paid by the campaign speaking out, which is why bloggers should never ever sign on to campaigns. Their voices are immediately stifled and suspect.

I've worked on a campaign before, and I had to watch every word. It's no fun, trust me. Much more fun to blog my mind.

What the heck does Dick Cheney's f-bomb have to do with anything? He was already veep when he said that and I doubt he could get elected dog catcher today.

We are talking about a Democratic presidential candidate with a very long row to hoe, and who will be fighting off increasingly rabid attacks the closer he gets to the prize. A take-no-prisoners blogger like Amanda is baggage he doesn't need. He's right to cut his losses.

Nathan:

That's crap and you know it. Electability is a total canard. It's an excuse to hem and haw and hedge bets. Anything can be made electable as long as there's a concerted force to push it off as electable. That's why continually unpopular ideas normally manage to get increased support, or at least better perceived support, during campaign/election time. It's all a matter of framing, and in this issue, we are totally and utterly losing the framing issue, because we're keeping the focus on Marcotte and Ewans, and thusly, liberal bloggers and Edwards through guilt by association.

And even if those you named, KathyF, have not been 'hired', they have so much damn influence to the point that they're consulted to the point that they may as well. Why is there no large media or public outcry when Bush holds a conference with prominent conservative bloggers, or talks with Rush Limbaugh about policy?

We need to hold feet to the fire, people, and combat the hypocrisy and double standards before we start eating our own, people. We're keeping the focus on 'those mean liberal bloggers', and ignoring the sources of the outcry and outrages, who are exponentially more vile than the bloggers we have in question.

KathyF said it perfectly.

Republicans are smart enough not to hire their vitriolic rabble-raisers.

and, contra-Kevin,
I'm sure a campaign could manage to find bloggers that hadn't written anything as intemperate as:

"Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."

"That's crap and you know it. Electability is a total canard. It's an excuse to hem and haw and hedge bets. Anything can be made electable as long as there's a concerted force to push it off as electable. That's why continually unpopular ideas normally manage to get increased support, or at least better perceived support, during campaign/election time. It's all a matter of framing, and in this issue, we are totally and utterly losing the framing issue, because we're keeping the focus on Marcotte and Ewans, and thusly, liberal bloggers and Edwards through guilt by association."

Reading too much Lakoff are we? Pinker skewered this idiocy pretty well.

And even if those you named, KathyF, have not been 'hired', they have so much damn influence to the point that they're consulted to the point that they may as well. Why is there no large media or public outcry when Bush holds a conference with prominent conservative bloggers, or talks with Rush Limbaugh about policy?

Look, it's all about levels of indirection. There are things a candidate should never say, but his staff might say. There are things that a staff member should never say, but someone they consult might say. There are things that someone they consult should never say, but someone that consultant works with might say. Etc.

This is basic politics, and basic organizational behavior. Is this fundamental and common sense point lost on people?

The problem is, the things the two bloggers said are things that an employee of a political campaign should absolutely never say.

The real trick for bloggers is to find their correct place in these concentric cirles of responsibility and connectedness to a political campaign.

Outright hires are pretty clearly a very BAD solution to this problem.

But that problem is THE critical one for the blogosphere to solve if it's going to exercise maximum influence over politics.

"No? Not a one? Frankly's right, bloggers who speak their minds should have no expectations that a campaign that wants to curry favor with a wide spectrum of Americans should hire them. That's politics, folks. There's a HUGE difference between people from outside a campaign speaking out and people who are paid by the campaign speaking out, which is why bloggers should never ever sign on to campaigns. Their voices are immediately stifled and suspect."

I'll echo KathyF. I like Melissa writings, but I went off Pandagon after Ezra left and Amanda joined it. If a GOP candidate hired Misha of Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler or Seixon or some other moron of the right, we'd be hitting Google to find the dirt and throwing it in the candidate's face. Marcotte shouldn't have been hired, as she's already become the story in place of the candidate, and has damaged Edwards regardless of the outcome.

The fact that GOP is adept at the synthetic outrage is no news to us: why make their job of mobilizing their base easier by hiring loose cannons with a paper [electron] trail?

Further, contrary to Kevin, establishing the "you're responsible for the posts of your netroots organizer" ain't a bad heuristic for the future for us: given the eliminationism floating around on the right, it's gonna be harder for their candidates to find someone who hasn't frothed at the mouth than ours.

The lesson is: blog anonymously, if you want a future in electoral politics.

frankly0: I think you have frankly zero background in Christianity.

Two actual Christians in the world are offended, and the rest say, "you know, Bush is kinda misusing my religion as a political tool."

White liberals often try to limit the liberties of everyone, while playing the role of Champions of the Underdogs. But when they fail to discover the actual opinion of their target underdog, they end up a quixotic schoolmarm.

So, unless you can prove you are a devout disciple or have an extraordinary understanding of Christians, I'll chalk you up into the group of quixotic schoolmarms.

Republicans are smart enough not to hire their vitriolic rabble-raisers.

Uh, what? Since when? Republicans not only hire their vitriolic rabble-rousers, they often as not run them as candidates, then elect them to leadership positions.

Its not like Newy Gingrich, Tom Delay, Trent Lott, et al., were ever known as minimally offensive to the widest audience.

But anyway, neither have either of them, to the best of my knowledge, said anything as hateful as some of the stuff Amanda has said.

Yes, because to advocate rounding up and sending all middle-eastern folks to camps is not in any way, shape or form, hateful.

And mocking a man with Parkinson's is so much better than a sarcastic post blasting a policy of the Catholic Church (which is, in fact, quite the mysoginistic religion).

Is Michelle Malkin, evidently a bully in this affair, as much a fascist as the Bali bomber?

It seems to me that that's kind of like asking if Goebbels is as much a fascist as the Bali bomber: in addition to comparing across movements in different contexts, your comparing a propagandist for one movement to a foot soldier for another.

In general, I'd say the propagandists are more "fascist" than the foot soldiers, regardless of which authoritarian movement you want to look at, though I suppose that depends on how you define degree of "fascism". The ideological devotion and personal extremes of violence are probably more with the footsoldiers, the cynical manipulation and self-promotion more with the propagandists, so once they are in the movement, its probably easier (before the movement comes to power) to neutralize, at least temporarily, the cynical propagandist simply by slapping them down and frustrating their self-advancement, whereas the true-believer will be hardened, rather than discouraged, by adversity.

Bloggers nearly all talk trash,

Is that really true?

Yes.

Are there no bloggers who present challenging ideas in well-crafted language?

Certainly there are. Nearly all bloggers does not mean All bloggers, and, a fortiori, Nearly all bloggers talk trash does not mean Nearly all bloggers do nothing but talk trash.

OTOH, all too often blog readers and commenters have little appreciation, as you demonstrate, for well-crafted language, so for some, the trash-talk is the only thing that gets through, which maybe is why so many bloggers do it at least occasionally.

Bloggers coined the word "Christofascist" as a counterpart to the absurdity that is the word "Islamofascist".

Neither word is absurd, and both refer to religious extremists who act like fascists. If we take the Bali bombers, al Qaeda, the men who attacked on 911, the Taliban, and the JI in Indonesia as examples of "Islamofascists", then there are three questions about the use of "Christofascists": (1) are there such people? the answer is Yes (including perhaps the IRA terrorists, the people who bomb abortion clinics, and (in the past) most of the European kingdoms of Christendom, like the French Catholics who murdered the Hueguenots); (2) is it fair to refer to Bush's base as "Christofascist"? I don't think so, but I only know about them from reading. (3) can a Democratic candidate win votes from swing voters in many parts of the country by hiring a media consultant who is well-known for writing that Bush's base is "Christofascist"? Obviously not.

As others have pointed out, it would poison Republicans' campaigns for Republicans to hire Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, and it poisoned Edwards' campaign to hire those two firebrands.

As for Cheney's bad language, I think his use of locker-room language in public discourse (and on the Senate floor) has cost him support, not endeared him to swing voters.

frankly0: I think you have frankly zero background in Christianity. Two actual Christians in the world are offended, and the rest say, "you know, Bush is kinda misusing my religion as a political tool."

Well, I certainly wouldn't count myself as a Christian now, but I was definitely given a very serious Christian upbringing, Catholic in particular. Some memories are indelible.

In any case, if you can't see how the term "Christofascist" might suggest to a great many Christians a real hostility toward their religion, or could easily be made to seem to express such hostility by a right wing spinmeister, I find myself nearly speechless.

Some things should, I think, be pretty obvious simply upon a form of introspection: put yourself in another's shoes (shoes you may have yourself once worn), and the conclusion is pretty clear. I would count this among such things. (Of course, a survey might tell you something as well -- but most such decisions can't wait on a survey).

Why a Presidential candidate should be obliged to allow such baggage to be attached to his campaign also escapes me.

Frankly0 is right, what matters is electability.

Certainly, electability matters, but if you look at who actually wins general elections, electability doesn't mean caving to the dedicated partisan voices of the other side or being minimally offensive; those who win are those who don't hesitate to turn the tables and chop their critics off at the knees, who are most able to turn attacks against them—even accurate and valid ones—into liabilities for their opponents.

The Edwards campaign could have turned these charges of offensive statements around (regardless of their merits) and turned a spotlight on the bigotry and hypocrisy of the prominent mouthpieces of the right making the charge. They could have shown they were willing to fight, and they could have discredited mouthpieces of an opposing ideology.

Instead, they seem to have chosen the path of surrender, of validating the dedicated propagandists of the right, of strengthening the opponents of the party whose standard they hope to carry in the general election, and that is not the path to "electability".

considering that niether Malkin nor Donahue are employees of anyone's campaign, that's specious.

Actually, they're staying on-- statements from Edwards, Amanda, & Shakes

here

It's a bit patronizing IMO, and I'd like to see more of a swing at the nutbags who started it, but it's still a good response overall.

I don't know any thing about these two bloggers in particular. And, honestly, I haven't asked any Christians what they think about the topic either.

Andrew Sullivan, an active Catholic, on the other hand has been using the term "Christianist" for some time -- and I think it's a valuable term.

It denotes someone who really believes the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on the bible. It's someone who thinks Church/State is an error. It's someone who gets upset at Rove/Wade but doesn't mind torture. It's someone who prays for liberal judges to die and for socialist leaders to be assassinated.

You'll have to agree that Christianists do exist in America. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are among their spokesmen, and their followers voted mainly for Bush.

Why not call out their hypocrisy? They're not going to vote for a secular leader anyway. So, go ahead and point & laugh at them. Swing-voters might endorse a criticism of the Christianists.

Well, its good to see that the supposed firing turns out not to be case. The response isn't great, but its not as bad as had been suggested.

Since Edwards is continuing to employ the two bloggers, obviously because he's been shaken down by the blogosphere itself, don't imagine that this thing is just going to go away. I envision it becoming an issue even in the Democratic primary as an issue for his electability. Other candidates are going to learn from Edwards' mistake here, and be able to lambaste him for his poor hires.

I predict he will let them loose in due time. Most especially, I can't imagine him continuing with Amanda Marcotte, who is clearly the far more extreme case, and who has so little upside in terms of basic good qualities.

Why on earth the blogosphere would rise nearly as one in her defense is beyond my understanding.

My prediction: no other campaign will EVER hire a blogger, except for the safest possible choices, for fear that they will be muscled by the blogosphere into keeping them no matter what they may choose to say, or have said.

Unintended consequences of a blogosphere "win" with these two bloggers.

Mithrandir, learn to read and please don't put words in my mouth.

And you know who Edwards should really fire, no matter what?

Whoever it was who made the hiring decision for these two bloggers in the first place.

MatthewRMarler on February 8, 2007 at 12:04 PM:

As for Cheney's bad language, I think his use of locker-room language in public discourse (and on the Senate floor) has cost him support, not endeared him to swing voters.

And you would think Cheney has lost support because of all the really heinous shit he's done, not just because of the dropping of an f-bomb now and then.

Nathan on February 8, 2007 at 12:33 PM:

considering that niether Malkin nor Donahue are employees of anyone's campaign, that's specious.

Not direct hires, no. Just a couple of freelance partisan hitmen, doing whatever it takes to raise their own profile and suck more cash from rubes like you by telling you what you want to hear.

'Tho I sometimes disagree with Shakes and find Amanda unnecessarily crude, either one of them have more integrity and intellectual honesty in their toenail clippings than the likes of Malkin, Limbaugh, Spammity, and the rest of their ilk have in their bodies.

I'm glad that Edwards kept them Amanda and Shakes on, but wish he would have gone a bit stronger with his statement.

Most especially, I can't imagine him continuing with Amanda Marcotte, who is clearly the far more extreme case, and who has so little upside in terms of basic good qualities. --frankly0

Really? So you know her personally?

Do you know all of her professional writings by heart?

And what powers do you posses that allow you to tell whether a person has "basic good qualities" based on nothing more than a few blog entries?

I'm really interested in knowing how you developed these amazing powers.

How to get away with being a jerk early in life and later on associating yourself with a campaign:

1) Be completely excellent and have all your other ducks in a row
2) Make a billion dollars so you can afford to say f u
3) Associate yourself with a candidate known for being a jerk him/herself
4) Have a 40 year old born again moment

Can work, but not always:

5) Be a republican
6) Go to rehab for three weeks

If you can't come forward with any of those than you have a decision to make: blog like Peter Daou and Kevin Drum and have a career in politics, or blog like Misha and be smart enough to stay the hell away from photo ops with candidates you like.

Marcotte should never have taken the job. She was as stupid and naive as her blog reveals when she applied for and accepted the position.

I don't know how Edwards could have fired her today, but there is nothing good that will come of this.

frankly0 on February 8, 2007 at 11:02 AM:

The problem is, the things the two bloggers said are things that an employee of a political campaign should absolutely never say.

-Were they Edwards' employees when they said them?
-Did they post their content with Edwards' permission or computers or internet connection?
-To what extent does your employer get to determine your actions when you are not at work?

Of course, if you are a Republican, people with views seen as controversial or extreme get positions in your administration...

frankly0 on February 8, 2007 at 12:54 PM:

And you know who Edwards should really fire, no matter what?

Stop being such a damned coward, frankly0.

frankly0 is right, this will be an albatross around Edwards' neck.

but I don't expect people here to get that.

Since Edwards is continuing to employ the two bloggers, obviously because he's been shaken down by the blogosphere itself, don't imagine that this thing is just going to go away.

If Edwards had caved, it certainly wouldn't go away; as it is, I don't think it has a lot of legs, though if hitting back hard at those raising the criticism might have killed it far more effectively.

frankly0 is right, this will be an albatross around Edwards' neck.

Ah, Nathan says it without argument or evidence, so it must be true.

but I don't expect people here to get that.

Yeah, poor Nathan, always forced to come here where no one recognizes his brilliance.

Edwards is desperately trying to be the Not Hillary candidate. Problem is, he may have just won the support of part of the liberal blogosphere at the expense of the primary, not to mention the election itself.

Primaries can get ugly. Just wait till a week before the Iowa caucus. If this is the kind of language that's tolerated now, I hate to see what will be said then.

Do you know all of her professional writings by heart?

I have by now seen enough. It doesn't take a lot of material to know a mediocre writer and thinker, or to detect a major failure of emotional discipline. And how do you account for the report of a number of people, clearly liberals, who once frequented Pandagon, but were completely turned off by her writing and behavior? If these people found her offensive and without redeeming merit, how do you think that's going to pass in the larger world? (There IS a larger world, in case you haven't noticed. It's where the election booths are located.)

And one example of the sort of problem Marcotte represents was quoted above, namely her "observation":

"Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."

I guess I'd like to understand just how that is NOT offensive? Anyone? Anyone?

Stop being such a damned coward, frankly0.

You can go right ahead and think I'm a coward, grape_crush.

I, for my part, will continue to think of you as an emotionally incontinent idiot.

I guess I'd like to understand just how that is NOT offensive?

Be a lot easier to answer that question if, you know, the quote was presented in context of the post in which it was contained, rather than in isolation.

For instance, if it was presented clearly in context as a mocking response to an actual "argument" presented against Plan B of the "What if Mary had chosen such an option" form (which I've certainly heard before), then, sure, its indelicately phrased, but not particulary offensive; its pointing out the stupidity of the form of argument while reiterating her position that the Catholic position on birth control is misogynistic.

Now, I don't know the context the comment was presented in, and maybe in context it was manifestly offensive.

Oh, and BTW, here's this priceless gem from Edwards exculpation of the two bloggers:

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.

Oh, I'm sure that this quote, again, was NOT intended to malign anyone's faith:

"Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."

Isn't wonderful how dishonest both bloggers and polticians can be when the shit hits the fan?

frankly0 on February 8, 2007 at 2:54 PM:

You can go right ahead and think I'm a coward, grape_crush.

Some self-important right-wing loon no one has heard of offers criticism, and you go into a figurative fetal position, predicting the end of the world. So, yes, I think you are a coward, frankly0...Capitulating to bullies is what put Dubya into office, remember? And here you wanted Edwards to do the same. Shame on you.

I, for my part, will continue to think of you as an emotionally incontinent idiot.

Cite some examples of my 'emotionally incontinent idiocy' or shut your piehole, coward.

What the blogosphere isn't realizing is what a huge hit it's going to take with its tantrum supporting the likes of Amanda Marcotte.

What candidate or organization is going to want the blogosphere around after this, calling the shots?

The trick for any politician from here on out will be to find someway to extract the money out of the blogosphere with absolutely minimal involvement from any of its players. As little the respect politicians ever had for the blogosphere before, it will be soured into pure contempt.

Edwards was muscled into keeping on these bloggers against every reasonable political instinct. All other candidates will learn the lesson from this that the blogosphere must only be touched with a retractable ten foot pole.

If bloggers think they won something important with Edwards's current concession, they simply don't understand the concept of a Pyrrhic victory.

Not that that would in any way surprise me; they don't seem to be the brightest bunch.

Cite some examples of my 'emotionally incontinent idiocy' or shut your piehole, coward.

Your defending Amanda Marcotte as a sensible hire for a Presidential candidate would be a good start.

Similarly, thanks to the links handed out, lots of people will read Marcotte's hate speech but few people will realize that Marcotte is the exception.

Which is why I have made it a minor issue of mine over the years to call out bloggers on their refusal to call out Marcotte on her bullshit. The cowardice has been on the part of the self-proclaimed liberal blogosphere afraid of tangling with a bully that claims to be the uber-feminist. Kevin.

Occasionally David Duke says something I might agree with. Would I ever link to a KKK member? Than why ever link to Marcotte other than to say she is an extremist?

Marcotte has gotten a pass because she is a woman.

And you would think Cheney has lost support because of all the really heinous shit he's done, not just because of the dropping of an f-bomb now and then.

That, too. Since this thread is about use of language, I think it's worth pointing out that Cheney's use of language is not nice.

Is Michelle Malkin, evidently a bully in this affair, as much a fascist as the Bali bomber?
&&
It seems to me that that's kind of like asking if Goebbels is as much a fascist as the Bali bomber: in addition to comparing across movements in different contexts, your comparing a propagandist for one movement to a foot soldier for another.

That makes Michelle Malkin, a commentator in a society with a free press, like goebbels, the information minister in a dictatorship with a controlled press.

Actually, I am contrasting a political commentator for one movement with a terrorist from another movement. Foot "soldiers" are people who attack other soldiers, but the Bali bombers are terrorists because they attacked unarmed civilians who were totally disassociated from any military target.

I think you might have enlarged the concept of "Christofascist" to the extent that it includes FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower.

cmdicely: If Edwards had caved, it certainly wouldn't go away; as it is, I don't think it has a lot of legs,

We don't know the future, so you might be right. My prediction is that wherever Edwards goes someone will quote Marcotte and McEwen and ask if Edwards still respects those quoted opinions. The questions will be differently phrased, such as "Do you think that those opinions might lose you votes among the observant Black or Hispanic Christians", or "How does that opinion square with Senator Clinton's attempts to embrace observant Christians", and so on. You won't need to wait for the general election, the Clintonistas will raise the issue in Iowa, NH, SC, and every other state.

frankly0 on February 8, 2007 at 3:20 PM:

Edwards was muscled into keeping on these bloggers against every reasonable political instinct.

Really? What did you do? Call Mistress Cleo and her psychic friends to divine Edwards' motivation?...Yet more hot air from frankly0...

All other candidates will learn the lesson from this that the blogosphere must only be touched with a retractable ten foot pole.

I must have missed the announcement where all of the candidates for President fired their web consultants.

If bloggers think they won something important with Edwards's current concession..

Edwards didn't concede anything, you poor little cowardly concern troll...Donohue didn't get Amanda's or Shakes' heads on a platter or any repudiation of their positions, only the language and tone of their written opinions.

Not that that would in any way surprise me; they don't seem to be the brightest bunch.

Pot, meet Kettle.

frankly0 on February 8, 2007 at 3:23 PM:

Your defending Amanda Marcotte as a sensible hire for a Presidential candidate would be a good start.

And how is that 'emotionally incontinent idiocy'?...C'mon, you can do better than that, can't you, coward?

That makes Michelle Malkin, a commentator in a society with a free press, like goebbels, the information minister in a dictatorship with a controlled press.

Goebbels was a cynical, self-promoting partisan commentator (first a critic and then a backer of Hitler) in a society with a largely free press before he was information minister in a dictatorship with a controlled press. Indeed, his actions in the former role is how he secured the latter role.

Actually, I am contrasting a political commentator for one movement with a terrorist from another movement.

I stand by my original characterization.

Foot "soldiers" are people who attack other soldiers,

No, a "foot soldier" is a "dedicated, low-level follower"; are you being grossly ignorant of the English language or merely ludicrously disingenuous?

I think you might have enlarged the concept of "Christofascist" to the extent that it includes FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower.

You are certainly free to make an argument that I have done so, though I really don't think any of them fit anywhere close to the definition of Christofascism I've presented (to wit, "self-promoting right-wing political activists seeking to advance their own faction's totalitarian control of society, and using religion and religious identity as a cynical tool to advance those aims.")

My prediction is that wherever Edwards goes someone will quote Marcotte and McEwen and ask if Edwards still respects those quoted opinions.

Er, he never said he respected those opinions in the first place. In fact, he said that not only the tone but the sentiment "personally offended" him.

So, if you mean, wherever he goes, opposition plants will pepper him with questions based on utter fabrication and fiction, yes, that's possible, but its hardly as if the facts of what he does make that any more or less likely.

What the blogosphere isn't realizing is what a huge hit it's going to take with its tantrum supporting the likes of Amanda Marcotte.

The blogosphere isn't realizing anything, because the blogosphere isn't a collective organism. In fact, the blogospher—of which Malkin is a part—was as involved in the attack as the negative response to it.

Rant on, grape_crush -- it's what you do best. I just can't imagine why I'd think of you as emotionally incontinent.

For the others, let me say that this is not going to be a defining moment for the Edwards campaign, except in a bad sense. But it is most certainly going to turn into a defining moment for the blogosphere.

If it had been only Melissa McEwan that was the issue, the situation would have been far more tenable, whatever the outcome of Edwards' current decision. But Amanda Marcotte is reviled by a good number of LIBERAL readers, and for good reason, given what I've seen.

How can this possibly end well for the blogosphere, to be acting like an ugly mob when it comes to defending one of their own, especially when it's the just about the worst of their own?

Chris Bowers, who seems to have taken the lead in this, appears to have lost his mind on this issue. While it must be a fine feeling to see countless numbers of people supporting you online, I do wonder if may not occur to him at some point that that is an exhilarating experience enjoyed by all demagogues.

Mobs are nasty things, who commit acts sensible people can only regret - and he will have been their leader.

He's someone who should have known better, but obviously didn't.

I repeat, this will NOT end well.

For the others, let me say that this is not going to be a defining moment for the Edwards campaign, except in a bad sense.

Well, yeah, probably not; the campaign is already being painted in the media as having capitulated to the attacks with the apology.

But it is most certainly going to turn into a defining moment for the blogosphere.

I doubt it; its not the first major news story centering around political activity of the blogosphere, its not the first major news story surrounding campaign connections to the blogosphere. Its a blip.

How can this possibly end well for the blogosphere

It can't. Neither can it end badly for the blogosphere. The blogosphere has no common uniting interest to be harmed or advanced.

to be acting like an ugly mob when it comes to defending one of their own,

This characterization is not supported.

especially when it's the just about the worst of their own?

Nor is this characterization supported.

Chris Bowers, who seems to have taken the lead in this, appears to have lost his mind on this issue.

It may appear that way to you, but you provide little reason to believe that that perception says more about Bowers than about you.

While it must be a fine feeling to see countless numbers of people supporting you online, I do wonder if may not occur to him at some point that that is an exhilarating experience enjoyed by all demagogues.

Ah, so Bowers is insane and wrong because people agree with him. Got it.

Mobs are nasty things, who commit acts sensible people can only regret

Which I suppose is why you are so eager to join the one noted hypocritical hate-mongers like Donohue and Malkin worked to whip up.

I repeat, this will NOT end well.

Arguing, you're not so good at. Repetition, though, you've got down cold. Congratulations.

frankly0 on February 8, 2007 at 4:40 PM:

Rant on, grape_crush

Kettle, meet Pot...

..it's what you do best.

Really? First, you seem to possess this God-like view of everything Amanda has written and now little ol' moi...frankly0, you have far too much time on your hands...

I just can't imagine why I'd think of you as emotionally incontinent.

Well, at least you are admitting a mistake.

For the others, let me say that this is not going to be a defining moment for the Edwards campaign...But it is most certainly going to turn into a defining moment for the blogosphere.

More gloom and doom. It's only a 'defining moment' if persons of your weak disposition make it into one. This is a tempest in a teapot.

If it had been only Melissa McEwan that was the issue..

Shakes is just as pointed in her criticisms as Marcotte, just not quite as crude.

But Amanda Marcotte is reviled by...

Then it's probably good that she's not advising Edwards on domestic policy, isn't it?

How can this possibly end well for the blogosphere..

Blogs, in one form or another, have been around for a while...And will continue to be.

..to be acting like an ugly mob

Just because a lot of the people commenting here think that you are full of shit?

..when it comes to defending one of their own, especially when it's the just about the worst of their own?

Like Dicely just said, "This characterization is not supported", or, as I wrote above, "you are full of shit".

Chris Bowers, who seems to have taken the lead in this, appears to have lost his mind..

Because what he is saying doesn't jibe with your warped views?

While it must be a fine feeling to see countless numbers of people supporting you online...

Too bad you probably will never know that 'fine feeling'...

Mobs are nasty things, who commit acts sensible people can only regret.

Like the mob out for Amanda and Shakes' blood?

I repeat, this will NOT end well.

Your arguments conerning this topic generally haven't ended well, frankly0...

frankly0: For the others, let me say that this is not going to be a defining moment for the Edwards campaign, except in a bad sense.

No, in this voter's opinion, Edwards defining "bad sense" moment was his announcement to run and using Katrina/NOLA devastation as his theatrical backdrop.

The current blogger misstep of Edwards reiterates for me he didn't learn from the mistakes of the Kerry-Edwards campaign in not swiftly and effectively counterattacking the attack by (a) painting Donohue as the "trash-talking" partisan that he is, and (b) calling out the double standard (no media critique of Bush's appearance on trash-talking, vile Rush Limbaugh show). Whether McEwan or Marcotte are apt representatives for his campaign is a side issue, IMO, compared to failing to counterattack the smear machine effectively. To be fair to John, maybe part of this is the SCLM's failure to give Edwards equal space to counter Donohue's attack.

Media Matters, as usual, dissects the Time online article as well as the NYTimes and AP reports. This caught my eye:

But neither the Times article, by reporter John M. Broder, nor the AP article, by writer Nedra Pickler, included any mention of Donohue's own history of vulgar, trash-talking bigotry -- or of Donohue's decision to dismiss anti-Catholic bigotry on the part of a key anti-Kerry operative in 2004.

In 2004, Media Matters first detailed anti-Catholic comments made by Jerome Corsi, who, as co-author of Unfit for Command (Regnery, 2004), was one of the ringleaders of the smear campaign by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) -- a Catholic presidential candidate. Among Corsi's bigoted comments:

• CORSI: "So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the laywers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it."
• CORSI: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press."

Corsi also called Islam "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion," and a "cancer that destroys the body it infects" and claimed of Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together."

Despite the uproar surrounding Corsi's comments, Donohue apparently remained silent at the time, and subsequently dismissed the comments as "quips." A search of the Nexis database yields no examples of Donohue denouncing -- or even commenting on -- Corsi's anti-Catholic remarks....
Examples of Donohue's trash-talking hypocrisy...

Should have written... his announcement to run in using Katrina/NOLA...

Come to think of it, why doesn't Edwards or Dem contenders hire Media Matters to handle counterattacks? They do a damn good job and they don't talk trash.