That's been my question all along. Who hired these two? And why weren't they vetted more seriously then it seems they were?

First, Amanda was sort of a limiting case. Her writing is about as raucous as anyone I can think of, and if a campaign can survive, and even prosper, after hiring her, it actually makes most other bloggers seem like pretty safe hires.

The idea that the case of Amanda is just going to go away for Edwards is totally absurd.

OF COURSE her writings will be used by the right, and possibly even by rival Democratic candidates when the occasion arises.

While bloggers have declared that they will go after any Democratic candidate who dares to question Edwards' employment of the two bloggers, it's just inconceivable that if Edwards ever attains the status of front runner that they won't go at him all guns blazing, and they're not going to give the slightest damn about the bloggers at that juncture.

In the end, the bloggers will be fired, or will leave for "family reasons" before this plays out. About the only way that that would NOT happen is if Edwards tanks anyway, and nobody cares enough to launch an attack. And, of course, in that case, the "netroots" lose anyway, since their clout even in the Democratic primaries will prove to be insignificant -- just as they were in 2004.

I think the issue in this case was less about hiring bloggers in general than it was about hiring crazy bloggers. These certainly weren't the first bloggers hired by political candidates.

Well this still misses the main point:

"But firing that blogger will certainly bring their wrath down upon you. But campaigns, of course, fire staffers pretty often. So why would you hire somebody you can't fire?"

This is totally bogus. The blogs weren't up in arms because the two bloggers might get fired. Everyone freaked out because they might get fired because Edwards caved to the wingnuts.

If a campaign fires a blogger staffer because they aren't a good fit, or they screw up,or whatever other reasons staffers get fired, I'm sure nobody would particularly notice.

The above quote just completely misunderstands the reason behind the uproar, and feeds more into the "angry, irrational blogger" meme.

First, Amanda was sort of a limiting case. Her writing is about as raucous as anyone I can think of

Nonsense Kevin. Amanda is quite typical of the anti-religious and anti-Catholic bent of the liberal bloggers. Matthew Yglesias, whose blog I comment on often, often takes parting shots at religion and Catholicism. Especially of its conservative stance on abortion, birth control, and pre-marital sex. Amanda is just more honest about her anti-Catholic bigotry than Matthew is.

Steve, should Edwards *not* fire bloggers just because its the wingnuts who demand it? Is that sufficient reason to go against, say, his own personal or political instincts?

Just to make myself popular here, let me reproduce a couple of (somewhat edited) posts I left on Greenwald's blog that express my own views on the blogger issue:

I have to say, I've lost a lot of respect for Glenn Greenwald over his incitement of the online mob who are going after ANY Democratic campaign which might raise a problem with keeping Marcotte on as a hire.

Everything about Greenwald's behavior on this point strikes me as demogaguery.

Look, as bloggers go, Marcotte is just about the worst of the worse. I don't know how many times I've read about liberal readers who've complained that she drove her away from a site they had previously enjoyed. And even the quickest perusal of her writings shows how vile she chose, quite deliberately, to be.

Now I think that anyone with half a brain should know that attaching such a person to campaign is going to present nothing but political problems for that campaign.

Yet like mob bosses, demanding that a store owner keep on the job their idiot destructive relatives, Greenwald and others have insisted that this nasty piece of baggage stay attached to the Edwards campaign -- or else.

I ask, what kind of political ally could Greenwald and the larger blogosphere be, if it demands that a campaign suffer very real damage in order to maintain its support? How could a movement be more destructive of its purported allies, and in the end itself, than to pursue such a path?

Yet Greenwald has pursued this path, with no qualms, and even with obvious relish.

THAT is the mark of demagogue. And I have no respect for demagogues.

Just to add a little more, there is a great irony in the current "netroots" directive to kneecap any Democratic campaign that raises a problem with Marcotte as a hire.

The alleged goal is to make the netroots more powerful, and influential over the political process.

Yet it achieves the exact opposite. From here on out, campaigns will do everything they can to keep the netroots at arms length (while simultaneously doing everything they can to extract money from its pockets). It's a simple matter of political calculation. The Edwards campaign is going to suffer very real damage politically because it must retain Marcotte to keep its netroots support. Campaigns will have to ask themselves, what is the upside of keeping netroots support as opposed to the downside?

Given what's happen to Edwards, that downside will now loom far, far larger than it ever has in the past.

What does this mean for the netroots? Obviously, nothing but a loss of real clout. The netroots is only one of many forces behind the potential success of a nominee. In the larger political calculation, it loses big time.

Yet I'm sure Greenwald doesn't give a care in the world about this. He's found the mob, he knows what red meat they like to eat, and he'll be goddamned if we won't give it to them and enjoy their cheers.

I still can't work out why the Edwards campaign did hire Amanda. Sure, I disagree with her world view but then I'm not the target market of the campaign. That's not what confuses me. Thing is, being raucous in her writing is about the only thing I can see that she brings to the table. If that has to be dropped (as it obviously has to be: phrases like "liberating the fetus from its prison" aren't going to reach out to the center, however good it is as a piece of vitriol) then I'm not sure I see what else is there. The whole point of Marcotte's blogging style is indeed that outrageousness, that feeling of being slapped across the face by someone deploying every rhetorical trick to get the point across (don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with rhetoric) and take that away and what do we have?
I don't get it, I just don't see the point.

Too bad Edwards didn't hire a respectible blogger, like Professor Ann Althouse:

Ann Althouse said...

Well, Scott, I see a tiny little image that looks like this: d. I was under the impression that that was a picture of a tiny little prick, and I thought it was you. I'll take your word for it that I was wrong and that despite your loathsomeness, you've managed to find other little pricks who are willing to associate with you. I have corrected my post to indicate that it was not you. Now, have you corrected your vicious stupidity, you pathetic little man?

3:48 PM

I hope the University of Wisconsin takes the scissors away from Ann.

As long as Amanda knows who the boss is, due largely to the rift between Howard Dean and his blogger, Joseph Trippi, whom both had a power struggle going on, a very un-productive one.

OR the problem on Daily Koss with the ugly comment about mercenaries that got butched in Iraq causing Kerry to have to "de-link" for good cause.

I still think that some candidate needs to realize that you could gain votes in this dust-up by using the blogger dust-up to take on Donohue.

The left blogoshere has made Donohue a bit of a project and deservedly so: he's a bigoted nut. Democratic presidential candidates have a bigger media profile and and bigger megaphone.

In a crowded field a candidate can hope to win a war of attrition against his or her foes. A better approach is to demonstrate leadership. Emulate FDR and Truman. A candidate wouldn't have to defend the Edwards bloggers to point out that Donohue is completely unhinged and that Donohue is the last person to be demanding civil discourse. That approach would be a winner with the Democratic base and would be a home run with the larger electorate.

"raucous" is a poor euphemism for hate speech, Kevin.

If Amanda had made her comments about Jews or Muslims instead of Catholics, or if you didn't know her sex and Amanda had made her comments about women and mothers or blacks or asians instead of men and fathers you and other liberal bloggers would have been all over her.

But she skated past with her hate speech because she is a girl, and because her targets are Catholics, men, and fathers.

So any fallout is yours.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

I still can't work out why the Edwards campaign did hire Amanda.

THis is something that gets me too.

Look, Melissa and Amanda basically could have been let go with no hard feelings and no larger reflection on their reputations: they were simply mismatches for the jobs, given the constraints on a political campaign.

But whoever HIRED them is the one who REALLY fucked up. THEY should have known better, and were truly incompetent at THEIR jobs.

Their asses should have been fired first.

If you would actually examine what Amanda writes about Catholics and Fathers Kevin, and then if you would compare her commenting policies with those of Red State, LGF, Free Republic, Hot Air, Althouse, Instapundit, Atrios, Washington Monthly, Yglesias, TBogg, Ailes, Ezra Klein, Thersites, LGM, Think Progress, than you would have a real puzzler on your hands.

She's a fascist in Democratic clothing.

Amanda's writing is "about as raucous" as anyone you can think of? Sure, maybe if judging by the special standard to which we hold feminist women. Compared to the world of Terry Moran, Michelle Malkin et al she's the elementary school librarian.

People who disagree with Amanda politically or have an axe to grind need to set that aside and see this situation for what it is: a full-time right-wing attack dog decided to take a shot at Edwards based on a perceived weak point. Edwards - eventually - judged it for what it was: a politically motivated attack (as opposed to genuine concern about a serious problem).

Normal Catholics (and Christians in general) who will eventually vote in the primaries are not going to base their decision to support Edwards vs. Clinton or Obama on a few comments made by mid-level staffers in their pre-campaign lives months if not years before - period. And if he makes it to the general, the right-wing will gin up more than enough fake scandals to make this hiccup a distant memory. Period.

KEVIN: First, Amanda was sort of a limiting case. Her writing is about as raucous as anyone I can think of

AL: Nonsense Kevin.

What's amazing is that Amanda doesn't even speak for that many women. She speaks to a certain young, very radical and extremist women and some men. But she alienates, alienates with extreme prejudice any woman that disagrees with her.

If you disagree with Amanda and you are a male, then she dismisses you (and bans you) with the name "MRA". If you are a woman, then she dismisses you and bans you as brainwashed by men. The latter of course is incredibly patronizing to women. Woman that disagree with her prove by their disagreements that they cannot think on their own.

And of course, there are many women that would disagree with her. Not just Catholic woman, but most woman that have a son in a custody fight, and most woman that have a husband in a custody fight with an ex, and woman that disagree with Amanda's other stances on feminism. Maybe NASCAR woman.

But as Amanda and the rad fem blogs in her keiretsu tell it, it's not their job to teach feminism 101. What that really means is they refuse to engage in rational arguments with people that disagree with them.

You've been giving her an uncritical pass. Shame on you, and shame on us reality based liberals.

Compared to the world of Terry Moran, Michelle Malkin et al she's the elementary school librarian.

Yeah, sure, a school librarian who writes such gems as this:

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.

Spare us any further stupid observations, please?

And I left out women whose fathers were engaged in a custody fight.

Oh, and BTW, which Presidential campaign has hired as a staff member Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, etc.?

Are we getting the point here?

I thought not.

And another thing - a blogger with a public profile or a cadre of influential supporters is no different from any other campaign hire with similar assets.

When a campaign decides that they are going to let go of a polling firm, media consultant, press secretary or any staffer with strong media or political connections, there is the risk that there will be some degree of backlash or criticism. There are plenty of examples of former campaign hires who take part in whispering campaigns or become "anonymous" sources to the press - this is part of the normal risk a campaign runs with regard to hiring and firing.

To be fair to you Kevin, not only were you giving Marcotte a pass, but you have also long been giving Althouse a pass.

Isn't in sexist for you to do that?

Isn't the question for the liberal blogosphere why we give certain woman bloggers a pass?

Isn't FDL, and TalkLeft, and World O Crap and Blue Girl Red State and Phoenix Woman and Echidne and the others enough of an existence proof for you that you don't need to pander and you can go out and find woman bloggers that have something interesting to say and don't have to say it with hate speech?

One thing I'm sure that political campaigns are going to conclude from the ugly behavior of bloggers is that they don't have the slightest concept or concern about being team players.

For the bloggers, it's all about them, and what THEY want, and damn the political campaign, the larger Democratic Party, and the American people themselves.

The "netroots" had better get over its delusions of grandeur. They are only part of a larger picture.

And the demagogues who lead this mob into thinking otherwise deserve a rung in hell all to themselves.

"Nobody's going to support a candidate just because the campaign hired a blogger they like."

Really?

The thing that causes nagging concern about this whole episode, for me, is the number of people who've said in the past couple of weeks either "I'll vote for Edwards because he hired my favorite blogger," "I'll never vote for Edwards because he fired my favorite blogger," or "I'll definitely vote for Edwards because he didn't fire my favorite blogger".

Think it didn't happen? You might want to go back and re-read some of the comment threads over on Melissa's site, to name just one place. In some sections of the blogosphere the whole thing has started to sound like a junior high school popularity contest.

Anyone who criticizes the policies of the Catholic church is anti-religion or hates Catholics. Anyone who criticizes the policies of President Bush has Bush Derangement Syndrome or hates America. Anyone who criticizes the policies of Isreal are anti-semetic. Anyone who criticizes corporate policies are anti-business. Etc. Etc.

I'm so sick of this garbage...

Sadly Ciccina, there is a difference between a blogger and some scumbag media consultant/press secretary/media flack.

The bloggers have had a career espousing only those issues they blog about. They aren't making a career for themselves as "advocates of their client's position." It may be a double standard, and it probably even means the blogger is more to be trusted that the flacks, but in this case it directly associates the blogger and their employer with the blogger's prior actions.

This is why Marcotte was such a bad fit to begin with, and why Marcotte should never have allowed Edwards to hire her. If Edwards didn't know of her background, Marcotte certainly did, and should have stayed far away from her candidate.

While I would vote for Duncan Black in a heartbeat, I suspect he would say he is unelectable because of his blog. I would suspect he could over time find a way to hire himself out to a campaign, but it would be very difficult. And Atrios is a moderate Democrat for the most part and hardly says anything worse than the seven deadly words.

If you want to blog like a Goldstein or a Misha or a Marcotte that is your choice. But it is naive of you to think you can do that and join a campaign.

If you want to use blogging as a stepping stone into a political career or a career as a pundit, you need to blog like the Carpet Bagger, Kevin Drum, Peter Daou. If you can't express your ideas within those constraints, you should stay away from being the public face of a campaign.

The idea that this issue will go away in a few weeks seems ludicrious to me.
I can imagine the other Democratic candidates might shy away from losing this stuff, but the Republicans will hit Edwards over the head with this stuff every chance they get.Hell, the commercials virtually write themselves: a series of Marcotte's finest, starting with this one:

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 can imagine the other Democratic candidates might shy away from using this stuff, but the Republicans will hit Edwards over the head with this stuff every chance they get.Hell, the commercials virtually write themselves: a series of Marcotte's finest, starting with this one:

>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.

Add a voiceover about John Edwards hiring her to represent him , end up with
" John Edwards: too left-wing for America" and call it a day.

By the time Edwards puts out a statement trying to explain the situation, the damage will be done. To be honest, the Edwards campaign is simply a dead man walking. The Republicans already have the perfect campaign kill tool cocked & ready, given them courtesy of Edwards.

I don't think this kind of thing is going to get any traction as blogging becomes more common. This was the test case and it was a spectacular failure.

That said, I'm sure someone will develop a tool that will be able to spider through someone's archives to find the most offensive material (cuss words, religious terms, etc.).

Sadly, Jerry, I think you're just using any excuse to grind your axe about uppity women who don't know their place. Your comment that Amanda is a "fascist in Demoratic clothing" pretty much tells me you're too emotional to think clearly on this subject. Not to mention your comment that her writing only appeals to radicals and extremists. I like her writing, and I am neither radical nor extremist.

And as for: "Then they came for the Catholics/ and I didn't speak up..." - someone DID speak up. His name is Bill Donahue.

There are at least two people on Amanda Marcotte's site who are more raucous than she is. (In fact, I wonder if some of the talk about how extreme she is really comes from people who are confusing her with Pam Spaulding or jedmunds.)

Anyone know which campaign Digby's working for?

In other words, maybe it's a good idea for bloggers to remain anonymous if they ever want a real job in a campaign.

Blah blah blah "Sadly, Jerry, I think you're just using any excuse to grind your axe about uppity women who don't know their place. "

You have no evidence of how I feel about women one way or the other.

You are masturbating again.

And you're a dope. By the time Amy Sullivan has to speak out against Marcotte, much less Donahue, than the liberal blogosphere has lost its way.

The point Ciccina is even though you are a douchebag, it is my job to speak out for you, and against those that would seek to do you harm.

Obama sure knows what to do. He makes it easy for anyone to come and have his own blog on his website. I did this.

It seems that Obama is the only candidate that has figured out how to use the Internet. Instead of communicating top-down, he is using the Internet to communicate bottom-up.

The reason Obama finds it easy is because this is the way he thinks: He wants inputs from all the little guys.

Shorter Ciccina: Amanda can too compare Jesus to Jizz and represent a campaign, but Jerry is too uncivil for me to talk to.

Kevin, you're missing an important dynamic here: the blogosphere's attack on Bill Donahue and aggressive backing of Edwards. The Edwards campaign didn't turn the tide in the media narrative, it was the 1,500 myDD readers who buried the AP in Bill Donahue quotes that turned the tide. Until the netroots stepped in, Edwards was losing. Big time.

That kind of hired muscle is hard to find. Next time Edwards is caught in a bind, who will he turn to? The blogosphere. Which is no small thing. The netroots is getting better and better at influencing MSM outlets. How much longer would the Pelosi story gone on without the liberal blogosphere? How much quicker would it have gone away if the netroots dedicated as much effort to snuffing it out as it did to the Edwards story?

Republicans have the whole rightwing slime machine to disperse attack stories. They have layer after layer of proxy attack dogs to rely on, so someone like George Bush never says a single negative thing about an opponent, yet the opponent is torn to shreds. What do Democrats have? The netroots and not much else. We're not Fox News, but we're the best they've got.

The blogosphere has some alone way since 2004. The Democratic candidate who gains its favor will have a formidable army of informed, aggressive proxies on its side...

Me thinks this augurs an increased tolerance in the MSM and Democratic Officialdom for the kind of heated rhetoric on the left that has been only tolerated from the right in recent decades.

FRANKLY0: which Presidential campaign has hired as a staff member Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, etc.?

Are we getting the point here?

The left blogosphere is a lot more top heavy in white secularists than the Democratic voting base is. Just as the right blogosphere is a lot more top heavy in libertarians than the Republican voting base is. It revels in the provocative and is totally destructive of message discipline. Ask Ned Lamont.

A Democratic candidate who reflects left blogosphere attitudes towards Christianity WILL NOT GET BLACK SUPPORT in the primaries.

jayarbee,

But it absolutely DOES make a difference whether someone who makes outrageous statements is HIRED by a campaign. A HIRE is the direct responsibility of the campaign itself. And even though Ann Coulter, say, may make a lot more money on her own than as a paid campaign staffer, that point is obviously true for just about ANYBODY who joins a campaign. The real point of joining such a staff is add to your resume, and enjoy the fruits of the legitimacy and prestige such an appointment confers. I can't imagine that Ann Coulter would refuse a staff job for McCain or any other Republican Presidential candidate, precisely because legitimacy is the one thing she most desperately would desire, given who and what she is.

As for the McCain blogger, whether his background actually allows him to survive I can't pretend to know. The one thing I remember him being quoted as saying is something to the effect that we are a "Christian nation". Now that of course fires up everybody on the left, but it's going to do far, far less political damage to McCain than the "hot, sticky" quote from Marcotte will do to Edwards.

You see, like it or not, the vast majority of America IS Christian, and talk of a "Christian nation" is going to lose a lot less votes than savage mockery of their religious beliefs.

I know, life is unfair. But growing up means dealing with that.

I meant,

A HIRE is the direct responsibility of the CANDIDATE himself.

jerry: I rest my case.

Hired bloggers are the same as hired journalists: propagandists. It is telling that these 'bloggers' for Edwards have not written about their experience with being called out for their writing from a bombastic religious authoritarian. I went over to the Edwards' website and one of these bloggers is flogging the virtues of Edwards' healthcare. Maybe Edwards' healthcare should be discussed, but when it is done by a paid advocate it is propaganda. Paid bloggers should be called floggers.

which Presidential campaign has hired as a staff member Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, etc.?

Patrick Buchanan was a speech writer for Nixon. Karl Rove works in the White House. I think McCain just hired a bunch of smear artists who previously worked for W. Bush.

Nothing like living in a bubble; I have managed to miss most of the sturm and drang over Marcotte.

Her written opinions seemed to me to be pretty standard feminist pro-choice hyperbole. It is obvious to me that she is attacking the Catholic church because the Catholic church is a large, well-organized, well-funded institution actively trying to end the legal right of individual women to terminate unwanted pregnancies. When individuals face the oppressive power of institutions, they do stuff like that: they say nasty things about the institution, the rudest possible things they can think of. If they can be funny in the process, all the better. It is hot air. Her words persuaded no one, she sang to the choir.

I commend John Edwards for sticking by them. Edwards will have to reassure some people that he isn't anti-Catholic and isn't anti-Christian, but the whole brou-ha-ha gives him an opportunity to do that. Marcotte is going to have to clean up her act now, and maybe the slap on the side of her head will help her appreciate that the world is a bigger place that her political opinions. And that words, while they can't break bones, still matter.

Another consequence may make the blogosphere a little less raucous. That actually may be a good thing.

That's right, and Amanda is free to be hired by any candidate whose well known father introduces them (GHWB made Rove President of the College Republicans in 1973). Patrick Buchanan wrote a master's paper on Canada trading with Cuba and used that to get a job as an editorial writer and then a job with the Goldwater Campaign and then a job with the Nixon campaign.

Amanda is trying to start right out at the top. JESUS JIZZ JESUS JIZZ JESUS JIZZ JESUS JIZZ JESUS JIZZ! Now make me the face of your campaign.

You can recover from being a young dipshit if you make a bazillion, or if you're truly excellent, or if you know somebody, but if all you are is a yet another foulmouthed mediocre blogger with not a whole lot of original thought, you shouldn't expect to go far.

Wow, Jerry, so I really hit the mark when I said you have a problem with Amanda "not knowing her place."

You may want to do something about that potty-mouth.

I can't believe this. NOTHING I've ever read at Pandagon, and that includes Jerry's beloved Holy Spirit = jizz quotation, is as bad as the hate speech that the Right spews out on a daily basis, on blogs, on cable TV, in their foundation-subsidized print media.

You want blasphemy, Jerry? How about criticizing Falwell's "9/11 was punishment for fags" rhetoric? How about Left Behind video games, the ones that prompt 15-year-olds to say, "I like it when God tears out the non-Christians' guts?" From where I sit Amanda Marcotte's biggest failure was to make it clear that it is conservative Christianity, not Christianity per se, which is evil.

And yes, I hate conservative Christianity. I think it's a perversion of the true Gospel. And it's about time Democrats had the guts to say so, instead of obsessing about not offending people who have gotten caught up in the truly vile value system that is 21st Century American conservatism.

Instead, the commenters on this supposedly liberal blog fall all over themselves to cry "mea culpa!" Liberals are not the problem here; conservatives are the problem. And Democrats should spend their energies convincing the American people of that, and not apologizing for being liberal.

Already Edwards is badly trailing Clinton and Obama in black support. This will not help in the least.

The white blogosphere thinks that it is the 'true' voice of the Democratic Party. It is not.

What are you talking about Ciccina? I have pretty much ignored you since you admitted you felt Amanda could compare Jesus to jizz and claim a top spot, but that I couldn't use nasty words.

You sound like a typical right wing nutjob complaining about how uncivil the left wing bloggers are, only you're even more stupid if possible, since you are also claiming the right of Amanda to compare Jesus to hot sticky cum and still be hired in a presidential campaign.

Nothing I have said Ciccina applies to Amanda because she is a woman.

It has to do with the fact that Amanda, like Misha and Goldstein have nothing to add of any value.

You think I have too much a potty mouth for you to deal with? And yet you champion Amanda? What a dipshit.

Then you say I am doing this because Amanda doesn't know her place, presumably as a woman, and yet nothing I wrote points to that.

Stop your bullying and stop allowing Amanda to hide behind your skirt.

Tin foil, Jerry. Just add another layer of tin foil and everything will be alright.

Jerry: " I have pretty much ignored you ..."

Except for the "masturbating" & "douchebag" comments.

Or was that another "Jerry"?

Ciccina,

Look, Amanda Marcotte really is a special case.

You don't see a lot of liberals criticizing Melissa McEwan the way many have criticized Marcotte.

While I think McEwan's writings still were too extreme not to damage the Edwards campaign, she at least seems to have some very real talent and a good mind as compensating virtues.

It's rather sad that, politics being a very instrument, she is going to be forever paired with Marcotte because of this episode.

Neither one deserves the other.

Don't be a dipshit sidewinder. I responded to her charge at 3:31 by telling her she was a wanker at 3:38 continued at 3:39 and 3:45. I ignored her after that even when she trolled me at 5:21.

Though I responded in substance to her comments, she has yet to say anything in substance back to me except that I hate women, I hate Amanda, I am uncivil, and that I am paranoid.

I'm sorry to say I don't think this is a special case.

I think its just one of a set of indirect attacks on Edwards. The attempt to make a scandal out of the sale of his old house and the size of his new one is aimed at his economic populist supporters. The blogger attack is aimed at religious supporters. This is a standard tactic designed to reduce the candidate's base into a group of factions nursing quiet (or not so quiet) resentments against each other. You can practically see some Republican hack going over an analysis of where Edwards draws his support and saying, "Hmmm, xx% of his supporters like him for his populist message - what would piss them off?" and so on.

You can give in on one attack point, but that won't stop the next one, and the next one after that. Further, when you give in you legitimize the attacker (not just the attack) in the eyes of the MSM.

The only long term strategic solution is to thoroughly discredit the attackers.

Unfortunately, despite seeing conservatives pull this over and over again, there are still a few of us who take the bait and lose sight of the big picture.

I meant,

It's rather sad that, politics being a very BLUNT instrument

Damn me.

Ciccina,

I can only say that the argument that the right wing will always find something to use as a smear, and therefore it just doesn't matter what liabilities a candidate might have, is just as wrong as wrong can be.

Some smears work far, far better than others. You can "fight back" all you want, but that fight will be futile if the ammunition on the other side is too powerful.

The problem for Amanda Marcotte's writings is that they are nearly perfectly designed for a right wing smear. The "hot sticky" comment was of course designed from the outset to offend as much as possible; how could it NOT be the perfect thing to use as a sign of hatred of religion?

People who defend Marcotte as a hire keep focusing on Donahue, and what a bag of shit the man is. Well, of course he's a bag of shit. But he's a bag of shit with some quotes in hand that stand on their own as being as offensive as possible to Catholics (again, THAT is what they were intended to be when written).

You imagine that somehow you can distract the public and the media from the message being conveyed by talking loudly about the messenger.

But that message, because it is indisputable true, is always going to get out. It's always going to offend devout Catholics. It's always going to damage any political campaign to which it is attached.

The messenger, fundamentally, is irrelevant.

Any expectation that protestations over the messenger is going to drown out the message is simply foolish.

You can give in on one attack point, but that won't stop the next one, and the next one after that.

Stonewalling even when you are wrong is not a winning strategy. And it's not Edwards' strategy.

Read the blogs today where John Edwards' correctly decided to say he was wrong, and also read the blogs today where people are worried that Hillary Clinton is afraid to admit a mistake.

If you're wrong and you won't admit it and you stonewall, the people and the press will sense the bullshit and the fear.

Jerry, what do you mean, "Stonewalling even when you are wrong is not a winning strategy"? It delivered all three branches of the government into Republican hands! Even now, the Democrats don't have the spine to stop Bush's drive toward war with Iraq. When are Democrats going to stop apologizing for every little misstep (real or imagined), and start focusing on attacking conservative values?

Stonewalling even when you are wrong is not a winning strategy"? It delivered all three branches of the government into Republican hands!

I certainly can't disagree with that, but the world IS unfair, the media is biased, and so I would not recommend it as a winning strategy to any of our Democratic candidates.

As I said last week, I don't know what Edwards could do in this circumstance but stick with Marcotte, but he didn't stonewall. He admitted Marcotte's statements were intolerant and offensive and not permissible from anyone in the campaign. As frankly0 said, the person that should have been fired was the person that hired Marcotte in the first place.

I think candidates will have to:
a) keep their shit clean
b) hit back hard when they are in the right
c) find some way to take the hit points and move forward when they are in the wrong.

Edwards did a good job at (c) after Amanda placed him in into an untenable position. Presumably candidates want to avoid (c) as much as possible in order to win, which is why they need to pay attention to (a), which is why Amanda should never have been hired, and why it would be best in the long run if she were to be separated from the campaign after a period of plausible deniability occurs.

Dipshit? Moi? ;)

Jerry, you are the sort of cretin that gives cretins a bad name.

As far as this - "...she has yet to say anything in substance back to me except that I hate women, I hate Amanda, I am uncivil, and that I am paranoid." - let me, a disinterested observer, assure you that she is right on all accounts.

But you should take it in the spirit offered - like someone telling you that you have toilet paper stuck to your shoe ...

and spinach in your teeth ...

and your fly is open ...

and you need to wipe your nose.

Some folks just shouldn't go out in public. And you, Jerry, are one of those.

Saying you are a Christian doesn't make you one.

And, trying to shove your religious doctrine down the throats of the people who disagree with you doesn't make you a Christian either.

If America is a Christian nation than why is it in an illegal and immoral war, killing women and children and other innocent civilians who had no connection to 9/11 and had no WMDs? And, why is it trying to start another illegal and immoral war?

I too found it odd that Edwards hired Amanda Marcotte, especially considering her opposition to reproductive freedom. What positive attribute, or advantage, does she bring to his campaign?

That I'm not allowed out in public is known, but has nothing to do with paranoia or hating women.

On the other hand sidewinder, there is of course no reason to take you at your word that you are a disinterested observer.

"The world IS unfair, the media is biased, and so I would not recommend it [stonewalling] as a winning strategy to any of our Democratic candidates." - jerry

OK, Jerry. This is a good point. But I would also remind people that apologizing never works for Democrats, either. When Democrats apologize, the Right, and their lackeys in the MSM, just treat it as an confession of guilt. In this case, if Edwards had fired Amanda and/or Shakes Sis, the media would have treated it as an admission that he does in fact hate Catholics.

And I suspect that both women are de facto fireproof from here on in. Malkin & Donohue are not ever going to stop trying to get the bloggers fired. It's the Republican Party way: once they have decided to attack, they never stop until they have won. So the Right will keep attacking Edwards's bloggers: if Edwards lets either blogger go, the media will spin it as a win for the Right and an embarrassing admission by the Edwards campaign that, whoops, they let their underlying anti-Catholic bigotry get out when they hired Amanda & Shakes' Sis . . .

Two points. 1) If the Democrats are going to start to be assertive, as pretty much the entire left blogosphere wants them to be, then these gaffes are simply going to happen. Hoping for the perfect, gaffe-less campaign is a wasted effort. 2) The Democrats therefore have to learn to defend gaffes.

I think that Edwards's press release announcing that both bloggers were being retained was good. I would hope that future defenses of Amanda will take the form of, "I disagree with how she expressed herself, but the substance was valid . . ." The jizz-Jesus stuff was childish and vulgar, but there's an underlying valid point that for conservative Catholics, what's really important is their obsession with controlling women's bodies. Catholicism is just what they use to justify it.

And finally, the left blogosphere can help out by attacking Donohue and Malkin. The best defense is a good offense, and working to destroy the radical righties' credibility is well-spent effort.

Long-winded comment over.

One of the reasons I strongly admire Wesley Clark is how he has taken the fight to Fox News. Unlike Susan Estrich and the other Fox News Democrats, Clark doesn't waffle or kowtow or hem or haw or hedge or stonewall on Fox News.

Millions of Fox News viewers see Wesley Clark and see a Democrat strong on defense, strong on the issues, and unapologetically Democratic.

I think its a compelling message and I think he will bring voters over.

I think that's part of a winning combination, finding a candidate that is smart and sincere and unapologetically Democratic.

I don't know enough about the announced candidates yet, but I think I can see that in Edwards, and while I can see a hint of that in Obama and Hillary, I have my concerns based on positions in which both of them have "triangulated."

The blogs that loudly opposed Marcotte's and McEwan's potential firings did so for one simple reason: to make sure that Dem Presidential aspirants didn't let themselves get pushed around by wingnuts over ginned-up pseudo-issues.

If the Edwards campaign had let them go for reasons of its own, without the wingnutosphere demanding their scalps, people in the lefty blogosphere would have been disappointed, but it would have been seen as the breaks of the game.

I too found it odd that Edwards hired Amanda Marcotte, especially considering her opposition to reproductive freedom.

huh?

Spacebaby,

Amanda Marcotte is opposed to gay men and infertile couples having rights to reproductive freedom.

Thank you for the explanation TangoMan. Sad. All too believable.

maybe it's too charitable a reading, but i get the impression that her opposition has to do with the compromised nature of many women's choice to be surrogate mothers. there's a growing market for hiring third world women to be surrogate mothers who wouldn't make that choice if they had other opportunities to earn a good income. i can see how amanda would oppose the practice because it reinforces patriarchal claims that a woman's value lies in her sexual and reproductive function.

i personally disagree with her opposition to the practice, but not because i disagree her hypothesis. i disagree with it because many of the women in question would turn to prostitution as a means to earn an income, which would expose them to much more serious safety and health risks.

Spacebaby,

Usually when people have a nuanced position they take a moment to, at the very least, allude to the nuance. Marcotte makes a declarative statement that she is outright opposed to the practice. In light of her own statement I do think that you are being too charitable. Gay men should have rights to reproductive freedom and she's outright opposed to them exercising those rights.

the statement you linked was a comment at Feministe which was part of a larger discussion surrounding the practice of hiring women to bear other people's children. she also linked a book she read that informed her opposition.

granted, she didn't write at length about the arguments presented in that book, but it's just a comment she posted on someone else's blog. it's not fair to take the comment out of its context which is one reason why i'm being charitable in my reading of it. without having read the book she linked i couldn't make a more informed judgment about her opposition.

i'm aware of the more dangerous and inferior options open to the women who become surrogate mothers out of economic necessity, and this is one reason why i disagree with amanda's stance. the other reason is that since a woman's uterus belongs to her, i believe she should be allowed the choice to be a surrogate mother.

that said, it's also not very fair to frame her stance as an opposition to the reproductive rights for gay men. it just confuses the the issue.

I don't see how you can equate a position on the legality of surrogacy with opposition to reproductive rights to gay men.

No man (or woman) has an inherent right to use someone else's body, no matter what the purpose.

The question of the legality of surrogacy rests on two issues - a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, and the degree to which the state can curtail that right based on (its judgment of) the best interest of society.

Last time I checked you don't have the right to buy a human kidney, either, no matter how much you think you deserve one.

online pharmacy - online pharmacy store
discount pharmacy - discount online pharmacy