Skip to main content

The full tilt crazy-thon now being driven into the mainstream media by the purveyors of right wing shame porn is -- for the moment -- focused on the campaign of John Edwards. On the surface, the purpose of the attack is to portray the Edwards campaign as out-of-step with mainstream political thought, by holding up the most strident examples of his bloggers' writing, and then hoping the audience will play the guilt by association game.

But the real power of this game is that it separates Edwards from the Democratic pack, and isolates him. It allows the other Democratic candidates -- after mopping their brows and thanking their lucky stars that they're not (currently) in the cross hairs --  to do the right's work for them by taking the path of least resistance and either watching silently from the sidelines, or actively distancing themselves from him.

That gives the right undue leverage on our side of the aisle. Leverage to which they are not only not entitled, but which is revocable at our say-so.

The loudest voices calling for Edwards to dismiss his bloggers are -- and no one can doubt this -- never in a million years going to vote for him, either in a primary or a general election. So why are they allowed to drive his decision-making? Not because they can withhold votes from him, but because they can cause Democratic voters to do so instead. Among more conservative (and by extension, perhaps less blog-savvy) Democrats, the hope of those on the right is that the writing they're focusing on will generate outrage, both against the bloggers and those who hired them. Among blog-savvy Democrats, who tend to be a more progressive lot, the opposite may obtain. Even among bloggers and blog readers who have differences with what was written, there's a sense that Edwards needs to stand up for his hires, or be viewed as abandoning the netroots.

But to the extent that the netroots seek to demand a show of loyalty by Edwards, that same demand must be made of every Democratic campaign. Today, the target is Edwards. Tomorrow, should this vendetta prove successful, the target could be anyone.

Keep in mind that those targeting Edwards simply don't abide by the same standards when it comes to defining what's reasonable discourse and what's not. Perhaps more to the point, they are perfectly willing to say that whatever they're pointing to is beyond the pale whether most Americans would agree or not, if they think it could possibly result in the firing of a Democratic campaign staffer, and by extension, damage to that campaign. So it's just as likely that tomorrow's target will be Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or Tom Vilsack, or Chris Dodd, or any of the other candidates. That the attack may have to hinge on something that most people would see as perfectly reasonable won't much matter, so long as the professional outrage machine is turned up loud enough.

This fight, if Edwards is going to be called upon to make it, must be everyone's fight. If the other campaigns cannot demonstrate that they would have displayed the same courage we call upon Edwards to display, then they benefit from the right's strategy of divide and conquer. And to the extent that they benefit, they give a pass to and encourage such attacks in the future, and are powerless to stop them when the next one comes. All they can do is hold on tight, cross their fingers, and pray they're not the next target. And that's no way to win anything. Certainly not the White House.

So keep an eye on who says what here. If you want Edwards to stand up, realize that you're going to have to demand that all the campaigns stand up. Literally. They're going to have to say that they stand by Edwards. Because these attacks only really hurt campaigns among primary voters. That's us. The people who launched this thing aren't ever going to vote for Edwards, or any other Democrat. They're pulling your strings. They're influencing your primary vote. But the minute this vendetta loses its ability to influence the primary, it loses its power. It becomes just another bunch of right wing foamers ignoring the craven embarrassments they harbor in their own dark corners.

And that only happens when Democrats as a bloc decide to close the doors on these shriekers, and tend to their own affairs based on real discussion about real issues.

So if you view this as a gut check for Edwards, don't forget that the other campaigns have a role to play in this. Right now, they all regard this as someone else's problem, though they're probably all frantically re-vetting their own bloggers right now. But if we expect to see Edwards stand strong, we ought to expect to see them all stand strong. And to the extent that they stand strong, Edwards will be able to do the same.

All of the other candidates ought to take the opportunity to preemptively hit back at the right, and give Edwards cover to retain his bloggers if that's what he opts to do.

This can't be left on Edwards' plate alone if we really think it's about something bigger than the way this particular campaign deals with its individual bloggers.

Until Edwards is immunized by the rest of the Democratic field, the right has leverage on our side of the aisle that they're not entitled to.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:14 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hey, give the MSM a break (17+ / 0-)

    Criticizing bloggers for blogging is far more important than ending the Iraq war.

    </snark>

    •  Thats because the MSM has their own war... (11+ / 0-)

      They hate the fact that blogs provide people an alternative source of media and that blogs often point out the inconsistencies in the MSM and errors in their reporting.

      "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

      by Quanta on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:24:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're right (8+ / 0-)

      I mean the fact that Edwards hired some folks who said something controversial is so much more important than reporting about the mis steps of Blackwater and the millions they bilked the taxpayers out of.

      What I find most amusing is the false outrage MSM has displayed over the fact that these bloggers may have said hateful things when you look at some of the commentary they have placed by their folks like Michelle Malkin, Bill O reilly or too many other folks numerous to count.

      •  I think you fail to grasp the importance of this (6+ / 0-)

        Are there more important issues in the universe? Sure.

        But, as far as the presidential race on the Democratic side of the isle, this is important? Why? Because it is a test of our candidates willingness and ability to take the fight to the Right and not put up with their bullshit. The basis for this claim against these bloggers is bullshit, so if he caves, he does so unjustifiably. If he and the other candidates stand up for the bloggers and call the right on their mendacity, they get points. Many of us all liked Dean last time for those very reasons. We didn't write it, but this is very much a test for all candidates, Edwards in particular. Their pass or fail scores may well shape this race going forward.

        •  Bullshit? (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ihlin, decon, Rob Mac K, wayward, YestoWes

          Nuh-uh. What they wrote would undoubtedly be offensive to many moderate, Christian voters.

          Yes, it's sad that the righwing moonbats have to harp on this rather than on something substantive, but highlight the bloggers' remarks they have, and a lot of mainstream people are going to wonder why such people are on his staff in communication roles.

          With Cheney/Bush in charge, Osama remains at large

          by Hell Upside Down on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:41:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  only one cable network has mentioned it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YestoWes

            so far ..CNN

            Why do Murdoch and Trump like Hillary?

            by inevitibility on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:50:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  MSN was discussing it earlier (4+ / 0-)

              I changed the channel. Tucker Carlson doesn't need to provide me with a play by play on what constitutes offensive. It isn't like HE hasn't travelled there a time or two himself. It's like the pot meeting the kettle.

              •  In the end it was about MSM! (0+ / 0-)

                   Tucker allowed him to rant but in the end it was more of an attack on bloggers in general than about the anti-Catholic comments of the two staff members. All the major news media are trying to find a way to fit the internet reporting into their video feeds but in the end it is terrifying to them. It is all about defending their territory and the weekly paycheck.

                Eisenhower- "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."

                by NC Dem on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 09:18:23 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I really (9+ / 0-)

            don't think moderate thoughtful Christians are going to be deciding who they vote for based on who Edwards has on as supplemental staff. I think that the people who are going to be turned off by this are the same Christians who are convinced that there is a "war on Christmas" and would probably not be voting for Edwards anyway.

            In the big scheme of things this is small potatoes. It isn't like the right side of the aisle hasn't been demonizing the left for decades and spouted it's own brand of hate speech that could be made into as much of a turnoff to a thoughtful moderate.

            This cycle I hope that when people decide who they want for Presiden that they don't vote for the best beer drinking bud or the guy who surrounds himself with the most trendy in the blogosphere but who has the best ideas to ,ove us forward.

          •  I am not surprised. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ihlin, Rob Mac K, YestoWes

            What they wrote was pretty offensive and unprofessional.

            I don't blame Edwards one bit if he fires them.

            "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers

            by wayward on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:53:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  unprofessional? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GreenSooner, YestoWes

              who was paying them to write that? Or was it just their own opinions in their own time? Pardon me if people express negative opinions about mythologies they do not share with you.

              •  Waidaminnit there, pardner (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ihlin, decon, Rob Mac K, dannyinla, YestoWes

                Pardon me if people express negative opinions about mythologies they do not share with you.

                I'm an agnostic, myself, and I can easily see how what Amanda, at least (don't know what the other one has said that is drawing heat), would be considered offensive. It was pretty vitriolic, and while perhaps aimed at Catholics, was buckshot enough in nature to be offensive to Christians of all stripes including those who are moderate and tolerant yet not keen to efforts to impugn their own beliefs.

                I don't believe in insulting people's religious beliefs, period. Their actions I consider fair game, but I would never consider publishing a screed aimed at hardline X-brand Christians (note clever pun) that would belittle the beliefs of all Christians.

                With Cheney/Bush in charge, Osama remains at large

                by Hell Upside Down on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:32:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  But that's their opinion... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GreenSooner, YestoWes

            in America, which they have a right to the last time I checked. Edwards can simply say that no two person always agree and though he disagree with some of their OPINIONS they're still fine progressive bloggers and a plus for his website.

            Just imagine how many people will be going John Edwards website now. I hope he uses the controversy to call people to his site. If I was in JRE shoes, I'd be finding a way to make lemonade out  of sour rightwing lemons.

            •  It's not so much the opinion... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YestoWes

              ...as it is the, er, zestful way they expressed theirs that could turn off a fair amount of people, even if it obviously isn't an expression of Edwards' own views.

              So far as how Edwards could jujitsu this, I vote he lets the two go with a statement that had he known they had expressed themselves that way, he would not have hired them; then call out the bile that various staffers of Republican candidates have published on the internets. That'd shut everyone up real quicklike.

              With Cheney/Bush in charge, Osama remains at large

              by Hell Upside Down on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:16:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Don't agree (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bliss149, YestoWes

                Letting them go will make him look weak. Doesn't matter what biled they spewed before his campaign. That was BEFORE his campaign. It's a freedom of speech issue at heart. They have a right to speak however they want on their own time.

                •  You misunderstand the nature of the hullaballoo (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  decon, JohnnysGirl, YestoWes

                  It's not, I respectfully submit, a freedom of speech issue. It's about the reputation and actions of those a presidential candidate has entrusted as communication staffers.

                  Letting them go would be weak only if Edwards knew about the comments in question but still felt they'd make good staffers who'd make him look good in turn. If he knew they could draw lightening but wanted them on his staff anyway, I think he should stand by them.

                  But I'll bet you dollars to donuts they were not vetted to such degree as to bring these posts to light, or they would not have been hired. And if he wouldn't have hired them in the first place in light of this, there's no reason to buckle down now, regardless of who the moronic hippocrates are that have called them out. They taint his campaign as paid staffers, and should be let go.

                  With Cheney/Bush in charge, Osama remains at large

                  by Hell Upside Down on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:42:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  exactly (3+ / 0-)

                    This reminds me of the "Nancy Pelosi must get Murtha as Majority leader or she'll look weak and won't be successful" tempest in a teapot.  

                    Edwards staff probably didn't do the best job vetting the job candidates.  The mistake can be easily and quickly remedied.  And it's no big deal.  

                    A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood.

                    by decon on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:54:31 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ah, good ol' pragmatism (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      YestoWes

                      Let's face it, we all want our favored candidate to run a flawless campaign. But none of us will get to watch that happen -- campaigns are comprised of people, and people by nature are prone to mistakes. And neither will such-and-such candidate, be the Dem or - ugh - not, once elected, run a flawless administration. Mistakes happen.

                      With Cheney/Bush in charge, Osama remains at large

                      by Hell Upside Down on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 08:07:40 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  compare this to Scooter (0+ / 0-)

                   We have the "assistant to the President", Scooter Libby who was following direct orders (in some cases written) from the VP Cheney to destroy the career of the head of the CIA's division dealing with WMD in the Middle East. Now we have some foul words from bloggers who were not employed by the JRE campaign when they wrote the words. Kind of out of balance I believe. Let's move on to more important things like stopping this damn war and solving some social ills with poverty, health care, fair trade, and the environment. This is just a distraction from the real problems this country faces.

                Eisenhower- "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."

                by NC Dem on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 09:27:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  This is Such Bizarre BS (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cosbo, Pesto, sabershadow, Ciccina, YestoWes

              First, the notion that Edwards didn't know what he was getting when he hired Amanda is truly weak.  I love Pandagon and I'm a big fan of Amanda's posts, but they are anything but polite and tend to be fairly radical.   Who did Edwards think he was hiring?

              Second, as pathetic as the rightwing pearl-clutching about Amanda's writing is, the pearl-clutching by proxy that's going on in this thread is even worse.  If you make it a political principal never to say anything that might offend anybody, nor hire anyone who does, you've more or less assured that neither you nor any member of your staff will ever say anything meaningful and you've handed all your enemies a brilliant rhetorical weapon to be used against you.

              Do you think the right loses any sleep over offending their opponents?

              Want to understand why the Senate can't even work up the nerve to pass a nonbinding resolution on the escalation, let alone end this war? Check out the dynamic in this scandal.

              For a different perspective, check out Green Commons!

              by GreenSooner on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 09:46:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  It isn't that important to me (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          decon, Hell Upside Down, YestoWes

          If Edwards asks them to resign because they wrote something that was prejudicial I don't see that as a big deal.(It's called being accountable for your actions and although we haven't seen it for a while it is something I would expect my Presidfent to hold his staff to.) If he chooses to let them stay recognizing that even the best of people can make mistakes and in the heat of debate say things that are less than nice, that's fine too.(It isn't like Joe average can't relate to the idea that in the heat of arguments that sometimes people say hurtful stuff) In the big scheme of things who blogs for him and what he plans to do about two bloggers is far less important to me then what he plans to do about health care, Iraq or a myriad of other things that effect the everyday life of average Americans.

          •  again the mis-charaterizations (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bliss149, YestoWes

            these were personal opinions which really cannot be 'mistakes'. If they are made to repent for this 'sin' then shame on us.

            •  Mischarecterizations (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YestoWes

              I have not read the comments in question but would bet dollars to donuts they were broad generalizations and that the individuals in question are not the "trash talking Christian hating bigots" that they are being charecterized as. I would also bet dollars to donuts that the statements made were offensive and that if the bloggers could take them back and make their points without inflammatory language toward a broad population they would. My definition of mistake is when you look back at something you did and say Gee whiz maybe I shouldn't have done that or put it that way. I can tell you that in the heat of anger I have said things that looking back probably were not framed in the nicest manner. I am certain that at one time or another most of us have said something offensive or insensitive to a person or group of people.

  •  What if he just fired Amanda? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jimsaco, theralph, YestoWes

    It sounds like she is the worst offender.
    He could demonstrate judgment and flexibility by getting rid of someone who shouldn't have been hired in the first place.

    •  Wrong (24+ / 0-)
      Because then the right will have decided who should be fired and retained, and although they, or you, may view Amanda as 'the worst offender", the next time they may come for someone who hasn't offended at all. If he fired ANYONE and if, as KagroX says, everyone on our side doesn't stand up for both of them and Edwards' right to have both on his staff, who know who they will come for next time and on what grounds? We become helpless and disarmed.

      A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

      by anastasia p on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:20:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  treat the cases individually (10+ / 0-)

        AND, hit back with the very tawdry, nasty dirt on GOP'ers bloggers. That's more important than whether or not Edwards fires the bloggers. You see, if the Republicans realize their dirty laundry will be aired when they try these attacks, they'll drop it.

      •  I agree (7+ / 0-)

        This is no different than any of the other divisive tactics used on the right. The problem is that it has worked for years, and arguably is continuing to work today (case in point: the non-binding resolution).

        I guess my issue is that I have no expectation that any of the Dems will speak out. We're notorious in our party for eating our own (pardon my crudity), and truly, will this time be any different?

        Full many a flower is born to blush, unseen, and waste its sweetness on the desert air. "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard"-Thomas Gray

        by Auntie Neo Kawn on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:24:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What is Edwards himself really is offended (9+ / 0-)

        Now, I'm not a religious person, but Edwards is. So let's presume (and I think we safely can) that Edwards didn't read every word of Amanda's blog before he or someone on his staff hired her. Let's say that Edwards and his campaign just decided they needed some fresh netroots bloging blood. Then, let's presume, that after getting hit by Donohue that Edwards took a closer look at Amanda's blog... and read 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."

        Again, I'm not religious, but I can see how Edwards would not be thrilled by Amanda's crass language. So... why shouldn't we allow Edwards to fire her?

        •  fair point (9+ / 0-)

          That is a rather offensive sort of statement about the hot white sticky. If someone wants to blog such, fine, but then to be shocked, shocked that they are criticized for it when hired by a major presidential campaign? Sorry.
          I can certainly understand why a mainstream candidate would not want to be associated with it.
          Look, it is the merits of ideas.
          If you don't want to be criticized: DON'T BLOG.
          But don't whine about the criticism.
          This will be Edwards' call. As it should be.

          If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen.

          by EZ writer on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:41:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Here's why (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bliss149, Elmo Buzz, YestoWes

          I think that religions and spirituality is a bunch of horse hockey.  Mary a virgin my ass.  He had sex and she gave birth to a normal human being not some divine freak.  Jesus didn't walk on water or cure the blind.  It all a bunch of bull.  Hell take a look at the old testiment where people justify slaughter because its in God's name.  Or take the creationist bull crap.  Want proof the world is older thatn 6000 years, take a look at the sky and see if you can see any stars that are more than 6000 light years away.  And that is just the normal christians, now just take a look at the laughable beliefs of the Mormons.  What a fucking joke.

          Now that I have made a sufficently offensive remark, should I be barred from working for a political campaign?  Does making a statement like that, which is protected under the first amendment, disallow me from participating in the political process.  If Edwards fires any of his staffers for comments they have made in the past that would be the last straw.  Such blatant disregard for another's first amendment rights and all in the name of self interest would put me over the top.  I'd end up voting for Clark or Obama.

          "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

          by Quanta on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:46:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You have rights (10+ / 0-)

            And Edwards has a right to choose his campaign workers. He would likely have no problem with you serving as a volunteer, even after that statement.
            But would he be eager to hire you as a paid staffer to coordinate the Internet effort?
            That is another question.
            Edwards has a right to take your previous work into consideration in my opinion.
            If you can't take the heat, stay out of the blogosphere.
            Your statement does not bar you from participating in politics. Of course not. Nor should it.
            But it may not help if you want a paid position.

            If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen.

            by EZ writer on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:53:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Now we get to the crux of it. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YestoWes

              Edwards has the right to choose his staffers and to take their previous work into consideration but the question is should he.  Now if a person had a record of racism I could see cause to not hire them since racist statements say alot about a person's character, such statements are the extreme and not aplicable here.  A person should be able to exercize their freedom of speech without fear of reprisal.  That is a liberal belief and if Edwards is the progressive people claim he is, he would agree with that.

              As you say, people are going to face consequences for what they have said.  The question is, do you accept that as the way things should be or do you believe that the freedom of speech should go further than just protection from laws but should be de facto protection in the professional world.

              If Edwards fires an employee for expressing views that may offend some people, I would consider Edwards to not be progressive.  I am at the moment an Edwards supporter.  I think he is at this moment the best man but something like this would change that.  He has other flaws and this would be the breaking point for me.

              "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

              by Quanta on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:10:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So let me get this straight... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Larry McAwful, ShadowSD, YestoWes

                ... if I say,

                "Anyone who doesn't believe in the Virgin Birth obviously has been overlooked by God's grace and there's probably a good reason for it"

                you would somehow be morally obligated to hire me to work on your campaign in a communications role if I met the technical criteria of the job?

                I don't think you mean that.

                "If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't stupidity get us out of it?" - Will Rogers

                by jhe on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:17:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I mean something close to that. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  YestoWes

                  I do not think that statement creates any obligation.  If you are the most technically capable person for the job then you should be hired.  The only question I would have is the "and there's probably a good reason for it."  This could imply that the person may have a problem dealing with non-christians.  If you changed that and said something like "and they are going to burn in hell for their sin" I would have no problems what so ever.  Even the original statement isn't that bad if they don't actively hate non-christians or would treat a non-christian in a way that may be disrespectful while in their professional capacity.

                  That is their personal belief and should have no effect on professional career even if they have stated their beliefs in a public forum.

                  I'm a liberal.  What else can I say.  I have liberal beliefs.

                  "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

                  by Quanta on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:38:55 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It was deliberately antisecular (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hell Upside Down, YestoWes

                    Which is my point.  Liberals get to hire liberals in a campaign.  Moderates get to hire moderates and conservatives get to hire conservatives. Not at the office, not for the civil service, but in a political campaign, hell yeah.

                    If Edwards thinks that Marcotte's comments were offensive, he gets to drop her like a bad habit.

                    The real issue here is who is she offending.  Seems to me like 75% of the people she offends are never going to vote for Edwards anyway.  Plus, Donahue and Malkin are serious assholes.  But given how close elections have been, I'll take the votes of committed Catholics who believe in the Church's message of social justice over Marcotte's blogger outreach skills in a New York minute.

                    "If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't stupidity get us out of it?" - Will Rogers

                    by jhe on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:47:30 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  BLOGGERS FIRED? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    YestoWes

                    from Raw Story:

                    "The right-wing blogosphere has gotten its scalps -- John Edwards has fired the two controversial bloggers he recently hired to do liberal blogger outreach, Salon has learned," Alex Koppelman and Rebecca Traister reports at the online news magazine's War Room section.

                    If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen.

                    by EZ writer on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:48:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Consequences of speech/blogs (0+ / 0-)

                As I said, this is Edwards' call.
                If a top paid staffer of his makes comments that he deems detrimental to his campaign, he has every right to make changes he deems necessary.
                If you consider those changes unfair, you can do what you deem necessary.
                In this case, it is not as if the people in question are Edwards' drivers or accountants.
                These are people that will be blogging on his behalf. If their past writings have or are perceived to have offended millions of Christians, Edwards is being perfectly reasonable into taking that into account.
                And to answer your questions, yes I think speech should have consequences. People should be held accountable for their statements.
                It is also a matter of tone. It is one thing to say you disagree with Christian, Muslim or Jewish theology, it is another to be deliberately mocking and derisive -- and PUBLISH such works in a public forum.
                You are free to do so. You are also free to face consequences.
                P.S. I am not at all religious. But this is politics.
                The positions in questions are high-visibility positions in Edwards' campaign. I don't really care what Edwards decides to do, but I do recognize that he could see it as a political liability and act accordingly.

                If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen.

                by EZ writer on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:25:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why are you taking Bill Donohue seriously? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Judge Moonbox

                  He's nuttier than a fruitcake.  

                  Just look what he said about Barbara Walters today -- he called her a bigot, too:  http://www.catholicleague.org/...

                  Ad here he is again:

                  Catholic League president Bill Donohue said lesbians were "something I'd expect to see in an asylum, frankly" when he spoke to Justice Sunday, a gathering of far-right evangelical Christian activists.

                  You media folk jump all over lefties at the drop of a hat, but why aren't you jumping down Donohue's throat for being a total nutjob?

                •  I never disagreed with the point that... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  privatewl, YestoWes

                  Edwards has every right to make decisions about his staff but I question whether he should fire someone for making a potentially offensive statement 1. outside their capacity as his spokesperson and 2. prior to their employment.

                  A person ahould be held accountable for their statements.  However, this should not apply to all statements.  If someone is offended by a statement like the one in question that is fine but they should realize that other people have other beliefs.

                  That is a liberal belief.  Edwards has be presented as a liberal.  If he fires a person for making an offensive statement on a blog I would find that to be a position that is not liberal.  If he does the opposite and supports his staffers, that would show him to be a liberal.  If he fires his staffer I will not likely vote for him in the primary.  Now this is not from just one issue but would be the final straw that would make me want to support another candidate who has more liberal beliefs.

                  "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

                  by Quanta on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:51:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i presume you are now anti-Edwards? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    YestoWes

                    Reports indicate he HAS fired the bloggers in question.

                    If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen.

                    by EZ writer on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:57:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  what if a person had been overly fond (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dannyinla, ShadowSD, YestoWes

                    of employing the N-WORD?

                    "If he fires a person for making an offensive statement on a blog I would find that to be a position that is not liberal."

                    And would a stink be raised if McCain hired a Klansman to do his blogging? Or would that be OK with you.

                    The person's job is to help Edwards get more votes. If that person is costing the candidate votes, they need to be removed. I'm pretty sure that the goal is to win the electiion.

                    Of course the decent thing to do is to allow them to resign, rather than firing them. Unless this was all intended as a Sista Soulja(sp) moment.

                    •  way overboad (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      kellyb628, YestoWes

                      If you are suggesting that Pandagon and the KKK are somehow morally equivalent, shame on you!

                      Amanda wrote some snarky things about a religion, a religion which promotes some pretty dumb, offensive and dangerous public policy.

                      The KKK plans ways to lynch people.

                      Umm, NOT the same.

                      Also, Amanda dislikes Catholicism because of its position on birth control and abortion.  Klansman dislike black people because of the color of their skim.

                      Also NOT the same.

                      •  certainly not the same (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ShadowSD, YestoWes

                        words and actions make a world of difference

                        but the prior poster stated...

                        "If he fires a person for making an offensive statement on a blog I would find that to be a position that is not liberal."

                        A statement using The N-word would be offensive and would get that person fired right away. I doubt anyone would defend the offender.

                        Likewise, mere membership in the Klan (without a cross-burning or a lynching...just the attitude revealed) would sink a campaign if it was known prior to the hiring.

                •  He can hire and fire who he wants (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  YestoWes

                  I can support or not support depending on whether he stands up to the right wing smear machine.

                  If you love the Iraq War, you'll love John McCain

                  by Unstable Isotope on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:55:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Donohue called Barbara Walters a bigot today, too (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YestoWes

              Should we still take him seriously?

              http://www.catholicleague.org/...

          •  "spirituality a bunch of horse hockey" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ShadowSD, YestoWes

            Quanta, obviously the "power" hungry have corrupted the true intention behind all religions since humans began operating in groups, by separating Divinity from Sexuality, separating Divinity from Self-revelation, separating Divinity from the world of Matter, and so on. (Lucifer's demand for his own Kingdom is no different than all the little EGOS that run around this planet in gas-guzzling HUMVEEs demanding essentially the same thing, except Jung would reference Lucifer as the primary archetypal source of this circus charade.) You might someday hunger for and find the distinction between spirituality and religion as the latter "political" and the former a "fearful yet ruthlessly honest attempt" of integrating the Self. This "attempt", self-driven and NOT assumed a rosy cake-walk, might lead to google "eva pierrakos" and develop a taste for endlessly integrating the unconscious with the conscious mind, instead of endlessly chasing "shadow windmills" with whatever sword is currently in vogue. True "freedom" of speech, of creation, or anything for that matter requires DISCIPLINE. The master swordsman doesn't flail wildly at the air. He enters, joins with, and master's his FEARS, observes his opponent calmly, and makes quick work of him when his intuition (NOT reckless emotion) signals the moment is ripe. Most of what passes for "freedom" in America are simply the demands of a stubborn child, suppressed with "candy" or shame, dulled with television, shipped off to college with a new car, but never uniquely appreciated/loved in a clear, guiltless, emotionally revealing, disciplined way. Yeah, we all got "hang-ups" to resolve and get past (since our cultural system valves physical-mental growth, not emotional intelligence), but spewing out "language" under the rights of free speech is simple dissimulation, consciously running from the issue, not resolving it. It speaks volumes of honesty, though "unconsciously". (YOU can see I take issue with big, shiny SUVs---ha!) And our country's lack of EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE simply enables power-brokers to use religion, loyalty, fear, you-name-it, to corral the SHEEP. However one looks at it; the King has NO clothes, or the King's a WOLF in sheep's clothing---the essential thing is to stand NAKED yourself, and NOT project anything onto the KING, the SHEEP, the WOLF...and just NOTICE the PROJECTIONS flying around (and they always are!), being clear and calm with your MENTAL sword, INTUITIVE insight, with a steel WILL as a servant of BOTH. This renders the POWER hungry as powerless.

        •  Either way he looks dumb (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Maura in VA, YestoWes

          If he is offended now, it means he did not do his homework before hiring her.  Firing Amanda is a lose-lose situation for Edwards, I think.  Donahue will not help Edwards win the primary.  Edwards should make a statement that he does not agree with everything she said, but he supports her right to say it.

          If you love the Iraq War, you'll love John McCain

          by Unstable Isotope on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:50:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think Amanda's ... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rob Mac K, dannyinla, YestoWes

          ... comments on the Duke LAX fiasco probably won't go over too well with some of Edwards NC base either.

          A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood.

          by decon on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:59:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  No. (14+ / 0-)

      Nothing Amanda Marcotte ever posted is remotely as offensive as comments and actions by her detractors.  THEY need to be called out here.  Buckling to the demands of the extreme right sends precisely the wrong message.  The extreme right will keep attacking Edwards over this, anyway, and the left will see that Edwards will capitulate at the slightest provocation.  Edwards should not apply the double standard of the intolerant right for them.  Its simply wrong.

      •  It's not bucking to the right's demands (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dannyinla, YestoWes

        It's about correcting an error.
        Anyway, we will see what happens.

        •  There is no error (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rebecca, zeke L, Maura in VA, arlene, TomP, YestoWes

          Again, NOTHING Amanda Marcotte has said is even slightly as offensive as the remarks of the very people demanding her firing.  You cannot validate the double standard of the extreme right by firing her.  Calling her firing a mistake only goes further to make Edwards look like a fool, and with good reason.  It would justify the right-wing illusion in this case.  It would prove their talking points to be right.  Its the wrong message to send, and it is the only message being sent if he fires them.

          I like Edwards.  I voted for him in the primary in 2004 and had every intention of doing so again here.  But I won't make excuses for bad behavior.  Amanda's behavior isn't bad.  Firing her would be.  How he spins it will matter little to the left and even less to the right.

          •  PUh_leaze! (6+ / 0-)

            Stop with the double standard.
            Judge Amanda's writing standing on its own, not compared to some slime monster from the right.
            She's a mediority with poor judgement. I stopped reading Pandagon when she started.

            •  now you're making a point (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              grog, YestoWes

              She's a mediority with poor judgement. I stopped reading Pandagon when she started.

              i'm in the same boat, except i don't really know about her judgment or her work, because i lost interest in pandagon when jesse and ezra moved on.

              and even then, just because she talks dirty on the blog doesn't necessarily mean she's no good at political communications and "internet strategy" in the context of a campaign.  i'd have to see what her work is like, and maybe even from the inside, to be in a position to know.

              but the bottom line is she should be judged on her work on the campaign, not some stuff she posted on a blog sometime.

              l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

              by zeke L on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:40:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ThunderHawk13, tigercourse, YestoWes

            Don't you think that might be viewed as offensive?

            •  Not to me (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YestoWes

              Not in the least.  I think a lot of things are offensive to a lot of people.  I stand by her right to use satire and humor, and I hope Edwards keeps her on.

              Rise like lions after slumber in unvanquishable number. Shake your chains to earth like dew, which in sleep had fallen on you. Ye are many - they are few.

              by cruz on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:42:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Christian Rock Hard (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SFprogressive, YestoWes

              Cartman might like it:

              Cartman: You know, Jesus? I've been thinking a lot about you lately and, well, that's why I wrote this song. I love you, Jesus. I want you to walk with me. I'll take good care of you baby. Call you my baby, baby! You died for my sins, and you know that I would die for you, right? What's the matter, baby? You tremble at Jesus, baby! Your love... is my life! You know when I'm without you, there's a black hole in my life! Oo-ohhh! I wanna believe. It's all right, 'cause I get lonely in the night and it's up to you to Save me! Jee...sus...bay-by!

            •  So someone said something that (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zeke L, Fabian, YestoWes

              some would find offensive.  Here is a question for you.  Do you think a person should be punished for expressing their views and beliefs in a country that protects the freedom of speech.  Someone may be offended by Amanda's statements but that should have no baring on her qualifications as an employee of the Edwards campaign.  Now if they were saying those things in their official capacity as an Edwards spokesman that would be different or if they were saying something blatantly racist it would be different.  The former because they are representing the candidate, the latter because it speaks volumes about their personal character.

              "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

              by Quanta on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:57:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  That's a great argument (8+ / 0-)

              for not hiring her.

              It's not an argument for caving in to right-wing pressure after you've hired her, presumably having read what she's written. And if you didn't read what she wrote before hiring her to write more stuff, you're a fool, and we already have one of those in the White House and don't need another.

              There is no more New Frontier - we have got to make it here - Henley/Frey

              by badger on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:59:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Not as offensive as Bill Donahue. Not by a mile. (5+ / 0-)

              He gets to say that gays belong in a asylum, that they owe straight people an apology?  He gets to suggest that the victims of pedophile priests wanted it?  He gets to call those he disagrees with evil?  He gets to say that Hollywood is controlled by Christian-hating Jews?  And for cracking a joke, Amanda Marcotte's the one who cannot be tolerated?  Give me a break.

              •  It's not an issue of who is more offensive (5+ / 0-)

                I think Bill Donohue is a loudmouth jackass and bigot. I think Amanda Marcotte has a good reason to attack the Catholic Church. However, the most important issue is whether ot not John Edwards himself is comfortable with some of Marcotte's writings. If he is then he should stand up for her. If not, he should fire her.

                •  No, that's exactly what this about. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Phoenix Woman

                  This is about Republicans demanding their double standard where they can express hate and blunt intolerance, but the opposition must follow Republican rules for acceptable criticism.  We should not endorse those rules.  A Republican would NEVER face media scrutiny for what Amanda and Melissa said.  We know because they have said FAR worse.  This is about their critics, because of what this would say.  It would confirm that Democrats must follow Republican rules for acceptable criticism.  And Republicans would continue to call for religious bigotry and genocide.  They would still get to call us evil or traitors for disagreeing with them.  Expressing a different opinion would still be touted as proof of our fictional intolerance.  And we would have willinging bound ourselves to the Republican rules for acceptable criticism.  Namely, it doesn't exist.  This is ALL about the detractors of Amanda and Melissa.  We should not buy into THEIR spin about the nobility of their witchhunt.  They would never accept anything close to this scrutiny directed at them.  We should not accept it directed at us.

                •  Why let him dictate what's "offensive"? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  YestoWes

                  Did you know that he has a history of calling women he doesn't like "bigots"?  Just today, he did it to Barbara Walters:

                  http://www.catholicleague.org/...

            •  tasteless certainly (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SFprogressive, YestoWes

              sure, some people are bound to pretend to be mortally offended, but screw 'em.  

              that's from an evangelical christian who hangs out with my fellow lefties enough to have heard this kind of stuff before.  i just roll my eyes and pray for them to get a clue.

              but i have a real hard time with the idea that everyone's behavior should be circumscribed by what somebody somewhere might take offense at.  that's another thing that sometimes bothers me about fellow liberals, the whole PC mentality.  in the real world i've found that "political correctness" is mostly an urban myth cooked up by the RWNM, but every now and then i meet a liberal who lives down to the foolish stereotype.

              it is kind of amusing to find the wrong-wing folks now embracing this PC mentality though.  we can't say anything negative about christians.  we can't say anything negative about ronald reagan.  we can't point out the obvious fact that the war is a multiple disaster.  we can't say that the president is a bungling sociopath because that might embolden the terrorists.  etc. etc.  enough already.

              l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

              by zeke L on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:51:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  So NOTHING she may have said... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dannyinla, YestoWes

        matters?

        Sorry, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

        I would respect Edwards if he decided it was the right thing to do.

        Fighting the right wing is important, but perhaps this blogger is not the right one to make the fight over.

    •  Why shouldn't she have been hired? (9+ / 0-)

      Has she demonstrated that she couldn't do the job for which she was hired?  Not by anything I've seen.

      I blogged for a Senate campaign in 2004, and folks could look at the archives of my personal blog from 2002-03 and find me using bad language, comparing Suge Knight to Jesus and obsessing over the eating of raw, fermented whale meat.

      None of it had anything to do with my competence for being an online spokesman for the campaign (among my many campaign duties), and no one treated it as a problem.

      •  I just know her comments about Catholics (5+ / 0-)

        and about the Duke rape case.
        The show poor judgment---especially the latter.
        I doubt Edwards would have approved her hiring had he read that.

        •  Why? (7+ / 0-)

          She's a good writer.  If she can write well about and for Edwards, what's the problem?

        •  as ye sow, so shall ye reap (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          smintheus, mcfly, Fabian, TomP, YestoWes

          Once you enter the arena, you better be willing to stand by every F bomb you issued.  This is going to be a big problem as "mere bloggers" want to get accepted to, and respected by, the mainstream. Like it or not, and no matter how successful this site is, Kos is never going to shake "Screw 'em".  

          Unfair?  Maybe.  But am I wrong?

          Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

          by jimsaco on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:35:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (7+ / 0-)

            leftist bloggers who draw attention to themselves with hyperbole and invective won't find it easy to carve out a career as Democratic apparatchiks. Google is too strong. That's probably a good thing. People have to be willing to justify themselves, and if you're accepting a job on the basis of your blogging then your blogging has to stand up to scrutiny.

            Nobody ever said politics is fair. If you can't or won't play by its rules, but want to enter the field anyway, you're likely to get tagged pretty hard.

            •  I take it you don't like that this is so. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SFprogressive, YestoWes

              However, you seem to say that this behavior is the reality and that the behavior of those who play by those rules is acceptable.  I disagree.

              If a person agrees that the status quo of politics is flawed then they should resist the status quo.  So imagine that you are in Edwards's position.  You don't like the fact that an employee is taking heat for saying something that some find offensive and you dislike the fact that a person's views should have an effect on their professional career.  In the mainstream you would be perfectly justified in firing that person however doing so would only be furthering the norm.  Resisting and supporting your employee and their right to express themselves whether or not you agree would go to change the norm and show that you are a true progressive.

              Seeing a part of the status quo that you disagree and taking it as the reality that you have to live with is a conservative philosophy.  

              Seeing a part of the status quo that you disagree with and doing something to change it is a liberal philosophy.

              This issue will show which Edwards truely is.

              "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

              by Quanta on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:31:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                YestoWes

                Actually, if I were a candidate I probably would not want to hire people who give vent to hyperbole or crass, insubstantial rants--whether on line or around a water cooler. That's because people like that tend to be unreasonable or self-centered, at some level. I've seen nothing from either blogger that would suggest they're the most ideal people to hire for a presidential campaign.

                In the abstract, if Edwards had campaign staffers who were being attacked unfairly, then I would expect him to stand by them. But these staffers are under attack because of what they've written. It's up to Edwards to decide whether the complaints about their writing are justified. I can see where there's room for legitimate concern about their blog posting.

                As I've said, it's Edwards fault for not anticipating these complaints during the process of hiring them.

      •  BTW, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dannyinla, cruz, YestoWes

        I'm not a Catholic---very much anti-Catholic.
        As far as I'm concerned Pope JPII and Mother Teresa are two of the worst abusers of human rights and dignity in the last 50 years, and consider the RCC an organized crime institution more interested in protecting its priviledge and defending pedophiles, than helping people.

        •  We won't be hiring you nt (6+ / 0-)

          We are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it obstructs interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover

          by tiponeill on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:32:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh come on! This is obscene (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YestoWes

          What on earth did Mother Teresa do ? Helping the poor and infirm in the third world is right up the progressive alley.

          Pope John Paul II? Ending communism saved a lot of lives and freed a lot of people. He's a hero in my book, but he isn't perfect. A change in his stance on condoms could have helped with the aids crisis in Africa, I think.

          What human rights abuses did the late Pope and Mother Teresa commit?

          As for the pedophilia stuff, it is disgusting and inexcusable. All of the priests should be laicized (stripped of their collars -- fired) and thrown in jail after a fair trial in the civil courts, not a lynch mob. There is simply no excuse for this crap. Ask any Catholic, left or right, and they'll agree.

          IMHO, Bill Donahue from the Catholic League really should not have the megaphone he does. He seems more like a conservative political operative than a defender of Catholics

          •  JPII's policies on condom use (4+ / 0-)

            were criminally harmful to tens of millions of people. The RCC has been very effective in getting governments to cut back on condom distribution. What is the cost in lives from AIDS from this cavemene policy? Hard to count, but the negative impact of the RCC"S policy is enormous.
            And criminal, because the RCC promotes false teaching on condom effectiveness, with clergy in some cases actually saying "Condoms cause aids".
            It's the fact they have to resort to lies to defend the indefensible, and at such a high cost in life, that makes me label JPII a criminal.
            As far as Mother Teresa, if she had been 1/10th as interested in lowering birth rates, she would have been 100 times as beneficial. Let's not forget how starry-eyed she got around dictators, or that when SHE had health problems, the most expensive care was available for her, rather than humbly accepting what her sisters could offer.
            Personally, I found her views of the "value" of human life born in the gutter and dying in the gutter in infancy to be repulsive. She felt the virtue of creating a human life that would experience horrible suffering and a short life was   greater than the value of improving life for those already on the earth. I spit on her grave.

          •  Mother Teresa did nothing to help the poor... (3+ / 0-)

            ...other than tell them that their suffering was beautiful because it made them like Jesus.

            Seriously, she did say that. Teresa did a lot less to help the poor than most people think, apparently including you. Most of the money people sent to her was used to build convents, not to pay for medical supplies. She never helped build even a single modern hospital. In 1991, the editor of The Lancet visited one of her hospices and found crowded, dirty, unsanitary conditions and staffers untrained in even the rudiments of basic medicine, such as how to sterilize needles. When Teresa herself was ill, though, she traveled to the best hospitals in the West.

            What else? Let's see: she told people to forgive those responsible for the deadly Union Carbide disaster at Bhopal; she accepted a donation of stolen money from convicted S&L fraudster Charles Keating and sent the court a letter pleading for clemency for him (the prosecutor penned a reply suggesting she give the stolen money back, which she never answered); she praised the idea of involuntarily baptizing dying Hindus and Muslims into Christianity; she praised brutal dictators like Jean-Claude Duvalier and Enver Hoxha; and last but not least, she was a staunch opponent of contraception, one of the few things that actually could have alleviated the crowded slums which she allegedly cared for.

            The myth of Mother Teresa bears little resemblance to the reality. I suggest you do some research and see for yourself - you might want to start with a book called "The Missionary Position" by Christopher Hitchens.

      •  she should not have been hired (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        smintheus, YestoWes

        IF John Edwards is unwilling to ignore the the completely predictable wingnut attacks on her.  This happening is the most predictable thing that has happened this year, if no one asked Ms. Marcotte in the job interview "So, have you said anything controversial?" then that seriously makes me question the competence of the campaign.

        Whether or not campaigns should hire bloggers who say bad words about sacred cows is a question beyond my expertise.  However, if such people are hired, campaigns should be prepared for the inevitable blowback, and be aware of who they are hiring in the first place.  And I am sure the Malkins of the world would have gotten around to attacking you eventually, don't feel left out :-)  

    •  Bottom line: Edwards has to please himself (5+ / 0-)

      Maybe he will decide that he does not want to keep Amanda, or maybe not. I think it would be wrong for him to keep her on just to make a point.

    •  asdf (6+ / 0-)

      And what, exactly, is the nature of her offense?

      Was it saying something that pissed off William Donohue and Michelle Malkin? We could use a lot more of those kind of "offenders".

      Was it believing the word of the alleged Duke rape victim rather than that of her accusers? News flash: Feminist bloggers sympathetic to rape victims, less so to accused frat boys. Film at 11.

      The set of liberal bloggers who have never said anything that a right-wing loon would find "controversial" or "offensive" is the EMPTY SET. They don't exist. It wouldn't have mattered whether Edwards had hired Amanda Marcotte or someone else -- the usual suspects would have found something to get "outraged" about. If Amanda "shouldn't have been hired in the first place", then neither should any other liberal blogger with any sort of public exposure.

      Is it just me, or do I detect a wee bit of hostility around here towards Ms. Marcotte?

    •  oh goody religious tests for hiring! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YestoWes

      we sure do need that!

  •  What the other campaigns are saying right now (12+ / 0-)

    "Make damn sure you read every damn thing the bloggers have written before you hire them.  Don't pull an Edwards."  

    Most Profound Man in Iraq: farmer in a remote area who, when asked by Marines if he had seen any foreign fighters in the area, replied "Yes, you."

    by johnny rotten on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:14:28 PM PST

    •  hehe! Bingo! johnny (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny rotten, YestoWes

      'It is easier to stay out than get out' ... Mark Twain

      by PhillyGal on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:17:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Then they'll hire no bloggers (6+ / 0-)

      and they'll take the easy way out and you'll never say anything bad about them.

      •  Thank you Kagro X for (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Major Danby, YestoWes

        an excellent diary. We need to keep our focus on who our opponents really are.

        The netroots is a growing community that may transform politics, to some degree is transforming politics.  We should not assist those who would destroy us.  

        Peace Now -- Defund the War

        by TomP on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:28:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  If that's true, there will be no bloggers hired (7+ / 0-)

      Every blogger has said something candid on their blogs. That is precisely what blogging's about.

      •  if that's what blogging's about, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        smintheus, YestoWes

        blog on your own nickel.

        Don't peddle your goods to others.

        And don't self appoint yourself the expert.

        Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

        by jimsaco on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:40:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  it's not about candid commentary (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jimsaco, Rob Mac K, YestoWes

        The attacks were about posts that were hyperbolic, at a minimum, or crude, or brash, or ranting, or poorly substantiated. Not every blogger gives vent like that.

        Anyway, I wonder why there should be bloggers hired by campaigns? Campaign-blogs are a gilded cage.

        •  Most do (6+ / 0-)

          look up kos's "fuck 'em" comment about the dead fallujah "civilians" (aka mercenaries). I believe he still stands by that post, too.

          Seriously, find me a blogger that has never said anything to which somebody took grave offense.

          Look, I will agree that the Edwards campaign should have guessed that somebody might make an issue of the "frothing lunatic bloggers" being hired, complete with a search for offensive things they've said in the past. This struggle shouldn't have been a shock, and frankly, they should have had a response ready. But at the same time, these are things she said in her life as a private citizen before being hired, not a campaign employee, and the only reason it comes up is that there's a written record.

          If every campaign employee who had ever uttered an epithet were fired, the Republican Party would have very little staff.

          •  blogs are in writing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fabian, YestoWes

            that's their nature. No surprise then that bloggers are held accountable for what they write, if they enter the political arena.

            As for people taking offense, that's not the issue. The issue is whether a blogger gives offense...i.e. whether there's some substance to a claim that a post is repulsive or the like. People will differ over that, natch. But there are plenty of bloggers who've never posted anything that a reasonable person would find offensive, even if they write sharply about politics, law, or society.

    •  Don't pull an Edwards. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny rotten, smintheus, Fabian, YestoWes

      Is that like when George Bush tried to hire Harriet Myers?

    •  which Edwards' campaign didn't do (9+ / 0-)

      to judge by their reaction to this attack. If they'd bothered to vet the two bloggers' writing, then they should have been prepared for criticism of the hires. It looks like these criticisms caught them unawares.

      So, if Edwards' campaign screwed up in not vetting, why would his rivals jump to his defense?

      Besides, most of the chatter on line in leftosphere seems to assume that it's a weakness to fire staffers who are controversial. Could just be that it's a sign of Edwards' willingness to cut his losses. There are plenty of people who can do a job for him, without dragging his campaign down.

      Not very loyal? Ok...but the object of running is to win, not to win admirers. He may lose a lot of netroot support by firing two bloggers. But the fault probably belongs in hiring them without vetting their writings, rather than in firing them once their writings threatened to drag down his campaign.

      The question for Edwards wasn't whether it's ruthless to fire these two; it was whether it's politically wise. I can't answer that for him.

      •  thing is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YestoWes

        political wisdom comes in different forms. I think the commentary on Kos and other left wing sites not backing any particular candidate will come down very very harshly on Edwards if he backs down here. But will he lose more by defying the press narrative that, look, he's hired a "very not nice person"? Again, differences in primary vs general election audiences come into play. Usually, though, these kinds of concerns come up like a year prior to the general election, rather than 21 months out.

        Frankly, anyone who gets to the top of the ladder after this marathon is gonna be about the most battle tested politicians to ascend to the Presidency ever.

      •  perhaps some blame should (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        smintheus, YestoWes

        go to the bloggers themselves. They might have thought to point out some of their rougher stuff and ask 'you wanna own that?'

        They may come out as progressive hero/martyrs for sinking the candidcy of a progressive.

        whoda thunkit

    •  So you're enabling Bill Donahue? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddhistMonkey, catchawave

      He calls women "bigots" all the time.  

      Just look what he said about Barbara Walters today -- he called her a bigot, too:  http://www.catholicleague.org/...

      And here he is again:

      Catholic League president Bill Donohue said lesbians were "something I'd expect to see in an asylum, frankly" when he spoke to Justice Sunday, a gathering of far-right evangelical Christian activists.

      Why should we enable him by taking him seriously?

  •  Agree - it can't be left only on Edward's plate. (12+ / 0-)

    It's swift-boating bloggers - and if it's allowed to stand now, it will never end.

    Daniel Craig...the BEST James Bond...ever!

    by ShaShaMae on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:14:34 PM PST

  •  Exactly right (9+ / 0-)

    This is what this is about in a nutshell. What started off as a debate about an inconsequential matter has become a debate about whether we will once more be swiftboated by the right. No one here or offline should forget that.

    •  Exactly (11+ / 0-)

      as Kagro writes: "They're pulling your strings."  

      Donohue flaps his loud mouth, targets Edwards, and the left ALLOWS it to happen. Instead of attacking Donohue, we attack Edwards. We need help!

      •  I agree (9+ / 0-)

        There is something deadly messed up with the progressive pysche. The reaction should be- "fuck you", not "fuck us." Then you get the apologists who want to appear "sensible" and that goes even deeper into crazy because it's like having a sensible conversation about one's the quality of music as Rome burns. Truly, truly bizzaro.

        •  Not that this'll happen... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zeke L, Unstable Isotope, YestoWes

           ...but wouldn't it be cool if Edwards just came out and said, "to quote Dick Cheney, Donohue can go fuck himself."

           (And no, I'm not advocating this. Just saying it would be cool.)

           Edwards just needs to say something along the lines of "I'm not going to let anti-Semitic bigots tell me how to run my campaign." Hey, it will help him with other constituencies too...

          "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

          by Buzzer on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:50:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  i dont care how he words it (4+ / 0-)

            but if he wants to win, if any of these peo want to win, they have to send a message to the right: don't fuck with me. so long as the right thinks that it can fuck with us, they will do so. It's like in negotiation- they tell us lawyers- don't leave a penny on the table for the other guy. Why? because of the games of incentives and expectations. We need to change the incentives and expectations game for the right. We did that somewhat in 2006, but now is no time to rest. Letting our game be put off by any idiot with a monkey wrench to throw into the field is not only stupid, it's license for the next swiftboating. In other words, people do what you let them get away with doing. For too long, the left has let the right piss on us, and we smiled afterwards. If i were Edwards (again he can say what he wants) I wouldn't even go to the bigotry- I would simply say- I run this campaign. If you have a problem with my decisions, don't vote for me. If you want leadership that's going to make your life better than waste your time- I'm  your man.

    •  But the Swift Boat Vets Actually Lied (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YestoWes

      The accusations against Marcotte are documented on her own blog.

      With so long to go until the elections I don't understand why Edwards' campaign didn't take a couple of weeks to thoroughly vet these two potential campaign hires.  Wouldn't that be one of the primary benefits of declaring early...to have the time to do it right?

      •  you are one of those sensible types (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YestoWes

        I am talking about. You are busy trying to understand and give credence to the factual circumstances and meanwhile as yo are going on ad nauseum about the music from the fiddle, Rome burns. See the fucking big picture. Sometimes things aren't want they seem even if the underlying facts seem true. It's head trip. It's like the guy who gets caught cheating who tells his wife, but I caught you cheating on your diet. That maybe true- but which is more important. Actually never mind- sadly I expected you to fixate on the fact I am reading you the riot act for missing the pt.

  •  7:13pm EST. No response from the Edwards camp (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    What gives? This is way too strange.

    The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of crisis, remain neutral.

    by ten10 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:15:26 PM PST

  •  Is this all going to turn out to be just a rumor? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, YestoWes

    I haven't seen anything official anywhere.

    •  No (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Maura in VA, Adam B, mcfly, paida, TomP, YestoWes

      this is not a rumor.  The Edwards camp is trying to figure out their play here.  I have a friend that works there, who has had meetings pushed back because people are busy crashing on this.

      •  Don't they have some kind of confidentiality (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YestoWes

        when working for a campaign?

      •  This is actually encouraging (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        catchawave, creeper, YestoWes

         The EASY thing to do would have been to cave in and fire the bloggers, to accommodate the delicate sensibilities of Michelle Malkin and Bill Donohue.

         That they HAVEN'T done this indicates that they're at least not reacting blindly and taking the "easy" way out.

         Of course, it would have been even better if they'd had a game plan in place to begin with...

        "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

        by Buzzer on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:54:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Correct (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YestoWes

          they are obviously taking time to talk this thing out and as a result there is quite a bit of bad coverage going on w/o a response and a lot of angst demonstrated in the blogosphere over this.

          Not exactly a very well managed crisis.  We will see how it turns out.

          •  Donohue called Barbara Walters 'bigot' today, too (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zeke L

            Let your friend in the Edwards camp know this.

            Bill Donohue calls women "bigots" all the time.  Just look what he said about Barbara Walters today -- he called her a bigot, too:  http://www.catholicleague.org/...

            And here he is again:

            Catholic League president Bill Donohue said lesbians were "something I'd expect to see in an asylum, frankly" when he spoke to Justice Sunday, a gathering of far-right evangelical Christian activists.

            Why should we enable him by taking him seriously?

        •  It's not about Michelle Malkin and Bill Donohue (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YestoWes

          This has spilled into the MSM now and they are saying that Edwards has hired someone who has publicly ridiculed Christian notions such as immaculate conception and Catholic opposition to birth control. If this gets repeated all over MSM over and over again then it could hurt Edwards even with moderate religious voters.

          Here's the NYT article.

          •  "Moderate" religious voters... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zeke L, YestoWes

             ...do not get "offended" by people who oppose church bans on birth control. That's strictly the wingnuts' department -- and none of them are going to vote for Edwards, ever.

              As for immaculate conception -- show me the quote.

            "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

            by Buzzer on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:16:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No they dont (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YestoWes

              but they probably would be offended by:

              "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."

              "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams" -Paul Wellstone

              by WellstoneDem on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:21:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                YestoWes

                 ...this obviously can't be quoted in the media.

                 I consider that to be an impact-minimizer.

                "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

                by Buzzer on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:23:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  YestoWes

                  I didn't see what the big deal about the quotes some of the news stories were using that basically took issue with the Catholic Church's position on birth control or homosexuality but I did think that line was little over the top.  

                  Not that the "Catholic Leage" hasn't said things that are just as terrible, but in politics, the public opinions of everyone associated with you (family, friends, staff, or donors) reflect on you.

                  "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams" -Paul Wellstone

                  by WellstoneDem on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:28:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thinking along those lines (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    johnny rotten, zeke L, YestoWes

                     Suppose Politician I says, "John McCain is a dirty rotten filthy stinking lying treasonous scumbag."

                     Then Politician II says, "John McCain is a motherfucking shitbag son-of-a-bitch bastard fuckstick."

                     Politician I gets quoted verbatim in the media.
                     
                     Politician II gets quoted as "made vulgar, offensive statements about John McCain."

                     I think Democrat I gets the worst of it, frankly.

                     Maybe we should cuss more... :)

                     

                    "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

                    by Buzzer on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:33:56 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  BINGO! There You Are. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Maura in VA, Ciccina, YestoWes

                  The lesson is obvious.  Make your posts as vulgar and profane as you can.  It's a foolproof method of making sure they never find their way to the MSM.

                  >snark<</p>

            •  It's more subtle than that (0+ / 0-)

              They are just going to hear or remember that Edwards hired someone who ridiculed religion... Will it matter? Who knows? But the traditional thing to do would be to let the employee go. I'm not saying that's the right thing to do, but I wouldn't hold it against Edwards if he did.

              •  You know... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                YestoWes

                  ...this is a different subject, but I really wonder if the "religiosity" of Americans isn't greatly overstated.

                  I still don't think anyone beyond those who vote ON religion (i.e., wingnuts) will be offended enough to change their vote.

                "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

                by Buzzer on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:40:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  That's 2 news cycles ago. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YestoWes

            TV news tonight had NOTHING on this, except for a brief mention on CNN and FOX (of course) -- and FOX watchers won't vote for Edwards anyway.  

            Neither did drive time radio.  

            And most Americans get their news from radio or network TV.

          •  So? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SFprogressive, YestoWes

            The Catholic opposition to birth control DESERVES to be ridiculed.  The Catholic Church put themselves in the public sphere by opposing Plan B, condoms in Africa, etc.  Just because Catholicism is a religion doesn't mean it's nuttier ideas about public policy get a free pass.

          •  you mean like protestants? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            End game, YestoWes

            someone who has publicly ridiculed Christian notions such as immaculate conception and Catholic opposition to birth control.

            those are both catholic notions, and folks at the churches i go to ridicule them all the time, to be honest.

            (immaculate conception refers to the conception of mary, BTW, not the conception of jesus.)

            l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

            by zeke L on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:07:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Well... (16+ / 0-)

    If you want Edwards to stand up, realize that you're going to have to demand that all the campaigns stand up. Literally. They're going to have to say that they stand by Edwards. Because these attacks only really hurt campaigns among primary voters.

    Maybe that's all true, but the Edwards campaign could've kicked the right-wing critics in the teeth by shoving extremist right wing quotes in their faces as soon as this controversy began.

    I do think some savvy Democrat should at least consider saying, "I don't agree with everything that the two Edwards bloggers have written, but I don't think that Bill Donohue should get on his high horse given that he's said ..."

    •  yes, Newsie8200 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Newsie8200, jamfan, YestoWes

      Everyone needs to say that right wing extremists should not be considered credible voices and the MSM shouold not give them a platform.  But Edwards needs to speak for himself first and foremost, and he should have hit back first thing.  Hopefully there is still time for this to come out okay.

    •  Exactly (8+ / 0-)

      This is a win-win for the right, because if Edwards caves, he looks weak (bitch-slap theory of politics, as Josh Marshall calls it) but if he doesn't, he continues to get pilloried.  the only way to handle it was to come back at Donohue with his own hate speech.  Even if the Edwards people didn't know Donohue's record (and they should have), it was all over the blogs in short order.  Now there's no way for Edwards not to look weak.

      Too bad.  He must have been the frontrunner, given the amount of bad press he's been getting. But Kagro is right--this is the kind of thing that every Dem campaign is going to face, and they had better be readier for it.  All of them.

      "False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

      by Mimikatz on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:26:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's how Edwards doesn't look weak. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citizen53, Hell Upside Down, YestoWes

        He comes out and says that Amanda Marcotte was hired by a staffer who made an error in judgment. He then says that when he read some of Marcotte's blog comments he was offended and demanded that not only she, but the staffer who failed to do due diligence have both been fired.

        •  He looks weak no matter what (4+ / 0-)

          because of how long this thing has gone on.

          It's been on simmer for a week until now.

          •  Don't agree. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            citizen53, TomP, YestoWes

            If he wants to look strong on this he can - by taking a strong stance against what she has written and by firing her and the person who hired her. He brings the axe down, he looks strong. Does that mean people still aren't going to question his judgment - of course they will (as they have on Iraq). But if he takes a strong action, he will look strong. If he dances, he will look weak. JMHO.

            Incidentally, just what to see how Obama takes this ball and runs with it as soon as some reporter asks him about it. He's going to look like he's ten feet tall.

            •  Sorry, wish I could agree with you (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pithy Cherub, dannyinla, YestoWes

              but this has been simmering for a week.

              This at the very least has exposed weakness in the campaign.

              He's already "dancing." Taking a strong stance now doesn't mask the weakness already exhibited.

            •  wow, so wrong I just gasped out loud (4+ / 0-)

              Blaming the problem on the staffer who hired them and firing all three. is weak.  Really weak.  There is no way that would be interpreted as anything but trying to pass the buck, evade responsibility, sidestep the problem and just generally being weak.  

              •  Gasp away. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                citizen53, TomP, YestoWes

                But do you really think the blogger was hired by Edwards himself? Edwards has people in his campaign whose job it was to vet the blogger they hired. They failed to do their job. Fuck 'em. They're done. This is the big time. Don't fuck up or you're out. It's not passing the buck, it's demanding accountability of your staff.

                •  You don't know Elizabeth Edwards (0+ / 0-)

                  She's a big blog hound.  She's the one who probably picked Amanda and Melissa.

                  But if you're so intent into buying into the lies of Bill Donohue -- he who smeared Barbara Walters today as well -- then there's no helping you.

                  Remember, Donohue calls women "bigots" all the time.  Just look what he said about Barbara Walters today -- he called her a bigot, too:  http://www.catholicleague.org/...

                  And here he is again:

                  Catholic League president Bill Donohue said lesbians were "something I'd expect to see in an asylum, frankly" when he spoke to Justice Sunday, a gathering of far-right evangelical Christian activists.

                  Why should we enable him by taking him seriously?

                  •  WTF? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ihlin, Rob Mac K, YestoWes

                    Who said I was intent on "buying the lies of Bill Donohue"? That's such a fucking strawman I don't know where to begin.

                    To make it crystal fucking clear, here's my argument: Amandma Marcotte wrote this on her blog -

                    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."

                    Does this offend John Edwards? If so, should he still keep this staffer on his campaign? Should he stand by her just to give a big FU to Bill Donohue?

                  •  And should Edwards stand behind this? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rob Mac K, YestoWes

                    another Amanda Marcotte quote:

                    I had to listen to how the poor, dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f***** her against her will--not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."

                    Do you really want Edwards to stick up for this writer?

          •  Naaah... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hell Upside Down, dannyinla, YestoWes

             ...it's only been on "simmer" in the political-junkie world. The general public hasn't really been hit by it until maybe today. And it's still just cable news.

             There's still time.

            "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

            by Buzzer on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:57:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You're Right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YestoWes

            There are two classic examples across the aisle...John McCain and John Kerry.  McCain sat by while they trashed his wife (I'm not sure whether he ever did launch a defense) and Kerry waited far too long to respond to the swiftboaters.

            If you're going to do this you'd better be tough and you'd better be quick.

        •  Exactly, Danny! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dannyinla, creeper

          By saying "*I* did not know she wrote these things, and because I find them unacceptable" and letting her go, he gets to own the decision, rather than appear to have the far right make it for him. It gets this behind him and lets him get back on message.

          Yeah, it'd piss off a lot of netrooters, but I don't have bow before single-issue voters, and neither should he.

          With Cheney/Bush in charge, Osama remains at large

          by Hell Upside Down on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:55:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  That makes him look incompetent (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ciccina, YestoWes

          If Edwards says that his campaign blog master was hired by a staffer who didn't do his or her job, it makes his campaign look weak and incompetent.  

          I don't see any way for Edwards to win on this one other than standing up for Amanda.

        •  No -- the correct play if he wants them out (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YestoWes

          is that he asks them to fall on their sword and to say it was their idea.  If someone isn't willing to do that in this situation, they don't have the stuff to be staffers.

          Frankly, I lean towards thinking he should stick it out.  But if he doesn't, they should quit rather than be fired, "because they don't want to further distract from his campaign, which they believe in."

          That's politics.

          My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

          by Major Danby on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 01:44:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  if the blogger is just blogging, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rob Mac K, DigDug, buzzsaw

      then as a private person they can say what they want.

      If you are hired by a political campaign, your history becomes relevant.

      Some right wing nutjob can post whatever he or she chooses.  If said right wing nutjob gets hired by McCain or Giuliani, though, then it becomes fair game and ultimately reflects on the candidate's judgment.

      Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

      by jimsaco on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:45:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The New York times really is a right-wing rag (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, TomP, YestoWes

        They should have written the article with controversial comments from the left and the right. I question the judgment of the editor and the reporter on the Donahue - Marcotte edwards blog story for not checking out the bloggers that McCain and the eight little dwarves have hired.

      •  McCain's already hired some RW nutjobs (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        creeper, Judge Moonbox, YestoWes

        That have been detailed on this website, mediamatters and elsewhere.  The "MSM" has not uttered a peep about them.

        I'm not a member of an organized political party, I'm a Democrat - Will Rogers

        by newjeffct on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:46:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And when McCain and Giuliani... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YestoWes

        ... stand by their staff - as McCain has done - its seen by Republicans as a sign of strength and loyalty.  Loyalty as in "we're a team and we stick together no matter what" (think team sports, platoons, etc) and strength as in "you damn liberal hippies won't push me around."  

        Of course us liberals think less of McCain for hiring people we don't like, but he knows we don't support him anyway so it doesn't matter to him.

        To conservatives, and many moderates, when a leader changes course at the first sign of criticism it means he is weak.  If you think Edwards firing his staff would be interpreted as anything other than weak you are kidding yourself.  

  •  I agree - the right is not entitled. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drew, YestoWes

    This is a major gut check. I hope Edwards makes the right decision.

  •  Well put. (10+ / 0-)

    The only thing that annoys me more than a weak-willed response from a Democrat under attack is the piling on from fellow Democrats eager to push an ally under the bus to gain better ground or curry non-existant favor with conservatives and prove their "bona fides" as a moderate.  Enough all around.  We've seen this schtick before.  NOTHING either blogger said is even functionally as offensive as what is repeatedly said by the people calling for them to be fired.  This is a non-issue.  Edwards needs to say so and the other Democrats need to circle the wagons and expect the wagons to be circled for them down the road.  We can have a vibrant debate for our party's nomination without having a circular firing squad at the behest of radical conservatives.

  •  Wouldn't it be great if (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, leonard145b, TomP, YestoWes

    the other leading Dems stood up to the RWNM with Edwards?  Man, if they could just stand together to say "no more" to these chickenhawk thugs.  

  •  Thank You- That is Really Important (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, newhorizon, TomP, YestoWes

    You make several valid points.  I had not thought about the other campaign's reaction.  I will look closely.

    Anyone gotten Lieberman's response yet?  I can only imagine!

    •  Lieberman's response will likely be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YestoWes

      whatever the right-wing tells him it will be.

    •  He's the ultimate blogging concern troll (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcfly, creeper, TomP, YestoWes

      Lieberman was all over the progressive blogosphere in CT, whining about how unfairly attacked he was and how mean and hateful bloggers are.  He held a press conference to attack Jane Hamsher from Firedoglake even though she wasn't even on staff.  His anti-blog screeching culminated in his campaign's ridiculous accusations that Lamont bloggers had hacked his web site.  (Something that, of course, neither he nor his staff have ever apologized for.)

      The Lieberman campaign showed how successfully the media can be manipulated by manufacturing outrage against bloggers.  They successfully deflected a lot of attention from their own problems by having the press chase after evil, nasty bloggers.

      aka "Maura in CT", since I'm back now in the Nutmeg State, where I grew up...

      by Maura in VA on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:28:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What role for bloggers? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcfly, YestoWes

    Campaigns that try to get credibility by hiring bloggers to write for them, to essentially be endorsers, are different than campaigns that hire tech people that build a campaign's ability for ordinary people to communicate with the campaign and vice versa.

    The Edwards campaign is trying to play populist politics with the populists of the right. The right wing populists are better at it.

    Be the Democrat you want to see. DebateScoop

    by demondeac on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:22:03 PM PST

  •  It isn't about bloggers (9+ / 0-)
    or being perceived as "abandonning the netroots."

    The next time it could be a speechwriter. Or a fundraiser. Or it could be about a group that a candidate chooses to address that holds a position or has a leader who says something the right doesn't like (Never mind that they address wingnut groups ALL the time). Or it could be about nothing. A slip of the tongue. A
    "misunderstood" joke. A deliberate twisting of a candidate's position.

    By ceding to this baseless attack, the entire Democratic field opens itself up to any other similar attack the right chooses to manufacture. The next one won't be about bloggers.

    A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

    by anastasia p on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:23:04 PM PST

  •  Minor suggestion (9+ / 0-)

    When people write diaries or front page stories about ongoing issues like this, can the authors please include a link to a summary of the situation and/or background information?  

    From the context I see that one or more people who work for Edwards' campaign (paid, I assume), have said one or more controversial things in the past, and a kerfuffle has been made over it.

    But I don't know the details, and while I trust people here that this is what they say it is, I'd like to be able to get a bit closer to the original facts to judge for myself.

  •  Agreed (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, leonard145b, TomP, YestoWes

    With everything.

  •  Chicago Rules Now In Force (9+ / 0-)

    We should play by the Chicago rules ("one of theirs pulls a knife, you pull a gun; they put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue").

    If we don't stop it now, it will be 2 years of Swift Boat and Gore internet lies.

  •  Right on (9+ / 0-)

    Your point on the "professional outrage machine" is right on, Kagro.  

    I just wrote about this at My Left Nutmeg (Will you stand up, John Edwards?  Will you?), and I mentioned something similar to your point:

    The people who are pressuring the Edwards campaign to can Amanda and Melissa are the ultimate concern trolls. Their "constituency" would never support a candidate who was anti-war and whose campaign is centered around a message of fighting poverty, even if Edwards hired Jesus himself to blog for him.

    </pimping>

    If Edwards caves to the pressure of these screeching hypocrites who have perfected their manufactured indignation, it does not bode well for any of us or any of our candidates.

    Great post.

    aka "Maura in CT", since I'm back now in the Nutmeg State, where I grew up...

    by Maura in VA on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:24:22 PM PST

  •  Honest question... (4+ / 0-)

    If this situation had befallen Hillary Clinton and not John Edwards, would we still be posting vehemently about the rightwing noise machine and pushing back so much?

    Is there a double standard here?

    •  Thank you (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rebecca, CalifSherry, creeper, YestoWes

      Thank you for asking that question.  I'm sure that protests to the contrary, the answer is that yes indeedy, there would be a double standard.

      I and others on this site keep saying that we should fight our battles in the primaries and then vote for whichever Dem gets the nomination.  While I still stand by that, I think it needs to be amended to cover situations like this--we defend our own from outsiders, no matter what.  After the outsiders are dealt with we can return to beating the crap out of each other.

    •  There is a double standard... (6+ / 0-)

      but I don't think the Edwards vs. Clinton one is the most notable.  I think a lot of this controversy is fed by the fact that these are WOMEN bloggers.

      I strongly doubt that Clinton would EVER have hired such outspoken, strong, feminist women to be her bloggers.  

      There is definitely a double standard about what women are allowed to say in "acceptable discourse".  To have the NYT write with shock about a blogger's "vulgar langauge" is ridiculous -- it would never happen if this was a male blogger.

      aka "Maura in CT", since I'm back now in the Nutmeg State, where I grew up...

      by Maura in VA on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:31:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If it had happened to a republican... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YestoWes

      would we all be making such a fuss?  I don't think we would.  Would we be making this fuss about Hillary?  I don't know, some people would but others would be glad she is taking a hit.  That is the nature of politics.  If it happened to anyone other than Hillary I think we would be making a fuss.

      "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

      by Quanta on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:34:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I absolutely agree (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, zeke L, YestoWes

    and I said so in a previous post a few days ago when I said that people need to not let the right bash Hillary for the whole 'was Bill the Bad man' joke.  This is going to be done over and over again.

    However...this will NOT excuse Edwards if the bloggers are fired just like that after a rant from the right.  I'm sorry that everyone isn't standing with him on this and yeah, shame on them for not doing so.  But there are ways to handle this that show some backbone such as, in the worst case, defending these bloggers and then quietly having them resign after the hoopla dies down.  After all, its not as though there isn't any time left before the primaries.

    So yeah, its gonna happen to all of them.  But if Edwards sets the example by firing these guys, he has put out a HUGE reason why he isn't Presidential timber.

  •  I hope any Democratic campaign (whether it is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    Edwards or Clinton or Obama) is more careful in who they choose to hire for public positions in the future. It's early in the race, so there's plenty of time to learn from this.

  •  If Edwards throws these bloggers overboard (7+ / 0-)

    That will encourage the Right to attack other candidates and other bloggers. Their use of the heckler's veto needs to be stopped, and stopped now.

    February 15: Pitchers and catchers report.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:25:29 PM PST

    •  If Edwards throws them overboard... (6+ / 0-)

      ...It will put him on the bottom of the pack for me in terms of front runners. If a presidential candidate doesn't know how to fight for the people working for him, he sure as hell isn;t going to be qualified to fight for the people.

      There's always going to be something the rightie nutjobs are going to whine about. If you aren't qualified to fight them on the small matters, you definitely aren't qualified to fight them on the big ones.

      Certitude belongs to those who have only lived in a place where everybody believes the same thing.

      by Alumbrados on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:45:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why did Edwards hire them in the first place? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rob Mac K, smintheus, mcfly, YestoWes

    I don't diagree with the points in this post, but I do wonder what the point was of Edwards hiring lefty bloggers.

    I saw it as a can't-win tactic. The bloggers, no matter how much they were loved when they were independent, would have a cloud over their integrity and honesty -- because they were paid. It's one thing when a magazine hires a blogger for their front page, another when a politician does it. Furthermore, hire a bloggher and you "own" what they have blogged, like it or not.

    It never made sense to me. Until somebody can explain the rationale, I have to say that Edwards deserves some blame in this fiasco.

  •  It's about time someone fought back. (6+ / 0-)

    I can't support any campaign this cycle that doesn't stand up to the fabricated right wing attack du jour. I was leaning towards Edwards and voted for him in the recent DKos straw polls.  If they back down over this issue, I'm gone.  The same goes for any campaign that shows a similar lack of spine.

  •  The Crocodile - - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    The candidates mopping their brows are like those feeding their comrades to the crocodile - hoping that when it comes their turn, the crocodile will be full.

  •  Non-issue of the week (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizen53, smintheus, jamfan, YestoWes

    If it wasn't bloggers it would be some campaign aide who had nothing to do with bloggers. But it's bloggers, so "the netroots" and "the blogosphere" goes apeshit.

    In a sense, it is about all campaigns. But it's also about all campaign employees. The opposition is going to do this regardless. Hell, we do it. It's all about throwing shit against the wall again and again to see what might stick, or what might provoke a reaction.

    In the world of Ivan I would like to see Edwards just ignore this, and all other candidates ignore shit like this. But they won't, and it's unrealistic to hold them to these kinds of standards, or make it any kind of litmus test.

    In short, I give a shit what Edwards is going to do about Iraq. I do not give a shit if he fires Amanda, and I have read very little on this blog or elsewhere that would induce me to.

    "Lash those traitors and conservatives with the pen of gall and wormwood. Let them feel -- no temporising!" - Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1835

    by Ivan on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:29:41 PM PST

  •  A bad sign (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, creeper, YestoWes

    Kerry lost because he couldn't stand up when attacked. We need a fighter. The Republicans will do ANYTHING to win the 2008 election. It's going to be fucking ugly.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:30:08 PM PST

  •  I am Amanda Marcotte (12+ / 0-)

    and so are you, Kagro, and so is everyone reading this post.

    When I was a youth hockey coach, occasionally the officiating would seem to influenced by the loudest voices in the rink.  I would call the referee over and tell him "Don't let the bench call the game."

    Democrats, don't let the bench call the game.

    I'm looking at you, John Edwards.  If you can't stand up to a two-bit punk like Donohue, it makes me worry about you and the Repub nominee, let alone Kim Jong-Il.

    You can get pretty far with a lie. But you can never get back.

    by privatewl on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:30:29 PM PST

  •  Incoming from all directions-target: Edwards Camp (6+ / 0-)

    Last night in DC at the press banquet(msnbc, CQ deal)my friend Dave "Mudcat" Saunders who is John Edwards' chief rural strategist was accosted by some guy from Hillary's campaign that said because he had a southern accent that he had to be a racist. This is ridiculous! On the one hand the right wing is after John for being to liberal with their hiring of bloggers, on the other the Hillary camp is mad that Edwards is ahead in Iowa and is accusing them of hiring racists for strategists.Seems like Edwards is on everybodys dirty radar screen!

  •  So if Edwards fires them (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, YestoWes

    maybe Obama should hire them ?

    If he did, I might actually be imoressed :))

    We are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it obstructs interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover

    by tiponeill on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:31:11 PM PST

  •  A lesson: Think before you post. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smintheus, TomP, End game, YestoWes

    The blogosphere abides.
    Regardless of the merits in this case, it does serve as a warning.
    I think it is wise to avoid hyperventilating in a blog. It can always catch up with you.It won't go away.
    We all live in glass houses now.

    If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen.

    by EZ writer on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:32:51 PM PST

  •  every blogger's done it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    creeper, YestoWes

    and I don't type that phrase as some sort of excuse....more to point out that any blogger worth their salt, any blogger with the ability to attract an audience has made statements that generate discussion. To be successful in this medium, a blogger can't be milquetoasty (word approved by dictionary.com!), because then no one would care what they had to say, as they'd fail to whet our rabid partisan appetites.

    Any blogger worthy of being picked up by a major national campaign has made statements that would inflame the other side, it's why we turn to them for their thoughts.

    If Edwards backs down here, he's netroot toast, because a) he may not find anyone else of that caliber to make those inroads he needs in "our" community to have a shot at nomination, and b) we'd take him to task, and rightly so, for backing down in the face of this orchestrated smear from the right, aided and abetted by his fellow pageant contestants.

    Edwards, for all the negative press and flack he'll attract for such a move, has to stand up for his choice of blog-liaison in this instance, at this time. And if he does so, I'd even consider voting for the guy, even though I swore to never do so after he was the first politician with national ambitions that I personally witnessed OVERTLY politicizing the 9/11 tragedy way back in September 2001. He does the right thing now (by my lights, anyway), and the man gets a fair shake at my vote whenever Wisconsin's Dem primary is next year.

    On a different note, anyone else get a "Godfather"-style vibe from this move by the righties, an organized campaign where they throw the first stone, and then can stand back and clean their hands as Edwards' erstwhile allies in the press and the left side of the aisle finish the job of eviscerating the candidate? dammit, I'm almost feeling a reluctant admiration creeping over me for the simple Machiavellian brilliance of the maneuver. Why can't we pull stuff like this?

    •  Candidates do not need bloggers (4+ / 0-)

      to do the actual "official" blogging.

      This:

      If Edwards backs down here, he's netroot toast, because a) he may not find anyone else of that caliber to make those inroads he needs in "our" community to have a shot at nomination

      Candidates can make inroads, hopefully, by communcating directly with us. By inspiring us. By standing for the values and issues we care about.

      They do not need "high caliber" celebrity blog-spokespeople on staff to somehow validate their netroots authenticity.

      Be the Democrat you want to see. DebateScoop

      by demondeac on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:59:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  nope (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rob Mac K, creeper, YestoWes

      Any blogger worthy of being picked up by a major national campaign has made statements that would inflame the other side, it's why we turn to them for their thoughts.

      It's about posts that are crass, hyperbolic, and so forth. It's not about impassioned writing, or ideas/information that is unwelcome to the right.

      I can't agree that the only bloggers who are worthy are the hyperventilating kind. In fact, I'm underwhelmed by bloggers who are rabid.

  •  I've missed this story. Help (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    I was looking on a few news sites trying to see what was covered on this so i could get more context and am not finding anything.

    I'm probably not looking as well as I should, but can someone furnish me with a few starting links?

    Thanks

    Question authoritarianism

    by m00nchild on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:33:14 PM PST

  •  Really astute take, Kagro X (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, TomP, YestoWes

    The right wing noise machine is never on my side?

    Grin and bear it. Just don't go all Polar and stuff. -8.88 -5.08

    by SecondComing on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:33:28 PM PST

  •  Does this have more to do with purity... (5+ / 0-)

    in the blogosphere than reality?

    Look at how Kerry's joke brought out as many critics in the blogosphere as on the other side.

    If Edwards comes to believe that letting the bloggers go is the right thing to do, will that decision be respected?

    Or will the purists say that he gave in to the right wing and ignore everything else?

    Perhaps the blogger's comments were too extreme.  Maybe her comments were not known beforehand.  This involves a behing the scenes blogger, not a campaign manager.

    Maybe it is better to get this over with now.  Mainstream Democrats and voters will not care, and will probably support Edwards if he decides to make a change.  

    The blogosphere is not the be all, end all, or the font on knowledge.  DKos represents .002% of Democratic voters.  Let's not overstate or inflate the overall importance of the netroots.

    This is blown out of proportion in my view, but those who do not support Edwards, perhaps more than any others, will ride it an attempt to wean support from him.

    So long as Edwards concentrates on the real issues that affect people's lives, this will make no difference in the end.

    And if this happens in some other form to some other candidate, hopefully Edwards's supporters will show more class than what we have seen here from too many others.

  •  I'm pretty content, myself (5+ / 0-)

    The calls for defiance sound to me to be for the sake of defiance, which I find a little Republicanny.  I also found at least a couple of Marcotte's quotes personally distasteful and, as an Edwards guy, her close association with the campaign would've made me a little uncomfortable.

    More offensive than pruning the potential liabilities would be, to me, Edwards compromising his own principled message to falsely appeal to what his advisers might consider edgy netroots iconoclasm.

    But that's just me! And I'm not a blogger.

    Get out of my party: Feinstein, Reid, Schumer, Clinton

    by Junior Bug on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:36:50 PM PST

  •  probably not popular to say this. (6+ / 0-)

    But I think he made the right decision letting her go.  I've said and thought similar things from time to time and more power to her being outspoken about what she thinks.  But if you ever want to be a prominent part of a political campaign these days, I think you need to think three or four times before hitting that post button.

    I may not object to what she said, but I can only think of what my very Catholic swing-vote mother would think if she read that.

  •  Another Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    The right wing noise machine plays on and on and on.

    Hrmm, I wonder if Clinton will stand up for her fellow candidate and Democrat or keep triangulating away in a most painfully and destructive ironic fashion.

    Question authoritarianism

    by m00nchild on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:40:52 PM PST

  •  Trying to Deanscream Edwards? (7+ / 0-)

    There is already an article from Time linked to on CNN.com asking whether Edwards is the DEan of '08.  

    http://www.time.com/...

    So the MSM is recognizing that he could fire up the progressive masses and therefore perhaps teh swing voter masses- the way people recognized Dean could last time around.

    And you know what that means- the corporate MSM will try to grasp any straw to take him down, the way they did Dean.  They redefined him from the truth-telling moderate he was to the crazy radical he wasn't quite quickly.  Look out Edwards.  This BS being riled up now could be just the beginning.  

    Check out my lte archive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomletters and feel free to use my ideas

    by DemDachshund on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:42:57 PM PST

    •  One solution (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YestoWes

      Would be to create a joint blog campaign to coordinate blog entries with loaded titles that tear down media institutions that play dirty like this.

      If 1000s of bloggers all posted similar stories with similar titles it'd pop up on all sorts of search results.

      Just as your story did when I googled "john edwards blog"

      Question authoritarianism

      by m00nchild on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:54:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If Repub candidate screamed like Dean (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DemDachshund, YestoWes

      If a candidate for the Graneur Oldness Party screamed like Dean, the GOPers would complain that the media was elitist for making a big deal over a heartfelt expression. Of course, people in a privileged position to say things to America's face are worse elitists than those in a privileged position to do things behind America's back.

  •  Even Bush uses third party (0+ / 0-)

    Edwards has to fire these two.  He can't employ people who do not respect other people's religion.

    Even Bush and Rove attack, smear and slim via a third party not directly associated to the campaign.

  •  Political Suicide To Keep Amanda Marcotte (8+ / 0-)

    She must be fired. YESTERDAY. That quote about the "white hot Holy Spirit" makes me sick to my stomach. How she was hired in the first place is beyond me. For anyone to defend these comments (yes, you can say them, but then perhaps you shouldn't be working for a national campaign) is absurd. Edwards will forfeit my support if he decides to retain her for one simple reason: bad judgment. He should come out tomorrow, say he doesn't know who hired this kook, fire everyone involved, and turn the page. End of story. No one will remember this in a month. However, if he decides to keep them it will be an albatross he doesn't need.

    •  I thought it was quite funny... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pithy Cherub, YestoWes

      but I can see where it might offend some delicate sensibilities.

      The entire quote

      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.

    •  Hardly (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rebecca, buddhistMonkey, YestoWes

      If he stands up for her, in a month no one will remember this.  If he doesn't, a LOT of people in the netroots will remember it.  Some out of solidarity with Amanda, but far more out of disgust with the capitulation to right for no political gain.  What's the gain, exactly?  In your scenario, HIS spin is that he's an incompetant manager with startlingly poor judgement.  The right keeps attacking him over it anyway and the activist left disavows him.  He accomplishes nothing.  He needs the activist left to gain traction against Obama and Clinton.  Without it, he'll be a boutique candidate at best.

      Ms. Marcotte is colorful. No denying that.  And she's snarky and playful, too.  Her remarks aren't even close to being as offensive as the outright meanspirited hate that comes from her detractors.  Firing her tells them that their brand of hate hiden behind a dime-store plastic mask of Christ is okay.  It tells them they can get a free pass, while those who don't even respond in kind but respond with mere snark are untouchable.  It grants approval to the wrong people.  That would be political suicide.

    •  No it isn't- (0+ / 0-)

      This country is secualr, and it was a blog post, not a college thesis papre

      Jeebus-

      ...we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings- John F. Kennedy

      by RF on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:00:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  85 percent of the country or more is Christian. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hell Upside Down, YestoWes

        Those are the facts. While some I(a lot) on this site (not me) think it's cute to make fun of Christ, I do not. For one reason I'm a Christian. The other reason is I know politics. It is stupid to have someone on the payroll who openly belittles 85 percent of the nation. Calling the fundamentalist out is one thing, her comments are quite another.

        •  "Soft" Christians (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YestoWes

          I've heard that 85% crap (or 80%) for so long and I still don't believe it. There's just no way in hell that there are 240 million practicing Christians in this country. No way.

          what the hell is going on?

          by Taylor on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:22:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not practicing maybe. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YestoWes

            I haven't been to church in years (taken over by Republicans) but I'm just as Christian as anybody. Just go on the street and ask people if their atheist and you will get your answer my friend.

            •  a lot of room between "Christian" and "Atheist" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YestoWes

              wow, talk about either/or. I was raised Christian, but I am not a Christian now. That doesn't mean I've forgotten everything I learned in Church, or at the private Christian school I attended, or from my father, who is still a lightly religious man in his late 70s.

              There is a whole world of religious and self-described "spiritual" people out there in this country. While I don't discount or mean to disrespect the cultural basis of Judeo-Christianity on Western Civilization - it's not the only show in town. Time to recognize that Christianity is simply one part of the family of global spirituality.

              No one here is arguing that 20% or more of the country is atheist.

              what the hell is going on?

              by Taylor on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:40:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Dude ok. The OVERWHELMING majority of... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                YestoWes

                the country identifies themselves as Christian. The polls don't lie. These are scientific polls. Say their even 10 percent off. SO WHAT? The fact still remains. The majority of the country is Christian. Why you feel the need to argue a moot point is beyond me, but to each his own.

        •  So "Christians" get to promote hate? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YestoWes

          Because that's the message sent when you do the bidding of those who promote hate in the name of Christianity.  For what?  The use of humor in response?  Hate mongers cannot be allowed to set the rules for the discussion of religion in this country.  Plenty of Christians can practice their faith without the hatefulness of Marcotte's critics.  What should offend Christians is the way that the soldiers of intolerance are permitted by the media to define their faith.  THAT is offensive.  Not a joke at the expense of those who try to deflect criticism of their political positions with claims of religious immunity.

          •  Bill Donahue is a dick. I despise him and his... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ThunderHawk13, YestoWes

            organization. That being said, he's totally right on this one. If somone on the right says despicable things, call them on it. Why can't she be called out fr her transgressions? And SHE WORKS FOR A NATIONAL CAMPAIGN!!!! This is all a moot point because my man Edwards (who I supported in '04 as well BTW) will dump her in a matter of hours. Don't be surprised when it happens. He see's the bigger picture. Why put yourself on the line for her? She doesn't deserve it.

          •  And what about the lacrosse players? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rob Mac K, YestoWes

            Can you actually defend that slanderous comment?

        •  Nope (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YestoWes

          All John has to do is show the accuser to be yet another projectionist republican, trying, and succeeding at pissing you off, and dividing otherwise like minded folks-

          I know Politics too, and JE will miss the primaries, if he doesn't play this in a secular way, and call out the real Protagonist Donahue\Malkin zombies-

          I could hang more words on your self-righteous Christian facts, and what you think is "cute", heck I was baptized Roman Catholic, ate the wafer till I woke up,  and probably am included as "one of you" in that numbers cull cite, when clearly I am not-

          This is trying to be a civil, kinder blog, so  I will end it here -

          Goodwill to you-

          ...we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings- John F. Kennedy

          by RF on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:11:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry for your hostility to people who believe in (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YestoWes

            a higher power. I am by no means a fundamentalist, quite to the contrary. But the tone of the post illustrates your, and a lot of others on this site quite frankly, dislike/lack of respect for those who do believe. The day will never come (at least while I'm alive) when an atheist/agnostic/anything but Christian will be elected President. Get over it man.

            •  You might be amazed... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              martik, YestoWes

              We actually believe it is the other way around-

              But the tone of the post illustrates your, and a lot of others on this site quite frankly, dislike/lack of respect for those who do believe.

              Get over yourself, and please try to keep your rosary well within your house of worship, and I will promise to stop signing salutations of goodwill to you-

              Promise-

              ...we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings- John F. Kennedy

              by RF on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:32:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  LOL. My "rosary"? Sorry to disappoint... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                citizen53, YestoWes

                but I'm drinking a Heineken and rolling a non-tobacco cigarrette. You sent a goodwill wish wrapped in smart ass comments while making fun of my beliefs. That's fine, it's your right. You still didn't respond to my assertion that no non-Christian president will be elected in our lifetime (making me think you agree), so pissing off the constituiency is moronic.

    •  satire ? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YestoWes

      You're joking, right?

    •  you have a weak ass stomach. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YestoWes

      This Dr. recommends some milk of magnesia.

      Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge. -Homer J. Simpson

      by Cheez Whiz on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:08:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  won't someone think of the Christians? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YestoWes

      This is the trouble with an election cycle that lasts 22 months. No news morphs into bad news by taking nothing much at all and adding volume and partisan hackery to it.

      what the hell is going on?

      by Taylor on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:13:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So you do whatever Bill Donohue says? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      frenchman, YestoWes

      He calls women "bigots" all the time.  

      Just look what he said about Barbara Walters today -- he called her a bigot, too:  http://www.catholicleague.org/...

      And here he is again:

      Catholic League president Bill Donohue said lesbians were "something I'd expect to see in an asylum, frankly" when he spoke to Justice Sunday, a gathering of far-right evangelical Christian activists.

      Why should we enable him by taking him seriously?

      •  No. I listen to my common sense. Like... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YestoWes

        I said previously, I have no respect for Donahue. His org. is a sham front for the right wing. That doesn't change the comments. They were written, and she must be held accountable just as any one else would be.

    •  read the whole post (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zeke L, Maura in VA, Ciccina, YestoWes

      Here is the whole post.

      Pandagon has always been a snarky blog.  I can understand why some people would take offense.  But the Catholic Church does promote some pretty crazy, offensive ideas.  The post in question is a long post about the insanity of the Catholic Church's official position on contraception.  To reduce everything Amanda has written to the three most offensive quotes Bill Donahue could dig out of the Pandagon archives is pretty offensive, too.

    •  edwards' judgment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YestoWes

      another red herring picked up from the wurlitzer.

      what's relevant to john edwards' judgment in hiring/firing/retaining her is her performance with respect to campaign communications and internet strategy.

      whether she talks dirty on her blog is not the same thing as how she performs in a campaign context.

      l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

      by zeke L on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:30:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not hiring any house bloggers (10+ / 0-)

    for my Senate run. I'm perfectly capable of writing my own scurrilous posts.

    Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

    by ben masel on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:45:42 PM PST

  •  Hypo (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theralph, YestoWes

    Let's say a candidate has a legitimate, "deal-breaking" beef with some of Marcotte's prior language - hell, let's say Marcotte was considered as a potential campaign blogger, but was nixed because of said language.

    How does the candidate make an honest statement of solidarity without sounding like a weasel?

    "In time you can turn these obsessions into careers."

    by looking italian on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:46:15 PM PST

  •  The smallness of our politics (5+ / 0-)

    This is just another example of Obama's point about the smallness of our politics.  I would hope that the media lets go of this useless story.  John Edwards is a great candidate who just happen to hire some bloggers with different views on catholicism.  It is the extreme intolerance of the religious right that this ordeal is even made a public issue.  Absolutely petty.

  •  Hillary Campaign, Edwards advisor not racist (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, annrose

    Please be advised that the chief rural strategist for the Edwards campaign, Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, who just served in the same position for Senator Jim Webb's winning fall campaign in Virginia, has worked long and hard to elect Democratic candidates of color to local, state and federal offices his entire life. To the Catholic League, I also know that he loves all good Catholics! He simply cannot do anything about his Southwest Virginia accent!

  •  obama, clark, gore, hillary supporters, stand up (5+ / 0-)

    We're in this together. We protect our own from smears. It's not up to one candidate to stop a swift boat. Don't you dare wait to see what happens if you let them take down one candidate.

    there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

    by danthrax on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:53:07 PM PST

    •  Totally Agree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annrose, danthrax, YestoWes

      The Dems would be in a better position if they stood together and let the republicans look stupid for not only throwing mud that does not stick with us but for throwing mud at each other which is likely to stick.  Let us do away with cynicism and small politics right here and now.

    •  Stand up and do what? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YestoWes

      Edwards hired someone who has publicly criticized some Christian concepts such as Immaculate Conception, and the MSM went to town on it. If he keeps her then moderate religious voters may be offended. If he lets her go, then some bloggers will be offended. It's a lose-lose situation and I'm not sure what you want us to do.

      p.s. I tentatively support Obama, but not fully sold yet. And FWIW I'm an agnostic.

    •  Meh. Edwards got himself into this mess (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YestoWes

      by not doing due diligence.

      I don' buy this stuff about primary opponents having to solve John Edwards' problem for him.

  •  Kagro X (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Maura in VA, annrose, Ciccina, YestoWes

    Thank you for reading between the lines, for learning from the Kerry swift boat experience, for demanding collegiality amongst Dems.  Best front pager today--for sure.  Hope Edwards reads this and feels "emboldened" by it.  In an overly long campaign season, the first fast ball has been pitched.  My guess is that no Dem heavyweight will swing at it--and the disappointments begin.

  •  i'm sure the wingnut neo-fascist false prophet... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    ...fake "christians" are here tonight as they revel in their self-righteousness but let me say this for any and every person listening:

    the right wing basically fired Rev. Joel Hunter when they wouldn't let him add to their agenda the plight of the poor and saving our environment, things Jesus commanded his followers to do...

    http://www.npr.org/...

    so i beg them to continue this thing... please make it a discussion of your hypocrisy, your history of murder, rape, pillaging, and fascist demogogery of your critics...

    and most of all, i beg you to allow me to discredit you day in and day out in regards to your great editing of the bible after 325AD when the "church" started massacring their competition.

    please.  i dare you.

  •  You're mostly mistaken (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizen53, annrose, TomP, YestoWes

    Whether Edwards keeps these bloggers or not is NOT the main issue. The core issue is whether there will be media fairness and accountability when these stories are aired. If the media covers blogger controversies in an even-handed manner, the Republicans are going to piss their pants (excuse my language, Terry Moran).
    The Democrats need to play offense here, because they should have a HUGE advantage. Let Edwards do whatever. What I want is to see Donna Brazile talking about McCain's blogger problem, or about the propriety of Rudy Failed to Protect NY Giuliani making millions from his "security" firm.

    •  wrong..... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddhistMonkey, bree, YestoWes

      This is primary season, its all about loyalty remember, this early we gotta gin up the faithful, not cater to these neo-con assholes. To be honest I think its about time the left started making clear how tired we all are of permitting the right to determine the terms of debate, where better then in primary season when its all dems and not courting the "center", what we say now helps determine what the center will be

  •  A chance for a "go fuck yourself" moment (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, annrose, Ciccina, YestoWes

    The Edwards campaign has a chance to show some real balls here, and disempower the Mighty Wurlitzter before it really cranks up.  

    If Edwards et al. stand down, though, we also have a chance for a "go fuck yourself" moment with them.  A precipitous drop in support for JE might help some people in all the campaigns learn some lessons about which side their bread is buttered on.

    Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge. -Homer J. Simpson

    by Cheez Whiz on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:05:12 PM PST

  •  Brilliantly said (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, TomP, YestoWes

    I really agree.

    "And life is grand/and I will say this at the risk of falling from favor/With those of you who have appointed yourselves/To expect us to say something darker."

    by Oregon Bear on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:08:12 PM PST

  •  salon says he fired em..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    This article from salon: http://www.salon.com/... claims Jhonny's dumped em. I have to admit I'm really disappointed here. I think everyone dropped the ball here. We took a real opportunity to kick these assholes in the balls and turned it to shit...

  •  What? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    If he fires them, it's Sen. Clinton's or Sen. Obama's fault?

    Is that where this is going?

    This is Edwards's problem.   He was brave enough to hire them.  He can be brave enough to not fire them and then reep the political rewards due to him for doing so.

    Here's lets put it this way.  I'll expose this argument for what is right now.   Ready?

    Ok.

    If Edwards decides(ed) not to fire them, are you going to give any credit to Obama or Clinton?  God no.  And you shouldn't.

    Thinking this through.  This indicates that Edwards has fired them, or will fire them and some campaign to spread the blame is under way.  

    From what I've seen of political blogs, I bet it works.  

  •  Edwards should stand up BIG TIME! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    This right wing partisons should just keep buying their stuff from the "Holy Ted Haggard's, Gods Gift To Earth, Church of Drugs And Gay Sex Toys" and suck on his holy ....(Rhymes with Cheney)  you get the picture ;-)

    That's the only thing this nut cases are good for, sin like there is no tomorrow and ask for forgivenes when their luck runs out, what HYPOCRITS

  •  Don't you think... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizen53, ThunderHawk13, ShadowSD

    ...that Edwards is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't?

    OK, let's say he does fire the bloggers. What is the reaction from netroots? Division, rancor, opposition to his campaign? That's the idea I'm getting here. Isn't that just as good news to the wingnuts as Edwards standing by the bloggers and absorbing the attacks that are sure to hound him for weeks?

    MSM and others are starting to catch on to the fact that Edwards is developing sizable netroots support. TIME just posted an article re: Edwards as this election's Dean, even cited yesterday's DKos straw poll. Is it really a coincidence that these attacks come when they do? Aren't we allowing ourselves to be made pawns in this right-wing/MSM game??

  •  This is Edwards and the netroots quandry (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Carl Nyberg, theralph, YestoWes

    Why would Hillary or Obama get involved in this? This is a competition after all.  There has been a mutual lovefest between Edwards and the netroots; if he invokes your wrath by firing the two bloggers, then that is something that puts a kink in a rivals operation.  Edwards strategy clearly involved harnessing the energy of the netroots.  Now he is weighing the gains he has made in the blogosphere vs. the damage that this story can cause on a national level.  The netroots also has to make its own decision. Edwards seems to be the only candidate that has actively courted the netroots.  If he "caves" and fires them, and the netroots abandons him, what other candidate will promote the progressive agenda.   I like Hillary and Obama, so I am just playing devils advocate here. Does the netroots really want this to be the deal breaker?  

  •  I have absolutely no problem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    with holding other presidential candidates to the same standards that we hold Edwards to. Any candidate who gets marching orders from the wingnuts on any subject has no business running as a Democrat.

    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:47:14 PM PST

    •  Marching orders? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dannyinla, theralph, YestoWes

      If she's jettisoned, it's because of her own statements.

      She should have disclosed that shit before they hired her.

      •  a candidate who doesn't get (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YestoWes

        "due diligence" on a new employee belongs in the GOP.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:03:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  BS Statement! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theralph, YestoWes

          Let me say it again:

          Bullshit!

          Perhaps one who makes such bullshit remarks belongs in the GOP!

          •  well... good luck, then (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YestoWes

            with your new political party. Having read your posts, I really think you'll be a lot happier as a Republican. And you'll be able to change the average IQ of two political parties by switching... you'll be lowering the average IQ among Republican Americans.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:54:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  How foolish... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theralph, YestoWes

              and insulting.

              Yes, you are the judge of what is a Democrat.

              Can you get anymore idiotic?

              •  getting more idiotic than I am is pretty easy (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                YestoWes

                You've managed it pretty consistently and I have every confidence that you'll manage it just as well for the GOP as you have here.

                Haven't you opened your freerepublic account yet?

                Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                by alizard on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:05:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  What a little bitch. I (and I assume this person) (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  YestoWes

                  care more about the Democratic party and its ideals than you or your troll rating punk ass bitch loser friends ever have. I've been a left winger before it was cool, and will still be one when you gone on to the next fad. I won't be sad to see you go either. Little bitch.

                  •  why do you sound so much like (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    YestoWes

                    a Republican-American?

                    My first volunteer work for a political campaign was in 1966... for Ronald Reagan's opponent in the California governor's race.

                    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                    by alizard on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:20:40 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dannyinla, theralph, YestoWes

                      With age you seem to have lost your principles.

                      What makes you think you are any better Democrat than anyone else?

                      What gives you the audacity to call someone who disgrees a Republican?

                      I need not EVER prove myself to someone who shows that they must insult others as you have.

                      Your rhetoric is despicable and not worthy of a liberal or a Democrat.

                      •  the issue of the accountability (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        YestoWes

                        of politicians is a fundamental one that divides Democrats from Republicans.

                        Democrats embrace accountability.

                        Republicans attack Democrats for demanding accountability for politicians.

                        Just as you are attacking me for demanding that Edwards be held accountable for his organization's foulups.

                        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                        by alizard on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:45:15 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Are you studying Orwell? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          YestoWes

                          You started by saying that a candidate that does not due due diligence belongs in the GOP.

                          Since you were obviously referring to Edwards, that sounded to me like attacking a Democrat.

                          And when I said it was bullshit, you started the tirades calling me and the other commenters Republicans.

                          Get off the bullshit pile.  You were the name caller here.

                          •  I guess competence is another (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            YestoWes

                            core Democratic value you're fundamentally opposed to.

                            As the Bush Administration has proven, the natural home for incompetents is the GOP. Edwards has put himself into a lose-lose position for anyone trying to judge his competence:

                            • His people didn't do due diligence on the blogger in advance and got blindsided
                            • Nobody was surprised, and the bloggers were thrown to the wolves because they offended extremist members of the Religious Right. In which the question is "does this guy know who his potential voters are?

                            And you're so OK with Edwards showing something other than competence that you attack anybody who asks the rude public questions about Edwards' competence his campaign actions justify.

                            And you wonder why I'm questioning you about just what you think you're doing as a Democrat?

                            While it may be that you're simply a rabid Edwards enthusiast, I'd be saying the same thing about ANY candidate under the same circumstances.

                            For me, competence is a Democratic value.

                            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                            by alizard on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 08:14:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is NOT the issue... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            YestoWes

                            because YOU started by saying he should be in the GOP.

                            Now you want to discuss after calling people Republicans and freepers.

                            Do you always piss before you look?

                            That said, if he or anyone did not know all of the words of a blogger does not mean he or anyone should be in the GOP.  It just means that someone, somewhere may have made a mistake.

                            You have had ample opportunity but still have not  apologized for your reprehensible, bullshit remarks.

                            Kind of hypocritical to be talking about Democratic values.  

                    •  So? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theralph, YestoWes

                      With age you seem to have lost your principles.

                      What makes you think you are any better Democrat than anyone else?

                      What gives you the audacity to call someone who disgrees a Republican?

                      I need not EVER prove myself to someone who shows that they must insult others as you have.

                      Your rhetoric is despicable and not worthy of a liberal or a Democrat.

                      •  odd... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        YestoWes

                        I believed back in 1966 that politicians should be held accountable.

                        Since when is the idea the "politicians should never be held accountable for their actions" a Democratic one?

                        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                        by alizard on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:46:48 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Is Edwards expected to read every post personally (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          YestoWes

                          ? He probably said "Hey, is there anyhing in your past I need to know anout?" and she obviously lied about it. That's all you can reasonably expect from Edwards personally. His staff however is a different story altogether.

                          •  I said elsewhere in this discussion (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            YestoWes

                            that a politician can and should delegate this, but it's his final responsibility to make sure "due diligence" is done and done right.

                            Remember the plaque on Truman's desk that said "The Buck Stops Here"?

                            Whether or not Edwards has a similar one on his desk or not, the principle still holds.

                            As for the "Hey, is there anything in your past I need to know anout?". . . does every blogger on the Net going to remember every casual post or diary he/she's ever made when asked a question like that?

                            Most people are going to do a quick look through their memories. . . "Hmmm... no, I've never been caught in bed with a live girl or a dead guy, no felony convictions..." followed by "No, Mr. Edwards".

                            That's why the campaign staff has to do this. Most people's memories suck.

                            I actually don't think we're in substantial disagreement over this.

                            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                            by alizard on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:59:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Look.... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          dannyinla, YestoWes

                          YOU are the one who started labeling people.

                          Calling them Republicans.

                          Should be members of freerepublic.

                          With all due respect, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?

                          Get off it.  I have been involved as long as you and NEVER needed to resort to such weak methods.

                •  You are getting smaller by the moment... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theralph, YestoWes

                  I was here 37,319 users before you, and never troll rated anyone, but these last few comments are among the most disgusting comment I have had the displeasure to read.

                  You have choices in the remarks you make.  Keep up the good work of destroying your credibility.

                  •  Not sure who doing it. But its people of your.... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    YestoWes

                    viewpoint trying to shut down debate. And yes I never even heard of Daily Kos until the Kos convention last year, and a story about said convention aired on MSNBC. I have been a Democrat since birth however, and don't think anybody on this site has any more credentials than I do. I can't see whose troll rating me so I don't really know. If your one of the ones respecting differing viewpoints, then I apoligize.

                  •  Language was strong but it exactly what (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    YestoWes

                    has been done to me. Try to silence by calling someone a Rethug, or troll rating them. This is the Democratic Party for God's sake. Dissenting views is a hallmark.

                  •  destroying my credibility? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    YestoWes

                    I'm not the one who went apeshit over my suggestion that candidates are ultimately responsible for doing due diligence into the records of the people they hire for their campaigns.

                    While they can and should delegate this, they are ultimately responsible for making sure that it is done and done right. Admittedly accountability is a Democratic thing, and this may be why you don't quite get it.

                    And to annoy you further, I'll add that due diligence is a candidate's final responsibility is true whether the name of the candidate is Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Vilsack, Bush, McCain, Huckabee, or John Edwards.

                    If you think you can attack my credibility based on this, make the most of it.

                    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                    by alizard on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:35:37 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Ok your talking to him.SORRY I'm going to sleep. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    alizard

                    I've obviously had to much to drink. I thought you were talking to me no looking that you were responding to him. Cheers.

      •  Um.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alizard, YestoWes

        Her blog does have public archives, you know.  The fact that Edwards was caught blind-sided seems pretty incompetent to me.  I'm sure Amanda assumed that the Edwards campaign had, you know, read her blog before they hired her.

    •  No other (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YestoWes

      candidate is getting those "marching orders" from the wingnuts.

  •  I couldn't care less about the elections (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    ShadowSD, YestoWes
    Hidden by:
    JugOPunch

    Say Edwards takes it by a landslide. I'll still have to face the fact that my country was deliberately lied into a war for profit and not one thing was done to punish the people who committed this greatest act of treason ever perpetrated upon the United States, and the greatest act of international criminality ever carried out by the United States. I will have to live the rest of my life with the fact that no one did anything to punish the people who did that. Everyone just let them get away with it. I will have to live with the knowledge that America is a nation full of the kind of people who would let their government get away with that kind of thing. I will have to go among my fellow Americans every day knowing that that's the kind of people we are.

    Unless there is some redress for what has been done to the United States by the current administration, and for what the United States has done to Afghanistan and Iraq, I really don't care who Americans get as the president. They can all fuck themselves, as far as I'm concerned. They deserve the worst there is.

    Too bad for the fucking rest of the world, though. They should really come over here and kick our asses.

    Republicans are liars.

    by tr4nqued on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:47:27 PM PST

  •  just came from Edwards site.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Carl Nyberg, Phoenix Woman, YestoWes

    looks like theres a fat blogroll going on this ish there, and the results seem to be heavy towards keeping em.

  •  But this is the result of a larger error (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShadowSD, YestoWes

    Democrats do this all the time: we make symbolic moves in order to attract support.

    Whether it is putting a "southerner" on the ticket, or deciding to be the "anti-war" candidate in order to attract support. Whether it is championing "electability" by burnishing one's military credentials, or standing up against flag burning. Whether it is "triangulation" or creating a "Sister Souljah moment".

    It is always Democrats that make symbolic moves, in order to "send a signal" to voters. It is no secret that this tendency has been coupled with a decades-long sheepishness when it comes to standing up for middle-class principles such as fair wages, excellent public education, universal health care... You name it...

    To a certain extent, Edwards' decision to hire these bloggers without vetting them, demonstrates that he was attempting to be a "netroots candidate". Who knew that someone would actually read what these folks wrote and make a big damn deal about it?

    This is now a huge blunder on Edwards' part. He could just as easily have found a couple of tech savvy, recent college grad nobodies and set them up as his campaign's bloggers. It's what Dean did, and it was wonderful! Instead he went after some relatively notable folks, he didn't vet them, and this is what he got: the short-term benefit of making a symbolic gesture and currying favor with the netroots, which has resulted in a stupid scandal.

    If Edwards wants to reach out to the netroots and get us on board with his campaign, why doesn't he post here at DKos every day? Why doesn't he take strong stands on our issues? That is what we want! Not nice, "playing the saxophone on Arsenio" gestures!

    I like Edwards! I'm proud of his work, and his two Americas theme. I think he's coming from the heart, but -- looking back -- hiring the bloggers reeks of the type of symbolic politics that we can't stand from the well-paid, well-heeled beltway consultants whom we disdain so much.

    Peace!

  •  safe to say (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L, YestoWes

    ...no one has taken this slant on things.

    The Response

    As Stoller says, there is incompetence in the very fact that things have gotten this far without a clarification or a decision. You can't "sleep on it" for something like this.

    It's worth analyzing the "substance" of the criticism, though. Rather than just saying, "typical wingnut bullshit" you have to study the shit. One time I listed 14 different kinds of cow shit with which I am familiar. This shit is no better.

    Let's say that Amanda has talked about the Holy Spirit blowing a load or about Jesus having sex ("Jesus Fucking Christ"). Device 293840187 ("Donohue") puts it out that this insults Christians.

    In point of fact, this is incorrect. God is not in need of what amounts to sectarian defenders. The same way a supporter of Moqtada al-Sadr might say "You there! Do you accept the 12th Imam? Answer for your life!", "Mr." Donohue has called on all True Believers to fly to their Lord's defense.

    In this, it is Donohue who is in error, doctrinally. Assuming Amanda wrote such posts (and what left blogger does not have them more or less tattooed on their bodies), she has not insulted anyone. Least of all Jesus. The word "insult", as used in medicine, itself implies some injury (already). But Jesus is God, and can't be injured or insulted like an ordinary person.

    The Christian Church cannot be insulted for the same reason, since the Church is just the Mystical Body of Christ.

    What has happened is this: Amanda appears to have blasphemed against God. This is the case, whether she believes completely, partially, or not at all. However, since this is part of Amanda's relationship with God, whether God enjoys Amanda's humor or not is between them, totally. In clearer terms: no Christian knows enough to say that Amanda has even sinned, let alone grievously.

    People hear about things like this, and they assume that blogging is something like writing a book. If some wingnut said, "Amanda Marcotte said 'holyfrickinbuttwad' some time ago," who would care? We've all SAID perfectly awful things from time to time (unless you're Jesus). Thus with blogging. There should be a fairly bright line between blogging about candidates and blogging for them. Paid bloggers should say "I'm with John, here, as long as he doesn't go crazy" or something. Their independence should reek out even from their paid positions.

    One more thing - see, you need a few left Christians around to explain things. Christianity IS A SYSTEM. Southern Protestants do not understand it and do not care. They literally worship nonsense, since they can't even make sense of their own Bible.

    They would pull a Ted collectively if you took them on, on that ground, and beat them.

    ---

    Just adding this - some people above said they were disgusted by what Amanda had written. Well, we've all said disgusting things. Bloggers write what they would otherwise say. Blogging and book-writing are two different things. A relaxation of self-censorship is appropriate in blogging precisely because blogging is in place of speech, like e mail.  we allow ourselves license when we blog because it's more like a conversation than reading a book is.

  •  Donohue today: Barbara Walters is a bigot! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BStu

    I kid thee not:  http://www.catholicleague.org/...

    And here he is again:

    Catholic League president Bill Donohue said lesbians were "something I'd expect to see in an asylum, frankly" when he spoke to Justice Sunday, a gathering of far-right evangelical Christian activists.

    Why should we enable him by taking him seriously?

  •  Campaign contribution (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizen53, YestoWes

    This idiotic attempt to smear Edwards has really pissed me off, so much so that I made a contribution to his campaign.  I was going to anyway, but this latest bullshit reminded me to get around to doing it.

    We drew our heavy revolvers (suddenly in the dream there were revolvers) and exultantly killed the gods. -- Jorge Luis Borges, Ragnarok

    by Hobbitfoot on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:09:37 PM PST

  •  In the grand scheme of things ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    ... all this is insider baseball. On Newsmap, the biggest story is the Astronut love triangle. Edwards gets mentioned because of his healthcare plan.

    Newsmaphttp://www.marumushi.com/apps/newsmap/newsmap.cfm

  •  This years Sister Soljah moment... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    ... will likely be a slap at the right wingers who get the media time to pull crap like this.  The real question is is this the moment?

    "If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't stupidity get us out of it?" - Will Rogers

    by jhe on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:15:27 PM PST

    •  Here's the script... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ciccina, ShadowSD, YestoWes

      ... put out a list of the greatest hits of Bill Donahue, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and a couple of the other crazies including McCain's blogger.

      Then say "I don't always agree with Amanda and Melissa, I sure don't phrase things the same way, but anything they might have said pales in comparison to what our opponents across the aisle say regularly and which, CNN , MSNBC and Fox are happy to put on the air.  I've talked to both of them with my communications director about tone, content and professionalism, they assured me that they knew going into it that their role on this campaign was different from their role as independent bloggers and I'm satisfied that when they work for me they'll represent my views and my tone.  I'd like to hear similar accountability from our Republican friends."

      "If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't stupidity get us out of it?" - Will Rogers

      by jhe on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:29:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Too much to expect? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L, kathygo, KayCeSF, YestoWes

    My candidate (hopefully) Wes Clark refused to denounce Michael Moore (who endorsed Clark in '04) after Moore publicly called bush a "draft-dodger" at a rally...this of course inflamed the right. Clark stood his ground: Michael Moore has the right to say anything he wishes to say. Even Peter Jennings challenged Clark to denounce Moore on National television during the primary debate, Clark stood his ground. I'm sure he paid of price for refusing to compromise his basic principles.

    That's the kind of integrity I expect in a candidate for the presidency. Why wouldn't progressives hold all candidates to that same standard in '08?  Too much to expect? I hope not.  

    We're talking about people who aspire to lead this country from the Oval Office and represent our nation to the world-at-large. It's a rough game, no doubt about it. It'll be interesting to see how the Edwards camp handles this, but frankly I don't see the need for this lecture.

    ...it's about integrity, stupid

    by Sybil Liberty on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:20:43 PM PST

    •  Bush WAS a draft dodger... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dannyinla, theralph, YestoWes

      and the statements made by the blogger are more inflammatory in my view.

      So long as Edwards does what he believes is right, I will support him.

      Whatever he does will not please everyone, so he must please himself.

      I do hope, however, that scrutiny will be raised regarding the people who work in ALL campaigns.

      •  You find my (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KayCeSF, YestoWes

        personal principles "inflammatory"? That all candidates should be indiscriminately held to the same high standard?

        And then you say ALL campaigns must pass scrutiny?

        Which is very nearly the same thing that I just said?

        ...why am I not surprised, citizen?

        ...it's about integrity, stupid

        by Sybil Liberty on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:13:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why are you so quick to misinterpret? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YestoWes

          I said merely that the bloggers statements were more inflammatory.

          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."

          Do you think ANY candidate will stand behind that remark?

          I think it's great that Clark stood up for Moore, but the statements are not only different in character, but Clark probably agreed with Moore.

          Chill out Sybil.

          •  Amanda's comment is a joke. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YestoWes

            The more I read it, the more obvious it seems.

            "I'm not here for the Iraqis, I'm here for George Bush." - Iraq occupation staffer

            by Beet on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:32:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  citizen, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KayCeSF, YestoWes

            I'm so used to you calling my posts "inflammatory" or something similar if I so much as mention Clark's name that admittedly, I lept.

            My apologies, I'm chillin'

            ...it's about integrity, stupid

            by Sybil Liberty on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:35:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed. (4+ / 0-)

            John Edwards should do what he thinks is right and his supporters should either support that or decide that they can't.  And that's all there is to it.  This doesn't have anything to do with other candidates, except that we should expect the same "do the right thing" from all of them.  

            Personally, I find this diary infuriating.  I don't mind so much if I disagree with someone's decision.  What I mind is if their decisions aren't their own but are made by sticking a finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing.  

            This diary seems to imply that John Edwards can't stand up for what he believes in if the rest of the field doesn't stand behind him.  John Edwards most certainly can, and I hope he does, regardless of what his decision is, and whether or not I agree with it.  I would be no more comfortable with John Edwards' deciding to keep someone he wanted to fire because the "field" decided he should than I would be with his firing someone he wanted to keep because the "field" didn't back up his decision to keep them.

            Let's count on John Edwards to do what he thinks is the right thing.  We've seen Wes Clark do it.  We've seen Russ Feingold do it.  I'm sure supporters of others can come up with examples as well.  So, let's assume that John Edwards will stand up for himself.  I think we owe all the candidates that much respect.  

    •  As a Clark supporter (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kathygo, YestoWes

      I would have greatly preffered if Clark had not associated himself with Moore.  It's not that I have anything against Moore, it's just that it wasn't worth the price.  I think it did cost him, since the whole debacle occurred right before the NH primary.  

      Most Profound Man in Iraq: farmer in a remote area who, when asked by Marines if he had seen any foreign fighters in the area, replied "Yes, you."

      by johnny rotten on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:48:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Michael Moore wasn't a paid staffer (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dannyinla, YestoWes

      So thi sis apples and oranges.

    •  I forgot abut that (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pelican, KayCeSF, Sybil Liberty, YestoWes

      Sybil Liberty,

      Of all the pro-Clark comments I have heard at DKos, that is the first one that really moved me. You're right, it took guts to stand up to all that pressure, and it does say a lot for his character.  It was a minor incident in the scheme of things but it speaks volumes about his integrity.  Thanks reminding me about that.

  •  Lani Guinier all over again? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hells kitchen, YestoWes

    I'm reminded of Clint Bolick's attack on Clinton via his Civil Rights nominee Lani Guinier. Rethug Clint Bolick attacked her for some alleged statements she made, including one that he interpreted as, "Black politicians who're elected by White constituencies are inauthentic."

    I like Clinton, but he let a lot of people down on this one; I think he should have accepted that all the damage that Bolick could do was done, and he should have gone on the offensive, gathering up Black pols elected by White voters, and getthing them to vouch for Guinier.

  •  A reverse Sister Souljah moment: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hells kitchen, YestoWes

    Edwards is being called on to do the opposite of what Clinton did with Sister Souljah: repudiate this nut Donahue.

    And he should do it loudly and forcefully, using Donahue's own words.

    They are testing Edwards to see if he has the spine to stand up to him.

    Let's smack 'em down!

    "It's better to realize you're a swan than to live life as a disgruntled duck."

    by Mumon on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:40:24 PM PST

  •  You are absolutely correct (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    but behind the right wing republican attack on Edwards in this is the complicity of the other Democrats, and frankly it makes them all look bad.  Democrats are still afraid to be Democrats, to stand together, and we are easy targets of republican strategy.

    Does the word justice mean anything to you? Are the features of a lie beginning to come through?-Jackson Browne

    by Sargent Pepper on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:43:51 PM PST

  •  I've been out of pocket a don't know the story (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    relentless, ShadowSD, YestoWes

    but I do know this.  If you bring bad press to your candidate, you have to go.  Blogger or staffer of another kind - you have to remember that it's all about the candidate.  If you really like your candidate, and you believe in them, and you want them to win, you shouldn't have to be asked to go when you become a liability - deserved or not.

  •  If a Christian is sick of Republicans (4+ / 0-)

    and wants to vote Democrat, then we shouldn't have "in your face" vulgar remarks about the Holy Spirit, Jesus, God or Christianity for them to have to deal with.

    Let's don't make it hard for Christians to vote for Democrats.

    Staying in Iraq, we continue to kill many, slowly. If we leave Iraq, many will die, faster. The outcome is the same in the long run. Sad.

    by relentless on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:56:04 PM PST

    •  You sir, are a breath of fresh air. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YestoWes
      •  Thanks, I am a female and a used to (0+ / 0-)

        be Southern Baptist who loves the democratic party. I love the social justice and fairness this party stands for. It is Christian in that respect.

        I have to admit that at this point I am a backslider, but am under conviction, so I will go back soon.  I miss the companionship and the feelings I feel at church.  I will probably go back to my childhood church of the Southern Baptist. Whether I stay depends on how political they are. If they are backing Bush, I am outta there.

        Staying in Iraq, we continue to kill many, slowly. If we leave Iraq, many will die, faster. The outcome is the same in the long run. Sad.

        by relentless on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:41:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Edwards has already lost this fight (6+ / 0-)

    by being too slow to respond and letting this build

    He should have immediately issued a statement that 1)what the bloggers posted on their own  blog has no relevance; 2) Donahue is nutty as a fruitcake; 3) if you're going to talk offensive blogger, how about THESE rightwing bloggers associated with candidates.

    When the dust settled, he could have fired whomever he wanted.

    Didn't he learn ANYTHING from the Swiftboaters?

    Nothing he can do will satisfy his enemies, so you have to hit back hard, on the offensive and not let them dictate to you.

    I'm dissapointed in him, really.

  •  I don't care about the candidates. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    They wanted to jump on the crazy train, so they shouldn't fear or be surprised by the consequences. Now, obsiously Amanda & Melissa sort of did that too, but I don't think they deserve  demotion to collateral damage. That's exactly what these two women will be if they're fired. It's an old story with a bazillion victims, and we've seen it before in every variety, but dammit, I'm backing up a fellow Insufferable Music Snob here, and I have no opinion about John Edwards as far as this incident is concerned.

    Kagro X is right. This is how the rightist crazies work, we all know it, and good goddam, people, we better be ready for it, from the candidates on down. Don't fall for the bullshit.

  •  Amanda serious on this one? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    I don't see why people are getting so offended here. So what if she called the Holy Spirit "hot, white and sticky"? Is she really trying to convince anyone that the Holy Spirit is literally hot, white and sticky? Of course not. She probably does not even believe that the Holy Spirit exists. The whole thing was a writer's flourish of fun, a showing off of wit, in other words, a joke.

    Something equally irreverent was posted in this thread-

    You know, Jesus? I've been thinking a lot about you lately and, well, that's why I wrote this song. I love you, Jesus. I want you to walk with me. I'll take good care of you baby. Call you my baby, baby! You died for my sins, and you know that I would die for you, right? What's the matter, baby? You tremble at Jesus, baby! Your love... is my life! You know when I'm without you, there's a black hole in my life! Oo-ohhh! I wanna believe. It's all right, 'cause I get lonely in the night and it's up to you to Save me! Jee...sus...bay-by!

    Haha, that's a quote from South Park. A bit longer than Amanda's quote, I might add. A bit more produced. The show this comes from does this shit all the time-- in fact thrives on it. Sure, it is not overtly connected to a political campaign, but so what? It's the same material. And yet you see no one complaining, no masses up in arms. The show has been a tremendous success, and it has made its producers millions of dollars.

    I guess the difference between me and some people here is that I see the two situations in the exact same vein, not serious.

    "I'm not here for the Iraqis, I'm here for George Bush." - Iraq occupation staffer

    by Beet on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:26:01 PM PST

  •  Arrrrrggggghhhhhhhh (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L, Beet, chicago minx, YestoWes

    OK it just took around and hour and a half to get through all these comments and I' m sure they'll be more by the time I'm done with this post. First of all I find it ridiculous that someone would be expected to read everything a blogger wrote before they hire them. It's not like there are other things that need to be done especialy in a national campaign.

    As for Amanda and this is just my opinion, but if she thought that anything she wrote could come back and hurt Edwards wouldn't it be her responsibilty to bring it up before she's hired so that if nothing else they could be ready with a defense if anything came up? Why should it be her responsiblity? Well she wrote it and she would be much more familiar with her own work than anyone else. And if shedidn't think her statement about "his hot sticky Holy Spirit" would be construed as something negative she's not that bright to begin with.

    Now as for Edwards I'm not much for giving advice but I think the first thing he should do is refer to the words of Voltaire "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."(I'm a bit of a Voltaire junkie). But if he is personaly offended by her statements due to his religious beliefs, does he has every right to fire her? I'm not sure that is something he must figure out for himself.

    On to Bill Donahue, Michele Malkin and all the others like them. Hit back hard and keep hitting them until they drown in there own bile. Teach those rotten bastards that we won't stand for this crap. And that if they want to play dirty we're going to shove their faces in ther own crap.

    "I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." Robert A. Heinlein

    by Wes Opinion on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:27:55 PM PST

  •  I fear that Edwards (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    has demonstrated that he cannot stand up to vicious right-wing attacks.  That doesn't bode well for his campaign. After the Swiftboating of Kerry, every Democratic candidate had better be prepared to deal with this kind of stuff immediately.

    McCain said about his blogger "We are glad to have him." End of story.

    Once again the major media outlets have demonstrated that they are ready and willing to jump in on the Swiftboating of any Democratic candidate. It's going to be a long campaign, but I don't want to be cringing at the cowardice of our candidates every time this comes up. They need to prepare  NOW and better yet, sitr up their own shit.

    ABC: The Propaganda Network

    by cat on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:42:31 PM PST

  •  do or die (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kpelligra, YestoWes

    From a distance, this issue seems like much ado about nothing. To me, though, John Edwards' handling of this situation is more important than his views on health care, the "two Americas," and Iraq put together. Why? Because his views on Iraq, etc. are meaningless if he can't get elected, and he can't get elected if he's not willing to fight.

    The last thing on Earth we need a year-and-a-half from now is another weakling like John Kerry, who let the Swift Boat Liars steamroll him and his (and Edwards') campaign. If Edwards is willing to capitulate to wingnuts like Michelle Malkin now, my expectation is that he will do the same thing a year from now. That's a recipe for disaster, i.e. another four years with a Republican president.

    If these bloggers go, my support for John Edwards goes with them. The converse is equally true: if Edwards can show himself to be a fighter in this instance, I'll certainly be more predisposed to support his candidacy in the primary. It's a "do or die" moment, as far as I'm concerned.

    The Constitution may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than what we've got!

    by buddhistMonkey on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:46:31 PM PST

    •  standing up (0+ / 0-)

      The converse is equally true: if Edwards can show himself to be a fighter in this instance, I'll certainly be more predisposed to support his candidacy in the primary.

      It looks like Edwards has done exactly the right thing at this point. I'm both pleased with the result, and impressed by Edwards' handling of the situation. His statement of support for Amanda and Melissa wasn't the strongest I've ever read, but given the circumstances, I think he handled it the best way possible. I hope this whole episode turns into a net positive for his campaign (pun intended).

      The Constitution may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than what we've got!

      by buddhistMonkey on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 01:36:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  No Standing to comment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ciccina, YestoWes

    I'm sorry but i do not understand why any right wingnut has ANY standing to comment on this issue. They may have an opinion but it is to be totally ignored, dismissed and not acknowledged. They have their own candidates, let them pontificate upon their own.
    I have no more right to comment on who is the best wingnut to attract votes from the (deluded) rapture awaiting right.

    Pick your own weapon and go with it.

    We'll pick our own thank you  very much.

    sno ryder

  •  Oh, yeah? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    But if we expect to see Edwards stand strong, we ought to expect to see them all stand strong. And to the extent that they stand strong, Edwards will be able to do the same.

    And when he's the President, will he also need the other candidates to be his co-Presidents, "standing strong" and lending him their collective backbones?

  •  Too much to ask for competing candidates... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    to step up.  It would take more than a short sound bite to present the case to the media that these bloggers from another campaign are being unfairly treated.  

    Kagro makes a good point and calms me down after getting hot and bothered and willing to reject Edwards outright if he fires the two bloggers.

    But this test for Edwards is going to br representative of the bigger fight for all Dems.  He and the other candidates need to take these opportunities to expose the noise machine and open some people's eyes to how this mountains are made out of molehills.

    Malkin + Donahue can so easily do this to any and all candidates with any record of passionately expressing opinion, either online of offline.  Even a botched joke can be twisted into something absurd.  No amount of vetting can prevent these bottomfeeders from digging up something.

    Again, Obama freezing out FoxNews is a good start.  Every Dem has to act like Clinton did with Chris Wallace.  It's now or never.

  •  What a joke (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    The right wing candidates hire, and some of them are not only offensive, but despicable.

    One of McCains' people says that the US is "a Christian Nation".

    Brownback wants to keep religion in politics and says so openly.

    Gingrinch says that the biggest threat
    'is from the courts and secularists who reject the reality that God defines America" and "America is defined by its relationship to God." '

    Then you've got those that they pander to: the misogynistic, anti-homosexual, anti-birth control, anti-abortion, anti-sexual freedom, anti-secular, anti-cultural liberalism, pro-theocracy trash of humanity and her views are offensive?

    No, her vitriol and anger is well-placed and correct. You want to know what's offensive? The right wing attempting to destroy our liberal, Secular, rights-respecting America. That's offensive.

    Palpably Extant: the death of the 4th estate.

    by spencerh on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 08:45:39 PM PST

  •  Call it "Republican Radio" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShadowSD, YestoWes
    Today while driving home from work I listened to a bit of Milwaukee's favorite radio extremist.  Mark Belling is a frequent guest host for Rush (Tune In Friday!) and he said something about "conservative radio".

    It suddenly struck me that the phrase Conservative Radio gives them way too much cover.  Let's call a spade a spade and call it Republican Radio.  I am strongly convinced that this change in phrasing will expose their power plays for the partisan hackery that it is.

    "Conservative Bloggers"
    "Conservative magazines"

    all of it is just Republican blather and needs to be labelled as such.  Put the burden on them to explain why they are not Rpublican outlets.  Anybody can be "conservative", I happen to know that there are quite a few self-described "conservatives" on this very site working their little hearts out to help us return America to the people.  When Mr. Un-engaged American hears the source is Conservative Radio, he thinks, "I'm kind of conservative, maybe that is my opinion too."  If it is clearly marked as "Republican radio said..."  he thinks, "I'm proudly unaffiliated, they better make a darn good case if they want me to get on board."

    Go forth and shout REPUBLICAN RADIO to the rooftops.

    •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

      What of Air America with their "progressive radio"?  Have you ever listened to that?  The hostile, vile, personal attacks are astounding.  Stephanie Miller can't go a single day without resorting to playground-style attacks (listening to her you'd think that the guy's legal name was "human sharpei Brit Hume"), Randi Rhodes does nothing but whine for four solid hours without ever presenting something of substance, and the Young Turk holds the opinion that popular opinion is more important than solid scientific theory.

      It gets pretty tiresome when people incessantly complain about what plays forth on "conservative radio"  when a) they never actually listen to it and derive all of their "information" from highly edited sound bites and b) never present any intelligent counters or debate.  I've probably listened to more Air America than the collective listening to the "conservative radio" by 80% of the people here.  I've heard firsthand what Rush has said then listened to Air America's hostettes place a nasty and factually untrue spin on it the very next day.

      Now, don't think for even a second that I simply blindly embrace ~that~ kind of radio: anybody with a brain can tell within 30 seconds that Sean Hannity is a pompous windbag with no debating skills or capacity for rational thought.

      I only wish there was a show co-hosted by Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh - if only the other so-called "progressive voices of reason" on Air America had even an ounce of that guy's class.

  •  Best post I've seen on this issue yet (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YestoWes

    nice job

    JRE 2008
    "We should ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."
    -John Edwards

    by DrFrankLives on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 09:04:31 PM PST

  •  the next target on the Edwards campaign... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Maura in VA, YestoWes

    I wonder if the wingers will go after Edwards for bringing Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL (Nat'l Abortion Rights Action League), on board as a campaign advisor on women's rights and how he'll handle that.  After all, I'm sure Donahue et al would say her presence is at least as alienating to Catholics as a couple of bloggers.  

    Edwards should have put Donahue in his place right from the start.  He is pure poison.  

  •  My small comment to the Edwards campaign (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ciccina, YestoWes

    Sent via form on their website tonight:

    Because of your stance on poverty and inclusiveness, I had almost decided to support you for president.  Surely the issues you have raised are the very ones the Bible, as I read it, calls on us to address.  However, your failure to immediately stand behind Amanda and Melissa has caused me to rethink my support.  Surely the rantings of those modern-day pharisees among us - those who leap to the street corner and proclaim loudly their Christian faith, even while crushing the poor, causing hatred and division, and doing the very opposite of what we are called on to do - cannot be counted higher than those committed to your, our, cause.  I'm not sure what kind of person would stand idly by while his allies twist in the wind, but that isn't the kind of person I would support.

  •  Two points from two of my diaries (0+ / 0-)

    (1) Kagro, read the comments to my diary of Monday.  Some good diversity of opinion there.

    (2) This diary is exactly why I think that people should open register themselves as supporters of given primary candidates somewhere on the site.  No offense against anyone here, but I don't know if the people defending Edwards are pro-Edwards people (and I still lean that way) and if the people attacking him are devoted to other candidates, who -- quite against the spirit of your diary -- see this as a good way to wound him.  I end up inclined to disregard much of what is said here because I don't know if people commenting have ulterior motives for their positions because of how this might shape primary battles.  And that is an unDKosian shame.

    My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

    by Major Danby on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 01:50:00 AM PST

  •  Bloggers have the right to free speech (0+ / 0-)

    And readers also have the right to stongly disagree with what they've said.  

    Donohue would never vote democratic party.  He's in this fight to stir up some poison for the dems, using desecration as his opening blow. He's a republican tool.

    The professional bloggers are being held to their words.  

  •  Sorry, but Clinton, Obama et al are (0+ / 0-)

    under no obligation to sacrifice their own political capital to bail Edwards out of his own mistake.

  •  free speech has it's consequences.... (0+ / 0-)

     Catholics take their religion and their votes seriously, and don't
    appreciate ill-considered remarks about teachings they consider
    important. Neither do they expect everyone else to agree with them
    on issues. Smart-mouthed remarks aren't going to do John Edwards
    any good at this sensitive point in his campaign. A little civility on
    the part of his staffers will serve him well.

     

  •  Donahue imagining oral sex on a statue of MLK (0+ / 0-)

    Here's a clip of Bill Donahue being confronted by Louis C.K. on the Opie and Anthony Show talking about vulgar and obscene behavior.  Louis C.K. has a problem with Bill criticizing stuff he's never seen (with regards to his HBO show) During the argument Donahue tries to make a point and out of the comes up with an example of a white guy performing oral sex on a statue of MLK with an erection.

    This was near the end of January. So, just on the eve of Black History Month.

    Check out minute 7:34 on the YouTube clip below:
    http://www.youtube.com/...

    This is how this guys imagination works.  On the same show he also makes a joke about man/horse sex.  It's not on this clip but it was during the same show.  This guy shouldn't be criticizing anyone for anything they say.  HE'S A CRAZY RIGHT-WING HOLIER THAN THOU HYPOCRITE!!!

    What would Jesus Do? He would impeach Bush.

    (-6.75, -3.85)

    by mapKY on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 07:54:53 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site