Yesterday, a conservative Christian group demanded the firing of two bloggers hired by John Edwards' campaign based on claims that their past writings were vulgar and bigoted. Today, John Edwards has fired both bloggers [Updated] has fired both bloggers, according to a report on Salon.com. (See corrections below.) I would like to share the reactions of two of my colleagues at the Rockridge Institute, who commented on very different aspects of this case study of political communication.
First, I got an insider's account of what campaigns face from a successful political strategist who has led campaigns that challenged the character of George W. Bush and the actions of Tom Delay. Then, I listened to another perspective on the matter, focusing on the ethical responsibilities of political leaders. I hope you'll take a look at both perspectives, then share your own.
The blogosphere has been abuzz since Bill Donohue, president of the right-wing Catholic League, made the allegations about bloggers Amanda Marcotte of the blog Pandagon and Melissa McEwan of the blog Shakespeare's Sister, which were reported in the New York Times. Blogging at ABC News, Terry Moran amplified the criticism and publicized six quotes from Amanda Marcotte's blog. Moran characterized the quotes as follows:
"It's pretty strong stuff; her comments about other people's faiths could well be construed as hate speech."
For analysis of the dynamics of this type of political communication, I first turned to a new addition to the Rockridge Institute, Glenn Smith. As a Senior Fellow at Rockridge, Glenn brings years of experience in politics, journalism, and online activism. A lifelong Texan, he managed Ann Richards' successful campaign for governor and later drew national attention to questions about George W. Bush’s military service record. He also managed the MoveOn.org project that opposed the redistricting efforts of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. He also has experience working as a political journalist for the Houston Chronicle and other newspapers.
Glenn's response to the incident focuses on what organizations such as the Catholic League seek to achieve through such charges and how campaigns react:
"The attack on John Edwards' bloggers, like all political attacks, is intended to eat up the precious time resource of the campaign. Sure there are substantive elements – an outraged complainer, volatile issues of politics and religion – but political attacks should be looked at as bullets intended to keep a campaign's heads down.
We have evolved an entire language to describe the quickening pace of campaigns and news cycles – rapid response, war room – but too often we forget to really practice what we preach.
Every attack should be regarded as an attack on the time resource of a campaign – or the time resources of supporters or concerned activists, in this case progressive bloggers. Thought of in this way, there's a critically important reason to reduce the amount of time you use up to deal with it.
Edwards acted within a day or so. Kind of slow, really. Bloggers spent too much time fretting over the issue.
What's interesting is putting the time pressure on ourselves helps us focus more clearly and be harder hitting in our response to attacks.
Of course, it doesn't hurt to keep the time element in mind when mounting political attacks."
While Glenn focuses on the dynamic aspects of political communication, our executive director, Bruce Budner, addresses the ethical responsibilities of progressive candidates. Here Bruce responds to a posting by Chris Bowers on the influential blog MyDD:
"Weighing in on the John Edwards blogger controversy, Chris Bowers on MyDD argues that candidates need not bear responsibility for the past writings of those they hire. I'm normally a big fan of what Chris Bowers has to say. But here I completely disagree with him. When a candidate makes high-profile hires—especially when hiring people who will speak for him on the blogs—he should ensure that those people represent his values.
Didn't many on the left criticize John McCain when he populated his top staff positions with an assortment of dirty tricksters? Haven't we used these hires to question his integrity? Why then do some of the same critics rush to the defense of the bloggers hired by John Edwards, some of whose writings represent very questionable judgment? Whether or not tossing around labels like 'Christofascist,' as one of them apparently has done, ought to be a disqualifier for representing a presidential candidate, that language serves only to divide and alienate. It doesn't advance discussion of the important issues of the day and it fails to convey even a modicum of respect for people with deeply held views.
I also fail to understand the implied argument by some defenders of the bloggers that we should overlook these prior writings because the public critics are right-wing hypocrites. These bloggers should be judged by what they have written, not by who first cries foul.
Let's hold all the presidential candidates to the same high standard. Let's demand of them that they hire people who uphold the highest values of honesty and respect. And if they fall short of these standards, let them pay the price."
The questions about those hired by John McCain were raised by Media Matters, among others, in its commentary on Terry Moran's coverage of the bloggers for Edwards.
Setting aside for the moment who you might favor or oppose in the next presidential campaign, what lessons do you think progressives can learn from this case?
Correction: It appears that on MyDD Matt Stoller, not Chris Bowers, stated most directly that campaigns should not judge bloggers for all of their writing prior to joining the campaign. Bruce was responding to Chris Bowers' posting, which contained the following update by Matt Stoller:
"UPDATE [by Matt]: When I was hired by the Corzine campaign, right-wing blogs dug through my past and tried to smear me with what I had written. It hurt and it sucked, but the campaign ignored it to their credit. Obviously there were differences between Corzine in 2005 and a Presidential candidate. My point is that candidates don't have to take responsibility for what their bloggers or staffers say while not under their employ unless they make the decision to do so." [emphasis added]
I hope that this correction is clear.
Second Correction: Contrary to a report at Salon.com that John Edwards had fired the two bloggers, CNN and other news sources are now reporting that Edwards has issued a statement that indicates that they will remain on his campaign staff.
Written by Evan Frisch, an employee of the Rockridge Institute, who blogs as evan_at_rockridge at the Rockridge Nation blog, where this is cross-posted.