Skip to main content

Think the Edwards campaign's blog troubles ended with Amanda Marcotte's resignation? Think the Edwards campaign's blog troubles end with Edwards?

Think again.

As predicted, right wing activists have detected in the sheepish silence of the other Democratic presidential campaigns an opportunity to separate yet more top contenders from the herd, and turn Democrats against Democrats.

First on the block: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Congratulations, geniuses. And best of luck to you.

The self-proclaimed "Catholic-based advocacy group" Fidelis has sent essentially identical letters to Clinton (PDF) and Obama (PDF), demanding that they:

publicly condemn the anti-Catholic and anti-Christian blog posts by Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, who serve as official bloggers for the John Edwards for President Committee, and call for their immediate dismissal.

And what happens if Clinton and Obama refuse? Why, they'll be attacked as "anti-Catholic and anti-Christian," of course. Or at least, that's the unarticulated threat implicit here:

As one of the leading candidates pursuing the Democratic nomination for President, I believe you are in a unique position to make clear that anti-Catholic and anti-Christian bigotry of any kind should not be tolerated by any candidate. By taking up this issue publicly, you will be able to distinguish your candidacy from Mr. Edwards, while acknowledging the respect due people of faith in America, and in particular, Catholics and Christians.

This is almost precisely what I feared the other day, when I wrote:

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....

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....

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.

Too late for that now, though.

And to no one's surprise, this morning the same m.o. (i.e., Michelle Malkin's bleating about Obama's "wasted" lives comment) continues to pay undue dividends.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:49 AM 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

  •  Why Are These People (26+ / 0-)

    taking their cues from the reaction on the Right?

    I'd think the louder the howling, the more you know you're doing something right?

    Oy...

    "Uncle Fredo's gone fishing, son...yeah, that's it..."

    by TheManWithNoPoint on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:47:34 AM PST

    •  What cues have they taken from the right? (6+ / 0-)

      is there some news here other than an "if"?

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

      by Cheez Whiz on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:52:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Who are they? They're LIARS! (14+ / 0-)

      Who really believes Fidelis won't again attack the Democratic candidates as anti-Catholic/Christian if their demands are not carried out?

      Because, next it will be about abortion, then gay marriage, then another thing and another. Pretty soon you'd have the whole Democratic Party apologizing for its platform! These types never quit.

      The 1st candidate tells Fidelis, "screw you" or words to that effect in the strongest of terms will probably get my primary vote!

      timendi causa est nescire

      by vassmer on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:02:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Right Wing (10+ / 0-)

        will never praise the Democratic candidates, so I have no idea what the Fucking Fuss is all about.

        The mainstream of America is with Edwards' views, not against them, and I am just amazed at how the Democratic party is so easily intimidated by RightScreamMachine...

        It's disheartening...

        "Uncle Fredo's gone fishing, son...yeah, that's it..."

        by TheManWithNoPoint on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:09:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  They're already there (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boofdah, vassmer, esquimaux, I, Judge Moonbox
        What was the attack on Kerry by a handful of ultra-right bishops who were goaded on by Pope Rat (go on, call me "anti-Catholic" - my best friend, a devout Catholic, called me in tears the day of his election, virtually suggesting we off him) but an attempt to demonize anyone who did not believe in imposing Catholic doctirne on everyone?

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

        by anastasia p on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:36:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sad. Why are they silent about Giuliani? (12+ / 0-)

          Funny though, the Pope and Fidelis are quiet about Giuliani, Pataki, and Schwarzenegger taking Communion and calling themselves Catholic when they are rather pro-choice. Giuliani has been married, 3 times (OK the cousin doesn't count) and the Catholic Church doesn't sanction having a mistress nor divorce. Hypocrites.

          Here is the pope's document:

          http://catholicculture.org/...

          timendi causa est nescire

          by vassmer on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:54:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because he is Republican (0+ / 0-)

            They do not attack their own.  Their primary will take care of that but most attacks are saved for Democrats.  And the Left joins in criticizing its own.

            I do think it unrealistic for campaigns to support other candidates, but I think the attacks should be about the RW and not belittling our side.

            It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

            by pioneer111 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:06:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Deatn Penalty evil only in odd years? (0+ / 0-)

          What was the attack on Kerry by a handful of ultra-right bishops who were goaded on by Pope Rat (go on, call me "anti-Catholic" - my best friend, a devout Catholic, called me in tears the day of his election, virtually suggesting we off him) but an attempt to demonize anyone who did not believe in imposing Catholic doctirne on everyone?

          That depends: does Catholic doctrine really say that the Death Penalty violates the Sanctity of Life only in odd-numbered years? I haven't taken an exact count, but I'd be very surprised if someone who did found that their anti-DP statements weren't much much more numerous when there's no Presidential or Congressional election coming up.

      •  The answer to their attacks is simple.. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        decitect, happy camper, creeper

        "If you don't agree with my positions, don't vote for me. If you think that my programs and policies will be good for the country, vote for me. That is what this campaign is about, not whether or not a radical religious group(Catholics HATE being called radicals, hehehe) likes the candidate. If they don't like me, they won't vote for me. I believe in freedom of religion, as stated in the Constitution. It's too bad they don't." Then smile sweetly and ask for the next question.

        What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

        by Demfem on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:19:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is kind of a tempest in a teapot, I think.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joesig, pioneer111

        Clinton/Obama/other campaigns aren't involved and the issue isn't that big.  Most people including most Dem primary voters will have no idea what they're talking about if they bring it up!

        I get the feeling the blogosphere is always on the hunt for a good test case, in which a lefty blogger is 100% unfairly attacked by the right wing noise machine & the demand is for our Democratic candidates to all come to the blogger's defense.  

        I don't think Marcotte is the test case you're looking for, her comments are waaaayyyy too uncivil - she's a smart person and doesn't need to use such polarizing language, unless the intention is to polarize.  One can perfectly well write a coherent piece opposing the Catholic church's stance on certain issues without managing to tell everyone who is Catholic that they believe in "Ancient Mythologies" and calling all her critics misogynist and sexist on top of it.

    •  Maybe Fidelis will protest Cons too (4+ / 0-)

      Conservatives like Alan Keyes activist Fran Eaton (Illinois "Review", Chicago Tribune and London Telegraph) and talking bow-tie Tucker Carlson have made anti-Christian comments against Barrack Obama's church. Maybe Bill Donohue will demand those anti-Christians be fired.

      What a bunch of hypocritical turds.

      •  Are they a 501(c)(3)? Then they've broke the law (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quanta

        The Donohue nutballs have DoSed Pandagon in an apparent attempt to keep people from copying the filled-out IRS form template that Auguste provided.

        They reckoned without me.

        Come here to get your form and the instructions on how to fill it out.  If Fidelis is a 501(c)(3) as well, use this to nail them.

    •  I love these guys (17+ / 0-)

      My response to my fellow "catholics" on the right is:

      I will consider your request to condemn John Edwards as soon as we address the Vatican's concerns regarding:

      Poverty;
      Justice;
      Hunger;
      Thirst;
      Peace;
      Human dignity;

      (You can fill in the rest)

      Jesus Christ gave the Sermon on the Mount and said:
      Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

      So lets start with the most important concerns by joining me, the Vatican and Pope John Paul II in condemning George W. Bush for the Iraq war.

      •  This is exactly right (0+ / 0-)

        They need to clean their own laundry first, and then they can start pointing fingers.  This is the exact right response to shut these hypocrites up.

        When they condemn GWB for warmongering, I will be happy to condemn Edwards for hiring a blogger who said mean things about Catholics.

        No wonder they may have said mean things if they let this kind of hypocrite speak for Catholics.

        Catholics have good things they support, I don't know why they are letting this asshat speak for them, except as cheap political points by and for conservatives.

        9/11 didn't change the Constitution!

        by Prof Dave on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:33:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  oh heck (0+ / 0-)

          We're hypocrites too. If, say, McCain's bloggers had written something as odious to us as what the Pandagon people had written, we'd be all over his campaign like shit on toilet paper.

          Troll rate me or whatever you want, but face it -- what came from that Web site pretty much disqualified the authors from working on a presidential campaign. If Edwards's people had seen that stuff before they were hired, I can't imagine that would have been hired. If you've got a Web site and you free your Id to write whatever you want, outside of any boundaries of civil discourse and without regard to the possible consequences, your words may get thrown back at you. All that's happening now is that the campaign is being squeezed from both sides.

          Yeah, the reaction from the right has been typically over the top and sadly about as far from a "Christian" response as you could get. But my goodness, we would totally be doing the same thing if the shoe had been on the other foot. Something similar will almost certainly happen from the progressive side in the next year or two.

          •  But we aren't doing the same thing (0+ / 0-)

            and that is my point.

            We should rail at them and stop being pinatas for Republicans with an agenda.  We only help the most reationary among them by letting them dictate terms and beat us mercilessly.

            Why do we let them?  Why not pound them in their weak spots?  

            We could just let them keep doing it, but if we don't put our side out there, they own the field.  I am tired to doing battle on their field.  We can tilt the field our direction if we choose, and we just have to knock them - just like Obama did with PM of Australia.  Truth always knocks these guys on their butts, as far as I am concerned.  We don't have to fight for their partisans, just for the middle.

            9/11 didn't change the Constitution!

            by Prof Dave on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 05:45:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Check out the comments at newsblog.net (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheManWithNoPoint

      if you want to see "Democrats" attacking Edwards even worse than Donohue ever did. It seems like the "pure" Democrats have totally fallen for Donohue's scheme.

    •  I'm not so sure... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ihlin, daria g, Yoshimi, Jim2131, creeper

      Initially I supported Edwards keeping the Bloggers on staff, so long as he wasn't so insulted by them personally that he wanted to fire them (which he didn't).

      But that idiot Marcotte, and yes, she's an IDIOT to still be blogging on her own site AS A PAID EMPLOYEE OF A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ESPECIALLY AFTER THE LAST WEEK THAT SHE LIVED THROUGH, couldn't help herself and posted some review of Children Of Men (which is excellent BTW)

      But why? She's (was) a paid spokesperson of a preisdential campaign. Its not Rocket Science.

      SHUT.YOUR.DAMN.MOUTH.

      And, look, I'm agnostic, but lets be honest, what she wrote was really inflamatory to some people. And, as a paid staffer of a campaign, what you write is reflective upon that campaign.

      And, while a lot of this was driven by the Right Wing hit machine, it would be a disservice to folks on the Left who were insulted by the Blogger to chalk it up to Right Wing nuts.

      Take this blurb from the Politico.

      Brian O'Dwyer, a New York lawyer and Irish-American leader, who attacked Edwards the first time round, just came out with a statement:

      "The blogger’s continuing hostility to Catholics and other Christians, especially in the centrality of the Virgin birth, is both morally wrong and, for Senator Edwards, politically stupid. Senator Edwards was horribly flawed in refusing to see the importance of how offensive the blogger’s earlier comments were to people of faith. This latest so-called review, published after Edwards refused to fire her for earlier anti-Catholic writings, should now wake him up and lead him to finally do the right thing as his campaign tries to move forward. Bigotry of any kind should have no role in the Democratic Party, or in any presidential campaign."

      O'Dwyer, also, is hard to cast as a GOP hitman. He's the chairman of the National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, the Democratic Party's official white-ethnic grouping; close to some labor union leaders; and a leading member of a prominent New York Democratic family.

      Get Smarter - Laugh Doing It www.greenmountainpolitics1.blogspot.com

      by Monday Morning Clacker on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:02:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is as big of test for Obama and Clinton (8+ / 0-)

    as the whole blogger thing was for Edwards.

    If they aren't willing to stand up to these smear-mongers they will invite more and more attacks.

    "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

    by bawbie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:48:40 AM PST

    •  You are right, with the caveat (6+ / 0-)

      that you don't want to over-react and end up drawing more attention to a non-issue.  It's a balancing act made all the more difficult b/c of the stenographer's traditional media's willingness to print whatever comes out of a wingnut's mouth.

      Yeah, I'm trying out this blogging thing, too.

      by MLDB on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:53:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why should they stand up for something Edwards (14+ / 0-)

      didn't do?  He needed to marginalize Donuhue as soon as the smear started.  Period.

      If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will.

      by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:57:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If they join with Donahue and others (8+ / 0-)

        in condemning Edwards for this, then they have legitimized the attack on Edwards and indicated that it's OK for far right groups to inject smears in the Democratic campaign.

        "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

        by bawbie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:03:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They're not condemning Edwards--they're (6+ / 0-)

          letting him deal with his own mess that he created for himself by hiring a loose cannon like Marcotte in the first place.

          Not their job to bail out their principal rival for the nomination.

          •  Fidelis is asking them to condemn Edwards (7+ / 0-)

            I'm saying that refusing to do so is a major plus for Obama and Clinton, and the whole democratic party.

            I have no problem with Obama and Clinton (and others) keeping their mouth shut on this issue.

            "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

            by bawbie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:08:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Geekesque (4+ / 0-)

            you are starting go a little overboard. So now you are saying what Donohue did is okay because he did it to the rival of your candidate? Who cares how the other guy is taken out right, as long as your guy is okay? This is attitude is barely tolerale on partisan lines, but when you bring that attitude to an internal party rivalry? You really think that in the long run good for anybody? Donohue and his ilk have nothing but contempt for anybody on this side, and by shrugging your shoulders when he does that to a candidate on you side of the isle because it is not affecting your guy?

            Hey about the 3,000 lives wasted controversy, wow can't believe Barak brought that on himself. How fucking stupid can he be? What sort of loose cannon in his camp wrote that speech (you can respond to this with facts, but this smear is no less legitimate to then the one against Edwards regarding Marcotte).

            This acrimony between supporters of the different candidate is bordering on being pathetic. You guys are acting worse the overly competitive fan boys at a convention. Stick to the issues and the points, save the personal fouls and sneaky elbows for the general election. (this is coming from an undeclared voter).

            •  You are misinterpreting me. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              adigal, Sam I Am, ShadowSD, PhillyGuy03

              What I am saying is that Obama and Clinton have no obligation to speak out in defense of Edwards on this matter.

              Edwards did not come in to defend them against Fox News or John Howard.

              Donohue is a vile rightwing lying POS propagandist.  

              •  Well you see (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pioneer111

                some comments are easier to misinterpret then others, it appeared to me you were kind of blaming the victim.

                The funny thing about a smear, every supporter of a candidate thinks there guy is immune, this is a delusion. Not one candidate, particularly on the Dem side is immune, because a smear does not need truth or facts to work.

                It just needs and echo chamber. So if one smear is tolerated by other potential targets when it hits someone else, it'll make the one that hits them, seem legitimate.

                Kind of like the Nazi threat, first they come after someone else, I did nothing, yadda, yadda... you know the rest.

                •  Remember the madrassa double smear? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  adigal

                  Obama knows exactly what the smear machine is capable of.  And you don't think HRC knows what they're capable of?  Two words:  Vince Foster.

                  They've faced those smears, and they took care of their own business.

                  This is Edwards' problem, and he needs to show that he can clean it up himself.

                  People act like this is the first time any of the Big Three have been smeared by the rightwing noise machine.

                  No, it's the first time John Edwards has been the target, and he has to play by the same rules that Clinton and Obama do.

                  •  The Madrassa smear (0+ / 0-)

                    that took care of itself, CNN on its own addressed it because it was so over the top. However the more subtle smear about 3,000 lives wasted, worked effectively.

                    As far as Vince Foster, lets stay current, that happened when they were in office, not in an election and it died on its own (except in the minds of RW retards). Also, with all due respect, Fox news was only just warming up (ask Al Gore). I am not saying that Clinton is not effective at responses, but let us be clear here, unsubstantiated murder charges against first ladies, do not exactly get to the swing vote and anyone who did buy into those smears, are lost causes. Those were ridiculous about real terrible things (murder and going to terroist school). This was about some comments laced with a little profanity said way back when on a blog by a recent addition of Edwards staff. It was about nothing. Let us be clear here. Your points are not as strong as you think.

                    And by the way, you know those sex scandals of Clinton that the right made hay of, did not excactly disappear, and the Lewinsky matter, did in fact draw blood. Those were smears of a less tin foil hat nature (still unfair, but not complete fantasy). The right wing has managed to milk those sacred cows for all its worth.

                    So let us be clear on the facts, not compare apples and oranges.

                    •  The point remains is that it has NEVER been (0+ / 0-)

                      the ground rules that primary opponents bail each other out when their campaign screws up and runs into difficulty.

                      Let's remember the origin of this mess:  John Edwards' campaign didn't do its due diligence on the bloggers it hired.

                      The wingnuts of course exploited it, but only because Edwards slipped up.

                      It is unreasonable to expect that Obama and Clinton would let themselves get dragged into this and expend their own political capital to bail Edwards out.

            •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mataliandy

              All of the Dem candidates should have banded together and launched a counterattack to show the right that if they try to interfere in a Dem primary they are only going to unify our party and that we are going to hit back and with force.

              Its like dealing with a kid.  They start with something small testing their bounderies.  If you don't correct them early they are only going to get worse and worse until they start to really misbehave.  That is the right wing mentallity.  You've got to show those SoB's whose the boss.

              "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 Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:46:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't say "join with Donahue". (5+ / 0-)

          Don't put words into my mouth.

          My issue is with Edward's wimpy response to Donahue and NOW it becomes every Democrat's problem.  I have no problem if the other candidates keep their mouths shut on this but I do have a problem if they do attack Edwards.

          If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will.

          by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:08:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If a Dem hopeful attacks or distnaces himself (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pioneer111

            or herself from Edwards then as the new Vox Populi, the progressive internets in no uncertain terms declare that candidate as dead in the water. This self-immolation has got to stop. It is what allowed Arnold to win the governors race in Cali.

            •  "Distance?" They're OPPONENTS (0+ / 0-)

              in a primary contest.

              For Pete's sake.

              •  Yes, but they won't always be. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Phoenix Woman

                And when the primary campaign is over and the general is underway, everyone who didn't get nominated will be expected to campaign for the winner.

                Insofar as we continue to use wingnut attacks to jockey for position in this race, do we also invite the same wingnuts to render the also-rans toxic on the general election campaign trail?

                •  Is Fidelis a 501(c)(3) like Donohue's org? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Geekesque

                  Then we can do this to them, too:

                  The Donohue nutballs have DoSed Pandagon in an apparent attempt to keep people from copying the filled-out IRS form template that Auguste provided.

                  They reckoned without me.

                  Come here to get your form and the instructions on how to fill it out.

                •  Again, there were no calls here (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  diplomatic

                  for Edwards to speak out when a major television network pushed the madrassa smear.

                  Why?

                  Because Obama and Clinton handled their own business.

                  •  Because that attack fell flat (0+ / 0-)

                    It gained no ground because CNN debunked it.  That attack did squat to hurt Obama and may have even strengthened him.  The right wing will try again later.  Right now they are just testing the water and trying to find attacks that work.  If the Madrassa attack had gained ground then I would have been calling for other candidates to come to Obama's aid since that type of attack is a disgusting smear and has no place in a Dem primary or any election for that matter.

                    "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 Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:03:24 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, because Obama handled it himself. eom (0+ / 0-)
                      •  So why are you complaining about Edwards (0+ / 0-)

                        not helping Obama then?  He handled that himself because CNN debunked it for him.  Attacks like that only work when you have an echo chamber.  The attack wasn't echoed in the rest of the MSM beyond FOX.  So Edwards had no need to help Obama since Obama needed no help.  So my question is why are you complaining that Edwards didn't help Obama when clearly Obama needed no help?

                        There is no double standard here as you seem to think.  If the Madrassa attack had legs then Edwards should have helped Obama as should have all the other candidates since that type of attack has no merit and serves only to damage the party as a whole, but the attack had no legs.  The attack on Edwards does have legs, though it does not have merit.  So helping Edwards now is an entirely different situation.  The candidates cannot allow the right wing to divide our party.  It is as simple as that.  A divided party fails in the general election.

                        "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 Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:22:34 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It is Edwards' problem. Not Obama's. Not (0+ / 0-)

                          Clinton's.

                          They are in a primary contest.

                          I don't think it was wrong of Edwards to stay out of the madrassa smear.

                          I think it's wrong to hold Clinton and Obama accountable for something that is not their problem.  It's downright silly to expect people in a heated primary battle to expend political capital to bail each other out from campaign errors.

                          •  But it is there problem (0+ / 0-)

                            This is just the start of the right wing assult.  It will get worse and worse as time goes on and it will not be only Edwards.  In the end if nothing is ever done then our party will end up divided and all the candidates damaged.  If we stop it now we can avoid this.  We need a strong united party come time for the general election.  The mentality that it is the other guy's problem plays into the right's hand.  They seek to divide and conquer.  No candidate is as strong against attacks alone as they are together as the party as a whole.  We need our party to get through this primary in one piece so we can survive the general election.

                            "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 Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:43:02 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think HRC needs folks on the netroots to (0+ / 0-)

                            tell her about rightwing propaganda and smears.

                            If the candidate in question handles it appropriately, then this kind of mini-scandal blows over without influencing anything.

                            They are not that strong.  

                    •  That is nonsense (0+ / 0-)

                      That madrassa smear lasted for days and still lingers.  No one came to Obama's "aid" and it went far more publicly than this blogger situation which is largely a below the radar story. It is hypocritical to criticize Obama for not coming to Edwards' defense in "blogger-gate" when Edwards, Clinton, et al were silent during the madrassa smear.  You cannot rationally sustain that argument.

                  •  My answer? (0+ / 0-)

                    Because I missed it.

                    The answer from others is probably a lot closer to exactly what I was describing.

                    But clearly the answer to this isn't, "He started it."

                •  Wingnut attacks.. (0+ / 0-)

                  It'll happen regardless - that's what the right wing does.  It is what it is.  In this instance frankly I don't even see how anyone else in the Dem field used the attacks to jockey for position, this was entirely fed by the conservative blogosphere.  

                  And I can hardly fault the other campaigns for staying clear of a blogosphere shitstorm when they aren't involved in it.  I mean how politically stupid would it be?  When your opponent is drowning, surely the answer isn't to jump overboard yourself!

                  (FWIW I'm an Edwards supporter.)

              •  Your mentality is out dated (0+ / 0-)

                That sort of DLC bs thinking is what costs us elections.  This is not a game and its importance goes beyond any one candidate.  Republican attacks like this serve to divide and polarize our own party.  We cannot have that come general election time.  If a candidate does something stupid or corrupt like taking a hawkish position on Iran then others can let that candidate stew, but this is not that type of situtation.  

                This is the right making a bs attack on one of the candidates.  The subject of the attack is a non issue.  The only thing standing aside will do is damage Edwards and isolate him from the rest of the field.  That may seem great for the other candidate until its their turn.  In the end, if we don't unite to put a stop to this kind of crap, each of the candidates will be isolated from eachother and will have suffered severe damage from the right wing attacks.  It is divide and conquer and so far the candidates are playing right into the right wings hand.

                "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 Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:59:02 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Obama has stood up to the RW smear (7+ / 0-)

      machine again and again and again.

      Ask Fox News and John Howard.

      During the primary process, candidates need to show that they're tough enough to protect themselves.

      Clinton has stood up to these assholes over and over.

      If Edwards is fit to be the nominee, he'll figure out a way to do it himself.

      If not, that's natural selection for you.

    •  Obama obviously doesn't get it--yet (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, decitect, pioneer111

      or he wouldn't have withdrawn his "wasted lives" remark. He should have said something like "yes, I said 'wasted' and meant it--in the context of how this administration has treated these men and women. The administration has wasted them as though they mean nothing."

      It will be a long, long 21 months if we have to watch one or the other of our major candidates apologizing every few days.

      "If we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

      by bently on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:09:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joe B, Sam I Am, ShadowSD

        There's a time to apologize, there's a time to fight, and there's a time to ignore an attack so as not to give it more visibility. The trick is to know which course of action to pick at each given time.

        In this case Obama did the right thing to apologize. Calling dead soldiers' lives "wasted" (even if they were) can be offensive to their relatives and loved ones. It's better that the candidates themselves not engage in that. (Whether or not bloggers and lower level operatives should is another story).

      •  Wasted lives has two meanings (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grendelkhan
        1. Lives cut short for a wasteful cause
        1. Wasted as in better off never having lived

        Obama clearly meant the first, but it is being characterized as the second by people who know that's dishonest but do it anyway.

        That should be Obama's response.

    •  This is a test for bloggers and others (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happy camper

      who are supporters of their candidates.

      The Right Wing smear machine does not come from the Republican candidates.  It comes from RW support groups and challenges our candidates.  We need Left Wing Response groups and challengers.  

      We are contributing to the RW smear machine by calling Edwards "wimpy" or Hillary's response not good enough.  

      Asking for the candidates to join in the fray with these petty groups will distract their campaigns.  The left has not developed a good defense.  We blame Kerry and Edwards and contribute to weakening our side.  No matter what they do they will have armchair quarterbacks criticizing their response when what is needed is attacking the other side.  Kagro X is asking for the campaigns to be supportive of each other.  The participants on this site are vicious with each others candidates.

      Asking the other candidates to be supportive is unrealistic except when a direct question is asked of their campaign.

      The Left has to develop its own effective defense mechanism which it has not done as yet.  

      It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

      by pioneer111 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:20:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If you're Catholic, (16+ / 0-)

    write a letter or an email to all the POTUS candidates and let them know you disagree with Bill Donohue and Fidelis.  We can help provide the candidate some backbone.

    •  As a Catholic, (8+ / 0-)

      I look at Bill Donohue and see a crazy wing-nut.  He doesn't represent me or my ancestors.  I think it is best to just ignore him and his ilk.  BAD PEOPLE; they come in all beliefs and sizes!

    •  But (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      feebog

      I'd like the Catholic Church to account for its institutional hostility to women - who can take this institution seriously in 2007?  Or any of its sycophants?

      Yes, troll away here.  But to miss the inherent regressiveness of this church is to concede it legitimacy, and I won't do that.

      In my opinion, this church is a political organization that should be marginalized for its failure to incorporate basic notions of human rights.  And humans include women.

      •  That may or may not be true, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mjd in florida, Paper Cup

        but it's completely irrelevant to this diary.

        If you want to address this by convincing the entire nation that the Catholic Church is irrelevant, I won't stop you, but I don't believe that is an effective strategy.

        •  Well, let me explain, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          I

          The Catholic Church is certainly not irrelevant but Bill Donohues opinion on political campaigns is not something a church should be involved in, period.  My ancestors came to this country to separate church from state.  There are many varied Catholic opinions/questions as there all in most faiths, but the separation of church/state is very important to most Catholics, at least in my humble experience.

          •  Response (0+ / 0-)

            My point is that this is like looking for "good Republicans" and missing the fact that the GOP is institutionally committed to regressive policies.  The analogy certainly translates to the institution of the Catholic Church, which is FORMALLY committed to the second-class status of women.

      •  This is the problem with freedom of religion (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mjd in florida, I, Judge Moonbox

        Marginalizing the Catholic Church for regressive treatment of women means it's OK to marginalize Muslims (who are already marginalized enough), since their treatment of women is even more regressive in many ways.

        Rather than trying to marginalize the Catholic church (which is really impossible), we should simply point out that Catholics are not an oppressed minority. (It's pretty obvious, anyway.) Only a tiny number of wingnut Catholics who resent the Vatican II reforms truly believe that Catholics are an oppressed minority.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:54:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I would love to take the Catholic Church (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        esquimaux, I

        back to the mid to late 60's. It was really modernizing then and fell flat. I guess I have always taken from it what I accepted, as my ancestors did.  "Judge not", "don't cast stones"  are issues that Donohue has forgotten!

        •  He's also forgotten that Church/state don't mix (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pioneer111, I

          Maybe someone needs to take him and his cohorts to task for that transgression!

          •  This is where we need the Left to attack (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mjd in florida

            I don't know what group can take on Donohue but someone should.

            It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

            by pioneer111 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:28:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Umm, well... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mjd in florida, I

               they don't see it as a transgression. On the contrary, they believe they are obligated to inject religion (theirs) into politics. They should be called on it, but don't expect any acts of contrition.

               They are like protestant fundie wingnuts. They think God approves of/requires this behavior. Don't look for them to shut up any time soon.

            What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

            by happy camper on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:44:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Better yet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      I

       Write a letter to the editor, and express disgust at Rudy Giuliani's flouting of Catholic doctrine by his behaviors and lifestyle choices.

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

      by Buzzer on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:53:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good idea. (0+ / 0-)

        I assume that, just out of habit if nothing else, the GOP will again play the "Party of Values/Party of Faith" card in the '08 election.  You're right, we should get out ahead of that BS.

  •  Someone needs to ask Fidelis (14+ / 0-)

    "If you're so outraged by alleged moral lapses, where were you when your priests were abused all those children?"

    Politicians and diapers need to be changed frequently -- often for the same reason.

    by KnowVox on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:50:19 AM PST

  •  dont we have ANYONE in the Democratic party (10+ / 0-)

    who has the ability to plan strategy? I am not saying that we stoop to the tactics of the Right...but we need SOMEONE who is able to look for Republican weaknesses, or at least come up with some talking points that blows this kind of crap out of the water. Why hasnt anyone stated publicly how Donohue is anti-Semetic???  why are we always REactive and never PROactive???

    Politics is like driving...if you want to go backwards, choose R. If you want to move forward, choose D.

    by fireflynw on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:52:09 AM PST

  •  Call the bishops out (16+ / 0-)

    TIme to throw down the gauntlet, call the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, ask them if Donohue speaks for them, if he speaks for the Church.  We wants to sit in the high seats of the "holy" conducting political hit jobs, then the owners of the seats need to indicate where they stand, who is being fought here.

    •  He Does Speak for Them (13+ / 0-)

      John Paul II stuffed the diocesan hierarchy in the U.S. with ultra-right wingers.  Some positively care less about the teachings of Christ than they do about political victories for Republican Party.  An example of this is Newark Archbishop Myers, who is the head of the Catholic Church in New Jersey.  He openly campaigned for Bush in 2004.

      New Jersey Catholics did not listen to him.

      We are approaching a really big breaking point in the Catholic Church in America, where the leadership continually moves to the right, abandoning the social gospel of the New Testament and fetishizing GOP pseudo-issues instead of following their only doctrinal commandments.

      Something weird is happening to the Catholic community.  I don't know exactly how to describe it in other terms than I have before here.

      I recommended your comment. And then I un-recommended it.

      by bink on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:57:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you have any links for these claims? (0+ / 0-)

        I belong to a pretty progressive Catholic diocese and I don't see an evidence of what you claim.

        If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will.

        by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:59:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's a problem all right. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bink

        The new pope made me (a non practicing Catholic) cringe.  I never bought into the whole dogma about contraception etc, but at least JPII preached openess and love.  This Pope, gah!  I wonder if Vatican II will be undone in another decade.

        I don't know what will happen to the American Catholics.  I'm not sure how loyal they will be if the message is "Obey or ELSE!".  Lots of feminist Catholics out there, even my 60+ year old mom is one.

        We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

        by Fabian on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:05:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The previous pope may have preached (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brooke In Seattle, esquimaux

          openness and love, but as Bink points out, his selections for leadership in the US (and Europe, too) were geared towards those who supported a very strict, traditional, and even punitive interpretation of Catholic teaching.

          Then we get a Pope whose whole life has been about instituting strict doctrine, and there you go. He's really just implementing what JPII wanted to happen.

          •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            stitchmd

            I think that this is one reason that the book The Da Vinci Code resonated with many American Catholics, despite its many and silly errors about Catholicism, Opus Dei, etc.  I think that many, or at least some, people are aware of dark, illiberal forces on the move within their own institution but are unsure what to do about it.

            I recommended your comment. And then I un-recommended it.

            by bink on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:42:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yes - this has been moving along (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bink

        for many years.  I, too, wonder when a real fissure could occur.  Depending on your parish - and especially the pastor, many churches are out of step with the Vatican.  It's just accepted quietly in this country.  But the noise may start one of these days.

        I have no patience with people who grow old at 60 just because they are entitled to a bus pass. Mary Wesley, British novelist

        by xanthe on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:05:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "The GOP's War on Religion" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bink, happy camper

        The GOP has a well financed vendetta against mainstream churches.

        Don't you think all think the "War on Christmas" BS wasn't providing a smokescreen?

      •  It is true (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bink, Gator Keyfitz, barbwires, Prof Dave

        I belonged to a pretty progressive parish.  The focus in the Sermons tended to be about the poor and what we could do to help.  About 10 years ago, the parish priest who was in his 70's finally retired due to ill health.

        He was replaced by a relatively young priest in his 30's who changed the tone.  He began by changing the focus on the poor to the harm done to society by our disrespect for "life" ie abortion.  Then he started speaking about the homosexual agenda.

        I knew that the Catholic Church had strong positions on abortion and homosexuality.  But these were not issues that were discussed and so when people complained about the Catholic Church's position on Abortion or Homosexuality, I would reply those really aren't big issues.  I was wrong.

        I am now a recovering catholic and when people ask me what I believe, I tell them I believe in the Jesus Christ that gave the Sermon on the Mount.  To be short I believe:

        Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
        Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land.
        Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
        Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
        Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
        Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
        Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
        Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

        •  Gay Abortions (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happy camper, bzzd1

          How can you sustain a religion if it confines its teachings to homosexuality and abortion?  Is that enough to keep people interested and keep things relevant?  It's hard to imagine.

          I recommended your comment. And then I un-recommended it.

          by bink on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:28:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is why I left (0+ / 0-)

            Under the original parish priest, he inspired us to get out and volunteer to make our community a better place.  You can inspire me to help someone because it may lead to my salvation.

            When the next guy came along, there was nothing inspirational; just hate.  You can't inspire me to hate someone else because it doesn't improve the community nor does it lead to my salvation.

          •  It is hard to imagine (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bink

               but look how well it works for those wingnut megachurches. Their members absolutely eat it up. The combination of fear and outrage is like a drug to some people. They love the us vs. them aspect of this brand of religion. Their fantasies of persecution are what holds them together.

               It is cultism on a huge scale.

            What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

            by happy camper on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:58:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's true (0+ / 0-)

              I simply don't get it.  Growing up I always felt inspired because we were urged to help people.  I left because the inspiration left when we started demonizing people.

              People ask me why I'm liberal and I tell them that I am liberal because I was raised as a Catholic.

              And now that statement doesn't seem to make anymore sense.

    •  Well (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fly, ActivistGuy, happy camper

      We really need to get into that whole "separation of Church and State" thing, and we'll have to start talking about certain congregations' tax-exempt status.  I wonder if Donohue takes those exemptions?  Hmm.

      It's no wonder the first agency Bush tried to gut was the IRS.

  •  What is so difficult... (12+ / 0-)

    about pointing out the disgusting bigotry of the man who brought all this up in the first place?  Why should anyone be giving anything this man says a moment of consideration?

    The Democrats should come right out and say that they are not going to be bullied by bigots who have no stake in the Democratic primary in the first place.  Here's hoping that they do so...

    The meek shall inherit nothing. -F.Zappa

    by cometman on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:52:45 AM PST

    •  yeah (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      diplomatic

      that is something I never understood. Why is it so difficult to just call them hypocritical and move on?

      What would prevent Captain America from being a hero "Death, Maybe"

      by Doughnutman on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:24:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

           do Rethugs ever care about the objections raised to their regressive bullshit? Of course not! If they are attacked by Democrats they wear it as a badge of honor, and loudly declare that they will NOT be intimidated by godless liberals.

           It's well past the time to take a page out of their playbook. When an apology is issued, the apologizer is then attacked as a flip-flopper with no convictions. I just read Obama's disgusting capitulation re: the 'wasted lives' comment. Why the hell did he not stand by his statement? The wingers don't want to discuss whether these lives were given in vain. That is why they attacked him. He should have made them admit that they support getting troops killed for no gain.

           Republicans see these situations as an opportunity to control the debate. Democrats back down, and look like they are ashamed of their beliefs.

           How many lost elections will it take?

        What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

        by happy camper on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:08:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  A Call to Arms... (6+ / 0-)

    So to speak.
    OK Catholic Kossacks, time to take a stand.
    Let these "Advocacy" groups know that it is not your interests they are advocating.
    Speak out, and let the world and your parishes know where you stand. Make sure your funds are not being funnelled through your tithes to these extremist groups.
    At least they can't call you anti-Catholic.
    They can't, right?

    TFYQA - think For Yourself, Question Authority

    by Niniane on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:53:16 AM PST

  •  I Don't Know (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CrazyHorse, adigal, stagemom, henna218

    All of this seems kind of boring.  If even I find it difficult to focus on, what will the average voter thing?  At this point, I think that this will resonate with potential Clinton supporters even less than the whole Monica Lewinsky pseudo-scandal.

    I recommended your comment. And then I un-recommended it.

    by bink on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:53:54 AM PST

  •  It's the War, Stupid. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orchid314, xanthe, bwintx, stagemom

    A vote for Johnny/Rudi will be a vote for more war.  That's all voter's are going to need to know come '08.  

    And religious person worth their salt (I hope) know the difference between mass killing and minor blogging.  

    No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. - Edward R. Murrow

    by CrazyHorse on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:54:41 AM PST

  •  They don't speak for me (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice in Florida, xanthe, Fabian, arlene

    Your diary appropriately labels these groups as "self proclaimed." There are many Catholic groups to which they are diametrically opposed; they sometimes even "do the dirty work" of some Bishops in reining in the influence of groups like "Voice of the Faithful" and "Pax Christi."

    Demand that the Bishops clarify that they are not speaking for the Church, and demand equal time for Donohue's Catholic opponents when he appears. That will limit his income, and help make the point.

    As for the candidates, they should ignore him.

    •  Pax Christi (5+ / 0-)

      The Detroit Archbishop recently forced the founder of Pax Christi into retirement and took away his parish.

      I don't believe that any headway can be made by aiming at the top of the Catholic hierarchy to get people like the Catholic League to stop this nonsense.  The bishops have made a political investment in the Republican Party.  Many of them care more about this investment than the teachings of Christ.

      The place to aim now is at educated, liberal, Northeastern Catholics in the professional classes and in Catholic academia.  At least as far as this kind of messaging is concerned.

      I recommended your comment. And then I un-recommended it.

      by bink on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:00:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I knew him well (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bink, decitect, esquimaux

        Many of my formative protest experiences were in his presence!

        I am sending a letter instead of my annual contribution to the Bishop's appeal, saying that since so much money has been diverted to political action I will only donate directly to the local charities, and not provide any money directly to my archdiocese any more.

        But of course, there's a problem there, since any parish that doesn't meet its "quota" for the bishops simply gets taxed. There is, however, a critical mass of complaining, non-donating Catholics that can make a difference.

        •  You might want to specify (0+ / 0-)

          that they are NOT supposed to be putting money into political action - they're a CHURCH, not a PAC.

          Maybe a letter to the IRS is in order?

          •  Some good that would do . . . n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  It's complex (0+ / 0-)

            Like the "Faith Based Initiatives" it's often a case of creative bookkeeping. In theory, all political action money is separate. But you can charge the lights and heat, the secretary and the security guards to the regular budget, cost out a little time for your PR guy who proofs the flyers...

            You can't say from the pulpit "Vote for X" (although one of our auxiliary priests did just that) but you can pass out flyers that say "here is the record of the candidates on abortion" after Mass on Sunday.

  •  If Edwards would have marginalized Donuhue (10+ / 0-)

    this story would be dead.

    See Obama's response to John Howard.

    If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will.

    by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:55:20 AM PST

  •  So the right wing (15+ / 0-)

    doesn't like our candidates.

    There's a surprise.  Are they voting in the primary?

    Didn't think so.

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. -- Thomas Jefferson [-4.25, -5.33]

    by GTPinNJ on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:56:33 AM PST

  •  Give em an inch (12+ / 0-)

    They will drag you off the cliff and stomp on your groin.

    When will we ever learn?

    Completely waste your time at NewPairODimes

    by trifecta on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:56:34 AM PST

  •  The plus side (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2, Tuba Les, TomP

    It’s good these people are wasting their ammunition now, nearly two years before the actual election. There’s plenty of time to expose their hypocrisy and foolishness. And it’s easy, just visit Pandagon to see how easy.

    •  Two problems with that (4+ / 0-)

      A.) they aren't going to run out of ammunition.  They always going to have more money than we are, and more money = more "researcher" making shit up and more pr flacks making the MSM believe it.

      B.) As a result of A, those bastards get face-time on the cable news channels.  Pandagon, in the great scheme of things, has an INCREDIBLY limited readership.

      There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton

      by ThirstyGator on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:03:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This place doesn’t :-) (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ThirstyGator, corvo, TomP

        "Pandagon, in the great scheme of things, has an INCREDIBLY limited readership."

        I’m also impressed by how so many people who claim to follow Jesus have basic reading comprehension problems when they regard this story. (Not all—for instance, some fellow Pandagonians take their faith seriously enough to read the Bible and try to follow its precepts.) From my mailbag:

        I pray that I had some small part to play in your “resigning” from the Edwards campaign you libelous fraud!

        That’s from a Vivian Thomas, who also wants me to know that I’m a worthless hag.

        Catholics are concerned about killing unborn children, you stupid bitch. Chop away if it suits you, but we don’t
        have to accept that as moral. That’s why it’s called a religion. Look into it.

        Frankly, if I were a churchy person, this “Look into it” thing would insult me, since R.R. from Tallahassee, FL is all but saying that religion is his excuse to declare his misogyny “moral” so he doesn’t actually have to think and decide what his morality is for himself.

        Amanda,
        after reading your vile screed against Catholics and the Holy Spirit, I just had to see what you looked like. (I envisioned you eyebrow-less, with no visible pupils, and a blank, dead stare.) I see I was correct about the blank, dead stare, but other than that you’re not too bad. I then thought maybe you were mad at God (and by proxy Catholics) for making you ugly, but now I’m figuring you’re just mad at him for making you a woman.

        Annette D’Amato is somewhat right, that I’m angry—but not that I’m a woman, but that people like her have such uncalled for contempt for women. But I am impressed that I gave her a small bit of education. Contrary to what people have been telling her, feminists are not demons without eyebrows (she missed the boar’s teeth and snakes on our heads), but human beings.

        Andy Driggers from Dallas, TX was also so moved by my criticisms of religious anti-choicers, that he wrote:

        Problem with women like you, you just need a good fucking from a real man! Living in Texas myself, I know you haven’t found that real Texan yet. But once your liberal pro feminist ass gets a real good fucking, you might see the light. Until then, enjoy your battery operated toys b/c most real men wouldn’t want to give you the fucking you deserve b/c the shit that would come out of you ears.

        Reminder: Donohue was claiming to be so hurt by my “bigotry”. Yet, for some reason, his supporters write me and they are more interested in telling me that my womanhood is repulsive to them. Interesting—almost as if his claims to speak for Catholicism were in fact dog whistles to scare people about women’s equality.

        As I told some close friends in the days that Donohue was on the news, spraying code words about “get the feminists” (which explains why he roped Shakespeare’s Sister into this, even though she really had nothing to do with any of this—except she’s pro-equality, which is what is really what offends Donohue and all the people who gave that anti-Semite airtime), a good half of my hate mail could be summed up, “You have a pottymouth, you stupid cunt.” An example, from Paul Bernard of Scottsdale, AZ:

        i like the way you trash talk i don’t particularly want to have sex with you but i would like a blow job.

        Right wingers right now are pretending like sexism has nothing to do with me, which is an argument that works if you think a) men get emails about how they need to suck a dick on a regular basis and b) that there’s nothing whatsoever sexist about allowing men to curse but hitting the fainting couch if a woman does.

        Bud Phelps, another person who opposes “bigotry”, as defined by right wing shill Bill Donohue.

        It’s just too bad your mother didn’t abort you. You are nothing more than a filthy mouth slut. I bet a couple of years in Iraq being raped and beaten daily would help you appreciate America a little. Need a plane ticket ?

        Time to wake up and smell reality—real bigots follow the siren call of the fascist right wing. Why would they even bother with liberals and all our equality and human rights and other tedious ideas?

        Romanco De Leone was also moved by Donohue’s poignant claims about insulating the Catholic church from legitimate criticisms.

        YOU RACIST WHORE. FAT UGLY BITCH. SUCK MY LONG COCK ASSHOLE I HOPE YOU KIDS NEVER LIVE AND YOUR PARENTS DIE A TRAGIC DEATH YOU ASSHOLE BITCH!
        I HOPE YOUR WOMB IS BARREN AND YOUR CAREER PLUMMETS TO HELL YOU BITCH

        •  In the great scheme of things ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo

          It really does.  Compared with cable news viewers or NYT readers or talk-radio listeners, yeah, it really does.

          We need to remember that as powerful a force as sites like this are in many of our lives, they represent a tiny subset of the political spectrum.

          There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton

          by ThirstyGator on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:21:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ThirstyGator, esquimaux, TomP

          Amanda should keep on posting these but include the email addresses of her friends.

        •  These should be forward somewhere for publication (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ThirstyGator, happy camper, TomP
        •  Sad but thanks for posting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP
          That sampling of Amanda's email bag really rips the veil off the motivations and thinking behind the campaign against her. When that is the type of response provoked, it's impossible to pretend this isn't about failure to support the most misogynist positions of the church and its underlying hatred of and disgust at any woman who isn't as pure as the blessed virgin.  When you think about it, in a way, priestly celibacy and the church's self-destructive stubbornness about it can be attributed to the repulsion it feels for women -- it doesn't want its holy priests "tainted."

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

          by anastasia p on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:53:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Basically... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            esquimaux

            The Catholic Church is dying in America.  Parishes that used to have 3 priests when I was in school now are lucky to have one.  It's not uncommon for the lone priest to plead for young men to join the priesthood at the end of mass.

            I remember when I was in grade school asking why priests can't marry or why women couldn't join the priesthood and the short answer was (to paraphrase) that it was against tradition.

            My response was that if tradition was that important, then shouldn't all the priests be Jewish carpenters?  I think the nun beat me with a ruler after that, but I've probably repressed the memory.

          •  Next time you see one of these (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ThirstyGator

            you need to wonder what’s in the head of the driver.

            •  Excuse me? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              barbwires

              It's a generically Christian symbol.  Not all Christians are bad, and I don't see why those who are Christian shouldn't be proud of their choice.  It's not like I don't see Air America bumper stickers around town.  Lets not live up to the right's worst portrayal of us.

      •  I agree (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, ThirstyGator, Joe B, TomP

        They have a mighty wurlitzer while we have the kazoo.

        We need our own cable news channel and MSM outlets.

        •  Yes... (0+ / 0-)

          ...but our one advantage for now is that they are on the decline while we are on the ascendancy. The netroots is going to be a force to be reckoned with for literally until the end of the nation, and we're getting a lot stronger as time goes on. We've got a long way to go until our strength starts to plateau. Theirs has already peaked (hopefully).

  •  I'd like to see Edwards (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buckeye BattleCry, cometman

    issue a statement that regrets his blogger's departure.  It should include language and a message that these "fundementalists" may call themselves Catholic, but are not in any way part of the mainstream.

    It would serve the purpose of putting this issue to bed and also to serve notice to fundementalists that they will be called "outside of the mainstream" as part of a mantra...they shouldn't draw so much attention to their "movements" alongside of his candidacy

    •  Doing that would (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      diplomatic, TomP

      only draw attention to them.

      There's nothing to say. A staffer left. People leave campaigns all the time for lots of reasons. If Edwards wants to say he's sorry to see her leave, that's all that needs to be said.

    •  That train has left the station. (6+ / 0-)

      He should have issued such a statement concurrent with the resignation.  Now its too late.  If he issues such a statement at this point it will look like he's just pandering to progressive bloggers to woo back those put off by his actions so far.  It would rightly be seen as calculating and disingenuous.  

      The blame for this mess lies strictly with Edwards, who fumbled the ball by not responding immediately and forcefully to discredit Donohue et al.  By accepting Amanda's resignation so quickly he's tacitly acknowledged the critics were right.  They've tasted blood and now they're more excited than ever.  

      If anyone knows how to handle bullies like Donohue, its Clinton, and Obama showed real strength in his response to the Australian PM.  The only thing Edwards showed is that he's not ready for prime time.  

  •  gotcha, gotcha, gotcha! (8+ / 0-)

    Gonna be a long election, with the right wing puritan squad on the job.  

    Mencken said it well, in his 1917 essay, "Puritanism as a Literary Force":

    There has not been a presidential contest since Jackson's day without its Armageddons, its marching of Christian soldiers, its crosses of gold, its crowns of thorns....Every campaign that we have seen for eighty years has been, on each side, a pursuit of bugaboos, a denunciation of heresies, a snouting up of immoralities.

    •  They Have to Fight Very Hard This Time, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, stagemom, Brooke In Seattle

      they're losing some influence.

      It requires hitting weak easy targets visciously.

      Where else in the world do we see such tactics? Small consolation.

      The Enlightenment's long over.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:03:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So right---- (0+ / 0-)
      Speaking of anti-Catohlicism and bigoted smear campaigns, I was reading about Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic candidate for president the other day, and it puts some of this in perspective. Republicans were releasing photos of the building of the Holland Tunnel claiming that it was a tunnel under the Atlantic being built to bring the Pope from Rome to the U.S. after Smith, a Catholic, was elected. Others claimed he was being already in D.C. being hidden in an underground bunker (maybe the same one Cheney is using now?)

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

      by anastasia p on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:56:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Another key difference between us and them (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Knut Wicksell, TomP, PhillyGuy03

    Republicans are Republicans FIRST and foremost.  Their campaigns will essentially speak with one voice until they get in the weeds of real primary season.  Attack one, you've attacked them all and they all strike back.

    Democrats, on the other hand, are out for their own campaign first, and if one gets attacked they will at the very least step away and remain quiet.  

    Damn shame.

    There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton

    by ThirstyGator on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:00:15 AM PST

    •  Republicans Represent only Two Goals (8+ / 0-)

      Authoritarian society and aristocratic economy.

      Of course they speak with one voice, they're a corporate project.

      Democrats represent human beings. They're a political party.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:05:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

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

      Ever since McGovern showed how it could be done, the Democratic Presidential race has been run as an entrepreneurial operation.  Mondale was the only mainstream guy (ex VP) in the long run who didn't come somewhere from nowhere -- Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, even Kerry).  Obama is that person today.  Edwards less so.  Clinton obviously is now establishment, but is still running a business.  

      The old system where governors showed up as favorite sons and held back votes until they could see where the wind blew and how many goodies were blowing in it worked better than our present system, which plays into the hands of the thugs by exposing our candidates to the prisoner's dilemma (see my post above).

  •  What a bunch of CRAP (0+ / 0-)

    The 3100+ American lives (not to mention the Iraqi lives!!) HAVE been wasted on a freaking war waged to make Cheney's buddies rich and to get oil oligopolies control over Iraqi oil.  Bush/Cheney wasted their lives.  FLAMING ASSHOLES!!!

    -7.88, -6.72. I AM paying attention, and I am so fucking outraged I can't see straight. The W in Fascist is silent; unfortunately, W isn't....

    by caseynm on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:00:32 AM PST

  •  Any Group With "Catholic" In It is a Whole Nuther (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, stagemom

    plane from the protestant right. It doesn't have to be endorsed by the Vatican or by most US Catholics to scare a candidate and rightly so. There's a long history of institutional Catholic involvement in culture and politics here.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:00:57 AM PST

  •  hopeless (4+ / 0-)

    Democrats will prove over and over that we are giant weenies.  Obama already "apologizes" for blurting out the truth.  Nice.  And it's February 2007. This campaign will ne nightmarish, with the media standing by as ghouls waiting to pounce on one side's "gaffes".  Add our spinelessness to the media's willingness to exploit it, and hello President McCain.

  •  Are we STILL campaigning out of fear? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, mmacdDE, corvo
  •  I'm not sure how bad this is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk

    I'm inclined to think none of it will sway progressive votes. It will mainly provide some talking points for the talking heads that need something bad to say.
    I don't think "He hates catholics" will get any traction with thinking people and non-thinking people will vote republican anyway.

    Lee Harvey Oswald, Where Are You?

    by ackermanniac on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:03:29 AM PST

  •  If Edwards can't handle Malkin and Donohue (10+ / 0-)

    without his rivals bailing him out, he's not fit to be our nominee.

    Edwards didn't utter a peep when the double smear against Clinton and Obama came out through Fox News.

    Or when Bush's poodle John Howard said that Osame wanted Obama to win.

    Etc etc etc etc etc.

    Edwards got himself into a mess, and it's up to him to clean it up.

  •  Speaking of condemnation... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman

    How about Donahue and the Catholic League publicly condemn the ignorant trash that are sending Amanda Marcotte hate mail? These people are sick...

    http://punk.punkasshost.com

    How about Senators Clinton and Obama and former Senator Edwards have a joint press conference demanding a public condemnation? Hit back HARD, and NOW, else this is going to be a LONG two years of the same old shit.

    •  Why would Obama and Clinton want to get (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      diplomatic, Sam I Am, Geekesque, End game

      painted by the brush of Marcotte? I truly do not understand all of this hand wringing. If they are smart, they will both say, "We don't comment on the internal workings of other campaigns," and walk away.

      I would never advise Obama or Clinton to be hoisted on Marcotte's petard. No way. Edwards did not vet her writings, and she is gone. End of discussion for all of them. Use the old Bill Clinton line:

      "We need to get back to talking about what is important to the American people."

      (And I say this being no fan of Clinton.)

      My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

      by adigal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:14:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're doing what Donohue/the GOP wants (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ciccina

        In other words, you're cowering when they holler.

        •  Cowering would be to give in to their demands. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          adigal, PhillyGuy03

          Ignoring those ankle-biters and treating them as irrelevant while staying out of someone else's problem is entirely smart and appropriate.

        •  Oh, please, I never cower (0+ / 0-)

          but I certainly would not defend something that an employee of my rival said that most people find offensive. It's absurd. And I am NO fan of HIllary's, so I am not saying this to protect her.

          Just don't comment. Ignore them. It has nothing to do with Clinton or Obama.

          My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

          by adigal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:04:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  UNITY (0+ / 0-)

        You ask, in so many words, why should Clinton and Obama get involved in Edwards problems?

        Simple. These types of attacks will keep coming and attacking one candidate after another. The only way for Dems to thoroughly debunk these groups is to put up a unified front against them. If Edwards has a press conference about this, he will be cast as whiny, sour grapes, whatever. But if all the major Dem candidates stood together and denounced the hypocrisy of these attack groups, maybe the media would pay attention. And this isn't just an attack on Edwards. This type of bullshit just piles up and serves as the fodder for Repubs to launch their "Dems are godless" meme.

        If Clinton and Obama were smart, they'd realize that any temporary advantage gained by Edwards's problems with the Catholic League is vastly outweighed by the looming threat to their campaigns by such organizations. Strike first, go on the offensive. Point out that Donohue's supporters are advocating the rape and torture of Ms. Marcotte. This isn't "handwringing," this is righteous behavior, and all Dems should stand proud and say we aren't going to take it.

        Furthrmore, we as Dem voters should demand that our primaries and the issues contained therein be dictated by us, and not by punk ass bitches like Donahue. This is OUR race, and we shouldn't let right wing attack dogs slash our tires.

        Just my two cents.

  •  Let the Popes of the past speak to this issue... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, stagemom, FightTheFuture, esquimaux

    There is no more harm in adultery than in rubbing one's hands together.
    -- Pope Boniface VIII, from Draper, Intellectual Development of Europe (vol. 2, p. 88),

    Therefore, if the earthly power errs, it shall be judged by the spiritual power ... but if the supreme spiritual power errs it can be judged only by God, and not by man ... Therefore we declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.
    -- Pope Boniface VIII, in the 1302 bull Unam Sanctam

    ,

    "The equal toleration of all religions...is the same as atheism. [Pope Leo XIII, "Imortale Dei"]

    Use against heretics the spiritual sword of excommunication, and if this does not prove effective, use the material sword.
    -- Pope Innocent III, reiterating the death sentence which the Christian Church had meted out to all heretics and unbelievers for many centuries and which would continue to be endorsed by Christian denominations for centuries to come, even in the twentieth century by Pope Leo XIII (attributed: source unknown)

    If it shall be necessary, through sentences of excommunication against their persons and of interdict against their lands, all backsliding being put an end to, they compel them to fulfil their vows.
    -- Pope Innocent III, explaining where much of the land that formerly belonged to our philosophical forebears went to: land was confiscated from any person suspected of heresy, "Bullariulii Romanum, editio Taurinensis," the Bull summoning the Crusades (December 14, 1215)

    We believe that the Greeks have been punished through [the Crusades] by the just judgement of God: these Greeks who have striven to rend the Seamless Robe of Jesus Christ ... Those who would not join Noah in his ark perished justly in the deluge; and these have justly suffered famine and hunger who would not receive as their shepherd the blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.
    -- Pope Innocent III, to the Greek (Byzantine) Emperor, after sending a group of crusaders to Constantinople in 1204 in humble obedience to the edict of Christ in Luke 19:27: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (the chronicler Geoffrey Villehardouin said that never since the creation of the world had so much booty been taken from a city), in G. G. Coulton, Inquisition and Liberty (1969), p. 164-5, quoted from Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History

    The Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, through all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for state and church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church.... But she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and patronage of the public authority.
    -- Leo XIII, quoted from Upton Sinclair, The Profits Of Religion

    The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa

    by NCrefugee on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:06:25 AM PST

  •  Am I the only one (5+ / 0-)

    who thinks that every life ended in Iraq due to this war has been wasted? Why is Obama backing away from his statement saying that? He's saying "I misspoke". I know it's politically correct not to say it but if it's true then freakin stand up and say it.

    And to think that I'm considering running for office. If I couldn't say "American lives are being wasted in Iraq. It hurts that it's true but every single person who has died could have and probably would have accomplished so much more in their lives had they not been killed for this illegal and wrong war. Their death served no purpose other than to further an unknown agenda at horrible costs to America and the world".

    -4.25, -6.87: The next great step will be taken from here.

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:06:41 AM PST

    •  What does this have to do with a coordinated (0+ / 0-)

      right-wing attack that Edwards dropped the ball on?

      If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will.

      by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:18:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It doesn't but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        creeper

        KargoX referenced it at the very bottom of his post.

        And to no one's surprise, this morning the same m.o. (i.e., Michelle Malkin's bleating about Obama's "wasted" lives comment) continues to pay undue dividends.

        It is appropriate for me to comment on it.

        -4.25, -6.87: The next great step will be taken from here.

        by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:51:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Because it hurts the feelings (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, NCrefugee, End game

      of military families.  Nobody likes to be forced into the realization that their loved one's service and life were carelessly thrown away.  It's a very difficult realization that many will never find the strength to face.

      Cry "Mandate!" and let slip the hounds of accountability.

      by sagra on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:27:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  More and more military families (4+ / 0-)
        feel that their loved ones lives WERE wasted. Fewer and fewer feel they died in the pursuit of a "noble cause." And I read Obama's remarks much as I read Kerry's "botched joke": he was saying that the administration has no respect for these troops and has misused them in a hopeless situation. Neither Kerry nor Obama should have apologized.

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

        by anastasia p on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:00:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

        but I was thinking of the families who do think their son's and daughter's lives were wasted. They are in such deep pain and no one is helping them by allowing Republicans to pretend dying for this war is somehow noble.

        No one wins by ignoring the reality of the situation while acknowledging it could help those who don't or can't face it and those who are not paying attention.

        By playing politics with this we are playing right into the hands of Republicans for whom it is only about politics. Dancing around the reality of this is exactly how many Americans supported this disaster when the evidence was being exposed that we were lied to in order to justify it.

        -4.25, -6.87: The next great step will be taken from here.

        by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:04:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Screw their "feelings". That a false sop to (0+ / 0-)

        keep on enabling these criminals adn their crimional supporters.  People who will keep on abusing their hope for something noble from this criminal enterprise; that their loved ones weren't just suckers and cannon fodder.

        Time to face the up to the WASTE of their loved ones on this pyre of neo-con empire.  The sooner they do, the faster we can get to a conclusion that does not involve Bu$hitCo riding off into the sunset for the inevitable revisionist history and the sooner others still living loved ones can come home; hopefully with some semblance of health and sanity.

    •  Obama was foolish. Every life IS wasted in Iraq! (0+ / 0-)

      Obama, and so many, cannot understand that from the national interest, it is a WASTE, a clusterfuckup of unimaginable proportions.  The troops there are patsies, suckers, dupes, cannon fodder.  Wasted for the vainglorious hopes of criminals while many still want to believe for it's all they have left.  It sucks to know you've been played the fool and the price is your health, humanity, sanity and/or life.

      Now, from a personal perspective, that is up to the individual.  If they believed, if they felt it was their duty, etc. then perhaps, it was not a waste, for that person.

      In general, it's a waste of life, of troops, or everything that this country has and values.  Obama was spot on, then he shitted his spine out at the first Reich Wing Whiner.  Nothing new for a politician, disappointing for a so called "leader".  Well, that's the audacity of hope!

  •  Catholics: read this please (5+ / 0-)

    Can anyone tell me why this isn't offensive?

    What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

    While it's specifically offensive to Catholics on multiple layers, it's pretty much offensive to all Christians.

    It's way worse than the Mohammed cartoon (incidentally that's the tack to take to get the wingnuts to shut the hell up).

    I know a lot of people here actively disrespect people of faith, but do you have to be such d**ks about it?  

    Do you people want to lose another white house term or what?  

    Fellow catholics, back me up (please).

    •  More to the point... (7+ / 0-)

      Can anyone tell me why whether or not it's offensive is actually relevant to the point that wingnuts shouldn't be permitted to divide and conquer in a primary campaign?

      •  If the shoe was on the other foot... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal, emsprater

        A lot of the commentary assumes that those extremist catholics are over-reacting about nothing.  My point is that it's not just the extremists, it's the rest of us too, and it's not about nothing, it's downright offensive.

        If a blogger for McCain or Guiliani made some racist or anti-gay posts (something like a macaca moment), would we not condemn them for it?  You bet we would.

        •  Yeah, and? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP

          Your point is very interesting. It's just not what I'm talking about.

          Which is fine, except that I actually asked you if you wanted to address mine, and you've come back with the same non-germane point a second time now.

          •  hopefully more to your point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            adigal

            I hope I'm not the only one slightly-off topic.  :)

            Still, I thought I addressed your point.  It's fair game.  

            If a GOP operative made an anti-semitic comment, let the ADL go after them, and then let us pile on and work that mighty wurlitzer.

            Only slightly more meta is to support Webb to take down Allen so he won't even make it the primaries (which we did!).

            Going further, it shouldn't be hard to find LGFers or redstaters or malkinites that are signing up for the GOP candidates.  Maybe someone with the tools should scrape all of those message boards to catch any comments that may be deleted in the future.

            •  You're allowed to be off-topic, of course. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              esquimaux

              But no, that's still not really what my point was about. But don't worry about that. It's up to me to make it clearer if I can.

              Here's how I understand your point: If a GOP operative made an anti-Semitic comment, it would be fair game if we called them on it.

              Here's where my point would apply in this situation: If we called them on it, the GOP candidates -- all of them -- would all say, "Bug off. You're a bunch of moonbats."

              Whereas when that happens in reverse, our candidates either wring their hands and try to craft careful messages of apology, or -- if they're not the direct target -- hide in the corner hoping it won't happen to them. Or worse, send the story around to reporters anonymously.

              My point is not that nobody's allowed to be offended. Rather, it's that Democratic candidates seem peculiarly susceptible to this sort of divide and conquer strategy, and the upshot is that the wingnut right has more influence in our primaries than we do.

        •  There's no right (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dietznbach, FightTheFuture, esquimaux

          not to be offended.

          Lots of things offend me. That hasn't stopped the right wing nutjobs from saying or printing them. Or stopped Bush and his cronies from putting people who offend me in positions of power.

          If you were offended, that's tough. I'm sorry, but it is.

          I can understand how that might affect your opinion of someone, or of the campaign they work for. I can understand how you could feel offended enough to call for their resignation/dismissal. And that's ALSO your right.

          Just as it is Edwards right to NOT fire them.

        •  It's not like she was insulting REAL PEOPLE here (0+ / 0-)

          This is entirely different from "racist or anti-gay" comments, because it is not saying anything about Catholic people.

          It's an insult to certain well-known fairy tale characters, that's all. As I see it, demanding that I take all those fairy tales as seriously as they do is basically equivalent to requiring me to believe in the reality of their Bible; which is to say, requiring that i be a Christian or at least give the outward appearance of being one in public, for fear of them putting a P.C. fatwa on my head.

          Is it wrong to 'slander' a mythological figure from millenia ago?

          If so, I give up; the terrorists have truly won.

          •  It seems that for Catholics to be offended, (3+ / 0-)

            The statement has to be fundamentally true.

            That is the source of the offense. It calls attention to the absurdity of their myths.

            We were told in grade school that George Washington could not tell a lie, that Santa came down the chimney, and the Easter Bunny hid eggs on the White house lawn.

            Some of us grew up and decided to use our own brains instead of accepting the illogical as true.

            You can still be religious without believing in miracles, It just takes a larger view of God than the petty tyrant our ancestors visualized.

            --------------
            If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.
            -- Lenny Bruce

            The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa

            by NCrefugee on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:39:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, the more i read, the more I think (0+ / 0-)

              that all this thread does is prove Donohues point.

              I never heard anyone ever say that the reaction to a statement means it must be true.  When in tandem with your next statment that also proves that it's a myth, I wonder if there's any sort of logic too perverse to adopt if it scores points against christians.

              •  Shakespeare said it. (0+ / 0-)

                Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

                But I like this quote better since it makes the point quite eloquently.

                "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
                ---- Ray Mummert, creationist from Dover, Pennsylvania, 2005

                The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa

                by NCrefugee on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:21:28 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  How the hell do you expect us to win elections (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dietznbach

            when you go around mocking religious figures as "fairy tales"? Even if you don't believe in them, some basic human respect for the beliefs of other people would be nice. And if you can't muster up respect for your fellow human beings whose beliefs differ from your's, could you at least pretend so you don't offend, oh, 3/4 of Americans who do believe in those fairy tale figures?
            I see such disrespect and mockery here for others' beliefs. If this is what the Democratic party is going to be about, I need to get away from here.

            My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

            by adigal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:49:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hard to respect hypocrites!! In fact that's the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              terafnord

              one thing that really seemed to piss off Jesus: hypocrites.  Religion that gets too involved in politics and how people should (must) live their lives cannot help but be the thing Jesus loathed most of all!  Funny how that works.

              •  So you are saying people who believe are (0+ / 0-)

                hypocrites?? I understand your point about Donohue, but what about the other thousands or millions who would be offended by Marcotte's remarks? Are they all hypocrites and she an infallible blogger? I don't buy that at all.

                My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

                by adigal on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 05:19:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, good, another one "helping" (0+ / 0-)

            Of course, this simply proves the point of people who wonder why there's a huge defense of these bloggers: there are plenty who really think that gratuitious insults to christians are a good idea.  

            And just in case anyone could possibly believe that it was only mythological figures being insulted, you make sure to term their beliefs "fairy tales", just to make sure they know you consider their beliefs as childish or simpleminded beliefs.

            As an aside, if you actually believe the blogger made the God jism covering Mary in order to insult god and Mary, you're a dolt.  It's intended to insult the believers by the sheer gratuitous malice of it; sometimes, the mere intent to insult and distres people is offensive, and being the clever blogger she is, got the desired effect.  

            •  Jesus Haploid Christ. They ARE (0+ / 0-)

              childish and simpleminded beliefs.

              I don't think anyone's beliefs should be exempt from ridicule, especially when their beliefs happen to be ridiculous.

              Be you Scientologist®, Mormon, or Orthodox Pastafarian, I just don't understand how believing any crazy-ass thing you want is somehow immune to criticism when it is part of a religion, as opposed to some other equally crazy-assed yet non-religious belief you might hold.
              It seems closely related to the phenomenon of otherwise sane, intelligent and rational people making special exception for their own religious beliefs- just turning off their critical thinking faculties when it comes to 'matters of faith.'

              Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinions, the similarities of which to assholes have already been well noted. The problem I have with so much of religious faith is that it consists not of opinion but of definite statements of historical fact- which, unlike personal opinions, can be false. And they are.

              Not even Jesus himself- granting the assumption that there ever was such a guy in the first place- believed in his own immaculate conception. He never told anyone his mother was a virgin, and AFAIK, neither did she. All that stuff was added hundred of years later.  

              The original "Christians," who simply followed Jesus's teachings instead of worshiping him as a supernatural demigod- are long gone. All that remains now is a bastardized knockoff heavily plagiarized from Mithraism and cynically designed to concentrate power and wealth in a religious pseudo-monarchy, AKA the Catholic Church, AKA the Pharisees and the moneychangers-in-the-temple v2.0.

              •  Says who? You? (0+ / 0-)

                Religious beliefs are not childish.  They are big, important, complicated belief and ethical systems that are the bases for many societies.  They produce big books read by people with big brains, they organize human endeavor, they make history.  You may call them wrong or baseless or even evil, but they aren't childish.  

                But you call religious beliefs childish to better dismiss religious people.

                I just don't understand how believing any crazy-ass thing you want is somehow immune to criticism

                It's not.  But there's a huge difference between criciticims and mere insult.  Someday, somebody is going to explain how a little rant about mary being covered with god's jism is logical, even headed, criticism and not just provocation of a group.  

                But I have a feeling it's not going to be you because

                It seems closely related to the phenomenon of otherwise sane, intelligent and rational people making special exception for their own religious beliefs- just turning off their critical thinking faculties when it comes to 'matters of faith.'

                I just think you're the one turning off critical thinking facilities. You don't care for religion, don't mind it when religious are insulted, and therefore your personal bigotries somehow equate an intentional insult by a gratuitous reference to a cumcovered Mary with a rational criticism.

                The problem I have with so much of religious faith is that it consists not of opinion but of definite statements of historical fact- which, unlike personal opinions, can be false. And they are.

                Well, fuck them all, huh?  Nothing so much justifies an insult to an entire group as an historical fallacy held by them.  HEY, John Kerry, Martin Luther King, Obama, HRC, Edwards, Jimmy Carter....all deserving of comtemptuous insult.

                Not even Jesus himself- granting the assumption that there ever was such a guy in the first place- believed in his own immaculate conception.

                Yeah, who gives a shit, really.  Religious opinions are like assholes, but only the believers are fair game to whatever insult and offense someone can think of because they disagree on somethign or othr, only to be explained away as not an insult at all becaue the believers are childish and can't take criticism.  It's really too much. Have the good sense to be quiet if you can't be ashamed.

                Stop giving Donohoe more credibility than he should have.  Just shut up.

            •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

              It's intended to insult the believers by the sheer gratuitous malice of it

              Oh please. If you had actually read the post in question, you'd know that it was intended to insult the Catholic hierarchy--the same ones who think that an 11-year-old girl who was raped by her stepfather should be forced to bear the child. She was commenting on the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church's stand on abortion and contraception.

              •  You aren't serious. (0+ / 0-)

                If you had actually read the post in question, you'd know that it was intended to insult the Catholic hierarchy--

                There's no way that a reference to god's hot white sticky semem on mary is limited to catholic heirarchy, or for that matter catholics.  

                Anyone care to tell me what virgin birth, much less a graphic wordpicture of the aftermath of god having sex with mary, has to do with anything political?  because a defense of both these bloggers has been out for days and nobody has come up with one yet.

      •  Um. (0+ / 0-)

        as mpowers comment clearly shows, mpowers is upset by the bloggers comments and wants some respect shown to a large constituent group that includes his/herself.

        If there's someone on the other side of that in the democratic party, then maybe, for the sake of unity and preventing division in the primary, that someone should agree and show just that respect.  

        It's ironic that you claim that the matter not be allowed to divide while refusing to allow that whether offense is being given is even relevant.  You know what would help unity?  If you could pretend that you think it okay to consider whether or not to give a shit if christians could be legitimately offended.

    •  I'm not Catholic, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      diplomatic, adigal, emsprater

      but I think it is offensive.

      Memo to James Carville: sit down and shut up! You too Begala!

      by Radiowalla on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:12:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why do I owe people of faith respect? (7+ / 0-)

      I don't owe anyone respect. Not one single goddamn person on this planet.  No one "owes anyone respect".  Respect is something the other party earns.

      So far, the "faith community" has done precious little to earn my respect.  Which is not to say I'll go out of my way to piss them off  but if a "person of faith" says something to me to piss me off, I will be more than happy to use the foulest analogies possible to reduce them to a quivering blob of shit and tears.

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

      by Cheez Whiz on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:15:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you want them to vote for your candidate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal

        you will want them to be respected.  Granted, the complaints are coming from the far right, there are Christians who vote Democratic.

        If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will.

        by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:19:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If they can't take it screw them!! Let them go (0+ / 0-)

          and vote for the hypocritical candidate that stokes their junk while screwing them in the ass whispering the lies of the serpent!!  Yeah, that's worked so swell so far, hasn't it?!?!  If these religious braniancs can't figure it out, then fuck them.  I'll bet you there's a lot who can figure it out, and aren't so addle minded to cut their own wrists!

          I do not feel any inclination to kowtow to spoiled stupid illogical children posing as adults who believe in fairy tales over reality!  Time to weed them out, because anything else allows them to keep on growing and spreading their pile of stupid!!

      •  well, here's the problem. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        diplomatic, xanthe, adigal

        You can give your respect to whomever you wish, but when someone uses incendiary rhetoric with the calculated intent to offend at least a third of the people on the planet, "sorry if you were offended" probably isn't enough.

        On your broader argument, I believe that this planet would be a better place if more people gave more respect than was perhaps deserved.  It's a difference of opinion.

        •  great. you can start by respecting (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FightTheFuture, esquimaux

          Amanda for caring deeply about issues, and forgiving her momentary lapse in decorum rather than justifying the loss of her job and perpetuating the falsehood that she has some kind of anti-Catholic bias.  

          •  agreed. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xanthe, adigal

            For me, an apology beyond "I'm sorry you were offended by my comments" would do it.

            But, again, if the shoe was on the other foot -- and it's very easy to imagine bigoted commentary from the other side of the blogosphere -- what would you do (WWYD)?

            I'm just trying to shed some light on that fact that the comments were pretty bad.  If nothing else sways you, remember that this is going to come up if Edwards wins the nomination, and it will have a lot more impact then that it does currently.

            •  In your opinion, the comments were bad (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dietznbach, FightTheFuture

              You don't know what all Catholics think, or what the general public would think.  You believe most Catholics would find the comment offensive; I believe most Catholics would say to Edwards accept her apology, it happened before she signed on, but don't fire her / let her all on her sword.  Neither of us can prove which one of us is correct.  

              I have heard plenty of Catholics make off-color jokes about the church.  Plenty.  

              •  well, if that's the standard... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                xanthe, adigal

                If knowing what everyone thinks about a topic is the new standard, I think conversation around here would come to a screeching halt. :)

                Absolutely agreed about the off-color jokes.  From a general election perspective, IMHO it's actually the non-catholic christians who are going to raise the most stink about it.  But I guess Edwards has a ways to go before he gets there...

            •  Doctrine != Individual believers (0+ / 0-)

              For me, an apology beyond "I'm sorry you were offended by my comments" would do it.

              Why should she apologize for anything other than having given offense? I'd respect her a lot less if she apologized for ever saying it. Amanda dislikes Catholic doctrine as it pertains to issues of women and sexuality. She may not have chosen the best way to express it, but apologizing for the sentiment itself would be spineless. Thankfully, she's anything but that.

        •  are you a lawyer, mpowers? (0+ / 0-)

          Nice arguments.  good structure.  

          I have no patience with people who grow old at 60 just because they are entitled to a bus pass. Mary Wesley, British novelist

          by xanthe on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:51:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Then again you are not a politician (0+ / 0-)

        being a politician is all about caring about your constituents.

        So it's easy for us to not care about those comments, but it's a lot more problematic for a campaign to be putting out those kind of statements.

      •  "Wy do I owe people of faith respect?" (0+ / 0-)

        Some people of faith have made your life better, and the lives of many other people.  

        becase of that, even if you don't owe the group as a whole respect, you owe those individuals respect.  Enough to forego stereotypes, gratuitous insults, or even the rhetorical question entitling your comment.

        Is that so hard to understand?  

    •  Long since lapsed, but still find offensive (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      adigal

      This was not a hard shot at a cardinal or even the Pope.  Completely unnecessary, in my view.

      But I prefer to look at the grace that Marcotte showed on the way out, rather than the original offensive comment.  I think that, offensiveness aside, Marcotte deserves a great deal of respect on how the handled the aftermath, including calling for a challenge to the org's 501(c)(3) charity status when it is a winger campaign political hit machine.

      Make Crablaw Maryland Weekly your source for Maryland news and commentary. (-1.88/-5.69)

      by tbrucegodfrey on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:17:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What Is That? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NCrefugee

      It doesn't offend me.  To me, the immaculate conception was metaphorical.  It seems unlikely that sticky, hot semen was involved.

      I recommended your comment. And then I un-recommended it.

      by bink on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:18:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did you ever read "To Kill A Mockingbird"? (0+ / 0-)

        If so, do you remember when Atticus Finch told his kids that it is important to try to walk around in someone else's shoes for a while, to see how they see the world?

        Can you not see that the comment was highly offensive to practicing and nonpracticing Catholics, or can you only see the world through your own prism? Successful policians have to see the world through more than their own prism, and John Edwards did so, finding the comment offensive himself, and understanding that it was offensive to probably millions of others.

        Just because you didn't see it as offensive doesn't make it not so.

        My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

        by adigal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:42:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Honestly (0+ / 0-)

          I don't see how it was insulting.  I just found it kind of weird.

          I recommended your comment. And then I un-recommended it.

          by bink on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:09:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It takes one of the basic tenets of a faith (0+ / 0-)

            practiced by millions, Mary's virginity, and does not just mock it, but mocks it in a sexually explicit way. Fire - meet gasoline.

            My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

            by adigal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:37:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  People think all kinds of asshattery. (0+ / 0-)

              In this case, a virgin raped by a deity is a great thing.  Well, good for them.  Still, it does not mean it's not asshattery, and has to be understood as such if mankind will progress.

            •  Again... (0+ / 0-)

              If you're going to go after people for mocking the central tenets of a religion, then perhaps we should start with Monty Python, then move on to South Park. I'd think a one-line crack from Amanda would be much lower priority on the Religious Offense Scale.

    •  Oh just give me a break (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brooke In Seattle

      I am so fed up with people claiming they are oh so offended by Amanda's comment, and then repeating it ad nauseum.  

      You seem to have no problem using that statement to make your point.  I don't see any difference between what you're doing now and what Amanda did then.  But I guess when you use this language its okay - the double standard in action.  

      •  sadly, no. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        diplomatic, adigal

        I have to quote it precisely because few seems to be aware exactly what she said.  You're saying perhaps I should have just linked to it instead?

        •  Well, if a tree falls in the forrest (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brooke In Seattle, Ciccina

          and all that.

          If hardly anybody read it, why are you so offended by it? Don't read it. Ignore it. Don't publicize it.

          I tend to NOT go looking for things that offend me. Makes for a much calmer life.

        •  You quoted it to make your point (0+ / 0-)

          and get attention.  But I guess when you do it, its okay.  

          You're like a little kid who goes around dropping the f-bomb and then, when caught, says "I was only copying what you said!"  

          •  Let people see it if it is so inoffensive (0+ / 0-)

            What is your problem with it being repeated if it is such a mainstream, inoffensive little quote???

            My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

            by adigal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:44:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I never said it was a mainstream, inoffensive (0+ / 0-)

              quote.  You are incorrect on that point.  

              My problem is with the hypocrisy of condemning one person for using offensive language to make a point, then turning around and using that language to make a point.  The only difference is that you think one point is valid, and the other not.  

              My 85 year old Catholic grandmother would be horrified by that quote regardless of whether she saw it in Amanda's post or yours, adigal (I'm referring to the other thread where you repeated the quote), or someone else's.  

              That said, if I explained to her that Amanda made that statement in an emotional moment and based on the rest of her writing she is not a bigot, she'd accept it.  And she would never vote Republican just because of a comment like that.  

            •  shorter version of my comment: (0+ / 0-)

              If the words are offensive, they are offensive no matter who is saying them.  

    •  Give it up - (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ihlin

      Catholics and Christians and religion are problematic on this particular blog.  So be it.  It is offensive to me - but all we do here is fight among ourselves on this issue - I'd rather go out and do something to get Lipinski out of office -

      that being said - I do back it up - but really what good does it do?  They do not have the attachment we have to Mary.  Let it go.

      I have no patience with people who grow old at 60 just because they are entitled to a bus pass. Mary Wesley, British novelist

      by xanthe on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:03:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am a non-practicing Catholic and I think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ihlin, diplomatic

      it is offensive. My very Catholic family and friends would be appalled and I am very relieved Marcotte resigned, so that it can't be used against Edwards if he is the nominee.

      And there is NO WAY Obama and Hillary should make any comment about this. It is not their battle.

      My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

      by adigal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:38:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It isn't offensive to me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FightTheFuture

      because I, as a Catholic, refuse to be offended by it.  The choice is mine.

      Sadly, too many others of the faith have forgotten these words:

      "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me."  Matthew 5:11.

      Nor am I offended when others deride my faith as a "mythology."  Faith untested by doubt, reason, and even Kossack vetting is not the real thing.  I prefer to admit that our capacity to understand the workings of the universe (from subquarks to dark matter and singularities) will always be subject to human, finite limits.  I've got Descartes, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Godel, Russell, Wittgenstein and Hawking to back me up on that one.  My faith fills in the gap between what we can possibly comprehend and that which will probably always elude human understanding.  I take no issue with anyone's choice to fill in that gap through different means.

      A carefully-tested faith does not equate to intellectual laziness, rational numbness or knee-jerk defensiveness--the very definitions of fundamentalism.  I am saddened that people like Donohue have cast my personal faith (in the humanistic mission of the Catholic Church), forged after years of rigid catechism, decades of apostasy, and eventually, humility, as blind adherence to dogma.  My guess is that many Catholics, if not most, feel the same way.    

    •  Tough to face the christian mythos... eh? (0+ / 0-)

      Really, a deity comes to earth, rapes a virgin, cuckolds her husband to raise the bastard who turns out to be such a trouble maker that the authorities of his time have to nail him to a cross!!  Then, some "followers" take on the cause to start a church to rule  the world; it's not called the Holy ROMAN Church for nothing!  Of course, really being about man, power and control, it schisms, again and again.

      It just goes to show you religion is just as shitty, just as ugly as anything else can be; depending on how you look at it.  It's great there are those who find meaning in their lives from this, but, keep it private.  We can do without all the pomp, hypocrisy and crap from some ministers or pointy hat in Rome dictating via their zombie sheep how this society, a secular society, should conduct itself!  We threw out kings 200+ years ago not to have some religion, and its acolytes, replace them!!

  •  Attack/Defend (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, corvo, esquimaux

    Any defense of Edwards/Obama/Clinton needs to include an attack on those trying to raise the issue. They will keep swiftboating until stand up to them. We can't ignore it, it won't go away, it will only grow.

    This President is in a league of his own. The BUSH league!

    by Tuba Les on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:07:05 AM PST

  •  Why cave? (6+ / 0-)

    I don't understand why Edwards is letting lunatics like William Donohue dictate how he runs his campaign. It is wrong on so many levels.

    • Groups like Donohue's will seize on any pretext to promote their agenda. If it's not Amanda Marcotte, it will be someone or something else.
    • Anyone who cares what Donohue says is never going to vote for a Democrat anyway.
    • It plays right into the right-wing talking points that Democrats are weak, don't have the courage of their convictions, don't have an agenda, etc.

    Someone please explain to me the downside of telling Donohue to take a flying leap?

    •  If Edwards won't fight back, why (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, diplomatic, jj32, trinite

      should Clinton and Obama do it for him?

    •  wait, What has Edwards done? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue, Sargent Pepper, stagemom, TomP

      Amanda quit on her own.

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

      by Cheez Whiz on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:11:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not only that, but spending a week talking... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, mightymouse

      ...about what an intolerant asshole Donohue is, instead of Anna Nicole Smith's tragic death, would be a good thing for Democrats, and the media wants to cover it.

      Why don't we oblige them? Drag this out - it. Makes. Us. Look. Good.

      If we can get our shit together, that is.

      And there lie the shoals upon which many a great Democratic plan has foundered.

      Since Bush said "We're not leaving [Iraq] while I'm the president," that means you're either for years of more war or you're for impeachment. Your choice.

      by Christopher on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:13:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nobody Caved (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      adigal, TomP

      Edwards took a huge risk with moderate and even liberal Catholic by keeping Amanda (and to a lesser extent on).  Then Amanda wan't interested in being a team-player and she quit.  Those are the facts, not your wild assumptions and ignorance of the story.

      •  He split the difference (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sam I Am

        I'll keep the bloggers on even though "I am offended".

        It tends to make both sides unhappy.  Not good in politics.

        If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will.

        by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:32:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ihlin, adigal, TomP

          Maybe Edwards did think it was offensive, my guess is most Americans would think, "God put his hot, sticky, white stuff inside Mary" is offensive.

          And no matter your spin, the end result.  Edwards stood up to the Catholic League and kept Amanda and Melissa despite the threats they represented to his getting moderate Catholic support.  Amanda left, so there is no longer a serious controversy that "Edwards has anti-Catholic bigots on his staff."  The story is no officially dead except for Edwards-haters such as yourself.  Edwards looks could to most bloggers who weren't already with someone else because he took the risk to hire bloggers, kept them despite criticism, and really engages with the netroots unlike Obama and Clinton.  Catholics mostly never heard about this and never will since Amanda is gone.

          It's a win-win.

      •  You don't know what happened, so I see no (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi

        reason in saying Amanda "Didn't want to be a team player". Edwards mande a publica statement to the effect of, yeah she sucks, but I won't fire her I guess. And then she did the right thing (whether it was prompted or not) and left.

        •  I take Amanda at her word (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP

          why don't you?

          I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics—has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog.

          In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to "silence" me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems.

          Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.

          http://pandagon.net/...

          •  If you are taking her at her word, she is being (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yoshimi

            a team player. By quitting she takes heat off of Edwards. I don't see the point in attacking her for doing the right thing.

          •  Because they do not want to. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            philgoblue

            The truth does not matter to some folks.  They see it as an advantage for their candidate of choice to spin this all a certain way against Edwards.  Donahue does not matter.  Defending a Dem, no way -- not if they think they can trash a competitor in the primary wars at dkos.  That's just some supporters, not necessarily the candidates they support.

            Peace Now -- Defund the War

            by TomP on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:13:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

            All the highlighted text shows is that Amanda felt that she was becoming the issue and taking focus away from the real campaign issues. I'd say that quitting your job working for a candidate because you feel that your presence is hurting that candidate is being the ultimate "team player".

  •  Um, sorry (9+ / 0-)

    I dont see why Obama and Clinton have to defend Edwards  because of someone that he hired. He should have handled this better himself.  If he was truly personally offended by Marcotte's comments, as he has said, then he should have fired her immediately. If not, then keep her and defend her vigorously.  

    That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. -Barack Obama

    by jj32 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:09:12 AM PST

    •  Well, neither do they. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, corvo

      And now they're on the chopping block.

      Maybe "I don't see why" isn't really a great strategy.

    •  Do you really have to fire an employee (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue

      every time you find out one said something offensive in the past (before they were working for you?)

      Is that the standard here?

      "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

      by bawbie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:12:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal, creeper, LV Pol Girl

        To me, he should have researched the bloggers more intensively. The reality is bloggers say controversial things sometimes, and Edwards should have known about these comments before hand. If he truly was offended by them, and felt them indefensible, then he shouldnt have hired the bloggers. If he was fine with the comments, then hire them, and defend them completely. I'm in no way trying to defend Donahue and people like him. If Obama and/or Clinton, want to voice their support for Edwards on this issue, fine. But I dont like what I see as a shifting blame, that Obama and Clinton are somehow to blame or should responsible for a mistake by Edwards.  

        That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. -Barack Obama

        by jj32 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:45:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks, jj32 (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jj32, adigal, Inland, creeper, LV Pol Girl

          As a practicing Catholic from North Carolina, who is leaning towards Edwards and finds William Donohue a repulsive excuse for a human being, I think that I can say that Edwards stumbled on this one, and neither Obama nor Clinton have an obligation to bail him out.

          If we want to win the White House, we have to use a little common sense.  Certainly we shouldn't cave to the lunatics, but Amanda's "satire" about the Incarnation (not the Immaculate Conception) was bound to be rooted out, and it was going to turn off people who were going to give Edwards a good look.  If Edwards couldn't see that coming, then how can we claim that he won't experience other lapses of judgment?

          "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

          by blueinnc on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:14:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  No. It's when the customers find out (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal

        that they have said something offensive to the customers that you have to fire them.

        •  And now Bill Donahue and Michelle Malkin (0+ / 0-)

          are "customers" of Edwards' campaign?

          What the fuck?

          "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

          by bawbie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:50:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Um. No, it's the voter in the analogy. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            adigal

            When the voters find out that a staffer has said someting offensive to the voters, the staffer should be fired.

            Donohu and Malking are more like competitors taking advantage, and secretly hoping that nobody gets fired.

  •  The response I'd like to see Obama give... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, corvo, stagemom

    (or anyone could, but I suspect it would resonate more coming from Obama because he's black, and so under current media rules, he's got more authority to speak to defend MLK against Donohue)

    "Really? Really, Mr. Cella? You want me to line up with a guy who concocted an analogy involving a white guy sucking off a statue of Martin Luther King Jr. with a boner to make some kind of political point? Whose life, in this country, do you think was improved by the creation and sharing of that mental image? Do you think there’s a problem with political rhetoric and analysis and outreach on our side of the aisle? Do you have rocks in your head?"

    Since Bush said "We're not leaving [Iraq] while I'm the president," that means you're either for years of more war or you're for impeachment. Your choice.

    by Christopher on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:09:44 AM PST

  •  my problem: "OFFICIAL" blogger??? wtf (3+ / 0-)

    Call it what it is.
    Public relations specialist.
    A flak.
    A PR guy.
    A text whore?
    When a blogger signs on to a campaign, in my opinion, he/she becomes a campaign operative.
    Clearly, he/she is no longer an independent voice.
    If you want to go down the PR road, it is your call.
    But that is not real blogging, and certainly not journalism.
    It is just PR.

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

    by EZ writer on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:10:24 AM PST

  •  Expose the Catholic League (4+ / 0-)

    Publicly exposed who these League is--they are composed of Republican Operatives and using Catholic name for political purposes.  Call them GOP political operative group.

    Complain to the Catholic hierarchy not to let GOP political operatives abused the name Catholic or speak for Catholics.

    •  Yeah, see how far that gets you. (0+ / 0-)

      It's no secret which party Holy Mother Church supports.

      •  Not to mention that... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo

        The church is NOT a democratic institution.

        I don't understand why people don't get this.  I feel the need to shout.  Yes, I'm going to shout.

        THE CHURCH IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION

        They don't respond (except with polite formalities) to letter-writing campaigns or expressions of public outrage - especially not from people they think are reprobates anyway.  In their eyes, they decide right and wrong - and everyone else just needs to listen.  

        And they are well aware of Donohue and his disgusting ravings.  

      •  Reality points otherwise (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal

        To this day, there are millions of Catholics who recoil at the idea of pulling the Republican lever, abortion notwithstanding.  There are millions of Hispanic Catholic U.S. citizens who are mostly Democratic.  That includes bishops and priests.

        Rhode Island is both the most Catholic and most Democratic state in the country, with Massachusetts following closely.

        Make Crablaw Maryland Weekly your source for Maryland news and commentary. (-1.88/-5.69)

        by tbrucegodfrey on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:06:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We're talking past each other. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          esquimaux

          I'm talking about the impossibility of swaying the minds of the hierarchy.  You're right in that many of the Catholic faithful don't fall in line as much as they used to.

          •  How do you know what the hierarchy is thinking (0+ / 0-)

            The Catholic Church is not about politics.  And people like Donahue make it about politics.

            Donahue should be stopped.

            The church is above politics.

            •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

              "The Catholic Church is not about politics."

              It is when it chooses to be.  And it has so chosen.  In every country where it has a voice, it meddles in legislation pertaining to gays, abortion, and of course its own privileged status (tax exemption in the USA, state church status in much of Europe).

              The Church is most certainly not above politics.

              •  Church advising on morality is not politics (0+ / 0-)

                However if a group like that of Bennet is advancing GOP politics and exclusively composed of vocal GOP partisan  members,  then that is politics.

                •  We're not taking Church "advising." (0+ / 0-)

                  We're talking Church supporting or opposing legislation.  That's commonly known as politics.

                  There's a difference between saying "We believe abortion is murder, and that people shouldn't abort" on the one hand, and saying "We support legislation that would deny anyone the right to an abortion" on the other.

  •  Curious this binary juxtaposition (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCalLiberal

    of "Catholic" and "Christian."  They doubtless did that to rile up the Evangelicals.  

    Democrats: Cleaning up Republican messes since 1933.

    by DCDemocrat on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:16:05 AM PST

  •  The GOP is returning to their real mission. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, bernardpliers, henna218

    Slinging mud.  It's best that we don't get down in the dirt with them.  Candidates should not get involved in the problems of other candidates and blow this thing up.  Edwards should say that the case is closed and other candidates should not get involved.  Republicans are trying to get Catholics on their side because they make up a big part of the swing vote.  We should not feed this transparent attempt to weaken our top candidates.  I would love to hear all candidates say that religion doesn't belong in politics.

  •  Consider Fidelis. (8+ / 0-)

    There's a small node on ePluribus Investigates about Fidelis, who bullied CNN a couple of years back when they ran a NARAL ad against John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.

    Brian Burch, who runs the Fidelis Center for Law and Justice, registered all sorts of domain names (for conservative "candidates") in anticipation of William Rehnquist's retirement from the Supreme Court.

    The registered agent for the Fidelis Center for Law and Justice, Eric Doster, is the general counsel for the Michigan Republican Party.

    In the fall of 2005 they partnered with the Center for a Just Society (run by Ken Connor of James Dobson's Family Research Council), Eagle Forum (Phyllis Schlafly) and ConservativeHQ (Richard Viguerie) on the site WithdrawMiers.org.

    What's also interesting is that they are connected via webhosting to Right Internet, which further places them in league with the Richard Viguerie noise machine, which points towards Mike Krempasky via Krempasky's connections with Right Internet operator Chris Tyrell.

    And Krempasky knows how to use blogs to pound a drum.

  •  Here they go again.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi

    All they have to do is say ,consider the source..Consider where these lies are coming from..Conservatives are at it again..Par for the course with them..If they are a howling we are getting noticed..

  •  If you disagree with Catholic theology (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ciccina

    you're anti-catholic.

    I'm gay, so I guess I'm anti-Catholic and bigoted for thinking I'm a decent human being who deserves human rights.

    Can we institute the same standard for Unitarianism or the UCC or wiccans?  Conservatives are bigoted against unitarians for disagreeing with unitarian pro-tolerance theology!

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

    by DemDachshund on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:23:25 AM PST

    •  okay, i'll bite (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      adigal

      Trust me when I say there's much disagreement within the church, so I don't think that's the standard of anti-catholicism.

      It's the mockery that is anti-catholic.  

      As for you -- if you want the official catholic teaching -- the dignity of your individual is sacrosanct and you are deserving of every human right.  You're just not supposed to participate in those specific sexual acts, blah blah, but note that many many catholics practice those same acts with their spouses and with others, so it's not like it's an unforgivable offense.

      Some may disagree with that (see my first sentence), but they're wrong. :)

      •  You need to check in with the Vatican (4+ / 0-)

        The church considers any sex outside of procreation within marriage to be a sin. Period.  The Vatican hasn't even come out in favor of condom usage by MARRIED couples for the purpose of HIV prevention.  And they threaten people with excommunication for merely voting for a candidate who is pro-choice.  

        •  All true, but... (0+ / 0-)

          All true, but nowhere is it an unforgivable offense.  Forgiveness is kind of a recurring theme in christianity.  (n.b. the contrition must be sincere.)

          The whole Kerry-must-be-excommunicated was pretty silly and didn't catch on with the hierarchy, now did it?  Lockstep and monolithic, not so much.

          •  You don't get it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk

            The Kerry excommunication thing was to send a message to voters that Kerry is a bad Catholic.  It came from the hierarchy.

            In addition, the dignity of every individual that you speak of takes a back seat to purity on matters of doctrine.  Opposition to condom use by married couples is an extreme position - it particularly puts at risk the wives of African husbands who work as truckers or far away from home and frequent sex workers.  The church's message to these women - many of whom are unable to refuse sex with their husbands for a variety of reasons - is stay monogamous and you'll be safe / its still a sin to use condoms, even though your husband may be infected.  

            If they can't see a little gray area there and make an exception to their doctrine, then not only do they not show compassion, but they clearly do not respect the dignity of every individual.  

            This "forgiveness" thing - which you seem to think is some kind of cosmic get-out-of-jail-free card - doesn't even begin to cover it.

            But I guess now I'm anti-Catholic.

        •  How many Catholics would be at the (0+ / 0-)

          communion rail if they believed that sex within marriage outside of procreation was a sin?  

          Bloody few.

          I have no patience with people who grow old at 60 just because they are entitled to a bus pass. Mary Wesley, British novelist

          by xanthe on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:07:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  If I mock the GOP party platform, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DemDachshund, Ciccina

        ...then am I bigoted against Republicans?

        •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

          If the church's position is so ridiculous as to invite mockery, are we wrong to mock it?  Are we bigoted against Catholic people to mock the church's position on this, whether Catholic people accept it or not?  I would mock people who take those positions too, regardless of their religion.  I don't like the idea that we can't mock someone's ridiculous and repressive views if such views are are tied to their religion.  They choose to support that religion and must be held accountable to that.  

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

          by DemDachshund on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:48:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  So the church thinks I am deserving of every (0+ / 0-)

        human right that non-gays have?  Which would include legally recognized marriage?  That's a nice position shift on their part that I hadn't heard of yet.  

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

        by DemDachshund on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:51:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Um - no (0+ / 0-)

      but perhaps you are --but not because you're gay.  

      What is Catholic theology anyway?

      I have no patience with people who grow old at 60 just because they are entitled to a bus pass. Mary Wesley, British novelist

      by xanthe on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:05:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why give a shit about these bloggers? (8+ / 0-)

    And why should Obama or HRC?  Why do they owe these people loyalty?  

    What principle is involved here?  

    What loyalty do I owe them?  What "herd" are we talking about?

    What are these bloggers besides bloggers?  With particularly tin ears?  

    One can't really defend their statements, they aren't really that important, they are employed to HELP, not HURT, and suddenly it's a sign of character for other candidates to....support Edward's campaign staff regardless?

    Yes, I know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but these people are paid to MAKE IT HARDER FOR THE ENEMY TO SMACK DEMOCRATS AROUND.  They didn't, and I"m not asking Obama and Hillary to make the SAME mistake by trying to defend the irrelevant and offensive.

    •  The principle involved (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux, leonard145b

      is that Democrats don't repeat right wing smears against other Democrats.

      Fidelis is asking Obama and Clinton to attack Edwards for his handling of the blogger situation.

      Who the bloggers are and what they said doesn't matter.

      What matters is are Obama and Clinton going to acquise to the right wing smear-monger's demands and attack Edwards for it?

      They shouldn't and so far they haven't.

      "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

      by bawbie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:30:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except that's not true. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal, LV Pol Girl

        Who the bloggers are and what they said doesn't matter.

        Of course it matters.  But only to the extent it hurts our candidates.  We don't owe the bloggers any loyalty, and I think part of the problem is that Edwards wasn't allowed by the blogosphere to let them go in the first place.  Now, it's Edwards judgment at issue, and as opposing candidates, it's in play.

        Only if you start from the premise that these bloggers did nothing wrong...or if they did, they must be defended anyway...does Edwards actions make any sense.  By now demanding that everyone sign on, it merely spreads Edwards's problem to everyone.  How does that help democratic candidates?

        •  The premise I start with (0+ / 0-)

          is that an attack from Right Wing Smear-mongers should never be adopted by Democratic candidates - no matter whether the victims of the attack did anything wrong or not.  

          Here is what Fidelis is asking of Obama and Clinton:

          publicly condemn the anti-Catholic and anti-Christian blog posts by Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, who serve as official bloggers for the John Edwards for President Committee, and call for their immediate dismissal

          Putting the principle I outlined in action, Obama and Clinton should not call for the blogger's dismissal or attack Edwards over this, because doing so gives credance to the smear-mongers.

          "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

          by bawbie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:46:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Trying to escape Edward's mistakes. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            adigal

            One could either say, "I disagree with the jism posts" or "I'm not aware of the specifics but certainly I doubt that John Edwards is anti whatever".

            But the real problem is that Edwards kept the bloggers and made it an issue.  Other candidates aren't responsible to save Edwards from himself and hold hands and jump into the abyss.

            Let's not forget, the smearmongers got credence because Edwards hired people who said some things actually offensive and some things impolitically put.  To some extent, other candidates will look like fools if they ignore that the bloggers and Edwards gave these people something to work with.

            •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

              because the right wing has never been known to just make shit up.

              You seem to be obtusively missing the point though.  The point isn't that the other candidates need "to save" Edwards, and no one is saying that.

              The point is that the other candidate NOT repeat the smears requested by the right against Edwards.

              "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

              by bawbie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:01:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  They're not responsible for saving Edwards. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bawbie

              They're responsible for proactively protecting themselves.

              When the whole world knows they're next, the strategy of waiting in the corner and hoping the storm passes -- always and every time -- without raining on them is just not going to work.

              They don't have to jump into any abyss. They just have to push the wingnuts in. And if they all push together, you have a better chance of putting them over the edge.

              •  One problem with that. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                adigal

                When the whole world knows they're next, the strategy of waiting in the corner and hoping the storm passes -- always and every time -- without raining on them is just not going to work.

                Well, that's nice, but that's assumnig that there's nothing to it so a nice vigorous counterattack is going to work.  

                I don't assume that.  Unfortunately, the wingnuts have a point, thanks to Edwards hiring these people, one of who said things so gratuitously insulting and vulgar that  that it's hard to find the quote.  It's not as big a point as they pretend, but it's a point.  

                So while nobody should repeat the smears, it's ridiculous to claim that all the outrage is just ginned up. It isn't, and saying so simply makes it look like dems feel all the statments made by teh bloggers are legitimate and really are anti catholic.  

                THat's the premise, of course, unspoken: that nobody said anything wrong in the first place and therefore standing one's ground will earn political points.  I really don't think so.  

                •  That doesn't have to be the premise. (0+ / 0-)

                  Whether the outrage is manufactured or not, clearly the guilt by association -- in this case, really, it's not even that, for Obama and Clinton -- is.

                  Reject that as a premise, and move on. If you want to spend your time weeping over the comments themselves, that's your business. Just find a quiet corner and make yourself scarce. Whatever you want to do on your own time.

                  •  Well, there IS an association. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    adigal

                    clearly the guilt by association -- in this case, really, it's not even that, for Obama and Clinton -- is.

                    Well, you don't think Edwards is guilty by association either. Maybe it's not entire about what you reject as a premise, but the voters. I'm wondering exactly who is being protected and what herd we are talking about.  Is it the candidates, or Edwards, or the blogosphere?  

                    Maybe a "no comment" will lead voters to not associate democratic candidates with democratic candidates or democratic candidates with their own staffers.  But that's pretty much the avoidance thing, isn't it, and you want an affirmative statement, counterattack, something.    

                    •  really? What's the association? (0+ / 0-)

                      What association do Obama and Clinton have with this?

                      What I want is a recognition by other candidates that they won't actually gain by attacking each other using the wingnut-generated outrage du jour.

                      •  Except it's not entirely generated. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        adigal

                        You havent' considered the actual content, so the premise that it is "wingnut generated" is misplaced.  There's an outrage there, deserved.  I'm not sure how one ignores it.

                      •  Tell Me, Please... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Inland

                        Is silence not a valid response on the part of Clinton and Obama?

                        We're giving this tempest in a teapot a lot more attention than it deserves, I think.  I can't recall seeing this story on any of the MSM websites yet (though I'll admit I'm avoiding them for the most part).

                        Amanda screwed up by not being upfront with Edwards.  Edwards screwed up by not vetting her thoroughly.  He further screwed up by letting the issue fulminate for a week.  We are screwing up by obsessing on this.

                        I won't even go into Donohue and Fidelis.  They're not worth anyone's time or byte space.  

                        Yes, Edwards blew this one but it's not that big a deal.  It doesn't remove him from my radar as a viable candidate.  

                  •  So condescending to a rational and reasonable (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    creeper

                    argument:

                    If you want to spend your time weeping over the comments themselves, that's your business. Just find a quiet corner and make yourself scarce. Whatever you want to do on your own time.

                    My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

                    by adigal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:58:02 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  It helps by eliminating a strategy for the right. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bawbie

          Divide and conquer.

          Technically speaking, of course, the strategy could have applied to the exact opposite reaction -- i.e., firing the bloggers -- as well. But that's not the reaction we got. It wasn't the one we encouraged, either. But it wasn't the one we got.

          The premise here is that when Democratic candidates scoop up the candy the wingnuts put out for them, they're lured one at a time into gingerbread houses they have no business entering.

          I say, leave the candy. Even if it looks good at the time.

          •  Well, of course (0+ / 0-)

            they would have said the same thing no matter what.  Everyone knows the noise machine will rattle on.

            All that one can do is avoid making it easy for them by directly or indirectly supporting someone for a political campaign position who thinks that a Jizz o'God comment is legit political discourse.

            Yes, I know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but these people are paid to MAKE IT HARDER FOR THE ENEMY TO SMACK DEMOCRATS AROUND.  They didn't, and I"m not asking Obama and Hillary to make the SAME mistake by trying to defend the irrelevant and offensive.

            •  But avoidance... (0+ / 0-)

              is exactly what makes it easy for them.

              •  Do you approve of the (0+ / 0-)

                statement that referred to god's hot sticky jizz in Mary?

                •  Not the issue for me. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Phoenix Woman

                  But it's clearly something you like saying. A lot.

                  You're playing Donohue's game here, verbatim.

                  I'm not talking about avoidance of content analysis. That's obviously a good idea. The avoidance I dislike is the avoidance of the notion that this is an issue that's being gamed. Outrage over the content of the statements? If that's the way you want to spend your day, fine.

                  My outrage -- to the extent you could call it that -- is that people are perpetuating a story of guilty by what-doesn't-even-amount-to-association.

                  •  See? Avoidance doesn't work. You were right. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    adigal

                    I'm not talking about avoidance of content analysis.

                    No, that's what you are actually doing.

                    Outrage over the content of the statements? If that's the way you want to spend your day, fine.

                    Well, that's fine.  Why not print that up into a press release for HRC and Obama and let it fly?

                    But it's clearly something you like saying. A lotYou're playing Donohue's game here, verbatim.

                    Yes.  For illustration, to show you how easy it is to beat you over the head.  YOU don't get to control my questions, YOU don't get to decide that the insult isn't the issue, YOU don't get to decide how many times I bring it up, and YOU don't get to choose to not talk about content but about who is making a stink about it is doing it for politics.

                    Really, it's nonsense to think that would work in real life when there's a bunch of people actually doing the content analysis that you find so unimportant and know what was said whether I repeat it or not.  It's not the blogosphere, where one gets to choose the subjects and just write off last weeks comments as old news or bad taste to bring up.  It's not a democratic party blog, where people like Donohue have less credibility than someon who only wants to talke about process and not the statements themselves.

                •  That's hilarious (0+ / 0-)

                  Anyone so easily upset by an individual take on their religion mustn't be terribly assured in their beliefs.

                  "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets!" -Bill Hicks

                  by Tismo70 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:53:53 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm rarely surprised by people who are insulted by other people going out of their way to be insulting.  Those bloggers, so articulate, were able to convey their contempt sufficiently.  

                    As it being an individual take, whether it's invidual or syptomatic when the blogger is hired for a president campaign, and the only thing some democrats say in response is to further insult them about a lack of self assurance.  But it always sounds good on a blog, doesn't it?  

                    Really, folks, stop "helping".  Gratutious insults for the purpose of scoring points is fun and all, but the candidats shouldn't be expected to play along..

    •  blame the victim (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux, Ciccina

      That's what you are doing - blaming the victims of a smear campaign.  

      The people in question were not hired to be paragons of virtue.  They were hired to run Edwards' blog.  They have their own political views, which were expressed publically before working for Edwards.  Indeed, their independence of thought is neatly mirrored on the GOP side of the aisle.

      Caving to a right-wing smear job is a bad idea.  The  idea that every candidate should line up and sign Bill Donohue's loyalty oath or risk Michelle Malkin's wrath is horribly undemocratic.  I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

      •  Um. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal, LV Pol Girl

        Caving to a right-wing smear job is a bad idea.

        Making it easy is worse.  Defending the indefensible, worse yet.

        As a small example, I think your comment can be construed as saying a comment about God's jism on Mary to be a legitimate political view.  No candidate needs THAT sort of help.

        Just stop helping.  

        •  What you advocate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mehitabel9, esquimaux

          is that Edwards should have fired the bloggers as soon as Bill fucking Donahue told him to...and that Obama and Clinton should feel free to parrot those attacks against Edwards?

          And this helps how?

          "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

          by bawbie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:48:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, no. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            adigal, LV Pol Girl

            Edwards should have fired the bloggers as soon as Bill fucking Donahue

            Certainly, the one that made the jizz o'god reference should never have been hired, and yes, should have been fired as soon as Edwards was made aware of it.  

            This "gotta defend" has a reductio ad absurdem quality.  Gotta defend Edwards who gotta defend his bloggers, who gotta defend their statments....oh, wait, they didn't because they can't defend them all because some really were gratuituosly offensive.

            Please, everyone, stop "helping" the candidates.

  •  Why, Sen. Obama?! (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue
    Hidden by:
    Yoshimi

    Wow.
    Why did you back away from such an obviously true statement?   Those lives have been wasted by Bush and the Republicans!  You clearly did not mean merely that the soldiers' service has not been 'honored'.  So you appear to be lying!  How disappointed I am in you.

    Where can we find a candidate who won't apologize for "gaffes", i.e. telling the inconvenient truths?

    Hmmmm, Gore 2.0?  Perhaps that is the only option.

  •  Michelle Malkin (0+ / 0-)

    Now there is a flawed human being...and no, I will not waste even a second of my time reading or trying to analyze ANYTHING she has to say.

  •  BFD (7+ / 0-)
    These power-corrupted, delusional drooling idiots at Fidelis seem to be under the impression that anyone actually gives a shit what they think.

    You know what heavily Catholic voters in Chicago care about? The war and the terrible commute.

    I think Obama and Clinton are handling this exactly right. To hell with Fidelis.

  •  Obama may be in for a rude awakening... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anastasia p, PhillyGuy03

    Given the religious element of his campaign, he is the most vulnerable to attacks from the likes of Donohue.  In fact, we can assume that, at a strategic moment, attacks will be launched on the pastor of Obama's S Side church in Chicago.

    My greatest unease w/ Obama is the whole Rodney King ethos underlying his campaign.  Yes, it would be nice if we could all get along and solve our problems in a nonpartisan fashion.  As the GOP filibuster of the Senate non-binding resolution indicates, however, taking that approach is much easier said than done.  When you throw the likes of Donohue, Malkin, and Coulter into the mix, it becomes that much harder.

    I like and I respect Obama, and I would enthusiastically campaign for him as a Dem nominee.  I worry, however, that he underestimates the vitriol to which he will be subject from self-described defenders of the faith.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:27:50 AM PST

    •  thanks for the concern (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joe B, Sam I Am

      I wager Senator Obama realizes just how hard it would be for a black man to be elected President.  Also, since he wasn't born yesterday, he knows the Republicans fight dirty.

      •  I'm not sure if he understands the latter point.. (0+ / 0-)

        well enough.  The ultimately chimerical consensus that he appears to be continually seeking makes me wonder.  Except for Alan Keyes, whose senate candidacy was a joke from the start, Obama has never personally experienced the GOP slime machine.

        As I noted above, I'll be curious to see what happens once they start attacking Rev. Wright.  If they can go after some lowly functionary in the Edwards campaign, you know that they'll go after Obama's pastor, esp given Obama's express embrace of faith-based politics.  While I have no opinion as to whether Obama should issue any comments in response to Donohue, he is now forewarned that he is likely to be next on the list.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:37:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Obama's got to be better than they are. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      adigal, LV Pol Girl

      He can't get down in the dirt with them.  Always take the high road is my motto.

  •  Edwards should have hired Armando n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  One of these days. . . (5+ / 0-)

    Maybe Democratic candidates will be smart enough to understand that the things Republicans say are completely independent of what Democrats say and do.

    I don't know how many times I've seen this over the years. The Republicans bark and the Democrats -- instead of saying "fuck you" -- run like scared little children, apologize all over themselves, worry about what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will say about them, and pander to a bunch of idiots, hatemongers and bigots -- 99 percent of whom would never consider voting for them in the first place.

    Why they engage the GOP smear machine in any kind of dialogue is beyond me. Why they continue to go on the Fox News Channel is beyond me.

    It dosn't matter what we say. It doesn't matter what we do. It doesn't matter how we vote. It doesn't matter what we stand for or stand against. At the end of the day, the GOP smear machine is going to portray every single important Democrat as:

    • Hating America
    • Wanting the terrorists to win
    • Hating people of faith
    • Flip-floppers
    • Tax and spenders
    • Anti-family
    • In bed with Hollywood. . .

    Why do our candidates think that they can change this? Have they learned nothing? This was the GOP playbook 15 years ago. It's the GOP playbook today. It'll be the GOP playbook in another 15 years.

    It's just maddening to watch our side try to play on the GOP's turf again.

    The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

    by IndyScott on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:30:59 AM PST

  •  respond in kind (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, sick of it all

    When the right wingers start demanding you defend yourself, say "I will defend the behavior of my supporters when the Republicans can defend the repulsive behavior of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.  I don't agree with all the opinions of all of my supporters, but can't be asked to respond to every comment of every supporter.  I will defend what I say.  If you want to argue, you will have to argue with me about my ideas and my opinions."

  •  tactics (0+ / 0-)

    This is a variation of the same old tactic where if a Democrat says something, Republican operatives ask all the other Democrats, "Do you stand by what so n so said?" It seems to work, so they keep doing it.

    I'd like to see us do the same thing. We certainly have a lot of opportunities with all the stupid things Republican Americans say.

  •  Wait until they start calling some of them (0+ / 0-)

    liberals, and it'll be fun to watch how fast they run from that term. Gee - am I the only when that predicted that things will not have changed?

    17. Ne5

    In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

    by Spud1 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:33:47 AM PST

  •  I can't help but think Mike Stark's efforts (0+ / 0-)

    against KSFO are an inspiration to even this winger bastards. They figure to copy our tactics against rightwing hate radio. They think they can turn this into an issue, like we tried to put a spotlight on an actual issue. It's a war of wills, I guess

    -8.63, -3.18 rethugs have blood on their hands.

    by feingoldforVP on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:39:14 AM PST

  •  maybe straight talk from a Dem will illuminate? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal

    Brian O'Dwyer, a New York lawyer and Irish-American leader, who attacked Edwards the first time round, just came out with a statement [yesterday]:

    "The blogger’s continuing hostility to Catholics and other Christians, especially in the centrality of the Virgin birth, is both morally wrong and, for Senator Edwards, politically stupid. Senator Edwards was horribly flawed in refusing to see the importance of how offensive the blogger’s earlier comments were to people of faith. This latest so-called review, published after Edwards refused to fire her for earlier anti-Catholic writings, should now wake him up and lead him to finally do the right thing as his campaign tries to move forward. Bigotry of any kind should have no role in the Democratic Party, or in any presidential campaign."

    O'Dwyer, also, is hard to cast as a GOP hitman. He's the chairman of the National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, the Democratic Party's official white-ethnic grouping; close to some labor union leaders; and a leading member of a prominent New York Democratic family."

    maybe? ;)

    link

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

    by PhillyGal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:40:02 AM PST

    •  Morally wrong? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade

      According to whom?

      I'm kind of tired of people who think they can decide who is moral and who is not.

      A person's morality is not dependent on his or her religion or lack thereof.

    •  Now we are stooping pretty low (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade

      ...because O'Dwyer was responding to a movie review written by Amanda of the film Children of God.  There was nothing mocking or offensive about her comments.  O'Dwyer evidently differs with her opinion (to him that's apparently a grave sin) but to call her a bigot over that is false.  And morally wrong.  And I couldn't care less that he's a Democrat.  He should be ashamed of himself.  

  •  Just a smokescreen (0+ / 0-)

    The war is the issue. Why didn't Fidelis scream at Giuliani or Bush? They also could have spoken out on the subject. Fidelis and all of the idiots (Malkin, etc.) need to get over it. Edwards managed the situation. They did not like it.

    Get over it already.

  •  How could any of us get a message to Obama, etc. (0+ / 0-)

    Every time something like this happens, I read a lot of great advice being wasted in the stories, diaries, and comments of Daily Kos. Is there any chance whatsoever that this particular story will ever enter any candidate's field of vision?

    And now, ladies and gentlemen, good luck for the last tango!

    by iconoclastic cat on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:41:29 AM PST

  •  Some details about Fidelis' tax-exempt status... (0+ / 0-)

    ... may be found here.

    So, which division sent the letters?

    "You have to keep your knee on [Bush's] windpipe until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

    by tbetz on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:42:40 AM PST

  •  I just called Fidelis. (4+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately, I couldn't get a human being on the phone, but I did leave a message.  I told them that I'm a Catholic from a very Catholic family and that I got my name because I was born the day after Trinity Sunday.  I told them that I'm very upset at their failure to do anything to stop the war in Iraq and save lives.  I told them that I'm very upset at their interference in politics.  I told them that I'm concerned about whether they're more interested in getting their hands on Bush's faith based handouts than they are in the words of the New Testament.      

  •  NEVER apologize & never admit you were wrong: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    diplomatic

    AMPLIFY!

    Obama should have amplified his wasted lives statement. He should have gone one step further & said that the lives of our troops have been wasted, WASTED AND DISHONORED, by an extremist minority.  

    Our dead military heroes have been exploited by an extremist minority, self-hating, anti-Christian hate group for the purpose of stoking the fires at FOX news.

    For what? For political purpose. I call Fox news an unFair & unBalanced extremist media outlet and call for their change in tactics. And he should continue to ignore their reporters and their pandering to our baser instincts. I call FOX News base, dishonest, hate-mongering, extremist, unAmerican, yellow journalism, harmful to America's needs. DO NOT WATCH FOX News. Got V-chip? USE IT !!! Do not let your children be infected by the viral video of FOX news. FOX is no longer a joke. FOX is anti-American!

    They will continue to paint Democrats as
    Wanting the terrorists to win
    Hating American people of faith
    Flip-floppers
    Tax and spenders
    Anti-family
    AMPLIFY THEIR MEME, for God's sake, AMPLIFY when they give you the mike!!

    America's Second Harvest (moral compass: -7.63,-6.21) (world view: 9,1)

    by ezdidit on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:49:57 AM PST

    •  I disagree on mistakes. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      diplomatic, adigal

      Even FDR admitted that he made mistakes.  He said that when he saw a problem he tried to find a solution.  If the first one didn't work, he would cast it aside and try something else.  Nobody is immune from mistakes.  Even though it was not totally his fault, JFK admitted that he made a mistake when he took bad advice from the State Dept. and the Joint Chiefs and went along with the Bay of Pigs fiasco.  He learned from that one and didn't do it again when the missile crisis came along.  Learning from mistakes is what really counts.  It's what gives some people wisdom.  You can't learn anything from a mistake when you refuse to acknowledge that it exists.  That's Bush's problem.  He keeps trying to get his fat head through that tiny hole and will never admit that it doesn't fit.

      •  I Know, I know... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        diplomatic

        It's a generalization. You can apologize in private to your supporters, but you must Amplify when the extremists give you the mike.

        Otherwise, you're just singing their song--just like Karaoke.  

        It will not stop here. Obama should never, ever go on FOX. NeVER!! Democratic pandering to the right, obviously, doesn't work. If the hate-mongering right wing conspiracy keeps moving our candidates to the right, well, call it a two-step: they push to the right, we move over to the right.  

        America's Second Harvest (moral compass: -7.63,-6.21) (world view: 9,1)

        by ezdidit on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:32:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What About the Romney Story? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Judge Moonbox

    Mitt Romney's Ford Follies:

    • Former Governor of liberal Massachusetts and previous resident of heavily Mormon Utah, Romney cynically announced his White House bid in Michigan.
    • Needing to preach a message of religious tolerance, Romney announced his bid at a museum honoring a giant of anti-semitism, Henry Ford.
    • Romney's own father George was president of American Motors, which brought us such classics as the Rambler, the Marlin, the Hornet, the Gremlin and the Pacer.
    • Romney's message of innovation rang hollow as Ford is in the process of laying off 44,000 workers and closing 16 plants.

    For the full story, see:
    "Mitt Romney's Ford Follies."

  •  Gutless, spineless Democrats (0+ / 0-)

    The way Clinton and Obama respond to this (or don't) will determine whether anything has changed.  Obama likes to talk about the high road, and "decency", but we are not dealing with "decent" people here.

    When Edwards failed to give a resounding defense of Amanda, but instead opened the door by saying "Yes, what she said was awful", he threw them the red meat they needed to keep it going.  And now we see the result.

    If neither of them responds to this it will tell us that nothing has changed; that the Democrats are still sitting crouched in a fetal position in the corner, waiting for the lunatics on the right to beat them again.

  •  Why give the story fresh legs? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal, Sam I Am, Inland

    Let it die--it's a whole lot of nothing.  I doubt the average Catholic gives a rat's ass what that nutjob Donohue thinks.  I know I don't.  Heck, most people don't know who he is, or care about "the blogosphere."  I think this is one of those stories that is artificially inflated online and pretty much ignored everywhere else.

    •  Because the real story here... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Athena, Phoenix Woman, Yoshimi

      is that there will be another story shortly.

      And to the extent that we've analyzed and understood this one, the next one can possibly go better.

      •  Spot On (0+ / 0-)

        You're right - we see a template for future attacks and better get ready.

      •  Is this the first lame attack in history? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal

        Hardly.  I don't think there is anything to be learned here except that it's "business as usual."  

        This story simply doesn't have a lot of broad appeal, because (as surprising as it may seem to the internet-savvy) the average joe doesn't blog, doesn't read blogs, and doesn't care about blogs.  Moreover, anti-Catholic sentiment rarely creates widespread outrage, because the Church has a (rightly) tarnished image in the US due to the sex abuse scandals.

        Now, the Obama "wasted lives" comment might get play.  But again, that's nothing new.  Ask any political candidate in the information age--sound bites come back to haunt you.  

        So I'm not sure what there is to learn from this that hasn't been learned many times over.

      •  Geekesque sez Fidelis=RedState.org (0+ / 0-)

        Check his latest diary.

    •  You know what? I have no idea (0+ / 0-)

      what this is about, except that a couple of bloggers who worked for Edwards, both women, said something on their blogs (I don't even know which blogs) that offended some right-wing Catholic nutjob that no one has ever heard of before, but because his name "Bill Donohue" he probably got a lot of extra attention from people wondering what happened to Phil Donohue that he's turned into a right wing...oh...nevermind....

      I still don't know what they said, except that I suspect it's pretty typical feminist stuff.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:11:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Everybody step out of the echo chamber (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal

    We don't know enough about what's going on and its magnitude to make conclusions.

    There is ALWAYS a right-wing noise machine.  Always.  So freaking out every time it twitches and grunts is a mistake.

    It's like saying if a candidate has a sex scandal, he cannot be elected.  Except that Clinton had several before running for president and another one while in office, they blew up, he got sued civilly and investigated by Ken Starr for the later one.

    Clinton's status?  Most popular and beloved ex-President whose charisma and success is pouring into his wife's political (and finance) coffers.  Frankly, he is so popular that Bush may have to go have a sex scandal to pull his numbers out of the ditch.

    Everybody, step back, have a cup of decaf, stop freaking and start thinking.

    Make Crablaw Maryland Weekly your source for Maryland news and commentary. (-1.88/-5.69)

    by tbrucegodfrey on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:01:01 AM PST

    •  So is Bush planting all those headlines (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      adigal

      about him and Laura sleeping in separate beds? That's not enough for a proper sex scandal...we need to hear something about Condi going shopping for thigh-high leather boots with 8-inch heels and a matching cat-o-nine-tails....

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:16:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting tidbit about Fidelis, the group (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kagro X, Yoshimi

    going after Obama and Clinton.

    You'll be completely stunned, I'm sure.

  •  Forgive them for their sins as bigots... (0+ / 0-)

    for that is the Christian way.

    Then send out surrogates to attack the shit out of them.

    They are bigots and will not cease no matter what the Democratic candidates do.  They did it before and nothing will silence them.

    In my view, it would be a mistake for a candidate to start a real exchange with them because it will elevate and provide them with a larger forum.

    This is when Carville and Begala and Bill Press, etc. should be flooding the airwaves.

  •  Ignore the bastards (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xanthe, adigal, trinite

    I think it's time for the blogosphere to start ignoring these people.
    What if LaRouchies started threatening people?  Nobody would care, because they're freaks.
    So's the Catholic League, people!!  Brent Bozell?  Linda Chavez?  Gimme a break.  Catholics like myself don't consider them Catholics.  We consider them right wing Republicans.  
    They don't speak for ANYONE.
    Ignore them.

  •  Form a Democratic Love Team (0+ / 0-)

    I guess this is impossible, but, really, to me Obama and Clark both seem to be really nice guys. Kucinich, of course, is a mensch.

    I honestly believe the trollrated rumor about Edwards having a hissy fit about being asked to introduce Webb in 2006, but I still think that Edwards is a nice guy.

    I've met people who've met HRC personally and say she's wonderful.

    I would gladly vote for any of these candidates in 2008.

    Suggestion: Why don't we try to get them to agree to present a united front, at least against Bush Rovie whisper campaigns and that sort of thing? Ideally, I'd love to see them all to run positive campaigns and to limit any "negativism" to critiques of each other's policy proposals.

    Maybe this is wrong, but I don't think running a super negative campaign would help any of the mid-tier primary candidates this time around. What's going to help them is if one of the frontrunners stumbles or one of the mid-tier people comes off really well during a speech or debate.

    So, I think the primary candidates would have nothing to lose and much to gain by running as friends united for the good of America, rather than as bitter foes.

  •  If I were in the Clinton/Obama camps (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Athena

    I'd politely point out that we still have a 1st Amendment in this country and that, since nothing that the bloggers said either promotes nor prohibits Catholics in the free exercise of their chosen faith, perhaps they should relax and enjoy a nice steaming cup of STFU.

  •  No half-thinking American... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, adigal, DrWolfy

    is going to be offended by Obama's comment. They all know what he meant and they agree with him. Same goes for full-thinking Americans!

  •  Should be fun for the chatteratti (0+ / 0-)

    Too bad for the beltway gasbags that few in America know who Marcotte is, fewer care, and even fewer care what Obama's and Clinton's opinion of her are.  

    The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. - John Adams

    by tipsymcstagger on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:17:07 AM PST

  •  I Am Weary of the Politically Correct BS (0+ / 0-)

    Can't anybody say anything candid anymore?

    Read history.

    Andrew Jackson would have been run out of town, and he's the Father of the Democratic Party.

    Now we have Hillary, Dowager Empress of Equivocation.

    Give me Andrew Jackson any damn day of the week!

  •  The right wingers can't take our in-your-face (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Athena

    approach. You are damn right we are tough and take no prisoners when it comes to getting out of this war, fighting for LGBT marital rights and universal health care. No longer will we be timid about these issues as people powered progressive kossacks. Our leader, Mr. Kos, has taught us that when it comes to these right wing bigots, we have to be tough warriors like he is. We'll be in their face, and won't hesitate to use "bad language" when it comes to fighting for our causes, be it this illegal war or the fundamental rights of LGBTK Americans.

  •  Someone Correct Me If I'm wrong (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal, Inland

    Didn't Edwards himself Condemn the blog writing in question, but just decided to give the bloggers a second chance?

    •  Yes, and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      adigal

      I'm wondering if people aren't being "concerned" about the candidates while really defending the blogosphere.

    •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

      and then Amanda Marcotte resigned yesterday, ostensibly to not cause the campaign any more harm.

      "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

      by bawbie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:26:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I feel it has to be added (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque

      that if the Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama campaigns respond with statements condemning the writings of Amanda and Melissa, then those statements should be compared to John Edwards's disapproval of those writings before any blogger decides to so blatantly and transparently betray their own bias against those candidates.

      Cause most sensible people, I think, can see how this is going to go down as far as the netroots is concerned.  

  •  2008 Presidential Campaign (0+ / 0-)

    Goddamnit! The Democratic party not only lost its balls in the last twelve years, they got a lobotomy, too! Between shooting themselves in the foot on religious issues, and taking each other out to appease the pro-war lobby, they are chasing me back to the Greens! If it weren't for Russ Feingold, they would have nothing!

  •  Question just asked at Snow press conference.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    diplomatic, adigal, PhillyGuy03

    about Edwards' not firing campaign bloggers. Tony Snow said the President would never tolerate such actions/words by his staff. This is going to hang around Edwards' neck.

    •  And the Left Wing supporters of other (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman

      candidates also attack him.  We allow the RW to set the agenda.

      It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

      by pioneer111 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:57:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  BS, whoever hired Amanda Marcotte... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kitkatkos

        should have seen this coming. It is BASIC. They gave the issue to the RW on a silver platter.  Most people are missing the main point here. Bloggers like Amanda Marcotte should recognize that their words matter and probably mean they can't work on campaigns.

        •  I think what you say is true (0+ / 0-)

          but we don't have to pile on our candidates.  I'd rather we use the energy to attack back the RW bigots.

          I think missteps happen in all campaigns and if there is an inordinate amount in one the campaign will take the hits, but I still think the response on the left encourages the RW to attack more and that hurts all Democrats.  That is their agenda.

          Tony Snow proves it.  They don't care about the truth.  They just repeat their message over and over.  

          We need to care about the truth and how we deliver the message in the collective sense.

          It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

          by pioneer111 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:17:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  So we should obey the Anti-Semitic Donohue? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pioneer111

          We should react how he wants us to react?

          And GOPers NEVER get rid of anyone unless forced at gunpoint.  

          Case in point:  Look at Patrick Hynes -- the McCain people are behind him 100-effing-percent, and said so, even though he's said stuff that is genuinely horrific.  But since McCain made it clear that he wasn't dumping Hynes, it became a non-story.

    •  So, he'll be criticizing McCain now, then? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      adigal

      Oh, really. I hope he'll be pissing on John McCain some more, then. I mean, Glenn Greenwald's already done his homework for him.

    •  Yeah, but this is BS, Bush would never tolerate (0+ / 0-)

      actions/words by his staff, but he tolerates them outing a CIA agent and killing hundreds of thousands of "brown" people.

      Can we please get back to work stopping this president and his band of mad men?????

      My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

      by adigal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:15:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But it's OK to not fire (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue

      Someone who leaks the name of a covert CIA op?

      Fuck them all.

      -6.5, -7.59. All good that a person does to another returns three fold in this life; harm is also returned three fold.

      by DrWolfy on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:40:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Donohue, heretic (0+ / 0-)

    It is important to distinguish between far-right organizations, and mainstream Catholicism.

    These so-called "Catholic" organizations DO NOT speak for American Catholics anymore than they speak for the Vatican.  Presidential candidates must recognize this.

    Some pressure could be applied on the Catholic Church to clarify the role of these organizations.  

    This is coming from someone who was raised as a Catholic, and who understands a little bit about Church politics.  It is not in the interest of the Church to have its membership embroiled in these type of political fights.

    If guys like Donohue want to speak as private citizens, or as the representative of a far-right political organization, he is within his rights to do so.  

    However, when he wraps himself in the mantle of "Catholicism," acting if he is a representative of the Church, he is engaging in activity that puts him on very thin ice (I believe the term is engaging in "fraudulent activity").  A political organization claiming a membership of 350,000 is not the Catholic Church which represents about 55 to 58 million Americans.

  •  The guy who runs Fidelis (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman

    is listed on a Michigan GOP website
    as a "Republican Activist."

    Don't they even try to hide this stuff anymore?

    To think is easy. To act is difficult. To act as one thinks is the most difficult of all -Goethe

    by commonscribe on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:30:13 AM PST

  •  I G N O R E T H E M (0+ / 0-)

    I understand wanting people to prepare for a fight, not end up looking bad, etc.  But the public doesn't give a shit about this one.  Nobody is going to pay any attention to anyone's responses from this campaign or that.  No one will remember any of this in 2 weeks, just ignore it and drop it.  Any request from a wingnut organization to anyone for any purpose should just be ignored.  Everyone knows these nutcases don't represent any actual angry people.  The issue was over before it began.  Ignore them.

    ...i felt my pants' warmth as my legs became string and my arteries burst into song...

    by itsbenj on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:32:43 AM PST

  •  Gore-Clark '08 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal

    Edwards will talk tough on poverty, but he caved to a right-wing smear bully.

    Hillary is all about, Hillary.

    Obama's the future, but he's not ready for prime time.

    I am praying for the one candidate who has the cache' to win this thing and kick some butt. Gore, with General Clark as VP.

    Just my opinion. That is all, carry on.

  •  This is NOT the point... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal, Inland

    Amanda Marcotte's writings and views should be disavowed. They are/were disrespectful of others' faith and said in a way to provoke outrage. Why defend bigotry and disrespect here?

    I wrote last Thursday that she will have to resign. She should have done so last Thursday rather than continuing to write on her own personal blog.

    The main issue you miss here is whether a campaign blogger can continue to blog on her own site...the answer is no, what she/he writes is fair game to the opposition. Grow up and realize this, and stop making this a case about standing up for bloggers/netroots.

    BTW, I support Edwards and think both bloggers ought to resign.

    •  Why should "Shakespeare's Sister" resign? NT (0+ / 0-)

      NT

    •  Yeah, sure, in fantasy land. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk

      You know, if conservative bloggers were held to the same fainting-couch level of decorum (anyone remember John Bolton apologizing for granting an interview to Pamela of "Atlas Shrugs"?), you might have a point. But they aren't, and you don't.

      If Marcotte had been agitating for Catholics to all get crucified, I'd be right with you. (On the other hand, if that had happened, Bill Donohue might be too busy living his one-handed persecution fantasy to type up an outraged letter.) But she wasn't. She spoke out strongly against one of the Church's political positions. Like it or not, if you stick your nose in politics, you give up your immunity from criticism--even harsh criticism.

      All this shrinking-violet pearl-clutching, and the infantilizing use of the word "potty-mouth", is kabuki.  It's theater; it's a shadow play. And anyone who evaluates it on the merits of the claims against Marcotte without even looking at the elephant in the room--incitement to actual violence on the right--is a sucker.

      •  Maybe kabuki to you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caroline W

        All this shrinking-violet pearl-clutching, and the infantilizing use of the word "potty-mouth", is kabuki.  It's theater; it's a shadow play. And anyone who evaluates it on the merits of the claims against Marcotte without even looking at the elephant in the room--incitement to actual violence on the right--is a sucker.

        But to many Americans, highly offensive and outrageous, and Edwards tried to distance himself from this, knowing that Marcotte's remarks will hurt him.

        Amazing that people here do not see that. Are we supposed to be trying to get a Democrat elected, or are we here to defend some statements by a blogger that were meant to offend? Can't have both in this situation.

        My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

        by adigal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:18:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So we should kneel before Donohue? (0+ / 0-)

          We should do whatever he and the GOPers running Fidelis say?  (Yes, Fidelis is GOP.  Geekesque has the scoop.)

          •  I am hardly suggesting kneeling before anyone (0+ / 0-)

            I am saying the story is over. Done. Edwards can say, "She no longer works for me," and the other candidates should certainly NOT get involved.

            I know Fidelis is GOP - so what? They are trying to destroy our candidates. What else is new?? Let's vet the bloggers more carefully next time, and this never would have been an issue.

            And Obama's comment - he was correct, it was misinterpreted, he is a kind man who does not want to cause pain for the soldiers' families, so he apologized. I bet he gets points for that.

            My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

            by adigal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:35:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Story's NOT done if the GOP's Fidelis pimps it (0+ / 0-)

              And the reason they're pimping it is because they sense weakness and smell blood.

              Once you knuckle under to a bully or a shark, he doesn't go away -- his friends join in.

            •  This was a manufactured issue... (0+ / 0-)

              ...and Donohue has a history of attacking women.

              He got Kerry to fire two women staffers in his 2004 campaign, and the same day he attacked Marcotte and McEwan, he called Barbara Walters (BARBARA WALTERS!?!?!) a "housemom to bigots".

              Why should we be enabling him?  Look at his attacks on the Kerry campaign.  He exists to invent reasons to attack people.  Why react the way he wants us to react?

              •  I give up. You all don't want to hear (0+ / 0-)

                another perspective. You all just want to be right, and congratulate yourself over pushing Edwards to keep Marcotte.

                Meanwhile, Tony Snow is getting questions about Edwards and his bloggers, and is playing holier than thou, and  callers to Sean Hannity are saying that Edwards is cooked after his support of Marcotte.

                So you all got what you wanted - Edwards didn't fire her. And she is going to be hung around his neck at every opportunity.

                I hope you who pushed Edwards are happy.

                My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

                by adigal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:30:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  PS - It was brought up by Donohue, but not (0+ / 0-)

                manufactured by him. He used Marcotte's own words against Edwards.

                My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

                by adigal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:31:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Obama won't get a pass. (0+ / 0-)

              And Obama's comment - he was correct, it was misinterpreted, he is a kind man who does not want to cause pain for the soldiers' families, so he apologized. I bet he gets points for that.

              Point? Points from who? Do you understand that the other side, no matter how much you bow and scrape and apologize when you haven't done anything wrong, will never give their seal of approval?

              Mark my words--six months from now, "wasted" will be his middle name on the other side of the isle. These anklebiters will latch onto anything.

          •  No, we should oppose bigoted blogging... (0+ / 0-)

            that trashes other people's faith and provokes them. Amanda Marcotte should have recognized this and resigned after Edwards' expression of support. Waiting four days to do so did damage. It ISN'T about Donohue. It's about not GIVING them any fuel to add legitimately to a fire of outrage.

            •  Donohue attacked Barbara Walters the same day... (0+ / 0-)

              ...and in much the same language.

              So we should all hate Barbara Walters as well as Amanda Marcotte?  Or anyone else right-wing operatives tell us to hate?

              Or should we work to ensure that a) the media tells the full truth behind the smear-spreaders, and/or b) the smear-spreaders learn that they can't do this with impunity?  (Both groups are 501(c)(3) tax-exempts.  Let's make 'em sweat for a change. http://www/... has the details.)

  •  I just done understand the outrage. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal

    Look, if the administration had acquired a large pit and shot a few soldiers every day, dumping their bodies therein, one might say that their lives had been wasted, yes?

    Now, how on earth is that stating that disrespecting the troops? Would it be better to tell the bereaved family of a soldier shot and tossed in the pit that, no, really, he died for freedom and puppies 'n' such? Is it an insult to the soldier to say that his life was thrown away by a vile and rapacious regime?

    It's absolutely incoherent to me. Maybe someone can explain.

  •  Lefty bloggers are poison (0+ / 0-)

    Lefty bloggers are poison for Dem candidates.  In the last days of his campaign in CT Joe Lieberman sent every CT voter a flyer featuring Kos, his prominence on the Lamont campaign, and a reminder of his "screw 'em" remark about dead American civilians in Iraq.  Not only didn't it hurt Joe, he won by double digits in a three-way race.

    Here's the problem:  The other side is not frightened by progressive bloggers, but our side sure is.  Lefty bloggers are a net plus for Republicans...

    •  It's people like you, jumping at shadows. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, Sparhawk, trinite

      If your primary goal is to please Republicans, you'll never win a damn thing. Righty bloggers are far, far worse, but apparently nothing they do will stick, nothing they say is beyond the pale, and no matter how blood-curdling hatemongering they are, they're never cast out of the party's good graces. Just look at John Bolton and Pamela of "Atlas Shrugs".

      And here I thought the party had learned something last year. Looks like business as usual--jump at your own shadow, and blame your own people for not being pleasing enough to the Republicans.

      Do you know what a Republican-acceptable candidate looks like? It's Joe Lieberman. If we follow your advice, and tone down the message and hope real hard we won't get smeared, we're left with Joe Lieberman.

      I mean, that's way more obvious a course of action than growing a pair and fighting the smears, right?

    •  You mean like Patrick Hynes is poison for McCain? (0+ / 0-)

      But you must think that's OK.

    •  Lieberman got less than 50% of the total vote. (0+ / 0-)

      The only place it was a landslide vote for Joe was on the Republican side, and we all know how Republicans feel about Kos.  Sure, if you're a Republican candidate posing as a Democrat, don't expect Kos to help you.  Joe Lieberman is never going to be able to pull that one again because next time he'll have to run on the Republican ticket or run as an Independent and face two formidable candidates.  This was not a three-way race.  The "Republican" candidate was nowhere.  He said so himself, and he also said the orders came directly from the White House.  Democrats in Connecticut will never put Joe on the Dem. ticket again, and he won't be able to pose as a Democrat, Republican, and Independent all at the same time.  He got away with it this time because he said he would caucus with Dems.  That won't happen if he runs again.

      •  It's pretty simple (0+ / 0-)

        Lieberman won when everybody in the state had a chance to cast a ballot.  My point is (and I didn't think it would be this difficult to understand) Lieberman ran as an Independent against the Dem, and he had no fear of the netroots.  He even mocked the netroots and still won by double digits.

        If a large share of the voters are Republicans (like in CT) then, yes!, part of the goal is to "please Republicans."  To believe otherwise is naive.

        The best course of action is to stop playing with your pair and grow a brain.  Stop poisoning the well for Dem candidates who MUST attract GOP voters to win.

    •  Believe the opposite of what the right says. (0+ / 0-)

      Lefty bloggers are a plus for Republicans?  Then why are they trying so hard to regulate us?  

  •  Swiftboating succeeds with passive targets, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pioneer111

    just as any form of bullying does. The BushCheney cabal use this psychology to herd their media lackeys into manageable groups before spoonfeeding them the lies they wanted to frame the public's unconscious mindset. Kerry's 2004 debacle should have taught us all a lesson: when attacked by the GOP in their classic passive aggressive style, hit back so hard their stunned, and their cheerleaders will melt away.

    Sooo, most of the vaunted Christian conservatives are neither. They are more likely to be in one of the following categories: meth-taking Gay sex libertines masquerading as preachers; corrupt businessmen; phone sex perverts; drug-addicted, child-sex loving blowhards; wife-dumping bigamists; inveterate gamblers; lying media prostitutes; whore toe-sucking political advisors and so forth.

    They open their mouths, the public gets treated to revealing and telling evidence of their gutter morality, their despicable characters, the inanity of their pronouncements, their hypocrisy, their criminal pasts. Should do the trick if the Democratic candidates and their surrogates maintain their appetite for crushing the GOP surrogate dung beetles under their own mountains of pig sewage.

    And, all of this trashing of the GOP's sh*t-covered spokesdrones can be done in a light-hearted and hilarious way. We could start by profiling the self-perjuring assclowns who conceived, underwrote, launched and defended that misshapen media darling, the swiftboating of John Kerry.

    "That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn--or be forced--to accept." Impeachment for treason is an American value.

    by Enough Talk Lets Get Busy on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:30:22 AM PST

    •  But the question is Who Should do the response (0+ / 0-)

      Those outside the campaign are more in a position to ask penetrating questions of the RW.

      The left bloggers often are criticizing the campaigns of their own side rather than attacking the RW.  The RW is fully focused on the general election even during the primaries.  They are there to take down the Democrats first.

      It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

      by pioneer111 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:03:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Spot on Kargo! (0+ / 0-)

    http://rochesterturning.com/

    by optimusprime on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:50:27 AM PST

  •  My E-mail to Fidelis (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, PHeggerUT, pioneer111

    Some Guy on the Internet Calls on Fidelis
    To Condemn William Donohue and the Catholic League

    Formal Email Sent Requesting Public Action

    THE INTERNETS. – Some Guy on the Internets sent an email to Fidelis calling on it to publicly condemn the anti-Semitic statements of William Donohue, who serves as the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

    Some Guy said: "Bill Donohue has said hateful things about Jews.  On one episode of MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, Donohue said:  ‘Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, okay? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex.’ Anything less than a clear public condemnation by Fidelis would significantly call into question whether Catholicism is anti-Semitic itself."

    In the e-mail, Some Guy wrote: "You are in a unique position to make clear that anti-Semitic  bigotry of any kind should not be tolerated by any Catholic organization.  By taking up this issue publicly, you will be able to distinguish your organization from Mr. Donohue, while acknowledging the respect due people of all faiths in America, and in particular, Jews."

    "It is critical that Fidelis speak out on this issue to assure Jews that anti-Semitic bigotry has no place in Catholic political advocacy.  I think it is important for Fidelis to distinguish itself from Bill Donohue by describing how they would handle the identical situation involving its own President," Some Guy commented.

    Bloggers have launched a nationwide campaign against Donohue's divisive, anti-Semitic rhetoric.

    Some Guy Added added: "The 2008 presidential cycle is going to be extremely divisive on both sides of the aisle, but this situation presents an excellent opportunity for a Catholic organization to reject any form of anti-Semitic bigotry.  For the sake of millions of Jews in America who are outraged by this incident, surely this is not too much to ask."

  •  Two Illinois Senators told the truth, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pioneer111

    had to back down for telling it. Recall Illinois Senator Dick Durbin saying that the treatment of Gizmo prisoners by Americans reminded him of what Nazis did. A firestorm of protest made him recant. Now, Obama speaks the truth and then follows in Durbin's footsteps. Cindy Sheena has said the same thing about her son's death in Iraq. These lives are wasted by a government that treats veterans like garbage. LBJ's War in Vietnam wasted lives just as much as Bush's War. Wars waste human life. That's what they've always done.

  •  p.p.s. To John Howard (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FightTheFuture

     To Australian Minister John Howard.
    "Have a G'day and GET FUCKED!"

    -5.50, -3.49 Xxtian

    by rMatey on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:37:16 AM PST

  •  Let this be a lesson because it's still early (0+ / 0-)

    We need to remind ourselves that the 2006 elections are in the past and that we need to earn everything again in 2008.

    That means we need to be even more vigilant for our guys and gal than they are in their pursuit to destroy.  

    Obama's statement was take wAAAAY out of context and he actually recanted it and explained what he meant.  It's a minor flub, well explained, but it's cannon fodder for the right.  They'll make t-shirts that say 'wasted lives' - Obama and sell them at NASCAR races and Church Socials.  

    The Catholic thing as applied to Hillary, Edwards and Obama - unbelievable.  Hard to even comment.

    But WE NEED A "WAR ROOM" RIGHT NOW to brainstorm on how to react to this horse manure and respond with solid clear messages about

    1.  How no lives are wasted.  We support the troops, their lives, their families, their sacrifices - it's the BuschCo. failed war and failed policies that are causing waste that we want to stop.
    1.  Catholics can find a home in the Democratic Party.  JFK was a Catholic.  Working class, middle class Catholics from the boroughs of NYC and the South Side of Chicago and even in places like the Carolinas and the Great Plains can find a home in the Democratic party.  They've done so for generations.

    But we need a WAR ROOM.  We need print, electronic, and PR that gets our positive messages on the nightly news.  We need it now and every single day until November '08.  

    It's not just the presidency.  It's our control of Congress, and ultimately the SCOTUS because some of the good folks up there are getting older and may be out in the next 2 to 6 years.

    WAR ROOM Mr. Edwards
    WAR ROOM Mr. Obama
    WAR ROOM Mrs. Clinton

    Get thyselves a full time WAR ROOM staff and fill it with positive messages to give to the MSM all day every day.

  •  Donohue, Robertson, O'Really et al (0+ / 0-)

    "You probably think the Inquisition was a perversion of the 'true' spirit of Christianity.

    Perhaps it was.  The problem, however, is that the teachings of the Bible are so muddled

    and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive

    for five centuries.  It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of theChurch,

    like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured

    (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas).  Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the

    wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches.  You are, of course, free to

    interpret the Bible differently - though isn't it amazing that you have succeeded in

    discerning the true teachings of Christianity, while the most influential thinkers in the

    history of your faith failed?  Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"

    -5.50, -3.49 Xxtian

    by rMatey on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:15:37 PM PST

  •  enough already! (0+ / 0-)

    anyone who is influenced by michelle malkin and/or fidelis will not be voting for a democratic candidate anyway. so why give these right wing nut jobs the time of the day?

    it seems to me, we only embolden and legitamize these nut jobs by responding to them. they are at best, an ultra conservative fringe group and nothing more.  enough already ... ignore them!

    Even a little dog can piss on a big building." Jim Hightower

    by bamabarrron on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:19:44 PM PST

  •  Primary (0+ / 0-)

    Consider the following.

    1. Do not worry about HRC's campaign. They know how to handle "problems".
    1. Do not make the mistake that all "slams" will come from the GOPers and their friends.
    1. Suggest you read "Primary Colors" by Anonymous or better yet for a little political junkie entertainment watch the movie.
  •  Why should ... (0+ / 0-)

    The right get to define who is suitable to work for our candidates. I was impressed with how Obama handled the smears coming from Fox and gang. To allow the looney religious nuts and the rabid right to decide is a bad move.

    Look what happened to both Gore and Kerry because of being wimpy and allowing 'handlers to define them. Maybe Edwards wants to appeal to a larger voter pool then just the same 'values' faithbased idiots that voted in these ungodly sinner we have now. This time maybe the Candidates themselfs should define who they want to play to.

  •  A Question and an Observation... (0+ / 0-)

    Did Amanda have an obligation to make Edwards aware of the potential for problems with some of what she wrote?

    I just got a robocall from Edwards, inviting me to a gathering this weekend in Dubuque.  Dubuque, in case you didn't know, is THE most Catholic town in Iowa.  I'll give the man credit.  He's not hiding.

  •  Don't blame Dems, blame the media (0+ / 0-)

    Right wing propaganda outlets the lot of them. We must deal with them, perhaps by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

  •  My God, can't any of these people FIGHT? (0+ / 0-)

    If this were a fight, the Democrats would be huddled in the corner with their hands up around their heads while their pipsqueak opponents pummeled them with little body shots until finally they win the match on points alone.

    Goddamit Democrats, fight back!

    Really, do any of our politicians know how to fight?  I mean literally fight, because that's what they need to do now, rhetorically.  Punch back, two, three, four times!  Push Donohue and Fidelis and Malkin and the other insane pipsqueaks back into their corner and knock their freaking heads off!  

    Maybe Harry Reid, a former boxer, can give our people a few lessons, because this is too damn pathetic to watch.

    "No doubt Jack the Ripper excused himself on the grounds that it was human nature." A.A. Milne

    by DurianJoe on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:54:33 PM PST

  •  I'm (sort of) sorry to have to say this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    diplomatic

    "and turn Democrats against Democrats" - uhm, we're doing that quite well without their help.  We all know how y'all feel about Hillary, for example, or Biden.  

  •  GOD!!!!!! (0+ / 0-)

    When are the Democratic candidates going to get a collective spine transplant???  2012???   How much longer do they plan on caving into these bozos?  When will they tell the Radical Right, publicly, to STFU????

    I am tired of this.  And I've now hit a whole new level of livid.  Playing nice is doing nothing for us at all.  It's like being in an abusive relationship:  sometimes, you've just got to look that woman-hating jackass in the eye and tell him, in a tone dripping with sarcasm, "Oh, yeah, it takes a Real Big Man to hit a woman."  It is PAST time for the Democrats as a whole, from the presidential contenders all the way down to little grassroots door-knockers, to tell the political abusers "Oh, yeah, it takes a Real Political Genius to smear your opposition.  What, you're so dumb and your positions are so untenable that you can't debate the issues ON THEIR MERITS????"

    Seantor Obama, BTW, was right the first time.  Our dead soldiers' lives were wasted, and if I were a military widow, that is exactly what I would want the next POTUS to understand.

    "Fighting Fascism is Always Cool." -- Amsterdam Weekly, volume three, issue 18

    by Noor B on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:34:06 PM PST

    •  Edwards - spineless twit (0+ / 0-)

      Just on the TeeVee:  both of Edwards' bloggers have resigned.

      Combined with his cowardly vote on the IWR, and his subsequent cheerleading for Bush's war (using Rove's talking points), there is not a chance in hell I will support this ass clown.  

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 05:15:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  o lord...protect me from your cowardly folowers (0+ / 0-)

    amazing how a religion that purports to be about love attracts so many vile intolerant evil shits.  why dont they go dig up thomas jefferson's body and kick it around?  he said some pretty unflattering things about xtianity too...

  •  Are all bigots supposed to be PRO-Catholic? (0+ / 0-)

    As predicted, right wing activists have detected in the sheepish silence of the other Democratic presidential campaigns an opportunity to separate yet more top contenders from the herd, and turn Democrats against Democrats.

    First on the block: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Congratulations, geniuses. And best of luck to you.

    The self-proclaimed "Catholic-based advocacy group" Fidelis has sent essentially identical letters to Clinton and Obama, demanding that they:

    publicly condemn the anti-Catholic and anti-Christian blog posts by Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, who serve as official bloggers for the John Edwards for President Committee, and call for their immediate dismissal.

    And what happens if Clinton and Obama refuse? Why, they'll be attacked as "anti-Catholic and anti-Christian," of course. Or at least, that's the unarticulated threat implicit here:

    As one of the leading candidates pursuing the Democratic nomination for President, I believe you are in a unique position to make clear that anti-Catholic and anti-Christian bigotry of any kind should not be tolerated by any candidate. By taking up this issue publicly, you will be able to distinguish your candidacy from Mr. Edwards, while acknowledging the respect due people of faith in America, and in particular, Catholics and Christians.

    Does this "Catholic-based advocacy group" believe that bigotry's a bad thing only when it's against themselves? It sure doesn't appear that they're holding Donohue to the same standard.

    I read the WaPo article on Marcotte's resignation yesterday. They mentioned that Donohue, O'Reilly, and Malkin were on the offensive; but ignored the fact that those three have made bigoted statements that are at least as bad and probably a whole lot worse.

  •  Dear Bigoted Catholics/Fundie Christians (0+ / 0-)

    We're confident that we won't be receiving any of your votes under any normal circumstances.  We're also confident that if the situation within your party is dire enough to have you swing, we need only be minimally welcoming to you for your support, not maximally.

    However welcoming this may sound, please don't be mistaken-we don't want your vote.  Please take your business elsewhere.

    Signed,
    ~A democracy-hungry America~

  •  Kagro, how about posting an update? (0+ / 0-)

    . . . Since Melissa resigned yesterday.

    We need to keep this discussion in the recommended list. Also, Pandagon's focus on Catholic League's tax-exempt status deserves a shout.

    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 14, 2007 at 10:15:32 AM PST

  •  'Divide and Conquer' works so much better (0+ / 0-)

    when our side is already composed of isolated, quivering, self-interested camps. If Democratic candidates wish to play the hapless bull to Bill Donohue's picador, then Republicans will laugh their way to yet another plundering term in the White House.

    Does Bill Donohue REALLY represent America's Catholics and Christians? That's hint number one. Was Amanda Marcott's "insult" really that inaccurate or bad? That's hint number two. Are these stone-throwing right wing agitators themselves without sin? Big old hint number three.

    9-11 9-11 9-11, war war war, al qaida Iraq Saddam. Rinse, then repeat 20,000 times.

    by jimbo92107 on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 11:52:37 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site