Some recent blog entries give you a sense of these blogs: it is not a purple blog but a deep blue one.
Some recent entries from Pandagon, not necessarily all from this author:
http://pandagon.net/
Women without husbands: selfish bitches who refuse to make men happy
On “articulate” black people
When corporations literally suck
Criminalizing pregnancy outcomes
Sunday afternoon anti-choice nuttery
From Shakespeare's Sister:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/
Yay for Exxon!
Biden Unleashed!
Sad, Sad Bill O'Reilly
Wednesday Blogwhoring
Aloha: Hawaii considers bill to allow civil unions for gay couples.
As far as their reasons:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.c...
Shakes on a Campaign
I've got some news, Shakers.
I have been offered and have accepted a position as the Netroots Coordinator for John Edwards’ presidential campaign, joining an outstanding internet team that now also includes Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte, with whom I'll be working closely. (Watch out, world!)...
As for The Big Question: Why Edwards? A lot of reasons, none of which I've been too shy about sharing as my personal support for him has increased over the last months, although you can read more in my first Edwards blog post here. I will, however, mention the three little words that ultimately got me: "I was wrong." That's how John Edwards started his Nov. 13 op-ed in the Washington Post, referring to his Iraq war vote. "I was wrong," he said, and more than that: "I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake—the men and women of our armed forces and their families—have performed heroically and paid a dear price. … [A] key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong—and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right." I don't need a president who never makes mistakes; those don't even exist. I need a president who's willing to admit them. Those have been in short order as of late, you may have noticed.
Quite some time ago, a staffer for another then-potential presidential candidate called me to pick my brain about what it would take to get my support. One of the things about which I was most adamant was that the candidate had to say, quite plainly, that s/he was wrong on Iraq. The staffer ran a couple of options by me: "What if s/he said this? What if s/he said that?" I said what I wanted to hear was "I was wrong."
John Edwards gave me what I wanted. And I believe he offers America what it needs.
not sure who she's talking about? I guess if s/he said, "if we knew then what we know now, there would not have been a vote, and of course I'd vote no" it could be her:
http://pandagon.net/...
Big news requires no fancy introduction. I have been asked and accepted a position as the Blogmaster (or blogatrix, as Norbizness calls it) for John Edwards’ presidential campaign. ..
First, because I know you’re dying to know, why did I throw my hat into the Edwards ring? Two major reasons. The first is that of all the candidates in the field, the only one worth my endorsement is John Edwards. He’s the only candidate that isn’t falling for the same tired line about moving to the center and is actually talking about issues that matter, like poverty. On the feminist angle, I think that this interview with Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL, says it all on why I feel that the best candidate for feminists to endorse is John Edwards. That Hillary Clinton is a woman is not enough for me, since she makes maneuvers that send up all sorts of red flags.
Add Jennifer Palmeiri returning as National Press Secretary for Edwards (formerly Center for American Progress).
http://www.americanprogress.org/...
Add Kate Michelman, who ran NARAL for 20 years.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Compared to Hillary's team of Terry McAuliffe and Howard Wolfson, I get the sense feminists may have a tough time deciding between Edwards and Hillary.
Comments are closed on this story.