I think this is a key point. Almost everyone has some skeletons in their closet which the campaign itself would not want to endorse, and it's a mistake for a campaign to look for people so bland that they've never done anything controversial. So the bloggers in question made some offensive comments--who hasn't?
The best response Edwards can make to the critics is that the bloggers were not writing on his behalf and he does not endorse or agree with what they wrote. Edwards can say that what the bloggers say in their personal lives is none of his business. Also, it would be smart for Edwards to say that despite what they posted prior to being hired, he still supports keeping them on for the value of their actual campaign work done in their official capacities.
I think it would have been smart for Edwards to emphasize a line between the personal lives of his campaign's employees and their official duties. I've heard too many stories of employees around the country fired for controversial blogging unrelated to work, and Edwards would be doing the right thing to stand up for a separation between an employee's personal life and their work. I'm sure that these bloggers will keep their posts more in line with Edwards' own opinions when blogging on behalf of Edwards.
All that said, I think that another legitimate argument the bloggers can make is that they were not criticizing Catholics--they were criticizing the policies of the Catholic Church. Although the comments may have been vulgar, I did not read them as attacking the people who believe in Catholicism (aside from being somewhat mocking of certain beliefs). The bloggers were mainly objecting to the Catholic Church's policy on birth control--a policy widely criticized among the mainstream left as well. Certainly the Catholic Church is not beyond criticism--it's dangerous to say that simply because some doctrine is part of a religion that that doctrine and its effects cannot be questioned.
Comments are closed on this story.