I sure hope time straightens out the race for the presidency, since I find myself unimpressed by the entire field. John Edwards has just moved to the bottom of my list of acceptable Democratic candidates, after Hillary Clinton (after Hillary! That’s pretty low) since he has just allowed Amanda Marcotte to resign. I am unimpressed by the lack of loyalty he’s shown to his employees; I’m not an absolutist on that point, since I think loyalty can be carried too far, to the point of stupidity (case in point: GW Bush). But what pisses me off is that he failed to support her in the face of genuinely vile, trumped-up slanders from his right-wing opponents, people who’d never vote for him no matter how much he sucked up to them. That’s gutlessness, an even more unforgivable sin in a presidential candidate than disloyalty. He got his first Swift Boat attack — actually, more like a slow, leaky canoe — and he collapsed like a frightened rabbit.
So now I look at the slate of Democrats, and to my dismay discover that Obama is currently at the top. How depressing.
What cheers me up, though, is looking at the Republican field. I am perversely looking forward to 23 February, when John McCain promises to address the Discovery Institute. Watching the ‘maverick’ rip out his brain and hand it to the theocrats as his oath of fealty will be entertaining.
Obama should hire Marcotte.
I’ll post this here, since Amanda’s own comments thread is stupidly long and playing up at the minute…
I’m glad Amanda quit. She’s too damn good to be hitching herself to a professional politician. We need our firebrands red-hot and dripping with venom.
I appreciate that she may feel differently – a job’s a job after all, and she seemed to genuinely believe that supporting Edwards was the right way to go (something I’m personally less convinced about). But heck, the thing that makes her a great blogger (and in fact makes all great bloggers) is that she is beholden to no-one. The last thing we need is for bloggers to become the new press corp.
Interesting. Do you suppose he’ll try to walk the fence with some BS about tolerance or academic freedom or “teach both sides”? If he does that, does he realize how hard it will be to get anyone with an IQ higher than 50 to work for his campaign?
Edwards should hire Twisty.
I’m hoping that Gore will decide to run, and that Obama will end up as his running mate.
I’m with you on Edwards – what bothered me most was that he caved so quickly to such an obvious attack dog. Hopefully the IRS and the NYS AG office will investigate the charges that Bill whats-his-name violated the tax-exempt status of the Catholic League with the charges on Amanda, and it will come out of his hide.
You videotape car wrecks, don’t you?
What kinds of people try to resign and get repeatedly refused?
Rumsfeld.
What kinds of people refuse to accept resignations?
Bush.
Shows the hierarchical nature of their relationship.
Amanda knew what she wanted to do (slash and burn against Donohue) and who is anyone in the campaign to tell her what to do? She is her own person.
One of the acts that early disappointed me in Bill Clinton was how easily he caved over the appointment of Lani Guinier.
“Luckily, I happen to have a Bible laying around this house, because even though I’m not a Christian, I was an English major, and it is important to Know Your Ancient Mythologies if you are reading poetry.”
Zing!
So you realize that Amanda kept blogging on controversial topics after she was brought on, right? No one else who goes to work for campaigns (such as her predecessor Jesse, or Armstrong) does that.
It’s pretty easy for the campaign to deflect things she said before she was hired. Once on the company dime though, it’s a very different story.
That’s just silly. Edwards was faced with supporting a bomb-throwing blogger who has become a major target for the theocons. What does he do? He keeps her on the payroll.
At a later date, she decides to quit so that she can continue hurling bombs at said theocons.
How exactly is that “gutless”?
You should stick with the facts when possible, otherwise you are relying on faith, which seems ironic to me.
This doesn’t even make sense.
Do you think that any other Presidential candidate would have kept her on staff after the Donohue attacks? Kerry fired staffers in response to Donohue coming after them in 2004. Amanda would’ve been out Hillary’s door in an instant. Edwards holding on to them initially was unprecedented in the history of major Democratic campaigns. When Amanda left, it was of her own free will.
Exactly, coturnix. I don’t know what magical power Edwards is supposed to have to keep her from resigning. He already came out and supported her publicly-I’m sure she was chafing at having to hold her fire at all the crap coming her way from the wingers.
Yeah Edwards pretty much dropped of the radar with his mealy mouthed first response to the attacks. Just another spineless democrat alas. Which I just realized is an insult to cephlepods everywhere.
Obama just dropped a bunch of notches with his announcement that he would Increase the defense budget if elected. While he rightly points out that Bush has run down a lot of military equipment the thought that canceling some useless big ticket items like missile defense might be a good idea has not occurred to him. He is already sucking up to the military industrial complex, not a good sign this early in the campaign.
basically its already come down to voting for the lesser of two evils and hoping we don’t get too screwed in the process. Isn’t politics fun?
I dare say, if you throw over your candidate because of a problem bump in the road, and given that candidate was blazing a new trail into the blending of the net into a national campaign, then your loyalty was a bit faulty in the first place.
I would commend their campaign for forging ahead of many, and standing behind the controversy in the first place. Much credit was online after the attacks on Amanda. It the larger picture will a campiagn truthfully get more votes from all of the internet users who will vote, or more votes from the the publc in general.
In the reality of all of it, the net is great for us, and is making a larger impact each year, but what are the stats on blog voters to the real general working public and especially if you consider the fact that beyond the campuses across America, what is the impact of we the bloggers at all?
Robert, PZ didn’t call Amanda gutless. He called Edwards gutless.
And he is. He allowed Billy Bigot to say whatever he pleased and never offered a single rebuttal. Never stood up for his employess at all. He allowed the bigots to have the “debate” their way – which is of course, just mudslinging, lies and bombastic emotionalism.
He’s gutless.
She didn’t quit specifically to continue throwing delightful bombs at “theocons”. That’s simply a wonderful bonus. She quit because she felt that Bill Bigot’s constant slander would make it impossible for her to do her job. Had she stayed on, that’s all anyone would talk about.
I think she made the right move, even though I am dismayed to see Billy Bigot and his ilk ever get what they want.
I bet it’ll be a while before Pandagon is up again. The Democratic candidates are all looking pretty pathetic right now.
MissPrism, I laughed. That was funny.
PZ,
On this one it appears Edwards did back her and she resigned. I applaud her efforts to bask Donohoe and frankly we need to see more of it.
Isn’t Donohoe an interesting fellow though, he actually believes his church of birth is correct on everything. That is the definition of clueless.
I read Edwards’ statement. That was not support, that was a tepid disavowal.
Given Amanda’s public record for speaking her mind and being beholden to no one — exactly why PZ likes her, I assume — I think we should take her at her word when she writes that it was her decision to resign, not Edwards’. As Coturnix says, she’s her own person and to assume otherwise is to do her a disservice.
Edwards could have made a stronger statement of support, but in the end (just 36 hours) he decided not to fire his outspoken bloggers. Why can’t we be satisfied with that?
Sure it was a disavowal. But actions speak a heck of a lot louder than words, and Edwards performed the action you wanted. He turned Donahoe down and chose to keep her on staff.
Again, if you think any other campaign would’ve been more aggressive here, you’re fooling yourself.
With you on Edwards. Though he was never really my cup of tea.
Did you see Obama’s declaration speech? There was a lot to like and little in the way of god talk.
Combine that with his smackdown of the Australian Prime Minister the other day, and I’m liking him more and more.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006439533
I you are betting guy, you should look here. They are taking odds on the presidential races.
http://www.intrade.com/
You know, we have two years to go on this.
Can’t we spend the next eighteen or so months doing more productive things, such as oh I don’t know, making sure the Textard in the White House doesn’t try to nuke Iran or further incense Pyongyang? Or maybe just generally flogging the right-wing cretins?
Deciding NOW who’s going to be on the ticket for November 2008 is akin to, in 2005, predicting another four years for Foley.
But Edwards should have known what he was getting into. Amanda’s views weren’t exactly secret. Either he hires people without knowing anything about them, or he doesn’t back up his own staff. His response was late, tepid, and patronizing. If he can’t be trusted to support his own decision on who to hire, I don’t think he can be trusted on much else.
Folks, let’s not lose track of what this is really all about: it is about the attempted intimidation and silencing of a blogger for her comments about the religious right. As I just posted on UTI, this expansion of targeting individual bloggers is just part of a larger Culture War for these people, and must be resisted.
Jim Downey
I bet it’ll be a while before Pandagon is up again.
Pandagon is down because it’s being slashdotted (though not literally by a link from /.) and for no other reason.
PZ: “…actually, more like a slow, leaky canoe…”
Nice one, and good way to size up this stupid situation. So far Obama is really starting to get my vote because he’s least likely to apologize back to the whining, crying, spoiled children that populate the right-wing. Obama did although apologize to them for saying we wasted our young soldiers lives in Iraq (which is up to this point a very true statement), so even he has a serious recoil problem.
All the Dem candidates need to go through a strenuous workout real soon to work out the kinks. No more of this appealing to unappealable people. It’s really like they’re dating a man or woman that they’re afraid at any moment will yell RAPE! or ABUSE! in a public place and cause a very ugly scene for them.
Anyone willing to *try* to appease the right-wing is not only wasting his time, he’s destroying his chances to sound credible on anything.
Bush is a draft dodging former substance abuser… yet his party stood behind him and shut down all criticism.
The right will attack any and all democratic contenders with whatever they can generate as a controversy. Real or imagined. It’s what they do. There was no groudswell, netroots problem with Marcotte. No one gave a shit except for Michelle “Demon Spawn” Malkin and Catholic Bigot Donohue. The winger talking head are never going to stop.
Marcotte is inline with the democratic base.She’s a MAINSTREAM democrat with a biting tongue and an attitidue. If you can’t stand behind someone like that. What’s your point for even running?
It’s time for candidates to just stand up and say… Malkin? Donohue? Are you freaking kidding? Those people are scum. Why would anyone listen to them, ever?
Edwards will never last if he is constantly on the defensive to turds like this. They don’t even deserve to be acknowledged.
It is too long for a comment, but I have explained in tedious detail both the Edwards response and the Amanda quitting.
Also read what Matt Stoller and especially Chris Bowers wrote about it.
This is far too unthought-through and knee-jerk response for you (I know you are busy writing the book and churning these posts in 20 seconds each, thus risking saying something unthought-through and unresearched, but you get friggin’ 20,000 hits per day on a bad day and there are commenters here as well who need to know better).
For your list, what about Wes Clark?
We could do with boringly competent about now.
I don’t know what universe some of you people live in. In the real world of presidential politics, you have to cut your losses and move on. Sure, the Edwards campaign made a mistake, as we can easily see with 20/20 hindsight. I think Amanda really decided on her own to quit, but what if she didn’t? Edwards couldn’t allow a situation in which the subject would be changed from the war, the economy, health care, etc. to questions like whether or not the Catholic Church is mysogynistic. If we Dems allow the other side to bog us down in irrelevant side issues, we’ll never regain the White House.
For Clark’s competency google “Clark+Kosovo+1999” and you’ll shudder (read both the Lefty and Righty sources – they are unanimous on this). The guy is supremely incompetent in all things military, not to mention has zero diplomatic talent. The guy should be in The Hague and not as a witness – I hear Milosevic cell is still empty.
Yes Amanda resigned, she was not fired Edwards did that much at least. What has me down on Edwards is his response which was basically ‘sorry we offended you, we won’t do it again really’ Not inspiring just another compromise to avoid a fight if possible. Unless Edwards is willing to fight for his ideas they mean nothing.
PZ – At the top of my list right now is Bill Richardson; what are your thoughts on him?
The RNC loves hysterical kneejerk purist liberals like PZ.
And the RNC hates Democrats with Southern accents. There’s something about the accent that works on a subconscious level on swing voters.
And just to dot i’s and cross t’s:
Whatever you think about her, Marcotte wrote things that are extremely offensive to Catholics. Which is her prerogative, but it makes her unfit to be blogging for a presidential campaign.
The mistake was hiring her in the first place. The Edwards campaign’s damage control has been masterful. Wait until the story dies down, then (relatively) quietly let Marcotte go, far in advance of the serious campaign.
And to reiterate my first point, can anybody remember who the last non-Southern Democrat president was?
I think that instead of pouring our progressive dollars down the campaign-hole, we should pool all our resources and buy off the head of the FCC. Make him shatter the media conglomerates and regain real media independence.
Much better use of our money, IMO.
Edwards was always at the bottom of my list for the Democratic Presidential nomination. I’d vote for Hillary before I’d vote for him, and that’s saying a lot.
“The RNC loves hysterical kneejerk purist liberals like PZ.”
they apparently love theistic bigots like Billy too. And swift boating with non-issues to cover up the fact that they too employ problematic bloggers as well.
If you’re point was to show how lacking in moral character the RNC is, then, well done.
As a blogger for Edwards did she ever say anything offensive?
Didn’t think so.
Edwards should of said that she had done an excellent job for him so far.
Donohue says extremely offensive things about gay people and victims of child abuse.
He represents a minority within a minority that will NEVER support a democrat.
If people get fired every time some religious fundie gets offended Edwards is going to have some real losers left working for him.
Anyone remember James Carville?
Marcotte saw where things were headed and she made her own choice. I suspect that she will do just fine. Marcotte can be quite insightful; for example, her comparison between the anti-abortion and animal rights movements. (I hate to toot my own horn, but I wrote about the similarities between the two movements in 2000.)
Coturnix on Clark and Kosovo: “The guy should be in The Hague and not as a witness.” If that’s the case, then the same is equally, if not more, true of Clinton, Albright, Blair and others in regard to Kosovo. Not many things could unite Paul Krugman, Paul Wellstone, Bill Kristol, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, but they all agreed on Kosovo in ’99. Hitchens thought that Clark was too restrained by Euro-bureaucrats. And see Cenk’s recent interview with Clark.
With all respect for your expertise and personal experience, I don’t believe Clark (or Clinton et al.) did anything Hague-worthy on Serbia/Kosovo. Actually, the sources are not “unanimous,” unless folks like Pinter and Parenti are regarded as representing all of the Left. Even Michael Moore, who was opposed to that intervention (recall the Columbine-Kosovo connection in Bowling), endorsed General Clark.
In the last campaign, Clark made some strange comments about faster-than-light space travel for which he was widely ridiculed. But hey, I still admire his spirit. He said:
“I still believe in e=mc², but I can’t believe that in all of human history, we’ll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to reach where we want to go,” said Clark. “I happen to believe that mankind can do it. I’ve argued with physicists about it, I’ve argued with best friends about it. I just have to believe it. It’s my only faith-based initiative.”
Hey, this is the Wild West out here in the blogosphere. Amanda made her decision. She enjoys being out here and not really really in politics which is more like “Little House on the Prairie’ than “Deadwood”. Campaigns and politicians are, by and large, square.
As to Edwards. We finally have a candidate that can sweep a general election. Not just barely win. Can sweep. The South, women, the young, workers, Montanans, Christians, etc. This guy can win a landslide. Hey, I’m a Yankee. I am surprised as anybody that I like this Southern trial lawyer. But I do. He’s part Abe, part RFK and part Atticus Finch. But he ain’t perfect. Who is? But he is so much better than our usual run of the mill politicians. I still can’t believe he’s willing to do this and to buck the corporations. He has been affected by tragedy like RFK and come out better, not bitter.
“Clark made some strange comments about faster-than-light space travel for which he was widely ridiculed.”
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies explains how that happened:
http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/about/interests.htm
“As is the custom with Start the Week, the General and I were instructed to read each other’s books. … He had fond memories of engaging Xavier Solana, Secretary-General of NATO during the Kosovo campaign, in chit-chat about such matters as the speed of light during down time at HQ.”
Clark brought up Susskind’s multiverse/megaverse theory at the Yearly Kos conference – around the same time I happened to be reading the book.
And to reiterate my first point, can anybody remember who the last non-Southern Democrat president was?
That would be John F Kennedy, 1960-1963. Whom, yes, I do remember as I am Old.
PZ is right about this. Either Edwards hired Amanda knowing who she was and what she did or he didn’t. If he didn’t know and hired her, he’s an idiot. If he did and then let racist wingnuts run her out of town he’s a wimp. When, oh when, will the Democrats learn that caving in to people like Donoghue and Malkin is useless? They and the people who fawn on them will never vote for a Democrat no matter what happens so, dammit all, go for the Democratic base! Being pro-choice is *mainstream* in this country. Opposing the war in Iraq is mainstream. Desiring national health care is mainstream.
I’m starting to gibber so signing off now.
MKK
I tried a site-specific Google search to scan Pharyngula for talk about Bill Richardson, but I didn’t find much. Last June, PZ said of YearlyKos,
PZ hasn’t said anything else which Google can find, although the assorted comments from various visitors are all positive. Richardson/Clark? Richardson/Clinton? Richardson/Obama?
“As a blogger for Edwards did she ever say anything offensive? Didn’t think so.”
Does it matter whether she wrote those things as an Edwards blogger? Of course not.
In presidential campaigns, it’s much better to think with your head than with your inflated sense of righteous indignation.
Dunc gets it right in the 2nd comment. The blogosphere rewards outrageousness, difference-sharpening, ranting. Bloggers narrowcast to folks who find what they do entertaining.
It’s the opposite of what a politician has to do. No snark, no irony, no unhinged monologues. You can’t go around gratuitously pissing people off.
I’m kind of fond of both Edwards and Marcotte and I’m glad they’re not working together.
Any Iowans or New Hampshireites out there? Edwards needs to go down. Early. Badly. It’s too bad because he has some interesting points, but he needs to be made an example of lest other politicians think that they can abandon their progressive supporters without consequences.
Edwards just lost me with his proposed health plan details–employer provided and insurance based, two non-starters in my book.
“It’s too bad because he has some interesting points, but he needs to be made an example of lest other politicians think that they can abandon their progressive supporters without consequences.”
Another one of the sort of liberal the RNC loves.
I repeat, in presidential campaigns it’s better to think with your head than with your inflated sense of righteous indignation.
This is, essentially, just another manifestation of one of the things I have disliked about Edwards from the start. The other thing I dislike about Edwards is his voting record. Specifically, he doesn’t have one.
Dude needs to show up for work once in a while if he wants my vote, especially after the last 6 years of Captain Vacation’s hands-off approach to the Presidency.
Vera,
That was my point, Edwards did nothing gutless, he handled this well and THEN Amanda chose to quit.
Hardly his fault. Anyone who says otherwise is just buying into the right-wing talking points, which is exactly the kind of divide and conquer strategy they want.
Edwards, Kosovo, and Clark (I know, this is ancient history to some, but it was less than 8 years ago):
William Saletan, Slate
http://www.slate.com/id/2086450/
“When Edwards entered the Senate in 1999, Kosovo was the hot spot of the day. He immediately supported NATO airstrikes to force Serbia to remove its troops from Kosovo.”
Senator Edwards voted for S. Con. Res. 40 of the 106th Congress, which passed the Senate on 6/17/99:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:1:./temp/~c106dYk7Hu::
“Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That:
(1) The Congress expresses the appreciation of the Nation to: … [President Clinton, etc.] …
(D) Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Henry Shelton and Supreme Allied Commander-Europe General Wesley Clark, for their planning and implementation of Operation Allied Force.”
Another one of the sort of liberal the RNC loves.
Oh, yeah, it always works out better when people don’t lobby for what they want and just accept what their beloved leaders are willing to give them. After all, it worked out so well last time: everyone who wanted the anti-war candidate (Dean) nonetheless rallied round the less-pro-war-than-Bush candidate (Kerry) and he won, ended the war, and returned us to the economic golden age of the Clinton era. Oh, wait, it didn’t quite work out that way somehow…
(Dianne at 2:18)
Iowan here.
I don’t disagree with the idea that Edwards should maybe have shown a little less politician in dealing with the whole thing, but it’s true what Amanda said, that Donohue had made it a personal mission to use her to embarrass or discredit the Edwards campaign. That’s not Edwards’ fault.
The thing I’m trying to keep in mind here is that the primary/caucus season is a year off still, and there will be plenty of time for all of the candidates to do something stupid or wrong before I have to choose somebody. So — Edwards? Maybe he’s not so bad, you know?
Ugh.
Of all people Edwards should understand how this game is played. These sorts of attacks have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the candidate, his employees, his record or anything substantive. It’s strictly a tactic designed to put the candidate on the defensive so that he looks weak. Amazingly Mr. Edwards has completely missed the point of the swifboating campaign from 2004 and we again find a Democratic politician internalizing criticisms by his opponents and apologizing for things that don’t need to be apologized for.
Rolling over and exposing your soft underbelly only serves to encourage future attacks.
Edwards did nothing gutless, he handled this well and THEN Amanda chose to quit.
He could not be said to have ever handled it well. He made a whiny, gutless statement in which he said that the two women had apologized for having opinions and that he was going to “give them a second chance”. Not exactly overwhelming support. And if he’d had any spine when Ms Marcotte offered her resignation he would have said “Don’t be ridiculous: you’re a valuable member of my staff and I’m not letting some idiot drive you away. Think of the bad example it would be setting.” If she’d then gone on to say “screw you, I quit” there’s nothing more he could do. But I don’t get the impression that that’s what happened. Allowing someone to resign from a campaign without protest is essentially the same as firing them.
I’ll have to do some more reading, but her quitting does seem an awful lot like giving up in the face of adversity to me. Those nutcases are wrong and she is right.
I can’t vote for a guy who can’t stand up for his own damn values. This is Kerry being Swiftboated and failing to fight back, this is Michael Dukakis running away from the term liberal. I liked Edwards and his “two Americas” message — until now.
Jessica G: Ugh. You’ve got a good point. Unfortunately. Nonetheless, Edwards needs to feel it. Go over to his site and tell him that, as an Iowa voter and a registered Democrat, you don’t support his actions. If you’re feeling particularly agrieved you could tell him that he lost your vote. And if you need to recant before the actual election, that’s your business. (And, of course, you should read all these imperative statements as suggestions, not commands. I certainly don’t think I have the right to command your or anyone’s actions.)
In my opinion, Ms. Marcottes’ statements on the Duke so-called rape case are far worse then anything she said about the Catholic Church. Thus she said the following, after it became clear to any disinterested party that the case was a crock of s***.
‘Last month, Marcotte wrote of the Duke University rape case: “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”‘
Edwards caved to the right. Marcotte does not cave to the right.
Edwards: 0 (you are in the dog house)
Marcotte: 1 (give ’em hell, Amanda!)
Have you not read what she wrote? Being a Democrat doesn’t excuse her of being an ass. You’d be all over Republicans if the same situation was over there. Would they be sucking up to Democrats if they fired bigots and idiots?
Dianne, how do you know that your hypotheticals did not happen? The only information we have is Amanda’s insistence that she resigned and was not fired.
Why is there this flaming need to leap to conclusions without any evidence? Why were so many lefty blogs running with the bogus Salon ‘Edwards fires bloggers’ story who were then much quieter when that turned out not to be true-or cast it as “Edwards decides not to fire bloggers’. Or complained that it took until the next day to come out with a statement. I swear this little firestorm has been stoked at least as much by hyperventilating on the left as by the wingers.
I think Edwards has handled this OK-apologize for the tone of the posts in question (like it or not, those sentiments, particularly expressed in that way, can only piss off some of Edwards’ potential voters), and get back to work on non-trivial stuff.
Dianne,
Sorry, I didn’t know that you had such intimate contacts with the campaign.
It’s amazing how much people here are basing their posts on their BELIEFS, their FAITH you might even say. Instead of the facts as provided by a Presidential candidate and a respected blogger who they propose to be backing.
Well, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether the story as reported is exactly what happened (and black helicopters!). It’s not impossible that Edwards and Marcotte agreed to make a deal or something. But I don’t have any actual evidence for that so far, so it’d be quite the stretch to go tell Edwards that he’s lost my support for good. For one thing, he never necessarily had it to begin with, and there’s also, you know, the way that Melissa McEwan (why does everybody forget about Melissa? So unfair.) still has a job with the campaign even though supposedly people were upset about her too.
Besides which, who am I going to support instead? Clinton? Vilsack? Obama? Richardson?
In my opinion, Ms. Marcottes’ statements on the Duke so-called rape case are far worse then anything she said about the Catholic Church.
Duke Lacrosse player email:
tommrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome.. however there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk in and proceding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.. all besides arch and tack please respond
http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=gaynorm&date=070203
They are creeps and deserve all the shit she can dish.
Vilsack’s running for pres? You’ve got to be kidding.
Why do I think that Edwards essentially fired Marcotte? 1. On Monday afternoon Marcotte was writing posts asking people for their opinion of Edwards’ health care reform ideas. Not the behavior of someone who is contemplating quitting soon. By the evening she had resigned. What changed? Probably Edwards came to her and told her she was endangering the campaign and suggested that she resign. Even assuming that she quit impulsively after seeing more bile from Donohue, if Edwards were a decent employer of any sort, muchless a decent presidential candidate, he would have said “think it over, sleep on it, don’t make any rash decisions.” He didn’t do that. 2. He hasn’t made any statement about the resignation. Politicians who didn’t want their employees to resign make statements about how they regret the resignation. Heck, they usually do that when they DO want the employee to resign. They only try to make the person disappear when they’re hoping that no one will catch them firing their employee. 3. His initial statement of “support” was lukewarm at best, insulting and condescending at worst. Not the behavior of someone who supports his employees. The only point in his favor is that he hasn’t fired McEwan yet. And it is a reasonable point, but not a strong enough one to make his behavior to Marcotte acceptable, IMHO.
I agree with Warren (#24). Eventually, one of these candidates will turn out (with apologies to Churchill) to be the worst candidate ever conceived, except for all the others. ‘Til then, give ’em each time to prove how Horrible, Slightly Less Horrible, and Just Slightly Less Horrible Than That they are.
A plaintiffs’ medical malpractice attorney is at the bottom of Orac’s list! Knock me over with a feather! (Poking a little fun here. I did read one of your [Orac’s] recent posts on the topic. I don’t have a personal opinion on the matter, since I haven’t had the benefit of reading trial transcripts.)
Vilsack was, I think, the first one to officially announce he was running (Nov 30, 2006). So yeah. But nobody cares.
It may be instructive to do a search for Amanda on Google or something. It’s not just that Donohue was after her, it’s that everybody was. Donohue would have been bad enough.
It might be relevant that Edwards hasn’t yet issued a statement about all this. I’d hardly be surprised if he didn’t say anything, just on the grounds that l’affaire Marcotte (as the cool kids are calling it now) essentially derailed his campaign for a week. Lost time to make up for, and all that.
The initial statement when he declined to fire them was tepid, sure, but he was essentially in a no-win situation: say he supports them and then be dogged for the rest of the campaign by accusations of being anti-Catholic (when both Iowa and New Hampshire have a fair number of Catholics in them), or say he doesn’t and lose the Marcotte fans on behalf of another group which wouldn’t have voted for him anyway. I wasn’t happy that he said what he said, but I didn’t really see any other options, either. Which is frustrating: one would like to support candidates who stand by principles. But.
I feel a little weird getting stuck in the position of Edwards-defender. I’m not necessarily a fan. I just don’t think he’s necessarily responsible for Marcotte’s resignation. If we’re looking to be mad at people, Donohue might be the more sensible call.
There a lot of good points from the anti-Edwards side, but I’m still giving Edwards the benefit of doubt because if things occurred as stated by all parties then I don’t find any fault on Edwards part.
Edwards hired a blogger with some controversial posts. He should not be faulted for that, because all bloggers have some controversial posts. When the stink was raised, he stated that he did not personally endorse the views of the blogger but would not fire her. Good for him, I say. That may seem tepid, but politicians should be free to choose to distance themselves from the past viewpoints of bloggers they hire, within reason. Edwards apparently does not share the same views on Catholics as Marcotte and said so.
The blogger has now quit the campaign, because she says she felt it was good for the campaign to do so. The Edwards campaign is silent, which I also think is wise, allowing Marcotte to frame the resignation in any way she sees fit. In the end, I don’t care who gets the Democratic nod. I’m voting for anyone with a D behind their name.
As a diehard liberal lefty, this whole episode has been extremely depressing to me. I have nowhere to go – all of you are my comrades. But I think the general reaction to this has been indescribably dumb and stupid. And now even PZ, a real hero of mine, joins in.
I dont think Amanda is a “good writer”. And I certainly dont think she is a good thinker. Her heart is in the right place, but she is a bombastic, gratuitously insulting, over the top ranter. Now, there may be a place for that, and it may serve some good in the grand scheme of things, but for anyone to imagine that someone like that should be the public face of a serious presidential campain – a campaign that we need to have success advancing our views amongst the general public, is just nuts.
Edwards was utterly incompetent or stupid to have hired her. Clearly she has a long track record of nastily advocating for a set of positions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the central themes of his campaign. Many may wish to go to war against the core beliefs of 80% of the American people, but it is insane to inject that into a presidential campaign that you actually want to win.
Once under attack, the response of many on the left was to very loudly take up a position that served no purpose but to guarantee that Edwards would be undermined. He was put in a position, by you people as much as by Donahue, whereby he either had to implicitly endorse an attitude of mocking disdain for the beliefs of average Americans (thereby dooming his campaign), or risk the passionate enmity of those who actually agree with him on most all of the actual relevant issues of the campaign – his own base. I cant even begin to see the depths of the stupidity in all this.
Edwards is toast. A fine, articulate promising candidate, a passionate advocate for so many of the things that we all believe in has been destroyed. You people forced him to side with someone who, rightly or wrongly, is seen by many who read her writings as a bigot. And that will haunt him and undermine his campaign irrespective of the fact that she is gone. And as a reward for doing this thing that he never should have had to do in the first place, y’all are now doing your best to undermine him from our side as well – apparently he didnt genuflect to all of you deeply enough.
I think this whole affair is an example of blogworld blinders. Y’all focus on the petty fights, and the great indulgence of expressive ranting for its own sake, and completely lose any vision of what we are actually fighting for. If you were to take your own values and principle seriously, and if you actually want to have some effect on this world, then face reality people. Reality is supposed to be our strong suit. The reality is that to change anything in this world, you must assume a position of power. And to win power you must persuade masses of people, most of whom are relatively apolitical, to follow your lead. You do this by inspiring them, by projecting a vision that they are attracted to, to touching them in the places where they dream, tapping into that part of them that wants to have some small part in making the world better. You dont win power by insulting people, or by associating yourself with people who write things that the average person finds repulsive. You dont win power by asking them to join you in a war against the things that many of them actually believe. Why oh why do y’all even need to be reminded of this?
Wow. I honestly can’t understand this (PZ’s) response. I know that Edwards’ statement was underwhelming, but come on, this i a national election. If he’d said, “Shut up, Donahue, you anti-semitic, misogynistic, gay-bashing mother fucker, everything Amanda said is true and you know it,” it would have been more than the end of his 2008 campaign; it would have been the end of his political career. Granted, we all want to say that, and it would be nice to live in a world where political candidate can say what they really think about assholes like Donahue, but we don’t. But as some of the other commenters have noted, Edwards’ action speak louder than word. He kept Amanda on, and while there’ve been claims by bloggers that he did it because of the liberal blogger backlash, I see no real evidence of that. Perhaps Amanda or Melissa have more insight into this, but it really just feels like the blogosphere patting itself on the back again without any real justification. I think he did it because he knew Amanda was a great addition to his campaign, and he wanted to keep her. I suspect that he’s disappointed she chose to resign, because he knows that he’s lost one of his best possible netroots connections.
Marcotte (as the cool kids are calling it now) essentially derailed his campaign for a week. Lost time to make up for, and all that.
All that lost time! Only… about 20 months to go until the election. Sigh.
Did they always start this early? I seem to remember Gore starting to campaign in the summer of the year before the election.
Well, perhaps, but freedom of speech and freedom of religion are among the things we’re fighting for, aren’t they?
In the end, I don’t care who gets the Democratic nod. I’m voting for anyone with a D behind their name.
Unless the Reps have a sudden attack of sanity and nominate someone like Bloomberg, I agree–in the general election. The primary’s a different story, though. He deserves to lose there. But if the majority of Democratic primary voters decide that they like him the best of the options, well, that’s the point of democracy. I’ll recant the whole frothing at the mouth against him thing, hold my nose,and vote for the (almost certainly) lesser of the available evils. But I’d rather that available evil be someone else.
Edwards is, above all else, a poltician who is deliberately making an effort to appeal to swing voters like, you guess it, those Catholics who once voted for Reagan but who aren’t all that happy with Dubya’s rule. I was suprised about Marcotte being named one of his campaign bloggers, because she’s just not his style at all. A much, much, much better choice would have been (and still could be) former Pandagon blogger Ezra Klein. The fact that Marcotte wanted to still blog on her own while working for Edwards was an issue also, to say the least.
Besides, with almost a year to go until the Iowa caucuses, this will all blow over long before then.
Agreeing with both Kris and Chris above. Edwards was trapped in an untenable position by his critics on both sides. Like the man clinging to a branch by his teeth in that Zen parable, he’s damned if he keeps his mouth shut or if he opens it.
A political consultant friend of mine argues that this is why politicians just shouldn’t hire bloggers. “Voters only remember three things about a candidate”, he says. That’s why a politician must keep relentlessly on-message, talking about one thing, over and over, and keeping a couple spare issues in reserve for when reporters ask a different question. Having a bunch of loose cannons on staff is only going to sink the ship in the end.
I disagree with him slightly. Political consultants have to deal with the voters as they are — the “netroots” earnestly believes that we can create a new kind of voter, one who’s more aware of the issues, and more engaged in the debate. That’s a laudable goal, and there’s signs that this is really taking place, but we’re not there yet.
I think Edwards believes in that goal, too, and that’s why he brought Marcotte and McEwan on board. But this was a mistake, a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the bloggers. Reach out to them, give them interviews, access, whatever, but bringing them in-house makes little more sense than it would for Bush to hire Cal Thomas to write his speeches. They do a better job as a perceived independent voice of support than as glorified press secretaries.
Having made that mistake, Edwards did the right thing — he stuck by his staff. Marcotte resigned of her own free will. I’m not going to say this whole thing hasn’t taken Edwards down a notch in my judgment, but to write him off over this is insane, assuming you still believe in the policies he stands for.
Edwards to campaign manager:
She screwed up… let’s give her the “fair shake” treatment.
Campaign manager to Edwards:
Right you are. I’ll put out the usual pablum today and fire her tomorrow.
Here’s something interesting:
Goes on from there, but it’s basically what you’d expect. Now all the Democratic candidates have to acknowledge the wonderfulness of Catholics or a different group will dog them until it hurts.
And on it goes.
Granted, we all want to say that, and it would be nice to live in a world where political candidate can say what they really think about assholes like Donahue, but we don’t.
why do i keep thinking of this line from the movie “The Mission” whenever i see statements like the above:
Hontar: “We must work in the world, your eminence. The world is thus. ”
Altamirano: “No, Señor Hontar. Thus have we made the world… ”
The world needs more people who are willing to gratuitously insult power. Without them we’ll fall faster into theocratic fascism.
Tearing down and exposing the rotten edifice of Amerika one lying asshat at a time, that’s how I like my bloggers. Good thing I found Amanda and PZ, then, eh?
“Tearing down and exposing the rotten edifice of Amerika …”
That may be how fans of Immanuel Wallerstein and William Blum like their bloggers, but a viable campaign platform it is not.
Re George
Excuse me, Ms. Marcotte has condemned the three accused as rapists, even though it is obvious that no such crime occurred. The fact that a member of the Duke Lacross team sent an odious email (it isnot even clear of the email was sent by one of the accused) does not give Ms. Marcotte the license to make unfounded accusations of serious crimes against the three men.
Did the Catholic Church ever apologize for the Magdalene Laundries?
Word. Though, it’s still awfully early in the game.
Get a constitutional amendment though that allows people not born in the US to be president, and I’ll run. The US needs a canadian cephalopod at the helm.
Coffee, doughnuts, and a bottle of ink in every pot!
Obviously don’t know but I think the DI’s “sponsoring” McCain in his talk in Seattle is an effort to be seen as one of the “big boys.” The DI website claims the DI is one of three co-sponsors for the talk, the others being the City Club of Seattle (whatever that is) and the Seattle World Affairs Council. But the websites of those two organizations say nary a word about the DI. They do not exist for the purposes of this luncheon.
According the all three websites, the talk will cover…
“What is the role of the U.S. in the global community? How should the U.S. position itself over the next decade? What are the challenges, and how should they be addressed? What are the future global impacts on Washington State? United States Senator John McCain will address these topics of global relevance and their relation to the Puget Sound region.”
Not a mention of ID.
I think the DI is just tagging along in the hopes of gaining some respectability.
Hiring someone who knows his shit like Ezra would be the kiss of death for Edwards. The last thing a candidate needs is a blogger whose specialty is impartially evaluating health care systems.
Ichthyic,
‘Tis true, we did create this world. We created a world in which you need broad support to win national elections. You can’t just pander to moderate netroots liberals who are allergic to religion, and hope to win elections. Anything you say or do will alienate some people, but you have to avoid alienating too many. Honestly, I don’t think losing the PZ vote is something Edwards is worried about, or should worry about.
Many may wish to go to war against the core beliefs of 80% of the American people, but it is insane to inject that into a presidential campaign that you actually want to win.
Do you really believe that 80% of the American people oppose Plan B, much less oppose any form of contraception? Or did you see an “offensive” comment and stop thinking about what she meant?
You mean the way he demonstrated his “understanding” when he fell hook, line, and sinker for the dichloracetate “cure for cancer” hype?
I meant mostly about the health care economics posts, as in The Health of Nations. For the science stuff there’re your blog and Aetiology.
What was Edwards supposed to do? He can’t stop her from quitting if she wants to.
I was happy to learn that Edwards had not fired her last week (that was all rumor). Edwards remains at the top of my list…. for now.
Oh, forgive me, I was actually taking Chris from Muddling Memory seriously for a second. Won’t happen again.
To be honest, I has no idea who Marcotte was before a couple of days ago, but I will be paying more attention to her in future. For the Marcotte trashers. Consider the company you are keeping by trashing her. Here’s one of your new allies:
2/7/2007
CRASHING AND BURNING
CATEGORY: Blogging, Moonbats
Watching the destruction of Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon blogger and soon-to-be-ex “Blogmaster” for the Edwards campaign, has been one of the few bright spots in this otherwise dreary and depressing new year.
If ever there was a left wing hysteric who deserved to be tarred, feathered, and dragged through the mud and slime of their own writings, it is Marcotte. She is a perfect illustration of the liberal mindset that posits the notion of a relative moral code when it comes to racial, ethnic, religious, and gender semantics. For her, anything goes. No characterization of her political opponents is too vile. No racist, sexist, or bigoted thought is out of bounds.
This is because the left has insulated itself from such mundane considerations as good manners and decorous language by elevating themselves to what they consider to be a higher moral plane than the rest of us. Simply because they mean well, they are vouchsafed all manner of perfidious name calling and calumnious charges directed against their opponents.
The fact that Marcotte sees the world through the prism of post-modern feminism makes her impossible to take seriously on any level. Her writing is full of so many half truths, manufactured criticisms, dead-wrong assumptions, and a child like ignorance of the emotional universe inhabited by normal men and women that trying to decipher her scribblings – once you can get by the obscenities and work your way through the incoherence – is a task best left to a psychiatrist.
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/02/07/crashing-and-burning/
Have fun hanging out with the wingnuts. Pardon me if I don’t join you.
Neil wrote, Kerry fired staffers in response to Donohue coming after them in 2004.
And we all know where the Kerry campaign ended up?
Come on. I agree, Amanda should have quit the personal blogging while working on a campaign. But that’s really secondary to the issue that Edwards is gutless. Edwards said he was personally offended by Amanda. Eh? The why Edwards hire her? is he really that stupid?
The one thing that I think you said Neil over at Ezra’s place was that this did show the imcompetence of the Edwards campaign and on that, we agree.
Oh, and that thing about “Well she quit anyway”. A strong candidate, one who makes good hiring decisions and stands by their people would have said something along the lines of, “I’m not accepting your resignation, I want you to stay and I want to make it part of this campaign that I will not allow wingnuts to define me.”
Of course, Edwards didn’t say that. He’s probably glad she’s gone.
Say it again, what a loser.
Pandagon is down because it’s being slashdotted (though not literally by a link from /.)
If it’s not “literally” linked from /., then it’s not being slashdotted.
I think it was actually being farked.
Was Amanda personal blogging at all since she started the Edwards gig? I visit Pandagon regularly and while there were 4 new bloggers for Pandagon, Amanda wasn’t posting. I think this ‘Amanda should have stopped the personal blogging’ meme is just a dirty fucking lie.
Oops, I said the word that makes the jesus-bigots puff up their cobags and spew the shite that the MSM eats like caviar.
Have you ever pondered risking a look across the big pond…?
Regarding Kerry… I have yet to see evidence that anyone won the 2004 election. Judging by how shockingly easy it is to steal their elections, the USA are not a First World country.
Oh, and… why isn’t there a limit in the USA on how long before an election a campaign is allowed to start? Austria has such a limit, for example. (Something like 2 months IIRC.)
Have you ever pondered risking a look across the big pond…?
Regarding Kerry… I have yet to see evidence that anyone won the 2004 election. Judging by how shockingly easy it is to steal their elections, the USA are not a First World country.
Oh, and… why isn’t there a limit in the USA on how long before an election a campaign is allowed to start? Austria has such a limit, for example. (Something like 2 months IIRC.)
Marcotte fans probably would admit that she speaks her mind, even though she may not win any popularity contests.
The presidential election is a popularity contest.
Writing a blog, even one with fans, does not qualify one for a presidential campaign.
I have no problem with Edwards saying he’s offended at certain things she wrote, and I also have no problem with him keeping her on, then accepting her resignation. My guess is that Amanda decided that, while working for the campaign, she couldn’t let loose and be herself in criticizing her opponents.
She’s right.
Winning a popularity contest means showing restraint when it’s needed and showing aggressiveness when needed. I don’t see that Marcotte has the ‘restraint’ part down.
I agree with Kris, my biggest problem is that he hired her in the first place. I’m also only somewhat familiar with Marcotte, but I’d never have considered her writing style to be ‘presidential.’
George,
I dont much admire your logic. I respect Amanda’s heart, but I dont like her writing style, and I think it obvious that she would be poison to any serious presidential campaign. Your argument seems to be that since she is attacked by the right, then therefore we should stop believing what we believe (like what I just said in the previous sentence), and support her keeping her job with Edwards (and thereby dooming his candidacy).
That is not being “strong”. It is being purely reactive. I have to think whatever happens to be 180 degrees opposite of what Donahue thinks? Well, no thanks. I think what I think. It turns out to be 180 degrees opposite of what Donahue thinks almost all the time, but not because I consciously align myself relative to him or any other wingnut. In this instance, I am not agreeing with him, I am merely recognizing that he is fully capable of making this an ongoing drain to the Edwards campaign, because some of the postings are, inarguably, offensive to many of the people whose vote we wish to win (and need to win).
hf,
No, I dont think that 80% of Americans are opposed to contraception. And it is not me who is incapable of seeing past the offensive comments to the ideas that lie behind. But it sure as hell is true that enormous numbers of potential voters will not see past the offensive comments.
Maybe I just dont “get it” about a certain blogging style. To me, it is nothing but stupid to insult people first, then hope they will stay with you long enough to devine your underlying idea. To be fair, I suspect that Amanda was not trying to convince anyone of anything when she wrote those things – just preaching to the choir, and rallying the base. As I said before, maybe there is a place for that, but not upfront in a presidential campaign.
Amanda Marcotte said about Catholics:
‘the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.’
[I see nothing wrong with this statement. The Catholic Church regards contaception as sinful. Why? They want women to produce more Catholics and grow the church.]
‘the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.’
[He abolished the first circle of Hell, for crying out loud. Just about any response to that degree of madness is justified.]
‘What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit,’ to which she replied, ‘You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.’
[I assume the objection is to “hot, white, sticky”. Nobody likes to think about Jesus cuming or that he had a penis and took shits. But the guy was only human, and Mary was too, and she must have been impregnated with someone’s sperm. Amanda imagines her as a modern woman who does not have to put up with the insane angel/whore paradigm so many men impose on women.]
If we cannot talk about this stuff, we aren’t going to progress beyond it. If Edwards wants to be President and ignore it, that’s his decision. He won’t get elected anyway, so it would have been nice to have her along for the ride.
Maybe we would have learned something.
Have you ever pondered risking a look across the big pond…?
Well, I can say I just watched my grandmother-in-law (so to speak, if there is such a thing) shell out the equivalent of $20,000 of her own savings for a needed heart multiple bypass operation rather than waiting the 4-6 months that the NHS in Britain wanted her to wait, as she felt, from judging her own health, she might not be around by then.
Not across the pond, but I’ve seen my Canadian ex-girlfriend’s father travel to the US for surgery because the Canucks wanted him to wait 3 months for surgery when everyday was filled with terrible pain. I’ve also had a friend checked into a Vancouver hospital and found it so awful they arranged to be taken back across the border to a US facility.
As for the talk of stealing elections and limiting campaign speech, well, you’ve just gone and lost this libertarian-type (but then I think we’re an even rarer breed across the pond).
I know I am suppose to be angry at Edwards, but I can’t muster it.
If he forced them out it was a political decision, and a choice to get rid of something that would only slow him down right at the start, after years of setup. And it looks like a fight he would not want to fight. Improved Social Security, Health Care, raising up lower and middle class. Sadly, this was not a fight he wanted.
And it is true if the situation was reversed and we were looking at a Rep with a blogger who was known for something we deemed reprehensible – heck aren’t people trying, without success, to point to McCain and his Igor right now?
He was not going to win votes, change minds, rally folks on this fight (What exactly is the fighting about, and who would define the arguement – the MSM, not sounding good.).
Sorry, we have politics going on. And to out horror one politican made a political decision. Where is the shock coming from? The only politician I can think who would shrug at this is Kucinich, and he is not going to the prom. Would be interesting if he did, but he ain’t doing it.
I just hope this situation in no way tarnishes these ladies job opportunities.
I should add that my ire is focused intently on Bill Donohue and his ilk.
If we, as a whole, can freak CNN about an atheist segment, why can’t we get them to do one on Christian bigotry, starring Big D?
I saw Obama for the first time on TV the other day, giving his response to John Howard (and wasn’t that well done?). He looked so statesmanlike. Reminds me of Bill Clinton.
Howard should stick to criticising heads of state, rather then candidates, or candidates to be a candidate (as Obama is). A tad premature.
PZ, what REALLY bothers you most about Obama?
I know it COULD NOT POSSIBLY have anything to do with his color, could it?
(Although you know what Darwin said about savage races.)
If you are going to accuse someone of racism, do a better job than that. So damn lame.
Golly gee, O.N., I wonder if Obama’s speeches marginalizing those of us who lack religious beliefs and “faith” (see, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/3ahykl ) have anything to do with PZ’s unhappiness?
I know Barack Obama personally: he was my professor at the University of Chicago, and in 2000 I volunteered on his (unsuccessful) campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives–yet I feel a little betrayed by the back-of-the-hand treatment he’s now giving to nonbelievers, in that speech and elsewhere.
Plenty of Americans will vote for an African-American for President, but they sure as hell won’t vote for an atheist. Pardon us if we aren’t terribly happy about that–or about the effects that it has on our political culture.
I think what a lot of the commenters here who are tolerant of Edwards’ response are ignoring is that they are holding the Democratic candidates to a standard that the Republican candidates are not held to. Apparently the idea is that Edwards should do the “right thing” but we’ll just ignore the fact that there’s a fight going on and the other side is not engaged in a civil discussion about what is wrong and what is right.
Somebody mentioned that Kerry fired some staffers after Donohue complained. Let us not forget that Kerry lost. There has been one successful Democratic candidate in the past 30 years, and, sadly, he also had the bad habit of caving to the right-wing noise machine.
I want to see the right-wing noise machine dismantled. I am looking for candidates who are willing to stand up to it. Hillary Clinton has a strange rope-a-dope relationship with the noise machine, which constantly villifies her. At least with her, I know that she won’t misunderstand the nature of the beast. Thus far Obama has done a tolerable job of standing up to the noise machine. Edwards just had a test and his grade would be, at best, a D.
Many people here are falling into the trap of letting the noise machine set the terrain of the debate. That’s the level at which the fight must be conducted. If the right wing is perfectly happy to have their candidates campaign at Bob Jones U. and to have a President wine and dine Rush Limbaugh, that is where the fight should be fought. Don’t think that the path to power lies in “not offending anybody”.
Also, the nonsense about Southern Democrats simply has to stop. The South represents a minority of the Electoral College and it’s not necessary to pander to its most extreme wings to win a national election. Indeed, given how badly Presidents from Texas have fared in fighting wars abroad, I think it would be a useful tactic to point out the cultural isolation of the South while splitting the Mountain West away from the GOP territory (in addition to the Northeast, which is abandoning the GOP in droves). After all, if either Gore or Kerry had won Ohio, that would have been enough to win the White House.
Finally, apparently the post that set in the latest brouhaha with Amanda was about a point she made that the Catholic Church was a patriarchy. Anybody who pretends to be “offended” at this observation is just blowing smoke. The real issue should be the hate mail and vitriol directed at Amanda. Whatever you say about her posts, none of that justifies the multiple threats she’s received, including a number of rape threats. And these are the people we’re supposed to try not to offend? Being cowed by bullies is a terrible idea.
One more thing – people critical about Marcotte’s “style” are basing their judgment on a sampling that has been entirely chosen by her political enemies. I’ve been reading Pandagon for several years and I do not find those tidbits to be at all representative of her “style”.
Obama Now! said: “PZ, what REALLY bothers you most about Obama?
“I know it COULD NOT POSSIBLY have anything to do with his color, could it?
“(Although you know what Darwin said about savage races.)”
It seems to me the last sentence is a dead giveaway that what we have here is an anti-evolution troll in sheep’s clothing. Just something to consider before deciding whether to waste any time responding.
Troll indeed. I’m waiting to go back to his post and see
:-D
“troll in sheep’s clothing.”
I didn’t notice any sheep’s clothing. Just troll.
Correlation, not causation. The idea that Kerry lost because he didn’t ‘fight back’ is oft repeated, but I’m not sure I buy it. Much more obvious is that Kerry comes off as ‘stiff’ and wordy and not so charismatic.
1. Edwards will not win or lose the nomination based on his acceptance of the resignation of a blogger 18 months before November 2008. Period.
2. If Edwards does not win the Democratic nomination, it will be won by a candidate who didn’t hire Marcotte in the first place (unless someone shockingly hires her and then goes on to win).
You guys are way too focused on the story of the day. 98% of voters still don’t know who Marcotte is and probably won’t ever know.
If Edwards truly is the type who ‘caves in’ to right-wing attacks, we will see more examples of this as they continue to attack.
As I said, I don’t understand why Edwards hired Marcotte in the first place, but for those who are fans: I’m still trying to understand how Edwards is now seen as less than other Democratic candidates when he’s the one who hired her. None of the other candidates (except perhaps Kucinich) would come close to her, and none have so far stood up to defend her. Why are they being held to a different standard for taking the ‘safe’ route?
Does it count as ‘fighting back’ if you avoid the battle in the first place?
(RickD, #114)
Well, there is that. I tried yesterday to find a way to point out that the whole Plan B / Catholic Church policy thing that the posts were originally about is the sort of thing that do upset people. Especially women. Especially women with a strong interest in women’s rights / women’s equality / reproductive freedoms / etc., like Marcotte. And it is, perhaps, unfair to attack people for intemperate language when they’re reacting to such asshattedness.
(itchy, #118)
I don’t see it that way. In my assessment: Edwards got points for hiring her in the first place, and more points for not firing her. He loses some points for not trying to turn the attack around on Donohue &c (and there are ways this could have been done without giving the impression that he was going against all Catholics: particularly in the U.S., there are plenty of people who consider themselves Catholic but who nevertheless don’t hew to any particular church doctrines) and for making his statement sound like he thought Marcotte had done something naughty. In the end, he winds up right about at the same place he started from, for me. (Sometimes a little higher or lower, depending on my mood.) Your results may vary.
In my estimation, the biggest problem with this whole incident is that there is no comparably-funded left-wing noise machine with the same sort of reach as the right-wing one. So they pretty much win every time, because they get to decide what gets talked about, how much, and from which perspectives. Until that changes, I’m not sure what sort of honest political discussion this country can really have.
Itchy, I’d be surprised if 1 in a thousand know who Amanda is. I think we’d be surprised at how few people even know who someone like Kos is.
If we’re getting this hot and bothered over a non-issue, I shudder to think of what fall ’08 will bring ;)
It is sad to see Edwards wilt faster than Rush without his blue pills.
1. One of the Dem’s biggest problems is this habit of eating their wounded — especially since the right-wingers just love to take advantage of it. Do you really want to abandon a credible candidate because he didn’t sacrifice himself over a single blogger, whom half of you admit was a dubious choice to begin with? I suspected immediately that the real point of the furor was to undercut Edwards with his supporters — and so far, many of you seem to be taking the bait, hook, line, and sinker.
As far as the public record goes, it looks like Edwards stood up to Donahue, providing enough time for Marcotte to duck for cover without losing all dignity. And if either of them has a problem with that characterization, they’re free to correct me! But lest you think I’m picking on Amanda, consider that while *most* of the loonies she was hearing from are just potty-mouthed wankers, that crowd has come up with genuine violence often enough.
Let me clarify one thing from my posts yesterday. I know that Edwards didn’t do anything that any of the other Democratic candidates wouldn’t have done in his place. That’s the problem: the Democrats don’t think of “us” (secular humanist liberals) as a group to worry about. I see this as a golden opportunity to establish the blog reading, secular, scientifically informed, humanistic faction of the US as a group that you don’t piss off if you want to win. It’s unfortunate that to do that Edwards has to be destroyed, but he brought it on himself and really he’s no better than an ok candidate even without this issue. But if we sit down and shut up, we’ll get a candidate who panders to the right again and how’s that going to help anyone?
Oh, and if anyone’s pissed at Donohue and wants to do something about it, here’s one suggestion of something you can do.
emkay,
Edwards just lost me with his proposed health plan details–employer provided and insurance based, two non-starters in my book.
Then you’d better get used to living with the current U.S. health care system for a lot longer, because no plan that involves destroying the health insurance industry and eliminating the connection between insurance and employment has a snowball’s chance in hell of making it through the political process.
What bothers me most about this is that blogs (both right and left) are lowering the level of political discourse in the country. It’s nothing but a shouting match between people who may or may not be qualified to anything more than an opinion. What exactly would Amanda’s role, or any other bloggers for that matter, be on a campaign staff except to attack opponents in an arena that has no rules.
1980: RED, WHITE, AND BLUES
by
Jonathan V. Post
I weep for my generation,
age of the condominium,
the dolphins’ extermination,
and the end of the millennium.
I cry for a country gone crazy,
I mourn for the minds gone mad,
from the leadership of the lazy,
to the underground undergrad.
The pride of the politician
is the fall of the nation state.
Where is the brave coalition
that made our democracy great?
Why do these marionettes
command the political stage?
Why crowns and coronets
upon the puppet and the page?
Why are the wise and the witty
so rarely on Nightly News?
Conspiracy or committee,
why won’t they do interviews?
When did the puffed and the pompous
acquire the right to rule?
The north pole pulls on the compass,
the network lies down with the fool.
Politics makes strange bedfellows,
the lion lies down with the lamb.
Campobellos and Monticellos
and money by telegram.
The Yellow Brick Road to the White House
is nothing particularly pretty:
the prime time hype, and its spouse
the Political Action Committee.
A Western-type Hollywood actor
outpolls the others for President
with initials “R.R.”, what detractor
thinks “Roy Rogers” is whom I meant?
A Naval and nuclear farmer
the most powerful force for humanity?
He shot down the B-1 Bomber,
but could barely outadvertise Kennedy.
Not Democrat, no, not Republican?
Well, then, lift up a third-party flagon.
Let’s all party while we can
on the Anderson-Bandersonwagon.
A Socialist nun for Vice-President?
Further out than what any astronomer
can see is November’s experiment.
Can the Citizen’s king be a Commoner?
Can the media really provide?
On your screen is the new Lilliputian.
Consult anyday’s T.V. Guide,
not that old black-and-white Constitution.
Why should I leave my apartment?
Why should I make a decision?
Democracy’s not my department,
I’ll stay home and watch television.
There’s no use appealing to reason,
Congress, Cabinet, courtroom, or panel —
there’s four years to this comedy season,
there’s no good in changing the channel!
1726-1821
13 Jly 80
http://magicdragon.com/EmeraldCity/Poetry/Political.html
Ah, face it PZ. If and when Edwards becomes the Democrat candidate, you’ll vote for him no matter how many Christian-bashing bloggers he fires. I know it. You know it. Stop bloviating about this issue like you’re honestly offended.
Hey, look! Irony! Or is it hypocrisy? Meh, probably both.
My sympathies and philosphy seem to mostly follow yours (liberal, nontheist, science teacher), which is why I regularly read this blog – you point me toward things I want to know about from time to time. I am also unimpressed by the Hilary and Obama show and have no interest in most of the rest of the field.
I’d be incredibly curious though why no mention of Bill Richardson – perhaps the most qualified democrat – intelligent, articulate, seasoned diplomat, with a focus on diplomacy, energy independence, and education. I haven’t been this impressed with a candidate in a long time myself – and I am just wondering – is there something you see that I do not?
Feministe says what I’ve been saying… but she has Cred.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/02/13/who-are-the-extremists/