Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

In the comments to my previous post on the Edwards blogger story, many people thought I was over-reacting to the situation by declaring that this was a make or break issue for me when it came to supporting a Democrat in a primary campaign. For example, in a comment that was recommended five times, Baldrick asked the following:
This seems crazy to me. This is going to be your make-or-break issue? This? Not Iraq, Iran, health care? Nothing that could happen over the next 12 months could change your mind?
This is a reasonable question, and it deserves an answer. Here goes:
  1. It is important that people note that this is a deal breaker for my support in a primary election. When it comes to the general election, I will support the Democratic nominee, no matter who that is. As a Demcorat who plays by the rules of the party, and as a movementarian who views the Democratic Party as an unavoidable vehicle, I always support the Democratic nominee.

  2. Yes, Iraq, is also a deal breaker for me. However, there are multiple Democratic candidates whose Iraq position I find somewhere between tolerable and quite good. It would be more accurate to say that throwing the netroots under the bus would be a deal-breaker for me among those candidates with whom I share an affinity on ideological and issue-based grounds. Both filters are important. For example, in early 2003, I was undecided between Kucinich and Dean for a while. However, when Dean clearly demonstrated his movement-building capacity in the summer of 2003, it became no contest in my mind. In other words, there is more than one important filter, but this is one of those filters.

  3. I have spent nearly the last four years of my life working on full-time progressive movement building. I do this because I believe a vibrant, healthy and mature progressive movement is the only way to counter the conservative movement, and to achieve the sort of change I want to see in America. Given this, I would rather find a new line of work than, in a Democratic primary, support a candidate who first courts the progressive movement, and then throws it under the bus at the first sign of pushback from the right-wing. We do everything we can to help Democrats, from raising hundreds of millions of dollars, to fighting every single negative media story, to innovative activism, to generating huge amounts of volunteer hours, to putting up with compromise after weak compromise in D.C. and on and on and on. If, despite all of our tireless efforts, someone only views loyalty as something that flows uphill and shit as something that flows downhill, then quite frankly I feel supporting that candidate in a primary election would be self-destructive. If one of the main goals of the progressive movement is to help make the Democratic Party more open and accountable to its grassroots supporters, how can we still achieve our goals as a movement by helping someone who doesn't value his grassroots supporters to become the leader of the party? If you give someone your time, energy and support no matter how he treats you, why would that person ever respect you? What reason would he ever have to treat us as anything but an ATM machine? I can't think of a single one.
If Amanda and Melissa are terminated from the Edwards campaign, there is no way I could respect either myself or the movement and support Edwards in the primary. His campaign will have contributed to the longstanding goals of the conservative movement and DLC-nexus alike to defund, marginalize, ostricize, and otherwise diminish the influence and credibility of the people-powered netroots and grassroots. Such a move would reinforce every elitist, ignorant, double-standard, disinformation campaign ever run against the netroots and the blogosphere. During a primary election, when Democrats are trying to decide what direction our party will take, I won't be a part of a campaign that decides to run as fast as it can away from the blogosphere, the netroots, and the progressive movement.

And I agree with what Kagro X wrote about this as well. Other campaigns are not off the hook if they just stay silent on this, and wipe their foreheads in relief that their bloggers weren't attacked (this time). Any campaign that wants movement support in a primary election should show that it supports the movement in return. If they don't, then we just don't share the same vision for the Democratic Party, and as such won't get my support in a Democratic primary. If they do share that vision, and especially if they demonstrate an ability to help make that vision a reality, then I will take a long look at that campaign, and almost certainly end up supporting it.

Anyway, I hope that answers questions on this matter. I especially hope that the Edwards campaign makes the right decision, and realizes who its friends are.

Update: I had hoped that when reading this piece, more people would consider that I almost never get so worked up about the news of the day. Seriously--go back through the 3,000 stories in my archives, and find even five times where I have reacted like this to a news story. I don't do this unless I have both deep feelings about something and I have spent months, if not years, thinking about and working toward. I had also hoped that before calling me some sort of naive, wide-eyed Edwards lover, they would have taken the entire body of my work into account, and understood that I have often supported candidates who I find less than perfect. Others might have noticed that I have repeatedly said that my support for Edwards before this point was already pretty soft, or even that I recently moved back into the undecided column. Maybe I am being too sensitive or maybe I am just tired, but if I can't get the benefit of the doubt from my readers on this stuff, how can we ever expect anyone, including Amanda and Melissa, to get the benefit of the doubt when the right-wing comes-a-smearing?

I also want to note that I guess, way down the road, it would be possible for me to forgive the Edwards campaign for this if they make the wrong decision. After all, I have forgiven him for his war vote in October of 2002 because he has since admitted it was a mistake, consistently supported withdrawal, and vigorously opposed escalation. Since another goal of the progressive movement is to change Democratic behavior, it would be self-defeating to permanently blacklist someone from receiving support in a primary, no matter how much that person could change. There have to be carrots and sticks. There have to be behaviors that can be rewarded and punished. There have to be ways that people can change that would be acceptable. To tow a permanent, hard line would be a bad move. But make no mistake--throwing two bloggers who staunchly support you under the bus as the result of pressure from right-wing bigots would hold serious and lasting repercussions.

Tags: Blogosphere, Democrats, John Edwards, netroots, Primary Elections, progressive movement (all tags)

Comments

145 Comments

Donohue called Barbara Walters a bigot today, too

He called her a bigot, too -- and in language very similar to what he used against Amanda and Melissa:  http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_re leases/quarter_1/070207_barbarawalters.h tm

And here he is again:


Catholic League president Bill Donohue said lesbians were "something I'd expect to see in an asylum, frankly" when he spoke to Justice Sunday, a gathering of far-right evangelical Christian activists.

Why should we enable him by taking him seriously?

by Phoenix Woman 2007-02-07 04:37PM | 0 recs
The Catholic League=Catholic Republicans

Look at their icky board of advisors.

Board of Advisors    
Brent Bozell III
Gerard Bradley
Linda Chavez
Robert Destro
Dinesh D’Souza
Laura Garcia
Robert George
Mary Ann Glendon
Dolores Grier
Alan Keyes
Stephen Krason
Lawrence Kudlow
Thomas Monaghan
Michael Novak
Kate O’Beirne
Thomas Reeves
Patrick Riley
Robert Royal
Russell Shaw
William Simon, Jr.
Paul Vitz
George Weigel

Brent Bozell=The War on Christmas

Alan Keyes, a man so loony half the republicans in the state of Illinois won't vote for him.

Dinesh D’Souza a guy who literally wants America to be more like Taliban Afghanistan.

Tom Monaghan, Dominos Pizza founder, major backer of Sam Brownback, general funder of all things far right, and founder Ave Maria U.

Lawrence Kudlow who still supports the war.

by Dameocrat 2007-02-08 05:44AM | 0 recs
They should keep the bloggers, and keep schtum

Say something simple like "We're not letting a man with a history of attacking honorable women like Barbara Walters -- which he did the same day he attacked Ms. Marcotte -- dictate what we do.  And you shouldn't, either."

That would be enough.  And take no further questions on it.

by Phoenix Woman 2007-02-07 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
Chris:  
maybe because I have no dog in this fight as I'm not an edwards supporter.  However, I think on an objective level I can say you are being overwrought.
You bloggers put the man on a pedestal.  No mere mortal can live up to that.  I even saw one blogger proclaim he was the second coming of Camelot.
You did not view Edwards for himself:  a person and a politician.  When you forget this and put a mortal political candidate on a pedestal you are going to be in for a huge fall and heartbreak.  They cannot live up to perfect.
I suggest to read this as he gives a great view of the controversy.  He likes edwards alot but, supports another candidate so, like me, can see this in a more objective light:
www.archpundit.com  
by vwcat 2007-02-07 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
Before this happened, I was actually already undecided between Edwards, Obama and no one. I certainly don't ever remember either MyDD or me personally putting him up on a pedestal.

I am not talking about a perfect candidate, I am talking about a candidate who supports the movement. Those are the candidates who I consider supporting in the primary, and I make my decision from there. Don't label me as some sort of wide-eyed, naive newcomer to politics who falls in love with a candidate and then it revolted by the first thing I find wrong with him or her. That just isn't what is happening here, as I explained in the post.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-07 04:51PM | 0 recs
You make it sound like this is a final dealbreaker

For me it was simple, Obama opposed the war when it was popular, Edwards didn't.  That's why I won't support Edwards, and why I don't really care what he does with a couple of bloggers.

My political idol is Paul Wellstone.  The man was gearing up for the fight of his life against Norm Coleman when the war resolution came up.  I'm sure just about every one of his political advisors said to vote for it, so he'd be re-elected.  Well, he said no, even though he thought it would cost him reelection.  That's the kind of courage I don't see in John Edwards.  That's also why I wish Feingold was running for president.

The point is, 50 years from now, no one will remember this.  It's a one-cycle news event that won't shape the election.

by Terryus 2007-02-07 05:00PM | 0 recs
You make it sound like this is a final dealbreaker

Terryus,

Obama was running in the Democratic primary in IL - where the war was not popular and his liberal anti-war position was a low risk way for him to stand out in a crowded field. His opposition in the general election was the far-right Alan Keyes.

Obama's positon was never risky in IL, especailly not during the primary when it was actually political advantagous.

I'm not saying that is why Obama took that stance. He's turned out to be right and there's value in saying that. But since the reason you give for Obama over Edwards was that he opposed the war when it was popular and Edwards didn't you should weigh what I've said and decide whether you think quite the same way about Obama when it's clear he took the politically advantagous position as well as being right.

by Quinton 2007-02-07 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: You make it sound like this is a final dealbre

Coming from Illinois, and having volunteered for Obama in  his primary election, his anti-war position was not as simplistic as you paint it.  He took the position in the primary, before knowing Keyes would be his election opponent.  He took the anti-war stance running against a popular millionaire, who took little stance on the war and later imploded.  He took the anti-war stance against the city's machine candidate, who was pro-war.  And Chicago was not the liberal bastion we had hoped when it came to the war.  I know many people who are progressive on most every issue but who were pro-Iraq war - I didn't get it, but they were.  And they held this position against Obama.

Obama had courage to take his anti-war stand when he did and when confronted with the candidates he did.  I'm not on the Obama bandwagon, yet, but I do credit his brave stance in pre-Iraq war.

by passionateprogressive 2007-02-07 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: You make it sound like this is a final dealbre
Coming from Illinois, and having volunteered for Obama in his primary election, his anti-war position was not as simplistic as you paint it. He took the position in the primary, before knowing Keyes would be his election opponent. He took the anti-war stance running against a popular millionaire, who took little stance on the war and later imploded. He took the anti-war stance against the city's machine candidate, who was pro-war. And Chicago was not the liberal bastion we had hoped when it came to the war. I know many people who are progressive on most every issue but who were pro-Iraq war - I didn't get it, but they were. And they held this position against Obama. Obama had courage to take his anti-war stand when he did and when confronted with the candidates he did. I'm not on the Obama bandwagon, yet, but I do credit his brave stance in pre-Iraq war.
by passionateprogressive 2007-02-07 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
Not you  so much as alot.  Chris, I've seen some really odd stuff.  Some were posting things that no one could live up to.
I think it is just unfair to put anyone that high.  There are things when you are in politics that have to be done to survive.  You can keep your standards but, sometimes you cannot aim as high.  It takes time to change a system that is entrenched.  
He could have kept the bloggers and ended up loosing alot more.  I don't know.  I just think you need to sometimes separate ideas from the reality of what can be done and what has to be done.
He would not have survived the year if he kept them.
by vwcat 2007-02-07 05:22PM | 0 recs
What about all those bomb-throwers they didn't...

HIRE!

We should be mad as hell that every leftie with a mad-on wasn't hired just because they went on a rant here and there.  Their lack of hiring a really nutty left-wing bomb-thrower shows their lack of support for the true netroots.

C'mon.  I hope they don't fire them, but you know what, that is what you get for throwing bombs.  Everyone knows that when they light the fuse. The blogs are the local brewhouse where you can get away with telling fart jokes, but do you really expect John Edwards to stand up at the first debate and play his armpit just to show his support?

The fault here lies with whoever hired these people without making it clear to the whole campaign that there would be "blogger" skeletons in their closet.

Again, I love a fight, so I hope he literally comes out and says "I don't make staff decisions based on the rants of bigots."  Lay down the gauntlet.  But, if not, this isn't the brewhouse, it's the White House.

by Robert P 2007-02-07 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: What about all those bomb-throwers they didn't
I don't view what they said as an issue, because it wasn't an issue until these wingers brought it up. From my perspective, that makes the real story here a question of why this stuff gets reported on when wingers bring it up, but not when we bring it up. That directly relates to the question of why Democrats cave when this happen, even though there is a clear double standard in place.

If we get caught up in the details of debated what they said, then we have already lost this fight, accepted their terms of the debate, and reified the status quo of power within the media.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-07 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: What about all those bomb-throwers they didn't

So, if they were reported saying that Obama was clean, smart, and articulate it wouldn't be a big deal?  

Hmmmm. Seems like we have our own double standards here.  No, I think it matters what they said.

by Robert P 2007-02-08 02:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Curious, what will you do if he fires them and immediately hires two other great progressive bloggers?

by markg8 2007-02-08 03:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

No, the importance of this is that this is a test of the progressive credentials of every candidate, Edwards in particular. It is an opportunity, provided by the right, to prove their mettle to us. Edwards has been presented the real test and opportunity, and as the current leading candidate among progressives (if only by a hair or two over Obama) I think that that is more than appropriate.

Edwards has been given the opportunity to prove that he, like Howard Dean, will take the fight to the Right and won't be manipulated by them. As John Kerry's running mate in 2004, he has to prove to us voters that he will handle any rightwing smearjob swiftboating attempts differently than Kerry did. This is also his opportunity to demonstrate whether he truly has learned anything since his 2004 campaign, as he claims.

by AmericanJedi 2007-02-07 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I can't help but agree. Edwards has been put on a bit of a pedestal. But I still think that firing the bloggers should be absolutely out of the question. For me, this isn't a make or break issue, but it's close.

A couple days ago, I was listening to Obama and Richardson, but fully convinced I'd be supporting Edwards, almost ready to move into Edwards-activist mode. But if he fires his bloggers over this flap, I'll be neutral again, and I'll spend the weekend browsing Obama's speeches.

by msnook 2007-02-07 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Aw, go on.  Browse Obama's speeches in either case.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-07 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

He has not fired anyone yet, right?  Frankly, I'm having trouble keeping track.

by howardpark 2007-02-07 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

One problem Edwards has as the progressive candidate is a lack of a track record as a progressive member of government. So he's really asking us to trust him. That's what would make a firing so damaging to his candidacy, I think. Because, in addition to saying he's committed to fighting poverty, he also says he's committed to the netroots. But if he throws his netroots representatives under the bus so quickly, I think it may be tough for some folks to trust him when he says he'll fight for other things, as well.

I think he has more to lose by the firing than he has to gain by keeping them, if that makes sense ...

by BriVT 2007-02-07 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I think this is exactly right.

The two candidates I am most inclined to support are Obama and Edwards, who have had very different trajectories.  Edwards has taken a lot of courageous progressive positions, especially with respect to poverty, in the past few years.  But he was a conservative Senator from a conservative state, and co-sponsor of the Iraq war resolution.

Obama, on the other hand, was a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago before he ran for state senate, and was extremely progressive in the state senate (at least based on what I've been able to find; some old articles about the primary race for the state senate seat he eventually was elected to are particularly eye-opening).  Yes, he has slid a bit since being elected to the Senate, but he opposed the Iraq war from the start and has recently started taking more aggressive positions.

So with Edwards, I am concerned about repeating the mistakes of the past and backsliding.  My support for Edwards is based on trusting that he has really reformed as a politician, and that if elected he won't revert.  My support for Obama is based on hoping that he will show signs of the strong progressive streak he had early in his career.

I have to say, this incident with Edwards' bloggers is a big strike against my trust that he has really changed as a politician.  Combined with Obama's recent Iraq proposal, I can easily see jumping on the Obama bandwagon if Edwards' flubs this.

by TimSackton 2007-02-07 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

No politician is perfect .. not even Feingold .. however .. in a case like this .. Edwards needs to show some spine ... Didn't he learn anything from the Webb campaign?  Remember the stories about how Webb treats women and the stories in his book?  Macaca tried to get that all blown up ..  what did Webb's campaign do?  They fired back and hard .. They didn't take anything lying down

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-07 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
They are perfect whenever they offer some free food or tickets. After that, after having eaten and gone to the events we can put the stamp for the one we like, not the one who made a lot of promises.
by Nunumarc 2007-09-27 10:07AM | 0 recs
Do we even know what the alleged comments were yet

I mean, this story's been through so much fucking spin that I can't even tell what really happened here.  

I can see why you wouldn't be able to support Edwards if he fired them, but automatically jumping in his camp because he doesn't fire them doesn't make any sense.  This won't be a defining moment for his campaign, and it won't shift that many votes.  For me, if he fires them, I'll say I was right about him all along.  If he doesn't, I'll say too bad, you still voted for the war, and I don't care that you've apologized (all that means is that you're better than HRC).  We need a president who gets it right the first time.

by Terryus 2007-02-07 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Do we even know what

you can find them, go read malkin.  i believe the one that everyone is focusing on was, paraphrasing, the Church wants catholics to have lots of kids to they'll grow up and tithe.  

also, apparently awhile back there was a wordpress server crash that deleted a ton of pandagon archives including some of the potty mouth stuff and so it is being alleged that she went back and purged her archives so people wouldn't know she'd been such a "bigot."

by corn dog 2007-02-07 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

By threatening a vicious rant and important action alert Chris Bowers was able to have his Papa Johns pizza delivered five minutes earlier than promised.

by treyevans 2007-02-07 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
You made an account just to say that?
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-07 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

By threatening a vicious rant and important action alert was able to gain the attention of the waitress, who then brought Chris his check.

that too.

by treyevans 2007-02-07 05:17PM | 0 recs
"Chuck Norris" jokes are sooo yesterday

Chris Bowers eradicated small pox by threatening a vicious rant and an action alert.

The Soviet Union didn't fall because of economic collapse and massive national debt; Chris Bowers threatened a vicious rant and an action alert, and BAM! No more cold war.

The process of evolution is driven by natural selection, which is determined by the vicious rants and action alerts of Chris Bowers.

(I am Jerome Armstrong.)

by msnook 2007-02-07 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: "Chuck Norris" jokes are sooo yest

Chris Bowers once threatened the dinosaurs with a vicious rant and important action alert.  They didn't take him seriously.

by treyevans 2007-02-07 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

You need to take a chill pill, Chris. The election is in November 2008, and this is February Freaking 2007. If you go all batshit over every staff decision made by every campaign between now and the election, we'll have to come and visit you in the rubber room.

Edwards could sack Amanda and Melissa today, and 2-3 months from now he could do something else that would be so devastatingly positive that you would jack off all over him.

I wish also that he would tell Donohue to GFH or ignore it and say "what controversy?" But if he doesn't, I'm not losing any sleep over it. What you do is your own business. But IMO you need to get a grip.

by ivan 2007-02-07 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
Do you read MyDD regularly? Do I strike you as the sort of person who takes rash actions based on the news of the day? Do I demonstrate wild mood swings based on single events often?

I think that if you did read my work on a regular basis, you would see quite clearly that this sort of response is extremely unusual for me. I hope would, therefore, that people would understand that it comes from something deeper than just a non-existent habit of flying off the handle.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-07 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Do you read MyDD regularly? Do I strike you as the sort of person who takes rash actions based on the news of the day? Do I demonstrate wild mood swings based on single events often?

I think that if you did read my work on a regular basis, you would see quite clearly that this sort of response is extremely unusual for me. I hope would, therefore, that people would understand that it comes from something deeper than just a non-existent habit of flying off the handle.

I'm not your shrink, nor your support group facilitator. Your mental state is not my concern. I come here looking for some political context, and some perspective. I'm finding plenty of context here, but precious little perspective, in regard to this issue.

I'm not trying to provoke you, and we don't really disagree on the substance of the issue, to wit, whether Edwards should tell Donohue to kiss off. I just think your reaction to the whole thing is somewhat bizarre. Sorry to offend you, if that's what I have done.

by ivan 2007-02-07 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

So a Dem should allow the Repubs to smear him at will?  Why do you think Dems get the reputation as wimps(undeserved as it is)?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-07 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Sorry, but you're attitude is why Democrats get such a bad rep, as pansies, as pollwatchers, as "whichever way the wind blows..."

I'm one of the more vocal critics of "Big Box Blogging", under which banner I tend to lump MyDD, but I'm with completely with Chris and Matt on this one; this is so much more than just watching the backs of our " bloggrrrls" and all.  And I say that as someone with many, many years experience in actual Democratic politics (staff on 3 of the last 4 presidential campaigns - I was very pregnant in '96, couldn't do it if I'd wanted to.

Activist bloggers have reason to be concerned here - geez, I was ready to jump the draft Gore ship for Edwards due to his "get your ass in gear" mentality, and part of my decision-making process was his hiring of Marcotte and McEwan.  I'm not suddenly afflicted with an attack of the vapors should I now rethink my postiton - to argue otherwise is pretty condescending, neh?

by MBW 2007-02-07 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
I know it isn't directly related to the topic here, but I find it funny that MyDD can often be criticized for a general lack of cohesive community feel by many, and for being "Big Box Blogging" by many others.

Can't please everyone, I guess.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-07 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Geesus: Where exactly are these Amanda and Melissa on the internet? How can these people be bloggers when I don't even know about them? (Maybe on Firedoglake or something?) Where are they from, dammit?

by blues 2007-02-07 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Amanda is from pandagon http://pandagon.net/bios/

Melissa is from http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/

by proudtobeliberal 2007-02-07 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

A better question is, how did Edwards campaign find them?  I never even heard of these two until this controversy.  OTOH, I had heard of Jane and FireDogLake a few months before deciding to check FDL out.  She was mentioned all over the place.  Edwards' bloggers, there was never a mention of them to my knowledge, and I read a fair number of blogs.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-07 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Both are significant voices in the feminist blog community.  Just because you've never heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist, or have large readerships.

by libdevil 2007-02-07 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

When did I say they don't exist?  You obviously missed my point.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-07 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Okay. I visited their sites. Certainly there was nothing awfully controversial there. Mostly they offer a pleasant diversion into the Fields of Ambrosia and stray wit. Actually my site, with it's 'outboard' political poetry section, is far more controversial. The polls obviously will never begin to think about hiring me. Maybe that has a positive side!

by blues 2007-02-08 12:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I have to admit I don't know who they are either.

by robliberal 2007-02-07 06:29PM | 0 recs
I think this is only a break issue

I think Edwards' campaign looks incompetent during the whole affair, but I can only see my impression getting worse.

I'm not going to give him any points if he tries to not look as incompetent. I expect him to do the right thing as a prerequisite for consideration.

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-07 04:53PM | 0 recs
Here's from Pandagon website:

Here's what Amanda's website says about Amanda right now:

Amanda settled for selling her soul to blogging when Satan confessed that even he had not the powers to turn her into the second coming of Diana Ross. At 29 years old, she's spent the past decade plus being a standard issue Austin layabout and actually plans to discontinue in the near future as she disembarks for Chapel Hill, NC to work on the Edwards `08 campaign.

. . .

Amanda likes music and is insufferable, but she actually doesn't consider herself a genuine Insufferable Music Snob, if for no other reason than she's kind of scared of the real ones. She does accept bribes.

http://pandagon.net/bios/

These are not the things that one says in print when one is going to work on a Presidential campaign!  They are funny in your own personal blog.  When you know you're going to be a representative of a national campaign, they are no longer funny.  They become frightening!

Like it or not, much of the country is Christian these days and you can't joke with them about "selling your soul to Satan".  I tried once, and got the most stomach curdling and intimidating look from my own pastor that you can ever imagine.  Satan just ain't funny to a lot of people these days!

If this stuff is still up on Amanda's own site, even after all of this controversy, it's fair to say there must have been a whole lot more grist for the Republican mill where this came from.

Edwards should have seen this coming a mile away, but he doesn't have the experience of viciously attacked over and over again by the Republicans that would have taught him to strictly vet and discipline his staff.  

This isn't the first time recently that an Edwards staffer or intern has innocently said or done something that led to a major embarrassment.  Remember the intern who bought something for Edwards at WalMart on the same day that Edwards was having a press conference to boycott WalMart?

Moral of the story.  Strict campaign discipline, strict vetting of new hires, no one on the campaign says or does anything that they wouldn't say and do if they, themselves, were running for President.  Ask yourself if you want to spend the general election campaign of 2008 feeling the way you do today?

by francislholland 2007-02-07 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's from Pandagon website:

As far as I am concerned, bloggers are mostly artists. And art never happens without a few apple carts getting knocked over. When you are dealing with any kind of artist, from oil painters to musicians to poets, etc., you best put your sacred cows in the barn, far from the mine fields that the artists are sure to plant. This has been the Iron Law of Art since at least the Medieval Mystery Cycle performances. Your only options are to just roll with it, or forfeit all hipness.

by blues 2007-02-08 12:26AM | 0 recs
We're going to need a firewall

To win national elections, we're going to need a firewall between the "piss on the cross" expressions of our artists and the serious, respectful-of-all-voters expressions of our Democratic candidates.

We simply cannnot allow the Republicans to impute to our candidates everything that comes out of the minds of our artists.  Candidates are going to have to be more careful about their involvement with the blogs, because campaigns are about staying "on-message" and blogs are about having a million  messages, all competing for time and mind-width.

by francislholland 2007-02-08 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's from Pandagon website:

I just have to say it. Lighten up Francis.

by markg8 2007-02-08 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's from Pandagon website:

I think your attitude is the reason we ended up with humorless dweeb John Kerry.  Look the bloggers have done well being punks and being more fun than the republicans.  You act like the last election was a loss.  The only people upset about this are a 100% republican catholic organization called the Catholic League. These people would never, ever, ever vote for a democrat.

Look at their board.

Board of Advisors    
Brent Bozell III
Gerard Bradley
Linda Chavez
Robert Destro
Dinesh D’Souza
Laura Garcia
Robert George
Mary Ann Glendon
Dolores Grier
Alan Keyes
Stephen Krason
Lawrence Kudlow
Thomas Monaghan
Michael Novak
Kate O’Beirne
Thomas Reeves
Patrick Riley
Robert Royal
Russell Shaw
William Simon, Jr.
Paul Vitz
George Weigel

by Dameocrat 2007-02-08 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

IMO, its ridiculous for you and Kagro to expect other candidates to go out and approach the media to comment on this.  This whole thing is ridiculous and is an internal matter for the Edwards campaign to deal with.  There are external consequences, but other campaigns should not actively seek out a forum to express their opinions.  That's expecting way too much, IMHO.  If they are questioned on the subject, they should answer appropriately, but Edwards reaction or lackthereof doesn't place resonsibility on other candidates.

by areucrazy 2007-02-07 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I may be wrong- but the biggest thing I got from the Kagro piece was asking the other campaigns to not throw Edwards under the bus.

by paida 2007-02-07 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

to not throw the netroots under the bus.

by msnook 2007-02-07 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

You have explained why it's a potential deal breaker.

You have not asnwered the argument that an appropriate response from Edwards should not, in itself, be a deal maker.

by demondeac 2007-02-07 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
Edwards has already engaged in a lot of outreach to the netroots. If he does the right thing here, and defends two bloggers from smear attacks that the media is uncritically going along with (as they always do when it comes to bloggers--no one ever defends us), then that certainly strikes me as someone willing to help the movement. It also strikes me as something I haven't seen from any other Democratic candidates to far.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-07 04:59PM | 0 recs
That outweighs his lack of courage? (in Oct 2002)

He voted for the war because it was popular, and that's it.  Same with Kerry, Dodd, Biden, and especially Clinton.  I can't possibly support someone who didn't have the courage to stand with Wellstone and Feingold and Jeffords, etc in opposing this war.

The only non-courageous no vote was Lincoln Chafee's, because that could only help him in RI.

by Terryus 2007-02-07 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: That outweighs his lack of courage? (in Oct 20
He supports withdrawing now, and has since quite clearly apologized for his vote. He didn't do that in 2003-2004, which a the time was deal breaker for me in the primaries.

Forgiveness should be possible. If permanently blacklist someone from your potential list of supporters, then what motivation does that person ever have to change their behavior? Edwards changed, and should be rewarded for that. After all, these are issues where we want people to change. Punish them for their actions? Yes. Say there is nothing they could ever do? both ineffective and self-defeating, if you ask me.

Now, I guess that means the same thing could eventually happen in this case. I need to post that in an update to to this thread.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-07 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

that would have been nice yesterday, or 12 hours ago, but how long are you going to give him to help the movement before you realize it is his stalling and incompetence that is hurting.

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-07 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

If this "movement" can die or be so traumatized in 12 hours, then the only thing it could be characterized as is a "bowel" movement.

by adamterando 2007-02-07 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

If Edwards would even consider throwing staff under the bus to make the right wing zealots happy then he never deserved to be taken seriously by this movement.

But I appreciate you noticing it has been more than 12, which says a lot about his rapid response capabilities.

Today, it isn't the netroots that look like shit.

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-07 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I get the idea that it would be a positive sign.

But the idea that he would be so far ahead of others in terms of "someone willling to help the movement" after simply doing what is right in this one instance, so far ahead that he would be someone you would commit full to, still seems like a stretch.

You "haven't seen from other Democratic candidates so far" is in part an accident of the fact that this one challenge has landed in Edwards's lap.

Obama has not even fully launched, nor has Clark or Richardson.

by demondeac 2007-02-07 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I'm an Edwards fan, and in the scheme of things this will soon be forgotten; however, the Edwards team just went down a notch on my book.  The GOP attack dogs are following the same old game plan, and this would've been an early test case to see how a top-tier Democrat is ready to punch back by bringing up all that we know about Donohue.  Of course, there'll be many other battles, but the Edwards team showed that they are not ready to go toe-to-toe.

by bedobe 2007-02-07 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

That is exactly right.  I would only add one thing which is it also makes sense pragmatically.  I just do not believe an Edwards who fires the 2 bloggers has what it takes to win a general election.  I know I am repeating myself, but this is nothing compared to what they will put the nominee through.  

They will use his dead son against him- I am not kidding, you watch.

by paida 2007-02-07 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Why is it that a bunch of us here could do a lot better job on this issue and probably other that will crop up later.  Maybe we need to start our own consulting firm.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-07 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I've already done my duty by clearing the path for people who have an astrological past to not be encumbered by it on their political blogging path, whew.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-02-07 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I gotta tell ya, that was hard to swallow for those of us who are firmly in the rationalist camp.

by jsw 2007-02-07 05:10PM | 0 recs
huh?

why?  would you say that to someone who is religious?  or is only astrology kooky?

i forget the actual stats, but back when all that astrology stuff came up, it was pointed out by many that a huge percentage - i want to say a super majority - of americans believe in astrology.  

by corn dog 2007-02-07 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: huh?

Astrology isn't a belief system or a moral guide.    It's a belief that the rotation of the Earth and other planets of the solar system can predict unrelated events in your life.

I think that's kooky, just like I think the notion of a meddling God is kooky, especially if it doesn't come with any other structure.  And while I might be cool with it in any number of professions that aren't politico-on-my-side, I'm not really a fan of it in that situation.

by jsw 2007-02-07 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

John Edwards should just say, "No dice.  I'm keeping my bloggers."  I guarantee this non-story will be TOTALLY forgotten in 2-3 news cycles.  Believe it or not, life will go on.

by Will Graham 2007-02-07 05:05PM | 0 recs
This is the eternal battle

 Chris, I know exactly what you're talking about. Not that my efforts on behalf of progressives hold a candle to what you and others here do, but at my own little humble level (Central Committee, Frederick County, MD), I see this little drama play almost exactly by the same parameters as the national drama does.

 There are, essentially, two types of Central Committee members, I have discovered: those who genuinely want to advance the fortunes of progressive Democrats and work hard on issues and outreach, and those who view the Central Committee as a cool way to hobnob with the governor and score tickets to conventions and stuff. There's always an unspoken power struggle between the two factions, and as hard as I'm trying to make sure our side prevails, it's a constant fight. And I emotionally connect with the national Democrats who exemplify the virtues of advancing Democratic values over personal career advancement -- Howard Dean, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, a few others.

 I feel your pain...

by Master Jack 2007-02-07 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I've been wavering between Edwards, Obama, and Richardson, but I agree with Chris on this: if Edwards fires them, he's out of the picture.  I won't support anyone who let's the right-wing smear machine dictate terms to their campaign.

I actually think it goes beyond loyalty to the progressive blogosphere, although that is quite important obviously.  For Edwards to back down now would suggest to me that he didn't learn anything from the Swift-boating of Kerry in 2004.  I don't see how any Democratic politican can expect to win if they think the constituents they have to please are conservative Republican operatives!

by TimSackton 2007-02-07 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I won't support anyone who let's the right-wing smear machine dictate terms to their campaign.

That's basically what it all boils down to.  I don't even know why Edwards is delaying on this.  He has absolutely nothing to lose by telling these critics to go F themselves.  Nothing.

At this point, the WORST thing Edwards could possibly do would be to give in to their demands.

by Will Graham 2007-02-07 05:31PM | 0 recs
Every campaign's bloggers will be attacked

This is going to be the course for every campaign who embraces true netroots bloggers. This because unlike typical media people who craft very careful statements that are vetted twenty times over, bloggers have fewer filters through which their writing passes, and some of the best bloggers haver even fewer filters.

This means bloggers say things that are often offensive to someone somewhere. They writing pushes people's buttons for good or bad, and sometimes both at once. That's the nature of blogging, and good bloggers realize that stiring the pot is often not only useful, but necessary.

But due to the very nature of blogging, it is easily attacked. Comments taken out of context, posts written in anger, opinions written when not popular, are all easy targets compared to taking on vetted statements of candidates or their media surrogates. Bloggers themselves leave a trail, and I know few including myself who haven't written posts they'd like back.

But that's the nature of blogging. It is partisan. It is incindary. It is raw. That's what attracts people to it and why it inspires people to action. No one will admit they like to watch a brawl in a bar, but few if any avert their eyes.

I've put my support behind Edwards knowing full well his sweet talk to the Democratic base and netroots might be nothing but talk. This is a deal breaker for me as actions speak louder than words.

Throw the bloggers under the bus after some right wing smear and I'm throwing him right after them.

by michael in chicago 2007-02-07 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Every campaign's bloggers will be attacked

The good thing is that the right wing doesn't edit themselves either.

The bad thing is that no one in the main stream media seems to have noticed.

by paida 2007-02-07 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

The real problem is that Donohue is engaging in dictionary-definition McCarthyism. Trying to get people fired based merely on his accusations alone, with the ultimate goal of making it nearly impossible to voice a progressive opinion or anything else that might be construed as anti-conservative.

This is only a non-issue if you're someone who is merely interested in electing Democrats and who cares nothing for a progressive agenda or progressive politics. If Donohue succeeds here, then he'll feel emboldened to go after the entire blogosphere, not just those bloggers hired by John Edwards.

And it doesn't stop there - he and his ilk would go after other political activists and appointees of a Democratic administration.

These things need to be nipped in the bud. Control of the public discourse is not something to be blithely dismissed.

by eugene 2007-02-07 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I have been smirking all day about Edwards fall from grace with the netroots.  I truly thought it was silly that everyone was willing to ditch a candidate because he wasn't perfect.  Having read your diary though, I can understand the reason.  I am a consumer of the information in the blogs, so my contribution is that of a reader.  From your point of view, the firing of the bloggers has the  potential to stagnate the progress of the netroots and also the livelihood of many. This ultimately goes to the respect or lack there of for the netroots as an effective political force.  So I take back my smirk, although I think Hillary and Obama have nothing to gain from jumping into the fray.  This is a competition afterall.  If Edwards can't beat this on his own, then he just has to move out of the way. Next.

by Kingstongirl 2007-02-07 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Well said and perfectly reasonable.  I know I am almost speaking out of turn here, as a newcomer to the blogosphere, and I realise there was alot of positive and enthusiastic support for the hiring of Amanda and Melissa by Edwards at the time by the front-pagers as it seemed another progressive step in legitimising the already credible and important place of the blogs in US politics.

But something disturbs me about the idea of paid 'bloggers' just as it would paid 'reporters' in the media in general.

Aren't blogsites, irrespective of political alignment, sufficiently powerful institutions already that the relationship of candidates to these sites should be in the context of alliances rather than candidates cherry-picking individuals to blog for them in ways that are not clearly established or ethically unambiguous?

I get it that candidates are going to have their own web presence, and their own blogsites if they dare, but the big, established sites seem tending more to being a media than a campaign organisation, in spite of the interactive participation of bloggers.  Even accepting that blogging is activism the medium is for the exchange of information and the testing of ideas.    Campaigns can co-operate with, motivate and integrate activities of their loyalists in the blogosphere in new and innovative ways without having to have formerly independent bloggers as employees and advocates in their former role; arrange more guest blogging appearances, create channels for bidirectional communication, give access to rapid response teams, assign campaign staffers to read the blogs daily and interact with posters as known official representatives of this or that candidate (maybe leave the odd post or two here and there to let us know the candidates policies or just acknowledge our presence), etc.

I understand that Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan were intended to actually co-ordinate the netroots campaign rather than do hands-on blogging, is that right?  And that is the kind of thing I am taking about but I wonder if either they or the Edwards organisation ever provided a 'job description' of what expectations both sides had.  Or did they just hire them and say go for it?  And it seems that the position description of Blog Co-ordinator should probably eschew those with inflammatory rhetorical backgrounds.  I don't know.  It doesn't seem to matter how many attack ads you did in the advertising world so go figure.

I think the unfortunate thing for the Edwards campaign is that they entered into a relationship with bloggers which does not have a clearly defined role in the mainstream world of media and politics and no established rules of engagement understood and accepted by all other participants, including the MSM, candidates and professional campaign staffers, the public and us.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-07 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Chris -

I totally understand your frustration about this issue.  However, I just read something at TPM that gives me some pause.  I don't have an answer.  I'm presenting this to gain understanding of your position.

This is from a TPM reader, posted by Josh Marshall . . . .

"There is another aspect of this case that has received little mention but I find it interesting. Marcotte made another controversial post about the Duke Lacrosse sexual assault case that received some attention. (I'm a criminal defense attorney and have been following the case.) The blog entry parroted the conventional feminist prosecutorial spin on the case with no real thought as to how the later developments have changed the case."

**

My questions are -

1.  Do you know if this statement has any basis?  I've not followed these bloggers or the Duke Lacrosse sexual assault case.

2.  The part that bothers me is that one of the bloggers is alleged to not be open to new information.  Personally, this is one reason I've given up reading many blog posts - I've seen a stake in the ground that will not move regardless of what new information is available.  My question is, if the bloggers in question are not willing to adjust to new information that's available on a topic and stick with his/her preset point of view, do you feel this is a situation that should be defined as a make or break decision regarding support for the Edward campaign?

by dannynyc 2007-02-07 05:27PM | 0 recs
The real target

I suspect strongly that when the smoke clears, we will conclude that this is not a tactical hit against two particular cheeky bloggers, or a right-wing tactical hit against Edwards.

This is not a grass-roots movement of angry Catholics offended at rude metaphors and malicious speculation about the source of the Church's birth control teaching.

No, this is a right-wing mau-mau strategic hit against free-wheeling, irreverent and often vulgar progressive blogging culture and progressive blogging writ large, a hit which, sadly, is up to Team Edwards to deflect.

This is not a hit against Marcotte.  This is a hit against Bowers, Stoller, Kos, Lindsay Beyerstein, Feministe, Feministing, Armstrong, Greenwald, Echidne, even the famously non-vulgar Josh Marshall, the front-pagers at Kos.  This punch is aimed at Atrios, at Blue Jersey, at Team Lamont.  It's aimed square into Jane Hamsher's eyes, Christy Smith's face.  

THIS is why you should care even if you are happy for Edwards to drown in his own drool.

by Bruce Godfrey 2007-02-07 05:29PM | 0 recs
exactly

basically, it's an attempt to deny candidates the tool of bloggers.  if they can successfully get edwards to fire these two, then that sets a precedent and any potty mouth blogging is going to be grounds for firing/not-hiring-in-the-first-place.  next, bloggers who support - but are not affiliated at all with - a candidate can then be used to tar that candidate.

i don't think it's planned and coordinated, necessarily, but i do think it's intentional.

by corn dog 2007-02-07 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The real target

By far, yours is the best comment or post on this whole issue in the blogosphere I've seen today. If this succeeds then they go after the very political culture we have been creating these last 4-5 years. And though some wish to see it as either not a big deal, or as just something that affects two bloggers, it as you so rightly say, affects us all.

Which is why Edwards' reaction is so important.

by eugene 2007-02-07 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The real target

Thanks.

We have to stop thinking like Tom Hagen, the consigliere who could not prevail in war in The Godfather.

by Bruce Godfrey 2007-02-08 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: The real target

Finally someone gets it.  Let's be brutal here.  I'm a blogger.  I've written hundreds of thousands of words.  In there there is plenty of material to offend lots of people.  Am I still employable?  This doesn't have to stop at campaigns, you know.  Why couldn't a corporation be pressured to get rid of me?

Prog bloggers aren't going to roll on this. If Edwards throws Amanda and Melissa under the bus he isn't just throwing them under the bus.

by Ian Welsh 2007-02-08 01:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Thanks for this Chris -- you've written a description of political posture I can identify with -- I'm a "movementarian who views the Democratic Party as an unavoidable vehicle."

If Edwards is brought to heel by a little McCarthite attack like this, he's not someone I can look to for anything but placeholding leadership.

by janinsanfran 2007-02-07 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Chris -

I just saw your update.  I agree - I've never seen you so worked up about any other issue. One of the reasons for my prior post is to provide a word of caution - in my own life, when I've reacted out of anger, I've usually regretted the decision.  I do give you a great deal of credit for waiting until a decision is clear.  

There is no doubt you've done a tremendous amount of hard work for the entire Progressive community.  My word of caution is that reaction in a mode of anger can undo a lot of the work you've done over a long period of time.

For yourself and for us all, please be careful.

by dannynyc 2007-02-07 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I'm with you, 100% on this, Chris.  

by CarrieCann 2007-02-07 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

If Edwards didn't learn from the Kerry/Swiftboat situation that he needs to immediately fight back, then he has a major problem.

He better retaliate against Malkin, Hynes and even Donoghue. I'm a Catholic and trust me, very few Catholics care what Billy Boy says. Most don't even know him.

I'd also go after Kate O'Beirne and her husband who hired the cronys for the Iraq CPA. She's on the Catholic League Board along with Dinesh D'Sousa and other freaks.

Paging Al Gore! Mr. Gore please report to the podium!

by TimO 2007-02-07 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

D'Snooza is on the Catholic League's board?  What a joke.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-07 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Chris and Matt,

You have been duped again.  This time by DLC'ers as much as RWN.  Look at the timing of Mrs. Clinton's msg by Daou today and what it said.  Who does Daou have close connections with? Salon. Who praises Mrs. Clinton more than the NY Sun? The NYT.  

Edwards campaign will figure out the realignment of the staff, which is my hunch, as I am not part of their official staff.  I'm more concerned you have taken the bait.  Let go of it and see what happens.  Meantime, don't feel so threatened about your livihood unless you continue to show your lack of confidence.

by benny06 2007-02-07 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Let me get this straight, Edwards lack of both a spine and rapid response is Peter Daou's fault?

I'm not saying he might not have had a role pushing the story, but the problem isn't the hit, it is the reaction.

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-07 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I'm suggesting that Clinton may have tipped off Donohue (or other media concerning his comments) about the two staffers and they chose to attack Edwards that way, then say "oh, we know how to fight off the RW."

I cannot prove it which is why I think it is my hunch only, but when Clinton says she is in it to win (and believes she's entitled to the office), I think she will use any Rovian trick in the book.  Her spouse has said he admires Karl Rove's political skills.

by benny06 2007-02-07 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

OK, I'm glad you admit you have no evidence for this.

Despite I despise Hillary, I like Peter and if he could make John Edwards like like a spineless, incompetent fool with two phone calls then more power to him for letting us realize this now.

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-07 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Great--go vote for the corporate welfare dynasty again.  More power to her imperialism instead of what's right for the American people in the issues they care about.  Great..she's perfect for you.

by benny06 2007-02-07 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

And having a spine means waiting a few hours or a day when it is not a crisis like Katrina, the war, or the tornados in Florida.  Your priorities of answering bloggers about some attacks on provocatuers in less than 5 hours do not indicate what your priorities are.  I would expect President Edwards to address the top issues today, not just about 2 recently hired staff who happen to have salty language in their discourse and offend many bloggers who aren't big L's.  If you do, you need to vote again for Ralph Nader or some GP person.

With JRE's heavy travel schedule in the next few days (two stops today alone) in horrible weather, he needs a little time to assess what needs to happen and doesn't need us to decide for him.  But I'm certain his staff are gathering our input.

by benny06 2007-02-07 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

No, you don't bumble and then wait to respond. That isn't a spine, that is incompetence.

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-07 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

No, this is not a crisis. If you think it is, I guess you don't understand Katrina, 9/11, etc. It is not quite the same as Swift boats, and I've pointed out, the Clintonistas are aiding and abetting.  Maybe you are in their camp?

by benny06 2007-02-07 06:28PM | 0 recs
maybe I'm in Hillary's camp???

You don't come around here too often do you?

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-07 07:36PM | 0 recs
You assume much and possibly there is nothing to

report, there is no confirmation that anyone has been fired!  - There is only rumor.

Are you, sure you want to rant down the path of accuser before all the facts are in, whether it takes an hour or a week. What is your rush, is it keeping you awake? Is your last breath dependant on JRE's decision.

Last I knew he was the employer, and in any work relationship, you can be fired.

by dk2 2007-02-07 06:33PM | 0 recs
Right, but wrong reason

If Edwards dumps the two bloggers, you shouldn't support him, not because he fired them but because he hired them in the first place!

Good grief. What was the big idea in the first place? No possible good could have come of this. (1) It looked like Edwards was trying to "buy" favor with the netroots. (2) The bloggers would lose their credibility, now that they were blogging in the pay of a political campaign. (3) Never, ever hire a writer without reading everything they've published. How many times have people and companies gotten burned by this in recent years?

This was such a stupid idea in the first place...the best Edwards can make of it is to walk it back. But we can't afford another stupid president, so the best we can do is look elsewhere.

by bob5540 2007-02-07 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Right, but wrong reason

Otherwise known as 'do your due diligence'.

by Ian Welsh 2007-02-08 01:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

I need to spell better...livelihood.

by benny06 2007-02-07 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

There is a principle here. Either Edwards gives into the rightwing noise machine or he shows some strength and flips them the bird.

This is just another way to swiftboat and he should have already spoken up. I'm just heartsick that his campaign hasn't already said they are satisfied with the two bloggers and I have been supporting him.

For God's sake haven't we learned anything in the last two years. We can't give these RW slimers an inch.

by Kewalo 2007-02-07 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
This is NOT about 2 bloggers. It's about knocking Edwards out of the running. That's all it is. Edwards is a real threat to the right.
Now, to me, Edwards' perceived weakness is weakness. He's too nice, not tough enough. That's why he has to fight back. Right now.
Issue a press release detailing Donohue's disgusting history (easy to do), discuss McCain's campaign staff (easy to do).
Then, call them all Swiftboaters. And say you're not wasting any more time on non-issues.
To pander to the right would ensure only more attacks. Fight them now - and keep fighting them. It is irrelevant what the 2 bloggers said - or wrote. That is NOT what this is about. It's a phony issue.
Say you're sticking with who you hired - and you're proud of your selections. Now back to Iraq, health care, poverty, foreclosures, etc. - you know, the stuff that matters!
by mjames 2007-02-07 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Calm down. Calm down. Calm down. This thread feels like that old line from a 1960s comic strip Pogo in which somebody said, "we have met the enemy and they are us." Instead of talking about Bush or Iraq or Edwards' health care plans or Democratic candidates we are supporting or thinking about supporting, we are getting all huffy over the fate of two bloggers hired and now fired by Edwards. Look, I am showing my age here, but as a progressive Democrat who has worked in lots of local, state, and national campaigns since the 1980s it is an old cliche that if a staffer becomes the story instead of the candidate that staffer will be shown the door. Of course it is not fair, and good people as well as knuckleheads have been shown the door in other campaigns because they, rather than the candidate, have become the story. Let's be honest here-how many of you know these bloggers or their writings? Quick-who are the bloggers who are working for Obama and Clinton? Do you care about campaign staff changes? All campaigns shuffle staff, and not always for the best of reasons. Let's move forward-you KNOW Clinton and Obama and everyone else will hire/fire people but remember that it is the Republicans, not bloggers or staff that we should focus our attention on.

by Robert Spurrier 2007-02-07 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

The issue is trust and judgment, not emotions.  Edwards has shown poor judgment in the past, but he claims to have learned from it and has asked us to trust that he has.  This episode suggests that he hasn't changed, that he's as susceptible to right-wing pressure as he was in 2002 when he cast his vote for the war.

by Matt Stoller 2007-02-07 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

But he has no reason to respond rapid fire to you or Chris today.  He had two stops, plus has a few more to go.

I think your comment to call him "incompetent" is uncalled for, dude.  You still hold a lot of emotion with that brightness you could exude for other purposes.  JRE runs rings around you more than the sun does here, but you are young and still improving.  At least I hope so as two former colleagues of yours have told me you are bright and good.  

by benny06 2007-02-07 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

The difference between today and yesterday is that in the past, we didn't have to deal with right-wing blogswarms that were capable of making any candidate's staffers into "the issue" on a moment's notice.

This story is not an unlucky event where someone's staffer got busted for drunk driving and had to resign.  This was a deliberate and concerted effort by the right-wing blogs to try and get someone fired, and it's a play they are capable of running again and again.  To borrow a cliche from the other side, appeasement will just embolden them.

by Steve M 2007-02-08 05:37AM | 0 recs
This whole incident started with Salon
The source of this event isn't the rightwing blognuts, it's a false report from Salon that the two bloggers were fired. I'm a subscriber at Salon, and i'm dissappointed that they led us to believe that the Malkins of the blogsphere had power over the Edwards campaign that they never actually had.
Even though as we now know the Edwards campaign was properly indifferent to the attacks, Edwards has taken a big, unjustified knock to his reputation on this.
Sooner or later someone is going to ask Edwards a question about this, and I suspect his response will reassure us all. But whatever happens, Salon needs to be more conservative about breaking a story like this.
by johnalive 2007-02-08 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: This whole incident started with Salon

DO we know that?  I haven't seen anything to suggest the Edwards campaign has resolved the matter one way or the other.  As far as I know, the jury is still out.  Please supply me with a link if there's some news I am unaware of.

by Steve M 2007-02-08 06:12AM | 0 recs
OK

My sense is that this is not about Edwards, but it happened to Edwards.  So for better or worse, the ball is in his court.  

I just want to reiterate that point because this is   both a challenge for Edwards and a chance for him to  lead.  If he leads, it makes sense that the netroots should back him.  If he does not lead, then it makes sense that the netroots should back the candidate who does.

Either way, this is only the first of many such moments to come, and in each case--for each candidate who is tested--the reaction will be similar.

So, while I support what Chris says--completely--I also am pulling for Edwards to step up and lead on this one.  Because I want our candidates to take down the Rethug slime machine.  I want Edwards to "stand up," get on TV, stick it to Donahue, stick  it to FOX, and show that nobody pushes around his staff or intimidates his supporters.   I know he can do it.

And this is not because I am for, against or indifferent to Edwards.  It's because I want these thug smear campaigns--and the politics of fear they bring--to end.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2007-02-07 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Chris, I often don't agree with you all here, but today, after five years of supporting Edwards, I took him off our sidebar.

Should all this just be a misunderstanding, he'll go back up (with Gore and Kucinich.)  But I agree, this is a watershed moment.  For Edwards, for the netroots, for the blogosphere, particularly the "Other" blogosphere (if you're part of it, you'll understand.)

by MBW 2007-02-07 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

he has not fired anybody.  

by DrFrankLives 2007-02-07 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

MIght I point out that Amanda Marcotte has not been heard from on this issue? That in itself says she is still on the payroll.

by DrFrankLives 2007-02-07 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Neither one have been let go.  

by benny06 2007-02-07 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Chris is right. It's important to draw a line in the sand on this. There are larger principles involved than just loyalty to professional colleagues.

by blueflorida 2007-02-07 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Chris - I read your stuff nearly every day.  Other people may not be as passionate as you are, and that's fine.  That's why you're a leader in this "space" we call the netroots.  It comes from your core.

You're logic is grounded and in a primary Edwards wouldn't get my support either if he doesn't back these staffers.  It will only mean something to the wingnuts if he keeps them - this won't damage his support, unless he fires them.

I have questioned Edwards spine for the last 6 years and this will be a good test.  I wonder to what extent his people are reading these posts - certainly would do him some good to see what's at stake for his campaign.  

by passionateprogressive 2007-02-07 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

If this is your test then you have no backbone either.

by benny06 2007-02-07 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
No, benny, I said this would be "a" test - not "the only" test. Every candidate has many tests to pass as we all know and this would be an important one of many that he'll face. Unless something new is revealed that is more deeply problematic, Edwards needs to defend this decision.
by passionateprogressive 2007-02-07 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

But this is not how Bowers painted it, and I'm challenging him intellectually, is the litmus test.  As you point out, probably not, but he needs to say so.

by benny06 2007-02-07 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
I guess for you "backbone" means throwing out unsubstantiated charges against campaign staffers based on absolutely nothing except personal speculation and hatred. Do it again and it you will be banned.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-07 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Do what you must Chris, if you believe I am spewing hate, but my gut tells me that if Edwards reassigns these two employees (and I am guessing one will be), that you still will not wholeheartedly support him.  You will find another reason before it 2008 gets here.

It's easier for me to say what I believe as I'm a Edwards supporter, have been since 2004, and while there are things the campaign does that are irritating or at times, making missteps, I don't believe this is a crisis as perhaps you do.   I think they should take their time in working out differences, and not succumb to yours or any blog's ultimatiums, just as I believe that they shouldn't fire anyone based on a RWN's accusations either.    It's their campaign, not yours, after all.

by benny06 2007-02-08 04:59AM | 0 recs
Lets keep this real for just one moment

Even though we bloggers like to impress our worth, in the big scheme of things are there really more votes from bloggers than the public?

I don't think so. We are making progress, and evenually it may be true. But not yet.

It is his choice, not ours regardless of who has whomevers back covered on this.  WE can moan and groan, shout and hollar, but in the real world bloggers are not out numbering the regular voters.

So whether we like it or not, he does have to look at the big picture.

by dk2 2007-02-07 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Have a look at the "auto-fallatio" graphic that's up at the Pandagon website and tell me if it wasn't obvious that things like this would send the Republicans into orgiastic spasms of self-righteousness:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/250066 490_b00a21c263_m.jpg

Edwards could have brought these assistants into his campaign, but he certainly shouldn't have let them feel authorized to announce it ("she disembarks for Chapel Hill, NC to work on the Edwards `08 campaign.")on the same webage that has the auto-fallatio graphic!

by francislholland 2007-02-07 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Last I checked, Edwards isn't running as the Republican nominee, so why the f*ck should he care if what Amanda (or any of his supporters) writes pisses them off? (note, our very existence pisses them off.)

by MBW 2007-02-07 07:45PM | 0 recs
It's about embarrassment

If they find something embarrassing, they write a press release and then all hell breaks lose.

by francislholland 2007-02-08 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
We ARE the big picture!
The country wants strength. Standing up to idiots. Not caving in to extremists.
Edwards needs the passion of the blogs.
Without it he will lose.
by mjames 2007-02-07 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

People read bloggers who like their candidate.  I think polls are showing Edwards with a pretty decent following on the internet at the moment.

It's reasonable that something against "professional" bloggers would be a far more emotional and important issue for a compatriot, like you, than for a reader, like us.

So what seems overwrought to your audience is still reasonable for you to feel, even if it isn't reasonable for your audience to feel it, too.

Allegiances will be in flux for quite some time, I imagine.  We haven't even heard the first debate, yet.

So don't expect your readers to care as much about this issue as you do, but that's no reason for you to back off your position.

by catherineD 2007-02-07 07:01PM | 0 recs
Chris taking his own advice...

Rule 5 of "How to argue with a progressive..."[Show them] you've got cred, man! You have been there and done that, no matter where "there" is and what "that" may happen to be. Remember that the person you are talking with isn't nearly as active as you are."

Chris Bowers' Rule-5 in action today: "I have spent nearly the last four years of my life working on full-time progressive movement building."

(Once credibility is established, goto Rule 2, and imply that...)
"Someone is only a progressive if they focus on the same issue as you. How could a progressive not focus all of their attention on the same issue you focus you[r] attention on? They can't."

Rule 1 in action today: "If Amanda and Melissa are terminated from the Edwards campaign, there is no way I could respect either myself or the movement and support Edwards... I won't be a part of a campaign that decides to run as fast as it can away from the blogosphere, the netroots, and the progressive movement."

I really like that "How to Win an Argument" post...

http://chris_bowers.mydd.com/story/2007/ 1/29/20434/0012

It's fun to see it in action...

And you were a big fat whiney-baby at least one time before... when you threw that hissey-fit when Texas didn't nominate all of its potential Democratic candidates for congress.

But still, I respect that this pisses you off. However, if you take a step back, it really is very similar to your "single-issue" rule-1.

Take a break.

by NCDem 2007-02-07 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Chris taking his own advice...

Where exactly did Chris demand that others not support Edwards?  

by Matt Stoller 2007-02-07 07:33PM | 0 recs
Where exactly

did you see me suggest  that "Chris demand[ed] that others not support Edwards?"

either way...

accept my post for what it was... needling snark, nothing more.

by NCDem 2007-02-07 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Where exactly

When you cited the rule that says "Someone is only a progressive if they focus on the same issue as you."

Nowhere did Chris criticize anyone else if they don't see this as a big issue.  He simply explained why he personally sees it as a big issue.  Your snark is off the mark.

by Steve M 2007-02-08 05:40AM | 0 recs
Me too!

I'm completely with Chris on this one.
I'm up in the air between Edwards and Obama.  I read Edwards campaign book a couple years ago and liked the guy.  I'm about half way through reading Obama's "Audacity of Hope" and haven't seen much really hopeful in it yet.  The chapter on the Constitution was a total disappointment from a Constitutional Law professor.  The guy seems like a Pollyana - but..
 Obama fought back and shut the door on Fox when he was attacked.
Edwards -- (so far) has no counterattack.  If he can't stand up to the first wimpy attack from some truly despicable characters how in the hell is he going to handle the mess that whoever takes the oath in Jan 09 going to be facing?

The right wing plays by a completely different set of rules and anybody that doesn't fight back hard is going to be stuck in the swamp with John Kerry.

The Dem candidate will not succeed without a damn strong spine!

by NeoLeftist 2007-02-07 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

It seems to me that the point being overlooked is that the former views editorialised by a journalist press secretary hired by a campaign organisation are traditionally a non-issue.  Yet the former views of Amanda and Melissa are not, why is this?

If Edwards strongly said something like "These people are working explicitly as organisational staff co-ordinating my campaign message to the netroots and their personal views are not relevant to the roles which they have agreed to perform for this campaign" then the whole situation is moot.

I think this issue has only arisen as a result of ambiguity about their intended role in the campaign.  Do you know what role they were meant to perform?  I am not abundantly clear either but I am assuming they were not just going to be hands-on bloggers.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-07 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Unfortunately this is not about roles or whether what Amanda and Melissa wrote is relevant to the Edwards campaign. This is about right wingers setting the ground rules and seeing if Edwards will fight back.

Your answer that the bloggers' views are not relevant is a rational answer... but we can't rely on reason when this thing is blowing up on the cable news. Edwards has to punch back and tell them he won't play by their rules. Otherwise, we have another John Kerry.

by joesaho 2007-02-07 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

If reason is not our ally than who is?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-07 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

We've got to kung-fu the bastards.  Watch Obama, he knows what he's doing.  This isn't a Civil War re-enactment.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-07 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

And he could go on to say "These are passionate progressives and I hand-picked them for the skills they bring to an exciting new dimension in politics and I realise some of the things the sullen and unjustified things they have said are insulting to some people, but that was before they came to work for me and things are different now, I know how to guide passionate people to a worthy cause... etc.  And they were certainly no more toxic, <example of your choice>, and certainly less militant then the netroots of the <your favourite adjective> Right."

Moment of contrition followed by a sincere appeal to both parties to raise the minimum standard on toxicity in the netroots for the sake of the nation, smiles.  "I'm glad to have Amanda and Melissa on board to help me with that process."  Next question.  

Safe on third, top of the second, batter up.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-07 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
I am so sorry for you Edwards supporters to be having to deal with this and some of it being caused by Michelle Malkin.
I have been reading some posts at other sites and I do hope this gets straightened out or Edwards makes some brilliant move.  He is losing voters.  
I am not one of his supporters but, it seems so unfair.  This is spiking out of control and could seriously damage the campaign.
My heart truly goes out to all of you.
by vwcat 2007-02-07 07:29PM | 0 recs
What would Edwards really do....

without all the pressure from the blog community?

Be nice to know what his true instincts were in this kind of situation.

There's been so much pressure applied that it becomes a calculation for Edwards' versus a gut decision that would give you some insight into how he really thinks and acts.

Similar to Edwards backing down on his Iran war threat under pressure.  We don't know what his real position is, only what position he thinks does the least damage to his campaign.

by BrionLutz 2007-02-07 07:33PM | 0 recs
The cynical, conventional wisdom thing to do...

Tack left in the primaries to win the nomination, then veer back toward the center in the general election. Following the tenets of this wisdom, Edwards should keep Amanda and Melissa through the primaries to shore up his support among us activists, and then dump them after he wins the primary.
Most dramatic primary moment: When some debate moderator or panel member asks him a question about this complete with lurid quote(s) from their previous writings...analogous to the moment in the '88 campaign when Bernard Shaw asked M Dukakis what he would do if someone raped his wife. Edwards best response: "I'm shocked and outraged at that comment. And everyone should condemn such a statement. But I'm not going to be held accountable for every word that ever fell out of the mouth of one of my campaign workers (pivot to attack repubs from here)...
I'll bet anyone here an expensive drink if I meet you at a campaign event that it plays out like this...

Unknown factor in all of this--Elizabeth Edwards, who is probably the one who found and recruited them in the first place. Will she insist the campaign stick with them to the bitter end?

by johnalive 2007-02-07 08:00PM | 0 recs
A real response:

First, Edwards hasn't fired anyone (I was made plainly aware of!). You're jumping the gun and adding to the hysteria surrounding this.

Second, that stupid Hillbilly Baptist born-again fuck had better not fire someone for disparaging fucking Catholics.  That would just be fucking wrong.

by NCDem 2007-02-07 08:07PM | 0 recs
Hillary!!!

Hire me!!!

by NCDem 2007-02-07 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

There are a few points to be considered here.  

1. What is Edwards' platform? Does he have an actual plan to implement or is it just a bunch of pretty words? Edwards' handling of this tells us a lot of things, but is not in and of itself a showstopper if we're thinking instead of emoting.

2. What the hell is the Edwards campaign thinking? Why is this even an issue? Did they ONLY JUST NOW discover these are two opinionated women with lengthy paper trails? Do they think any of this matters to people not familiar with the blogosphere? The question is not what they did before working for you, but how well they represent your efforts when on the clock for you. What this shows is blind groping and cluelessness. Edwards' people think the blogosphere is "cool" and they think they "need" to be engaged, but they don't understand how it operates and what engaging it means. No matter what they do now, they will look weak and foolish.

3. If Edwards lets the right wing smear machine control his message, he doesn't deserve to be president.

If Marcotte and McEwan go, it says bad things about the Edwards campaign.  It suggests they don't do due dilligence before hand.  It suggests they aren't confident in their abilities, or those of their staff.  It suggests they are phony and doing what is expected of them rather than leading  the discussion.

And that would be unfortunate since Edwards was one of the more promising candidates in the field so far.

by surakmn 2007-02-07 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me

Chris,
Thank you for this explanation of where you stand. I admit that I was surprised to see you state that you would write-off Edwards if Marcotte & McEwan were fired. I disagreed with your certitude, but not your emtoin. The logic you set out here is by far the best, clearest justification you've put forward yet.

Thank you for your clarity at a time when there isn't much clarity through the news on this story.

--Matt Browner Hamlin

by PhiloTBG 2007-02-08 04:09AM | 0 recs
one person == the netroots?

Get real, there are many people online fighting for progressivism and against Bush. Not every one of them is perfect, and frankly I found some of the comments I found a little disturbing.  It seems kind of messed up to belittle people who may have been falsely accused of rape, which I'm sure would be horrible.

One person (or two people) is not the netroots, it's not a slap in all of our faces, just theirs.

I have to say, my confidence in Edwards is down a little, like Kos said a while ago, he just doesn't seem to be running a tight ship, and that's going to be important in the General. Obama hasn't done much to appeal to me personally, but he has plenty of time to do that before the Iowa caucuses. And I'll get to see him this Sunday.  Being in Iowa rocks!

by delmoi 2007-02-08 04:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Why The Edwards Situation Means So Much To Me
Chris, I think your position is spot-on. Frankly, I think this whole Edwards kerfluffle has a Kerryesque flavor to it. Edwards has revealed an incredibly thoughtless process/plan for utilizing embedded bloggers if they can be dropped a week after being hired for a complaint which applies to nearly any blogger, particularly when coming from the right.
Secondly, Edwards fails for caving to this kind of right-wing criticism. He'd have gained lots of ground (at least among the blogosphere) had he just ignored the complaints, or better yet stood-up.
Finally, unless their work was to be advisory, why'd he hire bloggers anyway? Isn't that kindof like hiring reporters? Seems the only reason to hire a known blogger instead of a good writer who can create a purpose-built blog, is to utilize the blog's following. That would imply reading the blog to evaluate it. Edwards either did or did not do this, he fails either way.
It's been entertaining, but not presidential.
by kamajii 2007-02-08 05:29AM | 0 recs
You are not over reacting

Everyone has a hot button issue. For you this is about loyalty and respect for the progressive net roots. If Edwards can discharge someone like Amanda - who is guilty of nothing more than putting her passion into words - then he is slapping everyone who has done the same. I've posted passionate, inflammatory remarks on other sites (this is my first post here), and I suspect most of the pro-Edwards commenters here have done the same thing. Edwards has essentially said he'd throw any one of us under the bus if we were to work for him.

And Edwards was my front-runner. I liked the guy in '04 and I liked him '08. He has to make this better.

by DanF 2007-02-08 06:18AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads