Boy I hate to get into semantics and ultra-granularity, but "weighing their fate" were the words of the reporter, not the spokeswoman.  Whatever the spokeswoman said might or might not have been all that pious.  Presenting only as such is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

I understand that while we can't expect perfection from any candidate, we have to push them wherever they mess up.  But this is another thing alltogether, inventing a narrative that John Edwards went from darling of the blogosphere (false) to despised enemy of the progressive netroots.  

He got caught up in a bad story on the Iran comments, and since then, including the interview with Jonathan in the front-page post right after this one, he has explained in a clear and unambiguous way his take on dealing with Iran and the Middle East at-large.  And it's been far more satisfactory to me than anyone else out there, and really, more importantly, in line with what I think is the right thing to do.  

You put out unsubstantiated rumors about people in New Orleans dogging Edwards, gratuitously at that, as it was unnecessary to make your point of the diary.  But it's just not true.  Edwards has been to NOLA multiple times, engaged in real work and not just photo-ops.  He announced from there because it fit his campaign narrative, but NOLA hasn't been a prop for the campaign, but instead part of the whole reason why he's running.  

There are lots of things that get bloggers and presidential candidates into trouble, this is an emergent synergy between some expressions of technology and communication and politics and human relations.  There are going to be bumpy roads, but expecting perfection here is like expecting ideological purity - it doesn't happen and it demeans the expector and the expectee.  Trying to weave it into a larger story that rings false just isn't cool to me.