MyDD :: The Edwards Blogger Resolution

The Edwards Blogger Resolution

by Matt Stoller, Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:47:01 PM EST

Amanda Marcotte resigned from the Edwards campaign. It was her decision. Amanda feels encumbered by the campaign and unable to effectively defend herself from the right-wing. As such, it's the correct decision to make because a Presidential campaign is the wrong place to be if you want to hit back at the right on your own behalf. Aspiring bloggers for campaigns should take note of the restrictions placed on your freedom when you go to work for a campaign. The personal cost can be quite high.

Melissa at Shakespeare's Sister is still with the Edwards campaign. Bill Donohue's attack on Edwards failed, and we know that creepy bigots like him only have power if we grant it to them through our own actions.

... I basically agree with David.

The lesson here seems pretty straightforward to me: if a blogger gets hired to work on a political campaign, that blogger should cease personal blogging. Just don't do it. If you're blogging for a candidate, there's nothing you can say on your own blog that is anything but a liability for your candidate, so you're just hurting the person you presumably want to win. It's annoying to me that someone like Donohue ends up getting what he wanted in this case, and that could have and should have been avoided.

Tags: John Edwards, Amanda Marcotte (all tags)

Permalink :: 44 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: The Edwards Blogger Resolution (3.00 / 1)

This makes me quite uncomfortable with the Edwards campaign.

They apparently didn't do any, well, due diligence, before hiring Marcotte. That's pretty amateurish, no?

Then they accepted her resignation, instead of asking her to stay: so, in the final analysis, they bowed to pressure from a professional hatemonger, and gave him exactly what he wanted.

At best, this looks weak.

by BingoL on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 10:03:49 PM EST

Re: The Edwards Blogger Resolution (3.00 / 1)

She chose to resign so she could fight back w/o involving the campaign. You really are jumping to conclusions here. I do not think they bowed to any pressure.

by littafi on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 10:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed on all counts. (none / 0)

The campaign made an ill-considered hiring decision without due diligence, and then waffled on the decision, and now has withdrawn the decision, costing a week of hand-wringing and gaining nothing.

But there is a bright side. Robert Novak has come out for Edwards over Clinton in today's Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021101168. html?nav=hcmodule

Novak says Edwards takes firm positions and admits errors. The problem is that serial admission of errors (Iraq, the bloggers, the vote in favor of the Bankruptcy bill) is not the stuff of successful presidential campaigns.

by francislholland on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:40:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agreed on all counts. (none / 0)

Robert Novak is going to take a jab at whoever is the front runner.

by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:48:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agreed on all counts. (none / 0)

Nor is serial denial.

Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012

by benmasel on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:45:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agreed on all counts. (3.00 / 1)

The campaign did not force her to resign.

You really should not talk about things of which you have no knowledge.

She resigned. She wanted to fight back. Smack me if I am wrong, but she was correct in deciding that john Edwards's campaign blog was not the place to fight her own personal battle with the right wing nutjobs.

I wish she had stuck it out and realized she was working for something bigger than that and that her own personal battle could wait.

But she felt it was important to punch back and defend herself. So she resigned.

Those of you who already disliked John Edwards will see this as the campaign firing her. Amanda could get up on a mountain top with a giant neon sign that said "I heart John Edwards" and you would disresect her by stating that she must have been forced to do it.

Here's a clue - Amanda Marcotte is an independent self-assured and capable woman who is fully able to make her own decisions. You don't need to look for excuses for her.

by DrFrankLives on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:49:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agreed on all counts. (none / 0)

"The campaign did not force her to resign."

Effectively, it did. Via its refusal to categorically refute the ridiculous and blatant self-righteousness of Donohue, its awkward, slow, and, let's say it, limp "defense" of Amanda's right to stay with the campaign, combined with the fact that there was going to be no way Amanda could try to defend herself without the campaign taking some heat over it, which they showed no inclination to want to take...yeah, I'd say she was basically forced to resign or quit being Amanda Marcotte.

by liberalrob on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:09:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Edwards Blogger Resolution (none / 0)

How do you know any of this?

The answer - you don't.

You have no idea what was said to anyone, what they said to her when she offered her resignation, what Edwards said to her on the phone. Nothing. YOU. HAVE. NO. BASiS. ON. WHICH. TO. COMMENT.

by DrFrankLives on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Edwards Blogger Resolution (none / 0)

Now wait a minute. He didn't say "this is what happened and I know it for a fact." He said "this looks weak", given what we know.

We're not naive, are we? Can we not assume, is it not even in the realm of possibility, that a political calculation was behind the firing, rehiring, and tepid "I disagree with her and she offends me but I'll keep her on" statement? Give me a break.

There is every reason to be suspicious. This has a bad odor, and that's a basis to comment.

by liberalrob on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Go ahead ASS-U-ME (none / 0)

you know how that works.

by DrFrankLives on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:36:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Go ahead ASS-U-ME (none / 0)

Oh ha ha ya got me there...sheez

by liberalrob on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Edwards Blogger Resolution (none / 0)

No, actually, there is no reason to be suspicious, unless you have a predeliction for mistrusting John Edwards or Amanda Marcotte.

You are essentially calling them both liars.

by DrFrankLives on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Edwards Blogger Resolution (none / 0)

No I am not. I am saying there is every reason to believe that the original firing was almost certainly a knee-jerk reaction by "experienced" political operatives, because that's the default action when a minor staffer causes problems for your candidate. Minor staffers are a dime a dozen to these people. And in that environment, that and everything that came after just smells of political maneuvering. Amanda is being very principled about it and not slagging off the Edwards campaign, saying that it was her decision to leave; but it was a decision she wouldn't have had to make if the campaign hadn't fumbled around triangulating.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

by liberalrob on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:05:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Amanda will be missed (3.00 / 3)

I'm really sorry to see her go. Amanda running the Edwards blog was (in the eyes of this Edwards fan) like FDR having Molly Ivins as his chief blogger.

And it's easy to see why she left. For someone as outspoken as Amanda, working within the constraints of a campaign had to be really hard, and the Donahue thing only made it worse. The extra scrutiny from enemies, combined with the desire Amanda must have felt to hit back in her usual fiery way, can't have been comfortable.

At least we get Amandariffic Pandagon posts for the rest of the next year and a half. I look forward to reading them.

by Neil the Ethical Werewolf on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 10:08:10 PM EST

Re: The Edwards Blogger Resolution (3.00 / 0)

This is a terrible sequence for Edwards. He gets attacked for this, then he has to publically defend Amanda Marcotte, and then she quits. WTF?

Well, at least Melissa's still there.

Does anyone have the story on what's going on internally in the Edwards campaign with respect to the divide between those who wanted to fire Amanda & Melissa and those who fought to keep them on board? What's Matthew Gross have to say about all of this?

by blueflorida on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 10:14:42 PM EST

Plot thickens (3.00 / 1)

This story is a little more complex than it initially appears. It seems that Amanda took new heat today for a post on her blog yesterday that made mention of the Christian allegory of the virgin birth. Here are the Chris Cilizza and Ben Smith version of the backstory.

by blueflorida on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:11:40 AM EST

Amanda's already fighting back (3.00 / 2)

http://pandagon.net/2007/02/12/don-qui-w ho/

Go get 'em!

by Phoenix Woman on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:23:53 AM EST

Re: The Edwards Blogger Resolution (3.00 / 0)

I buy that she didn't want to work under the constraints, and I buy that it was her decision, and I buy that Edwards didn't buckle. But it's gotta be really bad timing for Edwards. They should have agreed to some situation through which she was still working for him but on a much lower profile and waited for some time to pass so the controversy dies down. Then she could leave -- for the reasons she stated -- without as much media attention. Edwards shouldn't have let her go until way later. As it is it has the taint of Edwards seeming to stand tall and defend her, then having the campaign have her resign anyway. It looks like he's just trying to have it both ways -- she's off the payroll/doesn't offend the Right in the future and he stood up for the netroots left. That's unfair, but that's the appearence, and it's sad that that's one way it seems to have come off.

by afertig on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:27:40 AM EST

We can help her fight back... (none / 0)

...go here: http://pandagon.net/2007/02/12/don-qui-w ho/

by Phoenix Woman on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good for her (none / 0)

predicted here

by dblhelix on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:53:50 AM EST

Re: The Edwards Blogger Resolution (3.00 / 1)

I'm not hiring any house bloggers for my 2012 Senate run. I'd rather defend my own intemperate remarks.

Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012

by benmasel on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:42:49 AM EST

Re: The Edwards Blogger Resolution (3.00 / 1)

Why wasn't a personal blogging blockade part of the contract?
That sounded like SOP if not in legal terms, in terms of the professional commitment from the political bloggers I've met.

They went on their blogging haunts explaining why we wouldn't hear from them for a while, and that's they way it stayed until the campaign ended.

by drowsy on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:06:47 AM EST

Re: The Edwards Blogger Resolution (none / 0)

It wouldn't have mattered. Amanda was attacked for statements she made BEFORE she joined the Edwards campaign. They didn't even wait to see if she would be as outspoken once she actually took over as blogmistress; they went after her right away, seeing an avenue to attack Edwards' perception as a good Christian gentleman and stir up controversy with his campaign.

by liberalrob on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Edwards Blogger Resolution (none / 0)

She's currently suffering a spam atack at Pandagon.

THey made need some tech help.

Good Christian hackers are attacking, you know. Jesus is all about stifling dissent.

(Note, that is sarcasm)

by DrFrankLives on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:58:13 AM EST

It isn't resolved (3.00 / 1)

Here is the latest - Donohue is demanding that edwards fire ShakeSis TODAY - or ELSE.

http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_re leases/quarter_1/070213_can_mcewan.htm

Also that the Clinton and Obama campaigns condemn Edwards.

You can't help but wonder why Donohue feels he can dictate to the Dem candidates, except that it seems that they may allow it.

by tiponeill on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:46:37 PM EST

Unsurprising (none / 0)

As far he's concerned, it's one down, one to go; and no matter whether she stays or goes, he will hammer Edwards for hiring them in the first place. That's why it's such a mistake to give in even an inch to these fanatics. You'll never win with them; so you might as well stand up for your principles.

Donohue is a self-righteous, arrogant religious nut. He's convinced that God speaks to him and it's his duty to save the world from the wickedness of all who disagree with him. Unfortunately, people like him are legion in this country.

by liberalrob on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:50:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.