Ah man, now I feel bad.  Couldn't you just laugh at the lesbian fertility Chinese hacker part?

Here are some thoughts in defense of both of us.  

First, I am not implying that you have a hidden agenda.  I am stating clearly that you have a open agenda.  You said forcefully that if Edwards keeps the bloggers, you will be a strong Edwards supporter.  This support was not motivated by a specific policy position, but by your concern that the rightwing noise machine will be successful by using Donahue tactics in driving a wedge between the netroots and Democratic candidates.  If Edwards drew a line to support the netroots by refusing to buckle to this strategy, you would reward him with your support.  

I understand your motivation, as you described, and I congraduate you on your convictions.  I have to say, as well, that I was not quite sure if you meant that you would openly advocate for Edwards against other candidates.  The way the comment was set up, as I recall, was " I was on the fence between Obama or Edwards, but if Edwards keeps the bloggers, I will choose Edwards."

I think it may be a little early to say who will be the most blog friendly candidate, but I dont question your sincerity.  

I also trust your judgement.  Just because you are now a strong Edwards supporter, I dont think you would use your influence to undermine another potential and viable candidate.  

In terms of the actual quote cited in your post, I also share your concern.  Whoever said it was attempting to create an unwinnable paradox: that candidates must choose between Catholics and bloggers.  It's a clever rhetorical trick, and must be deconstructed as the sophistry that it is.  If media begin to set up choices like this as the campaign progresses and heats up, it will drive a wedge between candidates and the netroots that will make enthusiasm and support difficult.  After seeing  the success of our efforts from Lamont to Webb, that would be devastating to the netroots and Democratic candidates alike.

I suspect that your initial indignation was responding to this very fact.  And I believe that you have a desire to directly confront the offending party.  I am also all for that; bear the standards, brother.

I became somewhat uncomfortable when I read the tone of this thread.  I think we all know that journalists writing a story have a tendency to reduce quotes, supporting data, et al to tell the story, and this reduction often simplifies info to the point of stylistation.  It is easy to twist a piece of information that gives it a favor not intended, or which exaggerates its importance, even inadvertently.

I am not sure how the quote got into Dickerson's piece, and considering its potential importance, if good old Dickerson has more to say on it, I would want to hear.  But I would be suprised if it was put out at the direct order of a candidate.  Therefore, I dont think that at this point, using the quote to engage in a kind of game of "what candidate do we want to punish" is a good idea.

The conversation on the thread is not the importance and implications of the quote, but silly ad hominem attacks on other candidates that members dont like, based soley on what someone working for someone else may have said, as told to Dickerson.  

I am sorry if you think I am being fucking nasty.  I admit that my comments are not substantial.  When I really have something to say, I find myself writing comments the length of a bible at 2 am.  I dont like doing that.  So, for what its worth, I usually just 3 rate comments I agree with, or make short snarky comments.  

I am, as I have said before, quite a fan of your work, and it is, in fact, your thoughtful posts and the insightful dialogue that they inspire which lead me to sign up here.  

I used brief sarcasm to make my point, herein made sincerely.  Not that anyone cares, but I figured if I pissed you off, I would owe you at least the long version.