He had to scrub his past 'War on Terror' stuff.

campaign site. This is an important aspect of clean and open politics because there should be a complete record what they say through their site during the course of the campaign which can sometimes change.

I realized that they weren't allowing that sometime back, actually. Good to see someone bring this to attention so that Edwards' campaign can allow it in the future.

I guess his "open campaign" isn't as open as you thought. This hardly looks open to me.

Like someone said above, Edwards himself probably never had any part of this.  I'm sure it was just a tech savvy staffer being careful.

That said - id Edwards wins the nomination, this will be a good thing when he is forced to move to the middle.

Exactly what information did you not get from the FEC finings that you feel are crucial. None of the candidates released their tax returns except Obama and his would be the least complex.  Good for Obama, he can brag about that.  Oh, I haven't heard too much about it from his campaign.  Could be they don't see it as a big issue.

Some things just are personal, and given the attacks on Edwards over irrelevant crap, I'd say it was a wise move.  He released additional information beyond the FEC requirements so the his holdings were all visible.  Some people just like to pick at little things just like the RW.

not sure why they are blocking archiving but Edwards record on just about everything is an open book. His positions on any of the issues are all over the internet in articles, speeches, etc.

to have an agenda.  Coming here to scream about this.  Maybe it will be haircuts next week.

Makes one wonder.  

sigh

We've experienced similar claims from Hugh Hewitt.  I recognize that not having a clearly identifiable agenda makes everyone uncomfortable (read: annoyed, because it's not easy to dismiss if they say something you don't like).  However, I think it's important to understand what the purpose of our website is...

The functions of our website are to provide news, analysis and resources relating to the election.

NEWS: When it comes to the news, we're fairly straight forward offering little to no commentary advocating or opposing a particular policy.  When it comes to describing newsworthy events, again, we're fairly straight forward.

RESOURCES: In terms of resources, we provide the single most comprehensive collection of campaign calendars on the internet.  We maintain all candidates' calendars equally (assuming we're able to  find information or are given information relating to schedules).

ANALYSIS: When it comes to analysis, we look at things from the POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE.  If we're offering praise or criticism of a candidate or campaign it simply means that either their policy position, recent action or whatever else we are discussing has negative or positive political implications.

Indeed, I would agree that over the past few months we've criticized or questioned political moves by the Edwards campaign on a few things (we've also aggressively gone after other campaigns, both Republican and Democratic).

Now, I realize that based upon some of our most recent MyDD posts, it would appear as though we're anti-Edwards; we are absolutely not (we're not pro-Edwards either).  There's no conspiracy, there's no hidden agenda, there's actually a fairly good reason as to why the last few posts would make us appear anti-Edwards...

We are contributing to MyDD (the way that we contribute to other community websites like this) partly to further awareness of our website; it's not the sole reason, but it's certainly a motivation.  When we put together our press release roundups, our calendar previews and other resources of general interest, we gladly put them here in order to contribute to the community.

When posting commentary or analysis, we select/write posts that we feel would be of particular interest to the MyDD community.  We want to offer material that is both unique and likely to generate a discussion.

Criticizing a candidate, does not necessarily mean that we have a hidden agenda.  It simply means that we're criticizing or questioning a particular action.  In this case, we're simply curious as to why the campaign has blocked the archiving of their site.  We did not say that they were up to something, we did not say that they were evil or bad, we didn't even say that they did something wrong.  We simply said that it was odd, that we found it troublesome and wanted to know more.

When Dennis Kucinich unveiled his Eyes and Ears program, we criticized/questioned it.  When Bill Richardson performs terribly in a debate, we discuss it.  When Mike Huckabee is making foolish campaign decisions, we criticize.  When Giuliani continues to demonstrate terrible judgment when appointing people to represent his campaign, we attack him...and on...and on...

Just because you don't like what we're saying doesn't mean that we're not right and doesn't mean that we have some secret agenda.

p.s. I'm recommending, not because this is a big issue for the Edwards campaign (it's not), but because I think as many people as possible should be made aware of website archiving and archive blocking so that they know to demand transparent sites from politicians in the future.

We have contacted the campaign to ask why this was done.  No response was provided.

Again, I'm not sure why people read into things soo much, we are not suggesting that this is a big deal, nor that there is necessarily any wrongdoing...

We found it, we thought it was weird and we wonder why it is the way it is.  That's all.

I odn't really agree with the comment, but the one rating is not deserved, IMHO.  Uprated.

Does anybody read?  Seriously.

I've stated repeatedly in this thread that the Edwards campaign was contacted about this matter; a response was never provided.

This archive exclusion has been this way since at least the beginning of March; it is not a recent occurrence.  The campaign has had plenty of time to respond to our inquiries.  They have simply chosen not to do so, which is their prerogative.

I never accused them of doing something bad, or evil.  I simply found it weird to block a presidential campaign website from being archived, especially when no one else in the field (Republican or Democrat) has done it.

I recognize that email often gets lost in the shuffle.

I called the campaign several weeks after the initial request for information in order to follow up and to ask a nonrelated logistical question.

I asked my question, was transferred, placed on hold somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes, someone then picked up the phone, didn't say anything, but hung up.

I did however speak with someone in the campaign subsequent that first phone call regarding my logistical question.