Shakes Decides to Be Shakes

About 10 minutes ago, Melissa McEwan announced on Shakespeare's Sister that her letter of resignation was reluctantly accepted by the Edwards campaign.  She stated:

This was a decision I made, with the campaign's reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family's level of exposure.

I understand that there will be progressive bloggers who feel I am making the wrong decision, and I offer my sincerest apologies to them. One of the hardest parts of this decision was feeling as though I'm letting down my peers, who have been so supportive.

More below the fold

I look at Bowers' post earlier today about how we get attacked and we apologize.   He's right, although Shake's apology is one of true regret.  

Media Matters continues to find more problems with the NYT: they refused Frances Kissling's letter's about Donohue.  MM also reported Howie Kurtz said over the weekend said the Republicans don't hire outrageous bloggers, yet McCain hired Patrick Hynes.

And for all of the so-called liberal media bias.   They are almost as bad as O'Reilly, the conservative mastiff,  and other more neutral places for not challenging these comments by NYT and WaPo pundits.

Shakes decided to be Shakes.  It must have been hard for Shakes to let go and for the campaign to let go too.  

It's going to be a long year.

Tags: John Edwards, liberal reporting, Media, Melissa McEwan (all tags)



I am sorry to hear she left,

But I can understand her position. I read her statement, it sounds terrible if she were getting messages and stuff to make her worried.

by dk2 2007-02-13 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Shakes Decides to Be Shakes

Both Amanda and Shakes will be better women for this experience. They have gone where few bloggers have yet to go and what they take from that experience will also be beneficial to other bloggers who seek to work for campaigns.

Bloggers who aspire to gain paid positions with campaigns would be wise to examine this situation and learn from it.

by NCDemAmy 2007-02-13 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Shakes Decides to Be Shakes

I agree.  I teach my 14 year old son that even tho it feels anonymous the net is a very public place.

by aiko 2007-02-13 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Shakes Decides to Be Shakes

But when its a situation like shakes, whose only crime is to have beliefs that the christian right branch of the radical right wing do not agree with, its even worse.

This is pure thuggery, and the thugs are going to have to be made to pay where it will hurt them the worst ... taking away their access to power.

by BruceMcF 2007-02-13 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Shakes Decides to Be Shakes

What she did may not have been a crime but when you work for a campaign especailly a paid staffer you have to be non you best behaviour at all times.  I have not read her writings but from what I have heard of them they both going on a subject she should not have and the writings contained very vulgar language.  As several have siad before if you wish to have a political future and you wish to blog, I would A stay away from saying anything bad about the Lord, and use only clean language or you run a great risk of it biting you.

by THE MODERATE 2007-02-14 04:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Shakes Decides to Be Shakes

You hit the nail on the head ... you have not read her writings.

First, you are continuing to spread by innuendo the lie that shakes and Amanda took an identical approach.

And second, you are arriving at your judgement by hearsay, when we all know very well that Big Media has different standards of truth checking when an attack comes from the radical religious right on a Democrat ... which is, don't bother to truth check, just read their press release.

I went to shake's site last night, and not one of the many radical right wing trolls could quote one thing that she said that they took objection to. Regulars asked time and again, but not one could do so.

McCain hired a blogger who had written things that many Americans would find upsetting, and no fuss was made in Big Media. Indeed, Tony Snow (a much bigger position than netroots coordinator!), like all White House press secretaries, has a complete free pass from the Washington Press Corps on anything controversial he may have written as an op ed before he became Press Secretary ... since it is the convention that what the Press Secretary said and wrote before coming on board is off the table, and what matters is what he says and does while on the job.

And of course, the reason that the worst elements of the radical right wing were making threats to physically harm shakes was because they had seen packaged quotes from what Amanda wrote. And so they decided to attack shakespeare's sister, because a bigot told them that they were both the same.

by BruceMcF 2007-02-14 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Shakes Decides to Be Shakes

As I said I have not read them or at least I can not remember anything of them but I can say that you yourself said she had views that upset Christian Conservatives.  Okay here is the deal, in my twenty plus year of Democratic party politics you must accept the fact the politics is not fair, never was, never will be, of course life itself is not fair either, but I am not going there, you can either be one of those who refuses to accept that and waste alot of energy, or accept it and learn to win anyway, which is how the winners win.  As for Christian Conservatives I am not one of them, I do not interpret the Bible literally and I am a mainline Protestant who many of them consider a liberal Christian, but I respect their view, though I do not subscribe to all them, and I learned when you mess them you stirr up a hornest nest and you will find many of your political friends are not going to be around when it happens.  I remeber an episode of Andy Griffith when he tells Barney not to mess with the Ladies Auxilory, but he does any way and makes a mess of this.  Democratic party politics is about getting Democrats elected, and rousting religious conservatives is getting us onto a subject that makes this tasks difficult.  So whatever she did fair or not she has made the parties task more difficult and that is something the party does not need right now.  

by THE MODERATE 2007-02-14 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Shakes Decides to Be Shakes

She has views that genuine Christians will welcome wholeheartedly ... she has views that Christians will not agree with.

Those, however, who are offended by what shakes said wish to have conservative christianity enshrined as the state religion. And I am happy for the Christian Theocratic movement to be aligned with the rest of the radical right wing of the Republican party.

We do not need them: we cannot be a big tent party and have them in the tent.

A very large number of Christians, however, are more than happy to work with someone who is not a Christian if it means they can fight poverty, disease, and unjust wars.

And that is what is really heartening: mixed in with the hate attacks from the online shock troops of the radical right are the lovely messages of support from believing Christians who have actually read what shakes has said and are happy to stand with her against the outpouring of hate and bile from the radical right.

by BruceMcF 2007-02-14 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Shakes Decides to Be Shakes

Nothing is gained by making nasty attacks on people be it her or Christians.  I an often bothered by the language many bloggers have witten about Christians, I do not care for the names Christofacist, Fundies, Theocracy, Crazies, ect.  In my life I have had to go against my brothers and sisters in Christ, I do not like to but sometimes has to happen, but when it does, I give them the respect of being a fellow Christian, and if someone who is on my side of the argument does not give them that repect I will not tolerate it and will not back them on that point.  

As for being a big tent party the Democrats have always had a bigger tent then the Republicans that is just the history of the party, as a result the Democrats are more difficult to define, once again that is just the way it is.  I have accepted it for so long I am used to it and many who have been it the party for a long time are just that way.  I believe there is a place for some Christian conservatives based on the fact that I know and I am friends with many of these folks and I have found they both have views which fit into the Democratic party and have serious concerns with the GOP on issues not involving faith.  Given all these facts I find it counter productive to fight these fights and more productive to fight fights on proctecting the economic interest of middle America.

by THE MODERATE 2007-02-14 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Shakes Decides to Be Shakes

"she had views that upset Christian Conservatives".

Yeah, she's pro-choice.

Point being?  I didn't think the purpose of the Democratic party was to appease the extreme viewpoints of the other political party.

"I do not interpret the Bible literally".

Well, that's one thing you have in common with Donohue and the people who flooded these two women with hate mail.  

Can we stop pretending that Donohue represents religious devotion?  He's a political operative, nothing more and nothing less.  

by RickD 2007-02-15 04:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Shakes Decides to Be Shakes

I hate she needed to make the decision, but given the nature of the beast, I think it was the best one for all.

by Carolina Voice 2007-02-13 02:43PM | 0 recs
Boy, I thought this thread was about

Bush and his drinking problem.   My bad.

by hoose 2007-02-13 02:57PM | 0 recs
Lol ... I didn't get it the first four times ...

... I saw it, because it reading down through the messages and I did not look back at the title.

by BruceMcF 2007-02-14 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Shakes Decides to Be Shakes

I really am having a hard time understanding why everyone believes this bullshit.  They were fired, realized it would be bad PR with the netroots, kinda defended them, and them wow a week later they "quit".   Its so obviously bullshit.  

by JAmbro 2007-02-14 04:48AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads