…and this is a 
Edwards for President!
Category: Politics
Posted on: February 13, 2007 12:00 PM, by PZ Myers
I sure hope time straightens out the race for the presidency, since I find myself unimpressed by the entire field. John Edwards has just moved to the bottom of my list of acceptable Democratic candidates, after Hillary Clinton (after Hillary! That's pretty low) since he has just allowed Amanda Marcotte to resign. I am unimpressed by the lack of loyalty he's shown to his employees; I'm not an absolutist on that point, since I think loyalty can be carried too far, to the point of stupidity (case in point: GW Bush). But what pisses me off is that he failed to support her in the face of genuinely vile, trumped-up slanders from his right-wing opponents, people who'd never vote for him no matter how much he sucked up to them. That's gutlessness, an even more unforgivable sin in a presidential candidate than disloyalty. He got his first Swift Boat attack — actually, more like a slow, leaky canoe — and he collapsed like a frightened rabbit.
So now I look at the slate of Democrats, and to my dismay discover that Obama is currently at the top. How depressing.
What cheers me up, though, is looking at the Republican field. I am perversely looking forward to 23 February, when John McCain promises to address the Discovery Institute. Watching the 'maverick' rip out his brain and hand it to the theocrats as his oath of fealty will be entertaining.
Comments
Obama should hire Marcotte.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 13, 2007 12:06 PM
I'll post this here, since Amanda's own comments thread is stupidly long and playing up at the minute...
I'm glad Amanda quit. She's too damn good to be hitching herself to a professional politician. We need our firebrands red-hot and dripping with venom.
I appreciate that she may feel differently - a job's a job after all, and she seemed to genuinely believe that supporting Edwards was the right way to go (something I'm personally less convinced about). But heck, the thing that makes her a great blogger (and in fact makes all great bloggers) is that she is beholden to no-one. The last thing we need is for bloggers to become the new press corp.
Posted by: Dunc | February 13, 2007 12:08 PM
Posted by: quork | February 13, 2007 12:11 PM
Edwards should hire Twisty.
Posted by: MissPrism | February 13, 2007 12:11 PM
I'm hoping that Gore will decide to run, and that Obama will end up as his running mate.
I'm with you on Edwards - what bothered me most was that he caved so quickly to such an obvious attack dog. Hopefully the IRS and the NYS AG office will investigate the charges that Bill whats-his-name violated the tax-exempt status of the Catholic League with the charges on Amanda, and it will come out of his hide.
Posted by: Carlie | February 13, 2007 12:12 PM
You videotape car wrecks, don't you?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 13, 2007 12:15 PM
What kinds of people try to resign and get repeatedly refused?
Rumsfeld.
What kinds of people refuse to accept resignations?
Bush.
Shows the hierarchical nature of their relationship.
Amanda knew what she wanted to do (slash and burn against Donohue) and who is anyone in the campaign to tell her what to do? She is her own person.
Posted by: coturnix | February 13, 2007 12:15 PM
One of the acts that early disappointed me in Bill Clinton was how easily he caved over the appointment of Lani Guinier.
Posted by: Russell | February 13, 2007 12:17 PM
"Luckily, I happen to have a Bible laying around this house, because even though I'm not a Christian, I was an English major, and it is important to Know Your Ancient Mythologies if you are reading poetry."
Zing!
Posted by: Will E. | February 13, 2007 12:18 PM
So you realize that Amanda kept blogging on controversial topics after she was brought on, right? No one else who goes to work for campaigns (such as her predecessor Jesse, or Armstrong) does that.
It's pretty easy for the campaign to deflect things she said before she was hired. Once on the company dime though, it's a very different story.
Posted by: Tony V | February 13, 2007 12:19 PM
That's just silly. Edwards was faced with supporting a bomb-throwing blogger who has become a major target for the theocons. What does he do? He keeps her on the payroll.
At a later date, she decides to quit so that she can continue hurling bombs at said theocons.
How exactly is that "gutless"?
You should stick with the facts when possible, otherwise you are relying on faith, which seems ironic to me.
Posted by: Robert P. | February 13, 2007 12:23 PM
This doesn't even make sense.
Do you think that any other Presidential candidate would have kept her on staff after the Donohue attacks? Kerry fired staffers in response to Donohue coming after them in 2004. Amanda would've been out Hillary's door in an instant. Edwards holding on to them initially was unprecedented in the history of major Democratic campaigns. When Amanda left, it was of her own free will.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | February 13, 2007 12:25 PM
Exactly, coturnix. I don't know what magical power Edwards is supposed to have to keep her from resigning. He already came out and supported her publicly-I'm sure she was chafing at having to hold her fire at all the crap coming her way from the wingers.
Posted by: Chris | February 13, 2007 12:26 PM
Yeah Edwards pretty much dropped of the radar with his mealy mouthed first response to the attacks. Just another spineless democrat alas. Which I just realized is an insult to cephlepods everywhere.
Obama just dropped a bunch of notches with his announcement that he would Increase the defense budget if elected. While he rightly points out that Bush has run down a lot of military equipment the thought that canceling some useless big ticket items like missile defense might be a good idea has not occurred to him. He is already sucking up to the military industrial complex, not a good sign this early in the campaign.
basically its already come down to voting for the lesser of two evils and hoping we don't get too screwed in the process. Isn't politics fun?
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | February 13, 2007 12:27 PM
I dare say, if you throw over your candidate because of a problem bump in the road, and given that candidate was blazing a new trail into the blending of the net into a national campaign, then your loyalty was a bit faulty in the first place.
I would commend their campaign for forging ahead of many, and standing behind the controversy in the first place. Much credit was online after the attacks on Amanda. It the larger picture will a campiagn truthfully get more votes from all of the internet users who will vote, or more votes from the the publc in general.
In the reality of all of it, the net is great for us, and is making a larger impact each year, but what are the stats on blog voters to the real general working public and especially if you consider the fact that beyond the campuses across America, what is the impact of we the bloggers at all?
Posted by: Bri D | February 13, 2007 12:27 PM
Robert, PZ didn't call Amanda gutless. He called Edwards gutless.
And he is. He allowed Billy Bigot to say whatever he pleased and never offered a single rebuttal. Never stood up for his employess at all. He allowed the bigots to have the "debate" their way - which is of course, just mudslinging, lies and bombastic emotionalism.
He's gutless.
She didn't quit specifically to continue throwing delightful bombs at "theocons". That's simply a wonderful bonus. She quit because she felt that Bill Bigot's constant slander would make it impossible for her to do her job. Had she stayed on, that's all anyone would talk about.
I think she made the right move, even though I am dismayed to see Billy Bigot and his ilk ever get what they want.
Posted by: Vera Venom | February 13, 2007 12:28 PM
I bet it'll be a while before Pandagon is up again. The Democratic candidates are all looking pretty pathetic right now.
MissPrism, I laughed. That was funny.
Posted by: j | February 13, 2007 12:29 PM
PZ,
On this one it appears Edwards did back her and she resigned. I applaud her efforts to bask Donohoe and frankly we need to see more of it.
Isn't Donohoe an interesting fellow though, he actually believes his church of birth is correct on everything. That is the definition of clueless.
Posted by: GH | February 13, 2007 12:30 PM
I read Edwards' statement. That was not support, that was a tepid disavowal.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 13, 2007 12:36 PM
Given Amanda's public record for speaking her mind and being beholden to no one -- exactly why PZ likes her, I assume -- I think we should take her at her word when she writes that it was her decision to resign, not Edwards'. As Coturnix says, she's her own person and to assume otherwise is to do her a disservice.
Edwards could have made a stronger statement of support, but in the end (just 36 hours) he decided not to fire his outspoken bloggers. Why can't we be satisfied with that?
Posted by: James Hrynyshyn | February 13, 2007 12:41 PM
Sure it was a disavowal. But actions speak a heck of a lot louder than words, and Edwards performed the action you wanted. He turned Donahoe down and chose to keep her on staff.
Again, if you think any other campaign would've been more aggressive here, you're fooling yourself.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | February 13, 2007 12:41 PM
With you on Edwards. Though he was never really my cup of tea.
Did you see Obama's declaration speech? There was a lot to like and little in the way of god talk.
Combine that with his smackdown of the Australian Prime Minister the other day, and I'm liking him more and more.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006439533
Posted by: jbark | February 13, 2007 12:45 PM
I you are betting guy, you should look here. They are taking odds on the presidential races.
http://www.intrade.com/
Posted by: Branedy | February 13, 2007 12:45 PM
You know, we have two years to go on this.
Can't we spend the next eighteen or so months doing more productive things, such as oh I don't know, making sure the Textard in the White House doesn't try to nuke Iran or further incense Pyongyang? Or maybe just generally flogging the right-wing cretins?
Deciding NOW who's going to be on the ticket for November 2008 is akin to, in 2005, predicting another four years for Foley.
Posted by: Warren | February 13, 2007 12:46 PM
But Edwards should have known what he was getting into. Amanda's views weren't exactly secret. Either he hires people without knowing anything about them, or he doesn't back up his own staff. His response was late, tepid, and patronizing. If he can't be trusted to support his own decision on who to hire, I don't think he can be trusted on much else.
Posted by: Carlie | February 13, 2007 12:49 PM
Folks, let's not lose track of what this is really all about: it is about the attempted intimidation and silencing of a blogger for her comments about the religious right. As I just posted on UTI, this expansion of targeting individual bloggers is just part of a larger Culture War for these people, and must be resisted.
Jim Downey
Posted by: Jim D | February 13, 2007 12:55 PM
I bet it'll be a while before Pandagon is up again.
Pandagon is down because it's being slashdotted (though not literally by a link from /.) and for no other reason.
Posted by: Chris Clarke | February 13, 2007 12:58 PM
PZ: "...actually, more like a slow, leaky canoe..."
Nice one, and good way to size up this stupid situation. So far Obama is really starting to get my vote because he's least likely to apologize back to the whining, crying, spoiled children that populate the right-wing. Obama did although apologize to them for saying we wasted our young soldiers lives in Iraq (which is up to this point a very true statement), so even he has a serious recoil problem.
All the Dem candidates need to go through a strenuous workout real soon to work out the kinks. No more of this appealing to unappealable people. It's really like they're dating a man or woman that they're afraid at any moment will yell RAPE! or ABUSE! in a public place and cause a very ugly scene for them.
Anyone willing to *try* to appease the right-wing is not only wasting his time, he's destroying his chances to sound credible on anything.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 13, 2007 1:03 PM
Bush is a draft dodging former substance abuser... yet his party stood behind him and shut down all criticism.
The right will attack any and all democratic contenders with whatever they can generate as a controversy. Real or imagined. It's what they do. There was no groudswell, netroots problem with Marcotte. No one gave a shit except for Michelle "Demon Spawn" Malkin and Catholic Bigot Donohue. The winger talking head are never going to stop.
Marcotte is inline with the democratic base.She's a MAINSTREAM democrat with a biting tongue and an attitidue. If you can't stand behind someone like that. What's your point for even running?
It's time for candidates to just stand up and say... Malkin? Donohue? Are you freaking kidding? Those people are scum. Why would anyone listen to them, ever?
Edwards will never last if he is constantly on the defensive to turds like this. They don't even deserve to be acknowledged.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 13, 2007 1:03 PM
It is too long for a comment, but I have explained in tedious detail both the Edwards response and the Amanda quitting.
Also read what Matt Stoller and especially Chris Bowers wrote about it.
This is far too unthought-through and knee-jerk response for you (I know you are busy writing the book and churning these posts in 20 seconds each, thus risking saying something unthought-through and unresearched, but you get friggin' 20,000 hits per day on a bad day and there are commenters here as well who need to know better).
Posted by: coturnix | February 13, 2007 1:13 PM
For your list, what about Wes Clark?
We could do with boringly competent about now.
Posted by: Ahcuah | February 13, 2007 1:14 PM
I don't know what universe some of you people live in. In the real world of presidential politics, you have to cut your losses and move on. Sure, the Edwards campaign made a mistake, as we can easily see with 20/20 hindsight. I think Amanda really decided on her own to quit, but what if she didn't? Edwards couldn't allow a situation in which the subject would be changed from the war, the economy, health care, etc. to questions like whether or not the Catholic Church is mysogynistic. If we Dems allow the other side to bog us down in irrelevant side issues, we'll never regain the White House.
Posted by: Virginia Dutch | February 13, 2007 1:19 PM
For Clark's competency google "Clark+Kosovo+1999" and you'll shudder (read both the Lefty and Righty sources - they are unanimous on this). The guy is supremely incompetent in all things military, not to mention has zero diplomatic talent. The guy should be in The Hague and not as a witness - I hear Milosevic cell is still empty.
Posted by: coturnix | February 13, 2007 1:19 PM
Yes Amanda resigned, she was not fired Edwards did that much at least. What has me down on Edwards is his response which was basically 'sorry we offended you, we won't do it again really' Not inspiring just another compromise to avoid a fight if possible. Unless Edwards is willing to fight for his ideas they mean nothing.
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | February 13, 2007 1:20 PM
PZ - At the top of my list right now is Bill Richardson; what are your thoughts on him?
Posted by: J. Valentine, FCD | February 13, 2007 1:22 PM
The RNC loves hysterical kneejerk purist liberals like PZ.
And the RNC hates Democrats with Southern accents. There's something about the accent that works on a subconscious level on swing voters.
Posted by: notthedroids | February 13, 2007 1:29 PM
And just to dot i's and cross t's:
Whatever you think about her, Marcotte wrote things that are extremely offensive to Catholics. Which is her prerogative, but it makes her unfit to be blogging for a presidential campaign.
The mistake was hiring her in the first place. The Edwards campaign's damage control has been masterful. Wait until the story dies down, then (relatively) quietly let Marcotte go, far in advance of the serious campaign.
And to reiterate my first point, can anybody remember who the last non-Southern Democrat president was?
Posted by: notthedroids | February 13, 2007 1:34 PM
I think that instead of pouring our progressive dollars down the campaign-hole, we should pool all our resources and buy off the head of the FCC. Make him shatter the media conglomerates and regain real media independence.
Much better use of our money, IMO.
Posted by: stogoe | February 13, 2007 1:38 PM
Edwards was always at the bottom of my list for the Democratic Presidential nomination. I'd vote for Hillary before I'd vote for him, and that's saying a lot.
Posted by: Orac | February 13, 2007 1:38 PM
"The RNC loves hysterical kneejerk purist liberals like PZ."
they apparently love theistic bigots like Billy too. And swift boating with non-issues to cover up the fact that they too employ problematic bloggers as well.
If you're point was to show how lacking in moral character the RNC is, then, well done.
Posted by: Vera Venom | February 13, 2007 1:48 PM
As a blogger for Edwards did she ever say anything offensive?
Didn't think so.
Edwards should of said that she had done an excellent job for him so far.
Donohue says extremely offensive things about gay people and victims of child abuse.
He represents a minority within a minority that will NEVER support a democrat.
If people get fired every time some religious fundie gets offended Edwards is going to have some real losers left working for him.
Anyone remember James Carville?
Posted by: Steve_C | February 13, 2007 1:53 PM
Marcotte saw where things were headed and she made her own choice. I suspect that she will do just fine. Marcotte can be quite insightful; for example, her comparison between the anti-abortion and animal rights movements. (I hate to toot my own horn, but I wrote about the similarities between the two movements in 2000.)
Coturnix on Clark and Kosovo: "The guy should be in The Hague and not as a witness." If that's the case, then the same is equally, if not more, true of Clinton, Albright, Blair and others in regard to Kosovo. Not many things could unite Paul Krugman, Paul Wellstone, Bill Kristol, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, but they all agreed on Kosovo in '99. Hitchens thought that Clark was too restrained by Euro-bureaucrats. And see Cenk's recent interview with Clark.
With all respect for your expertise and personal experience, I don't believe Clark (or Clinton et al.) did anything Hague-worthy on Serbia/Kosovo. Actually, the sources are not "unanimous," unless folks like Pinter and Parenti are regarded as representing all of the Left. Even Michael Moore, who was opposed to that intervention (recall the Columbine-Kosovo connection in Bowling), endorsed General Clark.
Posted by: Colugo | February 13, 2007 1:53 PM
In the last campaign, Clark made some strange comments about faster-than-light space travel for which he was widely ridiculed. But hey, I still admire his spirit. He said:
"I still believe in e=mc², but I can't believe that in all of human history, we'll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to reach where we want to go," said Clark. "I happen to believe that mankind can do it. I've argued with physicists about it, I've argued with best friends about it. I just have to believe it. It's my only faith-based initiative."
Posted by: GW | February 13, 2007 1:56 PM
Hey, this is the Wild West out here in the blogosphere. Amanda made her decision. She enjoys being out here and not really really in politics which is more like "Little House on the Prairie' than "Deadwood". Campaigns and politicians are, by and large, square.
As to Edwards. We finally have a candidate that can sweep a general election. Not just barely win. Can sweep. The South, women, the young, workers, Montanans, Christians, etc. This guy can win a landslide. Hey, I'm a Yankee. I am surprised as anybody that I like this Southern trial lawyer. But I do. He's part Abe, part RFK and part Atticus Finch. But he ain't perfect. Who is? But he is so much better than our usual run of the mill politicians. I still can't believe he's willing to do this and to buck the corporations. He has been affected by tragedy like RFK and come out better, not bitter.
Posted by: Feral Cat | February 13, 2007 1:57 PM
"Clark made some strange comments about faster-than-light space travel for which he was widely ridiculed."
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies explains how that happened:
http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/about/interests.htm
"As is the custom with Start the Week, the General and I were instructed to read each other's books. ... He had fond memories of engaging Xavier Solana, Secretary-General of NATO during the Kosovo campaign, in chit-chat about such matters as the speed of light during down time at HQ."
Clark brought up Susskind's multiverse/megaverse theory at the Yearly Kos conference - around the same time I happened to be reading the book.
Posted by: Colugo | February 13, 2007 2:03 PM
And to reiterate my first point, can anybody remember who the last non-Southern Democrat president was?
That would be John F Kennedy, 1960-1963. Whom, yes, I do remember as I am Old.
PZ is right about this. Either Edwards hired Amanda knowing who she was and what she did or he didn't. If he didn't know and hired her, he's an idiot. If he did and then let racist wingnuts run her out of town he's a wimp. When, oh when, will the Democrats learn that caving in to people like Donoghue and Malkin is useless? They and the people who fawn on them will never vote for a Democrat no matter what happens so, dammit all, go for the Democratic base! Being pro-choice is *mainstream* in this country. Opposing the war in Iraq is mainstream. Desiring national health care is mainstream.
I'm starting to gibber so signing off now.
MKK
Posted by: Mary Kay | February 13, 2007 2:04 PM
I tried a site-specific Google search to scan Pharyngula for talk about Bill Richardson, but I didn't find much. Last June, PZ said of YearlyKos,
PZ hasn't said anything else which Google can find, although the assorted comments from various visitors are all positive. Richardson/Clark? Richardson/Clinton? Richardson/Obama?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 13, 2007 2:07 PM
"As a blogger for Edwards did she ever say anything offensive? Didn't think so."
Does it matter whether she wrote those things as an Edwards blogger? Of course not.
In presidential campaigns, it's much better to think with your head than with your inflated sense of righteous indignation.
Posted by: notthedroids | February 13, 2007 2:10 PM
Dunc gets it right in the 2nd comment. The blogosphere rewards outrageousness, difference-sharpening, ranting. Bloggers narrowcast to folks who find what they do entertaining.
It's the opposite of what a politician has to do. No snark, no irony, no unhinged monologues. You can't go around gratuitously pissing people off.
I'm kind of fond of both Edwards and Marcotte and I'm glad they're not working together.
Posted by: c | February 13, 2007 2:14 PM
Any Iowans or New Hampshireites out there? Edwards needs to go down. Early. Badly. It's too bad because he has some interesting points, but he needs to be made an example of lest other politicians think that they can abandon their progressive supporters without consequences.
Posted by: Dianne | February 13, 2007 2:18 PM
Edwards just lost me with his proposed health plan details--employer provided and insurance based, two non-starters in my book.
Posted by: emkay | February 13, 2007 2:23 PM
"It's too bad because he has some interesting points, but he needs to be made an example of lest other politicians think that they can abandon their progressive supporters without consequences."
Another one of the sort of liberal the RNC loves.
I repeat, in presidential campaigns it's better to think with your head than with your inflated sense of righteous indignation.
Posted by: notthedroids | February 13, 2007 2:29 PM
This is, essentially, just another manifestation of one of the things I have disliked about Edwards from the start. The other thing I dislike about Edwards is his voting record. Specifically, he doesn't have one.
Dude needs to show up for work once in a while if he wants my vote, especially after the last 6 years of Captain Vacation's hands-off approach to the Presidency.
Posted by: Dustin | February 13, 2007 2:34 PM
Vera,
That was my point, Edwards did nothing gutless, he handled this well and THEN Amanda chose to quit.
Hardly his fault. Anyone who says otherwise is just buying into the right-wing talking points, which is exactly the kind of divide and conquer strategy they want.
Posted by: Robert P. | February 13, 2007 2:51 PM
Edwards, Kosovo, and Clark (I know, this is ancient history to some, but it was less than 8 years ago):
William Saletan, Slate
http://www.slate.com/id/2086450/
"When Edwards entered the Senate in 1999, Kosovo was the hot spot of the day. He immediately supported NATO airstrikes to force Serbia to remove its troops from Kosovo."
Senator Edwards voted for S. Con. Res. 40 of the 106th Congress, which passed the Senate on 6/17/99:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:1:./temp/~c106dYk7Hu::
"Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That:
(1) The Congress expresses the appreciation of the Nation to: ... [President Clinton, etc.] ...
(D) Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Henry Shelton and Supreme Allied Commander-Europe General Wesley Clark, for their planning and implementation of Operation Allied Force."
Posted by: Colugo | February 13, 2007 2:53 PM
Another one of the sort of liberal the RNC loves.
Oh, yeah, it always works out better when people don't lobby for what they want and just accept what their beloved leaders are willing to give them. After all, it worked out so well last time: everyone who wanted the anti-war candidate (Dean) nonetheless rallied round the less-pro-war-than-Bush candidate (Kerry) and he won, ended the war, and returned us to the economic golden age of the Clinton era. Oh, wait, it didn't quite work out that way somehow...
Posted by: Dianne | February 13, 2007 2:53 PM
(Dianne at 2:18)
Iowan here.
I don't disagree with the idea that Edwards should maybe have shown a little less politician in dealing with the whole thing, but it's true what Amanda said, that Donohue had made it a personal mission to use her to embarrass or discredit the Edwards campaign. That's not Edwards' fault.
The thing I'm trying to keep in mind here is that the primary/caucus season is a year off still, and there will be plenty of time for all of the candidates to do something stupid or wrong before I have to choose somebody. So -- Edwards? Maybe he's not so bad, you know?
Posted by: Jessica Guilford | February 13, 2007 2:55 PM
Ugh.
Of all people Edwards should understand how this game is played. These sorts of attacks have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the candidate, his employees, his record or anything substantive. It's strictly a tactic designed to put the candidate on the defensive so that he looks weak. Amazingly Mr. Edwards has completely missed the point of the swifboating campaign from 2004 and we again find a Democratic politician internalizing criticisms by his opponents and apologizing for things that don't need to be apologized for.
Rolling over and exposing your soft underbelly only serves to encourage future attacks.
Posted by: gecko1 | February 13, 2007 3:00 PM
Edwards did nothing gutless, he handled this well and THEN Amanda chose to quit.
He could not be said to have ever handled it well. He made a whiny, gutless statement in which he said that the two women had apologized for having opinions and that he was going to "give them a second chance". Not exactly overwhelming support. And if he'd had any spine when Ms Marcotte offered her resignation he would have said "Don't be ridiculous: you're a valuable member of my staff and I'm not letting some idiot drive you away. Think of the bad example it would be setting." If she'd then gone on to say "screw you, I quit" there's nothing more he could do. But I don't get the impression that that's what happened. Allowing someone to resign from a campaign without protest is essentially the same as firing them.
Posted by: Dianne | February 13, 2007 3:01 PM
I'll have to do some more reading, but her quitting does seem an awful lot like giving up in the face of adversity to me. Those nutcases are wrong and she is right.
Posted by: Michael | February 13, 2007 3:01 PM
I can't vote for a guy who can't stand up for his own damn values. This is Kerry being Swiftboated and failing to fight back, this is Michael Dukakis running away from the term liberal. I liked Edwards and his "two Americas" message -- until now.
Posted by: Trinifar | February 13, 2007 3:07 PM
Jessica G: Ugh. You've got a good point. Unfortunately. Nonetheless, Edwards needs to feel it. Go over to his site and tell him that, as an Iowa voter and a registered Democrat, you don't support his actions. If you're feeling particularly agrieved you could tell him that he lost your vote. And if you need to recant before the actual election, that's your business. (And, of course, you should read all these imperative statements as suggestions, not commands. I certainly don't think I have the right to command your or anyone's actions.)
Posted by: Dianne | February 13, 2007 3:10 PM
In my opinion, Ms. Marcottes' statements on the Duke so-called rape case are far worse then anything she said about the Catholic Church. Thus she said the following, after it became clear to any disinterested party that the case was a crock of s***.
'Last month, Marcotte wrote of the Duke University rape case: "Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."'
Posted by: SLC | February 13, 2007 3:13 PM
Edwards caved to the right. Marcotte does not cave to the right.
Edwards: 0 (you are in the dog house)
Marcotte: 1 (give 'em hell, Amanda!)
Posted by: George | February 13, 2007 3:17 PM
Have you not read what she wrote? Being a Democrat doesn't excuse her of being an ass. You'd be all over Republicans if the same situation was over there. Would they be sucking up to Democrats if they fired bigots and idiots?
Posted by: John | February 13, 2007 3:19 PM
Dianne, how do you know that your hypotheticals did not happen? The only information we have is Amanda's insistence that she resigned and was not fired.
Why is there this flaming need to leap to conclusions without any evidence? Why were so many lefty blogs running with the bogus Salon 'Edwards fires bloggers' story who were then much quieter when that turned out not to be true-or cast it as "Edwards decides not to fire bloggers'. Or complained that it took until the next day to come out with a statement. I swear this little firestorm has been stoked at least as much by hyperventilating on the left as by the wingers.
I think Edwards has handled this OK-apologize for the tone of the posts in question (like it or not, those sentiments, particularly expressed in that way, can only piss off some of Edwards' potential voters), and get back to work on non-trivial stuff.
Posted by: Chris | February 13, 2007 3:20 PM
Dianne,
Sorry, I didn't know that you had such intimate contacts with the campaign.
It's amazing how much people here are basing their posts on their BELIEFS, their FAITH you might even say. Instead of the facts as provided by a Presidential candidate and a respected blogger who they propose to be backing.
Posted by: Robert P. | February 13, 2007 3:20 PM
Well, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether the story as reported is exactly what happened (and black helicopters!). It's not impossible that Edwards and Marcotte agreed to make a deal or something. But I don't have any actual evidence for that so far, so it'd be quite the stretch to go tell Edwards that he's lost my support for good. For one thing, he never necessarily had it to begin with, and there's also, you know, the way that Melissa McEwan (why does everybody forget about Melissa? So unfair.) still has a job with the campaign even though supposedly people were upset about her too.
Besides which, who am I going to support instead? Clinton? Vilsack? Obama? Richardson?
Posted by: Jessica Guilford | February 13, 2007 3:27 PM
In my opinion, Ms. Marcottes' statements on the Duke so-called rape case are far worse then anything she said about the Catholic Church.
Duke Lacrosse player email:
tommrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome.. however there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk in and proceding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.. all besides arch and tack please respond
http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=gaynorm&date=070203
They are creeps and deserve all the shit she can dish.
Posted by: George | February 13, 2007 3:33 PM
Vilsack's running for pres? You've got to be kidding.
Why do I think that Edwards essentially fired Marcotte? 1. On Monday afternoon Marcotte was writing posts asking people for their opinion of Edwards' health care reform ideas. Not the behavior of someone who is contemplating quitting soon. By the evening she had resigned. What changed? Probably Edwards came to her and told her she was endangering the campaign and suggested that she resign. Even assuming that she quit impulsively after seeing more bile from Donohue, if Edwards were a decent employer of any sort, muchless a decent presidential candidate, he would have said "think it over, sleep on it, don't make any rash decisions." He didn't do that. 2. He hasn't made any statement about the resignation. Politicians who didn't want their employees to resign make statements about how they regret the resignation. Heck, they usually do that when they DO want the employee to resign. They only try to make the person disappear when they're hoping that no one will catch them firing their employee. 3. His initial statement of "support" was lukewarm at best, insulting and condescending at worst. Not the behavior of someone who supports his employees. The only point in his favor is that he hasn't fired McEwan yet. And it is a reasonable point, but not a strong enough one to make his behavior to Marcotte acceptable, IMHO.
Posted by: Dianne | February 13, 2007 3:37 PM
I agree with Warren (#24). Eventually, one of these candidates will turn out (with apologies to Churchill) to be the worst candidate ever conceived, except for all the others. 'Til then, give 'em each time to prove how Horrible, Slightly Less Horrible, and Just Slightly Less Horrible Than That they are.
A plaintiffs' medical malpractice attorney is at the bottom of Orac's list! Knock me over with a feather! (Poking a little fun here. I did read one of your [Orac's] recent posts on the topic. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, since I haven't had the benefit of reading trial transcripts.)
Posted by: Jud | February 13, 2007 3:50 PM
Vilsack was, I think, the first one to officially announce he was running (Nov 30, 2006). So yeah. But nobody cares.
It may be instructive to do a search for Amanda on Google or something. It's not just that Donohue was after her, it's that everybody was. Donohue would have been bad enough.
It might be relevant that Edwards hasn't yet issued a statement about all this. I'd hardly be surprised if he didn't say anything, just on the grounds that l'affaire Marcotte (as the cool kids are calling it now) essentially derailed his campaign for a week. Lost time to make up for, and all that.
The initial statement when he declined to fire them was tepid, sure, but he was essentially in a no-win situation: say he supports them and then be dogged for the rest of the campaign by accusations of being anti-Catholic (when both Iowa and New Hampshire have a fair number of Catholics in them), or say he doesn't and lose the Marcotte fans on behalf of another group which wouldn't have voted for him anyway. I wasn't happy that he said what he said, but I didn't really see any other options, either. Which is frustrating: one would like to support candidates who stand by principles. But.
I feel a little weird getting stuck in the position of Edwards-defender. I'm not necessarily a fan. I just don't think he's necessarily responsible for Marcotte's resignation. If we're looking to be mad at people, Donohue might be the more sensible call.
Posted by: Jessica Guilford | February 13, 2007 3:54 PM
There a lot of good points from the anti-Edwards side, but I'm still giving Edwards the benefit of doubt because if things occurred as stated by all parties then I don't find any fault on Edwards part.
Edwards hired a blogger with some controversial posts. He should not be faulted for that, because all bloggers have some controversial posts. When the stink was raised, he stated that he did not personally endorse the views of the blogger but would not fire her. Good for him, I say. That may seem tepid, but politicians should be free to choose to distance themselves from the past viewpoints of bloggers they hire, within reason. Edwards apparently does not share the same views on Catholics as Marcotte and said so.
The blogger has now quit the campaign, because she says she felt it was good for the campaign to do so. The Edwards campaign is silent, which I also think is wise, allowing Marcotte to frame the resignation in any way she sees fit. In the end, I don't care who gets the Democratic nod. I'm voting for anyone with a D behind their name.
Posted by: Ryogam | February 13, 2007 4:07 PM
As a diehard liberal lefty, this whole episode has been extremely depressing to me. I have nowhere to go - all of you are my comrades. But I think the general reaction to this has been indescribably dumb and stupid. And now even PZ, a real hero of mine, joins in.
I dont think Amanda is a "good writer". And I certainly dont think she is a good thinker. Her heart is in the right place, but she is a bombastic, gratuitously insulting, over the top ranter. Now, there may be a place for that, and it may serve some good in the grand scheme of things, but for anyone to imagine that someone like that should be the public face of a serious presidential campain - a campaign that we need to have success advancing our views amongst the general public, is just nuts.
Edwards was utterly incompetent or stupid to have hired her. Clearly she has a long track record of nastily advocating for a set of positions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the central themes of his campaign. Many may wish to go to war against the core beliefs of 80% of the American people, but it is insane to inject that into a presidential campaign that you actually want to win.
Once under attack, the response of many on the left was to very loudly take up a position that served no purpose but to guarantee that Edwards would be undermined. He was put in a position, by you people as much as by Donahue, whereby he either had to implicitly endorse an attitude of mocking disdain for the beliefs of average Americans (thereby dooming his campaign), or risk the passionate enmity of those who actually agree with him on most all of the actual relevant issues of the campaign - his own base. I cant even begin to see the depths of the stupidity in all this.
Edwards is toast. A fine, articulate promising candidate, a passionate advocate for so many of the things that we all believe in has been destroyed. You people forced him to side with someone who, rightly or wrongly, is seen by many who read her writings as a bigot. And that will haunt him and undermine his campaign irrespective of the fact that she is gone. And as a reward for doing this thing that he never should have had to do in the first place, y'all are now doing your best to undermine him from our side as well - apparently he didnt genuflect to all of you deeply enough.
I think this whole affair is an example of blogworld blinders. Y'all focus on the petty fights, and the great indulgence of expressive ranting for its own sake, and completely lose any vision of what we are actually fighting for. If you were to take your own values and principle seriously, and if you actually want to have some effect on this world, then face reality people. Reality is supposed to be our strong suit. The reality is that to change anything in this world, you must assume a position of power. And to win power you must persuade masses of people, most of whom are relatively apolitical, to follow your lead. You do this by inspiring them, by projecting a vision that they are attracted to, to touching them in the places where they dream, tapping into that part of them that wants to have some small part in making the world better. You dont win power by insulting people, or by associating yourself with people who write things that the average person finds repulsive. You dont win power by asking them to join you in a war against the things that many of them actually believe. Why oh why do y'all even need to be reminded of this?
Posted by: Kris | February 13, 2007 4:09 PM
Wow. I honestly can't understand this (PZ's) response. I know that Edwards' statement was underwhelming, but come on, this i a national election. If he'd said, "Shut up, Donahue, you anti-semitic, misogynistic, gay-bashing mother fucker, everything Amanda said is true and you know it," it would have been more than the end of his 2008 campaign; it would have been the end of his political career. Granted, we all want to say that, and it would be nice to live in a world where political candidate can say what they really think about assholes like Donahue, but we don't. But as some of the other commenters have noted, Edwards' action speak louder than word. He kept Amanda on, and while there've been claims by bloggers that he did it because of the liberal blogger backlash, I see no real evidence of that. Perhaps Amanda or Melissa have more insight into this, but it really just feels like the blogosphere patting itself on the back again without any real justification. I think he did it because he knew Amanda was a great addition to his campaign, and he wanted to keep her. I suspect that he's disappointed she chose to resign, because he knows that he's lost one of his best possible netroots connections.
Posted by: Chris | February 13, 2007 4:21 PM
Marcotte (as the cool kids are calling it now) essentially derailed his campaign for a week. Lost time to make up for, and all that.
All that lost time! Only... about 20 months to go until the election. Sigh.
Did they always start this early? I seem to remember Gore starting to campaign in the summer of the year before the election.
Posted by: George | February 13, 2007 4:31 PM
Well, perhaps, but freedom of speech and freedom of religion are among the things we're fighting for, aren't they?
Posted by: Jessica Guilford | February 13, 2007 4:32 PM
In the end, I don't care who gets the Democratic nod. I'm voting for anyone with a D behind their name.
Unless the Reps have a sudden attack of sanity and nominate someone like Bloomberg, I agree--in the general election. The primary's a different story, though. He deserves to lose there. But if the majority of Democratic primary voters decide that they like him the best of the options, well, that's the point of democracy. I'll recant the whole frothing at the mouth against him thing, hold my nose,and vote for the (almost certainly) lesser of the available evils. But I'd rather that available evil be someone else.
Posted by: