When John Edwards hired the bloggers who wrote at Pandagon and Shakespeare's Sister, I thought it was a great move. Both are excellent writers, and it's always nice to see great writers and great bloggers moving into paid political positions. Hiring them suggested that Edwards groks the blogosphere in a way that few of the other candidates do.
Of course, the two bloggers have, in their years of blogging, produced some incendiary comments which, taken into the context of professional campaign communications, would be inappropriate. Various professional bigots, people like Michelle "Concentration Camps" Malkin and Bill "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate … Catholics" Donohue, have been going after the two bloggers and John Edwards, and it appears that Edwards was the first to blink. There are reports that both women were fired, though there is apparently still a shoe to drop. The campaign is treating this as a controversy and hunkering down.
This is entirely the wrong decision.
When George Bush hired Tony Snow to be his new press secretary, people brought up the various insane things he had said on Fox News over the years. No one tried to claim that everything Fox had ever done was suddenly official White House policy, and neither is it reasonable to think that John Edwards bought into everything that Amanda and Melissa ever wrote.
John Edwards could have impressed a lot of people and scored major points by either:
- treating this as the nonstory it is
- going after the extremists on the Bush, McCain and Romney staffs
- painting his critics as out of touch and over-sensitive
Or any combination of those. In truth, there is no story here. The controversy makes no sense if the Edwards camp would simply reject the premise that what these people wrote on their private blogs has any bearing on their work for the campaign. If he would deny that, and point out that his critics just don't understand the new era.
Blogging is a hobby. If every politician were held to account for every off-color comment he made on the golf course, Washington would be deserted. John Edwards hired bloggers for a reason, and the response to attacks on them shouldn't have been to fire them for past statements.
The simplest statement he could have made is that when he hires someone, he doesn't adopt their views. From there, he can refuse to discuss the matter, or point out how this is distracting from serious issues. Heck, he could call the attackers sexist for going after his two female bloggers.
At this point he can't avoid looking like he caved, and that's an awkward position to be in, even a year away from the primaries.
edited to add: KagroX is exactly right. The other campaigns should be stepping up to defend the bloggers, and by extension all bloggers.
- Log in to post comments
You are exactly right. This is simply a swiftboating by a couple of well known bigots. I'm disappointed that the Edwards campaign hasn't already spoken up and told them where to put it.
Letting Amanda and Melissa dangle in the wind without comment -- sometimes inaction is the worst form of action. When attacked by swiftbloggers, you need to do the right thing. Fast. And you need to know what it is. Edwards is rapidly sinking deeper and deeper into a quagmire where there's no good alternative -- and where "do the right thing" becomes an oxymoron. If he can't handle this, how would he get us out of Iraq?
The simplest statement he could have made is that when he hires someone, he doesn't adopt their views.
Except in the accepted view of "bloggers", a blogger is only their view, nothing more. What they feel like talking about is all that matters, so if they were hired to be bloggers, then their reputation as such is all they have to go on. That reputation is established by past entries. In the world of the web where no-one knows you're a dog, not hiding that you're a dog can be important.
Granted, I'm still with the general blogosphere in thinking that if Edwards does fire them, he's caving in to the right-wing nutcases and their Karl Rove inspired tactics, and caving in FAR too early at that. It just paints him as an equal to McCain - I'll do anything to keep religion from attacking me. I don't think Edwards would go so far as to appear at Bob Jones, of course, but the effect among secularists is the same.
Well, that is true, but only insofar we speak of their own views, and not a right-wing distortion of them. Amanda has made some negative remarks about the official policy of the Catholic Church - that doesn't make her anti-Catholic. Much like making negative remarks about US policy doesn't make one anti-US, no matter what right-wings wants us to think.
Or are people saying that Catholic policy is never to be attacked? That their anti-abortion and anti-preventies stand is out of bounds, no matter their real-life implications? If that's the case, then Edwards should surely fire them, but then I can't see how any progressive can support him.
.. and this is why the Edwards campaign will not be hiring bloggers from this population in the future. The right wing likes to make the case for most liberal bloggers being raving leftists, and a (fortunately shrinking) segment of the traditional media like to portray all bloggers as being unhinged; this sort of comments gives them ammunition in their arguments. Is it so hard to understand that a big part of politics is being politic?
Also, how does one get hired as a professional bigot? Is it the same way that advocating lawful, non-violent border monitoring turns into support for lynching? The same sloppy logic, with similarly large leaps, would make most liberal positions look awful -- which of professional baby killer, child rape advocate, or gunpoint wealth redistributer are you?
"Excellent writers"? You've got to be kidding! And comparing these sicko haters to Tony Snow or any other sane, decent human being is absurd.
I've been waiting for exactly this to happen since I read that Amanda and Melissa had been hired. The only doubt I had in my mind was whether Edwards would cave under the pressure from the scum on the right. I can't stop giving that guy the benefit of the doubt. As for other candidates racing to grab onto to this exploding bomb to defend Edwards' choice of blogger, I can't imagine why they would do that. KagroX is asking every other candidate to help get Edwards out of this mess in the name of blogging. I know one thing for sure - that is something that Edwards would never even consider doing for another candidate. Ask Howard Dean.
Re Marcotte
Far more serious in my view then the ravings of fascist c***suckers like Donahue and Malkin is Ms. Marcottes' commentary on the Duke rape case. I am attaching links to sites in which her actions therein are detailed. Ms. Marcotte has publically trashed the 3 accused Duke lacrosse players and continued to do so as recently as Feb. 3, 2007 after the time when the revelations about district attorney Nifong illegal actions became public and it became obvious to most disinterested observers that the case was a crock of s***. As a for instance, she has labeled the three as rapists, without even preceeding the accusation with the word accused. These are not the actions of a responsible commentator.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/
http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/02/meet_john_edwardss_new_blogger.html…
I don't think it's quite true that "in the accepted view of 'bloggers', a blogger is only their view, nothing more."
As they say, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. A great blogger has a viewpoint, of course, but also has to be able to write well and build a community of readers.
I believe both Amanda and Melissa have written as freelancers and for non-blogging outlets, where they adopted the writing style of that forum. People quote their curses, their intemperate language about anti-birth-control activists or failure to label alleged rapists as "alleged," and act as if that meant neither was capable of civil discourse.
Blogs are conversations, and when we sit around shooting the breeze, we curse, and we don't always remember that OJ is only an alleged murderer.
John Edwards could have gained ground in this issue by explaining why he hired these two women and clarifying that these intemperate comments were not what they would be writing for his campaign. Firing them and then going to bunker mode is a doomed strategy.
Jeesh! When did this become the Amanda & Melissa presidential campaign? The point is to get your candidate elected. They serve at the will of their employer -- not you people. It does not matter that they were not properly vetted before hired. Once the campaign found out they would be a detriment and not an asset, they should have left quietly. And they are a detriment. You can't make the comments Pandagon makes without it coming back to haunt you and the campaign you work for. If they don't go now, it will keep coming up. You can argue that it shouldn't matter, but it does and will. All this whining that if they are fired you will not support Edwards is immature. Politics is rough and tumble. Grow up.