by publius
The Edwards/M&M controversy is extremely interesting on a number of different levels. I hope to write more tonight, but I do think the question is a bit more complex than Chris Bowers is making it out to be:
The Edwards camp faces a series of simple choices right now:
Are you with the people who work their asses for you, or are you with right-wing extremists who hate you?
Hmm, I’ve seen that sort of rhetoric before somewhere. Can’t . . . quite . . . place . . . it . . .
Nuance for thee and not for me?
just FYI, Salon is reporting that they’ve been fired. but not fired yet. maybe fired and rehired. the Edwards campaign won’t say. but may say something later.
OT: dumb bet
Publius: glad you’re writing about it.
One thing I don’t get is that all the reports seem to think that Amanda and Melissa will be fired or hired together. Amanda always struck me as what one might tactfully call a gutsy hire (meaning no disrespect to Amanda; it’s just that some of the traits that make her fun to read, as a blogger, might not be the ones a political campaign would be looking for.) Melissa, much less so.
I also think that whatever one makes of the merits of Edwards’ moves, the difference in the level of scrutiny faced by his bloggers and those of GOP candidates is interesting.
Well, if Edwards does sack two employees for what they wrote before they were employed by him, then he will lose even if he becomes the Democratic candidate: he doesn’t have the guts to fight for his own side when he’s in the right, and whoever the Republicans select will SwiftBoat him with ease.
Don’t be silly, Jes. If one of the top GOP candidates hired Josh Trevino or Charles Johnson as their official blogger or whatever, wouldn’t you expect those on the left to mention it and try and use their extremist positions to tar the candidate?
Now we know why Trevino deletes his blogs.
by my calculations. Edwards loses fewer votes if he lets her go than if he hangs on and lets his opponents bring up her NSFW (not even safe for ObWi) blog postings for the next year.
there are a literally a dozen different angles, some regarding edwards, some regarding marcotte, etc. i do feel bad that melissa is getting roped in b/c, frankly, i’ve always found her writing more persuasive.
and i’m second to no one in my loathing for michelle malkin, but that masterpiece theater bit was pretty funny. i recognize of course that it could have easily been my posts being read, and my heart goes to marcotte. but there are risks to what we do, just as there are rewards. we put ourselves out there. marcotte, of course, is braver than i am in that she uses her real name. but all that said, it was pretty funny
Hil:fun to read
Seriously? That is some of the most vicious, obscene, unnecessarily foul writing I have seen on these internets. She may be the only one further out there than Hamsher.
the difference in the level of scrutiny faced by his bloggers and those of GOP candidates is interesting.
John McCain announces then hires Misha as his campaigne blogger. What happens next? I forget who made that comparison or I would link them, but it is the most apt comparison I have seen.
yeah, what OCSteve said.
No OC Steve,
The apt comparison is not if McCain hires someone but a comparison to the person he has, in fact, hired — one Patrick Hynes. Greenwald has the details.
Why did the AP, New York Times and Washington Post miss this tidbit from the other side? Are they simply reciting the rightwing blogospheres’ attack without engaging in any objective analysis?
I’ll be quite disappointed if Edwards fires McEwan. Probably if they hadn’t hired Marcotte it wouldn’t have come to this. I sure hope this won’t cost Edwards too much support in the mydd crowd.
OCS, I think Hamsher says a lot of annoying and wrong things, but from what I’ve seen she’s a good deal more reasonable than Marcotte. But it’s easy to find way more unfortunate stuff out there than Marcotte – check out Orcinus or thepoorman or …
The episode, if he fires them, says one of two things about Edwards. He doesn’t look into his hires very carefully (sounds vaguely like the current president) or he lets other people tell him who can work for him or not – not really presidential timber either way.
I was mildly surprised when Amanda got the gig, because of her unapologetic F*ck You attitude. But if Edwards doesn’t stand by her now, it looks like he’s caving.
Her attitude is a large part of her appeal; it’s not like she’s been keeping it secret.
Jes: To me, it’s more of a dichotomy than a straight linear argument. Suppose Edwards has, in fact, fired them (which we do not know to be true, but hey, let’s pretend.) Then either: (a) he is sacking them for some reason of his own, and not because of the pressure — e.g., because he read some of the posts in question and thought: yikes! Or (b) he is sacking them because of the pressure.
If (b), what you said: people should fight for their own. The thing is, I don’t think one can rule (a) out at all.
“That is some of the most vicious, obscene, unnecessarily foul writing I have seen on these internets.”
You’ve read most of what she’s written for the past few years?
I’m impressed.
I don’t get Greenwald’s attitude at the above link – it seems to be, everybody says stuff offensive to large numbers of people, and anyway the other side is as bad or worse except they know how to defend their own.
If one of the top GOP candidates hired Josh Trevino or Charles Johnson as their official blogger or whatever, wouldn’t you expect those on the left to mention it and try and use their extremist positions to tar the candidate?
As Macswain points out: this has already happened. Of course, IOKIYAR, and the media are therefore not tarring McCain because he hired an extremist right-wing blogger who lied about being paid by McCain as he promoted McCain’s positions to the blogosphere – any more than the media tarred Bush for the SwiftBoat campaign, despite the direct financial links between Bush/Cheney and the SwiftBoaters.
But, if Charles Johnson were hired by McCain, I would expect McCain (or his staff, rather) to have read LGF and LGFwatch, to know what message hiring Charles Johnson was going to send to the Internets, and to stand by him if he was criticised for what McCain knew he had written before he was hired. Because hiring Johnson and then going into a freak-out because the leftwing blogosphere had concluded that McCain must be Islamophobic if he hired an Islamophobic bigot and firing Johnson, would show that either McCain was too stupid to have someone read LGF/LGFwatch thoroughly before Johnson was hired… or else they were sufficiently Islamophobic themselves not to see anything wrong with it, and the accusations are accurate, and McCain is only bugged at being found out.
Now, the same applies to Amanda Marcotte. Either Edwards/his staff read Pandagon (and particularly, Marcotte’s posts) thoroughly before they hired her, or they didn’t. If they didn’t, that was stupid. If they did, and didn’t see anything wrong with the emphatic feminism, queer rights, and anti-racism she’s persistently advocated – until tne rightwing blogosphere kicked up a stink and Edwards grew afraid of being found out – then that says Edwards will cave under pressure.
I have to say that while I agree with the ‘gutsy hire’ assessment of hiring Marcotte, I think firing her because of the flap is idiotic, to the point of moving me away from Edwards if it turns out he has. Anyone paying enough attention to blogs to know to hire her should know what her writing is like — they hired her in the first place, so she’s not too offensive to hire on principle. Firing her is just hanging a sign on the Edwards campaign “Yes, we can be bullied.” I don’t need that in a candidate.
Or, exactly what Jes said.
“That is some of the most vicious, obscene, unnecessarily foul writing I have seen on these internets.”
Gary: “You’ve read most of what she’s written for the past few years?”
How much of her stuff he’s read isn’t really relevant to the comment in question taken literally, is it?
Greenwald points to some awful stuff by Hynes – it’s not that relevant to me how much of Hynes’s work he’s read.
Hilzoy: (a) he is sacking them for some reason of his own, and not because of the pressure — e.g., because he read some of the posts in question and thought: yikes!
Maybe (a) is true: maybe Edwards didn’t think to have someone go read Pandagon thoroughly and notify him if there was anything he was likely to go “Yikes!” over. But, even if (a) is true, if he is sacking Amanda Marcotte for (a) now, it’s still going to look like (b).
Um, yes, and in fact we do not know that either of them are going to be sacked.
I get Greenwald’s point. His last line sums it up:
Perhaps the Edwards campaign can learn a lesson from how the McCain campaign defended their blogger.
I’m with lizardbreath.
Also, Greenwald makes THE salient point here.
Equally applied standards please.
McEwan wrote she was joining Edwards’s campaign because he’s able to say, “I’m wrong”. If he can’t politically say “I mistakenly hired someone I don’t agree with”, that’s unfortunate. If “a) but looks like b)” sn’t he signalling he can be frightened away from doing what he thinks is right?
Eric: “Also, Greenwald makes THE salient point here.
Equally applied standards please.”
Greenwald:
‘On CNN, Wolf Blitzer just did a story on the entire Edwards “controversy” in which CNN, apparently, asked the McCain campaign about Hynes, and they replied: “We are happy to have him.” […] Perhaps the Edwards campaign can learn a lesson from how the McCain campaign defended their blogger.’
I don’t see how the Edwards campaign can stand association with Marcotte’s comments on the Duke lacrosse team or Catholicism, and I don’t see how to make something reasonable out of Greenwald stance.
I would not have hired Marcotte in the first place but I would think very very poorly of them for firing either of them:
1) If you hire a blogger you have someone read her archives and be prepared to stick with them. Marcotte’s tone is quite consistent.
2) You ought to treat your staff decently. You offer people a job, they count on that, they rearrange their lives accordingly. Of course if they don’t perform competently that’s that but this is based on controversies from before they were hired, not new information.
3) You ought not to be easily intimidated by Michelle “internment camps” Malkin or William “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate God and love anal sex” Donohue.
4) Most importantly, I think it just shows a political tin ear. Democrats constantly act as if “there’s 1% chance I will lose votes because of this on election day I have to treat that as a certainty.” If he ignores this story–do you think there’s going to be continuing press coverage of the fact that right-of-center bloggers and William Donohue don’t like John Edwards’ bloggers? Please, the press has the attention span of a six year old. Stories and scandals far more interesting and important than this have been forgotten. If he ignores this, and makes clear to them that they should be more diplomatic on the campaign site, it goes away. People aren’t going to vote on who Edwards’ blogger is in primaries a year from now or a general election that’s even further away. The only people who know or care enough for their support to be in play are other liberal bloggers. Edwards, the southerner who voted for the Iraq war, is competing with Obama to be Hillary’s major challenger from the left. He thinks firing a liberal blogger because Michelle Malkin and the Catholic League don’t like her is the way to go? Not smart, and not smart in *exactly* the same way that drives me crazy about the Democratic party.
Disheartening all around if it’s true. I am counting on Elizabeth Edwards being smart enough and blog-savvy enough to talk him out of it….if not, oh well, I suppose it helps Obama in the primary.
Ah, I didn’t see that last update. I haven’t been checking in with Glenn, and read that story much earlier in the day. Last couple updates actually.
Just to be clear, how many of you here would hire Marcotte for your own campaign? I sure as hell wouldn’t hire Hynes. (I’m not sure I’d hire me either, but I’m not fit for politics anyway.)
“How much of her stuff he’s read isn’t really relevant to the comment in question taken literally, is it?”
It’s entirely relevant to the sentence of Hilzoy’s he was replying to. She wrote: “…it’s just that some of the traits that make her fun to read, as a blogger, might not be the ones a political campaign would be looking for.”
Unless you either: a) know which of Amanda’s thousands of posts Hilzoy has in mind; or b) have read most of Amanda’s thousands of posts, you can’t c) be able to judge the posts Hilzoy was referring to.
To conclude that Hilzoy was referring to the posts of Ms. Marcotte’s that Malkin and Donahoe and company are going on about would simply be a case of having misread Hilzoy, of course.
OCSteve: it may help that I have a sort of mental screening thing when I read Pandagon — for instance, I just don’t bother with any post about religion in general. It may also be relevant that I stopped reading Pandagon regularly sometime between when Ezra left and when the Feminist Blogs aggregator appeared, which was over a year ago, iirc. So my sense of them is dated.
That said, I think that Pandagon is fun to read. I also think it’s fun the way talking to one of your friends, whom you know to be kind of over-the-top and outrageous can be fun. If I were running a campaign, I would not choose such a friend to be my spokesperson.
Melissa, otoh, is a different matter entirely.
I haven’t exhaustively read Amanda’s stuff (and I’m even less familiar with Shake’ sister), but I think there is a fundamental difference between swearing like a sailor and being disrespectful towards others which, while not a bright line, is one that can be discerned. and I think Amanda is on the sailor side and some of the right wing types mentioned are on the other.
There also is a dose of misogyny, in that Amanda and Melissa have to conform to standards that a man wouldn’t have to as much.
And Publius, you do stand second to me (and Dave Niewert as well?) in your revulsion of Malkin. In that parody she (and others) are trying to delegitimize the righteous anger that the Katrina post represented is appalling and even if Amanda has gone over the line and she is the equivalent of Mischa (is that even possible?) there is a substantive difference between being angry about an ongoing event and being angry at a group of people because they lie on the opposite side of the political divide. To let pundits like Malkin minimize Katrina is really intolerable. The Duke case is more problematic, but I find the conflation of the two into an Amanda is an evil person meme to be pretty disgusting and par for the course for Malkin.
I realize that this more on the attacks on Amanda and Melissa than the question of what Edwards should do, but those attacks are the root and arguments about what Edwards should do simply grant a legitimacy to those attacks that they shouldn’t have.
Rilkefan: and I don’t see how to make something reasonable out of Greenwald stance.
You don’t see how to make something reasonable out of the stance that standards should be equally applied to McCain’s blogger hires, and Edward’s?
But you don’t see how Edwards’ campaign can stand having hired a woman who – before she was hired – expressed her opinion about the Duke lacrosse team rapists and the teachings of the Catholic church on birth control? (I did discover recently that someone who ought to know better accused me of “Catholic bashing” because I’d quoted exactly what the Vatican said was official Catholic doctrine about gay people, and it made the Vatican sound truly horrible.)
I mean, I personally cannot like you after a single comment you once made in a thread on abortion, because that single comment revealed a depth of misogyny that makes me cringe still to think of it – but I wouldn’t assume someone who hired you to blog for them must be as misogynist as you are, or approve of your misogyny, just because of that ugly comment you made before they hired you.
But this is the post Amanda wrote about Catholic attitudes to birth control that seems to have got some right-wing bloggers all kicky: Pandagon goes undercover the lazy way on a Catholic anti-contraception seminar and Part II. If this is anti-Catholic, as I’ve seen at least one right-wing blogger claim, there are a hell of a lot of anti-Catholic Catholics out there…
This is a typical Noise Machinne operation and that’s what gets up my nose. Why does thhe righht get a Noise Machine and the left doesn’t? This anti-Marcotte campaign shows collarboration between righhtwing bloggers and the rightwing outlets on the MSM. The fake outrage over Pelsoi and the airplane is another example.
If McCain hired Misha, Trevino, AND Hindrocket, the left would object and the MSM would remainn silent. No Noise Machine for the left.
I don’t read Pandagon so I have no opinion about her writing. I do think that Edwards had better stand by his hire because it is never wise to cave in to bullying.
Gary, can’t say I understand. hilzoy says “set X is characterized by traits f”, OCS says “the elements from X I’ve seen are highly z”, you say “have you read most elements of X?”, I say we typically consider a set from which one can easily draw examples of z to be z; f isn’t really relevant to his argument.
I think Jes’s third paragraph above is so far outside the posting rules that we may as well simply repeal them.
“OCS says ‘the elements from X I’ve seen are highly z’,”
But that’s not what he said. He responded to what Hilzoy said she’d seen.
Also I totally agree with Katherine: the MSM will let themselves be manipulated into bloviating abouut this for about a week, if nothing else is going on. Then, down the memory hole! If Edwards caves, he will make himself look weak and the memory of that will linger on. So let the right scream. He’s much better off if he toughs it out.
None of the quotes I’ve read so far are anything that Malkin can complain about without adding hypocrisy to all of her other sins.
RF, Hilzoy’s saying Amanda is “fun to read” does not imply that every post by Amanda is fun to read, so OCS’s response that a post or two that he read was highly unfun is irrelevant. Also, the z elements were certainly not selected randomly from the set.
lily: Why does thhe righht get a Noise Machine and the left doesn’t?
Noise machines are expensive. The right owns more mass media and has more money.
Phil, if it’s against the posting rules to say we don’t like other commenters, then you too have broken them, quite a few times (your meme with me is to accuse me of being anti-American, as I recall).
Slightly upthread rilkefan, but I still took Glenn’s post to be arguing that the media should be applying the same standard of scrutiny for McCain/GOP hires as Edwards hires.
Are you suggesting that Blitzer’s question renders Glenn’s point moot?
It weakens it a bit, but if the entire segment was on the Edwards controversey, and one aside goes to McCain, then I’d say that Glenn still has a point.
Jes: “You don’t see how to make something reasonable out of the stance that standards should be equally applied to McCain’s blogger hires, and Edward’s?”
No, I can’t understand his apparent (surely not actual) readiness as a general principal to defend people who say stuff that offends many (e.g. that obviously innocent people are rapists because – well, because she doesn’t like them) – it seems he’s praising McCain for not firing that loathsome Hynes. He’s not as poor a writer as you are a reader, hence my comments on his post.
Phil, if it’s against the posting rules to say we don’t like other commenters, then you too have broken them, quite a few times
And?
(your meme with me is to accuse me of being anti-American, as I recall).
Name twice, please.
“I think Jes’s third paragraph above is so far outside the posting rules that we may as well simply repeal them.”
I think you have in mind her fourth paragraph — the one about rilkefan — not her third paragraph, which begins: “But you don’t see how Edwards’ campaign….”
Didn’t see that response until I posted mine, sorry for the overlap.
Jes: mind the gap.
Also, when I said this: “Then either: (a) he is sacking them for some reason of his own, and not because of the pressure — e.g., because he read some of the posts in question and thought: yikes! Or (b) he is sacking them because of the pressure.”
I meant to add, but somehow didn’t, that I think that either option is damning in its own way. (I mean, (a) wasn’t meant to be some sort of excuse; just a different big problem.) It’s not a mystery that Amanda is who she is. And it ought to be beyond obvious by now that it’s much, much better to vet people before you hire them than to find yourself in the position Edwards might be finding himself in now.
You’ve read most of what she’s written for the past few years?
I had a stick of gum and didn’t care for it.
You ate most of the pack? I’m impressed.
Huh?
Not hardly, I don’t have the stomach for it. FWIW that was my opinion of her writing before this blowup. What I have read of her was primarily what other people linked. From that perspective I’ll agree it was probably “cherry-picked”, as any link tends to be. But there was a fair amount of it over the last couple of years, and a lot of it tended to be blog wars carried out on the front page. This latest stuff only solidified my opinion.
The apt comparison is not if McCain hires someone but a comparison to the person he has, in fact, hired — one Patrick Hynes.
Have at him. If he has similarly outrageous writings he should not be working for a presidential campaign. Or rather, he should never have been offered the position, and if he was he should have known enough to turn it out lest he damaged the candidate.
No, I can’t understand his apparent (surely not actual) readiness as a general principal to defend people who say stuff that offends many
Um. I think hilzoy, to take one example, exhibits the same apparent and actual principle. And if you’ve read Greenwald for all of, say, ten minutes, you’d see that he’s pretty absolutist on this whole “free speech” thing, to the extent that he’s suffered brickbats from Canadian commenters for criticizing some of the CBC’s restrictions on content and fgovernment speech codes.
Having just checked out Memeorandum, I find that Ezra says what I think, only more eloquently:
rilkefan, consider the distinction between what a blogger says after a campaign has hired them, and they have become an official employee, responsible to the campaign, and every single word that a blogger has ever said or written, that documentation can be found of, in the blogger’s entire life, before being hired by the campaign.
If the latter is a disqualification in all cases, than very few bloggers, if any, will ever be hired by campaigns.
I suggest that possibly this distinction is an important one for campaigns to start establishing, and the press to start considering: not as a blanket amnesty for a blogger’s past life — obviously what they’ve written is the reason they’re being hired, and is a crucial part of evaluating whether their hire is appropriate and wise — but as a distinction that’s part of the mix, at least.
I’ve already said what I had to say about this entire issue over at Unfogged a couple of days ago, and even then, I said little, and shut up, because I’m inclined to think that this is a moment where chatter isn’t especially helpful, so although I have a few other relevant opinions, I think I’ll wait until this affair has sorted out a bit more, rather than risk adding even a tiny amount of oil to the fire.
My understanding is that Elizabeth Edwards (and I just googled ‘Edwards wife‘ and the results are, shall we say, illuminating) has participated in a number of comment threads, so I would assume there is a lot more knowledge of their work, so the latter is the problem, not the former.
Ah, someone else noted: “It seems worth noting at this time that if opposing Catholic teachings on contraception makes one an anti-Catholic bigot, I think about 90% of Catholics are anti-Catholic bigots.” –Scott Lemieux
Exactly Hilzoy. If Edwards backs down on this, he’s allowed his staff to be bullied. If anything, he can’t afford to let them go now. If, in six months, he were to decide to change blog directions, that would be another thing (assuming the furor has died down–with the right wing, you can never assume they’ve put away their knives), but to do it now means that he’s caved. Hillary’s right on one thing–when an opponent comes after you, you have to deck him. I want Edwards to swing back.
Chris Bower becomes even more excitable — to the point of lunacy, I’d say:
Huh? Is this somehow the most important issue there is?
This anti-Marcotte campaign shows collarboration between righhtwing bloggers and the rightwing outlets on the MSM.
While I’m not sure progressive bloggers are that uninfluential….this is, I think, the central issue. I continue to find it amazing that something that started with Michelle Malkin can, within a day, make it into the NYT without much more substantial research.
Phil: “Um. I think hilzoy, to take one example, exhibits the same apparent and actual principle.”
Well, all praise to hilzoy of course, but I’m making the distinction between defending x and defending the right to say x (as she surely does). Hynes has the right to say racist stuff about black politicians, and McCain has the right to hire him; and I have the right (and reason) to call McCain on it, or call Sen. Clinton on what McAuliffe says. Unless Greenwald somehow thinks McCain thinks what Hynes wrote is ok, he’s making a poor comparison.
And while I am sympathetic to Gary’s point about oil on the fire, I’m thinking it is important to quash the notion that the Edwards campaign is incompetent on the hiring front, largely because that is the door that the rw noise machine wants them to take. It’s bullying 101 and stepping back to see how things shake out enables that bullying (I say this in a general sense rather than any particular one, and can see situations where I might step back and someone else could say the same thing.)
Gary: “If the latter is a disqualification in all cases, than very few bloggers, if any, will ever be hired by campaigns.”
I think everybody I read could stand such scrutiny if supported by a strong candidate, esp. those who agreed to take such a job.
“Exactly Hilzoy. If Edwards backs down on this, he’s allowed his staff to be bullied. If anything, he can’t afford to let them go now.”
With all the points being made about how Edwards will “look weak,” I have to note that this is an argument supporters of the war in Iraq like to make about why we can’t leave Iraq (and it was an argument made as to why we couldn’t leave Vietnam).
(I have a distinction in mind, but I’m idly curious as to how obvious it is.)
Hilzoy: “Huh? Is this somehow the most important issue there is?”
Wait, there’s a more important issue than promoting the importance of the “netroots”?
If the latter is a disqualification in all cases, than very few bloggers, if any, will ever be hired by campaigns.
so what ?
if a person wants to make a name for himself as a rude, crude, loudmouth, why shouldn’t that be an obstacle to getting a job where the goal is to make your boss as appealing as possible to as many people as possible ?
if you want to be a raging dick on the web, either don’t use your real name, or don’t expect to get high profile jobs where image matters.
“I think everybody I read could stand such scrutiny if supported by a strong candidate, esp. those who agreed to take such a job.”
I’m pretty sure I couldn’t.
Which is an extremely low bar, to be sure.
But, as I said: I said what I had to say about this at Unfogged the other day.
Or rather, he should never have been offered the position, and if he was he should have known enough to turn it out lest he damaged the candidate.
To expand a bit on that: Assuming they just did a poor job of vetting (as seems to be common). Why would she take the job? Assuming she supports the candidate anyway?
She knew the posts were out there. You can’t just delete them (I won’t get into that, one side says technical glitch, the other side says yeah but it only ate one post). There is google cache, The Wayback Machine, and every blogger you worked so hard to make an enemy of has your most egregious posts excerpted on their blog, often with screen caps just in case.
Knowing that, all I can surmise is that she honestly thought that this material was just no issue. That no one would seriously object to it. That no one would say, “Hey Mr. Edwards, do you agree with your staffer’s position on this?”
Can that be true? She didn’t even bring this stuff to their attention and say, “I really want this job but are you sure this stuff won’t be a problem for the campaign?”
If she did point it out to them and they said “no sweat” and now they are dumping her after a little minor heat – then I may be on her side in the end.
lj: “the notion that the Edwards campaign is incompetent on the hiring front”
How could they not be incompetent there, at least at the level of the individual staffer responsible? Did they pay any attention to the Kerry campaign – heck, any recent campaign?
To borrow the new meme – it’s not a defeat, it’s a failure.
With all the points being made about how Edwards will “look weak,” I have to note that this is an argument supporters of the war in Iraq like to make about why we can’t leave Iraq (and it was an argument made as to why we couldn’t leave Vietnam).
That argument is beyond crap, and I suspect you know it. Nobody is going to die if Edwards pops Malkin et al (rhetorically speaking) in the mouth over this. But you can count on this–if Edwards doesn’t hit back on this, anyone and everyone any Democrat hires will be raked over the same coals, and the current Democratic advantage online will disappear fast.
Unless Greenwald somehow thinks McCain thinks what Hynes wrote is ok
Given that Hynes wrote it (so I gather from Greenwald) while he was working for McCain, presumably McCain does think it was ok. (I remember the mild scandal about Hynes being paid to blog for McCain and lying about how he wasn’t being paid, so actually there may be some fuzzy room there – when did McCain hire Hynes, and when did Hynes admit he’d been hired?)
What a person writes/has published before they were hired may well affect their being hired. That’s reasonable. Once they are hired, however, what Ezra, and Hilzoy, said, about not firing them for what you ought to have considered before you hired them.
But, once they’re hired/working for you: and especially if what you are hiring them to write could be confused with what they write for fun in their own time: then you have a right (and an obligation, to your employees) to say what they may and may not write/publish, and fire them if they go over the lines you set. (See Janis Ian’s article on ABCs of Being A Boss.)
If Hynes has been writing racist crap about black politicians since McCain hired him, either McCain is OK with that, or his staff are so incompetent McCain hasn’t found out about it yet.
OCSteve: If she did point it out to them and they said “no sweat” and now they are dumping her after a little minor heat – then I may be on her side in the end.
Well, I think you ought to be on her side anyway, whether or not she specifically pointed out the posts that are now being dug up and yelled about. They’re all relatively recent, and if someone wants to hire a blogger to blog for their campaign, it’s only fair to assume that the hiring team read the blog.
“How could they not be incompetent there, at least at the level of the individual staffer responsible?”
One scenario would be that they brilliantly had this in mind: they deliberately picked a fairly inflamnatory, but quite popular, blogger who has a lot of fans in the left blogosphere, and amongst the “netroots” (I’ve still yet to have anyone explain to me a test for who is and isn’t in these roots, but never mind).
The point would be that Edwards feels he needs to continue to dodge what we loosely call “left,” or for the progressive wing of the party, and the antiwar wing (which is pretty much everyone now, with only minor distinctions of degree, out there in the populace and the fabled “base,” if not the leadership), to distinguish himself from Clinton, and avoid being swamped by Obama.
Thus, the strategic decision to pick a blogger who is popular with such supporters, but who is inflamnatory enough to guarantee attacks from the right. Then, when the inevitable attacks inevitably occur via Malkin and Powerline, stand strong and defend the blogger.
Voila, your support in the left blogosphere shoots up ten points. And the press lets it drop after a couple of weeks, save for an occasional trivial mention in the future, while other stuff is dominating the news cycle and political coverage.
Do I think that’s what’s happened? Let’s say that I’m not confident. But it answers your question.
Man, I misspelled “inflammatory” twice. Drat.
lj: “I’m thinking it is important to quash the notion that the Edwards campaign is incompetent on the hiring front, largely because that is the door that the rw noise machine wants them to take.”
Well, but what if it turns out that it’s, you know, true? — I mean, leaving aside the merits of Amanda and Melissa, it would be incompetent to hire people without checking to see whether they had written things that, on reflection, made you wish you hadn’t hired them. (It would be different if the writings in question were not on their actual blogs, but, say, published in obscure journals of philology, but none of the controversial posts are hard to find.)
I don’t see how, if Edwards fires them, one can escape concluding that the hiring process was incompetent, other than by concluding that while the hiring process was fine and turned up everything it should have, Edwards turned out to be a wimp, and folded in the face of controversy even though he shouldn’t have.
Otoh, the fact that there’s no way that, if Edwards fires them, some fairly serious criticism isn’t true of him doesn’t necessarily mean that he can escape such criticisms by not firing them.
I think the best way to avoid giving in to bullies is first not to make mistakes that they can capitalize on, and second, not to give in (much easier to do when you make no mistakes 😉 ) Failing that, apologize immediately rather than dragging it out.
“The Duke case is more problematic…”
You think? Her take on the Duke case is either borderline insane or an example of intentionally trying to inflame racial hatred by lying. It would have been bad enough toward the beginning of the case, but to say:
on Jan. 21, 2007 is a more than a bit much.
And to be clear, it is more than a bit much because the rape victim accused someone of being the rapist that absolutely definitely wasn’t there.
(should be ‘a’ rapist) not ‘the’.
Gary, if that’s what they were going for it’s a lot worse in my view than one staffer doing shoddy work. TPM has them in bunker mode.
Sebastian: You think? Her take on the Duke case is either borderline insane or an example of intentionally trying to inflame racial hatred by lying
Um. You think that taking it as read that the rape victim in the case isn’t lying, but the rapists probably are, is borderline insane? Or that taking it as read that a black stripper is telling the truth and the rich white boys (who hired, then harassed two black strippers – and then at least three of them raped one of the strippers) are probably lying is “intentionally trying to inflame racial hatred”?
Or do you think Amanda was lying about what she thought as she listened to CNN on the Duke lacrosse rape case? Or that all feminists who get enraged when rapists get off and their accusers are attacked are “borderline insane”? Or just the ones who talk about being enraged, emphatically, without caring who’s overhearing?
Sebastian, did you not just violate the posting rules?
Er. What Gary Farber said. Just for once, he was pithier, to the point, and right.
SH: “borderline insane”
Could you accept willfully and stupidly blinkered? She goes on to claim there’s conclusive evidence against the players, which if true would make the preceding stuff within bounds.
“How could they not be incompetent there, at least at the level of the individual staffer responsible?”
Hmmm, my point is that Elizabeth Edwards seems relatively well versed with the blogosphere, so notions of they were incompetent are most probably false on the facts we know, so thinking that there was some incompetence isn’t truthful. Now, I accept that we accept untruthful things occasionally to get over certain humps (was there really a traffic jam that made you late? Did you really misplace the phone number so you couldn’t call back? etc etc). But the further point is that accepting the ‘they had to be incompetent meme is merely enabling the right wing noise machine.
That brings us to Gary’s point, which is quite nice, in that how is this different from Iraq. My response would be that for Iraq, if we didn’t know then, we certainly know now that the effort was incompetent, so we are merely maintaining our position because of incompetence and the impossibility of the task, the latter of which Drum notes seems to have some traction even at the Corner, which makes it a different kettle of fish, though I have to admit, I had to think on it a bit. But there is a difference between doubling a bet when you are bluffing versus when you have a strong hand.
A usage note:
‘working their asses off for you’
and
‘working their asses for you’
are tremendously different activities.
And it probably goes without saying that I am always with the people who work their asses for me.
lj: “Hmmm, my point is that Elizabeth Edwards seems relatively well versed with the blogosphere, so notions of they were incompetent are most probably false on the facts we know, so thinking that there was some incompetence isn’t truthful.”
That doesn’t follow at all, unless E.E.’s god. I claim this mess was entirely predictable, so either there was incompetence or the reaction’s a feature, which seems inconsistent with my above link and my sense of the wurlitzer.
Sebastian, I didn’t see that you were quoting me, but since the Malkin parody leads off with Amanda’s Katrina post, I think it is legitimate to take first things first. I didn’t comment on the Duke because it was not something that I followed at all, but I did acknowledge it so as not to be accused of pretending it didn’t exist. If you wonder my comments tend to be rather cool to your assertions, your prefacing them with phrases like ‘You think?’ might help you understand why that is the case.
On Marcotte v Hynes…
I wasn’t familiar with Hynes so I read GG’s post and the Hynes stuff he was highlighting.
You might disagree with some or all of it (I do), some is silly or over the top or dumb, but none of it approaches the level of viciousness or obscenity of the Marcotte stuff being highlighted. None of it has nearly the traction.
Specifically, there is not one single Hynes blurb being highlighted (that I have seen) that I would hesitate to stick in a comment here for discussion. It might be to poke fun at him or to explain why I disagree with him – but if the situation arose I would not hesitate to post it here.
On the other hand, there is not one of the Marcotte blurbs that I would post here under any circumstances, even to point out how bad it is. There is no circumstance where I would post one of those comments, here or anywhere.
That defines the difference for me.
rf,
If it requires that EE be god, then the argument would be that no one is competent to judge. Which is keeping with christian thought, I might add.
OCSteve: On the other hand, there is not one of the Marcotte blurbs that I would post here under any circumstances, even to point out how bad it is.
I think that says more about the viciousness and relish of obscenity of the right-wing bloggers attacking Marcotte, than it does about Marcotte herself. How many posts in full by Amanda Marcotte have you actually read?
Personally, I don’t lump “viciousness” or what more neutrally might be called “tone,” and “obscenity” together.
I refrain from using The Bad Words here because our hosts request and require it.
And I, of course, recognize that these words are very very very Bad to a good number of people.
But personally, I’m not offended by them in the least, per se, and couldn’t care less. Whether you are greatly offended by them, or not, I’d have to argue that their use is an entirely different issue than questions either of tone or substance.
On the RW Noise Machine:
The fact that the MSM jumped on this so fast has nothing at all to do with McCain or the right. They could care less about McCain right now (unless he is being a “maverick” this week).
Their focus right now is on getting their candidate through the primaries, and Edwards is not that candidate. Once their candidate is secure, then they can turn the guns on McCain (or whoever the R frontrunner is). This was a chance to take a shot at someone who they do not want to see win the Democratic nomination.
IMO. I’m sure you’ll all buy that, right 🙂
“IMO. I’m sure you’ll all buy that, right :)”
You’re saying that you believe that the owners, editors, and reporters, of mass media, are all conspiring to elect a particular candidate?
Well, I made a post at TiO to let people post the things they can’t post here. Unfortunately, in trying to upgrade, I can only put a title and open comments. Off to work now, will try and fix it tonite. Unless people like the pithier style that just post titles creates.
OCSteve: to me, what was troubling about Hynes was the apparent dishonesty (1, 2.) As for Donohoe, this sort of said it all to me (about Mark Foley):
Not to mention this
“She goes on to claim there’s conclusive evidence against the players, which if true would make the preceding stuff within bounds.”
But if you are following the case you know that there is not conclusive evidence against the players, there is not in fact even sort-of-goodish evidence against the players, and that there is in the case of at least one of the players she conclusively accused, iron-clad evidence showing that he could not even have been present.
So to turn that into a racially inflamed rant in Jan 2007, when all of those things are known, is ridiculous. Now I think her rant would have been entirely inappropriate even a year ago, but it wouldn’t have been completely crazy the way it is in 2007.
My view of a possible upside put forth by somebody at DK.
SH: “if you are following the case you know that”
Sure, no question. That’s why I said “willfully and stupidly blinkered”.
How is firing two people who didn’t do anything wrong “a possible upside?”
When I saw that Edwards had hired Marquette, I was stunned. I don’t read Pandagon often (even when I agree,I think it’s extreme), but I know the basics of what she stands for (and against). If I did hire her, it would be in a HuffPo kind of way — one of several bloggers posting analysis of the day’s news. And if I hired her, there is no way that I would interfere with what she wrote; or give any indication that the hiring was wrong.
I’m hoping that the rumor of the firings is wrong — I want as many strong candidates on “our” side as possible.
Phil: ‘How is firing two people who didn’t do anything wrong “a possible upside?”‘
Firing one person who’s hurting the campaign by representing views the candidate finds distasteful – in the face of controversy – showing the candidate does what he thinks is right regardless of who’s arguing for what.
(I’m not sure I’d hire me either, but I’m not fit for politics anyway.)
Oh I’d hire you, Seb – then send you out as press secretary to announce that I’m campaigning on Huey Long’s old Share Our Wealth platform.
bwahahahahahahahah!
You’re saying that you believe that the owners, editors, and reporters, of mass media, are all conspiring to elect a particular candidate?
Not actively conspire, no. It is their inherent bias. I give them the benefit of the doubt that for the most part they don’t even realize it.
Hil: I don’t want to stick up for Hynes. He seems like a buffoon (and I guess a dishonest one at that). McCain should drop him.
The only blogger I can think of who could stand up to the scrutiny of this is probably you hilzoy (unless you do your really wild writing somewhere else ;)).
I’m sure the VRWC could find plenty to hoist hilzoy with, should she be in their sights.
OCSteve: thanks, but I can think of a whole bunch of possible lines of attack.
I think any of the following would survive scrutiny (not in the sense that nothing they wrote could be distorted by someone who was trying, but in the sense that their work would stand up to it): Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, Matt Y, Spencer Ackerman, Ezra Klein, Glen G., the entire Crooked Timber crew, Laura Rozen, Kleiman. Hell, I think it would be harder than people seem to think to find a problem with Atrios, who can be in your face, but (imho) rarely out of line.
This is not about Macotte. This is about Shakes. Notice that the AP report allowed the noted anti-Semite to label both Macotte and Melissa as anti-Catholic bigots. Putting aside the issues of whether or Amanda’s harsher posts cross the line to bigotry (I do not believe they do, but they are undeniably harsh), there is simply nothing in Shakes writing that could be remotely considered anti-Catholic bigotry. It is a smear job, plan and simple. If Edwards fires here, then she is not only financially devastated but he validates the smear.
And that is what it is about: a warming to every blogger on the left who is considering working for a campaign or a becoming an activist for a cause they love. Do so, and you become fair game for the lowest kind of politics of personal destruction, to steal a phrase.
It is also a warming to every campaign who wants to reach out to people through blogs and other online communities: do so, and the worst things anyone associated with those blogs or communities will be used to attack the candidate.
“The only blogger I can think of who could stand up to the scrutiny of this is probably you hilzoy ”
If that’s true there’s something ridiculously wrong with the standard. Can we say “chilling effect”?
I don’t think it is true, and I think Marcotte is more susceptible than a lot of people…but what about the other blogger?
OCSteve: “Not actively conspire, no. It is their inherent bias. I give them the benefit of the doubt that for the most part they don’t even realize it.”
They’re all biased in the same direction? Owners, editors, and reporters of the Main Stream Media alike?
Is it Hillary Clinton they’re biased towards? Or Obama?
Or have you discerned the little-known MSM passion for Joe Biden?
Mike Gravel?
No, Dennis Kucinich>.
I’m unsurprised to find that I named 5 of the bloggers Hilzoy named, when I pointed, in the Unfogged thread of a couple of days ago, to bloggers who would be less controversial choices than some others.
I do think that Glenn Greenwald is rather rhetorically distinguishable to some degree from the others she lists, though. Not in the sense she was putting forth, but stylistically, he’s, ah, yes, “shriller.” (Note: this does not mean less accurate or correct or responsible.)
What Kevin said. That’s what mystifies me about this: that the two are treated as though they were the same. They are just not.
I think any of the following would survive scrutiny…
Ahh – but I don’t read them.
Anyway I am sure (I hope) you are too sane to consider it.
“That’s what mystifies me about this: that the two are treated as though they were the same. They are just not.”
Yes, but it makes for a simpler story, and too many journalists are lazy. As well is that if they started analyzing things like how the two of them differ, they’d actually be into the area of actually reading their respective material, and evaluating it, and they wish to avoid that, if at all possible, as that’s the sort of thing that will get them themselves into being accused of bias.
“Ahh – but I don’t read them.”
Might give them a try.
As I said, Glenn will doubtless give you heartburn, but while you’ll likely disagree with stuff from the others, you might also find them interesting.
IMO, it doesn’t matter if Edwards fires either Marcotte or McEwan at this point. The damage is already done.
The fact that Edwards and his campaign have not *already gotten out in front of this* and made it *completely clear that they stand behind their hires* marks him as a guy who does not have what it takes to run as the Democratic candidate for President.
There’s a lot at stake in ’08, and the general environment in which the race is going to occur can be compared to swimming in a pool of hungry piranhas. If they smell blood, you’re lunch.
If you’re the kind of guy who will second guess your own decisions or those of your staff, even for a moment, because of what folks like Malkin and Donohue say, you don’t have what it takes.
As far as I’m concerned, Edwards is done. Thumbs down. Next contestant, please.
Thanks –
OCSteve: you should give some of them a try. At least try Josh Marshall and Spencer Ackerman. (Josh is writing about Nancy Pelosi’s plane at the moment; here’s the post that gives the background.)
Josh was a journalist before he became a blogger, and he has serious journalistic standards. He distinguishes very clearly between fact and opinion, and I cannot recall offhand a single occasion on which he reported something as fact that wasn’t. (I mean, I’m sure there must be some case in which he cited someone else saying something wrong, but even then he always corrects.) He’s also very smart, and very good at analysis.
Spencer used to be the New Republic’s Iraq reporter. For several years, he was the sole reason why I subscribed to TNR. Every month or so, I’d get really mad at something they published, and think: that does it! — and then I’d think: but if I cancel my subscription I won’t be able to read Spencer Ackerman anymore. The first thing I did after TNR let him go (“difference of opinion”) was to finally cancel my subscription.
For my money, he’s one of the best Iraq reporters out there. I also like the fact that he’s mad enough to post every press release the DoD puts out about casualties in its entirety, even though it means that on a bad day, I have to scroll a bit to get to the actual posts.
“Spencer used to be the New Republic’s Iraq reporter.”
I think “analyst and blogger” is a more accurate description. He wasn’t reporting from Iraq, as your description unintentionally implies.
Mark Kleiman’s now group blog is primarily one of policy analysis, though it also does its fair share of political discussion as well — but Marshall (who runs a small empire now) is pretty much nothing but political analysis.
Kevin Drum — and the Political Animal blog at the Washington Monthly has a fair number of guest posters constantly dropping by, as well — tends to be a mix, but also tends to be a fairly thoughtful, and temperate, guy. Which of course means that some on the left find him overly so (he was called “boring” the other day by one lefty blogger); I tend to agree with him a high percentage of the time, myself, as I also tend to — with a certain amount of disagreement with both, of course — with Matt Yglesias, despite, as someone noted the other day, his only being approximately twelve.
We keed.
I’m sure you’ll disagree with a lot of the views, but I think you’ll find them thoughtful, and perhaps thought-provoking. Perhaps not, but you won’t know unless you give them a try. Not that this is mandatory, of course.
There hasn’t been an open thread here in quite some time, so there doesn’t seem to be any appropriate thread to post it to, therefore I’m digressing off-topic for a moment in this, the most recent thread, to note that frequent commenter dmbeaster is cited by Rick Pearlstein here.
I refrain from using The Bad Words here because our hosts request and require it.
You know, I really hope the issue here is not Marcotte’s use of “bad words”.
Most people use profanity on occasion. A lot of people use it frequently. Some people — enlisted members of the military, jazz musicians, some folks in the building trades — use profanity like other people use salt on food.
Our Vice President has been known to use profanity, publicly, to make a point.
Profanity is heightened language. In general use (i.e, if you are not a PFC or a jazz musician) it expresses anger, frustration, or general annoyance.
If the issue here is Marcotte’s use of profanity on her own blog, in the context of expressing personal political opinion at a time when anger, frustration, and general annoyance are at a fever pitch, what I have to say is that if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
If Marcotte’s language offends you, don’t read her. If you never heard a curse word before, you’re a highly unusual cat.
In short, if four letter words are what is at issue, it’s time to grow up and find more important things to worry about.
Thanks –
“Huh? Is this somehow the most important issue there is?”
Whether or not, and how vigorously, you will fight back against the Right Wing Noise Machine is the most important issue in America. Without that committment, you will not get health care, budgets, whatever…even decent and fair debates on the War on the Senate Floor.
Yeah, it is about picking a side, fully and completely. Knowing whose side you are on.
Tonight you are either on Amanda’s side or Donahue’s side. You don’t get to be in the middle. There is no longer any middle in America. The center is gone. Anyone claiming to be in the center has chosen a side.
The Right vs the Bloggers
Kagro x at DKos explains why this is a defining issue for everyone.
“But to the extent that the netroots seek to demand a show of loyalty by Edwards, that same demand must be made of every Democratic campaign. Today, the target is Edwards. Tomorrow, should this vendetta prove successful, the target could be anyone.
Keep in mind that those targeting Edwards simply don’t abide by the same standards when it comes to defining what’s reasonable discourse and what’s not. Perhaps more to the point, they are perfectly willing to say that whatever they’re pointing to is beyond the pale whether most Americans would agree or not, if they think it could possibly result in the firing of a Democratic campaign staffer, and by extension, damage to that campaign. So it’s just as likely that tomorrow’s target will be Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or Tom Vilsack, or Chris Dodd, or any of the other candidates. That the attack may have to hinge on something that most people would see as perfectly reasonable won’t much matter, so long as the professional outrage machine is turned up loud enough.” KX
This is just swiftboating again. The specifics don’t matter, it is just another long episode in the serial bullying that allowed Bush to say “Democrat Party” in the SOTU and allows Bush/Cheney to attack Iran and think they will get away with it.
Because liberals won’t really fight back.
To even hesitate for a second empowers the intimidators.
But this is the post Amanda wrote about Catholic attitudes to birth control that seems to have got some right-wing bloggers all kicky: Pandagon goes undercover the lazy way on a Catholic anti-contraception seminar and Part II.
Are you kidding me? Is this really the piece that has launched a thousand inflamed blog posts?
Half of my extended family is Catholic, and I’ve heard harsher words directed toward the Church’s teachings at Thanksgiving dinner (from the Catholic contingent) than anything in Amanda’s post here.
For crying out loud in a bathtub. Everyone needs to grow a thicker skin. Really.
Thanks –
Here, by the way, is the only comment on the Catholic League’s website from McEwan that relates specifically to the Catholic Church:
.
This is why no one should ever, ever, ever, ever, ever listen to Bill Donohue.
For the record, I read every word Marcotte and Spaulding and the largest complaint I have with their work is their temperance, moderation, and comity. They are way too nice.
“…from McEwan that relates specifically to the Catholic Church:”
Could we like not possibly play the “divide-and-conquer” game of comparing material and making lists of “nice” bloggers and “not so nice” bloggers?
What are we throwing Amanda to the wolves to save Shakes? My bet is that Shakes won’t go for it.
Actually, russell, that was my reaction. My parents are ex-Catholics and say rude things about the church routinely. My husband was raised Catholic and takes his mom to Mass regularly, but he thought Amanda’s crack ws more stupid than offensive. he thinks that the church is vulnerable to so many valid criticisms that it was dumb for her to waste ink on an innvalid criticism.
BTW is OCSteve shopping for new blogs to read? My suggestions are Democracy Arsenal, Belgravia Dispatch, and the Washington Note. I think BD and WN are recovering Republicans, too.
Bob is of course qualified to lecture us on who we must support, for he has been throughout these difficult years a paragon of welcome, support, and encouragement for everyone concerned about and interested in doing something to stop the Bush-Cheney machine. His compassion and charity are legendary.
Or, setting aside the sarcasm, Bob, who the hell are you to lecture any of us about big tent duties? Kos raises some points I want to consider carefully, but then he’s earned my attention. When was the last time you did much of anything but pour dung down the shirts of people you find insufficiently zealous for your particular vision of imperium? There may be a reason to take you seriously when it comes to telling anyone at all about the importance of supporting people we disagree with but nonetheless have some important common cause with, but I’ll damned if I can think what it might be.
You burned that bridge a long time ago, and keep coming back to burn it repeatedly.
Bob, I can more-or-less understand not supporting Edwards if he fires them to appease the likes of Malkin and Donahoe. The idea is that he doesn’t have what it takes to stand up to what he’ll be subjected to in the election. But becoming a “staunch supporter” of Edwards merely because he didn’t fire them is quite a different matter, because there’s insufficient evidence about other candidates’ ability to withstand such assaults, so it’s insane to put Edwards’ willingness to hold his ground above any of his actual policy positions, or any other qualities that would affect his electability.
Bruce: posting rules.
“so it’s insane to put Edwards’ willingness to hold his ground above any of his actual policy positions”
See, I don’t think so, and the particular details of each candidates policy positions are not as important to me as their ability and determination in the face of fanatical opposition. I have even been known to say nice things about HRC, for exactly this reason.
From where I sit, there are two separate issues.
#1 is the noise machine making hay out of Edwards’ choices. But that’s not something we can control. They’d do it to anyone. here the obvious response is a firm, quick “Of course we’re proud of our bloggers” and the kind of counter-criticism that Glenn Greenwald has assembled. It startles me from time to time that candidates are still not prepared for these attacks with that sort of immediate answer, and one who showed a habit of getting it right would move way up on my list of people to support.
#2 is the question of outreach to folks on the Democratic margin: people likely to vote Democratic but not possessed of strong convictions, with tangled logic and emotions, still carrying a lot of the noise machine’s lies and not well equipped to sort it all out. Here I think Shakespeare’s Sister a great choice, Amanda a poor one. The thing about any style pursued as vigorously as Amanda does hers is that it’s polarizing. I think she would have been better for the campaign staying independent of it.
Sorry, Hilzoy. Thought I was on the other side of them. Will update references. 🙂
Bob, I can accept that someone can see ability to stand up to the noise machine as more important than any other characteristic in a candidate. What I was describing as insane was the idea of embracing Edwards as the candidate merely because he didn’t fire the bloggers, when there’s no evidence about most of the other candidates to indicate that they’re inferior to Edwards in that respect. Maybe Obama (or whoever) would be even better at fighting back if subjected to a similar test.
Of course, since the day is over and Edwards hasn’t given Malkin both barrels, this is presumably all theoretical.
Bruce: no harm, no foul. The line between criticizing someone’s past statements of his or her views, which is fine, and criticizing someone’s past in more personal terms, which is dodgy, is not a bright one. Obviously, whoever dreamt up human communication didn’t have the convenience of blog rule enforcers in mind. Hmmph 😉
Sorry Amanda, you are expendable. You know, feminists have to be polite and know their…
“Chilling effect” doesn’t even begin to describe what is going on tonight. But there is an awful lot of the moderate blogosphere who are actually enjoying seeing the nasty wench cut down to size.
Perhaps at some point Bob will explain why we must all unite when he thinks it’s important, but why he never has to rally and give up his individual judgment when anyone else thinks a united face against the machine’s encroachments would be in order. I’m not expecting it, of course.
And in any event, the #1 criticism I’m seeing of Amanda is precisely that she seems unlikely to contribute to the unifying of forces at a time when, most of us agree, it’s very important to have that. It’s hard to see much beyond “Bob thinks she’s entertainingly rude and would like to see that pushed on everyone else’.
“…most of the other candidates to indicate that they’re inferior to Edwards in that respect. Maybe Obama (or whoever) would be even better at fighting back if…”
Kagro X dealt with this in the linked post, demanding that Obama come out in support of Edwards and Marcotte.
Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller and the DKos crowd are actually out there doing the good stuff, and when they say this story is critical, I tend to listen to them, not call them “crazy”.
I am sure Bowers will have a lengthy piece explaining why it is important, but part of it likely involves the avoidance of heirarchies, and the desirability of not creating a “standards and practices” section of the blogosphere deciding who gets to keep her job and who gets thrown into the gutter.
Give it up. I respect Shakes, and she will not stay if Amanda is fired.
I hope no one but bob thinks I’m suggesting firing Amanda is fine by suggesting that I think firing Melissa is even worse.
I have two thoughts on this:
1. Who cares? This goes for the ego stroking blogwar participants and their wannabes. Regarding the latter category, I mentioned this in the Proteinwisdom comments section.
2. The PW regulars have been pleading Edwards to keep the two b/c it is helpful to the their cause. When I try to think about the last prediction PW got anything right, I can only conclude that Edwards should keep them on.
I’m still hoping that the Edwards campaign will, having chosen them both, keep them both. I think that the value of sticking by their choices is more important right now than the campaign folks second-guessing themselves. Deciding that immediately would have been best, and letting it linger hurts, but there’s still time for them to do what seems to me clearly the right thing now. A wistful sigh ensues.
And there is just no reason for another candidate to get involved in who Edwards’ bloggers are. It’s none of their business. Obama might find it a higher priority to for-God’s-sake set up an office or a phone # or email address for volunteers to volunteer or write his announcement speech….(Anyone who piles on loses huge amounts of respect from me, obviously).
“But there is an awful lot of the moderate blogosphere who are actually enjoying seeing the nasty wench cut down to size.”
Do you have any links to examples you could offer?
“I don’t think it is true, and I think Marcotte is more susceptible than a lot of people…but what about the other blogger?” …Katherine
Katherine, on a night when people’s jobs and maybe more (can Amanda get her old job back now that she has been made a national pariah) are on the line, defending one more than the other…well if you thought it was the right thing to do.
And maybe that is not defending one at the expense of the other, by comparison, but it looked very close to me.
“You know, I really hope the issue here is not Marcotte’s use of ‘bad words’.”
I find her use of the f-word almost the least offensive thing in the screed on the Duke case.
“Do you have any links to examples you could offer?”
“I’m seeing of Amanda is precisely that she seems unlikely to contribute to the unifying of forces at a time when, most of us agree, it’s very important to have that.”
BB 12:22, doesn’t appear heartbroken
Check out Sanpete on Ezra’s most recent thread.
Early bedtime for me tonight, but just to clarify one more thing before I go:
It’s really easy to think that these sorts of issues are all about us, the ones already tuned in and following along. But when it comes to campaign outreach in particular, we shouldn’t matter a lot. The audience that matters is the one that’s still looking for its positions. Half the people who can vote don’t, and while some do so because they’re too chuckle-headed to deserve to (Digby’s covered this sort), others are genuinely confused and lack our advantages in prior experience, research skills, and the like. They’ve been used and lied to, and it’s hard for someone in that position to figure out the truth even once they’re clear on what one set of the lies is.
Because that audience is large and extremely diverse, there is no one right way to reach them. Comedic vulgarity actually is the right tool to get at some of them. Other styles will reach others. But I hope that someone’s doing campaign planning with eyes that look beyond the little bunches of us at places like this, to the people who might join, if they see it as good to do and worth doing. If anyone is, they get my continued prayers and best wishes, because I know I don’t have a clue what the job might take.
And now I’m off for the evening.
Okay, what is this about, why is Chris Bowers so excited?
Joe Lieberman and George Bush decide whether we go to war or not, and let vote for them or not. And HRC and Edwards and Obama don’t appear to be offering and extremely forceful alternative.
Who decides policy? The people or the politicians? Do we let the HRC’s pile up the warchests by making promises to corporations, grabbing the nomination, giving us only one sane choice in the general, and then determine policy essentially without feedback?
I don’t much care what Edward’s policies are. I and the base will tell him what to do. He works for me, and a few hundred million others. I don’t work for him, and I do not serve his interests.
Am I a consumer, and Obama a product?
Stoller and Bowers and Kos and the people I respect are trying to grab control of an extremely corrupt party and political environment. So corrupt and broken we cannot even debate a war on the Senate floor.
It is about who is boss. If Edwards says I am boss, I will then vote and work for myself.
Bob: there’s a lot of distance between Bruce Baugh’s post, which was about tactics, and ‘not heartbroken’; and a lot more distance between ‘not heartbroken’ and ‘an awful lot of the moderate blogosphere who are actually enjoying seeing the nasty wench cut down to size.’
I find her use of the f-word almost the least offensive thing in the screed on the Duke case.
You know, I’ve never read Marcotte regularly. I’ve never read her Duke post, and didn’t read her allegedly “anti-Catholic” post until I saw it cited upthread.
Maybe there’s lots to object to in her writing other than her use of salty language. I’ll defer to you on that.
What strikes me about this whole controversy is that a handful of right wing loudmouths have, with relative ease, set Edwards back on his heels. That tells me he is not the man for the job, regardless of anything Marcotte has or has not written.
I respect Edwards’ populist instincts, but more than good policies are needed. If he can’t make a clear, effective response in this situation, he’s in over his head.
The ’08 race is just getting tuned up. It’s going to get a lot worse than this before all is said and done. If we make it to January of ’09 with no photo spreads of candidates wearing Nazi-themed pyjamas while in bed with a herd of randy goats** we’ll be lucky. The great Amanda Marcotte controversy will look like a game of patty-cake.
If Edwards wants to stay in the game, he needs to show what he’s made of, and he needs to show it now. Frankly, it may already too late.
Thanks –
** Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
“there’s a lot of distance between Bruce Baugh’s post”
“Bruce: no harm, no foul. The line between criticizing someone’s past…” …hilzoy
Of course there was no “harm” in Bruce’s comment of 11:42. Bruce…
aw heck, never mind. That is four different people after me here tonight.
Random interjection: I stopped reading Pandagon shortly after Ezra left since, to be blunt, I found Amanda’s posts to be both borderline misandrist and not terribly interested in the truth (or at least the complexities of the world). I’m not saying that this makes her a bad person by any means — whoever said that she sounds like one’s excitable friend has it right, I think — but I certainly wouldn’t hire her to be my spokesperson. That said, as someone else noted above, she’s been admirably consistent, so the Edwards campaign has no excuse for finking out now.
And to pass my Jes-and-Gary approved loyalty test, I read basically every post Amanda wrote on Pandagon before Ezra’s departure and probably several dozen if not a hundred since. I hope that qualifies.
[No comment on Shakes since I’ve only read a few dozen of her posts over the past five years.]
PS: If the Edwards campaign fires her for profanity, they’ve lost my vote. [In the primary, of course.] I’ve had it up to here with fucking “civility” used as a weapon for shutting down discourse.
*smites self for violating posting rules*
Why the Edwards Situation Means So Much to Me …Chris Bowers
“This is a reasonable question, and it deserves an answer. Here goes:” …Chris B
I agree that Edwards should really keep them both. The perceived weaknesses of Ms. Marcotte for this new writing form can surely be cured by carefully choosing the topics on which she is to write for the campaign. Indeed, I think this is the best solution: have her write some crackling good pieces, right now, not about blog crap, but about issues, taking it right to the other guys, but using language that doesn’t alienate anyone thinking of singing kumbaya.
It’s not that tough an assignment.
I’m late to this thread, but here goes:
On Amanda: I read Pandagon pretty regularly, and find her posts “fun” (in Hilzoy’s apt term). Obviously there can be different views on this: de gustibus non est disputandum. I don’t think we can expect consensus on this kind of stylistic preference.
I was surprised when Edwards hired her, but I assumed: (1) he [or his wife] knew what her writing was like; (2) she was/is mature enough to change her persona when acting on behalf of a presidential candidate; (3) therefore she would be given the opportunity to do a good job at what she was hired to do. (Or not …)
On Duke lacrosse: Since I live in Durham, I’ve followed the case more closely than most. As I see it, it remains murkier than many partisans on either side perceive it to be. I started out assuming a rape had taken place; since then, I’ve come around to the view that it probably didn’t. (The main charge is in fact no longer rape, but sexual assault, FWIW.)
But I’m also conscious of a couple of facts that bear on my perception of the case: (1) for most of the past ten months or so, almost all of the information we [the public] have received has been generated by the defense, who have spent $3 million so far (!) on investigators, lawyers, and the like. Their job is to undermine the prosecution case, and they seem to be very good at it. But (2) we haven’t yet seen the full prosecution case, and although DA Mike Nifong seems to have screwed this case up badly, in these parts he had no reputation in general (even in retrospect) for being a reckless or unreliable prosecutor. Which leaves room for doubt.
My point here is that although SH may turn out to be right about the case – I suspect that he will – Amanda’s position (making due allowance for her customarily exaggerated rhetoric) is not nearly as unreasonable as he suggests.
I suspect that she was responding to the kind of “defense” of the lacrosse players that implies, “Anything less than a felony conviction is proof that the lacrosse team are innocent victims, paragons of virtue.” (She specifically cited CNN, whereas I’m summarizing comments I’ve read in local papers and on the internet.)
I know a lot of people around here concerned about questions of race and gender who are furious over the fact that an apparently botched investigation (or even possible prosecutorial misconduct!) is distracting from the largely UNrefuted context of the criminal case, which is that a bunch of white athletes (from comfortably middle-class backgrounds, by and large) saw fit to have a drunken party, hire black strippers for their amusement, and make racist remarks. It is probable that none of this is a crime – except the (to me) trivial offense of providing drinks to minors – but it’s hardly a recommendation of the noble character of the players, which the defense lawyers are now so assiduously proclaiming.
Finally, on Edwards: I’m with those who feel that if he backs down on this, he’s toast. Just not tough enough to face down Iran, to say nothing of the Republicans. He gets no major points with me for standing by Amanda; it’s simply a man doing what a man’s gotta do. ;}
Chuchundra wrote:
As a complete aside: having posted on and off but regularly at Josh Trevino’s Tacitus blog for some years, I don’t believe you can fairly compare him to Charles Johnson (unless you have some Charles Johnson who doesn’t run a blog called little green footballs (aka lgf) in mind.
At his worst, Josh manages to sound like the love child of William Tecumseh Sherman, but lumping him in with Charles Johnson does him a disservice. Apart from anything else, Josh managed to foster, at least at Tacitus, a civil community of people with opinions, mostly well to the left of his own, which we expressed without fear or censure.
Based on all the available evidence, I believe that had I said any of the things I said often at Tacitus (about the inadvisability of the war, for example), I would have found myself trashed and banned from lgf in short order.
But John, it was ‘positions’, not ‘actions’. I really don’t think there is that much difference between where the two stand, just in the way the choose to express it.
Josh, I don’t think it’s fair to treat Shakes as the same as Amanda either, but it’s happening. And neither one is in the league of Charles Johnson. Regardless, if a Republican candidate hired Treviño, liberal bloggers would certainly be combing through his online works and highlighting extremist comments. The difference is that the story probably wouldn’t be in Time, since we don’t have the noise machine and media pipeline the Republicans do.
Bob, if Obama got involved in this controversy on either side, that would be a strong indication that he lacks the judgment to be a candidate, much less a president.
Sorry, John, not Josh.
I’m just passing through for a moment but wanted to note that Steve Gilliard has summed up the fundamental issue, as far as I’m concerned. (And done it compactly and straightforwardly, at that.)
Edwards has poorly handled the small personnel issue of the two blogresses. It doesn’t inspire confidence that, as leader of the free world, he would handle monumentally larger personnel choices such as Secretary of Defense or State or a Supreme Court justice, or of confronting various world leaders or of making clear stands on tough unfolding events.
The other day, Taranto wrote about Edwards saying one thing about Iran to an Israel-friendly group, and something vastly different to the American Prospect. Conclusion: “Edwards lacks the capacity even to seem steadfast. If he backs down so easily under the pressure of domestic intraparty politics, how can we trust him to protect America’s interests when negotiating with a vicious adversary?”
Bruce, the first part of Gilliard’s post isn’t bad, but do you really think the important lesson from this is that Democrats need to stop worrying about the Christian vote? I don’t think that’s relevant at all. This is about the Republican noise machine. The blog posts could just as easily have been about something unrelated to religion. (I’m also tired of “white religious voters” being equated with the Christian right or followers of Robertson and Falwell, whom nobody’s suggesting reaching out to.)
Charles, I see you’re still planting bomblets in your writing to sabotage communication. Really, “blogresses” (like Negresses or Jewesses)? Nice.
KC, I’d say that the Democrats need to stop worrying about the votes of some Christians: specifically, those likely to find Bill Donohue convincing, and more broadly the Christian Coalition and related audiences.
In my little corner of the game market, we routinely run into the customers who act as though they’d love to buy our products, if only thus and so were different. So, at some mild inconvenience to our existing customers, we change thus and so. Then it turns out that the objectors have a problem with this and that. If we change this and that, they’ll go on to find problems with which and where…ad infinitum. The truth is that they really aren’t our potential customers at all, they’re just griping and whining.
What’s true for my niche is also true of politics. There simply isn’t anything a candidate like Edwards can do to really appeal to the people John Dean identifies as right-wing authoritarians in Conservatives Without Conscience (which I just finished and highly recommend). They don’t want someone like him at all. And the concerns of the actually reachable are more complex and tangled, in many cases.
My own dream response from Edwards would keep hearking back to FDR, something like “As Americans, we can disagree all day and still work together, on this campaign and in government to address our nation’s pressing needs. We have nothing to fear from honest enthusiasm, or even from honest anger. The rule of law and mutual respect provide the framework in which we can resolve our differences…or not resolve them, and continue to differ, but work together anyway. The only real threats to our cooperation come from those who spread lies and fear, but we are not intimidated. I stand by my staff as talented individuals. When they speak for me and my campaign, they’ll say so. If you have an issue with anything they say as individuals, you can take it up with them, because they haven’t given up their right to speak their own thoughts on their own time.”
Not that he’s likely to do anything like that, but a boy can hope.
Bruce, certainly the Democrats don’t need to worry about those Christians, but I don’t think very many people (outside some of Edwards’ campaign advisers, apparently) believe they should. Gilliard seems to be dragging in a more general argument (the one made by people like Amy Sullivan and maybe Jim Wallis), which I don’t think has anything to do with this situation.
I don’t agree with everything Sullivan says, and maybe I’m too sympathetic toward her because I know her personally, but I get frustrated by her opponents who seem incapable of reading her without imagining she wants Democrats to reach out to the Christian Coalition types.
Hmm, “don’t think has anything to do” is too strong, but my point is that the lessons are about handling the right-wing noise machine, not reaching out to Christians.
KC, all I can say is that Amy seems to me to consistently be talking about compromising or flat-out giving up on what I regard as fundamental civil liberties in pursuit of an audience I don’t think exists. I do realize she doesn’t think she’s doing anything of the kind.
Bruce, I don’t know what compromises or surrenders you’re perceiving. My perception is that her argument is more about messages than actual policy changes, but I admit it’s been a while since I’ve read anything of hers.
KC: I’m having a bad day with my immune problems today, so I won’t say more than “that’s how I recall it”. I do promise, however, that if she comes up as an actual topic here, I owe you a careful reading response-type post to see what I think of her work then.
(I’d ordinarily do some research, but I’m racing the onset of a migraine now.)
It’s okay. I’m not really up on the details enough myself to get into a real discussion. I’m mainly reacting from my memories of comment threads at Washington Monthly in which large numbers of commenters seemed to be responding not to what she had written but to some parody Amy Sullivan that existed only in their minds, and many comments demonstrated the existence of the antireligious left that other comments were disputing.
Good luck with your migraine. Mine are usually entirely visual nowadays, which is far preferable but still incapacitating.
In keeping with Bruce’s point above:
Charles: If he backs down so easily under the pressure of domestic intraparty politics, how can we trust him to protect America’s interests when negotiating with a vicious adversary?
What evidence can you offer against the contention that, had Edwards told the press that he was keeping both Marcotte and McEwan on his payroll, you would have simply declared Edwards “too stubborn” and “unresponsive to the will of the people”, or words to that effect?
Really, “blogresses” (like Negresses or Jewesses)? Nice.
No “bombing” intended, KC. Just another variation on that blog word.
What evidence can you offer against the contention that, had Edwards told the press that he was keeping both Marcotte and McEwan on his payroll, you would have simply declared Edwards “too stubborn” and “unresponsive to the will of the people”, or words to that effect?
What evidence can you offer that I would say it, Anarch? I don’t really give a rip whether he keeps M&M or throws ’em under a bus. Edwards put himself in a sticky situation, and he stepped in a deep pile of personnel grief. If he tosses them, the hardline Left will excoriate Edwards for wilting under pressure. If he keeps them (which it looks like he’s going to do), he’s left with the unreconcilable problem of explaining why “godbags” and other epithetical bombs were “never their intention to malign anyone’s faith”.
No “bombing” intended, KC. Just another variation on that blog word.
Not to go all Jes on you, but isn’t it a bit revealing that you feel it necessary to tag them as female bloggers?
You might want to look into that whole “sexism” thing, and the notion that using gender-based distinctions for no reason, let alone making up whole new ones on your own has some faintly problematic aspects to it, Charles. It might serve you well whenever you return to being a bloggette.
he would handle monumentally larger personnel choices such as Secretary of Defense
John Edward’s campaign team hires a controversial blogger for a minor non-advisory position: Edward’s is not suitable for President.
George Bush hires Donald Rumsfeld for Secretary of Defence and keeps him on 2 1/2 years longer than he should: deserves our support. One last time.
Edwards. The candidate’s name is “John Edwards.” Not “Edward.”
bloggette
blogorino, -a
bloggite
bloggo (Aussie, that)
bloggist
blogifer
blogolyte
blogarista
bloggeen
blogun (as in young-un)
I’m spent…
That’s because you’re a spentress.
blogofactor
blogmonger
blogatrix 😉
Really, “blogresses” (like Negresses or Jewesses)? Nice.
Odd choices for comparison. There are less inflammatory ones, e.g. waiter/waitress, actor/actress, that are a closer fit for blogger/blogress. Granted that feminizing in the first place was gratuitous, but there’s no need to leap to racial terms.
LJ: Not to go all Jes on you
My name has been verbed! *does blogabloga dance of triumph*
It’s the least I can do (and never let it be said that I don’t do the least I can do…)
Since “waitress” and “actress” are still in use (and since gender is somewhat relevant in acting anyway — though that means we need a word for “male actor” as well), they’re not parallel to the case of using a special term for female members of a group that everyone else is content to use a non-gender-specific word for. Perhaps my examples were inflammatory (maybe “authoress” would have been better), but then so was “blogresses”, so the inflammation was part of the point.
What evidence can you offer that I would say it, Anarch?
Your track record, which is why I asked the question in the first place.
In my limited experience, most actors have for more than a decade been referring to both male and female actors as “actors.”
In my limited experience, most actors have for more than a decade been referring to both male and female actors as “actors.”
Mine, too.
But I’ve just been producing in theatre for three decades….
rilkefan: it’s easy to find way more unfortunate stuff out there than Marcotte – check out Orcinus or thepoorman or …
Wow. Pearl clutching accompanied by an unfathomable reaction. What exactly has upset you at Orcinus, rilkefan?
“Wow. Pearl clutching accompanied by an unfathomable reaction. What exactly has upset you at Orcinus, rilkefan?”
Wow. A lame-ass cliche accompanied by an unfathomable inability to read.
I realize that. It doesn’t mean that “actress” is obsolete the way “authoress” and “poetess” are. You may notice if you watch the Oscars, or if you talk to nonactors.