BREAKING: Edwards campaign fires bloggers

[The Count]

BREAKING: Edwards campaign fires bloggers
by: Terry Carter
http://www.capitoltalk.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=75
Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 20:09:18 PM EST

BREAKING: If it's true, I will not be supporting John Edwards in 2008, COUNT IT.

UPDATE: Confirmed.

The right-wing blogosphere has gotten its scalps -- John Edwards has fired the two controversial bloggers he recently hired to do liberal blogger outreach, Salon has learned.

The bloggers, Amanda Marcotte, formerly of Pandagon, and Melissa McEwan, of Shakespeare's Sister, had come under fire from right-wing bloggers for statements they had previously made on their respective blogs. A statement by the Catholic League's Bill Donohue, which called Marcotte and McEwan "anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots," and an accompanying article on the controversy in the New York Times this morning, put extra pressure on the campaign.

Speculation from sources that the two bloggers might be rehired was bolstered by Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the Edwards campaign, who said in an e-mail that she would "caution against reporting that they have been fired. We will have something to say later."

Smart move John Edwards, your campaign "saves face" with the far right of America....more

[Harper_is_Bush]

1. Wasn't that one blogger being sarcastic?

If so, not a smart move imo.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. With all the shit that is swirling on this thing...

I am going to wait for a statement from Edward's campaign.

[venable]

105. COUNT IS WRONG

not fired. still with campaign.

breaking news: Edwards being Swift-Boated right here on DU, by Democrats

[Psephos]

3. Good move

Hmmm, he may have a sense of what it takes to win, after all.

Politics is not a blog, and different rules rightly apply. Meanwhile, Marcotte and McEwan have just made themselves remarkably famous in blogland, and reasonably so in real life. They'll be better off than before. Much.

Peace.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Does his sense of what it takes to win include misogyny and homophobia?

In the space of nearly two weeks, Edwards gave a speech to AIPAC that beats Hillary's in pandering to the Israel rightwing, and now Edwards is appeasing Donohue's Catholic League.

I think Edwards better get a grip on himself and question what sort of message his actions are sending.

[Psephos]

18. I dunno, I'm not an Edwards supporter at all...just commenting on his political sense n/t

[pnwmom]

69. I agree. The longer he would have let this go on, the more Catholics

would have gotten wind of these quotes and been offended. He can find other bloggers without this kind of baggage.

[beachmom]

72. Actually, that's going to be hard. Haven't we ALL had bad days?

The paid campaign blogger is a new frontier in politics, where people's thoughts are literally archived on the internet, and can be used against them. Full vetting, I suppose, will be needed, but I wonder if the presidential election is going to end up being a "Battle of the Bloggers" where each side accuses the others of hate speech, etc. I think oppo research should commence immediately of all Republican presidential candidates' bloggers (if they have any). Perhaps a nuclear situation of "mutually assured destruction" will cause a detente on that score.

[Adelante]

82. Very good thinking, beachmom nt

[Supersedeas]

92. dunno...most bloggers have some kind of baggage.

[pnwmom]

109. Then start with someone new.

[pnwmom]

68. It's not just the Catholic League that he's responding to.

The problem is that the profanity-laced anti-Catholic diatribes would offend many middle of the road and progressive Catholics as well -- and would never be viewed as even remotedly acceptable if they had been directed at Islam, for example, or Jewish doctrine.

Edwards was smart to cut these bloggers loose. Yes, freedom of speech protects them in their blogs and I fully support that. But I also fully support Edwards in his decision to not burden himself with their anti-Catholic baggage. He hired them to be communicators, and their previous written record is quite relevant.

[question everything]

91. misogyny?

Can you please elaborate?

And, not supporting gay marriage, but supporting civil union, paying medical insurance for partners and full rights in serving in the military does not a homophob makes.

[Bucky]

54. Well, Marcotte was already famous in Blogdom. But Edward's better off without them

Bloggers are not like campaign gurus; you can't just hire a big gun and expect them to make it rain. Bloggers have a huge backload of tacky comments to be researched and smeared with. The smart move, if you're going to have a blogger on staff, if to hire a complete newby--no paper trail, no embarrassing snarky comments from three years ago, no confessions of one night stands, no house-cat-blogging Thursdays...

A campaign worker needs to focus on putting the candidate up front... a blogger lives to put herself upfront. It's just not a good mix.

[pnwmom]

73. Well said.

[skipos]

4. I am always amazed how easy it is to get a DUer to say "That's it! I am not supporting candidate x"

Edwards isn't high on my list, but it would take a lot more than something like this to get me to bail out on my favorite candidates.

[The Count]

10. Actually, that was part of the article. I wasn't supporting Edwards because

of Iraq, Iran and the silence on the stolen 2004 election. This one is just cherry on top for me.

[DUyellow]

13. did you watch meet the press this weekend?

If not go to msnbc.com and watch it. Then come back here and tell me that is the guy you want to support for president.

[skipos]

20. Didn't see it, but then again he is @ 4th on my list right now

He'd have to do a lot to knock HRC out of my bottom slot, and this blogger firing issue isn't going to do it.

[The Count]

23. He did sponsor the IWR - HRC just voted for it. He was much more belicose

towards Iran than HRC - so I think his odds are good...

[The Count]

35. transcript

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/

[Terry85]

25. I posted that blog entry...

And my intention was not to convey that it was easy to win, or lose my vote, but rather that I refuse to support anyone who is going to cave to the right wing in ANY way, shape or form. It's ridiculous that Edwards pisses off half the Democratic party by caving to the trash talking bigots of the far right wing when they weren't going to vote for him in the first place!!

[skipos]

29. But your definition of "caving" is probably not the same as mine.

Again, Edwards isn't my pick, but I just don't see this as caving. A lot of DUers think it is "caving" when a Dem goes to some church group or reaches out to Repubs to try to get something done or compromises on some issue, but I often disagree.

[Terry85]

30. Then we'll

agree to disagree then :) I just wanted to make sure the message was clear.

[skipos]

32. Cool.

:)

[pnwmom]

47. Maybe he wasn't caving in to the right wing, although it was a right wing

organization that called him on it. Maybe he was recognizing that he made a mistake when he hired bloggers with a history of making anti-Catholic remarks that the NYTimes said were too profane to publish.

Catholics represent millions of voters, covering the ENTIRE political spectrum. You are wrong to think that Catholics wouldn't have voted for him in the first place -- I almost voted for him in the last primary election, and millions of other Catholics did.

Edwards shouldn't be endorsing anti-Catholic bigotry any more than bigotry against any other group. Good for him that he acted quickly.

Welcome to DU, Terry85!

[The Count]

74. And I thought it was a good point myself.

How can you trust someone will represent you AFTER he's elected, if he doesn't have the fortitude to stand by his own campaign people who, presumably represent your views? (Pandragon was way too progressive for him anyway)

[pnwmom]

110. If Guiliani had unknowingly hired someone with a record of

racially bigoted statements, would you be saying he should have had the fortitude to stand by his campaign people?

[TheWraith]

31. Yep, it's no wonder that candidates don't cater to the suicide dove arm of the party.

The slightest deviation from exactly how the SDs think things should be handled, at any time, on any issue, is grounds to give up and walk away completely. Not to mention that the way the SDs want to see everything done is usually diametrically opposed to getting almost anyone, even a majority of the Democratic party, on board.

[Psephos]

33. You got that right

To some, it's not about winning elections, it's about ideological purity.

Politics is about finding common ground. Those who grasp that have the ability to put together winning coalitions. Those who don't will wander in the wilderness.

Good post.

[Terry85]

41. Well..

..I'm not really finding myself wanting to "compromise" with Republicans these days. The Edwards campaign made a huge mistake here though, the blogosphere as a whole will no doubt force them pay dearly in the coming months.

[Terry85]

37. You all really have a bad habit..

of making HUGE generalizations on here don't you? If you've read anything in the past that I've written (which I'm assuming you haven't) then you'd know that I'm pretty grounded when it comes to actually doing things that will win us elections.

Once again, and for the final time, what makes me so angry about this situation with Edwards is he is CAVING to a bunch of people who were never going to vote for him in the first place, all the while pissing off half the people who WOULD have voted for him!

[pnwmom]

48. Do you realize that it is not just the Catholic League that was offended

by those remarks? That millions of progressive Catholics are just as offended by anti-Catholic bigotry? Do you think it makes sense for Edwards to write off most of the Catholic vote?

[Clark2008]

61. You don't know many Catholics, do you?

Most Catholics are pretty progressive... despite what the Pope says.

[pnwmom]

66. Sure I do. I am one. And my point is that progressive

Catholics would also be offended by the diatribes of these bloggers.

[The Count]

75. Suicide dove, huh? That's what you operatives call the activists you cater to

nowadays? Good to know the lingo.

[robbedvoter]

76. You rang? I guess my signature qualifies me as a "SD"

That and the fact that I never wanted war with Iraq. Nor do I want to attack Iran. yeah, nobody should pay attention to fringe lunatics like me. It's a well known fact that the vast majority of voters want to go to war with the world. Permanently. How wise of you to cater to them! :shrug:

[Phredicles]

5. Can they at least crash at his house while they look for new jobs?

:evilgrin:

[More Than A Feeling]

12. LOL

Good one!

[givemebackmycountry]

6. Another Scaredy Cat Democrat laying down again -

"Ohhh!!! Please don't hurt me!!!"

Hop over to Blah3.com or AmericaBlog to see what they are saying.

Like that homophobe racist Bill Donohue is someone to fear...

How come Edwards just didn't tell him to go Eff himself?

"Ohhh!!! Please don't hurt me!!!"

And we wonder why we don't get any respect as a party.

[pnwmom]

11. Ordinary Catholics are also offended by anti-Catholic bigotry.

Not just the right wingers, like the Catholic league.

[wellst0nev0ter]

59. I'm An Ordinary Catholic

And I'm more offended by the bigotry and double standard emanating from my church than by the righteous criticisms for their mistakes. You know the majority of American Catholics support civil unions but our institution is too ossified and obstinate to even allow that?

[pnwmom]

67. I'm not talking about "righteous criticisms." I'm talking about

profanity-laced insults.

They're hard to find now. Some were magically erased from the original website. Others, according to the NYTimes, were too profane to print.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/terrymoran/2007/02/does_john_e...

From ABC news:

A bit of a tempest is brewing over the strident and profanity-laced writings of John Edwards' official campaign "blogmaster," Amanda Marcotte. She joined the Edwards campaign last week, and she's already gotten a lot of attention.

At issue are Marcotte's comments on her own blog, Pandagon (http://www.pandagon.net /), which has staked out a prominent place in the left-wing blogosphere. It's pretty strong stuff; her comments about other people's faiths could well be construed as hate speech.

Questions: What, if anything, does it tell us about Edwards that he's joined up with this blogger? Is Edwards' association with a person who has written these things a legitimate issue for voters, as they wonder--among other things--whom he might appoint to high office if he's elected? If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react? Is the mere raising of this issue a kind of underhanded censorship, a way of ruling out of bounds some kinds of opinion? Are we all just going to have to get used to a more rough-and-tumble, profane, and even hate-filled public arena in the age of the blogosphere?

ON THE CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ON BIRTH CONTROL:

Last year, Marcotte blasted the Catholic Church's position on birth control: "Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology." (Side note: Would there be a different reaction if John Edwards "blogmaster" had insulted Islam to this degree? Is it "okay" to trash Catholicism--but not Islam?)

[DUyellow]

7. i was over him after Meet The Press last weekend.

he is another joke that we do not need leading our party let alone this country.

[pnwmom]

8. At least one of the bloggers was blatantly anti-Catholic. You think Edwards

was wrong for disassociating himself from that?

You don't have to be a member of the right wing Catholic league to be offended by anti-Catholic bigotry.

[SweetGrass]

22. I agree.

The "Plan B"/"Holy Spirit" remark gave the e-finger to Christians in general. It would be unwise for any candidate take that on. Good for Edwards.

[pnwmom]

43. Welcome to DU, SweetGrass!

[SweetGrass]

45. Thank you!!

:hi:

[Adelante]

83. Edwards should disassociate, certainly

"I do not agree with the sentiments expressed by the bloggers before they came to work on my campaign. However, the opinions expressed were personal and they were expressed in a society that values free speech. I will not permit my message to be misrepresented, my faith underestimated, or my commitment to the United States Constitution diluted by a right wing smear campaign."

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Kucinich is the only progressive in the race at this time. All the rest are status quo.

And Kucinich doesn't even have the money to hire a blogger so he can fire him later. We type because we like his issues.

Single payer fee for service health care

No on the IWR and No on funding the Iraqi genocide all the way from start to escalation...

Yes for paper hand counted ballots

I think Kucinich may be extremely electable this year.

It's a no brainer.

[Recursion]

16. What does "progressive" mean to you then?

You don't see a difference between McCain and Edwards?
Between Brownback and Clark?
Between Gingrich and Obama?

You don't see a difference worth voting for?

Are you serious?

[John Q. Citizen]

34. I think, why not the best? Instead of whose better, hamburger a or hamburger b

I'd rather have a big plate of pesto and pasta with shrimp.

i think we deserve better than we are willing to settle for.

Don't get me wrong. I like Obama's bill to outlaw voter suppression. It's a very good thing. And I'm glad he spoke against the war before it happened, but i wish he had the political courage not to vote to fund what he knows was a mistake. I think Obama is a good man. But also afraid. Obama is an amazing guy.

I like Clark. He's smart, he's articulate for a military guy (attempt at humor here) and he has a lot of experience as a leader. I do wish he had the vision to perceive taking on the insurance companies when it comes to health care. I wish he could envision doing battle with the powers that be. I'm npt sure he feel like he needs to, though. He's not afaid, he's just not convinced. I think he's a good man, though.

And Edwards. He's a hawk with a heart. He will protect us and he cares. He will even work pro-bono, sometimes, but he won't really rock the boat too much, because he doesn't want to piss off the court, after all. You win some and you lose some. i think he's a good man. But he's also a reasonable man. So I wouldn't expect much different than what we have now.

But Kucinich has a vision of an egalitarian America. He's willing to vote against the war and vote against funding it because he doesn't care if he's criticized or marginalized, he's going to do the right thing, the critiques be damned, because it is the right thing. And he will vote for Obama's bill to outlaw voter suppression, because it is a good bill. Dennis will change what he sees as wrong, not because he will win brownie points, but because he thinks it's wrong.

I think America needs and deserves a leader with vision. And we need a leader who is couragous enough to take a chance on what's right instead of putting up with what's wrong just because it won't cost him much to do that. I also think Dennis has a good shot this year because a lot of the status-quo vote will be divided up between the other candidates, and the change votes will go to Dennis. So this is his his time.

Of course, if Gore enters the race, it will change everything.

[Recursion]

77. That's what worries me about Kucinich

he's going to do the right thing, the critiques be damned, because it is the right thing.

So, he'll be the decider, and he doesn't have to explain to anybody?

I'm not just being a jerk. I'm very specifically tired of doctrinaire leaders who are convinced they know what's best, even ones I happen to agree with. We can't just insist on some kind of great leap forward that drags our less progressive siblings with us kicking and screaming, because part of the whole compact we have here in this country is that we believe the other guy might be right and is worth listening to.

Now, personally, I love Kucinich and would love to set him up as a philospher-king. But we don't have a philosophicobasilleocracy here, we have a constitutional democratic republic. And, however progressive many of my views are, I always act on the assumption that I'm probably wrong (which is why I call myself a "conservative" in the classical sense).

[John Q. Citizen]

88. I think you will find that Kucinich is more than willing to explain his positions.

In fact, open government is one of the things I like about him.

Look at health care, for example. We have a lot of candidates who say they are for affordable universal health care, but most of them are short on specifics. Dennis has had a plan which spells out exactly how he would do it. What it would cost. How it could be implemented. It's simple much cheaper, and it's proven.

Edwards has also released a plan, but the problem is it will create a multi-tiered and not very cost effective hybrid that is complicated, intrusive, mandates employers buy private insurance, etc. It doesn't deal with lowering health insurance cost as much as with preserving the niche of the insurance companies.

I don't see Dennis as doctrinaire at all. I see him as efficient, open, and willing to challenge the status quo on their sacred cows, sacred cows that benefit a few while screwing over the many.

Also, I feel you are mistaken about what has become of our current system. We used to have a constitutional democratic republic. We now have an oligarchy who pretend to be a constitutional democratic republic. We already have a philosopher king, and the philosophy is corporations get to run the government for their personal profit. We have an empire, not a republic.

My desire to return to a constitutional democratic republic is why I support Kucinich.

[Recursion]

107. Yes, I know he's willing to *explain* his positions

But is he willing to compromise on them or is he as all-or-nothing as his supporters seem to be? If he is, I don't want him as President. We don't need another "my way or the highway" President, not even one whose views are what I consider to be correct.

[Adelante]

85. Clark is for single payer

He's been talking about universal single-payer health care for about the last year and a half. In 2003, his position had been transitioning to universal health care, but he has since re-evaluated that and become a very strong advocate for single payer.

[John Q. Citizen]

89. I saw that he thinks we need to eventually move that way. If he has come out and

said "Let's do it," then I would definatley like to know that.

I like Clark. I think he's one of our more honest, straight forward, un-declared candidates. I do think he's going to run.

[Adelante]

94. Yes on the "Let's do it."

Naturally, there has to be a transition and he's working out a detailed plan, but he's said single-payer will be a top priority.

[Clark2008]

62. McCain and Edwards?

Actually, not much.

It's just that Edwards can read a poll better.

The other two sets of examples?

There's always been a difference.

But Edwards sponsorship of the war met with McCain's approval. Edwards' positions on Iran probably do, too.

[Webster Green]

17. Yep!....Dennis will get my vote again!

"It's a no brainer".

[rinsd]

97. Not sure how you reconcile no money and extremely electable.

[John Q. Citizen]

100. I think he will reley on lots of small contributions. This is how I see it;

Dennis is the only progressive in the race at this time.

So if the big money pro status-quo candidates garner 60% of the total primary votes and split them up 6 or 7 ways...

And Dennis gets all the progressive change oriented votes (40%)...

Then he will be a force at the convention. He could concievable go into the convention with the highest delegate total. Not enough to win out right, but more than enough to get a big say on a number of issues in return for releasing his delegates, or enough to prevail if he can get a couple of other candidates to release their delegates to him.

You know, Bill Clinton was polling at 2% in February 1991.

[rinsd]

102. Interesting though I think a faulty assumption is made

He ran for President last time campaigning all through out the country even when the primaries had largely been decided.

And yet his name recognition is terrible.

He is already being outflanked on some of his key differentiating positions by some of the big money people.

"You know, Bill Clinton was polling at 2% in February 1991."

Interesting you brought that up. Clinton didn't even announce until Oct of 1991. When they talk about the Presidential campaign season gettng longer every cycle, they aren't kidding!

[John Q. Citizen]

104. He ran last year and did very well in some of the late primaries, getting 40%

of the vote in some states.

Dean was the consensus progressive candidate early on and Dennis never got much of a second glance.

At this point in time though, Dennis is the only progressive in the race. That could change.

Edwards health care proposal is expensive, creates a multi tiered system and isn't much more than the Hillary 1993 proposal reworked.

Clark supporters say he is going to back single payer, and I'm all for that if true, because the more people that back it the better.

Hillary won't back single payer, Obama , who knows?

So at this point I think Dennis may have a unique chance to move up substantially. I'm not ready to declare victory yet, though.

[Recursion]

15. Wait... you mean a leader has the ability to fire people...

...when they start to get in the way of the mission?

After 6 years of * I'd nearly forgotten that fact.

[Kagemusha]

19. According to the other side Democrats get in the way of the mission.

So would Edwards fire himself?

(I sorta doubt it but I'm annoyed at this whole dust-up, nothing personal. Just saying it's not all about kicking people down when they become expendable.)

[pnwmom]

49. Hah! Yeah, it's shocking to see a leader taking a quick, decisive action.

And the correct one, too, unless you hate Catholics.

[Old and In the Way]

21. Why did he hire them in the 1st place if he's so sensative to this now?

It's not like Amanda's been writing in secret these past few years. Once his campaign made the decision to hire, why didn't they stand behind them? A few RW losers like Malkin and Donahue scare them off? What a shitty precedent to set....does anyone think this will be the last attack by the RW media machine? Very dumb move on many levels...

[The Magistrate]

24. A Good Point, Sir

Sometimes you just have to tell 'em to go pound sand....

[purduejake]

26. Pushover.

Another spineless pushover. Couldn't even stand up for the election he won and now he's caving to one of the nation's top crazed bigots - the head of the Catholic League!?! OH NO! Most Catholics I know can't even stand Donohue and it has nothing to do with his religion - he's just a complete ass. I don't care what you believe in or what you do with your life - so long as you don't impose your lifestyle and religion on the weak and un-consenting.

[pnwmom]

50. All Catholics, not just the right wing Catholic League, were smeared

by these bloggers. I think Edwards goofed up by not vetting them properly, but at least he corrected his mistake quickly.

[Old and In the Way]

87. As a Catholic (granted, in a very unactive mode), I didn't take offense.

While I think Amanda might be a little theatrical on some of her posts, I certainly don't see it as something that deserves this reaction from the Campaign. Don't worry, though...this is just the beginning...there will be a custom tailored outrage campaign, narrowly defined, to peel every progressive blogger away from all of the candidates running. The RW smear machine has got a little taste of victory, they'll continue to dine on this mode of attack.

[pnwmom]

111. Don't you think there could be a lot of Catholics, even

middle of the road and progressive Catholics, that would be insulted by a lot of her comments? Even though you aren't? (Especially Catholics who are past the typical blogging age.) Why should Edwards want to saddle himself with her baggage?

[illinoisprogressive]

27. I feel sad for his supporters but, I think they should not be hasty

I think you guys should think and wait. You don't know all the facts yet. You really like him and feel is the one who speaks for you. You should give him your patience and see what happens.

[pnwmom]

44. He's not my leading candidate, but I don't think anyone should

drop him for a reason like this. He would be crazy to saddle himself with bloggers who have made anti-Catholic remarks that the NYTimes says are too profane to publish in their columns.

I don't agree with right-wing Catholics like the Catholic league, but the Catholic church covers a broad spectrum of opinion. And none of us appreciate anti-Catholic bigotry. The chief bigots used to be the fundamentalists, who were sure Catholics weren't even Christian. Now the chief offenders are often on the left. In either case, it's as wrong as any other form of bigotry.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

28. Bloggers United For Peace!

Just an idea for the bloggers he fired. Maybe he cares too much how he looks! Kinda funny video, John Edwards Feeling Pretty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q
:evilgrin:

[The Count]

36. Ha!Ha!Ha! Breck Girl!

[FrenchieCat]

38. Ironic.

"They don’t think we have it in us. They’re counting on their opponents to be weak, and political, and careful.

This is not the time for political calculation. This is the time for political courage. Stand up.

Will you stand up?

Because if we don’t stand up, who will?

If we don’t speak out, who will?

Silence is betrayal. " - John Edwards 2/2/07 - DNC Winter Meeting speech

[McCamy Taylor]

39. This whole thing stinks of a John McCain Swift boat attack on John Edwards.

I posted most of what I have to say at DailyKos. McCain has hired the Swiftboat Vet guys and their first target is Edwards. They sent out the right wing dogs to attack Edwards and now they have infiltrated DU. The story is going to be "Edwards is a Phoney" which will be nothing more than "Gore is a Liar" Part 2.

Anyone who cares to be a sucker for another right wing media hoax like "Gore is a liar" keep getting your chuckles over videos of Edwards fixing his hair and keep complaing about his house as if it is more important than this countries other problems.

Anyone who actually wants to think about the rash of anti-Edwards stories that have been popping up recently (including this one, which I understand is getting coverage on ABC and CNN which wouldnt even give Edwards healthcare plan the time of day, but they have time for a McCain smear, yessirree!), please look at the link below and think about what I have to say

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/8/1319/06023

[FrenchieCat]

46. I don't know, I've been here longer than you have.....

and I'm no an "infiltrator"....and I posted some Iran policy issue I had a problem with referencing John Edwards.

So I am a sucker? :shrug: And if so why? because I'm not into talking smack as a foreign policy tools. I don't think we need to be daring for another war.

The Right Wing didn't twist Edwards' arm and make talk about how Iran will not be allowed Nukes, no matter what it takes at that conference.

The Right Wing didn't buy Edwards' house and design for him, including its size.

The Right Wing didn't keep Edwards' microphone hooked to him during his working the earth in New Orleans.

The Right Wing didn't force Edwards not to sponsor or propose major legislation for the poor during his six years in the senate (with only the last 2 years with a GOP majority).

.....and the question is not why the Right Wing screamed about some Bloggers...

cause the Right Wing will always be on the attack....in fact, they are relentless....

The question is how will John Edwards deal with it all? As President, one deals with situations not always of your choosing.

You can point your finger every which way (Edwards didn't have anything to do with Kerry's loss, it was all Kerry's fault cause people don't vote for VP) or (Edwards was made to co-sponsor the IWR and voting for it and then sticking to his vote for 3 years by the Clintons)

But at the end of the day...blaming McCain isn't gonna help you. Cause that's what elections are all about. Edwards knows that. He's not above it. He used tactics against his opposition.

It happens to all of them....all of them....not just John Edwards.

He's not a little boy who needs protecting. John Edwards is a grown up man running for the Presidency of this country.

[knight_of_the_star]

40. Trash-talking?

I would like to see what they actually said before the jury renders a verdict on this one, but it sounds like the Right Wing said, "Jump" and Edwards dove for cover.

[pnwmom]

51. Unfortunately, the NYTimes wouldn't publish the quotations, saying that

there were too profane, but there's a link on their site to Michelle Malkin's dramatic video reading of the blogs. I'd skip it if I were you.

[AtomicKitten]

42. Sorry, I still believe in free speech.

And that, much to the dismay of some, includes crap we don't want to hear.

[pnwmom]

52. So anti-Catholic bigotry is okay for a candidate's representative,

because that's just free speech. But anti-Muslim bigotry wouldn't be okay, would it? And racial bigotry wouldn't be okay, either.

How come it's okay to slur Catholics, because that's free speech, but not other groups?

[FrenchieCat]

53. Self delete....

[AtomicKitten]

99. Thank you for illustrating my point.

YOU are setting the guidelines and parameters and then projecting it on me.

Again, I believe in free speech - even if it is boorish, rude, just plain nasty, and all that which generally falls in the crap we don't want to hear meme.

Now, whether it was particularly bright for the Edwards people to hire bloggers that had engaged in dicey language on-line is another matter altogether.

Apples and oranges.

[pnwmom]

112. Fine, you believe in free speech. But as you say, this is "another matter

altogether." The issue isn't protecting some bloggers' free speech -- that's a given -- the issue is whether Edwards should have hired people with this sort of history. And then, what he should do about it.

I think the smart thing to do was to let them go, as quickly as possible.

[FrenchieCat]

55. The Bottomline Point is which is most important is.....

PRECEDENT.
One more point on Edwards and the bloggers: Does the Edwards campaign really want to set the precedent that they endorse the entire public record of each and every low-level staffer they hire? Amanda and Melissa, after all, weren't brought on to be the candidate. One is supposed to be the blogmaster, the other to run netroots outreach. Neither is there to offer personal opinions on theological disputes. The only real question at hand should be whether Amanda is a capable blogger and Melissa a savvy promoter. I'd suggest the blogosphere's now-demonstrated defensiveness and affection for both rather decisively answers those questions.

But this is really the point, no? John Edwards is the candidate. He doesn't have to agree with his campaign manager, David Bonier, on Israel, nor with Amanda on feminism, nor with Jen Palmieri on ice cream flavors, nor with anyone else. All these folks have been brought on to make their widgets (a working campaign, a readable blog, and a smart press strategy, respectively) and the question is whether they're good widget makers. If Edwards is readying to say that he can't countenance Amanda's past posts because he doesn't want to be associated with them, then what of David Bonier's voting record? The latter is surely in a more influential position than the former.

What worries me about this is not the possible firings of Amanda or Melissa. It's the precedent. And not just for Edwards. If he drops these hires, then that will be the norm for what campaigns do when their new recruits are attacked. And if it turns out that a possibly controversial public record will effectively bar you from political positions down the road, how many young people will avoid the wonderful, chaotic, educational world of the blogosphere because they don't want to close off future options? The question here should be whether Amanda and Melissa are qualified for their jobs. What it's becoming is whether candidates are responsible for the views of their underlings. And that strikes me as rather dangerous to answer in the affirmative.
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2707.html#015415

[pnwmom]

56. I don't agree that anti-Catholic bigotry is acceptable among

bloggers or anyone else who may want to go into politics. When they choose to make broad brush smears against Catholics (that are too offensive for newspapers to print), they run the risk of short-circuiting their political careers. So be it.

These women weren't hired to be envelope stuffers, computer network geeks, or schedulers. They were hired to be communicators, so their blogging record is extremely pertinent to their hire.

Would you be making the same statement if the bloggers had been accused of racial bigotry? Or bigotry against Muslims or Jews? Of course you wouldn't.

[FrenchieCat]

58. What exactly did they write that would be labeled "bigotry" and

Racial slurs against Catholics?

Do you have a link?

[pnwmom]

65. They insulted Catholic doctrine in profanity-laced diatribes.

I didn't say they made racial slurs against Catholics -- you misread the post.

Yes, freedom of speech protects this kind of speech. But no one with a history of spouting off obscene anti-Catholic insults should expect to get a job working as a communicator for a Presidential candidate.

See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3101297&mesg_id=3101465

And here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/us/politics/07edwards.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

In another NYTimes article, the reporter said that the quotes were too profane to print and referred the reader to Michelle Malkin's site. No thanks.

[Mass]

64. So they should have been vetted before.

They did not write these things AFTER they were hired by Edwards. And this was not some hidden activities. They wrote that on their blogs, and while IMHO, it is not a big deal, it rises the question of why were there hired if their philosophy was not compatible with Edwards's.

[pnwmom]

70. I think they sent in their resumes and someone took a superficial

look at their websites.

[Pithy Cherub]

86. Edwards has his organization riddled with incompetence

if that's the case. The people who did a slipshod job of vetting need to go. Edwards knew who they were BEFORE they were hired. A blogger won't get a following unless they are willing to be out there with an uncensored opinion as a blogger. Any blogger has that type of baggage. Candidate Edwards could have hired anybody which lends credence to the premise they were recruited and chosen by the web team. That makes more sense because Edwards can't compete with the fundraising dollars being thrown at Clinton and Obama here in california. We just are not that in to him. Edwards needed edgy bloggers to create blog buzz. They did not need Edwards.

Bloggers are entitled on their own time, dime and blog to write anything that is not a crime. If the public or any segment gets their knickers stuck in a wedgie over it, then reply or write their own blog. Edwards bears full responsibility as the "leader" as his team hired bloggers and there is not one worth their salt that has not gone way out on a limb on whatever issue. Edwards folded like a cheap house of cards and then fumbled by taking so long to make the decision, did not stand up (ha ha) for free speech - and if somebody is offended which is more important free speech or getting elected - with Edwards we have it confirmed - the Bill of Rights is tattered old luggage, not his map to elecability.

I may not like what everybody says, but I will defend their right to say it as long as a crime is not being committed. There is an organization out there that believes the same, ACLU.

[pnwmom]

108. Bloggers have the right to free speech, absolutely. So do the Ku Klux Klan.

They're anti-Catholic, too. Would you be defending the right of a candidate to hire one of them?

I think some DU'ers aren't seeing the issue clearly because the blogger is coming from the left. So imagine the situation turned around.

What if Guililiani hired a right-wing blogger, who had a record of insulting racial comments in her blog. Don't you think it would be stupid of Guiliani to hire this person?

But suppose he did, unaware of the blogger's track record. If Guiliani then fired the blogger, would you be saying that he should have stood up for free speech? Of course not. It's not a question of free speech -- the blogger was entitled to spew his venom -- it's a question of hiring the best person for the job. And anyone with that record should not be in the position of communicating for the campaign.

Bloggers have the right to free speech, without question. But they don't have the automoatic right to work for Presidential campaigns. That is determined by the candidates, based on their qualifications. And one of their qualifications will be the content of their archives.

If a blogger wants to keep open the door to political work, especially in communications, then s/he does have to watch his web trail. Otherwise, a candidate is better off hiring someone with no background than someone who is going to alienate a quarter of the voters.

[karynnj]

90. I had agreed with this until I read the things she posted

The problem is that what she posted is truely outrageous to me - and I am not Christian. She was in a prominent enough position in the communication part of the campaign that her comments (old and on a private board, though they were) could hurt the candidate.

In 1992, a prominent person on GHWB's staff was fired due to Nazi type comments. My memory is vague on this 15 yrs later, but he was fired because he reflected badly on Bush. I don't remember the comments, so they may have been substantially worse.

There is free speech, but if you say rude things, there are consequences. I feel sorry for her - but I would feel worse if Edwards kept her and won the nomination and this blew up again. Firing her then would not help as she would have been on his staff for over a year since these comments were known.

[pnwmom]

113. Great post, karynnj. Thanks for speaking up as a non-Christian.

I don't know why so many people here seem so obtuse on this issue, when they wouldn't be if the blogger were coming from the far right wing and making, as you say, pro-Nazi comments.

Why are so many people here blind to (or tolerant of) Catholic bashing?

[agincourt]

57. Yawn nt

[Adelante]

60. Has there been a statement from Edwards?

When I went to bed last night, Count, the Salon report had not been confirmed.

[The Count]

78. The article quoted in the OP says "confirmed". I got it at "digg"

[Adelante]

81. That Salon piece is from yesterday afternoon

The Edwards campaign hasn't confirmed it to my knowledge. Waiting.

[Adelante]

96. Edwards statement is here, Count

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x157004

[Mass]

63. My only question here: why did he hire them?

They did not write these lines during the last few days, since he hire them, and at the same time, this is not something they wrote as a thesis paper ten years ago.

These things are less than one year old and were perfectly accessible to whoever vetted these bloggers.

While I do not know if they were actually fired or not, what strikes me there is that nothing changed between the day he hire them and today. So, either these two bloggers are fine and firing them would be caving to the fireright, or somebody screwed up by hiring them as twp people who were not compatible with the campaign spirit. People screw up. This happens.

I would be curious to know which it is.

[The Count]

79. Cuz he's just THAT hip with the internets and all that...

They probably served him well when he could answer to all the house, attack Iran things quickly enough...

[The Count]

71. This is the blog of one of them - been a reader before this incident

http://pandagon.net/author/administrator/

[Auntie Bush]

80. If Edwards ever becomes president....I hope he has more discerning

sense and better judgment when he chooses his running mate and cabinet members. As it stands now I don't trust his judgment and I don't like his caving in to Donahue...I just wish he hadn't hired them in the first place! Big mistake! What to do now? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't!

[KingofNewOrleans]

98. Duh

You think running mates and cabinet members will be held to higher standard than people hired to run a blog?

Don't see how he caved in to Donahue anyway.

[robcon]

84. I think this was inevitable.

The bloggers used hate speech. That's fine for a blog, and I'm not at all troubled by a blog using hate speech. You can click away from the blogger's page if you're offended.

A presidential candidate should avoid hate speech, and should not hire those who use hate speech against other groups.

[madfloridian]

93. No, he didn't...Email from Edwards

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/8/12441/88455

[robcon]

95. Big mistake by Edwards, IMO.

A campaign is full of symbolism. This is a symbol of hate and intolerance that Edwards had an opportunity to separate from.

[McCamy Taylor]

101. Threads like these do John McCain's work for him. Next time think first.

The same thing happened when Edwards spoke to an Israeli conference and IsraeliInsider rewrote his speech and claimed that he said he was ready to bomb Iran to stop it from getting nukes. Somebody (imo people working for John McCain) spread that story all over the left wing bloggo-sphere and suddenly people who should have known better thought that this was the gospel truth. Even though it went against everything that Edwards had ever said before. How many people who went ballistic during that "crisis" even know that he has discussed his Iran policy in depth on several occassions since then and that bombing Iran is not on the list?

John McCain is Richard Nixon. John Edwards is Musky. Or, for those of you who are younger, McCain is Bush and Edwards is Gore. And this time "Gore is a liar" is "Edwards is a phoney". Remember that and remember that at least half the people posting on the internet about the candidates are being paid to do so, and everything will be a lot clearer.

[FrenchieCat]

106. I think you are attempting to merge two separate issue and make

John Edwards the victim.

I'm keeping them separate.

Edwards said what he said about Iran.

Edwards did what he did about the bloggers.

You can mush them together if you think it helps you make a case,

But I'm not buying into the "It's McCain" telling me how to think.

In fact, you are being a bit disrespectful to liberal bloggers, as you are saying that McCain is leading them by the nose. You should be a bit more understanding that not everyone is for Edwards in everything he does. I got my news about Edwards being part of that conference, not from John McCain. I read John Edwards' speech myself. I didn't need McCain to steer me to it. You are overplaying this McCain thing just like some bloggers overplayed Edwards' house.

If you'd have it your way, we would just dispense of the primaries, and just make Edwards the nominee. It doesn't work that way, and currently he is garneting about 10-13% in national polls...which should give you a hint that there's more to a candidate than just one issue. There are various (some they are right on, some they are not) issues that make up an overall candidate, and progressives are not just gonna buy everything Edwards is selling simply because somehow everything negative that comes out about John Edwards is Right Wing Fueled.

I understand your point...and I know I made mine last night in saying that Edwards actually has and will probably continue to garnet quite a bit of good press. He's blessed in that way, and you should be grateful. Cause things could be more worse.

Also, Edwards has opposition within this party, if you haven't noticed. There are actually other candidates running against him within the Democratic party. So don't think that everything that you will see from this point on is coming from the McCain camp. McCain has his own primaries to worry about.....I don't think that somehow his energy and focus is on what happens to Edwards in the Dem Primary. It is flattering to give Edwards that kind of credit as a "threat" to McCain....but I'm not so sure that it is as you claim.

[venable]

103. BREAKING: COUNT WRONG (they were not fired)

but nice try (smear).

[The Magistrate]

114. Locking

This rumor has turned out to be false.