If this is true, Edwards is toast.

[americanstranger]

Salon is reporting that the Edwards campaign has caved in to Rightard pressure and fired Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan from jobs they were hired for last week.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/02/07/edwards_bloggers/index.html

If this is true (the story is vague, and Edwards' spokeswoman mutters something about them not actually being fired but they may be re-hired (???)), then Edwards may as well get out of the race today.

If he lets the Catholic League dictate who works for his campaign, how's he going to stand up to a bruising primary and the mud-slinging of a general presidential election.

I really thought he had more guts than this. I really did.

- as

[villager]

1. we really need a candidate who isn't chickenshit -- is there even one?

n/t

[Lerkfish]

3. I nominate Conyers

:)

[LSK]

21. DENNIS KUCINICH

DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH DENNIS KUCINICH

[BuyingThyme]

26. HCINICUK SINNED

[TahitiNut]

28. Kucinich sure represents MY positions on the issues - he's excellent

It's tragic that people who agree most with him give up without even trying. (sigh)

[Pawel K]

58. I would love for him to be president but I have to face the real world

with the way the media has treated him he doesn't stand a chance to win the primary let alone win a national election. If you have something in mind that we can do let me know, I'll try my best to help out.

[PreacherCasey]

I keep copies of his 12 point plan for Iraq and pass them out when I hear

people talking about the war. Write LsTTE, volunteer to answer phones, write the media outlets demanding attention regarding his 12 point plan/co-sponsored UHC bill/fairness doctrine debate, call your local TV and radio stations and voice your concerns.

I think if he gets the nomination, he will galvanize Democrats and bring in a ton of Independents because of his documented foresight regarding Iraq, as well as his proficiency in debate.

On edit: Oh, and one more thing, don't give up the fight before you begin! Cheers. :toast:

[eridani]

86. Caucus states exist in the real world

If you live in one, a lot of Kucinich delegates could be a major force at a brokered convention. What do we ask them for in return for our support? Universal health care? Fair trade? Seriously working on stopping nuclear proliferation? Think strategically here.

[DemBones DemBones]

89. Excellent points. And we should not give up

on Kucinich just because the media want to marginalize him. They marginalized Gore and Kerry and stuck us with *.

[WilliamPitt]

116. What do you believe the chances are of a brokered convention?

I ask because I have absolutely refused to plug into this election yet, because the last one ended something like twelve minutes ago, and I'm just not ready.

Is there some set of circumstances that indicates a brokered convention is possible? I ask because, these days and for the last thirty years or so, they are rare as hen's teeth.

Have you seen the list of states having primaries on the front-loaded Super Duper Tuesday primary? I swear to God, one third of the country, including California, is holding primaries on the same day, and several other states are trying to get in on the action. The deal could literally go down on that one day.

That having been said, your caucus strategy is a wise one, whether or not a brokered convention is possible. I have this little tickle in my brain that says Dennis may throw some serious weight this time around. No other candidate in this race voted properly in October 2002 save him, and the ones who were against the war weren't in there to cast a vote. No insult to them, as their words speak for themselves, but actually casting the vote (and bringing 100+ Reps along) will carry some weight.

The debates, simply put, should be fun.

[Greyhound]

128. It all comes down to whether or not he can get out of the box that the

Party Elite have him in. As you implied, he is the only candidate that has been right all along and has displayed the courage of his convictions to challenge the status quo.

The highest hurdle is that he is no friend to the huge donors and their corporate masters, and they will engage in all the dirty tricks they know to kill his candidacy (and some would say him) if he appears to garner significant support.

[WilliamPitt]

134. If he's interested in free advice,

mine would be to fly under the radar for a while, maybe even until April and the edge of that first debate. Let the others smear and smash each other, let the public grow weary of them, while Dennis does fundraising and assembles a crackerjack staff with a solid national plan.

Let the debate be his coming-out party. If he says nothing beforehand, they can't box him in.

The most dangerous thing in the world is a patient man/woman.

:toast:

[helderheid]

159. Think he has a chance this time, Will?

[eridani]

146. We have a lot of strong contenders this time

The front-loaded primaries may not be conclusive. There is no Republican heir-apparent, reducing pressure on the Dems to use the pick a likely winner really fast strategy.

Having participated heavily in the 2004 Kucinich campaign, I'm not as naive as I was back then, when I thought it might be possible to extend the way he wins locally (not a lot of money, lots of personal contact and doorbelling) nationwide. In about a year. With about 10 million. With mostly volunteer(and when paid, not very experienced) staff. Easy now to look back and say "Yeah, right."

I'm envisioning something more stripped down and efficient this time. Last time we spent a great deal of time on general outreach which was probably wasted, and I could kick myself for not getting to specifics (Name, Address, Legislative District, Congressional District, County, Precinct and a pledge to caucus for Kucinich) with actual potential supporters quickly enough. Eyes on the prize, which is committed caucus attendees. Look for them in the issue groups and local Dem organizations where they are mostly going to be found. Don't waste time looking for your socks in the freezer compartment. Get a good data base going and nail down levels of commitment--

1. I'll go to my caucus--just tell me where it is a month ahead of time and don't bug me again until then.
2. I'm interested in fundraisers and major events, but don't go overboard on contact occurences.
3. I'll actively recruit other caucus goers.
4. I'll be an LC, CD or County coordinator.

I tell people who don't think he can win to stand up for what they want on the first round, so that whoever the candidate is, s/he will be force to rely on our faction for support. I've already ripped off my caucus speech intro from Jay Leno. "You can't say that Democrats aren't into diversity. In our presidential race we have a black, a woman, a Hispanic and a hobbit. I'm speaking for the hobbit faction."

[sendero]

150. Better that the deal go down on that one day..

... than to have the deal sealed by a single state like Kansas or NH.

[John Q. Citizen]

169. This is the most wide open field since the 20's according to Time (big deal)

but the point is this;

We have a lot of candidates who are going to be splitting up a lot of the status quo votes; And we have one true dyed in the wool progressive in the race so far.

Just for the sake of argument, suppose the big money and the status quo appeal attracts 60% of the Dem primary voters which are then split between 5 or so candidates, and the 40% of the progressive votes go to Dennis?

This would put Dennis in a pretty good position to hold some real sway at the convention.

Also, to add to your point, Dennis is the only candidate to vote against the war AND he also is the only candidate who voted against funding the war.

And Dennis is the only candidate with a single payer fee for service universal health care bill in front of the House.

I agree, I also think Dennis may throw some weight this time.

Of course should Gore enter the race, that would change the equation dramatically.

[nealmhughes]

172. Must confess Will, I remain uncommitted at the moment as well.

Dennis certainly has the "moral" vote tied up, Clark the pragmatic and Edwards the "populist", Clinton the "New Democrat", etc.

Right now I read all my daily filled inbox stuffings from everyone save Mrs. Clinton (she must have me on the "angry Progressive list" ever since I called her out on Feinstein-Leahy and her hold up of Ryan White funding), and continue to be amazed: who in the world shall I support come primary time?

I wish to God a "National Salvation Front" or some other group would come forward and offer themselves for 2/4/6 years dedicated to only a few goals: the restoration of democratic institutions in the US, an end to corporate coddling and international meddling, put us on austerity defense budget and get serious about health care, just wages, fair trade, and the destruction of the North American industrial base north of the Rio Bravo/Grande.

But as long as candidates are afraid of their large donors and being called names, this won't happen. Look at what does happen when people don't play politics: Dennis is considered a kook and Clark a third rate former military man by the press, Edwards is accused of formenting class warfare, etc. Therefore the press anoints Mrs. Clinton who claims to be all for all, and in her mediocrity and fence straddling achieves little as a senator.

I'm sorry, but one has to get off the fence in order to get on the pot...

[PreacherCasey]

76. Same here. His is the only campaign to which I've donated.

And I tell anyone who will listen about his positions. I refuse to write him off.

[Greyhound]

125. Ms. Greyhound and I are trying to get our act organized enough to

work for his campaign here. If he isn't allowed, by the powers that be, to mount a serious challenge, I'm supporting Clark and I'm not sure who Ms. Greyhound's second choice is.

[maggiegault]

168. I'm Starting To Wonder

And I also wonder WHY these so-called "candidates" give so much credence to anything that a JesusFreak says, anyway.

Religious zealots are NOT in the majority, and sane people will always prevail.

To kow-tow to their ridiculous voodoo is to give it legitimacy. Let religious zealotry go back to where it belongs.

[Lex]

2. I'm starting to enjoy the once-per-week "Edwards is toast" threads.

Collect them all.

[BayCityProgressive]

6. I can't read it

please tell me he didn't fire them for being gay.

[americanstranger]

11. No, because that crank from the Catholic League

called them 'bigots.' And they used dirty words on their blogs.

- as

[americanstranger]

7. Hey, I was defending him over The House.

But, geez Louise, stand by the people you hire.

It's only right.

-as

[Beaverhausen]

83. If they do something detrimental to your campaign, why not fire them?

Do you honestly believe what you wrote?

[Bjorn Against]

93. The question is though what did they do that was detrimental?

Standing up for gay rights should not be an offense that gets you fired even if you do piss off a few bigots.

[americanstranger]

99. What I wrote? Yep.

First off, if someone's going to hire a blogger in the first place, at least vet the candidate for the job. Marcotte has a long history of riling people up, and an anti-religious bent. If they even suspected this was an issue, Marcotte never should have been hired. It indicates to me that they went for hiring someone without looking at the totality of what she posted on Pandagon.

But the operative phrase there is 'on Pandagon.' She did not write what she wrote while employed by the Edwards campaign. She wrote most of it years before.

But if you're going to hire someone because they're a 'cutting edge feminist blogger,' at least have the guts to hang with her if it turns out she's a little too 'cutting edge.'

- as

[ronnykmarshall]

18. He has a long way to catch up.

The daily "Hillery will be the death of us all" threads are still steaming up the charts!

[ShaneGR]

54. Ya, most of them really make me laugh....

OMGZ, Edward fired two staffers who were using foul language on the internets!!!!! HE'S TOAST!!!!

[americanstranger]

87. Take away the Netroots money, and tell me that doesn't damage his campaign.

Bowers on MyDD (a major netroots fundraiser) says this:

I also wish to make something else clear. While there is no way I will support Edwards with Amanda and Melissa are fired, I will immediately become a staunch Edwards supporter if they are not fired.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/7/172951/3053

That's a pretty big deal, if you ask me.

- as

[Leopolds Ghost]

176. How is some jackass major fundraiser constute "grassroots" merely because he is on the "net"? n/t

[LittleClarkie]

73. I prefer him lightly grilled myself

Diet, doncha know.

[rinsd]

88. Just a dash of lemon goes a long way

:hi:

[ContraBass Black]

131. He's been toast almost as many times as Bush and Cheney.

[izzybeans]

4. They better get some backbone if they want to play in the netroots.

Wingnuts are ready to smear anyone involved.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

142. It's worth noting that choosing not to do so is a perfectly viable strategy, though.

The netroots are far less influential and representative than they like to think, and most of them can be relied on to vote Democratic come what may, and it's an entirely viable strategy in both the primaries and the election itself not to specifically court their votes and to rely on other sections of the electorate instead.

[izzybeans]

148. He seems to be courting to it, though. I think we agree in a way.

I think he doesn't need to court to it, however he is and now he's twisting himself in knots.

[Leopolds Ghost]

177. When did netroots become all about bashing religion? How are their views crucial to the netroots?

Or are prominent, high-circulation bloggers with good jobs and good salary entitled to stay on a political campaign while us working schobs aren't even eligible to be hired because we "aren't familiar with the issues"?

Who gives a shit what the Catholic Church in Rome position is on feminist issues? Edwards isn't running for Bishop. He should either say he disagrees with religion-bashing and ignore the issue, or not hire religion bashers just because they are "netroots" (translation: part of a clique of upper-middle-class bloggers whose ideas are not as important as the number of hits they get or the amount of money they are capable of raising). It is not the job of US officials to tell the Catholic Church what their position should be on domestic issues, any more than it is the job of US officials to condemn Shi'ite clerics in Iran and threaten to invade them to restore civil liberties to Iranian citizens.

[izzybeans]

182. He didn't tell the Catholic Church anything.

I haven't read what these bloggers said. I merely suggested "why be unprepared?"

[emulatorloo]

5. story is vague, as you say, so who knows? Why so quick to believe the worst? EOM

[americanstranger]

10. Well, that's why I said 'IF.'

He's got one chance to make this right. His spokeswoman has already waffled quite a bit on this. In the NYT, she was quoted as saying they were 'weighing the fate' of Amanda and Shakes.

If he comes out swinging and defnds them, I will post that I was wrong and apolgize. But his mouthpiece isn't giving me much to be ecouraged about, honestly.

- as

[Lex]

12. Honestly, it sounds like all the facts aren't in or the whole matter

hasn't been resolved by his camp yet.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I'm confused at this point.

Salon story says they were fired, another one (don't have the link) says they were re-hired, and the Edwards spokepeople say dont' say they were fired or rehired just yet. :shrug:

More Instability
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/7/101919/8338

[karlrschneider]

9. Don't know if the firing is true...Wolf was talking about it a bit ago

had that insane fuckwit Fr. Donahue on bitching about them...
:eyes:

[BayCityProgressive]

14. is this all about the gay

campaign workers? If so this will really set me over the edge on Edwards after his comments on gay marriage.

[karlrschneider]

I think it had more to do with abortion but I wasn't paying close attn.

...sorry
edit: rewound the TIVO, Donahue says they're anti-catholic bigots. He totally missed sarcasm in some things they blogged.

[DemBones DemBones]

35. Bill Donohue is not a priest, nor is he "an insane fuckwit."

He is an outspoken Irish Catholic who is fed up with Catholic bashing, as are most of us Catholics. I

f those bloggers had insulted Muslims or Jews, you'd be calling for their dismissal, if not their imprisonment.

[hedgehog]

48. If I may paraphase you, he may be an insane fuckwit, but he's our

insane fuckwit. He may see Catholic bashing everywhere, but this time he got it right.

[DemBones DemBones]

78. I don't think he's an insane fuckwit at all. He is

quite aggressive, but no more so than Abe Foxman, the defender against anti-Jewish insults.

If Donohue sees Catholic bashing everywhere, Foxman sees Jew bashing everywhere. I think it's because they've devoted themselves to trying to protect the faiths they love from insult.

[mondo joe]

127. Oh he certainly is an insane fuckwit.

:-)

[Eric J in MN]

149. Neither of those bloggers is against Catholics.

Amanda Marcotte doesn't believe in the Immaculate Conception. Neither did Thomas Jefferson.

[hedgehog]

160. Can someone find the actual blog regarding the Immaculate Conception?

I doubt that the Dalia Lama believes in the Immaculate Conception, but I suspect he and the bloggers in question would address the subject in different ways!

[Eric J in MN]

183. Here is a link to Amanda Marcotte's post.

(Someone pointed out that that the Immaculate Conception actually refers to the idea that Mary was born without Original Sin, not to Jesus being conceived without sex.)

http://pandagon.net/2006/06/14/pandagon-goes-undercover-the-lazy-way-on-a-catholic-anti-contraception-seminar-pt-ii

"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.

Remember, the purpose of going over this FAQ sheet point by point is that this is not fringe opinion, this is mainstream Catholic teaching. When we left off, the sheet was going over some tedious and ill-argued theological arguments against birth control. Now we’re at the part that really upset my friend—the part where the actual lies and misdirection come out."

[me b zola]

50. Someone should fire the rw bigot Donahue...

...in a rocket ship headed for mars.

[mmonk]

68. Donahue

is not a priest that I'm aware of.

[WilliamPitt]

13. Damn, DU.

I read that report on those comments by the bloggers, and I'm not sold on the idea that using respectful language towards *any* religion is somehow an unduly burdensome expectation for people putting out copy under the banner of a campaign.

Imagine if the bloggers had used vulgar language to describe a Jewish religious tenet, or a Muslim religious tenet, or a Hindu religious tenet. We wouldn't even begin to start having any kind of "Edwards is a wimp" conversation. The idiots who chose to insult a religion under the banner of a presidential campaign would be gone, bag and baggage.

Also, Edwards wants to win the Michigan primary, the Massachusetts primary, and several other primaries where the Catholic vote is pivotal. He's running for president, and these kinds of considerations matter. If anyone here sees this tactical view as "knuckling under," I don't really know what to tell you.

I read here, from time to time, claims that some DUers go out of their way to gin up resentment and anger towards candidates they don't support, doing so with rather silly and stretched premises. In my opinion, outrage at Edwards over the dismissal of these bloggers certainly qualifies.

[americanstranger]

19. But Will, they didn't do it under any banner

but their own. And I'll exclude Melissa - I know that Marcotte has got issues with Catholicism, but I'm not sure is I've ever read anything by Shakes like that.

And I'll say it once more - I was defending Edwards during the House dust-up. To accuse me of 'not supporting' Edwards (and for what? he hasn't won a goddamned primary yet!) is painting with a broad brush.

- as

[WilliamPitt]

24. They were employees of the campaign

Perr the CNN link below:

"Two bloggers hired recently by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards were criticized Tuesday by a Catholic group for posts they had written elsewhere on the Internet."

You stand by your employees, sure, but if they fuck up and threaten to Biden your campaign (and yes, I'm laying claim to the transformation of "Biden" into a verb, defined as "Firing torpedoes into your own campaign"), they get fired.

And, um, where, pray tell, do I allege and/or accuse you of supporting or not supporting anything or anyone?

Just curious.

[americanstranger]

38. I read what you posted.

And, um, where, pray tell, do I allege and/or accuse you of supporting or not supporting anything or anyone?

Just curious.

This was in your response to my post:

I read here, from time to time, claims that some DUers go out of their way to gin up resentment and anger towards candidates they don't support, doing so with rather silly and stretched premises. In my opinion, outrage at Edwards over the dismissal of these bloggers certainly qualifies.

I'm assuming that since it was a response to my post, and that I expressed 'outrage at Edwards over the dismissal of these bloggers,' and you stated that 'some DUers go out of their way to gin up anger and resentment toward candidates they don't support,' and since you concluded that my outrage 'certainly qualifies' as an example of ginned-up outrage, that you think I don't support Edwards.

Or maybe I just mis-read what you really meant.

- as

[WilliamPitt]

47. I see your point

and apologize. I actually was not in any way aiming those comments at you specifically, but it's pretty clear that they seem directed at you. My intent was to highlight a broader phenomenon involving lots of people supporting and/or attacking lots of candidates.

I'll be honest: I don't get the outrage here. I can't fathom any campaign, in any party, under any circumstances, allowing even a hint of any sort of religious animosity to be printed under their campaign banner. This is 2+2 stuff. When I was writing press releases and web content for Kucinich, we went over that content with a mass spectrometer to make sure our own opinions and feelings were not supplanting, in print, those of the candidate.

A campaign worker's opinions don't matter, except in strategy meetings. The thoughts, beliefs, policy ideas, hopes, dreams and aspirations of the candidate are all that matter in a campaign. Period, end of file. Bumping the candidate's stance and replacing it with your own is instant pink-slip stuff.

[americanstranger]

59. Apology accepted and points taken.

But for the life of me, Will, I can't understand why they didn't get a tighter grip on controlling this story days ago. They knew it was coming.

Maybe he'll come out swinging - Donohue (and his research partner on this whole blog thing, Michelle Malkin) have quite a bit to answer for in the religious intolerance department themselves.

I really hope if he has to let these women go, he at least takes the opportunity to take down some heavy-hatin' Right Wingers in the process.

-as

[WilliamPitt]

62. One of the things we in the DU Universe sometimes lose sight of

is the simple fact that almost everyone else in the country couldn't give less of a damn about these campaigns right now. It's a freakin' year before the first primary. Only junkies like us are plugged in to this level of detailed analysis.

Because of this, I think you'll see a lot of campaigns ignore internet-based stuff like this during these early months. Remember the YouTube vid last week of Clinton botching the anthem? That tried to become a thing, the campaign ignored it, and it eventually withered away.

The speed of news these days can serve a campaign as much as it can hurt it. If something like this comes up, hold your breath and your tongue for 48 hours, and it'll be gone. Comment on it, however, and you give it legs for another day.

[madfloridian]

77. What do you stand for, Will Pitt.

.

[DemBones DemBones]

90. What do you stand for, mf? nt

[madfloridian]

92. Nothing, I guess.

:shrug:

[DemBones DemBones]

106. I wouldn't support people insulting your religion.

Knowing that you're Christian, I wonder why you don't object to "Christofascist." If you rationalize that they're only talking about fundamentalist Christian extremists, consider how that sort of language inevitably spreads to include others. It's like tolerating the use of certain words (which are not allowed on DU) to describe women. If women tolerate that language being applied to some women, they can expect to have it be applied to them eventually.

[madfloridian]

115. I left my church because of the extremists.

I am seeing them controlling our candidates now. I detest it .

[DemBones DemBones]

139. I remembered that you had left the SBC and why.

I used to teach at an SBC college back before Jimmy Carter left the SBC, remember when Jerry Vines (who once pastored a church here) got power, remember when they said women were no longer to preach. One local church withdrew from the SBC so they could keep both their pastors, a married couple.

I thought you had found another church where you were happier and I was referring to that.

I'll defend any religion against unfair criticism and insults.

[WilliamPitt]

98. A whole hell of a lot more than will fit in this post

But thanks.

[LoZoccolo]

81. I think what you write relates back to what I see as a huge failure of the Dean campaign...

...(which I was a part of), and that was what you say about supplanting the candidate's opinions. People were given a lot of leeway to participate, and it ended up that they would co-opt Dean's run to mean whatever they wanted to project, skillfully or not. I can remember when I first realized that that was happening, long before the scream or the comment about the media or any of that - it was about October 2003, when we were tasked with writing personal campaign letters to people in Iowa; people were putting all sorts of things in there. I remember one guy saying, after he described some poem he'd written in his letter, "why not?"

[madfloridian]

95. Will it will be top down from now on. Happy?

.

[LoZoccolo]

108. It should be, right?

You are there to get the one person elected. Therefore, you should not represent that one person as being someone who they are not, or standing for something which they do not.

[madfloridian]

113. Oh, yes, everything should always be top down...total control from top.

Oh, yes.

[LoZoccolo]

114. Did I say "everything"?

How many times have you resorted to the tactic of taking what I say, and making it mean something completely different? Do you really want to discuss things? In a way in which you are credible enough to change my mind? Do you think I don't notice when you do this?

[madfloridian]

117. I am not trying to change your mind. I don't care.

I am seeing what is happening at DU, and it is just like before. It is a tragic. Look what DU did to Kerry recently, look what they are doing to Edwards. It is planned, and I hate it.

[LoZoccolo]

118. I can see that you are not trying to change my mind.

And I seem to be in the minority here who are defending Edwards, so I am curious what this plan is.

[AngryOldDem]

157. If I am a candidate...

...I want the people who are working for me to honestly and accurately represent my campaign, and also my positions. The last thing I think any candidate needs (or wants) to do is to go around and do damage control on behalf of staff.

Yes...there HAS to be some top-down control.

[AngryOldDem]

156. That is a very good point

I spent one evening at a Dean meet-up doing just that, prior to the Iowa caucus. We were told, basically, to write whatever we wanted. A clever tactic, to be sure, but also a dangerous one, considering.

You have to stick with some kind of script, and that script has to adhere to basic principles of the candidate and his or her campaign, as Will Pitt has said.

[madfloridian]

75. They wrote in on their own blogs before Edwards hired them.

Some people here change colors a lot.

[WilliamPitt]

102. I'm just learning this

And yeah, to a degree that changes things...but not so much, in the end. If you're hosting a work party in your home, you clean the place up. If your blog is going to work for a candidate and a campaign, you make sure nothing on there steals, disrupts or supplants the policies and ideas of the campaign that hired you.

madfloridian, I haven't seen you post here in a while. Maybe I've missed something, but you seem to be more angry now than I've seen you in a long while.. I'm not sure if this is the "Campaign-Mode" you, or if something rough is happening with you personally, but I'm sorry to see it. I hope all is well with you. We have disagreed wildly many times, but I have enormous respect for your passion, dedication and loyalty. If you wind up working for a campaign this time around, you will be an incredibly valuable asset.

[madfloridian]

112. Don't start that angry madfloridian crap with me.

I remember when this started in 03, and I see it happening all over again with Edwards attacks. I don't have a choice yet, but I have seen this bunch here destroy Kerry and start in on Edwards. It ain't pretty. People here in 03 were in on it while pretending not to be. I have grown a tough hide, but it is not anger. It is realization of double crosses and anything goes....and we have lost our country.

If you don't think what is happening at DU today is planned, then you are not paying attention.

And if you are not angry about the religious right's tactics, you should be. They are starting up again in our area, and they are not very nice about getting their way. If you are saying Edwards should pander to them, you need to rethink.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1034

Hubby and I left our church, and I will never set foot in one again. He has started occasionally attending a UU church, but I haven't. The church my father helped start with love and caring has become a hateful thing with its bigotry. I am glad he and mom are not alive to see it.

And I doubt we will ever work in any campaign again. We are still active in DFA, but no candidates as far as being active. It does no good. The power of money is too great.

[WilliamPitt]

121. Heh.

I certainly won't.

If I may, I'd like to offer you a nickel's worth of free advice, which you should feel likewise free to toss into the gutter if you wish. I would never deign to attempt instructing you in politics or campaigns or anything so obnoxiously patronizing, because you know the score as well or better than anyone here.

The advice: you may want to consider taking your intensity level down a gear or two, not because of any concern over ruffled feelings or flame wars or whatever, but for the long-term maintenance of your personal well-being.

We are, by my rough calculations, approximately five hundred billion years away from the first primary vote being cast, from Super Tuesday, from the moment when the majority of voters plug in, and we are somewhere around nine hundred billion trillion years away from the general election. We have a long, long loooooooooong road ahead of us, and we are going to need as much passion for the final push as we do for the starting rush and the middle grind.

You are fired up, ready to go, and by God we had all better be as well...but if you keep the needle in the red, the engine will melt, and the transmission will blow through the hood before the whole road has been traveled.

I'm not saying relax or stop or be quiet or anything. If I did, you'd destroy me, and rightly so.

I just know, for a stone fact, that the cause we all believe in and fight for is going to need your strength and passion and dedication and wisdom, most especially when we are down on the one yard line on the far side of this field with half a second left on the clock.

Like I said, feel free to slap this aside. You know your own strengths better than I or anyone else. Just make sure to keep some coolant in the trunk, just in case.

Cheers, ma'am. Best to you.

[madfloridian]

126. You did this in 03....people caught on.

That condescending talk you give me...like lecturing a child.

I am wondering just how far you want Edward and others to go to please those who are not of "DU mentality."

I gave the church my life, and I still was not good enough or worthy enough. They said I was unpatriotic for not supporting the war. No one is worthy...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1034
Watch the movie, get back to me.

If you want Edwards to pander, that is your right. But I don't. I will support him most likely if he doesn't give in. Otherwise...

Please don't lecture me.

[WilliamPitt]

130. I did not intend to

and I sincerely apologize if you feel that I did.

Seems best if I avoid contact with you, yes? I appear to have a talent for pissing you off.

Be well. P.S. I haven't come within a country mile of picking a candidate yet, and have every intention of laying back for a while before I do. Ergo, and in full honesty, whatever Machiaivelian sub-rosa tactical-distracto mind game you think I'm running is a chimera. You're seeing something that isn't there.

Be well.

[mzmolly]

167. They represent Edwards Campaign once they become employed by him.

If nothing else, they should be terminated for ignorance.

[Lex]

20. Good points, Will.

nt

[karlrschneider]

25. They supposedly wrote their comments some time ago.

Any link to the actual text? One of them allegedly called Chimp supporters 'christofascists'...a word I certainly agree with.

[BuyingThyme]

30. That's the way I understood the story.

[WilliamPitt]

32. From what I read earlier,

a lot of the anger comes from comments they wrote that allegedly describe the immaculate conception in vulgar terms. I say "allegedly" because none of the reports I've seen reprinted the actual comments.

Hey, when it comes to religion, people can do, say and think whatever they please. But when you are working for a campaign, you need to show more sense and restraint. What these bloggers did, basically, was replace Edwards' ideas on Catholocism for their own personal feelings. I'm pretty sure that wasn't on their job description.

[americanstranger]

42. I think one of them is getting a raw deal.

Marcotte wrote plenty of anti-Catholic stuff. McEwan, not so much.

- as

[karlrschneider]

43. I haven't seen the actual comments either but you're right, it's politically stupid

...

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. But what is the Chronology?

You note:

"But when you are working for a campaign, you need to show more sense and restraint. What these bloggers did, basically, was replace Edwards' ideas on Catholocism for their own personal feelings."

Please someone correct me if I am wrong, really, I mean that, because I want my facts straight here, but I thought whatever comments they made about Catholicism were NOT made when they were working on a campaign. I heard those comments predated when they were hired by Edwards. If they made those comments while they were employees of Edwards 2008, then I fully agree with you. But if they made those comments as independent bloggers, and then Edwards hired them, how can anyone say that they replaced Edward's ideas on Catholicism with their own personal feelings? How can that be against the job description for a job that they didn't hold when the comments were made?

[WilliamPitt]

104. As soon as they were hired,

everything on that blog was stamped "Edwards For President," even the stuff that had been there before. They should have swept the dust bunnies out from under the couch before inviting company in. Again, pretty straightforward stuff here, in my humble o.

[Eric J in MN]

152. WilliamPitt- here is the quote.

http://pandagon.net/2006/06/14/pandagon-goes-undercover-the-lazy-way-on-a-catholic-anti-contraception-seminar-pt-ii

"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."

[DemBones DemBones]

56. How do you feel about "Islamofascists" or "Judeofascists"?

Unless you support the use of those terms, you can't logically support the use of "Christofascists."

[kestrel91316]

65. Judeofascists??? Definitely no such animal.

Jewish folks aren't trying to take over my country in order to force their religion down my throat.

For that matter, neither are Muslims.

Christian fascists..........well now there is the little problem of Dominionists and PNACers and such, who PROUDLY PROCLAIM their wish to remake the US into a medieval "Christian nation" based on Leviticus and the teachings of Paul, complete with stoning of defiant children.

The secret's out. No point in trying to keep denying it.

[DemBones DemBones]

123. A lot of Palestinians would disagree with you about that.

And a lot of Jews would tell you that Muslims want to take over their country. There is plenty of blame on both sides in the continuing Israeli-Palestinian struggles, but no need to call either side "fascists."

There are also reports from Europe and other parts of the world that some Muslim clergy are encouraging their followers to kill all infidels, meaning all who don't follow Islam. We used to hear such rhetoric from some Black Muslims like Elijah Muhammad. Our country has been attacked by Muslim extremists, unless you believe that Clinton as well as Bush lied. There are Muslims in prison for the first WTC bombing.

Still, calling extremist Muslims "Islamofascists" doesn't add to the discourse or help solve the problem. It would certainly cause more anger among Muslims if we tolerated it.

Anyone who wants to kill or oppress others is wrong and such movements shoule be exposed. But namecalling makes reasonable people suspicious of whatever else a person may say.

I've never denied that there are some Christians who want to remake this country into one ruled by ancient Jewish law. I don't support that and the vast majority of Christians don't, either, as any sensible person should know.

Americans need to be better informed about the Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists and their frightening plans, but calling them "Christofascists" is going to make many people disbelieve the facts about these cults.

[BuyingThyme]

66. I don't know. There are certainly people advocating

fascism in the name of Christ, but there really are no people doing the same in the name of Islam.

Maybe if they had the corporate backing the "Christians" have.

[DemBones DemBones]

136. No, there are some people advocating ancient Jewish law

in the name of Christ. They're not advocating fascism; check the definition of fascism. They don't have a country or even a state that they rule at present and I hope they never do.

There are also some people advocating sharia law in the name of Allah, and I don't think they necessarily lack corporate backing. At a minimum, sharia law exists now in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan. Look for it sooner or later in Iraq.

[LoZoccolo]

37. I'm with you, man. n/t

[blm]

44. That hardly describes americanstranger, though, Will. His history leans to VERY thoughtful.

And VERY supportive of Democrats in general.

[WilliamPitt]

49. See post 47

You're correct, I focused on the forest and chopped an undeserving tree.

[blm]

51. Good man - strike that - good HUMAN. ;)

.

[americanstranger]

60. Heya, blm!

Good to see you! Hope all's well.

- as

[blm]

61. Still fighting the fights - check out Plame outing thread by leveymg.....

BCCI rears its head in Plame case. It always does - but corpmedia will NOT talk about it. Hell, they're barely mentioning the Libby case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x103478

This is part1 - part2 should be on front page of GD.

[DemBones DemBones]

45. So true, Will.

If Edwards allows these people to continue working for his campaign, it will hurt him. And why should he defend them? When you find out that an employee has previously made bigoted statements, that employee becomes a liability to your organization, particularly in politics. They screwed up and they should pay for it.

And I'll reiterate: DUers would be demanding Edwards dismiss these people if they'd made such comments about Jews or Muslims.

[KoKo]

69. Do we know for sure he was "pandering to the Catholic Vote?"

:shrug:

[DemBones DemBones]

140. No. Maybe he was just doing the right thing.

What a concept!

I think Edwards is a decent guy and would do the right thing, would get rid of staffers who had made insulting comments about any group of people. I hope I'm right.

(P.S., Hi, KoKo, long time no see!) :hi:

[FourScore]

100. Ditto. n/t

[druidity33]

122. do you know

Whether or not the comments made by said bloggers were made while under the employ of Edwards or whether or not these are old quotes meant to provoke outrage at the candidate? I agree that DU has been hyper-sensitive and hyper-critical lately. I prefer the reasoned discourse method.

I certainly agree with you that it's pink-slip material here (a joke about god's jism?) if they had written it during this short period of time they have been paid by Edwards. But if these are remarks made months or years ago... well then it think maybe Edwards should have done his homework or better researched who he was hiring for the job.

Either way, i'm not bothered and i think the whole thing will blow over in a day or two anyway... but you never know what will set the Fundies afire.

[WilliamPitt]

132. I think the comments were posted pre-hire

And yeah, to a degree that changes things...but not so much, in the end. If you're hosting a work party in your home, you clean the place up. If your blog is going to work for a candidate and a campaign, you make sure nothing on there steals, disrupts or supplants the policies and ideas of the campaign that hired you.

You make super-diddly-damn sure that whatever written opinions you may have posted on a controversial topic (especially one as combustible as religion) are either fully compatible with the campaign platform, or removed entirely and buried by the crossroads at midnight, before you go public as an employee of a presidential campaign. Once you do go public, even the crap in the closet is fair game for attack. Maybe not fair, but it would have certainly been a smart move to do a bit of one-hour martinizing on any words that might Biden their employer's run.

And yeah, I am officially declaring that "Biden" is now a verb, newly defined as "A gaffe, mistake or misstatement that tends to disrupt, cripple or entirely obliterate your own campaign, said action not necessarily needing to be committed by the candidate themselves."

Copyright by me, today. :)

[smoogatz]

161. Unless they were Republicans, insulting Islam.

Or insulting secular non-believers. That's completely okay.

[mzmolly]

165. Bravo!

:toast:

[David Dunham]

15. Edwards isn't toast. He can't afford to be seen as anti-Catholic

Catholics are the largest religious group in this country and in the Democratic party. Only an idiot would have kept alleged anti-Catholic bloggers on his/her staff.

[WilliamPitt]

17. No candidate can afford that.

[Major Hogwash]

79. Bush was - the Pope even told him not to invade Iraq.

But Bush is the decider.

[WilliamPitt]

103. And in dismissing the Pope's opinion on Iraq,

Bush somehow managed to avoid denigrating the Catholic belief in the miracle that was Jesus' conception.

From the attacks on Edwards in this thread, it's amazing he was able to avoid this simple, no-big-deal pratfall.

[no_hypocrisy]

16. CNN report

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/07/edwards.bloggers.ap/index.html

[keepCAblue]

22. Michelle Malkin is one of the main accusers...

And Edwards caved to this bitch? That's pathetic.

[WilliamPitt]

39. Yeah

Or something.

:eyes:

[keepCAblue]

70. Yeah. exactly. We all know how much credibility SHE has.

[Leopolds Ghost]

179. If the same blogger had called Michelle Malkin "that bitch", should they be fired?

In an article published on their own blog, I mean.

Interesting case you just set up yourself in trying to defend the blogger in question.

After all, calling someone "that bitch" is just as insensitive towards
women as the comments made by the blogger could be construed towards religion.

[BuyingThyme]

23. William Donahue is a hardcore bigot who uses

the Catholic label to attack people.

It might not be a good idea to allow him to influence a campaign.

[karlrschneider]

27. He really is a nasty old prick and does his religion no favors.

...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Politics as usual. CYA at all costs. Feed the voters pablum if you want to win.

Pretty soon, as the candidates try to play it safe, any substance in anything they say will be as rare as honesty.

[Hekate]

31. So we believe what rightwingers &the MSM have to say about Dems without checking the facts?

It's only going to get worse from here on out, you know.

And -- not to single out the OP -- but I am getting tired of DUers posting as truth any rumor they hear about Democrats that comes from the MSM and the right wing. Flame wars erupt, names are called, grievous disappointment expressed, outrage....

Please verify before posting. Edwards isn't toast. He's not evil. He's one of us and we know him from the last campaign.

Hekate

[Lex]

36. But this is HUGH!!!111 I'm series!!!111 Edwards is screwn.

:eyes:

[americanstranger]

52. Once. Again.

I didn't say Edwards was evil. If he wins the nomination, he has my vote. I know he's on our side.

I defended him over the stupid House.

But he's letting one day of bad publicity by a Catholic whose organization doesn't even speak for all Catholics (not this one!) sway him into firing a couple of talented women.

This tells me one of two things:

Either Edwards' campaign didn't vet the people he hired well enough to be able to answer these charges. If that's the case, they better tighten up that ship pronto.

Or they'll fold in the face of right-wing bluster. You'd think that after seeing his running mate get Swift Boated, he'd have a better handle on how to respond to a Rightard attack.

Either way, that campaign has some work to do. They should have gained control of this story early on.

- as

[mmonk]

33. If one can't act professional, they really aren't an asset to a campaign.

And as a Catholic, I don't like Donahue and he is an embarrassment. But still, there's no excuse for people getting their candidate in trouble. But since I still haven't found out exactly what they said, I'll withhold judgement until I do.

[KoKo]

34. I didn't know this about Edward's Campaign...from Salon Article:

He has also come under fire in the liberal blogosphere for his statements on Iran and his campaign's failure to return the calls of supporters and press, and was embarrassed when his Web site mistakenly revealed his candidacy a day before his official announcement in New Orleans.

[goforit]

40. Your a little Harsh americanstranger.

[druidity33]

154. see post #31...

I think it clarifies well, and is less harsh than the OP. Calling him "toast" isn't so nice, but whatever. Does anyone have the actual quotes that make these 2 bloggers anti-Catholic? I'd really like to know what all the hullabaloo is about.

To be honest, i feel very strongly that the use of language (and words in particular) is an imperfect way of communicating. And what's offensive to one is not to another. Likewise, one misplaced adjective can cause a sentence to spiral downward and a paragraph to take on unintended meaning. Especially when confronted by an Academic word-dissector... or someone out to do harm to you.

Also, was this offensive phrase part of an attempt at humor? I think it's hard to limit groups of people from the realm of jokes/humor... otherwise comedians would have precious little fodder for laughs. Are there any Taboo topics for humor?

[LoZoccolo]

41. If this is true, Edwards just gained credibility with the rest of the world outside DU. n/t

[madfloridian]

53. And that is something to be ashamed of in this country.

I hope Edwards rethinks, and he probably will. But you seem ok with the religious right attacking people like that.

:puke:

[LoZoccolo]

71. That's me, Mr. Religious Right. n/t

[Rosemary2205]

72. The whole country is not either DU or Freepword.

To say all 290,900,000 people who don't belong to DU in this country are unimportant, untrustworthy - whatever - is incredibly egotistical IMHO.

[madfloridian]

80. They had their own blogs, they wrote their thoughts.

I was raised Southern Baptist BTW, so I really really really know bigotry when I see it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. And they were hired because of the blogs they independently wrote

And their blogs presumably had a strong following in the type of community that Edwards wants to outreach to because of what they wrote on their own blogs. From all that I can tell these aren't employees who screwed up after they were hired, these are edgy bloggers who Edwards wanted on his staff because of the success they had already achieved as edgy bloggers.

It bothers me that these women are being left to dangle in the wind while people debate whether or not they have been fired and whether or not they have been rehired. Whatever else may be going on, don't they deserve at the least a clean and timely up or down vote? Why is the Edwards campaign allowing confusion to continue about their current status? Spin control is one thing, but how about being clear where you stand with your own employees?

[madfloridian]

94. I want us to give him time, but if he fires them it would define him.

as caving in to the right wing. They are a dangerous bunch.

[incapsulated]

96. Excellent Point, Tom

It seems these people were hired by the campaign in order to appeal to, or understand how to appeal to, their readers. But the Edwards campaign didn't bother to find out exactly what they were writing. Now they have their names dragged through the media as the Edwards campaign lets them twist in the wind.

They didn't screw up, the Edwards campaign did, and now they are screwing them.

[hedgehog]

46. It's possible to disagree with people without insulting them.

Apparently, the bloggers' comments went way past disagreement to insult. I wasn't able to bring up the blogs referenced, but I doubt that the discussion of the Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception was done in a respectful manner.


I know that these were blogs written before they were hired, but what if Edwards had hired a notorious homophobe or racist blogger? Like it or not, but blogging is not a private communication. These women were hired for their supposed expertise in communicating via the Internet, and the record shows that they have used this expertize to mock Catholicism and Catholics. If nothing else, Edwards doesn't have time to vet every piece of material they put out in his name.


I personally disagree with the Catholic League people and think that they distort the teachings of Christ in many areas. However, in this case they have a valid criticism. Would you ignore someone for criticizing fascism just because they are a communist?

[DemBones DemBones]

63. Yes, it is, And in politics it's important not to insult any group of people.

Imagine the DU uproar if these bloggers had made anti-gay comments. Or anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Latino.

[mondo joe]

143. No, in politics it's important to insult only the right percentage of people.

[HockeyMom]

64. It wasn't what she said,

but HOW she said. It was posted by the Freepers. She used extremely vulgar language to basically say that the Catholic Church would like to keep women in a subservient position to men by banning birth control/abortion and popping out baby after baby so the church would have more donations by increasing their flock. She also made several crude remarks concerning oral sex, etc, etc. Obviously, the Catholic Church is against oral sex (intercourse = procreation). She referred that to gay marriage. Is that really any surprise? Again, the devil is in the details.

I really have no argument with her premise. It really is true. However, any responsible person could certainly have said the same, and gotten her point across, using far more "eloquent" language.

[jen4clark]

91. If that's what was said

I'd have to say I agree with her. Even through she said it before being hired by Edwards it puts him in a tough spot. One of those damned if he does, damned if he doesn't things.

[DemBones DemBones]

97. Actually, the Catholic Church is not against oral sex

between husband and wife. It's against any sexual activity between persons who are not married to each other, doesn't matter whether they're gay or straight.

Among other things, she said the Church wanted to "force women to keep popping out tithing Catholics," which is funny because Catholics very rarely tithe, as any priest could tell you.

[FastHorizon]

55. I see no problem firing them..

If they made offensive comments in the past about Catholics, shouldn't someone working for his campaign have found this out before hiring them?

[FrenchieCat]

57. Well, I'm sure that Edwards will "stand up" in the end!

I don't care for him much, but I give him points in being good at the politics end of things.

[Arugula Latte]

67. I think your title is overstating things by a huge margin.

It's a glitch in their campaign, but it's not the end by any stretch of the imagination.

[americanstranger]

82. It'll definitely affect his support on the Netroots.

Bowers at MyDD has flat-out said that if he fires them (or has fired them), MyDD will give him zero support. And people at DailyKos are saying the same thing.

That's the equivalent of throwing away money and infrastructure. It most certainly will be a major hit to his campaign.

- as

(Edited because I cannot spell today.)

[Superman Returns]

84. Kos I think has been leaning more and more

away from Edwards to Obama these past few days.

[Leopolds Ghost]

181. Read what Z Magazine has to say about Obama... of course the wealthy "net roots" fundraisers

would want to support a "Hamiltonian" social liberal with no intent on cracking down on the economic elitism in this country. I am disappointed in Obama (and Edwards)... but not surprised. It is now possible to be to the right of where Gore was in 2000 and be hailed as a progressive savior of the movement.

[Leopolds Ghost]

180. Another wealthy power-broker thinks he is "grass-roots" because he's on the net. n/t

[Beaverhausen]

101. You just convinced me to send his campaign some $$$

I am sick of this crap here on DU. Good god- we have almost 2 years of this? I don't think I can take it.

[americanstranger]

105. Hey, have at it.

You seem to think I've got a big Edwards hate on or something.

I don't. If you read other posts in this thread, I've said that if he's the nominee, he'll get my vote.

I just think his campaign is handling this whole thing horribly.

- as

[JanMichael]

107. Guts? He fired a couple of people who don't have the sense to not be tacky

on the internet, and you think he's done?

Give me a break; this will be forgotten and gone within a week.

[Adelante]

109. So why did he hire them?

Based on their blogs, no?

[JanMichael]

111. I don't have a clue why he hired them

But, I do know that garbage like this in the news early on in campaigns generally amounts to nothing.

[Adelante]

120. He hired them because they were popular bloggers

I think that's easy enough to see. If he didn't know what they blogged about, yet hired them anyway, that's his own fault. If he fires them because the right wing launched this attack, he is the tacky one. How is he going to defend America if he can't defend his own decisions?

[americanstranger]

110. But they were 'tacky' BEFORE he hired them!

If he was so concerned about them being 'tacky,' why hire them in the first place?

Or maybe he didn't vet them fully enough. Whose fault is that?

Or maybe he's scared of some Right-Wing nutjob. Whose fault is that?

- as

[JanMichael]

129. do we actually know they were tacky bloggers before he hired them?

Show me their blogs...

Chances are they WERE tacky; tactless jerks rarely just "happen..." I'll agree to that...but were they blogging about stuff that would be embarrassing to a voting bloc before this?

I would like to see it.

Edwards did the right thing here; fire any potentials hazards before the primaries. Why is this such an issue on DU?

[americanstranger]

133. If you ask me, one of them was.

Amanda Marcotte (who was hired to run the Edwards blog) took over the Pandagon blog (http://pandagon.net) when founder Jesse Taylor left to work on another campaign years ago (I forget who). If you comb the archives, you'll see that Amanda took a lot of pleasure in pushing the envelope, especially over religion.

Melissa McEwan (who was hired to do netroots outreach for the campaign) founded Shakespeare's Sister (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/), and while she's a true feminist, I can't remember her posting the same type of incendiary content that Marcotte was known for, and I've been reading her stuff for a long time.

You may be able to tell that I'm a bigger fan of McEwan than I am of Marcotte.

Two things bother me about this - one, that the Edwards campaign hired these women without looking closely at what they've posted on their own blogs; and two, that they're letting themselves be pushed around by Bill Donohue (Mr. 'Hollywood loves anal sex.' Mr. 'Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews.').

I realize that we're a long way from the first primary, but I'm looking at how Edwards handles this as a dry run for how he'll react to pressure from the Right in the future. I'm not encouraged.

His spokeswoman has waffled on this all day, the campaign is not returning phone calls or answering emails, and these two women - whose names have been published in the New York Times - are left twisting in the wind while the Edwards campaign tries to figure out how to respond.

- as

[Adelante]

135. It's the stuff they were blogging about

*before* they were hired that the right is complaining about. They are not being fired, if they're fired, for anything they did on this job. These are two employees being fired, if they're fired, because the Edwards campaign was sloppy in its hiring. It's just too bad the bloggers have no union, I guess.

[DemBones DemBones]

141. It's not just the right that opposes bashing religions and

it's disappointing that so many DUers can't see anything wrong with what these bigots said on their blogs.

I won't be able to support Edwards if he keeps these bigots in his campaign, much as I like him for his perception about the two Americas.

[Adelante]

144. It is the right, however

who led this campaign against the bloggers to get them fired.

[DemBones DemBones]

147. When the right discovers something that's unconscionable

and makes it known, they are doing what should be done. DUers are far too tolerant of bigotry directed at religion.

[Adelante]

162. Feminist bloggers criticize the Catholic Church

on reproductive rights. That is their right and even their obligation. The one woman has a style that is in your face, sometimes satirical, using raw language. I can see why it would offend some Catholics. Other Catholics will see this as a freedom of speech issue. The blogger herself is Catholic and Catholic-educated. Both bloggers are writers who have expressed their personal opinions in what is supposed to be a free society on their own individual blogs and on their own dime. Nobody is required to read it. I am not anti-religious in the least. I do object to these women being hounded out of their jobs. I do object to what is an assault on bloggers' right to free speech in a democracy. I do object to the swiftboating of John Edwards and the use of the intellectual expression of these women as right wing political propaganda. And I will object if Edwards doesn't stand up on this.

[Gloria]

119. A "Sister Souljah" moment?

[americanstranger]

124. Could be - but it's got big backfire potential.

The big bloggers are waiting to see where this lands, and while it may gain Edwards some support out in the real world, the netroots could very well abandon him over it. That's a lot of support to throw away, IMO.

- as

[Gloria]

145. Then the bloggers may be pulling a Nader very early in the game....

which may backfire on them ultimately.....

[Superman Returns]

137. Clarkie1's reaction to this story

will be interesting.

:popcorn:

[Adelante]

138. OMG

You're right :popcorn:

[sendero]

151. The mistake...

... was not in firing these folks, if the tenor of the allegations are true.

The mistake was in hiring them in the first place. Management 101, vet those you bring on to the team, the issues you can be setting yourself up for have tremendous damage potential.

As for "toast", it will probably take a bit more heat to brown Mr Edwards. But at the risk of excorciation, I'll say that he only has a few more get out of jail free cards to burn in this campaign.

[theboss]

153. Rule #1 when I run for office: no blogs or bloggers

Any politician who gets too involved with the Ebays is just asking for trouble. Someone somewhere is going to say something stupid that the candidate is going to eventually have to address. And no candidate ones to answer a question about one of his or her employees calling the Pope an asshole.

Seriously, rule #2 when I run for office: Don't call the Pope an asshole.

I've come to the conclusion that the Internets have two "benefits" in politics, and one of them is hardly a benefit. It allows you to raise a ton of money in a hurry. Two, it allows groups of people to make Dan Rather look like a traitor. That's the contribution to political discourse in this country. I think we should all be proud.

Anyway, I would like someone to explain to me what benefit a blogger has ever provided a politician. Kos was practically sitting on Dean's lap for much of 2003 and 2004. And ultimately, I think I got more votes than Dean. And I didn't even run.

My advice to Hillary!: Ban the blogs.

[Patiod]

155. Plus he has a big house, and his wife won't change lightbulbs

to those more energy efficient ones until the old ones have burnt out! Bitch!!

:crazy:

[ScreamingMeemie]

158. And here I thought it was the eating of the kitten fetus that was

going to do him in. :eyes:

I don't think he's letting the Catholic League dictate who works for his campaign, I think he's running his campaign in such a way so as not to alienate whole groups of people in the states he would need to win.

[etherealtruth]

163. Gee ... that's too sensible

If ~ 50% of all Catholics vote Democrat ... why tick them off (or turn them off)?

There are ways of criticizing the RC hierarchy's position without alienating RC voters.

This is unfortunate because Edwards' populism is in line with the RC's view on poverty and social justice.

[smoogatz]

164. What we're looking at is yet another corporate media takedown

of a Democratic candidate. This is, in fact, a non-story, based entirely on the manufactured indignation of a couple of rightwing douchebag blowhards. Edwards should tell them to ge peddle their fucking papers, and leave the grownups alone. But he didn't--he caved instantly. And to me that proves that he doesn't have a clue about how to handle the fake "scandals" that the rightwing noisemakers are paid to cobble together. Truly, the correct response is to tell them to go fuck themselves, and that the opinions expressed by his staffers on their own time are their own.

[saracat]

166. I thought that DU should have more sense than to swiftboat a DEm contender too!

Spreading this story around is just participating in an RW tactic but hey some poster is also copying fom insite mag on DU today so I guess this is expected.Sigh.The only people who get fixated on this garbage are those people on the fringe who think everything must be "ideologically pure ' at the expense of "winning'.This is what Edwards gets for trying to accomadate the far left.He was right to get rid of the bloggers.The Catholic vote is huge.And I say that as a former Catholic who has real issues with the Church.Whatever.

[americanstranger]

171. Sorry, but you're wrong on this one.

First, I don't expect any candidate to be 'ideologically pure' - it's impossible to be a major candidate without compromising your principles somewhere along the line.

Second, I wasn't 'fixated' with this. I was a little worried that he'd cave to the hate-mongering bigot Donohue, but he's proven me wrong (see my apology, which I promised yesterday if I was wrong on this, posted elsewhere on this forum).

Third, the people that the hate-mongering bigot Donohue speaks to constitute about .5% of all Catholics in this country (the Catholic League, at present, has about 275,000 members). Most Catholics I know who have even heard of this crank think he's a nut case. Most Catholics I know would put Donohue's rantings about Edwards' bloggers in the same box as his 'Hollywood likes anal sex' comment and make up their own minds. And most Catholics who belong to the Catholic League probably were'n going to vote for Edwards (or any other Dem, for that matter) anyway.

Donohue and Malkin have no business and no right to tell Edwards or any other Democrat how to run their campaign. I think Donohue was testing Edwards to see how easily he'd cave to pressure. Good on Edwards for not doing so.

As for your contention that I was 'Swift Boating' Edwards, you're a few miles off the mark. It was the bigot Donohue and Michelle Malkin who were trying to do that. I was merely expressing my concern that he might cave, on which point I was wrong. As I mentioned above, my apology is posted here on GD.

- as

[saracat]

173. I actually agree with you and your apology is spot on!

Unfortunately your orginal post did sound like sort of a "smear', but I do understand what you meant. Cheers! And great apology!

[americanstranger]

175. Thank you, saracat.

This is what DU is for, and if I couldn't admit I was wrong, I'd probably be a Bush Republican. :)

- as

[saracat]

178. tee hee hee! Never! But there are some who may have confused themselves with Bushco

and that is sad because knowing the difference,and admitting when we are wrong, is what makes us real Dems! JMHO. :toast:

[Orsino]

174. I don't think you were wrong on this one.

Had the rumor been true, I think it could have proven a possibly-fatal weakness of the candidate. I doubt we'll ever know all that occurred, but it had me worrying.

[Morgana LaFey]

170. You know, he's like a schizophrenic or someone with MPD

He does SO well part of the time (e.g., his recent appearance on MTP), and then goes and acts like a no-spine jellyfish (this, if true and as we're reading it, pandering to AIPAC, warmongering or enabling warmongers on the Iran issue).

I have utterly given up on him, and he was my favorite this time around.