Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Who is Amanda-basher Bill Donohue? | Main | Bush wants to boost funding for useless anti-drug ads »

February 08, 2007

Official statement from Edwards: Amanda and Shakes not fired!

The Edwards campaign has issued its official statement: Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan are not fired!

Statement on Campaign Bloggers
John Edwards in News
2/08/2007 at 11:36 AM EST

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

The Edwards camp showed real courage today. They stuck by their bloggers in the face of a targeting attack by right wing extremists. In so doing they demonstrated many admirable qualities that will serve them well in the months ahead: Loyalty to their own staff, responsiveness to the progressive blogosphere as a whole, and a solid understanding of how blogging works as a medium. The netroots scored a big victory today as well. The right wing blogosphere can be neutralized through coordinated action. The era of intimidation is over.

[HT: Liza Sabater.]

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00d83468278769e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Official statement from Edwards: Amanda and Shakes not fired!:

» On Edwards, Bloggers, and Religion from A Blog Around The Clock
Ah, why do I have to be so busy on a news-filled day (no, not Anna Nicole Smith)? I barely saw the computer today. I'd get home, have about 5 minutes before I have to go out again and so... [Read More]

Comments

Damn!!!

Comes out early for Tax Reform (the right kind of Tax Reform, that is), Universal Health Care and now he stands up to right wing trolls.

I'm starting to like this guy.

A followup:

"Edwards campaign fires bloggers"----Tim Grieve

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

You mean that Salon.com can be wrong???

I'm so disillusioned.

Yes, the dark night of fascism has lifted...

Still, have you read Padagon a combination of the name calling with what can be properly described as a complete ignorance of Catholic teachings. (I believe it goes beyond that, surely they are aware that said teachings have greater purpose than mere prudery or misogyny) Yet they persistently combine such claims along with pictures, epitaphs, slander, and sneer.

I dont consider this Blog in the same league, surely one can distinguish?

I think we have a term to replace "swiftboater". It's "hijacker", and I think Donohue was defined as such.

It seems to me that the Edwards campaign, by offering a bit of an apology, has made it clear that it had not read much of Amanda's material, did not know quite who they were hiring, and did not predict the right-wing response. All of which bodes poorly for the Edwards campaign.

"It seems to me that the Edwards campaign, by offering a bit of an apology, has made it clear that it had not read much of Amanda's material, did not know quite who they were hiring, and did not predict the right-wing response. All of which bodes poorly for the Edwards campaign."
Couldn't have said it better myself. This man has no chance in hell of being elected, this lack of forethought t by him or his people prove that.

Please don't ignore my email Lindsay.

Eh, it's early. This will be forgotten by all but the blogosphere, and the blogosphere may suffer if it remembers it too intently.

I was thinking that Majikthise would have much less of the same kind of problem if she were to become attached to campaign. This blog is pretty cautious and rational.

The era of intimidation is over? Well, maybe I'm ancient and cynical, but no fucking way in hell.

"The era of intimidation is over."

Lindsay, this is the first time I have strongly disagreed with something you wrote. It's only just begun, we have a long haul. They are after all of us, bloggers high and low. They "shot" at Marcotte and McEwen, but they were aiming at Kos, Bowers, Armstrong, you and every dynamic blogger, as a way of squelching our voices, gaslighting our culture and style and reducing the depth of our bench.

This was a weapon of mass disruption against the left, not a tactical shot at Edwards or the two bloggers, certainly not a grass-roots reaction from any U.S. Catholics in the pew. The war is on; gear up.

Edwards is a liar; surely you can't think that this was anything more than a lie. No one can write what those bloggers wrote and not have intended to malign another's faith. (I am not claiming here that they were wrong to do so.) So they lied to him, and he must have known it, and lied again that he believed it.

Ladies and gentlemen, another lying liar telling lies. Nothing like beginning the bullshit dump nice and early.

I'm glad Amanda and Shakes weren't fired, but I hope they were never pressured to resign. The bunker mentality at the Edwards campaign that lasted over the past couple of days because of this bullshit issue is troubling to me. Edwards may still get my vote, but it ain't a lock just because he didn't fire them. It's like giving a man credit for not beating his wife.

Skeptical, don't be ridiculous. Amanda and Shakes don't hate Catholicism, or any faith.

For example, Bill Donohue is a vicious twit who loves to tell us how Catholic he is. Holding him up to ridicule is not the same as hating Catholicism or hating all Catholics.

Lindsay is correct.

That's the way these nefarious campaigns work. Hyperbole and misrepresentation. They aren't meant to be truthful or insightful, the goal is to create urban myths, as fast as possible, before everyone has a chance to examine the situation.

Sure as I'm sitting here, Amanda and Melissa will "develop other vices" before the election. Inevitable. The Right swung and missed this time; they'll keep swinging until something hits and then come back and claim that the earlier charge was "really" valid.

The Swift Boat campaign is a prime example. Hell, they had Salon reporting that Amanda and Melissa had been fired. It's important to hit hard and fast on these things.

"Let's make the bastard deny it" --- Lyndon Johnson

I must be living in bizarro world. If one thinks that the lines of Catholic moral and social teaching have their structure and content in order to oppress women, and that the oppression of women is indeed hateful, then one will, in reason, think of Catholicism in hostile ways. And that is what is expressed in Marcotte's blog posts on Catholic teaching. Further, if one does not find it hateful, one would not use language describing a Church teaching (e.g. Christ's conception via action of the Holy Spirit) in a way that appears calculated to offend and revolt. Rejoin the reality-based community here and recognize bullshit, whether it comes from left or right.

Yes, Donohue is beneath notice.

Imagine if LBJ had a blog...

No one can write what those bloggers wrote and not have intended to malign another's faith

Speaking of bullshit, what kind of new-age psychobabble is that? Are we talking hurt feelings? Existential crises? Where is this fragile being who's faith has been shaken by a blog post?

Let's conduct an experiment for the sake of science:

You're a fucking idiot, who knows even less about faith than intolerance and hate. Here's a thought. Try flying to Belfast, walk into a pub and ask the first person you see if their faith has ever been maligned.

How does that make you feel? Any loss of confidence? Dizziness? Urge to shut the fuck up?

That's alright... sort of. The "It's not how I talk to people" part is extremely arrogant. Talking non-stop about the need to enact populist economic policies, which I'll bet a lot of money Edwards won't even try to pass, is acceptable as long as it inspires people. Making fun of Ratzinger's absurd social positions is unacceptable regardless of how many people it inspires.

Yeah, Lindsay, from what I understand, LBJ had "off the record" press sessions around the Office which would have been fascinating to attend.

When I was a kid, he was so easy to parody. He seemed like a very old man, like watching a nursing home resident play President. It was only after his death that I learned how formidable a politician he was.

The parallels between that time and today are very close. What I notice is that what would have sent people to the streets (and people definitely went to the streets then) in the Sixties is barely getting any outrage today. A very muted response given the degree of provocation.

It's almost as if we don't want to miss (insert media entertainment product here).

I personally don't like Edwards' statement. It's BS, and he's guilty of his own arrogance.

In a free, open, tolerant society, we don't have the right not to be offended, that is, we shouldn't make people shut up. Speech can be offending--though I do NOT think these two wrote something truly offensive. Yet again, anyone can be offended by anything, including hot air...

What is striking to me is that those who accused other of intolerance are themselves the worst perps. Donohue has said far worse things about "others" (he doesn't like Jews). And, Edwards is caving in. His critics will NEVER, ever vote for him.

But, when it comes to religion, usually logic goes out the window, as you can't respond rationally to an emotional reaction.

Imagine if LBJ had a blog...

LBJ was a compulsive talker who recorded a lot of his phone calls. C-Span's got a big archive of them online, and Michael Beschloss has published a couple of books with selected transcripts. They're great reading/listening.

Do not draw wrong conclusions from this affair.

Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan will be permanent millstones around the campaign of the ambulance-chaser in question.

Edwards did indeed show backbone by keeping these two on the payroll. But his ties to the two bigoted chicks will resurface time and again. And the mother lode of their statements on record will not exactly help the campaign. Not exactly good tactics, trial lawyer man.

I like blogs and I like bloggers, but this effort to try and harness them in the cause of a campaign is a mistake. Blogs are important, but are not that important. Many of the best of them are laden with incendiary statements. Its the way of the blogosphere.

Plus, the most valuable bloggers can't be harnessed, and will lose all credibility if they do.Amanda and Melissa can be expected to take a straight Democrat talking points party line, true, but they would be doing that anyway. If they now take a straight John Edwards talking point viewpoint, their status as political thinkers, such as it may exist, will be diminished.

Blogs and bloggers are important, but they're not that important. They helped generate buzz and money for the unelectable Howard Dean. Blogs may now generate buzz and money for Edwards, but, with blogs now more prominent, and with their own paper trail, they bring significant baggage as well.

Edwards played a bad hand well the other day. But these two will hurt his campaign far more than they'll help it.

Like JFK said, those who seek to ride the tiger may often wind up inside it. Do not outsmart yourself, Mr. Edwards.


Um, Sven, big fella, check the def:

malign = df. to show intense ill will toward by characterizing as evil

I don't give a fuck what someone says about Catholicism. What I think is idiotic is that some people are acting like Edwards et al. are being truthful about what these bloggers said and what they meant.

Yes, there's nothing like religion to make one emotionally irrational. That's just what I was thinking the other night as I asked for the intercession of Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Albert, Anselm.

Still, have you read Padagon a combination of the name calling with what can be properly described as a complete ignorance of Catholic teachings. (I believe it goes beyond that, surely they are aware that said teachings have greater purpose than mere prudery or misogyny) Yet they persistently combine such claims along with pictures, epitaphs, slander, and sneer.

Some people seem to be under the impression that because the Catholic Church says its teachings aren't misogynist or homophobic, claiming they actually is misogynistic or homophobic is a misunderstanding of the teaching. I was raised Catholic and went to (and still attend) very Catholic schools. I know what the teachings are and the reasons the Church uses to defend them. I know they say they aren't misogynistic or homophobic, I just don't believe them. Neither, I take it, does Amanda and good for her. Don't confuse not being persuaded by a claim with being ignorant of the claim.

As for name calling, we should take advice on religious tolerance from Donahue the same day we take lessons on civil disobedience from Ratzinger.

Claiming they actually ARE misogynistic or homophobic, rather. That'll teach me to edit.

The comments to this entry are closed.