If you need it explained to you, you need to set your course for reality and let us know when you get here.
Nice. I might steal that and use it towards other ends.
a rough-and-tumble but non-constituency-alienating blogger
Here you sound a bit too much like the consulatant from the Simpsons ... "what we're saying is be dangerous, but warm ... and edgy-cute!"
Ogged, do you know anything about Bill Donohue? If he gets to brand people as anti-Catholic half my Catholic relatives are anti-Catholic. And I still don't know what McEwan even said. Marcotte shouldn't have been hired but any democratic who is afraid of this losing them the election is simply afraid.
edgy-cute
Sounds like a winner to me. What I meant is that Republicans say totally outrageous things, but they're careful to say them either about Democrats or voters who won't consider voting Republican. You can't say even mildly offensive things about people you're courting, nevermind the kind of stuff that's said on a lot of blogs. So, though I don't know anything about Bill Donohue, I think he's not really the issue here--anyone could (and would) have brought up this stuff eventually.
What Katherine said. And I'm Catholic. Donohue & company can't be in the driver's seat. Ejecting Marcotte now won't keep them from playing this throughout the campaign.
That said, you're right about why Marcotte should never have been hired.
That's a great line. Also, Kucinich should hire Marcotte post haste.
Oh, this is rich: here's McEwan's one comment that Donohue lists on his site that was specific to the Catholic church:
"On November 21, 2006, Melissa McEwan said on AlterNet that 'some of Christianity's most prominent leaders--including the Pope--regularly speak out against gay tolerance.' "
Wow, what an anti-Catholic bigot! But that's Donohue's working definition of anti-Catholic for you.
(She also refers to Bush's 'wingnut Christofascist base'...not at all Catholic-specific and actually pretty clearly not referring to Catholics.)
It was inept to hire Marcotte, it was inept to not be able to stick by her, and it's both wrong and really inept to fire McEwan. Democrats must learn that a given decision can play badly politically or be unpopular and yet pose no real risk at all to their electoral chances.
I don't think anyone could have anticipated Donohue's inquisition. Golf clap to Terry Moran for penning "It's pretty strong stuff; her comments about other people's faiths could well be construed as hate speech."
God, I feel bad for Marcotte and McEwan. It's gotta suck.
You can't say even mildly offensive things about people you're courting, nevermind the kind of stuff that's said on a lot of blogs.
I don't think that's right. You're allowed to say crazy things, in the same sense that you're allowed to say crazy things in real life. But if you're a consistent bomb-thrower, it's just harder to defend. Put it this way: Volokh may (may) have cost himself a federal judgeship, but he wouldn't be a stone around any campaign's neck. I really do think it's an issue of general tone and personality.
I feel particularly bad for McEwan, who I'm guessing could have ridden it out if it didn't seem like a joint hire.
Agree with #13. Also, md 20/400 is excommunicated as of...NOW.
If I were Edwards, I never would have hired Amanda in a million years (though I like her writing). That said, William Donahue is a fucking fruit loop, and if he can bully Edwards, then Edwards has zero chance of being elected President.
Also, there's something to be said for solidarity. Amanda is a fellow blogger, she's roughly on your side of the political spectrum, and she's being picked on by one of the most grotesque figures in American politics. I think the instinct to turn to analysis when emotion is called for is a genuine political weakness (however much of a virtue it is in other realms).
You're guessing that maybe a fairly low level a political employee of a campaign might have ridden out the scandal of swearing and calling the pope intolerant of gay people?
This is so depressing. When are we going to learn?
I think the instinct to turn to analysis when emotion is called for is a genuine political weakness (however much of a virtue it is in other realms).
I think this is basically mcmanus's position. Can't be helped, though: can't turn a fish into fowl.
13: Yeah, I don't think there would have been much criticism if it had just been McEwan. Marcotte rubs a lot of people the wrong way, sometimes even those who are on her side politically.
It's too bad, because Marcotte was doing a good job at the Edwards blog, where she wasn't in constant bomb-throwing mode.
The thing that kills me about the proposed "fire the staffer" solutions is that I always assumed this was an E. Edwards decision. She's the one who's been commenting on all the blogs, after all.
Also, ogged, I'm not entirely sure you're right about Republican operatives' only alienating non-potential voters. The red meat for their evangelical base has turned off a number of Northeastern-style Republicans, and the Western libertarians (note the lack of capitalization) have moved Democratic for a cycle or two.
Also, there's something to be said for solidarity.
I agree, which is why I didn't say anything until the report that they'd been fired.
Is it wrong for me to wish that Edwards just had enough spine to say: we don't endorse everything Marcotte has written on her personal blog, and she's here to cover issues XYZ, which she's done very well.
I mean, christ, it's not going to get nicer here on out.
Have they really truly been fired, though? The Salon report was contradictory about it, and everyone else seems to be relying either on it or on rumors.
It's possible that Edwards isn't sweating the general, but the primaries. There may be few Catholics (or whatever) who would normally would vote for Edwards but, given the bloggerfascism, would vote for the Republican. I bet there are many more in the primary. As it is, lots of people have admitted to being attracted to both Edwards and Obama.
I'm having a hard time getting my head around this. That Edwards should be tainted or damaged by intemperate remarks of a b-level blogger, before said blogger had anything to do with the campaign, is crazytalk. She's an employee who said some stuff in public before even being an employee.
I never liked Marcotte from the day she showed up at Pandagon, but this noise is not about a problem with her, and making her responsible for an Edwards image problem just does not fly. The Edwards campaign needs to knock this down like the bullshit it is and if the thugs on the right want to make an issue out of saying mean things, then join that fight enthusiastically.
SCMT, if only I had known it was so easy. Now I can feel less guilty about missing chuch on Sundays.
The Pope is intolerant of gays. More importantly, ask Donohue if he favors tolerating gays and he'd say "no". I don't see why he is upset at someone honestly stating his position. OK I see that he thinks this is something he can use. The dishonest bastard. I'll pray for him.
Edwards needs to ride this out and deal with Marcotte later. Clinton is already seen as a trimmer. Edwards doesn't need to be seen as a jellyfish.
The Edwards campaign needs to knock this down like the bullshit it is
I sincerely don't get this. What can Edwards say when people ask him about things like this?
'What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit,'
No, Bill Donohue would say "The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done -- for contaminating the blood supply in New York City and around the country. And I find it amazing that, when people are acting so morally delinquent, that they're asking for more rights at the same time." Or something about their "death style," or work pedophilia into it.
Didn't PBS drop an actress who had been in spoof of sex ed spots? Similar issue to me. Too quick to react. (If indeed the campaign has fired her. I do feel for Marcotte right now)
Ah, yes.
Marcotte is astonishingly vitriolic when it comes to religion, and while most moderate Catholics probably think Donohue has his head up his ass, the idea that anyone would read it as "oh, she only meant the fringe Jeebus freaks, not you, Mr. Moderate" isn't going to fly.
But still. She's a low-level person. That makes her expendable and not worth the fight, but I really hope they haven't folded this quickly.
Someone who trims her sails to the prevailing winds. Triangulation.
26. "I'm not a theologian, but I do believe in God's plan, so I'm convinced things worked out for the best. No, really, Mr. Russert, those comments were written by a very talented young writer in her personal, polemical capacity. She's doing a great job with us now, trying to spread a message of hope for real Americans trying to do better today. She's a fine person and a good employee, and I'm happy with the work she's doing with us."
A comment in another thread does speak for the quick solution here.
I don't agree with this. Sometimes it is good to cut your losses. This whole can't admit you made a mistake, can't appear weak thing is why we are still in Iraq.
26: I fear I'm going to hell for reading that and laughing.
31: I see. I thought it might have been a new slang word for "lesbian."
after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit
Wait, I'm still not sure after that other thread. Is the Lord's gunk a phenomenal or noumenal experience?
It's precisely the elision of the critical noumenal/phenomenal distinction that makes Marcotte's comment so shocking.
Resolved: Barack Obama should hire ogged.
Maybe they'll replace her with PZ Myers.
One person they should seriously consider is Drymala.
They should consider Joe. He would be way overqualified.
But he would get attacked, based on his postings here, as a pot head and friendly with queers. The posts about his European vacation would sink him if he has to meet the standards set by the opposition. Few here would meet the standards as the bad guys move the goal posts. (I use bad guys in the strictly non-judgemental style of DoD.)
"a very talented young writer in her personal, polemical capacity."
Let's be honest, here is where we're overreaching. Vehemence isn't talent. I mean, 32 is great, but it's not the race Marcotte's been running, it's the club foot she's got.
They should consider Joe. He would be way overqualified.
This I agree with more than I can say. He has experience, he has Dean cred, he writes quite well, he's not at all vitriolic, and he just radiates decency (online--it wouldn't kill him to CUT HIS HAIR). And he has a massive man-crush on Edwards. I have to think people from various campaigns have approached him, and not particularly for a blogging job, and he's just not interested.
42, I was referring to. Not SCMT. Lots of very nice people have club feet.
42 ought to be retracted, I mean. Ok, to bed.
Oh, self-criticism. I thought you might be criticizing me, because it is all about me. And me, I'm such a nice guy.
If I were Edwards, I never would have hired Amanda in a million years (though I like her writing). That said, William Donahue is a fucking fruit loop, and if he can bully Edwards, then Edwards has zero chance of being elected President.
#15 gets it exactly right. (Though I'd quibble with the "zero chance.")
Really. If it's this easy for a few mentally-deranged bloggers and a psycho-Ultramontanist to bully the Edwards campaign, then what's he gonna do when the heat is on?
But, yeah. Edwards should totally hire Jody now. And never speak of this again.
The thing about Jody is that he's not actually a blogger, so they're probably not going to hire him to blog. Hiring him for something else sounds like a good idea, though.
Let's not forget that Jesse Taylor was arguably more vitriolic and profane than Marcotte when he was posting at Pandagon, and nobody seemed to have tried to take him down for this when he went to work for the Ted Strickland campaign. Granted, Taylor's ire was more specifically directed at wingnuts than Marcotte's usually is, but I'll bet there was still a fair amount that he wrote that would play really badly in Peoria.
The main differences I see between the cases of Taylor and Marcotte are that a) Strickland wasn't running for president and Edwards is; b) gender; c) blogs hadn't quite gotten the media's full attention when Taylor went to work for Strickland. Oh, and d) while the wingnuts have always had the desire to claim scalps, for whatever reason they didn't decide to focus on claiming Taylor's.
there's something to be said for solidarity. Amanda is a fellow blogger, she's roughly on your side of the political spectrum, and she's being picked on by one of the most grotesque figures in American politics. I think the instinct to turn to analysis when emotion is called for is a genuine political weakness
Exactly. And I think the post *is* mean, as well as all the "I don't like Amanda" comments. I think it's crappy to murmur "reasonable," mild criticisms of someone who's being kicked.
he's not actually a blogger, so they're probably not going to hire him to blog
All the more reason, if hiring a blogger means you're going to have to vet every word they've ever written online.
I knew someone was going to say that.
56 to 54. 55 seems to render the whole thing moot.
My emotional reaction is simply against the type of person who states that a defendant is guilty of a violent crime for which the charges have recently been dropped. This may be inconvenient. But it would have been more convenient for everyone if Edwards hadn't made this mistake.
58: Marcotte hadn't made it, you mean? I also haven't seen many (any?) people say they don't like her, just that they don't like her blogging. Which I'm sure she's fine with - her's is not a style designed to win universal acceptance.
No I mean Edwards' mistake in hiring her. I don't know her personally. I just mean--with regard to the comment that we ought to obey our emotions and support our fellow liberal blogger--I'm more a troll than a blogger, but my emotions run the other way on this one. I do think I'm pretty liberal.
People should speak freely. We're not part of any Democratic organization.
No, but I think of Amanda as a bloggy type friend; we're in the same camp, for the most part. God knows I'll bitch about people I dislike or don't know, but I think that there's something to be said for loyalty to one's colleagues.
And you're being loyal to her, which is great.
I don't particularly feel that bond, though I could see how others would. My only real contact with Marcotte is when she comes here to get angry in the sexism threads without spending the time to figure out what's actually going on. True, reading those threads probably is a waste of time.
Until someone plausibly explains how this either decreases the total number of people voting in democratic primaries or throws voters from Edwards to Sen. Clinton or Obama (and I doubt such an explanation exists) he should not fire either of them. It really does create an awful precedent.
On a different note, I'm watching the repeat broadcast of the Colbert Report, and Holy Shit! Steve Pinker's hair is going to attack me. What's the just so story for how that evolved?
Finally, if you have a chance to see this movie, do something else.
62: When you get fired for blogging, I'll scold people for griping about you, too.
Burt Reynolds as a Navajo warrior? Jeez.
Great, now she's talking to herself.
Good to hear she'll defend herself when she gets fired, too. I would be concerned if she wouldn't.
You people know perfectly well I meant 63. Jesus.
And one crack about the intentional fallacy, and I'll bite someone. I'm pmsy today. Or something. Bah, foul mood.
Well, yes, but it's late and cheap shots don't take much thought.
Dude, isn't it like, noon where you are or something?
It's later for some of us than it is for others.
Probably you should go to bed. So should I, but I'm too cranky to listen to my sensible voice.
Probably I should. Going to bed before three always seems like a good idea, but somehow I never do.
9 something. But it's been a long day and I have to get up 4ish tomorrow morning to take the boy to the airport for a Big Island field trip, so winding down.
4 am, jesus, that's insane.
I figure, if I'm in bed by midnight, that's okay. Not that there's anything keeping me awake.
65 kinda nails it. There is a post at the Agonist that even narrows it down to East Iowa, where Obama will have an advantage, meaning Edwards will need West Iowa, where Marcotte could hurt him.
I had been following the feminist blogosphere via some site that had been aggregating the responses, but lost the link. Surely one of the reasons M & M were hired would have to do with taking some of the feminist vote from HRC. I don't imagine I have to detail the reaction from that part of the blogosphere tonight.
Losing the Catholic & moderate wings but gaining the enthusiastic support of feminists and the netroots looks like a net plus for the primaries to me. And the primaries are the point.
Since the campaign is still nascent and in early days, and things are chaotic, it is possible that there is more here than meets the eye, and it's not a simple matter of scalps and buckling.
(Since I tend towards caution, no one is ever going to hire me to be their political blogger. ;-) )
Okay, I really should go to bed. Good night, all.
This post makes sense. Except that it's totally fucking nuts. Talk about taking a heckler's veto to the Nth degree of ridiculous.
The important thing to understand is that it didn't matter who has hired. People should have learned by now that the wingnutosphere would have dug any comment up and construed it in any possible way in order to go on the attack. What the hell else do they have to talk about except Edwards' official fricking bloggers? And in the snark-filled blogosphere, who hasn't made comments that can be taken out of context and distorted?
In no way am I a Marcotte fan, but criticisms in perspective; annoying as she is, no way was she ever have going to be enough of a stone to sink the Edwards campaign. Let alone McEwan, for God's sake. Once they were hired, the decision should have been stuck to. End of story. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that made Edwards part of the losing ticket to Bush the Boy Genius in '04. Depressing.
It's an early spinal check.
Winning ways, a great smile and a beautiful mind are terrific things for a plaintiff's lawyer and a Senator to have, but to be president of the USA, sometimes you gotta be a tough SOB.
Letting your opponents push you around this early on something this trivial is not passing the test.
At this point, a fair chunk of unavoidable damage has been done. Edwards looks vacillating and weak. He already looks like he takes the opinions of Michelle Malkin and Bill Donahue as or more seriously than he takes those of the progressive side of the 'net. He looks like he had no idea this might happen, no idea that it was virtually certain to happen, and like he had no plan at all to handle it.
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has advanced the Bitch Slap theory of electoral politics, and I think that this is obviously what's happening here. Crazy-ass people on the right, who are themselves far beyonder the pale than Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwan ever dreamt of being, are trying to bully Edwards. They want to see if he'll stand up to them or let himself be pushed around. Looked at this way, the fact that this entire imbroglio is a pathetic mass of lies and distortions makes it even better for them; just think how much worse it'll be when they dig up something genuinely embarrassing for Edwards. That Edwards didn't know that inevitably, if he did well, the right wingnuts would turn on their slime spigots his direction reflects very poorly on his political instincts. How could he, how could any Democrat that is serious about running for President, not see this coming? After Gore in '00 and Kerry in '04, it's so, so, so obvious that the Republicans will slime, smear, and lie about anybody, anytime, anywhere, about anything. And Edwards had no plan to deal with it. None at all, save to bunker up and emit silence all day. He looks weak, he looks like someone who can't stand up to his enemies, and that was the point all along.
I was, before this sorry interlude, a very great Edwards fan. His populist economic message is something that I find extremely appealing. I've waited a long time to hear someone talk about poverty and justice in this country the way Edwards does. But I cannot, the Democratic Party cannot, and the country cannot afford to support a Democratic nominee that campaigns as if it were still 1992. If Edwards does not come out of this mess demonstrating that he has really learned something from it, it will be very hard for me to continue to be the supporter of him that I've been. I want him to be President. But I don't think that he can win the election to become President if he can't even put a Father Couglin-wannabe and a two-bit racist in their place.
It's pretty lame to only comment here once every two months, and then when I do show up to say nothing more than "n is exactly right", but
87 is exactly right.*
*I wouldn't necessarily have called myself an Edwards supporter to quite the same degree Nbarnes does, but other than that I agree with every word.
52 says: "The main differences I see between the cases of Taylor and Marcotte are that a) Strickland wasn't running for president and Edwards is; b) gender; c) blogs hadn't quite gotten the media's full attention when Taylor went to work for Strickland. Oh, and d) while the wingnuts have always had the desire to claim scalps, for whatever reason they didn't decide to focus on claiming Taylor's."
I agree 100%.
Moreover, d) is all about b) and that's a big part of what's going on here. In fact, I'd go so far as to call it the elephant in the room.
Socially, women aren't allowed to be as uncouth as men. Full stop. That's patriarchy talking, and much of the left has made adjustments or Marcotte would never have gotten popular. But the right is in full-on culture war battle mode to enforce exactly this standard of behavior. It's all of a piece with their positions on every social issue. And if we'd made as many strides in that war as we like to think while sipping fruity drinks with our citified friends, there is no way on God's green earth that George Bush would ever have gotten elected.
This makes me have a lot of sympathy with bitchphd's position here, even though I have the same politically unfortunate tendency as ogged. Say what you want about the right-wingnuts but they would never sell out their own this easily.
All out vehement anger is an appropriate and sane response to what this administration has done to this country and our reputation in the last six years.
explaining why Kucinich is never going to be president
Because he's the only one running for president who will come right out and say that killing Ogged's relatives is an evil thing to do. Along those lines, I'd like to think the Edwards campaign isn't as hopelessly fucked in the head as America is, and that Amanda Marcotte could stay on, despite her impolitic tendency to say things that are true rather than things which sound pretty and appealing.
I still haven't seen anything from the campaign saying they have actually fired either of them. And no other news source claiming it besides Salon.
Because he's the only one running for president who will come right out and say that killing Ogged's relatives is an evil thing to do.
In fairness, there are probably a few other reasons.
John Rogers has weighed in on the Marcotte flap, by the way.
There's a crucial difference between the horrible things Republican operatives say and the "offensive" things Marcotte and McEwan have said: the latter are potentially offensive to a constituency that's in play.
Uh--comparing FDR to Hitler doesn't offend any constituency that's in play? Because you can do that and still get a job as an op-ed columnist with the LA Times despite knowing nothing about anything. And Islamic Americans--once, I believe, a GOP constituency--don't vote?
Anyway, I can see an argument that he shouldn't have hired Marcotte, that what makes her blog interesting makes her unsuited to being the bland corporate-talking drone you want in this job. But, let's be clear, this is a fake controversy--in any world where a straightforward anti-Semite, homophobe and crackpot like William Donahue can appear on TV as some sort of civil rights leader the idea that what Amanda says on a blog is somehow belong the pale of acceptable discourse for a low-level campaign operative is ridiculous. An egregious double standard is being enforced. And if what McEwan says is too offensive, no liberal blogger of any interest is employable in any campaign ever.
Edwards looks vacillating and weak
In that appearances-are-not-in-fact-deceiving sense of "looks."
I will be happy to be proved wrong, but Edwards has garnered a heckuva lotta support by being able to say the "right thing" to the right crowd. That doesn't impress me. He's a trial lawyer, and a good one -- that skill is simply to be expected.
Unless we want Bill Clinton Redux (better than what we've got now, but nothing to wish for), I would have to see some other qualities in Edwards, like prudence for instance. Which l'affaire Marcotte does not particularly suggest.
Btw, Jackmormon's suavely reasoned rejoinder aside, Ogged wrapped this thread up at "hot, white sticky Holy Spirit." Yow. Yow, I say.
Losing the Catholic & moderate wings but gaining the enthusiastic support of feminists and the netroots looks like a net plus for the primaries to me.
Depends on the numbers, and my sense is that there's more moderates than feminists in Iowa, and the netroots is not the most reliable indication of voter turnout.
89: a) is a really big reason. The attack on Marcotte is blogosphere-ignited, and Strickland just isn't a big enough target for the blogosphere to give a shit about bringing his blogger down.
I like Amanda and her writing and I am sorry she lost he job for blogging.
any world where a straightforward anti-Semite, homophobe and crackpot like William Donahue can appear on TV
I can't form any coherent thoughts about this story, because Donahue's arrogant ogre face keeps floating in front of my mind's eye, and I simply cannot deal with the thought of anything that gives him even the tiniest moment of sneering satisfaction. I hadn't realized how much I hated him. Shit.
I have such mixed feelings about this, except that I think it's really, really unwise to hire a controversial person and then fire them for being controversial, and off-the-job controversial no less. That's just doing the exact-same jumpy-stupid routine that's sent the Democrats so far to the right in the first place.
I don't think that--in the short term, for Edwards himself--it was smart to hire Amanda Marcotte. Lots of people are gunning for her all across the political spectrum, she's associated with Clinton (which is part of what brought the right-wing whackaloons out, I think), and her writing is certainly waaaaayyy too hip for the room.
But I think it's dumb for progressives generally to turn on her. Yeah, she's impolitic, but in the long term we need to have impolitic, passionate people on our side. The right has them, they motivate people, and in any case the only society that's worth living in (er, to me) is one with a little swash-buckling in its politics.
The thing is, people look for meaning (Frowner generalizes, managing to be both trite and wrong at the same time) and they look for things to get worked up about. Right now, the things to get excited on left and right are about are all "Oh, look, that's inappropriate, that's offensive, that's a lie, that's a Shocking Example of Today's Culture!". Which is certainly interesting and revealing from a cultural studies standpoint, but not very helpful politically. We need to provide a discourse where progressive people can talk in humanitarian and/or heartfelt terms. We won't be able to elect a lefty candidate until we change the discourse. A candidate can't swing that by himself, and he looks (or she, for that matter) foolish for trying. Obama can do it a little because Whitey McWhiteperson expects people-of-color to use more direct, more passionate rhetoric. But we need, in general, to create new ways of talking about politics and civic engagement, and I think that Amanda Marcotte forwards that.
She's not anti-Catholic, and people who mistake vigorous, crass humor for anti-catholicism need to go back to Humor School.
I was curious about this Donohue, so I Googled. I refuse to click through to his org, but PFAW has a backgrounder.
Donohue is an adjunct scholar at the Heritage Foundation. Yup, that makes sense.
Who are his official advisors? The usual suspects.
[The League's] Board of Advisors: Brent Bozell III; Gerard Bradley; Linda Chavez; Robert Destro; Dinesh D'Souza; Laura Garcia; Robert George; Mary Ann Glendon; Dolores Grier; Alan Keyes; Stephen Krason; Lawrence Kudlow; Thomas Monaghan; Michael Novak; Kate O'Beirne; Thomas Reeves; Patrick Riley; Robert Royal; Russell Shaw; William Simon; Jr., Paul Vitz; and George Weigel.
He may come across as an outlier, a far wingnut. But he ain't. He's ensconced in the heart of the movement.
He may come across as an outlier, a far wingnut. But he ain't. He's ensconced in the heart of the movement.
Right. Because "the movement" *is* "far wingnut." They're crazy. Some of them are just better able to conceal it in public.
That's why Dick Armey & his ilk seem so refreshing lately -- diehard conservative, obnoxious policy positions, but not demonstrably crazy.
What it really shows is that the Democrats still don't know how this game is played. The Republicans control the discourse because they use the exact same rhetorical strategy as trolls: if the subject is inconvenient, change the subject. The Democrats must should change the subject from Amanda to Donahue. A prominent Catholic Democrat (John Kerry would be a reasonable choice) should stand up and say "Every time Donahue opens his mouth, he embarrasses Catholics everywhere. He doesn't speak for us. He takes the money of the Catholic League, and uses it to get on TV and make a fool out of himself." And then make hay about various things he's said. If that doesn't do the trick, then the Democrats should play the anti-Catholic card, and accuse the media of trying to make Catholics look bad by taking the nuttiest Catholic out there, and treating him like he's spokesman for anything other than his own lunacy.
The historical lesson the Politboro drew after Stalin's death is that they should not try to settle their internal disputes through murder. The Democrats need to teach the Republicans that there is a bright line, and if they cross that line, they will be mercilessly destroyed. Donahue must be made into a lesson.
the idea that what Amanda says on a blog is somehow belong the pale of acceptable discourse for a low-level campaign operative is ridiculous.
Not a ridiculous idea at all.
First, she was hired as a blogmaster: hired on the basis of her previous blogging in order to do blogg-y stuff for the campaign. So what she "says on a blog" is actually quite relevant to her position.
Second, what she says about Catholic teaching really is beyond the pale of acceptable discourse. Or, if not what she says, then the way that she goes about saying it. In addition to the not-especially-interesting theological hypothetical that Ogged quotes in #26, there is also, for example, the matter of this cartoon, which crudely caricatures Catholics as ignorant ape-like creatures who are too stupid to not have too many children:
http://pandagon.net/2006/06/14/pandagon-goes-undercover-the-lazy-way-on-a-catholic-anti-contraception-seminar/
At this point, the damage to Edwards' campaign is minimal: nobody but bloggers and blog-readers even know about the controversy. But keep her on, or re-hire her, or whatever, and let some of this stuff circulate into the mainstream...yeah, the "anti-Catholic" label would stick, and with good reason, and well, what Ogged says about not alienating a constituency that's actually in play.
that cartoon isn't about Catholics -- it's just about people who have kids.
Yes, but his being ensconced in the heart of the movement means that the anti-Catholic "jokes" will go further than they would were he someone no one had ever heard of. And yes, it's the sort of thing Democratic Catholics could overlook in the general election, but if the choice is between Edwards, Obama, and Clinton in the primary, would that swing enough votes to Obama and Clinton? Maybe. The thing is, the people who would hear about Donohue probably aren't following blogs and super-familiar with Marcotte's schtick to write most of it off as nonsense and focus on her work at the Edwards blog.
I don't know. It's so damn early yet that I can't believe this could be a factor a year from now.
that cartoon isn't about Catholics -- it's just about people who have kids
Right, placed immediately under a headline about Catholics against contraception.
A gorilla suit isn't anti-Semitic, either, but in a context like that scene in Cabaret, it is.
Catholics are people who have kids, so that cartoon was relevant to Catholics. But the cartoon wasn't -about- Catholics in any sense; the point being made was not that Catholics and nobody else is apelike, the point was that people who have kids, a category including Catholics, are apelike. Also, this would seem to make it more offensive rather than less so.
101 had me on top of my desk cheering.
It strikes me as such an *obvious* thing to do. I've truly never understood why nobody does it.
It strikes me as such an *obvious* thing to do. I've truly never understood why nobody does it.
Very true. They should be right back at 'em. Marcotte & McEwan could do that with their eyes closed. It seems like "normal" Dem staffers really don't know who these Donohue types are, how awful they are, etc.
I think 101 is right, except good lord, not Kerry. He's off microphone duty until they get the foot removed.
101 and 87 are 100% on the money. Let's learn to think like that.
Ogged is right (in part) that Marcotte shouldn't have been hired. More accurate: Marcotte's incendiary writings were on record in her blog archive. What does it say about the Edwards campaign that they either:
1) didn't read the archive and thus were surprised by the attack from Donohue,
2) read the archive but had not anticipated the attack from Donohue and had a prepared response ready (none of this waiting for 24 hours and then making a lame statement).
3) read the archive, had anticipated the attack from Donohue, and responded in the lame way they did?
Marcotte's controversial statements weren't one/a few posts in the midst of a Caspar Milquetoast multitude -- incendiary WAS her style. Edwards should have been prepared for this. If they were going to have the reaction they did, they shouldn't have hired her.
Eh, 24 hours really, really isn't that slow.