The other day, we posted a diary on the supposed "scandal" of John Edwards hiring a - GASP! - opinionated woman blogger. The National Journal even went so far as to call the hiring of Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte "The First Blog Scandal Of Campaign 2008." Why? Here's the National Journal:
The scandalous storyline: Like all bloggers, Marcotte is fast and loose with her opinions, and her opinion of the infamous rape allegations against lacrosse players at Duke University didn't sit well with some folks. When Marcotte started catching flak for that opinion, she apparently deleted it and started altering other comments at Pandagon.[...]
But now Marcotte's attempts to airbrush her past are fast becoming a black-eye for Edwards, even as he earned raves yesterday for a speech at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting in Washington...
For the most part, I figured that this was all just a ridiculous tempest in a teapot. I mean, if you can't hire a blogger who has expressed "controversial" opinions at some point, you might as well forget the whole thing and not hire bloggers at all.
On that note, the New York Times is now reporting on a demand by the conservative Catholic League that both Edwards campaign bloggers be fired "for expressing anti-Catholic opinions." And, apparently, the Edwards campaign is thinking about doing just that:
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said in a statement on Tuesday, "John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots."Mr. Edwards's spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.
Personally, having served as netroots coordinator for the Webb campaign, I can definitively say that it's not necessarily the easiest job in the world. Imagine that every word you've ever uttered publicly was carefully scrutinized, and that one slip-up could mean not just your own job, but also the potential demise of your candidate? Yeah, I know what you're thinking, why would anyone in their right mind take on such a job, and why would any campaign hire those "crazy bloggers" to begin with?
Answer to the first question: It's a big chance to make a difference. In my case, I helped the Webb campaign raise $4.2 million online, for instance, and I'm glad I did! I'm also glad I was able to hit back hard against the Allen campaigns' smears in a way that others on the campaign might not have felt comfortable doing.
Answer to the second question: Candidates need bloggers because the netroots is a large, growing, and already-powerful force. Obviously, as with anything else a campaign does, there are potential downsides. And sometimes, a candidate and a blogger are simply not a good fit, just as a finance director or campaign manager might not be a good fit.
With that said, I think the worst thing a campaign can do is to cave in to pressure on things like this. Do it once, and where does it end? Next thing, another person or group is offended at something another one of your employees said or wrote, and you have to cave again? It will be interesting to see what happesn to Edwards' two bloggers after it finishes "weighing the[ir] fate." Stay tuned.
Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black...
"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular." - Bill Donohue [MSNBC, Scarborough Country, 12/8/04]
Here are a few quotes from his Wikipedia entry:http://en.wikipedia....
On October 13, 2005, he appeared on NBC's Today Show. Reacting to the sexual abuse scandal, he stated that the crisis was "a homosexual scandal, not a pedophilia scandal". [12] Donahue made this assertion based on the fact that the overwhelming majority of victims were male and post-pubescent.At an event he proclaimed that, "Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism."
People for the American Way doesn't think much of him either: http://www.pfaw.org/...
Act Up NY http://www.actupny.o... accused him of lying because his Catholic League ran an ad that said:
Want To Know a Dirty Little Secret?CONDOMS DON'T SAVE LIVES
a public service message
by the Catholic League
So why is the Edwards campaign "weighing the fate of the two bloggers" because of this bigot's criticisms?
As you state, being part of a campaign means potentially every word comes under scrutiny. Which is something campaign staff have had to deal with since long before blogs ever existed. And is one of the reasons the message and spokespeople are usually tightly controlled. If they aren't tightly controlled there is a good chance the opponent will seek to exploit it.
Most bloggers make a name for themselves by writing their own thoughts. The contents, presentation, and timing of the message is rarely controlled by anyone but the blogger. Smart bloggers are wise enough not to hurt the candidates or party they support - but they still are presenting their own message.
But then a blogger is hired by the campaign to blog on behalf of the campaign. Now the messages will generally be seen as coming from the campaign, not the individual, and therefore every word is a potential target for opponents and its authenticity (did the blogger say it or did the campaign?) could be questioned by supporters.
So herein lies the conflict - if the campaign is to control it's message then the campaign will need a significant level of control over what appears on the blog. But in doing so, it takes away the best part of any blogger - their individual opinions, presentation and the fact that the blogger is part of an "outside" community.
So...
Should bloggers be allowed to act as semi-independent agents while still being employed by a candidate?
Would that take away the true strength of a blogger due to questions of authenticity or exposure to attack?
Or, will campaigns, much like the Webb campaign's successful relationship with Lowell and Josh, be able to walk that fine line between blogger independence and campaign control?
Worthy of debate. I think we'll start to see the answers, and a generally accepted standard, evolve over the next two years. The MSM and public will have to decide whether or not to buy into the position that bloggers are part of the campaign and therefore their words reflect the candidates position. The campaigns will have to find a level of comfort with their relationship to bloggers. Stay tuned - we're in for a hell of a ride.
I guess I will be exploring this more thoroughly in the forthcoming months. I will have no paid position with Vilsack, just as I didn't with Webb. Therefore I will be writing on my time and my dime. Still, were I to criticize one of his opponents, I would have to expect that people might reasonably assume that my criticism was on behalf of the campaign, particularly given a personal friendship with the candidate and a certain amount of closeness with a key staffer (Kevin Thurman).
Then again, I confront this in the Webb campaign, and it did not seem to be a problem. Somehow the rules get to be a bit different on a presidential campaign.
Marcotte is not the only blogger working for Edwards, so he would not be crippled were she to leave. Mathew Gross is in a high level position, and has been for several months. Given what he did for Dean, he probably has as much name and credibility as she does, even if his role has been less of blogging and more of strategist.
Lowell is perhaps best equipped to discuss this, although again, as I said, even a highly visible senatorial campaign, as was Webb's, does not get anywhere near the scrutiny of a presidential run. Of course, that scrutiny only happens if you are seen as viable by the press. Edwards was in front in early polling until Clinton and Obama got in, which is one reason he got the level of scrutiny.
How he should react to the Catholic League bigots is a separate issue. But it seems to me there is value in vetting people who are going to be associated with your campaign, even as volunteers, if they are going to be highly visible. It is one reason I plan to go through every embarrassing thing about myself I can think of (no, not here) with the top of Vilsack's campaign, so that they can decide how that want to use me. Sometimes unofficial relationships are the best for just that reason - you get the benefit of the skill and expertise of the person without having to carry any baggage they bring from their past.
"Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to the use of contraception forced women "to bear more tithing Catholics." In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception."
I am Catholic myself. I still have to read the language about the Immaculate Conception, but I fail to see where the insult is when Marcotte says that the Catholic Church doctrine on contraception forces women to have more children. This is in fact what would happen if Catholic women followed their doctrine.
Is it anti-Catholic to imply that the Church wants more Catholics to raise more money in the future? I don't see it either. It is unfair to to assume such motives from the Church, but criticism of the current Church's doctrine or leadership is not the same as criticism of the religion. Dante put a few Popes in Hell in the Divine Comedy. Was he also a anti-Catholic bigot?
I often run into true expressions of anti-Catholicism such as people claiming that Catholicism is not Christianity, or that every Catholic is going to hell, or that the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ or an agent of Satan. Sometimes I hear the claim that Catholics have more loyalty to the Pope than to their country. A few older people who still haven't seen the light will tell me the bad character traits of Catholics.
These to me are true anti-Catholic sentiments because it dehumanizes catholicism and its members, often based on irrational beliefs.
The one example given doesn't seem to validate these claims. But Maybe Marcotte has expressed anti-Catholic views that I am not aware of. Now I will have to visit Marcotte's site to see how she delt with the Immaculate Conception.
Edwards campaign fires both bloggershttp://www.rawstory...."The right-wing blogosphere has gotten its scalps -- John Edwards has fired the two controversial bloggers he recently hired to do liberal blogger outreach, Salon has learned," Alex Koppelman and Rebecca Traister reports at the online news magazine's War Room section.
The two add, "Speculation from sources that the two bloggers might be rehired was bolstered by Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the Edwards campaign, who said in an e-mail that she would 'caution [Salon] against reporting that they have been fired. We will have something to say later.'"
Edwards would be wise not to fire them. the Netroots community will not respond well if he does...
This is a big opportunity for his campaign. Whether he stands up or backs down will be a turning point for his campaign online. Either way, he won't be tied with Barack Obama in Dailykos straw polls anymore. It will be hard in one direction or the other.
Could he be so boneheaded to make this move? He'll lose the netroots and thus most of his support base! Unreal!
http://www.lemoyne.e... [62% of Catholics support civil unions for gays, 39% support legal marriage) Same survey -- 49% think priests should be married, and 62% think women should be allowed into the priesthood.
50% believe all abortions should be illegal, while 49% disagree -- http://www.lemoyne.e...
Salon reporter was specifically asked not to run with story of firings -- the explanation for which is clear: discussion/struggle still going on inside campaign on whether to do that.
But instead, Salon goes with 'Bloggers fired' headline, despite any evidence that Marcotte and Shakes (forgot her real name) have been fired. Therefore, Salon spins situation as bloggers 'may be rehired' when there's no evidence they were ever fired in the first place. That way, the story becomes: Bloggers fired. Then rehired, under pressure from netroots!
Running for president is truly a trial by pseudo-fire, in which your 'friends' at 'liberal' outlets like Salon get to make up stories and blow you off if the truth gets in the way.
It raises an interesting point too, since it suggests that bloggers are in a different category: we are quasi-candidates. Most other kinds of staffers are basically faceless, but it seems bloggers will be held to a higher standard.
And, as many of you are well aware, Edwards is not my preferred presidential candidate, and I will stick to my own steadfast rule - and it's one about which I am most insistent - by saying nothing negative about him. I do sincerely believe that John Edwards could be an exceptional President.
However, at this level of potential government service, I prefer people - especially future elected leaders - of such very high political integrity and honest social intent that only those like Jim Webb and Wes Clark could have earned my early, undying support. Hopefully, there will be others. Of course, in the end, I have just one vote to cast like everyone else.
Having said all that, I know we need to be very careful about "throwing out the baby with the bath water."
Perhaps there is other information about this situation that will come to light, soon.
I really do hope so.
Thanks.
Steve
Rather than jettisoning these bloggers at the first sign of trouble, he should have understood that the hirings would come with risks that he was unwilling to accept--and he should have looked elsewhere at the outset.
I think what Josh Marshall and others at Talking Points Memo have to say is also relevant.
Whoa! Just went over there to find the link and the top item is that the bloggers were not fired. Caution vindicated.
Of course, there's no doubt that surprises can and will occur, regardless of how well each has done his homework, and such unexpected discoveries about one another need to be dealt with in a mature, deliberate fashion.
I continue to believe that we have not yet heard the whole story in this regard and I would truly like to do so, very soon.
In the meantime, I continue to hope that Wes Clark will do something demonstrative, also very soon.
"Lookin' for a leader..." (Neil Young)
Thanks.
Steve
xooxoxoxoxo
Thanks for keeping us informed, Lowell.
Best of luck!
Steve
The only fault that Edwards made was hiring these people before checking out what they had said before. Pay more attention to who you hire, Mr. Edwards. May I suggest Mr. James Martin? Clean kid who's a strong supporter.
You know what, who do you think Mr. Edwards is afraid of losing: a couple of pissy bloggers, or an entire demographic of people? That's what I thought. This was the right move politically. Sure, it may piss off some people in the netroots...about a year before the primary. But without the Catholic vote, which even a CATHOLIC like John Kerry had trouble with, he has no chance.
Good move by John Edwards. I bet this is forgotten by the Iowa caucus.
Agreed. However, this means that, even if he makes the smart move politically now, he's got egg on his face. Hardly a "good move" by the Edwards campaign. I find this whole episode unfortunate.
Speculation from sources that the two bloggers might be rehired was bolstered by Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the Edwards campaign, who said in an e-mail that she would "caution [Salon] against reporting that they have been fired. We will have something to say later."
Here are three of the top ones:
*"Will Edwards Stand Up Against right-wing crazies"
*"Edwards Should Keep the Bloggers and PIVOT Back with this Issue"
*"Tell me this is a lie."
Sample comments:
*"If this is true, Edwards is finished with the netroots. And with me"
*"Not firing them is unacceptable. Keeping them is political suicide. So hiring was a mistake, firing them hurts the netroots blogging base, keeping them insults a much larger voter base. No happy choice in sight."
*"I'm sick of wussy Democrats who roll over at the first sign of a right-wing hissy fit. If this is true, and they are gone, you have lost my vote. I would imagine MANY others as well. Any Democrat who showed some spine would win in a landslide."
********************************************************
Is it ironic that Edwards' own website is now being used to bash him?
Maybe "pissy" is the wrong word for the blogosphere. Maybe "insane" is a better word.
Not everybody can be Jim Webb, people.
Forgive me, but I think people are blowing this out of proportion because the netroots, the liberals especially, are incredibly defensive of their own. I can honestly say that, if I were Edwards, they never would've been hired in the first.
I agree that it was a major mistake for Edwards because he should've done a better background check.
But "backbone"? This isn't about Iraq, or Health Care. This is Campaign Staffers. Not everything is as serious as bloggers make it out to be.
Fortunately, in this case the fallout isn't nearly as costly. But it's not something that should reassure anyone who has lingering questions about Edwards's judgment.
My point was (as Lowell touched on), I REFUSE to vote for anyone who is going to back down to the right wing. Edwards is going to anger his entire base just to satisfy some "trash talking bigots" that wouldn't have voted for him in the first place.
If Edwards backs down on Health Care or Iraq, I'll back away from him. But not over this. Everybody is blowing this way out of proportion.
And again, bloggers taking everything so personal. The "insane" wasn't aimed at you, Terry. It was aimed at the liberal blogosphere in general. I'll admit, I think you guys are just as crazy as the right (in your own way, of course).
If he thinks he made a mistake in hiring them, he made a mistake with associating with bloggers in general. That's a massive miscalculation. Not simply a mistake.
By the way, telling people they're "crazy," "insane," "taking everything so personal," etc., is not exactly the way to make your case or to convince people of anything. Why not just marshal your facts and logic, make your argument, and let the chips fall where they may?
FACT:
The average Democratic Bloggers is far more aggressive than the average Democratic Voter.
FACT:
While we may have gained in influence, we bloggers are still a minority within the Democratic Party, and old traditional forms of campaiging beat out blogging.
OPINION:
We all tend to forget the above facts frequently.
We got a little cocky with Jim Webb's victory. And hell, we deserve to be cocky. We did a great job, you in particular Lowell. But we can't overestimate our influence. I'll admit, I have a tendency to UNDERESTIMATE what we can do, but at least I admit that. Some people act like the primary will be decided online. If it was, Howard Dean would've been our nominee last year. Or Wes Clark. They were three and four.
"I'll never support Edwards if he fires these people!"
Huh? I can understand being pissed at him for not doing his homework. But since he didn't, isn't it the sign of a good leader to try to correct the problem as soon as possible?
I'm not saying that I'll support Edwards. Frankly, nobody thus far has inspired me in the slightest. But this is a minor faulter at the start of a campaign. He hired to wrong people. He's admitting that, and replacing them (don't we wish Bush would've done that sooner with Brownie?). What, you want him to stay with these bloggers he now knows could get him in trouble?
Don't blow this thing out of proportion, guys. That's all I'm saying. When you do, it just looks...silly.
Members of the Catholic League's board of advisers include conservative author and media analyst L. Brent Bozell III; conservative radio host and syndicated columnist Linda Chavez; right-wing pundit and author Dinesh D'Souza; former Republican presidential and senatorial candidate Alan Keyes; and National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne.
Keyes and D'Souza (former "date" of Coulter and Ingraham) are bigots of the worst sort, under a mask of religiosity. The former disowned his daughter when she revealed she was gay. He stopped speaking to her and cut off her college money.
If there is an afterlife, I want to be where Ms. Marcotte is, and not where these people are.
I hope Edwards has more backbone than what is being reported. It really gives me pause when it comes to his support.
If these bloggers are indeed fired, Obama and Clark stand to benefit. What an unbelievable blunder by the Edwards' campaign. Absolutely spineless.
Senator Clinton is popular in the far left - but not the middle. Obama - same story. Edwards just lost his spine - and was who I previously believed to be our only hope. Clark is good, but has not announced and even if he did wouldn't win.
Now it is very clear to me. There is nobody in the race right now who can beat Rudy. I think that Webb can. The only other scenario is that Rudy says something stupid or some serious dirt comes out on him. A "macaca moment" aside, the current candidates who have declared can't beat him.
Clinton is popular with the far left? Clark is good, but won't win? Where are you getting this from?
The most controversial thing I said was in regards to Hillary. I'm not sure where her base is. I'm certainly not it.
And btw, What does any of this have to do with John Edwards and his blogger controversy?!
Hey, maybe we can get Bob Kerrey to run! He's one of Webb's closest friends, and I bet Webb would get a lot of priveledge on the Senate floor.
BOB (not John) Kerrey 08
And for the record, I will be supporting the (D) nominee - be it Clinton, Obama, or Edwards (or God willing Webb/Clark). I just don't think they will be able to win unless they deliver a message that the moderates and independents can swallow.
So far, this blogger firing incident aside, Edwards will sell better - and especially in the south. I think he really set his campaign back by firing those bloggers. Sad that so early on he fell into a Republican trap like this.
Last year, I know there must have been thousands of us who invested more time and resources in Jim Webb's campaign than we might have thought possible or practical. I think we may have even surprised ourselves with the intensity of our own involvement and dedication to Jim Webb's campaign.
Why?
Because we were so inspired by Jim Webb's leadership. I have absolutely no regrets and, in fact, with each passing day, Webb exceeds my expectations. The guy is amazing!
Three years ago, I was working just as hard for Wes Clark as I did for Jim Webb last year, and then Clark withdrew - most regrettably, but correctly - from the presidential campaign. For me, there were no comparable Democratic candidates for President, and my sense of inspiration evaporated.
Sure, I worked hard for John Kerry, but (for me) the inspiration that is necessary to drive one to go beyond his own expectations was gone. I think that must have happened on a national scale, and we lost once more. We cannot afford to have that happen again.
Without inspired/inspiring leadership, we will not win the presidency in 2008, and I don't think that Jim Webb will run for President. Therefore, I repeat...
Jim Webb for Senate '06 = Wes Clark for President '08.
Now, here's my greatest current concern - what the hell am I going to do - whom will I support - if Wes Clark doesn't run for President in 2008?
Yes; regardless, I will support the Democratic candidate, but without that Webb-like inspiration, can he/she win?
I don't think so...
Steve
He really wants to be president this time around, and for that reason I see him more inclined to use Guiliani's social liberalism against him.
Thanks!
Steve
P.S. My name is really Hugo, so you don't have to use quotation marks :)
Steve
Donohue represents a voting demographic--hardcore Catholics--that is unlikely to vote for a Pro-Life candidate. Especially one that is a Democrat.
It's "Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, Sexuality and the Catholic Church," by Uta Ranke-Heinemann. Actually, she starts her examination from the pre-Christian era. I thought it was fascinating.
It's one of the books that led me towards agnosticism. I came to the opinion that a lot of religious text from ancient times was the result of a bunch of old guys writing down how they wanted the world to be ordered.
*"bottling the lightning of blogger authenticity is not easy."
*"Getting the marriage between campaign and blogger right is probably more important for Edwards than for any other Democratic candidate."
*"The least tangible, yet most important, asset that bloggers bring to a campaign is their credibility with their fans..."
*"Joe Trippi, who as Dean's campaign manager in 2004 employed up to six bloggers, says that letting the bloggers operate freely while on the payroll is crucial: he remembers cringing as he read Moulitsas' criticisms of Dean even as the campaign kept writing $2,500 monthly retainer checks."
*"The blogosphere, with its surfeit of Democratic base voters, is a natural target audience: almost a third of the estimated 5 million daily political blog readers identified themselves as strongly liberal in a George Washington University study published last October."
This is not about Edwards vetting his staffers after the fact. This is not about a candidate purging pottymouths. It is about a candidate showing whether he is a leader who can stand up to the opposition party-- the shrill, ugly voices of the nutjob extremists (Michelle Malkin another right wing extremist operative has also joined in this attack job.)A strong, confident leader will handle this kind of attack like he would a handful of gnats, even though his "handlers" might get hystrionic about it.
A tough, able leader will support his staffers and get on top of the attack by making it clear who the attackers are.
This is a test for John Edwards. If he passes it, he'll have built some strong bridges with progressives. If he fails it, and fires the bloggers, it is likely he will lose the progressive blogosphere. And that will probably cost him the primary. If he manages to win the primaries, there's no doubt the progressive blogosphere will get behind him. The question is-- will his loss of support in the primaries cost him the opportunity to go head to head with the Republican candidate.
I agree with that statement 100%. Edwards has temporarily lost his mind - and unless he can explain his way out of this (or perhaps rehire the bloggers) I think he just lost the primary.
If Edwards understood what he was doing when he hired Marcotte, he must follow the advice of Bowers and Wilbur. When Edwards hired Marcotte he signed up to a hard hitting unapologetic movement, a movement whose rhetoric is, shall we say, not always appreciated in the mainstream. If he backs off the ethos now, he can kiss their support away forever.
In sum, according to Hotline, "The controversy surrounding past criticism of the Catholic Church by progressive Pandagon blogger Amanda Marcotte is shaping into a make or break moment for John Edwards young campaign."
So there you have it. Now, the ball's in Edwards' court.
Now, this is really not a problem in the right, where toleration for intolerance is a vice that they cannot get rid of.
The point of attacking Edwards is to erode his position among liberals.
Obviously it is not working with the active liberals because we were able to see through the attacks quickly. Supporting these bloggers would be the best solution then.
The problem is those Democrats who don't follow politics closely. If Edwards supports the bloggers, then the follow up story is that Edwards stands by bigots, hurting his image with those who only follow mainstream news.
Personally, I would rather support the bloggers because angering them will mean a anti-Edwards campaign from this point until the primaries.
The trick is how to deal with the PR meme that is floating in the media.
I hope that they can come up with a strategy soon and do the right thing.