Targeting John Edwards’ bloggers

Most of the presidential campaigns, on both sides of the aisle, have engaged in some fairly aggressive blog outreach lately, including having hired some high-profile bloggers as part of the campaign team. John Edwards hired two — Pandagon’s Amanda Marcotte and Shakespeare’s Sister’s Melissa McEwan. (As far as disclosure is concerned, I’ve talked to Melissa several times, but I don’t know Amanda.)

It was a great move for the Edwards campaign. Here are two bright and clever writers, with sizable audiences, who agreed to help improve Edwards’ online presence dramatically, not to mention offering the campaign some serious netroots street cred.

But there’s a catch. Amanda and Melissa have been blogging daily for quite a while, and some on the right decided to undermine Edwards’ campaign by highlighting some of the bloggers’ less temperate comments. Today, the New York Times made the complaints a legitimate news story.

Two bloggers hired by John Edwards to reach out to liberals in the online world have landed his presidential campaign in hot water for doing what bloggers do — expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language.

The Catholic League, a conservative religious group, is demanding that Mr. Edwards dismiss the two, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, who writes on her blog, Shakespeare’s Sister, for expressing anti-Catholic opinions….

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.”

At this point, the Team Edwards has not publicly announced their support for Amanda and Melissa. The NYT reported that Jennifer Palmieri, Edwards’s spokesperson, said last night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.

That’s not quite what I’d hoped to hear.

For one thing, there’s no reason on earth to take Bill Donohue seriously. The man’s public comments reflect an activist who is not only unhinged, but filled with hate for anyone who dares to disagree with him. Donohue, not too long ago, told a national television audience, “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.” To take his “vulgar” whining seriously is a mistake.

But even more importantly, Edwards and every other presidential candidate have to realize that everyone who blogs is going to end up offending someone at some point. It’s inevitable. Candidates want to garner support and credibility among blog writers and readers; they want the valuable assistance talented writers like Amanda and Melissa offer; and in turn they have to be prepared to stand by those bloggers when scrutiny comes.

If the Edwards campaign caves on this, and they fire Amanda and/or Melissa, the political consequences will be far reaching. First, Edwards, who enjoys fairly significant online support, will suffer considerably for the rest of the campaign. Second, progressive bloggers will inevitably respond to the right’ attacks by targeting conservative bloggers who have teamed up with GOP candidates.

And third, the result will, in all likelihood, create a chilling effect in which presidential campaigns stop hiring bloggers altogether. Candidates will do some outreach, buy some ads, and attempt some fundraising, but the cooperative efforts will end.

This should be an easy one — Edwards’ campaign should stand by Amanda and Melissa. The campaign should tell reporters that everything Edwards has said or written is fair game, but what individual staffers wrote long before they joined the campaign team is irrelevant.

Stay tuned.

i though offending people was what blogs were for!

  • since when do we have to stop expressing our legitimate opinions for fear of offending someone? and since when does that become an undesirable trait?

    i fully agree with you CB when you say that anyone can criticize what they may write now that they’re employed by edwards, but what they wrote before is irrelevant.

  • I think its fine. Let Republican candidates have to defend what their staffers write too. Maybe one of them can explain how supporting the war in Iraq that the Pope was against is not anti-Catholic, or at least not anti-Pope.

  • Donohue makes an inordinate number of public comments about sodomy.

    This isn’t a topic that ordinarily comes up in routine day to day conversation, unless your name is Bill Donohue.

    You could almost say that its an obsession with this guy.

    These days it seems like the folks who get the most worked up talking about this topic are probably the folks who get who get the most worked up about it.

    Horsey is on it on here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbyperson.asp?person=Haggard%20Ted&id=1488

    If this is Bill Donohue’s thing, fine with me. But if he could spare the sanctimony he’d be doing a great public service.

    I hear there is a three week counseling course available.

  • Brian #4 makes the relevant point about “butt-f*ck” Bill Donohue. He is really, scarily obsessed with backdoor intimacy. And, as CB notes, he’s generally the sort of hate-addled, incoherently shrill “spokesperson” the Right seems to produce with sadly increasing frequency.

  • Second, progressive bloggers will inevitably respond to the right’ attacks by targeting conservative bloggers who have teamed up with GOP candidates.

    I agree with your general point, CB, but what on earth makes you think that’s not going to happen anyway?

  • As a recovering Catholic (whose Mom is still with the church), I am seriously offended that this POS represents himself as a representative of the church. What are his credentials for being a spokesperson, that he heads up a group (and are they all Catholics?) who are the noisy minority?
    Someone tell the MSM that giving this guy credibility only lessens the MSM credibility.

  • Donohue is about as “provocative and crude” as you can get; he strongly reminds me of every red-faced, old Irish Catholic drunk I’ve ever run into at Democratic functions, bigots whose only interest was in keeping their newly won middle-class parishes black-free. Every minute which passes without my candidate, John Edwards, making an emphatic statement of support for Marcotte and McEwan is eating into my support for him. I’m sure many others feel the same way. Triangulating, John?

  • If Edwards cowers under the scrutiny of folks like Donohue, he will be pandering to people who have no intention of ever voting for him for anything while alienating his supporters who want to see him reach the White House. This is a cojone check for Edwards. Either he has the balls and temperament to be a national leader or he will be bowed by pressure from folks who are radical idiots. Your choice John.

    Michelle Malkin has a spittle-flecked reading of some of Marcotte’s writing that says more about Malkin than Amanda. The text she read is reasonable, the delivery is by a seriously disturbed person -http://www.ifilm.com/video/2819985

  • I don’t have many liberal female blogger friends. It is likely because I am afraid. I am afraid that I might end up in an open conversation with them and say something offensive. Now that Amanda and Shake’s Sister are blogging for Edwards, I am going to have to be afraid of him too.

    Seriously, I was a loyal reader of Amanda’s and although she often covered areas I am not overly interested in I did like her frankness and writing. These two women will do a fine job. Writing for the Edwards’ blog is a far cry from Pandagon and I do not expect to see Amanda wielding the same blunt instrument for Edwards as she did as a private person.

    This is so unimportant I cannot believe I spent two paragraphs commenting on it.

  • If the Edwards campaign caves on this, and they fire Amanda and/or Melissa, the political consequences will be far reaching.

    If nothing else, it would make Edwards look like a bonehead. These aren’t exactly skeletons in the closet; the bloggers are being hired because of what they write (or rather, because they know how to write blogs). If Edwards was hoping nobody would notice that, say, Amanda loudly advocates sexual liberality and that she doesn’t like the Pope, then he deserves to be swept under the rug.

  • When organizations such as the Catholic League and the Catholic Church start paying taxes, then I’ll accept their right to criticize anything about the political process – but until then, they have absolutely no standing to demand anything

  • This issue is highlighting the thing I’ve harped about before once or twice, the ridiculous hypocrisy of taking a trivial issue (foul or “offensive” language) and holding it equal to an important issue (abuse of power).

    Yes, language has power, but the words of one or two anonymous bloggers, foul or otherwise, are nothing in comparison to the forces for evil which are routinely flexed by powerful organizations like the Catholic church and its lackeys.

    The church has unapologetically and routinely destroyed and enslaved entire civilizations (they’re not so much into destruction anymore, but the enslavement continues), and the swear-words of two women writing in their personal blogs are somehow dangerous?

    WTF?

    If Edwards wants to keep his status as defender of the lowly, he needs to stand by these two women and stand up to the thugs who would silence them.

  • I hope Edwards does the right thing here. But another aspect of this is the NYT making this a legitimate news story. That’s fine, but that needs to include mentioning that the people who are upset are mostly “vulgar trash-talking bigots” and putting the whole thing into the correct perspective. It took this CB group all of a few minutes to do that – certainly the Times can as well. Context matters.

    Once again, this is a msm doing a good job story more tghan what the actual story was about.

  • Of all the crap that will be hurled in Edwards direction during the campaign, this is small beans, an opening salvo. If he doesn’t stand his ground on this, just on a purely political tactics basis, he might as well leave the field.

    If he’s smart, he’ll use it as an opportunity to turn it back around on the right-wing smear machine. Something along the lines of “I’m glad to hear that the Catholic League thinks I’m a decent man, and it really is too bad that they’ve allowed their organization to be sullied by such vulgar, trash talking charges. Perhaps, once they get that organizational problem cleaned up, they’ll be able to join us in helping America’s poor and homeless.”

  • I’m not so sure the bloggers aren’t fair game. I don’t recall the specifics, but didn’t McCain just hire someone with a colorful past to manage his campaign and get flak from the left? The specifics may differ but is there a substantial difference?

  • Why is that Dems are responsible for every word from every person they have ever met, while repubs are never even responsible for the words of people they actively work with?

  • Why would campaigns hire bloggers to get support from the online community? Better to give interviews to them or a seat on the campaign plane; keep them independent or they lose their credibility.
    .
    The political consequences of firing two bloggers that almost no one has heard of will be zero. Will you be unfair to Edwards because he bowed to political reality and removed employees who painted big targets on themselves?

  • #15 wvng: ” But another aspect of this is the NYT making this a legitimate news story.”

    Good point. This doesn’t seem like a ripe controversy; rather, the NYT is re-printing a Catholic League press release. The headline could well be “Professional Complainers Complain.”

  • I hope Edwards is just taking a moment to review the work of these two women. But in the end, barring some truely outrageous conduct on their part (calling for the murder of priests because some were pedophiles who abused children maybe) then I’d say stand by your staff and spit in Donahue’s eyes.

  • Donohue is an asshole, pure and simple. But this is not about Donohue. Marcotte has written some viciously anti-Catholic stuff, that is both wrong and likely to backfire with Edwards’ attempts to garner Catholic votes. Come on, singling out the Catholic Church for oppressing women and calling the pope a dictator– sorry, this is just a modern incarnation of the Kno-Nothing types that detroyed the career of Al Smith. It’s also a first cousin of the right-wing anti-Catholicism that is scared of Mexicans over-running the United States!

    So, get a grip. Ever wonder why so manhy Catholics vote Republican, when 99 percent of their policies violate Catholic social teachings and gospel values? I’ll tell you: it’s this kind of attitude.

  • Edwards is already my least favorite of the Dem front runners, but if he caves to this thug, he’s lost me for good. Who even really listens to the Catholic League. I thought Catholics already had a leader holed up somewhere in Italy. Maybe they should listen to him and start opposing this war.

  • A little history, if you please….

    The Catholic Church has always been anti-anything if it concerned reproductive issues that reduced its ranks. Look at all those great big churches they’ve got. They need great big families to fill them. And they need great big families to keep bringing money in to fill the collection plates. But since they’re not getting as many families—and those families are smaller than they used to be—they’re bleeding from the throat. Why else openly threaten elected officials with excommunication if they support women’s reproductive rights?

    The Catholic Church, when represented by notorious thugs the likes of Donohue (I keep wanting to call him “dungus hole” for some reason—go figure) comes across as just another modern-day version of the decrepit old men who nailed some carpenter to a cross about 2,000 years ago. Some guy named Pilate, as I recall, caved in to their whining.

    John Edwards now holds a golden opportunity. He can reject the hate and support the Constitutionally-protected rights of his staffers—or he can cave to the dungus-holers (blast—there I go again), and play Pilate. And to the blogosphere—and to the vast majority of Americans, he’ll never be able to wash that proverbial “blood” from his hands….

  • Donohue is a fugginidiot who could plausibly be accused of altering ecclesiastical vestments to turn them into hoods and robes for a Klan rally.

    At the same time, when I read that Amanda was signing on to the Edwards campaign, my own first reaction was, “Holy shit!”

    I finally stopped reading Pandagon because, while I generally agreed with the actual positions, they always seemed to turn the voltage up so high that one’s head was in danger of bursting into flame. I guess I was the left-wing equivalent of those people at the rodeo who started off cheering Borat’s support of the US troops, and then suddenly found themselves clapping when he vowed to drink the blood of every Iraqi.

    I wish Amanda well, and I admire much of her work, but if I were John Edwards, I’m not sure I’d want an unleashed pit bull in my living room.

  • Morning’s: Occam’s Razor dictates that it’s because many practicing American Catholics don’t give a good ratshit about the Church’s stand on social justice, just as they don’t about birth control.

  • I am also a recovering Catholic. People like Bill Donahue are the reason sane Catholics have had it! These people are so over-the-top and judgmental. You know what they say about pointing fingers……… We have so many Catholic perverts (laypeople and clergy) preaching one thing as they hide behind their bibles, doing another. I’m so fed up with our non-christian approach to everything. Edward’s stick with the bloggers and do yourself a big, big favor. They represent the real America!

  • This is great.

    The Catholic Church:

    Biggest provider of heathcare and education in the world.
    Opposes war, torture, and the death penalty.
    Includes the “preferential option for the poor” among its core doctrines.
    Argues that terrorism and war can be ended only by tacking injustice.

    And you cede to vote to Republicans, based on the BS as enunciated by Steve a few comments back?

    Here’s a little exercise: take any of these bigoted statements. Replace “Catholic” with “Jew” (or even Hollywood’s favorite “Buddhist”) and see how acceptable your prejudice really is.

    And for the last time: DONOHUE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He is in fact a partisan Republican pretending to defend Catholicism. But the fact that he is a charlatan does not mean Catholicism does not need defending from the latest “Know-Nothing” incarnation.

    For an expose of Donohue, see: http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2006/10/catholic-league-watch-monster-catch-up.html#links

  • There is a difference between occasionally offending someone and the kind of daily crap and vitriol towards anyone that disagreed with Amanda’s views that are regular features of her posts.

    She’s really not terribly liberal. If she thinks something is good, then she thinks the gov’t should have the fascist powers to make it happen. If she thinks an idea is bad, then it’s get the gov’t off our bodies.

    She runs her blog on flames, she bans users and deletes comments that disagree with her.

    She reaps what she sews and she takes others down with her.

  • just bill wrote:
    “since when do we have to stop expressing our legitimate opinions for fear of offending someone? and since when does that become an undesirable trait?”

    You and everyone focusing on Donahue and Malkin are in denial and miss the point. It’s not the fact of expressing legitimate opinions, it’s the bile-spewing and hateful way The Becunted One expresses herself that’s undesirable. I couldn’t believe Edwards hired her in the first place, and now I can hardly believe the way his supporters are condemning him.

    “i fully agree with you CB when you say that anyone can criticize what they may write now that they’re employed by edwards, but what they wrote before is irrelevant.”

    How would you react if a Republican hired Jeff Goldstein as a blogger?

  • Comments are closed.