Beyerstein on Blogs and Campaigns

Lindsay Beyerstein has a fantastic article up on Salon about how she was approached to work for the Edwards internet team, why she declined, the ensuing Marcotte controversy, etc:

I was dazzled by Edwards' speech, Bob's vision and the sense that I might be on the verge of the big time. I wanted to jump on the bus, but I knew I couldn't.

"I'm probably not ... the person you want," I said, finally. "I mean, I'm on the record saying that abortion is good and that all drugs should be legalized, including heroin. Don't you think that might be a little embarrassing for the campaign?"

Bob assured me that my controversial posts weren't a problem as far as the campaign was concerned. They were familiar with my work. And Bob did seem to know my writing. I didn't get the impression he was a daily reader, but it was obvious he had been reading the blog for a while.

This, to me, doesn't sound like a campaign whose staff is quite firing on all cylinders.

Comments

The weird thing to me in that story is that Lindsay, who I think is a good writer, says she thinks Amanda Marcotte, who is definitely not a good writer, is a good writer. And when I say "good writer," I mean someone with a good, clean, lively prose style. Basically, the opposite of this comment.

Posted by too many steves | February 26, 2007 4:30 PM

Campaign staff errors are the sort of thing that, in the past, I wouldn't have considered relevant to my voting decision.

But I'm considering voting for Joe Biden, and I really want him to be surrounded by a coterie of damage control experts.

Also, I feel like there might be some sort of lesson to be learned from the experience of the Bush administration, as to hiring people who run a tight ship.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 26, 2007 4:31 PM

Bayerstein? Some pun I am missing?

Posted by jerry | February 26, 2007 4:34 PM

I've always been a fan of Amanda's writing -- in part because she does over-the-top raunchy devastating attacks better than anybody else ever.

Elvis, Bush's political people ran a pretty tight ship, at least for a while. On the other side, his policy people were crazy.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | February 26, 2007 4:35 PM

Yeah, Marcotte is not a really good writer and also not very analytically gifted. Beyerstein is way better in both areas...which is exactly what made her smart enough to turn this offer down.

Posted by MQ | February 26, 2007 4:35 PM

I thought it was a very good article, but I too can't imagine anyone suggesting that Marcotte is the best feminist blogger out there.

Anger and foul language can provide fun that we all enjoy, but I think it takes more than that to qualify as a good writer.

I just want to know that "Bob" is gone.

Posted by jerry | February 26, 2007 4:36 PM

Wooo! Matt fixed the typo in the title! Maybe now we can get him to fix the even more consequential non-working link to Lindsay in the blogroll. And maybe then Crescat Sententia!

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | February 26, 2007 4:49 PM

With Bush, you get devastating message control, but substantive results that stink to high heaven. With Democrats, you often get just the opposite. I wonder if there's an actual reason for the correlation, because you'd sure like to get the best of both worlds.

Posted by Steve | February 26, 2007 4:50 PM

Yeah, when Lindsay, whom I greatly admire, wrote a while back that Amanda was a good writer, I thought, well, maybe I'm missing something, so I went back and re-read some of Amanda's stuff at Pandagon. Can't say I changed my mind--still didn't care for her work at all. Matter of taste, I guess.

Posted by jacob | February 26, 2007 4:54 PM

I believe pretty strongly that Steve is correct. The ability to stifle dissent makes you win more elections and worse at governing with good results.

Appreciation of writing quality seems really non-transitive. I just never understood what the writers I like see in the writers they like.

An interesting article. It was heartening to know that the JRE people at least thought about this hiring decision.

The problem is, if you believe that "there are rules" about what the media will or will not attack, you have absolutely no insurance about the rules changing. I mean if ABC started doing stories on how the pizza delivery guy for the Obama campaign used to be a crackhead, what precisely would they be able to do? Obviously it's stupid, but you have no way to remove it from the air, and prevent middle-Americans from seeing "Obama" and "crackhead" in the same soundbite.

So I find it hard to get worked up about the political competency of a group that is playing in a realm where there are no reliable rules or precedents.

Posted by Tony V | February 26, 2007 4:58 PM

This article calls into question what Edwards was looking for in a blogger. For nearly every other candidate, head blogger is a token job, designed to make the candidate look "hip" and "with-it" to the computer generation. I had thought the hiring of Marcotte was some kind of awful mistake--a hasty choice who hadn't been vetted.

But Team Edwards seems to have wanted someone who was an actual bogger, with controversial opinions. The fact that they didn't foresee the obvious problems with this--when even one of their blogger recruits did--shows some real problems. I'm not sure if the idea to recruit an actual blogger orginiated with "Bob," or if it came from higher up, but it shows a glaring idiocy when it comes to internet politics. It's great to want to promote feminism and the like, but you can not do it with someone like Marcotte, who is indeed an awful writer, and who holds (and blogs about!) many extreme and ill-considered opinions.

Also, I enjoy the irony that the Edwards campaign's first choice for blogger was too smart to take the job. Instead of altering the job description, the campaign instead hired bloggers who obviously weren't as aware of realities of presidential politics.

Posted by Ben | February 26, 2007 4:59 PM

So I find it hard to get worked up about the political competency of a group that is playing in a realm where there are no reliable rules or precedents.

I think Tony V. makes a good point. Really, who thought swift-boating was on the menu before 2004?

It's very easy to criticize these things in hindsight, but I expect there were a lot of people telling Dean that this whole internet thing was a mistake. That it wasn't only a waste of time and resources he didn't have, but that it would associate him with the dirty internet which Middle America believed in 2003 was just for pornography and child sexual predators.

Edwards' people made what was a calculated gamble, and it didn't pay off. But I really don't see the anti-semite Bill Donohue sinking him. Frankly, I think it's necessary for the candidate who doesn't have more money than God & an ex-President stumping for him to be taking some risks.

Seriously, my entire adult life there's either been a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. This whole dynasty thing just isn't good for America, and it's time to see it repudiated.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2007 5:09 PM

But Team Edwards seems to have wanted someone who was an actual bogger, with controversial opinions. --Ben

I thought that during the whole blogger brewhaha as well -- there was no way the Edwards camp couldn't have known that Amanda had some pretty outrageous posts in her past. And if they had not, it meant they were pretty incompetent.

To put on my Mr. Cleo hat for a second: I think they wanted someone with name recognition within the lefty blogosphere, and wanted it to be a woman. There are quite a few out there that have those credentials -- BitchPhD, Shakes, Amanda, Pam, etc. -- but I imagine most either don't support Edwards or, like Lindsay, just didn't want the job. Thus, they took a chance and got burned.

As far as Amanda's writing goes (and this comes from a professional writer), I find it ... okay, as far as bloggers go. Her ability to come up with a witty insult is impressive, but the actual writing itself seems a bit clunky and not as crisp as I'd like.

But that's just my opinion, and lord knows I'm not exactly Hemmingway (or even Fowles, for that matter).

Posted by Unholy Moses | February 26, 2007 5:19 PM

Good article, thx Matt.

Posted by Korha | February 26, 2007 5:19 PM

Ben:

"Also, I enjoy the irony that the Edwards campaign's first choice for blogger was too smart to take the job. Instead of altering the job description, the campaign instead hired bloggers who obviously weren't as aware of realities of presidential politics smart.

There, fixed

(Assuming strikethrough command works on this site.)

Posted by jim | February 26, 2007 5:20 PM

And it doesn't. Dammit!

Ironic that I should be commenting on the smarts of others, no?

Posted by jim | February 26, 2007 5:21 PM

I have to agree with the Werewolf. What's with the longstanding broken link to Beyerstein in MY's blogroll? Is MY just too lazy to fix it or is there a more sinister explanation?

Posted by James B. Shearer | February 26, 2007 5:26 PM

Jim--

Actually, I really thought about writing "the campaign instead hired bloggers who obviously weren't as smart." But I stopped myself for fear of being labeled a sexist reactionary.

But yes, they moved down their list until they found people who weren't as smart at Lindsay.

Posted by Ben | February 26, 2007 5:27 PM

I listened to Edwards today on "On Point" on NPR. Tom Ashbrook had him for an hour. I love the guy on the issues, but there's a certain softness about his delivery that I'm not sure about. It's a strange lack of...pointed language or edge. Both Hillary and Obama seem capable of a harsher tone and I wonder: is that extra gear a candidate needs these days?

Posted by owenz | February 26, 2007 5:45 PM

Bob assured me that my controversial posts weren't a problem as far as the campaign was concerned.

Bob should be fired.

He sounds like a plant from a rival campaign (or a moron).

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 26, 2007 5:47 PM

"Edwards' people made what was a calculated gamble, and it didn't pay off. But I really don't see the anti-semite Bill Donohue sinking him. Frankly, I think it's necessary for the candidate who doesn't have more money than God & an ex-President stumping for him to be taking some risks." - Anon

While many in the blogosphere are decrying the decision by the Edwards campaign to hire Amanda, I have to admire the calculation. The gamble blew up in their face, but I don't think Edwards lost anything. While it did get some coverage in the larger media, it didn't enter the public consciousness. They don't know Amanda, they don't know Donohue, all they were able to glean was that Edwards had an issue with some staffers, and that was quickly forgotten once Anna Nicole died. Sometimes I think we give too much credit to the noise machine. Often their noise is white. I don't think Edwards is counting on Ann Coulter's readers or Rush Limbaugh's listeners for votes. I think Edwards was looking for feminist bloggers in order further stake his position to the left of Hillary, and the netroots will remember it that way a year from now.

Certainly, Lindsay has a point about the effectiveness of independent bloggers adopting a candidate and propelling them to victory, however I don't think candidates can count on this as a campaign strategy, especially in a highly contested national primary. Undoubtably the campaigns need to communicate and reach out to high profile bloggers, but they also need to proactively organize in the netroots. They can't hope that it happens spontaneously.

Posted by Just Karl | February 26, 2007 5:58 PM

I was amazed that Amanda accepted Edwards' offer in the first place. I thought it was bad for her, bad for me, bad for the world - and I couldn't care less what's good for Edwards or any particular candidate. I've never heard a politician say anything as interesting as articles that Lindsay, Amanda, and Matt write nearly every day. When one of these candidate creeps wins the Democratic nomination, all these bloggers will help lots more than they ever could wasted as campaign staff.

Posted by Gary Sugar | February 26, 2007 6:56 PM

Am I missing something. My impression is that the Edwards bloggers (or at least Melissa)were not terminated by the campaign, but were terminated by themselves because after receiving numerous death threats they wanted to get out before their actual home addresses were published by the wingnuts.

Stop blaming Edwards for what the wingnuts did.

My spouse is a Catholic, and aprogressive, and he is anti-abortion because he is pro-life. That means no killing fetuses, no killing people on death row, no unjust wars, and no killing bloggers you disagree with. What kind of Catholic is Bill Donohue?

Posted by sab | February 26, 2007 7:09 PM

What's with the longstanding broken link to Beyerstein in MY's blogroll? Is MY just too lazy to fix it or is there a more sinister explanation?

I think it was pointed out to Matthew on, like, day one of this iteration of the site. So the broken link has got to be intentional.

Posted by Al | February 26, 2007 9:11 PM

I believe Marcotte deserves credit for writing on the topics she does with a certain flair. She is a fine polemicist. Others tend to conflate her value by describing her as a "good writer" or rhetorician. From the posts I have read neither of those descriptions really apply. I think of Marcotte as a feminist Straussian, always advancing her cause regardless of the methods.
Her recent postings at Salon and TPMCafe being excellent examples of her ability to stay on message.

Posted by Tom Meagher | February 26, 2007 10:08 PM

Yeah, when Lindsay, whom I greatly admire, wrote a while back that Amanda was a good writer, I thought, well, maybe I'm missing something, so I went back and re-read some of Amanda's stuff at Pandagon. Can't say I changed my mind--still didn't care for her work at all. Matter of taste, I guess.

and

Also, I enjoy the irony that the Edwards campaign's first choice for blogger was too smart to take the job. Instead of altering the job description, the campaign instead hired bloggers who obviously weren't as aware of realities of presidential politics.

and

think they wanted someone with name recognition within the lefty blogosphere, and wanted it to be a woman.

...are all dead-on (though the last quote is merely stating the [I should think] obvious). The Edwards campaign wanted to buy an audience by hiring a name leftish woman, and since Amanda has presumably never sought political involvement she took a job that she perhaps should not have done; Amanda's writing is overrated because she's snappy/young; this whole thing makes Amanda look worse overall than before, and the Salon article makes Lindsay look better - at Amanda's (slight) expense.

Oh well.

Posted by WB | February 26, 2007 10:12 PM

FWIW, I'm going to fall on the side of "Amanda is a better writer". I tend to agree with Lindsay's posts, but Amanda just says so much more. And I continue to be amazed at the number of people who lap up the right-wing spin that Amanda is just foul language and/or anger.

People who don't understand why Amanda took the job should try unemployment for a while and see how that works for them.

As for why she was hired in the first place, I think that people have developed a skewed notion of what Amanda writes because they've seen the same few snippets of her work, taken out of contest, blasted repeatedly by Donohue and crowd. I remember Malkin's video that was supposed to somehow be embarrassing to Amanda, and yet I didn't find it embarrassing at all.

A sad lesson from all of this is that Donohue and company now think more than ever that villifying Democratic candidates will work to advance their agenda. And it's no coincidence that Amanda, who is both a feminist and an atheist, was the target here.

Posted by RickD | February 27, 2007 8:17 AM

And I continue to be amazed at the number of people who lap up the right-wing spin that Amanda is just foul language and/or anger.

If there are a large number of people that believe this, which is a simpler explanation: a) they are lapping up the right wing spin, or b) having evaluated Amanda for themselves, they believe she is just foul language and anger?

I think that people have developed a skewed notion of what Amanda writes because they've seen the same few snippets of her work, taken out of contest, blasted repeatedly by Donohue and crowd.

Remember, everyone is just like you. So if they disagree with you, they most likely have not done the homework you have done. Why do we even let them vote?

And it's no coincidence that Amanda, who is both a feminist and an atheist, was the target here.

Which is why people don't understand why Amanda was hired or why she accepted the position.

I am not sure I agree with your logical conclusion which is that no feminists and no atheists and no feminist atheists can go to work for a campaign. I am pretty sure they have.

So I suspect it was Amanda acting like a idiot and not believing she could possibly be a target (after all everyone one her blog insists she has lavender smelling shit and those that don't get banned.) As she has said, she never ever ever ever meant to offend anyone.

Posted by jerry | February 27, 2007 10:14 AM

If there are a large number of people that believe this, which is a simpler explanation: a) they are lapping up the right wing spin, or b) having evaluated Amanda for themselves, they believe she is just foul language and anger?

There's a third explanation, which is: (c) there are lots of liberals who are also pretty sexist, or at least who have internalized a great deal of sexism from an overwhelmingly sexist society, and view female bloggers who use rough language with far more disdain than they ever would for male bloggers who use comparable language, because women have historically been expected to be polite and genteel and well-mannered. So when presented with two different female bloggers, one of whom uses analytical if dry language and another who speaks eloquently if brashly about feminism, a lot of readers - even self-identified liberal readers - are going to be turned off because women just aren't supposed to talk like that.

Atrios swears; The Poor Man swears; Markos Moulitsas and Digby and Spencer Ackerman all swear. All of these bloggers have their strong points, but most of them, I'd say, are not better writers than Amanda Marcotte. But Amanda is singled out as being foul and offensive and a "bad writer," even among liberal readers, because she's a woman, and because women in this country just aren't allowed to be as brash or as profane or as shrill as men. That Amanda writes a great deal about precisely this sort of subject can't especially endear her to these people, either.

Posted by Christmas | February 27, 2007 11:28 AM

there are lots of liberals who are also pretty sexist, or at least who have internalized a great deal of sexism from an overwhelmingly sexist society

There is also a faction of liberal blog readers who act as thought police on these matters, accusing those people who dislike certain writers of sexism, Stalinism, Bushism, and so forth.

I'm really, really, really tired of reading that I don't like Amanda Marcotte because I think "women aren't supposed to talk like that." Women can talk any way they damn please. I think Marcotte isn't a good writer, and even if she was a good prose stylist, I also think she doesn't have much to say besides intentionally provocative crap that has very little logic or coherance behind it.

I'm not sexist for thinking Amanda Marcotte is one of the worst liberal bloggers writing today. I'm not an agent of the patriarchy trying to suppress or oppress her.

Cathy Young of Reason's Hit and Run blog summed up what I find so repugnant about Marcotte (hint: it isn't her genitalia): She promotes a "cult of female victimhood rife with militant anti-male bigotry."

Read the full post here. It covers the bases better than I could:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118702.html

Posted by Ben | February 27, 2007 11:52 AM

PS:

Digby is a woman.

Posted by Ben | February 27, 2007 11:53 AM

I'm really, really, really tired of reading that I don't like Amanda Marcotte because I think "women aren't supposed to talk like that."

What makes me doubt this is the fact that writers far less eloquent and talented than Marcotte, and equally profane, are not constantly decried as terrible writers by liberal readers the way she is. Over half of Atrios's posts are open threads or one line links to other posts; most of his other posts don't stretch beyond a paragraph or two. Are you grousing at length about how Duncan Black is "one of the worst liberal bloggers writing today"? Markos Moulitsas's writing is almost aggressively unanalytical, a bizarre combination of blithe assertions of conventional wisdom and vigorous denunciation of conventional wisdom itself. I don't hear liberal readers whining at length about what a terrible thinker and prose stylist Markos Moulitsas is. In fact, these are two of the biggest, most widely-read liberal bloggers on the net, and their readers don't seem to mind the fact that their writing itself is fairly substandard. But here we have a female blogger writing about feminism in rough language, and the number one objection to her among liberal readers is that her prose just doesn't measure up to the eloquent stylings of a "Wanker Of The Day" post, and we're expected to assume that sexism plays no role in this whatsoever? Please.

Digby is a woman.

If this is the case, Digby certainly doesn't do much to draw attention to it. That is, one can read Digby at length without his/her gender being made an issue - and more to the point, without the reader's gender being made an issue - in a way that you can't read Pandagon. This is what pisses people off about Amanda's writing: she's feminist, and she isn't polite about her feminism.

Posted by Christmas | February 27, 2007 12:26 PM

Christmas--

You seem to assume I read and enjoy Atrios and Daily Kos. I don't read Kos, and I'm not a fan at all of Duncan Black, but I find myself reading him to get a sense of what the liberal blog establishment is thinking, in much the same way I read The Corner to see what the Right is up to.

If you'd like to hear my thoughts on why Kos and Atrios are not very good bloggers, I'd be happy to indulge you. However, I don't understand how you can "doubt" the fact that my dislike of Marcotte is not sex-based. I don't like her writing or her opinions. The "number one" objection to her is not that she is a poor prose writer. It is that she holds views that I (and many others) disagree with, and she presents them in a way to be as contfrontational as possible.

I know you think that I (and many others) have internalized the sexism rampant in society and thus hate uppidy women, which is an argument I'd rather not get dragged into. And I'm sorry that the two most popular liberal bloggers are not your favorites (mine neither). But you're still suggesting that the reason I don't like Marcotte is because I am sexist. And I'm still tired of hearing my dislike of her turned around like this.

Posted by Ben | February 27, 2007 12:53 PM

But Amanda is singled out as being foul and offensive and a "bad writer," even among liberal readers, because she's a woman, and because women in this country just aren't allowed to be as brash or as profane or as shrill as men.

Well, I said she was an "okay" writer, so not sure if that's aimed at me. But I should note that I say that not because she's a woman -- it's because I have a pair of English degrees and have worked for the past decade as a professional writer.

I actually visit Pandagon fairly regularly and find a lot of her stuff funny as all hell (even as a hetero guy). But, based upon my education and experience, she's just okay as far as quality of prose goes. To imply that one cannot have that opinion unless it's based on sexism is a bit silly.

(I should also note that I've posted -- on my old site and in comments at various places -- that I never understood Atrios' popularity outside of his ability to put up links as they happen. The commenters, however, drive his site more than he does, IMHO.)

Posted by Unholy Moses | February 27, 2007 12:57 PM

I never understood Atrios' popularity outside of his ability to put up links as they happen.

Totally OT, but I get his appeal.

Frankly put, he tends to not get caught up in misdirection, and is unapologetically resistant to waging arguments on someone else's terms. This kind of voice has been very useful with an administration that's been lying and a media that's been enabling it.

3 quick examples of ignoring misdirection: Atrios was saying almost from the get-go that Iraq was an obviously ginned up war, and that on all the important things this administration was going into it half-assed. He's been very clear on what's going on with Iran right now--the Bush Administration is trying to provoke a violent conflict. And he's been saying for years that leaving=losing, and that in Iraq George Bush is never gonna draw down soldiers and leave, no matter what he says.

The Republicans love to make political arguments by using arguments that are not accepted political arguments. Atrios doesn't go in for that. In fact, he's found a way to challenge the privilege we give to religious-based arguments in our political discourse by saying, "I don't understand them, and I won't apologize for not understanding them. I also won't waste my time learning how to understand them, because, frankly, they're not relevant to the political argument."

Posted by anonymous | February 27, 2007 1:28 PM

I don't think it's ever been confirmed that Digby is a woman. I think Digby's wave function is still root(2)/2 man + root(2)/2 woman.

I think Amanda is a crappy writer. I think she is misinformed on many issues, carries her arguments beyond any evidence, and blatantly lies about what other people have said. You may find her writing funny, I don't. But more importantly, since it has been shown over and over how she intentionally deceives her readers on what other people have said, I just don't see how anyone can believe her.

I don't know if Digby is a woman or not. I know that Hullabaloo writes long, well argued, well constructed arguments, that present evidence. I know that when I or others have spoken out in the comments, Digby has been incredibly fair and is a person people can have a dialog with. Amanda in contrast deletes comments and bans people, and then complains that she has enemies.

She does have enemies in a way that few others on the web do. A lot of that comes directly from her poor communication skills, directly from her provable lies, and directly from her inability to keep from deleting comments and banning people merely because they disagree with her.

There is no excuse for threats. But the liberal blogosphere needs to take a real serious look at Marcotte's behavior and stop giving her attaboys, because her behavior is obnoxious and beyond the pale, and many many many of us completely predicted what she did to Edwards.

A common theme on the Liberal Blogosphere is that we should not be giving any attention to the pundits that dragged us into Iraq. Same here too. Bloggers that enabled Amanda need to step up and say that either they a) agree with her about the evils of the Patriarchy, b) explain why they don't blog about the evils of the Patriarchy, or c) explain why they don't think blogging about the Patriarchy is very important.

The keywords for Amanda: arrogance, bullying, hubris.

Posted by jerry | February 27, 2007 3:08 PM

Twisty Faster is a far better writer, far funnier, and far more informative.

This has nothing to do with the concave shape of Amanda Marcotte's genitals and frankly she should stop pandering that point and hiding behind her gender.

Three/four weeks now and she still has yet to take any responsibility for the mess she helped to create.

Posted by jerry | February 27, 2007 3:11 PM

Bloggers form personal friendships, & then let their friendships color their judgments about each other’s work. This kind of logrolling is at least as common in the blogosphere as it is among print journalists. Beyerstein, who is a gifted & level-headed writer, also is Marcotte’s personal friend, & has zealously defended her in other problematic circumstances, so it’s not surprising that she’d extravagantly praise her prose. Chalk it up to the virtue of loyalty.

People who view Marcotte as a paragon of feminism don’t know much about her or it. The notion that criticism of her work is tantamount to a defense of the right or of antifeminism is belied by her troubled relations with many leftwing feminist women. She’s just as nasty & dishonest in her disputes with them as she is toward the common rightwing enemy.

Posted by Emily | February 27, 2007 4:00 PM

Amanda in contrast deletes comments and bans people, and then complains that she has enemies. --jerry

Yeah, that's something I've never understood about her or other bloggers that do the same thing (usually on the right).

If you want to have a dialog, then have it, even if someone is mean or an idiot about it (the latter pair would probably bolster an argument anyway). And if you just want an echo-chamber, then don't allow comments and just post the "attaboy/girl" e-mails like Malkin.

Of course, maybe I don't get it because my old site never got that many comments and I'm just jealous ...

Posted by Unholy Moses | February 27, 2007 4:24 PM

Amanda is just a bad writer, when it comes down to it, and her substantive comment is ideological and tired.

You are right that Markos Moulitsas is not a good writer either, but he is a terrific organizer and understands his limitations as a writer. It is not a coincidence he made his rep with a community site where most of the content is contributed by others. Steve Gilliard is also not a good writer.

Atrios, by contrast, is a fantastic writer, one of the very best in the whole blogsphere. Pithy, punchy, witty, and direct. He doesn't write or intend to write essays, that's not what his site is all about. He's great at completely reframing an issue in a line or two. He was one of the first subjecting the Bush admin to Jon Stewart-esque ridicule -- he understood that they were so absurd it was almost surreal.

Posted by MQ | February 27, 2007 4:55 PM

Atrios, by contrast, is a fantastic writer, one of the very best in the whole blogsphere. Pithy, punchy, witty, and direct. He doesn't write or intend to write essays, that's not what his site is all about.

I love Atrios -- I do wish he could find a way to write an essay a week. I used to love reading collections of Mike Royko's columns. I can see SadlyNo and ThePoorman and Matt putting collections together. I think the Jesus' General would do a great job too. I am concerned about (I wanted to use "concern" so someone can call me a concern troll) Atrios' financial future. I wish there was some better way to monetize his blogging than "the mere selling of advertisements."

That said, I don't think blog posts would do very well bound in a book.

But boy, I sure miss Mike Royko and Slats Grobnik. And Molly Ivins.

Posted by jerry | February 27, 2007 5:39 PM

Yeah, Atrios really stands out. One gets the feelign he gets a sort of pride from putting out the same product he always has, when so many of his contemporaries have institutionalized their blogs in various ways.

Northrup of the Poorman, Atrios and Yglesias really ought to do some kind of joint product. I would subscribe to a printmagazine fo their stuff in a second. The Poorman stuff would make a VERY good book, perfect for point-of-purchase sales in independent bookstores. Surprising no one's approached him about it.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | February 27, 2007 5:46 PM

i disagree with most of you. amanda marcotte is actually a very good writer. she just really doesn't know the hardcore specifics of our political system, and is more of a cultural critic than a reporter or disseminator of information. her posts can be searing, but they are rarely heavilly informative. and really, if I were Edwards hiring a head blogger, I would much rather have someone who knows a billion and one facts about American politics and who can fling them out to the public in a coherent manner than someone mostly known for compelling narratives, snark and caustic put-downs.

Posted by benj | February 27, 2007 6:14 PM

'arguments beyond any evidence' - This would sum up my gripe with Marcotte. She is given to making imprecise arguments and in her quest for snark/satire/entertainment value often makes these arguments sloppily. Marcotte's post are often enjoyable but they are not the devastatingly accurate critiques of Greenwald or Digby.

Posted by Jesus H. | February 28, 2007 5:32 AM