Who's Running This Campaign?

So . . . Amanda Marcotte's resigned from the Edwards campaign after all, apparently once a fairly tame remark in her review of Children of Men prompted another Donohue outburst. Marcotte's explanation -- roughly that she didn't want to feel constrained in what she could write, and also that she didn't want to drag the Edwards campaign down -- makes perfect sense. Indeed, that's why think I wouldn't take a job even with a candidate I was super-enthusiastic about -- I like to speak (and blog) my mind in a way that's not conducive to being on the staff of a presidential campaign.

But that's where things get puzzling to me. How is it that the Edwards campaign didn't manage to say in advance that people were going to have to stop blogging if they want to work on the campaign? Similarly, based on their own reaction to the controversy it appears that nobody at the campaign decided to vet Marcotte before they hired her? Presumably, these were both decisions handled at a fairly low level (I doubt Edwards himself was huddled in a room with three top advisors discussing blog hiring policy for hours until after controversies started breaking out) but it all seems a little amateurish. Whoever came up with the health care plan seems really smart, maybe they should ask his or her advice on more things.

Comments

On the flip side, why didn't Amanda politely decline the job offer, citing the likelihood that a bombthrower such as herself would generate more trouble for the campaign than she was worth?

Otherwise, yes.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 13, 2007 9:43 AM

given that elizabeth edwards is said to be very interested in blogging, it's especially puzzling.

Posted by howard | February 13, 2007 9:45 AM

The idea that the controversy is preventing me from doing the job I was hired to do is time tested... we saw it from an Administration appointee just a week ago. It's difficult to tell if it is real or if it is feigned - could the fire/rehire/resign thing just be a ruse to keep the netroots on Edwards' side? No way to tell, really.

Posted by Al | February 13, 2007 9:54 AM

I don't know, maybe I'm being simpleminded, but nothing about this seems all that puzzling. I imagine the Edwards campaign was eager to engage with the netroots, motivated in large part by what Howard Dean was able to achieve in the last election. They were duly warned that the blogosphere is an "edgy," rough-and-tumble sort of place. But they felt that they were going in with their eyes open and also felt they couldn't afford not to engage with this community. So they hired two well-known bloggers.

Said bloggers were duly informed that working for a presidential campaign is different than spouting off on whatever topic they want and in whatever manner they want. They were being hired specifically for their unique "voices," but they had to accept that they would have to modulate their tone a bit when working in the official capacity of the campaign. Could they do this? Yes, yes, of course they could.

The end.

Posted by Adam | February 13, 2007 10:01 AM

Edwards is running for President, and yet Amanda can’t resist the urge to paint a bulls eye on her forehead. Altogether strange. The woman needs to get a grip.

Posted by ostap | February 13, 2007 10:01 AM

It seems senseless to me that you wouldn't take a break from your personal blog once you get hired to blog for a Presidential campaign. Regardless, I think the issue is pretty dead and buried at this point.

Posted by Steve | February 13, 2007 10:04 AM

After the initial flap, the problem for the Edwards people was they couldn't fire her, but couldn't keep her. Firing her would lose the votes of netroots for caving to wingnuts. Keeping her would continue to piss off Catholics, whose votes the Democrats need.

Solution: show some spine while "keeping" her, but then arrange her willing resignation ASAP.

Business as usual in the image manipulation class.

Posted by Leonard | February 13, 2007 10:08 AM

At least Amanda has learnt her lesson (rolls eyes**). Pandagon was down. The screen message: "Whenever the site is up, we're flooded by asshat spammers. We'll just have to wait out the attack; rest assured we'll be back to normal as soon as possible. Thanks! "

So mature. This is the handiwork of a woman who is determined to give her critics enough rope to hang her with. It pisses me off that the likes of Donohue get to call the steps, but Amanda was too "unwillingly willing" a dance partner.

And you, Matthew, are a perfect example of how a blogger can be informative, entertaining, and not calculatingly offensive. I greatly admire your intellect, erudition, but most of all, restraint. Amanda could learn a trick or two from you and your ilk.

**Professional maturity sweats these details, a sage former employer once told me.

Posted by jimmm | February 13, 2007 10:13 AM

I hope people don't take this as an especially instructive case about the alleged dangers of hiring bloggers. Some bloggers couldn't conform to the imperatives of a campaign; others could. And few have a blogtrail like Amanda's.

Posted by david mizner | February 13, 2007 10:18 AM

Maybe, but I think there's something to say for that tired old cliché, "fight fire with fire." Amanda hasn't been too successful, but she could be if the left learned to astroturf better. Top rightwing "professional" bloggers link to less than appropriate sites all the time.

Personally I really admire Amanda, and I hope she manages to turn her newfound infamy into something useful. As a former Christian, I do find her material to be offensive at times, sort of an LGF of the left in it's constant depiction of only the worst of a religion. But then again, Amanda is not calling for blood 24/7, far from it.

Anyways, Marcotte down, Domenech down. That's 1 for 1.

Posted by Ross | February 13, 2007 10:26 AM

Amanda strikes me as a pretty honest person, forthright certainly. I doubt she was let go and told "resign yourself" and wouldn't tell anybody else.

And no it's not perfect for the Edward's campaign. One of the reasons not to fire was that even if he did fire her, if his opponents wanted to, they could still yell "Edward's hired an atheist feminist on his communication team that said X!". They still can yell that.

Posted by Tony V | February 13, 2007 10:28 AM

I still don't understand why a campaign would want to hire a blogger. It's kind of like hiring a beat reporter or columnist. You might hire someone like that, but you'd just put them in the communications department and leave it at that. Writing chirpy press releases is work for an unpaid intern.

Posted by guy | February 13, 2007 10:28 AM

Btw, this reminds me. Is Obama actually running a campaign or anything? I hear all these things about the campaign teams, the field offices, the fundraisers the big guys are setting up (Clinton, Edwards, Rudy, McCain, Romney). What sort of infrastructure has Obama started building that is more what a campaign is about rather than the fun "let's give pretty speeches" stuff.

Posted by Tony V | February 13, 2007 10:30 AM

I think Guy is right even if you hired a blogger less caustic than Ms. Marcotte.

Posted by crack | February 13, 2007 10:35 AM

Anyways, Marcotte down, Domenech down

Bad analogy. Domenech didn't lose his job for any of the stuff he wrote, just the stuff he didn't write.

Posted by MattT | February 13, 2007 10:39 AM

Amanda now adds lying to her skill set of incompetences. She was fired peeps! And her mealey mouthed excuse is as insufferable as her libelous insults thrown at the Duke players followed by her crude attempts to whitewash that record when she began discussing the Edwards job.
It was those remarks which percolated through the Carolinas and lawyer communities to Edwards. It was those Amanda stupidities which actually got her fired. As well they should have.
No one is trying to shut poor poor Amanda up. To the contrary I look forward to seeing how many more feet she can shove in her mouth; she's making an excellent start on a new record.
And are many on the right as bad and worse? Hell yes! But so what?
How impoverished the left becomes when we allow the Malkins and Donahues (or Amandas) to decide the level of our discourse.
This has nothing to do with bloggers working on political campaigns; that is a silly attempt to distract us from the central issue:
Amanda was hoisted on her own petard after she demanded a degree of understanding and fairness she never exhibited to her "enemies".
It is too bad that so many on the left decided to fight for so unworthy a heroine, one who only continues to betray their support.
She lies to us until the very end.

Posted by jaimie | February 13, 2007 10:42 AM

As I said on TBogg, I am a huge Pandagon fan in general and a great appreciater of Amanda Marcotte's voice. That having been said, I was stunned when Edwards hired her. Her views are just far too out there for a mainstream campaign.

My initial reaction was that the people who hired her have never read her blog very regularly, which speaks poorly of the campaign.

I hold pretty similar views to Amanda, left-wing, atheistic, contemptuous of our religious primitivist and their authoritarian tendencies. But it would never occur to me that if I had publicly asserted those views with the same panache as she has, that I could make the transition to a presidential campaign.

So I think it is unfortunate for everyone that she was hired, became the whipping girl of the brown shirts, and then felt compelled to resign.

Jaime nice concern trolling - Amanda fights the fight that needs to be fought against the asshats of wingnuttery. It's just that if you decide to get down and take these people on in a combative way, you're not going to be able to make the leap to working for a candidate. So be it.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | February 13, 2007 11:02 AM

jimm shows he hasn't read Matt very much. Matt's anti-Catholic stance makes what Amanda wrote look like the joke it is.

Posted by Rob | February 13, 2007 11:25 AM

Some day the Dems will realise they need to bury the far right once and for all. This was a good chance to start, too bad every single Dem candidate is too craven to take on these maniacs.

Especially Edwards. He ain't gonna win shit running from the middle so why not stake out a position on the left? See if telling Malkin and Donahue to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut will really take even one vote away rather than garnering a ton of votes from the real left.

I mean, shit... the Duke case? She disagrees with the verdict. So what? Does no one who thinks OJ was guilty qualify for a low level staff position on a campaign? Anti-Christian? Even honoring that argument with acknowledgement just reinforces the utter lack of reading comprehension amongst the insane right.

Posted by Sarcastro | February 13, 2007 11:29 AM

Wait, everyone thinks OJ was guilty!

As for the Edwards campaign, who knows how competent they really are? Clearly this was a forseeably bad decision. All campaigns make mistakes, obviously. The pertinent question is, whether this one was an anamoly, or just the first of a long series of blunders.

Posted by Korha | February 13, 2007 11:39 AM

Marcotte's resignation statement (not accessable now, as Pandagon is down), and the emails she's posted on the ersatz Pandagon now, are good examples of why I consider her the Worst Blogger in America. All she could say is that she was fired/harrassed by Donohue, etc. because and only because she was a woman. This patriarchial society couldn't bear to have a woman in such a prestigious position as campaign blogger. The war against women continues apace.

This is, of course, silly. Nothing happened to her because of her gender--an androgynous blogger robot would have sparked the same response. She relies--as she usually does--on quoting the most stupid and sexist emails she's received, and to her, it explains everything. No need to appologize, to reconsider her views or style as a blogger, or even her choice to apply for the Edwards job and open his campaign to her liabilities.

It's just the stupids and the sexists, and they rule the world, and they're the ones that make bad stuff happen to her, and all women everywhere. And then they email her nasty stuff about her being a woman Case closed.

Posted by Ben | February 13, 2007 12:10 PM

"She disagrees with the verdict?" There hasn't been a verdict. She thinks that harassment and assault are serious crimes and that clearing the men of rape doesn't clear them of all crimes. This is not remotely like OJ.

Posted by JR | February 13, 2007 12:12 PM

Oh JR if only Amanda had said anything remotely as sensible as your reinvention of her vile and libelous postings. And by the way it was in one of her screeds that Amanda herself compared the Duke players to OJ.
Amanda realized how repugnant and damaging her posts on the Duke case were. That is why she attempted to erase them from the blogosphere once she went after the Edwards job.
In other words she believed so little in what she wrote that she was willing to alter and destroy her work for a paycheck with Edwards.
Pitiful.

Posted by jaimie | February 13, 2007 12:24 PM

I can't tell if Sarcastro's comment was serious or not but on the off chance that it was . . .

I mean, shit... the Duke case? She disagrees with the verdict.

Verdict? There is no verdict. There hasn't been a trial. There was a DA who pursed a case in which, it has become increasingly clear, there was no crime. When the DA finally had to take some heat for it Marcotte's reaction was, "Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?"

Posted by Mark Adams | February 13, 2007 12:30 PM

"At least Amanda has learnt her lesson (rolls eyes**). Pandagon was down. The screen message: "Whenever the site is up, we're flooded by asshat spammers. We'll just have to wait out the attack; rest assured we'll be back to normal as soon as possible. Thanks! "

So mature. This is the handiwork of a woman who is determined to give her critics enough rope to hang her with. It pisses me off that the likes of Donohue get to call the steps, but Amanda was too "unwillingly willing" a dance partner."

Did you read the stuff that was being aimed at Pandagon before the site was shut down? If not, you out to keep your mouth shut until you do. The obscenties alone would make your ears bleed, let alone the sentiments. It wouldn't be enough for them for Amanada to die, she'd have to die in the slowest, most painful manner possible and even then they wouldn't be satisfied. Talk about maturity.

Bill Donohoe is a rasciost, homophobic sack of crap, and the fact is, Edwards let him win. Good job John.

Posted by Roger Christie | February 13, 2007 12:36 PM

Roger--

Why did Edwards put himself in the position to lose to a jerk like Donohue in the first place? Bill Dononhue isn't running for anything, he can be as racist as he wants to be.

Edwards walked ass-first into a trap he should have seen, and it's been a week of terrible media for him. All we've heard from him is a piddling press release straddling the issue. The fact that his campaign made this amatuer mistake, and has not had anything close to control of the media narrative on this, shows the makings of a piss-poor presidential campaign.

Posted by Ben | February 13, 2007 12:41 PM

The Edwards campaign made a mistake. Big Deal! Is that really such bizarre phenomenon. Cut the guy some slack and get over it. We Dems will never regain the presidency if we get bogged down in side issues like this. We need to be talking about war, health care, the economy, the environment, not stuff like whether or not the Catholic Church is mysogynistic.

Posted by Virginia Dutch | February 13, 2007 12:48 PM

The fact that his campaign made this amatuer mistake, and has not had anything close to control of the media narrative on this, shows the makings of a piss-poor presidential campaign.

Well, let's tally.

Edwards took the lead in bashing the prospective Republican nominees with his brilliant framing of the "McCain Doctrine." Tying McCain to the unpopular troop increase has played no small role in his poll numbers plummeting like a lead balloon.

Edwards made the excellent strategic decision to announce in New Orleans, something of a dog-whistle signal to folks like me.

Edwards came out with a strong and creative health care plan that has been generally well received.

But oh-oh, he misstepped on the "blogger issue," so we must have the "makings of a piss-poor presidential campaign." Give me a fucking break. Overreact much?

Posted by Steve | February 13, 2007 1:09 PM

Ya don't hire Reggie Jackson (remember him) and tell him to only hit singles. You hire people for what they do best and then you turn them loose.

This whole affair tells me that Johnny is not ready for prime time. Leadership is not mainly about "purdy" speeches. It is about the act of executive leadership and attention to detail.
Multi-millionaire Edwards was one of the most successful litigators in the land. Matt asked:

...nobody at the campaign decided to vet Marcotte before they hired her?

Trial attorneys at Edward's level have a staff of lawyers and investigators who vet everything.

Presumably, these were both decisions handled at a fairly low level (I doubt Edwards himself was huddled in a room with three top advisors discussing blog hiring policy

That would be really negligent: Leaving the hiring of two people who were going to be part of the daily face of your campaign to low level staff? If that is the way that lawyer Edwards practiced law, it's a wonder that he didn't get his ass kicked every time he walked into a court house.
So I tend to think this looks like Johnny was more serious about suing companies than he about running for the Democratic nomination. Color me unimpressed

Posted by Keith G | February 13, 2007 1:12 PM

Marcotte did the right thing by resigning. I support her efforts to go after Donohue's scummy racket, if that's what she really wants to do. I'm sure the maggots are in charge at the so-called Catholic League of self-appointed demigods. She might pick on the Lutherans next time, too.

Posted by Tim | February 13, 2007 1:16 PM

Ben, you read like a flak for Hillary or the Repugs. First off, let me say I'm one of those gullible liberal hawks who felt Saddam Hussein stood for everything leftists and liberals should be against. So Republicans didn't like him, so what? Not everything the Republicans dislike is good.

I have always liked Edwards. As Matt writes, he put forward a smart, sharp health care plan and put himself out in front of Clinton and Obama. He hired two feminist bloggers who are apperently authentic and respected within their wacky community. Another good move.

I'm not anti-Catholic so much as anti-religion, so I've never cared what Donohue had to say at all. That the bloggers pissed him off is a plus in my book. Marcotte decided to quit, Edwards didn't fire her, so I don't think it's a big deal.

You'd think the feminists would go with Hillary, no? I'd like to see her as the POTUS, b/c as Trey Parker and Matt Stone have said, it would be really weird. Limbaugh's head would explode.

But I like Obama too, his desire to cut and run notwithstanding.

Posted by Peter K. | February 13, 2007 1:22 PM

I have never read Ms. Marcotte's writing, but I have formed an opinion on the public reaction to it.
We are faced with serious issues in this country, one of the big ones is health care. Like him or not, John Edwards has been the only candidate to date to offer a well-considered statement that could be turned into actual public policy. It is pragmatic, and more important possible, and as such rises above all other considerations that fail on their merits or ignore the political or economic realities in which we live.
Sure it might be made better, but it's a serious and cogent policy proposal. And this is hardly a first for Edwards, who has also made silmilar statements regarding poverty, economics and Iraq.
Given the current silliness and shallowness that comprises the politicians and pundits who run our country, could we not for one campaign cycle choose to rise above the screedal shrieks and engage in adult debate regarding our all-too-obvious problems?
And in that light I don't care if Edward's campaign (or Edwards himself) chose not to provide political cover for some blogger's personal opinion, even if they were attacked by an odious fool like Donohoe (and just becuase he's a fool doesn't mean he's always wrong. In Ohio we work on the blind hog theory, to whit: even a blind hog roots up an ear of corn now and then!) What I (and I strongly suspect most) voters yearn for is someone with presidential timbre and substance. Presidents do not exist for the purpose of protecting my every ill-considered word, they pledge to protect the Constitution, which itself protects my idiocy whether leaning left or right! I would be more than happy to have a candidate that would do just that, and at the same time be willing to offer intelligent, workable policy proposals that benefit all. It would be, what's the word I'm searching for here; different, effective, faithful? You know, the polar opposite of what we now have!

Posted by Craig Fourman | February 13, 2007 1:28 PM

Why does everyone insist the campaign was at fault, but that Amanda is a an amazing talented insightful blogger who's shit don't stink?

Maybe Amanda is full of shit, full of shit about how to act in a campaign, and full of shit about how her views of feminism and catholicism and men are somehow reality based.

Maybe due to her bullying bloggers such as you having been giving her a free ride all of these years. Are you an Amanda enabler? Why would that be? Because she is a girl or because she is a bully or because calling her out on her nonsense is the third rail of the liberal blogosphere.

Frankly you would have to be awfully stupid or awfully egotistical to be in Amanda's shoes and think you were a good fit for a presidential campaign. And awfully stupid and awfully egotistical not to be smart enough to stop the personal blogging, especially when her predecessor took exactly that path.

Call a spade a spade and stop enabling her crap.

Posted by jerry | February 13, 2007 1:42 PM

The obscenties alone would make your ears bleed, let alone the sentiments. It wouldn't be enough for them for Amanada to die, she'd have to die in the slowest, most painful manner possible and even then they wouldn't be satisfied. Talk about maturity.

Do I read right? Are us liberals now upset that the conservatives are too uncivil?

Posted by jerry | February 13, 2007 1:45 PM

Well, Jimm, heaven forbid that Amanda and her fellow bloggers at Pandagon should be so uncivil as to call spammers engaged in a denial-of-service attack on their site, "asshats"! How Un-mature!

Posted by rea | February 13, 2007 1:46 PM

I suppose I should say I don't care much for Edwards, and while the blogging thing didn't change my opinion of him much, I would never support him in a primary. I guess this opens me to accusations of being a hack, which is an occupational hazzard of commenting on blogs.

But I really do stand by the piss-poor campaign remark, and I really do think this whole thing, as silly as it is in the long run, may well sink his chances. I don't know how brilliant his "McCain Doctrine" line was, but he should get credit for saying it, just as he should for his health care wonkery. The New Orleans stuff is just showmanship, but again, let's give him credit for caring about the "people."

Great, wonderful. All that has probably gotten him one or two articles on A17 that almost no one (not me, certainly), read to the end. The Marcotte thing has opened itself into a solid week of terrible coverage, and Edwards hasn't done more than issue a statement. Where is he? Writing healthcare plans? Caring about the poor? These campaigns are run in the mass media. This is the game, it's been the game since 1960, and all the tallies and objective evaluations and well-received policy proposals won't change that.

Edwards is well on his way to becoming the next Howard Dean (and I should say I was a ferocious Deaniac in '03-'04), a promising candidate done in by a media narrative that he couldn't get his hands around. As inane as this blogging stuff has been, it shows dangerous cracks in the facade.

Posted by Ben | February 13, 2007 1:52 PM

"And you, Matthew, are a perfect example of how a blogger can be informative, entertaining, and not calculatingly offensive. I greatly admire your intellect, erudition, but most of all, restraint. Amanda could learn a trick or two from you and your ilk."

I couldn't agree more. In fact, on another blog I used Matt as an example of the type of level-headed and thoughtful blogger that a candidate should use. I always enjoy reading his blog and he's always good on bloggingheads, especially when he keeps his composure(while quitting smoking no less!) as Ann Althouse repeatedly cuts him off to make another insipid point.
That said, I've always been puzzled as to why he has pandagon on his blogroll. Look out Matt...Donahue might be coming after you next! lol

Posted by oswald | February 13, 2007 3:21 PM

Finally, I see eye to eye with Matthew Yglesias on something related to this whole episode. What was the Edwards campaign thinking??!! But that's probably the extent of the agreement.

As far as overreacting, well its not overreacting if a campaign hires someone in a communications position that regularly maligns the religious beliefs of millions of Americans. There seems to be a difference between the things Amanda Marcotte engaged in on the one hand and what Melissa McEwan did on the other. The quotes from McEwan were very targeted, Marcotte's however, were like a bomb or a shotgun.

When Marcotte says things like "hot white sticky Holy Spirit" and talks about the Lord filling Mary with it, that's not targeting a small number of people, that's targeting, intentionally or not, the majority of people who believe in the Virgin Birth (the group of Virgin Birth believers doesn't include me, yet I'm not tempted to talk in ways that make a mockery of this belief, imagine that). The reason I don't say that all who believe in the Virgin Birth are offended is that there are obviously some who do believe in this doctrine who aren't offended. OK fine, good for them. But just because you can produce a group of people who aren't offended by something doesn't necessarily mean that those who are offended are wrong for being offended.

This Catholic thing is just the tip of the ice burg, though it seems typical of Amanda Marcotte's style, which is to lash out like a crazy person, then bash anyone who complains about being hit by her flying buckshot. Then her defenders come along and assert that she's just sticking it to the right-wing, so like, how could anyone have a problem with that.

The problem is that she isn't just sticking to the right wing. Her comments go well beyond, anti-theocracy, or anti-patriarchy.

Melissa McEwan's comments, (or at least the ones the media have drudged up as a supposed example of anti-religious sentiment) don't have this Marcotte-like quality. And once again it surprises me that the Ygelsias' and Klein's of the world would defend the Marcotte's of the world. Much the same way that it surprises me to see Mickey Kaus defending Ann Coulter.

At the end of all this, during the course of discussing Marcotte's hire, no one who defended her to me came up with any argument other than something like, "well the right-wing does it, so that means we should be able to too." Or, "shut up you concern troll." It's disheartening.

What happens when I admit that John McCain should not have hired his guy and assert that John McCain should fire his crazy guy? And what happens when I say that Melissa McEwan's words seem just fine to me, even though Donahue hates those too. What happens when I say that I may vote for a woman for President?

What happens to Marcotte's assertion that this was all about sexism and right-wing attacks then?

I understand that many of Marcotte's sympathizers will loudly assert that this was only about Donahue. But there are some us in the Democratic Party who are just fine with female bloggers and even female presidents, and who despise Donahue but realize that even broken clocks are right twice a day. What happens to our arguments?

I'll tell ya what happens, they get trampled in the scramble between the emotional right and left. Even though some of us support McEwan and even Hillary, and believe its no better when John McCain does the same thing as Edwards, our arguments are either ignored are treated as covert right-wing Trojan horses.

Just look up Matthew's post "Catholic League" in the archives to see the arguments style of most of Marcotte's supporters.

Posted by Jay J. | February 13, 2007 4:47 PM

Just came to mind reading this thread that what continues to make this ultimately-not-important story interesting to me is that one very interesting game that was played with this(surely not all, but one,) is "support our lowly bloggers, right or wrong."

It's the "solidarity with the underdog" meme rearing its head.

(Beautifully pointed out in a comment on TPMCafe here, i.e., once "the left" allied with Israel, now they sympathize with the Palestinians, the switch has little to do anti-Semitism, rather, it's underdog allegiance uber alles.)

Should a blogger get a "job" with powers that be, he/she moves away from underdog status, has joined the evil ranks of the MSM or the DC power center or whatever.

What's really interesting about this is that the right co-opted this long ago and turns it around on the left. Exhibit A: Mr. Donohue is a professional Catholic victim, he deals in victimhood. This gets rather precisely at what is the most infuriating thing about him.

Yglesias, you probably have little danger of ever experiencing this too much since you practice that "on the one hand, on the other hand" thing so well.

One saw the same tactics practiced, in a way, in the long ago fight between Mr. Donahue and the supporters of the artist Chris Offli about elephant dung and Madonnas. One "wins" these sort of P.R. games in the end by refusing to play the victimhood games oneself but allowing the hordes to indulge in them. (Not coincidentally, Guiliani made a big mistake, and he eventually realized it but could not back down, in playing Donohue's shill.)

I think this also is related somehow to being part of the antiphonal aspergs typseset. :-)

Posted by artappraiser | February 13, 2007 4:48 PM

John Edwards' essential problem is that he's difficult to take seriously. Like so many of the Democratic party, he's got backbone issues. It's the same reason he is against the Iraq war now that it is unpopular, but could not even be bothered to think about it enough to take a position back in 2004. Now, he edges Marcotte out of his campaign because he's too scared to take on an idiot like Donohue. Contrary to what many in here have been saying, Edwards has not been getting slammed by the press for this, not in any serious sense anyway. If Edwards wanted any coverage at all from the press for the past week, he should have thrown his hat into the ring as a possible father of Anna Nicole's baby. The only ones paying attention to Pandagate are the netroots and the wingnutroots, which do not tend to be swing voters. If Edwards can't take heat this minor, how does he expect to lead a nation?

Posted by Shochu John | February 13, 2007 5:16 PM