« Fantasies Of A Kinder, Gentler Blogosphere | Main | The 'Nuttiness' Of Bloggers And Campaigns »

Edwards Will Keep His Campaign Bloggers

Updated with new information in the main text and reactions at the bottom.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards posted this statement to his campaign blog not long ago:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor or anything else.

But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word.

We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

Pandagon, where Marcotte blogs, has the statements of Marcotte and McEwan. You can tell they are working for a political campaign now because they are apologizing just like politicians.

Rather than saying "I am sorry," for instance, Marcotte wrote, "I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics." And this from McEwan: "It has never been my intention to disparage people’s individual faith, and I’m sorry if my words were taken in that way.”

Basically, Marcotte and McEwan have agreed to muzzle themselves while working for Edwards. That is in keeping with what Marcotte herself promised to do upon joining the campaign.

"I am the blogmaster," she wrote in answering readers (like this one) who wondered whether the campaign might "censor" her. "I am also an adult. I know how the game works. I’m more interested in helping my candidate win than anything -- luckily we see eye to eye on most issues. It was hard letting go of a platform where I can just run my mouth, but the fate of the world is important enough that I’m willing to play nice."

Daily Kos praised Edwards for the decision to keep the bloggers on staff: "It took a little while, but Edwards set the right precedent for how this type of smear should be handled. As a Democrat, I'm proud of him and his campaign."

More links and commentary:

-- Ann Althouse: "Edwards faced serious damage whichever decision he made, so it remains to be seen how reluctant candidates will be to hire bloggers. ... Anyone thinking of hiring a blogger as a liaison to bloggers will now check much more carefully, and there will be some worrisome things on everyone's blog. On the up side, this incident shows how much harm bloggers can do, so the candidates are on notice that they need to hire blogger wranglers."

-- Balloon Juice: "You can tut-tut about whether or not he should have hired them in the first place -- sure, it would have been safer to hire people with a less controversial past -- but he chose them, they are qualified, and he is sticking with them. If you ask me, that is admirable."

-- Chris Bowers of MyDD: "because he refused to cave to right-wing pressure and establishment campaign advice, Edwards will receive a significant amount of criticism. When this happens, we need to remember that he stood with us during this fight, and so we have to stand with him against the forthcoming attacks. This goes for everyone, whether or not you are an Edwards supporter."

-- Crooks & Liars: "We're still almost a year from the primaries and this was clearly the first shot off the Swiftboat prow for Edwards. But the netroots' work isn't done. This particular gambit might have failed, but there will be more and we must be prepared to face them and push back."

-- The Fix: "Edwards is saying that whatever the women wrote -- controversial or not -- before they joined his campaign late last month is largely immaterial. Is that the same standard he will hold to his non-blogging staff? If Jennifer Palmieri, Edwards' spokeswoman, had been quoted making the same comments that Marcotte and McEwan did, would she still have a job?"

-- Mary Katharine Ham at Townhall.com: "Probably wise, in a sense. ... The Nutroots hatred for betraying one of their own would have been brutal and everlasting. When Edwards picked these women, he threw in his lot with that crowd, and that crowd don't take kindly to traitors."

-- The Hillary Spot: "Good luck, whoever the ultimate coordinator for 'Catholics For Edwards' is."

-- Instapundit: Keeping the bloggers is "probably the right thing to do."

-- Michelle Malkin: "The Pandagonization of John Edwards is complete."

-- Protein Wisdom dubbed the bloggers' promise to behave "one of the most pathetic public surrenderings of personal integrity I've ever seen."

Posted by Danny | 05:25 PM

Comments

I don't get the "keeping them is the right thing to do" angle. Why is it the right thing to do?

Never mind, "right thing" is the wrong way to look at it anyway. They are campaign staff, they come and go based on the needs of the campaign. Do they help or hurt? That is the only question worth asking for campaign staff.

Mary Katherine Ham is probably closest to right--the price of getting rid of them may be higher than the price of keeping them (besides, by the time it matters this controversy will be a distant memory).

tim maguire | 02.08.07 06:04 PM

There is no such thing, in this matter as 'right wing pressure". There was no 'swiftboating' of the bloggers, (how can the use of your own words against you be considered 'swiftboating'?). What we just witnessed is considered risk management. Mr. Edwards believes that it is more beneficial for his campaign to keep the bloggers than to let them go.

PWT | 02.08.07 06:24 PM

Interesting. Perhaps the sectarian civil war between Patriotic Democrats and the overt fifth-column left will be fought here. The politicians may have to stop walking a tightrope, and choose a side.

Twood | 02.08.07 06:31 PM

Anyone want to bet how long it takes for these bloggers to oop-sy big time? One reliable thing about bigots, they never know they have crossed the line until they get called on it. I give them about 6 weeks until the next oop-sy.

Steve-o | 02.08.07 07:07 PM

"This type of smear" = "Direct quotes"

Jim Treacher | 02.08.07 08:20 PM

how can the use of your own words" [and actions] against you be considered 'swiftboating'?

That's pretty much always been the definition. The secret is to brand your own words and actions "lies". The problem here is a period measured in months instead of years. Harder to hid or obscure said words and actions.

buzz | 02.08.07 09:13 PM

So, the rule here is that hiring a bigot is okay if 1) they apologize if anyone was offended by their bigotry, and 2) the bigot is popular?

Got it.

Jimmie | 02.08.07 10:29 PM

So, if I personally offend Mr. Edwards, can I have a job on his campaign?

What IS the hiring criteria?

mrsizer | 02.08.07 11:39 PM

Edwards needed to keep them to help secure the ignorance-spewing, vile religious-hater vote. Pretty much the whole American left.

Bandit | 02.09.07 07:26 AM

Edwards talks about discipline, focus, and courage. The two ladies prostrating themselves in front of "Jesuslanders" and begging forgiveness is courage? These two Democrats may have just set the new world's record for surrender, previously held by the Democratic Congress.

Diggs | 02.09.07 10:02 AM

Post a Comment