Althouse: I just want to say this right now that regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep them.

February 8, 2007

I just want to say this right now that regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep them.

Edwards is keeping the bloggers.

ADDED: I'm glad, for the sake of blogging, that Edwards made this decision. I truly worried -- I'm still worried -- about how this incident would -- will -- affect the employability of bloggers and motivate them to censor themselves. (I say "them," not "us," because I'm beyond the point in my career where such things affect me.) Edwards faced serious damage whichever decision he made, so it remains to be seen how reluctant candidates will be to hire bloggers. As one commenter pointed out on yesterday's post about the Edwards bloggers, there's no really good reason why a candidate needs to hire a blogger to deal with the 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.

62 comments:

Simon said...: "Thanks for playing 'Damned if you do, damned if you don't.' You win!"; 2/8/07, 12:21 PM
Meade said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 2/8/07, 12:30 PM
vbspurs said...: Ann totally called Marcotte a dog!

BTW, I just Googled Checkers, and found this out:

Checkers' gravesite is at the Bide-a-Wee Pet Cemetery, on Beltagh Ave, Wantagh, New York, across the street from Wantagh High School.

Bide-a-Wee?

Sounds like a restroom used by the Edwards' campaign.

Cheers,
Victoria; 2/8/07, 12:31 PM
Meade said...: Nice allusion to Nixon's Checkers Speech... "I just want to say this right now that regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep [the [f-in' little bitches]."; 2/8/07, 12:32 PM
Kirby Olson said...: We're now down to one viable Democrat: OBAMA.; 2/8/07, 12:41 PM
Ann Althouse said...: I didn't call her a bitch. I just alluded to a historic incident of a candidate standing up to criticism.; 2/8/07, 12:44 PM
Laura Reynolds said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 2/8/07, 12:46 PM
Laura Reynolds said...: Now that Edwards has carefully crafted a resolution, let's return to the question: How can anyone be the slightest bit interested in the writings of a blogger working for a campaign?

How boring. I'm sure some bloggers relish the idea of making real money and all the fame and fortune, but if I was interested in that type of tripe, I'd stay with the MSM and partisan websites.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ; 2/8/07, 12:47 PM
Anonymous said...: So now Edwards has shored up his far left bona fides. He'll stay left with a finger in the air until the primaries, dump the nutroots, and tack back to the middle. He's a smarter slicker Howard Dean.

It won't work, of course. Hillary's hit men will eviscerate him, but it will be fun to watch. I'm sure Hillary has a Catholic cousin somewhere she can trot out. Hell, Bill took Communion. Maybe Hillary can do Confession.; 2/8/07, 12:54 PM
Simon said...: I'm not going to take up space here reposting it, but I've got a post here talking about this latest development, for those interested.; 2/8/07, 1:10 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Wow. I didn’t get the dog reference, but its incredibly meanspirited, even for Ann.

Also, I was right to be skeptical of Salon’s story, mostly because I actually took the time to read the part where an Edwards spokeperson advised Salon not to report that they were fired.

Sorry, haters. God’s not finished with them yet!; 2/8/07, 1:13 PM
vbspurs said...: I didn't call her a bitch. I just alluded to a historic incident of a candidate standing up to criticism.

Only the touchy would infer the dog/bitch allusion (although it works great for ribbing you ;).

But seriously, the Nixon speech on Checkers was brilliant because he wore his emotions on his sleeve during the telecast. Remember how his voice broke at the end, when he said, "keep it"?

Maybe I missed it, but Edwards' camp issued a statement.

If he had been canny, he would've given a press conference with the two lady bloggers behind him, and put his hands around them at the end.

That would've been emotive AND demagoguish, just like Nixon.

Cheers,
Victroai; 2/8/07, 1:15 PM
vbspurs said...: Wow. I didn’t get the dog reference, but its incredibly meanspirited, even for Ann.

Nuff said.; 2/8/07, 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...: On the other post about this topic, Ann Althouse said:

On the political spectrum, I'm somewhere around Joe Lieberman and Rudy Giuliani. In short, I'm the kind of person the candidates should be concerned about.

That describes my political outlook perfectly, and it's a pretty good fit for my wife, too. Althouse's politics are the main reason I read this blog: She's one of the few in the polarized blogosphere who reflects my views.

That said, I am also a Catholic. You would think Edwards would be doubly concerned about the likes of me, as swing voter and a Catholic.

But nooo. He's more concerned with the primary-voting, money-raising Lefty base, just as Republicans pander to their Evangelical Christian social conservative base.

The problem is that us swing types notice things. And I certainly notice whether politicians pander to anti-religion of any stripe. I think our Judaeo-Christian traditions are an essential part of our culture and history, and while I don't want a sectarian in any political office, I don't want one who tolerates offensive attacks on my religion, one, that I might add, is the largest Christian denomination in this country.

Edwards has irretrievably lost my vote, I believe my wife's, and I'm sure many, many other Catholics, even if they were otherwise Democrats inclined to his political positions.; 2/8/07, 1:18 PM
Harkonnendog said...: That's great. The mainstream left has reached a point where it is okay to employ someone who demonizes Catholics and thinks the Duke students are guilty despite all contrary evidence.

What she wrote it itself was objectionable, but she should have been fired because what she wrote revealed what she IS- a revolting, disgusting, bigoted idiot.

What a victory for bloggers that she kept her job. Whoo-hoo!

I hope people print out what she wrote about Catholics and put copies of her words on every Catholic church door in America.; 2/8/07, 1:24 PM
Revenant said...: As one commenter pointed out on yesterday's post about the Edwards bloggers, there's no really good reason why a candidate needs to hire a blogger to deal with the bloggers

Sure there is. It sends a message to partisan bloggers of your side -- suck up to me and there might be something in it for you, too. Plus, of course, paying one person for something usually makes that person's friends like you too -- observe the frenzy of support for Edwards' bloggers from the Democratic blogosphere.

Edwards would have more control by hiring a professional writer with no blogospheric ties, but he wouldn't be buying himself insider access that way.; 2/8/07, 1:30 PM
John Stodder said...: Good choice, Edwards. I'm still not voting for you (well, I guess I might), but you did the right thing. It's not these ladies' fault that your campaign didn't anticipate what could happen.

It'll be interesting to see if the other Democratic candidates heed the call of the left netroots and back off from using this against Edwards. I think there will be reprisals if any ads appear during the primaries that use this issue -- including independent expenditures. But the cocooning can only hold for so long.

This will continue to be an extremely interesting story. What personae will the women adapt? Leaving aside their rough'n'ready rhetoric, are they going to make Edwards' campaign a model of conversational media? Are they going to invite the "army of davids" inside the gates?; 2/8/07, 1:30 PM
PeterP said...: I am f**king delighted to accept your offer of the position of Official Blogger for the Edwards 2008 presidential campaign. Please find attached my f**king W-2 form.

...that would never do in the Wolds. Dear me no.; 2/8/07, 1:31 PM
Scott Ferguson said...: Just goes to show: Edwards ain't the classiest guy to run for President.; 2/8/07, 1:47 PM
Kel said...: The most disgusting thing in this episode has been to read people supporting the bloggers who suggest that there's nothing wrong with being an anti-Catholic bigot.

I'm Catholic, and I can't believe the hatrid that I've seen from those people. On this blog, downtownload all but admitted he's a bigot against every Catholic. And I've been reading Pandagon's comments, where those people are PROUD of being bigots. It's just beyond belief.; 2/8/07, 1:47 PM
Brent said...: As someone who does not want a President Edwards, I am thrilled that he gave a glimpse to thoughtful voters of the kind of people that he defends having involved in his campaign: religious bigots and potty-mouthed self-pitying hacks.

Thankfully, as even the Los Angeles Times - a paper looking for space to stand on the left of Lenin and Trotsky - recognized in an editorial this week, the American public is waking up to the cynicism of the politically correct "apology"(see "blow job"). The double speak of the unrepentant: "I'm sorry for YOU misunderstanding what I wrote(never mind that I communicate for a PROFESSION!)". Never repentant, never admitting that what was written or said might be wrong, just sorry for someone taking it wrong.

So, let's make certain we have the scoreboard right:

Mel Gibson, who apologizes and repents for saying what he said = BAD MAN

John Edwards, who keeps two hateful people on the payroll that don't repudiate ANY of their hateful, disgusting words = GOOD MAN

I have faith in Edwards natural ability to continue showing such poor judgment and political tone-deafness in the next few months, effectively dooming his candidacy long before New Hampshire next year.

The winner: the American people.; 2/8/07, 1:50 PM
Meade said...: Ann Althouse said...
I didn't call her a bitch. I just alluded to a historic incident of a candidate standing up to criticism.

That's correct. I'm the one who called them "effin' little bitches" because I think "brats" is far too kind.; 2/8/07, 2:01 PM
TMink said...: I wonder if Edwards worries about the Catholic vote? I would be interested to know what percentage of Catholics would vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Seems like having anti-religious bigots on his campaign staff gives him liberal cred.

I have written some stupid stuff, but when it was brought to my attention I REALLY appologized. I was not too concerned about the two bloggers, even after reading what they wrote. I figured it could be the heat of the moment.

But the non-appology was very telling for me. It was like the non-appology from the Dook faculty, it let you know where they stood.

So, where can I find data on Catholic voting patterns?

Trey; 2/8/07, 2:05 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: I recall rumblings that Elizabeth Edwards is the blogreader who encouraged? insisted? suggested? these bloggers come work for the campaign. That they are still around might say more about the influence of Elizabeth Edwards on her husband than the influence of netroot bloggers on politics.; 2/8/07, 2:06 PM
Art Hackett said...: Who has more credibility at this point: Someone who hired a couple of rude bloggers or someone interviewed by Tim Russert?

Which candidate would make Althouse their official blogger? Would she accept? Which Althouse postings would cause a kerfuffel?; 2/8/07, 2:14 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Do you people honestly think that the continued employment of Amanda Marcotte as campaign blogmaster is really going to have serious implications for John Edwards’s performance among Catholics? Are you that dotty?

He has to do what is necessary to win the Democratic primary, and he’s put a lot of eggs in the netroots basket already. He’s posted diaries on Daily Kos. If the right wing smear machine (of which Althouse is at least an honorary member) wants to do guilt by association, they already can! There were probably swear words in the diary directly beneath Edwards’s, if you can stand the tawdriness.

Think for a moment like someone who hasn’t been lobotomized, and it becomes clear that firing them would have been a disaster for the Edwards campaign, whatever you think of the bloggers in question. It would cost have cost him far more primary votes than it would have won him. It's that simple.

Again, this is so ridiculous compared to the stuff that McCain’s bloggers have written. (“Of course America’s a Christian nation. What a stupid question” etc.); 2/8/07, 2:17 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Actually, I guess Theo and his wife were considering voting for Edwards, so maybe I spoke too soon :-); 2/8/07, 2:19 PM
Brian Doyle said...: It's free speech in opposition to a monstrous regime. Deal with it.; 2/8/07, 2:22 PM
John Stodder said...: Doyle, stop trying to have it both ways. What McCain's bloggers said (according to you) and what Edwards' bloggers said both have the capacity to offend large segments of the electorate, okay? If it's "guilt by association" to use a formerly independent blogger's past writings against the candidate who hires them, that applies to critics of Edwards' staff and McCain's.

If, as many left netrootsers have said, other Democratic candidates must now hold their fire against Edwards on any issues brought up by these bloggers' past writings, then that new etiquette must apply equally to Republican candidates.

You have a tendency to decry tactics your opponents undertake, and to celebrate when your side does the exact same thing. Either "guilt by association" is wrong, or it's not. I say it's wrong. You say it's wrong, but only when applied to Democrats, which means you really have no principles at all, just an expedient dedication to your own tribe's success by any means.; 2/8/07, 2:26 PM
Harkonnendog said...: Edwards must believe the media will cover for him in this matter. So far they have, claiming that people were offended by her choice of words rather than her naked bigotry.

But every time someone talks about prejudice or tolerance or any religion, or about reaching out or about bridging gaps, his opponents can simply read, verbatim, what she wrote.

Anytime people who aren't in the media are allowed to ask him a question, at a debate or town hall meeting or whatever, people who don't like bigots can simply read her disgusting words.; 2/8/07, 2:31 PM
Brian Doyle said...: It’s a small point but yes I was confusing the issue. I fully assume that the McCain campaign is going to hire the meanest SOBs on the other side, which means they are certain to have some truly horrible quotes on their resumes. I was just pointing out that no one cares about what McCain’s bloggers wrote, and what Amanda wrote is headline news, just because the Catholic League (which is not representative of most Catholics) says so.; 2/8/07, 2:32 PM
Brian Doyle said...: You did get quite high up on that horse, though, John. Impressive!; 2/8/07, 2:40 PM
Joe Giles said...: Nothing wrong with hire a "blogger." I'm just continually surprised at the examples who are hired.

Two days of bad press, then the candidate has to issue a statement that he is not firing them. That's what you get when you hire such a nasty person.

And now, deliciously, both bloggers are on record nothing how important freedom of religion is. Yet their writings profanely mock those who actually practice it.

Finally, while the Catholic League may not be "representative" of most Catholics (heck, a lot of Catholics are pro-choice and pro-contraception), it is a tenacious guard dog, and its work does have a rippling effect among the public. Hiring anti-Catholic staff does not help win the Catholic vote.; 2/8/07, 2:41 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Just imagine that the word 'Muslim' is substituted in every instance in their screeds for 'Christian' or 'Catholic'. What do you think the results would be??

Easy: Little Green Footballs; 2/8/07, 2:59 PM
Simon said...: Doyle said...
"It's free speech in opposition to a monstrous regime. Deal with it."

"Regime"? Interesting way to characterize the administration of the legitimately-elected President of the United States. Perhaps we should start speaking of the Clinton Regime, or the Warren Regime?; 2/8/07, 3:01 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Go nuts.; 2/8/07, 3:02 PM
Simon said...: LOL at the LGF thing.; 2/8/07, 3:13 PM
Crimso said...: Free speech, my ass. What she continued to write after it was clear that the Dookies were innocent was pretty much slanderous, and her clear hatred of anything Southern (that would be the part of the country from which Prince John hails) should really help Edwards sew up the Southern vote. Don't pretend it's just Catholics this twit has slandered and insulted.; 2/8/07, 3:18 PM
Tim said...: Too funny. Edwards is playing to the Children of the Corn crowd.

But they don't win elections, so it's nothing but political theater.; 2/8/07, 3:31 PM
Revenant said...: "Just imagine that the word 'Muslim' is substituted in every instance in their screeds for 'Christian' or 'Catholic'. What do you think the results would be??"

Easy: Little Green Footballs

But you hate Little Green Footballs. So why are you defending Marcotte?

Do you people honestly think that the continued employment of Amanda Marcotte as campaign blogmaster is really going to have serious implications for John Edwards’s performance among Catholics?

A preview of Hillary's first anti-Edwards attack ad:

"A spokeswoman for John Edwards suggested the Virgin Mary should have had an abortion and that Christianity was nothing more than "mythology". John Edwards stands by her. Don't stand by John Edwards."

Edwards can't effectively defend himself against that sort of attack, because while it is a slight distortion of the real remarks, the real remarks are themselves strongly anti-Christian. No matter what he does the story ends up being about how John Edwards employs people who hate Christians. There are a LOT of devoutly Christian Democrats, especially in the black and Hispanic communities.

The only reasons this isn't a bigger story now are (a) its early yet and (b) Edwards isn't really considered a serious contender.; 2/8/07, 3:49 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Of course I hate LGF, but you'll notice he won "Blog of the Year" and Amanda is begrudged a 2 year gig as blogmistress w/ the Edwards campaign.; 2/8/07, 3:55 PM
Simon said...: "No matter what he does the story ends up being about how John Edwards employs people who hate Christians. There are a LOT of devoutly Christian Democrats, especially in the black and Hispanic communities."

Right - and imagine if Edwards wins the primary and the GOP ticket is Rudy Giuliani and Michael Steele. Without meaning to sound callous, that's got to damage the chances of the Democrats largely getting the black vote en bloc.; 2/8/07, 3:55 PM
Simon said...: Doyle - it's cute that you think Edwards is going to last two years. ;); 2/8/07, 3:56 PM
Harkonnendog said...: If Giuliani hires Charles Johnson as his blogger outreach staff person you'll have a point. Until then not so much.; 2/8/07, 4:06 PM
Anonymous said...: I like Dennis the Peasant's twist and hope:

"Anyway, here's hoping that Amanda gets her ass canned... eventually. Then, hopefully, Glenn Greenwald can get some goof over at McCain's blog fired. And so on. And on. And on. To where it gets to the point that, very, very soon, no candidate in his right mind will hire an established blogger to work on his campaign for fear of being the victim of the next big Totally Manufactured Political Blogosphere Scandal…

Come to think of it, let's all do our part to ensure that no political blogger we dislike or disagree with ever has the chance to do blogging that's paid for by the political infrastructure. Then, maybe, just maybe, we can rid the Blogosphere of some its hacks."; 2/8/07, 4:16 PM
reader_iam said...: He kept them, but he defanged them. Probably the best the choice he could have made, given his situation and all the constituencies he needs. Now we'll see how it plays out, and if it works.; 2/8/07, 4:29 PM
Revenant said...: Of course I hate LGF, but you'll notice he won "Blog of the Year" and Amanda is begrudged a 2 year gig as blogmistress w/ the Edwards campaign.

That's a non-sequiteur, since the latter is obviously a far greater honor than the former. A meaningless award versus a paid job in a Presidential campaign? What's Johnson going to do, put "Best Weblog" on his resume next to "voted 'most likely to succeed' in Junior High"?; 2/8/07, 4:33 PM
Anonymous said...: I think one lesson that could be/should be learned is this:

If you want to stand out on the street corner and shout out "mean, nasty, unpleasant, blind to any idea that does not fit her rigid ideology" statements and show the world that you are an "obnoxious and offensive troll", then you're free to do so, especially on your own time, but realize that it may affect your own gainful employment.

Also, and I know this has become a tired old meme (but it's true!), imagine if she were working for a Republican and said some of things about Islamic beliefs as she did about Roman Catholics.

Well we don't have to imagine, just look here.; 2/8/07, 5:21 PM
John Stodder said...: Curiously,

1) From what I can tell, there is still no definitive statement about whether the two bloggers still work for Edwards or not. He's distanced himself from them and defended them. He's allowed them to defend themselves and apologize on his site. But no one has posted any combination of words that say "they will continue to work for the campaign." Firing them might have been yesterday's feint. Keeping them might be today's. But in reality, I don't think a decision has been made. They're waiting for something -- a poll, probably, or maybe conversations with some pissed-off fundraisers -- but they had to calm down MyDD & co. first, and that's what today's about.

2) The right wing blogs have been accused of demanding that Edwards fire the two women. I've been looking at them just out of curiousity, and I can't find one example of this. I see posts where they predict he might fire them, but none where they are calling for it. Bill Donahue, yes. But not the right wing "nutroots." And even if they did, why would Edwards listen to them? As Kos' guy says, "they will never vote for him in a million years." The pressure on Edwards is palpable, but the right is not where it's coming from.

This is fun and educational. Like watching Barney the Dinosaur.; 2/8/07, 5:39 PM
LoafingOaf said...: Also, and I know this has become a tired old meme (but it's true!), imagine if she were working for a Republican and said some of things about Islamic beliefs as she did about Roman Catholics.

Yes, it was funny to read Glenn Greenwald's vigorous defense of this blogger's mockery of Catholicism, after Greenwald spent so much time demonizing anyone who says a bad word about Islam.

These are people who have spent considerable time trying to smear anyone who criticizes or mocks Islam as anti-Islamic Nazis. Marty Peretz and Charles Johnson get called that routinely, for example. But also even mild-mannered Glenn Reynolds - painted as a genocidal anti-Islamic bigot(they call him "glennocidal").

But yesterday Glenn Greenwald wrote an essay defending the right to criticize and mock Catholicism. Which I agree with.

Much of Western Europe has been bullied into being comletely consumed by what Muslims are offended by and how not to offend Muslims. Much of the Democratic Party is similarly submissive to Islam, too.; 2/8/07, 5:42 PM
TMink said...: John wrote about Doyle: "You have a tendency to decry tactics your opponents undertake, and to celebrate when your side does the exact same thing. Either "guilt by association" is wrong, or it's not. I say it's wrong. You say it's wrong, but only when applied to Democrats, which means you really have no principles at all, just an expedient dedication to your own tribe's success by any means."

If I may clarify. I think Doyle is a liberal. That is different from a Democrat. Democrats have a big tent, liberals have a small bunker. Also, Democrats, such as our hostess, value facts and data. Liberals value power and ideology.

There is no talking to liberals because there is no dialogue, just attacks and ideology.

My 2 cents.

Trey; 2/8/07, 6:01 PM
NSC said...: Eh, I am getting here very late so I imagine anything I say will have already been said. But let me say this at least - Edwards will not be the nominee much less President no matter what these two bloggers do. This was much ado about nothing.; 2/8/07, 6:04 PM
Simon said...: The sympathy I had for Marcotte -- at least partially driven by my preexisting impression of her that "You can agree with [her] or not ... but she at least stands by her views and will defend them. John Edwards, I suspect, knew full well what her views were, agrees with them, but lacks the backbone to stand by them" -- is rapidly evaporating. MKH links to her humiliating quasi-apology: "My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics." That's either delusional or mandacious, as anyone who's ever read her posts at Pandagon will attest (which goes for some of her erstwhile supporters to, several of which have bawled her out in comments at Pandagon for selling out in issuing the quasi-apology).

That's got to hurt: after years of fighting the patriarchy, after her bitchy whining about whether Ann was a good enough Feminist, Marcotte turned herself into John Edwards' bitch to save her job. What a paragon of feminism.; 2/8/07, 6:11 PM
Simon said...: Oops! I guess I let my mask slip in that previous comment - "mandacious"! Obviously I've just outed myself as a tool of the patriarchy, and should have maintained my cover by writing "womendacious."; 2/8/07, 6:13 PM
LoafingOaf said...: Doyle said...
Do you people honestly think that the continued employment of Amanda Marcotte as campaign blogmaster is really going to have serious implications for John Edwards’s performance among Catholics? Are you that dotty?

You have a point that it might've cost Edwards as many votes if he had fired 'em.

But I do think if Edwards is neck-and-neck in a primary and some Catholic voters are torn and have heard that Edwards' staff is chock full of people who despise Catholicism, that that could easily be the difference in those peoples' votes. Why wouldn't it be? Their most deeply held belief is Catholicism and they're learning that Edwards' offices are staffed with people who spit on those most deeply held beliefs. Meanwhile, there's "clean" Obama on the ballot.

It's all moot, because Edwards won't be the nominee. And now he's slightly less likely to be the VP nominee. :); 2/8/07, 6:14 PM
LoafingOaf said...: I truly worried -- I'm still worried -- about how this incident would -- will -- affect the employability of bloggers and motivate them to censor themselves.

The biggest problem, IMO, is how many bloggers like to target other bloggers with smear campaigns. Often, when one blogger smears another (say, with quotes taken out of context and misrepresented) the smearing blogger has an entire team behind him or her, who all link to each other and "establish" as a "fact" - at least amongst one large branch of the blogosphere - that so and so is a monster. When really all they've done is agreed to go along with a smear, because they wanted to believe it.

Then it becomes "common knowledge" that so-and-so is a monster. If that monster blogger is vulernable at his place of employment, those who think it's "common knowledge" that he's a monster start wondering, "Why shouldn't his employer know about what a monster he is?"

So...my biggest worry are for those who get dishonestly and unfairly demonized.; 2/8/07, 6:50 PM
Mortimer Brezny said...: I hadn't considered Michael Steele for VP. That's brilliant.; 2/8/07, 7:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Rest assured that the Edwards campaign is using the potty mouthed bloggerettes.

It's the bad boyfriend syndrome. Apparently, even ball cutting feminstas are subject. One can only imagine the behind the scenes drama, face-to-face with the dashing Breck boy himself.

The result--two skanks convinced that the bad boyfriend loves them again.

I'm sure it was a masterful performance.; 2/8/07, 8:19 PM
MikeinSC said...: The ironic part of the "LGF is hateful" is that, if you read it, Charles Johnson HIMSELF says very little that can POSSIBLY be construed as hateful.

His commenters do --- but do you REALLY want to tarnish bloggers by what their commenters write?
-=Mike; 2/8/07, 9:47 PM
Simon said...: Re whether it's "dotty" to think that this story will affect votes -- I think that people who write blogs tend to overestimate their effect in elections to roughly the same extent that people who don't write blogs underestimate their effect. While the denizens of the blogosphere may be a small fraction of the public at large, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of blogospherians vote, compared to about half of the public at large.; 2/9/07, 9:09 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Jeff Jarvis has some interesting things to say on this topic:

http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/09/are-campaigns-and-conversation-incompatible/

He suggests that blog posts and such are much like the conversations we might have in a bar, except that they become part of our "permanent record."

He concludes: " Blogs, Facebooks, MySpace pages, YouTube videos — you might say that they will haunt us. But I prefer to think that they will force us to be more open, more honest. Maybe then we’ll have no choice but to have a real conversation."; 2/9/07, 2:04 PM
Hunter said...: Let me see if I've got this right: Bill Donohue, "spokesman" for America's Catholics (you're stuck with him, kids -- NYT says he's your spokesman, so there it is), is suddenly offended by something that two bloggers (who, amazingly, were just hired by the Edwards campaign) wrote on their own blogs two or so years ago. (I'd love to see some record of his reaction when those comments were first posted.) That proves, according to this racist, homophobic anti-Semite, Edwards is anti-Catholic unless he toes Donohue's line and fires them.

Of course, it must be a conspiracy by Hillary Clinton that the NYT ran the story -- they would never devote space to a demagogue, ever. I'm sure she called personally.

And you are taking it seriously? Jeebus! Edwards should just have said "Bill Who?" and gone on to some real issues.; 2/10/07, 8:23 AM