As we walked, Bob downloaded his vision: The whole Edwards campaign was going to be a decentralized grass-roots operation.Beyerstein refused the job, in part because she thought it would interfere with what she could say on her own blog. She recommends Amanda Marcotte: "Marcotte was the best writer in the feminist blogosphere. If they wanted a high-profile feminist blogger, Amanda was the best." But she warns "Bob" that Marcotte has said lots of nasty things -- "A-list polemicists are popular because they say things you don't hear on television" -- and has enemies who will try to attack her.
"Elizabeth Edwards gets it," he said with unabashed admiration....
Bob assured me that my controversial posts weren't a problem as far as the campaign was concerned. They were familiar with my work....
"That's you, that's not John Edwards," he said.
Bob was confident that people would understand the difference....
I love this part:
What Bob didn't seem to realize is that the right-wing blogosphere was going to try to get Edwards' bloggers fired no matter what. Unlike the liberal netroots, the right-wing blogosphere is capable of exactly one kind of collective political action. They call it "scalping" -- they pick a target and harass that person and his or her employer until the person either jumps or is pushed out of the public eye. Whoever blogged for Edwards was signing up for a lot of bad hair days, and it wasn't going to be me.Ha, ha. Only the right. Sure. I have the personal experience of lefties trying to do exactly that to me -- including on Beyerstein's blog, though I think Beyerstein actually stepped in at one point and told her commenters that their idea of trying to get UW to fire me was not a good one.
Beyerstein distinguishes two types of political bloggers:
There is a breed of blogger that has proven useful working in an official capacity for political campaigns -- the party activist/consultant/blogger hybrid, someone like Matt Stoller of MyDD. Ideally, but not always, that kind of blogger puts his or her own blog on hold while being paid by a campaign, perhaps returning to it once the race is run. And the content of a party activist's blog is heavy on poll numbers, policy discussions and electoral minutiae. An opposition researcher might unearth something allegedly "intemperate" from the archives and use it against the candidate, but that risk is less than with the other style of blogger, an independent polemicist like Amanda.And this is a really good point:
I think the candidates who benefit the most from the netroots are the ones who can inspire bloggers to do their work for free. They create unpaid, unofficial surrogates....
The Edwards campaign wants decentralized people-powered politics. Ironically, by hiring well-known bloggers to manage a destination Web site, it was actually centralizing and micromanaging.
ADDED: I've never seen the term "scalping" used like this. It's some kind of right-wing blogging lingo? Can somebody prove that? I've heard of "swarming," but not "scalping."
Posts
54 comments:
Marcotte was the best writer in the feminist blogosphere. If they wanted a high-profile feminist blogger, Amanda was the best.
She's "the best"? In the "feminist blogosphere"?
Isn't that like "3rd best prostitute in all Kazakhstan"?
Ann,
While not agreeing with your side of the whole "Feministing brouhaha" as some other liberals did, I would be surprised if more than a few of the more highly known liberal blogs excerpted any effort in a "scalping". I don't recall any posts asking for your job from Eschaton, TPM, Kevin Drum, Kos or Pandagon during the whole affair. But with the Edwards incident you had the usual suspects of Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, Red State and others all pounding the same theme. The point isn't that there are no liberals who would stoop to that level, but that you won't find a top down strategy that seems to be typical of the more mainstream "right-wing" blogs in searching for scalps.
"They call it scalping"
They do?
http://www.google.com/search?q=scalping+marcotte&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Somehow Mrs. Edwards reminds me of a certain Mrs. Douglas...
...of Green Acres.
But with the Edwards incident you had the usual suspects of Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, Red State and others all pounding the same theme.
Provide quotes as evidence that any of those demanded Marcotte be fired. Didn't happen. Edwards took a hit on the right-wing blogosphere because he hired two bigots. We were happy to have him display that bigotry into the primaries.
I think it was Democrat Catholics that convinced Edwards to fire them.
Fen, he didn't fire them -- well, he did, but then he un-fired them, sort of, only to have them resign. It was a mess.
Fact-checking can be hard and reveal inconvenient truths that complicate a story-line. That's why so many people like Beyerstein, on the left and the right, don't do much of it.
It goes well with the ever-popular idea that "although X turned out to not have been true, it might have been true [and we wish that it had been true], so we should operate as if X was true and somehow punish those who we believe would have committed X if they had the opportunity because we all know that they would like to [even though we are the ones who thought of it]."
Fen, he didn't fire them -- well, he did, but then he un-fired them, sort of, only to have them resign. It was a mess.
And that was the more serious self-inflicted wound. Forget that Edwards supported two catholic bashers, he couldn't make a principled decision without checkng the polling data.
As POTUS, Edwards would do whats popular instead of whats right. He's not a leader.
Patrick Ruffini is an example of a blogger who has blogged for the benefit of conservative political causes.
Ruffini's advantage over a Marcotte is that he is a political professional, while she is an amateur.
Patrick understands the consequences of his actions. By contrast, Marcotte is not used to having to care about such things.
"Scalping" i.e. "fact-checking", "telling the truth".
DAVID WROTE of the left "cover[ing] themselves in the glorious cloak of 'victimhood'."
Every time I listed to "conservative" talk radio, I am amazed at how easily the "conservative" hosts adopt this tactic. I'd almost say that they own it in this decade.
Isn't that like "3rd best prostitute in all Kazakhstan"?
Please, not to make me guffaw this early.
I thought the nutroots took all sorts of credit for "bringing down" Lieberman in the primary? And that guy who had a press pass to the White House, who turned out to be using a pseudonym? (Odd I don't remember his name, as he was a shining star in the conservative firmament. . .)
It's hard to fathom how insular and immature these people are, but this essay is a good illustration.
At least this writer can spell and use proper grammar. But foul-mouthed incoherent Marcotte -- the best feminist writer on the blogosphere?? Sad.
And I never heard of "scalping" before, but then I missed the last meeting of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Beyerstein is wrong on the facts. Conservative blogs (along with liberals ones) have gotten together in Porkbusters to highlight and attempt to stop wasteful spending. So the "right" is capable of at least 2 actions.
The other odd thing is what exactly are blogs supposed to do besides get someone fired? What else do all media do except get people fired? You can have some small effect on a policy point or a legislative matter, but it is exceptionally hard to control those things since the congresional process is so slow with lots of opportunities for professionals to re-insert their preferences in another bill. That's why lobbysists exist: their is little role for amateurs to influence the legislature or the executive.
By collecting heads, amateurs can demonstrate their power while also improving the population of those making day to day decisions. Blogs, for a while, got Trent Lott out of his Senate leadership role and that improved the character of the Senate. He got back in, despite the efforts of blogs and conservative activists, thanks to the culture of the senate and their cult of seniority and incumbency. Blogs were one of the groups that helped stop Meyers from becoming a USSC Justice.
Blogs have a hard time advocating for people: anyone the blogs know about is likely impossible to appoint for a very high level position or else has no need of blog support (Paulson got lots of support, but he was head of Goldman, which is pretty much a solid lock on the nomination if you share parties with the President).
Blogs do brag about scalps they've taken. Insta if rightly proud of helping bring down Lott, and ashamed that he got back. LGF reminds you of all the work they've been involved with. But just because they're scalp takers doesn't mean they were in on Marcotte. Insta said that he thought she should keep her job, as did many others (Jane Galt at Asymmetrical Information, for one). Some on the right did that for uncharitable reasons (Marcotte on staff would hurt Edwards) but they did do it.
And I never heard of "scalping" before, but then I missed the last meeting of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Ask Mara Vanderslice John Kerry's religious outreach director, why Bill Donohue went after her saying "I'm going to get her fired," and "I got her." And when Bush's 54 yr old religious outreach director gets busted assaulting a drunken 18 yr old girl Donohue rushed to his defense.
See any pattern here?
Future SAT question:
Edwards: Marcotte
as
Academy Awards:
a) Ellen Degeneres
b) Pilobolus
c) Best Foreign Animated Short
d) Al Gore
Beyerstein is mostly, though not totally, clueless.
Obviously the right leaning blogs are capable of more than just one action, and I have never seen them refer to it as 'scalping'.
Furthermore, how low must your standards be to declare Marcotte the best blogger of anything, anywhere? She's truly horrible, and appeals only to folks who think exactly like her and simply want a little echo chamber where they can all rant and rave together.
There's a place for these folks, sure, but it's certainly not on the payroll of a presidential campaign that has to appeal to the mainstream of society in order to win.
Why you would *hire* an opinion blogger at all is beyond me: for one thing, you become 'responsible' for their opinions, and for another, if they genuinely agreed with you, they'd essentially push your opinions for free!
Beyerstein makes this point, and was wise enough to refuse the position herself, which makes her astoundingly poor choice of Marcotte instead even more incomprehensible.
The driving impetus behind their firing was not conservative bloggers (who are not going to vote for Edwards anyway) but those segments of the left who were shocked at Marcottes catholic and man hating tirades.
Scalping? How racially insensitive.
bos0x said..."I don't see how that post on Beyerstein's blog fits that definition of scalping. Okay, so she wrote about you, but did she harrass you? Your employer? Were you "pushed out of the public eye"? ...no? Then get over it. Your commenters can produce sexist, creepy remarks about another blogger--and you are the victim here?"
I linked to Beyerstein's blog, but there were MANY other blogs, exerting a huge effort to try to discredit me, repeating the same memes, etc. Look it up if you want. I'm not going to link to them all. And that was just one of the times that a lot of lefty blogs got together to try to hurt me. It happens regularly. So get a clue. Do some research. You loser.
bos0x said..."I don't see how that post on Beyerstein's blog fits that definition of scalping. Okay, so she wrote about you, but did she harrass you? Your employer? Were you "pushed out of the public eye"? ...no? Then get over it. Your commenters can produce sexist, creepy remarks about another blogger--and you are the victim here?"
I linked to Beyerstein's blog, but there were MANY other blogs, exerting a huge effort to try to discredit me, repeating the same memes, etc. Look it up if you want. I'm not going to link to them all. And that was just one of the times that a lot of lefty blogs got together to try to hurt me. It happens regularly. So get a clue. Do some research. You loser.
Not to channel Jerry Seinfeld, but what is the deal with liberals and term "... gets it" ? And its flip side " So and so doesn't get it"?
As for scalping or whatever it is, the reason that the right had to take up the cause in the Amanda affair is because no such effort was put forth by the mainstream media. If a conservative candidate had hired someone who printed the bigoted things about Judaism or black males similar to what was on Pandagon, the NYT's, Washington Post, Katie Couric, and the rest of the media would have done the scalping. It would not have to fall on the lefty blogs, their surrogates in the MSM would have gotten the job done.
"And when Bush's 54 yr old religious outreach director gets busted assaulting a drunken 18 yr old girl Donohue rushed to his defense."
Bill Clinton was working for Bush?!
...to respond to your "I know you are but what am I" defense which, as daryl aptly points out, makes no sense.
I think that if Mrs. Edwards had really gotten it, she would have had the campaign follow up on Ms. Beyerstein's comment that Ms. Marcotte had said those nasty things.
And I think that they somewhat mischaracterize what the right side of the blogosphere does. The left side CAN do in depth fact checking, while the right side WILL obsessively do it.
Think about it. If it had been planned by the right, the stuff on Marcotte would have been sprung after Edwards got the nomination. Indeed, from a Republican point of view, Edwards is probably the best Democratic presidential candidate we could have. Living his Two Americas in his huge house on 100 acres across the street from a trailer park. And gettting the money while driving OB/Gnys out of business by channelling dead babies in court using junk science. And with six years of Senatorial experience under his belt, and not running for a second term because he knew he would get creamed. Much easier to beat than an Obama. Much easier.
Self-congratulatory, dishonest, kind of stupid, offputting,ignorant, condescending, smug.
Those are things that Lindsay Beyerstein could have added to her description of what it means to be an "A-list polemicist," assuming she's talking about the left and assuming she considers herself an A-list polemicist.
Which reminds me: the problem with political discourse today is that there's too many polemicists whether A-list or not, and far too few thinkers. Not intellectuals, but thinkers.
And that was just one of the times that a lot of lefty blogs got together to try to hurt me. It happens regularly.
Trying to “hurt” you? You mean in the virtual, verbal sense, right? Wouldn’t want to go too overboard on the totally unjustified self-pity.
The reason it happens regularly, Ann, is because you regularly parrot idiotic right wing talking points with your own homegrown, ditzy spin.
It’s an absolute travesty that this is “Althouse month” at the NYT. I’m just going to attribute the decision to the same lack of vetting that produced Amanda Marcotte: campaign blogger. Or maybe they just thought you were a non-liberal who wouldn’t be taken too seriously.
My favorite was when you tried to explain how people are wrong to mock Giuliani and Romney for shamelessly flip flopping on abortion (presumably because they are Republicans), and your apparent obliviousness to McCain’s previously having said Roe shouldn’t be overturned.
Doyle -- Where is your New York Times column?
If Bill Keller read these threads, I'd have one!
patca said...
Bill Clinton was working for Bush?!
Ha. I'm guessing it was Guiliani. Anyways I was responding to a question of what a scalp was. This was clearly a scalp [irregardless of who was involved] and provided two cites that should clearly bolster my assertion. The individual that originally leveled the charges is clearly a professional scalper.
Can you imagine if Edwards was planning hiring this party operative? Looks like a typical Republican, maybe no one will notice. ;)
I don't know, the punk rocker looked white and stupid to me!
Hey, remember when I busted your false claims about public support for the war? That was column-worthy, I thought.
P.S. "Jump the shark" is over.
Johnny Rotten isn't a blogger, so he's okay. Whew. Glad THAT's settled. Who could argue Amandagate didn't change everything?
Are you senile or dishonest? Let the people decide!
See Seven Machos get broken up here..
The fun starts at 9:44pm.
and provided two cites that should clearly bolster my assertion
If so, your assertion is completely unrelated to the question at hand, which is: does the 'vast right wing blogosphere' actually call this practice 'scalping', as Beyerstein claimed.
It's almost like a game of
Jeopardy: you provide the sources, and then we have to guess what wacky and as yet unmentioned assertion for which they provide proof.
"I'll take 'Reasons Why Donahue Would Make a Poor Campaign Blogger' for $400, Alex"
AA said, "I linked to Beyerstein's blog, but there were MANY other blogs, exerting a huge effort to try to discredit me, repeating the same memes, etc. Look it up if you want. I'm not going to link to them all. And that was just one of the times that a lot of lefty blogs got together to try to hurt me. It happens regularly. So get a clue. Do some research. You loser."
I worry for your sanity.
Of course, the same standards will be applied to Duncan Hunter's new campaign co-chair: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10028.html. Seeing as you're NOT a conservative and all ...
But seriously (I joke about you not being a conservative), you cannot compare the fisking you regularly get on the blogs to Marcotte's ... well you can, but only with a head full of valuum while sitting in the rubber room.
And also, "loser?" Good one!!!!! Your comments on civlity in the blogosphere keep getting better and better.
I'm amazed at how politically tone-deaf the people who write these articles are. This is the second or third "Marcotte is a victim" article I've read in a major online publication, and all of them ignore the elephant in the room -- namely, that Marcotte's blogging history contained a lot of stuff that was completely repugnant to the majority of Americans.
I hate the Catholic Church. I basically dislike Christianity in general, actually. Unlike Marcotte and Beyerstein, however, I realize that the overwhelming majority of Americans do NOT share those views and, in fact, quite actively dislike them. Were I to write some sexually explicit comments about the conception and abortion of Jesus, I would not have the nerve to be surprised when a firestorm of criticism erupted in response.
Either Marcotte was too unintelligent to realize she was offending people or she was arrogant enough to think that nobody would dare criticize her for it. Either way she's a lousy choice for a political blogger.
Anyways I was responding to a question of what a scalp was. This was clearly a scalp [irregardless of who was involved] and provided two cites that should clearly bolster my assertion. The individual that originally leveled the charges is clearly a professional scalper.
The claim was that right-wing bloggers target enemies and try to bring them down, and call this "scalping".
You provided an example of a NON-blogger doing something which YOU call "scalping" and he does not. Your second example was of that NON-blogger defending somebody against attacks, which is the exact opposite of scalping.
All you've demonstrated is that Donohue is a political hack and an asshole, and we all knew that already.
If so, your assertion is completely unrelated to the question at hand, which is: does the 'vast right wing blogosphere' actually call this practice 'scalping', as Beyerstein claimed.
But that's not what I originally responded to - the question of what a political scalp is. It had nothing to do with the Beyerstein's claims in the first place.
But that's not what I originally responded to - the question of what a political scalp is.
Here is the actual post you were responding to:
And I never heard of "scalping" before, but then I missed the last meeting of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
He wasn't asking how lefties define "scalping". He was saying he'd never heard of the term, despite its supposedly being the only form of group political activity right-wing blogs engage in.
So a valid response would have been to cite some right-wing bloggers who use the term, rather than (as you did) making the off-topic observation that Donohue is a jackass.
Revenant
Commenters were asking what a scalp was. I made my opinion clear I thought this was a scalp. I never claimed there was a collective scalping jihad on the right blogosphere.
Donohue could have handled this in numerous different ways, like perhaps calling Edwards and ask him if knew what Marcotte was writing on her blog. The fact he chose to go public first [as his long track record proves] tells me he isn't looking out just for Catholics, and he has another agenda. Liberal scalps.
"Commenters were asking what a scalp was."
No, they were not. We were asking, and I asked specifically, why we never heard of the right wing blogs supposedly engaging in something they call collectively "scalping." After all, we are part of the VRWC so we should have heard of it, right?
Your answer is still nonresponsive.
Commenters were asking what a scalp was.
No commenters had asked what a scalp was, nor would there be any reason for them to -- Beyerstein defined (and probably invented) the term in her article. If you honestly thought that people were asking for a definition of the term, that was because you were not paying attention to what people were actually saying.
Your repeated harping on Donohue -- who has absolutely no relevance to this thread and whose behavior is not "scalping" as defined by Beyerstein -- suggests that you're really just looking for an excuse to make this thread about your pet peeves, the was DTL does with homosexuality or Cedarford does with Jews.
The left and right blogospheres both engage in what neither calls "scalping" (except when the left uses the term to try to deliegitimize the practice by the right). However, the left consistently fails, while the right often enough succeeds. The reason is that the right picks "scalping" grounds that seem reasonable to a wide swath of Democrats.
Marcotte, for example, talked blasphemously about the virgin conception of Jesus, thus insulting the religion of everyone who accepts the account of either the Gospels or the Koran. William Donahue doesn't need magic media-control powers to make that a big issue; there are lots of orthodox Christians and Muslims who vote in Democratic primaries.
(Now, if Marcotte had forthrightly come forth and apologized for the intentional insult, instead of pretending she'd only accidentally offended people, she might have salvaged the situation with enough Democratic Christians. Genuine contrition, or at least contrition faked so as to seem genuine, plays well. But a confession that she was deliberately intolerant of the beliefs of two religions on an element of their dogmas [the Virgin Birth] that doesn't impinge on any public policy issue? That William Donahue was right? Why, that wouldn't fit the script. It's the Right that's intolerant! Always!)
What a great post. What great comments.
1. I love it when Althouse calls a loser a...loser.
2. I love it twice as much when such a remark is posted more than once.
3. I love it when Doyle writes about the greatness he would certainly achieve in an alternate universe.
4. I love it when people talk about those wonderful prostitutes of Kazakhstan.
5. I love it when a commenter gets right to the heart of the matter, as brianofatlanta did when he noted the difference between people like John Henke on the one hand and polemical bloggers like Ace of Spades and Marcotte on the other hand.
6. I love it when Seven Machos enumerates the points he makes in his comments.
7. I hate it that the SAT not longer does the analogy thing. America used to be a better place.
Revenant
Patca correctly pointed my error in straying from the VRWC "scalping" [false] vernacular theme which the thread was about. The only reason it is relevant to me is because of Donohue. Anyone but him. I don't like getting shook down either. I also hate it when he gets to go on national television and have a grand mal seizure, and we just give him what he wants so he'll shut up and go away. Until the next time. It's also relevant because the media peddles these stupid pseudo scandals as news, in lieu of current actual news - and it's the reason George Bush is President, and it's the reason we are in Iraq today.
I also hate it when he gets to go on national television and have a grand mal seizure, and we just give him what he wants so he'll shut up and go away.
The fact that Donohue's an asshole doesn't change the fact that Marcotte's an unhinged man-hating cunt.
Marcotte didn't get thrown to the wolves because of Donohue. She got thrown to the wolves because politically she's as repugnant to the *average* American as a member of the Ku Klux Klan. If she'd been a less hateful person Marcotte would still have a job -- Donohue's gone after hundreds of people whose careers are still thriving.
Commenters were asking what a scalp was.
Bwa ha ha ha.
I'm glad you agree Beyerstein's comments were completely indefensible.
Your inchoate attempts to say things related to Beyerstein's comment that don't actually address what anyone else wrote can only be taken as an implicit acknowledgment of their indefensibility.
===
Q: What's a scalping?
A: About a buck twenty-five
"Slander" is more or less a synonym for "discredit", which Althouse did use.
Taken in isolation the words can sometimes be synonymous. But the phrase "trying to discredit me" (what Ann said) is in NO way synonymous with the phrase "slandering her good name" (what you falsely accused her of saying).
The attacks on Ann have generally not been slanderous. They have consisted largely of repeating out-of-context anecdotes about things she's said on her blog (such as the Boobgate story). This falls into the category of "attempts to discredit her", and is why left-wing newbies who drift into this forum come with some truly amusing preconceived notions of Ann's politics.
Maybe it's a stronger word than "discredit"...so? Better to capture the childish hysteria in Althouse's tone.
Aheh. Let me get this straight -- you had to paraphrase Ann, because quoting what she REALLY said didn't "capture" her "tone"?
Here's a hint: when you have to misrepresent someone in order to "accurately" describe them, your opinion of what's accurate has diverged from reality.
You have to change the tone in order to capture it.
Lots of weird statements in this thread.
I'm still waiting for someone to show that there really is some right-wing term "scalping."
Marcotte didn't get thrown to the wolves because of Donohue. She got thrown to the wolves because politically she's as repugnant to the *average* American as a member of the Ku Klux Klan. If she'd been a less hateful person Marcotte would still have a job -- Donohue's gone after hundreds of people whose careers are still thriving.
In the end, that is the key point about the whole affair. If it was just right wing bloggers upset at what Marcotte said, she'd still be sitting on the Edwards payroll, because Edwards doesn't care about those people, because none of them is ever going to vote for him anyway.
She was fired because what she said was truly offensive and truly indefensible to the mainstream American public. Those are the people Edwards was worried about offending.
If Marcotte had limited her remarks to things that offended Donahue but most people agreed with, she'd have had no problem.
this is a blog comment on the internet and I didn't expect that my word choice would be analyzed.
You must be new here.
Revenant: Yes, I know; I'm so naive for expecting people here to pick up on the actual substance of my comment, instead of minor details.
The "actual substance of your comment" is that the allegedly polite nature of Beyerstein's commenters refutes Ann's claim that they were trying to discredit her.
It is probably just as well for you that nobody "picked up" on that particular non sequiteur.
That must be why I get five word replies to 350 word arguments.
The fact that your post could accurately be summarized as "Nuh-uh, Meathead!" might be a factor in that.
Bosox,
Ann cited an example of people trying to discredit her. You dismissed the example using the amusingly dippy excuse that it didn't count because the people were polite. You then demanded that she produce further evidence, insisting that it was her duty to prove her statement was true.
This assumes that it is Ann's duty to cure you of willful ignorance, which of course it is not.
bosox: If I weren't so new (because apparently we're all twelve here and things like this matter), I would have also known that Althouse commenters always analyze everything with great insight and depth
More like we expect you to provide evidence for your assertions, to accurately quote Ann when attacking her, etc.
bosox: screw you guys, I'm off to torture some squirrels
Had to paraphrase you, because quoting what you REALLY said didn't "capture" the "tone".
[hat tip revenant]
Who is the new guy?
Trey
Post a Comment