« The Politics of Spite | Main | Health News of the Day »
February 13, 2007
Competence Matters
So Amanda has quit the Edwards campaign. It's the right thing to do. The box of a presidential effort is not the place for a writer as gifted, expressive, and wide-ranging as Amanda. And it's certainly not the place for one so controversial. But what seems to have triggered her final decision is another Donahue outburst over Amanda's recently-posted review of Children of Men, where she offers a feminist critique of the virgin birth.
Huh?
Why was the Edwards' campaign letting her blog privately? And I don't just mean in the aftermath to her being almost fired, I mean at all. From top to bottom this has been a study in online incompetence from that campaign. I love Amanda and consider her a good friend, but she wasn't the right choice to run their blog. Not only was she the wrong choice, but she was a wrong choice who wasn't vetted. And then, when the utterly predictable shitstorm started, the Edwards campaign spent two days offering unresponsive waffles. And then, when they finally stood by her, they let her continue pursuing her controversial solo work?
I appreciate the campaign's courage and conviction, both of which have been on admirable display throughout this kerfluffle. But it's hard to ignore their incompetence. Every action, and every reaction, in this entire chain, has been predictable, and a campaign playing in the big leagues simply has to possess that foresight. In a few weeks, The American Prospect will publish my profile of John Edwards. And it's a largely favorable take focusing on the candidate's populist convictions. But none of it matters if they can't get their act together.A campaign that can hardly limp through the hiring of a blogger is not prepared for the rigors of the race.
February 13, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Why was the Edwards' campaign letting her blog privately? And I don't just mean in the aftermath to her being almost fired, I mean at all. From top to bottom this has been a study in online incompetence from that campaign.
So, wasn't it Marcotte's decision as well?
Look, until now, she has had no accountability....NONE. Now, it's the real world where actions have consequences. This was not a tough one to call. Edwards is a smart politician.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 13, 2007 11:15:14 AM
If competently run campaigns were the best sign of what it takes to run the country, then I'd be pushing hard for Hillary/Bush '08 right now.
On a contrasting note: 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 | Feb 13, 2007 11:15:52 AM
Fully agree, Ezra. But I wouldn't blame it solely on the campaign.
Yesterday afternoon, I put up a post saying that Amanda should either step down from Pandagon for the duration of the Edwards campaign, or quit the job. When I got home early this morning, I read that she had quit the campaign.
Edwards' staff should have looked very closely at Amanda's online work prior to hiring her, and that's their fault.
But Amanda should have followed Jerome Armstrong's lead and stopped all personal blogging. She instead wrote again about the subject that got her into trouble in the first place (albeit in a much more subdued manner than in the past), and that's her fault.
It should have been spelled out by the campaign in no uncertain terms that blogging at Pandagon, or anywhere else, was prohibited. But Amanda should have forseen the complications that could (and did) arise, and taken that step herself.
Plenty of blame to go around here, IMO.
Posted by: Stranger | Feb 13, 2007 11:21:25 AM
Why was the Edwards' campaign letting her blog privately?
I sort of wonder if Edwards is running a faux-populist campaign, and feels unsure what a real populist campaign would look like. So you get these fits and starts as it learns.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Feb 13, 2007 11:33:00 AM
If I recall, the reason Amanda took over Pandagon was that Jesse Taylor took a full-time job with the Ted Strickland campaign and had to quit his personal blogging. So it's not like the playbook for this stuff was hard to read. The difference seems to be that Strickland ran one of the best campaigns of anyone in 2006, while Edwards... uh...
Posted by: David Weigel | Feb 13, 2007 11:36:13 AM
I'd also point out that these are early days. Better to struggle now when the public is not watching or listening than this fall when more people will be watching.
Personally, I find this a tempest in a teapot. Marcotte's writing is often very good and insightful. So she's not a great fit for the Edwards campaign. It's inside baseball at this point.
I'm more encouraged hearing somewhere that one or more people at Pandagon are trying to get Donahue's tax exempt status revoked for engaging in politics. Now that would be amusing.
Posted by: Fred | Feb 13, 2007 11:37:55 AM
I understand the real politics at play, but it saddens me that a gifted writer has to censor herself if she wants to be part of a political campaign. I wish there was a way to make hiring people like Amanda a blow for free speech instead of a "gaffe." It's a clear failing of our political process that it cannot seem to accomodate even the mildest forms of personal style and self-expression.
Or can it? After all, many have pointed out that right wing bloggers say far more inflammatory things on a regular basis. Shouldn't we push back against this idea that only liberal bloggers can never say what they think if it will offend someone?
Bush offends on a regular basis, but attracts admiration because he doesn't worry about offending. Is there not a lesson there about how people view candidates who worry too much about pleasing them? That Americans admire people who bluster through? We were all scared by what happened to Dean, but really, if he'd shrugged it off, laughed and moved on..and been backed up by his party...I don't think the "scream" need have taken him out of the running. Kerry pussyfooted his way right out the door, in comparison.
Posted by: emjaybee | Feb 13, 2007 11:42:59 AM
First of all, it's kerfuffle, not kerfluffle. Second of all, we shouldn't exaggerrate the campaign's incompetence or extrapolate too much this one small (in the scheme of things) incident. For example, this--"the Edwards campaign spent two days offering unresponsive waffles"--is an overstatement. It wasn't two days, they didn't offer waffles (they offered nothing), and given the difficulty of the decision, some delay is understandable. More important, I'm not sure that the net impact of the incident hasn't been positive for Edwards: he stood up to rightwing smears and still has Shakes, who's gonna be a great asset helping the campaign negotiate and use Blogworld.
I wish my incompetence turned out so well.
Posted by: david mizner | Feb 13, 2007 11:47:31 AM
Internet operations of this magnitude for a presidential campaign are unchartered territory. I think we also need to give credit where credit is due. The Edwards campaign has taken bold steps with regard to its internet operations. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Posted by: NCDem | Feb 13, 2007 12:00:00 PM
I'm not sure that the net impact of the incident hasn't been positive for Edwards: he stood up to rightwing smears and still has Shakes, who's gonna be a great asset helping the campaign negotiate and use Blogworld.
Accuse me of logrolling if you like, but I agree with David and, having heard nothing yet, hope like hell that she's still on board.
Posted by: litbrit | Feb 13, 2007 12:01:29 PM
Internet operations of this magnitude for a presidential campaign are unchartered territory. I think we also need to give credit where credit is due. The Edwards campaign has taken bold steps with regard to its internet operations. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Posted by: NCDem | Feb 13, 2007 12:02:30 PM
This all for the blogs to hash over and over and over. I don't see a problem with the Edwards campaign, giving the bloggers a chance to be official in the political realm, heck it helps push the MSM into the reality that there is a new horizon and it is not just print or Television. Yes, it is new and a lot of angles to consider. I will not hold the Edwards campaign for being on the frontier of trying to blend the bloggs into a national campaign at total fault if any.
I won't even blame Amanda, even though ethically she should have/maybe even did realized that her own blogging days were on hold until after Nov 2008. In the best spirit to both, it was worth a try and their best effort, in the end there are many bloggers who can fill the void! Although this is not the outcome we all may have wished for. It is not the end of everthing.
So, I wish both well, Amanda to where ever blogging leads her and to the Edwards campaign forward to the primaries.
Posted by: dk2 | Feb 13, 2007 12:04:13 PM
Amanda's site is hosed, but I'm pretty sure that review did not occur while she was on the JRE payroll.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Feb 13, 2007 12:04:30 PM
The two of them (bloggers) were profiled on o'reilly last night, the first segment of the show. Amanda wrote some pretty offensive shit about Catholics. If it had been said about any minority group or religion besides Christianity or Judaism, she would have been called a bigot, hatemonger, all them names you clowns like to throw at those you don't agree with.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 13, 2007 12:04:37 PM
Fully agree Ezra. I think this is all on the campaign. Their due dilligence was obviously horrible (in the sense that if they didn't know her style when they hired her and were thus surprised by it, then they did a pretty bad job). Finally, how they allowed her to continue blogging over at Pandagon, boggles the mind. Then again, she should have used some common sense and realized that those personal posts were just going to cause more trouble.
Posted by: AT | Feb 13, 2007 12:08:54 PM
It does seem to me like Mr. Edwards's campaign is quietly poisoning itself. First, we had his downright evasive comments on CNBC the day he announced his candidacy. Then we had his so-called "universal" health plan that turns out to be yet another "mandatory" health plan heavy on the "employers buy coverage from the guys who are the real problem" (Ms. Marcotte was kind enough to post a link to the bullet-point version of the plan yesterday). I am probably missing several other key moments. Then we have this blog situation.
Mr. Klein is absolutely right; Ms. Marcotte should have recognized when one's mouth should remain closed. Yes, her posting calling for questions for her boss was a good idea; that is the essence of grass-roots. For that matter I don't honestly beleive anyone would have a problem with her continuing to post pictures of her cat. However, when you are paid by a political campaign, you are paid to put your political writings to work for your candidate. Didn't anyone notice the subtle rhetorical shift Mr. Edwards -- Like Mr. Kemp before him -- had to make to be a Vice Presidential candidate?
Ms. Marcotte is clearly a lightning rod. People have clear feelings about her views, and she writes about those views passionately. She belongs in the open, not in somebody's political house.
Posted by: ShortWoman | Feb 13, 2007 12:13:24 PM
On a contrasting note: Is Obama actually running a campaign or anything?
Obama has been running for what, 4 months at most? This is versus multiple years for the other big league candidates. I'd say he's doing pretty damn well given the situation. No doubt that it's an "improbable quest" though, as he put it.
On topic, hopefully Edwards learns from this experience. Actually, since I dislike him, I hope he doesn't. This also goes back to what I was saying above. Edwards isn't new to presidential campaigns. The man has been running for FOUR YEARS straight. How much can we expect him to learn at this point?
Posted by: Korha | Feb 13, 2007 12:14:31 PM
Amanda's site is hosed, but I'm pretty sure that review did not occur while she was on the JRE payroll.
The 'Children Of Man' review appeared over the weekend, didn't it?
This was after Donohue first attacked, and after Edwards announced he was keeping Amanda on board - with the caveat that posts like the one that Donohue got all huffy about would not be tolerated from his campaign employees.
Edwards could not have been clearer. The words 'will not be tolerated' don't leave much wiggle room. Both Amanda and Shakes were put on official notice at that point.
Posted by: Stranger | Feb 13, 2007 12:18:11 PM
It's a clear failing of our political process that it cannot seem to accomodate even the mildest forms of personal style and self-expression.
Are you on drugs?
Here's an example of your "mildest forms of personal style and self expression"
One thing I vow here and now–you motherfuckers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will fuck without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherfuckers. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 13, 2007 12:18:59 PM
...many have pointed out that right wing bloggers say far more inflammatory things on a regular basis.
The one crucial difference being that I know of no right-wing bloggers that have been hired by a GOP presidential campaign.
Allahpundit's widely-linked 'Stop Chewing On Jesus' post is (or should be) every bit as offensive to Donohue as anything Amanda wrote.
But no one's going to hire him to blog for a presidential candidate.
Besides, isn't it Rule One of getting and holding a job that when you sign on with a company, you become a de facto spokesperson for that company, and you don't go around in that capacity saying intemperate things? Hell, I'm a measly blogger who'll never get hired by a national campaign, and even I know that.
Posted by: Stranger | Feb 13, 2007 12:28:35 PM
Sorry, David and LitBrit, but I don't think Edwards "stood up" to the right, and I think the fact that the right has wound up getting what they wanted all along - Amanda out of that job. I think Ezra's got this right - from start to finish, this episode calls into question how the Edwards campaign is operating. And if they can't get what should have been a minor team hire to work properly, but instead have it bloom into a week-long controversy that steps on his best press (i.e. the health plan we've long since stopped discussing), then they're not showing a readiness to play in the big leagues (because none of this would have happened on the Clinton campaign, and won't). I also think this was handled badly because a talented young woman has been subjected to needless scrutiny and manufactured controversy, all of which could have been avoided. And the Edwards folks bear responsibility for that, as well as Amanda Marcotte, who I agree was not ideally suited to the position, given the passion and highly partisan approach to blogging she brings to the table. Nothing underlines for me the needlessness of the controversy like The Children of Men review - an innocuous post that started a lively discussion. Which is what a blog is supposed to do. I didn't take as feminist a reading of the film when I reviewed it, but I see her point.
Finally, I think the reall struggle here is unraveling what the best practices are in political blogging. People talk about a "no outside blog" standard as if that solves it, but I find that notion puzzling. Not having a personal blog would not have prevented her previous writings from becoming an issue; and I think the real, untouched lesson of this is that bloggers will be asked to reargue and justify every loose phrase, every off the cuff comment. While I believe our words should carry weight, and we should own up to meaning what we say (which, in the end, was the heart of the problem of those "apologies" everyone said would solve this), I also think few people can hope to manage not to ignite some negative reaction with their writing. Are we saying, really, that "watch what you say" should become our standard for blogging? And are we comfortable with that? Because I think that's the unspoken message of this debacle, and if we don't discuss it, we're liable to let it stand. And I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that. I don't have a good answer for this - I'm really just asking.
Posted by: weboy | Feb 13, 2007 12:35:12 PM
Maybe she is addicted. Perhaps they told her not to blog personally but she couldn't help herself.
Otherwise, why would they LET her blog privately. I mean, Matthew Gross still does it, but he is pretty easy-going, not one to throw bombs.
Posted by: Robert P. | Feb 13, 2007 12:40:26 PM
Since we don't know the terms of Amanda's agreement with the Edwards campaign, we don't actually know if the problem here was that the campaign did a poor job of vetting and/or laying the ground rules, or if Amanda just didn't understand (or accept) all the implications of her accepting a job on a political campaign.
My guess is, a little of both.
What will happen with Melissa now is anybody's guess. I suspect she'll be offered Amanda's job. Whether she will choose to accept it, I don't know.
Posted by: fiat lux | Feb 13, 2007 12:41:33 PM
Do you give Amanda any create for chosing to Quit.
How is Edwards who was willing to move forward and supported both of the bloggers, one of which is still on the campaign, to blame? What was he suppose to do, say "OH now that I have stuck my neck out for you, you can't quit."
Some people need to get real, in the world that I worked in she wouldn't have had any choice, there would have been a firing.
This reminds me of working for a fortune 500 company as a courier, while driving in our own vehicles off the clock, on our own time we could have no more than 2 moving violation tickets (speeding tickets in our own vehicles off clock - not in a company vehicle or on the clock), we also could do nothing in the company uniform that anyone could relate to disparage the company image, or get fired. That was it - FIRED, no debates, no transfer to another location or job title, just fired. To this day, I still don't think the company should have that kind of power over its employees.
I am with Edwards 1000 percent for being the man of character he is and relizing that we are people not machines that we have our owm opinions, and we have free speech, and I thank him for it.
Posted by: dk2 | Feb 13, 2007 12:46:10 PM
I'm sure I read this somewhere recently as well, maybe from Ben Smith, but it's going to be interesting to see how Barack handles what will surely be inflammatory discussions coming from the blogs he's allowing on his site. I don't know, it's great that he's opening it up to people. But it could get ugly quickly.
While the Edwards team could have handled some of this better, in general he has really tried to push the envelope with the "netroots" and build a grassroots effort with them. When you do that, it's going to be messy now and then. I do have less sympathy for Amanda. I don't care how great of a writer she is, the idea of blogging about religion, while still at the campaign and, effectively, HOURS after Edwards stood by her for blogging about religion, reveals a stunning lack of judgment. Even the fact that she minimizes it by saying she "can't cough," shows that she still really doesn't get it. Maybe Edwards should have mandated that she stop, or maybe they figured she'd act like an adult and use good sense. I've volunteered for a number of campaigns (I realize Amanda was not a volunteer), and am often put off when talked to like I'm a child (e.g., "no drinking will be tolerated"). As Amanda's behavior shows, apparently campaigns have their reasons to be overly clear about what should be obvious.
Posted by: cms | Feb 13, 2007 12:58:56 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
