« The Most Succinct Explanation of Bush's Budget You'll Read All Day | Main | Your Liberal Media »
February 07, 2007
If Wishes Were Fishes
How I'd love to be a fly-on-the-wall in Edwards' HQ today. I really don't know how this'll shake out. I can't really imagine the campaign firing Amanda and Melissa, even though that was clearly the (understandable) initial instinct of at least some folks over there. These sorts of cannings used to be a simple matter, but now the campaign has to decide which activated constituency it'll annoy. It would seem they could amass a lot of goodwill by releasing a strong, aggressive statement against the attacks, possibly one that goes on the offensive against smear artists like Donahue.
For that matter, I do wonder what the upside would be of firing the two bloggers. The right will always know they hired them in the first place. The language of any conceivable attack ad -- "John Edwards hired an atheist as his blogmaster!" -- won't even change. And the press certainly won't fall over themselves offering positive coverage. It'll just be a black eye. In a weird way, I think everyone is assuming the two will get fired because that's always been the rule. But given the new constituencies in the netroots, the post-Rove focus on base mobilizations, and the high value Democratic primary voters place on partisan streetfighting skills, is the old model still operative, or are people just following it because they've always followed it?
February 7, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
For the love of God, Mr. Klein, aren't there already enough comment threads in the progressive blogosphere for concern trolls to deposit their feces? You'd think folks were getting a nickel for every time they used cut-and-paste on another lefty blog. I'm a liberal Democrat, but if this accommodation of concern trolls by the Left continues, I'm going to have to consider voting for Roy Moore in '08.
Posted by: mds | Feb 7, 2007 3:51:25 PM
Obviously, they planned this all along; they hired controversial bloggers that would generate opposition in the nuttier parts of nutland, then leaked that they were going to fire them to get everyone in the netroots on the edge of their seat only to have the candidate himself come out with a strong statment in support of Amanda and Shakes and in opposition to Donahue and the right-wing noice machine. thereby increasing the bounce that they get in the netroots. How wonderfully Machievellian of them. Oh, I wish.
Posted by: david mizner | Feb 7, 2007 3:52:04 PM
There are controversial bloggers, and then there's Amanda. She makes even the people who agree with her wince.
Anyway, as a person who dislikes Edwards and hopes his campaign implodes, I'd like to see Amanda stay on and embarrass her boss further.
Posted by: Matt S | Feb 7, 2007 3:59:07 PM
This so doesn't matter, whichever way it shakes out. I think Edwards ought to stick it out, to get in the habit of it if nothing else, but whatever.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Feb 7, 2007 4:00:27 PM
"John Edwards hired an atheist as his blogmaster!"
I think you've just figured out how to frame this and turn it back on the accusers-- "John Edwards is being attacked by fundamentalists because he has an atheist on his staff."
Posted by: Tyro | Feb 7, 2007 4:00:46 PM
How wonderfully Machievellian of them. Oh, I wish.
And once again David reads my mind. You must stop that, David! There's some weird stuff swirling around in this head...
Posted by: litbrit | Feb 7, 2007 4:04:08 PM
FWIW, I called the campaign to complain, and passed the story along to everyone I could think of who might be sympathetic.
Good to get the character tests out of the way early, I guess.
Posted by: latts | Feb 7, 2007 4:06:07 PM
If Edwards fires them, I am off the bandwagon. We do not need another Democratic nominee who caves and buckles and crouches when the Falange attacks. Been there, done that.
Posted by: Marshall | Feb 7, 2007 4:09:08 PM
I e-mailed the campaign to say the obvious: Firing Amanda and Melissa will not win Edwards any votes.
Posted by: nolo | Feb 7, 2007 4:09:58 PM
I actually will be surprised if Edwards fires them.
My bet is he keeps them on and goes after Donohue pretty hard, though I wouldn't be surprised to see them quit and say nothing but good things about the Edwards campaign to the blogosphere. I'm also terrible at predicting things.
Whatever the case, this whole incident really makes the Edwards' campaign look pretty bad. It's looking more and more like Matt Stoller was right about it.
Posted by: Tony H. | Feb 7, 2007 4:12:13 PM
I do wonder what the upside would be of firing the two bloggers.
I don't see enough upside to firing them unless they've made it clear that they won't fit into the needs of a campaign. If they've committed to not unnecessarily stirring up trouble, then they should stay on and prove the critics wrong. If they can't give that guarantee, though, they'll have to go now or soon after. There isn't much alternative.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 4:16:27 PM
Strike back at Donohue with everything you've got.
Then fire Amanda at a later date, when she inevitably fucks up.
Again, win/win.
Posted by: James | Feb 7, 2007 4:16:43 PM
If the Edwards campaign released a statement today that read "The Edwards campaign will not now, nor in the future, be taking advice from the likes of William Donahue and Michelle Malkin" and then said they were keeping both on; is there any doubt that the goodwill this would generate amongst liberals, particularly in the "netroots" would far outweigh any benefits of firing them? I think all your points are correct Ezra; firing them now does not mean the crazy Right will stop their attacks. Keeping them is the only, and best, option IMO.
Posted by: Jake | Feb 7, 2007 4:19:55 PM
Anyway, as a person who dislikes Edwards and hopes his campaign implodes, I'd like to see Amanda stay on and embarrass her boss further.
Okay, technically I didn't cavil about reverse concern trolls. So I guess Matt S is off the hook. Don't worry, Mr. S, if the Edwards campaign doesn't implode over this, the right wing can return to completely making shit up in order to smear a Democratic candidate. Oh, wait, I hope the word "shit" didn't make you wince.
Posted by: mds | Feb 7, 2007 4:33:13 PM
Marcotte will not be fired, she will "regret that I have become the focus of the campaign and take away from the great job Edwards is doing to save the world, so to save further controversy, I have resigned . . . etc. etc."
She will then get to work for one of Edwards' many wealthy friends.
Look, I am a rupublican (and actually a North Carolinian) and so have actually had the opportunity to vote against Edwards a time or two. I am Catholic and go to church with a bunch of nice people, of whom probably 40% are devout Catholics and also devout democrats (like my father), or independents (like my mother). I am offended by Marcotte's comments. I don't think a person who publicly and loudly expresses her disagreements in such a crude way deserves to be associated with a presidential campaign. She does not just profess her atheism, she actively thinks religion is a force for evil in the world and Catholics are bad people (at least that is my reading of her comments).
You know, John Kerry took 47% of the Catholic vote, which was 27% of the voters. Why you as democrats would want to drive away these people who are essential to your winning is beyond me. I guess as a republican, I should hope you keep her, but as a Catholic, I think she is offensive to me, my family and a lot of good people, many of whom disagree with me on a lot of issues. There is a big difference between saying "I am an atheist" and "I am an atheist, fuck you your religion sucks, is evil and anyone who practices it is a mysoginist hatemonger."
PS--As for the Shakespeare lady, I have no problem with her posts, they are not nearly as mean-spirited and offensive as Marcotte's.
Posted by: Scott | Feb 7, 2007 4:35:29 PM
The willingness of the Edwards campaign to hire staffers who will speak bluntly and offend political opponents like Scott here is a feature, not a bug. The gloves are coming off. Right wing operatives are not criticized. Karl Rove circulated a story that McCain had a black illegitimate child in a primary, yet he's hailed as a fighter by people like Scott here. Feel the hurt.
Posted by: matt | Feb 7, 2007 4:48:39 PM
Marcotte will not be fired, she will "regret that I have become the focus of the campaign and take away from the great job Edwards is doing to save the world, so to save further controversy, I have resigned . . . etc. etc."
By God I believe you have something there.
I believe you are exactly right! this will give cover to Edwards and Marcotte as well. The only fly in this ointment is getting rid of both Marcotte and McEwan will show that the resignations were only resignations in form, but not in substance.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 7, 2007 4:51:17 PM
This is a test to see if Edwards is smart enough to be president. His problem isn't the right wing or the media. If he lets these women go, one of his Democratic rivals will hire them, and Edwards will be screwed, revealed as a coward and a simpleton both.
Posted by: JMG | Feb 7, 2007 4:51:57 PM
"The willingness of the Edwards campaign to hire staffers who will speak bluntly and offend political opponents like Scott here is a feature, not a bug. The gloves are coming off."
Offending me is not the issue. The issue is offending people who might in fact be inclined to vote for you. If Kerry got no Catholic votes, he would have lost the election by, what, 30 million votes? There is no way any Catholic bishop can speak approvingly of Edwards or even meet with him while Marcotte is associated with him (and believe it or not, aside from abortion, I'd bet about 90% of Catholic bishops would support Edwards). Again, "taking the gloves off" just means offending people you need to get elected.
Posted by: Scott | Feb 7, 2007 4:58:07 PM
This is a test to see if Edwards is smart enough to be president. His problem isn't the right wing or the media. If he lets these women go, one of his Democratic rivals will hire them, and Edwards will be screwed, revealed as a coward and a simpleton both.
If Bill Clinton had announced he would revisit gays in the military and then had backed off due to right-wing pressure before even becoming the Democratic candidate, then the US would have had a Bush in power since 1986.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Feb 7, 2007 5:09:29 PM
Marcotte will not be fired, she will "regret that I have become the focus of the campaign and take away from the great job Edwards is doing to save the world, so to save further controversy, I have resigned . . . etc. etc."
She will then get to work for one of Edwards' many wealthy friends.
I wouldn't be surprised if this does happen. I do hope Shakes survives though.
Posted by: Lux | Feb 7, 2007 5:13:42 PM
Scott, Kerry also got 70% of the non-Christian vote, which was 20% of the electorate in 2004 and is growing.
Posted by: Alon Levy | Feb 7, 2007 5:23:20 PM
If there was more than 10 minutes of amused conversation spent on Amanda and Shakes and nutball attacks on them over at Edwards HQ, his presidential race is all-arround waste of time. This is a non-isue, taken up to smear candidate (who actually looks promissing), and drag discussion to live mud, never to be recovered.
Posted by: VR | Feb 7, 2007 5:34:30 PM
I'm not sure the GOP really wants the precedent set re: oppo research on staffers. Do they really want to set up the precedent of checking Freep posts?
Posted by: Chris R | Feb 7, 2007 5:47:00 PM
Donahue is a serial anti-semite, and if they cave to him they're caving to political extremism. It would be like Noam Chomsky demanding that John McCain fire Jill Hazelbaker.
Posted by: Not Marty Peretz | Feb 7, 2007 5:48:11 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.