Breaking: Edwards Campaign Knew Marcotte's History
By Nathan Nelson Posted in Blogosphere | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Since the PandaGate scandal broke, everyone's been wondering whether John Edwards' campaign actually knew about Amanda Marcotte's troubling anti-Catholic, anti-Christian history, or if they had simply hired her in ignorance. Wonder no more: writing at Salon, Lindsay Beyerstein (Majikthise) reveals that the Edwards camp knew all about Pandagon.
Read on . . .
First, the context. Back in January, Ms. Beyerstein was also offered a job with the Edwards campaign, but she declined because she felt that her controversial posts at Majikthise might end up being a liability for the campaign. She writes:
I was offered a job blogging for John Edwards, but I declined.
On Jan. 12, an Edwards campaign staffer whom I'll call Bob, which isn't his real name, e-mailed me to ask if I might be interested in blogging for the campaign. I maintain a blog called Majikthise, and I'd met Bob several times at various political and social gatherings in New York City, including Drinking Liberally.
But Beyerstein goes on to explain that she felt her past blogging might be a liability for the Edwards campaign:
I was dazzled by Edwards' speech, Bob's vision and the sense that I might be on the verge of the big time. I wanted to jump on the bus, but I knew I couldn't.
"I'm probably not ... the person you want," I said, finally. "I mean, I'm on the record saying that abortion is good and that all drugs should be legalized, including heroin. Don't you think that might be a little embarrassing for the campaign?"
Bob assured me that my controversial posts weren't a problem as far as the campaign was concerned. They were familiar with my work. And Bob did seem to know my writing. I didn't get the impression he was a daily reader, but it was obvious he had been reading the blog for a while. (Emphasis mine).
Now, it's important to understand that while Beyerstein isn't quite as controversial as Marcotte, she's got plenty of her own baggage. Just days after she declined a job with the Edwards campaign, she wrote this little gem:
As if it weren't enough to come out against, science, progress, and freedom, the pope also seems to have an unseemly obsession with the fact that white Europeans aren't having enough babies.
But what about Amanda Marcotte? Did the Edwards campaign know about her troubling past? According to Lindsay Beyerstein, the answer is yes:
Bob and I sat for a long time, nibbling baklava and talking strategy. He asked me if I knew of any other feminist bloggers who might be interested in the job.
I don't know who brought up Amanda Marcotte's name first. I said Marcotte was the best writer in the feminist blogosphere. If they wanted a high-profile feminist blogger, Amanda was the best.
Bob is a regular reader of Amanda's blog, Pandagon. We reminisced for a while about some classic brawls and blowups that had erupted at Pandagon. (Emphasis mine).
There are a couple of things that become clear from Beyerstein's article. First, it's clear that the Edwards campaign was looking for someone who would be as abrasive as Marcotte on issues such as abortion, birth control, and social conservatives. They went for Beyerstein first, and when they couldn't have her they went for Marcotte - and "Bob" was well aware of the things that both Beyerstein and Marcotte had written in the past. It was no accident that the Edwards campaign ended up with somebody like Marcotte. That's who they were looking for all along. The second thing this reveals is the completely disingenuous nature of John Edwards' announcement that he would not fire Marcotte. He said: "The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me." If that's the case, then why did he hire them in the first place? Before, we might have assumed that he didn't know about their moonbat posts. We now know that wasn't the case, which makes his assertion that he found their posts offensive awfully suspicious. If he did find them offensive, he must not have minded hiring them despite the offense their posts caused.
The last unresolved issue of Beyerstein's article is, of course: Who is "Bob"? It's clear that "Bob," whoever he is, is the guy actually responsible for PandaGate. My guess, although it's just speculation, is that "Bob" is actually Joe Clarke, the prolific Edwards blogger who wrote an e-mail just prior to the MLK event at Riverside Church seeking blogger support. Clarke has been on Edwards' staff since it was just the One America Committee and not officially a presidential campaign. If this guy isn't "Bob," I'll eat my shoe (no, not really).
Come on now! You know Playstation Johnny wouldn't want what Pendagon spews on a daily basis all over his pretty, little loafers.
Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!
hiring bloggers officially is a very bad idea. Its such a crazy animal, only very few bloggers can work for campaigns. By its nature, blogging is a place to be hyper-partisan, to say everything that is on your mind, and to be controversial. That doesn't work well for campaigns.
I think blogs are important, but if canidates try and tame them they will get burnt.
-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason
It sounds to me as if Edwards was going the "cutting edge" route and ended up bleeding. It was a lose/lose for him. Either keep the liability and have Marcotte's statements bouncing around forever. Or rid himself in some way and appear to be mistake-prone in his decisions. I hate the fact that they can't be officially hired because we then understand the under-the-table hirings will happen and no responsibility put on the candidate for dirty attacks.
Even if we do not "know", we all understand that the October surprises are professionally crafted and timed for maximum effect.
A dedicated blogger has the communication and research skills needed to communicate position and policy in a way that the base and the public in general is able to easily digest, and have the cited sources to back it up.
That being said, being "hyper-partisan" isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, being hired in an official position tends to convey a certain level of responsibility. Bloggers, by nature, leave an extensive paper trail, so they should be pretty easy to pass through your hiring process before bringing them aboard for your campaign. If one hires a blogger like Marcotte even with the cursory knowledge of the site they maintain, that's more than a bit of a problem. Official campaign staff need to be, well, official, and a shrill harpy isn't going to be official no matter how you dress it up. That being said, a solid blogger with the ability to connect, relate, and convey (rather than inflame) could be a valuable asset.
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
That's not what Team Edwards™ was shopping for. They wanted a grrrrl blogger with a big presence in the vagisphere ecosystem, a sharp tongue, and a lot of sassafrass. They also wanted someone who was known by activist Movers and Shakers in the Infotainment/Entertainment/Activotainment industry, and Marcotte had that those bases covered because of her background blogging for Participate.net. That's all old schtuff.
I actually disagree with this sentiment. I don't think there's anything wrong with hiring bloggers - even those who are, as you put it, "hyper-partisan." The problem with Marcotte specifically, and to a lesser extent with McEwan, is that they were blatantly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian in a country where a supermajority of the people are Christian and a significant number - enough to cost John Kerry the 2004 election - are Catholic. It also didn't help that Marcotte and McEwan used profanity like it was going out of style. There are a lot of bloggers who speak their minds without frequent use of profanity and without blaspheming other people's religious beliefs, and I don't think we should disqualify all of them for campaign employment because of a couple of bad apples.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
The Common Tater
"feminist" bloggers, are there any who don't fit the mold of Marcotte and McEwan? Admittedly, I don't spend any time reading feminist bloggers, but the few I've linked to all pretty much mirror the dynamic duo.
Bottom line, the problem is "bloggers" it's who you're trying to appeal to by hiring bloggers.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
I don't read feminist blogs too often either because they tend to blog primarily about pro-choice stuff and I'm pro-life, but the bloggers at Feministe seem to be a little bit more rational than Marcotte, McEwan, et al. They use less profanity, at least.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
The Common Tater
cutsie little blond newsreader at CBS to gush about this. Or maybe Hillary's scampaign will mention it.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
Dick Morris keeps obsessing about the underparticipating single woman vote. Maybe getting a feminist blogger was supposed to turn out massive numbers of rage grrls.
do traditionally have a lower voter turnout rate than men and married women.
In the 2000 presidential election, 68% of married women voted, but only 52% of single women. See http://www.wvwv.org/mediaroom/view_news.cfm?id=54,
In 2004, single women's turnout increased to 59%. The only reason Bush/Cheney still won is that MARRIED women, thank God, increased their turnout as well, to 71%.
------------
And we will indeed lose if the turnout among single women goes up a lot with Hillary on the ticket. To offset that, we'd need still-higher turnout by men and married women, which is possible but not to be counted on.
I'm not saying it makes sense for anyone - single woman or not - to vote for Hillary. Just that many single women may vote for Hillary who didn't vote in 2000 or 2004, aren't particularly well informed about the issues, and don't otherwise consider themselves "political" or ideological.
It's crazy to imagine that they didn't know it. The only interesting thing about the entire matter is the point that RAH brings up above about plausible deniability. But you'd have to stretch my knowledge of reality right to the elastic breaking point if you're going to try and convince me that the Edwards campaign hadn't done significant internal research about *all* of the prospective bloggers.
There are a couple of telling phrases in Beyerstein's piece at Salon -- which is as well-crafted an Official Cover Story as any I've ever read in a dimestore pulp fiction novel -- including this gem:
Bob and I sat for a long time, nibbling baklava and talking strategy. He asked me if I knew of any other feminist bloggers who might be interested in the job.
I don't know who brought up Amanda Marcotte's name first...
Is she reading her own notes about Iran Contra? She's sitting there at a restaurant with one of the Head Honchos of Team Edwards™ and although she can remember nibbling greek pastry she can't recall who bought up the woman's name first, lost amid all the other details she can recall. How very convenient.
But even without that obvious and transparent attempt at narrative kabuki, it's flatly absurd to imagine that the Edwards campaign -- for a man who was a former Vice Presidential candidate now running for the Presidency -- hadn't done any of its own internal legwork.
I know janitors who get hired by law schools with more internal investigation before anyone even mentions their name in a casual conversation, and that's just to hire someone to take out the trash, not represent the campaign on the Internet.
That if I leave one more tag open because I'm typing fast and doing two things at once I promise to drive to Clayton's house, wash his dishes for two weeks, cook him dinner, and walk his dog, gratis. Please, someone, close the italics tag after the end of the word SALON.
slash i i slash i slash i, slash i.
[TiTiT] The Academy: Your Logic Service Provider
Slash em slash emem slash em.
[TiTiT] The Academy: Your Logic Service Provider
That kind of thing isn't an issue for me, because the browser doesn't do things like render the whole rest of the page wrong just because I forgot the tag. But let's not go there again. Blackhedd hit me over the head so hard the other day for liking Microsoft that I'm having trouble thinking straight. It's his fault.
it gives you a pretty box with a lovely red X in it when a cross-hosted image doesn't load, instead of garishly dropping the offending image.
[TiTiT] The Academy: Your Logic Service Provider
Would be gauche ;). Actually I'm not much of a chauvinist or an evangelist for Microsoft. Paul Allen does that very well, thank you. Generally speaking, I try to work with what the customer gives me. It is interesting, though, that even at this late date that the browsers still handle certain things so differently. Old habits die hard, and the browser wars still simmer.
If this really was an "Official Cover Story," then Beyerstein did a lousy job. Before, it was an open question as to whether or not the Edwards campaign had done its homework before hiring Marcotte and knew about her history or if they had simply hired her on recommendation without knowing. Now, after Beyerstein's article, we know that they knew. That means that they truly didn't care about the offense she would cause to Catholics, to Christians in general, and in fact to decent people in general.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
The Common Tater
The posts of the bloggers in question were so offensive, nasty, disgusting, etc. that the MSM couldn't even cover the story. They had to filter through thousands of posts to find anything they could put out at all.
Brit Hume gave as an example of a controversial post one where she said that the pope was opposed to birth control because he wanted more tithing Catholics. Now that's not nice, but comparing it to some of her other stuff is like comparing a dry cow plop in the field to the entire sewage system of New York City backing up into your house. Kinda tame is what I mean.
You couldn't put enough asterisks on the screen to show some of her posts. So the vast majority of Americans, who for some unknown reason don't spend every possible moment at Redstate (unlike me, for instance), don't have any idea what kind of kook Johnny Boy hired and won't hold it against him.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
It's been obvious for some time that hired-gun bloggers are the perfect emitters of nasty-sounding campaign rhetoric that a campaign itself would never say. What surprises me is that the Edwards campaign would do this without cloaking itself in plausible deniability. That they did not do this suggests a desire to play both sides against the middle: to sound sane and reasonable in the MSM, while allowing obviously-affiliated bloggers to spew Kos-like rants designed to appeal to the more leftish elements, in the hope that none of that will leak beyond the blogosphere.
That's craven. That's Edwards.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.