YAY. I don't like Amanda Marcotte, but I agree with LB's post below -- Edwards had to have known what he was getting in to, and to fold at the first hint of attack from the right would have been lamer than lame. So hooray Edwards -- he's not such a baby after all.
I do want to say that just as everyone says every blogger with archives has skeletons, it also seemed unreasonable to me that we had to assume that JE and more importantly Elizabeth Edwards had in fact combed through Marcotte's archives and made sure nothing was personally offensive to them. I could totally see some smart eager campaign staffer making a case for how great they are, pointing the Edwards to some particularly good and even-handed pieces, bringing them in for interviews, and painting all controversy as purely right-generated. (When clearly it's not, witness Ogged.) And the Edwards click around and are like, cool. And then they hear some of the other thigns she's said, and they're like, Woah. Not so cool. Genuinely. (Yeah, I know few of you are religious and I'm not even Abrahamic but I cringed when I saw that Holy Ghost quote. Funny on a nameless board, altogether different under your own name.) To me this doesn't say they screwed up particularly. It means they are still learning the fine and new art of hiring the best people to read and monitor the blogosphere for them. At least it's even on their tasklist.
What, no love for the commenter who actually looked it up?
Serious question, though it sounds bitchy:
Ogged, do you still think they shouldn't have hired her in the first place, and that opinions to the contrary are unrealistic?
I still think that ignoring the controversy would be better than publically acknowledging and validating it. Seems clumsy.
I do want to say that just as everyone says every blogger with archives has skeletons, it also seemed unreasonable to me that we had to assume that JE and more importantly Elizabeth Edwards had in fact combed through Marcotte's archives and made sure nothing was personally offensive to them.
I would think that one wouldn't have to comb very far through Marcotte's archives to find something offensive. And any "smart eager campaign staffer" should have thought about this before "making a case for how great" Marcotte is. Whether or not Edwards personally fucked up, certainly somebody fucked up.
Ogged, do you still think they shouldn't have hired her in the first place, and that opinions to the contrary are unrealistic?
Yeah, just like I said, but I don't really want to debate it. If this goes away and turns out not to have hurt Edwards, I will have been wrong, and I'll be happy about it.
Am I the only one who cringed while reading Edwards' statement? There's a real schoolmarmish tone to "it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people" and "that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign." And get your elbows off the table, young lady.
And anyway, this is the kind of thing that only should be said in private, behind closed doors. Not on a blog, for god's sake, where it is public and archived and google-cached.
Either hire them or fire them, but don't give them a public scolding.
Our long national nightmare is over.
Edwards/Obama '08.
9: Yeah, in Marcotte's case missing the offensive posts really would have been a screwup. Someone who's usually calm and went over-the-top once or twice, it could have been missed. But with Marcotte you'd only have to read a couple of posts to get the sense that the odds that there was something that might be a problem elsewhere in her archives were pretty high.
And yes, love for slol for spotting the Edwards statement.
6: I'm not Ogged, but I still find it a puzzling hire. Having watched Edwards for many years now, I'd have expected somebody more like Hilzoy. This won't end up hurting Edwards because, as with the size of his house, almost nobody honestly cares who runs his campaign's blog. They're just throwing mud at the wall to see what might stick.
In some ways the most interesting thing about this contretemps was the leak to Salon. It suggests there's a nasty split inside the Edwards campaign, presumably between the people of 2004 and the new people being brought on for 2008, nasty enough to induce someone to leak against Amanda and Melissa. If Edwards has any sense he'll work to heal that split before it gets worse, rather than worry about staffers' previous public statements.
15: Seriously, I think it's a signal that he's not going to be bullied. He's got that callow, pretty look, and people treat him as a lightweight -- the hire makes sense as a low-stakes gauntlet in the face of the right: go ahead and throw your inevitable hissy-fit; I'm not backing down.
16: True. Also worth remembering the name of the Salon reporter, which I don't -- reporting this as a leak, given the refusal to confirm from the campaign, indicates a certain amount of hostility to Edwards to be corrected for in future reporting, wouldn't you think?
I just checked Pandagon now out of curiousity, and the commenters there are still not happy.
The commenters there are never happy. It's why they are there.
They're just throwing mud at the wall to see what might stick.
More than that, I think: it's what Marshall called the "bitch-slap" tactic. They want to see how he'll react.
I'm with 11, and I think 17 is wrong. (Yay, I get to disagree with LB for once!) That's a pretty chickenshit statement. The gist of it seems to be "yeah, they've been very naughty, but we're going to give them another chance," which strikes me as pretty close to a worst-of-both-worlds outcome. He's acknowledging that the pressure was legitimate but still keeping them around for the right to punch at. Having hired them, he should have stood foursquare behind them, and if he's not going to do that he ought to at least have the grace to refrain from publicly scolding them.
Right, which I think explains the hire -- it was inviting a low-stakes bitchslap to demonstrate that it would be shaken off.
It suggests there's a nasty split inside the Edwards campaign, presumably between the people of 2004 and the new people being brought on for 2008, nasty enough to induce someone to leak against Amanda and Melissa.
And fit this w/ the "EE got Marcotte & McEwan the jobs" bit. Your leaker is going to be someone who is not happy with EE's role in the campaign.
(Predictions -- I love 'em!)
reporting this as a leak, given the refusal to confirm from the campaign, indicates a certain amount of hostility to Edwards to be corrected for in future reporting
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, LB.
15: Hilzoy is overqualified. You don't hire a full professor of philosophy with a distinguished publication record to be a campaign flunky.
You don't hire a full professor of philosophy with a distinguished publication record to be a campaign flunky.
Not only that, full professors with distinguished publication records have strong disincentives not to work for campaigns these days (as opposed to, say, back in the Kennedy era).
23 to 21.
to 22, the thing is, I don't think the wording of the statement matters much. They're still working for him, which means that the takeaway message is "I'm not ashamed of associating with them, even if I wouldn't have said everything they have." Which is the 'respectable' right's attitude toward Rush.
I am happy with the statement. I think she was a bad choice for campaign blogger but it is better to not back down now.
Well yes, obviously. I meant in terms of tone.
Right, which I think explains the hire -- it was inviting a low-stakes bitchslap to demonstrate that it would be shaken off.
I think that might be a little Foucault's Pendulum-y of a reading. As, I think, are the various readings of a split in the camp and worries about EE's role, etc. Sometimes--most times--people just fuck up and deal with the consequences on the fly.
And look at Amanda's and Shakes' posts just below the official statement on the campaign blog. Making them apologize to the wingnuts was a really shitty thing to do.
Not only that, full professors with distinguished publication records have strong disincentives not to work for campaigns these days (as opposed to, say, back in the Kennedy era).
What, you need more praise, slol?
25: I don't actually know what I'm talking about, but the Salon story created a fair amount of bad feeling toward Edwards, and it did so on the basis of something that the campaign wouldn't confirm and didn't turn out to be true. That makes me wonder if the reporter is, on some level, working for another campaign (or at least not evenhanded toward Edwards) and whether future reporting from the same person should be read with that in mind.
But I could be misinterpreting the whole thing.
33: Again, read the apologies -- they're both "I'm so sorry you were so oversensitive as to be offended by your misinterpretation of what I wrote."
I am happy enough.
It was a tough call for Edwards, and the schoolmarmish disclaimers were his only means of protecting himself. But if M & M mess up, a firing six months down the line will be catastrophic, so in a sense he has staked his campaign on them. Good for him.
Or, OTOH, perhaps the statement should have been shorter so that it would be easier to fire them down the road. But he does have a tough climb on his hands against HRC, and gambling will be required.
I actually think publicly chastising Amanda and Shakes is a good move rhetorically. He's showing he can be a stern father figure. Personally, I hate it when anyone acts like a stern father figure toward competent adults, but that shit plays well in many circles.
28: At the very best, maybe it gets scored as a draw. To make it a win, he'd have had to push back, not just keep them around while apologizing for the blogging that got them hired. And among people who were paying attention on both sides of the blogosphere (at least .000001% of the electorate right there!), it's a loss.
What, you need more praise, slol?
I have no idea what you mean.
I guess we'll see how it plays out over time. Lord knows I don't have much of a track record predicting how others will perceive the outcomes of political fights.
1: Incorrect. Edwards is a pussy.
He should have responded like sol:
"we've spent two days talking about some bullshit low-level campaign staffer working for one of three major contenders for the Democratic nomination for president over a year from now, instead of Warner et al's bullshit move to cut off debate about Iraq, the Bush administration's firing of a shitload of US Attourneys to be replaced with political cronies, Waxman's Halliburton investigation, the downing of five helicopters in Iraq so far this calendar year, or the forthcoming indictment of high level Bush appointees to the CIA. And what has it cost the right wing? A few hours of Michelle Malkin's time, and one phone call by anti-Semite Bill Donohue, combined with a blogocentric inclination towards navel-gazing and a dumbfuck media ecosphere."
Incorrect. Edwards is a pussy.
Or, you know, maybe he actually feels the way he said in the post.
I'm thinking "sol" was a typo for "so" rather than a typo for "slol".
That's it! He should have gotten up on a podium, quoted directly from Donaghue, and looked directly into the camera to say:
"Nigger, please."
Everything would have been better if he'd done that!
Let's start talking about why Salon writer Grieve and his editor chose to run an article with a blunt statement of fact in the first graf which was clearly not supported by their attempt at fact checking.
I have no idea what you mean.
I was just poking at you. I have been assuming you are a full professor with a distinguished etc.
10: Okay, that's cool.
15: I agree, but eh. Not my campaign.
48: You know who could do that and get away with it? Al Sharpton. And I would laugh laugh laugh.
I would like a distinguished et cetera! Please make it so.
45: If so, then we're back to the "then why hire them?" question.
55: I get the impression that JE didn't make the hire.
Hey, here's an unrelated question. I just noticed that the Electoral College results in 2004 were:
Bush/Cheney - 286
Kerry/Edwards - 251
Edwards - 1
Anybody know the story on the one electoral vote that went to Edwards but not Kerry?
56: Edwards needs a good Admr Secord to step in and take the hit.
Now, if the liberal bloggers were all really macho and dirty-in-the-trenches and shit, they'd make a big ol' stink about Sam Brownback hiring RedState theocratic nutcase, Leon Wolf. He may not swear, but he's a deeply unpleasant person with a long public record. If we're really playing hardball, it's tit for tat time.
57: It was Minnesota, but it's unclear what exactly happened.
There's a real schoolmarmish tone to "it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people" and "that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign."
What's wrong with schoolmarms?
56: I'm sure. I almost said blah blah, his campaign, stand behind your people, but in the middle of saying it I realized that it works both ways.
There's at least some pushback on Edwards's site.
I have been assuming you are a full professor with a distinguished etc.
Let's stipulate that: but I do not work for a campaign. Not saying I wouldn't, but there are good reasons I shouldn't.
The silver lining to the flap: I'll bet the Edwards blog has gotten more hits in the last 48 hours than every other campaign blog combined since they were launched.
53: He could do that. That's one of the reasons why I like him, whatever other criticisms one might make of him.
60: I wonder if the next frontier of screwing around with US elections is going to be... the electoral college. Imagine if a gradually growing number of unfixable "mistakes" here and there were strategically introduced into that process.
59: Indeed. That's one fucked up dude. OTOH so is Brownback, mostly. Probably he was scarred for life by being called Bareback on the playground and has been busy overcompensating ever since.
I think Edwards has this right. He comes across as a little schoolmarmish, but he can't say, obviously, 'I support everything they say' or 'I support them completely'. He'd get destroyed in soundbites. He's allowing the attack on Donahue to go on on the blog, so his campaign is fighting back, but he's doing it so he can't be painted personally as anti-whatever.
This strikes me as wise.
You know, in Ogged's version of this thread, Bitch Ph.D said that it's crappy to offer "reasonable" critiques of someone who is getting kicked.
I think it would be crappier to just spontaneously say, "Hey, here's someone whose blog I kinda dislike" for no reason at all. Or crappier to pretend to like Marcotte's blogwriting just to show solidarity at this time of urgent national crisis.
I don't like this kind of logic when it's used in really major controversies, like the Iraq War ("when you criticize, Osama bin Laden wins") and I don't like it on the small, unimportant controversies created by right-wing assholes (like, "Marcotte is working for Edwards").
It's absolutely relevant to say, "Look, as a potential Edwards voter, let me say that this is not a move which enthuses me" and to let that stand alongside however many people who want to say, "omigod, I'm SO voting for Edwards now". They can sort that out themselves in terms of a match between intended and achieved results. There may be no problem at all from their perspective if wishy-washy mewling moderates look elsewhere. In fact, I'm thinking this is what Edwards is shooting for: he's going to try and replicate Dean's success with the "netroots" in order to get through the primaries, figuring that the centrists will go Clinton or Obama. It's a pretty good strategy in that regard.
It's also equally relevant to say that it is a very good thing that Edwards is *not* firing them, that it is in fact an important test of character that he stands by his choices and won't let right-wing nutcases hound him.
a little schoolmarmish
I reacted to the statement the way rob did in 38 -- it's not so much schoolmarmish as it is firm-but-fair-paterfamilias-taking-charge. Which is not entirely likeable, but should play well insofar as the public follows this at all.
I think it would be crappier to just spontaneously say, "Hey, here's someone whose blog I kinda dislike" for no reason at all. Or crappier to pretend to like Marcotte's blogwriting just to show solidarity at this time of urgent national crisis.
These aren't, however, the only options. And it *isn't* a national crisis, so what's at stake in the I Must Speak My Conscience argument is no more important than the issue of loyalty, or of not rising to obvious bait. The whole "well, I'll concede this point, but. . . " approach to dealing with trolls like Malkin is not only crappy, it's unwise.
You don't have to let assholes set the terms of the discussion.
That argument cuts both ways: if it's not a national crisis, then why is loyalty so important? It's important for the Edwards campaign; not so much for the pseudonymous.
Which is why I differ from most of you in finding Edward's statement mealymouthed. "I was personally offended" concedes the point that the people he's hired are offensive. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Whether or not he's offended isn't the issue, and he shouldn't valided Malkin's and Donahue's trying to make it one.
Loyalty only matters in times of national crisis? Not at all. I think loyalty matters in relationships. And bloggers are in relation to one another, as are Democrats.
You know, in Ogged's version of this thread, Bitch Ph.D said that it's crappy to offer "reasonable" critiques of someone who is getting kicked.
I think it would be crappier to just spontaneously say, "Hey, here's someone whose blog I kinda dislike" for no reason at all. Or crappier to pretend to like Marcotte's blogwriting just to show solidarity at this time of urgent national crisis.
I think this is completely backwards. There's nothing wrong with talking about your personal taste in blogs or anything else generally. But when you start saying reasonably negative things about someone at the time when they're being unreasonably attacked, it looks an awful lot like a mealy-mouthed endorsement of the attack. Agree that the attack is a valid one, or oppose it, but saying "I'm not going to say that Michelle Malkin has a point, but I never liked Marcotte either," seems lousy to me, too.
Loyalty only matters in times of national crisis? Not at all. I think loyalty matters in relationships. And bloggers are in relation to one another, as are Democrats.
As are all people, everywhere, on this spaceship we call Planet Earth. People who need people are the luckiest people of all.
It's not so much schoolmarmish as it is firm-but-fair-paterfamilias-taking-charge. Which is not entirely likeable...
I think I'd still prefer a good old-fashioned schoolmarm in politics over a paterfamilias.
Talking about the way you see a decision on a comments thread at Unfogged isn't letting the assholes set the terms of the discussion. I have both an opinion about the assholes and an opinion about the decision to hire Marcotte. Refusing to let Malkin set the terms of the discussion doesn't mean compulsorily gagging oneself. That whole gambit is one of the chief things I intensely dislike about certain versions of activism, that it requires a kind of omerta: "don't talk about David Stoll's critique of Rigoberta Menchu, because the wrong kind of people will use it in the wrong kind of way" and so on.
If there had been a comprehensive list of "campaign bloggers" posted, and under "John Edwards" there was "Amanda Marcotte", I wouldn't have had *much* to say, nor would I have had anything particularly vitrolic to say. But I might well have said, here or elsewhere, "That's maybe a questionable choice". My thinking and saying that is not in the least dependent on anything that anyone else is thinking or saying. Not letting someone like Michelle Malkin set the agenda means BOTH not following her discursive lead AND not refusing to say things that one might have said whether or not she existed. If right-wing assholes make it imperative not to say a thing which one otherwise thinks, then they are JUST as much driving the debate as otherwise. The real thing to do is just carry on with one's own opinions as if they don't exist, to not read or engage what they say, to act as if they're immaterial. Which means neither that we censor ourselves nor that we join them in spewing. My opinion of Marcotte's blogging is mild, modest and under everyday circumstances I wouldn't bother putting into writing. The only thing that makes it even modestly relevant isn't that there is a "controversy" fueled by nutjobs, but that there was a decision to employ her in a particular role in a political campaign in which I *do* have an interest.
"I was personally offended" concedes the point that the people he's hired are offensive.
Or, again, perhaps he actually was offended when people handed him copies of her posts. This is a guy in his mid-50's who was raised in churches in the South, who still attends church.
The idea that all bloggers in the abstract owe loyalty to all other bloggers also seems odd to me.
72: You don't have to let assholes set the terms of the discussion.
I think this is a bit of a false problem. The left hemisphere of the blogosphere is robust enough that it can engage in responsible self-criticism and ward off kooks like Malkin at the same time. Uncritical "loyalty" is a characteristic trait of Wingnuttia, and something to be avoided.
79, 82: This comes up fairly often -- that we shouldn't worry about the political implications of what's said here because no one's reading it. It's true that, to within rounding error, no one reads this blog, but I don't like the argument anyway -- I'm having a hard time pinning down exactly why, and maybe I'll post something if I figure it out.
I do think that there's something to be said about the context of the conversation in which criticisms are made. In a conversation started by unfair and unhinged attacks on someone who generally shares your political goals, it does seem lousy to me to drift off into a discussion of how you just don't think much of them. Those same criticisms could be perfectly legitimate a week ago or a week from now, but in the context of Malkin's and Donohue's attacks, they sound like an endorsement of the attacks.
I'm not sure what you mean by "unfair attack." It was an attack, but as far as I know, no one misrepresented anything Marcotte said. It was said by worse people than the person being attacked, but I'm not sure what makes that unfair.
Loyalty only matters in times of national crisis? Not at all. I think loyalty matters in relationships. And bloggers are in relation to one another, as are Democrats.
Yes, Cala '08 is definitely the pro-betrayal party. Come on.
Very nifty elision of the senses of relationship. I am stand in many relations to Marcotte: the 'is-shorter-than', the 'is-younger-than', 'posts on the same internet as', 'is in the same political party as.'
None of those relations, at this point, command any sort of loyalty from me. Her boss ain't even won the primary yet.
Well, unhinged, certainly. The Michelle Malkin dramatic reading would have been unfair if effective -- the Katrina post was written at a time when intemperate anger was absolutely appropriate, and attacking it as if it were a bad thing to have written is unfair.
And all of the claims that she'd deleted great swaths of her archives, rather than retracting one post? False and unfair.
I agree with Bitch and Ttam. "Fuck right the fuck off" is the best answer for a cretin like Malkin.
Did y'all hear the episode of This American Life about the Minutemen, about how they spend the vast majority of their time on the border antagonizing, or being antagonized by, Minutemen protesters? They shine flashlights at one another and play loud music (jingoistic and protest) near one another's camps. The Minutemen think that they are battling agents who guide drug smugglers by announcing teh seekrit location of the Minutemen (but of course they are battling windmills). The protesters think that they are on the frontier of freedom (but of course no one cares, least of all the immigrants). This story—this place, some days—is exactly like that.
80: He probably was, but he doesn't have to say it publicly on his own campaign blog.
Cala, you actually said if it's not a national crisis, then why is loyalty so important? Doesn't that imply that loyalty isn't important if it's not a national crisis? If you don't feel a sense of loyalty to either Marcotte (as blogger) or Edwards (as potential candidate), then fine; what I'm saying is that if one does, I think it's crappy to let Malkin push you into saying something you wouldn't otherwise have felt the need to say.
Tim, you're oversimplifying. Yes, on the one hand, it's "just" an Unfogged comment thread, and we should speak freely. On the other hand, one of the issues that kept coming up w/r/t Marcotte is that what you say in writing is public. I don't think you can have it both ways: Marcotte's a bad choice because she's said things on her blog that are politically unwise, but it's okay for me to do so. Unless you want to argue that discussing the situation isn't itself political.
The only thing that makes it even modestly relevant
... is that the New York Times considered it "fit to print". So it does require some kind of serious response.
88 - I started reading that and was like, "What? Who hates D. Boon?"
No, B, it doesn't. There's a little 'why' in there, and it's doing a little bit of work in the sentence. Loyalty would be presumed if Marcotte's the only thing between us and doomsday. If it's not doomsday, nothing saying I can't be loyal, or that loyalty isn't a wonderful thing to have towards puppies, children and other living things.
But it isn't presumed for a blogger I don't read because I find she has nothing all that interesting to say aside for some periodically entertaining rants. I can't figure out what would command my loyalty, and "likely to vote for the same candidate if he wins the nomination and posts on the same internet" doesn't cut it.
91: I'm glad I'm not the only one with that reaction. You'd think I'd be more aware of a current high profile political group than a punk rock band whose heyday was over 20 years ago.
don't think you can have it both ways: Marcotte's a bad choice because she's said things on her blog that are politically unwise, but it's okay for me to do so.
Burke can speak for himself, but I think "politically unwise" means "something I could not myself defend" (perhaps for some sufficiently large number of "myself"s). Presumably one think he can defend his own statements.
On the other hand, one of the issues that kept coming up w/r/t Marcotte is that what you say in writing is public. I don't think you can have it both ways: Marcotte's a bad choice because she's said things on her blog that are politically unwise, but it's okay for me to do so. Unless you want to argue that discussing the situation isn't itself political.
Wait, I don't see how this is having things both ways at all. First, there's a difference between saying that saying politically unwise things make someone a poor choice for a campaign spokesperson and saying that it's not okay to say politically unwise things. Also, different things can be politically unwise for different reasons.
I saw the Minutemen open for R.E.M. in Raleigh just a few weeks before D. Boon died. Hell of a live show they put on.
92: Then like I said, my opinion about loyalty doesn't applly.
Re. the "why," I assumed it was a rhetorical question.
96 is a good point. My answer is that discussing the Marcotte situation at all is effectively political, especially when it's still unfolding. At least that's how I see it. FWIW, in my 52 I endorsed Apo's 15, in which he said he "find[s] it a puzzling hire." To me, that's about as much energy as needs to be expended on the question of whether or not she should have gotten the job in the first place; anything beyond that seems a reaction to Malkin et al.
Well, "no one's reading it" is not really the main point I was getting at.
Supporting specific false arguments by Malkin would be bad, and failing to acknowledge the whacky and unhinged backgrounds of Malkin and Donohue would be bad. To fail to do either of those things and then say "Marcotte does kinda suck," let alone "Marcotte is the worstest blogger ever!" would be bad. I wouldn't endorse that, but I really don't see many people here or elsewhere doing that. Marcotte got plenty of solidarity out of Blogovia, even from people who are not normally fans of Pandagon.
But solidarity and self-criticism are not either/or choices. To suppress valid criticism even of boneheaded stunts from people on one's own side of a political dispute is not healthy. If the "Og will live forever" cartoon seems stupid and offensive*, one isn't going to gain much from standing behind it even though Malkin is also calling it stupid and offensive. "Solidarity" taken far enough does lead to "when you criticize, Osama bin Laden wins" logic (as noted in 70) and that really is not a good thing.
Not thinking that most of the people criticizing Amanda are normally her bestest internet buds, B. This includes ogged, who you're criticizing, so I'm seeing here either a) we have to suppose that being on a liberal blog is enough of a relationship to be loyal, or that b) you're not actually annoyed with anyone here for criticizing Marcotte.
I just think this is getting awfully close to "shut up and don't make waves because she's on our team", and that rankles.
I guess I don't understand why everyone here wouldn't immediately feel solidarity with Amanda, even if you thought she was the biggest idiot. Donahue and Malkin would cheerfully get together, chop off your head, and shit down your neck, if it suited their purposes, and I'm sure they hate you fully as much as they hate Amanda. We are united by a common enemy.
I'm criticizing Ogged? In this thread? Where? I asked him a question, he answered, I was cool with his response.
Re. (a), I do think that given we've got an election coming up, there's something to be said for showing some party loyalty in our written statements. I've said the same thing when people argue about Hillary. People here disagree; I'm going to say it anyway. Surely there's an obvious distinction between saying that and telling people to shut up.
Jeez, if I didn't live in a stupid closed-primary state, I'd still be registered as an independant. The idea of party loyalty just creeps me right the fuck out.
102: We are united by a common enemy.
Being "united by a common enemy" doesn't excuse us from the responsibility to think critically about our own side. Donohue and Malkin don't bother to do so, of course... but that kind of partisanship is not worth emulating. You don't need to emulate that aspect of it do fight it effectively.
The idea of party loyalty just creeps me right the fuck out.
Except that in 21st century America, it's like being loyal to chocolate pudding instead of cat turds.
105: Of course not. But you can think--and speak--critically in ways that don't concede unimportant points and thereby move the conversation away from what matters.
102: If we don't go shopping the terrorists win.
Surely there's an obvious distinction between saying that and telling people to shut up.
Sure. In one, it's implicit. ("Don't let the assholes set the terms of discussion.") In the other, it's explicit. Still not a sentiment I'm thrilled with, perhaps because I don't identify strongly as a Democrat qua Democrat.
Right, apo. Chocolate pudding, while a debased form of chocolate, is far superior to cat turds.
110: Right, but you ignoring distractions in order to focus on a point doesn't mean you stand behind the distractions, if that makes sense. Not bothering to say "yeah, that cartoon's lame" when the cartoon isn't the issue doesn't mean you think it's great.
Wait, the Og cartoon is lame? I can see thinking it is lame to use it in context of Catholic birth control policy, but that was Amanda's decision, not the cartoonists.
The cartoon itself is hysterical. "Og make more ogs. Og live forever!" Perfectly legitimate way to mock breeders. Heck, I think it captures the way I feel around my own children quite well.
113: If only I could pull something like that off. That is so sweet.
I see where 112 is coming from; it's just that so long as the basic frame is there (that there's an awareness of any bad faith and craziness going on from the Other Side), talking about other, related issues needn't be feared as "distraction."
Context has something to do with this for me. If we were having a similar conversation in 2002 I'd be less in favour of nuance. (I was one of those who used to rail at Berube for complaining about ANSWER, for instance.)
115: Well, I'm not saying the Og cartoon is necessarily lame, just that it's one of those points of legitimate dispute.
31,45,80--that's basically what I was getting at.
But like ogged I just want it to go away. I was enjoying the home energy segments.
Hrm. What made solidarity more important in 2002 than now? Then, we were trying to stay out of a war, now, we're trying to get out of one. My sense of urgency hasn't diminished.
120: What made solidarity more important in 2002 than now?
The fact that critics of Bush were an embattled minority.
Then we need to spend more time attacking the other side rather than conducting loyalty purges.
118: I'd like to think so, but I'm afraid "needn't" s/b "shouldn't." Anyway, all I'm saying is there's a time and place for everything. I'm amused that some of those who used to point this out to me seem now to be on the other side.
Or, I should say, lest Tim take offense, that I'm amused that *I'm* making that case now, and I seem to be in the minority.
I assume you're talking about Burke.
Anyway, this is really the "dirty hippie" problem, which has two parts. First, the dirty hippies had a point often enough, and ought not be beyond the pale. But second, the people making various arguments--like Kos, Atrios, and the majority of the GHWB FP staff--aren't anything like dirty hippies.
124, no, I meant you, b/c of the whole "who said that about Gilliard" thing.
You're right that it's the dirty hippie problem, in part. And I'm not saying that it's not worth pointing out that Kos isn't, in fact, a hippie. I'm just arguing that saying "well, he *did* skip a shower this week, but that didn't affect his political opinion about . . ." is kinda beside the point when someone's trying to
Oh, nevermind. I've grown bored with the subject.
I really like Sara Robinson's suggested statement for Edwards:
The GOP complains about the lack of civility in our public conversations. But I don't hear them repudiating Michelle Malkin when she calls for the elimination of liberals from public life. I don't hear them criticizing Dinesh D'Souza for blaming Democrats for 9/11. I don't hear them shushing Ann Coulter for calling for progressives to be executed as traitors. I don't even hear them condemning Bob Donohue for making anti-Semitic and anti-gay remarks. These celebrities say outrageous, incendiary things about their fellow Americans every day -- and, far from getting them out of the public eye, the conservatives in this country have rewarded them handsomely for their hatred.When the GOP issues an apology and puts an end to its long campaign of blatant, bigoted hate speech against progressive Americans, I might entertain a discussion about my hiring decisions. But until that moment comes, they have absolutely no standing to comment on this issue. And until then, I stand by my staffers.
What this thread needs is more old pictures of Barry O.
This isn't good:
They listened to rock 'n' roll; he listened to jazz. They did the required reading; he read "The Fountainhead," by Ayn Rand.
Hopefully he's feeling better now.
It's only the susceptible sorts who suffer permanent harm.
105
"Being "united by a common enemy" doesn't excuse us from the responsibility to think critically about our own side. Donohue and Malkin don't bother to do so, of course ..."
I don't know anything about Donohue but Malkin criticizes her own side. See this or this or this or this.
35 50
Absent a pattern, I wouldn't take this as anything other than overeagerness to break a story. And do we even know the Salon story was wrong? Is it possible they were fired briefly?
135: Absent any question of motive, it's incredibly shoddy reporting and editing. Try this:
"Anna Nicole Smith was assassinated by robot ninjas from the future today.
Blah blah blah second paragraph.
Speculation from sources that ninjas might not be involved was bolstered by a spokeswoman for Smith's family, who said in an e-mail that she would "caution [Salon] against reporting that she was killed by time traveling ninjas. We will have something to say later."
Oh, I'm not convinced, but it seems like enough to start looking for a pattern; if the same person shows up a couple more times with stories embarrassing to Edwards that don't quite pan out, then it'll make sense to start discounting future stories along those lines. What's the saying: Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.
It's too bad, 137, that we don't have anyone around to tell us about the norms of assertion.
I have seen it claimed it doesn't matter how much you enrage people who aren't going to vote for you anyway. This is definitely not the case. There is a big difference between someone who will vote against you if they bother to vote at all and someone who devotes all their spare time and money for months working against you and spends election day driving your opponent's voters to the polls. Wise politicians try to avoid gratuitous insults which enflame their opponents. Just like football coaches try avoid quotes which will be pasted in the opposition locker room before the big game.
Of course the flip side of this is that you want to energize your own base and this can conflict with the above. However normally politicians try to keep a little distance between themselves and their more rabid partisans.
134: Yes, I was oversimplifying a little. In sufficiently extreme circumstances Malkin will criticize her own.
127 is completely on target. It's why none of the right-wing assholes commenting on this are even worth a second's notice. I mean, how many of them are making a big deal out of Dinesh D'Souza's new entirely insane book that says everything that they've ever accused "dirty hippies" of saying, only from a putatively "conservative" standpoint? None of them. So, yeah, every single drip and drop of their outrage is utterly worthless.
Which, again, means I have no intention for a second of surrendering modest, mild objections or points I might have. It's the difference I insist on: we can talk about small points and big outrages all at once. We don't have to shut up because the Bad People are listening.
"Yeah, I know few of you are religious and I'm not even Abrahamic but I cringed when I saw that Holy Ghost quote. Funny on a nameless board, altogether different under your own name.)"
I'm abrahamically religious and its not that the quote is offensive, its just not funny. In fact is bitterly humourless, its all the unfunny feminist stereotype plopped right down in front of me.
I'm abrahamically religious and its not that the quote is offensive, its just not funny.
You humorless non-feminists need to lighten the fuck up.
most of hte funninesses comes from the speaker's seriousness. Humor requires some detachment.