I think Steve Gilliard nails what this is all about:

If you think it stops with two bloggers, you're a fucking idiot. They want to make it impossible for Dem candidates to get help from the blogs.

Great post.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/51288aa7- 930b-4ea4-af58-575d060214ed

Its fracking almost 6 pm EST, and they have said nothing.  meanwhile, its not just hte blogs that are all a flutter, the tv talk shows are now covering it.  This is ridiculous.

Chris,

Any word on WHY its taking so long?

what he was doing in "hiring" people to "blog for him".  I doubt he (or more correctly his campaign staff) knew the work of the two bloggers. I think Edwards was just trying to "hip" by saying he hired some bloggers.

Frankly it's a bit unclear what hiring someone to "blog for" them means.

The public will, correctly, assume that two Edwards "campaign employees" made some provocative statements.  

Bloggers want to have accredited media status but you would not hear about reporters being hired by political campaigns and continuing to be reporters.

So the bloggers and Edwards are caught by a self created overlap.

This has been handled badly. It reflects poorly on the Edwards campaign whatever they do. I have to agree with Josh Marshall that they must surely have seen this sort of thing coming when they recruited these two and should have had a plan in place. If not, why not?

While there is no way I will support Edwards with Amanda and Melissa are fired, I will immediately become a staunch Edwards supporter if they are not fired

i'm with you on this one.

and if edwards strongly supports amanda and melissa - it will suggest to me that his walk back on iran probably wasn't just pandering.

stand strong when you've done right and walk back when you've done wrong.  that has my support.

If you hire a partisan blogger you will have some passionate posts from that person.  Heated exchanges are common, and using the f-word conveys a strong distaste, which is especially appropriate for dealing with Bush, Cheney and Co.  Didn't Cheney himself once utter "Go F- yourself" on the Senate floor?

Now, having said that, the brouhaha surrounding this issue shows that Edwards was not aware of what can and routinely does go on in the blogosphere.  They seem shocked somehow.  

Come out with a statement immediately that this is a silly "controversy" and that the passionate bloggers, while a bit "rough around the edges" are exactly the infusion of online talent modern campaigns need nowadays.    

If the bloggers are fired, I'm going look for Edwards to cut back dramatically on outreach to the blogs.  This is a power struggle within the campaign, a Beltway versus progressive fight in miniature.

One thing that HowardPark's post makes clear is that campaigns are used to being able to fire staffers when they not the candidate make news.  Normally a junior level comms staffer would have the boot meet them in the rear if they had Blitzer and Hannity quoting them.  BUT...

This is the blogosphere and the Edwards campaign does not have an easy out.  It is a difficult thing for them to keep the bloggers on board.  However, they will face consequences if they release them from all of us.  They need us behind them and they know they will lose a lot of support if they fire them.  That said, this has dragged on much longer than it should be and as Matt says, does not reflect well on the competency of the campaign.
 

Let Amanda write the response.

How hard is that to figure out.

Another effect of this is to splinter the people who are more anti-war in order to make it easier for a candidate to win with around 40% or so and be considered an unstoppable frontrunner.

Some candidates definately win if support from around here is splintered into three or four camps.

It's worth it to consider the possibilities and which candidate is going to be best for the party to be President for four or eight years.

The Party is coming off of a malaise that lasted from the 1980s until the mid-2000s. Including a recession in influence after a two-term Presidency.

A candidate who would be able to help the party grow beats someone who would go back to the same old methods that screwed things up before.

John Edwards has essentially been under a siege from the media for weeks, about the house, about the war, about this issue. And that benefits a candidate in our party.

I'd like to make the most of 2008, and pick someone who can make the party grow. Instead of someone who'll triangulate his or herself back into the mess that we were in a decade ago.

"While there is no way I will support Edwards with Amanda and Melissa are fired, I will immediately become a staunch Edwards supporter if they are not fired"

This seems crazy to me.  This is going to be your make-or-break issue?  This?  Not Iraq, Iran, health care?  Nothing that could happen over the next 12 months could change your mind?

I agree if he fires them it reflects poorly, but if I support someone else, it isn't going to be because of this.

Similarly, if he keeps them on, there's no way that means enough to me to overcome the question of who would be the best.  It's one data point, sure, but I think that should be all it is.

And one other thought: if this had all happened quickly and innocuously this morning: the Right complains, Edwards says "They won't say things like that on my campaign, but I'm not going to punish them for speaking their mind before they were hired," and that's it.  In that situation, would you really choose to support him solely on this issue?

And if not, why should you make that choice after hours of prevarication and waffling, an inability to resolve minor, simple disputes quickly and painlessly, and a demonstration that he may have serious doubts about association with bloggers?

What is he does something weaselly like firing them as bloggers but keeping them on the campaign payroll as "researchers" or something lame like that?

I fear that this is where this thing is headed.

I think the Edwards campaign already looks incompetent. I think there should be some firings, but not the bloggers.

In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

And I had to highlight the "Immaculate Conception" crack, because seriously, what's more typical of a misogynist than claiming that because the woman he's abusing isn't a virgin, she deserves all the suffering that can be heaped upon her? The intense belief that ejaculation is all it takes to make a father is evident in the behavior of the man who filed for custody while his wife was still in stitches after childbirth.

While there is no way I will support Edwards with Amanda and Melissa are fired, I will immediately become a staunch Edwards supporter if they are not fired.

What if they aren't fired and he says nothing?  That is, what if today's state of affairs remains, no attacks on Donahue et al.?

As a soft Edwards supporter and one who would look elsewhere if this does not resolve itself well, it may be that it is taking a long time because a) Edwards has been unavailable, e.g., back-to-back personal fundraising meetings, and wants to devote real time to making the decision and/or b) the campaign is preparing a defense that is actually an offense, a blistering attack on the attackers and that takes some time.  It took Obama an entire news cycle to hit back and hit back hard on the false madrassa story.

Well, at least one can hope, right?

While there is no way I will support Edwards with Amanda and Melissa are fired, I will immediately become a staunch Edwards supporter if they are not fired.

Hm. So you'd throw Edwards your weight just for... doing nothing in response to a right-wing blogger attack? Doesn't seem like you're asking for much here.

As I said in the other thread, I too am willing to change my views on Edwards noticeably depending on how he responds to this. But I think just shrugging and leaving the bloggers on staff, while the right thing to do, is not enough of an action to conclude anything greatly positive about Edwards. Not firing the bloggers might be a sign the Edwards campaign "gets it" and/or refused to back down from attacks. Not firing the bloggers also might mean that the Edwards campaign didn't even realize any of this was happening or viewed it as a tempest in a teacup not worth caring about, and Salon's mistaken belief they cared enough to fire the bloggers was just bad journalism.

If one changes their political allegiances every time a rumor printed by Salon turns out to be inaccurate, well, one may wind up changing their political allegiances often.

While there is no way I will support Edwards with Amanda and Melissa are fired, I will immediately become a staunch Edwards supporter if they are not fired.

That said, I wouldn't be in the camp that says that there's no way that Edwards would get my support in the primaries if those two bloggers are fired. It's one issue of many.

For whatever you're doing behind the scenes.  I dearly hope you're successful, and that this story ends with Melissa, Amanda, and you on our team.  

Look folks, I'm all over the 'net 24/7. Who the hell are these Amanda and Melissa???

Would somebody please tell me???

I think after all the "0s" I got for criticising Edwards, I know a bit about the SOB. He's a hell of alot better than Hillary! Consider:

Russ Feingold:

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/ind ex.cfm?mode=entry&entry=94B1DF00-E0C 3-F084-DB1D7A95BFCB3F77

After the election we had on November 7th and after polls have registered the public's deep anger at the President for trying to escalate the war, you would think Democrats would be pushing legislation with real teeth and not just non-binding nothingness, especially if the GOP was going to filibuster anyway. Well, you'd be wrong. In the audio excerpt, I asked Feingold if this is because of Ben Nelson-ism - that is, because of conservative Democrats who are willing to use a brinkmanship progressive senators rarely use. As you can hear, Feingold says it's even deeper - he says this is a battle between Democrats' Washington consultant class and the rest of the country - and he specifically targets the D.C. elites from the Clinton administration, who he accurately notes largely supported the war from the get-go.

...let the tempest settle down and let Amanda and Melissa keep working.  Refuse to comment on the issue -- or if you, say something like "you mean like John McCain's blogger, Patrick Hynes?  Or Terry Moran's brother the right-wing blogger?"

Holding a press conference just plays into Donohue's hands.

I'm a Clark supporter, so you know, but really, I don't think this would ever have gotten to the level of a controversy with Clark.  I think he's simply say that he stands behind his staff, right from the outset.  

Now I'm guessing here, but I'd think the next step after that would be to talk to the bloggers, ask them if they think there is stuff they've published that might come up and bite him, then ask the bloggers what they think would be best for the campaign, and stick with their choice. Firing would not really be on the table, though resigning would.

To be fair, Clark --- maybe because he's a bit of a science geek --- is undoubtedly far more aware of what bloggers do and would be unlikely to be caught unawares on something like this.

Donohue has always been a toxic jerk. I support anyone who opposes him and disdain anyone who caves in to him.

Remember Donohue's ridiculous attack a year ago on the White House Christmas card for not using the "C" word? Hilarious.

He's out of the mainstream:
http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_re leases/quarter_1/070207_barbarawalters.h tm

His press release says,
"Barbara Walters was once known as a pioneer in the broadcasting industry. She is now known as playing house mom to bigots."

This kind of vitriol is poison. You'd think that someone with a strong religious commitment would control himself and his organization a little better.

FWIW I think it's foolish to invite controversy by hiring bloggers as a fig leaf to pretend you are blog savvy. Why import baggage? It's better to have an unofficial cadre of bloggers in support of you than a big echo chamber onsite and under your umbrella. That was, I like to believe, the appeal of Dean Nation over the o-blog back during the Howard Dean campaign, but I digress... Condolences to Amanda, but really, wasn't this whole affair kind of predictable?

The Edwards campaign is not even handling the firing properly. Palmieri, who I came to seriously loathe during the 2004 campaign, sticks her foot further down her employer's throat:

Speculation from sources that the two bloggers might be rehired was bolstered by Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the Edwards campaign, who said in an e-mail that she would "caution [Salon] against reporting that they have been fired. We will have something to say later."

Good grief. This is pandering to all and satisfying to none. Look - hiring a big name blogger for "outreach" is a transparent ploy for netroots support. Firing them in response to conservative blog outcry is craven. Pretending you aren't really firing them is just cowardly.

Edwards would do well to fire Jennifer Palmieri. She's bungled the PR of the whole affair from the outset.

In fact I think it wise to simply let Edwardds get away with whatever he does and chalk it up to experience. Even if he drops Marcotte, why again compound the errors by making it an issue? Unless you actually believe that hiring Marcotte had any real significance whatsoever, in which case I can see how one might see the firing (alleged) as a betrayal. But let's get real here. All they would have done was run the Edwards o-blog. Which at present is a scoop site full of user diaries of utter nonsense and trolls.

Outreach to the netroots is better done via actual interaction; have the candidate, not a staffer, actually post comments and have an Ask Me a Question thread. Submit to YouTubed video interviews. Create policy councils on various issues. Support BlogPac with a donation. Things that you know.. actually matter.

Whether Edwards dumps Marcotte or not, he deserves support on the merits of his position on the issues. Penalizing him for realizing that a blogger whose rhetoric is decidedly non-mainstream - and "the Republicans are worse" is not an excuse here - is really punishing ourselves.

All this stuff posted here about Edwards not knowing the blogosphere is such bunk.  The guy has hired a great staff (sure, it's not the guys that run MyDD, so they trash the staff, but ... whatever ... "incompetence" has been demonstrated all over the FP of MyDD today), he had bloggers on his Announcement plane, he has meet-and-greets with bloggers at almost every campaign stop he makes, Elizabeth blogs a ton and mentioned it in her book, JRE has been on DailyKos 3-4 times, etc, etc.

What we have is some internal debate within a young campaign about which direction to go.  It's natural that this is going to take  more than 12 hours to resolve itself, espcially since the candidate is on the other side of the country.

Perhaps too early for this, but here goes:

If Thelma & Louise are gone, either by resignation or firing, then was John Edwards' vote on Iraq an anomaly or SOP when faced with pressure from the right?

Discuss.

But you oughtta be pretty clear they speak Spanish.

Over two provocative bloggers at the Edwards campaign.  We have a horrible war in which the Senate is doing nothing to stop, a ballooned budget to support a surge, 47 million are uninsured, 37 M live under the poverty line, and we are concerned about two bloggers.  This got more attention than the roll out of his health plan on Monday.  

Why is this so threatening to us?  Why are you allowing to take the Rovians' cheese into their mousetrap?  Edwards isn't.  He's out on the road and answering questions from voters today who have never heard of us and don't give a you-know-what either.  Those same voters would say, "get a life."

Well for the main bloggers at mydd, it is their livelihood.  But as Will Pitt said today, the most you post the more it gives the GOP (and their smear) more legs (he used the word legs, not me).  Pitt is right.

I don't buy that anyone really gives a damn about Amanda and Melissa, or for that matter, and the focus has been shifting away from commenting on what Media Matters had to say about Donohue.   We are supposed to be the 5th estate, calling the carpet on those who are trying to harm the American voter in general, and instead, MyDD and the Kos are asking like the gossipy MSM.    

I'm simply disgusted.  When are our candidates and elected officials going to stop letting the other side set the agenda?  Knee-jerk reactions to all these swift-boat tactics simply advertise weakness. It's a non-issue, and should be treated as such by ignoring it.  So Michelle Malkin and Tucker and O'Reilly have another chew toy for a few days.  Let them chomp away.  We have real business and real problems to address.  I am sorely disappointed in Edwards if he has indeed asked these two women to resign in response to Donohue and his minions. It's way too early in the campaign season to start defending onself against the tirades of bigots like Donohue over issues no one cares about. What's Edwards going to do when it really starts getting rough? Rant off...again, disgusted.

You are totally right not to support Edwards anymore if he fires these bloggers.  It is not about ego or even thinking bloggers are super important- it is about Edwards standing up.

We have all been down this road before.  Kerry, Gore, Clinton I could name many many examples.  If the bloggers are fired it shows terrible instinct.  If Edwards becomes the nominee this attack will look like nothing.  I want a candidate who will fight back.  I am not being stubborn I am being pragmatic- I really think that is what we need to win.

I don't think its a mistake for this "issue" to be raised, just right now.  Look at these facts -

a. Today is the start of overseeing hearings.
b. Suddenly, all the rightwing blogs together blow up about Amanda.
c. The "all-talk" news covers this.
d. The all-talk news doesn't recognize what we have been pointing out - namely, McCain's blogger issues, that are way past Amanda's importune posts.
e. This distracts attention from the oversight hearings.
f. This also divides we, the netroots, as we are ready to jump all over Edwards, if he doesn't do the right thing.

It's like 4 birds in one for the rightwing.

Someone smarter than me has to figure out a good judo move, because stuff like this, as we have seen from 14 years of smearing, starting from Clinton's first term, this stuff will just keep on coming and coming.

there has to be some sort of loose playbook to deal with these smears.  

I mean, really - as has been said, Amanda has been hired to do a specific job - where in the HELL is it that suddenly Edwards is responsible for EVERY SINGLE THING that Amanda has written?

It's just an absurd joke, really.

Why two? I do not get the context here. If he fires one blogger, that's just business. Why two?

A lot of us are totally in the dark here.

What the f*** is the issue here? Where's the punch line?

Another thing is being made about Amanda Marcotte's attempt to go back into the blogs and erase her more abrasive comments.

http://www.nypress.com/blogx/display_blog.cfm?bid=42781970

More often than not, the cover-up can be worse than the crime. Such is the case of Amanda Marcotte, the newly minted campaign blogger for Democratic contender John Edwards.

A few weeks ago Edwards hired Marcotte, a well-respected liberal voice and the chief operator of the left-wing blog Pandagon, to manage his campaign blogging operations. The choice was praised in many corners of the netroots, who gave Edwards high marks for picking such an opinionated, straight-talking liberal voice to manage his online campaign operations.
....
But rather than defend the post, Marcotte took a step that has opened her up to new criticism from all corners of the blogosphere. When bloggers began examining Marcotte's statements on the case, Marcotte scrubbed the post from Pandagon, replacing it with a much more subdued take on the case. It's one thing to post an outlandish statement on your blog. But when Marcotte took steps to try to erase history, it opened up the floodgates of criticism and has created a (small) problem Edwards will probably wish he never had.

Whatever Marcotte's original take on the case might have been, the removal of those opinions have sparked a firestorm across the web. Read more about some of Marcotte's statements here. Marcotte's best move here would have probably been too leave the post as it was and ignore the criticism, but the cat's already out of the bag.

When attacked by swiftbloggers, you need to do the right thing. Fast. And you need to know what it is. Edwards is rapidly sinking deeper and deeper into a quagmire where there's no good alternative -- and where "do the right thing" becomes an oxymoron. Sound familiar?

another thing is being made about the fact Amanda Marcotte went back in the blogs and erased some of the dicier posts, replaced them with tamer versions:

http://www.nypress.com/blogx/display_blog.cfm?bid=42781970

But rather than defend the post, Marcotte took a step that has opened her up to new criticism from all corners of the blogosphere. When bloggers began examining Marcotte's statements on the case, Marcotte scrubbed the post from Pandagon, replacing it with a much more subdued take on the case. It's one thing to post an outlandish statement on your blog. But when Marcotte took steps to try to erase history, it opened up the floodgates of criticism and has created a (small) problem Edwards will probably wish he never had.

Whatever Marcotte's original take on the case might have been, the removal of those opinions have sparked a firestorm across the web. Read more about some of Marcotte's statements here. Marcotte's best move here would have probably been too leave the post as it was and ignore the criticism, but the cat's already out of the bag.

sorry for the multi-postings.

  Well, all the fun happens when I'm at work and can't post. But here's an idea now that I've thought about it a little:

 How about Edwards just carrying on and saying nothing, and keeping the bloggers on as if nothing had ever happened? Don't acknowledge the manufactured controversy, don't defend, don't attack, don't fire anyone -- just keep on campaigning.

 Some might jump in and scream "Swiftboat!" But I don't think it's a comparable situation. The Swiftboat smears attacked Kerry at his strength, the big edge he had on Bush -- credibility on military service. This attack is just some kind of random let's-see-if-this-sticks campaign that doesn't really address any key aspects of Edwards' image or platform (even the "house" story at least had THAT), and thus it really doesn't have a lasting hook. Plus if the media flogs this story too much, eventually the practices of right-wing bloggers will have to come to light and the story will lose its potency as a hit piece ("everybody does it"). I don't see this having long-lasting legs -- unless Edwards caves to the bigot element.  

  My thoughts on this are still not fully formed, but that's where I am right now.

MYDD was just front and center on CNN regarding this issue. It was nice to see our response to the situation making the news as well...

I see a lot of talk about standing up for one's workers.  Yes, that is good, but it is also true a President has to be able to let go those who would drag his Administration down.  Isn't it true that one of the (correct) criticisms of Bush is that he stands by his appointments, especially if they are friends of his, no matter how misplaced the appointments are?  

Look, no President can say or be associated first hand with the kind of "rants" that Amanda makes against the Catholic Church or some other topics that have caught her interest (Duke rape case, etc.), even if her comments have good points to them.  The language of the blogosphere is not that of Presidential candidates.  Does Edwards really want to spend the next 2 years trying to defend all the, shall we say, enthusiastic things Amanda might have said over the years, or might say in the months to come?  

It is no reflection of the worth of these 2 bloggers to say that bringing them officially into the Edwards campaign was a mistake.  They are worth a lot more as independant liberal voices who may support Edwards on their own than as an official part of the Edwards campaign who then can be used to drag him down or must mute their thoughts till 2008 and beyond.  

I think that after the last 6 years of the Bush Presidency, we should welcome a potential President with the ability to just say, "I made a mistake.  These are good people but this is not the position for them, it is not their mistake but my mistake, and I am correcting it."          

  I'm stealing this from Bruh1 over at Kos:

 THIS should be Edwards' response:

 "I run this campaign. If you have a problem with my decisions, don't vote for me."

  Short, sweet, and to the point.

people, people, people.

What a load of hyperbole.

I thought mydd.com was aplace for serious and reflected discussion. Instead everybody is going into panic mode because of this - and please lets stay real - minor issue.

I - and hopefully most others here too - support a candidate because of his political beliefs, his plans to make our lifes better and his character does play a role too.

How many here make Edwards non-reaction until now (we are talking about hours here!) as proof of his total incompetence, his lack of judgement, his lack of backbone and fighting spirit is almost funny in its obvious exaggeration.

The way people react on this blog is exactly what Donahue had intended, to sow fear, division and animosity in the democratic ranks.

Well done :-(

I have not found a link to the campaign or anything official anywhere, does anyone have an official link to any of this or is it just a rumor?

This guy needs to hire me. blues! I have the ability to be controversial without inflaming the masses! So hire me!

The Response

As Stoller says, there is incompetence in the very fact that things have gotten this far without a clarification or a decision. You can't "sleep on it" for something like this.

It's worth analyzing the "substance" of the criticism, though. Rather than just saying, "typical wingnut bullshit" you have to study the shit. One time I listed 14 different kinds of cow shit with which I am familiar. This shit is no better.

Let's say that Amanda has talked about the Holy Spirit blowing a load (I think that one may be real) or about Jesus having sex ("Jesus Fucking Christ"). Device 293840187 ("Donohue") puts it out that this insults Christians.

In point of fact, this is incorrect. God is not in need of what amounts to sectarian defenders. The same way a supporter of Moqtada al-Sadr might say "You there! Do you accept the 12th Imam? Answer for your life!", "Mr." Donohue has called on all True Believers to fly to their Lord's defense.

In this, it is Donohue who is in error, doctrinally. Assuming Amanda wrote such posts (and what left blogger does not have them more or less tattooed on their bodies), she has not insulted anyone. Least of all Jesus. The word "insult", as used in medicine, itself implies some injury (already). But Jesus is God, and can't be injured or insulted like an ordinary person.

The Christian Church cannot be insulted for the same reason, since the Church is just the Mystical Body of Christ.

What has happened is this: Amanda appears to have blasphemed against God. This is the case, whether she believes completely, partially, or not at all. However, since this is part of Amanda's relationship with God, whether God enjoys Amanda's humor or not is between them, totally. In clearer terms: no Christian knows enough to say that Amanda has even sinned, let alone grievously.

Here's another model response. Amanda's previous posts really are being cited and aired in false terms, because they constitute speech, and are most accurately compared to casual speech, not published writing. That is, blogging, most frequently, is really just TALK even though it gets given a semi-permanent form.

This means something. People hear about things like this, and they assume that blogging is something like writing a book. If some wingnut said, "Amanda Marcotte said 'holyfrickinbuttwad' some time ago," who would care? We've all SAID perfectly awful things from time to time (unless you're Jesus). Thus with blogging. There should be a fairly bright line between blogging about candidates and blogging for them. Paid bloggers should say "I'm with John, here, as long as he doesn't go crazy" or something. Their independence should reek out even from their paid positions.

One more thing - see, you need a few left Christians around to explain things. Christianity IS A SYSTEM. Southern Protestants do not understand it and do not care. They literally worship nonsense, since they can't even make sense of their own Bible.

They would pull a Ted collectively if you took them on, on that ground, and beat them.

"do you base this analysis on anything aside from what struck your fancy?"

On the fact that Edwards (his staff) were totally clueless as to what the two bloggers were writing. If they were, they would have been in front of this, instead of lying there with CNN, MSNBC and blogopshere tire tracks on their back.

On the fact Edwards (his staff) hired them to "blog" for him and were totally clueless as to what that meant. That the two people were now employees. Consider that Edwards' supporters were critiquing Obama staff for their previous political ads for other clients. Edwards supporters are showing more than a bit of hypocrisy with staff Edward's has hired.

In fairness to Edwards, all the hyperventilated blogites pissing and moaning they won't support Edwards if he doesn't keep the blogettes is totally nuts.  You should support a candidate because they are right on the big issues of the nation and the world and can be effective in moving the US in that direction.  It reflects on the shallow, fickle nature of a good portion of the blogosphere.

I sent this note to John Edwards:
John,

Don't cave in to the attacks by William Donohue and his ilk. I read the comments your new bloggers wrote. As a former Roman Catholic priest, I think they were just speaking the truth. I left the Catholic Church almost 20 years because of the homophobia, which has just gotten worse in recent years. I could not remain in an institution that was so oppressive of me and my fellow gay Catholics. The Catholic League, of which William Donohue is the spokesman, has a long history of attacking gay people. I joined the organization when it was founded because I thought it would fight for rights and justice against anti-Catholic bigotry. But the League offered funds to Anita Bryant in her antigay crusade to overturn a gay rights ordinance in Dade County, FL. And they published a very tasteless cartoon of a gay male teacher molesting a student under his desk. I wrote them about their support for Anita Bryant in her mean-spirited campaign, and about their despicable cartoon. I told them I was resigning from the League because of their behavior. I told them that as people who understood what it was to be the object of discrimination and oppression, they should not be turning around and oppressing others. I asked for a response but never heard from them.

So don't cave in to the people  who would never vote for you and who are trying to make an example of you to intimidate the other Democratic candidates. William Donohue has a history of nasty anti-semitic remarks and nasty antigay remarks.  Call him on his own behavior.

Hillary Clinton years ago spoke of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." She was roundly criticized for her comments, but it is clear that there are a group of right-wing Republicans who use name-calling and lies and smears to try to pull down Democrats. It is clear that there are those in the Republican ranks who lie through their teeth as they falsely accuse Democrats of lying and bigotry, and who attack back with sharp teeth when they are called on their lies. Don't cave in to William and his kind.

Edwards will definately fall to last on my list, even lower than Hillary if he fires those women just because some jackass form the antidefamation catholic league has a problem with it (these are same guys who blasted Comedy Central on a South Park episode... anti-first amendment assholes)  If however he keeps them, then he will jump back up to the tier with Richardson and Clark as my #2.

So they use potty words!

If Edwards fires the bloggers, he shows he buckles under for every right-wing whiner.

The righties seem to feel they can say ANYTHING about ANYONE, without ever apologizing or replying. They can lie about anyone and anything without taking it back (look at the Wash. Times repeating the falsehood about Nancy Pelosi wanting special privileges on a military airplane to fly her to California, just as the prior speaker had a military plane to fly him to Illinois.)

But one of them finds potty words in an old blog, zings a criticism, and suddenly the press is all a-twitter about those dirty hippy bloggers. And suddenly Edwards is in bunker mode, wondering what to do.

As Josh Marshall suggests, if Edwards is in bunker mode over what to do about a blogger having used potty words, imagine what will happen when his health plan is attacked!

I hope he hangs tough.

Once the smoke clears, I will be very curious to know how much airtime the MSM gives to this silly Edwards thing as opposed to the amount of airtime they devoted to Cheney's use of the 'F' word on the Senate floor.

I think we already know the answer....

Tone is IMPORTANT.

Find someone who is tough but who doesn't come off sounding like a bitch/asshole. Then it's far far FAR easier to stand up and do the right thing.

I'm thinking someone who writes in the style of Maha if anyone cares. She pulls no punches but does it in a style that's easily defensible.

Or 'break', at least: if the Edwards camp lets the wingnuts start pushing them around with every pseudo-'scandal' they can drum up, then Edwards is too much of a lightweight to be President.  Hardly matters what one thinks of Amanda's old posts at Pandagon.

Speaking of inappropriate language...I'd like to get the transcripts of Bill Donahue's appearance on the Opie & Anthony radio show where they are discussing vulgar and obscene behavior with Louis C.K.'s HBO show and Donahue makes this crazy out of the blue attempt at an analogy -- where he hypothesizes about how people would respond to someone simulating oral sex on a statue of Martin Luther King.  

And yes he did say this and it was sooooo out of the blue that Opie & Anthony were stunned...and their whole show is based on being shocking.

Donahue also makes another sex joke about a man having sex with a horse but I can't remember the joke or context.  Yes, this sounds crazy but it is completely true.  The guy is crazy and a complete hypocrite as all holier than thou people are.

The actual clip of him talking about a white guy performing oral sex on a statue of MLK with an erection.  Check it out at minute 7:34 on you tube.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neDyIWRyi XQ