First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

by Chris Bowers, Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:57:38 AM EST

The only problem is, we don't know which one. An unamed Democratic staffer for a rival campaign just through Edwards under bus for keeping Amanda and Melissa on staff. From Slate:

[A] top adviser to a rival campaign took a shot [at Edwards]: "Apparently they're more afraid of the bloggers than they are the Catholics."

Apparently, that person is so brave and unfraid of "the bloggers," that s/he can only use Republican-enabling, Donohue-loving, blogger-bashing, smear-capitulating language while keeping both his or her campaign and his or her name anonymous.

I have a simple challenge to this anonymous staffer. If his or her campaign isn't afraid of "the bloggers," as s/he accuses Edwards of being, then just state your name and your campaign, and demonstrate your lack of fear. After all, if you and your candidate are so much more courageous than the Edwards campaign, I can't imagine you would be afraid of saying something like this to our virtual faces.

Tags: Blogosphere, Democrats, John Edwards, President 2008 (all tags)

Comments

44 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

I didn't know Joe Lieberman was running for president as a Democrat!

by Joe R 2007-02-09 11:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Lieberman's Gerstein Blasts Edwards

Well, not Lieberman, but close enough. His former anonymous blogger and paid attack monkey, Dan Gerstein, got himself on TV today by attacking bloggers and Edwards.

Still waiting for Dan Gerstein to explain the $387,000 in ~~street money~~ petty cash his campaign put on the street during the election.

Still waiting for Dan Gerstein to apologize for accusing Lamont and Lamont bloggers for hacking the Lieberman web site.

Still waiting...but Gerstein, former blogger for Lieberman before Liebermann brought him on staff as spokesperson after he anonymously accused Lamont supporters of anti-Semitism, has plenty of time to bloviate about how mean bloggers are!

by Maura in CT 2007-02-09 03:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

Do you have an inkling as to who might have said this Chris? (Just a yes or no, not actually saying which campaign or person).

by adamterando 2007-02-09 11:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

I'd put money on the Hillary campaign.

by PsiFighter37 2007-02-09 11:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Sadly, me too...

...mostly because they think they're untouchable as it is.

Hillary herself would not be so foolish as to say such a thing in public, mind you....

by palamedes 2007-02-09 11:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

On the other hand

Biden is both desperate enough and stupid enough to say that.

by Drew 2007-02-09 11:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

I don't think Biden

can afford that many advisors.

by TarHeel 2007-02-09 12:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

Why? She is way ahead of Edwards, who had been sinking some, to the tune of almost 4 to 1. Might as well accuse Obama's people, as he would gain the most from an Edward's backlash.

by georgep 2007-02-09 11:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

...and Obama is a very religious man.

I don't know the makeup of his staff, but if they were chosen to reflect his highly religious views (which Obama wears on his sleeves) who is to say that one of them did not take offense at the postings, which after all question and bash certain aspects of Christian doctrine that they might hold sacred?

by georgep 2007-02-09 12:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

Nice work, George, at building a pitifully weak case to direct the suspicions of the netroots at a candidate you apparently already distrust for entirely personal reasons.

The ice is mighty thin where you are standing just now and the water below is cold.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-09 04:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

No, I really don't. I bet it wasn't Dodd or Kucinich. That's really the only guess I can make.

by Chris Bowers 2007-02-09 11:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

I bet it was Gravel or one of his minions.

by adamterando 2007-02-09 12:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

At least Gravel is funny. For a thread packed with rumor mongerers, there is a shocking lack of imagination. I dont mind all gossip.. just the boring stuff.

After reading the Slate article, I am suprised that Bowers latched onto this little unattributed piece of ephemera. The real story in Dickerson's anti-netroots diatribe is that this so-called Dickerson hates Lamont: "Lamont ended up running away." It was exactly this sort of MSM anti-netroots narrative that perpetuated the meme that blah blah blah and threw the election to Lieberhound.

I dont blame Chris though. Clearly, now that he has morphed into strong Edwards supporter, he has to look hard for excuses to muster up the mightly MyDD netwarriors to engage in an "eat our young" discussion the can convienently demean the Edwards opposition while defending the annointed hero. And I didnt mean annointed in an anti-Catholic sense.

Anyhoo, what I really wanted to say is that I know someone who is the cousin of a lesbian, and I heard that Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter is the actual father of Anna Nicole's baby. Lesbian fertility and Chinese Hackers: Add it Up. Dont quote me though.

by Winston Smith 2007-02-09 04:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

Dude, wtf? You bash rumormongering while at the same time implying that I have a hidden agenda in this post? Fucking nasty and uncalled for.

by Chris Bowers 2007-02-09 07:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

Ah man, now I feel bad. Couldn't you just laugh at the lesbian fertility Chinese hacker part?

Here are some thoughts in defense of both of us.

First, I am not implying that you have a hidden agenda. I am stating clearly that you have a open agenda. You said forcefully that if Edwards keeps the bloggers, you will be a strong Edwards supporter. This support was not motivated by a specific policy position, but by your concern that the rightwing noise machine will be successful by using Donahue tactics in driving a wedge between the netroots and Democratic candidates. If Edwards drew a line to support the netroots by refusing to buckle to this strategy, you would reward him with your support.

I understand your motivation, as you described, and I congraduate you on your convictions. I have to say, as well, that I was not quite sure if you meant that you would openly advocate for Edwards against other candidates. The way the comment was set up, as I recall, was " I was on the fence between Obama or Edwards, but if Edwards keeps the bloggers, I will choose Edwards."

I think it may be a little early to say who will be the most blog friendly candidate, but I dont question your sincerity.

I also trust your judgement. Just because you are now a strong Edwards supporter, I dont think you would use your influence to undermine another potential and viable candidate.

In terms of the actual quote cited in your post, I also share your concern. Whoever said it was attempting to create an unwinnable paradox: that candidates must choose between Catholics and bloggers. It's a clever rhetorical trick, and must be deconstructed as the sophistry that it is. If media begin to set up choices like this as the campaign progresses and heats up, it will drive a wedge between candidates and the netroots that will make enthusiasm and support difficult. After seeing the success of our efforts from Lamont to Webb, that would be devastating to the netroots and Democratic candidates alike.

I suspect that your initial indignation was responding to this very fact. And I believe that you have a desire to directly confront the offending party. I am also all for that; bear the standards, brother.

I became somewhat uncomfortable when I read the tone of this thread. I think we all know that journalists writing a story have a tendency to reduce quotes, supporting data, et al to tell the story, and this reduction often simplifies info to the point of stylistation. It is easy to twist a piece of information that gives it a favor not intended, or which exaggerates its importance, even inadvertently.

I am not sure how the quote got into Dickerson's piece, and considering its potential importance, if good old Dickerson has more to say on it, I would want to hear. But I would be suprised if it was put out at the direct order of a candidate. Therefore, I dont think that at this point, using the quote to engage in a kind of game of "what candidate do we want to punish" is a good idea.

The conversation on the thread is not the importance and implications of the quote, but silly ad hominem attacks on other candidates that members dont like, based soley on what someone working for someone else may have said, as told to Dickerson.

I am sorry if you think I am being fucking nasty. I admit that my comments are not substantial. When I really have something to say, I find myself writing comments the length of a bible at 2 am. I dont like doing that. So, for what its worth, I usually just 3 rate comments I agree with, or make short snarky comments.

I am, as I have said before, quite a fan of your work, and it is, in fact, your thoughtful posts and the insightful dialogue that they inspire which lead me to sign up here.

I used brief sarcasm to make my point, herein made sincerely. Not that anyone cares, but I figured if I pissed you off, I would owe you at least the long version.

by Winston Smith 2007-02-09 08:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

I'd bet on Jim Jordan (advisor to Chris Dodd) who is notorious for this sort of thing.

by blueflorida 2007-02-09 11:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Don't challenge the staffer.

Challenge the campaign. Hillary, Barack, Tom, Joe, Chris, Wes: which one of you would have shitcanned the bloggers?

by Drew 2007-02-09 11:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Seems that Kargo X & Kos

Have. Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Vilsack, Obama, and Richardson have denied it was them; thus leaving Clark, Gravel, and Kucinich.

Hm.

by Drew 2007-02-09 12:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Seems that Kargo X &amp; Kos

Since Clark doesn't even have a campaign yet or even an exploratory committee (and is on vacation somewhere in the Caribbean), I'd appreciate you taking him off your hit list.

by pelican 2007-02-10 04:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

Anonymous campaign?

Anonymous operative?

It doesn't matter who this is, they are clearly not the kind of people we would support.
.

by Grand Moff Texan 2007-02-09 11:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

tone deaf Dems

If I'm Hillary or Obama, i'm thrilled about this. All those Catholic grandmas in the Iowa caucus and those Latino hotel workers in Vegas might not take too kindly to the "hot sticky" comments of Edwards' bloggers. Of course the bloggers have convinced themselves that most americans would be more offended by Donohue vs. radical feminist bloggers. in this case, unfortunately, i think many Dem voters who aren't part of the secular fundie wing of the Dem party, will agree with Donohue on this one.

Osama Bin Ladin says shit about America and Bush that many lefties agree with. does that mean we love Osama? of course not. bloggers saying the religious left have to either support them or Donohue are just as noxious as Bush when he tells other countries "you are either with us or against us."

poor religious left. ignored by the media, shat upon by many of their fellow right wing faith goers, ignored/slandered by their progressive allies.

by ihlin 2007-02-09 11:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Funny

Seems that the religious left poster below has an entirely different take on the situation.

by Drew 2007-02-09 11:27AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: tone deaf Dems

If they love Donohue so much, they should look back at his record before accepting his framing of this issue (which, aparrently, you have also accepted).

by Chris Bowers 2007-02-09 11:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: tone deaf Dems

when did i say people love Donohue? i just said in this one instance, they would agree with him that the bloggers comments were deeply offensive and anti-Catholic. I don't need Donohue to tell me that. I can read for myself. So yes, on this issue, I agree with him, unforunately. it would have been interesting had say, Catholic for a Common Good brought this up. I have a feeling they'd be getting just as much vitriol too.

by ihlin 2007-02-09 11:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

Yeah, Begala, fess up!

by DrFrankLives 2007-02-09 11:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Jim Jordan

My guess is that it's Jim Jordan, former Kerry campaign manager. He's known for this sort of thing. Check the clips from 2003-2004.

by blueflorida 2007-02-09 11:46AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

It was Biden. I'm sure of it. I'll bet anyone $100 that it was Biden.

by delawareliberal 2007-02-09 11:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

So some "Democrat" is borrowing

the rightwing slime machine.

OK: seek and destroy!
.

by Grand Moff Texan 2007-02-09 11:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

just throwing this out there - are we sure it was a Democratic campaign? Dickerson just says a "rival campaign." That could be a Republican as well - McCain and Brownback come to mind. Seems that if it was a primary rival, Dickerson would have made a point of saying so.

by buffaloblue 2007-02-09 12:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

Very good point.

by BingoL 2007-02-09 01:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

The usual sniping...I wouldn't worry about it too much...we live and die by "anonymous sources".

They are anonymous because it's not the candidate's statement, it's one of their staff's personal statements.

While the group that got it started was a right wing group that most Catholics would disown, the comments by the bloggirls would likely rub Catholics fur the wrong way.

So there was some truth to the snarky comment that Edwards was weighing which would cause him the least damage. Figuring a crazed jihad by the netrooters vs. very few Catholics bothered by the posts of Edwards' new employees.

by BrionLutz 2007-02-09 12:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

I think you're being trolled...

by sdedeo 2007-02-09 12:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

I guess it would be heresy to appreciate the humor in the remark?

by anatomist 2007-02-09 12:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

Apparently so. I thought it was a left-handed compliment to the netroots, frankly, albeit in a sardonic wrapper. Maybe even a subtext that the netroots lack nothing of dogma by comparison.

Oh, well. I daresay I might have said something like that myself in an unguarded moment, and need to be more careful around here. Nobody ever expects... the Spanish Inquisition...

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-09 03:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

They've actualy paid you a compliment

The mere fact that this comment was made anomynously speaks volumes. Chris you're correct to zero in on that detail. But don't feel offended, this person may not like the influence of the netroots but they are affirming it.

As to geussing which campaign this source comes from don't bother. For all we know the source can be in the Edwards campaign for any number of reasons. Stranger things happen every single day in the crazy world of politics.

by Jose 2007-02-09 12:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

From my experience the GOPers will leave this alone. We have the unfortunate reputation of "eating our own children" during the primaries. The GOPers will just cheer us on. It may get very bad as it appears that Clinton will win the nomination in a walk.

by joliepoint 2007-02-09 12:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

Given the good way in which Obama has handled Faux news by freezing them out, I suspect the 'rival' here refers to his campaign - bacause they have had time to sit and think about this issue before.

by saguaro 2007-02-09 12:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

Why couldn't you have just said I'm guessing it's Obama's campaign and spared us the groundless suspicion.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-09 04:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

To be honest, I have some distaste at Slate publishing a comment like this without being on the record at all.

I don't know what the journalistic ethics are, but there has to be a reason why you take a comment and report it as news, but respect the source's legitimate need to remain anonymous.

I think this is half assed reporting that serves no one. If you open this up, it is too easy to have all sorts of cheap shots and unsubstantiated allegations made without any accountability.

This is not like protecting a source for the interest of the public interest and the source's ability to do their job. This is just protecting slime.

by Orlando 2007-02-09 12:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Bingo!

You are 100% correct, Orlando.

This is poor, unprofessional and unethical journalism.

If a "journalist" (read "hack") allows a campaign to anonymously slander another, then everyone will do it. Why not? There's no repercussions.

I guess I got my journalism degree in the middle ages because I don't remember being taught to go after quotes but not print the names behind those quotes. In fact, I always was taught that if someone said something, then tried to hide behind anonymity, one would simply smile and say "maybe you shouldn't say those things to a reporter" and then print the quote.

Today, reporters believe that the only to develop sources is to allow the source to hide. That is lazy and unprofessional -- and it does not serve the public.

by PageUp 2007-02-09 04:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

This is ridiculous. Anonymous comments have been around forever and they aren't going anywhere.

Dickerson is a good writer and a great journalist. This was a reasonable piece, if not one of his very best. It demonstrates that things are rarely as black and white or simple as either side would like to make them. And it shows that there is often a story that goes beyond the nitty-gritty of the particular situation which deserves examination. IN this case - the tension between campaigns trying to integrate bloggers and campaigns trying to be as inoffensive as possible.

p.s. - they're updated the story to make it clear it's a Democratic rival.

by Baldrick 2007-02-09 08:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

Can we just blame Nader and get on with it?

by tommyf 2007-02-09 01:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

The idiot who made the anonymous remark certainly must not know many catholics. Like Donoghue has such standing. Please.

by kentuckydave 2007-02-09 02:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First Democratic Campaign Disses Edwards

My guess 1) Donahue, himself. Yes, Catholics vs, bloggers sounds like him. 2) One of the DC consultants looking to trash the non-DC people and maybe pick up some billings. Third most likely is a Republican kid who looks down on the masses with computers. Twenty-four going on eighty four.

by David Kowalski 2007-02-09 07:00PM | 0 recs