Edwards May Dump Amanda

Via Feministe and Feministing: right-wing groups such as the Catholic League are pressuring Edwards to fire Amanda and Shakes.

Salon reports that the decision may have already been made, though.

The right-wing blogosphere has gotten its scalps — John Edwards has fired the two controversial bloggers he recently hired to do liberal blogger outreach, Salon has learned.

The bloggers, Amanda Marcotte, formerly of Pandagon, and Melissa McEwan, of Shakespeare’s Sister, had come under fire from right-wing bloggers for statements they had previously made on their respective blogs. A statement by the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue, which called Marcotte and McEwan “anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots,” and an accompanying article on the controversy in the New York Times this morning, put extra pressure on the campaign.

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.”

Some people on Feministe are making that their litmus test – for example, Hugo said,

If Edwards keeps Amanda, he gets my money and my endorsement. If he’s got the guts to buck the swifties on this, I’ll abandon my quixotic attachment to Kucinich and come on over to John-boy.

If he dumps her, the money gets split between Hillary and Barack and he will, indeed, lose huge cred.

For me, it’s just a hoop test. If Edwards dumps Amanda, whatever credibility he regained when he went public with his health care plan will evaporate, making me a fairly confirmed supporter of Obama. If he doesn’t dump her, I’ll still support Obama to some extent, but will change my support to Edwards as soon as Obama says something I don’t like about Iran.

My prediction is that Edwards will cave and dump Amanda, though, based on his previous record on having a spine.

11 Responses to Edwards May Dump Amanda

  1. SLC says:

    Re Turcotte

    Not being a regular reader of Ms. Turcottes’ blog, I can’t comment on the complaints of a**holes like Donahue. However, her comments on the Duke rape case would be sufficient from my perspective to have her fired, unless she were to make a sincere and abject apoligy to Mr. Evans, Mr. Finnerty, and Mr. Seligmann.

  2. Alon Levy says:

    The main bone of contention wasn’t about the Duke rape case, which was a mistake a lot of people made, but about Katrina.

  3. Bruce says:

    For me, the issue is meta: does Edwards let right-wing concern troll antisemite opponents dictate personnel decisions?

    When Edwards litigated, he did not take advice from the opposing parties’ corporate counsel. Frankly, he is looking like the stupidest player at the poker table, i.e. the first most likely to go bust.

    This was not raised by an archbishop’s chancery, or a community of politically neutral Catholics, or even a mainstream Catholic group like the Knights of Columbus, but by a notorious right-wing antisemite. Edwards should keep them on, give them a 5% raise and invite any archbishop with an opinion to write him a letter (i.e. pound sand.)

  4. Wouldn’t you consider dumping knee jerk extremists specializing in vulgar vitriolic attacks, needing neither fact or conviction to believe accusation?

    And if not, don’t you need to consider leaning into the razor that cuts through bigotry and hyperbole exposing little details like reality and accuracy?

    Is there ever a fight where honest appraisal doesn’t matter if core belief needs defense?

    Threatening Edwards with withholding funds as a method of extorting a decision matching your opinion is acceptable, but not recommended.

    I think ridding his public image of clearly nasty, hateful, deeply bigoted opinion is a good thing.

    He may not have done an honorable thing in many years.

    Let him try.

  5. SLC says:

    Re Marcotte

    Apologies to Ms. Marcotte who I have apparently been referring to as Turcotte on several blogs.

    Re Levy

    I don’t give a flying f*** what Donahue and Malkin say or what issues they are addressing. I was stating my opinion of Ms. Marcottes’ activities relative to the Duke rape case. By the way, the fact that several other people did the same thing as Ms. Marcotte is no excuse (the everybody does it excuse). If she wants to put herself in with people like Wendy Murphy, Nancy Grace, Lisa Bloom (who to her credit has now recanted) and Gloria Allred, she has to take the consequences.

  6. Alon Levy says:

    Amanda has recanted. She didn’t apologize, but let’s face it, apologies don’t matter. What matters is not repeating the same mistake. Al Sharpton may have never apologized for standing behind Tawana Brawley long after it became clear she was lying, but he learned his lesson and stayed away from the Duke rape case.

    She’s not a vitriolic extremist. She’s never tried entering the mainstream the way Lindsay and Ezra have, but she still writes a lot of intelligent, coherent posts about various and sundry issues. She appears more extreme than she really is, while Lindsay appears more moderate than she really is.

  7. SLC says:

    Re Levy

    1. Excuse me, would Mr. Levy be so kind as to direct me to a link in which Ms. Marcotte recants. According to the links that I posted, she was still sliming Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty, and Mr. Evans as late as the 3rd of February, 2007, which was well after the revelations about Mr. Nifongs’ conduct became public.

    2. To my knowledge, Mr. Sharpton has never taken back his accusations made relative to the Brawley case. As far as I know, he still stands behind them.

  8. Alon Levy says:

    She hasn’t, as far as I know. Hence my comment about apologies: Sharpton officially never recanted his accusations in the Brawley case, either, but he didn’t repeat them in the Duke case.

  9. I think ridding his public image of clearly nasty, hateful, deeply bigoted opinion is a good thing.

    Amanda’s alleged (by the infamous Jew-bashing Donahue) “anti-Catholic” comments were directed at Papa Ratzi and his anti-abortion, anti-contraceptive and generally misogynistic attitude toward women. So from what I can discern, the complaint is that critiquing clearly political ideas is “nasty”, “hateful” and “deeply bigoted” as long as it’s infused with ancient goat-herder fantasies? Atheists like Dawkins and Harris take a lot of heat on this blog, but you’ve just proven their point for them in spades.

  10. I see.

    So, as long as the nasty hate goes against those you hold in contempt, it’s ok?

    Now I know the rules.

    Thanks

  11. Now I know the rules.

    Yes, the rules in an open society are that ideas get critiqued, and the vociferiousness with which that is done is directly proportionate to how stupid they are. Papa Ratzi is medieval minded boob who wants to take us back to the days of feudalism, and his basing that on abject religious superstition doesn’t change that one bit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: