From the Edwards 08 website…
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.
Shakespeare’s Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don’t expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I’ve posted. We do, however, share many views – including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. It has never been my intention to disparage people’s individual faith, and I’m sorry if my words were taken in that way.
Boy, those are just weak. I’ll let Iowahawk do the fun versions, but as a free service to a leading Democratic candidate, let me offer the versions that would have passed muster with me – and which I think would have been better for the Edwards campaign.
Channeling John Edwards:
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else, and there will be no second chances for people speaking on my behalf. But I also believe in giving everyone a chance to learn and grow, and I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that they understand why sensible people could have been offended at what they wrote, and that they can and will commit to accepting the responsibilities of their new roles. I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we have to reach out across the barriers that we have let grow to divide us, and include people whose words or beliefs may be challenging. It will take tolerance, discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in, and those values will have to start with me and my campaign team. I personally commit to you all that they will.
Channeling Amanda Marcotte:
My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention was to stir up debate and cheerlead for the policies and political groups whose values I share. In moving to blog for the campaign, I understand that I have moved from a personal stage to a public one, and that I no longer can speak in the voice that I have used up until now. My commitment is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by my writings and I understand how it is that many people who may otherwise share my goals could have been offended. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and as someone who is moving from a factional cheerleader closer to the centers of power, defending those freedoms is becoming one of my highest priorities.
Channeling Melissa McEwan:
Shakespeare’s Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don’t expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I’ve posted. We do, however, share many views – including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. I’m sorry that I wrote things that certainly read as challenging that support. I’m aware of the responsibility I have in speaking for the Senator and for the values he embodies, and I’ll ask everyone to watch my words and actions in the next months and let me prove my commitment with deeds.
Notice a core difference? I hate I’m-sorry-if-you-were-offended apologies. Don’t apologize for people’s reactions to what you did, apologize for what you did, and accept and acknowledge that people’s reactions may well have been legitimate.
Whoa. That’s worse than if they had said nothing.
Channeling John Edwards:
“… they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. …”
I don’t think Edwards implies that they will have free reign to continue their old ways, but I do think he ought to commit that phrase to memory ’cause he’ll likely need it a lot in the long run up to the primary.
“We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country …”
I’d really like to know what criteria he used to assess hiring these two in order to move that plan forward. Now that I think about it, I’d love to know what criteria he uses to define a great debate, too. I think he’s right, but I don’t think it will be in the way he thinks it.
But I do hope he’ll be proven right to give them another chance. I hope both will put forward real arguments on the issues — clear, logical, dispassionate and orderly. It might, then, spread to their fans.
Yawn.
What does this mean?
That the extreme hard left as epitomized by the two bloggers dominates the Democratic Party. Even though Reps will use this to show Dems as hating Southerners, NASCAR fans, White Guys, and Catholics (which is all arguably true btw) Edwards cannot afford to throw them over because the extreme hard left dominates the Dem Party.
Items:
Murtha and Pelosi threaten the Pentagon over Pelosi’s luxury plane.
Edwards advocates “talking” to Iran about it’s nukes, implies he’d be OK with them.
SF Mayor Gavin Newsome post scandals is a lock for re-election and is still being talked seriously for statewide office.
The HARD LEFT is in solid control of the Dem Party. The question is if Daily Kos “Screw Em” or Amanda Marcotte “white guys are evil rapists” will dominate the Party.
The Dems electoral victory in 06 meant a hard shift to the Left, one that will continue until we are actually nuked (which is looking more and more certain).
I think it’s only a matter of time before Dems start discussing surrender or “treaty” overtures to Al Qaeda, and move even harder to the Left.
Lost in all of this is the elitist vs. populist measures that drive Left-Right politics.
Leftists are elitists (or wanna-be elitists like Marcotte). Pelosi inherited and married wealth, Edwards has a gigantic mansion that could house one of the two Americas he talks about, even the Bloggers come from wanna-be elitist backgrounds, i.e. English majors instead of say, Engineering majors.
Meanwhile Rudi and other Reps address populist issues such as security, wages (through immigration control), and home ownership.
The nascent Elitist-Poor vs. Middle Class competition as seen in Venezuela (the model for Dems now of the ideal society) is coming even more to pass. Guys like Lieberman and so forth realize there exists no room for them in a party comprised of Marcotte and Kos.
Eric,
No kidding. Especially Edwards: if he really believes “it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith” then his head is even emptier than I thought.
According to the great humanitarian Bill Donohue, Edwards has caved into the Soros and Hollywood crowd. It’s amazing to me that right-wing Jews like Medved and Prager will lie down with anti-Semites like Donohue. Well, another few elections and we can make you guys spend all your time denouncing each other over various non-issues with which we distract attention from our massive failures, but not yet.
So Andrew, I assume you are OK with the Hard Left disdain for the average person?
All this HArd Leftism is hostage to one nuke going off in an American City. Don’t forget that. The Enemy gets a vote too.
I somehow doubt that the gross insults to NASCAR fans, Whites, Southerners, Evangelicals, Catholics, etc. are winners for Dems.
Go read Pandagon. I will speak roughly, but that woman makes me look downright wimpy.
For example, some of the choicer bits:
“… right-wing thugs … jackals …ridiculous temper tantrums and pathetic attempts to hijack the issues … brigade of flying monkeys … virulent thugs …” etc.
It goes on for pages and pages. One of the reasons I come here is the debate is good, I can have my ideas and few stoop to ad hominem attacks. Few, I said. And, yeah, I know – pot – kettle – black – .
I would never presume I could ever be more public than walking the neighborhood where I am known as an eccentric crank campaigning for one of those “right-wing thugs”. Those in the public light should be held to higher standards.
The Hobo
Jim and Hobo;
Wow, I’m starting to feel bad for you guys….your delicate sensibilities seem to have been hurt by…WOMEN, no less.
Jim Rockhead: Pelosi is the third most important person in the US government. Get used to it. Having secure transport should be a no-brainer. Only a partisan fool would think otherwise. The entire presidential cabinet, including Margaret Spelling, routinely jet around in military aircraft. Hastert did as well. Even the White House has called the brouhaha inane. I’m wondering: how does it feel when the people you think you’re defending call your viewpoint stupid? Sometimes the little wind-up robots become confused and think they have a mind of their own, I guess.
Hobo: I like Marcotte’s attitude. You do not. You feel threatened by it. Are those the “worst” quotes you could come up with? Oh lordy lordy me! What’s interesting is how they pale in comparison to what routinely issues forth from the mouths of people who I take it are on “your side”….Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Donohue, etc. and so forth, to a much larger audience. I’m actually glad she makes people like you angry or upset or whatever, and it’s frankly a brilliant move on John Edward’s part to keep her around. The irrational response she seems to elicit from the right is exactly the kind of thing that will ensure most Americans recognize you for the insular crackpots you are.
/rotorooter
AX
It’s hard not to conclude that Edwards’ private discourse must resemble these two in public. His judgment is laughably and breathtakingly poor.
Contrast, if you will, with Lieberman’s hiring of smart-donk blogger Marshall Wittman.
#11
Edward’s judgment is spot on and in perfect synchrony with the public sentiment.
If I were you, I would consider why it is you’re so out of touch with this.
Andy, you’re delusional.
This is like monkyboy watching Lamont last year. I’ll suggest you go read this from “The Politico”:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2693.html
So you just go on believin’, Andy. The netroots will get Edwards launched, but – like Dean – when he gets to the bigs, they will drag him down.
A.L.
Andy X — Well, good luck with that, then.
You’re right, I could be out of touch. I was wrong the last time I detected this dynamic where a party is consumed by its own self-righteous vitriol. This was when a large contingent of Republicans was hounding Clinton about Lewinsky. I thought they would never prevail in 2000 after that.
But then Bush came from outside the beltway and convinced the voters that he wasn’t part of all that. He had plausible deniability to play a “uniter, not a divider,” however wrong that turned out to be later.
Of course, Edwards just played his “plausible deniability” card for a pair of jokers.
AL;
Spare me the blustery and meaningless predictions. We’re not sitting at a crap’s table. You warbloggers and Bush supporters have zero cred in your ability to extrapolate trends into the future, except perhaps as a measure of what is likely NOT to be true. LMAO.
“The netroots” helped bring the election to the Dems in the last cycle, not drag them down. You allow this bit of reality to escape your notice at your own peril. Not that I’m sorry for your misperception, don’t get me wrong.
Well, Andy, since the netroots candidates got clocked last cycle, and Bush outperformed the typical 6-year electoral swing, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
And since we’ve got no credibility – what are you doing here? Aren’t there folks bitching at Kos about censorship that you should be defending?
A.L.
Looks like F–kgate made the New York Times today:
That’s self-parody at its finest.
Keep it up, trash-talking cyber grrls. The split between Democrats and Catholic Democrats is coming, big time, and it’s going to make the Reformation look like a minor soccer riot.
SF Mayor Gavin Newsome post scandals is a lock for re-election and is still being talked seriously for statewide office.
Former Rep. Newt Gingrich post sex scandals is still being talked about seriously for Republican presidential candidate.
I’m not going to defend Newsom’s indefensible behavior, but this level of hypocrisy, including listening to the whingings of a vicious anti-Semite (who made him Defender of Catholicism, anyway?) is amazing.
As for the split between “Democrats” and “Catholic Democrats”, last I saw, the Democrats were doing better with Catholics than when Ronald Reagan separated them out. You would think the ass-whupping of the 2006 election would quiet such confident predictions for a while, at least until there was some cognizable reason to believe otherwise, not another totally manufactured bogus scandal.
The last time you looked must have been during the Clinton administration. Bush did better with Catholics in 2004 than the Catholic John Kerry did.
Center-left Catholics have certainly tolerated a great deal from the Democrats, especially on the Big A issue. They have done so partly in exchange for vague promises of some sort of Social Gospel Theocracy, which would be unconstitutional if it weren’t a pathetic pipe dream. I wouldn’t count on their friendship forever when bigots like “Magic Sperm” Marcotte are treated as normal.
Good luck trying to hide behind William Donohue, BTW.
AL:
I guess this is your definition of “clocked”, eh? Also goes along with thinking “everything’s rosy in Iraq”, and other warped views distorted by your partisan political bias:
From Wikipedia:
“During the 2004 U.S. election campaign, Daily Kos readers gave approximately $500,000 in user donations to fifteen Democratic candidates denoted as most needing funds. The candidates were Tony Miller, Ben Konop, Dan Mongiardo, Richard Romero, Samara Barend, Jeff Seemann, Nancy Farmer, Ginny Schrader, Jan Schneider, Lois Murphy, Jim Newberry, Brad Carson, Tony Knowles, Stan Matsunaka and Richard Morrison. All of these candidates lost. However, Moulitsas had stated that he was deliberately selecting candidates who were not receiving significant financial support from other sources; candidates who were expected to win — or even be competitive — were, by and large, already being funded by the DNC, DCCC, and other national and regional organizations.
He also argued that the campaign was successful in that it forced several Republican incumbents to spend time and money defending “safe” seats that they had never had to defend before. For example, between Tom DeLay in Texas and Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado, Moulitsas calculates that the seed money provided by the blog’s fundraising tied up well over ten times as much GOP money in return, and kept two of the GOP’s most prolific fundraisers back home campaigning in their own districts for several weeks each, rather than roaming the country raising money for other candidates, as they had in past elections. At least two of his candidates came exceptionally close to winning what would have been significant upsets.
Daily Kos led a fundraising campaign again in the 2006 midterm election campaign in conjunction with MyDD and Swing State Project. This time around, out of 19 “Netroots Candidates,” 8 were victorious: Jim Webb (VA-Sen), Jon Tester (MT-Sen), Tim Walz (MN-01), Joe Sestak (PA-07), Patrick Murphy (PA-08), Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Paul Hodes (NH-02), and Ciro D. Rodriguez (TX-23). Furthermore, the race of Kos-endorsed candidate Larry Kissell (NC-08) against Rep. Robin Hayes was extremely close and was only declared for Hayes after a recount. The success of these candidates can be simultaneously considered a cause and effect of the Democratic wave in the 2006 election: fundraising on Daily Kos and other progressive blogs/websites contributed heavily to this and other races, boosting recognition of Democratic candidates across the board; on the other hand, the general anti-Bush, anti-incumbency sentiment across the country helped boost these candidates and others on the Democratic side.
Glen, you misread my remark. Bush did about the same with Catholics as Reagan in 1984 and his father in 1988. But in 2006, the Democrats recaptured a majority of the Catholic vote.
Andy X, let’s not omit that those 2006 Kos choices were also considered longshots. I believe that every winner there upset an incumbent Republican. (BTW, I think the wiki author missed Carol Shea-Porter in NH.)