There's quite an uproar over the Edwards' campaign hiring bloggers from Pandagon and Shakespeare's Sister with the right blogs thumping their chests (and laughing) in outrage(and the outrage bleeding over to the MSM), and the left blogs circling the wagons and demanding that the Edwards campaign not abandon the netroots - or else..
Boy, there's a lot to unpack here. Let me take a shot.
First, the basic notion that actions - including actions in publishing opinions - have consequences. Look, when you appear in two or three bestiality porn videos, suddenly that run for Congress begins to look kinda distant. Both Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan wrote a bunch of stuff that wouldn't be out of place on DU, or in an undergraduate womyn's newspaper column - or in the heated fringes of the blogs - and suddenly, shockingly, they're being called to account for it. That doesn't shock me too much, to be honest. You make choices when you do stuff. Those choices prune the tree of possible futures for each of us. Welcome to adulthood.
But...
One thing I detested about Phil Angelides is that he was someone who clearly had decided that he was going to run for office in fifth grade, and had shaped his entire life toward that end. You look at the current crop of national-level candidates and you're sure that they have polished off as many human edges and as much history - except resume-building history - as possible while remaining arguably members of our species.
I like a personal voice, and like it a lot when I find candidates who have managed to keep one. And hiring bloggers who don't speak in bland platitudes is a step in that direction.
But...
For as long as I've been blogging, I've hammered people who think that blogs exist so that they can vent things better said to a mirror or a therapist. I know both blogs, and I'll comfortably say that they fit into that category. And, to boot, both are going back and cleaning up tracks while making excuses - something I think is kinda cheap.
And...
I wonder about the thought process that went into hiring them. I mean didn't anyone at Edwards Central ask whether they really wanted to be represented by someone who writes like this? I kinda like Edwards. If I can get past the whole 'lack of a meaningful foreign policy in my worldview' issue. But as we learned in 2004, running a strong campaign isn't a bad proxy for competence (yeah, I know, I know...but Kerry's ineptitude was so egregious that you can't believe he could have run a country - could you?). So when I read that Marcotte and McEwan had been hired, I did have a WTF? moment - more of a "What the hell were you thinking?" moment. Actually, I'd love to know...
Marcotte and McEwan did not get a thorough vetting likely because their feminist attitudes won them powerful backing in the Campaign. Likely Edwards wife.
Very likely they will have some function later on in a non-public capacity.
Marcotte and McEwan also represent the "mainstream" of Democratic and Media opinions. Shorn of the foul language pretty much most of what they argue are articles of faith among Dems and the Media.
Definitely food for thought for the next Moscone-Schmidt meet-up.
Marcotte and McEwan are learning the same lesson Arkin did. Or more likely, they're all NOT learning the same lesson.
It has become incredibly cool to spew hatred - barely short of murderous hatred - against "wingnuts", and at the same time the definition of "wingnut" has expanded to include almost anybody who is not in a PC-protected category. So it is routine to trash Christians, Republicans, Israel, the military, NASCAR drivers, and people who copulate with intent to procreate. Anyone who objects to this invective is a far-right extremist who works for the Republican Noise Machine. These same people expect to be taken seriously in the political arena, and the Democrats have been giving them plenty of reason to think so by cuddling up to the lefthead blogs.
So what they are learning (or not) is that the public figures and institutions who seemingly encourage their behavior do not have the guts to stand up to the heat it brings down. They might enjoy the cannabis-like "energy" of the angry left, but as soon as an adult walks into the room and turns on the light they're ready to flush it down the toilet.
Don't tell me the Edwards people didn't know what they were getting with Marcotte. Anybody who reads one page of her blog could not fail to notice that she is an anti-Christian bigot of the drunken college freshman variety, and you don't have to read much farther than that to discover all of her other manias. They figured they could use her and get away with it, and now they're in a hell of a fix.
I think there's one more thing AL: there's a strain of thought abroad in the land, not unique to either right or left, that, darn it, the world should be remade in your image. Don't bother to bathe, shave, or dress before going to that interview! They should accept you for what you are.
The difference between a web log and a journal that you scribble on with a ballpoint pen in a spiral-bound notebook with hearts (or Che Guevara's picture) on it is that you can hide the notebook under your mattress or burn it when, years later, you're embarrassed by what you read in it.
Through the miracle of caching and archiving that's a lot harder with the a web log.
I've always felt that I shouldn't write anything on my blog that I wouldn't be proud to clip to my resume. Of course, if everybody felt that way there would be no blogosphere.
Lesson of the day:
Don't let your mouth write a check your ass can't cash.
Dave is plainly right when he says they expected the world to be remade in their image. That's what the whole "Storming the Gates" thing was about: the Democratic party, if not the world, was going to be their playground. They were going to take it over, and run it as they pleased.
The real problem for them seems to be the anti-Catholic screeds. That just demonstrates that they have never gotten the coalition style of politics. It's ok to be hyper-factional, but you'll never be more than the leader of your faction. Which is fine -- that's a perfectly good thing to be, and it may be where you'll be happiest if you're the sort of person who can't stand folks who think differently from you. If you're (say) a feminist who detests people who believe in traditional Catholic values, you may not enjoy a job where you have to deal with Catholics as an important part of your duties.
The only time I ever dealt with Pandagon was back in 2003 or 2004; I remember their intensely hostile attitude to me, as a fellow Democrat, but a traditional one from the South. I bowed out politely after a while, but with a parting word that they should remember their unwillingness to meet me halfway the next time they wanted to criticize someone in the Bush administration for "not working with our allies" or "not having faith in diplomacy."
I think the sense has always been that everyone who disagreed with them on these basic matters should be purged from the party; and yet, that somehow the party would still win elections. They honestly and devoutly believed that. It's always looked to me like a quick road to the party's collapse: I guess they thought everyone would 'see the light' and be swayed, or shut up and be "rolled," and nobody would switch parties or just stop voting for a party that was led by people who hated them.
That said, I regret seeing Marcotte fired (if she is fired). I like a strong voice myself. I don't find hers pleasant to the ear, but I'd rather she was out there with that voice, than that she felt like she had to be silent about what she really believes in order to get ahead.
It appears Edwards is keeping them. I think he knows exactly what he has & expects to benefit from the netroots supports. If they're a liability later on he'll ditch them "regretfully". Until then he'll milk them for all the benefit he can get.