Tuesday, February 13, 2007
|
|
The Edwards Blogger - The Saga Ends
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
9:51 AM
|
|
Those of us who were familiar with Amanda Marcotte’s oeuvre were stunned when the Edwards campaign hired her. The angry atheist cum feminist routine isn’t just a shtick for her. If you kno\ew her work, you knew that she was a chronically furious and barely-in-control individual. I would never have taken the chance of hiring such a person at my company, and we weren’t doing business with 300 million people watching.
Thus, the denouement of her relationship with the Edwards campaign is strangely appropriate. She was trying to play nice. She even scrubbed her most recent blog-postings of all obscenities. Believe me, this was a departure from ordinary practices.
But even when she was trying, Marcotte just didn’t have it in her. She couldn’t be made presentable for public consumption. This was one Eliza Doolittle that no Henry Higgins could transform. Amanda Marcotte is, and believe it or not this is the kindest way to put it, an extremely abnormal person who has the barest acquaintance with reality and what’s considered appropriate in the real world.
Her blog post yesterday that put the ultimate endgame afoot is revealing. In case you forgot, Marcotte wrote:
“The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels."
Mind you, she wrote this while she was trying to be a perfect little lady. She thought this was so mundane a sentiment that it wouldn’t raise any eyebrows. Such is life in Amanda’s world.
LAST NIGHT, AMANDA WROTE HER angry resignation letter at her Pandagon site. Typically and tediously, she vowed to fight the patriarchy. More revealing than the post were the comments she sprinkled in the thread throughout the evening. As the evening wore on, her remarkable anger and her even more remarkable detachment from reality became increasingly apparent.
At 10:00 p.m. she wrote:
I 100% agree that this was a targeted hit on atheists in politics.
By 10:43, her sense of victimhood was congealing into an ideological framework:
On the why did I apologize thing—I never apologized for my opinions or beliefs. I do feel bad if people read my comments out of context and are hurt, but I don’t think that’s my fault so much as the fault of people who take my writing out of context.
By 11:49, the old fighting Amanda had returned to full flight:
All people claiming to be good Christians who agitated for me to be fired, one question:
Who would Jesus witchhunt?
Think hard before answering, assholes.
What can one say about such a sorry spectacle? Personally, I think her reader Lizz summed things up best, commenting:
Amanda, I am SO sorry about this : I feel Ill! F*CK F*CK F*CK the Rethuglc*nt noise machine!! All I ask is that you keep fighting the good fight against the f*ckwit Cirstians. Remember - ‘Keep your rosaries off of my Ovaries’
For readers who weren’t familiar with Pandagon prior to last week, take my word for it – Lizz’s comment is a typical day at the virtual office.
SO NOW WHAT? Specifically, where do the Edwards campaign and the Nutroots go from here? As of this writing, the Nutroots have maintained an oddly monolithic silence on the matter that had them so agitated and united not 5 days earlier.
While they’re thinking things through, I’ll extend a helping hand. The Nutroots’ play is obvious: The Edwards campaign gave Marcotte not one but two chances that she didn’t deserve. Marcotte blew it. If the Nutroots can summon a little maturity just for a moment, they’ll realize that Edwards did the right thing in belatedly swinging the axe and forego the ritual declaration of hostilities.
Even if that weren’t the right thing to do, it would be the smart thing. If for some bizarre reason the Nutroots feel that Marcotte’s dismissal was unwarranted, they’ll still look ridiculous if they don’t fall into line behind the Edwards campaign. They’ve threatened vicious rants and non-support – Edwards will look to have defied them if they take a hissy-fit this morning.
And in spite of said hissy-fit, the world will keep spinning for the Edwards campaign much as it did while Amanda Marcotte was spewing spittle on an Edwards-owned keyboard. Other candidates will note the paper-tiger qualities of the blogopshere, and will put on their calendars a date for a far more decisive Sister Souljah moment than the one John Edwards had.
As for Edwards, he looks irredeemably pathetic. There’s a simple reason for this - he is irredeemably pathetic. He hired someone who had no business being legitimated by a mainstream political campaign. He then bowed to pressure and fired her. He then bowed to pressure again and unfired her. And then he left the stage to let her resign. In the wake of all these stumbles and pratfalls, he looks like a careless fool. He also may have alienated the Fightin’ Nutroots to boot. Well played!
As for larger lessons in this ridiculous saga, I can only think of one: You can take the girl out of Blogistan, but you can’t take Blogistan out of the girl.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
|
And to think we are going to have Edwards around for at least a year, the possibilities are endless. |
|
|
Just goes to show that pathetic fool and lawyer aren't mutually exclusive--especially if you build your practice around ambulance chasing. |
|
Your "evidence" is a Google search?
Look, Toady, just because you read it on a leftie website and then saw it repeated verbatim on a bunch of other leftie websites doesn't make it true. And seeing it on Wikipedia doesn't make it true, either.
Yes, I remember the incident. And it is not the way you depict it. Now that you've claimed that you saw it yourself, I think I have to go back to calling you a liar.
Have you noticed that most of the websites you find that claim on either give no date or say merely "1993"? Why is this, if everyone knows it happened on 11/6/92?
Because it didn't. It didn't happen then. It didn't happen, ever.
The comment on the link I gave you tells what happened on the November 6, 1992 show. Did you even read it?
--
LIMBAUGH: ...David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House.
(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)
LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.
(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)
LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid.
--
I was watching the show, and this is a accurate depiction of what happened. And indeed, Limbaugh did claim that it was a technical error.
(Personally, I suspect that Limbaugh was supposed to call for the cute dog first, and so the technician heard "Let's take a look at" and just punched the button for the dog picture without listening to the rest. But I admit I'm just speculating.)
Can you dig up a Lexis-Nexis transcript--or any other evidence other than a Google search--which backs up your version?
(A Google search, I'll trouble you.)
By continuing to insist on your fantasy version of events, you're just digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Just give it up. It didn't happen the way you and your creepy leftie friends claim it did. And Molly Ivins was a liar. Live with it.
A GOOGLE SEARCH?! Jeezum crow! |
|
I'ta Dinesh D'Souza you're thinking about, not Ramesh. If the gods have a sense of humor, someday Heritage will have a panel consisting of Ramesh, Dinesh and Reihan. A good time will be had by all.
As for Toady, my little Green friend, it is obviously my conclusion that Edwards is pathetic. Readers are free to differ. I'm not someone who has to be blindly followed or obeyed like some sort of Dixie Chick. |
|
"If the Nutroots can summon a little maturity just for a moment..."
Dean, that's probably the funniest thing that I've read in a long time. There's a good reason that its called the Nutroots. |
|
Or at least the date of the show?
The lefties are conflating the real incident with one made up (probably) by Molly Ivins.
The real incident is described (complete wit transcript) in the comments at http://thynkingoutloud.blogspot.com/2006/09/non-correction-re-rush-limbaugh-in.html
But I will withdraw my characterization of you as a liar. You're merely a gullible fool who will believe anything spewed out by liars like Molly Ivins. |
|
too appeal to the masses. Edwards has shown his true colors early on and has most likely destroyed any chance he had with mainstream America.
MD |
|
"It's a double standard."
Of course it is, you clueless warty amphibian. We have an adversarial political system, just as we have an adversarial legal system. When I'm litigating a case, and the other side makes a bonehead mistake, I pummel them for it. When my side makes an equally bonehead mistake, the other side pummels us. That's the way it works -- we depend on the opposition to make sure the whole truth about each side gets out.
Of course, there are limits. When there is authority that's directly contrary to my position, I'm not supposed to hide it and hope the judge is not well-versed enough to catch it. I'm supposed to address it and then set about explaining why it shouldn't apply in this case. Similarly, when one of us Rethuglicans goes too far, you'll see the responsible bloggers take him to task. Look at the reaction to Trent Lott's encomium to Strom Thurmond, or Ramesh Ponnuru's latest book. |
|
Congratulations Colin, you said the magic word, If we had a duck, you'd have a hundred dollars...
As for the significance...The song appeared in the 1930 Marx Brothers classic Animal Crackers. Groucho was singing Amanda’s part and Margaret Dumont - Groucho’s foil - sang John Edwards. Groucho was of course Captain Spaulding, the African Explorer. The song fits as does Colin's Hooray for Mistress Amanda, because the Marx Brothers films involved the lampooning and general mocking of societal institutions. In that way, they are like the nutroots, a little zany, and looking to disrupt the status quo. Unlike the nutroots, the Marx Brothers knew how to bring the funny and never took themselves too seriously. But hey not everyone can be Julius Henrys.
Margaret Dumont typically played the stereotypical high society windbag. And like John Edwards she was a silly phony. She missed half of what Groucho said, intentionally of course, and always seemed to still want him around, even though he mercilessly skewered her and was only interested in her money. (WIll you marry me? Are you rich? Answer the second question first.) Our nitwit nutroot friends only care about the power their Democrat “pals” can give them.
Margaret and Julius, Amanda and John…mismatches made in Hades.
Hooray Hooray Hooray |
|
Yes, I remember the Limbaugh thing with Chelsea Clinton, and that's how I know you're lying about what happened.
Maybe that's why your posts get yanked.
Typical leftie. |
|
Hooray for mistress Marcotte,
the blogistan explorer,
"Did someone say ignore her?"
Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!
I think Edwards, who lives on an airy plane somewhere near the lower upper ranges of America #1, probably believes that the whole so-called blogosphere is sort of like a big MySpace - whatever that is - maybe sort of like a big college newspaper or maybe the free weekly in a college town - anyway it's something for the kids - like text message acronyms or wearing your shirt inside out, do they still do that? They walk around campus dressed as what? Nawwww...
Hiring a fiery lefty was just youth outreach, he probably thought, with no grown-ups involved. He may have been a bit surprised to learn that she was anywhere very far north of 18 - especially if he did actually read any of her sophomoric posts.
How old is she, anyway? When I read her material, I think back to my own college years (at Huxley U, of course). A lot of the attention devoted to Marcotte suggests the whole world getting excited about the after-chatter at the bi-weekly meeting of the feminist poetry workshop.
|
|
"The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal..."
We've been assuming she means the Christian version "is generally interpreted" by CHRISTIANS. I think she actually means that the super-patriarchal interpretation is general within radical feminist circles. This is probably quite true. |
|
|
Well, if Andrea had ever given a cursory reading to the Gospels she scorns she'd know He wouldn't 'witch-hunt' anybody. She'd also know though that He was always willing to call sin a sin wherever he found it. |
|
|
Feel free to go to DU or Kos for any of that information. Why in the world would you expect to see something like that here? Are you that intellectually stunted? |
|
toady_ wrote:
"The campaign to claim that the left is full of hatred and anger ignores the ravings of Coulter, Beck, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh and so many others."
---
The difference is, Coulter, Savage, Hannity, and Limbaugh don't represent anybody but themselves and their company. They'll never have an office in the White House or take any other political job. They're on the outside looking in, like the rest of us. And, like Limbaugh says, "people ask me to run for President, but I don't want to take the pay cut." That would be true for all your examples. If it's any comfort, I can't stand Savage either. He sounds like a left-wing protectionist union boss sometimes.
|
|
If a major Republican presidential contender hires Ann Coulter or Michael Savage, I'll join you in denouncing him.
(I'm not familiar with Beck, and trying to lump Hannity and Limbaugh in there is simply loony, and I say that as someone who's not a fan of either of them.)
But comparing a major presidential candidate to a columnist or radio show host is pretty silly, as even you should be able to see. |
|
I might buy that if he had fired her immediately (and fired the person responsible for hiring her). It's quite possible that Edwards had no role in the decision to hire her in the first place.
But once the controversy arose, of course he read it, at least those parts that got all the bad publicity. He even talked about it, claiming that he found it "personally offensive."
And yet he kept her on his staff, showing that he nevertheless found it all perfectly acceptable. |
|
The Amanada Marcotte Blogging Theme...
Amanda sings
Hello! I must be going
I came to spray
Spit all the day
I must be going
Glad to be pick'd
But now I'm tick'd
I must be going ta - ta
Then John chimes in...
Kos wants for you to stay
Please. Please! Do not go away
When all this publicity is growing
Amanda again
I blogged a week or two
I'd blog just for you
But frankly now we're through
I must be going
Dean knows this one...but points to whoever identifies this tune's source and why it fits so well
|
|
Edwards's staffers are responsible for checking the backgrounds of people they hire.
Apparently, quite a number of conservative pundits were well aware of the out of control history of the people of interest.
The Democrats are trying to woo the Religious Left. Edwards got off to a bad start. |
|
|
than that the publicly churchy Edwards thought Marcotte's work was unoffensive. It is that he never read it. Is that better? Ah, who knows but Edwards has all the heft of fresh candy-floss on his best day. This guy makes Al Gore look like Heraclitus and that, friends and foes, is saying something indeed. Mainstream Dems are either ignorant of this Pandagon/MyDD world more fetid than Kosland, or declare that it has nothing to do with real Democrats (all the while claiming LGF is an arm of the RNC, but whatever). Exposure and public connection of this sewer with the main Dem candidates can only be a good thing. That these nutcases actually constitute a plurality of the Dem primary voters will be a painful realization, but oh so necessary. Party on Amanda! |
|
EDWARDS: You moron...I said get someone from a "THINK TANK," not a "MENTAL WARD"!!! Next time, pay more attention!!!
|
|
There are some things that are as plain as the nose on your face and hiring Andrea was clearly a bad idea. It seems to me that if nothing else its yet another example of how much politicians still DONT understand about the nature of new media and how it all works. The beltway crowd still acts in ways that clearly demonstrate they have much to learn about the world wide web. Senator Edward's will wake up one day and realize that his bid for the white house started to die in a venue he still does not fully comprehend.
As for Andrea, she does not have to be concerned about being taken out of context since ALL her words are there to read. Her problem is she cannot help putting her anger and vitriol in print and .... we can all read. |
|
Edwards wants to come across as sober, responsible, caring. Instead he sourrounds himself with out of control, angry bigots.
In a sense, Edwards is right: there are two Americas. one is reasonable and tolerant. the other is represented by the woman he hired. |
|
|
And why not? Arafat lived there for a large part of the 1990s. |
|
The Anchoress blogs and she is very different (if not the polar opposite) from Andrea Marcotte.
You don't take some angry, crude, disgusting person like Andrea Marcotte and put them in a position of any authority in your campaign (blogging or otherwise). Ok, mistakes happen (she should have been vetted but sometimes you miss something). Then you deal with it. Edwards could have killed this story in a day.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. |
|
Edwards must not be let off with such a lame epithet as "pathetic," or accused merely of a lack of "fortitude."
He stood behind her because he finds anti-Christian hatred acceptable. It really is as simple as that. |
|
|
I find it telling that Edwards didn't have the fortitude to fire her. If he has trouble with THAT simple decision, how does he expect to be commander in chief? |
|
|
|