Potty mouth fembigot down

posted at 9:26 pm on February 12, 2007 by Bryan

John Edwards’ now former blogstress was the talk on O’Reilly tonight:

After the airing, Amanda Marcotte resigned from the Edwards campaign. She’s blaming it all on Bill Donohue, and the AP is only too happy help her tote that banner:

One of the chief campaign bloggers for Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards quit Monday after conservative critics raised questions about her history of provocative online messages.

Amanda Marcotte posted on her personal blog, Pandagon, that the criticism “was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign.” Marcotte said she resigned from her position Monday, and that her resignation was accepted by the campaign.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, demanded last week that Edwards fire Marcotte and a second blogger, Melissa McEwan, for remarks he deemed anti-Catholic.

It’s a shame that the AP singles out “conservative critics” to credit/blame for all of this, when the critics who probably had more of an impact were the progressive Christians who also saw bigotry in Marcotte’s inflamatory writings. Put another way, which seems more likely: That Edwards worried about what Bill Donohue thinks, or that he worries about what his fellow Democrats who also happen to be Catholics think? With Hillary! and Obama waiting to crush him in about a year, he can’t afford to leave out any potential voters.

And all of the above masks the truth at the center of all of this, which is that on their face Marcotte’s writings on Christians and Catholics in particular smack of rank bigotry, from the 114 times she mimicked the name of Christ as “Jeebus” to the ways she graphically described carnal intercourse with the Holy Spirit. That’s what earned her the criticism from Donohue and from us and other conservatives from the progressive Christians as well. It’s not a smear to accurately quote someone’s own words when criticizing them.

Our friends on the left will undoubtedly go ape. They will attack us and others who were in the mix on this story. They won’t accept the fact that the initial hiring of Marcotte was a hint that something was broken within the Edwards vetting process, nor will they accept that bigotry is bigotry no matter who the target is or how much you try and soft pedal it. They won’t accept that words mean things, that a blatantly thin defense of “it was all satire” won’t fly when Marcotte’s writings clearly weren’t satire, and that it is possible that their own ways with words can become liabilities to their preferred candidates and political party. They’ll go off on apples and oranges comparisons to bloggers on the right whose work was clearly meant as satire and who aren’t on any presidential campaign staffs. In short, they won’t get it.

More: Marcotte vows revenge. For…being quoted accurately? Sheesh.

More: I just noticed this from Michelle’s post:

Bloggers heralded the decision to keep them; the Catholic League was outraged, and a top adviser to a rival Democratic campaign took a shot: “Apparently they’re more afraid of the bloggers than they are the Catholics.”

Predictably, Kos is gunning for the rival campaign. But what he’s decrying is nothing more than normal politics. In hiring the Blunder Twins Edwards created a self-inflicted wound that Hillary! and Obama were bound to exploit. They would have been fools not to exploit it.

Of course, the problem for the netroots is that Edwards’ wound is their wound too. And that’s gotta hurt.

More: Howard Kurtz already has a solid story posted about the brouhaha. Unlike the Associated Press, Kurtz references the writings that actually earned Marcotte her criticism–the anti-Catholic screeds as well as the unhinged posts on the Duke rape case.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Their IMPORTANT ACTION ALERT early warning network must be malfunctioning again.

I’m disappointed. I question their timing.

Professor Blather on February 13, 2007 at 3:47 PM

I went over to the Edwards blog and argued (as “Watergate”) vociferously for Ms. Marcotte’s sacking. It was fun to wade over into enemy territory. I identified myself as Not One of Them. Many of them told me to go away. Others idiotically posted recipes on certain threads as their juvenile way of shouting people down.

But, there was at least a minority of posters who saw how stupid it was for Edwards to ever associate himself with that mean, vile and hateful individual. I posted the “sticky” quote many times. Few would defend that quote, but most thought that Edwards should have stood up to the “right wing hate machine” or whatever they call us now. Laughably, they think the media is conservative.

I did needle them on a few other issues, such as the real harm suffered by real people when they raised the minimum wage here in Arizona. I could single-handedly shut down a thread by raising a point of disagreement — most of them just can’t stand to be challenged on the merits.

Mostly, I argued that all sides should aim higher than the intentionally offensive Amanda Marcotte. (One Leftie linked me to an “I hate Michelle Malkin” site to prove that Ms. Malkin is just as bad, albeit without the Martin Scorcese mob movie f-bomb count. The Left believes that it is just as indecent to have “incorrect” political ideas as it is to scream obscenities at someone.)

Watergate on February 13, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Watergate. I’ve been over there myself a few times. I posted under the name of guardian. They called me a troll after every post and then banned me. 3 minutes later I was back on under the name “liberallover”. Now I can write whatever I want. No one calls me a troll. What’s in a name indeed!

Guardian on February 13, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Guardian,

You are absolutely right. Here is direct proof of your thesis. Here is a post from one of the few people that actually engaged me, but he had to call me a troll:

Yeah, the name kinda gave it away (none / 0)

Note to driveby trolls, “cute” names like “sayitaintsoJohn” or “DemsRdummies” and the like are dead givaways.

Mark Adams
Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. — Burke

by Dispassionate Liberal (attorneyadams@sbcglobal.net, Dispassionate Liberal)
on 2/10/2007 at 2:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
___________

I guess they define “troll” as “someone who disagrees with us and dares to post anything on one of ‘our’ sites.”

Watergate on February 13, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Jane as much as blatantly said on The Factor tonight; the dem policy is set. If these paria had been dissin’ blacks, jews, asians, indians, muslims or any number of races or religions, they would have been canned immediately. Since it was christians John should have stuck by his guns.

If Bill would shut the he11 up, she would have stated her case plainly. And then she’d be out of a job. Are we missing some kind of trigger mechanism on the entire dem-nutroots society whereas they would all systematically declare their prejudice towards Christians publicly? To stick by their guns?

Griz on February 13, 2007 at 11:17 PM

I never understood Marcottes tirade against Catholic opposition to abortion and birth control. It only applies to Catholics, and not all Catholics actively practice or adhere to it’s doctrine. It doesn’t affect her … and the choice to adhere is a choice, or some would say committment.

In short, it’s none of her business what Catholics do, so her obvious hate for Catholics, Christians in general is even more deranged.

darwin on February 13, 2007 at 11:51 PM

Aren’t people like Marcotte the ones we WANT on the Dems’ campaigns? The ones who expose themselves and their movement for what it is?

Halley on February 14, 2007 at 2:41 AM

I never understood Marcottes tirade against Catholic opposition to abortion and birth control.
darwin on February 13, 2007 at 11:51 PM

Because this singular Catholic ideology fits very nicely in her “all white men are evil” category.

;)

Lawrence on February 14, 2007 at 9:08 AM

I never understood Marcottes tirade against Catholic opposition to abortion and birth control.

Also, did’ja ever notice that these nutty liberals don’t bash Black Christian Men? Only White Christian Men?

Lawrence on February 14, 2007 at 9:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2