The unprofessionalism wasn't just on Marcotte's side. Period.

Edwards camp clearly did not:

a) do their due diligence on her and her writing.

b) sit down with her and explaing the rules of a campaign with her. Sure she /should/ have known better than to keep posting to her website, but operations that have their act together don't /assume/ that people who haven't worked on a campaign know the groundrules.

As I said in my actual post, what she said after she was hired was fair game. She absolutely should not have posted anything else on her personal blog, and every post she posts anywhere should have been vetted - but that responsibility exists on both sides of the equation.

The damage done is to everyone - her, Edwards and to the netroots. And the bottom line is that this reflects on Edwards judgement in who he hires. Yeah, he didn't himself hire her, but people he hired hired her. The chain goes back to him.

There shouldn't be a double standard for bloggers vs. any other campaign aide once you sign on. Edwards made an agreement with her and stuck up for her, saying he believes in second chances and that he was assured it would never happen again. It happened again.

I haven't read her full review, but the sample did hint at a wee hang-up, which is unfortunate. It is so easy to fall prey to unfair generalizations when attempting to analyze a whole branch of religion. Personally, I reserve such bigoted comments for Tuesdays.

There is also the issue of lack of discipline, from which I certainly suffer (gladly, in my case). If Amanda couldn't cut it as a blogger for Edwards, what chance would I have? Nada. Part of that is because the bloggosphere has evolved to become a Dodge City of rhetoric, where people flame and bomb each other with no more qualms than kids blasting each other in a video game. It includes blithely tossing bias-bombs at our favorite targets, mostly because we CAN, and usually the worst consequence is to get flamed right back in kind.

Consequences suddenly ramp up to super-critical when you leave this sandbox and join the "adult" crowd. Funny, it was self-proclaimed "adults" that got us into the mess we're in today, wasn't it? A whole bunch of representatives and senators of both parties, using carefully scrutinized, sanitized language, steered our country into the worst financial and military blunder in our nation's history.

Oh, shit. Come back, Amanda!

"Death before being dishonored any more." - Col. Ted Westhusing

:D They may words in everyday use:

Even potentially hurtful words like nigger, cunt, wop, kike, slope, cock, uh...what are some others...greaser, spoon, spick...damn, I'm out of practice! All these words, like it or not, are part of common usage, especially among those who DON'T tend to type their words on computers.

but that doesn't make them appropriate or anyless bigoted. I agree that political correctness goes too far, but swinging to the other extreme of word usuage is just as wrong and will alienate voters.

I know a lot of people are sensitive to that one...

Thing is, I know people who use various racial slurs, cuss words and so on in the normal flow of conversation, but after careful observation of their discourse I'm not ready to condemn them or their language to the verbotenholen. I'm also not advocating cussing in political speeches and IRS tax forms, even if it might help us stay awake.

What I am advocating is allowing people to express themselves freely outside the confines of their jobs, while insisting they show the courage to broach "sensitive" subjects (like criticism of religion) in politics. If the two modes of expression do happen to highlight hypocritical aspects of their character, then let it be fodder for thoughtful discussion and learning, not grounds for condemnation and rejection. There might be something worth keeping in all that bathwater.

"Death before being dishonored any more." - Col. Ted Westhusing

:) I know where you are coming from and agree. I do think it is possible to discuss the tough subjects without spewing bile the whole time. I also think Americans have completely loss the ability to laugh at themselves. (Everyone should be forced to watch Blazing Saddles at least once in their life.) I'm not going to condemn someone for making a racist or bigoted comment, unless it constant and spiteful.

"Didn't Lenny Bruce do a pretty good stand-up routine on this topic?"

And look where that got him!

that Bruce demonstrated is because of where it got him.

The reason people sometimes find the courage to do it anyway is because of where it gets the people that come after them.

You totally said what I said, but in 4 1/2 sentences, and w/o my drama-queen-ness.
heh

"If you are working for a prominent campaign, you don't blog on your own blog once you're hired. While what you say before you are hired should largely be off limits, anything you say once you are on the payroll is definitely fair game."

Yeah, she fucked up, as Nominay said. But so did Edwards. Either he has bad judgement in who he hires, or he backed down. You are responsible for who you hire. Period. Amanda's character and writings were not concealed from anyone. It was all out there in the open, all you had to do was read her archives, or talk to people who had. They either didn't do that, or they didn't realize what it meant and didn't have a serious conversation with her about the ground rules.

And if they did have a conversation with her about the ground rules and she bucked them (and I'm not saying she did, my understanding is that she didn't, though I don't actually know), then yes, she's was unprofessional - but frankly, that doesn't make it better for Edwards.

After the first controversy, I don't see how Amanda could have thought this was a good idea. Even if there was no explicit rule laid down about blogging on her own, it was clear that the right wing was gunning for her (and her boss) and she went and handed them ammo on the exact topic they'd come after her on.

For the first go-round it's fair to say that Edwards's people may not have done their due diligence and that reflects poorly on them. However, whether or not she was told not to blog on her own time, I find it hard to believe that she wasn't asked to be careful about discussing religious topics. In fact, Edwards's public statement after the first attack said that she had promised not to do it again, and then she did within a couple of days.

...cast the first stone."

As a post-religionist, it's irritating that I have to dredge up biblical one-liners to remind y'all that we can shoot down assholes like Donahue with their own ammo.

Does Donahue pass this test? Do we? Where's the tolerance here, not to mention the forgiveness? Are we so eager to cast out those who are less cool than we? When did we decide that politics is nothing more than a horse race, and we're all looking for the best dope to shoot up our horse's ass?

Again, the problem isn't too much freedom, it's too little communication. Did Edwards ever bother to find out who Amanda was, what really makes her tick? Did he bother to have long philosophical discussions with her, thereby finding out how she might go off? Sounds to me like he didn't know her at all, and tried to add her to his machine like one of those "universal" parts from Auto Mart.

What we have here is a failure to communicate, in a sense that is too damned reminiscent of Cool Hand Luke. Amanda doesn't fully understand political media, and Edwards doesn't understand these here tubes. Both sides need to learn, or somebody's liable to lose to the weakest Republican ticket in decades.

"Death before being dishonored any more." - Col. Ted Westhusing

If her heart rebels against the constraints of polite political rhetoric, then it's best that she hit the dusty before it just gets worse and worse.

I couldn't do that political shit, either. Pass the peanuts, brother.

"Death before being dishonored any more." - Col. Ted Westhusing

Doug.

Yes, she blew it. Note that /in my article/ I say that she shouldn't have been blogging on her own site after being hired. No blogger I'm aware of ever has. And everything a campaign blogger puts up is vetted.

At the same time, who she is, and what sort of blogging she does, was not concealed from the Edwards campaign.

Amanda isn't the only person in that campaign who should be deciding they need to spend time doing other things.

And yes, the corporate media was finding the story less interesting. Toughing it out and letting her go in a month or two would have been a better solution. (After applying a gag order, very explicitly, behind the scenes.)

Edwards or his staff, hired a blogger that was not in tune with his campaign needs and Amanda accepted a job she was not qualified to do. A mismatch by both parties.

Would I blog for a politician? Not on your nelly--the language of politics is far too restrictive.

If the pot isn't constantly stirred with the element set to high, the temperature will cool.

The question is not whether she was right -- the question is whether a man who is running for president of all the United States (including those segments that believe in a Virgin Birth, sans political/gender gloss) appears tolerant to its diverse views. After nearly eight years of intolerance and divisiveness, one would hope the Democrats could do better.

Donna

The candidacy of reasonably decent Democratic candidate has been put in jeopardy because Amanda decided that the political discussion should be over whether a woman who lived 2000 years ago was virgina intacta...

at all. But I do think that it is a mistake to react based on how the right-wing folks are going to try and exploit this. I think Edwards acted appropriately and I think that in this case Clinton or Obama can say just that.

As we sit in front of quiet computers pondering the limits of this affair, it's easy to fear the worst, that somehow it will all spin out of control and land us in a disastrous situation.

Recall that we're already in a disastrous situation, and it's guys like Bill Donohue that are causing the problem, not Amanda Marcott. While it is certainly possible (let's call it quaint) to spend all day dissecting minor infractions on our own side, I recommend focusing more heavily on the enormous, nation-wrecking crimes of the right.

Bill Donohue would just love it if he could put a little jujitsu move on us and watch us tumble down the stairs. Instead, let us calmly stand our ground and oppose him. And never, ever, ever give in.

"Death before being dishonored any more." - Col. Ted Westhusing

getting a reaction is how little people with small minds multiply and increase their sense of importance. If no one had paid any attention to the Rush Limbaugh's, Hannity's, et al, they wouldn't have such a big following as they do now. The more people listen to their hate filled speech, call in, and agree with their insanity, the more people who had 'somewhat' similar' attitudes feel vindicated and unacceptable opinion grows.

Ever listen to a host who has a listener that disagrees with these yahoo's? Radio hosts have been known to hang up on these callers, then they babble on for long periods after they have cut them off, giving listeners that agree with them their jollies.

In my view, Edwards and the mismatched blogger, is a tempest in a teapot and if people do not react, cooler heads will prevail.

I see the rabbid right as wanting to continue to stir the pot by saying they will contact Hillary and Obama to attack Edwards. Starve the trolls from the attention they seek and they go play where they can incite people's reactions.

Screwball wankers that froth at the mouth like Bill Donohue are best ignored! Don't give them the time of day they so desperately crave. One has to pick their fights wisely and save energy for things that are important...such as Bush threatening world-wide peace, and destroying everything and everyone in his path that opposes him. The Bill Donohue's, Malkin's, Limbaugh's and other extremists are his instruments, but they are not the root of the problem--here today, gone tomorrow. Fools like them are put pawns in a much bigger game.