TPM Reader AG on Edwards, et al.: “I’m sad to see that this whole “controversy” over John Edwards’ bloggers is yet another example of what you’ve termed the “bitch-slap theory” of politics. If the Edwards campaign buckles under the “pressure” of some as petty as Michelle Malkin and Bill Donahue, then the meta-message is that he’s even more of a wimp that John Kerry. I can understand the campaign not wanting this to become a distracting “issue”, but I think the way to effectuate that is to basically laugh off the entire “controversy” rather than buckle under.”
And TPM Reader NG (no relaton) …
My husband and I would likely be described as “liberal” Catholics by the rest of the world. Maybe we are. I do read TPM. I don’t like William Donahoe either. He’s way into victimhood. Yes people make remarks about the Catholic Church that they would never make about other religions. The criticism is often uninformed or ignorant. But Roman Catholics are not persecuted in the U.S. We are free to practice our religion. I’ve read Pandagon in the past. I read it because I wanted to read a feminist blog. I thought they spent too much time cruising the right-wing blogosphere. I also found their criticisms of the church to be rather redundant. Yes I really have read it all before. It’s fine if you want to make them but don’t pretend to be original or cutting-edge.
There is another aspect of this case that has received little mention but I find it interesting. Marcotte made another controversial post about the Duke Lacrosse sexual assault case that received some attention. (I’m a criminal defense attorney and have been following the case.) The blog entry parroted the conventional feminist prosecutorial spin on the case with no real thought as to how the later developments have changed the case. Marcotte is never going to change her mind about this one. The problem is that John Edwards old law partner, Wade Smith, is representing one of the defendants in that case. Smith and at least one other defense lawyer have also contributed to Edwards’s past campaigns. I do not know how close Smith and Edwards are. But I might be annoyed if my former law partner hired somebody to work for him that trashed my high profile client in a public forum. The situation may have made Edwards uncomfortable.
I do feel bad for almost anybody who loses their job. But I wonder why Marcotte was a good fit for a political campaign. She may be witty but she is terribly predictable and seems to have trouble adjusting to new information. I think that would be a problem for someone running for office. But I’m just a lawyer and what do I know.
Then there’s TPM Reader GN …
Normally I’d agree with you regarding Donohue’s waiver of credibility, but even a broken watch is right twice a day.
The comment regarding the Church forcing women to give birth so as to provide “tithing” Catholics smacked of (what I had hoped) was long-gone 19th century biases against Catholics– that they are a slavish people in thrall to an all powerful hierarchy employing superstition to keep people in line, and that the Church itself is an organized racket to take advantage of such people.
Look, there’s more than enough legitimate reason to criticize the Church’s position on birth control without resorting to ad hominem (or ad institutionem!) attacks. Obviously Edwards can hire who he wants– but how can one be surprised that he’d fire people showing such cavalier disrespect towards an important traditional Democratic voting base?
Or TPM Reader DF …
Edwards has staked out some pretty strong positions on healthcare, the war in Iraq, and although I can’t remember him saying so, I’m pretty sure he’s in favor of decisive action vis a vis climate change. Great.
These are all issues that have reached a crisis point of one kind or another. So today the righties put a little heat on his bloggers (over the kind of nontroversy that they are so adept at exploiting)- and he
cuts them loose. Can we expect him to stay strong on those important issues that are not yet crises?
