Comments on: Apologizing and Clarifying http://archpundit.com/blog/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/ Illinois, From Misery Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:42:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Will Elizabeth Edwards Resign, Too? at Blog P.I. http://archpundit.com/blog/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/comment-page-1/#comment-7941 Will Elizabeth Edwards Resign, Too? at Blog P.I. Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:32:33 +0000 http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/#comment-7941 [...] And we also know that while she holds no official position with the campaign, she has developed a reputation for usurping the paid consultants’ authority. In December of last year, she appeared in the comments of Illinois-focused ArchPundit to defend herself against charges that she led the ouster of star consultant David Axelrod, who handled Edwards’ media in 2004 (but this time is advising Barack Obama). As ArchPundit’s Larry Handlin put it, during the previous campaign her handling of consultants and staff was problematic because she tends to micromanage and many would say she cuts people out of the loop. That’s a management problem. It’s also what probably endears her to those who love her and so it’s a double edged sword. [...] [...] And we also know that while she holds no official position with the campaign, she has developed a reputation for usurping the paid consultants’ authority. In December of last year, she appeared in the comments of Illinois-focused ArchPundit to defend herself against charges that she led the ouster of star consultant David Axelrod, who handled Edwards’ media in 2004 (but this time is advising Barack Obama). As ArchPundit’s Larry Handlin put it, during the previous campaign her handling of consultants and staff was problematic because she tends to micromanage and many would say she cuts people out of the loop. That’s a management problem. It’s also what probably endears her to those who love her and so it’s a double edged sword. [...]

]]> By: gethelp http://archpundit.com/blog/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/comment-page-1/#comment-7940 gethelp Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:31:15 +0000 http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/#comment-7940 ArchPundit get help. Mudcat Saunders is choosing to work for Edwards 08 so I don't know how anyone would trust you... Mudcat gave the opening statement for Edwards in Chapel Hill 12/30/06... ArchPundit get help.

Mudcat Saunders is choosing to work for Edwards 08 so I don’t know how anyone would trust you… Mudcat gave the opening statement for Edwards in Chapel Hill 12/30/06…

]]> By: ArchPundit http://archpundit.com/blog/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/comment-page-1/#comment-7939 ArchPundit Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:51:34 +0000 http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/#comment-7939 ==Who exactly besides a spouse (or similar close family member) could be outside the traditional hierarchy and yet have the power to influence the campaign? Think close friends and associates--the kitchen cabinet. The problem isn't only related to spouses--there are any number of campaigns that have close friends doing the same thing. The problem isn't the involvement, the problem, in my opinion of how smooth campaigns operate, is when decisions are being made that aren't consistent between people at a similar level. So if the campaign manager and a friend of the campaign are going to mid-level staffers with different demands, a problem emerges. The friend or spouse or whomever should be involved, but that kind of action should probably come through the hierarchy to keep some sort of consistency. ==Who exactly besides a spouse (or similar close family member) could be outside the traditional hierarchy and yet have the power to influence the campaign?

Think close friends and associates–the kitchen cabinet. The problem isn’t only related to spouses–there are any number of campaigns that have close friends doing the same thing.

The problem isn’t the involvement, the problem, in my opinion of how smooth campaigns operate, is when decisions are being made that aren’t consistent between people at a similar level. So if the campaign manager and a friend of the campaign are going to mid-level staffers with different demands, a problem emerges. The friend or spouse or whomever should be involved, but that kind of action should probably come through the hierarchy to keep some sort of consistency.

]]> By: Cranky Observer http://archpundit.com/blog/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/comment-page-1/#comment-7938 Cranky Observer Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:44:09 +0000 http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/#comment-7938 Who exactly besides a spouse (or similar close family member) could be outside the traditional hierarchy and yet have the power to influence the campaign? Even if a candidate has a Rasputin behind the throne, if that person is not a family member he actually is part of the heirarchy - although perhaps not in a way the formal staff members would like. Cranky Who exactly besides a spouse (or similar close family member) could be outside the traditional hierarchy and yet have the power to influence the campaign? Even if a candidate has a Rasputin behind the throne, if that person is not a family member he actually is part of the heirarchy – although perhaps not in a way the formal staff members would like.

Cranky

]]> By: Julie http://archpundit.com/blog/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/comment-page-1/#comment-7936 Julie Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:39:33 +0000 http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/#comment-7936 And for the record, I have never met Elizabeth, so she may not have even felt insulted. As a matter of fact, it looks like she made a strategic decision to make a statement to correct what she saw as misinformation or incorrectly interpretted information, nipping said "information" in the bud before it took on a life of its own. This is something Gore should have done early and loudly when he was mistakenly described as a liar. Also for the record, I voted for Dean in the Iowa caucus, but I like Edwards just fine, and I think El;izabeth is one classy woman. And for the record, I have never met Elizabeth, so she may not have even felt insulted. As a matter of fact, it looks like she made a strategic decision to make a statement to correct what she saw as misinformation or incorrectly interpretted information, nipping said “information” in the bud before it took on a life of its own. This is something Gore should have done early and loudly when he was mistakenly described as a liar. Also for the record, I voted for Dean in the Iowa caucus, but I like Edwards just fine, and I think El;izabeth is one classy woman.

]]> By: ArchPundit http://archpundit.com/blog/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/comment-page-1/#comment-7937 ArchPundit Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:32:09 +0000 http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/#comment-7937 "Would you have said that if it had been a male spouse of a female candidate? You didn’t hurt her feelings, you insulted her, ok?" Yes I would have said the same to a male spouse. Why wouldn't I when her entire middle paragraph is about how her personal relationship with them is good? Seriously, if she is talking about how it mischaracterizes her relationship with two human beings, why wouldnt't that be about her feelings? ok? Let's go back to the original post--what exactly is the insult? I get that it implies sexism through the meddling spouse bit, but look at what the actual point was that I reiterated in this post. Is that not a legitimate point? How is it not? I'm happy to apologize for writing a sloppy post and for mischaracterizing her personal relationships. I am not, as I made clear, apologizing for saying she can be difficult to work with nor that her campaign management style is problematic. Both of those points are fair game. “Would you have said that if it had been a male spouse of a female candidate? You didn’t hurt her feelings, you insulted her, ok?”

Yes I would have said the same to a male spouse. Why wouldn’t I when her entire middle paragraph is about how her personal relationship with them is good? Seriously, if she is talking about how it mischaracterizes her relationship with two human beings, why wouldnt’t that be about her feelings? ok?

Let’s go back to the original post–what exactly is the insult? I get that it implies sexism through the meddling spouse bit, but look at what the actual point was that I reiterated in this post. Is that not a legitimate point? How is it not?

I’m happy to apologize for writing a sloppy post and for mischaracterizing her personal relationships. I am not, as I made clear, apologizing for saying she can be difficult to work with nor that her campaign management style is problematic. Both of those points are fair game.

]]> By: Julie http://archpundit.com/blog/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/comment-page-1/#comment-7935 Julie Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:11:15 +0000 http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2006/12/12/apologizing-and-clarifying/#comment-7935 "I’m sorry for hurting Elizabeth Edwards’ feelings" Christ, there you go again. Would you have said that if it had been a male spouse of a female cadidate? You didn't hurt her feelings, you insulted her, ok? “I’m sorry for hurting Elizabeth Edwards’ feelings”

Christ, there you go again. Would you have said that if it had been a male spouse of a female cadidate? You didn’t hurt her feelings, you insulted her, ok?

]]>