Slow
ArchPundit
Through the weekend–you might check in, but I’ll largely be busy with some personal errands and then the announcement. Say hi if you are in Springfield.
ArchPundit
Threading the Needle
It’s about as good as he could do given the story had taken off, but it should kill it and shows some backbone:
Subject: EDWARDS STATEMENT ON CAMPAIGN BLOGGERS AMANDA MARCOTTE AND MELISSA McEWEN
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 8, 2007EDWARDS STATEMENT ON CAMPAIGN BLOGGERS AMANDA MARCOTTE AND MELISSA McEWEN
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – The statements of Senator John Edwards, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen in reference to their work as independent bloggers before joining the Edwards campaign are below.
Senator John Edwards:
“The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwe n’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.”
Amanda Marcotte:
“My writings on my personal blog, Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.”
Melissa McEwen:
“Shakespeare’s Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don’t expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I’ve posted. We do, however, share many views – including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. It has never been my intention to disparage people’s individual faith, and I’m sorry if my words were taken in that way.”
Self-Organizing and the Obama Campaign
There’s a bit more to the story though than what he said in that story and it reminded me of a good post I forgot to link to the other day just before the motherboard went kaplooeey.
Not Paul Begala at Blog PI picked up on a link to an old Chicago Reader article I had linked to which contained the following:
What makes Obama different from other progressive politicians is that he doesn’t just want to create and support progressive programs; he wants to mobilize the people to create their own. He wants to stand politics on its head, empowering citizens by bringing together the churches and businesses and banks, scornful grandmothers and angry young.
His own words:
In America … we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.
And what people said about him then — Johnnie Owens of the Developing Communities Project:
A lot of organizers you meet these days are these self-anointed leaders with this strange, way-out approach and unrealistic, eccentric way of pursuing things from the very beginning. Not Barack. He’s not about calling attention to himself. He’s concerned with the work.
And Madeline Talbott, “lead organizer of the feisty ACORN community organization”:
He is committed to organizing, to building a democracy. Above all else, he is a good listener, and we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer.
It might be stretching it to call the campaign an organization as of yet–it’s staffing up and the shortened time frame it’s operating on shows–though I think there are some incredibly bright people who will get it up and running soon enough. And as such the online activities are pretty weak as of yet and I hope to see it get off the ground.
Obama was organizing when Markos and I were still in High School and he ran one of the most effective GOTV and voter registration drives in Illinois partially based on the principle of empowering people to act on their own. The internet adds an entirely different dimension to this, but he’s a quick learner.
I do have a criticism of the Dean campaign however, and I think it’s effort at creating self-organizing wasn’t nearly effective as another campaign that year–the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign. It’s often an undertold story about how Bush increased his vote percentages nearly everywhere–even in deep blue states where he didn’t spend any money–like Illinois.
How did that happen with Barack Obama heading up the Illinois ticket and Alan Keyes depressing the Republican turnout–self-organizing in churches. Karl Rove seldom talks about this, but he is a master at using the networks created by religious conservatives to do a lot of the work without ever telling them or even communicating directly with them. They are motivated because the man they were backing seemed to them to be their guy and they set up phone banks and canvassing operations in their own community.
In contrast, Dean’s campaign attracted people from around the country to go to Iowa. Not the same effect as having your neighbor do it for you.
So, yeah, there is something to Obama’s statement sounding naive (I think it might, just might, have been a bit of useful naiveness), but it’s not Dean for America that deserves to be the model, it’s Bush-Cheney 2004.
On Marcotte and Edwards
While it isn’t resolved, Josh Marshall makes the point I’d like to see taken away from this:
Given how edgy blog writing is (some more than others), it seems inevitable that bloggers who go to work for campaigns will get their past writings scrutinized and then have their employers dogged to fire them. If there’s anything that surprises me about this dust-up with the Edwards campaign, it’s this. Is it really possible that they hadn’t figured out who they were hiring, figured something like this would happen and planned for how they would react if and when it did?
That said, the ‘incendiary’ quotes I just heard referenced on CNN didn’t really strike me as all that incendiary. And second, Bill Donohue? Chief rabblerouser and bullyboy of the ‘Catholic League’? Please. I think he gave up his ‘incendiary’ language complaint rights when he said that ” “Hollywood likes anal sex” or that “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.” I can’t wait till he comes with the dig that gets Jews, Christians and anal sex all into one long smoldering sentence.
Please. Please. Please. Let’s get someone on the right to complain who’s not a complete nutball and Jew-basher and then we can talk.
If you are a campaign hiring a blogger you have to do your due diligence and that includes ensuring what they have written is something you can live with. This might entail looking at the writings and insisting on something apologizing for some over the top language/idea, it might be simply getting ready for the inevitable right wing smears, or it might be deciding to go a different direction.
The Edwards campaign could have quashed this days ago and earned points doing it by having Amanda make a statement concerning the posts in question and preemptively dealing with it. When the whines started, it’s a dead story and simply don’t comment on it again. They didn’t and now they have let it languish and build up steam to get on cable news. That’s mismanaging the story and it has a lot in the blogosphere on edge largely because they see it as a betrayal to Amanda. Killing the story would have been easy, but now by being wishy-washy, the story continues taking away from the day’s message and getting coverage for loons on CNN and Fox.
Being prepared means preempting the idiots. But once you screw up, don’t back down.
Don’t Hurt Him
What’s right, and what’s not
by: pam
Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 13:30:00 PM ESTA CWA piece up today alerted me to the fact that there was a string of comments in a subthread of a particular post from a while back, that not only published private information about Peter LaBarbera, but contained threats. Whether they were real or not is irrelevant; it’s reprehensible — and it’s not what this community is about.
Given the amount of traffic and limited time I have, I don’t get to comment on or read every exchange in every post; there are community standards that were clearly violated by the exchanges, and I have rightfully deleted the comments.
I have never advocated threatening physical harm toward anyone, as I have been on the receiving end of the same treatment — and it doesn’t feel good, let me tell you.
We may be on the opposite sides of the fence on most matters from the people we discuss and comment about here on the Blend, but on this we can agree — our families (whether LaBarbera regards mine as such) have a right to be safe.
To be serious for a second, good for Pam and you are banned permanently if you pull any crap like that here.
Daily Dolt
On the February 5 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh, responding to media coverage of Chicago Bears quarterback Rex Grossman, stated “they’re dumping on this guy — Rex Grossman — for one reason, folks, and that’s because he is a white quarterback.” Limbaugh later insisted in conversation with a caller that, “they just want this guy not to do well ’cause he’s a white quarterback,” and that Grossman was “targeted for destruction.” The Bears lost to the Indianapolis Colts 29-17 in Super Bowl XLI.
I think Grossman gets more flak than he deserves, but it isn’t because he’s white. It’s that tendency to throw the ball to the other team.
The Problem
Since the beginning of January I’ve been following the different attacks on Obama. They have something in common in that they start as rumors on the great internets. I’m the last person to say the internet isn’t useful for information, but the problem is that the stories start and then migrate.
Eric Zorn at one point said something to the effect that it isn’t 1997–but in 1997 this had already been occurring for several years, just with different technology and it was a bit slower. The Elder Bush having an affair. Clinton doing just about everything and anything.
Already this crap started to infiltrate the regular news media. Now, it happens really fast–take the Obama’s church advocates black supremacy. I found it in late December and posted it on January 2nd pointing out how incredibly dumb the story was, but that it would be the next story after the madrassa lies.
Some of it is simply decentralized crap–I take my Jerry Weller story as that and still feel like a huge dumbass for it. But I apologized, corrected it and bring it up to point out I don’t expect people to be perfect, but the serial lying that is going on isn’t just a bunch of isolated mistakes, but a clear and coherent strategy to attack politicians and get the press to put the allegations into print even if as denials.
Look at Tom Roeser and Illinois Review as great examples. Only yesterday, Illinois Review had John Ruskin claiming that Obama never fully explained his attendance at a madrassa. Of course, Obama attended a public school referred to as a sekhola and there couldn’t have been any Wahhabist funding as Ruskin claimed because that didn’t start happening in foreign schools (and the school in question is public anyway) until years later. Roeser is still blaming Obama for not being forthright even though Obama had written about the school in his books and only some crackpots raised any concern about it.
Look at the claims that Obama attends a black supremacist church. It was started by Fran Eaton at the Illinois Review and it made it into a Trib article with people warning that Obama had to fully explain the beliefs–even though I found an explanation on the Church’s web site.
Look at the smear yesterday on Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson from the same site.
There’s a theme here and it’s replayed over and over again in different settings. There is an infrastructure that gets right wing memes covered and the press covers it. As I’ve said, the Weller thing happened the other way and I was largely at fault for that, but there’s a key difference in that I issue corrections and apologize and don’t keep the lies alive. How many more times during this campaign are we going to be hearing about Obama having some tie to Islamist elements? Or that he attends a far left church? Or that the Democrats had some guy who stood with Paul Wolfowitz say a prayer and so clearly the Democrats are crazy?
UPDATE: And let’s not forget the post comparing Obama to Barbaro on Illinois Review just as they were putting Barbaro down/Update
Part of this is Democrats’ fault for not fighting back consistently, but part of it is a realization of what the game is on the right wing now. We had the attacks on Kerry with Malkin claiming Kerry got his purple heart by shooting himself. Chris Mathews called her on it, but she still shows up on my teevee. Why?
We have CNN covering a lie about Nancy Pelosi and ‘her’ requests for a bigger jet even though non-partisan House staff already pointed out the story is false.
Why is this crap being allowed to make the news? It’s not that some innocent mistakes are made, it’s that even when shown wrong, the stories continue along without ever being corrected and make it into the news over and over again.
The Tribune did a long rebuttal to the Swift Boating of Kerry. It was authoritative. How many of these sites still tell that story is true?
Don’t Back Down
While the blogs are a flutter with whether another Amanda Marcotte is being fired by the Edwards campaign, let’s point out what’s going on.
The effort to get Edwards to fire Marcotte is from one of the biggest idiots on the planet, William Donahue of the Catholic League. If you criticize Bill, you are anti-Catholic. And lot’s more like:
* “Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style.” [MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, 2/27/04]
* “The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done.” [MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, 4/11/05]
* Addressing former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) in a press release, Donohue said: “[W]hy didn’t you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn’t allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?” [10/4/06]
* “I’m saying if a Catholic votes for Kerry because they support him on abortion rights, that is to cooperate in evil.” [MSNBC’s Hardball, 10/21/04]
* “We’ve already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, OK? And I’m not afraid to say it. … Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost.” [MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, 12/8/04]
* “Well, look, there are people in Hollywood, not all of them, but there are some people who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn’t care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face.” [MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, 2/9/06]
It’s kind of like one person embodying all of Illinois Review, and apparently the Edwards campaign might just do what he wants. The other person primarily pushing it is Michelle Malkin. She publishes on V-Dare amongst other sites. It also publishes Jared Taylor of the American Renaissance and celebrates Sam Francis. V-Dare is at the very center of modern white supremacy and the movement supporting it.
If you can’t stand up to those two, who can the campaign stand up to?
And to the media? Why are Donahue and Malkin given any credibility? Why don’t you start putting Indymedia columnists on the news to balance them out? Because that’s only a start to how far left you’d have to go to find a similar voice.
Correction
Debbie Halvorson didn’t have cervical cancer, only precancerous cells
Halvorson (D-Crete) learned that her annual Pap smear showed abnormal cells. Follow-up tests revealed precancerous cells on her cervix. She had never even heard of the human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer. Knowing her mother, Joyce De Francesco, now 68, had breast cancer at 49, Halvorson says she had “a panic response.”
“I was pretty scared. If I had let this go, I would have had cervical cancer,” she recalls. She told her doctors: “Just get rid of everything. I want to be done with this.”
Halvorson had a complete hysterectomy. She was 44.
So clearly there is less of a need to be a decent human being regarding her
Ummmm…Is This Parody
David Sirota claims no one has criticized Obama for the message of hope. In the same post, he criticizes (in fact in the title) hope as a theme.
Of course, it’s also a smack back at Edwards who said
“Identifying the problem and talking about hope is waiting for tomorrow.”
All this is, is two candidates talking a little smack and I like both of them, one more than the other, but both of them. Suggesting that Obama is setting up a strawman is silly. He’s specifically addressing something Edwards said and the implication is clear. I don’t want this to turn into a Edwards bashing thing here because if Edwards or others win the nomination (other than Biden (lol) or Clinton) I would hate to eat my words, especially when the field has some great candidates.
There are several issues here. First, Sirota holds Obama to a higher standard than say Edwards or Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer–both great guys and great Democrats. He also gives ammunition to the right wing every time he pulls this crap and his stuff shows up on right wing blogs like Illinois Review often distorted using his own words. It’s fine to criticize other Democrats, and all of us say things that can be misconstrued, but Sirota has made a one-sided pattern of this with Obama for some reason so let’s reprint the open letter to David from a while ago:
I can’t claim credit for the following, though, I have to say, I pretty much agree with it. If you need someone to ’sign it’, I’m fine with me being that person. And for the record, I think Schweitzer is a political stud.
OPEN LETTER TO DAVID SIROTA
Dear David:
I enjoy reading your blogs and opinions. However, as I read your recent
post about Barack Obama?s speech on faith and politics, it got me to
wondering.You start by saying, ?One of the most infuriating behaviors among some
Democrats these days is their willingness to create fake straw men that
undermine progressives and reinforce false narratives about the Democratic
Party.?Leaving aside for the moment that if blogs couldn?t do this it?s likely
they would go out of business, I read a story just two days before Obama?s
speech about another Democrat whom I think you are very familiar with ?
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. You live in Montana and you?ve been
paid by Schweitzer during his past campaigns.Governor Schweitzer told Paul Nussbaum of Knight-Ridder newspapers that
?Democratic presidential candidate with hopes of carrying Montana would
have to tap into that independence and speak frankly to the gun issue,
Schweitzer said? ?I’d tell him to tell people he respects their Second
Amendment rights?.?While you scold Obama for allegedly setting up a straw man to falsely
display courage saying Obama ?doesn?t offer any names to tell us who
constitutes? the ?we? who ?fails to acknowledge the power of faith in the
lives of the American people.? ?Why? Because there are none. What
Democrat of any prominence at all in America ?fails to acknowledge the
power of faith in the lives of the American people?? I can?t think of one.
It is a straw man – one that might make Obama look like a man of ?courage?
or ?principle? – but one that dishonestly reinforces right-wing
stereotypes about supposedly ?godless? liberals/Democrats.?David, can you tell me ONE recent Democratic Presidential candidate that
didn?t respect the Second Amendment?For that matter, can you tell me ONE Democrat of any prominence at all in
America that doesn?t ?respect their Second Amendment rights??Or is Schweitzer setting up a straw man to portray himself as
?independent? and ?not some East Coast liberal? that dishonestly
reinforces right-wing stereotypes about Democrats as people who want to
take guns away from citizens, not respect the Second Amendment and as the
party that doesn?t even recognize the lawful rights of hunters?You give Obama credit for the idea of reaching out to religious
constituencies as I give credit to Schweitzer for wanting to reach out to
those that own guns. But in your next sentence you say ?individual
high-profile Democrats need to stop regurgitating false right-wing
storylines just to promote their own individual ambitions.?Did I miss your critique of Brian Schweitzer?s straw man arguments? I
hope your professional relationship with the Governor hasn?t caused you to
become intellectually dishonest.You say ?it doesn?t help the Democratic Party?s efforts to better connect
with evangelicals when a high-profile leader like Obama gives a speech on
that very subject that implies that Democrats (again unnamed) supposedly
don?t care about religion.?Does it help when Brian Schweitzer implies that Democrats want to
confiscate the guns of law abiding citizens?Again, maybe I missed your critique of your former employer.
One aspect you failed to mention in your post is the section in Obama?s
speech that chastises the leaders of the Religious Right who threaten the
separation of church and state or who use faith to divide people or those
that use faith to cynically justify the political result they want. Yes,
Obama had the courage to put that in his speech even if you failed to
acknowledge it (maybe you didn?t read the entire speech?).I noticed in the article about Schweitzer that was proud to be both a
member of the NRA and happy to have the endorsement of the NRA.
?Politicians in Montana are extremely skittish about crossing swords with
the NRA, and that’s why it’s a coveted endorsement? said Montana State
University political science professor Craig Wilson.I wonder if Schweitzer agrees with everything the NRA says? Does he
believe that those who enforce gun law are ?jack-booted thugs? as the NRA
once called them? Even Former President George H.W. Bush disavowed that
statement. Maybe Schweitzer believes there aren?t enough guns in America
or that terrorists who bought guns at unregulated gun shows shouldn?t be
subject to a criminal background check?Maybe Brian Schweitzer has the ?courage? to speak out against the NRA? Or
maybe I missed that courageous speech and your blog post scolding him too.More likely, Brian Schweitzer believes that guns don?t kill people, people
kill people ? the regurgitating of the same false right-wing storylines
just to promote his own individual ambitions.