There’s two components to a winning Democratic campaign, in my eyes, for 2008. You have to bring your passion to the table in a way that John Kerry never could and Al Gore didn’t in 2000. But you also have to demonstrate the hard-nosed rapid response edge seen in Clinton ‘92 and ‘96 as well as Bush ‘00 and especially ‘04. Right now, simply by allowing the story to float out there forever the Edwards campaign is failing miserably. Every minute they sit on the pot without doing anything makes the storm bigger (and makes the comparatively well-oiled machine of the Clinton team look more “together”).
It’s a basic element of modern political campaigning.
exactly. you brought this up the other day but it’s the same deal with wes clark not having a quick and hard-nosed response to the broder smear. I just checked and I still see nothing on his site. And Edward’s team is just sitting by while this whole snowballs and the crazy right wing gets leverage over Edwards they never should have.
In your two components you didn’t ever mention a good candidate….I think you are too hung up on the wonky, technical mental masturbation of would have should have could have.
How about finding a candidate that isn’t a left wing lunatic?
A good candidate would have passion and technical ability. We’ve never nominated a left-wing lunatic, so I don’t know what you’re talking about (and neither do you).
Edwards took a serious hit on the heels of some gaffs. I hope he can recover for the sake of his supporters like Chris at mydd who is beside himself.
I don’t know if he can since the blog community was where his main support came from
I do hope my candidate never lets himself trip up like that as he can crush Hillary and save us from her possibly becoming prez.
Edwards had a decent shot at that also. It is a pity.
People, we’re still eleven months away from any vote-casting. The amount of effect this will have on the primaries is on the low side of sweet f.a.
I agree Edwards should be punching back but jeez, open the teapot and let that poor tempest out!
OW, I seldom disagree with you, but I will do now.
A) Media Matters, your employer, did a fab job of Debunking Donohue, and I’m surprised you didn’t put a link to it.
2) I think it is wrong for both the big L blogs and the RWN to force Edwards to make a decision today on his staff. I think Bower’s litmus test is BS, and we know Stoller has admitted to falling for right wing smears against Edwards.
3) The more controversal one that is only on a hunch, and that the L watchdogs will do to watch other campaigns, such as the one who says, “I’m in it to win” as though she was Bob Rumson from the flick American President.
Here’s my thought–and OW, you must help out here in giving me some leeway.
This was released today by Madam Clinton’s Internet Director, Peter Daou to potential supporters:
Dear Friend,
It’s time to end our country’s dependence on foreign oil. Unstable prices at the pump are a burden for families. Our dependence props up extremist regimes that threaten our national security. And the threat to our environment from burning fossil fuels is very real.
Solving this crisis will take genuine leadership. Hillary has proposed a plan to help end the cycle of dependence: put some of the oil industry’s windfall profits into a fund that would help develop practical new sources of renewable energy.
Although it’s a simple idea that can have a big impact, that’s apparently the last thing some people want. After Hillary announced her proposal, the same Republicans who have neglected energy policy came out of the woodwork to denounce her plan.
But we’re not interested in right-wing attacks. We want to know what you think about Hillary’s idea. Should we use some of the oil company’s record profits to fund alternative energy research? What are some other ideas to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
Where did Daou have a column? The Salon. Which candidate gets the most praise from the NYT? You guessed it, Mrs. Clinton.
This story got more play in the blogs than the rollout of JE’s UHC plan on Monday. I don’t recall much written about Mrs. Clinton’s comment about record profits to fund alternative research, especially since the last Energy bill gave plenty of that away to the big companies to pursue that, as well as what is coming up in Congress.
I think it’s weird the liberal bloggers are giving a litmus test over two provocateur bloggers. If they are taking the bait for this one from Donohue and possibly Mrs. Clinton, instead addressing the other outrageous comments Donohue has made, and applying unwarranted ultimatiums of support or not for JRE, then they are being intellectually dishonest. They are testing him as much as the RWN and will hold him to other tests.
The JE08 campaign will figure out best how to utilize talents of many staff, and answer in a way that is honest instead of jumping the shark, as some of the liberal blogs may be doing, and those bloggers don’t know it. It’s still early, and the campaign is still in organization mode.
I
I wanted to say I forgot about your side bar and Donohue. My bad.
But I think it is blind siding by Clinton and Rove.
William Donohue has absolutely no business criticizing anyone’s vulgarity or trash-talking. I’ve compiled a list of his greatest hits. Feel free to check it out: http://citizenboo.com/?p=108
This is as much a trial balloon to see how effectively the “netroots” can be hung around the necks of Dem candidates as anything, and the media, as ever, is lapping it up. Traditional media HATES bloggers, so you know the right is going to play to that insecurity. The right would love to turn “blogger” into the new “dirty hippie.” This has been a growing and persistent meme for some time now. Bloggers can’t be trusted. They’re the new “them” out to undermine our country. It took years of endless bleating about the “liberal media” to convince a wide swath of the gullible public that commie leftists controlled their tvs, and now they are going after the Internets.
Well, it looks like the Edwards campaign has, in fact, dropped both Marcotte and McEwan from their positions. So IMHO, Edwards is now either a) a nad-less wuss who caved to right-wing smear pressure (what Dem would take anything Michelle Malkin supports seriously anyway?), or b) too Internet-inept to do even the most basic research on a fairly prolific blog-writer.
Neither gives me any real confidence in the man.
Traditional media HATES bloggers, so you know the right is going to play to that insecurity. The right would love to turn “blogger” into the new “dirty hippie.” This has been a growing and persistent meme for some time now. Bloggers can’t be trusted. They’re the new “them” out to undermine our country.
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Know why? Because you’re saying it as though no conservative bloggers or blogs exist. Why would the right attempt to make blogs and bloggers into something bad considering the success blogs have had in battling mainstream media nonsense like the Rather fake memo story?
And guess what? The moment Amanda Marcotte signed on to be an official blogger for John Edwards, she ceased being part of the netroots and became part of the mainstream. Grassroots and netroots are part of a system wherein people work on getting people elected from the outside and not in any official capacity.
Once she crossed over that line that separates the netroots from the mainstream, her previous writings became relevant. You can complain about Bill Donohue all you want, but he didn’t write Marcotte’s stuff. She did.
And like I said in another post, if it was one of the GOP candidates who hired somebody like Charles Johnson to be an official blogger for their campaign, the left would be all over it like flies on shit, so all of this self-righteousness is really bogus.
“This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.”
Then you must not read your own stuff.
I’d smack you down myself, but it’s already been done.
What does that have to do with anything? I focused on your inane comments about how the right wants to turn bloggers into a dirty word as if conservatives don’t blog.
That was stupid.
Deal with it.
Senator John Edwards:
“The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwen’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 ermitted 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’texpect 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.”
Edwards was wise to wait until he had some time to converse with him. He was in two different cities yesterday, and is on the road 21 out of 28 this month.
Now, can we talk about education and health care for a change?
I’m actually impressed. Most politicians fold like cheap suits.
So which is it Jay, are you being disingenuous or stupid?
I’m not going to hijack this thread with a prolonged discussion about right wing framing devices like the constant association of a particular term or phrase with a litany of talking points. Suffice to say that everyone here is familiar with the decades long effort to reduce all arguments to variations on “liberal” or “leftist.” Creating convenient stereotypes that can be trotted out for a period and then tossed aside until needed is what the right does. When the right breaks a story via the blogs, i.e. the overblown “Rathergate,” they bring in the Malkins, Coulters, Savages, Donohues and so on (not bloggers, but “online pundits”) to provide support and amplify the story. All of these clowns come with mountains of baggage yet their word is consistently taken seriously and elevated to the national stage with network broadcast appearances. The current effort to undermine the net community behind many Dem candidates is playing out the same way.
From the Orcinus post you so blithely dismiss:
I am pleased that Edwards didn’t cave, but I think his statement seems to lend a little too much credence to Donohue’s original rant, undercutting his decision and leaving room for more attacks. Hopefully that won’t happen, but by using words like “offensive” and “intolerant” in regards to two staffers he is definitely leaving himself a bit vulnerable.
I’m not going to hijack this thread with a prolonged discussion about right wing framing devices like the constant association of a particular term or phrase with a litany of talking points.
A practice we know liberals never engage in. Oh excuse me for a second, my eyeballs just rolled out of my head.
As for Rathergate, you either have a bad memory or you’re purposely being deceitful. The story made waves through the mainstream press after conservative blogs determined the story was complete bullshit. The story then was credited where it was deserved and that was the bloggers who picked up on and ran with it.
Of course, the mainstream media wanted nothing to do with it and the Washington Post, only after enough prodding admitted that some of the information they had was initially found on blogs like LGF and Powerline and confirmed independently. They were never going to credit them. In addition, Corey Pein’s 3300 word screed in Columbia Journalism Review basically waved the bloggers as nothing but an angry mob and not deserving of any of the credit.
As for the Orcinus post, so what? I mean, do you really think that this would be any different were the tables turned? How fast would people trot out Glenn Reynolds entry where he talked about rabid anti-war types being “objectively pro-Saddam” were he to be hired by McCain or Mitt Romney or somebody else as an official blogger. Are you going to tell me that those on the left would sit idly by and say, “Oh this is no big deal. That was just his personal blog. Let’s talk about more important issues like health care!”
Anybody who believes that crap would happen will never be able to remove their head from their ass. Liberals would be in full on apoplectic mode and you know it.
if it was one of the GOP candidates who hired somebody like Charles Johnson to be an official blogger for their campaign, the left would be all over it like flies on shit, so all of this self-righteousness is really bogus.
Sure.
I remember how everybody went nuts when John McCain put Southern Partisan editor Richard Quinn on his payroll.
Of course the left would raise a stink if certain bloggers found their way onto major candidate payrolls. What are the odds of them getting airtime from Fox, MSNBC, ABC, and CNN?
I already said the mainstream media is hostile to blogs, so I’m not sure what our point is there. There have been a lot of blogger related embarrassments for the mainstream press and as a consequence I think many journalists are more than a little eager to get the odd shot in.
But you are sidestepping my original point. The right uses these types of incidents to frame the left as the domain of radical secular socialists who want to ruin America. By being aggressive and dominating the media coverage, they control the story and can decide how to spin it, regardless of any apparent hypocrisy (i.e. the Pelosi jet “controversy”). What’s more, they can intimidate office holders (or seekers) into withdrawing their commitments to certain groups, or in this case, the “netroots.” So pumping this story up has numerous benefits for the right, namely undermining liberal blogger credibility, intimidating and weakening a potentially strong Dem presidential candidate (and possibly boosting the chances of a more controversial one that would motivate more of the base to vote in ‘08), and perpetuating the stereotype that liberals hate religion and Christians in particular. Had Edwards caved, he would have handed them the ammunition to undercut any candidate with a staffer who ever operated a personal blog.
I remember how everybody went nuts when John McCain put Southern Partisan editor Richard Quinn on his payroll.
Who the hell is Richard Quinn?
Chris Bowers has set up a simple form to sign to send to MSM’s about exaggerations and lack of good investigative information.
BlogPac
OW, in case you haven’t heard, Bowers is in…Edwards’ camp.
Editor of Southern Partisan, Jay.
I guess I stand corrected. Good on Edwards for showing some stones.
Also, I’d _love_ to see Donohue and his hate-mongering try to build a coalition aginst Edwards - it’d be the best free publicity the campaign could get…
Who the hell is Richard Quinn?
Exactly my point. Quinn is a far shadier and more objectionable character than either of the bloggers Edwards has hired. When he was hired by a Republican candidate, almost nobody–liberals included–took notice.
Exactly my point. Quinn is a far shadier and more objectionable character than either of the bloggers Edwards has hired. When he was hired by a Republican candidate, almost nobody–liberals included–took notice.
Well, this was in 2000 and that makes it an apples and oranges comparison. This was before Web 2.0 and when the exchange of information through the web was still playing second fiddle in terms of content to the dot-com bust. Blogger was in its infancy (created only the year before). There was no Youtube, no Movable Type blogs, etc.
Are you going to tell me that if McCain did the same thing this election cycle, nobody would notice? Not a chance and you know it.
Are you going to tell me that if McCain did the same thing this election cycle, nobody would notice? Not a chance and you know it.
No, I’ll stick to what is observable and leave you in charge of seeing the future.
Quaker, cmon dude. Be practical ok? We don’t have to talk about the future. Let’s talk about the past. Two words: Trent Lott.
His comments at Strom’s birthday party were ignored and he most likely thought they would never see the light of day. After all, who cares about a birthday party for Strom Thurmond? The mainstream media didn’t report on it.
Ah, but the blogosphere, which by that point had exploded, spread the word about Lott’s comments. The story which wasn’t a story 24-48 hours earlier, was now a front page story. If this happened 2-3 years earlier, it would have been a blip on a few forum sites and that’s about it.
That’s why your comparison between Marcotte and this guy Quinn is not applicable.
Let’s talk about the past. Two words: Trent Lott.
Here are two more: Senator. Staffer.
In Mr. Lott’s case, people commented on the Senator’s own words. In the more recent dustup, people used the words of a hired staffer to try to malign somebody else.
Now if one of Lott’s aides had made the remark and everybody went nuts, you’d have a point.