The company we keep.

[pecunium]

John Edwards hired a pair of bloggers.

Bloggers who, qu'elle surprise share his views.

Which caused some people to go apoplectic (I'd have said ape-shit, but that would be vuglar), and say that he needs to fire them; since they in their private capacity as bloggers have been known to use foul language. One of them even said some mean things about the positions of the Catholic Church.

Right now there are rumors that the two are going to be fired. That would be stupid on Edwards part. It would be stupid if the people complaining were on his side, but they aren't. They are people who will be voting, come the primaries, for the person the Republicans will be running against Edwards (for the sake of this argument, and all arguments [until a candidate is selected] I will assume whomever I am writing about is going to be the candidate, it's a conditional stipulation).

Why, in the name of sweet reason, should he listen to campaign advice from people who want him to lose?

Glenn Greenwald has a good post up on the relative merits of the various bloggers working for the nascent campaigns right now.

There are a lot of reasons for Edwards (or any other candidate) to reject such pleas.

1: It's from the opposition.
2: It cedes the initiative.
3: It makes him look weak, not just to the opposition but (more importantly) to his potential supporters.
4: It makes him look stupid; which will sway those who aren't sure yet.

This really is a make or break sort of moment.

The last two are the important parts. If the opposition thinks you are weak, they will keep pushing you around. It's a form of bullying, and it can't be allowed to gain traction. Kerry lost a lot of ground with the undecided middle when he 1: didn't come out swinging at the Swift Boa Boys, and 2: when he let the Bush campaign tell him to muzzle MoveOn.org.

If Edwards lets these idjits push Amandanda Marcote and Melissa McEwan off his team, they (or some other group) will try to tell him who next is unacceptable.

The stupid part... If Edwards' team didn't have the brains to vett these two, and were shown they had written things (which are still on the internet, where anyone can find them) with which Edwards couldn't agree, then he's not smart enough to be worth electing (if this is how thorough they are, when it's something as small; and important, as a campaign, how can you trust him to appoint an ambassador to Malaysia, or any other part of something so large, and important, as the entire swath he would control as president?).

There are other issues on this subject, relating to how "the Left" and "the Right" see the blogosphere, and what strategies need to be used in dealing with those diffreneces, but for now, this is Edwards' fight to lose.

I've not made up my mind on a candidate; Edwards was looking pretty good. If he caves in to this sort of pressure, he's slipped a long way back, in my estimation of his merits.

If you want to share your thoughts with him, (I have) you can do so here

Comments

[texaslawchick.livejournal.com]

Plus, sometimes you just need to call a motherfucking jackass a motherfucking jackass. There's nothing wrong with that.

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

For the record, I always thought Edwards was a bit of a weenie. I was actually dissapointed in Marcote for selling out to him.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Obviously we should take our lessons in propriety from Mr. Donohue, who goes on television to inform us that Hollywood is run by secular Jews who like anal sex.

[saoba.livejournal.com]

I emailed the Edwards campaign and politely suggested that keeping them on the staff would be swell.

Then I stewed for a bit and got on the phone. Their voice message mailbox was full. Who'da thunk! So their system put me on hold briefly then gave me a Real Live Person.

Said Real Live Person was clearly bemused by the uproar. Again I was polite. I stressed that I am a fifty one year old grandmother and that my good opinion of Edwards wold take a very serious hit if he caved in on this issue.

I asked them to take back our public discourse. I told her naughty words aren't a threat to this country, but obscene public policies are. I pointed out that surrendering to the right wing noise machine was not how you win votes, beginning with mine.

There was a lot of stammering and silence on the other end. I asked if a statement would be forthcoming and was told she beleived so but couldn't say when. Then she assured me that my concerns would be passed on to the Senator.

Grrrrrf.

Who in their right mind takes the advice/demands of their opponents on who to hire? Dude, those people are not your friends and they don't have the best interests of your campaign at heart.

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

He says that like it's a bad thing.

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the heads-up. My note to them: "Are you guys seriously considering firing some of your bloggers because your opponents are squawking about them? If you're taking campaign advice from people who want you to lose, then you deserve to lose, quite frankly. Please either say this rumor is unfounded, or grow a spine and tell 'em to shove it!"

Edwards, I agree, looks good, emphasis looks

[bellatrys.livejournal.com]

that is to say, his positions are better than many, in that he appears to have some genuine concern for the poor and needy and marginal, and in person he presents as passionate and principled. However, the question of whether he, like sHillary (I like Pam Spaulding's coinage) and (it's looking ever like) Obama and so many other Democratic politicians past and present, is anything more than an empty shirt making the right noises, is a valid one - particularly with the growing concerns that he is pandering to the war-fetishists. If he is this much of a marshmallow, he certainly can't be president, or even nominee: the question is, how the hell heck did he manage as a trial lawyer?

I, personally, have a further concern, stemming from the day I volunteered for his campaign when they came to town: his staff was very un-interested in local conditions, local people, uninterested in dealing with us except as cattle, utterly insular and very pompous and condescending. (The only person involved with them who was at all human was the putting up the backdrop, and I'm not sure that he wasn't a private contractor.) There was no follow-up, no attempt to build a grassroots Edwards-boosting movement in town - despite this being the largest population center, and one where it came right down to the wire, Kerry-Edwards winning by a small margin in town.

Subsequently, recently, some wavering Republicans I know were likewise extremely unimpressed by the Edwards entourage at one of his local book-signings: they were apparently rather rude and/or oblivious to how they were inconveniencing other customers at the bookstore, and offput my informants as much as those staffers had to me, two years ago.

in short,

[bellatrys.livejournal.com]

he reminds me very much in this regard of Bill Clinton, the one who gave us welfare reform and DADT and caved on health care and so on.

[prophet-marcus.livejournal.com]

I don't see what the fuss is all about anyway. The important thing that the Democrats need to remember is that Americans rarely elect senators to the White House. Is anyone running who isn't a senator this time? I know I'm not the only person to notice this trend - at least one talking head analyst on CNN has mentioned this fact. They should be scoping out their governors other prominant democrats. Generals are good - at the polls anyway.

[lalouve.livejournal.com]

I was a little confused by the statement issued on how he didn't like how they talk to people, and how noone employed by him will be permitted to talk like that. I thought you hired bloggers because they wrote things people read, and that would, presumably, mean they talk to them the right way? But I'm just a blunt Swede, who is inclined to not use euphemisms for the droppings of a male bovine...