The Edwards Kerfuffle

John Edwards is running for president in 2008. He's trying to put together an online presence and brought on board two women, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, who have said more than a few intemperate things on their own websites and elsewhere in the blogosphere. By intemperate, I mean they've said things that are racist, gender stereotyped, and other statements that would get a right-leaning blogger pilloried.

They've got the right to say all those things, but does Edwards really want to associate himself with folks who make a habit of saying this kind of stuff? Their respective websites are full of hateful commentary and invective.

The answer to that question is yes.

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan'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.

Sister Toldjah and Allah both think that this shows the unseriousness of the Edwards campaign and that no one should step in the way of Edwards shooting himself in the foot with this move (which I think was a no-win situation to begin with). He can't stand up to the netroots, so how could he stand up to threats made by foreign powers against the US? Is he unwilling to alienate a core constituency by throwing out bad apples that might tarnish his chances down the road?

The thing is, Edwards should never have let himself get in this position in the first place. He's been forced to defend the indefensible because someone on his staff didn't vet the employees thoroughly enough. That shows that they either didn't do a good job, or didn't think it would be a problem. Either way, it is a flaw that will be exploited by other candidates down the road. Confederate Yankee also weighs in.

This also puts Marcotte and McEwan in a tough spot since they're repudiating everything they've written that might have been offensive just so that they can continue working the Edwards campaign. What does this tell you about their political views, their opinions, their commitment to a stated position? Were their prior statements just posturing to gain power for power's sake? Is their current position posturing? Both?

Jeff Goldstein opines:

But lost on these Marcotte supporters—who are cheering on the power of the “netroots” to cow a politician into keeping on an ugly and hateful liability—is that Edwards just showed up Marcotte and McEwan as both frauds and posturing blowhards, writers who have been pulling the wool over their audiences’ eyes by posting vicious “arguments” they never truly believed. To use the loaded language of establishment feminism—he publicly castrated them—and in so doing, he made fools out of their audiences, to boot.

Further, in doing so, he has shown himself to be nothing more than a calculating political opportunist of the worst sort—one who believes the voting public so daft they might actually buy a statement like the one he just released.

This should be a mess for all involved. That is, if it gets remembered by anyone in a month's time? Also, given the way people are 'rewarded' for apologizing for acts, even when they do not appear sincere, this episode will quickly fade.