No scalps for Donohue, says John Edwards:
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. 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.
And if you ask me, he did the right thing. You can tut-tut about whether or not he should have hired them in the first place- sure, it would have been safer to hire people with a less controversial past, but he chose them, they are qualified, and he is sticking with them.
If you ask me, that is admirable. Giving people a chance, taking people at their word, and standing by people who are willing to go to great ends to help you succeed is the right thing to do, especially two younger people who picked up everything to move across the country to help your campaign. Andrew Olmsted made a lot of sense with this post:
I’ve stayed away from the whole Edwards-bloggers fiasco because, to be blunt, I really don’t care. But I do concur with Ezra Klein about the larger picture: what should matter to the Edwards campaign is not what stupid things these two bloggers have said in the past, but are they qualified for the jobs Edwards needs them to do. And he’s right. If Edwards hired these two to help with drafting policy, their intemperate words would probably be somewhat relevant. But since he’s paying them to do non-policy related jobs, their particular positions on issues say precisely zero about what Edwards believes.
I’m not a fan of Edwards, and I hope he goes down in flames during the primaries. But the fact he hired two people who have a habit of saying silly things on their blogs shouldn’t reflect on his campaign, and the bloggers shouldn’t have to face the threat of being fired from jobs they seem eminently qualified to perform for unrelated issues.
Exactly. I am no fan of John Edwards and am, at this point, not inclined to support his candidacy, but this action, while perhaps risky (who knows what they will say in the future), shows a lot of character. It is also clear that I was very much enjoying the whole scenario as it unfolded, if for no other reason than the past viciousness of Amanda. But loyalty matters to me, and I think people who are willing to stick their neck out to defend their employees, particularly younger ones, deserve some praise and some credit. John Edwards has also done every blogger a favor- your past comments will not be a litmus test for your ability to do your job in an unrelated field. We all should support that.
My opinion of John Edwards is a little higher today than it was yesterday.
See also the Carpetbagger.
matt
John, what don’t you like about Edwards? I have a weird opinion of him where I think he’s a bit of a phony, but still genuinely passionate about the issues he speaks about.
matt
I realized seconds after hitting submit that I criticized a politician for seeming phony, heh.
Andrew
But he owns a big house!
John Cole
I think he is shifty, too calculated, and a number of other things. One thing that really irked me recently was an interview I saw with him in which he stated he understands why he is opposed to gay marriage (his southern religious upbringing) and that he thinks it is likely people are born gay, but still wouldn’t support gay rights. Seemed calculated, as if he was running the numbers of how many votes he would lose if he did support gay marriage.
I will give him a chance, however, but my gut instinct is to not trust him.
I do not, however, think he is stupid.
John S.
Just out of curiousity, John, are there any potential candidates out there you feel you could trust?
As far as I can tell, 2008 is shaping up to be a year of voting for the least detrimental candidate rather than the best one.
Tsulagi
As I just commented in the Spectering post before seeing this one, good for Edwards. Best thing to do is ignore those assholes like Donohue and just let them inbreed among themselves until they die out.
Ditto.
matt
John S, how do you feel about Obama?
vinc
Who, if anyone, do you like?
John S.
I think it is too early for him to be running, as I don’t think he has enough political experience.
One of the reasons I disliked Bush in 2000 was that I didn’t feel he had enough experience in politics. A few years as governor didn’t seem like enough trial by fire for someone making a bid to run the country (boy was I right in that estimation) and similarly I don’t think a few years as a senator is enough qualification either.
I realize that being newcomer to politics can be an advantage since you don’t have as much of a track record for people to attack, but conversely I think a lack of a track record doesn’t give a candidate enough substance to run on. Talk is cheap – I like to see results.
Personally, given the world of shit the winner in 2008 is going to inherit, I would like to see someone with the experience to deal with matters like war and terrorism. In my mind the best person for the job is Wesley Clark (which is what I thought in 2004) with a good diplomatic politician to back him up as VP.
But I don’t think we will see that happen.
sidereal
I know! Unlike that election where we weren’t just voting for the least poisonous clownshoe, in. . uh. . hm. When was that again?
Bob In Pacifica
I wouldn’t have been surprised or offended if he’d dumped them.
He does sound good there. I also find him a little shifty, but then that’s what politicians do. As far as the size of his house is, I note that in places where I visit that seems to be a hot topic among the right. That is, anyone who is in any way egalitarian must wear a hairshirt and then endure endless criticism for his fashion style.
Now I am bugged by John Mellencamp selling that crappy imitation of “This Land Is Your Land” and forcing me to wear down the mute button during football season. He’s got a big house too. He didn’t need to pimp that piece of crap.
My problem with Marcotte was her willful ignorance of the Duke case. When the DA in a case has almost three hundred examples of ethics violations in a state bar complaint against him on this trial alone, shooting from the hip in presuming someone’s guilt makes you look kind of stupid.
I guess Edwards saw something I didn’t see. Good for him. Hope he’s right.
Bob In Pacifica
“…he hired two people who have a habit of saying silly things on their blogs…”
Falsely reporting about a criminal case where the defendants could get thirty years in jail doesn’t seem silly to some people.
John S.
Point taken.
My comment shall be amended to read as:
2008 is shaping up to be yet another year of voting for the least detrimental candidate rather than the best one.
Bubblegum Tate
But…Michelle Malkin says that the Edwards bloggers are unhinged! How can this be?
Zifnab
Ok, much as in the John Murtha debate, I demand you present me with a human being suitable to receive your vote for the Most Power Person In The World (ie POTUS) status. You can pick anybody. Just give me a name and a reason he’s better than the spread.
ThymeZone
This is war! Can American build enough teapots to hold the tempests of Bloggorheaville, and of the Great Presidential Campaign of 2007? Er, 2008. Or Whatever.
And to think I could be spending a perfectly good afternoon pulling my fingernails out with pliers.
Andrew
Me! Because as president, I would use my unitary executive powers to require ACTUAL cage fights between bloggers.
AP
I wonder how much of it was “character” and how much of it was fear of the threats Chris Bowers made at MyDD. Anyway, on the topic of Edwards, Bob Somerby gives him a bit of a scolding today while constantly emphasizing that he liked the guy and may end up supporting him.
Filthy McNasty
Edwards will be the next Ned Lamont. Flew a bit off the ground, held aloft by a weak and vulgar left wing, then grounded into the dustbin of history. And Amanda can eventually go back to spending more time with her abortions and her lifelong avocation of cum-guzzling.
Meanwhile, the next 21 months will be loaded with fun!
Sirkowski
Who does not have any controversies in their past? There’s a difference between killing babies and making jokes about God cumming inside the Virgin Mary. The obscession with electing people with no controversy surrounding them results that we end up electing people who are good liars. Who are able to hide the fact that they’re dangerous dysfunctionnal coke snorters. And then we’re surprised when the shit hits the fan.
Edwards stickin’ it to Donohue and the concern troll police gives you a better chance if you someday decide to run for public office, John.
Andrew
I would make Filthy cage fight the Duke lacrosse team.
Mark Adams
John, just as you have gained some respect for Edwards, I’ve gain some respect for the way you have looked at this episode. I rarely will ever agree with your politics, or you mine. But today, good for you. Well said.
Vladi G
I sympathize with the idea of some that Edwards should have fired back at the dipshits who were pushing this whole line of attack in the first place, but ultimately, I have no problem with his statement. He had absolutely nothing to gain by firing them, and a lot to lose if he had done so. Keeping them on board doesn’t cost him any primary votes.
In addition, he’s in a position where he can’t be blindsided by this issue. If he goes on Wolf Blitzer’s show and isn’t prepared for a question about this whole issue, he’s an idiot. And it really shouldn’t be a very difficult question to answer.
ThymeZone
Certainly the most astute observation of the day.
John Cole
By safer, I mean it owuld have been safer to avoid this whole situation by hiring someone else. I don’t think that can be argued.
And you are right- Edwards has set a standard- there will be no litmus test, and I think that is a good thing.
Pb
John S.,
I see where you’re coming from, but I’ve got to say, I’m far more encouraged by Obama’s experience than I am with Bush’s experience.
Pb
Zifnab,
Mr. T. Ah pity the foo’ who don’t vote for Mr. T.
AkaDad
Obama has been in political office for 12 years and has won 5 elections. That’s about the same as Hillary and Edwards combined.
Zifnab
Wasn’t he President of the State Senate in Illionis? I know he didn’t just get plucked from obscurity.
Jake
OT: Speaking of standing by your woman, am I hallucinating or are there ads for ladies clad in Fredrick’s of Hollywood style garb in the side bar?
Alert His Holiness Donahue!
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
You’re doing a heckuva job, Mandy.
Paul L.
Why would the Duke lacrosse team have a problem with the Filthy?
Amanda on the other hand.
Speedy case. That is why Nifong pushed to delay the trial until this spring when the defense tried to get a earlier date.
That said I support John Edwards decision to keep Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. But then I suspect it will come back to bite him on the rear.
AkaDad
Honestly I don’t know…
AkaDad
Mea Culpa
On his website it says…During his seven years in the Illinois state Senate
Ugh now I have to find where I saw those other figures I mentioned.
feral1
John,
It says a lot that you are able to look past your own conflict with Marcotte in this situation.
Personally, I think Edwards made a mistake in hiring her based on what I’ve seen of her behavior in the Duke case.
I’m far left, and by disposition have little sympathy for the defendants in the Duke case. I have no doubt that the lacrosse players acted like little shitheads towards the stripper at that party and some of them may have even sexually assaulted her.
Having said all that though, it doesn’t look like there was enough evidence to bring rape charges against the specific players that were accused. Marcotte has ignored this reality in an intellectually dishonest way. I have high standards for my lefty compatriots. She did not meet them.
John S.
Zifnab-
I already presented my choice for candidate and why I like them above. Just scroll up.
Pb-
I didn’t mean to make an equivalant statement about Bush’s experience comapred to Obama’s experience. Rather, I simply meant to convey that I don’t think either of them are qualified for the oval office (although Bush ironically more so after inhabiting it for 6 years).
Filthy McNasty
Edwards looks good in the short run, at least to the left side of the blogosphere. Prior to this dustup, I actually thought he had a chance of getting to the head of the pack and winning the nomination of his party. But his attachment to these revolting specimens, admirable as it may be to the Kossacks, will scuttle his presidential ambitions as surely as Lamont’s senatorial amitions were ended for, among other things, his support of Jane Hamsher and her ilk.
Edwards is finished.
Tsulagi
You got that right Filthy. I’m looking forward to the comedy…
Surger McCain: Bush’s surge is not my surge! Mine would have worked. Like Conrad Burns smartly said, you keep your secret plan secret from everybody then it can’t fail.
Cross-dressing Rudy: Okay, yeah, a few minor issues with stocking Gracie Mansion with girlfriends while my wife was taking up space there. But Jesus has now shined his light on me and he loves me, bitches.
Romney: Read my lips where I stand at this moment. Sure, I was for abortion before I was against abortion until I was again for abortion then it became clear I wasn’t. Ditto on the gay thing.
Brownback: I’m the undisputed favorite among the past, present, and future snowflake babies. That’s all you need to know. And that’s ALL I know.
The Other Steve
Wouldn’t Filthy rather fluff the Duke Lacrosse team?
The Other Steve
I think the key here is that Donohue, Malkin and the other whiners really didn’t care what these women said. All they cared about is that they were involved with Edwards, and they wanted to hurt Edwards.
So firing them would have just made Edwards appear a coward, and emboldened the enemy.
So I think he did the right thing. The best part is, any further complaining by the right wing zealots on this particular issue just makes them look like whiners.
Not that they didn’t already appear to be whiners. It just helps reinforce that impression with everybody else who doesn’t know them much.
Pb
John S.,
Indeed, but check out the link re: Obama anyhow.
I’d argue that the past 6 years have just made it even more starkly clear that Bush isn’t at all qualified for the oval office–he opened his mouth and removed all doubt, as it were.
Richard Bottoms
We don’t need the votes of any Republicans who care what Michele Malkin has to say about anything.
If insurgents in Iraq keep shooting down our helicopters to the tune of two or three a month for the next year or so, if Jesus ran as a Republican he’d lose.
The race in 2008 is only about how much we decimate the Republicans by. If Iraq improves minutely we may need to use a little vasilene to reach our goal. If it is the disaster it’s shaping up to be, well we won’t need any lube at all.
Either way the Republicans are getting fucked. And we don’t even have to kiss them first.
John S.
It’s an interesting read. Obviously, Obama is a charismatic figure with an intriguing background. He has accomplished a lot in his short lifetime and has overcome many obstacles.
But I still don’t think he is qualified to be president. Not just yet.
Quite frankly, though, qualifications alone don’t make a president. I think one of the most qualified presidents in recent history was George H.W. Bush, but unfortunately his presidency didn’t bear out his qualifications for the job.
TenguPhule
Shorter Filthy McNasty: I must learn not to suck Dick Cheney and talk at the same time.
Tsulagi
No need to argue. A piece of concrete would be a quantum upgrade from Bush.
Zifnab
I totally breezed over that.
Frankly, I think Clark would make a better Defense Secretary or Secretary of State than a President. He’s a military man so he knows the Pentagon and he was a NATO Chief so he knows diplomacy. But I don’t know how he’d handle Congress. And a General as President puts heavy emphasis on war and foreign affairs. One reason I like Edwards and Obama are their focus on the domestic agenda.
He was in the State Legislature since ’96. That’s no small political career.
Richard Bottoms
Well this little episode is about to become the tiny little footnote I know it was destined for.
Of course I thought Iraq on the front page would be the reason. Boy was I wrong.
Anne Nicole Smith just died.
Gregory
Hell, if Jesus Christ himself ran as a Republican, he wouldn’t win a single primary…and Malkin, Donahue et al would be at the head of the pack denouncing him.
That said, I’m mighty disturbed at the apparent success the insurgents have had in shooting down our helos as well.
Richard Bottoms
Perhaps because they have someone leading them who understands tactics. As opposed to our glorious leader.
Andrew
I would make Paul L. fight the recreational abortions of 53 angry black lesbian wiccans.
scarshapedstar
Well said, John. I tend to disagree with Amanda to the point of being accused of wingnuttery when I comment there. But if she’s got the chops to help his campaign, no fucking way should he let the Kool-Aid crowd get their pound of flesh. They thought they smelled fear, and I actually thought Edwards would give in. But he didn’t blink. This scandal will die, along with the stupid “Flying San Francisco Lesbomobile” bullshit, all because the Democrats grew a backbone – or, at the very least, they fought the usual impulse to roll over and pee on their stomach long enough for Anna Nicole Smith to die and flush those two floaters right down the crapper.
Hey, you take what you can get.
Richard Bottoms
Just look at the headline at Huffington Post.
Folks, I know getting whipped for 13 years by the Republicans can leave you fearful of their mighty wrath, but the fuckers got cornholed in November and will be similarly humiliated in 2008 all because of Iraq.
You’d have to find John Edwards naked in bed with Barack Obama, next to a od’d Nacy Pelosi for the Republicans to have a shot at the White House.
They are running a short tempered war monger, a cross dressing divorced adulterer, and guys to the right of Atilla the Hun on their side.
On ours, a sharp elbowed politico with tons of money, the most popular black man since Denzel Washington, and a Nobel Prize/Academy Award nominated former vice-president who has been proven right about everything he ever said.
I think we’re in pretty good shape.
John S.
Exactly. That is what will be thrust upon the president in 2008, whether they like it or not. Someone with solid experience with war and foreign affairs will HAVE to clean up after little Georgie. That’s why I say let the VP come in to push the domestic agenda – where I think Edwards or Obama would be a more suitable fit.
Obama has no executive experience, and if you look at presidents over the last few decades you will see voters prefer former governors to former legislators. A couple of terms in the state legislature and part of a term as a senator doesn’t really parlay into what it takes to be president IMHO.
Richard Bottoms
It’s Gore/Obama or Clinton/Obama or Gore/Edwards ’08.
CaseyL
*sigh*
I’m gonna have to pony up for Edwards now.
Not that I mind, really. But I was this far from giving every shekel to Obama.
So, now, I split it between ’em.
The Other Steve
Just the opposite, really. Look at Eisenhower who spent most of his time focused on domestic agenda. Interstates, school lunch, etc.
Why? Because he didn’t feel a need to prove he was a tough guy by invading Grenada. He’d already been there, done that and was sick of it.
The Other Steve
As for experience… Here’s wiki, on Abe Lincoln’s *ONE* term in the House.
It’s not experience that is important.
It’s GOOD JUDGEMENT.
The Other Steve
A-Fucking-Men!
Quit pissing in the cornflakes people. It’s not going to make ’em taste any better.
Zifnab
Sing it sister.
Nik E Poo
I think there are a whole lotta people commenting on these bloggers who have no clue as to the nature of their posts. As a longtime fan of Shakespeare’s Sister… I can categorically state that not a single post I ever read, crossed the line into bigotry. Melissa McEwan uses facts and valid arguments to elucidate important (and unpopular) aspects of political institutions, including the Catholic Church.
I am sure that some people are offended by the manner in which she communicates (she has been known to swear on occasion). Some people are also hurt by any comments which highlight problems with an institution they hold dear. And for that, Melissa sincerely apologized. The characterization of Melissa McEwan’s comments as bigotry could not be further from the truth.
And speaking of taking offense. I’m personally offended by the widespread disrespect shown to Melissa McEwan. And its ironic, that the ignorant, spiteful and condescending language used to describe her (all across the media, mind you) … is exactly what she is accused of doing to the Catholic Church. I think she deserves an apology from the whole lot.
AP
To address some points I’ve seen here:
Yes, it would be nice if Obama had a bit more experience. As Somerby said in the link I posted, none of the Dem candidates are the ones we’d create in a lab. But you go to a primary with the candidates you have, not the candidates you want. None of the top three Dems has executive experience. I think it’s clear that Obama is a more “experienced” candidate than Edwards– a few more years in the Senate doesn’t beat a decade of service in state and local politics. This whole “inexperienced” meme is just because the national media’s only been paying attention to him since 2004, so he seems new to them, ergo “inexperienced.” But he’s been battle-tested in Chicago. And Richard Bottoms, don’t count on an automatic Republican loss because of Iraq. I refer you to 1972. If the Dem candidate can be portrayed as an unacceptable option, the Republican will win.
Steve
And look at LBJ, who had a great domestic agenda, but felt the need to prove he was “tough on Communism” to keep the political support for his agenda intact. An awful lot of people died in Vietnam so we could get all those liberal programs.
I agree that the Democrats have a hammerlock on the White House for ’08 but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be concerned about electing the next LBJ.
Filthy McNasty
Absolutely! Sing it loud and clear, especially after Marcotte can no longer hold her tongue for her paternalistic benefactor, and spits out more filth as a defense against a political opponent (likely to be a Democrat) who says something negative about Edwards. Thanks to her explanation on her blog today, she’s proven herself to be a good boot-licking (to go along with cum-guzzling) hausfrau for her plantation owners, and will feel driven to protect them with the only tool she can use: her limited, profane, and confrontational vocabulary.
Soon after this happens, and her liability becomes too apparent, Edwards will realize he can’t win with such dimwit cowards representing his campaign, that the Nutroots is toxic, and that his only hope is to put his support behind Hilary.
He’s finished. And so are the nutroots. The longer she and her colleague remain in place, the more their toxicity is revealed to the mainstream voters who care about what she’s said now, in the past, and most certainly, in the future.
Richard Bottoms
But this isn’t 1972, and hippies aren’t overrunning the streets.
None of the candidates with a shot are peaceniks.
Teri Shciavo and the far right loons have caused so-called independents to question the sanity of the GOP. Abortion is legal and women will vote to keep it that way.
No one believs that “compassionate conservatism” is anthing more than a sales gimmick and Republican competence has vanished in a haze called Katrina.
Sad to say, but 4,000+ US service members dead and a broken military are hardly things to run on.
With more and more families finding our junior is gay and that the GOP is laughing at the Falwell crowd behind their backs even as they lose the culture wars I’d say a divorced adulterer will be Saturday Night Live’d into the luaghingstock he deserves to be assuming he even can win the primary.
McCain will doubtless have a thundering meltdown of anger sometime in the next 18 months.
Brownback? Who the fuck is Sam Brownback??
Gingrich. Yes, women will warm to this guy.
The only way the Republicans win is if there is a Final Destination-like decimation of ALL the Democrats in congress… on election day.
dslak
And even then, there could be sequels.
Jess
Are you referring to Hilary or Johnnie-Boy here?
Richard Bottoms
Does it matter? What does matter is 60 Senators and gettin’ veto proof biatch.
TenguPhule
Shorter Filthy McNasty: Uh oh, my diapers have another full load.
Richard 23
Filthy, what do you have against “cum guzzling?” You’ve mentioned it twice for no apparent reason. Does your boyfriend or girlfriend or inflatable sheep spit it out? Does that hurt your feelings?
dslak
There’s more than a touch of irony to somebody named Filthy McNasty using “profane” as an insult.
Richard 23
Huh? I don’t get it. Were they fired or not? Pajamas Media already tracked back in the other thread reporting the news that the bloggers were dumped.
So did PJM get it wrong? My head hurts.
Ah, I see they issued a new story with a different set of facts. Good for them. My head still hurts though.
Tsulagi
His problem is that he sees her horning in on an activity reserved for Bill Bennett Republican manly men. Bitch.
Or, voters could have a moment of Missouri intelligence where they vote for a dead Democrat to best represent their interests over a live Ashcroft.
scarshapedstar
Okay, okay. I should give the Democrats more credit.
…but John should still have taken a swing at that jabbering prick Donohue, who has anointed himself the voice of all American Catholics apropos of nothing and uses this “position” to spout red-faced garbly tirades about how the Jews want to fuck your mom in the ass. Oh, and then he should have smacked around the clowns like Wolf Blitzer who tolerated that neanderthal’s bullshit for however many days that tempest in a teapot lasted. There’s much to be said for just letting the story die at this point, obviously, (tip of my hat to the late Mrs. Smith) but we need a high profile fighting Dem to publicly embarrass the Heathers on CNN and CNBC until their mascara runs all over the place.
Monday’s a new week with a new smear. I’m hoping they’re ready. And recent events give me more hope than I let on. :)
Richard 23
Yeah, right. Who here doesn’t drink their own urine? And store it in their refrigerator? I bet Filthy does.
Nik E Poo
I disagree. Doing that would imply that he cared about what Donahue thinks. Which I assume he does not. I’m actually quite encouraged that he chose to defuse the situation, rather than exploit it. It is after all, not part of is platform.
vwcat
John, don’t tell me you buy the inexperienced garbage peddled by the msm.
Obama has 8 years legislative experience in the State Senate and his wasn’t just passing time there. couple that with his 2 years and that is 10 years experience. Look again.
I do think Donahue is probably being fueled by someone else in his going after Edwards so relentlessly. i could be wrong but, in this climate I wouldn’t be surprised.
ImJohnGalt
scarshapedstar:
From a front-page blog entry on John Edwards’ website:
The guy might not do it the way you want him to, but he doesn’t let it go by unanswered, either.
rachel
Translation: I don’t care what Mr. Donohue thinks.
BadTux
Actually, if you look at the resumes of the *announced* candidates, the only candidate with the experience is Bill Richardson from New Mexico. He’s been a congressman, U.N. Ambassador, Secretary of Energy, governor… hell, about the only thing he hasn’t done is be President. Enough with these amateurs. Haven’t we learned enough about the follies of electing inexperienced people by having GWB as President?
As for Edwards, he completely underwhelms me. He has absolutely no idea what to do about liars. Cheney wiped the mat with him during the Veep debate in 2004 by lying his head off, and Edwards kept starting to say “Objection, your honor! The witness is perjuring himself!” but because it was not a trial didn’t have the foggiest notion how to respond to a bald-faced liar.
He just doesn’t have the political experience, and I’m not sure he ever will. His “awe shucks” demeanor might work wonders at convincing a jury to grant a big award to his poor oppressed client who was put upon by the big mean corporations, but politics is not a courtroom, and works by different rules — rules that he seems to be at a loss about.
scarshapedstar
That VP debate was a trip. I just remember saying to myself, over and over again, “Damn, that guy can lie.” Dick never missed a beat.
Johnny, on the other hand, had the look that I always got during Linear Algebra exams.
BadTux
LOL! Exactly. I’m sure Johnny’s a fine fellow and all, but he just isn’t very good at that whole politics thing. For that matter, neither was John Kerry — Kerry hadn’t faced a credible opponent for re-election in over 25 years, and didn’t have the foggiest notion how to run a modern campaign in the age of Rove.
DougJ
I managed to goad Rick Moran into responding to me over at Terry Moran’s blog at ABC. Here’s the link.
I think it needs to come to this: if the Edwards campaign is fair game, then Terry Moran is fair game over everything his brother has ever said at his blog. His brother stops blogging or he loses his job at ABC (or they both apologize and agree to stop coordinating their attacks, no need to be blood thirsty).
I know that’s unfair, but Terry Moran never should have opened his mouth about this in the first place, given his position.
The Other Steve
Well, I do agree that Bill Richardson is a good candidate for his own reasons. But I still don’t care about experience.
GW’s problem was not lack of experience. He’s now six years into the Presidency and he’s still screwing things up, possibly worse now than in 2001.
And if you look at GW’s cabinet… Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld. This was one of the most experienced groups of people ever in the cabinet.
And yet it was the most experienced who lacked good judgement.
Bob In Pacifica
McNasty said: Lamont’s senatorial amitions were ended for, among other things, his support of Jane Hamsher and her ilk.
I didn’t follow it that closely from here in Cali. Is that what sunk Lamont?
Bob In Pacifica
Can’t say that I’m an expert on either blog, I tend to agree with Nik E Poo. Never saw anything at Shakespeare’s Sister that out and out offended me, which gives her a leg up on Marcotte (not the religious stuff, the incredibly stupid writing on the Duke case).
Janus Daniels
On Lamont, for Bob In Pacifica – Republicans “Roved” from their own candidate to Lieberman; that sank Lamont’s campaign.
On Experience, for The Other Steve – Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. had ample experience in government, but used most of it in coverups and whitewashing, and had little to no experience in doing anything for the benefit of the US.
And, kudos to John:
“I was very much enjoying the whole scenario as it unfolded, if for no other reason than the past viciousness of Amanda.” Example?
“But… John Edwards has also done every blogger a favor- your past comments will not be a litmus test…
My opinion of John Edwards is a little higher today than it was yesterday.”
My opinion of you and your blog, comments and all, continues to rise.