John Edwards has just recruited two prominent progressive and feminist bloggers for his US presidential campaign – Pandagon’s Amanda Marcotte and Shakespeare’s Sister’s Melissa McEwan as Blogmaster and Netroots Coordinator respectively. Unlike DailyKos’ Markos Moulitsas’ consultancies for various candidates as a Democratic Party tactician, these positions are tied to one particular campaign only, and unlike some other bloggers recruited by politicians in the past, Marcotte and McEwan plan to continue writing for their own blogs as well as for the campaign.
Another difference is that Marcotte and McEwan are very much issues-based writers rather than Beltway tactical pundits, and their regular audience reflects the issues-based swinging voter demographic as much if not more so than Democratic Party partisans (many issues-based progressives are critical of Kos et al for being willing to sacrifice the concerns of women and LGBTQ voters for victory at all costs, Kos et al deride such concerns as self-defeating ideological purity tests).
As I note in a related post at Hoyden, selecting Marcotte and McEwan may be an acknowledgement of a key netizen demographic that the Edwards team has identified as already leaning his way. Or it could just be an acknowledgement of two eloquent and persuasive writers with broadly compatible political goals. It will be interesting to see how similiar or not the online talking-points will be compared to what is judged key messages for press conferences and stump speeches.
Choosing Marcotte is shrewd for another reason. Certain Rightist bloggers have a visceral loathing for her (Moonbat! Feminist! Shrill! Catblogger!), and thus will fixate on any post she makes for Edwards’ campaign blog, meaning that many other progressive bloggers will probably end up defending Edward’s talking points to their readers in the interests of supporting Marcotte against vituperative bile. These talking-points will then be spread further and wider as more people are exposed to them. Clever.
Speaking of visceral loathing: unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, the hatred that many Republicans have for her won’t work in her campaign’s favour in the same way. Outside the blogosphere, Marcotte is largely unknown, but Clinton is so polarising that simply being in the race will get large numbers of the Republican base out to vote against her without needing encouragement from leaflet/phone campaigns. Many Democratic voters will not vote for her in the primaries for this reason – they have concluded that there’s no way she can offset those numbers to win. There’s also many people who used to be her fans back when she was an unapologetic feminist with a radical social justice agenda who now feel that Senator Clinton has become a colourless, too-careful centrist who simply doesn’t represent them anymore.
But who knows what will happen before the primaries and indeed the presidential election itself? From TPMCafe’s Reed Hunt, 10 Events that could change the election’s dynamics, and it’s a point well made:
it is the reaction, not the event, that determines leadership.
What events might totally change the electoral landscape here in Australia?
UPDATE: The Edwards campaign has had to defend its hiring of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan after a sustained attack from right wing bloggers led to accusations that both bloggers were “anti-Catholic” from a fringe ultraconservative Catholic leader, which was picked up by the New York Times and Washington Post. [CNN story] Discussion of the attack-bloggers and the slow reaction of the Edwards campaign start from this comment below.
UPDATE Feb 13th: A few days ago Edwards announced that he intended to retain his bloggers as Mark details in this post. Marcotte has however now resigned her position as campaign blogmaster because she felt the continued attacks were hurting the Edwards campaign.
UPDATE Feb 14th: Melissa McEwan has now resigned as well.
Fascinating!
Edwards’ campaign is shaping up to be very interesting. But I wouldn’t write off Hillary on electability – the arguments in her favour are that it’s very hard to increase her negatives as everything that could possibly be thrown at her is in the public arena already in the most hysterical and hyperbolic fashion (she’s a lesbian murderer!) and that the two parties are now turning out just about everyone who might possibly turn out.
In Australia, I think we’re likely to have a very grim and predictable lead up to the election. The biggest even that could change the dynamics I think would be some sort of health crisis for Howard. Other than that, I suspect that both parties will run very predictable and risk averse campaigns, and any economic news that’s adverse will have already been factored into strategising. Iraq/foreign policy/terrorism is a wild card though.
Edwards’ campaign is certainly going to be interesting. The former head of NARAL has also signed on to work for him, so clearly there are a number of powerful feminists who’ve decided that he represents a better result for women than would be achieved symbolically through a Clinton win.
Recruiting strong pro-choice activist women to staff his campaign sends a clear message on his stance on family planning rights, at least. It’s going to be hard for anyone to accuse him of waffling on abortion, which is more than Clinton managed in her runs for the Senate.
I think the Al Sharpton – Barbara Lee team are shaping up very nicely for the Dems. The biggest threat from the whitebread right appears to be the Chuck Hagel – Ron Paul lineup.
Thanks for the heads-up on the background tigtog. Not familiar with either Marcotte or McEwan.
I must say that I don’t particularly like DailyKos. Not so much for the content as my general feeling that Moulitsas is just another partisan blowhard so impressed with his own importance that his head has become firmly cemented to his back passage. But it’s just a personal view.
I’ve had a look at Edwards blog and my first impression is that it’s way too busy. Difficult to navigate, too much information, and hard to see what it’s trying to achieve.
But all the same, an interesting contrast to Hillary’s site which, while leaving the above in the dust as far as design and ease of navigation goes (and for my money is a bit more engaging) relies more on pumping out the message via video (Talking Point “Hillary is Warm”).
Her blog’s not up and running yet. Still, early days.
Christine, your opinion of Moulitsas is pretty close to mine. There’s no doubting he’s clever, successful and influential: but is his influence truly progressive when he’s willing to compromise on so much just to get elected?
I also agree with you about the Edwards blog design. As Amanda and Melissa have only just got the keys to the place I expect the renovating and revamping will start once they’ve thoroughly checked it all out, at which time at the very least I expect it to become easier to navigate.
I can see why Hillary’s site is pumping out the “She’s Warm! Really!” message though. She’s had to be pretty tightly controlled since the Ken Starr years, and it’s going to be hard to counter that tight/hard/cold image.
Where did Moulitsas et al stand on the “Blue Dog” candidates Rahm Emmanuel recruited for the house races? In many cases, the DCCC didn’t support candidates who went closer to winning (or won) while “macho Democrat” candidates that it did support heavily lost.
Rahm’s strategy was seen as proving his superiour wisdom as against both the Howard Dean led DNC and the netroots so it would be a useful indicator of where Moulitsas lined up – ie principle or “win at any costs”…
The irony of course being that principle did better in a lot of districts than “win at any costs”!
I’m not sure about the Blue Dogs, I’d have to Google. I was more concerned about his attack on NARAL for supporting a pro-choice Republican in an election race against Markos’ favoured pro-life Democratic candidate. He thought they should just keep quiet on choice in favour of getting more Democrats elected, which is similiar to his position on gay marriage. That kinda makes lots of progressives suspicious of him.
Edward’s chances of securing the Dem nomination have not been damaged by the recruitment of the skillful Marcotte and McEwan. There is some enormous talent writing on the best Sep blog sites and these two are heavy hitters. Edward’s site is a dog’s breakfast but these two movers will shape it good in a jiffy.
Hillary snapped up star blogger Peter Daou of the former Daou Report which was a feature of Salon.com’s War Room before he became a Beltway Boy on Team HRC about a year ago. Peter defined “Triangulation” and Hillary has been at it ever since.
Markos Moulitsas’s site Daily Kos has excellent reporting but the layout irritates the hell out of me. I only go Kossing if I’m chasing a hot story. Markos held the first big liberal/progressive/lefty bloggers’ bash at Las Vegas last year. It was well attended by rising blog stars, which is a feather in Kos’s cap; I expect him to go the way of Daou( ie. blog for a player) when the right offer surfaces.
Re the Dem nomination for 08, HRC is no lay down misere to get the nod. Leaving aside the blow-fly nominees, Hillary will get serious competition from Obama(a colt with potential but untested in top company),
Edwards(a working class boy made good with pull south of Mason-Dixon),
and a high profile ex VP, a man who shitcanned the Iraq war from the gitgo, and who knows D.C. inside-out, and is known by D.C. shakers, and who is surging on the timely strength of his “Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore.
Obama will get a kick on from Joe Biden’s gaffe, methinks Enemy. Joe did a classic Kim (who he?) by saying “Barack was “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Jeez. See ya Joe, scratched. Never a chance anyhow. Abour Barack, Joe was half right, as I have been saying, Elvis in reverse. And also may I take this opportunity to bid a sad farewell to that mother of all bloggers, Molly Ivins. Vale you sweet Texan “troublemaker”.
link
And she’s doing a good job in overcoming the sneering gender-based insults being hurled at her from the usual millionaire pundits. But she’ll do OK if she keeps coming up with zingers like this before an Iowa audience. Asked a question about her ability to stand up to dictators she replied:
(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)
There’s also Wes Clark as a dark horse. Personally though I’m all for a Letterman write-in campaign.
Top Ten List of things that suck about being President.
Your libido becomes national property and is now handled by the Parks Administration.
No one can guarantee all the bugs have been removed from the Oval Office.
There is no button you can press.
The White House has to remain the colour white.
You get loaded after a long hard day, crack one stupid joke and suddenly it’s a constitutional crisis.
Ex-Presidents ringing up pissed to offer advice at 3am.
Cartoonists.
The Veep constantly offering you peanuts while inquiring about anaphylactic shock.
Finding out the Secret Service really do follow you everywhere.
The Constitution.
Christine, I liked that joke by HRC as well. But did you see how it got spun? Seasoned political reporters asked her in all seriousness if one of the evil men she was referring to was her own husband, and even when she confirmed the obvious, that it was a joke about political opponents in the past, they reported it on TV and in the press as “well, she says that, but we know she really meant Bill.”.
She’s going to be battling that shit the whole time.
I know tigtog. It’s all part of the “baggage” talking point so beloved of the know-nothing millionaire pundits. When I heard the joke I didn’t think of Bill. I was thinking Gingrich and Starr.
Have you also heard she’s an ambitious murdering lesbian feminist who wants to eat your children as well? (plus Al Gore wears brown suits! Can you believe it?)
Anyway I’ve got no doubt this sort of nonsense has all been factored into the mix, and after two NY Senate campaigns it’s nothing she hasn’t dealt with before.
On a side note the Libby’s trial is providing a fascinating insight into how the shills in the Washington press corps work.
Hopefully after 12 months of this rubbish we’ll get down to talking about actual policies.
Ha. The predicted conservative blogger meltdown about Amanda Marcotte joining the Edwards campaign has been going strong.
Because she’s opinionated and cusses frequently for rhetorical effect on her own blog, they think she couldn’t possibly rein in the polemic to do the job she’s going to be paid for i.e. simply be an effective blogmaster and communicator of the Edwards electioneering platform. There are even calls for Edwards to disavow some of her opinions, as if she’s a senior policy advisor or something (and not one of them is mentioning the ex-President of NARAL, who is in fact a senior Edwards policy advisor).
Disproportionate much? I’m glad that a couple of politically engaged progressive bloggers are getting paid to be deeply involved in a presidential campaign, it’s a positive trend, but these positions are very much entry-level stuff as far as serious political staffing positions go. Melissa and Amanda probably both have long term ambitions to rise to more influential positions in progressive politics over future electoral cycles, but what they’re doing now is an apprenticeship: they’re simply not there yet. Asking Edwards to disavow strong opinions from his junior staffers, who are there to do nuts-and-bolts campaign work and learn while they work, is simply ridiculous.
Tigtog, I give you the deeply embarrassing Michelle Malkin who, following her recent trip to Iraq to report on fluffy bunnies, is now attempting to recast herself as a cutting edge satirist at Amanda’s expense: http://sadlyno.com/archives/5017.html
As if anybody apart from wingnut bloggers give a shit.
Poor Michelle Malkin. We knew all this bile was going to make her head explode one day.
I am relevant damn you!
Dick Morris – Hillary is the new Nixon:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1841851.htm
(gags) I saw that and it was hilarious. He started off quite sensibly with his electoral analysis and then suddenly careered off somewhere in the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy.
To summarise, Hillary:
1) Is the (new) new Nixon
Is a European socialist!
2) Could be involved in drug-running
3) Whitewater!
4) Travelgate!
5) Is married to Bill Clinton
6) Is not Bill Clinton
7) Is a politician. Who embellishes
9) Went after Jewsih votes! In New York!
10) May or may not have a contract on Dick Morris. Naw, just kidding. Or am I?
According to Sidney Blumenthal in The Clinton Wars, Morris is a brilliant but deeply weird guy.
I just wonder how much of this has to do with him getting the boot from the White House after being sprung having telephone conversations with the president while fucking prostitutes.
I think a lot. I’m guessing Bill wanted to forgive him and Hillary put her foot down.
His hands shake almost as much as Hitchens’!
Speaking of Christopher (whose analyses I never pay much attention to, but find quite entertaining nonetheless), he’s tying himself in tighter and tighter knots over that troublesome Iraq business: http://www.slate.com/id/2159082/nav/tap1/
Shorter Hitchens: The place was always going to go to hell in a hand-basket anyway.
Traitor! How dare he imply that the noble Iraqi people aren’t fit for democracy! (Wasn’t that what he himself was saying a couple of years ago…)
Well there’s John Edwards off my Eczema card list.
He’s just fired Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. According to Salon: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/02/07/edwards_bloggers/index.html
I don’t suppose it’s all that terrific when a couple of mid-level staffers generate as much press as you, but still, talk about weak as piss.
A bit of reading around shows that there’s no confirmation yet as to whether they’ve been fired, but he certainly left that option “on the table” when responding to questions about Donohue’s statements.
Weak as piss, indeed. Donohue is a self-appointed Catholic spokesman, with an ultraconservative stance and a history of bigoted remarks a mile long himself. He wasn’t worth responding to. Anyone who reads the so-called anti-Catholic pieces knows they’re actually anti- various hierarchical pronouncements on contraception etc, not against rank and file Catholics.
The winger attack-pack was utterly predictable. If Edwards got blindsided by that it shows a level of naivety that’s incompatible with a presidential campaign. If he foresaw it and doesn’t stand up to the winger howler-monkeys, then (a) why did he hire them in the first place and (b) how is he going to persuade people that he’ll stand up against the howler-monkeys on anything else?
Bang on the money there tigtog. He’s going to have to show something more substantial than a flashy smile if he’s to have a serious stab at the nomination. Not looking like foreman material at the moment.
On one level hiring and firing a couple of campaign bloggers is trivial: they would normally be invisible to most Edwards supporters and potential voters. It’s an exciting opportunity for them to expand their CV as professional writers, but their influence on the campaign itself should have been minimal.
But now its moved up to a much higher level: this is a huge character test on responding to intimidation.
Chris Clarke in comments at Pandagon said it best:
It’s now officially getting really, really stupid. Glenn Greenwald http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/ (soon to move to Salon) has called Patrick Hynes, a consultant for McCain.
FFS, if people are going to turn this sort of trivial nonsense about campaign staffers into major tests of candidates ‘character’ they’ve got no right to whinge about millionaire pundits weaving bullshit narratives about the various campaigns.
They’re bloggers for crying out loud. Not Hitler. It really has to stop.
I hope Edwards grows a spine and keeps them on. Malkin’s head may then finally asplode.
John Edwards is not firing Amanda or Melissa. His statement below is an interesting rhetorical exercise. The first two and last two sentences are particularly well framed now that the issue’s made the mainstream papers:
Good soundbite chunks there.
The first comment from tig’s link is a good one.
http://blog.johnedwards.com/comments/2007/2/8/113651/4503/36#36
About as much as you can expect from JE under the circumstances. Of course I’d like it if he just told Malkin to just shove it but such a scenario can only exist in the political landscape of my mind. Hmmmsweetfantasyhmmm.
I saw Edwards on US Meet the Press early one morning this week and was very very impressed. Undoubtably he’s going to disappoint many times over but I am provisionally “rooting” for him.
We’ll put that down to a well deserved ‘fuck you Michelle Malkin’ then.
Mayhap my hearing aid is malfunctioning, Mandy, but did you just say you’re “very very – like, very – impressed” with a bloke you know is going to “disappoint” you many times over [!], and you’re still going to root him?
He’s grown his beard out, hasn’t he?
Welcome to my world, Fedya.
It may just be the accent, I admit.
Yeah, I know: like Wayne’s World, but with both kinds of music.
Shaun, good catch on that comment thread.
Further down the thread is serious speculation that Donohue, the spokesman for the ultraconservative Catholic League, may have broken the laws banning tax-exempt organisations from involvement in political campaigns. [link] Having his organisation’s tax-exempt status removed after his overt partisan machinations here would be sweet karma indeed.
There’s also rather more idle speculation about whether the Catholic hierarchy should be asked to publicly disavow Donohue’s past bigoted statements.
Malkin continues to spin this as a win for conservatives, because now Edwards is saddled with “liabilities”. [link]
I’m with Sadly,No! http://sadlyno.com/
Checked out Donohue’s organisation to see his response:
[link]
Surely such an ad campaign would definitely break the rules banning political activism by tax-exempt organisations.
You may be right about the electoral law angle, but he can run all the ads he likes. They’ll be doomed to failure. Nobody who listens to these sorts of rants from this latter day Father Coughlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin (in what is nonetheless a largely Protestant nation) is likely to vote or Edwards anyway.
It’s such a stupid idea. Does he think his staff are all lilly white? This sort of junk simply has no end.
My only hope is that we’ll get all this crap out of the way early in the cycle so there can be a reasonable campaign.
But then I also believe in Tinkerbell.
Oh what the hell. While I’m having a rant, Donahue should be wary of the his own anti-Semitic, anti-gay tirades (from Media Matters http://mediamatters.org/items/200702070005):
More to the point though, is why supposedly reputable newsorgs like NYTimes, NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC give crackpots like this oxygen. It’s an entirely manufactured debate and it’s total bullshit.
What’s the editorial decision here? “The guy’s a complete extremist whacko nutcase, but he says he has a point of view”? Well that’s OK then.
If its gone this far off the rails, why doesn’t somebody ask him about the role of the Catholic Church in hiding Nazi war criminals? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(history)
Holy Jeebus.
Ms Marcotte has resigned from the Edwards campaign.
Yup, I just put up a new post about it.