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."

Comments

[DrFrankLives]

Bravo.

[David Wharton]

Yeah, right.

[Fred Gregory]

And Wiliam Arkin will be the next new hire, I suspect. Stands to reason.

[DrFrankLives]

Hey David, your point is what?

[Doug Clark]

Maybe David finds it hard to believe that there was no intent to malign anyone's faith by describing the immaculate conception in crude sexual terms or in categorizing a central belief of Christianity as a myth.

By the way, I applaud Edwards' statement that he, too, found such views to be offensive and intolerant.

[David Wharton]

Thanks Doug -- that's what I meant.

Of course she meant to malign personal faith of the Catholics she wrote about (as well as "Protestant anti-choice assholes"), and now she's lying about it.

[mick]

Ding! We have a winner.

It took about the first 19 words to offend me. Again, her site, her dime, her opinions. All is well there.

However, as I have told my kids repeatedly, your actions have consequences. I am sure there will be more. Bloggers beware the public is upon you.

I think Edwards has handled it well. Does anyone think it would have been handled the same way if it had been blacks, hispanics or gays? Just asking.

[David Boyd]

I'd think far more of her if she stood behind what she wrote and didn't attempt to deny the obvious that she did mean to malign and offend. Maybe Edwards would have fired her. Maybe not. But at least you'd know you're dealing with someone who's straight up rather than someone who will obfuscate and grovel to keep a job.

[Sven]

Does anyone think it would have been handled the same way if it had been blacks, hispanics or gays?

Whoa. That's like, counterfactual and stuff. Deep.

Let's make it even more fun: Would the response be the same if it had been a gay black Catholic? From Cuba?

[mick]

Legal or illegal?

[Question for David]

David, as an ex-Catholic, and a religious person, I find her remarks offensive and in poor taste. I know from reading your blog your faith is very important to you, and I admire that.

If you wouldn't mind answering, as a Catholic, how do you feel about William Donohue, President of the Catholic League?

Also, do you believe Edwards is spinning about believing their "good faith" remarks, or at least naive?

Only asking because you post insightfully about many other things.

[David Wharton]

I don't know much about Donohue, but my impression of him is that he's a crybaby. I'm not into victimology or people who make public careers out of complaining, and my limited exposure to him gives me the impression that that's what he does.

As to Edwards -- not that my opinion is worth very much -- yes, I do believe he's spinning, and I've lost respect for him.

Ed knows way more about Edwards -- maybe he could tell us what he thinks.

[Ed Cone]

I have no reason to disbelieve him that he is dismayed by some of their previous work.

I expect he's furious at the people who hired them without planning for this entirely predictable eventuality.

He was in something of a lose-lose situation, but I guess he felt that he needs the lefty netroots now and has time to win over people dismayed by his staffers; and that he would look weaker for firing them than for keeping them; and, perhaps, that drawing a bright line between earlier work on personal sites and any opinions expressed while employed by the campaign is the only workable solution in the blog era.

[Anglico]

Ed's take on this is right on the money. The passion and loyalty in the netroots is far more important than a story that will blow over in the lapdog press after a couple of news cycles.

Plus, if you're going to hire bloggers and the bloggers you hire have never written anything to offend anybody, then it's a safe bet they're going to suck as bloggers. Hell, even Mr. Ed, who is as balanced and sane as they come, sometimes throws in a snark that someone could take offense at. It's rare, but it happens.

drawing a bright line between earlier work on personal sites and any opinions expressed while employed by the campaign is the only workable solution in the blog era.

If using offensive language and behaving like idiots were cause for dismissal in the world of politics, the Child King and Babysitter Shooter would both have been impeached long ago.

[Roch101]

"drawing a bright line between earlier work on personal sites and any opinions expressed while employed by the campaign is the only workable solution in the blog era."

Probably not. It's not hard to imagine opinions one finds so repulsive that a refusal by a candidate to dismiss the blogger would be considered inexcusable.

[Ed Cone]

Absolutely, Roch -- didn't mean to imply that there are no death penalty offenses, just that the line between before and after is now established.

[DrFrankLives]

He expressed his distaste for their comments. He told them not to do it again. THey promised not to. Whether their own apologies were disingenuous or not is irrelevant.

As a Christian, I also believe my religion is as open to sarcasm and attack as any. I believe it is strong enough to withstand that.

If I start callting for the head of anyone who blasphemes against my faith, how am I any better than the people who called for the heads of the cartoonist in Denmark.

Bill Donahue is pretty much the same thing. The "Christianity" he espouses has little in common with the teachings of Christ and, frankly, deserves ridicule.

She offended me too, and I was often to be found in her comment section calling her on that, and on her ridiculous and egregious statements about men in general.

But I like her spirit. She's a good blogger, and she's pretty young. And like it or not, blogistan is a place of outrageous and intemperate comments.