Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) recently hired Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, a popular (as in: they get a lot more visitors than does this poor site!) liberal website, to be:
-
the Blogmaster (or blogatrix, as Norbizness calls it) for John Edwards’ presidential campaign.¹
I’m guessing that she wouldn’t like it if I suggested “blogmistress.” 
One wonders if perhaps Mr Edwards had some buyer’s regret, if he saw this post by Miss Marcotte. While stuck at an airport, she:
- had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.
Well, now it appears that the lovely Miss Marcotte has, well, reconsidered her post: here it is as of this writing, on February 3, 2007:
- Stuck at the airport again…..
Published by Amanda Marcotte January 21st, 2007
UPDATE: Since people are determined to make hay over this quick shot of a post, I’m deleting it and here’s my official stance. The prosecution in the Duke case fumbled the ball. The prosecutor was too eager to get a speedy case and make a name for himself. That is my final word.
One can see why Senator Edwards might not have liked what he saw on that particular thread, when commenter Harkonnendog posted this:
Rape is a crime unlike others. In any rape case, but especially in a rape case where a black woman accuses a white man, the rapist should be considered guilty until he proves his innocence. And he must prove his innocence not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any possible doubt. The Durham rapists have not done so, by any means.
People claim this is unfair, but 400 years of slavery and countless millenium of male on female rape make this not only fair, but necessary. Let’s just say the accusation of rape IS false, that doesn’t take away the rapists (yes, they’re still rapists even if these particular men didn’t rape this particular women) genealogical guilt. How many slaves have their forefathers raped? Nobody asks that question.
And Iâ€ve no doubt these men would be raping slaves if they could get away with it. They are white and rich, they are jocks, they attend an expensive university, (no doubt with money saved from when their families owned plantations) and they hired black strippers. Even worse, they requested white strippers first, which proves they are bigots.
People who talk about the details of guilt in this particular case are missing the forest for the trees. The narrative is bigger than 3 white boys whose lives are inconsequential compared to the sweep of history- of the descendants of slaves getting just recompense on the descendants of slave owners.
(The comments section is closed now. You can check for old comments, including some from our own Jesurgislac, but you can’t add any more.)
I’m speculating, of course, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Senator Edwards’ campaign got wind of Miss Marcotte’s post and said, whoa!, we can’t have that up from one of our staffers; when I read that that was her “official stance,” such speculation was the first thing that crossed my magnificent mind. It ought to be an axiom: anything that is said, by any member of a candidate’s team, is going to be hung on the candidate himself if there are any negative connotations that can be used against him.
Which makes me wonder: will some of Miss Marcotte’s other posts be consigned to bandwidth limbo? Who knows? But the real question might be: can anyone who likes to speak her mind as forcefully and controversially as Miss Marcotte really be happy as a campaign staffer?
______________________
¹ – Whilst doing the research for this, I did find our friend Phoenician in a Time of Romans’ website!
As soon as I heard Amanda was doing the blog for John Edwards, I knew his campaign was sunk. What on earth was he thinking? Had he never read her poisonous thoughts about white people, Christians, pro-lifers, Republicans, heterosexuals, feminists who aren’t for abortion and basically anyone to the right of Fidel Castro? If this is an example of his decision-making power, it’s a good thing he hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.
Well, this article should have pinged back to Pandagon, so Miss Marcotte ought to get a chance to see it. I think it’s a real question whether someone like Miss Marcotte is willing to muzzle her opinions to serve Senator Edwards. (Even if the Edwards campaign didn’t tell her to take down the post in question, and they might well have not, she’s now in a position where she has to echo her boss’ thoughts, and not her own.)
[...] Common Sense Political Thought – trackback: February 3rd, 2007 at 10:39 am [...]
I haven’t the time right now to go sift through Amanda’s voluminous writings for more anti-family examples, but I fully intend to do so. Poor John Edwards.
Might want to do screen captures on them, Sharon: there’s a possibility that they’ll disappear shortly!
Edwards is a man who has gained great wealth by chasing the right ambulances. Yet has his activity improved the quality of health care or added more expensive (and dangerous) layers of’defensive medicine’?
Persons such as Edwards may be seen as order idiot savants with a rather limited range of intellect. They do some things rather well (such as convincing brain-dead jurors) to help pick some seemingly deep pockets. Why should he be expected to play it smart when picking a ‘blog moll”?
It is not PC to question black racism. Prosecutor Nifong played the race card to get re-elected and retain his pension.
As to rape statistics, are the numbers for reported white-on-black rapes as rare as white-on-black homicides? Both variants should be prosecuted with equal vigor and justice should be colorblind.
Was the complainant in the Duke case taking some pages out of the Tawana Brawley playbook? Note that Al Sharpton (a vocal supporter of Sentate hopeful Lamont) screamed of the injustice done to that lass.
[...] Reined in by her new boss? February 3rd, 2007 by Dana Pico QUOTE Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) recently hired Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, a popular (as in: they get a lot more visitors than does this poor site!) liberal website, to be:the Blogmaster (or blogatrix, as Norbizness calls it) for John Edwards’ presidential campaign.¹I’m guessing that she wouldn’t like it if I suggested “blogmistress.” One wonders if perhaps Mr Edwards had some buyer’s regret, if he saw this post by Miss Marcotte. While stuck at an airport, she:had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f**ked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.Well, now it appears that the lovely Miss Marcotte has, well, reconsidered her post: here it is as of this writing, on February 3, 2007:Stuck at the airport again…..Published by Amanda Marcotte January 21st, 2007 UPDATE: Since people are determined to make hay over this quick shot of a post, I’m deleting it and here’s my official stance. The prosecution in the Duke case fumbled the ball. The prosecutor was too eager to get a speedy case and make a name for himself. That is my final word. One can see why Senator Edwards might not have liked what he saw on that particular thread, when commenter Harkonnendog posted this:Rape is a crime unlike others. In any rape case, but especially in a rape case where a black woman accuses a white man, the rapist should be considered guilty until he proves his innocence. And he must prove his innocence not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any possible doubt. The Durham rapists have not done so, by any means. People claim this is unfair, but 400 years of slavery and countless millenium of male on female rape make this not only fair, but necessary. Let’s just say the accusation of rape IS false, that doesn’t take away the rapists (yes, they’re still rapists even if these particular men didn’t rape this particular women) genealogical guilt. How many slaves have their forefathers raped? Nobody asks that question. And I”ve no doubt these men would be raping slaves if they could get away with it. They are white and rich, they are jocks, they attend an expensive university, (no doubt with money saved from when their families owned plantations) and they hired black strippers. Even worse, they requested white strippers first, which proves they are bigots. People who talk about the details of guilt in this particular case are missing the forest for the trees. The narrative is bigger than 3 white boys whose lives are inconsequential compared to the sweep of history- of the descendants of slaves getting just recompense on the descendants of slave owners.(The comments section is closed now. You can check for old comments, including some from our own Jesurgislac, but you can’t add any more.)I’m speculating, of course, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Senator Edwards’ campaign got wind of Miss Marcotte’s post and said, whoa!, we can’t have that up from one of our staffers; when I read that that was her “official stance,” such speculation was the first thing that crossed my magnificent mind. It ought to be an axiom: anything that is said, by any member of a candidate’s team, is going to be hung on the candidate himself if there are any negative connotations that can be used against him. Which makes me wonder: will some of Miss Marcotte’s other posts be consigned to bandwidth limbo? Who knows? But the real question might be: can anyone who likes to speak her mind as forcefully and controversially as Miss Marcotte really be happy as a campaign staffer? [...]
This shows tremendous ignorance and bad judgement on Edwards’ part.
It’s not her presence on his campaign staff that’s the problem. It’s that he doesn’t understand what her presence signals to the world.
It seems that Miss Marcotte’s possible cleaning up of her blog history has caught the attention of even the Kos Kids:
The Edwards-Marcotte Fiasco
by xy109e3
Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:12:29 PM PST
An increasing number of bloggers are taking aim at Amanda Marcotte regarding her posts about the Duke Rape Hoax.
xy109e3′s diary :: ::
WOW! Where’s the presumption of innocence Amanda? Can you at least type the word “alleged”?
A snapshot of her post. or a goggle cache
And the reason its in google cache is because Amanda has shredded the original post and all negative comments to her regarding the post.
Senator Edwards, Amanda deserves a chance to explain her post (and her deletion of the post) however you really need to address this. Or you are going to be defending yourself endlessly.
So this is the level of competence we can expect from an Edwards administration?
The arrogance and condescension in her “thoughts” is truly mind boggling.
Not to mention the very minor, nit-picky point that there is no physical evidence whatsoever that sex of any type took place with the stripper in the Duke case.
Oops, my bad. I meant to say that there is no physical evidence whatsoever that sex of any type took place between any of the Duke players and the stripper. There was, of course, DNA evidence that the stripper had had sexual relations of some sort with at least five unidentified men, none of whom were from the Duke team (all of whom provided DNA samples to the DA).
Not that Amanda would be in the least interested in the evidence. It seems she has already decided that because these young men were white and their families reasonably well off that they are guilty. And if they’re not personally guilty, then of course the fault lies with their great, great, … grandfathers. The giant leap of illogic notwithstanding, her comments illuminate her own racism far more than that alleged of the Duke lacrosse players.
Particularly illustrative is her, and her commentator’s, use of the “f-word”, almost always an indication of one who is mentally incapable of logic argument or cogent analysis.
… genealogical guilt. How many slaves have their forefathers raped? Nobody asks that question.
Nobody asks that question because it’s a ridiculous stupid question, the answer to which reveals absolutely nothing whatsoever.
“Genealogical guilt”? This is what now passes for “liberal thought”? Pathetic.
[...] Dana Pico at Common Sense Political Thought has a good post up. [...]
I have to say that after reading Pandagon for a few months, I’m having a delightful time watching the Pandagonistas try to justify behavior by Amanda that they would eviscerate any conservative for indulging in. Jeff Goldstein has some wonderful posts, as well as having contacted the Edwards campaign directly.
Marcotte encore
John Edwards’ selection as his blogger-in-chief of Pandragon’s Amanda Marcotte has mushroomed into what National Journal “Beltway Blogroll” terms “the first blog scandal of campaign 2008,” made more piquant by Marcotte’s quick move (documented i…
I just checked Pandagon again, and while this post definitely “pinged” all of Pangagon’s posts linked, not a one of them appeared. Indeed, none of the blogosphere’s rather voluminous posts concerning Miss Marcotte’s blog deletions now that she’s respectable seem to have tracked back to Pandagon.
Wonder if Miss marcotte will write a general response? Thus far, she hasn’t.
Edwards is just another Pretty Boy. He added nothing of substance to Senator
NeidermeyerKerry’s ticket, and it’s only a matter of luck that the ambulances he’s been chasing haven’t popped into reverse and run him over.[...] Of course, as I noted here, Miss Marcotte felt obliged to clean it up: UPDATE: Since people are determined to make hay over this quick shot of a post, I’m deleting it and here’s my official stance. The prosecution in the Duke case fumbled the ball. The prosecutor was too eager to get a speedy case and make a name for himself. That is my final word. [...]
[...] This from the woman who didn’t want to believe that the accused members of the Duke lacrosse team might actually not have raped anybody, because, after all, we all know that women never lie about these things — unless they might be lying about a Democrat! [...]