If that's a sign of how principled he would be as a President, that's a really good sign, indeed!

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

I think he would have responded in this way anyway.  You do realise he was in two different cities yesterday and was wise not to make any snap decision or announcement.  It seems a lot of bloggers are looking for a reason to jump ship on this campaign without looking at the bigger picture.    

Doing My Part For The Left,Left Of The Rainbow

Being presented with a challenge like this, it is a test of character and cleverness to find a way to acknowledge the issues raised and yet to make the right decision.   Mr. Edwards navigated this dilemma with skill and panache.  I applaud his decision.  I feel that he HAD to retain the bloggers - he had selected them, and thus his judgement was on the line.  

If we allow our opponents to select our staffs, that would be pretty ridiculous.

Well, as a politician in America I guess Edwards has to serve the prime directive: those who speak wearing the mask of "faith" have automatic immunity from criticism of their beliefs and an absolute right to give their predictable outrage at being contradicted the force of law. They themselves, of course, have a god-given right to consign those who disagree to Hell and employ limitless invective, as well as blaming their disagreeable beliefs for terrorist attacks and natural disasters, among other crimes and misfortunes.

In the medieval atmosphere this country breathes, the best that can be expected from any "serious" pol is that he at least avoid letting idiot theocrats choose his staff. Nonetheless, Edwards's weak submision to the ridiculous notion that "maligning" anyone's "faith", as opposed to freely attacking non-brand-name beliefs by law and force as well as words, makes me kind of sick. Still, Edwards probably showed more guts on this than most of the field would have.

This tempest in a teapot does serve to light up a more interesting point, though. It makes it pretty clear that people using blogs as stepping stones to political positions are inevitably going to  either compromise their own writing by keeping their asses covered or compromise the candidates who hire them. American politics is a fantasy game of super-clean Ken and Barbie dolls that don't exist in the real world. Bloggers who sanitize their writing in order to qualify for political stature will have nothing of interest to say. Those who write as actual humans cut themselves off from success in Ken/Barbie world -- at least if they're not Repubs, who can erase all past error by utilizing the name of Jesus.

Maybe separation of blog and state is going to prove as important as separation of church and state.

Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." --Former Nixon counsel John Dean

He did exactly what I recommended in the debate here yesterday. It was the right decision. However, I fear he has fatally shot himself in the foot.

I'm happy about Edwards doing the right thing...you summed it up nicely boo when you said his enemies don't care about him-thus will never vote for him anyway but it would have been a very very bad start to piss off a potentially huge group here on the net.

'Poverty is the worst form of violence'--Gandhi

I won't hold my breath for a retraction from Salon, however...

I realize that we're never going to have a 100% perfect candidate -- every candidate is going to have something that pisses someone off. But so far, Edwards seems to be making the right moves. And just as Clinton proved to be more centrist than people thought, who's to say that Edwards won't be more leftist/progressive than people think? At any rate, Edwards will be better than any of the crop of Republicans itching for the White House...


"Mr. Bush, you do not own this country!" -- Keith Olbermann, 1/2/07

I have problems with Marcotte writing with absolute certainty (and ignorance) about the Duke case. And then after bringing it up once again (her blog about Duke equaling OJ) to delete any comments that didn't follow her own Pandagon hymnal was pretty offensive. Considering that there is no evidence of a rape and there hasn't been, for Marcotte to continue to presume their guilt is a sorry endorsement for her ability to judge fact.

There is a curious parallel between the Simpson case and Duke case though. In both there were alleged crimes that could put the defendants in jail for a long time (Simpson for life, 30 years in the Duke case) and there were alleged socially offensive crimes. In Simpson's case he had to be a murderer because he beat his wife because he was a murderer. Each presumption amplified the other crime.

In the Duke case there was a presumption of guilt because they were racists because they beat up the woman because they were racists because they raped the woman. Therefore, these boys had to have said the magic n-word sometime, so they probably said it to the woman and if that's true then who cares what they really did. Each charge amplifies the others. The way that this loop continues is for people to remain ignorant of the facts of the case. Marcotte seems determined to maintain her ignorance and the ignorance of those who read her.

The evidence of the three defendants saying anything of the sort to the accuser, or even talking to her, is missing, just as there is no evidence of the claim of rape/kidnapping/sexual assault.

I would like Marcotte to actually become informed about the case before she makes any comments. But I don't think she will.

Well, maybe.  Let's look at why he was in that clutch to begin with.  Is this a sign of how he'd vet and pick court appointees, cabinet members, heads of agencies, etc.?  

I was very disappointed to see what I take as a sign of sloppiness and weakness, because much of what he says I like.

My only thought was... weren't those things written BEFORE either Amanda or Melissa went to work for him?  They did not write those things as representatives of his campaign, right?  So what's HE apologizing for?

I agree that as his campaign employees, Amanda and Melissa should consider what they write and how it might be perceived (there's lots of ways to be blunt about the truth, after all).  But why should they apologize for what they wrote in the past?  I don't hear anyone asking Malkin to do so.... ever.

What I would have preferred was a statement that anything written prior to Amanda and Melissa's joining the staff does not represent the views or positions of the Edwards Campaign. And then something along the lines of his having every confidence in their judgment and appreciating their valuable contributions in internet outreach to the netroots, etc. etc...  Ie, disavowing connection to their previous writings but expressing his continued support for and confidence in them RIGHT NOW.  Something like that.  

We'll see what happens the next time.... but he could have been a bit stronger. Still, if Amanda and Melissa are okay with it, I'm not going to throw him under the train just yet....  No candidate is perfect, alas.

Keith Olbermann speaks for me.