Writing this post may be the most impudent thing I've ever done online (calling out one of my "A" list betters and all that), but here goes.I just read the following Democratic presidential candidate analysis at The Daily Kos, and I have something to add based on this rundown of the John Edwards campaign.
Boy, that blogger stuff wasn't his campaign's finest hour. They betrayed a lack of preparation, foresight, and basic vetting. They were pushed into "bunker" mode by the rantings of Bill Donahue, giving little confidence they'd be able to withstand a serious attack from the VRWC. Then, the campaign leaked like a sieve -- were the bloggers fired or not? Then, the campaign did the right thing and held tight on the bloggers, but didn't tell them they shouldn't blog elsewhere. A couple of days later, the bloggers resign anyway, giving the right wingers a scalp.Markos Moulitsas makes the good point that this took place early enough that it will likely end up as "a blip on the radar" months from now, as well as the fact that it helps Edwards to stay back while this Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama nonsense plays out (I mean, it's still WAY too early to get caught up in all of this I realize, even though I am a bit).
But for the life of me, I cannot understand what Markos (assuming first-name familiarity here, even though I've never met the man) means when he says that the Edwards campaign is guilty of not conducting "basic vetting" of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. Were the two somehow supposed to remember everything they've posted that could be remotely controversial so that they could have communicated it to the Edwards people? And yes, I know the "Christofascist" stuff is bad and some other remarks, but c'mon now - everything?
Markos knows far better than I do that when you do this, you leave a trail ad infinitum. You can't get away from it. I don't believe that it's Marcotte or McEwan's fault that professional hypocrites and arguers like Malkin and Bill Donahue found stuff that could be turned into red meat for the winger lickspittles. Assuming anyone would ever care about what I do here enough to the point where I got the Marcotte/McEwan treatment, I guarantee you that somebody could find something. And if I were working on behalf of a candidate and announced myself as such, I don't think any amount of "vetting" would solve the inevitable freeper hissy fit that would arise.
I think that's just a basic reality of bloggers working for candidates. And no, I don't think it should prevent the former working for the latter by any means.
And by the way, mention of Edwards' health care proposal in the candidate summary might have been nice also.
1 comment:
markos disavows any desire or tendency on his part to be a "kingmaker..." unfortunately, that role is thrust upon him whether he likes it or not... when you are THE front-page blogger on a site that gets 4M hits a WEEK, you have major influence, period, and your views stir people up in ways you or i, with our limited readership, simply can't do... yet, he sees himself as only one person in a larger community, expressing himself the way you and i do every day... if i was in his shoes, i would want to handle it the same way, i'm afraid, and i would be just as much in denial as he is...
Post a Comment