If I had been an Edwards advisor, though, I would've suggested that he fire them.

I respectfully disagree, Dan.  Perhaps  better due diligence should have been the order of the day before they were hired but once hired, they should be given a chance to work within the campaign framework.  And then, if they can't or won't do their professional duties in a way that moves then campaign forward, would come the justifiable firing.  If the Edwards campaign had caved to Donohue, THAT would have been a mortal blow for his credibility.

If it were my campaign, they never would've been hired in the first place.

I think we see a difference in "mortal blow."  Yeah, the liberal blogosphere would've been pissed, but I think moderates and angry anti-Bush conservatives may have warmed up to him a bit.  I'm interested in seeing what the general populace says about this in the next few days.

I thought Edwards bore some blame for hiring them. After more though, I realise that these kinds of things sometimes happen in a campaign. How Edwards deals with difficult situations and responds to attacks is the true test of his mettle. He did the right thing here.

I too like the tone of the Edwards statement, which is a great relief to me, because I, at the moment, was/am inclined to support him over the other announced candidates.  If this means that the two bloogers are not being fired because of pressure from a wingnut, then I will keep my membership in the Edwards One Corps and send a contribution as I had planned.  If, on down the road, the two bloggers can't separate their personal "isms" from their duties to the campaign, then would be the time for them to leave the campaign, but certainly not at the behest of a Bill Donohue.  Frankly, I think we can all take a lesson from Lowell, who performed his duties for the Webb campaign in a most professional manner, keeping his "blog persona" separate from his campaign duties.  That's the way it should be done.

...but thanks anyway! :)

While I agree with you about the last two sentences, the rest isn't particularly good. 

Sounds like political double speak.  They're being reprimanded but still accepted into the fold.  Previous statements are personally offensive and won't be tolerated, but they'll get a second chance.  Pander, pander, pander.

The statement also appears to make it look like they didn't do their homework in hiring these two - if they wrote such offensive material.  But get real, is it reasonable to think that a campaign will read every word a blogger has written?  Of course not.

There are going to be some controversial statements in most bloggers writing if those bloggers are popular.  Seriously, if the blogger never writes anything controversial or interesting they won't have made much of a name for themselves.

So, since they can't realistically read every word every written, is Edwards saying that he won't tolerate any bloggers who had written offensive ideas in the past... after the opposition uncovers those writings sometime in the future? 

Good luck with that.

Not pretty, perhaps, but I think it worked overall.

The wind goes one direction in the morning, and they were fired. 

The wind shifts, the finger goes up again in the evening, and they're rehired.

That's my read.

The statement is just artful packaging after the fact IMO.  The statement talks about "principle" but the firing and the rehiring--the actual actions taken by the campaign--suggest that the "principle" is "whatever is viewed as popular at a given moment".  If there wasn't an outcry from partisans about the firings, then bloggers would be on the street right now. 

I guess it's good that the Edwards campaign is showing it's responsive to public opinion.  But there is a line between being responsive and pandering. 

I apologize for shouting, but this just can't go on.  Salon ran with the story despite no confirmation from the Edwards campaign or the bloggers involved, and an explicit request from the campaign to hold off.

At no point were they fired.  There was clearly intense discussion about it inside the campaign, but it was simply not the case that it was a done deal.

So talk about 'pandering' and 'caving to pressure' is simply handing bigoted scum like Thomas Donoghue and Michelle Malkin the outcome they wanted all along.

but the Edwards campaign was still seriously considering firing them? 

Why were they seriously considering firing the bloggers?  And what caused the change of heart?

The fundamental point is the same. 

Its OK for Edwards to disagree, no need for the bloggers to get fired. Bowing down to these kind of attacks from the right is much more damaging. The "hijacking the real debate" line was spot-on. I actually think Edwards looks even better now than before. Bravo!

Somebody sent me these quotes from these two girls' posts.  Edwards should fire them.  NOW.  I am disgusted, offended, and insulted. 

WARNING:  These quotes posted below are NOT for the faint of heart.  Please, DO NOT read any further if you have a problem with very vulgar language that is now a part of the Edwards Campaign.

From Amanda-
Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You'd have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Disturbing, disgusting, and wrong in so many ways.

Or how about this?:
"The problem with Rick Santorum is that every time he talks about sex, that little part of all of us that wants to run into a preschool and yell "fuckslut" or go to a born-again church and scream about how God loves to come in our backyards for our milkshakes, well, it just grows a hundredfold, and the restraint that most of us show just flies out the window."

As a strong supporter of Israel, this one really pissed me off:
"...on top of the usual motivations behind Christian Zionism-hatred for Muslims, a desire to bring the end of the world, political opportunism and a chance for ministers to make their congregations feel like they are a part of something dramatic and important so their pocketbooks fall open..."

I could go on.  And I will later.  I'm still calling for these women to be fired, now more than ever.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong.

I agree, the statements are very crude.

At the same time, firing them right now will get the blogsphere against Edwards.  It looks as if he is  giving in to the religious right.

And let's be honest: the source of the accusation is sleazy itself. The leader of the Christian league made very crude bigotted statements about Jewish people. If you are going to give in to religious pressure, it better be to Mother Theresa or the Dalai Lama.

But look at it this way: if they have used this kind of crude language, they are most likely to use it again in the future. And when that happens, they will be fired, and I doubt that most bloggers will be sympathetic to them if they were given a second chance and blew it.

You're right, the people making the accusations aren't the cleanest people.  But there is still enough truth in their accusations to infuriate me.

Agreed, Dan; the best lies contain as much truth as possible and, as we all know so well, the enemy is quite good at lying.

Thanks!

Steve

These are very crude remarks. And the Zionist reference had nothing to do with the point of the comment. That one was very offensive for no reason.

There is no disagreement about this. You are right.

My point is that they will probably do it again just out of habit, and then they will get fired.

Edwards is giving them a second chance.  Let's hope they don't abuse it.

The world can be a shocking and vulgar place to live. Quite frankly, I find your take on this melodramatic and way over-the-top. Do you not see the satiric aspect of these statements? Part of the appeal of the blogs is their "no holds barred" nature. You don't have to agree with their opinions or like the manner in which the blogger's use language.

And, "Wrong wrong wrong wrong."... really?!? Just what don't you like about the 1st Amendment?

Way to bring the First Amendment into this.  Yes, they have the right to say whatever they want to.  And if they have that right, I have the right to say whatever they say is vulgar and disgusting.  We all have the right to say whatever we say like saying (within reason).  Of course, that doesn't make us immune to the effects of what we say.

Look, I love satire.  The Colbert Report is one of my favorite shows.  But I enjoy satire in good taste.  Talking about my God's "hot, white, Holy Spirit" isn't in good taste.  In fact, it's very offensive.  I think Edwards is making a huge mistake keeping them on board. 

So you agree, they were not wrong to express their opinions in the manner which they did. That was the main thrust of what you were saying, which would make it a free speech issue indeed. I'm glad we were able to clarify that.

By "wrong wrong wrong wrong" I meant "gross gross gross gross."  You know when you see something so incredibly messed up that you say "that's just wrong"?  Yeah, it's kind of like that.

goes to DanG.

I find this to be grossly offensive.  Think of something that's important to you, then imagine somebody spitting all over it.  Yeah, you'd be pissed off too. 

Seriously.  Read it from start to finish.  Incest.  Rape.  Heroes like Lot offering his daughter(s) to be raped.  Killing people because you disagreed with them.  God killing innocent children. (Once He had a bear kill a bunch of kids because they called a "prophet" Baldy.)  Read about the rules for slavery.

I've read it, actually.  And it is quite disturbing.  But I think they're intended to be shocking stories to leave those in awe of God's power.  I wasn't left with awe...more of a turned stomach.

Notice how the slime machine has started: first the lie about Clinton attacking Obama for having attended a madrassa, then the pseudo retraction (Obama did not do so, nor did Clinton suggest it) and contiued suggestions Obama (that's Hussein Obama, you recall) was in a madrassa, but says he wasn't, and so on, keeping the lie au currant. Now the artifical flap about Edwards and his  so-called vile bloggers.

Stop the angst, folks. You're reacting exactly as the winguts want us to. It's all the opening salvo from the wingnuts, doing their usual dirty work of tearing down our Democratic leaders.  If they are starting early, it's because they are scared spitless and absolutely must get their vicious message out there so they can repeat the deconstruction of Democrats over and over until the voters have absorbed the message: NO Democrats!

Was Ms. Marcotte right, in essence, saying that religion is often employed as an excuse to subjugate women?

Sometimes the answer will be yes.  Sometimes the answer will be no.  It really depends on what you want to hear, and who else is in the audience.  Majority opinion at a given moment is what carries the day.

"religious beliefs" that are a mask for sexual, racial and all other forms of intolerance.

I know why Ms. Marcotte and lots of women are angry about certain organized religions.

I also think that the Donohues of this world get a free ride by saying and doing hurtful things (like advertising that condoms do not protect against disease) because "that's what their God tells them."

Read Josh Marshall on some of D's past statements.

And to Dan G:  'Christian Zionist' is a very specific term, referring to the poisonous John Hagee and his ilk (among them Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye), fundamentalist Protestants who support the most right-wing policies wrt Israel, based on "biblical prophecy" that involves the eventual destruction of the Jewish people. 

Members of the Israeli government and right-wing hawks in this country have made a tactical alliance with these bigots that many Jewish Americans and friends of Israel find very unwise and short-sighted.  One good overview is Alan Cooperman's front-page story in the January 8, 2006 Washington Post.

I don't care who brought this up.  The fact is that they said very disgusting things, Nell.  My major opposition is to the birth control statement, but there are others that are just inappropriate, like one statement where they claim that all Republicans are mysoginists, racists, and homophobes.

I don't really care what Donohue thinks.  This is my own opinion based on reading their comments. 

This is an attack full of the false-outrage and hypocrisy we've come to expect from the right-wing. The charges of intolerance are unjustified. If Edwards were to respond by complying with this vile attack, he would be, in turn, validating it.

I was raised in one of those certain organizations, and I more than understand where Ms. Marcotte is coming from.

People like Donohue represent, one element, and I would add the worst element of the Catholic faith.  For a guy who apparently loves the letter of the law, I find it a little ironic that Donohue would feel that it was within his right, as a layman, to pass moral judgement on anyone.  If you are consistent in your beliefs as a Catholic, then it stands that only one group--the clergy--is within its rights to exercise this authority.  Donohue's actions are heretical.  They undercut the authority of the Church.

I should add that I am something of a lapsed Catholic. (More Catholic by upbring and training, then by ongoing practice or belief). 

In his own way, Donohue seems to have lapsed as well.  He would make a very poor Jesuit.

caveat - I am not and will not be paid staff, but I am a highly visible supporter of the Vilsack campaign, as I was of the Webb campaign,and as I expect to be in several Virginia campaigns (Chap Peterson, for example).  At the presidential level everything is apparently considered fair game.  The Vilsack campaign knows about anything that might be considered a skeleton in my closet.  Since I am just a volunteer that is not a problem, but it might have to be discussed were I either paid staff or acting as a surrogate (although one could consider the way I write as acting as a surrogate, although I would consider merely being an open and outspoken advocate).

That I have strong opinions on some things is a matter of record.  That I am human and may have used intemperate language at various times is beyond dispute.

Quite frankly, I don't see someone's opinions as disqualifying unless the actions they took were discriminatory, or that they are in a position to impose policy reflecting those opinions.  By the standard some want to apply you'd be surprised how many people you would be disqualifying from participation in public life.

Or you'd get the kind of attitude like that displayed by Clinton who wrote as a grad student in england about wanting to maintain his future political viability.

I did civil disobedience as a young man.  I broke the law deliberately, first over civil rights, then over Vietnam.  As it happens I was never arrested.  The risk I took there - an arrest and conviction would have been sufficient to bar me from getting a teaching certificate - was far more important than any loose expression of mouth that I or someone else may have made that some find offensive.

Hell, I find statements by elected public officials offensive all the time.  It is up to the candidate whether s/he is willing to have someone who has done those expressions on his/her staff.  Then you can decide if it really makes a difference.

BTW -  I consider the guy from the Catholic league an outright bigot -  take a look sometime at his comments about Jews in Hollywood, made in connection with the brouhaha over the Mel Gibson film The Passion.

Every night millions of Americans, of all faiths and non-faiths, watch our iconic late-night comedians.  Compare what Leno et al. have said about Catholicism, to what Ms. Marcotte said:

(sorry about the weird typos -- that's how they were on the political humor site)

"I read this in the paper this morning: New York City has a priest shortage. So you see, there is some good news in the world. ... To give you an idea how bad it is, earlier today in Brooklyn an alter boy had to grope himself." ?David Letterman

"As you've probably heard, the Pope has asked all the Cardinals to return to Rome. You know how they got them all to come back? They told them that there was going to be a performance by the Vienna Boys Choir." ?Jay Leno

"The Cardinals will be staying at the Domus Sanctae Marthae, the new hotel at the Vatican, where turn down service means the bell boy isn't interested." ?Daily Show host Jon Stewart

"They say (the Pledge of Allegiance) violates the separation of church and state. How about the separation of church and altar boy? That's what I'm worried about." ?Jay Leno

"Cardinal Law had difficulty with his memory under oath today. He could only remember three commandments. Under oath, Cardinal Law said 'I do not recall' 43 times. I'm telling you, this guy is presidential material." ?David Letterman

"The House Transportation Committee is now considering a bill that would allow pilots to carry guns for protection. I've got a better idea, why not give guns to altar boys, give them a fighting chance." ?Jay Leno

"In Boston, it looks like Cardinal Bernard Law isn't going to be punished. It turns out he's getting transferred to Rome, which is kind of like a promotion. He said today he wanted to thank all the little people." ?Jay Leno

"The Catholic Church is finally cracking down. Here's the deal now: if a priest is transferred to another parish, he cannot take his live-in boyfriend." ?David Letterman

"The Catholic Church has just opened a new $2 million cathedral in Los Angeles. They really spared no expense. Each confessional has a panic button in it." ?David Letterman

"The Church reaffirming celibacy ? it's kind of like Clinton reaffirming monogamy." ?Jay Leno

"The big Vatican summit wrapped up, closing ceremonies were Harry Connick Jr. The Vatican is taking a tough stand now, three strikes and you're transferred." ?David Letterman

"This is the last Take Your Daughter to Work Day. Next year, boys will be involved too. I guess the church lobbied pretty hard on that one." ?Jay Leno

"After all these scandals in the church, many Roman Catholics are calling for an end to celibacy. And end to celibacy, how about starting celibacy? Let's at least try it to see if it works." ?Jay Leno

"Pope has called all the U.S. cardinals back to the Vatican. He's going to have Italy's top soccer coach talk to them. I believe the topic is how to do your job without using your hands." ?Jay Leno

"Today the Catholic Church unveiled its new policy. Don't ask, don't confess." ?Jay Leno

"Isn't it crazy with all these church scandals? I'm beginning to understand how all those Bibles ended up in hotel rooms." ?Jay Leno

"This week hundreds of bishops arrived in Dallas for their annual convention. You know what that means? Party. Party. Party. A couple of bellboys are being carried over the threshold tonight." ?Jay Leno

"There is a big conference of Catholic Bishops in Dallas. Well this is great for the city, it brings in about $12 million in hush money." ?David Letterman

"The Supreme Court ruled today that virtual child pornography is legal. Finally, some good news for the church." ?Jay Leno

"Bush said we're going after white-collar criminals and I'm thinking 'Gee I wish the Catholic church would do that.'" ?David Letterman

http://politicalhumo...

(I agree that her Santorum "joke" is loony, bizarre and offensive --and I'm not religious  -- but the schoolyard reference was sick...)

There's a difference between making fun of a few horrible molesters and God.  Big difference.  In my opinion, those priests warranted whatever jokes that came down on them...and more.  David Letterman never said anything about "Hot, white, Holy Spirit."

It's the whole Catholic hierarchy, including the Pope, supposedly God's designated leader of the Church.  I mean they basically said the whole church was a bunch of perverts.

As for criticizing God---wow.  Theologians do that all the time.  You'll hear them say things like "the Old Testament God was vicious, jealous, arbitrary, etc."  Is that blasphemy?  Nope.

And serious thinkers about theology will also say you can see the denigration of women in the story about Christ's birth -- that a female could not be credited with birthing the Messiah, but it had to be done by an outside agent.  And there certainly could not have been anything sexual about it!  You can't see how the early church fathers were denigrating Mary's role?  The same church fathers that then spread lies about Mary Magdalene because she was actually a powerful person in the early Church?  (Read Elaine Pagels' commentary on the Gospel of Thomas, a book that serious writers put on a par with any of the New Testament Gospels.)

You need to read some books by serious theologians on the male-female conflict in religious history and how it played out in the manufacture of doctrine.  Then you'll understand why women feel free to criticize the MALE-MADE doctrines that had nothing to do with Jesus.

As I did yesterday, read some Uta Ranke-Heinemann or Elaine Pagels, or some Bart Ehrman on how some portions of the earliest New Test. texts were deliberately changed to reduce the role of women.

is an idiot.  Sorry, but that's just ridiculous.  This is like someone hiring a member of the Wonkette staff and then getting mad because someone else complains that they poked fun at Gerald Ford's death (or anything else, for that matter).  Anyone who reads that blog can tell it's satirical in nature and if John Edwards had actually done his homework, he would have known that in the first place.

Congratulations John Edwards, you've satisfied Michelle Malkin (and if you ever thought she was going to vote for you, you were obviously mistaken), but you've pissed off a significant amount of people that very well MAY have voted for you.

Are you upset that he's disgusted by what they wrote (I think many people would be)?  Or are you upset that he hired them in the first place (which I am) without taking note of their previous blogging?  Please clarify.  Thanks!

I'm disgusted with the fact that he bowed down to right wing trash talkers.  Seriously, I don't understand why he would back down to people who weren't going to vote for him in the first place, in the meantime ticking off MANY people who may have considered supporting him in the primaries.

I think it's ridiculous to hire someone who writes for a satirical blog, and then FIRE them because someone gets offended by what they wrote.  It's satire that makes fun of the right wing!! Of course the far right nuts are going to get upset, did Edwards really expect otherwise?

Good Satire that makes fun of the Right is the "Colbert Report."  They tease and poke fun, but really it's all a game.

Bad satire is a blog that makes references to God's sexual fluids. 

I can see we're not going to agree on what Edwards should or should not do.  But could you please at least admit that the posts themselves were disturbing and inappropriate?  Just to make me feel better.  Please?

"attack our way of life"

What?  "Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You'd have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."  Is that our way of life?

Yes, these people have the right to say whatever they want.  But they should pay whatever consequences they are faced with for that right.  If I say something horrendous while applying for a job, the employer has every right not to hire me.  THAT'S our way of life, freedom of choice, and with that freedom the responsibility to face the consequences of our actions and words.  Mel Gibson can say whatever horrible, anti-semetic thing he wants.  He also has to face the consequences of an incredible public backlash and nobody going to see his movie.

By demanding that these women actually keep their jobs, I don't see how we're promoting any kind of responsibility for our words, both in the blogosphere and in this primary.  Joe Biden was scrutinized for making fun of Indians recently, as well he should be.  A lot of bloggers were responsible for sharing the video.  And yet bloggers rush to the defense of the vulgar words of these women.  I just don't get it, I guess.

Edwards will also have to face the consequences of first hiring these people.  Much of the press I've seen thus far is pretty negative.

these bloggers employ.  That's just not who I am.  But I'm also REALLY not a fan of any Democrat backing down to right-wing thugs like Michelle Malkin and this Donohue bigot.  So, I guess I'm kind of torn here.  But no, if I were Edwards and truly offended by what someone wrote, I certainly wouldn't hire them for an important position on my Presidential campaign!!!

of "creepy theocrats."  Unfortunately, we've got a few of those right here in Virginia; "Sideshow Bob" Marshall, "Sodomy Bob" McDonnell, and Nick "Feminazis" Rerras spring instantly to mind.

I don't like those guys either.  I just think that if we're going to demand religious respect out of righties like Virgil, we need to demand it out of lefties like these bloggers.

The statements you find so distasteful aren't in the same category as the anti-semitic rants of Mel Gibson. If they were, then I'd agree that they should be fired. What we're talking about here is strickly satiric commentary, x-rated though it may be. Again, it is only the manner in which the statements were made that is in question. Again, you don't have to like it.

When I was a little kid, I used the word "bitch" in front of my grandmother.  She was furious.  I told her it was a joke.  Did that make it okay?  Nope.  I got my mouth washed out with soap. 

Yeah, I'll agree that on the offensive scale, Gibson's comments were a 10, and these were a 6 or 7.  Still, the point remains.  We must pay the consequences for our words.

I laugh at the humor of Steven Colbert and John Stewart. I also laugh at the humor of Howard Stern and Kevin Smith(Jay and Silent Bob). Excuse me for living. The only thing that separates them is style. Your "offensive scale" rating of this is wildly unreasonable.

I'll admit that there have been moments when even Kevin makes me go...woah.  Like in Clerks II, parts of the Donkey Scene made me feel uncomfortable.  Still liked the movie in general.  I like Howard a lot of the time.  But again, he can go too far, but in general I think he's really funny.

Even when they go too far, though, what seperates Kevin and Howard from these women is that THEY'RE FUNNY.  What was funny about that little "hot Holy Spirit" comment?  Nothing.  It wasn't funny in the slightest.  It was just offensive.

If you want to say or do something offensive, you better do it in a way that makes people laugh.  Kevin Smith is a master at this, and Howard is also pretty good (again, most of the time).  But these ladies weren't even funny.  Just gross and disturbing.

Based solely on matters of personal subjective taste. 

I'm a big fan of Colbert, Stewart, Letterman, Leno, Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Rabelias, Swift, Fielding, Chapelle, Milos Forman, the Farrelly Bros., et al.

But I can't stand Smith.  I respect what he's achieved--he's definitely the prototype of a DIY filmmaker. But I've never been a fan of his films. 

You have to understand why somebody who considers themselves religious is very offended. 

I am not satisfied with two things that the Edwards campaign did.

1) The campaign hired somebody without either a) adequately checking their background or b) did check their background and accepted the risks but later changed their minds - unwilling to accept the risks they initially accepted.

2) They caved to Republicans and acted in haste.

I can accept that they made mistake number 1 - bad hiring decisions are made all the time.  What isn't good was the response.  I hope they learn from this because if they can't handle this issue how will they handle even bigger issues?

Edwards is in charge of the campaign, and the buck starts there. 

I am satisfied with the final response of John Edwards.  What the bloggers said was offensive.  He did the right thing by calling a spade a spade.  But, I also think it is OK to keep the bloggers on the campaign.  They apologized and I think they will be more careful with their words now that they have a higher profile.

Be real folks - if you have been blogging for any amount of time I am sure you have said something at some time that people find offensive.  We aren't perfect and we reflect the imperfection of American.  Take the good with the bad.

And I think I could support Edwards as long as I don't hear from these girls for a while.