I haven't said anything on my blog about the Amanda Marcotte foofaraw, because I really didn't care all that much. But I don't want all my gentle readers to miss the comment I did make over at Charles G. Hills' site concerning a weirdly (and wrongly, I mean come on) sympathetic note of support from the Conservative Princess:
First, no one has silenced her. Second, no one has -- oh well, someone already said it. So, she's free to be herself again, but she's lost a cushy job putting out bland congrats for hairdo boy, and she's complaining? Let's just say that against all odds Edwards kept her, how free does anyone think that this woman would be to engage in her lubricious rantings? Talk about being censored -- she'd be turned into a bland nobody in no time and then forgotten like a housewife with 2.4 children -- something I thought was the chief fear of every progresso-feminist gal in the land. Proof that liberals can't think, and that righties who engage in sympathy for the devil experience a similar level of brain damage. I can't even seem to find my nano-violin, myself.And this marks the first time in possibly history that I've agreed with the smarmy Jim Henley about anything. Chalk one up for the books.
That would be Jim Henley of Unqualified Offerings, whose mock humility and habit of archly referring to himself in the third person wore off long ago. Anyway, that's all I have to say about the Marcotte woman, except no sane female, if she were as radical feminist as Andrea Dworkin, would have allowed this photograph of herself to appear anywhere.
Update: I forgot -- all this is to obscure the real question, which is: what on earth was Edwards thinking? I find it hard to believe that there aren't a jillion less disgustingly foul-mouthed liberal bloggers out there who would have served his campaign -- which whether he or anyone else likes it must play to the class that doesn't like naughty language as much as any rightwing campaign -- just as well if not better than this woman could have. From the few samples of her writing that I have been able to force myself to read before the boredom coma threatened to make me faceplant my keyboard, Marcotte is nothing special in the prose department. Heck, Edwards could have told any one of his employees -- or their kids -- to knock up a blog and copy-paste pabulum. A blog isn't anything special, after all -- it's just a form you fill out and press "submit." Obviously he is as surrounded by idiots as everyone else, which enabled the Kos/Pandagon crew to get their hooks in, however briefly and farcically.
Oh well -- it is all to the good, if by "good" you mean anything that makes the current crop of Dems and their supporters look like a bunch of morons. And I do mean that.
Comments (7)
Some of Edwards' tame syncophants probably told him they were both "provocative, edgy, and passionate," while leaving out the venom spewing hate part.
But the language was only half of it. Sure, I think an intelligent person would have paused at the sheer volume of foul language and asked "is this really the best way to make the point?" But what are the odds that Edwards, of all people, would have intelligent people working in his campaign? Beyond the language is a bilious viciousness that is truly off-putting. The rancor those two throw out on a good day make anyone not sharing their bigotry want to shower. I'm surely not going to waste any of my time reveiwing their sites just to read brainless in-your-face filth directed at whomever is the villain du jour (probably me anyway). I mean, once you know somebody is a putrid hate filled sack of toxins, what more do want to know?
Posted by Steve Skubinna | February 13, 2007 10:36 PM
Posted on February 13, 2007 22:36
Personally, I didn't care one way or the other if she kept her job or not. Either way, the whole business was going to be entertaining...it was bound to be a train wreck. I mean, it was monumentally stupid of Edwards (or one of his flunkies) to have hired her in the first place without going through a careful vetting process. Like you said, there are other far less divisive left wing bloggers (some of them Christians, even) who could have been picked.
Disagreeing with the Catholic Church on abortion and contraception is one thing. If it were just that, she would still have a job. But the over-the-top hate and blasphemy is something that would really be a liability for Edwards. The "princess" may find it "sad", but it's a fact of life. I'm going to be charitable and say the the "princess" is not fully informed.
Posted by Susan B. | February 13, 2007 11:52 PM
Posted on February 13, 2007 23:52
Actually, I was predicting this sort of thing twenty years ago, when someone in the BBS community half-jokingly said that I ought to run for some office or other and I explained that everything I had posted up to that point would suddenly materialize out of some hitherto-unnoticed archive and bite me on the ass.
And maybe that's why I'm a trifle sympathetic to the women in question, if not at all to the jerkwad who hired them. It's not that they've actually earned said sympathy - by all accounts, they were utterly thrilled by the possibility of getting a meal ticket out of their rancid emissions - but simply that being young and heedless reminds me of, well, me, too many years ago.
Posted by CGHill | February 14, 2007 8:42 AM
Posted on February 14, 2007 08:42
I think it's more likely that Edwards has people working for him who consider that sort of language and bile normal. I.e., the person who made the hiring decision (almost certainly not Edwards) didn't decide to do it despite the language, he decided without even realizing it would be a problem.
Posted by Annoying Old Guy | February 14, 2007 3:14 PM
Posted on February 14, 2007 15:14
Jeez Andrea ...until this minute, I had no idea: I'd seen that post on Ace and presumed - contextually - it to be some hapless male that some tinkerer photoshopped into what I also presumed to be a pix of Ms. M.
Ya mean, that's really her? Oh. My.
...no wonder she hates life. (I read a couple of pages of her Pandagon crap ...and took a shower: the woman obviously has some serious issues.)
Puir li'l lass. Noo wunnert she'd soured on life of late.
Posted by brdavis | February 15, 2007 1:14 AM
Posted on February 15, 2007 01:14
I've seen other pictures of her and she looks like a normal woman. It's the double-exposure effect that makes her chin look bigger and gives her that five o'clock shadow.
Posted by Andrea Harris | February 15, 2007 6:13 AM
Posted on February 15, 2007 06:13
Forgot to add: I don't know if the picture was "doctored" to make her look bad or it just came out that way and she, or someone else, thought it made her look "cool."
Posted by Andrea Harris | February 15, 2007 6:13 AM
Posted on February 15, 2007 06:13