Now you know as much as I do. ;)

That’d be a good one. I know exactly not a damn thing about Elizabeth Edwards. Do you? Do you think she would have read their blogs and then told her husband “Let’s hire these two.”? Or just did it on hearsay from a friend/staffer? Yow.

Michael:

Do you know for a fact they were asked to resign? Source?

Well, you can, but it looks bad on the news.

I wonder if anyone else has quit/gotten fired from this campaign recently and (possibly related) whose idea it was to pick these two to be part of the Edwards campaign public face.

As far as the Duke case goes; so far no one has been found guilty of anything, including both the accused and the complainant. I am still content to wait, and still condemn those on both sides who are ready to rush to judgement.

February 14th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Marcotte was asked to leave as a result of her Duke rants rather than the comments regarding religion.
Well, probably never know whether she jumped or was pushed, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that her Duke rants had anything to do with it. Both Ewards’ and her own remarks refer to the Catholic reaction, but neither mention the Duke issue

That is exactly the impression they wanted to leave. Do you really think she scrubbed the Duke comments after the fact for no reason? As for knowing if she was pushed or jumped you simply need to understand how these things are done.
Edwards said the Bloggers would stay remain when he thought it was simply about the Donahue issue. Then they looked deeper and saw the other writings.
Marcotte attempted to scrub several posts but screen shots had already been captured.

The evidence points to what I am saying. But that is not the only reason I have for being so sure.

Marcotte was asked to leave as a result of her Duke rants rather than the comments regarding religion .

We’ll probably never know whether she jumped or was pushed, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that her Duke rants had anything to do with it. Both Ewards’ and her own remarks refer to the Catholic reaction, but neither mention the Duke issue

This was a battle between Christianity and feminism over which had the greater traction in the political discourse. The issue of those accused of rape being vilified counts, I guess as a men’s issue, and has no traction at all. That’s Patriarchy for you.

February 10th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
In my view, removing a post and replacing it with a “this is my official position” post is a retraction of the original post. Actions speak as loud as words, in this case.

No Ampersand . This would be a retraction if she stated as such .Howver, she scrubbed the other post and made a dishonest effort to claim that the new post was her opinion . I am willing to bet you that she will go back to her original comment and stand by it .That scrubbing was a weak attempt to cover her tracks
for when the Duke case became a hot issue again . In fact , it is the very reason
why she was offered the chance to resign .Please take note as to where Edwards headquarters is located . Then consider how Fox News and other media would play this as the Duke case continued .

Marcotte was asked to leave as a result of her Duke rants rather than the comments regarding religion .

And you conveniently leave out the most egregious comments Marcotte made — which were about the Duke case.

Brett, did you notice that this is the second part of a two-part post? The comments I focused on were all drawn from the Catholic League’s press release, which was the most prominent and important criticism of Amanda and Mellisa.

Amanda’s comments — which she has since pulled off her site, and replaced them with what she called her “official position” — seem to me to be premised on the idea that a rape definitely took place. I now disagree with her about that. That said, I certainly don’t believe that having expressed an opinion I disagree with about a legal case, should be grounds for firing. And given her belief that a rape took place, I think her anger is perfectly understandable.

I don’t agree with what Amanda wrote in her original post. But I’m also not going to be egged on into joining a huge, ongoing (albeit waning) anti-Amanda pile-on by anti-feminists[*] or right-wingers. Context matters; I’ve been at the center of too many blogstorms, experiencing people searching my back for rare unknifed portions, to want to contribute to this one.

I might, eventually, get around to posting about where I disagree with posts that haven’t been pulled by their authors, and that are more substantive, such as this post. It’s one of a few dozen posts shuffling their feet on my “I really should get around to writing this post” list.

[*] I know, you don’t consider yourself anti-feminist. I disagree.

I don’t think publicly announcing that you’re removing a post, which is what Amanda did in this case, is either wrong or dishonest.

But what about the original post itself? She didn’t apologise for or retract it. She just scrubbed it.

It’s not as though you haven’t been invited to comment. Nor is there any shortage of forums in which you could do so should you feel that it’s not on-topic for that thread. Nobody is questioning your right to ignore the issue, but in the light of your robust defence of her other remarks, it’s beginning to look like avoidance.

And you conveniently leave out the most egregious comments Marcotte made — which were about the Duke case. It is most decidedly unacceptable to slander obviously innocent people by implying they are rapists, when anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that the accuser is lying.

Well, Brett, I’ve got a couple of brain cells to rub together. More than a couple in fact, and I can’t ’see’ that. Not as a certainty.

What I can see, out of the plethora of evidential documents the defence has chosen not to withhold, is a lot of material which would tend to discredit her as a witness, and to suggest that in fact no rape took place. Nobody outside the case has any basis now (nor did they ever) for declaring the accused men to be rapists.

However the same material, viewed not as a defence for the accused, but as an indictment of the complainant, is essentially the case for the prosecution. The court of public opinion hasn’t seen the case for her defence. Evidence, possibly exculpatory for her has been withheld by the men’s lawyers, and yet we’re supposed to find her guilty.

Well I won’t. And there’s a reason why I won’t. It’s because I care about false accusations. That makes me very reluctant to point accusatory fingers at people unless I’m pretty damn sure that the accusation is true.

Well, first of all, I think Edwards (even before this whole thing) has as much chance of getting nominated as Sam Brownback does. And second of all, huh? I don’t purport to know what social conservatives are thinking, because I’m sure not one of em. And I’m not a godbag either.

This is what a Presidential candidate wants to associate with? Fine. You’re judged by the company you keep.

> If we give up on the idea that it’s acceptable to criticize conservative Christians for their misogynistic, anti-gay views

That is a fundamentally dishonest representation of the problem with these two women. Of course criticizing the Pope is fair game. Talking about God’s semen may not be.

And you conveniently leave out the most egregious comments Marcotte made — which were about the Duke case. It is most decidedly unacceptable to slander obviously innocent people by implying they are rapists, when anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that the accuser is lying.

You’re completely missing the lesson here, which is that there are some things you can say on a blog that disqualify you as representative of a political campaign. Edwards is dead in the water now - this will follow him for the rest of the campaign.

I imagine that our pastor would laugh at a bunch of that stuff, too. But most of our parishioners wouldn’t.

I don’t think publicly announcing that you’re removing a post, which is what Amanda did in this case, is either wrong or dishonest.

http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/images/marcotte.jpg

Marcotte scrubbed that post clean and replaced it with this :

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.

To me this is both dishonest and cowardly .