The Edwards blogger thing
It's a bit of inside baseball that will get an irrational amount of attention more than likely, but since it involves one of my top two candidates for president as well as blogging, I figured I'd talk a bit about it. What happened, namely, was that Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, two liberal bloggers who operated their own personal sites, were hired by John Edwards to work on his campaign blogs. Someone - either the media or right-leaning blogs, I'm not clear on which - went back through their previous postings and came across some offensive materials, including what many Catholic leaders claim is anti-Catholic postings and language. The story gets out across the national blogs and the mainstream media, and there is pressure for Edwards to fire both Marcotte and McEwan. After confronting the two women, he decided to forgive them and let them remain on his staff. This, naturally, has been met with criticism on the right and in conservative Catholic circles, while being applauded on the left and in blogger circles. So, some thoughts ...
- Right off the bat, I don't know where I come down on the whole thing. From a political perspective, Edwards did a smart, and somewhat noble, thing by being willing to fight for these two people. He was willing to acknowledge that they made a mistake in how they handled themselves, even if it was on their personal time and in the past, and took them at their word that it wouldn't happen again. It was a pretty gracious act and showed he would stick up for them when lots of folks would have tossed them under the bus.
- That said ... I don't necessarily buy their apologies. Because it seems they dance around rather then come out and flatly say 'we were wrong.' So when Marcotte says 'my intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs' that's hogwash. There are few, if any, explainable reasons why someone would resort to intentionally using such defamatory language toward one's religion or beliefs if the intent wasn't to belittle or dehumanize it. Furthermore, apologizing for someone being 'personally offended' by their writings isn't taking responsibility for one's actions. It's still placing the burden of blame on the one who was offended.
- These writings were on personal blogs done in the past, which is a whole different ballgame. It is, quite possibly, the first time the online musings of a politically active blogger has come under scrutiny in a campaign (I could be wrong about this). As someone who has an interest in being, well, politically active this is interesting to follow. I try my hardest to run a fair blog with honest discussion, though I'm quite sure I've said silly things over the years. But are those statements, whatever they may be, enough to damn me forever? I would like to think not, and I would like to think not for Marcotte or McEwan or the any other host of bloggers from both sides of the political aisle. We must strive to be responsible and respectful in our speech, but we also should be able to understand the concept of grace too.
- The caveat about blogging, however, is that it has transformed the average, everyday political discourse people have had for centuries - which was full of its own stupid statements and frustrated moments - into public record, free to be overscrutinized by opposing candidates, other bloggers, the media and the like.
- Of course, we've seen hysterical reactions from both sides ... as this posting of the Catholic League and resulting commentary from MyDD suggests. I'm no fan of Bill Donohue, and his statement if full of mistruths (like Edwards condoning anti-Catholicism) and self-absorbed delusions of grandeur (like this irresponsible and troubling line - 'I have news for (Edwards) - the Catholic League - not Edwards - will decide what the debate will be about, and it won't be about the nation.') But, of course, then Chris Bowers says had Edwards fired the bloggers, he wouldn't have supported his candidacy ... because blogger allegiance is more important than, say, the situation in Iraq or our economic future?
- Right off the bat, I don't know where I come down on the whole thing. From a political perspective, Edwards did a smart, and somewhat noble, thing by being willing to fight for these two people. He was willing to acknowledge that they made a mistake in how they handled themselves, even if it was on their personal time and in the past, and took them at their word that it wouldn't happen again. It was a pretty gracious act and showed he would stick up for them when lots of folks would have tossed them under the bus.
- That said ... I don't necessarily buy their apologies. Because it seems they dance around rather then come out and flatly say 'we were wrong.' So when Marcotte says 'my intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs' that's hogwash. There are few, if any, explainable reasons why someone would resort to intentionally using such defamatory language toward one's religion or beliefs if the intent wasn't to belittle or dehumanize it. Furthermore, apologizing for someone being 'personally offended' by their writings isn't taking responsibility for one's actions. It's still placing the burden of blame on the one who was offended.
- These writings were on personal blogs done in the past, which is a whole different ballgame. It is, quite possibly, the first time the online musings of a politically active blogger has come under scrutiny in a campaign (I could be wrong about this). As someone who has an interest in being, well, politically active this is interesting to follow. I try my hardest to run a fair blog with honest discussion, though I'm quite sure I've said silly things over the years. But are those statements, whatever they may be, enough to damn me forever? I would like to think not, and I would like to think not for Marcotte or McEwan or the any other host of bloggers from both sides of the political aisle. We must strive to be responsible and respectful in our speech, but we also should be able to understand the concept of grace too.
- The caveat about blogging, however, is that it has transformed the average, everyday political discourse people have had for centuries - which was full of its own stupid statements and frustrated moments - into public record, free to be overscrutinized by opposing candidates, other bloggers, the media and the like.
- Of course, we've seen hysterical reactions from both sides ... as this posting of the Catholic League and resulting commentary from MyDD suggests. I'm no fan of Bill Donohue, and his statement if full of mistruths (like Edwards condoning anti-Catholicism) and self-absorbed delusions of grandeur (like this irresponsible and troubling line - 'I have news for (Edwards) - the Catholic League - not Edwards - will decide what the debate will be about, and it won't be about the nation.') But, of course, then Chris Bowers says had Edwards fired the bloggers, he wouldn't have supported his candidacy ... because blogger allegiance is more important than, say, the situation in Iraq or our economic future?
posted by Jmac at 5:03 PM
2 Comments:
Why wouldn't a blog comment be counted against someone forever? We're talking politics here, not salvation. To the clever go the rewards, whether the one making the accusation or the one responding. Forgiveness and charity only really matter in everything else.
I'd agree that they didn't really apologize, but perhaps they didn't feel that they needed to. While I'm not overall a fan of the "I'm sorry you were offended" statement, I do think that it has its place if the people offended are being stupid. What did they say?
Post a Comment
<< Home