Know it.
Shelby the Intern

The internet has delivered the mechanism.

The voices of the many will staighten out the mess.

I think the intricacy of developed nations is what brings them down.

I think America will have a half life of the Romans.

It does bother me, however, that there’s a “blogs will be blogs” attitude about what these Edwards campaign bloggers have written. Anti-Catholic hate is hate. Painting conservatives with a broad brush and calling them all “christo-fascists” is just plain irresponsible. These bloggers (in true blogosphere fashion) need to receive rebuke as much as they dish it out. And when they represent a broader group than just their bad selves, they need to submit to Edwards reprimand.

The difference is that, unlike most paid shills, bloggers tend to reveal more of what they think as people in their personal journals. This is only the tip of the iceberg; I’m assuming most campaign consultants will push candidates to use influential bloggers to reach the “youth vote” without thoroughly researching what they may have written as people in the past.

And BTW, if these bloggers can be bought for the price of a consulting fee, what does that say about the validity and veracity of blogging in general? How do we really know who’s a paid shill and who isn’t, if they choose not to reveal what’s behind the curtain?

Eventually we will find a place to peg blogging on the scale between private conversation and public oratory. But we aren’t there yet.

Edwards seems to have decided to accede to the threat, and the bloggers–outragously, in my mind–announced in effect, “we didn’t really mean all those things we wrote.”

So, for the time being, Edwards has decided ticking off Catholics/Christians/white males (etc.) is a lesser evil than ticking off the Kos kids.

Second. On some level, Edwards’ choice either shows reckless incompetence on his part or it highlights a dearth of marketable bloggers who hold beliefs compatible to the unctuous, delusional trial lawyer.

But I agree with your point, people’s tolerance of this stuff has got to increase. Anyway under 30 years old qualified to do this stuff is going to have some skeletons online somewhere.

Edwards is backing her right now. But he needs to do more than say the four-letter words bother him. Marcotte has displayed a disdain for the Catholic church. Doesn’t Edwards need to answer why he wants someone of that mindset to work for him? Isn’t that a fair question to ask of the man who would be president?

Or are we only permitted to know boxers or briefs?

We could do that. We also could insist that people who claim a role on the national stage maintain certain standards of conduct for themselves and their representatives and be accountable when those standards are breached.

Edwards should feel free to hire whomever he wishes as his bloggers-in-chief, but he shouldn’t be able to use the “blogs will be blogs” defense when his representatives say embarrassing or hateful things. What irritates me is less what the bloggers wrote than it is Edwards’ ducking of responsibility. Some leader!

By the way, your reference to “[f]iring people because they once said something that might have offended someone” puzzles me. The posts that have gained the most attention are very recent - it’s not like Robert Byrd having joined the Klan 60 years ago. If you are arguing for a “statute of limitations” on the consequences of blog postings, fine. But what an exercise in line drawing! How long until a blogger should get a pass on posts that, say, are anti-Muslim, or white supremacist, or blame 9/11 on the Jews?

Said the wicked witch of the west, “What a world! What a world!”