Well, I used to work in politics a little bit, and I can generally tell the difference between a well run campaign and one that is off to a bad start.
For all of the problems I had with Bill Clinton, the man knew how to organize a campaign.
Hmm. I don’t think I should be giving the impression that there are no valid reasons to dislike a candidate. But since the person I was addressing is a conservative, if he says “That was a mistake” is he saying it was a mistake because it won’t help the candidate get elected or is he saying it was a mistake because it will?
In this specific case, my take is that **Moto **is criticizing Edwards for not running a good campaign with respect to his choice of Blog Mistress (Marcotte’s term.)
Edwards probably hired them becasue of their ability to run a netroots campaign not for their personal opinions. I think this is more about the primaries and pulling in the
extreme left and going after the Kos, DD voters and anti-Hiliary voters which might be successful. She’s doing badly with that group.
I hate to tell you but I think the Republican dream of Hiliary winning in the primaries are slowly fading.
(removed quote)
Oh, I know why he wants to run an Internet outreach. But doing that might damage his credibility with more mainstream voters. It is a tough balancing act, and it takes a good choice to run that outreach.
The initial choice was a bad one, IMHO.
And what does that criticism mean when it comes from someone who wants the Democrats to lose?
I don’t know. I am making an appeal for the criticism to stand or fall on its own merits, rather than attacking the source. If you assume that everything your opponent says is suspect simply because he says it, you are likely to miss important information.
Netroots campaigns aren’t usually targeted for mainstream voters. This is all about the primaries and getting getting the already solidly democratic voters on his side. That’s how I see it. The two women have have a large and active following. Whether this will backfire, who knows. Depends how they handle it.
No, she isn’t. She re-wrote one post, the one posted by Caridwen, before any of this ever blew up. Several posts from the past were lost in various server transitions.
The post quoted by Mr. Moto is still at her blog. I found it with a simple search.
(Disclosure: Amanda is a friend of mine.)
My mistake.
There’s no chance that Amanda wasn’t “vetted”. Elizabeth Edwards is very active in the lefty blog community, and Edwards has been reaching out to bloggers for some time.
They knew exactly who they were hiring: an unapologetic young liberal who holds strong opinions and doesn’t mince words about them, and an excellent writer who has justly earned a lot of respect in the blogosphere. It goes against the conventional wisdom to hire someone like Amanda to run a campaign blog, but Edwards isn’t going to get anywhere by following the conventional wisdom.
Allow me to clarify. I did not mean to imply that JE invented these terms, what concerns me is that he has not, to my knowledge, defined these terms. Has he indicated that he is using the H&HS definitions or his own? Where can I find these definitions? Politicians say rich/poor/middle-class all the time, but it can usually be ignored as the empty feel-good speechifying typical of BS artists. Edwards, however, is pushing his Two Americas thing and so definitions of ‘class’ are important to parse exactly what he is proposing to do. That said, my opinions are probably irrelevant, as I am leaning towards submitting a blank ballot.
I think the point is that there are some people who will automatically reject any candidate from one party and then afterwards look around for some moral principle they can invoke to justify their decision: “Well, I was keeping an open mind about Candidate Smith, but an hour after he announced he was running I heard he once bought a VCR that had been made in Japan so now I’m not going to vote for him to show my support for American business.”
A danger sign is when these deeply felt principles get picked up or dropped in different campaigns. I’m sure there were many people who declared their reason for voting against Clinton was that he hadn’t served in Vietnam but then went on to vote for Bush when he ran against Gore and Kerry.
For some reason, people feel a reluctance to simply make an obvious declaration like, “I’m a Democrat and I’m going to vote for the Democratic candidate.” They like to instead portray themselves as independents who are considering all the candidates. And as a bonus, they get to fire off a parting shot at the candidate they don’t like by declaring he had some moral flaw they lost them.
That’s true. When we’re dealing with a matter of how a candidate is perceived rather than any facts, though, having someone say, “Oh, that’s going to hurt his candidacy!” when it’s just something that he hopes will hurt his candidacy doesn’t give us any new information. Hearing that a Republican thinks ill of Edwards doesn’t tell us anything new about Edwards.
When it comes to facts, the source doesn’t matter. When it comes to claims about how something is perceived, the source does.
Yes she is. The one I linked to has been disappeared.
That would make it worse, wouldn’t it?
Wouldn’t they then have fully known that those offensive comments would have come to light, and didn’t care? Wouldn’t they then have been putting the enthusiasm of the netroots over the offense of Catholics and other Christians?
I agree. Which is why I consider a Republican’s avowed perception of how Edwards hires anti-religious people as useless.
It’s not me you have to worry about. It’s people like Bill Donohue and his group.
This is what Mr. Moto said.
If James Carville were a guest on, lets say, The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, and said that about Rudolph Giuliana, would you discount his opinion because he isn’t voting for Rudy?
Plus they get congratulated for being so open minded. Don’t buy it either.