Wednesday, February 07, 2007

From The Edwards Blog's Open Thread

[Posted by reader_iam]

Scratchin' my head at some of what's being said in this comments section at the JohnEdwards08 Blog:
The comment you refer to was deleted not for its import but rather its tone. The author is welcome to re-submit the comment so long as he/she makes its tone more civil.

by Joe Clarke [Who wrote the actual post to which I linked]
on 2/07/2007 at 12:42 PM EST
civil, constructive dialogue (none / 1)

We welcome civil, constructive dialogue on this blog.

We do not welcome snark, snideness, cruelty, or any other offensive forms of interaction.

I suggest you focus more on the issues and less on the way this blog is managed. This blog is about issues, not itself.

If you would like to discuss this issue further, you can email me ...

by Joe Clarke
on 2/07/2007 at 1:59 PM EST

If those are the values that the JohnEdwards08 Blog espouse, presumably as a reflection of the candidate it's seeking to promote, then why on earth...? And I'm still not really buying that the Edwards campaign didn't "know," or even that Elizabeth Edwards, if not former Sen. Edwards, didn't.

Go to if you want to dip into the controversy over the alleged firing of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan from the Edwards Campaign, which has not officially confirmed, denied or really spoken out about what's going on.

I have some mixed feelings on this topic that I'm trying to sort out, but I will say ask readers this: Even if you had no issues with the hiring of Marcotte and McEwan to begin with and didn't believe it reflected in anyway on Edwards or Edwards' campaign, do you think the way this whole thing has played out--seemingly taking staffers and the Edwardses "unaware"--and is [not] being handled by the campaign reflects poorly on the former senator's staff judgment and ability to handle a national bid for office against, say, Clinton and McCain, even Guiliani?

Note that while some may dismiss this as just another blogfuffle which no one "out there" will bother with, the story has hit the NYT, and, I'm given to understand but can't find a link, CNN. Given that Terry Moran of ABC has blogged about it, I'd think that even if ABC news hasn't reported on it yet (it may have; I don't know), that it's likely to do so in some form at some point. That broadens the stage and reach, don't you think?

That's it, for now.

Update: I see that Cal beat me to the punch on this one. Is this a first, that we apparently were--more or less--simulcomposing (note that my posts are timestamped in Eastern, though I live in Central, Time)? Well, I guess it's happened--from my perspective--a couple of times, but in those cases I checked the blog before hitting publish and then didn't.

I guess you could just color us simulfascinated...we really are seeing a fledgling political campaign strategy (tactic? both?), with all its potential and pitfalls transparently on display, test its wings.

And for some reason, I keep thinking of Icarus.

Acknowledged: Yep, some minor editing here (not content related, but typo related and a wrong "word" [specifically, I changed simulposting to simulcomposing a bit ago, which is what I actually meant and intended). I wouldn't necessarily update for that, but now it's been a while and I just saw a little thing or two--again, not related to content. Thus!