 |
Bloggergate ‘07 |
 |
The recent John Edwards blogger debacle, which some are already calling “bloggergate,” is a perfect example of the kind of struggle the spiritual left continuously runs into. Below is a basic rundown of the controversy:
At the end of January, in an aggressive sign of willingness to take the netroots seriously, Edwards hired Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, both of whom are highly respected liberal bloggers. What Edwards may or may not have realized, is that Marcotte and McEwen had written a few things in the past, on their personal blogs, that could be considered offensive to some.
Danny Glover, no, not that Danny Glover, was the first to take offense. The New York Times was the next to take aim, quoting Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League as saying, “John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.” One of the offensive statements that drew a lot of attention was an instance in which Marcotte reffered to President Bush’s “wingnut Christofascist base.” I can see why this could be considered offensive by some, and why John Edwards would not want to be associated with these types of statements. On the other hand, there are a few things being overlooked that are important to understanding this situation.
1. Many bloggers, especially on the far right or far left of the ideological spectrum, use harsh language to make their points. This is largely a result of the fact that they are individuals genuinely expressing themselves. Without an editorial board to limit the language they use to communicate they are free of some of the constraints traditional journalists face when crafting an argument. Aside from just bloggers, pundits from both sides of the aisle have a history of using offensive speech to advance their cause.
2. When Marcotte and McEwen wrote the statements in question, they were not in any way affiliated with the Edwards campaign. It is fair to criticize a candidate for something a staffer says once they are hired, but to go through their personal blogging archives is just nitpicking.
So, as has been pointed out by others, Edwards has no legitimate reason to take the advice of those like Bill Donohue on the issue of who should or shouldn’t be on his campaign. Those on the left, whom Edwards needs to withstand a particularly crowded primary field will not likely be offended by previous statements made by bloggers on his campaign. Those on the right, particularly members of the Catholic League, would not consider voting for Edwards in a general election anyway, regardless of who he hired as bloggers.
Fortunately, in his cautious tone, Edwards seems to agree with me on some level and has made the right decision:
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
Edwards has set a strong example for other democratic contenders to follow. When faced with trivial attacks from the right, on a matter of spirituality, or any other issue, it is essential to stand your ground and fight for what you believe is right. Lesser candidates would have caved to the pressure and fired the bloggers in an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug. Kudos to John Edwards for taking a stand.
