The Edwards-Marcotte Fiasco

[Bob In Pacifica]

PB: Bob, you are the king of nodding in unison. Shall I prepare a compilation thread?

Only if it helps you get in touch with yourself. If you've got complaints about why you are banned at Liestoppers, talk to them.

[ThinkFirstTypeLater]

If Edwards keeps Marcotte on the payroll, I think he is finished with whatever paltry hopes he might have had, and it won't have anything to do with her egregiously inappropriate comments about the LAX case. I read through some of Pendagon earlier, and middle America (i.e. the largest block of voters) will be offended by its content. There's something for pretty much everyone to find offensive there, unless you're from the farthest fringes of the nazi wing of the feminist movement. I really can't understand why Edwards, at a time when the country is moving almost uniformly to the center from both sides, would hire someone to be his "web face" who is so far away from any semblance of mainstream opinion. Here's hoping she doesn't retain her habit of deleting any comments that are not exactly her opinion on his blog.

[abb]

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/02/more-on-marcotte.html

Friday, February 02, 2007
More on Marcotte

[abb]

http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/02/meet_john_edwardss_new_blogger.html

Meet John Edwards's new blogger-in-chief

[Epublius]

If Sen. Edwards is aware of her public and aextensive use of profanity, and hires her anyway, he deserves what he gets.

[Bob In Pacifica]

K.C. Johnson's take is interesting, suggesting that the way for a Democratic candidate to win is go extreme left and then work your way back to the center for the election. Of course, a similar process works for the Republicans on the other side of the spectrum. You gather your hardcore and then head for the middle.

I've been around long enough that effing this and effing that doesn't bother me. Stupidly presuming someone's guilt does. I doubt that she'll be around the Edwards camp for long.

[Lousy1]

K.C. Johnson's take is interesting, suggesting that the way for a Democratic candidate to win is go extreme left and then work your way back to the center for the election. Of course, a similar process works for the Republicans on the other side of the spectrum. You gather your hardcore and then head for the middle.

I've been around long enough that effing this and effing that doesn't bother me. Stupidly presuming someone's guilt does. I doubt that she'll be around the Edwards camp for long.

Bob I think that most politicians realize that the object of the nomination battle is to appeal to spectrum of your party’s interests. In order to achieve success the spectrum must include financial clout, organization and passion (the ratio is in flux.)  The key is to do so in a way that will not alienate the main election voters who represent a totally different demographic. Edward could achieve some of these goals by throwing Amanda under the bus. She even alienated Marcos! This is probably a first for a lefty. IMO She is going down hard and publicly.

 This is my first, last and only digression into political science.

Back on course;

Free the three! Bop bad cops!  Fry those who lie! Viva Zapata!

[Tortmaster]

K.C. Johnson's take is interesting, suggesting that the way for a Democratic candidate to win is go extreme left and then work your way back to the center for the election. Of course, a similar process works for the Republicans on the other side of the spectrum. You gather your hardcore and then head for the middle.

I've been around long enough that effing this and effing that doesn't bother me. Stupidly presuming someone's guilt does. I doubt that she'll be around the Edwards camp for long.

I'm going to go over and read K.C.'s blog now! I did want to say this first, though. Edwards' idea to go far left to start off would have been sound if not for Clinton and Obama. I expect Hillary to stay pretty much in the center, but she will be able to count on a lot of support from the ultra-feminists, some Hollywood types (and the folks who only read "People" magazine) and the $100,000.00+/year annual income liberals. Obama can and will go more left of center than Hillary, and that will also cut out Edwards. Of course, picking the worst possible person (besides Clakki Cheek-O'Knight-Yancy, Jr.) as his blogmaster is just his second huge mistake in this young campaign season.

EACH DAY OF THIS INJUSTICE IS ANOTHER DAY WON BY HATRED AND PREJUDICE  

[Epublius]

It's very true that popular political widsom in a presidential race dictates that a candidate runs to the wings (extremes) in the primary and caucuses, and then runs to the center after receiving the nomination.

It has been said that Hillary can win the nomination, but can't win the general election.  Rudy, on the other hand, could win the general but probably not win the GOP nomination.

One of the problems, however, is that leaving too much of a radical trail in the primary provides the other party with useful negative issues in the general election.

If Edwards identifies with this woman's extreme feminist views and gutteral language in the primary, then he risks alienating this crowd in the general by throwing her under the bus. 

It's one thing to appeal to radical votes.  It's another to have a radical staff.

[PB]

You can see why it is worthwhile for politicians to avoid taking sides in unfinished court battles. Usually that's considered prudent, but in this case, not taking sides is being sold as a betrayal. I think that's one of things that makes this case extremely unique.

[Bob In Pacifica]

At the risk of Peebs' wrath, Lousy, I agree. There's no nominations for sitting in the back of a convention center with the three most radical delegates in your party. And I would hope that Edwards has the wisdom, or Marcotte the humility, to do the right thing and slink back to Pandangit.

[TalkLeft]

If you want to discuss political candidates in general, please do it at TalkLeft, not in the Duke forums.

[PB]

If you want to discuss political candidates in general, please do it at TalkLeft, not in the Duke forums.

Bob in Pacifica:

I've been around long enough that effing this and effing that doesn't bother me. Stupidly presuming someone's guilt does.

Well, unless you're stupidly presuming Nifong's guilt. We see a lot of that around here. The "situation" quote is only the best of many many examples.

[Ready4Freddy]

The "situation" quote is only the best of many many examples.

AFAIK, the only time the defendant Nifong has directly 'splained the '"situation" quote' is to the Grievance Committee of the NC State Bar. 

The Bar says that Nifong made representations to the Grievance Committee that "he did not realize that the potentially exculpatory DNA test results were not included in DSI's report from May 12 until he recieved the December 13 motion to compel discovery."

They consider those representations to be "knowingly false statements of material fact made in connection with a disciplinary matter".  That probably had something to do with Meehan's testimony and Nifong's subsequent comments to the press re: "privacy" and "I forgot".

[Lousy1]

Well, unless you're stupidly presuming Nifong's guilt. We see a lot of that around here. The "situation" quote is only the best of many many examples.

We are all eyewitnesses to Mr. Nifong's malfeasance and excesses. There has never been a question regarding guilt. There is some debate about the severity of the impending punishments and their timing.

Stop Digging!
http://uppermiss.blogspot.com/