February 27, 2007

Why I refused to blog for Edwards Blogger Lindsay Beyerstein explains why she didn't blog for the John Edwards campaign.

"I'm probably not ... the person you want," I said, finally. "I mean, I'm on the record saying that abortion is good and that all drugs should be legalized, including heroin. Don't you think that might be a little embarrassing for the campaign?"
Lindsay also told an Edwards staffer why hiring Amanda Marcotte might pose a problem.
"The thing you have to realize about Amanda is that she's got real enemies," I said. "We've all got trolls, but Amanda gets a whole different level of abuse." I told Bob this story to give him some idea of the kind of seething hatred the campaign might have to deal with: The first time I heard Amanda on the radio, an angry caller phoned up to say, "You're Amanda Marcotte, and you're a clerical worker at the University of Texas at Austin." He had his facts wrong, but his message was clear. He was trying to get Amanda fired while leaving some darker threat hanging in the air. The host had to cut him off. Since that incident, at least one of Amanda's trolls had called her then-employer and tried unsuccessfully to get her fired.
posted by Sullivan 17 years ago
  • What the fuck sort of position in a campaign is "blogger"?
  • Apparently, it's the kind of position in which one gets fucked.
  • No, you're thinking of the Inverse Goat. But that's a level 3 position, intermediate skill and excellent flexibility required. Degree of difficulty 6.4.
  • My first thought was "If she's a blogger, why doesn't she put the details on her blog, instead of a link to Salon?" But I went to Salon anyway, and read the first page, which was poorly written drivel detailing the minutae of some meeting she had with this Bob guy and apparently they ordered baklava and he wanted to blog but she likes heroin and abortions and I decided I don't give a fuck.
  • As we walked, Bob downloaded his vision: The whole Edwards campaign was going to be a decentralized grass-roots operation. I find the idea of a serious major-party campaign for U.S. President being a "decentralized grass-roots operation" distinctly unpossible. And the thought that anyone in the campaign thinks it can be as a bad harbinger. It seems like Edwards & his campaign are often more about figuring out political machinery than standing for things. Also the article made me not want to say or think "the 'b' word" anymore for the rest of the day.
  • Who? And, er... Who?
  • Also the article made me not want to say or think "the 'b' word" anymore for the rest of the day. What the hell is that about?
  • I mean, I'm on the record saying that abortion is good and that all drugs should be legalized, including heroin. Don't you think that might be a little embarrassing for the campaign? Of course it would be embarrassing. How can someone possibly have a supporter who doesn't agree exactly with every position taken on every issue?
  • Figuring out the political machinery is at least as important as standing for things. Maybe more. If some guy pulling the levers dumps a load of stink on you, and you don't get elected, your stand on things won't matter at all.
  • The Edwards campaign's online "Furry Strategy" hits a setback.
  • This is the modern-day equivalent of hippies freaking out the squares. Meh.