 |
 |
Steve Gilliard, 1964-2007
It is with tremendous sadness that we must convey the news that Steve Gilliard, editor and publisher of The News Blog, passed away June 2, 2007. He was 42.
To those who have come to trust The News Blog and its insightful, brash and unapologetic editorial tone, we have Steve to thank from the bottom of our hearts. Steve helped lead many discussions that mattered to all of us, and he tackled subjects and interest categories where others feared to tread.
Please keep Steve's friends and family in your thoughts and prayers.
Steve meant so much to us.
We will miss him terribly.
Kim: "A Female Blogger Who Got Death Threats"
Labels: blogosphere, wingnuttery
Blogger Kathy Sierra
Thanks to Kim for finding this important story and commenting - THANKS KIM!
The original story is totally incredible to read:Blog death threats spark debate
Prominent blogger Kathy Sierra has called on the blogosphere to combat the culture of abuse online.
It follows a series of death threats which have forced her to cancel a public appearance and suspend her blog.
Ms Sierra described on her blog how she had been subject to a campaign of threats, including a post that featured a picture of her next to a noose.
The police are investigating while the blogosphere has launched its own enquiry.
One of the issues raised is the question of how women bloggers are treated online.
Ms Sierra, author of popular blog Creating Passionate Users, began receiving death threats four weeks ago.
Since going public on the issue, she has been overwhelmed by the support she has received.
"I agonised about making this post but I hoped it would start a dialogue," she told the BBC News website.
"I never thought it would become so big or be this positive," she said.
While blogging feuds are common, she believes the campaign against her is more likely to be because she is a woman in the male-dominated technology world.
I read the blog in question entry in question and the harassments and
death threats are really beyond typical troll prank posts.
I'm shocked that one of the co-authors of "The Cluetrain Manifesto"
(which originally started as a website--and was later turned into a
book--that stated the obvious: that successful markets really begin
with conversations between the seller and the potential customer and
the seller tries to meet the needs of the customer based on those
conversations) has been named as being a member of a recently pulled
blog called meankids.org whose members are largely responsible for the
harassments and death threats.
I have never heard of this blog or of Kathy Sierra before seeing the
BBC News story and she doesn't strike me as being a hateful
right-winger like Anne Coulter. Apparently she writes about
technology-related issues and it's been hinted that she may be paying
the price for being a woman writing about traditionally male-dominated
fields. Even if it is sexism at work, it seems beyond the pale to
threaten someone's life simply because you object to something she
wrote in her own blog.
- posted by Kim
Skippy: "3 reasons to give 3 cheers for blogtopia, and yes, we coined that phrase!"
Labels: blogosphere
Celebrate, darn it!
Thanks to Skippy for this reminder that we have a LOT to be thankful for - and happy about - THANKS SKIPPY!
we have noticed, as of late, a disheartening trend in various comments and blog posts around blogtopia*. several writers have seemingly fallen into the dumps because things are not progressing as progressively as progressives would like. they cite the dems' refusal to discuss impeachment, the iraq defunding which looks to be dead in the water, and the general tendency of those in charge to ignore the common citizens they are supposedly hired by to run things.
however, we here at skippy international are feeling pretty good about things, and we wish that the rest of you in blogtopia* would join us. after all, there are several major accomplishments that have come to fruition recently, all of which were done, if not completely, then certainly with major efforts, by the netroots.
to start with, blogs and bloggers really came into their own as true-to-life journalists with the libby trial. thanks to the kids at firedoglake, and to marcy wheeler (also known as "emptywheel "...and maybe some day she'll explain what the hell that screen name means), as well as swopa of medianeedle, jerlayn merritt of talkleft and margie burns for bradblog (plus others we have surely missed, and our apologies if we have), the idea of blogs as actual journalism came into existence.
where before blogs were seen mainly as an outlet for cranky powerless people to whine, suddenly it was proven that they could be used as an outlet for cranky powerless people to disseminate information on a national level at a level far deeper and wider in scope than any electronic media, and most dead trees media.
dan froomkin, and admitted fan of blogs, said on a washpost.com q&a: i think what firedoglake.com did with this trial was not just impressive, it was transformative. by offering the public live-blogging of this very important trial, you not only put the msm to shame, but actually became a must-read for journalists who couldn't attend the trial, but wanted to get a better and faster sense of what was going on than they could from their own colleagues.
i'm not saying that the msm should emulate everything bloggers do -- far from it -- but the blogosphere's enthusiasm for this story was something to behold, and admire.
now, we here at skippy international had little to do with the libby coverage, short of a recurring photoshop, but just the very fact that several blogs made history by making journalism with this story should be an inspiration to everyone in blogtopia*.
and another recent event that bloggers can be proud of is the recent and effective backlash against annthrax coulter.
we will grant you that it wasn't just the blogs that were responsible for the dissemination of annthrax's f*ggot moment. for once, the mmm did its job and spread the word about her ill-conceived attempt at humor at the cpac convention.
but we would posit that the mmm, which took a few days before actually pouncing on the story, were spurred on by the relentless coverage annthrax got on the blogs, both the left and right.
it was, however, the lefty blogs that put together the action alerts, and the blog readers (you) were the ones that implemented them. media matters led the charge w/email addresses and other contact info of the papers that ran annthrax's column. other blogs, like the daily background, put together email cc's for quick use.
thanks to the work of those and other blogs, and of you, the people that wrote into these organs, at least 9 papers have dropped annthrax's column, and others could follow.
lastly, but not leastly (in fact perhaps mostly), the reason we can cheer is the role which blogtopia* played in the nevada state democratic party's decision to not allow fox news to broadcast the reno debate among presidential candidates.
moveon.org was forefront in the effort to convince the nevada state dem party, and other blogs contributed as well, but we must give mad props to matt stoller of mydd. we have not always agreed w/matt on several things, but for this we admire and salute matt's work in rallying blogtopia* to write and email and call (and fax) sen. reid and the nevada dems.
the impact of bloggers making the case of fox's severe partisanship is of paramount importance in the landscape of national media. this is perhaps the first time that it has been spoken out loud on a national stage the fact that fox news is a definitive partisanship organ, and it certainly is the first time that consequences derived there from have occurred.
of course, several other factors influenced this decision. john edwards announced he wouldn't attend the debate, and members of the nevada state dem executive board including michael zahara worked diligently from within the party to change the original decision.
but the netroots are not only a major factor in the change, but are getting all the blame now as well. this in and of itself is an interesting development. irrespective of whether or not it's true, the conventional wisdom now holds that blogtopia* is a force to be reckoned with.
and we would agree. the cumulative effect of these three instances of success shows that, as a political force, we have now had major impact on the national political and journalistic scene. this is something we can be proud of; this is something to cheer about.
granted, there's still plenty of work to to be done. the dems are turning out to only have very starchy shirts and no spines whatsoever when it comes to iraq. there is still talk of the congressional black caucus holding its debates on fox news. and, face it...there is still mountains of stupidity out there to contend with.
but there are definitely signs of progress. and we should all be incredibly proud of our work and give ourselves a collective pat on our backs. we have shown that democracy can work on a citizen level, and there is power in blogtopia*.
and *yes. we coined that phrase.
- posted by Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
Congrats to Josh Marshall and TPM
POST MASTERS: Josh Marshall, left, owns and runs TPM Media. Talking Points Memo also led in chronicling the scandals involving GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. “Hundreds of people out there send clips and other tips,” Marshall said. “There is some real information out there, some real expertise.” With him is reporter Paul Kiel.
(Carolyn Cole / LAT)
Make sure you check out the great profile on Josh Marshall and Talking Points Memo from Saturday's LA Times. It's a great read, very flattering and even says the unspeakable: that electronic journalism is doing things that traditional print isn't covering - or following as they should.
Congrats to Josh and his team at TPM - one of my favorite sites, for sure.
- posted by Jim in LA
Labels: blogosphere, media
A fundamental misunderstanding
Labels: 2008 race, blogosphere
Fighting words
Can liberal bloggers be both partisan kingmakers and independent journalists? The blogstorm over the John Edwards campaign points to some tough lessons.
By Joan WalshFeb. 16, 2007 | I was on the convention floor in Boston the night Barack Obama unofficially became a candidate for president, at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Up to that point, the Fleet Center was like a stale bag of popcorn, with uninspired party stalwarts going through the motions of nominating Sen. John Kerry, largely because he was a decorated Vietnam veteran and couldn't be smeared as a gutless pacifist (can you say Swiftboat Vets?). Then came Obama. You felt history being made as he described, and then began to heal, the nation's ugly red state, blue state divide. "We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states," the Illinois senate candidate told the crowd. "We coach Little League in the blue states and have gay friends in the red states." I got teary; so did others around me. I found myself imagining a convention where this son of a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother was the presidential nominee -- but in 2012 or 2016, not 2008.
Yet 2008 is the year Barack Obama is running, presenting me with a choice: Do I put aside reservations about his inexperience and vote that sense of history? Luckily, I have more than a year to decide. The Democrats have a strong roster of 2008 candidates; I like a lot of them; the choice will be tough. But in my heart I know this: If I had to go into a voting booth tomorrow and pick a Democrat, I'd very likely be moved by the memory of that electric moment in Boston, and vote Obama.
So imagine my surprise at finding a vocal cadre of Salon readers and some bloggers claiming a) Salon is crusading against Obama, because b) we support Sen. Hillary Clinton, when in fact we are doing neither. The evidence? Three controversial Obama pieces in the last month (one of them made more notorious by a headline snafu), plus a scoop last week about the John Edwards campaign firing and rehiring two feminist bloggers after they were targeted by Catholic bully Bill Donohue. (This week both bloggers quit.) The backlash to the Edwards scoop, even more than the outcry over our Obama stories, was puzzling but also enlightening. We weren't the only people who had solid information that Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan had been told they were leaving the Edwards campaign. But if any bloggers knew, they didn't report it. The bloggers closed ranks around the Edwards campaign, some even claiming that Salon had gotten the story wrong. There were suggestions, in Salon letter threads as well as in blogger-to-blogger whispers -- it was loud; we could hear you! -- that we'd peddled misinformation, or perhaps been peddled it, to help Hillary Clinton.
The controversies over our Edwards and Obama reporting gave me a new window onto the ever-changing terrain of politics, media and the Internet as we head into the 2008 campaign. The two different sets of concerns were nonetheless inspired by a common suspicion: Salon must be in the tank for one of the candidates -- in our case, the common supposition was Clinton -- because, it seems, almost everyone else on the Internet is, or wants to be!
Before the Marcotte-McEwan meltdown, liberal blogfathers Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong came under scrutiny, even attack, for their work on behalf of Democratic candidates, especially former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner. (Armstrong was on his payroll; Kos was merely friendly, but surprisingly friendly given Warner's centrism.) Then Warner announced he would forgo a 2008 run, as did netroots favorite Sen. Russ Feingold, leaving the field without an official candidate. When the blog-friendly Edwards campaign -- the candidate's wife Elizabeth has reportedly blogged on lefty sites under an assumed name -- hired Marcotte from Pandagon and McEwan from Shakespeare's Sister, it was hailed as a victory for the blogosphere. Thus preventing their firing, or denying it had ever happened, became crucial for building "the movement," as MyDD's Chris Bowers so often describes his blog colleagues' goal.
That isn't true. People wanted them to keep their jobs so they could eat. It's easy for established people to forget what the value of a good job is.
I don't think Salon is in the tank, but every paper gets this charge.
But Walsh thinks the power lies in the hands of a few bloggers and it doesn't. It isn't about what Bowers or Stoller say, or Kos does, but how people react to it.Instead of the blogosphere joining the search for truth, we encountered a decision to close ranks. The bloggers had never been fired; Salon was wrong; everyone move along, there's nothing to see here; please return to your stations. It started to look as though protecting the Democrats, the Edwards campaign and the role of bloggers in the new political firmament -- or some combination of all three -- was much more important. Only Steve Gilliard at the News Blog defended Salon and confirmed he too knew the bloggers had been fired -- and only in a comments section on his blog. "Anyone who thinks they weren't fired are dead wrong," wrote Gilliard. "I spend much of my day communicating with other bloggers ... I had been told they were fired when the Salon piece ran. Then the negotiations began and a LOT of people held their fire ... I have multiple sources on this, but because of who they are, I won't name them." A few days later Gilliard would denounce Salon for our perceived vendetta against Obama, not entirely unreasonably, given the headline mess.
See, this is bullshit. I don't remember ANY posts on this, because people wanted them to keep their jobs. My readers started to call Salon liars and I knew that was untrue. If they feel that's a pat on the head, fine.
But this was NOT about protecting the Edwards campaign. In fact, the feeling was that the Edwards campaign was going to pay a heavy price for buckling under to an anti-semite like Donohue.
It was personal, intensely personal. Not some grand scheme to protect Edwards from his ineptitude. Something I have zero interest in doing.
Also, once Salon ran their first story, there was nothing more to write. It was known that these women were fired and then not fired, and many people felt that they had a right to keep their jobs.
Not everything has naked political motives. A lot of bloggers are struggling to pay their bills. There is an element of personal loyalty which says we don't try to make each other poorer. Especially, when they move a thousand miles away from their hometown.
But Walsh doesn't get something essential about blogging. A blog has one writer and thousands of active supporters. I can rant as much as I want, but whatever power I have comes from the people responding to my words. Withouth that, it doesn't matter what I say or do.
So while she's worried about people selling out, without supporters, it wouldn't matter. Bloggers are the pointmen and women for people who have their concerns, but not the time or ability to express themselves.
Anyone who thinks differently is delusional
It just gets worse
The ramifications of Bill Donohue and the Catholic League's reckless rhetoric has materialized in the form of death threats to bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. This is what happens when the ultra-right wing is given the megaphone of mainstream media. It is also a complete break down in the responsibility that the media has in vetting those who are given a platform to spread a message. This is also evidence that ultra-right wing organizations that create messages based on hate and fear find sympathetic audiences with people who think more like citizen-militia than the loyal Catholics that Bill Donohue claims to represent. It is no wonder that there has been no mainstream Roman Catholic group, nor the Church itself, to step forward to support Donohue in his illegal, unethical scalp-seeking tirade against Senator Edwards' bloggers. Bill Donohue must immediately rescind his hateful comments against these two young women and call on the hate-mongers, which he is responsible for inciting, to cease their threats against Amanda, Melissa, and their families. Call him at 212-371-3191 and demand this. Donohue's attacks on junior staffers are completely unprecedented. It is a new low. His actions have the effect of putting their lives in danger and he must not be allowed to get away with it. Labels: blogosphere, Edwards Right-Wing Attack Puts Bloggers' Lives in Danger
Jesus General has the charming quotes
The GC3R Responds to Amanda Marcotte's Writings
Witnessing the gospel of Jesus Christ to Amanda Marcotte:
Andy Driggers from Dallas, TX was also so moved by my criticisms of religious anti-choicers, that he wrote:
Problem with women like you, you just need a good fucking from a real man! Living in Texas myself, I know you haven't found that real Texan yet. But once your liberal pro feminist ass gets a real good fucking, you might see the light. Until then, enjoy your battery operated toys b/c most real men wouldn't want to give you the fucking you deserve b/c the shit that would come out of you ears.
[...]
An example, from Paul Bernard of Scottsdale, AZ:
i like the way you trash talk i don't particularly want to have sex with you but i would like a blow job.
[...]
Bud Phelps, another person who opposes "bigotry", as defined by right wing shill Bill Donohue.
It's just too bad your mother didn't abort you. You are nothing more than a filthy mouth slut. I bet a couple of years in Iraq being raped and beaten daily would help you appreciate America a little. Need a plane ticket ?
[...]
Romanco De Leone was also moved by Donohue's poignant claims about insulating the Catholic church from legitimate criticisms.
YOU RACIST WHORE. FAT UGLY BITCH. SUCK MY LONG COCK ASSHOLE I HOPE YOU KIDS NEVER LIVE AND YOUR PARENTS DIE A TRAGIC DEATH YOU ASSHOLE BITCH!
I HOPE YOUR WOMB IS BARREN AND YOUR CAREER PLUMMETS TO HELL YOU BITCH
Resignation
I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics—has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog. In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to “silence” me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems. Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted. There is good news. The main good news is that I don’t have a conflict of interest issue anymore that was preventing me from defending myself against these baseless accusations. So it’s on. The other good news is that the blogosphere has risen as one and protested, loudly, the influence a handful of well-financed right wing shills have on the public discourse. Bill Donohue doesn’t speak for Catholics, he speaks for the right wing noise machine. You guys pointed this out, you made a stink, you refused to walk into the same stupid trap that is laid out for liberals and Democrats by the right wing noise machine and I think you made a difference. While loyalty played into the pushback some, the real story is that we liberals are not taking this crap any longer and we’re pushing back. And now that I’m attached to only myself again, I’m ready and eager to join in the pushing back with you. Like Lorraine say, Jesus did not say to shut your piehole. Obviously, I’m scatterbrained right now. But I’ll be raring to go soon. In the meantime, I want to share this letter Evan got from Frances Kissling, the president of an organization I adore called Catholics for a Free Choice. She wrote a letter defending free discourse and her religion from being hijacked by the likes of Bill Donohue and other people who dress their reactionary politics up in faith’s clothing. She sent it to the NY Times, and for some reason they didn’t run it. Another thing—this has doubled my committment to reaching out and helping highlight when the religious left fights the right wingers who have falsely claimed to speak for all religious people. Labels: 2008 race, blogosphere, Edwards
Off your knees, boys
Labels: blogosphere
Please, please let me on your blogroll
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/02/blogrolling.html
Jon Swift is one of the best new bloggers around, a terrific writer, but he has a problem. He thinks petitioning Dr. Black matters. Or that blogrolls matter.This past weekend Atrios, the proprietor of Eschaton, declared a Blogroll Amnesty Day, saying, "one of the big complaints by new bloggers is that it's impossible to get onto blogrolls because established bloggers tend not to add them." I thought that adding new lesser-known blogs to his blogroll would be a wonderful idea. Although for some inexplicable reason that I am at pains to discover, Atrios has never seen fit to link to me, I, nevertheless added Eschaton to my own blogroll and introduced myself to Atrios with a sincerely sycophantic email, since he is after all a blogging pioneer who deserves our respect.
Son, get off your knees.
But the more I learned about this Amnesty Day, the more I realized that it was a very strange amnesty indeed. The amnesty he granted turned out to be amnesty for himself. He wanted to assuage himself of the guilt he might feel at kicking blogs off his blogroll instead of granting amnesty to others to swarm across the border into his domain. "Everyone feels a wee bit guilty about removing blogs from their blogroll, so they're hesitant to add new ones to an ever-expanding list," he explained. So Atrios deleted his entire blogroll and disappointingly repopulated it for the most part with the usual suspects. Then others in the liberal blogosphere followed his example, including Jesus' General and PZ Myers at Pharyngula, who already takes a very Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest approach to blogrolling. Then Markos at Daily Kos joined this ruthless bloodletting. "It sucks and it feels bad," he said, daubing the tears from his eyes as he typed. So the end result of Atrios' Amnesty Day was to make some blogrolls smaller and even more exclusive than they already were.
Why the fuck do you care if Atrios or Kos has you on their blogroll. Does it feel like a pat on the head? A reward?
The ONLY blog you should worry about is YOURS. None of those people matter. It doesn't matter who links to you, only who reads you.
A good blog draws readers, a bad one doesn't. People begging for space are little better than the teens hopping around a Meat Packing district club hoping the bouncer likes them.
If you think a link on one of these sites will help your site grow, you're deluded. Only your work can help you. Cyberbuddying up to Atrios means nothing if you suck. I've never, ever exchanged a link or asked anyone to link to here. Why? Because I felt if people wanted to read this site, they would find their way here. You need to have the same confidence in your work.
It doesn't matter what other people do.
Rank the bloggers
Labels: blogosphere
Bloggers race for positionReader rg writes in:
By technorati rank, here's the obvious breakdown, in my view. The A-list is top 200, B-list top 2000, and C-list everybody else.
BTW, the Liberal Avenger (http://liberalavenger.com) at 13,653 would fit nicely into your C-list. If not, no big whoop.
There are three blogs you link to that for some reason I can't find a technorati ranking for them - Sadly, No, Unqualified Offerings, and The Big Picture. I'm looking into that. In the meantime here's the list as it exists now:
A-List
Dailykos (14)
ThinkProgress (20)
Crooks and Liars (22)
TalkingPointsMemo (77)
Washington Monthly (117)
Unclaimed Territory (147)
MyDD (152)
B-List
Firedoglake (247)
Pandagon (329)
Hullabaloo (446)
Feministing (563)
TalkLeft (574)
Crooked Timber (905)
Shakespeare's Sister (925)
General J.C. Christian (963)
Tapped (1054)
Matthew Yglesias (1178)
Tom Tomorrow (1284)
Feministe (1326)
Majikthise (1428)
Orcinus (1530)
Steve gilliard (1539)
C-List
TBogg (2686)
Poor Man (2774)
Booman Tribune (2891)
corrente (3325)
Oliver Willis (3762)
Attaturk (4669)
Echidne (5092)
Suburban Guerilla (5619)
The Sideshow (6528)
Altercation (8959)
alicublog (10508)
All Spin Zone (10938)
Pacific Views (12255)
Roger Ailes (15928)
upyernoz (16428)
AmericaBlog (18571)
Will Bunch (26548)
Dependable Renegade (29690)
Whiskey Fire (30531)
Adventus (55158)
She Flies... (59274)
Hope this is helpful.
Some other ranking system would come up with very different results (technorati's is link-based not traffic based). Still, the point is, contrary to the numerous people who have claimed it recently my current blogroll doesn't only have "A-listers." And, no, my blogroll isn't finished growing either.
-Atrios 3:40 PM
This is cool. I sit at two computers, at various times, and I have thousands of readers. I don't know how Jen feels, but I'm stunned.
Someone e-mailed me and said shouldn't you be higher. I'm happy to be 1539. Maybe I should play that in the lottery for a few days.
How they kept their jobs
Labels: 2008 race, blogosphere, Edwards
Edwards campaign rehires bloggers Marcotte and McEwen
After a day of infighting, the Edwards campaign reverses a decision to fire two controversial bloggers.
Alex Koppelman and Rebecca Traister
Feb. 8, 2007 | After personal phone calls to the bloggers from the candidate, the Edwards campaign has rehired the bloggers who were fired yesterday, according to sources inside and close to the campaign.
Salon reported yesterday that on Wednesday morning the Edwards camp fired Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, the two bloggers whose hiring had sparked an uproar by conservatives. That information was confirmed by sources in and close to the campaign. But almost as soon as the decision had been communicated to the bloggers, a struggle arose within the campaign about possibly reversing it, the sources said, as the liberal blogosphere exploded.
The campaign remained silent all day about the status of Marcotte and McEwen, and neither woman posted to the John Edwards blog yesterday. There was also radio silence from the campaign for the hours following Salon's report of their initial dismissal, after a promise from a campaign spokeswoman that there would be more information later.
Sources told Salon that much of Wednesday was spent in a series of conference calls among campaign members trying to hash out a solution to the very difficult problem of what to do with the bloggers, debating the details of their departures or the possibility of their swift reinstatement. These discussions culminated, according to sources inside and close to the campaign, in calls last night from Edwards to the bloggers, in which he asked them to come back to the campaign.
In a statement released today, with individual comments from Edwards and the two bloggers, Edwards said, "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." The statements did not address Salon's earlier report.
Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for Edwards, denied to Salon that the bloggers had been fired. However, asked if the bloggers were ever given the impression they were no longer with the campaign, Palmieri responded, "We had discussions going on for about 36 hours about how to handle this, and Edwards -- he himself had never met either one of them and felt it was important to give them time to decide how they wanted to respond, if at all."
To the Edwards Campaign: We are quite happy at your current decision. But if this kicks up again and minds change, all bets are off.
To the other campaigns: use the rantings of an anti-semite at your peril.
Thank God
Labels: 2008 race, blogosphere, Edwards
Subject: EDWARDS STATEMENT ON CAMPAIGN BLOGGERS AMANDA MARCOTTE AND MELISSA McEWEN
While I don't think this is over by a long shot, the Edwards campaign did the right thing and that is rare.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 8, 2007
CONTACT:
Andrea Purse
919-636-3156
EDWARDS STATEMENT ON CAMPAIGN BLOGGERS AMANDA MARCOTTE AND MELISSA McEWEN
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – The statements of Senator John Edwards, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen in reference to their work as independent bloggers before joining the Edwards campaign are below.
Senator John Edwards:
“The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwe n'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.”
Amanda Marcotte:
“My writings on my personal blog, Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.”
Melissa McEwen:
“Shakespeare's Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don't expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I've posted. We do, however, share many views - including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. It has never been my intention to disparage people's individual faith, and I'm sorry if my words were taken in that way.”
So let's give him well deserved praise for standing by his staff and not listening to an insane anti-semite.
I don't think the right is going to quit, not for one second, but for today, a Dem stood their ground .
Because until I saw the press release, I thought they were gone.
The game we can all play
Two years ago today, Jonah Goldberg threw down the following challenge to Juan Cole: Since Goldberg enjoys throwing a little smear-job in with his punditry, he also offered this: Got it. So we have a prediction, along with the insinuation that Professor Cole is a terrorist whereas Goldberg is a patriot. Obviously, Goldberg's prediction was incredibly wrong. The prediction, of course, came in the context of a larger argument about credibility and Goldberg's wildly off-base prediction tends to confirm precisely Cole's position in this argument -- Goldberg, while certainly a clever rhetoritician, basically has no idea what he's talking about. Meanwhile, somewhat hilariously, Goldberg thinks that pointing out that Cole turned his wager down should somehow spare him from mockery. The point, however, is still about the very, very poor prediction, not about Cole's skills as a gambler. Labels: blogosphere, wingnuttery
Jonah Goldberg Day! Since he doesn't want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now). This way neither of us can hide behind clever word play or CV reading. If there's another reasonable wager Cole wants to offer which would measure our judgment, I'm all ears. Money where your mouth is, doc.
One caveat: Because I don't think it's right to bet on such serious matters for personal gain, if I win, I'll donate the money to the USO. He can give it to the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or whatever his favorite charity is.
Cole refused to dignify this nonsense.
But if you wanted to send a donation to the USO in honor of Goldberg, that might not be a bad thing
https://www.uso.org/donate
His e-mail is:JonahNRO@aol.com.
Let's shame the fat fuck, who is hoping Edwards does fire his staffers.
Are you shitting me?
Labels: 2008 race, blogosphere, Edwards
Edwards’s Bloggers Cross the Line, Critic Says
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: February 7, 2007WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 — Two bloggers hired by John Edwards to reach out to liberals in the online world have landed his presidential campaign in hot water for doing what bloggers do — expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language.
The Catholic League, a conservative religious group, is demanding that Mr. Edwards dismiss the two, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, who writes on her blog, Shakespeare’s Sister, for expressing anti-Catholic opinions.
Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, is among the leading Democratic presidential candidates.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said in a statement on Tuesday, “John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.”
Mr. Edwards’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.
The two women brought to the Edwards campaign long cyber trails in the incendiary language of the blogosphere. Other campaigns are likely to face similar controversies as they try to court voters using the latest techniques of online communication.
Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women “to bear more tithing Catholics.” In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
If the Edwards campaign goes gutless over this, they are going to have problems with people who vote for them, unlike the Catholic League.
Why would the Edwards campaign care about the rantings of an anti-semite like Bill Donohue, who said Hollywood was filled with Jews who enjoyed anal sex.
Donohue is an extremist who finds anti-catholic bigotry everywhere.
The Edwards campaign should realize this the last, desperate scam of an increasingly irrelevant rightwing. Why should they determine who they hire?
Here's a fact: Bill Donohue will not help John Edwards become president. Bloggers will.
Fuck these people
Heh. Michelle Malkin is fixin' to destroy Amanda Marcotte, 'cause Amanda uses naughty words. Michelle Malkin wrote this book: So Amanda wins. And it ain't even close. UPDATE: Auguste takes care of the other nonsense. Though you do have to love this little bit from Mallkin: ***Updated/Correction. Looks like Marcotte's Katrina post is actually still available to the public here under a different URL. My bad. Or rather, John Edwards' bad. Because it's even worse for the Edwards campaign that its blogmaster left crackpot posts like that one up and hired her anyway. Uh-huh. "Fake but accurate": the self-policing, self-correcting wingnut-o-sphere strikes again! The biggest twit in this whole sorry spectacle is however Danny Glover, whom we have met before, and for whom we have but little use. Glover believes that this is the "First Blog Scandal of Campaign 2008," which it just may be, in the sense that he's pretending it is. But whether it should have or not, this story now seems to have generated the kind of feeding frenzy that ensued among liberal bloggers when conservative Ben Domenech of RedState was accused of, at first denied and later admitted to plagiarism, costing him a high-profile blogging job at The Washington Post. Marcotte eventually may face the same professional fate. Except Domenech really was a plagiarist, and Marcotte hasn't done much more than get fed up with the Right Wankosphere acting like psychopaths. It's not entirely clear to me exactly why the Duke lacrosse case makes wingnuts go bananas, but it does -- though it does not follow that anyone but them cares all that much about its minutiae. Though they're welcome to turn this into a Terry Schiavo deal if they really want to, as it worked out so well for them the last time, bless their silly little hearts... But here's where Glover loses his marbles altogether: One other footnote: Marcotte's behavior the past couple of days reminded me of something I discovered at Pandagon late last year when researching my New York Times article on bloggers who had gone to work for campaigns. One of those bloggers, Jesse Taylor, got his start at Pandagon before joining the campaign of now-Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat. I reported Taylor's move when it happened in October 2005 and linked to his announcement at Pandagon. When I clicked back to Taylor's post in November 2006, it was gone and there was no sign of it in Pandagon's archives. I had to search the Wayback Machine to find Taylor's post again. Did Marcotte, who claimed ownership of Pandagon upon Taylor's departure, scrub the site of his disclosure, and if so, why? Those questions came to my mind last fall but didn't seem worth asking then. They were just a curiousity. Now that Marcotte has shown a penchant for deleting Pandagon content that causes her grief, maybe the questions are worth asking -- though I gather that my "whiff of accusatory tone" would just land any query I sent to her in the electronic trash. Whafuck? Jesse going to work for Strickland would cause Amanda to be embarrassed... how? Usually for a conspiracy theory to work there needs to be some sort of motive -- sex, power, world domination, bacon. Where's the maguffin, Danny? There is a lesson here for every blogger in the world, though: be sure your archives are in perfect order at all times, or Fauntleroy Glover will be getting all Woodward and Bernstein on your ass. Excuse me while I blow my nose. Labels: blogosphere, wingnutteryBitter Fish in Crude Oil Sea
Time to start watching the Libby trial
Labels: blogosphere, Cheney, Libby, trial
It's been a long, long time since we've mentioned the Libby trial, but you need to start reading FDL every day because the shit is about to blow.
Will Rove Testify?The president's political guru—and counselor Dan Bartlett—have been subpoenaed by Scooter Libby's lawyers. What it means for the most-watched trial in Washington—and who's next on the witness stand.
Don't look for any pardon.
A Web exclusive
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
Jan. 26, 2007 - White House anxiety is mounting over the prospect that top officials—including deputy chief of staff Karl Rove and counselor Dan Bartlett-may be forced to provide potentially awkward testimony in the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis (Scooter) Libby.
Both Rove and Bartlett have already received trial subpoenas from Libby’s defense lawyers, according to lawyers close to the case who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters. While that is no guarantee they will be called, the odds increased this week after Libby’s lawyer, Ted Wells, laid out a defense resting on the idea that his client, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, had been made a “scapegoat” to protect Rove. Cheney is expected to provide the most crucial testimony to back up Wells’s assertion, one of the lawyers close to the case said. The vice president personally penned an October 2003 note in which he wrote, “Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the other.” The note, read aloud in court by Wells, implied that Libby was the one being sacrificed in an effort to clear Rove of any role in leaking the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq war critic Joe Wilson. “Wow, for all the talk about this being a White House that prides itself on loyalty and discipline, you’re not seeing much of it,” the lawyer said
Libby's lawyers have been screwing up from day one and now they are in a position where they have to save their client.
In the first few days of testimony, Cheney is deeply implicated in trying to ruin Joe Wilson and Libby's claim of a bad memory is a joke.
A lot of people have wanted a single blow against Bush, but that isn't going to happen. It's going to be small blows. I think Rove wasn't indicted so this scenario would play itself out. Rove cooperated enough so he avoided winding up in the dock, but what is he going to say about Cheney?
Cheney is expected to be a witness. That, my friends, should be fun.
Where's the money
Labels: blogosphere, blogs, liberal, money
The One-Way Flow Of Progressive Movement Money
by Chris Bowers
Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:05:44 AM PSTIn the 2003-2004 cycle, according to an internal study of FEC reports, the membership of MoveOn.org contributed $180 million to Democratic candidates for federal office (House, Senate and President). Given both that the progressive netroots are larger than just MoveOn.org, and the propensity of netroots activists to make small donations that would not appear in FEC reports, the total amount of money the netroots contributed Democratic federal campaigns and committees in 2003-2004 was probably closer to $300 million. The Center for Public Integrity explains where this money went:
In the 2004 federal races, more than $1.85 billion flowed through a professional corps of consultants whose influence plays an important, though largely unexamined, role in the unrelenting escalation of campaign spending, a groundbreaking Center for Public Integrity study has found.(...)
--About 600 professional consultants were paid more than a combined $1.85 billion in the 2003-2004 federal campaigns.
--Media consultants, who offer political and strategic advice and handle political advertising, were paid $1.2 billion, or 65 percent of all consultant spending.
--Direct mail consultants billed the second-largest amount, $298 million, totaling 16 percent of all consultant spending.
--Consultants routinely pitch campaign plans that rely heavily on their own specialty because there is a financial incentive to do so.
--Fundraising consultants, whose services are necessitated in large part by the rising amounts campaigns spend on other consultants, cost candidates at least $59 million.
In a painful and disturbing irony, the same Democratic political consultant structure that the netroots seek to reform--and which Markos and Jerome called "The Consultant Con" in Crashing the Gate--is actually being funded, reinforced, and strengthened by the netroots. Roughly one-third of the money that went to Democratic campaign consultants in the 2003-2004 election cycle came from netroots activists, even if those activists were not always giving online. The large commissions on media buys, the bad television ads, the consultants who continue to be hired despite repeatedly losing elections—that is all being directly funded by people like you.
Last week, Max Sawicky made a lot of people in the blogosphere angry when he referred to the netroots as "a mostly brainless vacuum cleaner of donations for the Democratic Party." At the time, I was far too irritated to take his vitriol seriously, but upon further reflection I wonder if he has a point. While I don’t think the netroots should regret any of the money it raised for Democratic candidates during 2003-2006, as it was a major factor both in helping to put Democrats back in charge and to get Democrats in charge to take the progressive movement more seriously, it would be have been a lot smarter to simultaneously raise more money for long term movement building rather than just short term election results. We needed to do more to help support the underfunded people, institutions and ideas that make the progressive movement possible. Just lining the pockets of already well compensated consultants is no way to build a movement over the long term.
My partner at BlogPac, Matt Stoller, has previously written about examples of full-time progressive movement activists who receive little or no compensation for their work. Maria Leavey, who did not have health insurance, passed away last month as the result of a heart attack a doctor could have identified. Lane Hudson was fired from the Human Rights Campaign for being too aggressive when he pushed the Mark Foley scandal into the mainstream. And it goes beyond activists. Buy Blue, a brilliant, entirely netroots driven campaign to help keep progressive money in progressive hands, may shut down soon because it does not have any funding. Local progressive bloggers typically lose money on blogging every year, even as they help transform local media and activist scenes. Even a prominent blogger such as myself, who helped raise around $2 million for Democratic candidates and committees in the 2005-2006 cycle (and transfer another $3 million into competitive races through Use It Or Lose It), spent the entire 2005-2006 cycle without health insurance. Quite frankly, it is pretty brainless for someone such as myself to help so much money flow into the hands of a small number of highly paid consultants without simultaneously raising money to meet my own basic needs, such as health insurance. What the hell was I doing?
But I am not just angry at myself, or the general lack of funding currently available to the people, institutions, and ideas that make the progressive movement so vital. I am also pissed off at the Democratic and progressive establishment that is funded with our dollars, but which refuses to fund us in return. I have worked on trying to secure monetary, and other forms of support, for bloggers some time now. For example, that was why I founded the Liberal Blog Advertising Network two years ago, and that is what Matt and I are trying to do with BlogPac. However, there have been quite a few other, less successful ventures I have tried, and the main problem has always been that large progressive donors, institutions and politicians just don’t want to fund something they can’t control. Since the political blogosphere and the people powered progressive movement is, by nature, something over which no one can exert all that much individual control, it just doesn’t get funding in the same way that more staid, cautious, and restrained progressive organizations and politicians receive. It also doesn’t help that we have been so good at channeling resources into the establishment without asking for anything in return. Why would major donors, organizations, and politicians bother to fund us if we fund them without asking for anything in return?
This situation sucks--literally. When it comes to political contributions and the progressive movement, the flow of money is almost entirely one-way. To the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, it is sucked out of the movement, and pocketed by the establishment. This is yet another reason why the recent New York Times article about progressive bloggers supposedly being on the take was absurd. As a handful of progressive bloggers are criticized for picking up the occasional establishment consulting job, the progressive netroots as a whole funnels exponentially more money into the establishment while receiving virtually no help in return when it comes to building our movement. What progressive organizations do anything to help support the same bloggers they rely upon in order to spread their message? Almost none. What Democratic politicians who post diaries on blogs like Dailykos use their PACs to give money to movement building organizations like BlogPac or Blogger Power? During my tenure as treasurer for BlogPac, the only leadership PAC that has given us any money or resources was Senator Russ Feingold’s Progressive Patriots Fund (and yes, I did ask quite a few others). Leadership PACs, multi-issue advocacy organizations, large progressive donors—these are establishment elements that could make a huge difference in ensuring the survival and long term growth of the progressive movement in the same way that the progressive movement has exponentially enhanced the electoral, media and activist capability of the entire progressive ecosystem. But that isn’t happening, and the money still continues to flow almost entirely in one direction. As we enhance their structures, many of ours regularly teeter on the verge of outright collapse.
This situation is untenable over the long term, and so in our dealings with members of the progressive establishment we can’t stay quiet about it anymore. When major figures in the progressive establishment post diaries on blogs such as Dailykos, commenters need to remind them of ways they can help build the progressive movement. Tell them to purchase Blogads on progressive blogs in their home state. Tell them to have their leadership PACs donate to organizations such as BlogPac, and to have their donors to the same. Tell them they it many cases, they and their donors can directly provide an anonymous financial tip to their favorite blogs using Pay Pal. Tell them to only hire fundraising organizations that provide their grunts with a living wage. Point them to sites such as Buy Blue which instructs progressives on how we can keep our money in progressive hands. In other words, tell them that as much as we are willing to help them, and as much as we appreciate their newfound respect, we need their help too, and give them specific ways in which they can provide that help.
If progressivism is going to continue to be on the rise in America, the one way flow of progressive movement money has to end. Not only do netroots activists have to do a better job of providing resources to build netroots infrastructure, we have to let the establishment know it needs to help build that infrastructure itself. Doing so is in their own best interest, and not just because the progressive movement helps the Democratic Party and the progressive, political ecosystem. As I pointed out at the beginning of this post, we are funding them. A strong progressive movement means a strong resource base for the Democratic establishment. If they want to see that resource base wither on the vine, one of the best ways would be to never lift a finger to help us. This is a point we need to make to the establishment as clearly as possible.
As a final note, in the comments, I would like to hear any and all ideas you may have on helping to fund the progressive movement. BlogPac is listening.