The John Edwards thread
 

Easier to give each candidate their own thread. Wonder why BlueStar didn't post this story about John Edwards

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Edwards to Retain Embattled Bloggers

By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
AP Photo
AP Photo/MARY ANN CHASTAIN
Buy AP Photo Reprints
Interactives
_

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Thursday he was personally offended by the provocative messages two of his campaign bloggers wrote criticizing the Catholic Church, but he's not going to fire them.

Edwards issued a statement and answered questions about the fate of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, two days after the head of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights demanded they be fired for messages they wrote before working on the campaign.

"I talked personally to the two women who were involved. They gave me their word they, under no circumstances, intended to denigrate any church or anybody's religion and offered their apologies for anything that indicated otherwise. I took them at their word," Edwards told reporters during a campaign stop in Charleston, S.C.

An angry Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, which counts 350,000 members, criticized Edwards for not firing the two bloggers. Donohue also promised a nationwide public relations campaign in newspapers, magazines and Catholic publications to tell voters what the candidate had done.

"When Mel Gibson got drunk and made anti-Semitic remarks, he paid a price for doing so. When Michael Richards got angry and made racist remarks, he paid a price for doing so. ... But John Edwards thinks the same rules don't apply to him, which is why he has chosen to embrace foul-mouthed, anti-Catholic bigots on his payroll," Donohue said.

Edwards has never met the two bloggers and his first conversation with them came when he called to discuss the uproar. The 2004 vice presidential nominee told reporters in South Carolina: "It will not happen again. That you can be sure of."

The campaign distributed written regrets from the two women, who stressed they were writing on personal blogs. Edwards said in the statement he believes in giving everyone a "fair shake."

On Tuesday, Donohue called for Edwards to fire the bloggers, citing posts that the women made in the past several months in which they criticized the church's opposition to homosexuality, abortion and contraception, sometimes using profanity.

"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me," Edwards said in the statement. "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."

The two were hired last week as part of Edwards' outreach to liberal voters and online activists.

Edwards spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said the campaign was aware that Marcotte and McEwan, like many bloggers, had written provocative postings on their personal sites. But the campaign had not read them all and had not seen the postings criticizing the church until Donohue put out a statement Tuesday, Palmieri said.

For instance, Marcotte had written that the church wants "to force women to bear more tithing Catholics" and McEwan had written that the pope is among those who "regularly speak out against gay tolerance." Other postings used more graphic language.

Edwards remained silent for two days as the controversy grew on the Internet. Most of those posting on liberal Web sites were calling for Edwards to keep the bloggers on staff and stand up to Donohue, and many were vowing to work against him if he didn't.

Donohue is a frequent critic of those who speak out against the church and what he calls "political correctness run amok," such as the separation of Christmas and the holiday season.

Donohue also doesn't shy from blunt language sometimes in his criticism of gays, Hollywood's control by "secular Jews who hate Christianity" and even the Edwards bloggers, whom he referred to as "brats" in an interview Wednesday on MSNBC.

Palmieri said Edwards had been traveling through Michigan, Missouri and Oklahoma and wanted time to discuss the bloggers' statements with them and weigh their future.

"We're dealing with people's careers and reputations and livelihoods," Palmieri said.

In her statement, McEwan said she doesn't expect Edwards to agree with everything she's posted, but they share "an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs.

Marcotte's statement said her writings on religion on her blog, Pandagon, are generally satirical criticisms of public policies and politics.

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a nonprofit formed to highlight Catholic social justice teachings, also issued a statement condemning the bloggers' remarks but accepting Edwards' assurances that he was also offended.

"Catholics comprise more than one quarter of the U.S. public, and neither John Edwards nor any other candidate can afford to take this constituency for granted," said executive director Alexia Kelley, who served briefly as a religious adviser to 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

---

what did they post that was so bad? Cause if what was noted is it this is a pretty sad scandal.

I'm so sick of people going overboard to be pc these days.

he's so even kiel

this makes him look great, imo

He is already the choice candidate among the netroots and this decision has only amped up that support. However, Donohue is now saying he is going to take out an ad in every major newspaper declaring Edwards to be anti-Catholic. And, of course, this resulted in lots of scrutiny being placed on the people the Repub candidates have hired, particularly John McCain.

The statements issued about this whole thing the other day...

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."

And since this is a John Edwards thread, adding his health care stuff here:

John Edwards released the details of his "universal" health care plan the other day (and is the first candidate to do so). It's 7 pages long, so I won't actually post it: http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/...e-overview.pdf

Presidential Hopeful John Edwards Launches Detailed Health Care Plan
Main Category: Health Insurance / Medical Insurance News
Article Date: 05 Feb 2007 - 10:00 PST
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/heal...&nfid=rssfeeds

US presidential candidate John Edwards announced today that he would make health care insurance compulsory and make employers pay the 120 billion a year bill through taxes.

In a detailed plan issued on his website today titled "Universal Health Care through Shared Responsibility" the 2008 Democratic hopeful said that the time had come for reform that "covers everyone, cuts costs, and provides better care."

Edwards, who was a vice presidential nominee in 2004, criticises the American health care system, calling it "broken", and says it is the most expensive in the world and yet gives disappointing results. Individuals and small businesses face the highest premiums and in many cases can't get cover at any price.

For 47 million Americans who have no insurance at all, preventive care is expensive and many illnesses go untreated until it is too late. According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 uninsured Americans die every year because they do not have access to essential health care.

Edwards' plan is the most detailed yet to be proposed by a Democratic presidential candidate. If he is elected, he says he plans to achieve health care coverage for all Americans by 2012. While another rival, Democrat Senator Barack Obama, says he intends to do the same he does not have a detailed plan to back it up.

Edwards says his plan will allow families and businesses to get quality insurance more cheaply, and at the same time provide the uninsured with the health care they need.

Edwards recognizes that taxes will have to go up to cover the 120 million dollar bill to achieve the plan. One of the things he will do is abolish Bush's tax concessions for those on annual incomes higher than 200,000 dollars.

Under the plan Edwards would require that businesses and employers cover their employees or help them to pay for their own insurance. He would also make insurance more affordable by law reform, restructuring health care costs, introducing tax credits and by extending the state sponsored schemes Medicaid (cover for people on low incomes) and SCHIP (children's health plans).

One of the innovative ideas *******s the creation of "Health Markets" or not for profit regional purchasing pools, giving individuals more choice, creating competitive pressure, increasing health plan quality and cutting the price tag of affordable health insurance.

Once these conditions are achieved, Edwards says he would then make it compulsory for all American residents to get insurance, with the exception of those who have religious or financial exemptions.

He criticises the fragmented nature of the current American health insurance system. For example, people who don't have insurance from their job, like the self-employed or small business workers, part time workers and independent contractors have to turn to "an unpredictable and often unaffordable insurance market. Applicants with the wrong age, weight, job, medical or prescription drug history face unaffordable premiums or cannot get coverage at all."

And, where employer-based schemes do exist, a lot of money is wasted in duplication because they each administer their own benefit plans. The price tag for this was 16 billion in 1999, he says.

Edwards' plan also raises the issue of drug safety. His intention is to restrict direct to consumer advertising for new drugs and to strengthen the FDA's powers with respect to monitoring new drugs once they are approved. He says he would also make researchers who evaluate drugs and medical devices "truly independent".

Universal Health Care: Let's Make it Happen

Dear Samantha,

As you well know, the American health care system is broken for far too many of our families. Today, 47 million people are uninsured, while uncertainty grows and costs spiral for nearly everyone else. To fix this crisis, we don't need an incremental shift, we need a fundamental change.

So today, I'm proud to announce my plan to guarantee top quality health care to every man, woman and child in this great country. And I need your help.

Change this big simply cannot come from the top down. To make this dream a reality, we must build a groundswell of support to demand change from the bottom up. We can't start in two years or six months. If we're going to transform America, we've got to start today.

If you're ready to begin, here's what you can do right now:

Sign up to support universal health care. Achieving universal coverage will require hundreds of thousands of Americans willing to take action.

In the next week, talk to at least three of your friends or family members about this plan, and ask them to sign up as well. If we each talk to just three people in the next seven days, we'll reach millions of people and start a chain reaction that will raise awareness and catalyze action across the nation - a good start.

Here's how my plan will save money, improve flexibility, and guarantee health care for every man, woman and child in America:

Require businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.

Make insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.

Create regional Health Markets purchasing pools to ensure that every single American has a way to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.

Once these steps have been taken, require all American residents to get insurance.

Click here for more details of the Edwards Plan (opens in PDF). http://johnedwards.com/about/issues...re-overview.pdf

We have to stop using words like 'access to health care' when we know with certainty those words mean something less than universal care. Who are you willing to leave behind without the care he needs? Which family? Which child? We need a truly universal solution, and we need it now.

Universal health care is not a new idea. Why can we can achieve it now when all previous efforts have fallen short?

For one, the system is in greater crisis now than ever before - more uninsured people, more workers changing jobs or working on their own, and more out of control costs. People are ready for change. But the real reason I know we can make this happen? You.

This campaign is about transformational change, the kind you can only achieve working together with millions of committed citizens who share a vision for a better life - and that's exactly what we've got.

If you add your name to our statement of support and get three friends or family members to do the same in the next seven days, you can help get this campaign started right - and there's no limit to what we can achieve.

http://johnedwards.com/r/5733/836371

Sincerely,

John Edwards

MyDD Interview with John Edwards
by Jonathan Singer, Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 11:01:01 AM EST
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/7/12834/09259#readmore

On Friday morning I had the opportunity to sit down with Democratic presidential contender John Edwards after his speech at the DNC's winter meetings.

The questions for the interview were culled from your suggestions here on MyDD and via email. Topics covered ******* Iran, Iraq, poverty, healthcare, trade, and genuineness.

Jonathan Singer: I had the opportunity to see you speak at USC.

John Edwards: At the poverty conference. I remember that very well.

Singer: I also got the chance to see you about three years ago in California at Pomona College.

Edwards: I remember being there. It was during the primary campaign.

Singer: I was right up front watching. And I came away from the second speech seeing a different man -

Edwards: I'm not surprised.

Singer: - having broken through, it seemed, from the type of campaign mentality. And you spoke to that. I was wondering how you see yourself being able to stay away from getting...

Edwards: Getting back into that?

Singer: Yeah.

Edwards: It's to not hire a bunch of consultants that you listen to, and just to be yourself. That's the simplest way to do it.

Singer: Realistically you're going to have consultants on your campaign.

Edwards: Not doing much.

Singer: I mean there are going to be polls taken...

Edwards: Sure. My pollster doesn't... I decide what I'm going to say. The speech I gave today - I wrote it. Nobody else wrote it. I have to admit that we did have a speech written that I didn't give. I gave my speech. And that's what I do now. Anything that matters I do it myself.

I had a town hall meeting in New Hampshire Wednesday and I talked and answered questions, and every word that came out of my mouth was just me. Nobody told me what to say or suggested what I should say. I don't do that anymore.

Singer: Expanding on that, inherently in a campaign you're giving a stump speech, though and you get into a rhythm

Edwards: That's true. But where does the stump speech come from is part of it. Every word of my stump speech came from me. Every word. Nobody has written a stump speech for me. Every word came from me - the one I'm doing now.

Staffer: That was true in the good stump speech.

Edwards: Mostly true. But then it was more... Are you interviewing me now?

[Laughter]

Singer: Talking about poverty - and not just talking about it, but doing something about it - you started your campaign in New Orleans. But even before that, as I said, you spoke at the poverty conference, you've been working with your committee on that.

Edwards: I ran a poverty center at UNC.

Singer: How has that affected you in your outlook towards at the country, because you spoke about "Two Americas" before, but it wasn't as central, it seems, as a theme four years ago?

Edwards: I agree with that. A lot of it grows out of my own personal experience. I've been in committee action centers and poverty centers all over the country. I've spent a lot of time with low-income working families. And it's all just very personal for me now. I have no idea whether it's politically popular - probably not - it's just what I feel.

Singer: Where do you see the balance between public and private, in terms of non-profits... Your fellow speaker was Jack Kemp and he spoke a lot about market remedies, but there's also a lot of small non-profits, people just running it out of their house or their church.

Edwards: I think to deal with it effectively everyone needs to be involved. The government needs to be involved. I differ with Jack about that part. But I also think that non-profits play a huge role. A lot of these community action centers I go to are funded both locally and from federal and state government funds, and some of them are doing an amazing job. So I think every piece has to be there to make this work.

Singer: You talked today about healthcare. How do you make that a reality? The amount of money that will be spent lobbying against it, 15 years ago it was $100 million and that was unprecedented, it may be closer to a billion this time.

Edwards: Because there's so much at stake for the industries, yeah. First of all, I think that the nature of the plan has an impact on both the strength of the opposition and how America will respond to it. But I think the key to it - and I'm just going to tell you I'm announcing a detailed universal healthcare plan Monday. We've finished our healthcare plan. I can't tell you what it is because I'm going to make a big announcement about it Monday. (Details of the plan here: http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/...e-overview.pdf)

But I think my healthcare plan is completely achievable. It's truly universal - it covers everybody. So I think it's politically achievable because it makes some sense. I don't think it will alienate a lot of moderate Republicans. And I think a lot of Republicans... I had a debate with Newt Gingrich in California a few months ago and he's for universal healthcare. Not done the same way I'd do it, but he's for universal healthcare.

Singer: A number of insurers recently came out with a way to bite off about of the half of the chunk at a time, I think covering about 10 million or 20 million.

Edwards: I hadn't seen that.

Singer: Senator Wyden has also come up with a plan -

Edwards: I knew about Senator Wyden's plan.

Singer: - also bringing in both corporations and labor and healthcare groups and doctors. Not getting into the specifics at all, but how do you see bringing in everyone so it's not just an us versus them, because us versus them didn't work in the past?

Edwards: I think you try to bring everybody to the table. You want their participation, you want to make the system work for everybody. I think there's a difference between a healthcare plan that builds on the existing system but deals with some of its deficiencies and problems as opposed to a complete new way of doing healthcare in America. The latter will engender huge opposition. And it will engender a lot of just plain political opposition. If on the other hand you're taking the system that exists, dealing with the problems with it, making sure everybody gets covered, it's just much more likely to be achievable.

Singer: To me, one of the least mentioned yet most important facets of the 2006 campaign was the issue of trade. And there's a pretty clear within the Senate, which has traditionally been more free trade perhaps towards getting a fairer trade or not giving as much latitude towards the President. Sherrod Brown, being the leader against CAFTA in the House, Bernie Sanders, etc. Where do you see that balance?

Edwards: I think we've gotten caught in this... And even the language, free trade/fair trade. I think the answer is smart trade. We want trade that works for American workers, that works for other workers around the world. I think that there should be real environmental and labor standards in our trade agreements, international standards that are achievable but that are enforceable. I don't think that we should use trade agreements, the standards in them, as a ruse for protectionism. I don't think that's right. So the nuance of how you set the standards is really important. But they shouldn't be standardless. They ought to have real standards in them.

And then the other thing that we have to do that that we're doing a terrible job of right now is providing a safety net for people who are hit directly by trade. Communities, families, people who have lost their jobs - the safety net it pitiful. We've lost the social contract in America. It used to be that employers provided. But now because the employers are leaving, taking jobs to other places, there is not safety net. The only people who can provide is our government. So we have to take some serious steps to strengthen the safety net for people who are damaged by trade.

Singer: Should this President or Presidents in the future have fast-track?

Edwards: I got asked that the other day. That's a very hard question to answer in the abstract.

Singer: Let's start not in the abstract. The President spoke this week...

Edwards: I don't trust this President. Not on issues like this.

Singer: And would you, as President, revisit if fast-track were not extended this year?

Edwards: Probably.

Singer: Let's move over to some international issues. A couple weeks ago you were in Israel and you gave a speech at Herzliya on Iran.

Edwards: Actually, I wasn't in Israel.

Singer: Via teleconference, sorry.

Edwards: I was in North Carolina.

Singer: And it rubbed some people the wrong way about maybe your intentions or language that sounds similar to language that is maybe more hawkish towards Iran. To begin, how do you respond to people that feel uncomfortable with the language you used?

Edwards: I have a very clear view about Iran. Can I say what it is? First, we should think about what the consequences would be of any kind of military strike against Iran because, number one, we're in a war right next door that has done incredible damage to America.

Second, Iran is led by a radical leader, Ahmadinejad, who denounces us, denounces Israel, but who is politically unstable in his own country. What's happened is the political elite, the religious leaders have left him. A lot of the population has left him. They don't like his bellicose rhetoric, the fact that he got elected saying he was going to reform the economy and strengthen the middle class - he hasn't done any of that. He was in South America just a few weeks ago, and the head of their legislature -- I don't know if it's a parliament or not - sent him a letter saying, "When are you going to address the economic problems here?"

So I think there's huge diplomatic leverage to deal with this. And that's what we ought to be doing. We need the Europeans... The banking systems in Europe are actually doing a good job of being tough on Iranian banks, but the governments are being weak and they need to be tough.

Here's what I think we need to do. Let me just cut to the chase. I think what ought to happen is us, Europeans and, if we can get them, Russia and China... It ought to be sticks and carrots.

Carrots - this part has been done before - but we ought to make fuel available to them so that they have the civilian nuclear capacity. We ought to control the cycle, but we ought to make it available to them. Second, we ought to out an economic package on the table because their economy is in trouble. And we ought to find ways to sweeten that package so it looks really good to them.

We also ought to have some sticks. We ought to say, "If you don't give up your nuclear weapons program there will be economic sanctions and these banking sanctions will continue."

The reason that this makes sense, under these circumstances is that you've got a President who's already politically unstable who people in his country are worried about, and one of the reasons they're worried about him is because their economy is so bad. And so here on one hand is an opportunity to help your economy and help your people, on the other hand you could actually be punished economically. And Iran needs their economic relationships with the Europeans. So what we want to do is give them those two options, do it very publicly.

And we ought to negotiate directly with Iran - by the way, which the President won't do - and isolate this radical leader. That's what needs to be done. There's a clear path that needs to be taken. None of it's being done. That's what I think we need to do.

But you're talking about, to get to your question, is the fact that whenever I have been asked I have always said it would be foolish for any American President to take anything off of the table, because then you have no leverage to negotiate. But, this is the path that America should be following. I don't know if you saw Tom Friedman's column in The Times on this subject but it's dead on for all of the reasons I just talked about.

Singer: One of the concerns is the way that it's related to the lead up to the war in Iraq.

Edwards: The concern is that Bush is going to do the same thing in Iran. Right.

Singer: Exactly. So the question isn't even if it's correct to say that all military options should be on the table. There's some debate over that or not; some people think that there should not be any openness to using nuclear weapons, for instance.

Edwards: Using nuclear weapons?

Singer: Low-grade, tactical weapons - a bunker-buster, etc. - which would theoretically be *******d in "any option."

Edwards: Any attack on Iran will have very serious consequences for us and for the Middle East. I talked about one of the things a minute ago, but not all of them. It doesn't just strengthen a radical leader, because they will rally around the flag. He'll become a hero. It strengthens him not just in Iran but in the whole Middle East. Because the rest of the Middle East will also rally around him.

Second, it's a fantasy to believe that they won't retaliate. They'll retaliate. It will be difficult for them to retaliate against us in the United States - not impossible, because they have very close ties to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, terrorist organizations - but we've got 100,000 plus troops right across the border. And I think most people believe they've got an infrastructure in Iraq for retaliation.

And then finally, I think that most of the people at the Pentagon would say that just a missile or an air strike isn't going to be enough because it's hard to know if you're successful, there's no way to follow up on it, so you're probably gong to have to put troops on the ground. From where? Where are they supposed to come from?

So that's the way I view what's happening in Iran. We shouldn't be banging the drum. We ought to be talking about a way to really solve this problem.

Singer: And just the last question related to this.

Edwards: I'm actually glad you're asking me about this. I wanted a chance to explain it.

Singer: The fear - and you brought it up - is that by even conceding that military options may need to be used that that may make it easier because even buying into the general debate over Iran - similar to, let's say, the debate over Social Security; by saying that it's a crisis it would have made it easier for President Bush to privatize it - just the same, by conceding there's an immediate crisis with Iran it makes it easier to go after Iran.

Edwards: I see what you're saying.

Singer: What do you say to the people...

Edwards: I just say we Democrats need to make it clear that this diplomatic avenue is the one that ought to be followed. And we need to be very strong about it and talk about it not just superficially. What you'll hear a lot of Democrats say is, "We should engage and negotiate with Iran." I agree with that. But we should do a lot more. This idea of putting a really attractive package on the table and isolating this President - this should be the Democratic strategy for Iran.

[Cross talk about this being the last question]

Singer: January 20, 2009, more likely than not there will still be American troops on the ground in Iraq. As President, where do you go from that point?

Edwards: You bring them home. Combat troops, you bring them home.

Singer: Is there a timeline?

Edwards: They should be gone before then. But if they're not gone by then, they should be gone. They should be out of Iraq, combat troops.

Singer: And the 100,000 contractors, etc.?

Edwards: Well I think we still have some ongoing responsibility to help them with their infrastructure. It depends on what the contractors are doing. But the contractors who are there to help them in rebuilding infrastructure, we should continue to do some level of that.

Singer: Great. Well thank you so much. I really appreciate this.

Edwards: Thank you very much. Nice to see you.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

He is such an incredibly weakass candidate

What specifically makes you think that?

this is nothing. two years of this crap lies ahead. get ready for more boring non-issue nonsense being churned into sensational stories.

I was actually pretty impressed with him on Meet The Press last week.

Me too...

I hope thats sarcasm. Edwards has not come out of this controversy smelling like a rose by any stretch of the imagination. His campaign apparently just plucked these bloggers out of a hat without realizing that their schtick appears to include profanity-laced ranting and vile insults of major religious groups (many of whom make up a substantial part of Democrat voters). Then, upon realizing the mistake, he hems and haws about firing them before finally chickening out and accepting a lame apology that these people didn't intend to offend anyone. (The "I'm sorry you were offended" approach, always a winner.) In the end, he decided that he needs to pander to the left-wing blogosphere more than he does the Catholics in the democratic party. I don't see how you can say he comes out looking great. He's cutting off his nose to spite his face.

The pressure put on Edwards by the netroots to not fire these bloggers was incredibly intense. If Edwards had fired them, he would have lost virtually all of his netroots support. And the importance of the netroots cannot be emphasized enough. You need to be in good-standing with them and you need to be in good-standing with them as early on as possible. And the bloggers did nothing wrong - they didn't say and do those things while they were Edwards staff or while they were employed by anyone for that matter. Frankly, if we were all to be held accountable for every little thing we've said and done on our personal time and on oh say Netphoria or MySpace or any other place on the internet, most of us would never be employed again. And Edwards never said anything about firing them. The whole firing talk began with a false Salon.com article. And now today, there is primarily nothing but an outcrying of support for and positive reviews of Edwards and his actions on this matter. And while Catholics most certainly do matter, particularly in Iowa, this is no longer a story today, nevermind a year from now. While it could have been handled in a more timely manner, it was handled appropriately and non-crazy, Conservative Catholics have no issue with this.


Edwards Learns Blogs Can Cut 2 Ways
New York Times
By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 — John Edwards learned the hard way this week of the perils of grafting the raucous culture of the Internet to the decidedly staider world of a presidential campaign.

Mr. Edwards announced on Thursday, after 36 hours of deliberation, that he would keep on his campaign staff two liberal feminist bloggers with long cybertrails of incendiary comments on sex, religion and politics. ...

Mr. Edwards could keep the women on his staff and have to answer for the sometimes vulgar and intemperate writings posted on their personal blogs before he hired them late last month. He could dismiss them and face a revolt in the liberal blogosphere, which is playing an increasingly influential role in Democratic politics and could be especially important to his populist campaign. Some bloggers saw the controversy as manufactured by conservative groups.

Or, as Mr. Edwards did Thursday, he could keep the two bloggers on staff, but distance himself from their views.

In deciding to retain Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwan, he extracted public apologies from them for some of their work and a promise from them to maintain a civil tone while in his employ. Mr. Edwards stumbled into this minefield ahead of his rivals for the presidency, but many of the other candidates could face similar problems as they try to integrate the passionate, provocative and freewheeling political discourse that flourishes on the Internet into more tightly controlled means of traditional campaigning.

“This is all being made up as we go along,” said Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network, a political action organization that tries to serve as a bridge between traditional politics and the Wild West world of the Internet. “It is difficult to apply the old ways campaigns were run in the late 20th century to this new wide-open, citizen-led politics.” ...

In a statement Thursday, Mr. Edwards distanced himself from the two bloggers’ most inflammatory statements, which, he said, “personally offended me.” He said that no one on his campaign would be allowed to use such intolerant language, even if intended as satire. ...

He also said he would not allow his campaign to be “hijacked” by religious conservatives who had pointed out the bloggers’ most provocative comments and demanded their dismissal. ...

This week, William A. Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, had called for Mr. Edwards to dismiss the women. Stunned to learn that he did not, Mr. Donohue said in an interview Thursday, “The bloggers are no longer the issue. Edwards is the issue.” ...

Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for Mr. Edwards, said he had not wanted to decide the women’s fate without first speaking to them personally.

Asked whether the campaign had sufficiently screened the two women before they were hired, Ms. Palmieri said it was difficult to find and read every word a prolific blogger had written over a period of years.

Problems with bloggers have already bedeviled other campaigns. In last year’s Democratic senatorial primary in Connecticut, some bloggers who supported Ned Lamont attacked his opponent, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, and one posted a picture of Mr. Lieberman in blackface.

Last summer, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, hired Patrick J. Hynes, a conservative blogger and political consultant, to be his campaign’s blog liaison. Mr. Hynes quickly ran afoul of fellow bloggers by initially concealing his relationship to the McCain campaign while he was writing critically about other Republicans.

He then came under fire for declaring that the United States was a “Christian nation” in a book and television appearances that predated his work for Mr. McCain. Last November, while employed by Mr. McCain’s campaign, Mr. Hynes posted on his personal blog a picture of Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, and invited readers to submit nicknames, some of which were anti-Semitic.

In an interview, Mr. Hynes said the Internet was a place where overheated language and vicious personal attacks were often tolerated, even encouraged. But, he said, “I would caution against holding candidates responsible for what their bloggers and blog consultants have said in the past.”

“The blogosphere is a conversation; it’s not reportage,” Mr. Hynes said. “We’re all trying to figure out, what does this mean for the convergence of all these media? It’s a Pandora’s box and no one knows where it’s going to end up.”

Mr. Hynes remained on the McCain campaign staff and maintained his personal blog.

You can say he did an okay job of damage control, but that's about as generous a statement of the situation as one can get, objectively. The fact that he got into this situation in the first place doesn't speak well for the prudence of his campaign staff. And IMO folding under the pressure coming from the netroots doesn't really give me any confidence that Edwards is a man of principle. He's basically admitted that these bloggers' comments offended him personally, but he still allows them to speak for him solely out of political convenience. I don't really think that is the image he wants to put forth.

What an illogical comparison. I'm surprised he didn't throw in MLK Jr. and try to say that he got what he deserved for what he said. I love how he uses that idiotic line that middle school principals always use "thinks the same rules don't apply to him." It's a complete joke. He's basically saying that you are responsible for what you say, but you are also responsible for what people under you do, and by that logic should every president be under arrest for murder? What a complete idiot... Edwards needs to stand up to this guy, but of course doesn't.

What a wuss. Handle it like a man. Say that they were right about his church being ridiculous and lay out reasons why. Who cares, you get elected or you don't, but you still have your loads of cash, Edwards. He needs to just say that they have free speech and can say whatever they may, it doesn't affect him. His bloggers have more spine than he does about it.

My having worked on some of the things I have worked on (i.e. legalizing marijuana) probably offends all kinds of politicians. So, therefore, despite everything else that I can bring to a campaign, I should not be hired because the candidate disagrees with something I've done? And on an even more related note, I go off about all kinds of things on my MySpace blog (some of which have even been taken to task in newspaper articles). If John Edwards disagrees about my take on the whole crucifix thing at the Madonna concert, for example, which I wrote about on my personal blog, I shouldn't be hired by him? It's now the duty of every job I apply for to go searching for my MySpace, Facebook, old LiveJournal, contact my old professors and get copies of the reports and papers I have written, etc., etc. and pour through every word to ensure that absolutely nothing I have ever said in my personal life is of offense to said employer? That's just fucking ridiculous. Edwards hired two very notorious bloggers and in doing so, they came with baggage, just like every other campaign staffer. This isn't the first time this has happened to a candidate and it won't be the last.

It depends on what you're being hired to do. Nobody's saying that we should scrutinize every single Myspace blog of every single lowly worker a campaign hires to knock on doors and put signs up. But if you're hiring someone to be your campaign blogger, a person who ostensibly is chosen for the sole purpose of speaking for the candidate, then I think its common sense that you would make sure the person actually does speak for the candidate.

These weren't just random employees who had their blogs dug up out of obscurity and foisted on the public. These people got hired specifically because of the content of their "personal" blogs, the clear implication being that what they were saying on there was the sort of thing that the Edwards campaign wanted for their campaign blog. That being the case, I don't see anything unfair about pointing out that the campaign was either a) less than thorough in vetting these bloggers, or b) totally oblivious to the offensive nature of some of their postings.

They were not hired to be campaign bloggers in the sense that they are meant to be the equivalent of his press people but on the blogosphere. They were hired because of their involvement and knowledge of the blogosphere and internet. They also came with a bit of notority as they are quite well-known in the blogosphere. They were not hired because of the content of their blogs. They have little to no political knowledge and experience. They do not and are not meant to speak for the campaign on the same level as the press/commmunications staff do. They are part of the team responsible for internet organizing. They do not speak for the candidate any more so than the lowly people knocking on doors. Granted, I'm not explaining this very well, but their role in the campaign is far from anything major.

And now it'll just start to go in circles...

If you pop over to the site that hosts Edwards's campaign blog, the first thing you see is a blog post made by one of the bloggers in question, so I highly question your characterization of their role as merely being organizational in nature. I think its clear that these bloggers were hired to provide content for the site, even if its meant to be among other duties.

I'm not saying they weren't hired to do content, though, their roles are more managerial/organizational. I'm saying they were not hired because of the content of their personal sites and they were not hired to have a type of speaking for the campaign role that other staff (i.e. press secretary) have.

Okay, so let's say these people were hired based on the popularity of their personal blogs instead of the content. How is that any better? That spin on it just paints the hirings as transparent political moves aimed at catering to the blogosphere, moves that appear now to have been a little rushed to say the least. "Who cares what they say? They're popular, so lets hire them and then their audience will be ours!"

I'm sorry, but there's no way you can spin this where it doesn't at least look a little bad on Edwards and/or his campaign staff.

Edwards Lays Out Comprehensive Proposal To Enact His Plan For Iraq

John Edwards for President
Feb 14, 2007

Calls on Congress to stop debating and take action: Cap funding for troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops and stop the surge; end war in 2008

Says Bush is acting without authorization

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards today laid out a comprehensive proposal for Congress to implement his plan to stop President Bush’s escalation of the war in Iraq and begin an immediate withdrawal by capping funding for troops at 100,000, and requiring withdrawal of all combat troops over the next 12-18 months.

"Nearly a month ago, I called on Congress to block the President’s escalation of war. Unfortunately, while Congress has been debating Iraq, President Bush has been surging troops into Iraq. The escalation is underway, so blocking it is no longer enough – now we have to take the next step and cap funding to mandate a withdrawal," Edwards said. "We don’t need debate; we don’t need non-binding resolutions; we need to end this war, and Congress has the power to do it. They should use it now. In order to get the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to actually start leaving."

Edwards believes that the only solution to the situation in Iraq is a political solution, which requires all the parties in Iraq to take responsibility for the future of their country. By leaving Iraq, the Iraqi people, regional powers, and the entire international community will be forced to engage in the search for a political solution that will end the sectarian violence and create a stable Iraq. Escalating the war sends exactly the wrong signal to the Iraqi people, regional powers and the world.

Edwards’ plan for Iraq calls for Congress to:

Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.

Prohibit funding to deploy any new troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped, so American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, instead of escalating the war.

Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.

Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

After withdrawal, Edwards believes that sufficient forces should remain in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide. In addition, Edwards believes the U.S. should step up our diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria and work to bring about a political solution to the sectarian violence inside Iraq, including through a peace conference. He also believes the U.S. must intensify its efforts to train the Iraqi security forces.

Capping funding is about the worst idea I've heard.

Considering that's the benchmark of his plan, his plan fucking sucks.

Genuine John Edwards
By Jonathan Darman
Newsweek
Feb. 19, 2007 issue

In the fall of 2005, John Edwards sat down with a pad and pen and scrawled out three simple words: "I was wrong." It was nearly three years after he'd joined a Senate majority in voting to authorize war in Iraq. After an unsuccessful run as John Kerry's vice presidential candidate in the 2004 election, Edwards had returned home to North Carolina and watched as the war descended into chaos. Increasingly filled with regret, he concluded that the three-word confession would be the right way to start a Washington Post op-ed admitting his vote was a mistake.

But when a draft came back from his aides in Washington, Edwards's admission was gone. Determined, the senator reinserted the sentence. Again a draft came back from Washington; again the sentence had been taken out. "We went back and forth, back and forth," Edwards tells NEWSWEEK. "They didn't want me to say it. They were saying I should stress that I'd been misled." The opening sentence remained. "That was the single most important thing for me to say," Edwards recalls. "I had to show how I really feel."

The "real" John Edwards is not someone America knows well. When he first crossed the national stage, he called himself the "son of a mill worker," but he seemed more like a creature spawned in a focus group—attractive, well spoken and safe. Since then, he has weathered enormous hardship—his wife, Elizabeth, has battled breast cancer—but hardly a wrinkle has crossed his perpetually tanned face. He has spent the better part of five years in one of the most contrived careers known to man: candidate for president of the United States.

In recent weeks, however, Edwards has been trying to draw attention to his less- scripted side. First there was his "silence is betrayal" attack on his main rivals for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for not speaking out against the escalation of the Iraq war. On Feb. 4, in an appearance on "Meet the Press," he broke the cardinal rule of presidential politics and admitted that his proposal for universal health care would require raising taxes. Then, last week, he refused to fire two campaign employees who'd criticized Roman Catholics and religious conservatives on their personal blogs, despite pressure from conservative leaders.

It's perhaps no accident that Genuine John Edwards has chosen this particular moment to emerge. The senator is campaigning as an alternative to Clinton, the front runner whose chief weakness with primary voters is the impression she is driven more by polling than principle. He has lost supporters, and even some staff, to Obama—a candidate who's connected with Democrats by seeming to always speak from his heart. And the success of blunt-spoken Democratic Senate candidates like Montana's Jon Tester and Virginia's Jim Webb has left Washington consultants advising their clients to act like, well, they don't listen to consultants.

Still, Edwards's new commitment to authenticity may have real roots: in 2004, the candidate learned the hard way that too much caution can be fatal. When the Kerry campaign faltered, Edwards and his wife were convinced that a broad swath of competing consultants, offering conflicting advice, were largely to blame. "Consultants can make it hard to tell the truth," Edwards says. "They want you to be so cautious it makes it hard to say anything." Aides, who didn't want to be named discussing their boss's internal thinking, say he walked away from 2004 convinced that only strong, centralized decision making works in presidential campaigns.

He was already thinking of the next election—but Edwards had a more pressing task. When Elizabeth was diagnosed with breast cancer, Edwards became her chief caretaker, sitting beside her as she underwent debilitating treatment. (Elizabeth is now in remission.) By her bedside, he pondered his own future and contemplated Iraq. How could he go on rationalizing his vote to authorize support for the war? "I knew I couldn't keep explaining a vote ... I had serious doubts about," he says.

Aides saw a new confidence in Edwards after he publicly repudiated his war vote in November 2005. He had developed his own world view and could converse easily about foreign policy. He'd also taken on fighting poverty as his central cause. It seemed an odd choice for the old John Edwards—"electable" centrist candidates don't waste time on the poor while vying for middle-class voters. "Yeah, I heard all that," Edwards told NEWSWEEK in 2006. "It's what I want to do." (Critics claim Edwards's new 28,000-square-foot home in Orange County, N.C., shows his commitment to the poor may not be as all-consuming as he suggests.)

All his talk about the working class has helped Edwards get cozy with labor. In 2004, he peppered his speeches with sympathy for unions but largely sat out of the major jockeying for endorsements from Big Labor. Now he has led an aggressive courtship, naming union-friendly former congressman David Bonior as his campaign chairman and pitching labor leaders. Andy Stern, president of the influential Service Employees International Union (SEIU), has seemed especially drawn to Edwards's message. But associates, who would only speak about his intentions anonymously, say he is wary of alienating the Clintons. (An SEIU spokesman said the union would not make an endorsement until September at the earliest.)

Edwards has also recast himself as the Internet candidate. In 2004, his campaign largely ceded the Web money chase to Howard Dean. But Elizabeth, who was an early habitué of online communities, has long urged her husband to take more-aggressive steps on the Internet. He has wooed bloggers during private dinners and invested in a Web site that many consider to be the most sophisticated of any candidate in either party. Last week he declined calls to dismiss campaign bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, amid allegations they were antireligion. "The first response normally would have been to listen to these Beltway actors who were saying, 'Clearly, you have to fire these people'," says Jonathan Singer, a blogger for the liberal site MyDD. "He has some spine."

But to win the Democratic nomination, Edwards needs cash as much as he needs resolve. To stay in the same sentence as Clinton and Obama, Edwards must have an impressive fund-raising total at the end of the first filing period on March 31. He will spend the next two months crisscrossing the country, picking up checks. "The travel bothers me more than it used to," he admits. "Maybe it's just that I'm older." The new John Edwards is still running for president—but now admits when he feels a little pain.

With Holly Bailey, Eleanor Clift and Arian Campo-Flores

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17081033/site/newsweek/

-------------------------

And on that fundraising note:

Edwards Fundraising Exceeding Expectations

Interesting tidbit from the National Journal on John Edwards: "Money is going very well. Maybe he won't be in the Clinton-Obama league, but it is apparently going better than the Edwards folks anticipated. Could it be the war? Is he inheriting some of those potent Howard Dean donors? (We hear he's getting a lot of Florida money and that trial lawyers are double-dipping with him and Joe Biden.)"

The Dems need to get some more people that have *experience*. The more I think about it, the more it seems like something they must do. I personally like Edwards and would vote for him, but a lot of people in this country proabably aren't too confident about electing a one-term Senator. Obama has the same problem among other things (race, drug history, name). Hillary's got more experience politically than just about everyone at this point, but I question if she's truly electable.

That said, I do not feel Edwards is a "weakass candidate". Lots of other people DO though.

The voters, though, at least at this point in time, seem to have no issue with the whole experience thing when it comes to Edwards or Obama or any of the other candidates. And with Edwards particularly, there is much much less talk about his lack of "experience" this time around than previously. It remains to be seen, though, as we move forward in the campaign, how much of a role the issue of "experience" will play in voters' perception of "electability". It wasn't all that major of an issue with voters in the '04 primaries and I think it will be even less of an issue in the '08 primaries (but again, that could change). And I completely disagree that lots of people find Edwards to be a "weakass candidate", at least as far as voters in the early primary states and experienced politicos go.

obama is more experienced than edwards technically in terms of political experience.

the whole experience argument is stupid. in the franken thread "he needs more to be a senator", yet in other postings, a governor isn't as experienced as a senator when it comes to national issues, but (in the voters eyes) if you check the stats, governors get elected almost always over senators. so far, only a few governors are running, romney and richardson (vilsack?) so the whole thing is retarded.

our sitting president had no national security experience, no foreign relations experience, business degrees from college (where he wasn't exactly cum laude) and his six years as governor didn't teach him crap.

our forefathers were genius or dumbly lucky because they made the qualifications age and natural born citizenship. they wanted the field more opened, not narrowed for who could or would be president. they wanted people who loved america to run for president.

by the by, they all toked up, and they managed to break away from the british. lincoln used cocaine (it was legal then). "experience" arguments are bogus. a leader is a leader, a smart man is a smart man, and no one but an ex-president has the experience to be a president.

jesus.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/16/marcotte/

That's straight from the horse's mouth. Do you still want to suggest that this woman was not hired to speak for the campaign in any significant way? I think its clear that she had guidance from the campaign on what to blog on, and as such one would think it'd be good sense that the campaign would have been familiar with her writing (ie. her blog) before hiring her on. That means they either ignored/missed the offensive content in her blog, or they didn't use common sense and actually check to make sure the person they were hiring as a campaign blogger could write a complete sentence or wasn't a big GOP supporter. Neither reflects well on the Edwards campaign's good sense.

I know you're a fan of the guy, but reality has got to creep in from time to time.

The other chic from Shakespeare's Sister was not hired to be a blogger in any way shape or form. And everything that was written on the campaign blog would be checked by those above her. And, again, everything I said about not speaking for the campaign in the same way that a press/communications staffer does remains true. Bottom line, what a person does and says in their personal life on their personal time should not affect their professional life.

^

Bottom line, what a person does and says in their personal life on their personal time should not affect their professional life.



-------

shouldn't, but bill clinton proved it does, and anyone who thinks otherwise in 2007 is a fool.

I agree that the Shakespeares sister blogger probably got unfairly swept up in the controversy. But I stand by everything else I've said. I think its very illusory distinction you're making between the way a campaign blogger speaks for the campaign and the way a PR person does. They're both pushing the campaign's talking points, and just because a blogger filters those talking points through their own perspective instead of reading a direct statement doesn't mean they are speaking any less for the campaign. Say it with me: The Edwards campaign made a mistake, just a minor one, but a mistake nevertheless.

Again, I certainly don't think people's personal blogs and the like should be scrutinized as a rule. But if someone is being hired for a position because of their "personal" blog, then I think that it becomes fair game. If I'm applying for an attorney job, then I don't expect to be held accountable for something I said on the Netphoria politics board. But if someone sees my posts here and likes my style, then based on that offers me a job where I post my political thoughts online and argue with people, then that's totally a different story.

This guy is so daft - he believes Israel is the biggest threat to world peace. Way to go, John - please keep speaking now so I don't have to stomach your shit for four years later on.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...egoryid=1&cs=1

Let me guess, you think he was impeached because he got his dick sucked.

yup i'm that simple.

learn me more...he lied about something that had to do with national security, oh wait, no, that was scooter.

he lied. i get it.

just curious, do you think w is pure as the driven snow and hasn't committed crimes possibly more important than lying under oath, oh wait, he never goes under oath about anything, and he hasn't has special prosecutors hauling him into court on trumped up real estate charges and then questioned about something else entirely.

grow up.

Way to throw in some shit that had nothing to do with anything.. if you want to sound halfway intelligent, don't pull stuff out of your ass.

If you want to know my views about Bush, do some searching. You're way off. Not that it actually has shit to do with this conversation.

I hope you don't really think that the story goes that Clinton got hauled into court to talk about real estate and got ambushed with blowjob questions. Clinton got sued for sexual harrassment in a matter totally seperate from Whitewater, and thats where the blowjob questions were asked. Clinton lied on the stand, then the independent counsel got interested in his sex life...not the other way around. If you want to be outraged, at least be outraged at what actually happened.

But I digress, none of this really has anything to do with John Edwards or his bloggers. Trying to play off the controversy over the things one or both of them wrote as being some sort of personal privacy issue is spin and nothing more.

Erroneous article!

Edwards: Israel NOT a threat to world peace

WASHINGTON John Edwards' presidential campaign wants to make it clear that he doesn't consider Israel a threat to world peace.

A spokesman for the 2008 Democratic candidate issued a statement today denying such a report on Variety.com.

Columnist Peter Bart reports that Edwards told a Hollywood fundraiser last month that the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities is perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace.

Edwards' spokesman Jonathan Prince says the article is erroneous. He says Edwards says one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace is Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Bart and the host of the fundraiser, Adam Venit of the Endeavor talent agency, didn't immediately respond to messages for comment.

http://www.fox21.com/global/story.as...Type=Printable

The Clinton Impeachment was just a blatant example of the abuse of congressional powers... and that's all it will ever be. It's embarrassing that such a committee could be so obsessed and consumed with partisanship. First off- right wing extremist Kenneth Starr is appointed as the special prosecutor, who oddly did not even have any previous prosecutorial experience -lol just close ties to the Republican Party. well well wheres the bias in that? Starr spends millions of $ investigating some Clinton Arkansas land deal (which he made prior to being elected) and of course Starr is unable to produce anything other than some sex scandal with a whitehouse intern. Starr then wants to investigate this for something like obstruction of justice. Really, this is a completely dif matter-someone else of independent counsel should have been appointed to investigate this issue. and that that was an impeachable act? high crimes and misdemeanors? Give me a fucking break. And then Starr issues a recommendation on impeachment-Really, he was in no authority to do so. and that the House Judiciary Committee released that as a report? lol The committee would've never released such a report during the Nixon Impeachment. and it just goes on from there, although the majority of the public did not support the impeachment, the republican majority voted-and you know the outcome. What bullshit.