First ktkeith tries to downplay the importance of the position itself (”a staffer” - you know, like the kid who does the coffee run…) while simultaneously trying to downplay a blatantly chronic pattern of behavior (’one’ of her posts? please.), then spins back around to say that the publicly-demonstrated-and-self-espoused opinions & character of a person hired into a political campaign shouldn’t reflect on the person who hired her!

ktkeith - sit down for a minute and take some ibuprofin - you MUST have pulled a muscle, there!

Stop and think about this for a moment - this is the campaign of the guy who was Kerry’s running-mate (okay, so up until that moment, Kerry repeatedly stated that he didn’t think Edwards was qualified to BE in politics, but let’s put that aside for a moment).

Edwards wouldn’t have hired this woman as his blog-mistress (oh, the Clinton jokes that leap to mind…) unless he was CERTAIN she was advanced enough in her BDS affliction.

It was his decision and he was clearly aware of the particulars when he made the decision - just let him suffer the consequences like any other adult would have to. We are ALL judged by who we keep near us.

On the bottom words are shallow.
On the surface talk is cheap.
You can only judge the distance by the company you keep.
- Joe Walsh

- MuscleDaddy

When any politician adds a staffer to his campaign, people take notice. They look into that individual’s pedigree for any number of reasons. That pedigree often includes writings offered for public consumption. In those writings, we see the views held publicly by that individual. Those views may give better insight into that politician’s breadth and depth of the issues. You know this. The political discourse has gotten to this level. If the tables were turned, the left would be skewering Ms. Marcotte’s political opposite right now.

In the case of Ms. Marcotte, those public offerings were the narrow-minded sophomoric prattlings of an angry young woman. Probably the result of too much self-esteeming stroking and not enough genuine love.

But that’s neither here nor there. Her opinions were made public in a forum open to the public, so I reject your claim of “personal opinions” etc.

I believe bnneditor compiled these posts to expose Ms. Marcotte’s tendency to the reactionary, the ease by which she misleads herself and her superficial personal animosities. I didn’t read any declarations about Edwards as a candidate in this post. Maybe I missed something and if I did I would appreciate you pointing it out to me.

Further, what his post exposes is more and more mainstream political candidates cozying up to the shriekers - be they from the far left or the far right.

What’s most telling about your comment and the posts of Ms. Marcotte is the condescension and arrogance employed. There’s a lack of humility and persuasiveness. Honest debate is traded for lock-step agreement. Superficial labels are employed to demonize the non-believers and feet stomp in righteous declarations, insinuating that those who disagree are the enemy. And that argument sounds a lot like “You’re with us, or you’re against us.” It’s easy to become what you hate.

New Flash for ktkeith (and ilk): it is *most certainly reasonable* to make decisions about Edwards based on the caliber of person *he selects* as a steward responsible for the infrastructure used to represent him and his views to the electorate. And that goes *double* for opinions expressed before the campaign began, which ought to have figured most prominently in Edwards’ selection process… don’t you think?

I’ve not made any statement against Edwards, or against Ms. Marcotte, for that matter. I’ve simply reproduced some of her opinions, and urged people to learn more about her if they are so inclined.

As Amanda reasonably points out, the behavior of right-wingers - in this case, you - is so far at odds with their claimed rationalizations for that behavior that we are entitled to seek more reasonable explanations for what they do. You cannot possibly be engaged in a serious analysis of the fitness of candidates for the Presidency. No rational person would go about that important task in the way you are doing. But your behavior is in perfect keeping with the swiftboat tactics that have become the dominant right-wing strategy - to create a peripheral issue of your own choosing and scream about it relentlessly in right-wing forums until somebody finally pays attention, then claim your attacks are an actual campaign issue. In this case - unlike that of Kerry - you cannot even be bothered to invent an issue that involves the actual candidate. And why did you just happen to join an organized campaign of personal hostility toward an outspoken feminist blogger who rejects religious patriarchy? The question answers itself.