Open Thread: Postcards from TNH

by emptypockets

This is a little experiment in bringing some of my colleagues' off-site activities back home, at least in snapshot, so those of us who enjoy a more ruminant comment thread can digest them.

Kagro X calls out ABC News' treatment of the Edwards blogger "story"

ABC News' Terry Moran enters the Edwards blogger fray, under this oh-so-coy headline:

Does John Edwards Condone Hate Speech? [...] If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?

...If ABC News hasn't been able to discern for itself that the right blogosphere provides more than its share of controversial figures, and that those controversial figures are right now in the employ of leading GOP presidential candidates, as Glenn Greenwald demonstrates with about five seconds worth of Googling, then the blindness must be willful.

Does ABC News condone hate speech?

and games out the next iteration of the Edwards blogger "story"

Keep in mind that those targeting Edwards simply don't abide by the same standards when it comes to defining what's reasonable discourse and what's not. Perhaps more to the point, they are perfectly willing to say that whatever they're pointing to is beyond the pale whether most Americans would agree or not, if they think it could possibly result in the firing of a Democratic campaign staffer, and by extension, damage to that campaign. So it's just as likely that tomorrow's target will be Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or Tom Vilsack, or Chris Dodd, or any of the other candidates. That the attack may have to hinge on something that most people would see as perfectly reasonable won't much matter, so long as the professional outrage machine is turned up loud enough.

This fight, if Edwards is going to be called upon to make it, must be everyone's fight. If the other campaigns cannot demonstrate that they would have displayed the same courage we call upon Edwards to display, then they benefit from the right's strategy of divide and conquer. And to the extent that they benefit, they give a pass to and encourage such attacks in the future, and are powerless to stop them when the next one comes. All they can do is hold on tight, cross their fingers, and pray they're not the next target. And that's no way to win anything. Certainly not the White House.

So keep an eye on who says what here. If you want Edwards to stand up, realize that you're going to have to demand that all the campaigns stand up. Literally. They're going to have to say that they stand by Edwards. Because these attacks only really hurt campaigns among primary voters.

and Trapper John says that Edwards played it the right way

John Edwards and his campaign decided to stand up to the ankle-biters, and deserve credit for doing so.

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me... 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.

It took a little while, but Edwards set the right precedent for how this type of smear should be handled. As a Democrat, I'm proud of him and his campaign. And I'm happy that Edwards is ready to move beyond BS "hijackings" like this to talk about real issues. Let's join him in putting this nonsense behind us.

As for me personally, I'm waiting to see if any of the other Democratic contenders will try to keep this "story" alive, or if they will all decide to run a clean race (for now).

Speaking of calling out bloggers for things in their pasts, Kagro X also calls due Jonah Goldberg's bet that Iraq will rise above chaos and civil war

Today, that "bet" comes due. And today:

Iraq is in a state of civil war

Iraq does not have a viable constitution

a majority of Iraqis do not agree that the war was worth it

a majority of Americans do not agree that the war was worth it

There's no way to be more wrong.

[...]

See, to my mind, where intellectual honesty is demanded is right there... Where "intellectuals" would demand honesty is in the premise of the bet: that Jonah declared his judgment ("when it comes to the big picture") to be superior to Cole's.

It clearly is not. That much, you probably knew in your gut, even before he offered this bet.

But today at 11:53 am EST, it becomes officially, objectively, provably so.

Today, newspaper editors around the country who syndicate his writing should be asking themselves, "Why do I pay to run the column of someone whose judgment -- when it comes to the big picture, no less -- is objectively inferior? Why pay for something so clearly and spectacularly wrong, on so many levels?"

And, as I said in the comments there, 1 in 4 Americans still approve of President Bush's record -- their opinions having been informed, in no small part, by pundits like Goldberg and the way they have shaped the narrative in the mainstream press. With Iraq an unmitigated morass, there are a lot of bets that need to be called in America -- a lot of folks who are past due to admit they were wrong. Because you can't get better until you recognize your mistakes.

Let me finish with TNH commenter janinsanfran's recent post on a blogger facing retribution more severe than politically-motivated vilification by the Right or (gasp) having to admit he is wrong: Josh Wolf has been imprisoned nearly six months as a result of his blogging

Josh Wolf has been locked up for 169 days. As of today, Wolf became the longest-imprisoned journalist for contempt of court in U.S. history. He is a San Francisco video blogger who filmed some of a mini-protest march in the Mission district in July, 2005. (I live in this neighborhood; I wrote about the events at the time here.) A TV station bought some of his footage. You can see that story here.

So far so good.

Though a police officer got hurt and a police vehicle was vandalized, that would have been the end of it, except that the Federal government decided to make an example of Wolf. Under California's journalist shield law, Wolf could not be forced to reveal any other pictures he took that night. But the vandalized police car had been paid for by the Feds, so they convened a Federal grand jury about this tiny local incident and tried to make him turn over his out-takes. Wolf refused. Last August 1 he was declared in contempt and sent to Federal prison. Appeals have been denied -- he is expected to be held until the grand jury's term expires in the summer, or perhaps longer if the U.S. Attorney chooses to be particularly vindictive.

The inevitable question: Who deserves more protections as a credible journalist -- an armchair pundit who makes a living breaking eggs on his face, or a blogger who reports events at the scene and from the street?

That's one even Jonah Goldberg should be able to answer right.

Comments

[Crab Nebula]

It's easy to dismiss bloggers as hyperbolic, but they are right on this one. If it hasn't been said in this way, here it is: this really is a signal event - if the Democratic candidates would stand up together with shared messaging of condemnation, it would greatly strengthen the eventual nominee.

The other campaigns need to echo Edwards' message on this. The R's already have damaged their brand with dirty play in 2006....this is an opportunity to continue.

The Pelosi plane story is a warning shot - we can beat this crap, but there must be coordination. The media can't ignore a large chorus of voices.

[emptypockets]

I'm increasingly intrigued by the way Edwards is running his campaign. For many people I talked to in 2003 and early 2004, part of his appeal was that he ran clean -- he rarely sniped at the other candidates, and that stood out. A recent front-page nytimes profile suggested he would be running hotter this time -- the headline could well have been, "Edwards: He's Not Just For Vice-President Anymore" -- but in reality I'm wondering if he will continue to keep his hands clean after all. It seems to me that he has set his sights on Clinton, and twice now has gone after her without getting splashback, first with his comments about sitting Senators needing to stand up to Bush on Iraq (which didn't mention Clinton at all, but which was a shoe that apparently fit so comfortably that someone in her campaign felt it necessary to fire back at Edwards for his "attack" on Clinton) and second by coming out with his own health care plan before any of the others, stealing thunder on an issue that could have been Clinton's (on the other hand, perhaps his move gave her cover to come out with a competing health care plan on her own that will now be comapred with Edwards' rather than with her plan from the 1990s). I'm also impressed with what I've read of his campaign manager, and I generally like how he dealt with this blog nonsense, though I would have responded more strongly if he had made the story about the folks who were manufacturing the controversy and directly shot back at them regarding the much more hateful remarks of their own associates -- and the much more damaging consequences of following those hateful ideas from the Right. In fact, what refrains me from embracing him more completely is that he still seems to feel the need to appease, even while outright denying he's doing so:

“I’ll admit I’m personally conflicted about these issues,” he said. “I am not personally for gay marriage, but it troubles me that I’d use my own experience as the basis for a policy decision.” He said that while he opposed same-sex marriage, he supported civil unions for gay couples and all anti-discrimination laws.

Mr. Edwards said later that had he been asked the same question in 2004, “I would have finessed it and given a formulaic answer.”

(from the NYT piece linked above.) I'm not sure how that much more finessed or formulaic that answer could get, short of refusing to answer altogether. On the other hand, it's almost exactly the kind of answer Dean gave in 2003/4 (maybe that's why it seems "formulaic" three years later) and I liked it well enough then. But it's that apparent desire to compromise slightly for far-right groups -- even while giving the appearance of taking a strong stand against them -- that gives me pause.

[Jodi]

Of all the Democrats, I like Edwards the best despite those two bloggers.

I split my vote between the Republicans and Democrats in my two presidential elections. I had high hopes for BUSH in 2000 which were dashed by 2004, and then reluctantly with my hand trembling I voted for KERRY as the "least evil."

McCain, I just don't like, but then who else is there on the Republican side?

I fear that I won't even have a lesser evil like Edwards to choose from in 2008.

[MinorRipper]

Edwards is shedding the softie,breck girl image though...here's video proof:
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

[Powerpuff]

ABC News condones hate speech.

I do not like Edwards as a presidential candidate much, he seems to only have ambition as his motivation for running. If Edwards had shouted down the Donohue fellow as an intrusive bigot immediately, I might have had more respect for him. The way it worked out, I think Edwards is more hollow now than before.

[Powerpuff]

I had to go over to Edwards website and see what bloggers do for him. It is just editorializing. Having paid bloggers performing propaganda work is different than having bloggers help him use the medium of the internet to enhance his campaign. I read some of the FDL blog during the Senate primary campaign and understood that blog was advocating for Lamont out of a real desire to defeat Leiberman. If the blogger had been paid to write for Lamont, it would have eliminated the credibility and I would not have bothered reading it. I will not bother to read Edwards' paid bloggers' words. Besides, you have to register to comment, which is something I avoid.

[emptypockets]

Tim Tagaris was (I presume) compensated for writing on the Lamont campaign blog. I didn't think it diminished his credibility. In fact, he regularly cross-posted at other major blogs where his posts were very well-received. So, I think it can be done well -- whether the Edwards campaign will in fact do it well is naturally an open question.

On Edwards and naked ambition: I may have just missed it, but I also took note that he didn't use his wife's recent bout with breast cancer as a political tool when bringing out his health care plan, which I could imagine some politicians doing. I think there is some sincerity there behind the ambition.

(and frankly I don't really want to support a candidate who is not extremely ambitious for the Presidency)

[Tom Cleaver]

Unfortunately, what we now know is that Edwards DID NOT PLAY IT RIGHT with the bloggers. THEY WERE FIRED and then re-hired only because the left blogosphere "went postal" on Edwards.

Combining this with Edwards' statement that he doesn't support gay marriage because of his "heritage" of being raised a bigot in the Southern Baptist Church, and he clearly demonstrates he is not the candidate we need. He's a Squish, who was willing to fall to the ground and curl in a ball as a result of a very small righty attack, one that will be as nothing compared to what he'd get next year as the candidate. We saw what happens with a Squish for a candidate in 2004 with John Kerry and the swiftboat campaign.

Right now I don't know who should be the candidate, but it is clear that Edwards ain't that guy. He's an embarassment.

[pipes.su]

I invite to look at my collection of the pipes published on a resource http://www.pipes.su
You will find following masters of pipes in my collection:
Bo Nordh, Jorn Micke, Jess Chonowitsch, Lars Ivarsson, Anne Julie, Bjorn, Dunhill, Eltang, Former, S.Bang, Sixten Ivarsson, Tao, Teddy Knudsen, M.Revyagin, A.Kharlamov.