One of Edwards' bloggers steps down

The fact is that,... (0.00 / 0)

...if Marcotte had had any pride, she would have resigned immediately after it became clear that the Edwards campaign was not going to stand behind her.  Marcotte was, quite frankly, quite correct in her comment that you quoted, and I've seen the women are nothing but vessels (for men) sentiment elsewhere on right-wing blogs over the Internet.  It isn't new. 

And it isn't surpising that the racist Malkin or the homophobe RCCi Donohue would be up in arms about Marcotte. 

Bloggers should stop going to work for political campaigns and instead do the columnist route.  Although, with the forthcoming demise of the print media in the US, there probably isn't much money in that, either.

---

by: raj @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 23:00:28 PM CST

Re: The fact is that,... (0.00 / 0)

And this "women are nothing more than vessels" view is why Mary is the Co-Redemptrix.

Right. Totally on the mark.

---

by: Senori @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:15:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not according to the Church she isn't. (0.00 / 0)

While it is true that Puis XI and JP II (in '35 and '85, respectively) did utter "co-redemptrix," there is no formal infallible dogma making that claim.  There is merely a petition, signed by many of the whos-who of Catholicism (including Mother Theresa).

So, while Vatican II gave her titles including Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix, she was never formally called Co-Redemptrix.

---

by: stomv @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 06:25:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Certainly not... (0.00 / 0)

...for several reasons. But the idea is there.

---

by: Senori @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:20:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

With all due respect (0.00 / 0)

"The idea is there" that the lineage of Jesus lives on.  That doesn't make it correct, nor does it make it official doctrine.

---

by: stomv @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:25:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And it should also be noted... (0.00 / 0)

....that dogma and doctrine aside, the only ecclesiastical standing women have within the Catholic Church requires them to take vows of poverty in positions that are always subordinate to men.  Giving the Virgin Mary a title doesn't really change the way the Church treats women, does it?

---

by: anthony @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:12:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's about on the same level as... (0.00 / 0)

...Giving the Virgin Mary a title doesn't really change the way the Church treats women, does it?

It's about on the same level as giving garbage men the title of "sanitary engineer."

Not to denigrate garbage men, they do engage in a useful pursuit, but they aren't engineers.

---

by: raj @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:03:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, (0.00 / 0)

It's only in ecclesiastical positions; they cannot be Priests or Bishops or whatnot. And it would take ignoring a significant body of tradition and doctrine to allow them; which is something one might say you have to take up with God.

---

by: Senori @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:23:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think God... (0.00 / 0)

...had very much to do with creating the Catholic Church's hierarchical structure.  It was created by lowly humans who conveniently pass the buck up the divine chine whenever challenged on their misogyny.

---

by: anthony @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:46:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If we're going to turn this thread (0.00 / 0)

into a rehash of the Reformation we might as well give it up now.

Any chance of staying on topic?

---

by: steverino @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:49:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Respectfully.... (0.00 / 0)

.....we are discussing the merits of a portion of the original post.  It may be narrowly focused on a portion of the post that does not much interest you, but it is not off topic. 

Any chance you might choose to address the topic in a way meaningful to you without criticizing the contributions of others?

---

by: anthony @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:56:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Any chance (0.00 / 0)

you could read the thread?

Or quote the part of the original post where Marcotte addresses the concept of apostolic succession?

Or stop pretending?

---

by: steverino @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:34:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Here you go... (0.00 / 0)

The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels.

Which then lead to a discussion of how the Catholic Church may view the virgins role and subsequently the role of women.  I admit the discussion you disapprove of is tangential to the above statement, but it is not unrelated.  It is also tangential to the thrust of the post (the role of bloggers in campaigns) but nonetheless tied in some fashion to the contents of the post.  I see nothing wrong with exploring the outer margins of a subject.  In fact in happens often on this board and often leads to more interesting and relevant discussion. 

As to your call for me to "stop pretending" - Clearly you are interested in controlling the behavior of others and not staying "on topic" since you are pushing the discussion further off topic with this line of inquiry, so, again respectfully, you might benefit from taking a bit of your own advice. 

---

by: anthony @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:40:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Far be it from me (6.00 / 1)

to interrupt your slappy scratchy catfight over religious doctrine.

But "clearly" you are interested in misrepresenting other posters' statements, as well as your own.

You hardly explored "the role of women." All you did was insult Catholics with the bald statement that their views of church hierarchy had "nothing" to do with God. Such an assertion can be neither proven nor disproven by facts or rational argument.

But if you want to engage in a pointless "Did not!" "Did too!" bickerfest, go right ahead, though I doubt many here will find it one of the more "interesting and relevant discussions." Just try not to scratch anyone's eye out.

---

by: steverino @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 14:22:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kitty, heal thyself! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: anthony @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 14:31:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

PLEASE NOTE - 'Christian' and 'Roman Catholic' are NOT synonymous terms. (0.00 / 0)

My church has ordained women since before they could vote.  Why does every comment on Christianity devolve into a Catholic-centric one?

She's offending a LOT more people than just Catholics.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:33:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No, they are not synonymous... (0.00 / 0)

....and people CAN discuss Catholicism WITHOUT discussing other Christian factions if they so choose. 

---

by: anthony @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:52:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's true... (0.00 / 0)

...and that's one of the reasons that we tried so hard to keep RCCis (adherers to the Roman Catholic Church, Inc.) such as the Irish and the Italians out of the USofA as long as we could.  Nicht wahr?

Germans, mostly Protestant, not so much.

---

by: raj @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:55:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Why is what she said offensive? (0.00 / 0)

I'm not trying to be facetious.  I'd really like to hear what people think.  It seems to me that making some literary characters "sacred" does a disservice to the pursuit of truth.

Doesn't anyone else think it's at least interesting that the "perfect woman" in western culture is one who manages to be a mother while remaining a virgin?  Isn't it something that's a little odd?  Or at least worth talking about?  Mightn't it have something to do with attitudes (conscious or unconscious) about women that still affect our society?

Why does that question need to be shouted down instead of dealt with rationally--like other cultural criticisms?  Answer: "B-b-b-b-because it's my religion."  That's a very unsatisfying answer.

---

by: World Citizen @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 14:10:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think you're quite right (0.00 / 0)

and much has been written about the meaning of Marian imagery. Some of it is quite fascinating from a historical or psychological perspective, even if one otherwise has no interest in religion.

And it's true, many religious people imagine they have a limitless right not to be "offended," as well as limitless discretion to decide what is offensive. These folks are just as likely to be offended by serious scholarship or works of art as they are by random insult.

However, Marcotte often uses extreme statements and graphic images needlessly, in ways that distract from her point rather than emphasize it. She can be very sloppy in her facts and reasoning. And her writing often sports a broad, snotty smile, suggesting she fancies herself a very naughty girl, indeed, who dares you to stop her. While that style attracts the approval of what one feminist (I forget who) calls the "Trotskyettes," I think it makes her far less interesting or provocative than she imagines herself to be.

---

by: steverino @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 14:36:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think her virginity has much to do with it (5.00 / 1)

I think it has more to do with her being the first Christian, in the sense that she was the first to say yes to Jesus.  Christians uphold many, many people as saints who led less than virtuous lives before they converted.  The apostle Peter, the first pope, was a violent rough neck.  Augustine was a notorious fornicator in Hippo and had a couple children out of wedlock.  Paul outright persecuted first century Christians.

I dont think the virginal status is something that is only upheld for women.  Sexually active men can't become priests, either.

somewhere over the rainbow

---

by: Kai @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 17:51:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Personally, (5.00 / 1)

I don't think Marcotte is a very interesting blogger. I find her tiresome and screedy. Her fixation on the Virgin is really just a symptom of a larger flaw--the fact that, every time she decides to throw a bomb, she misses her mark.

For instance, she seems rather unaware of various feminist perspectives on the Virgin--from her iconic status among liberation theologians who embrace the leveling language of the Magnificat to the concern of historians who note that the stature of Mary seems to inversely correlate with the status of women in a given place and time (see Alone of All Her Sex). Instead, she substitutes gum-snapping snark based on her own from-the-hip, and often wrong, ideas of Mary's role. The idea that Mary was impregnated by God is no part of Christian doctrine; indeed, Christian Churches condemn Mormons for believing it. In other words: Critique the myth all you want; just don't misrepresent what the myth actually says.

Marcotte seems to dislike people who embrace doctrinal correctness at the expense of fact. Well, so do I.

---

by: steverino @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:23:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

contradiction (0.00 / 0)

just don't misrepresent what the myth actually says.  Marcotte seems to dislike people who embrace doctrinal correctness at the expense of fact. Well, so do I.

First you call the christian storie smyths, then fact.  Well, you can;t have it both ways.  There is no fact to dispense with in myth, and therefore Marcotte can say whatever whe wants about Mary, just as the RCC does (building mythical status around her, giving her latinate titles, etc).

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:57:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Incoherent (0.00 / 0)

I can't honestly figure out what you're saying, other than that you have an urgent desire to contradict.

First you call the christian storie smyths, then fact.  Well, you can;t have it both ways. 

Whether a story happened or not has no bearing on whether it is a myth, in a religious context. Catholic schools regularly discuss the "creation myth" in classrooms. The use of the word "myth" to mean "falsehood" is another meaning of the word entirely, as in "urban myth".

There is no fact to dispense with in myth

Again, the urge to contradict overwhelms any attempt to make sense here.

It is a fact that the myth of the virgin birth is not a tale of divine impregnation--which the Church itself makes clear. Otherwise it would make no sense for the Catholic Church to claim Mary's perpetual virginity, if she had in fact been impregnated.

It is also a fact that there is no myth of Juno in which she transforms a dove into a sales clerk at Bloomingdales. That's a fact about a myth.

and therefore Marcotte can say whatever whe wants about Mary

She can say whatever she wants, in the sense that she can type any random, irrational, incoherent and unsupported words she wishes into her blogging software. That doesn't mean her words aren't nonsense, aren't dishonest, and aren't subject to criticism from other people "saying whatever they want."

---

by: steverino @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:33:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

One exception (0.00 / 0)

While I agree with you that bloggers who go and work for campaigns shouldn't continue to write political blogs on their personal website, I could see them continue to write journalistic entries. However, they wouldn't be that interesting to read... I just don't see any potential conflict of interest in them writing things like "so on Tuesday, I went to such and such a speech and met so and so," etc. etc. etc. I guess people interested in the process of campaigns and blogging could want to read that - or maybe people who invest enough time in a blog and blogger that have a legitimate interest in that person.

That said, anything issue-oriented or political could really backfire. It's why I'd have to REALLY believe in a candidate to actually be paid to blog for them.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 23:57:01 PM CST

Point of clarification (0.00 / 0)

When I said "I could see them continue to write journalistic entries" I didn't mean like I newspaper, I meant like a diary - ie. what someone did that day, etc.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 23:58:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Blogger, wrong post (5.75 / 4)

It seems to me that campaigns need folks who can do netroots outreach and communication. Campaigns do not need a band of paid chatterboxes. Democratic campaigns are subject to the press sniffing them for any of the following Horrible, Unforgiveable Things:

• signs of inauthenticity
• signs of disagreement with any Democrat anywhere
• hints of disrespect for religion, particularly as it affects fetuses
• rumors of internal disagreements
• hints that anything is "too" planned or calculated
• any change of opinion on any subject in the last twenty years
• exaggerations
• lack of outrage at the culturally required junctures
• caution

Having a blogger who thinks about stuff, who shows passionate disagreement, and who often is not outraged on cue is just asking for trouble.

---

by: KBusch @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 00:33:38 AM CST

KB - that looks like a pretty bipartisan list to me. (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 06:37:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Nope. One word answer: McCain (0.00 / 0)

---

by: KBusch @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:06:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Nope. Two word answer: Mitt TV (0.00 / 0)

The amazing video of Mitt Romney forcefully staking out socially moderate positions. Thanks to tblade.

somewhere over the rainbow

---

by: Kai @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 13:29:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Does anyone understand what Edwards's bloggers' (0.00 / 0)

actual jobs were? I cannot figure this out, and haven't seen it reported.

If you want to reach out to dKos, Atrios, TPM, etc., you need a "media person," not a blogger--albeit one that understands online media.

If you want somebody to write your "official" blog, you need a paid mouthpiece, an anonymous PR flack--not someone widely known for their own contrarian views.

It's not just that Edwards didn't hire a Glenn Greenwald, a blogger more focused on law, policy, or economics. It's that he shouldn't have hired a blogger at all.

---

by: steverino @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:02:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Amanda and Melissa's jobs? (0.00 / 0)

Amanda was going to be, as far as I can tell, the chief blogger on the web site, something like a front-page poster on Kos.  According to a post from a sensible person on the Edwards site, Melissa's job is to "reach out to other bloggers" rather than post on the site.  (Thus it's not unusual that she hasn't posted on the site lately.)

I would be more specific but that's all I know.

---

by: DaveMB @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 14:39:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't hire bloggers -- hire an ombudsman. (6.00 / 2)

Give the bloggers no money.  Give them resources.

I'm not just talking about press releases.  Give them exclusive access at times, and certainly equal access at all times.  Hell, since bloggers are often on shoestring budgets, offer them some free travel and housing -- not first class and 4 star, but the usual schlepping.

Don't ask for anything in return but that the bloggers disclose that they've received "stuff" from the campaign if they have -- the travel "stuff."

This way, the candidate isn't responsible for the current, future, or past writings of the blogger, but has reached out to the blogosphere in a clear, positive manner by treating the blogs like real journalistic entities which do indeed need a little financial boost, since not everyone can pull off a Firedoglake (live blogging the Libby trial).

The ombudsman doesn't have to be astroturfing in the comments... he can merely push press announcements, communicate directly with bloggers when misunderstandings come up, offer the perks when appropriate, and generally be available to the bloggers for questions and concerns.

In the end, I think this is a far more respectful, responsible, ethical, and manageable way to interact with the blogosphere in a mutually beneficial manner.

---

by: stomv @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 06:36:30 AM CST

Do like the Republicans (0.00 / 0)

Wasn't it the Bush Administration who had various "news writers" in their employ to write about topics they wanted to write about?  I believe Maggie Gallager did this on "Traditional Marriage" and there were other that were hired to write about social security yet the writers never let on that they were paid:

http://www.washingto...

http://www.boston.co...

---

by: BB @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:45:19 AM CST

My post on the Edwards blog (6.00 / 1)

I'm a JRE supporter and am starting to blog a bit over at their site.  There's naturally been no official comment yet, but I'm a little surprised that I may be the first to put up a diary on the subject.

Here it is, including a shoutout to this posting by David which I think is one of the best, clearest, and truest things I've seen written on the subject.

Comments welcome either here or there!

---

by: DaveMB @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:33:46 AM CST

Yeah I just now read (0.00 / 0)

that over there I thought it was a great diary.

---

by: mbair @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 13:24:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks! (0.00 / 0)

It's currently the top diary over there, having been recommended by some people with mojo.

One strange thing, though, apropos of our recent troll discussion.  Their rating system goes from 1 = "Strongly disagree" to 5 = "Strongly agree".  So I threw out some 1's to some posts I didn't like, but wouldn't have necessarily have troll-rated here.  And apparently once I was the third 1, the post and all replies to it disappeared (including any opportunity I can find to revise the rating).

This doesn't strike me as very well thought out.  Posts that three people strongly disagree with may still be worth reading!

---

by: DaveMB @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 13:48:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No idea on ratings (0.00 / 0)

Although I've used them in the past, pretty much just uprating people's comments. The rating system there has never really been testing until last week. I never saw troll ratings at all at that blog until this controversy. Kos hides comments with 2 troll ratings, but it used to be vastly different when you could give a numerical value to a post.

---

by: mbair @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 15:24:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It may be that the management deleted this guy (0.00 / 0)

I don't see any other posts from him, but I don't remember whether all of them were following the one I voted down (and thus were collateral damage) or not.  You don't see the ratings on the JRE blog until three people have rated a post.  So I don't see any surviving 1-rated posts to confirm a theory that it wasn't me that caused this guy to vanish.

That's why I like disemvoweling -- it doesn't eliminate the history, just the vowels in the offending post.

---

by: DaveMB @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 16:01:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for this I missed this (6.00 / 1)

part of the story:

Marcotte, it turns out, didn't stop blogging at Pandagon once she took the Edwards job.  Yesterday, she published a review of the movie "Children of Men," in which she wrote:
...

I'm torn because I'm a blogger that tries to promote Edwards and a non practicing Catholic because I take birth control. So I've got a lot of "issues" here. Overall, I'm glad that she's decided to fight, but I don't think that she can be on the campaign staff if she does.

Kagro X at dailykos has a new wrinkle in the controversy.

Getting separated from the herd.

Think the Edwards campaign's blog troubles ended with Amanda Marcotte's resignation? Think the Edwards campaign's blog troubles end with Edwards?

Think again.

As predicted, right wing activists have detected in the sheepish silence of the other Democratic presidential campaigns an opportunity to separate yet more top contenders from the herd, and turn Democrats against Democrats.

The self-proclaimed "Catholic-based advocacy group" Fidelis has sent essentially identical letters to Clinton and Obama, demanding that they:

I didn't reprint the links because I thought that was taking too much. Cruise over there if you want to see the letters from Fidelis.

---

by: mbair @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:05:39 AM CST

Kagro X (6.00 / 1)

who is one of the posters there I still try to read regularly, rightly pointed out that this is the consequence of the other candidates not rallying behind Edwards right from the start. Hang together, or hang separately.

In my opinion, it's also more evidence that Democrats still haven't learned how to fight. Step 1 should have been to coordinate a call from, say, the Anti-Defamation League for Church officials to disavow the hypocrites' astounding anti-Semitism.

---

by: steverino @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 14:15:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not surprised (5.50 / 2)

No one is willing to fight back and stand up for free speech that is critical of "religion".  Right-wingers use this fact to bias public discussion in favor of their policies.  All they have to do is claim, "B-b-b-b-but it's my religion," and then we're all supposed to regard them as disinterested pursuers of the holy rather than the authoritarian reactionaries they are.

When they get away with it, they just get more aggressive.  That's what bullies do.

---

by: World Citizen @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 14:18:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Which is why I blame center and left Christians (5.33 / 3)

who for an entire generation have approached the extreme wingnuts with the chagrined humility of an adult child of an abusive parent. It's changing, now; but for decades, moderates have offered no more than a quiet note of caution and a timidly-raised finger of protest. What they have lacked is simple courage, the courage to say, from the perspectives of their own beliefs, that the wingers are not Christians at all, but adherents of a new blood cult, and worshippers of the anti-Christ. In their silence, they have let the lunatics set the rules for the asylum.

---

by: steverino @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 14:46:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, yes, most definitely so... (0.00 / 0)

In their silence, they have let the lunatics set the rules for the asylum.

Silence can certainly be interpreted as indicating ascent.  As far as I can tell, the so-called moderate and liberal christians are nothing more than enablers of the conservative christians 

---

by: raj @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 22:16:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]