Earlier this week, Blog P.I. posed a question: Who was responsible for hiring bloggers in Edwardsville? The logical answer was Matt Gross, Edwards’ chief Internet strategist, and considering the resignations of said controversial bloggers, we idly wondered if Gross would be tendering his resignation as well.
But as the headline above has already given away, we may have blogged too soon — after all, there is someone else at the campaign who is a longtime member of the blogosphere, and it is someone who wields much more power than Gross.
It’s Elizabeth Edwards.
We certainly don’t know for a fact that EE (as we’ll refer to her from here on) recommended Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan for the jobs of blogmaster and blog wrangler (respectively) but we can demonstrate that she would have been in a position to know about them and to make such recommendations. And if it ever did come out that EE was responsible for this mess, it would renew questions about how much control she has over John Edwards’ campaign — and whether it hurts more than it helps.
So let’s get demonstrating:
Going back to at least the 2004 campaign, EE has not just been a mere reader of the blogs but also a commenter at some of the biggest sites on the left.
In April 2005 she took to task several members of the Democratic Underground community for making fun of right-wing radio talker Laura Ingraham’s breast cancer — EE is a breast cancer survivor herself — earning thumbs up from Michelle Malkin and others in the rightosphere.
She may have only commented at Daily Kos eight times from 2004 to 2005, but she was nevertheless one of the earliest to sign up: going by the sequential user ID numbers, EE was the 3,454th person to register; the site now has well over 100,000 registered accounts (not the same as active users).
Now, how much involvement does she actually have with blogs? Last year she told Campus Progress:
I spend a lot of time on the internet. I get a lot of information from blogs, I have a whole list including Talking Points [Memo], Daily Kos, Democratic Underground and more. Sometimes I check out the right wing sites to see what they are talking about. I have a whole folder of sites and I open them all up every day and see what catches my eye. … Sometimes I would post on blogs not under my real name. … But I had to stop doing that after John started running. Now I sometimes participate under my own name. I participate in blogs and newsgroups – not just political ones but other issues too.
Make no mistake, EE knows a lot more about the blogosphere than the average consultant.
And we also know that while she holds no official position with the campaign, she has something of a reputation for usurping the paid consultants’ authority (or so goes the chatter). In December of last year, she appeared in the comments of Illinois-focused ArchPundit to defend herself against claims that she led the ouster of star consultant David Axelrod, who handled Edwards’ media in 2004 (but this time is advising Barack Obama). As ArchPundit’s Larry Handlin put it, during the previous campaign
her handling of consultants and staff was problematic because she tends to micromanage and many would say she cuts people out of the loop. That’s a management problem. It’s also what probably endears her to those who love her and so it’s a double edged sword.
If that’s the case here, then we owe an apology to Matt Gross. Obviously there is no smoking gun evidence that EE was the instigator of the blog hires, but she most certainly would have been in a position to advise (and even make decisions) on the matter. It’s also not unreasonable to think EE would be a more avid reader of pointedly feminist blogs than Gross (not to impugn his feminist credentials). At the very least, she didn’t step in and warn that Marcotte’s rhetoric might be a little too hot for her to serve in a communications role.
Without more information, we’ll file this one under “more than plausible.” But Blog P.I. is not the first to suggest that EE had more involvement here than has been reported. Take this bit from National Journal’s most recent Dem rankings — where Edwards is ranked number three, where he has been since Obama’s emergence:
The 24 hours that elapsed between the MSM’s Blogger-gate stories and Edwards’ nuanced response has become this cycle’s unexplained, awkward Jeanine Pirro gap. We’d blame this on consultants, except Edwards routinely brags he doesn’t listen to them. This one’s on him (or her?).
Commenters at Pandagon seem to think Elizabeth Edwards was behind the decision, too. And in a Feb. 8 diary at Daily Kos, New Hampshire-based MissLaura posted a recent (but pre-controversy) interview with EE on blogs, dKos and the campaign. As MissLaura suggested in that post:
Edwards returned several times to the question of how much control campaign staff would have over what she says publicly, focusing on her efforts to resist such control. However the behind-the-scenes debate over whether to fire or stand behind Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan played out days later, we have to assume that it was at least in part shaped by the presence of a powerful figure who understands blogs and who habitually works against excessive homogenizing.
Others, such as early Dean blogger Dan Conley, have predicted that her blog involvement could be a problem — although not quite like this:
There are two ways to view Mrs. Edwards’ posting on blogs. Some will wonder how wise it is for Edwards to enter this swamp. Every blogger has a sane/insane ratio for political posts … we come to accept it from our peers. But when an aspiring First Lady says something pointed, it’s not just typical Internet chatter, it’s potentially big news. Elizabeth Edwards is extremely smart and a terrific writer … but it’s an incredible high-wire act for someone so prominent to attempt.
Sure, it’s pretty neat that there’s a potential First Lady reading and writing on blogs (on her own, in her own words). It’s proof that whereas all the talk about the downfall of the MSM a couple years back proved false, the blogs certainly have delivered on some degree of democraticization of political media.
But let us observe, as if it even needs pointing out, this development has not always proved beneficial for politicians and political campaigns. No matter what, that’s been the case here. As my former colleague Marc Ambinder points out at Hotline On Call, the controversy
stepped on his health care rollout and has been the dominant theme of his campaign for a week.
Make that two weeks. The Edwards campaign did itself enough damage by waiting too long to decide what to do with their problematic bloggers, and the drawn-out hiring, firing, rehiring and resigning just made it worse. Not to mention, Marcotte’s blog-and-tell for Salon can only delay the Edwards camp from getting back on message. Alas, Edwards will not be on the Sunday shows this week.
Elizabeth Edwards may be the most powerful blog expert advising her husband’s campaign, but assuming this reasoning is on target, she also may not be expert enough.
Note: Additional links and analysis provided by Not Paul Begala.
Update: NPB adds a worthwhile clarification in the comments:
[Marcotte an McEwan] were not vetted and the communications staff was not prepared for the broadside against them. As a former communications guy myself, I can’t tell you how much incomplete information pisses us off. … It’s a legit question that Democrats should be asking of one of their own potential nominees: Why weren’t you ready for a hit job from the right?
Update, Wednesday: Thank you, everyone who commented. Thank you especially, everyone who commented on something other than “good people” and “hit job.” I have approved several comments that are redundant at best, and I will certainly approve others (even on this very post). However, please read through the comments before adding your own, and please only do so if it’s a unique thought. Bonus points if it’s actually about this post, and not the aforementioned comment.
For what it’s worth, in 2003 there was an Edwards supporter (almost the only one at first) on Democratic Underground who many took to be EE. The poster had a distinct personality change immediately after the Iowa Caucus, like the next day, and has gone through a couple of changes over the years, popping in now and again, although rarely around at all this season. Some DUers started calling that poster “The Edwards Family” - if I had to guess, only the first incarnation could have been EE, judging by intelligence and writing style.
Man, what a boring link from Instapundit this turned out to be. Why was it so damn long?
I’d offer you a refund, elgringo, but, well, you know.
Back when we were still Sgt. Stryker, and we were just beginning to hear about Edwards as a possible Dem nominee, my parents’ house burned to the ground in one of the big fires in San Diego County (Oct. 03, if memory serves) I blogged about it, since my parents basically lost everything but what my mother managed to put into the car, and some old pictures the firemen grabbed as the windows began exploding inwards. There was a very kind and consoling comment on that post from an Elizabeth Edwards, who linked back to the Edwards website, and so I assumed it must have been from her, and I’ve thought rather kindly of her ever since, even though wild horses wouldn’t have dragged me to vote for her husband.
Curious, though: what she wrote was very gracious, and appropriate, what we used to think of as ladylike… kind of hard for me to think of her as having much in common with Marcotte and McEwen.
I, as the Democrat of Blog PI, want to make sure commenters here don’t get the misimpression that EE (if it’s her) did anything wrong by hiring Marcotte and McEwen. They’re good people and passionate about issues.
The problem is that they have written things that had the potential to disrupt the campaign and the campaign was ill prepared for that. They were not vetted and the communications staff was not prepared for the broadside against them. As a former communications guy myself, I can’t tell you how much incomplete information pisses us off.
We, collectively, wondered how that happened since a blog savvy Edwards team should have known if their bloggers may cause them trouble. We think Elizabeth and Matt Gross have something to do with that.
So, this isn’t a smear job on EE. It’s a legit question that Democrats should be asking of one of their own potential nominees: Why weren’t you ready for a hit job from the right?
I voted for Edwards in the primary back when I was a Dem voter (I have since switched to Rep for a variety of reasons).
EE represents the dangers of an involved spouse in a campaign. It requires professional management, it is not easy, and bringing in the “nutroots” has huge downsides.
Most Rep campaigns seem to be working for support but not brining in people as campaign staffers. Simply because once a campaign does that, they own all the controversial statements a blogger makes. It becomes attached to the campaign and they can’t take it back or disavow it.
Edwards now owns, forever, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-NASCAR, anti-Men deranged and obscene feminist screeds that the bloggers wrote. That’s his, he owns it forever.
EE may be a nice person but her desire to indulge her feminist impulses served her husband ill by effectively ending his political career. Her attraction to the bloggers (they are obscene, “edgy” and most definitely anti-men, particularly middle class white men) if this is indeed the case shows the systemic weakness of the Dem Party:
An inability to build coalitions. Forget the anti-Catholic views that Edwards now owns (any general election will highlight the words and superimpose Edwards on it, it’s a “no-brainer” attack ad). Consider his anti-NASCAR views he now owns. Or his anti-white guy views he now owns.
If you are a Catholic, NASCAR fan, Christian, or white guy (”all white guys are rapists”) the blogs of Marcotte and McEwan in the general election are going to (because of the slam dunk attack ads) make you vote against Edwards. EE if she made the call to indulge her feminist leanings bears this blame IMHO. Politics is a place for professionals only IMHO. It is not easy.
“Hit job”? “From the right”?
Maybe attributing that to the “vast right wing conspiracy” isn’t quite correct, but Bill Donahue is a putz and a hack. That screed was a hit job.
Sorry, but those two are not “good people”. They are vicious and deeply ignorant bigots.
Bill Donohue is completely contemptible in every way. Basically anything that comes out of his mouth is a hit job on somebody.
Hmmm. A ‘hit job’ has traditionally been a statement that bends the truth enough to make the truth seem a bad thing. That is, it’s a partial truth inflated to something else. On the other hand, pointing out an actual truth is not a hit job.
Say, for instance, that you are campaigning as a women’s rights advocate and someone brings to light your previous multiple conviction for battering your ex-wives and girlfriends. Hit job, or truth?
If you are hired to work for a campaign and it turns out that there is an easily available record of you setting puppies and kittens on fire (i.e. you’ve been convicted of cruelty to animals on video evidence four times), how can pointing this out be a ‘hit job’?
Evidently, we’re entering an era where ‘uncomfortable truths’ are equivalent to ‘hit jobs.’
Some truths are just too truthful to be allowed the light of day, eh?
I’m not quite sure how it happened, but whoever managed to turn much of the discussion from Marcotte’s and McEwan’s writings, and the profundity of the bad choice that the Edwards campaign made in choosing two such writers as part of the public PR face of the campaign into an inquisition (so to speak) on whether or not Bill Donahue is a jerk* and whether or not sending death threats is bad*, should be congratulated on their PR acumen, and immediately hired by somebody.
Not Paul Begala wrote, “I, as the Democrat of Blog PI, want to make sure commenters here don’t get the misimpression that EE (if it’s her) did anything wrong by hiring Marcotte and McEwen. They’re good people and passionate about issues.”
What if some bloggers had written equivalent things about Islam and had been hired by a Republican candidate? Would you say the same thing? No, you would not.
I haven’t seen the evidence about McEwen, but Marcotte is definitely not a good person. She’s hate-filled and her denial of this and blaming of the imaginary “right-wing noise machine” or what she imagines is a “hit-job” by Bill Donohue is paranoid. Whoever hired her DID do wrong. And that reflects very negatively on her defenders.
“Maybe attributing that to the “vast right wing conspiracy” isn’t quite correct…”
Not quite correct? It’s patently silly!
In any case it sounds like “hit job” in 21st Century American (Democratic?) political parlance now describes the act of accurately quoting a person’s past writing in an effort to expand awareness among the electorate regarding the implications of that person’s viewpoint in the context of a presidential campaign. Because aside from this, the only thing Donohue did that the right blogosphere didn’t do was to loudly call for Marcotte’s dismissal. That’s a “hit job”? When his rants could just as easily have been ignored?
Just so we’re clear here: a “hit job” - as defined in the context of this particular fiasco - now means “to deliberately, ruthlessly and accurately quote Amanda Marcotte, in a transparent attempt to increase the electorate’s awareness of her character (and, by extension, Edwards’), and demand that she be fired.” Right? Sounds more like the definition of “public service” to me.
Even if one buys into this rather silly re-definition of “hit job”, it’s obvious that - in this particular case - there was no conceivable way to be “ready” for the guaranteed response. In fact, the very notion makes no sense at all.
Marcotte’s views were widely known, widely reviled and copiously archived. Once the hiring decision was made public, there wasn’t anything anyone in Edwards’ campaign could have done to justify, disavow or otherwise finesse a professional association with someone responsible for the sort of baleful screeds Marcotte is known for. Not with the NASCAR vote on the line! The notion that one should be “ready for a hit job” in response to such a choice also predicts the knowledge that the voters Edwards needs would view her writing with the same disdain he, himself, expressed. And that’s just a non sequitur. OR, Edwards had no problem with her screeds, which indicates he has no business running for president. OR, no one ever checked into her writing, which indicates that he hires incompetents and, therefore, has no business running for president.
No candidate who wants to demonstrate the good judgement ostensibly required to be President is going to hire someone that guarantees a controversy of this sort - unless s/he’s trying to garner publicity for an otherwise nonexistent, third-rate campaign, that is. Perhaps that was the ploy all along. If so, I can’t think of a blogger/patsy who would have better suited such a strategy. At which point it doesn’t hurt to recall that Edwards made his bones and acquired the most expensive, palatial estate in Orange County, NC by driving up the cost of health care as an ambulance-chasing, unborn-baby-channeling tort attorney (with his wife closely in tow). In that light - whatever the ultimate motivation was - it’s pretty clear that ethics and insight were not controlling factors in hiring Marcotte, “hit jobs by the right” or no.
If Marcotte gets much more “passionate about the issues”, she might actually combust. (I think “passionate about the issues” is a rather nice euphemism. Similarly, when an actor is described as being “dedicated to his craft” you know it means he’s done something like attempt to throttle the assistant director.)
“What if some bloggers had written equivalent things about Islam and had been hired by a Republican candidate? Would you say the same thing? No, you would not.”
The only people I can think of saying “equivalent things about Islam” are over in the comment section at Little Green Footballs - and while I think it would be absolutely hilarious if they were hired, en masse, to coordinate the (say) Brownback campaign, I fear we will not be fortunate enough to witness this.
Entering, you say? Pah. See “Swift Boat Veterans”.
Regards,
Ric
Olly speaks too soon — he wrote here last week:
If any leftish bloggers are still surprised at the feeding frenzy that took place, imagine Michelle Malkin being hired as the online face of the McCain campaign and then claiming that “In Defense of Internment” wasn’t a big deal.
Plus, now you know why there aren’t too many campaign strategists who blog (at least under their own names).
I see I’ve sparked a discussion. Good, let me answer.
Hit Job in my definition: Something not actually meant to change something insomuch as a knock against a candidate, campaign or issue. Anybody here want to argue with me that Bill Donahue wants John Edwards to be accepted by Catholics? No, he wanted to “hit” him.
Marcotte McEwen, good people: I think they are and I do think they approach issues from a perspective (liberal, just like mine) that is correct. I do think there is a group of righty blogs that live to amplify stuff, not because they’ve been told to but because they believe in the same stuff.
My problem with them is that when you argue something you shouldn’t marginalize yourself. Don’t say really silly stuff (white hot holy spirit is not funny to me as a Catholic) that can undermine you. That’s what I don’t like about that hire, they are a distrcation from the message.
“Hit Job in my definition…”
NPB, I respectfully submit that you’ve missed the point if you honestly think Donohue set out to “hit” Edwards, independent of the decision to hire Marcotte. That perception is functionally equivalent to how Marcotte has missed the point if she honestly thinks the furor caused by her hiring was ever about her, personally, or even about feminists, young women, atheists or bloggers, generally (as she has said). You’re both pointing fingers at everything but the real cause of Donohue’s (and to a lesser extent, the blogosphere’s) heated reaction: Marcotte’s assumption that she would never actually be held accountable for her vulgar, bigoted rhetoric.
But while we’re exercising our powers of mindreading about what Donohue “wanted”, let’s try to get our crystal ball to make some sense in the context of the facts, shall we?
It wasn’t Edwards’ nonexistent, unthreatening campaign that set Donohue off, it was the opportunity to publicly rail against the bile in Marcotte’s posts that got him going. He was fuming about Edwards seeking to mainstream what he perceived as hate speech against Catholics. And in the context of your (re)definition of “hit job”, he was certainly trying to prevent (change) that. His position as the leader of a group of “right wing religious conservatives” makes this the most likely explanation for his rants.
So the notion that Donohue set out to “hit” Edwards, per se, just isn’t quite plausible.
“Donohue set out to ‘hit’ Edwards, independent of the decision to hire Marcotte.”
I probably don’t have this really clear in my writings, but I never thought for one second that this was about Edwards and I am not suggesting this wasn’t entirely about Marcotte.
The hiring was a softball tossed right over the middle for anyone to hit Edwards. Donahue was just the first one to swing.
And I want to reemphasize my earlier point. This guy is a media whore who just sits in his office all day waiting to write a press release. He does not speak for the church or, in my opinion, it’s values. He attacked Edwards for being anti-catholic for hiring those girls, not for being stupid or sanctioning immature vulgarity (which would have been totally fair).
And let me end with one more thing. If Donahue didn’t do this, someone else would have. Those two were low hanging fruit, anyone could have plucked it. Again, back to one of my original points: the Edwards campaign, if they were serious about these two, should have been ready to defend them. They were not, because the bloggers weren’t vetted. That’s the question nobody has answered. Why?
JorgXMcKie, it’s like the term “Swift-boating” that the Left likes to use: It means telling vicious truths about someone.
No question. He’s also only one of the people who spoke up about it, and all even he had to do was quote Marcotte directly (because she’s a woman!).
NPB,
“Anybody here want to argue with me that Bill Donahue wants John Edwards to be accepted by Catholics? No, he wanted to “hit” him.”
If he wanted to hit Edwards, why did he say such nice things about him while demanding that he fire Marcotte and McEwan? Remember “Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots”
I think he wanted to “hit” the “hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit” lady (and when I say “hit”, I mean “quote verbatim”), mostly because she’s a vulgar, anti-Christian trash talking bigot. I’m no fan of Donahue either, but he’s absolutely right on this one.
“They were not, because the bloggers weren’t vetted. That’s the question nobody has answered. Why?”
Worse yet, maybe they were vetted and the risk was considered manageable, or at least worth the benefit.
I’d certainly say that by any reasonable standard, attacking Melissa was a ‘hit’. I don’t agree that she was ‘low-hanging fruit.’ Her Christo-fascist use was in response to what she perceived to be anti-Muslim bias, as Islamofascist had been in use by rightists long before she used the word that made the point that every religion has extremists promoting dangerous ideas.
It was Marcotte’s more graphic statements that drove most of the ire. Had Melissa been the only blogger hired, she could easily have weathered the mudpiddles. Instead, she got tarred by association.
Speculation about who hired them will remain only that. At this early stage in a primary campaign, I seriously doubt any serious damage to Edwards has occurred. I have a family full of Catholics, some conservative, and they concur. His actions and words are resonating with them and a hiring misstep is simply not viewed as a national concern on a acale with the missteps on Iraq, Osama, Katrina, or their economic concerns. And mind you, one votes as a moderate Republican
Marcotte is “good people”? I never thought I would see that statement. Ever.
She’s a disgusting wretch and a bigot. But I guess by liberals standards, that’s “good people”.
There is NO relevance between refering to those that want to kill all who don’t convert to 7th century Islam (Islamofascist) and those who disagree with secular progressives and want to promote an agenda without killing anybody (Marcotte’s Christofascist). Yet, people on the left keep trying to make this comparison stick. Either they have no idea who these ISLAMOFASCISTS are and what they want or they have no understanding of religion.
“Either they have no idea who these ISLAMOFASCITS are ad what they want or they have no understanding of religion.” Yup. Just like they have no idea what a “hit job” is, or what an “American” is, for that matter.
Red Dog:
This is the same school of thought that considers all Republicans to be good buddies with Pat Robertson, right?
Pablo:
I\’m sure I speak for everyone here when I say: thank you so much for qualifying that.
Pablo,
Marcotte gave him the opportunity.
Here’s my $.02, for what it’s worth:
Personally, I would have liked to see Edwards hang on to the bloggers. Sooner or later, there would have been a blow-up that would be much worse…these types of ideologues (left or right) generally can’t help themselves and would have a full-blown Arkin-esque meltdown, and combined with JE’s clear hypocrisy on this two Americas nonsense (Yeah, I think we’ve got enough square footage…but it’s close. Lucky we have enough room for an addition) we’re sure to see him dropping out relatively quickly.
Having said that, I can’t understand why a candidate would want to hire someone that’s so devisive when they want to appeal to the broadest cross section of Americans (In the general election anyway…totally understandable for the primary). It just doesn’t seem like a good communications strategy, much less good decision making on whoever’s part in the Edwards campaign. And if they’re not making good decisions now, what could we expect if (God forbid) he was somehow elected President?
Apparently, the new definition of “hit job” is “any criticism of someone I like.”
Donohue had little to nothing to do with the foul-mouthed anti-Christian bigots being fired. He hasn’t that sort of influence. The “right-wing blogosphere” had some, in that they managed to preserve Marcotte’s writings from the Pandagon archives before she could erase them.
Whoever was responsible for turning up the heat did Edwards a HUGE favor, though. If those archives had hit the Old Media just before Iowa, for example, it would have been a fatal blow to Edwards. This way, he has a year to recover and put it all behind him.
For Marcotte to play the “victim” for being accurately quoted is just plain funny.
“Why weren’t you ready for a hit job from the right?”
You’re kidding, right? If that was a “hit job” then they must have been playing T-ball. It doesn’t take a Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron to hit the kind of crap those two spewed out of the park.
Good luck, I hope this helps.
Since I like to tweek liberal’s noses whenever the opportunity presents itself, I sent off an email to the spicey Amanda-panda: the email exchange went as follows:
On 2/16/07, Scott Smith wrote:
> Amanda,
> So, it seems that your whining has yielded a sort of publicity bonanza of
> sorts. All these intervews provide wondeful forums to blather on and on
> about the right-wing _______________(fill in the blank).
>
> It sucks when you get torched, to wit: the right-wing noise machine had
> noticed me and was looking for something with which to hurt me and my new
> employers.
>
> But to claim victimhood is pathetic and laughable, especially since the
> liberals’ playbook of dirty politics has used this tactic numerous times
> against various peoples: Bush, Lott, Thurmond et al.
>
> Let the games begin!
> Cheers
Her reply:
On 2/16/07, Amanda Marcotte wrote:
Truly, sincerely, fuck off.
To which I replied:
Sweet. I love that 20-something feminist edginess…Truly and sincerely.
I’ve also gotten this same response from other notable left-wingers, so you’re in the esteemed company of Paul Begala, Chris Heinz, Eric Alterman and others.
Inhale through your nose, exhale through your mouth…repeat. Seriously, it will make you feel better.
The attack on Marcotte/McEwan was not a “hit job,” because that connotes three elements missing here. 1) A hit job is a potentially fatal blow. This was not. 2) A hit job is factually murky if not outright false. This story was 100 percent true, because their writing were available for anyone to see. 3)A hit job is effective because the targeted candidate is not given time to repair the damage. Edwards has already recovered, in my view.
No, this was a “gotcha.” But a mild one, because while in the short run it hurt Edwards, it did not appear to help any other candidate. Obama and Clinton have been dealing with their own controversies during the exact same period, and thus were unable to capitalize, not even with a ‘look ma, no hands’ approach. The GOP benefit from this is nonexistent.
Donohue strikes me as a zealous defender of a beleaguered community, sort of like Al Sharpton, not a bigot. Anyway, he did Edwards an enormous favor by exposing his campaign’s mistake now. This will be a very old story long before it would have the chance to matter to anyone.
The Swift Boat situation was the reverse. By ignoring it, and by encouraging the media to ignore it, whatever the Swiftboaters said gained tremendous currency and emotional appeal among the right-wing blogosphere. When it finally exploded into full public view, the timing could not have been worse, and no amount of campaign or liberal media spin could contain it because the authors of the smear had a much better grasp of the relevant information and were far more practiced in articulating it.
I realize by now that “swiftboating” has taken on a kind of Orwellian meaning that doesn’t fit the actual facts of the episode. It would make more sense if “swiftboating” were defined instead as a self-inflicted candidate error that is the result of wishful thinking or arrogance in the face of potentially damaging charges. Kerry was a first-rate swiftboater. Edwards, thankfully, is not.
Folks here in NC that know the Edwards, they when to UNC law school together, have always told me the EE was the smart one of the two. Beck boy was the pretty one.
Guess nothings changed.
Kemp
You’re welcome, William.