So Edwards is "Personally Offended," But Believes In "Giving Everyone A Fair Shake

[trumad]

OK John--- then may I be personally offended at your campaigns carelessness in hiring writers that have written something that personally offends you.

Now don't get me wrong--- I'm damn pleased he's not firing these two terrific bloggers. I've read their work for the last couple of years and love them and their opinions.

But Damn--- Edwards team acts like they didn't know what they were getting when they hired Amanda and Melissa.

[Pithy Cherub]

1. Exactly. So be prepared in the Boy Scout model

because they were KNOWN to be edgy and some folks would not be amused... Who vets folks after such a big hiring decision then says I am offended but they are on my team. :crazy:

Edwards needs some ointment for his joints so he can stand up a bit faster next time.

[Orsino]

2. Wow! It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!

Weasel words.

[Blackhatjack]

3. Did you read the entire statement? He acted exactly as he should have....

Of course nothing is going to satisfy Edwards naysayers.

[trumad]

8. I agree...

and I love Edwards... But..come on... let's not pin it all on the two bloggers.

[Lex]

4. He's toast! Toast, I tells ya.

nt

[Blackhatjack]

5. And what is it about being fair and reasonable that makes him 'toast?"

Here is his statement:

Senator John Edwards:

“The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen'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.”

Q: And just what would you have had him do differently, that would have been more fair and reasonable, and in keeping with what you would consider a qualified candidate for President?

[Blackhatjack]

6. Point of info: There are two(2) threads here with identical titles, except for word "So" at beginnin

[Lex]

10. I left my sarcasm thingy off my post.

Sorry.

[dogday]

7. His Campaign, he can be offended at anything

he wants... I think that is how it works :shrug: I personally think he handled the whole situation just as he should of...

[Robbien]

9. Donohue Smear of Edwards May Violate 501(c)(3) Laws

DONOHUE MAY HAVE BROKEN LAW PROHIBITING INTERVENTION IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

According to United States law governing the behavior of 501(c)(3) organizations, it seems highly likely that William Donohue--President of the Catholic League, a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization--may have broken the law by attempting to intervene in a political campaign.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/8/95321/56338

Look, the right wingers are going after Edwards and are using tons of faith based money to do it.

[Blackhatjack]

11. You may be right --501(c)(3) orgs may not intervene, blogger relationship impt

These orgs may not promote a candidate or tell people to vote against a particular candidate.

It depends upon exactly what was said by Donohue in toto, and what he knew about the relationships between these bloggers and the Edwards campaign.

I also agree that there is a ton of money being thrown at Edwards early on by rightwingers since they fear him as much or more than Hillary. They think they can polarize the vote if Hillary is the nominee. They fear Edwards because he has high approval ratings among the prized independents group.

The other democratic candidates are also aware of the potential of Edwards to appeal to the independents. They are not blind to the polls in Iowa and other first tier states.