John Edwards Hires Amanda Marcotte As Chief Campaign Blogger
John Edwards has hired Amanda Marcotte to be his campaign’s chief blogger. Reactions from the right are not positive. This fellow notes some of her interesting opinions. This fellow notes the praise that the selection has gotten from the left blogosphere.
What really seems to be getting some attention is her apparent decision to delete a post about the Duke rape case. See here, here, here, and here. Unfortunately for her, what she tried to cover up has been preserved by Google’s cache. Here is a taste:
In the meantime, I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out.
Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?
Marcotte has made it onto my own radar screen before, and I thought I’d remind you of the highlights.
Amanda once accused me of wanting to punish women for having sex. In an Ezra Klein comment thread, Amanda misquoted a comment of mine, twisted my words, and refused to accept my explanation of what I had obviously meant. Sample comment of hers from a related Ezra Klein thread, directed at me: “You anti-choicers need to take lessons in pretending a little better you don’t hate women.”
I think it’s safe to say I’m not a fan.
Then there was her post about how it was terrible that William Rehnquist had died, because now Roe v. Wade would be overruled. I’m not kidding about this. She appeared to be unfamiliar with the fact that Rehnquist dissented in Roe, and tried to have it overturned ever since.
In that post, she continued the “conservatives just want to punish women for having sex” theme, saying:
One thing I vow here and now–you motherfuckers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will fuck without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherfuckers. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.
This is the new public face of John Edwards’s campaign blog.
And there was a post about Katrina looting that termed “racist fucks” anyone appalled by the looting in New Orleans. The post was titled Dear racist fucks who complained about looting, and said:
And as for the racist fucks behind this foot-dragging and lying and all those that support them, I hope that when you get to hell, after you’ve been greeted nicely by Satan and checked in by Ronald Reagan, your punishment is to be drowned over and over and over again until you fucking realize that suffering is suffering, no matter what race or class or ethnicity the people suffering are.
I responded here — and I also detailed the habit of the bloggers on her site: namely, squelching comments that they disagree with, or that make them look bad. Seems consistent with the more recent allegations of Amanda trying to cover her tracks regarding the Duke lacrosse rape case.
But hey — if John Edwards wants to have a psychotic, profane, illogical, man-hating feminist as his chief blogger, more power to him. This is much better for us than if he had hired someone unlikely to embarrass him.
P.S. Walter Olson makes a good point:
[T]here’s always a danger that a stampede of outrage can be set in motion against any prolific writer by picking a few unrepresentative passages from his or her work. Those who think the grotesquely abusive tone of Marcotte’s post might be unrepresentative of her writing are invited to check out her Pandagon posts more generally. We should not expect the Edwards people to have read every word of her blog output, but it is fair to expect them to have dipped into it for random selections.
UPDATE: And just to prove the point, here’s Dan Riehl with a set of eye-opening quotes.
This is the new public face of John Edwards’s campaign blog.
How did he make such a decision, and what does this tell us about Edwards?
That’s what I’ve been pondering since I first read about this. The best thing I can come up with is his wife made this decision.
And how can a blogger be so stupid as to go back and delete a post after all that’s gone on the last couple of years? Why the hell would anyone do that?Dwilkers (4f4ebf) — 2/5/2007 @ 4:06 am
Our politicians, just like our MSM, seem to have forgotten that we live in the Information Age. Nothing is ever truly forgotten in this day and age, just “archived”. A pity that a blogger seems to hope that the rest of us have forgotten, too.
On a different note, I wonder how people can look at women like Marcotte and claim that misandry is just a myth…Rick Wilcox (71646f) — 2/5/2007 @ 5:15 am
Amanda Marcotte is a potty-mouthed cuckoo. If that’s the quality of people Edwards has enlisted, Hillary will have him for breakfast in a spoonful of her cornflakes.nk (54c569) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:00 am
Could it be that Edwards is trying to lock in the loony left for the primaries? This move will likely cause at least some of Marcotte’s devoted following to volunteer for Edwards.
The tribal nature of how bloggers attach themselves to one or another blog chieftan, and then furiously attack anyone disagreeing with their “leader” means that Marcotte could bring some seriously motivated ground troops.
If she’s later canned for being too out there, well, that’s just the Rethuglican machine erasing another committed progressive. Edwards hasn’t lost in such a scenario. Progressives love martyrs, and he gets props from those most likely to vote in the primaries.
Sorry for the weird political angle thinking, but I was up late for the Super Bowl (kick-off at 0030 hours Swiss time). Because, without such political calculations, I can’t imagine what on earth posessed Edwards to make this hire.Pigilito (bb83f8) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:09 am
The lovely Miss Marcotte deleted the comment about the Duke non-rape case; I don’t know if her stated reason (that she was getting too much crap over it) is true, or whether someone in the Edwards’ campaign “suggested” it to her.
Miss Marcotte is a good blogger, if we are to judge by the readership she generates, and I guess that’s why Mr Edwards hired her. But I’ve got to wonder if any good bloggers could realistically be hired for the position she now holds; the good ones all have paper (electron?) trails that include things a candidate might not want to have to defend. It might be that only the lamest blogger, who hasn’t said anything, would be a safe hire for such a position.Dana (3e4784) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:24 am
“It might be that only the lamest blogger, who hasn’t said anything, would be a safe hire for such a position.”
Thanks anyway, Dana, but I would not work for Edwards. 😉nk (41da82) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:44 am
—“HOUSTON — Thousands of refugees of Hurricane Katrina were transported to the Astrodome in Houston this week. In an extreme act of looting, one group actually stole a bus to escape ravaged areas in Louisiana.
About 100 people packed into the stolen bus. They were the first to enter the Houston Astrodome, but they weren’t exactly welcomed.
The big yellow school bus wasn’t expected or approved to pass through the stadium’s gates. Randy Nathan, who was on the bus, said they were desperate to get out of town.
“If it werent for him right there,” he said, “we’d still be in New Orleans underwater. He got the bus for us.”—
Meanwhile on your site:
That’s what your anti AP rants were about; nothing more. Sure I’m putting words in your mouth, but may case would win in court, and you know it. And of course since he’s a friend of yours I always love tossing this in:
You link to this thug and you complain about Amanda Marcotte. No racism is Katrina response? You’re joking. A war for no good reason that has made the this country and the world less safe and has cost more than half a million lives. Billions of dollars wasted or lost. Graft and profiteering up the ass but what, are you still complaining about the UN? Oh yes and here’s more info on Marcotte for those who care.
No Pat, there is no logic to your arguements other than this: You love your country that’s more important that keeping it safe. You defend it from insults but not from danger.AF (ec5f86) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:55 am
It’s your war, and we’re losing it. And it’s your responsibility. It’s all on your head.
“On The Virtues Of Killing Children”, AF? When Amanda Marcotte is on the record that children are a punishment for sex? Although I vehemently question your position on the security of our country, I have always thought you better than Amanda Marcotte. The lady is indefensible.nk (41da82) — 2/5/2007 @ 7:06 am
“children are a punishment for sex”AF (ec5f86) — 2/5/2007 @ 8:09 am
You talking about abortion or deadbeat dads?
And I’m no fan of Amanda Marcotte, but I don’t lnk to Blackfive.
Never have never will.
Patterico, I think you had some kind of repartee with Shakespeare’s Sister as well. That’s my recollection – in any case she is another (the other?) Edwards blogger, along with Marcotte.biwah (2dcf66) — 2/5/2007 @ 8:12 am
“More than half a million lives” — ?
DafyddDafydd (445647) — 2/5/2007 @ 8:13 am
Must be having a senior moment here; I forget who Joe Lieberman thumped in the last Connecticut senatorial race–how quickly we forget lefty losers! In any event, Lieberman’s opponent got some help from another potty mouthed female blogger, Jane Hamsher (sp?) of FiredogLake. Let’s hope that history repeats itself for Mr. Edwards.
And frankly I don’t care if Ms. Amanda chooses to continue to fornicate like a crazed weasel with the weasel(s) of her choice. It would appear that she in fact has “screwed her brains out”.Mike Myers (4d9a65) — 2/5/2007 @ 8:40 am
Lamont.Anwyn (a130c1) — 2/5/2007 @ 9:12 am
Whatever. Let Edwards kneecap himself with this (maybe not now, but definitely later).
I’m sick of unqualified candidates, anyway.
Maybe Clinton and Obama will do the same thing.
On an unrelated note, does a vice-presidential nominee have to be a natural born citizen?Leviticus (43095b) — 2/5/2007 @ 9:29 am
Yes. The Vice-President must have the same qualifications as the President. (Which includes the two-term limit BTW so Billy could not be Hillary’s VP.)nk (2ab789) — 2/5/2007 @ 9:33 am
Okey-Dokey.Leviticus (43095b) — 2/5/2007 @ 9:42 am
Tha’s what I figured, but I couldn’t find anything about it in my copy of the Constitution (although I didn’t look very hard…)Leviticus (43095b) — 2/5/2007 @ 9:43 am
Bill Clinton couldn’t serve as his estranged wife’s vice president because he’s now constitutionally barred from becoming president for more than half of a term. In theory (and it’s an ugly theory), if the next president’s VP died or resigned after January 20, 2011, Bill Clinton could be appointed vice president for that term, but would be unable to run for VP in the 2012 election.Dana (3e4784) — 2/5/2007 @ 9:58 am
She hates … NASCAR?…
OK, so maybe Team Edwards has some polling that says their guy — who’s already pretty solid with the crucial seaside mega-mansion demographic — needs to shore up his numbers among the vital catblogger constituency. Or maybe they figure, by hiring a …The Other McCain (6ed3f8) — 2/5/2007 @ 9:58 am
What is notable is the selection of Maracotte speaking to Edwards desire to appeal to the looney left. Call it the anti-white guy coalition.
I think it’s indicative of the dynamics of the looney left, and particularly the echo chamber of the anti-white guy coalition.
Look at where Marcotte is at: pro fake rape allegations against middle class white guys; pro thuggery in New Orleans as long as it’s not white guys, anti-white guy man-hating comments, children are “punishment for sex,” and apparently many sexual partners (implied in her comments).
If this is where the Dem Party is at god help us. Since Democracy depends on two rational parties competing for the center not the fringes.
Dems appear to have taken the mid-Terms as cue to move to the radical hard left, from having Terror Imams give the DNC convocation (and condemning America) to hating NASCAR. Instead we get an orgy of identity politics on the hard left.Jim Rockford (e09923) — 2/5/2007 @ 10:31 am
First the megahouse ,then the bloglouse.
Lawyerboy would make a swell commander-in-chief.James (8f4fad) — 2/5/2007 @ 10:33 am
The sad think is this resukt in Amanda being fired you will basically be slitting your own throa because, and let’s be honest here Patterico, Amanda is not that outrageous as far as bloggers go, I mean honestly can you think say five high traffic bloggers on either side of the aisle who haven’t posted something at one time or another whch makes them unsuitable for political work. Personally, the only one who comes to mind off the top of my head is Kevin Drum, and he’s already employed in a blogging capacity (the only other person who runs a hgh traffic site that would qualify is possibly Reynold’s– though his “extermination remarks could easily be twisted”– and that’s pretty much because he doesn’t add much on his own,, and because of his position is naturally rather contained).Socraticsilence (14ecb4) — 2/5/2007 @ 10:48 am
Oksy, kind of illegible in that comment hope you got the gist of it.Socraticsilence (14ecb4) — 2/5/2007 @ 10:49 am
I sent Amanda a note asking her to repent.By the way,your approach(22) is a null hypothesis.Let’s try the obverse.Here are 5 bloggers;Patterico,Hugh Hewitt,Kaus,Betsy’s page and Cathy Seipp.Cathy is,how shall we say it?-forceful.Can you find anything anay of these 5 have written that approaches Amanda’s idiocy on her comments and her response to this issue?
I don’t think people ought to be grilled for an off the cuff statement-unless they are incapable of admitting mistakes.
[I sure have said things I regret — especially in blog comments, less so in posts. As I say in the P.S., the point is not to play “gotcha,” since any of us bloggers are vulnerable on that front. The issue is: how representative are the embarrassing comments? For Amanda, I’d say profanity and over-the-top, off-putting rhetoric are pretty standard fare. — P]corwin (dfaf29) — 2/5/2007 @ 11:39 am
I think we’re still at the point where people view the internet (especially blogs) as part of a parallel universe. Normal rules and standards don’t apply and everything is more free-wheeling. That may even be true in general, especially for small blogs and commenters, but I don’t think it’s true for political campaigns.DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/5/2007 @ 11:41 am
Tim Russert had him on for the full hour yesterday and didn’t ask him about her. Does Russert pay any attention at all to the news?Jim O'Sullivan (d250b7) — 2/5/2007 @ 12:52 pm
Am I the only one who wonders about AF claiming that the Iraq war is:
Nobody else cares about this breathtaking claim, passed off without evidence as a sort of “everybody knows” assertion en passant?
I have not seen any estimate that even comes close to this. Iraq Body Count, which is pretty anti-war, left-leaning, and quite promiscuous in accepting accounts of civilian deaths, only estimates between 55,664 and 61,369.
How did we get to an order of magnitude higher — and why doesn’t anybody else object to this remarkable pronouncement?
DafyddDafydd (445647) — 2/5/2007 @ 2:17 pm
The Lancet Study
The report has its critics -most but not all of whom are politicians (and they’re in the first link)- so I expected some comment but not complete ignorance. And of course if I wanted to include deaths of children as a result of the earlier sanctions that adds , conservatively another 250,000.
And Iraq Body Count by the way only uses deaths reported in the English language press and what can be found of the arabic press in translation.
And more, including questionsAF (ec5f86) — 2/5/2007 @ 3:02 pm
[…] Pattercio shares some of Amanda Marcotte’s more colorful and telling pile of keystrokes…very telling indeed. […]186k Per Second » John Edwards Blog-Master of the Obscene (14eee5) — 2/5/2007 @ 3:08 pm
I’m always amazed that people get so upset over profanity. In professional circles, I’m pretty careful to watch my language, and around (mostly older) relatives as well. But among peers, everyone I know is prone to using the seven words, and it doesn’t seem to impact the quality of their thought or expression. I should note that this sampling includes mostly professionals with at least masters, and in fact, some of my lawyer friends are the, shall we say, most creative in their use of profanity. I’m not familiar with the legal scene in LA, but I can’t imagine it is really that different from SF, NYC, or Delaware, areas from which I’m sampling. And don’t get me started on investment bankers… less creative, but more likely to construct a sentence entirely out of variants of ‘fuck’.
So it does start looking like a gotcha game at some point. Alternately, if Patterico and the other people jumping up and down on this approved of a hire Edwards made, I imagine one of: heads exploding, a shocking change of parties by at least some of the actors, a really pathetically doomed campaign, or the end of the world in some religiously approved fashion.
I’m intentionally leaving aside the substantive disagreements between Patterico and Amanda to concentrate on the weird language obsession.fishbane (63e0f9) — 2/5/2007 @ 3:30 pm
Living in the big city, every so often I’ve come across a homeless person, reeking of alcohol and urine, absolutely filthy. For better or worse, I am not about to take that person home and clean them up.
So, one ignores said person, although I feel bad for them. Drawing attention to their state does nothing for them, nor for you (me).
I think what you’re seeing is the same sort of attempt at being charitable, or at least, not drawing embarrassing attention to the homeless crazy man.Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 2/5/2007 @ 3:35 pm
“…and why doesn’t anybody else object to this…”
Because debating with someone that would make that assertion is pointless. Anyone ignorant enough to say that this war has cost a half million lives is too stupid to waste time with. I read some boob today saying a “half million lives and trillions of dollars”.
What’s the point of debating with someone asserting those sorts of things? Anyone saying that is either stupid (waste of time) or has some agenda other than the truth (also a waste of time).Dwilkers (4f4ebf) — 2/5/2007 @ 3:40 pm
I read some boob today saying a “half million lives and trillions of dollars”.
OK. What numbers do you consider not either stupid or false? Here are some things we know:
– More than 3,000 U.S. military actors have lost thier lives. Numbers on contractors are murkier.
– Iraq is screwed up enough that we cannot count on civil infrastructure to provide accurate reporting on how many Iraqis have died.
– There is no reasonable way to assert that fewer Iraqis have died than U.S. military.
– Any estimate of that number is going to be just that – an estimate, because isolating deaths that are a consequence of the invasion from those that would have happened anyway, or would have happened had the U.S. not invaded would require replaying history with different variables, something that is not possible.
– Many people disbelieve the Lancet study. Fair enough; I’m not qualified to comment on the methodology. But I do think that a reasonable disagreement with it should include specifics pointing to either established facts or sufficient grounds to impeach the methodology. Nonexperts can evaluate expert claims, based on general reasoning skills, pretty well. Please offer reasons to disbelieve this particular one.
– “trillions of dollars” is an overstatement (not knowing where that quote came from, I have no context to analyze it more). We haven’t hit a thousand billion yet, and estimates are just estimates; it depends on future actions. However, it is reasonable to estimate based on not only what has been spent, but also on requested new spending, as well as ongoing committments. I have trouble imagining how someone might not consider this a very expensive war, though.
– The current financial impact on the U.S. is mostly a matter of public record (“black” funding is munged, and is hard to disentangle from other classified operations). The easiest way to refute “trillions” is to add up the numbers we know, and call that the lower bound.
So that gets the cost to approaching a trillion, and sets deaths an absurd lower bound at 2 orders of magnitute less than the Lancet study. This is ignoring the much higher injury rate.
Are you willing to produce your own estimates? I think they have to be higher than my conservative numbers here.fishbane (63e0f9) — 2/5/2007 @ 5:22 pm
I’m leaving aside the substance of the argument to make a frivolous point.fishbone (82d7ad) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:16 pm
Others apparently don’t want to touch you with a ten-foot pole, seeing you as sort of a comments leper. But I think dangerous nonsense should be confronted, not avoided.
I thought at first this might be what you were referring to; but then I thought, “nobody could be so clueless that he didn’t know the Lancet survey has already been thoroughly debunked.”
Evidently I gave you too much credit.
We have been in Iraq about 1,400 days. 655,000 divided by 1,400 is more than 460 dead bodies per day.
Take a deep breath, AF, and ask yourself… do even you believe that there have been 460 dead bodies per day — nearly 14,000 per month — that have gone completely undetected by every international, media, and UN group that has ever undertaken to count the war-related dead bodies?
Where would the Iraqis put them? Are they really digging an additional 14,000 graves a month and not noticing?
You know the provenance of the Lancet study, I presume: they took a survey among a small number of families in Iraq, asked them if they knew anybody who was killed, and somehow projected that first into 120,000 dead, and then into 655,000 dead.
This is not an estimate, it’s a projection; there is no actual estimated body count that comes anywhere near that bizarre figure.
Honestly, if you have any point to make, you blow your own toes off by quoting from such a risible, poorly designed and executed survey that has long since been discredited.
DafyddDafydd (445647) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:17 pm
IMO, the problem with using so much profanity is that it eventually becomes meaningless. In Amanda’s case, it is part of the radical feminism to “embrace” dirty language because being a “lady” is the worst possible thing they can do. So, the nasty talking is just part of that schtick.
I started out in journalism as one of two females in a metro daily sports dept. You learn to cuss fast in that environment and I can still use the colorful language with the best of ’em. But as I’ve aged and my ring of acquaintances has changed, I learned to curb that language more out of courtesy to others than anything to do with myself.
Amanda’s problems are much larger than using the f-word repeatedly. She’s vitriolic and radioactive, completely unforgiving of any foibles of her opponents. She misquotes and mischaracterizes their positions, then, if that person dares to come to her site to respond, they will get pummeled for doing so. I have no sympathy for the woman whatsoever. She’s a cartoon version of feminism and she’s made this particular mess. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.sharon (dfeb10) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:21 pm
You don’t even give any references. The Lancet study has been disputed, not debunked. The links I posted go over the issue in detail.AF (ec5f86) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:25 pm
AF starts by linking “the Lancet study”
that’s when I stopped reading his post.Darleen (543cb7) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:32 pm
If Amanda were merely “colorful” in her language, her appointment would be interesting, but not noteworthy.
But she’s a bigot. This would be like a Republican candidate hiring Fred Phelps to be the official blogmaster.Darleen (543cb7) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:35 pm
I’m leaving aside the substance of the argument to make a frivolous point.
Cute, but nonresponsive.
In Amanda’s case, it is part of the radical feminism to “embrace” dirty language because being a “lady” is the worst possible thing they can do. So, the nasty talking is just part of that schtick.
You still have failed to approach my central point: why are bad words the judgement of character? If you say they limit exchange of ideas, that’s fine (although I might disagree with you); if you say they are somehow not part of legitimite disource, I’m likely to disagree with you, but will listen; if you just somehow don’t like them, well, I’m not sure what to do, but that isn’t my problem.fishbane (63e0f9) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:44 pm
But she’s a bigot. This would be like a Republican candidate hiring Fred Phelps to be the official blogmaster.
Wow. You seriously compare someone who has called for the death of our troops in Iraq to die because of a regulation about sexual identity, who marshalls supporters to disrupt the funerals of our troops, and (to be generous) a loud blogger?
Seriously?fishbane (63e0f9) — 2/5/2007 @ 7:01 pm
Bush’s making a joke of not finding WMD in Iraq tops all of the tastelessness mentioned on this post.Psyberian (de47c4) — 2/5/2007 @ 7:44 pm
I already told you I don’t care about the substance of what Marcotte has written – I just want to try to score a cheap point by accusing patterico of being hypocritically puritanical.fishbone (82d7ad) — 2/5/2007 @ 7:45 pm
“AF starts by linking “the Lancet study”
that’s when I stopped reading his post.”
Darleen, you don’t know enough to argue the point one way or the other.AF (ec5f86) — 2/5/2007 @ 7:56 pm
I already told you I don’t care about the substance of what Marcotte has written – I just want to try to score a cheap point by accusing patterico of being hypocritically puritanical.
Comment by fishbone — 2/5/2007 @ 7:45 pm
Let it be perfectly clear that this is not me. I found the name game funny the first time, but this is getting close to silly. I think I’ve been clear, and if anyone in good faith (this obviously omits fishbone) has questions or issues, I’ll respond. Otherwise, I think my statements stand, perhaps least because this troll can do nothing other than misrepresent what I said, using a close variant of my pseudonym.
Alternately: I can’t imagine (s)he would attempt to mislead, so I have to assume fishbone is stating the belief in good faith, and therefor disagrees with it/them. But there is no way do assemble “I just want to try to score a cheap point by accusing patterico of being hypocritically puritanical” out of what I said.
Seriously – just scroll up. There is no rational way to come to that conclusion.
And I’ll note that fishbone still fails to address my question, which I’ll repeat:
why are bad words the judgement of character?
Should (s)he wish to actually talk, I’m open to it. Responding honestly, not misleading people, and being open to correction, however, are ground rules.fishbane (63e0f9) — 2/5/2007 @ 8:11 pm
I spent some time as an enlisted man in the US Army a long time ago; I had drill sergeants and top kicks who could deliver 10,000 word oral essays, 95% of which consisted of variants on the F word. And indeed they could communicate with great precision with their rather limited vocabulary. However, until Ms. Marcotte wears three chevrons and two rockers (E-7 for the uninitiated among you) she ought to lay off the potty mouth; that also goes for lawyers, investment bankers and other assorted professionals (after I quit being an enlisted man, I was a lawyer for a long time). As old Bobby Jean Rowland (one of my drill sergeants) might say you’re just a bunch of peckerwood pantywaists (he might have thrown in a couple of more “p words”, but this is a family blog) so lay off it until you’re old enough to handle it.Mike Myers (4d9a65) — 2/5/2007 @ 9:54 pm
Unfortunately for you, he’s not running in ’08. Edwards is.
True enough: No presidential candidate in their right mind would hire Phelps. Which will soon put him in the same company as Marcotte.kl (15574e) — 2/6/2007 @ 4:51 am
[…] Amanda has no children, of course, and as Patterico said, doesn’t plan on any any time soon. […]Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » (819604) — 2/6/2007 @ 6:45 am
Mr ab Hugh wrote:
But that’s the wrong number, Dafydd; when the Lancet report was issued, half a year ago, it worked out to almost 504 killed per day. To flog my own poor site, I ran the numbers here, noting that to have killed 655,000 Iraqis, we’d have had to have laid on a strategic bombing campaign 3½ to 7 times as intense as was used against the Germans in World War II.Dana (3e4784) — 2/6/2007 @ 7:13 am
To follow up Dana’s point:
At 504 people killed every day, there’s an additional 90,000 dead. Making for about three-quarters of a million dead Iraqis.
At 460 people killed every day, there’s an additional 82,800 dead.
Now, let’s keep in mind that on a day when ~100 Iraqis are killed, this makes major news. Why, if there are 460-500 dying every day? And remember that this isn’t just dying. This is excess deaths.
Not old age. Not crimes of passion that would occur anyway.
Does this pass the smell test? I mean that literally: Where are the piles of bodies?
Oh, and one other thing: They’d have to be either in Baghdad or in Basra and environs. From every account, the Kurdish areas are fairly stable and fairly peaceful. So, that’s 460-500 excess deaths every day, predominantly concentrated in either Baghdad or among the Shi’ites.
I’m surprised there’s anyone left alive, in the face of the public health hazard this would present?
But perhaps that’s where the AP lost the six Sunnis burnt alive? They were lost amidst the overflowing morgues?Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 2/6/2007 @ 7:46 am
LO: if there are an average of 504 dying every day, for every day we hear about 100 people being killed, we’d need another day with 900 people killed, for the average to be correct.Dana (3e4784) — 2/6/2007 @ 8:03 am
“In Amanda’s case, it is part of the radical feminism to “embrace” dirty language because being a “lady” is the worst possible thing they can do. So, the nasty talking is just part of that schtick.”
Bingo. Marcotte is just trying to be a macho man. Too bad she isn’t smart enough to be a feminist and an eloquent speaker at the same time. From the look of those excerpts, she probably isn’t smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time…
“You still have failed to approach my central point: why are bad words the judgement of character?”
Bad words aren’t a judgement of character, just maturity. I remember the days when I swore like a sailor: they ended (for the most part) when I was about 14 years old.
Marcotte’s not impressing anyone.Leviticus (43095b) — 2/6/2007 @ 8:36 am
I wouldn’t say that Marcotte isn’t smart. I’d just say she’s un-hinged.G (722480) — 2/6/2007 @ 9:18 am
THe lovely Miss Marcotte certainly is appreciated by her own audience; the success of Pandagon in attracting readers is sufficient testament to that. But it does speak to the yawning chasm which has developed between liberals and conservatives; it’s reached the point where we can’t even talk to each other anymore, because we no longer speak the same language.Dana (3e4784) — 2/6/2007 @ 9:47 am
I’m no doctor, but Ms. Marcotte looks to be suffering from a nearly fatal case of penis envy.rooster (fdf219) — 2/6/2007 @ 10:33 am
[…] Update: A lot more is being said – see ProteinWisdom, K-Lo, Creative Destruction, Patterico, Riehl World View, Beltway, and Instapundit. A note to all bloggers, whether Right or Left – remember these words, What you commit to your blog cannot be erased. It will follow you for as long as anyone cares to follow you, and significant people are followed very long indeed, especially by those they injure, whether rightfully or not. […]RedBlueChristian » Blog Archive » JOHN EDWARDS, BLOGMASTERS, AND THE UNHINGED LEFT (9f9139) — 2/6/2007 @ 12:01 pm
Yeah, when I expressed my adamant opposition to late-term abortions, Amanda characterized my p.o.v. as “punish the bitches for ****ing.” I have observed that she has only so many prepackaged responses to choose from.
Anyway, as I wrote on my blog, I hope she serves as a millstone about Edwards’ neck.Robert O'Brien (79fb89) — 2/6/2007 @ 5:30 pm
[…] There is a wonderful post at Patterico’s site on this subject with more examples of the hate speech from Marcotte’s blog. Alot was gotten from google cache because “somehow” the worst of her posts have disappeared since she was hired by John Edwards. […]The Obligatory Edwards/Bloggers Post at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source. (aeda9d) — 2/7/2007 @ 12:40 pm
I think it’s just absolutely MAH-velous that Republicans — the people who have been wrong on almost EVERYTHING over the past 6 years, wrong on Iraq WMD, wrong on Iraqis throwing flowers at U.S. troops, wrong on not chasing down and killing Osama (WTF is it with Republicans letting Osama get away, BTW? I thought Republicans were the “national security” party?!), wrong on Katrina response, wrong on the deficit, wrong on the economy, … that Republicans are saying that Edwards is wrong on his choice of campaign staffers.
Honey chile, if I was an Edwards campaign manager, I’d give those gals a raise. ‘Cause given the Republican track record over the past six years, the only appropriate response from any Democrat with the balls that God gave a hamster would be to say, “Republicans: Wrong on everything. Again.”Badtux (8f3f53) — 2/7/2007 @ 2:35 pm
I say this as Democrat, Badtux: It may surprise you to know that a hell of a lot of Democrats voted for the Iraq War because they were more concerned with reelection than ethical behavior.
Sorry to burst your bubble.Leviticus (3c2c59) — 2/7/2007 @ 2:45 pm
[…] I share this attitude in general. The feeling, which Allah and I share, is that blogging has gotten too dangerous. This is one reason that I have said repeatedly that I hope Edwards keeps Marcotte. And if he has fired her, I hope he does rehire her. […]Candy Slice of Life » Article » Will Edwards stand by his Amanda? Next on “As the Blog Turns” (923bb6) — 2/8/2007 @ 8:36 am
[…] There is a wonderful post at Patterico’s site on this subject with more examples of the hate speech from Marcotte’s blog. Alot was gotten from google cache because “somehow” the worst of her posts have disappeared since she was hired by John Edwards. […]The Obligatory Edwards/Bloggers Post Updated and Bumped at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source. (aeda9d) — 2/8/2007 @ 10:49 am
[…] (And just in case you thought this was a one-off, you can read some more of Ms. Marcotte’s “inspired”** prose here, here, and here.) […]Ubi re vera » Two things (7bd3c5) — 2/8/2007 @ 7:53 pm
Edwards is shedding the softie,breck girl image though…here’s video proof:MinorRipper (980332) — 2/9/2007 @ 7:03 am
[…] If you’re reading this, I’m assuming a certain level of familiarity with the recent flare-up over Amanda Marcotte’s hiring, considered but not accomplished firing, and subsequent resignation as one of two campaign bloggers for John Edwards. […]Anwyn’s Notes in the Margin » Amanda Marcotte Resigns: Edwards Tries to Eat Cake (e8be5d) — 2/12/2007 @ 10:23 pm
Many of you are way too quick at getting all self-righteous.
Somehow the liberal media overlooked a Republican Presidential candidate calling for the death of Buddhists and Muslims.Psyberian (de47c4) — 2/27/2007 @ 5:22 am
[…] Kathy is no Ann Coulter or Michael Moore or former blogger for the John Edwards campaign. Her posts are generally sunny, professional, helpful, and decidedly non-inflammatory. This makes […]The New Charm School: Jennifer Warwick’s Blog for Gutsy Women » WALK THE PLANK: Anonymous Stalkers, Commenters and Trolls, Oh My (4b3d48) — 3/27/2007 @ 8:25 am
Wow, she is a basket case! What coven does she attend?Patriarch Verlch (412bb7) — 3/28/2007 @ 9:39 pm
[…] Example: “One thing I vow here and now—you motherf**kers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will f**k without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherf**kers. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.” – Former John Edwards Campaign Blogger Amanda Marcotte. https://patterico.com/2007/02/05/john-edwards-hires-amanda-marcotte-as-chief-campaign-blogger/ […]How To Blog Like A Moonbat, Module One. « The Hairy Beast (ff1077) — 4/21/2007 @ 3:19 pm
I just managed to get myself banned from Pandagon.net for daring to float the idea that ‘gun-free’ zones in effect amounts to ‘enforced victimhood’ for those who are then at unprotected ‘mercy’ of psychos and walking time bombs. The thought that people should have the right to self-defense was just too much for them to handle.The Infidel Sage (1338c5) — 4/21/2007 @ 6:34 pm
[…] left-wing hate site like The Daily Kos, and the same John Edwards who hired, and chose not to fire, those bigoted left-wing bloggers (warning: quotes from left-wing hate sites may contain much vulgarity) to run his campaign blog. As […]The Unalienable Right » Edwards' wife vs. Coulter on Hardball (7644ea) — 6/28/2007 @ 5:39 am
[…] it comes to campaigning one of the primary rules is to have everyone on the same page. Sure, past history demonstrates you don’t really give a damn about civil discourse, but the key word is […]Dumb John Edwards Calls Coulter “Crazy” » The American Mind (93c2f1) — 6/28/2007 @ 6:08 am
[…] some proof, I thought we could use some examples… MISTAKE 1 – IRAQ MISTAKE 2 – THE HAIRCUT MISTAKE 3 – AMANDA MARCOTTE MISTAKE 4 – POPULIST PROGRESSIVE To mention just a few… __________________ Political […]Edwards to quit presidential race - Page 2 - Political Fever (277fd1) — 1/30/2008 @ 10:49 am
[…] Example: “One thing I vow here and now—you motherf**kers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will f**k without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherf**kers. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.” – Former John Edwards Campaign Blogger Amanda Marcotte. https://patterico.com/2007/02/05/john-edwards-hires-amanda-marcotte-as-chief-campaign-blogger/ […]How To Blog Like A Moonbat, Module One. « Constitution Club (a2b447) — 7/3/2008 @ 12:06 pm