North Carolina homeboy and second-time presidential candidate John Edwards had a hell of week. First came the widely published news of his posh digs near Chapel Hill, which are outfitted with a racquetball court and other ammenities, with subsequent commentaries suggesting that he can no longer claim to be a man of the people.
And then the blog bomb, as it might be called, dropped. Earlier this month, Edwards hired two fervently feminist bloggers whose writings occasionally run on the raw side, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, to help run his campaign online. Soon, right-wing media commentators pounced on the personnel decisions. (See an early summary by National Review Online.)
Closer to home, the latest issue of the Asheville Tribune hammers home the controversy with a cover story carrying Edwards’ smiling mug and the words “CLEAN-CUT CANDIDATE HIRES FOUL-MOUTHED FEMINISTS.” The article quotes some of the more incendiary writings Marcotte and McEwan had posted prior to joining the Edwards campaign, and accuses the two of being anti-Catholic.
The controversy heated up fast, with left-leaning bloggers urging Edwards to keep the pair on staff and right-leaning ones demanding their dismissal. On Wednesday, the online magazine Slate went to so far as to report that Edwards had fired Marcotte and McEwan.
That report was quickly called into question and then discredited when the Edwards campaign announced around noon Thursday it was keeping the two on board.
“The tone and the sentiment of some of [Marcotte’s and McEwan’s] posts personally offended me,” Edwards wrote in “Edwards Learns Blogs Can Cut 2 Ways,” in the New York Times; “Edwards Decision to Keep Bloggers May Risk Catholic Vote,” in The Huffington Post; and John Dickerson’s piece in Slate.
Naturally, Edwards’ critics aren’t satisfied with his statement and his decision to keep the controversial bloggers on board. Should they be? And will this so-called “blog blooper” build steam or just fade into the blogosphere?
— Jon Elliston, news editor
