I like vulgar. Just sayin.

Off topic, but a humble suggestion for this week: please keep the accusations of who's a troll and who's not down to a minimum, if not down to zero. I've taken a look at your blog recently, and I see lots of comments about trolls.

It just takes away from the more important discussion that needs to take place re: the role of the blogger in today's politics. As well as the issues you raise about attitudes towards women, etc.

You know user "jerry" already is going to be swarming these posts with accusations, ones he's already stated he was too lazy to back up with links. I suggest just responding, without calling him a troll. Or just ignore him, if you really think he's a troll. But it's not worth the meta that will necessarily ensue.

(Consider this comment a preemptive effort to keep us on the issues, and not a week-long discussion about trolling.)

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Amanda,

You owe me, Josh, and the rest of the Cafe an apology for your purposeful and intellectually dishonest distortion of my words yesterday, and your use of the technique of "naming the troll" in an attempt to discredit me and avoid having to answer the questions I raised.

My response then.

Will you apologize to me, Josh, and the rest of the Cafe?

Is it true, as Salon has claimed twice now, and as Steve Gilliard has confirmed, that you were fired by the campaign and then rehired?

Christofacist means the same thing as Christianist. It's a more pejorative way of describing someone who believes that the laws of the state should be dictated by Christian belief, as described by a minority of Christian believers.

This is in parallel to "Islamist" or "Islamofascist." Islamists believe the government should enforce their interpretation of Islamic rules of conduct, as in Afghanistan under the Taliban or Saudi Arabia today. The use of Islamofascist is inflammatory, intended to tie the threat Hitler presented to Europe and the US to the threat the wahabbists represent.

Islamofascist is word used repeatedly by the President and other prominent republicans.

It's especially ironic that people who are wont to use the word, like Brownback on This Week the sunday before last, will without thinking twice express deep concern about the threat Islamofascism represents to the American way of life, and then will segue immediately into the need to impose his sect's beliefs on women's reproductive rights on all Americans.

This is very clearly, well defined term. One could coin Jewist, which would be an Orthodox Jew who wants to make the Sabbath and dietary rules the law of the land.

This is not hard, at all, to get. The reason people react to it is not because it is bigoted or offensive (if they thought this were true, they wouldn't say "islamofascist") but because it highlights the extraordinary hypocrisy, at best, that lies in the expression of their views. (At worst, they represent the ultimate version of XYZoFascism--of wanting not merely to make people in their own countries be force by the state to follow their beliefs, but they also want to impose their belief system, by law, on people who live in other countries.)

Dour, bloated hypocrites like Donohue and his supporters deserve to be lanced by mordant satire. There is something profoundly anti-Enlightenment about the whole sanctimonious Bushist Religious Right, with its rejection of a government based on law, its abhorrence of science, its promotion of religion at every turn, its fear of freedom, its relentless efforts to concentrate more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands, its mindless cheerleading for insane wars of aggression. The biting wit of a Voltaire helped usher in the Englightenment. He of course was viewed as vulgar and worse by those on whom he heaped his scorn. Thankfully we now have the web, and brave bloggers willing to take on the pompous fools who would lead us all back into darkness.

~

Apology? ... the Admiral would like to talk at ya . . .

~OGD~

Amanda-

the real question that's flying around the blogosphere is "How could this happen?" Did you really think that you'd be able to continue your blog and also work for a candidate?

Did the Edwards folks not make clear that if you're joining the campaign, then your own voice would be silenced?

Matt Stoller poses the salient points more clearly than I could.

Yeah, I guess it's not always satire.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Jay, I'm not interested in Monday morning quarterbacking my inability to play sufficient defense against the right wing shills. Yes, I failed in many regards. I don't think I'm cut out for this political environment, where any sign of thoughtfulness is stomped out in a swarm of soundbite-driven faux outrage. I'm sorry that I was naive.

I'm really not going to comment on the Edwards' campaign and their decisions. I don't think that's right, really.

Now that you've gotten that out of me, I'm interested in the real-Real question, which is how has the national discourse degraded to this level?

It hasn't degraded. This is how it's been for a long time--at least the past 20 years. And we're probably kidding ourselves if we think it was different before that.

I will say that it was really shocking watching it go down first hand. Until I saw it, I never really got how the combination of me-firstness, laziness, and boredom really drives the mainstream media. From talking to MSM types, it became quickly clear they weren't interested in researching the allegations of bigotry against me nor investigating whether or not they were being made for cynical partisan reasons. It would have taken like five minutes of research to find out that a) I wasn't a bigot and b) Donohue is a Republican operative. I think it's really difficult to really grasp how the right wing exploits MSM laziness to get these manufactured controversies into the mainstream.

Degradation of discourse?

Blame it on the Beatles!

~OGD~

Okay, first of all, I think John Edwards and his campaign have a lot more to explaining to do than the wingnut hoardes that wallowed in predictable "outrage".

What Donohue and his nutroot monkey-allies did was not unexpected. The media follow-up was not exactly unexpected either - when you have been bitchslapped for decades into meeting the FCC's stupidly-applied obscenity rules, the sight of a blogger who uses four-letter words elicits a knee-jerk, hostile response from those who word get fined or fired for doing the same.

So here's the thing - Nothing that happened on the right, or in the media establishment, was a shock. I've read Pandagon a bit, and it's edgy stuff sometimes, and not exactly friendly to Christian fundamentalists. For varying reasons, some people really won't like what you've written. I'm sorry that the venom of the response surprised you, but that's the way these people operate. They are scum, but they are determined scum with a singular agenda.

Which brings me to question why, when this was really very predictable, the Edwards campaign's defense of the two of you was, at best, tepid. I don't know how you feel in hindsight, but at the time, my clear impression was that the Edwards campaign was not exactly strongly defending their decision to hire you two. And to be honest, I thought that was quite poor.

The second, and more fundamental question I think, it whether bloggers of your sort are in fact compatible with political campaigning. (Let me make clear that this is quite separate from the question of what you can contribute to the political discourse.) But I think in way you answer this question yourself - your second to last paragraph reads as follows:

"Blogs also provide space for biting political satire. [...] Humor is an important rhetorical device that the vulgar, common people can use to level devastating criticisms at the elite and the powerful."

I'd suggest it would be fair to put your blog, reasonably frequently, into this category. And I would also suggest it is fair to say satirists don't fit easily with campaigns intended to put people into positions of power... as your statement evidently implies. I could not for a second imagine a Hunter S Thompson, Art Buchwald or Steven Colbert as a campaign official. Their brand of art simply would not allow them to get too close to their high and mighty subjects.

So, you know, I am sorry for what you went through in those fateful few days as part of the Edwards campaign. The level of opprobrium was typically excessive. The Edwards campaign didn't do itself too many favors, but I really think that ultimately, your standing has been enhanced. You are cut out for the role of the humorist, poking a stick in the eye of the establishment. I'd worry you'd lose your edge if you got too close to those you need to hold a mirror to.

Running for office is all about "image". Studies have shown that the dedicated voters who identify as Republican or Democrat will vote the party pretty much all the time.

So the effort has to be focused on the "swing" voters. This is usually about 5% of those who vote. These are the people who don't really pay attention to politics or current events. So reaching them has to be done via TV image ads and sound bites. Since they really have no interest they vote based upon emotion and anything which blurs the theme the candidate is trying to get across must be eliminated from the campaign. This was Rove's genius. Not only did he get Bush to project a consistent image he lined up everybody else running as a Republican and had them use exactly the same themes and catch phrases.

This is what running for office has fallen to in the days of TV advertising. It may mean that candidates disguise their true positions or are hypocrites or even liars, but that's how the game is being played. The blogosphere can play a role outside this image contest, but if you join a campaign expect to have to toe the line.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Short answer: Hynes still has a job, and is still posting at AnkleBitingPundits.

Longer answer: the republicans have no argument they can make from a policy perspective--all of their positions are so unpopular that they have to disguise them as either their opposite or something else entirely.

This has left them with only one strategy. They personalize races, and then smear their opponents personally. They've gotten very good at this.

At the same time, for reasons that are not at all clear to me, the media is very quick to run uncritically with a Donohue press release, but ignores press releases from the other side of the discourse. I don't find any of the explanations for this particularly satisfying--that they're afraid of conservatives saying mean things about them, that evil corporate interests dominate the media and so forth.

What may be at the heart of it is that Democrats are not willing to set up the countervailing infrastructure. The Republicans are eminently attackable on issues related to "family values." The top three republican presidential candidates are serial adulterers.

If Clinton were a republican, the story would be about her perseverance in a difficult marriage led to a couple that had stayed together through thick and thin. And if Giuliani were a democrat from Arkansas, the story would start with the second cousin and degrade from there.

I guess the blogosphere is the source of a counterpoint to this nonsense, which is one reason everyone rose to the defense of you and Melissa. This was not just an attempt to smear Edwards. It was also an attempt to marginalize the left blogosphere, which does represent a real threat to the VRWC.

By "me-firstness," you mean "scoop"? That's one thing that puzzled me about this story. There was no reason to run with the press release without doing some confirmation. It couldn't be called a scoop to be first out with a retyped press release.

Amanda,

You raise in this comment an important issue that has (amazingly given the number of bits spilt on this "controversy") been underdiscussed, namely that so much attention was given to the comments of a "lowly staffer."

While the public (and even private) statements of high ranking campaign advisers have always been fair game, by and large low-level staffers simply are not vetted this way (I know...I was a staffer for a year on the Dukakis campaign).

Working as a low-level staffer on a political campaign is a pretty one-way relationship. The candidate is not saying "I agree with everything my staff stands for." The staff is (implicitly) saying, "We agree to subordinate any disagreements we might have with the candidate in order to prioritize her election."

There's something faintly (or perhaps not so faintly) McCarthyite in the notion that the beliefs and statements of low-level staffer have to be combed over, lest the candidate somehow be tarred with them.

Excellent point. I'm currently teaching a course on the U.S. in the Gilded Age (that's late 19C for you non-historians). And believe me, politics was as bad if not worse then.

First it was the arrival of the Beatles, but then Bob Dylan went over to the darkside of rock music from the gorgeous ballads of folk music!

The degradation of discourse can be dated from the day Bob Dylan picked up an electric guitar!!

[This whine brought to you by a long-time fan of Joan Baez, a folk music fan who still considers the Kingston Trio the greatest popular group ever -- and who listens to "Dark Side of the Moon" only in secret.]

Amanda, you can't get away with attempting to insult our intelligence with such a cheap excuses.

Also, the term vulgar is used more commonly to describe crude behavior, it is not commonly associated these days with the "common people". The context is completely wrong. Also, anyone who believes that the blogosphere is comprised of the "common people" is in serious denial. It's an elitist statement that infers that they are the only ones who count. The grasstops do not a grassroots make. Also, slandering and censoring those who disagree with you is not a sign of free and open discourse. Any more than the corporate owned media is an example of a free press.

Your excuses that you weren't bigoted aren't any more palatable than those made by Klansmen like David Duke or any racist or bigot.

You certainly know how to frame an arguement when it's yourself on the line.. but you obviously have as little respect for us as you do for christians as a whole.

As an english major you are schooled in how to frame your arguements in writing. You are also taught the importance of the usage of citing effectivly to underscore the case you make.

Your postings in question weren't attempts to take on the hypocrisies and wrongs of morally corrupt christian leaders and the organized church. You might have made a vague statement or two to start each piece off, but then they disintegrated into rants that were intended to be attempts to impune and stereotype christians by association.

It was no different than the shoddy attacks by many on the left against Barack Obama last year when he attended a progressive christian  conference.

You demeaned much loved and respected christian figures like Mary, something you well knew is something that would be taken as extremely disrespectful. Substitute Buddha, Mohammed or any other religious figure and the effect would be the same. Using bigoted characterizations as christofascist is as offensive as the term feminazi, or perhaps you're saying that feminists were being disingenuous when they took on Rush Limbaugh's bigotry for his stereotyping feminists with that term?

Merely because Donahue attacked you doesn't earn you sympathy from me.. personally, I believe your intent was to draw the fire from he and his organization, that's why you associated yourself with the Edwards campaign. I wonder who suggested his campaign hire you?

What I see is an excellent candidate like Edwards, who has a sound and all encompassing plan being purposely smeared because of your statements made, and you seeking to frame yourself as the victim.

The director Kevin Smith was attacked by Donahue after the release of his film, Dogma. Smith addressed the hypocrisy in the organized catholic church in the film, and he did so without disrespecting catholics or christians as a whole. He also took on Donahue's attack effectively and made Donahue look the fool that he is.

Sam Brownback goes on TV and calls a group of people he doesn't like "Islamofascists." Amanda Marcotte goes on a blog and calls a group of people she doesn't like "Christofascists." And her discourse is morally superior to his -- why?

No, her use of the term is identical to his. He says that people who would impose their religion on their fellow citizens are bad people. So does she. But she doesn't go on to say that she would make an exception for her religion. I don't know what is hard about this. The point is not that Amanda or Sam like or dislike people. The point is that Brownback derides radical muslims for engaging in precisely the same behavior that he advocates on behalf of radical "Christians." (I use the scare quotes because I agree with Amanda's larger point on her blog--that these self-styled Christians seem to be completely unaware of the Sermon on the Mount, and the general thrust of Christ's message in the Gospels.)

Moreover, in both cases the views that the XYZFascist would impose are not widely held XYZ views. Catholics practice birth control. Afghan Muslims fly kites and play music. The ones who would stop them are in the minority of their own faiths.

It would be more accurate to say that Brownback is all about "motivating his base" by appealing to innate religious bigotry

Really? And is that the president's motivation as well? I agree there is some brown people bigotry in play here, but I think rather this term is meant to scare americans into supporting further military activity. That was the context Brownback's comments were in, as have the President's comments been.

hers are pseudoprogressive leftwing atheists who detest Christians.

This is simply false. The point of her posts have been not in the least bit "anti-Christian." They express opposition and anger at official Catholic teachings regarding contraception and abortion, teachings that the majority of American Catholics also disagree with. I challenge you to put up, and link to, any quotation of Amanda's that is "anti-Christian."

In fact, in the posts I've read, she spends a fair amount of time calling out self-styled Christians who would neither turn the other cheek, nor give their coat to someone who needed it. That's hardly anti-Christian.

These battles are fought -- and won -- without once uttering pejorative terms like "Christofascist."

I prefer "Christianist" myself. But why are you not denouncing the president, and any number of elected officials who routinely use the Islamofacist designation. They are far more important, far more influential than is one lonely blogger. Why is Amanda your target and not the president?

I must say that I find your excuses unconvincing. The vulgar masses don't routinely use the word cunt and I don't see how using such distasteful language advances discussion. If one genuinely wants to have a discussion about race it's not helpful to start dropping N-bombs all over the place. It seems to me that you were given a wonderful opportunity to participate in and shape the political discussion in this country and you blew it. You were given that opportunity precisely because of the great potential of blogs to allow common people to participate in those discussions, however your failure to recognize the need to restrain yourself when talking to millions of people on a candidate's behalf shouldn't be blamed on the fact that you are a low level staffer unfamiliar with and removed from the DC scene. It's seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that the vulgar masses wish to communicate.

Re: "the news media falls for it every time" -- for the most part the news media and the Republican party are one ant the same thing, so it is less a matter of 'falling for it' than one of actively participating it it. If Democrats got as nasty maybe they would get a little more attention for a time (other that from FOX or Rush, etc.), but it wouldn't be as much or as enduring, and it would drag all U.S. political discourse into the sewer.

To get people's attention in this climate, I can live with terms like 'christofascist' -- there I have said it and am presumably now unemployable. Fine by me, I have a pension. Christofascist is a bit off the mark for many theocons, but not much. It is a useful term in a context where the equally off the mark term islamofascist is used day in and day out by Republicans. Christofascist is a little more tongue in cheek in intent and context than the parallel term.

global citizen

This whole debate erroneously conflates two separate and distinct issues: (1) the undisputed need to protect and ensure the right to free speech; and (2) the right of a candidate exercising his or her constitutional right to run for president to choose the content of the message he or she wants to deliver to the voters.

Hi Amanda!

On behalf of myself and millions of very frustrated Democrats I want to thank you for being a street fighter. If it weren't for the bloggers on the left, most Democratic politicians in Washington would still be cowering in a corner somewhere worrying about whether they would look weak if they say anything against the corrupt and criminal Bush administration and it's illegal, immoral war.

As for the anti-Catholic stuff you are certainly correct that Donohue simply attacks those he doesn't like and then claims they are anti-Catholic. Please note, however, that the hallmark of his complaints is not really anti-Catholic bigotry (he doesn't care about the vulgar masses) but any criticism whatsoever of the the Roman Catholic hierarchy and its dogma from the middle ages. He hates and despises more American Catholics than anyone I imagine because most Catholics think for themselves, refuse to tow the line on either birth control or abortion because the churches rules on those subjects are simply absurd and generally don't share the antiquated and reactionary views of their isolated and out of touch leadership in Rome and here at home. Given the widespread pedophelia and other sexual scandals among the Roman Catholic clergy, a man like Donohue has to spew his anger on some target because he cannot criticize his leaders. He loves the conformity and authority of the church and deeply fears any challenge to it. Thus he howls into the night about anti-Catholic bigotry because he knows that will get the attention of the corporate media. They do not scrutinize his wild accusations and they don't look into his background. They are just interested in reporting a conflict and so they dutifully assist him in smearing good people like you who refuse to respect the ancient foolishness of some isolated, frustrated old men who protect their dogma regardless of the human consequences.

Sorry you got bushwhacked, but hang in there and keep street fighting. We need you!

Amanda, thanks for defending yourself here. I'd hate for the blogosphere to become boring just because people will be worried about how what they blog will affect their future employment prospects. There's more than enough "holding back," in our society already.

Your post got me thinking, is there really any such thing as bigotry against any religion? A religion isn't like a race. A religion is a set of ideas and codes of behavior. Seems to me that anyone can have negative feelings about any set of ideas or code of behavior without being a bigot. Bigotry really only applies to issues of race -- when you hate some one for genetic/eugenic type reasons.

All religions and indeed all cultures are fair game for criticism, satire and commentary. It's not bigoted to say that Catholic mythology is silly, the church is corrupt, and there's no god anyway.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Good point Azdak!

It's true that the mainstream has a very difficult time with the very thought of a fearless and unapolgetic left whether in the form of blogs or Democratic candidates who don't apologize for the positions they take. When our side uses language that everyone understands and is strong they freak out. No matter what the right says or how they say it, they give them a pass because the corporate media is much more comfortable with the right's support of entrenched power than they will ever be for the left's call's for change and a more equitable and sensible distribution of resources in society.

What surprises me is that you're surprised at the reaction. This is what the press lives for, works for and prays for - a story about nothing, to whit -

BREAKING NEWS - Anna Nicole Smith's body embalmed - did her breasts explode? The hidden danger to mortuary workers of pumping embalming fluid into women who had breast implants. Later in this hour a former employee of a mortuary will tell us how this issue can affect the health and safety of embalming professionals and how these workers can protect themselves.

I think schools need to start de-emphasizing the "democracy" part of the US Government. It's easy to let poop flow downhill and blame the voter, and in a pure democracy that may be a legitimate criticism. However, in terms of the Electoral College and seeing the day-to-day workings of the government as those of a Republic serve as a more accurate lens through which to view current events. There are many many disconnections between Joe Voter and the Administration (whether you voted for them or not) that can cause the "democracy" minded citizen to feel frustrated. Merely knowing that there is very little influence I actually have outside of some of my votes has enabled me to take a step back and also to be a little more critical, knowing that I couldn't have done anything about it.

This is all somewhat vague and doesn't touch on the majority of your points, but I think that the republic/democracy split is crucial for understanding the late capitalist administration in the US.

My this is a self absorbed self indulgent thread. Maybe we should get back to the topic at hand.

I learned a long time ago that when trying to communicate it is best to use words that are effective. If a writer takes a position in disagreement with another, it is best to use words that demonstrate disagreement without being disagreeable.

Once a writer descends into name calling, it is just too easy for the other side to turn the argument back on to the name caller.

The problem with blogs is that they have the feel of a local bar. People say things among friends down at the local pub they would never say to their mothers. That's fine. Unfortunately blogs have more in common with newspapers than with the local pub. It is easy to forget that anything you write on a blog, including behind the false anonymity of a pseudonym in a comments section, is permanent. It will follow you around. It becomes part of your life's work. Part of how you are judged. Donahue and Maklin in their own hypocritical way have taught us all a lesson about the new media. It is important that we all remember it.

All of that said I still think we need to make sure the hate speakers like Donahue, and Maklin are held to the same standard they would impose on the left.

Ron Byers

"...lies and misinformation have so much traction." How about no information.

Harpers March, '07. Ken Silverstein, a staff reporter for the LATimes wrote, "To write with any nuance about Islamists for an American audience is to invite controversy." Silverstein visited Lebanon, interviewed Hezbollah members, wrote an article for the Times, submitted it and met "with insurmountable editorial obstacles. It was clear that I was deemed to have written a story that was too favorable to Hezbollah..."

The upshot was by the time the "editors" at the Times got through with his story it was so gutted that he decided to pull the piece "rather than 'inoculate' it to the point of dishonesty." The "gutting", according to Silverstein was because the paper feared offending surpporters of Israel. (One has to wonder how many stories never make it to print, not to mention how many make it but are so bastardized that they're unrecognizable from the original.)

I read your lies and misinformation (and my no information) and their obvious traction in the media as why it's vital that the blog world exist. (It's a good bet that a lot of people out there wish it didn't.)

The right wing noise machine that drove Melissa McEwan and me to resign from the Edwards campaign flung a bunch of pointless and unsubstantiated claims to create the illusion there was anything going on besides outrage that we were "vulgar".

That you vacillated and quit in the face of right wing attacks
(ala Dan Rather, etc.) simply reinforces the right wing's ability to control certain media. Democrats need to grow some spine and take the right wing fanatics on, Christ knows, you have more ammunition than was used in WWll. Now they go on to their next victim. Shame on you.

Name achieves nothing other than a waste of time and energy. It achieves nothing, is intended to achieve nothing other than hatred and divisiveness..

It's why people who resort to name calling are little more than bags of hot air.. and are about as productive as the same.

The people want positive change, you want to create a divesion to hype a career that is going nowhere fast.. so you jumped onto the noise machine bandwagon.. not so different than Rush Limbaugh.. thing is you're alot less intelligent... and considering how low Limbaugh is intelligence-wise, that's saying something. You clutch of an amen choir aren't going to buoy you into anything other than a more laughed at obscurity.

I made that point in a long note to Deborah Howell. The point of the note was that this is going to keep happening--fake news stories created by distorted press releases from partisan sources--until the MSM starts fact-checking everything. I think part of what happened here is that an organization with a religion in its name is lent more credence than say, the ethical culture society or the secular humanists. Donohue cynically exploits this bias.

The Post did, in the end, treat this story with more balance and accuracy than the Times.

No, her use of the term is identical to his. He says that people who would impose their religion on their fellow citizens are bad people. So does she.

IOW, she behaves exactly like he does. Whee, what a concept.

Right off the top of my head, I can think of at least two people that have repudiated Brownback, et al, without once resorting to namecalling. Jim Wallis and Robin Meyers. They know something that Ms. Marcotte doesn't know -- "you can't make yourself look good by making someone else look bad."

Of course, I have repudiated the Republican party, the President and associated rightwing Christians at the ballotbox, in my Church, and in the locker room of my local gym. I contributed substantial monies to the Ned Lamont campaign, Act Blue, MoveOn and the DNC. I even got the obligatory banning from redstate.com.

The plain fact is, I do not believe in the old adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Ms. Marcotte is not my friend. Were she to gain the power to do so, she would behave in a manner as inimical to my faith as the Donohues, Coulters or O'Reallys.

Sure, namecalling can be f