All the Way...

Yeah, and Donohue was "stunned"...

...that his bullying didn't work this time.  Awwww, too bad.  The article did mention McCain's blogger problems, but they were buried at the bottom.

"If the apocalypse comes... beep me." -- Buffy Summers

---

by: Kathy @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 08:53:40 AM CST

A thought on Edwards

This really isn't directly related to the hubbub over Amanda and Melissa, but I read something interesting in a Krugman article.  It seems Edwards has outlined quite well and in detail a universal health plan, which is great!  Kudos to Edwards for making a clear and defined statement on how he would proceed with making sure all Americans have healthcare.

However, a while back in some of the posts over sHill, Edwards, all of them, basically, I made a point on the gay rights front of our politicians doing more or less the same thing Edwards does here.

Why is it that he can't do the same thing here?  He speaks of civil unions as an option for us but he's not "quite there" on marriage equality, but yet he thinks all Americans should be equal.  With sHill the same thing.

We're settling for the rhetoric but not insisting on a plan.  Why is it okay for politicians to talk the talk but not give us any well-thought out plans when it comes directly to our rights?

Yes, universal health care is something we all need and it will definitely help gay couples and families, so it's not that he picked UHC to get detailed on, but that politicians can't/won't get detailed on our rights and furthermore, that we seem to be okay with it.

---

by: callie @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:11:58 AM CST

Callie you are right

See my posting above in the DNC thread.

But, the answer to your question is purely political. Whereas we represent a large enough minority to help win or lose an election (hi Harold!) the bottom line is that there are more majority and minority groups that are larger in numbers and political capital (in both the monetary and power meanings of the word) that politicians, especially Democrats who assume our support (hi again Harold), find it easiest to put us at the back of the line rather than risk eroding support from the larger groups. Wherease our rights are of vital importance to us, they are not high priority to the majority of people, including our straight allies or even our LCR compatriots who are more interested in tax cuts for themselves than rights for others.

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 13:53:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No sympathy for melissa or amanda...

...from me.  they reap what they sew.  sure, it's fair to criticize that goofball donahue, but this blogger thang is a contingency the Edwards campaign should have anticipated.  and i don't think this is the way anyone wants to get on the cover of the NYTimes.  It's hardly a flattering indictment.

Over at Shakespeare's sister, they make their name by being caustic and YES incinderary. isn't that why we read them?

I should add that i agree with melissa on most stuff and ideologically speaking consider her on the same ship as me.  but amanda and melissa (standard non-) apoplogy is lame and disappointing.  And totaly patronizing.  Melissa's assertion that "It has never been my intention to disparage people's individual faith, and I'm sorry if my words were taken in that way" is bullshit.  The fact is, she is renound to criticizing other people's religion.  It's what her readers clammor for afterall.  and no amount of liberal blogosphere "groupthink" is ever gonna convince me otherwise.

when we look back and plot the demise of the Edwards campaign, we can regard this as the beginning.

find me over at bluejersey.com

---

by: jay lassiter @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:42:11 AM CST

nope

I'll be laying it at the feet of Edwards who has neutered himself for a paycheck.  The spineless little country club boy should have moved from boy to man by telling the right wing to take a leap.

Again, I say, we need to be concerned with the thin skin right wing fundies being "offended" while in the same breathe they berate and disparage us????

I'm offended every time some Donohue-like character opens his piehole and calls me an abomination and a threat to democracy and the family, but the politicians (supposedly, OUR politicians, the ones who are supposed to be on OUR side) have yet to jack-up the fundies for their hate speech but can CERTAINLY find the time to throw their own people to the wolves of rabid, hate-filled fundamentalism.

And we wonder why we keep losing elections?  WTF?!

---

by: callie @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:57:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I disagree...

(Since jay lassiter repeated the bulk of his comment from the original post, I will repeat mine as well)...

Their work is what garnered their own strong niches in the blogosphere, and that is what got the interest of the Edwards campaign in the first place. Your comment in a way is supportive of a have-one's-cake-and-eat-it-too mentality: Edwards wants bloggers who have the ability to garner the netroots, but then the very writings which got these two so recognized in said netroots is deemed "offensive."

It was all out there for anyone to see...BEFORE they were hired.

And people who slam these two for their apologies, still do not seem to mention a word about the hate-filled, bigoted speech of Donahue. I am personally offended by his comments.

And I notice that Donahue, or people of his hateful ilk, certainly were not approached by the Edwards campaign with a job offer, were they?

---

by: Julien Sharp @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:07:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh Please ...

Jay, that is completely not true ...

What Melissa does (and Amanda too, though she does tend to be a tad more terse about it) is criticise the ACTIONS of certain religions, not the religions themselves.

She is very truthful in saying that it is never her intention, nor I would argue the effect with anyone truly rational. If those nutjobs that are intent in having any criticism of their religion's actions being offensive to them, then there is nothing Melissa or anyone can do.

Melissa is one of the most tolerant people I know, and I know her personally offline. She goes after misogynistic, homophobic, racism, sexist, intolerant, etc behaviour in general, and isn't afraid to criticise a religion when they too do such, and in fact it is not unreasonable in the slightest to note that the Vatican is particularly guilty of such. In fact, one of her repeated mottos "My rights end where yours begin" speaks specifically to this.

There is no offense here, and to suggest otherwise is the height of a lack of reason.

---

by: Sarah in Chicago @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:11:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry man

I have to chime in here also.  Sorry Jay but I also disagree with your opinion of Shakes.  I think she explores a lot of issues that most blogs would never touch.  In doing so she does spark strong opinions from some readers.  She is a good person in my opinion and is trying to make the world a better place for us all.

---

by: txrad @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:28:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Religion needs criticism...

...like every other has aspect our culture which has such an impact on all of our lives.

The substance of Shakes' and others' arguments are perfectly valid, and it's absolutely vital that they are heard.  Religious organizations can't be exempt from pushback when they participate in the decision-making processes by which we are all governed.  Religious ideas can't be exempt when they are part of the discourse.

The style of the arguments complicates the issue, at least for some people.  But I don't think it should.  The tone of our politics is ugly right now--that's not Shakes' fault.  If we want to change it, let's change it across the board.  Why should religion get treated differently?  (On ground of principle, I mean--I'm not talking about strategy.)

...

I think Edwards' response (including the forced apologies from Melissa and Amanda) is counter-productive.  This was a perfect chance for him to (at least appear to) act from principle.

He should have stood up for the "robust exchange of ideas among citizens of diverse views, which is what the whole blogosphere explosion is about".  He should have commented on the "salty language and passionate argumentation which characterize this new medium".  He should have assured America that the style of his campaign rhetoric was going to be of a completely different character and left it at that.

Instead, he largely conceded that there was merit in Donahue's false and malicious charges, and showcased himself standing up for a different principle of sorts--"giving a fair shake" to "offensive" and "intolerant" people.  He screwed up, big time.


"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 11:33:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The proper response

to William Donohue is "I disagree, Mr Kettle, an anti-Semite like you, one who likes to blame everything you don't like on Jewish influence (insert one of many choice clips here*), has no business calling out another person on religious dissent."

*Hollywood, TV, art shows are many of the subjects of his rants, the most famous of which might be the rants over a painting (elephant dung incorporated into picture of Mary) and over criticism of Mel Gibson's Passion movie as too violent.

We need more criticism of religion, not less. I like to blogwhore this excellent site, not mine, but run by a consortium of scholars and journalists on current American religion/politics interface.

www.talk2action.org

---

by: NancyP @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:08:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why not religion?

I just started reading The God Delusion, and that's one of the subjects Dawkins discusses.  It's in chapter 1, on page 20.  The argument is that society views religion as beyond criticism, and "religious faith is exceptionally vulnerable to offence and should be protected by abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to another."  It's essentially giving religion as a class privilege that wouldn't be afforded anything else.

I'd never thought of it like that, but damned if he isn't right.  And this ultra-respect that religion demands is what's at the core of this whole kerfuffle.  (Well, that and the right-wing smear machine.)

---

by: C Diane @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:19:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

when we look back and plot the demise of the Edwards campaign, we can regard this as the beginning.

1) The demise of the Edwards campaign is a long ways away. The fact that this has happened now has enabled him to deal with it (regardless of what opinion you might have on how that was done) and defuse any bombshell value it might have had later on.

2) Let's also not overestimate Edwards' role in this matter. I'd bet the mortgage money (if I had one) on the appointments of Melissa and Amanda were researched and recommended by trusted Edwards staffers. I seriously doubt that Edwards has the time to read anything more than a few mainstream bloggers and had neither heard of nor read either of these women's blogs prior to being presented (probably) sanitized versions before giving the go ahead to hire.

3) Your point will be stronger if you preview your postings. There are at least 6 misspellings. I make typos myself but never that many. Previewing also gives you the chance to go over postings written while angry and give you the chance to make sure you are making your point in a cogent manner. If I sound like an a*hole - ask anyone, I am.

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 14:08:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you do....

....and i believe you.

find me over at bluejersey.com

---

by: jay lassiter @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 05:07:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I may be an a*hole

But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 12:07:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't read Pandagon, so this is my interpretation of Shakes.

I concluded from her non-apology apology that she didn't really see where she had anything to apologize for.  If you read her posts you'll realize that she has a big problem with religious hierarchies that insert themselves into coservative politics, especially when they are easily exposed as hypocritical.

About those matters she is caustically intolerant.

So was Jesus.

---

by: oddjob @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 13:18:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This was precious...

Some bloggers saw the controversy as manufactured by conservative groups.

The ones who didn't of course, were the conservative bloggers who were manufacturing the controversy.

Sheesh!

(BTW, thanks for the promo, EE. ;)

Blogwhoring @ http://indigestible.nightwares.com/

---

by: Warren @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:53:11 AM CST

Y'r welcome!!

:)

---

by: Julien Sharp @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 09:23:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And congrats to Pam!

You made the front page of WorldNetDaily today! Incendiary headline and everything!

http://www.wnd.com/n...

---

by: xerxes @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:08:09 AM CST

I STILL DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS A "LESBIAN BLOG"

It is a blog run by a woman who happens to be a lesbian. At least half of the Blenders are male and my guess is a third or more are heterosexual. The subject matter is not exclusively GLBTQI nor even primarily such.

"Lesbian blog" is a dismissive term and should be called out for that.

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 14:47:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good point

Well said, Alan down in Florida.

---

by: Julien Sharp @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 15:13:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's typical Wingnut Daily

They love getting the word gay or lesbian in their headlines. And "gay" must always be surrounded by quotation marks.

And it's also typical reporting style for them. Joseph Farah loves to croon about how he tries to run a fair news outfit, but I'm willing to bet no one even bothered to contact Pam for comment. Take a look at how much of the site's "reporting" is actual single-source interviews or the rewriting of transcripts from talk radio.

So not only are they rapid fools, but they're sloppy, rabid fools.

---

by: xerxes @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 16:15:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Er...

...make that "rabid fools" in both instances, and not rapid. :-)

---

by: xerxes @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 16:16:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think both phrases are appropriate. LOL

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 16:22:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

powerful women

there's your trouble.

rush limpballs, hannity sucks ass, glenn faggot beck are on the public airwaves every day of the world attacking all who disagree and no one bats an eye...

but two young women from the blogosphere dare wade in with wit and eloquence and truth and they are strung up.

---

by: tlsintx @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 11:57:11 AM CST

Seems very true to me

It's difficult to imagine this happening to male bloggers in similar circumstance.  Donahue still would have made the charges, but I don't think anyone would have paid much attention.  Not this much, anyway.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:08:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

now they are feminist martyrs?

this is the biggest crock of shit i have heard on this topic all day. 

you guys are so quick to defend these two that you don't seem to realize that this dustup has really exposed a rift between sucular and religious liberals.  you can deny it all you want.  but this thing blew up in their faces and rightfully so. 

p.s. at what point will the blenders realize that the term "sHill" (for Hillary) is so pathetic.  i mean, it was cute the first time, it was funny the second time, the third time it was just lame.  grow up and have a moment of self-reflexion already! 

find me over at bluejersey.com

---

by: jay lassiter @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 13:25:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think it's an ingredient

It's not the main ingredient, imo, but I do think people react somewhat differently (i.e. more harshly) to foul-mouthed women than they do to foul-mouthed men.  Don't you?

...

I'm not sure I've actually been defending them in the way you seem to mean.  I said elsewhere that I see an inherent conflict in the idea of hiring bloggers onto a campaign.  I think why we all read blogs is because we value the independence that allows someone to call bullsh*t on bullsh*t.  A political campaign is the exact opposite.  (I think we agree on this point?)  Edwards doesn't really want Melissa or Amanda as we know (and love, for those of us who do) them.  He just wants to buy some netroots cred.

I'm not saying he's better or worse in this regard than any of the other candidates, by the way.  There was a really good front-page diary on dKos about this calling for all the Dem candidates to go to bat on this issue on behalf of Edwards--to tell the right-wing to stop sh*t-disturbing our primary.  I totally agree that this is the party's problem, not just Edwards'.

...

As far as a rift between religious and secular (was sucular a subtle joke or just an accident, lol?) liberals--yes, absolutely.  Driving that wedge in is the whole game that Donahue plays.  That's why he gets funding, and that's the service he performs for the GOP.  (No one here seriously thinks that Donahue is in any way a legitimate watchdog of anti-Catholic bias, I hope.)  The point I'm trying to push on this is that any short-term gain from trying to soothe people rather than genuinely engaging the underlying issue is a long-term setback for everyone.

I absolutely second NancyP's recommendation of Talk2Action, by the way.  They are the intellectual leaders--religious and secular both--who are genuinely engaging it.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 14:44:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's why he gets funding, and that's the service he performs for the GOP.

When is one of our wonderful gay media outlets or leadership organization going to go after people like Donahue, LaBarbera and others of their ilk to investigate just where the money they operate comes from. I think it would be very interesting to have this information.

Sportin' - you're right and I think sucular is what they call a Freudian slip. LOL.

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 14:53:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The rift?

If people would get their heads out of their butts and actually pay attention to what the Democratic party has been doing since Clinton did his anti-gay swan dive in his last term, then they'd realize that the "rift" has long been apparent.

Amanda and Melissa didn't call attention to it or stoke the fire.  It was already there.  It was there every time we were told to be quiet and get in the back of the bus and dutifully vote for any and every Democrat that wanted or wants (hi Harold, ya asshole!) to sell our rights to the first highest freakin' fundie bidder.

Visit the DNC blog just once and post anything on there about a current gay rights issue or news and you'll hear the crickets chirping.  Like misbehaving children they think if they ignore us we'll go away.

---

by: callie @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 15:11:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

cause & effect

Funny, if homosexuality caused hatred of Christians why are there so many gay Christians as well as het anti-religious folk?

---

by: Holly in Cincinnati @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:23:08 PM CST

As that song from the '90s goes

"you get what you give"

(New Radicals, I think)

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 14:54:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]