SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Blog Trouble

THE PLANK FEBRUARY 9, 2007

Blog Trouble

BY TNR STAFF

I'm sort of late to this story, but one thing struck me about the John Edwards blogger brouhaha. After Edwards appeared ready to fire bloggers whose writing had become a point of controversy, other bloggers threatened to oppose Edwards in the primary. Then when he relented, they celebrated it as a crucial moment for the legitimacy of bloggers in mainstream politics.

But will this open doors to bloggers being hired by campaigns? My guess is, just the opposite. What this episode demonstrated is that, if you're a candidate, hiring a blogger may or may not win you the loyalty of that blogger's friends. But firing that blogger will certainly bring their wrath down upon you. But campaigns, of course, fire staffers pretty often. So why would you hire somebody you can't fire?

--Jonathan Chait

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 19 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

19 comments

I don't believe bloggers were opposed to firing their blogger friends on principle. They were opposed to firing their blogger friends based on the smears of a noted lunatic bigot. You really didn't catch that part?

- john7788

February 9, 2007 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The points against these ladies basically consisted of quotes from their writings. And no, they weren't taken out of context.

- Lyynxx

February 9, 2007 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Dean & HRC have hired quasi-bloggers, but I think there was/is a view that these two were groundbreakers. If they were fired, no campaign would ever hire a blogger with a substantial posting history. Now, I don't know if that's true or not.

- niq

February 9, 2007 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thought it probably will make campaigns less likely to hire the more incendiary bloggers. But they're an important constituency so they'll continue to be courted and the talented [and not-so-hotheaded] ones will get hired.

- Fairfax

February 9, 2007 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It doesn't really matter why the bloggers exerted their influence here -- just that they did -- and a political candidate is not going to want to have their hiring decisions at someone else's mercy, for any reason.

- thufir

February 9, 2007 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If they were fired, no campaign would ever hire a blogger with a substantial posting history." Um...not all bloggers make Virgin Mary semen jokes. I think it would have been better for the blog world if they had been fired, since it might have inspired people to cut down on vitriol. As it is, keeping them on legitimizes the employment of publicly vicious and profane anti-Catholic (and more generally anti-Christian) bigots on a serious presidential campaign.

- Lyynxx

February 9, 2007 at 4:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look, this has nothing to do with blogging qua blogging. (I always screw up the italics when I try.) This has to do with the language employed by the particular bloggers in question. There are doubtless numerous writers who could contribute thoughtful commentary to a campaign blog that would not be nearly the lightning rod that these two are. That the criticism comes from right-wing incendiary voices may raise an interesting pot/kettle question, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate the point itself. I know that I sound like a little old lady when I say this, but I agree with Lyynxx that it's high time we try to elevate the level of public discourse in our country, as opposed to trying to out-shout, out-slander and out-defame each other.

- drdannyu

February 9, 2007 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The bloggers are profane? The candidate don't want bloggers affecting their staffing choices? What about the insane lunatic bigot? What about what he's said about Jews and Hollywood and anal sex and god knows what else? What about his influence, since he started this whole thing? Why are these pious bromides about "elevating the dialog" applied exclusively to obscure liberal bloggers, when material at least as incendiary as theirs appears dozens of times a day from the right wing on talk radio, cable news, print outlets, and out of the mouths of legislators? What's with the blind spot? You want to start sifting through the campaign staffers of right-wing candidates and looking for offensive statements? I bet it wouldn't take long. Why is right-wing bigotry and hate speech tolerated while we hear endless lectures about how mean lefty bloggers are?

- john7788

February 9, 2007 at 4:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First, I submit that when someone is hired as the chief blogger for a serious presidential campaign, they're no longer obscure. Secondly, go ahead and knock yourself out digging up nasty things said by Republican staffers. That doesn't change the facts regarding the subject at hand, which are that Edwards has hired a couple of really nasty, vulgar young ladies who despise Catholics in particular and Christians in general.

- Lyynxx

February 9, 2007 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why is right-wing bigotry and hate speech tolerated while we hear endless lectures about how mean lefty bloggers are?" By whom are these people tolerated? By me? I would refer you to my comments regarding Ann Coulter a while back, and the more recent postings about that Savage what's-his-name, the one that the TNR posters seem to find so titillating. I find these people orders of magnitude more objectionable than the bloggers in question, both because they reach a wider audience and because their commentary is so utterly despicable. Does this mean that liberals get a free pass because we're not as bad? Can we not make our points without having to make comments like the ones mentioned above? And should we not expect a top-tier presidential candidate to abjure rhetoric of this nature?

- drdannyu

February 9, 2007 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since when did it become a liability to have verbal flamethrowers on a political campaign, blogger or not? Hell, you should have seen the people I met on a certain Democratic Senate campaign in the oppo research department. They were nasty people. You WANT them on your staff. Edwards would have been a wimp to fire anyone for offending right wing Catholics in their previous job as a firebrand. That having been said, Chait's right that you want to be able to summarily fire them if you want. Frankly, if he did fire these two women because they were not helping the campaign, then I doubt he has to take seriously the self-absorbed blogworld threat to withhold primary votes. That's a joke.

- stgla

February 9, 2007 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's a question of where you put your firebrands. Oppo research sounds ideal for the nasty folk. Sharing commentary in a blog, as a semi-public voice of the campaign? Eh, not so much.

- drdannyu

February 9, 2007 at 4:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree completely, isn't the point that we are trying to present ourselves as the good guys? I supported Edwards in 2004 but this latest incarnation is turning me off right quick. Leave the whack jobs to the Nader campaign (is he even running again?) or the Kuchinich campaign. Like you said, lets elevate, not denigrate, lets raise expectations and not hurl expectorations.

- blackton

February 9, 2007 at 5:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

After Edwards appeared ready to fire bloggers whose writing had become a point of controversy, other bloggers threatened to oppose Edwards in the primary. Then when he relented, they celebrated it as a crucial moment for the legitimacy of bloggers in mainstream politics.

First teachers, now bloggers. When will it end? It's not that the Edwards bloggers were any good, it's that they were bloggers and bloggers have to stand together or not at all. Stand up to the man!

What this episode demonstrated is that, if you're a candidate, hiring a blogger may or may not win you the loyalty of that blogger's friends. But firing that blogger will certainly bring their wrath down upon you. But campaigns, of course, fire staffers pretty often. So why would you hire somebody you can't fire?

That's the power of one man! Bloggers untie! Union! Union! Union! Attica! Attica! Attica! *This penis party's got to go hey! hey! ho! ho! This penis party's got to go hey! hey! ho! ho! Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya. Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya...*

(Seriously, John makes a good point here. Liberal bloggers beware: No matter how good firebombing might feel; even you may have to take one for the gipper once in a while if the gipper doesn't want that image associated with her/him. And if as a group you're unwilling to do so, you won't get hired regardless of the relative severity of any illicit comments you've made in the past and elsewhere when compared to other parts of the political spectrum.)

*with apologies to the writers of PCU.

- jet

February 9, 2007 at 9:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bloggers to the rescue, again. Can we look forward to photoshopped pix from the bloggers of Hillary as Aunt Jemima? Can't wait. Dead Ned, meet Deadwards. Ned was a dope. What's Edwards' excuse?

- teplukhin

February 10, 2007 at 12:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://tinyurl.com/2czlro

- teplukhin

February 11, 2007 at 5:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Doesn't take long to figure out the heavy-handed parody is from Wingnutville, though.

- drdannyu

February 11, 2007 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

you f-in' mean f-in' wingnutville. Get your blog manners straight, danny

- teplukhin

February 12, 2007 at 12:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Liza Doolittle parody's a hoot, though.

- teplukhin

February 12, 2007 at 12:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close