What a Mess – McEwan Also Resigns from Edwards Campaign
by Pamela LeaveyMelissa McEwan of Shakespeare’s Sister, who was hired last week to be a netroots coordinator for the Edwards campaign has also resigned from the campaign today, in the wake of the controversy perpetuated by the conservative Catholic group led by Bill Donohue and many wingnut bloggers. What disturbs me as a woman blogger is the rabid attacks in the blogosphere from the wingnuts against these women and the fact both have cited some very ugly threats. Is winning in politics so important to these people that they malign anyone they disagree with and make vile threats just to bring them down? Because in some ways that is what this boils down to in my opinion.
As a woman, I’ll venture to say, I don’t think we’d see things like this or this, written about male bloggers who choose to rant publicly about the church. I’m loathe to even link to the two blogs I just did, but people need to be aware of the depth of hatred coming from the wingnuts and the utter lack of respect for these women and their families. Vile and ugly don’t even come close to describing the spew from these men. It’s no small wonder there are feminists in the world. Donnie posted below about a hateful post from another wingnut about the Dixie Chicks Grammy win.
I’ve seen enough ugly rants against women in the past few hours from these patriarchal pariahs to last me a lifetime. I’m disgusted. I’m dismayed. And over all, I think this entire mess is a sad statement on the state of the blogosphere and politics in general.
Is it utterly impossible to have a political debate between the aisles on the blogosphere with out resorting to vile and contemptible attacks?
It seems that it must be. Because even the political blog The Caucus on the NY Times notes in writing about McEwan’s resignation that they too have been hit with a lack of civility over this mess. Kate Phillips of The Caucus also says in her post that some may “feel doomed in defeat of what was seen as an arm around new — especially rare female — voices in the blogosphere by politicians.” It’s a point well taken. If women are threatened in the blogosphere, why on earth would other women want to step up and join in the debate?
The question really is where does this stop? There’s so many issues come into play at this point, they all blur in my opinion. Agree or disagree with the style or content of Marcotte and McEwan’s posts on their blogs, they have not deserved to endure this treatment from the ilk of men and even some women, on the other side of the aisle, claiming to be Christian, who have dished out all manner of ugliness, which is putting it mildly.
I said here the other day, when I first posted about the controversy and I will say here again, if you aspire “to blog for a political campaign, particularly a presidential campaign, which is the pinnacle of campaign blogging, it’s common sense to temper and tone your opinion in the blogosphere.” Perhaps neither Marcotte or McEwan ever did aspire to attain jobs with John Edwards. And now, an opportunity for both has been shot down the tubes. Why? Because some folks blinded by hatred think it perfectly acceptable to take down these women for expressing their first amendment rights in the blogosphere.
The irony is, that the same people who took down Marcotte and McEwan had no problem what so ever expressing their first amendment rights but some did so with hateful threats and foul sexist commentary. There’s something so terribly wrong with this picture… It makes me question why I am here.
I thought it was to be one of those rare female voices in the blogosphere, that Kate Phillips of The Caucus fear might feel doomed by this. Do I feel doomed? No. I feel a sense of sadness however at the level of base, negativity that pervades the blogosphere. Bloggers on both sides of the aisle could be doing so much more to make a difference in this country and instead the discourse degenerates into this petty, small minded ugliness about who said what, where. So again, I will say… The question really is where does this stop?
UPDATE: Media Matters has two posts related to the firestorm over the Edwards bloggs that highlight the hyprocrisy…
Filed under: Democrats, Election '08, Politics, Republicans | Get Permalink or trackback |
Standing up and clapping!!! Bravo Pamela, well said. Where indeed does it end? Melissa and Amanda have been treated in a way that amounts to a witch hunt!!!! As a man, I am disgusted with some of the things that have been said as of late. But it’s not just by men, other women have joined the blood frenzy. Their conservative compassion has once again been shown for what it really is, a farce! And some of the comments over at SS and Pandagon are so far out there that it makes one sick!
Donnie
There’s quite a littany of ugliness in the comments on Shakes. I hope both Amanda and Melissa take a few days and walk away from their computers. No one deserves this crap.
[...] p contenders from the herd, and turn Democrats against Democrats.” *Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily writes in outrage, “sadness” and disgust: I’ve seen enough ugly ran [...]
I agree, both Donnie and Pamela. As a guy, the invective heaped upon these women is disgusting but oh so typical amongst conservatives who still dream of keeping “them women” locked up on chastity belts, barefoot and pregnant.
And as Donnie points out, there have been very ugly comments made by other women (conservative women) as well.
This type of scorched earth policy is oh-so typical for conservatives. And as I said in another post, it never stops.
BTW, Pamela, I noticed the Google ad bars in between posts often come from a group called “democratssuck.com” Is this another tactic of theirs? Buy ads on lefty blogs to denigrate the lefties?
So, you are loathe to link a blog that quotes Amanda, that points out what she wrote about herself, because that is vile and lacks respect for her family?
Quoting Amanda directly, bringing up what she said about herself, shows the depth of hatred for her?
Did you read Amanda’s comments about herself? You do realize she called herself what the title of Vox Day’s blog post which you linked, right?
I also was taken aback when I read the post originally, but after reading Amanda’s comments about herself, I must say that Vox quoting Amanda is not half as offensive as Amanda calling herself that. Do you agree?
Amanda hung herself with her own words. There is no getting around that fact. She has written too many things that are too offensive, to too many people. Why would any presidential campaign hire anyone like that, regardless of ideology? Why are you lamenting her leaving? She is an imbecile who cannot express herself without resorting to a stream of profanity and bitter ranting. That is pretty much all she does. Were it not for the blogosphere, she would never be allowed a platform beyond her own diary.
[...] net, The American Street, Alternate Brain, Wizbang, All Spin Zone, Vox Popoli, Majikthise, The Democratic Daily, The Jawa Report, Pinko Feminist Hellcat, ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES, L [...]
Just so you know, Pamela, in regards to this link you furnished: the author was quoting Ms. Marcotte from her own blog where she referred to HERSELF as a “c**-guzzling boozehound“.
Todd
Personally I hit the Democrats Suck ad everytime I see it hit. I hope all our readers do – let the idiots pay and pay and pay is my opinion!
Bisch, MikeT, Claytonius
Having written for the Kerry campaign blog in ‘04, I know full well any blogger writing for a presidential campaign or any campaign should be representative of that candidate. So in answer to your question, I haven’t the foggiest idea why the Edwards campaign hired her.
On the other hand, I don’t write in that sytle, and I’ve been victim to some occassional namecalling and attacks from right bloggers simply because I support John Kerry. I’ve also seen some pretty darn vile, childish, hateful and untrue things written about Kerry and his wife on right wing blogs.
I personally think now, as I have for a very long time that the political blogosphere could be put to better use by both sides if the name-calling and attacks stopped.
I doubt Amanda ever dreamed she’d be offer a job with Edwards’ campaign, perhaps if she did she might have thought differently about expressing herself the way she has on her blog.
I looked through the link to her blog post from Vox and could not find what Vox is quoting. Sometimes people self denegrate to make a point. It’s not a good habit.
Hi Pamela,
Not to belabor the point, but the quote in question was made by Ms. Marcotte in the Responses Section after the blog post she made “Dear Racist F**ks Who Complained About Looting”. She made her comment in the Response Section under that blog on September 4, 2005 at 2:26 A.M. That’s where you’ll find it.
The girl pretty much hung herself with her own rope. I’m surprised Edwards wasn’t more upset by another of her remarks, made in regards to the Duke case. I’ll paraphrase, but I’m pretty sure I’ll be almost spot on: “In that part of the country, blacks and women are treated as subhumans by white men”. You can find this quote with minimal effort, I’m sure. I wonder what Edward’s white male constituents in “that part of the country” would have thought about that comment?
As far as McEwan is concerned, I’m afraid she got nailed mainly due the “guilt by association” factor. I really couldn’t find anything in her writings comparable to the virulent & caustic musings of Marcotte. Some uncouth language, yes; but to me it was the difference from being venomous & non-venomous.
As to your contention “I personally think now, as I have for a very long time that the political blogosphere could be put to better use by both sides if the name-calling and attacks stopped.”, I agree wholeheartedly.
BTW, thanks for “cleaning up” my last post; I wasn’t really sure how to do that, myself.
Thanks for your time & consideration.
Claytonius
My pleasure, “cleaning up” your post.
Honestly the whole thing is a big mess. As a woman blogger I would be saddened to think this might affect the future of other women bloggers working for campaigns.
It’s a lesson to all bloggers as I said here a couple of times to temper their writings if they aspire to write for a campaign. As I already have done that, I get how important that is. And mind you when I started blogging I had no clue I would end up blogging on the Kerry campaign blog. However, on the otherside of that, I’m a business owner and a mom, so I temper my writing anyway. Mind you I have spouted occassionally in defense of Kerry.
Regardless of what Amanda has written in the past, having seen some of the threats and verbal attacks she’s received in the wake of this, I am disgusted. It doesn’t solve anything to lash out at someone who has lashed out – Way of the Warrior type stuff if you are familiar with that.
I’m all for bridging the divide where ever possible. I don’t think that people have to agree on issues to have civil discussions about them.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts here.
Pamela-
Following the above link to the pandagon site, read Amynda’s post at 2:26 am. You’ll see what Vox has referenced to. He doesn’t denegrate to make his point, Amynda took care of it all by herself!
I would like to reinforce that the issue is not that Marcotte and McEwan’s comments weren’t over the line and tasteless,
it was the degree of that and the intensity of hatred and nastiness in criticising them. As Todd pointed out, the invective is very typical of conservatives who want to drag down liberal women.
It struck me in sort of thunder and lightening way when they started (and went on and on and on and on and on, and still do) on Hillary. She was pretty similar to Dan Quayle’s wife except for the number of kids. Furthermore, Mrs Q was held up as rather bold and determined because she had had labor induced with one baby so she wouldn’t miss taking her bar exam.
As a nurse, I was surprised to find out she actually talked a Dr into this. I also considered it pretty self centered and unconcerned about the potential risk to the child. Granted it wasn’t a significant amount of time in terms of pregnancy, but my experience with NICU nurses is that “you learn to try to keep them in there as long as possible”.
I would not have expected her to be chastised over it after the fact, but to be cited for it as a daring and good thing while Hillary got ridiculed and criticized in vile and over the top hatred for things that carried no more – or less- harm was a glaring hypocrasy to me.
Unfortunately, it is also one of the reasons that many of us doubt the fight to get her elected would be worth it. Too much word of mouth hatred spewing all over while the campaign and grassroots workers try to counter it with the listeners who just don’t want to get into it.
Ultimately, I think that is the goal of a lot of their hatred. Turn the undecided off the issue so they don’t fight it. They’ve done it with abortion and other issues.
I always like to comment after someone makes that kind of hateful statement around me,
“With malice towards none and charity to all”.
You can make a constructive “I” statement without attacking someone you disagree with. ‘I prefer not to use that kind of language or insinuation. I am not sure what the intent of Mr Smith’s words were, and for Miss Doe to draw those conclusions involves making assumptions she did not support.”
People who chose not to think through their arguments and statements do not like that kind of language. It is too elite, too intellectual (I’ve been called a ‘pseudo intellectual!) and other derogatory euphemisms that people who are caught with their lack of simple human decency hanging out resort to.
What ever happened to becoming “A Kinder, Gentler America”??
J-Dawg
Thanks – yes I have been pointed there already.
I’ll add to my response to Claytonius et al and say this…
I’m 50. I’ve raised a daughter by myself for the past 17 years, and I very much consider myself to be a feminist. I’ve been on the receiving end of abuse from men, I’ve been discriminated against as a woman, I’ve heard the whispers about being a single mom so I get where Amanda is coming from on some levels, but I personally would have chosen to rant about women and the church in a much different manner.
I’ve studied women’s issues and women’s history for years and been through much of the crap that women stand up and fight against. I fight it in my own way and as I said in the post whether you agree with what Amanda wrote or not, no woman deserves to be attacked and threatened because of it. For that matter, no one – woman or man – deserves that.
I contended above that the men attacking her would have said some of things that were said to her if she was a man speaking out in the terms she used about the same issues. And mind you, there are plenty of men on the planet who do stand up for women’s rights.
I just simply can’t see some guy telling another guy of the same mess that he probably never had a good f’ing. It’s like the ultra cheesey term Dan Riehl used to describe the Dixie Chicks. That insults my better nature as person, let alone as a woman.
I read many claims that right wing bloggers don’t use uncouth language in the midst of this mess. I’ll venture to say plenty do.
I think that the nature of the blogosphere is that people feel they can express themselves in whatever manner they choose. We live and learn what manner of self expression works best for us, we go blithely along saying it the way we see it. When we create a record of our words on the internet, we need to remember that like anything in print, our words will be subject to misinterpretation, scrutiny and if we are lucky, praise.
I really do hope that we can all learn to use the blogosphere for a higher purpose in terms of effecting the future of our country, whether we have the same political views or not.
Bisch writes: “I also was taken aback when I read the post originally, but after reading Amanda’s comments about herself, I must say that Vox quoting Amanda is not half as offensive as Amanda calling herself that. Do you agree?”
No, I don’t. The Vox quote was appropriated to denigrate Ms. Marcotte. Her self-reference was what we call “irony” in other civilized parts of the world.
But don’t let a few facts get in the way, by all means.
If I may impose upon you once more, Pamela, would you please help clear something up for me?
What, exactly, is the accepted definition of a “wingnut blooger”? I assume one would have to be on the Right to qualify, but this confuses me. It seems you could be a Rigt-wing nut, OR a Left-wing nut. How did this phrase morph into only applying to those on the Right? Are all bloogers of the Right wingnuts, or does this apply only to what might be considered “extremist” Right-wing bloggers?
What’s the equivalent nomenclature for Left and / or “extremist” Left-wing bloggers?
Believe it or not, this really is a serious question(s). It’s like wondering, “how in the world did this word ever come to represent that?” I give up.
“Bloogers” Hah. That ought to be used to refer to SOMEBODY.
Claytonius
I had not even noticed that I mis-spelled blogger, however around here, bloggers have been known as “bloogers.” Here’s a couple of references:
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3221
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3167
Good question on the wingnut term. I think it goes right up there with the moonbat term actually.
Todd…irony? Serious? Dictionary.com tells me irony is:
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
So someone who says they will f*** without being punished with children, and also calls themselves a c** guzzling boozehound is being ironic? So she’s trying to say she’s a virgin teetotaler? Does she want to f*** and have children, or does she not want to f***k?
I’m a college graduate (UC Berkeley 1992) and completely didn’t take that as irony.
You should leave the condescension at the door. It doesn’t become you.
Try again.
Bisch
Have you ever really listened to the way some men talk to women? Are you at all aware that there are still a lot of men who believe that women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen?
I stated above what I thought of Dan Reihl’s little name change for the Dixie Chicks. Well, sometimes when women get good and fed up with men talking trash like that to them, they turn that stuff around on them. It sounds pretty damn disgusting coming from Amanda doesn’t it? Well just try for a minute to imagine being a woman and having some man call you the same thing because he’s a low life that has no respect for women.
Pam, it is disgusting when men do that. You’re absolutely right. I agree that there’s no place for men to talk like that to women in civilized society.
In reality, though, I yearn for the good ol’ days, when men respected women because they knew women had “the hammer.” There was decorum in society. Women didn’t tolerate that kind of behavior from men.
I don’t treat women, my wife or others, like that, and am offended when other men do. But to retaliate with disgusting talk is far from effective.
And besides, I don’t think Amanda was talking like that in retaliation. If you read through the comments, I think you’ll agree.
Bisch
Decorum has pretty much been thrown out the window in recent years. The internet is like the wild, wild west I think. Shoot first ask questions later. We’re all learning how to make it work in politics.
Bisch writes: “You should leave the condescension at the door. It doesn’t become you. Try again.”
Based on everything Marcotte has written on her blog, and the way that she approaches the issues of gender inequality, sexism etc., I see absolutely no way you could read that post and think she was being *serious* in regard to that reference. As Pamela notes above, turning the kind of sexist, vulgar language men routinely use to describe women, back on them in a self-ironic parody, is pretty damn effective, imo.
But people can disagree, and not being a regular reader of her blog, perhaps I’m wrong. Sorry for the condescension.
Ooooh, Todd, I think I caught you on one.
You say here that you aren’t a regular reader of her blog, but on your blog, you say she’s a class act. Which is it. How do you know if she’s a class act if you don’t read her blog regularly enough to firmly stand behind your assessment?
You know what I think? I say you agree with me and didn’t want to admit it, so you say you didn’t read her blog regularly so you could hide.
Son of a gun.
Bisch writes: “You say here that you aren’t a regular reader of her blog, but on your blog, you say she’s a class act. Which is it. How do you know if she’s a class act if you don’t read her blog regularly enough to firmly stand behind your assessment?”
Because I think the way she handled the entire “controversy” is classy. She certainly could have played into the stereotype the right had of her and let them have it with a series of “vulgar invective”.
“You know what I think? I say you agree with me and didn’t want to admit it, so you say you didn’t read her blog regularly so you could hide.”
Hide behind what? I don’t read it regularly, but I’ve read enough to know and stand by what I wrote. You, otoh, certainly don’t seem to know irony if it slapped you upside the head.