To this point, I have avoided discussing the brouhaha over bloggers hired by the Edwards campaign, partially due to lack of time to do so, but mostly because the rest of the ‘Sphere has been all over the story. Note, for example, the number of bloggers (via Memeorandum) discussing Amanda Marcotte’s resignation after Edwards had decided to retain her and Melissa McEwan on staff.
To me the most interesting and significant aspect of this story has not been the “bloggers in politics” aspect of the story. After all, Kos consulted for Dean, John Henke worked for the Allen for Senate campaign and now works in Mitch McConnell’s office, Peter Daou now works for Hillary Clinton, etc. So the fact that Edwards folks thought they should hire bloggers is hardly revolutionary.
Further, the notion that some bloggers write impertinent, indeed offensive, things is hardly news as well. I have been active in blogging for almost four years (indeed, PoliBlog turns four in 2 days), so I have seen my fair share of raw opinion. As such, Marcotte’s prose is not a shock, although I have never understood the need or desire of so many writers to be so inflammatory. I don’t see the point aside from a desire to rant in public and to find validation from like-minded readers.
I will say this, I am with Andrew Sullivan who wrote:
To be honest, I find the whole idea of bloggers as an integral part of political campaigns a little creepy.
Now, that is not to say that I find it absolutely unacceptable. But I think that it is rather difficult to really be a blogger once you get hired to push a particular perspective. Let’s face facts, a blog run by a campaign is a very different thing than an independent blog. If a campaign hired a columnist to write commentary for them, they would not longer be considered a “real” columnist. Heck, we consider pollsters who work for parties and candidates to be suspect, and their tools are less prone to direct manipulation the way an essayists are.
No, the real story here is the Edwards campaign itself. I think this whole situation was handled quite poorly from the beginning. The whole “let’s hire a blogger” notion looks to me to be more like trying to latch onto a trend that they didn’t understand than it did a smart move to try and exploit new media. It was as if they thought “well, Dean did that internet thing, let’s give it a try” or “all the cool kids are doing it” rather than going into the process with a clue. If they had had a clue, they would have more thoroughly read Marcotte’s blog. If they knew what they were doing they would have know what was coming. Clearly, they did not–the way they handled it proves that point.
Indeed, the whole “are they fired or not” initial reaction followed by Edwards’ “I’m offended” but nobody is fired bit made the campaign look confused and weak. The whole thing had a cake-and-eat-it-too quality.
To me this is just another example, along with Edwards’ house that continues to reinforce to me the idea that Edwards is not ready for prime time, and isn’t going to be. The man has the feel of candidate who doesn’t really know why he wants to be president, just that he wants to be president–at a minimum there is a certain fakeness about Edwards that I can’t quite put my finger on. I have a hard time seeing him besting either Obama (who has experience problems, but has intangibles that Edwards lacks) or Clinton. For that matter, I can see someone like Bill Richardson looking good versus Edwards in debates and on the campaign trail.
I don’t expect Edwards to make a huge gaffe, but rather think that his campaign will eventually die a death of a thousand cuts.
Sphere: Related Content
February 13th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Obama (who has experience problems, but has intangibles that Edwards lacks)
Could you elaborate on those “intangibles” please?
February 13th, 2007 at 10:32 am
I still don’t see Obama winning, but there is little denying that he has an ability to connect with crowds. His oratory skills are really quite impressive.
One thing that really isn’t an intangible: he can point to the fact that he was publicly against the Iraq war from the get-go, while Hillary and Edwards can’t say that. That sole fact puts him in the mix with the many of the Democratic primary voters.
I suspect I will have plenty to say about Obama going forward.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
You are right about the Iraq thing, undoubtedly. That’s actually one of the things I like about him, as I was also against the Iraq war from the beginning.
As always, I’ll be interested to hear what you have to say about all the candidates going forward.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
[...] Looks like Dr. Taylor beat me to the punch. Glad I’m not the only one with this opinion. [...]