John Edward's staff of Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen
I was surprised to hear it...a while after it has happened? I was very surprised, and reinforced by this fallout:
http://pandagon.net/2007/02/08/john-edwards-statement-on-amanda-and-melissa/
I believe that it was a grave mistake.
I enjoy reading the Pandagon, but the problem with using Amanada Marcotte as a blog voice for John Edwards is, Amanda is more of a critic, than a promotionist. What's more, she is a good sharp critic, which is necessary, but what she's been doing that needs to be done, conflicts with what is expected of her now, political diplomacy. This is the worse thing that could have happened to both the Edwards campaign and Amanda Marcotte, who now have to chose between holding her tongue and turning back on Pandagon, or maintaining professionalism. Someone like Amanda would have done her service to the Edwards campaign...and vision, best by working for them, unofficially.
...email:
Dear Amanda
I really don't know what to say, because this is one of those things I couldn't imagine to have been started in the first place.
When I heard that you are officially working for John Edwards, I was very, very, surprised. Impressed yes, but especially now, I felt that it was a mistake. I believe some people support their causes best, on an unofficial capacity. You are more of a critic, than a promotionist. Having official connections with the Edwards campaign...which was based on pure light and hope and all that jazz, will require you to practice political diplomacy, which conflicts with what you are good at and is well known for, criticism. I believe you would have done Edwards and yourself best, by remaining an individual blogger, views beholden to no one, going on to criticize his opponents thoroughly, exposing the flaws of Bush and co, without your critique being attributed to him, and therefore distracted towards a criticism of what Edwards thinks of Bush and co instead of what's wrong with Bush and co.
/Now/ what though? If he fires you, he'll look petty, he would be caving to the right. If he keeps you on the staff, the right can accuse him of negativity. If you quit, it'll look like it was from pressure and make him look petty anyways.
...and the rabid-cons must be debunked, but I don't know if you are in a position to do so anymore, not without delicacy. When you defended Angry Beaver during the Plan B thing, or defending anyone else, you could be as undiplomatic as you want, and it wouldn't look bad, because it was selfless. Defending yourself is different from defending someone else, it /looks/ different. We all should defend ourselves, but we need to be more diplomatic about it...and this is an ugly thing, but a fierce defence is best done on our behalf, by someone else, for added credibility. Diplomatically, we should state our case, but all that hint of underhandedness must be brought out by someone else who can't be debunked by the opposition's shot of "Of course /you/ would say it, you are defending /you."
- Mercurial Georgia
http://pandagon.net/2007/02/08/john-edwards-statement-on-amanda-and-melissa/
I believe that it was a grave mistake.
I enjoy reading the Pandagon, but the problem with using Amanada Marcotte as a blog voice for John Edwards is, Amanda is more of a critic, than a promotionist. What's more, she is a good sharp critic, which is necessary, but what she's been doing that needs to be done, conflicts with what is expected of her now, political diplomacy. This is the worse thing that could have happened to both the Edwards campaign and Amanda Marcotte, who now have to chose between holding her tongue and turning back on Pandagon, or maintaining professionalism. Someone like Amanda would have done her service to the Edwards campaign...and vision, best by working for them, unofficially.
...email:
Dear Amanda
I really don't know what to say, because this is one of those things I couldn't imagine to have been started in the first place.
When I heard that you are officially working for John Edwards, I was very, very, surprised. Impressed yes, but especially now, I felt that it was a mistake. I believe some people support their causes best, on an unofficial capacity. You are more of a critic, than a promotionist. Having official connections with the Edwards campaign...which was based on pure light and hope and all that jazz, will require you to practice political diplomacy, which conflicts with what you are good at and is well known for, criticism. I believe you would have done Edwards and yourself best, by remaining an individual blogger, views beholden to no one, going on to criticize his opponents thoroughly, exposing the flaws of Bush and co, without your critique being attributed to him, and therefore distracted towards a criticism of what Edwards thinks of Bush and co instead of what's wrong with Bush and co.
/Now/ what though? If he fires you, he'll look petty, he would be caving to the right. If he keeps you on the staff, the right can accuse him of negativity. If you quit, it'll look like it was from pressure and make him look petty anyways.
...and the rabid-cons must be debunked, but I don't know if you are in a position to do so anymore, not without delicacy. When you defended Angry Beaver during the Plan B thing, or defending anyone else, you could be as undiplomatic as you want, and it wouldn't look bad, because it was selfless. Defending yourself is different from defending someone else, it /looks/ different. We all should defend ourselves, but we need to be more diplomatic about it...and this is an ugly thing, but a fierce defence is best done on our behalf, by someone else, for added credibility. Diplomatically, we should state our case, but all that hint of underhandedness must be brought out by someone else who can't be debunked by the opposition's shot of "Of course /you/ would say it, you are defending /you."
- Mercurial Georgia