Of Mouseturds, Pandegonium, A-Man-Duh-Hating Martyrcottes and the Edwards Campaign
A number of bloggers, including some right-wingers like Patterico and some alleged right-wingers like Prof. Bainbridge, are concerned that the Edwards campaign’s apparent firing of Amanda Marcotte - one of only two bomb-throwing moonbats it never should have hired in the first place - may have repercussions for the blogosphere as a whole. I think this concern is valid, but in this case, misplaced. It’s never (well, almost never) a good thing when a blogger loses a job unrelated to blogging on account of something he said on his blog, but in Marcotte’s case, the offending blog was the raison d’être* of her job. If it turns out that Marcotte quit a lucrative job in order to join the campaign, and now can’t get her old job back, then the Edwards campaign should pay her unemployment check for a while. Otherwise, while Edwards’s ill-conceived decision to hire her and his healthily-conceived decision to “resign” her two weeks later may speak volumes about the incompetency of the campaign, and may even tell us something unflattering about Edwards himself, when it comes to their impacts on Marcotte and the blogosphere, they largely cancel each other out. Most of us will never get a new job because of our blogging. In the end, neither did Marcotte. And now I’m supposed to feel sorry for her … why, exactly?
Quote of the day (from Patterico commenter Biwah): I wonder how she will manage, with all that mouth to feed.
*My apologies for the gratuitous French, which is there for the benefit of Ann “The 2008 Election is Only 21 Months Away, So Anyone Who Isn’t Squarely in Giuliani’s Camp By Now Is A Girlyman, and Probably French, Too**“ Althouse. Apparently, only wimps object to grabbing guns, promoting abortion, stifling dissent, publicly humiliating innocent businessmen with nifongesque charges, placing the emergency response center right smack dab in the city’s No. 1 terrorist target, or any of the issues raised in Chapman’s article.
**No, that isn’t a fair summary of her post. It is, however, an order of magnitude fairer to her than her post was to Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman, whose point she accidentally-on-purpose missed completely by focusing on a single, arguably gratuitous adverb that was only tangentially related to one of his many points, and completely unrelated to the rest of the article.
