Read other letters about this article

• Monday, February 19, 2007 01:01 PM

  Trying to Understand

  orinocle, if I might, I'd like to try to parse some of your indignation:

  • "Edwards did not deserve this yoyo on his watch, her lack of depth has harmed his campaign." This seems to imply that Amanda somehow foisted herself on Edwards' campaign, uninvited. How is the problem here not the campaign's failure to do proper due diligence, and determine her "lack of depth" before hiring her?
  • "She was a blogmaster who's[sic] only talent it appears is the ability to make excuses and cut and run." Referring to my earlier posting, what would you have had her do, once the shit had hit the fan?
  • "This self centered focus at the expense of a greater good..." Am I incorrect here in assuming that a "greater good" would bee the continued viability of the Edwards campaign? In that case, I'd argue that what she did was entirely not self-centered. The fire was already on both her and the campaign – by resigning, she drew much of the fire solely onto herself. Forcing the campaign to make the decision to remove her would have been the self-centered response. (Although I suppose by "self-centered" you're referring to the fact that she chose to complain about what had happened after she'd removed herself. The proper thing to do would have been to just fade away and STFU, right?)

  I will agree with you on one thing, though ... if by "[u]nderdeveloped people in critical gatekeeper roles and how thier[sic] lack of depth and myopic life skills can lead to a[sic] major damages", you're referring to George W. Bush, you're absolutely correct.

  —Foobarski Read Foobarski's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel