piece of shit. How does she feel now that Nifong has been disbarred and the Duke athletes declared innocent? Hope she gets ovarian cancer.

As a life long liberal, I have wanted to believe in Progress. I think that is why Amanda accepted a position with the Edwards campaign. Why shouldn't a strong feminist accept such a position? Now we know.

When you listen to all the boosterism of the Conservatives. Talking about spreading Democracy, a culture of life, values and so forth and then you see how they really operate, it tends to breed cynicism.

I will support Edwards if he is the Democratic candidate. I hope his visual optimism is the real deal. Those on his staff that brought Amanda Marcotte into the campaign had to be idealists hoping for an ideal world. In reality, however, there are TWO America's. The bad side is nasty, brutish and willing to say or do anything to dominate. I hope they can be defeated without sinking into the mud with them to engage in the battle. But the challenge has to be addressed.

bitch, unintelligent, a man hater, a liar, and a whole lot more. The far right and her have much in common.

Although a progressive activist who blogs regularly and has enjoyed some of Shakespeare's Sister's and Atrios's posts, I'm not an avid follower of the stylish blogs, referring more regularly to the more fact-based, say Confined Spaces (http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/) and Secrecy News (http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/) . And after reading a few entries at Pandagon, I'll admit to preferring the less coarse, but equally hard-hitting non-blog writing of the late Molly Ivins.

So, this whole debacle could have blown over without my noticing like a tornado in the next county on a day when I was outside gardening under blue skies.

Then, today, I read a colleague who's involved himself in political blogmastering, albeit he's a generation older than the 30-somethings and more scruffy than the khaki-wearers that Marcotte writes of as being who folks imagine as the bloggers who join campaigns. (http://www.orient-lodge.com/trackback/2160)

Marcotte writes she was aware the she "didn't exactly fit the image." My question: how is that image to change if folks like Marcotte quit, allowing themselves to be driven out of a job by the "noise machine."

My advice: toughen up, gal! Your narrative leaves me wondering what candidate would want to stand behind someone only to have her quit?

Femember, the New York Times's Abe Rosenthal had to fire Molly Ivins. And she bragged about not having shown "due respect and deference to the great dignity" of that paper.

(http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003157012)

Her offense? She had called a chicken slaughtering festival in New Mexico a “gang pluck.”

(http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003541583)

It looks like the phrase "You should take responsibility for what you write" means nothing more than "You are to blame for the way I feel when I read your words." While admitting that I can't expect a person to feel anything but insulted when they read something that is insulting to themselves in some way, I must point out that we choose how we react to what we read.

The person who has written the words has already taken responsibility for them; she's posted them on the Internet and she's signed her name to them. There you go. You know she wrote them. What else did you want her to do, hold your hand and walk you through reading them? What else, precisely, is she supposed to do?

How about YOU take responsibility for how YOU REACT? Because I promise you, folks, you are not doing that any more than you think Amanda Marcotte is taking responsibility for her words. Not even close.

You think you've got the moral high ground? You're sitting here calling her names and casting aspersions on her character. What high ground? You're in the hole and she's throwing dirt over you.

I will agree with the sentiment of, "What did she expect people to say when she made those remarks about Mary?", even as I see the satire in her statement... but that still DOES NOT take the onus off of her readers to take responsibility for their behavior. And that includes the trolls.

If you've got issues with her, go start your own damn blog and say mean things about her in it. At least then you'd be able to say you were exercising free speech. Right now you're engaging in harassment. Get over yourselves.

I'm disappointed Amanda couldn't fight against the ideologues more effectively but there wasn't anything she could do by staying in the campaign of a man with no spine. We need Democrats who will stand up against right-wing bullies. We need Democrats who stand for something. I'm sick of this centrist b.s., and Edwards is just one more installment of it. And I'm saying this as someone who's voted for him twice. Enough already.

People with common sense who are aware that Amanda is a nutcase: 99

People sympathetic to Amanda's whining who are as delusional as she is: 1

It is nearly unanimous. Also, yes Amanda looks like a man. That is certain. If not, she is still a virgin and no, power tools don't count.

You were fired, Lady. You did not quit. You weren't fired soon enough. John Edwards thought that all of the hoopla would just fade into the horizon, but thank God, yes, I said "GOD," the people had their say and you were dumped into oblivion. Get yourself another profession. Your scribblings are not appreciated.

over to the state of Florida (or whomever is responsible) for giving this nutbag tax-exempt status:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/16/miami.preacher/index.html

Seriously though, can you see why some people aren't comfortable with giving a free pass to every aspect of Christianity?

As a graduate of Smith College, a regular blog reader (of blogs right, left, and center), and a practicing Catholic, I must say that I am very surprised that someone of John Edwards' apparent intelligence took this YOUNG (as she keeps reminding us) woman at all seriously.

I have not read the word "misogyny" so many times since my Women's Studies class, and certainly never have seen it applied so wrongly. Ms. Marcotte keeps referring to herself as a feminist (YOUNG! FEMALE!) as if that alone conveys intrinsic virtue. She assumes the mantle of martyrdom because (sob...sniffle...)people don't like her or her politics or her crude, talentless writings. She expresses dismay that anyone attack such a delicate hothouse flower as herself. This posturing is just embarrassing to legions of smart, talented, dedicated women who have tried to make this world better for men and women, in ways large and small, both publicly and privately.

Get over yourself, sister. Susan B. Anthony you are not. Amanda Marcotte represents herself, not the hordes of trembling young things she claims are now too afraid to present themselves to the political hiring authorities. Her retrograde, viciously ignorant anti-Catholic tirades speak for themselves. She attacked Catholics indulgently and gleefully, and is too spineless to admit the consequences. BTW, her "factual statements" about the Pope and anything else Catholic, i.e., the marriage preparation classes are, in fact, not factual, and are most definitely not funny. Her understanding of the history and theology of the Church are non-existent, yet her uninformed opinions are simply breathtaking in number. The Church doesn't exist to please Amanda Marcotte, nor to fit into any politically correct box.

Uneducated, uninformed, hate-filled people with a definite axe to grind and a permanent victimhood status have no place in a professional political campaign.