Looks like you got in over your head and now want to play the role of victim. You knew the game you were getting into and it's clear you were unprepared. This is politics. It's about discrediting your opponents - the same thing you try to do when bashing the pro-life groups. You were careless and not as good. Face the facts and stop trying to play the martyr- it won't work!

Paul

-Name,

I read pandagon. There are often visible comments in Amanda's threads that disagree with her (and that are rude to her). It is true that she blocks comments, but not to the extent that people are saying here and in other places. I maintain that there was a complete lack of anyone even mentioning her hot sticky comment prior to the Edwards brouhaha. Her targeted audience was her feminist readers, and they had a nice discussion over her interesting take on what is IMHO a shameful problem that prevents me and other people from staying true to Catholicism. Of course, I doubt you actually read the thread, so whatever.

Marcotte criticizes Catholics = apple pie

Catholics criticize Marcotte = pure evil

I don't get it.

Also, special joy over a target who is "young and female?"

You're not that young.

I'm definitely ready to join "Catholics Against Bill Donohue". Over the past couple of years, I have emailed Donohue and others at the Catholic League to take exception with his anti-semitic, homophobic, sexist comments, and politely requesting that he make it clear on each of his TV appearances that he does NOT speak for all Catholics. I've never received the courtesy of a response.

The only problem I have with Amanda is her claim that she had "no intention of insulting anyone's private beliefs". Of course she did, and rightfully so. After 17 years of Catholic schools (kindergarten through college), I can attest that the church continues to be patriarchal, misogynistic, and homophobic. If you have no problem with that, I've got a problem with your "personal beliefs", and I'm gonna say so. Amanda may not have said it pretty, but I agree with her points.

Oh wait, I forgot hypocritical. Isn't it ironic that folks choose to protest Amanda's crude comments with equally crude comments, and even one-up her by threatening rape and death? Don't you think that kind of weakens your position?

There are often visible comments in Amanda's threads that disagree with her (and that are rude to her). It is true that she blocks comments, but not to the extent that people are saying here and in other places.

So there are all of these people stating she bans commenters and deletes comments, not just here but in other places too, but Matthew, who merely reads the threads and does not administer the blog itself, knows these claims are exaggerated.

Okay. That's reality based thinking....

Here's the real moral of Amanda's story:

Don't continue updating a personal blog with your name attached if you intend on doing anything on a presidential payroll. Any unseemly writing from her pre-Edwards days could ultimately be waved off with the 'it was my hobby' defense, and rightly so. But to continue to provide such an obvious target to Edwards' enemies is worth resigning over.

I'm an atheist who has never voted for a Republican, but Amanda's Children of Men review was dumb. The quote.. well, here it is:

"The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal"

I mean, come on. Is there another version of the virgin birth that I'm not aware of? Can you really say that it's generally interpreted in any way other than the Christian way? It's one thing to be casually blasphemous. It's another to be casually blasphemous while on a presidential payroll -- and then you went ahead and were casually blasphemous and a little empty-headed while on a presidential payroll.

Oh well!

as well his campaign management...for not vetting this sweet opinionated girl...

for hiring Anyone with a public voice and not checking every public document or statement she ever made...

Gross incompetence...Just like Bush...

Now what...No Biden (same problem), No Hillary (paranoid and although my mind continues to tell me it is Bill Clinton Running, in the voting booth I just don't trust her - even less than Bush...hmmph.amazing), Obama, just don't know (I can picture pretty speeches...but substance...not a drop yet...and too religiously focused for me personnally...who does he know and how will he structure an administration of 100-1000 appointees.)

Who, who, who will I vote for...a strong field of candidates Democrats say...hardly. But the presidency is a popularity contest as is politics...it's like love, warm and messy - ultimately fragile and subject to sudden death...hence the Republicans success in voting booth quickies/conversions.

Edwards may be great in court when he is in total control...his in-ability to 'manage' an administration is without doubt.

PS What a silly story by a prevaracater this was...did Salon tell her she was embarrassing herself further. Would a friend have let a friend print this bullshit?

Whether secular, urban liberals, sheltered as they are, realize it or not, there are a hell of a lot of moderate and liberal people of faith (Christians and others) who vote Democrat every fall, and we hardly appreciate it when you paint us with the same brush that you use on hacks like Donohue.

If you want to keep up the pretense that at some point in your life you would ever consider voting for a Democrat other than -- maybe -- Zell Miller, you need to brush up on the language employed by moderates and liberals. Moderates and liberals vote Democrat ic; "Democrat" as anything other than a singular noun is a conservative affectation.

Now, as it happens, I am a liberal "person of faith" and a semi-regular Pandagon commenter. I didn't find Amanda's "Plan B" comment particularly funny -- or, come to think, at all funny -- at the time, and still don't. But I found it then, and still find it, to be pretty harmless. I attend Quaker meeting not because of the miracle of virgin birth, or the resurrection of Christ, or for the hope of the resurrection of the dead, but because I believe Quaker teachings help me to live rightly. Attaching a gross-out "eww!" factor to the story of Christ's birth does absolutely no damage to Christ's teachings; it's about as much of a threat to my religion as someone saying "when Christ was a child, He picked His nose."

If Amanda had said "we spend too much time and money trying to help the poor," that would offend my religious beliefs. If she had said "if there's a chance that Saddam Hussein has access to chemical weapons, we should invade, even if he has no current plans to use them," that would offend my religious beliefs. It's because she never said such things, and never would, that I find her atheism to be closer to real Christianity than what is practiced by a depressingly large number of people who identify as Christians.