why is it that every time a liberal gets whacked the same way the liberal(s) whack(s) others.....its always part of a vast right wing conspiracy? you got whacked....move on....and stop crying....theres nothing more telling in the context of the real dynamic at play here...than a crying whining feminist....its just so not masculine....and it's just so much of what you hate about women.

Just put on a Smokey Robinson greatest hits album on.....and relax....and if you find it cause for further feminine angst.....then I really can't help you any more than that....after all...it was a man that invented the internet..the very forum for your fodder.....that man...the environmentalist's new Edgar Cayce....the one and only Al Gore...and now you see just how much it hurts to be lied to.

signed,

why can't you liberals all just get along?

my take is that Amanda took her eye off of her own goal (aiding the Edwards campaign) and while thus distracted allowed herself to become preoccupied with hurtful trivia with which she then became obsessed. It's a shame really. Shame on the bullies and shame on amanda for letting hersef become so distracted.

My suggested remedy? Shake it out of her hair and go back to the Edwards campaign if she still feels like working with them. And next time employ a stronger filter - don't fall victim to every sling and arrow - there will be too many of them. Does it mean becoming a hardened (meaning out-of-touch) "insider"? no. but it means employing some of their survival skills to your (her) advantage.

Amanda... Keep your eye on your goal. Stop listening to the crowd watching the game.

yes take the high road. you were smeared and targeted by the vast right wing out there. you are well versed in irony and the common shmuck out there is just too dense to understand how to read it. you are not targeting anyone with your words so why should anyone get upset. they are stupid and not angry. what a blogmaster you are for the campaign of sweetness and light that edwards had begun to stand for. the fact is it was too easy to get rid of you and the catholic league did it. i dont care for those people but give them some credit for the firestorm they created because you were hired to get the job done yourself and failed. unfortunately, it has hurt edwards and made him seem weak with bitchy women running his show. i am writing as a fairly liberal woman here and it hurts to say all this but in this case the right thing was done.

It's too bad that you've decided to turn tail and run because of the antics of the right wong attack dogs. How could you have taken the time to read the tripe that this group is known for? If the dickless wonders feel that there aren't any women strong enough to deal with their crap...they just chose the wrong two ladies to attack.

A bit of advice from a woman approaching sixty....I worked many years in the culture known as the old boy network...You have to learn how to be a good poker player...never reveal your cards, bluff, until they fold. It's better to ignore the idiots, and accept the fact that they are all sexually frustrated and have absolutely no opportunities for even fantasing about great sex!

Shake it off honey and move on!

I am not sure how valuable my comments are since I hadn't heard of Ms. Marcotte or her personal Blog before reading this article, but it seems that she has predetermined that any attacks against her are because she is a female. I think that takes responsibility away from the individual and also insults her opponents. It seems that if you enter the public eye (as a journalist, blogger, etc.) you have to be prepared to face attacks from others, especially if you your views are extreme (not wrong, but leaning farther to the left or right than average). To chalk every attack up to mysoginy lessons your value, the value of your opponents, and also the value of the issues.

Also if one, as Ms. Marcottee, seems to like to divided things neatly into the "left" and the "right" then you can expect polarized attacks. I like to avoid cliches, but it seems fitting to say "if one can't take it, one shouldn't dish it out" and Ms. Marcotte seems to dish it out on her blog. There is not anything wrong with it and I applaud it, but then one has to accept getting it dished back to them.

These comments are based soley on this Salon article and the links provided in the article.

I still don't know what your point is, but you do get an A for writing effort.

I didn't call you out simply for naughty words, I called you out for your overall insulting tone toward anyone you disagree with. This isn't priggish, it's just good communication. You want to win people over to your way of thinking? Make them see the world as you do? Then focus your artful communication in a way that isn't self-marginalizing. Why would anybody want to sift through your rant to get to the substance when every other phrase calls them a pussy? Ever heard of the Golden Rule? How do you like to be spoken to? With a modicum of respect or without? (I don't mean "respect" as in "ass-kissing." I mean "respect" as in "basic decency toward another human.")

You misrepresented what I said. I didn't say that "bad words" were going to trigger the apocalpyse. I said it is sad to see liberals acting as bad as right-wingers and then being self-congratulatory about it as if they're being "real." Reality is what you make it, not what you use to rationalize doing whatever you feel like. Comparing your juvenile blogging style to the men at the Boston Tea Party is a good one. The only difference is they were taking real action about something they cared about, that had the power to change matters, and you're sitting alone typing for a self-satisfying political exercise.

Again, what was the substance of your original rant? That people shouldn't ever be offended by things? That there is no purpose for employing a level of respect in communication? Feel free to elucidate if you can get it out between chants of "you douchebag."

The funny thing is, I agree with a lot of what you write. I'm down on the "korporatocracy" and cynical about government. Iraq is a disgrace. The computer voting systems have proven to be corruptible and should be overhauled. I am all for a very clear separation of church and state. There is absolutely a place for malcontents and subversives, especially when they have something real to say as opposed to thumping their chests and screaming, "Look at me! Look at me!" which is what your "guerrilla" (pun intended) style amounts to.

You said something I disagree with in this statement: "it is ALWAYS the loudmouthed, rebellious, and -yes- profane malcontents who curse The System (tm), who always, Always, ALWAYS are the irritant which eventually FORCES the system to accomodate their progressive agenda, then you are uneducated..."

In fact, history has plenty of examples of people who effected change without making insults one of their primary tools. There are people who worked diligently and peacefully to change society, and succeeded. You can call me uneducated and other names till you're blue in the fingertips, but you've just made an absolute "always" statement that is demonstrably false.

You misrepresent me throughout your message ("childish fixation on 'dirty' words"? It wasn't even the words I objected to, it was the rudeness. And I like George Carlin's dirty-words album; used to own it). It's strange, really, that you turn to this straw-man tactic so easily. If you have to misrepresent somebody to argue against him, I consider it evidence that on some level you are aware of the weakness of your own position.

Yes, I do watch the Daily Show and Colbert. I am aware they use swear words, especially Stewart (Colbert's use is rare -- he's playing the part of a right-wing gasbag), and I don't mind that at all. I guess it's because Stewart uses swear words artfully and humorously, in the context of pointed political satire, and with a light spirit. I wish I could say the same for what Amanda wrote.

I disagree with you that all of those who claimed offense at Amanda's comments are just pretending. Granted, the whole thing was exploited as a tool against Edwards, but I imagine when the quotes reached the ears of Joe Average Religious American, and he took offense, it was real. Whatever the sincerity of people might be, Amanda's comments are not the sort of thing that reflect well on a presidential campaign. You claim they were mere "heat of the moment" words, sort of like calling somebody a dickhead in an argument, but somehow I doubt Amanda didn't have the time to preview and edit her blog.

I probably shouldn't even bother replying to you, but what the hell. You do seem creative. I hope you will find a smarter way to channel it than your current verbal-diarrhea approach.