Since you are being threatened with physical violence by these paleo-Nazis and you cannot fight unreason with reason, might I suggest "arming" yourself with the second ammendment? I know I would. It's called self-defense.

Manuel Lopez

Perth, Australia

Ms. Marcotte,

I don't think you were singled out because you're a young,female, feminist. You were singled out because your comments about Christianity were grossly offensive--intended or not. You should not be employed by a major candidate like John Edwards. You should remain independent if your voice is that vile.

It was a mistake to quit. Atrios wouldn't have quit, Kos wouldn't have quit, Digby wouldn't have quit. But then, maybe they wouldn't have taken the gig in the first place. It's hard for me to imagine how you or Shakes or the Edwards people thought this would play out. But it looks like you gave away your power, which is like flunking Feminism 101. You made it easy for them. You folded so fast that it's shocking. You're really going to have to think hard about what just happened and come to terms with the part of you that got scared and ran away.

Seriously, a rather inept attempt at absolving yourself of bad judgment and naivety.

It's cute that Amanda is playing the feminist/misogyny card at 29 in 2007; born a full 5 years after Title IX. What a youngster. She's even got the dolly-political haircut.

She seems to have taken ownership of the concept as if several generations of women before her had never existed--had never fought for access to classes, money for sports she took for granted. Access to locker rooms. The completely full spectrum of professions--in bulk--such that people now don't think twice about seeing women in positions of authority; don't do double takes anymore; and haven't since the late seventies.

More women graduating college than men. More women bloggers. But she's excluded--because she's a woman.

Hilarious.

that got you into trouble. Is it really a "smear" that somebody pointed out your foul little diatribes against Catholicism, just because the person who pointed it out is a wingnut?

No, dear, YOU got caught, and Edwards is better off to be rid of you and McEwan. His campaign's only mistake was hiring you two in the first place.

It's time to own up to your irresponsibility and grow up.

It never ceases to amaze me. Right now some ex-NBA player is being raked over the coals because he said how he really feels about gays. To hell with freedom of speech right? Rather than just ignore the clown and his personal opinion the left, libs, progressives, whatever you want to call them, flips out and starts sharpening their scalping knives. And then you wonder what's the big deal about writing you humorous little aside about Mary, Plan-B, and hot, white, sticky holy spirit? You intended to insult and offend when you wrote that, which is your right, but actions have consequences girl. Being a liberal "blogger" doesn't afford you protection from the consequences of what you write. Grow up and realize that you don't post blogs in a bubble. And maybe you should go out and get some of that hot, white, and sticky a bit more often. Might help with your attitude about things.

Curse you, Ms. Marcotte, for managing to give even loathsome creatures such as Donahue and O'Reilly the moral high ground.

I'm an atheist. But if you didn't realize that your 'parody' of the virgin birth would be offensive to much of the electorate, you don't deserve to be within a mile of a political campaign. If you had any sense, you would have realized that you were a potential liability to your candidate, and not taken the job in the first place.

But you really revealed yourself to be vile with your comment on the Duke lacrosse case. As the case has systematically crumbled, you nonetheless stuck to your three-note song about "race, class, and gender", while innocent peoples' lives were being destroyed. They're human beings, even if they're white, rich, and in frats.

And, just out of curiosity, as someone so concerned with race and gender, how did you end up passing on the first mainstream female and black candidates, and end up supporting the white Southern man with a mansion, and no record of pro bono work?

Ms. Marcotte, I am truly sorry for the attacks on you, and sorry that you felt compelled to resign from the Edwards campaign. But I have to think that this thing was handled badly by you and by the campaign. Your article makes it clear that you are familiar with the tactics the right uses, and it can't have come as a complete surprise to you that some of the things you had written would be controversial. Did you go over your previous work with the campaign before taking the job? Did you prepare a response to the attacks that were likely to come so that the campaign could come out swinging when they did?

Edwards and his staff should have anticipated this and should have decided whether he was prepared to come out with a strong defense of your right to say whatever you wanted to on your personal blog (as distinct, as you rightly point out, from the campaign blog). If he wasn't, then he shouldn't have hired you. If the campaign didn't know that you had written things that might be used against him by his opponents, then they were simply careless.

Amanda Marcotte made some strong points about the conservative attack machine.

Still, I'm left with a simple question: Is it possible the real target was Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and not the two bloggers he hired? After all, the attacks consumed the campaign and at least temporarily put Edwards on the defensive.

I'd love to hear some debate on this question and what it means for the Democratic presidential field for the next year.

You said: "To my mind, however, it would be a terrible thing if bloggers did heed the advice to mind our manners and ape our betters if we want in, since this is supposed to be a democratic system that respects the right of everyday, common people to participate in politics."

Right. But candidates can't afford to offend anybody who might share their vision for the country; getting 50% of the vote is too hard. Candidates will be judged by the company they choose or endorse. If you express your views in a manner offensive to any significant fraction of the people who would otherwise agree with your ideas, then you're probably a liability to a candidate. Do the math.

That doesn't mean you can't blog, or be politically active or effective. But if you offend a lot of people, keep some distance from your candidates, as your embrace might be a kiss of death. Which is why it might be worth trying not to offend people more than actually necessary to convey the ideas that are needed.

Or not. Making people uncomfortable needs to be done, and it's satisfying, and might motivate important grass roots action. But even though the people hanging you politically are despicable, you know you gave them the rope. You just can't expect to have your vulgarity and eat it too.