Hitler rounded up the jews. We were silent. Then Hitler came for the teachers. I was silent. Hitler came for the Catholics. We gave them all up. I thought I was saving myself. The the Nazis came for me.

I read that in 12 hours the nazis stabbed to death all the people who would stand against Hitler. Deja vu all over again.

is no way to go through life Amanda.

Do you think Molly Ivins would have quit? Do you think she would run away squealing?

Please don't call yourself a feminist anymore. People might confuse you with real feminists.

is no way to go through life Amanda.

Do you think Molly Ivins would have quit? Do you think she would run away squealing?

Please don't call yourself a feminist anymore. People might confuse you with real feminists.

I find it hard to believe that Ms. Marcotte, who appears to be a well written, intensely strong advocate for the causes she believes in, was able to rise to the status of blogmaster of a prominent presidential campaign with the naivete that is displayed in this missive on her resignation. I say this in the context that I would likely share many of her viewpoints expressed in her explanation for her resignation and on her personal blog, particularly those dealing with the still male dominated world of political discourse in general, and the blogosphere in particular (which is after all, what she was hired to work in by the Edwards campaign). Additionally, and more importantly, it's too bad that Edwards, who touts himself as progressive and forward thinking, would allow himself to be shouted down and shoehorned into accepting the resignation of a staffer whose political views had presumably been properly vetted before her hiring. This giving in to the shout down is not the fault of the person who is doing the shouting, who afterall is simply strongly standing up for what he or she believes in. It is the fault of he or she who is shouted down and crawls in a corner without fighting back. I don't blame Ms. Marcotte for resigning. Many people have taken jobs that they thought they were prepared for and then found out maybe they weren't. It won't be the first time that has happened and it won't be the last. The more important question is why does a presidential candidate either (A) so cavalierly hire someone with so little research that he subsequently and quickly throws her under the bus for holding views that fairly significantly don't jive with his or (B) so weakly give in to the shouts of his opposition that he throws her under the bus with no defense whatsoever. To Ms. Marcotte I say, I'm sorry you had to go through this, but don't let it stop you from rocking on with your own thing. I suspect the short term pain will lead to long term rewards for you. To Mr. Edwards I say, either do a better job of putting a staff together, or grow a spine.

In the US, both liberal and conservative sides get to yell and make a fuss when something is offensive to them. Here on the Salon board, things like articulate and uppidity have been condemned as racist when used to describe Obama.

So the right blows a gasket when you attack what THEY consider sacred, namely religion. For us, it is equality.

So I am flabbergasted that Ms. Marcotte refuses to acknowledge that she needed to be have been prepared for the backlash against her. I am not sure if this is about woman. This is not a case about free speech. No state intervened to ban her speech. But she needed to have used some common sense in fully perceiving the new role she had taken on.

She was right to resign. She did not belong there.

For Ms. Marcotte's supporters to cry "censorship" is to reveal their ignorance of what the term means; to strike any victimized pose at all in this exchange (as Ms. Marcotte has done in all kinds of familar, identity-politics ways) is tiresome. Yes, the Catholic church has a lot to answer for. But when Ms. Marcotte resorted to childish invective in discussing the church, she diverted her readers' attention from her ostensible subject to own own judgment.

Had her mean-spirited words about Catholics been directed at, say, Muslims instead, I suspect the reaction on the left would have been different. But of course, it would never have occurred to Ms. Marcotte to say such things about that religion, despite its own fine list of violently oppressive extremism, because the Muslim faith isn't on the list of the PC left's sanctioned targets. Not to mention that its extremists have a way of retaliating with behavior far more lethal than anything the "right-wing smear machine" has produced. (Want to really "speak truth to power"? Blog something clever about Mohammed.)

As a gay liberal, I'm saddened to see such juvenile whining from a figure who is, for a moment, one of the left's spotlighted spokespersons. And if you've lost me, Ms. Marcotte and Co., I can only imagine the effect your words are having on those in the political center.

So here's an unsolicited tip for those demanding respect, empowerment, electoral victory, and all the the other societal goodies they claim to covet: Act and speak as though you're worthy of them. And if you choose not to do that, then at least be adult enough to accept the consequences without throwing a tantrum.

If you really wish to understand what happened and how this woman wishes to rewrite history to be more favorable to her please view the following URL (entry dated 2/17/2007): http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/

It will become apparent and obvious how clearly full of shit she is and she is a pathological liar. When you spout comletely unsubstantiated positions with "facts" that don't exist and can not be supported to tend to look like a jackass.

I am not religious at all, but I can see how Marcotte's "hot sticky" comment could offend Christians. It should not matter that she wrote the commentary before joining the Edwards campaign. Her rationalizion of the comment - gee, cantcha take a joke? - is just ridiculous.

I also read her "Children of Men" review and the posts that followed it, and the nastiest posts were from her followers piling on anyone who dared question Marcotte's ignorant interpretation of the "virgin birth." Those who differed with Maqrcotte's pseudo-intellectual review were slammed as "trolls" or "Christian wingnuts."

But that's the Right AND the Left blogosphere -- about 10 percent rational thought, 90 percent vicious attack on anyone who isn't a true believer.

Good riddance, Marcotte.