I wonder how Molly Ivins would have commented on this travesty.

When you begin working for a candidate, you lose your ability to write for yourself, and you become the mouthpiece for the candidate. In effect, you are no longer an artist. You are now an advertising rep.

The best writers for a campaign are anonymous. Transparent themselves, they have the mindfulness necessary to distill the candidate's message for the voters.

Bingo. And that's where Marcotte, et al blew it. A product of their age I hope. Next time put the candidates best interests in front of your loose-lipped ego.

As for you dumb shilts hailing the vulgar Malkin/Coulter as some sort of heroines, you are so very wrong. These people are wealthy , extremely wealthy they do not represent interests like yours whatever they pretend not withstanding. Thanks to them and their similar screechies which have duped you, the courts are now stacked with justices who are NOT concerned with abortion, but rather will stick up for Enron over a small business or little guy every last time. THAT is where dittoheading Malkin will get you, so get over it fast for your own good.

who apparently believes anybody who claims liberal credentials but dares to criticize the vile Marcotte is actually a troll, I say, get over yourself.

I'll put up my liberal and Democratic credentials over ANYBODY, including Marcotte and her supporters, and I still think her opinions about some issues stink.

And I don't hide behind a pseud, either.

Marcotte is no better than David Duke in her bigotry. Bigots exist on the left, unfortunately. Edwards didn't need that on his campaign.

Good riddance to both of those bloggers.

Has anyone seen Megan Basham's blog responding to Marcotte's leaving on The American Spectator site, called "Blogging with Bile"? (I read the enemy.) A strangely fey attempt to seem offended because Marcotte satirized her religious beliefs. Predictably, Basham rapidly uses Marcotte as evidence of a vast left-wing conspiracy against Christianity. An astonishingly cynical, jaded diatribe put forward in an innocent, damaged tone.

I don't see how any adult with a seventh grade education can be genuinely offended by religious satire in a private blog that they chose to read. Religious views are by their very nature irrational. If you think that believing a child was born without a father through divine agency, allowing you to reside in paradise forever, while everyone else goes to hell,is above criticism, you only invite more laughter. And why read Marcotte and pretend to be shocked if you hold the beliefs she often satirizes? That's like walking into a locker room and being offended by the nudity.

But the Right knows how to rally its troops at the first sniff of anyone who doesn't think Norman Rockwell painted masterpieces. Gosh, Ms. Marcotte, it's a good thing you didn't say that you thought Forrest Gump was a dumb movie. They'd have hunted you down and burned you at the stake.

OK so this is another troll infested site where anything goes?

Marcotte is no better than David Duke in her bigotry. Bigots exist on the left, unfortunately. Edwards didn't need that on his campaign.

Good riddance to both of those bloggers.

So true. And any true liberal would never tolerate Marcotte's hate speech. Of course I admit I'm not a true liberal, at least as today's "liberals" define themselves, but rather am merely a true-blue Democrat tired of losing elections while the middle-class is steadily dismantled.

And leaving the bigotry aside, alienating the Catholic vote is about as smart as tieing lead to your ankle and jumping into the ocean from a helicopter. For anyone serious about winning an election of course.

Unfortunately that wouldn't include a good segment of the one-note Johnny special interest left who clearly prefer whining about their pet issue and reveling in defeat as a GOP majority rolls over them.

Would any of the major candidates - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden - hire those 2 clowns, Marcotte and McEwan? Sure, they make people think of Edwards. Trouble is, lots of people these days are wondering, what was John Edwards thinking when he hired 2 small time brats to manage his website? Did he think these Terrible Twosome would somehow morph into worldly, intelligent team players who would bring wise, sophisticated political insights and witty blogs to the table?

If it can be said that Karl Rove is Bush's brain, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan have shown us they own the franchise to John Edwards' sorry ass.

As for their anti-Catholic tantrums and rants, these self-styled prophets, Marcotte and McEwan, never had a clue: they are God's gift to the Catholic League.

Stick a fork in John Edwards. Dawg's done.

For all your "I know everything, I'm an undergraduate attitude", you can't even manage to get basic facts straight. First, I never suggested that pointing out that Biblical literalism is a flawed philosophy should be used to "attack" (your verb, not mine) Catholics. I said it should be used to discredit mysogonists and homophobes who continually cite Old Testament passages to support their repugnant views. Second, the Catholic church does not endorse Biblical literalism so issues about which texts where canonized and why, and the long history of alterations to the Bible would be not be particular concern to Catholic theology. Biblical literalism is completely incompatible with Catholic separtion of the laity and clergy.

This offense line rings hollow to me especially when it relies almost exclusively on the argument that you know better because its your faith. I expect then you have no objection to Islamic country discriminating against women because their faith under their interpretation tells them to so. Your reasoning would say their is nothing with the Saudis banning women from driving since they are exclusive arbiters of their faith. In fact, if members of one faith want to kill infidels, while there's no moral problem since they say their faith says they obligated to so.

I also have a challenge for you and your stellar undergraduate credentials. Explain to me why the Old Testament is in Bible. But to be credible, you need to explain why the New Testament says that some laws of the Old Testament (circumcision for example) can be ignored but others are still in force. How does faith tell you which Jewish laws to follow and which not to when Paul didn't bother (or maybe he did and it was lost to history) to enumerate which laws no longer applied? Do you eat exclusively kosher? If not, why not?