I have no use for "jock culture" and despise christian right wingers but I think the Edwards campaign is better off without a self styled feminist who is too stupid to recognize the railroading inflicted on the Duke lacrosse players.

I can't find anytrhing to disagree with here:

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.

In this case, for the RW Smear Machine, it was like taking candy from a baby.

If I were Marcotte and McEwan and even Edwards, I'd feel too stupid to even show my face. And if they don't feel that way, they damned well should.

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.

If that were her only objective she wouldn't need to. All need do is visit the messages of dozens and dozens of athiests telling anyone who admits to being Christian (Democrat or otherwise) how stupid they are. Which inevitably comes with any religious themed article Salon ever publishes (the current Sarah Miles for example). This woman could get more ammo in those messages to support her argument than even a foolish Marcotte could dream of providing.

To my witness a good deal of the left DOES has indeed earned the responsibility for the Christian Right's ease in painting them (and ultimately the Democrats therefore) as anti-Christian. In fact it often appears to be the only tolerated bigotry people who are supposedly liberals endorse - often gleefully.

Sorry guys but bigotry is bigotry. And when the bigotry happens to offend the majority of the voting population, don't be surprised when somebody decides to capitalize on it.

Fascinating as all of this is, the entire blogosphere, especially the politico-blogosphere, needs to realize that this whole episode is a microcosm that feeds upon itself. Most of the country, even die hard political junkies, will never know nor care that any of this happened, and even the few that read about it will likely hear about it from some talking-head (or blog head) at face value.

Given this perspective, I find it somewhat scary that some people have this much time (and get paid for it!) to dig up dirt, fling it, and mischaracterize it. The politics of smear, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and selective memory know no bounds.

I will now return to being happily naive to the ways of the politico-blog-world.

I might take your nasty little insults a little more seriously if you had the nerve to reply in the persona of a real person, and not like a smutty little high school jerk.

...is being talked off right now by Molly Ivins.

Those with a legal background will recognize what "strict liability" means in the product liability context: in limited cases, when a manufacturer makes a product that harms the consumer, the manufacturer is "strictly liable," regardless of mitigating circumstances.

Similarly, Ms. Marcotte needs to take more responsibility for what happened with her demise on the Edwards campaign. Since when does the presidential political process operate logically or fairly? By writing the way she apparently has on her personal blog, the only surprising thing is that it took this long for her to be separated from the campaign.

This story is not about the religious right or anti-feminism or the place of blogging in journalism; it's about the scrutiny that comes with presidential politics.

Ms. Marcotte is solely responsible for the potentially inflammatory items she wrote in her personal blog, and - fairly or not - she is being held accountable for it. No one, including her, should be surprised by that or should waste time complaining about it.

Johnny Kovach

Cleveland, OH

She says things that are for more than a slip of the tounge, or rough comments made in haste. She's made a series of comments on a number of topics that show an ideological zeal and frankly the kind of seething animosity towards her perceived enemies indicative of a shallow intellect.

Her unnecessary and unhelpful enthusiasm for insulting Catholics has already been mentioned so I won't.

But another thing contributing to her firing was criticism of her from liberal sites concerning her irrational zealousness on issues like the Duke lacrosse case. For anyone who hasn't followed the case, there was an accusation of rape against the white affluent players from a black and poor stripper. as the case has unfolded it's become apparent that the accuser changed her story a few times, her DA hid exculpatory DNA evidence, and it's very probable this was a false accusation motivated by a grudge or perhaps monetary gain. The DA was fired and could be even be disbarred for unethical practices. Anyways, there is little to no evidence of rape, the accuser is unreliable, has changed her testimony, and has a history of accusation, and the case doesn't even come close to meeting guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But that didn't stop Marcotte from using the case as a feminist platform (her seething interpretation of feminism anyways) and accusing any and all doubters of being 'rape apologists' and 'misogynists.'

And if the accusation's veracity can't be questioned, that's a defacto guilty until proven innocent outlook on rape cases. Marcotte describes herself as a feminist, which can mean many things, but in this case seems to relate to an extremely radical feminist, even militant, opinion stemming from the 60-70's that rape accusers are always 'victims' and functionally never lie. Therefore they should always be treated by the courts and the press thusly and the accused treated functionally as guilty until proven innocent.

Is that how the left, not to mention Edwards, wants to portray themselves and feminism? I hope not. Certainly not Edward's wife, who is herself an accomplished lawyer with great respect for basic principles like a right to trial!

I say good riddance to Marcotte until she grows up. The only mistake was hiring her in the first place.