... for all those who have, in various ways, called Amanda a "quitter", or suggested that she "gave up too easily", or "abandoned the fight":

Do you really believe that if she had stayed on and tried to fight these attacks from within the Edwards campaign that she ever could have actually "won"? And, for that matter, what would constitute "winning"? A signed letter of apology from Bill Donohue? A "mea culpa" from Bill O'Reilly? Get real.

Do you honestly think that the end result could have been anything other than the complete destruction of Edwards' presidential aspirations? (Leave aside the question of whether or not that's already come to pass.) Or is that the point – if Edwards made the mistake of hiring her, should she have hung in there until it ruined both of them?

How long would have been long enough? Until she came to actual physical harm? Would that have sufficed?

when you are a sensitive individual, people who lack a similar sensitivity can undermine your self-esteem. I have always been told by religious persons that their faith helps them to be a morally better individual. Obviously this catholic spokesperson spent his time learning something other than tolerance, compassion, and empathy.

I've learned that ignoring bleating goats causes them to wander away to another pasture to graze. This is what should be done to those who aren't in the conversation to have an intellectual discourse because they don't really matter. It is all just inconsequential bleating from a fear-based belief system.

Even if Marcotte did spend her formative years in Alpine, she is neither uneducated nor a hick. She LEFT the small town and got herself a bachelor's degree. Ergo, she is not uneducated (she attended St. Edward's, a Catholic university, but I will leave the exploration of the ironies therein for another day). As for the "hick" part, Webster's defines "hick" as "an unsophisticated provincial person." She no longer lives in Alpine and her worldview is far from provincial. (That said, in my opinion, her writings could have more sophistication: the bulk of them are strident polemics, but if she would just go beyond name-calling, reading her might be worthwhile. And it was also unsophisticated to not expect that the right would bite right back.) Hick? probably not.

By the way, I'd watch out in referring to people from Alpine as hicks. Do you think that no one from said town (besides Marcotte) reads Salon? Or do you mean it ironically? Ah, so difficult to decipher writers' tones online...maybe you are you from Alpine, too, and your name is really Larry Sechrest.

Upthread several people posit what might the response had been if the same invective were layed out in a blog against gays or a racial type. I'm here to say, its not the same. Christianity is a choice. Now that I am fully recovered from my Christianity, I can look back on my wicked Christian ways and see it for what it was: misguided self-delusion.

"Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."

— John Lennon

[Which pretty much sums it up for me as well. The biggest problem I have with Christianity is the behavior of so many who call themselves "Christians".]

The saga of Amanda Marcotte is a great educational tool to observe an aspect of American culture which has this country in a meltdown. Underdeveloped people in critical gatekeeper roles and how thier lack of depth and myopic life skills can lead to a major damages. Edwards did not deserve this yoyo on his watch, her lack of depth has harmed his campaign. She was a blogmaster who's only talent it appears is the ability to make excuses and cut and run.

The Marcotte syndrome embodies, arrogance, selective indignation and deflective victimhood .This self centered

focus at the expense of a greater good is a lethal condition today in America. It is running amok on the internet and in the blogsphere. It reminds me of people who get opportunities who are not worthy but becuase of custom and tradition( white males come to mind)they are place in critical roles across the spectrum..

I hope she will quickly be a forgettable footnote..

orinocle, if I might, I'd like to try to parse some of your indignation:

• "Edwards did not deserve this yoyo on his watch, her lack of depth has harmed his campaign." This seems to imply that Amanda somehow foisted herself on Edwards' campaign, uninvited. How is the problem here not the campaign's failure to do proper due diligence, and determine her "lack of depth" before hiring her?
• "She was a blogmaster who's[sic] only talent it appears is the ability to make excuses and cut and run." Referring to my earlier posting, what would you have had her do, once the shit had hit the fan?
• "This self centered focus at the expense of a greater good..." Am I incorrect here in assuming that a "greater good" would bee the continued viability of the Edwards campaign? In that case, I'd argue that what she did was entirely not self-centered. The fire was already on both her and the campaign – by resigning, she drew much of the fire solely onto herself. Forcing the campaign to make the decision to remove her would have been the self-centered response. (Although I suppose by "self-centered" you're referring to the fact that she chose to complain about what had happened after she'd removed herself. The proper thing to do would have been to just fade away and STFU, right?)

I will agree with you on one thing, though ... if by "[u]nderdeveloped people in critical gatekeeper roles and how thier[sic] lack of depth and myopic life skills can lead to a[sic] major damages", you're referring to George W. Bush, you're absolutely correct.

Most american voters have no idea, or could care less, who the hell Amanda Marcotte even is.

Or what the 'Catholic League' is.

I imagine most voters would be horrified at the ideas promoted by either.

So overall, who cares about any of this??