Amanda, I was so delighted when Edwards hired you and Melissa. It's so rare for outspoken feminist women to be hired as bloggers, and with the political blogging field (even the progressive blogging world) being increasingly male dominated, I was so happy to see you two take a big step in the right direction for all of us.

I was surprised that the Edwards campaign was not more prepared for attacks against you. Anyone who read your stuff and read the initial reactions in comments at Pandagon and on the Edwards blog the day you were hired could have anticipated a major right-wing attack.

When you came under attack, we defended you. We all came together and put the pressure on Edwards not to throw you under the bus. He came through, at some political cost.

I don't know what rules of engagement you agreed to with the Edwards team when you came on staff, but I'm appalled that you chose to continue personal blogging during the height of this controversy. Did you not think twice, or a hundred times, about whether it was appropriate or necessary to comment on the virgin birth in your review of Children of Men? Did you not think it would be doubly, triply, important to maybe just NOT post about that while you are working for a campaign and already under fire for accusations of religious bigotry?

When I read that on the night you posted it, I really felt that you let us ALL down. For you to now seem like you were surprised that this caused additional criticism seems either the height of hubris, the pinnacle of cluelessness, or just plain stupidity and selfishness. This is not just about YOU -- on the one hand, as you argue, your situation is about feminist bloggers in the political sphere. On the other hand, your WORK with the Edwards campaign was supposed to be about John Edwards, and when you join a campaign it's pretty much gonna be 24/7 "all about the candidate". And in that context, it seems to me that your personal post on Children of Men was irresponsible in both regards.

Having worked as a campaign staffer, I'm partly relieved that you quit. When a campaign's mission and message is being derailed by a staffer, it's usually best for that staffer to quit for the good of the campaign, regardless of the unfairness of the attacks. Until you posted that Children of Men post, I was ready to blame it all on Donohue and I totally wanted Edwards to vociferously support you.

But at that point, you were fully in control and fully employed by Edwards, yet you chose to indulge in just the kind of post that you had to have known would rile up the hounds. I mean, come on - the virgin birth? Again? I can't think of a worse topic for you to have chosen. It was simply self-indulgent and irresponsible given all that was riding on this. It was right for you to choose to resign after making such a mistake, even if you won't acknowledge it as a mistake.

Still, I found myself agreeing with the commenter here who suggested that you abdicated your power to essentially "go fight the trolls". By framing it as a decision to quit so that you could defend yourself against silly hate mailers, you surrendered and chose to become a victim. Sure, there may have been one or two truly sick fucks who may have considered harrassing you in person. Most, though, were guys who KNEW they could push your buttons through verbal abuse and overtly sexualized verbal threats. They used the power of their keyboards to push your buttons remotely and get what they really wanted -- for you to quit the campaign. They didn't want to actually rape you, Amanda. They wanted to manipulate you into quitting. And they succeeded. So, sure, you can expose them now as assholes. They surely are. But what a petty "victory" that is.

I understand, though, that your resignation was more than that. You had to realize that at that point you were more of a liability than an asset to the campaign. I just wish you would aknowledge that it is not ALL the fault of Bill Donohue and Michele Malkin, though they are surely vile creatures with no credibility when they screech that others are engaging in "hate speech". I hate that they are crowing about this, but after seeing your Children of Men post, I simply can't blame it all on them.

I hope that this whole situation won't hurt other women bloggers as much as I fear it has. I wish you the best of luck in the future.

Marcotte wasn't fired or forced to resigned by the Edwards Campaign but rather a combination of the right-wing media feeding frenzy and the threats she received. Whether one agrees with the outcome or Marcotte's decision, the tactics are reprehensible and a threat to Democratic party. I have no doubt that these very same people will use similar tactics to smear whoever is the Democratic Presidential nominee.

I also find the fuss about Jesus' conception to be ironic. Recent scholarship has all but proven that the virgin birth came to Christian texts very late and did not appear in early texts. Its presence is likely is due to either a mistranslation or deliberate revision in the story of Jesus to answer critics who noted that Jesus was an illegitimate child. The only faith Marcotte could have attacked is a faith in a version of the story of Jesus that provably didn't happen.

I agree that Marcotte's statements are somewhat in inflammatory. She'd be more effective digging into history and scholarship surrounding the early gospels. The misognyst interpretation of the Bible relies heavily on the Old Testament and passages in the New Testament that are of questionable authenticity. Though most of the modern faithful don't know it, the Old Testament was only added to the Bible for its prophecy of the messiah. The inclusion of the Old Testament was never intended by the compilers of the canon to be an endorsement of its other contents. Otherwise, all Christians would be bound to live by the Jewish law mandated in the Old Testament.