Dear Senator Edwards….

re: the Marcotte and McEwan issue
I am a voter who is astonished at your choice to hire and retain Ms Marcotte and Ms McEwan.
In your statement, you wrote,
they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith….
Then what precisely was their intention? Phrases such as “Christofascist wingnut” and “Protestant anti-choice assholes”, characterizing a church’s entire body of doctrine as “misogyny” and ridiculing the Third Person of the Triune God as “hot, wet, and sticky”….
If, with these words, they did not intend to malign Catholic and Protestant Christianity, these women are pretty inept communicators. Your putting them in charge of official campaign communications leads me to have serious concerns about the judgment of a President Edwards.
If they did intend to malign “someone’s” faith, which seems more probable… well, of course they are entitled to say what they like. And I am entitled to draw my own conclusion, which is that the Edwards campaign doesn’t think hate speech targeting Christians is a big deal.
I am a voter, and I am Catholic. I wanted to give the Democratic Party a fair shake in ’08 and see if there was room in the party for people like me.
I’ve just gotten my answer. Maybe we can try again in ’12.


  1. Apparently the firing’s off. My post was written in response to Edwards’s statement on his campaign site, in which he explains why he decided to keep them on:

    …that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word.

    So either they’re telling the truth, in which case they should not be permitted anywhere near a P.R. department, or they’re lying. If they’re lying and Edwards really believes them, then he’s a fool twice over — once for hiring them and once for believing them. But he didn’t say that, did he? He just says he “take[s] them at their word.” So if they’re lying and Edwards knows they’re lying, but is choosing to just ignore what they said, or pretend to believe the lie… well, then, what kind of inferences should I draw about his character?

  2. ::Bangs head against desk over and over and over again:: I just read their blogs and I want to scream. Loudly.

  3. What this clearly shows is that John Edwards has no regards for what is honorable or right, but is only concerned with what is politically advantageous. He made a move to fire the offensive bloggers but when the liberal camp howled he backed down. Better to offend those who were probably not going to vote for him anyway than to offend those who might vote him. What we need is a statesman rather than a politician. I am afraid they are in short supply in both parties.

Comments are closed.