Well, that's it for me. I'm serious. I've learned to heed the warning signs and this is a HUGE red flag for this candidate.

Well, he lost me with the super duper pandering speech on MLK day at Riverside.. THAT was some huge ass pandering, and then followed up by the same pandering in DC this weekend.

Plus, like dude you've been to Iowa 17 times and still can't call them your's... something just ain't right.

So far I'm sticking to my "no senator" rule...

Actually, I think he lost me when they rolled out the campaign logo with the little smirk mouth.

I'm glad to see people basing their choice of leader of the free world on bloggers and logos. Wow.

Yep, these things say everything one needs to know about a candidate's judgment, character, leadership ability, communication skills, the works.

By the way Lyman, is it really necessary to accompany every sarcastic or tongue and cheek comment with one of those dumb ass smiley faces in order for you to play along? Or are you just one of the perpetually pissed off?

I never "misunderestimate" the anger of the blogworld, but maybe next time I'll include a smile to make it clear for you. ;)

Cute Lyman.

Dammit.

Dammit, dammit, dammit.

Re: the cryptic statement. It sounds like they're on blogger probation or blogger timeout or something.

I don't see what's cryptic about it: they say their words are their own; Edwards says that he doesn't approve of some of what they've said; and given that they didn't intend to "malign anyone's faith," they're still on the team.

"We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked." - JE

Uh, dude, it already has been hijacked. Way to play right into their hands.

Um, it's not just "right wing bullies" who think the often harsh tone of the political blogosphere was predestined to bite someone on the butt. When it mattered. Some of us have been saying it literally for years.

Well, gonads and strife, I guess my vulgar ass is never going to get a f'ing job. Stupid blog.

Is this about appearance or substance? Me thinks the former.

As to the comments about the significance of the bloggosphere, it isn't all *that* large in sheer numbers of eyes, but it does seem to be, under the crust of some crudeness, the main place where deep philosophical and political discourse is taking place.

We promise you can avoid (or not) deep philosophical and political discourse at the Obama Campaign Kickoff Saturday Night... See GeorgiaForObama.org for details.

You just can't avoid shameful candidate or viewpoint promotion in the bloggosphere!

I haven't been a John Edwards fan - I think you only get one chance to be President these days - but I have a hard time believing that any single thing not actually illegal can really derail a campaign at this ridiculously early stage (aside from possibly impacting funding). I predict that this will be the first of many, many tempests in teapots that the blogosphere will unleash, meaning that it's going to be a long, long, long presidential campaign.

(Angry Benson sez "I feel your pain!")

It's often not the faux pas that causes the problem for a candidate, it is the response to that misstep that defines them. I think JE is good as long as he is on script. Once we start getting into jazz territory he's in trouble. And forget about President... as a CANDIDATE he is going to have to improvise.

I'm sure I'll receive some heat for this but even after this little incident, Edwards is still by far the best choice out of the announced candidates. The only possible Democratic Presidential candidate that could come even close would be Mark Warner, and he's not going to jump back in.

It's either Edwards or a Republican in 08, which do you prefer?

Paula (Paula! Sorry if I missed you last week):
"UPDATE: John Edwards posted this statement on his blog this morning. Frankly, I'm not sure what it means."

It means they were not, in fact, fired, and that they're putting this brouhaha behind them. Scout's honor.

It's going to be a long run. Personally, methinks the right-wing guys are going to receive some pain if they keep after bloggers too hard. And yes, they won't be the only ones. There's that whole Spock incident over on the West Coast that led to about two hours of on-air hand-wringing and smurfing of supporters at an ABC radio station. Two hours where the wingers had to defend their hate (and hard a really hard time keeping it from slipping out).

But, what is more vulgar? Using foul language to defy the Men in Funny Robes, or the typical press coverage that is so superficial that G.W. Bush and Al Gore come out looking like men of equal accomplishment?

It's the stupidity of public discourse that makes dropping an f-bomb or two equally as bad as being so miserable at informing the public that:

-many believed Saddam was directly involved in 9/11
-the Earth is 7000 years old
-that there is still scientific debate about the nature of global warming

-etc., etc., etc. ...

Finally, I'm with Sam Harris. When faith leads to reasoning that has consequences in the real world, the faith-based reasoner should be called out and ridiculed at every opportunity.

In the spirit of piling on. Looks like Edwards also hired Emil Runge formerly Director of Communications for the GDP.
http://georgiawomenvote.blogspot.com/2007/02/nice-landing.html

That would be strike two in my book.

My stars! Are y'all kidding me? The DPG had a communications director? Dang. Was he/she communicating with everyone but the Democrats?

Here's the link to the Political Party post:
http://www.clpoliticalparty.com/2007/02/mitt_and_barack.html#more

The other mention that caught my attention was Parag Mehta, who I thought was working for the DNC. These political folk play musical chairs.

Mel, it's really more fun to link to my other posts than directly to the source information. :)

Ahhh, she's even got the ego of a blogger!

That story about Emil is from 2004 and does not apply to the current cycle's Presidential campaign. Still strike two?

MJ,
Do you even know what a communications director does?

Here's a clue: somewhere along the line it was decided that it would be easier to talk to a handful of reporters than to personally call every person in the voter file.

Pappy, that's the Communications Director position as it's traditionally defined within a political campaign.

Within corporations, non-profit and political organizations, the CD role is much broader and press interaction is conducted by the Press Secretary or Press Liaison.

Pappy,

Sweetie, I'm not suggesting that they should have called all the Democrats. Dang, even I know that any CD could send out an email or a letter to all the Democrats - maybe tellin' us all about the brave souls who stepped up and ran against those darn party-switchers; or maybe a tid bit about some of the other candidates running.

Nah, instead all we got was "Sonny did this" and "Sonny did that" - oh how bad Sonny is. (Which is, of course, true) We need to be a party of positive messages too - and we should be able to count on a CD to assist with that.

Mel,
I take it you favor the corporate/non-profit definition?

Personally, I'm curious to know how the party would be able to afford paying salaries for both a communications director and a press liaison. Or do you think the two positions should be rolled into one? Surely we agree that the party still needs to communicate with the press?

MJ,

Baby, I'm glad to hear you don't expect the phone to ring every time Mark Taylor runs against a party-switcher (SP) or Cathy Cox blows the big brown horn (SBV).

Yes Pappy, I do favor the corporate/non-profit description for CD. And I don't think I'm alone. Every candidate who ran for DPG Chair agreed that communication was the one area where the party needed the most improvement, and they weren't talking about press relations.

But hopefully, this will all be cleared up by basic job descriptions at the party. It's possible they could follow the campaign model of CD as press liaison, but that still leaves the tasks of party communication, marketing, messaging, branding, etc. to be addressed. Within a campaign, these tasks are usually handled by the media firm and/or some combination of consultants. This makes sense for campaigns, because they are short term efforts. Hence the name.

Outsourcing party communications on a long term basis would seem cost prohibitive. But I’m sure whatever they do at the DPG will be an improvement, so I’m not terribly worried. Not yet anyway.

I should add that the new Chair has extensive experience in the non-profit sector, as well as marketing/PR experience. My guess is she will follow the non-profit model, and I think she'd be correct to do so.

Mel, I'm open to being convinced, but I think intraparty communication is less necessary than it was even 5 years ago but especially 25 years ago because of email, blogs, the web in general.

What kind of communications should a more traditionally defined CD do?

Crafting web and email messages to stakeholders is a large part of a typical CD's job description. Consider how much thought and planning goes into DNC messaging, especially those that package/promote an initiative or program, which most do.

In the business world, these things don't just spring up organically. They are part of a planned communications strategy.

Yeah, Mel! With Andre rescuing the blog with his prolific reporting, the intraparty communication channel was totally satisfied through 21st century technology. This freed up the DPG communications office to focus on external news releases, as you can see on the PRESS page.
http://www.democraticpartyofgeorgia.org/blogs/latestnews/
How much more news do you want? TWO releases a month?

Now that at least the remote threat of having a governor is not anywhere on the horizon, party fundraising/operations will by necessity have to shift in that direction. I expect more of the operations to focus on the party activists as opposed to the mainstream media and even the elected officials.

At the same time, happy party activists without increased electoral gains is ultimately a diversion and a waste of time. Taylor primarily funded the party from '03-'06 (and then picked up again post primary) and he wanted a party that attacked Sonny and Republicans in the legislature and that's what he got.

Counties and the state committee members seem to want a staffer who communicates with them...will they fund it, either directly through dedicated contributions or indirectly through increased overall contributions? Just to be clear I've got no ill will in this discussion and would like to avoid being an unemployed self appointed director of snark, as that role seems to be filled.

But regardless, going forward the party will have to increasingly justify all operations/staff from a monetary perspective, and this is just something to think about that I'm throwing out, keep in mind I don't think this is a bad idea, just saying how do you make the budget work.

chris - i really don't want to instigate the 433rd argument about this, but i really think you are missing the point. "happy party activists" is not a concept that is divorced from "increased electoral gains." effective intra-party communication plays a big role in making sure happy party activists are working towards electoral gains, and in creating new happy party activists who in turn work towards electoral gains. also, you have continually lamented the difficulties in fundraising - happy party activists are also related to effective fundraising, either as donors or mouthpieces for the party.

I agree Paula.
Chris, it isn't enough to communicate with "activists" by saying "make sure you go vote, oh, and give money." I don't know how many times it must be said or in how many ways: There has to be a message, a reason, a motivation to participate. Sonny did bad only goes so far. If we have the right messages, it will motivate people to give and to help and to vote. Think of advertising: Yes, sometimes they just say "buy this", but mostly they say "buy this because it makes your cars' teeth whiter".

I agree Paula.
Chris, it isn't enough to communicate with "activists" by saying "make sure you go vote, oh, and give money." I don't know how many times it must be said or in how many ways: There has to be a message, a reason, a motivation to participate. Sonny did bad only goes so far. If we have the right messages, it will motivate people to give and to help and to vote. Think of advertising: Yes, sometimes they just say "buy this", but mostly they say "buy this because it makes your cars' teeth whiter".

BIG PROBLEM! Update - both of the bloggers in question have now resigned under a sustained and beligerant attack by O'Reilly, Donahue et al.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/02/announcement.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/rightwing-attack-puts-bl_b_41171.html

Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)