Two Of John Edwards Campaign Team Quit After Anti-Catholic Remarks

John Edwards, Democratic candidate for president, and John Kerry's VP choice in 2004, has had two of his campaign workers quit after making remarks construed as anti-Catholic. Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan have been accused of making coarse statements that ridicule Catholicism on their personal blogs.




These individual's speech is protected under the First Amendmment. But it seems that the Democrats cannot stop shooting themselves in the foot with their personal and public comments. John Kerry has decided to drop out of the 2008 race because of his latest comments in which he labeled the US as an 'international pariah". The initial support that John Edwards gave to these two individuals may prove to be the death knell for his campaign, also.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by UM_Gazz]

you would think that polictical people running for office would know how to run a campaign. surely slagging of a big religious group, and upsetting them is not the way to go. why did he run for the candidate post if he has staff like this.

man everything is scrutinized nowadays, and bloggers have to be so careful.

That's one less Dem that doesn't a chance. Who's next?

These guys are off to a great start, huh?

All Hillary has to do is keep her mouth shut until Obama has some nic-fit freakout and shes good as gold.

yep they do seem to be setting up for hillary, follow the money. i just think its amazing, that we only just started the race.

As I have said on other threads, this is just covert mudslinging from the Hillary/Carville camp that does not amount to anything more than throwing a spit wad. Not that it would be desirable, but in the end Edwards is going to easily win the Democratic party nomination. And when all is said done these two will be working in the Edwards white house, after all they just fell on their swords to protect him.

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, racist & sexist sentiments in America are still too strong for either a black or woman to get elected president. And I'm fairly certain that the DNC is well aware of these attitudes. Edwards a WASP liberal from a southern state will carry the blue states by virtue of being a liberal and he will carry the red states with his southern drawl.

The only wild card that might upset the Edwards campaign would be Gore entering the race holding up an Oscar & Nobel Prize, but I do not believe even this would be enough to beat Edwards. It is also unlikely that Obama as the VP is in the cards.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by df1]

Ahh, yes, he will easily win the nomination. John Edwards, who made his millions suing people, and who lives in a 28,000 ( that's twenty eight thousand, folks ) square foot home replete with his own "John's Lounge", is the perfect Democratic candidate to represent Joe Six-Pack, the average American. We can all relate with him.

The first statement wasn't just anti-Catholic, it was anti-Christian and competely offensive.

I think Edwards should really consider going back to ambulance chasing. I don't think he'll ever be elected again for anything.

Somebody in the Edwards campaign needs to lose their job. This a failure that didn't need to happen. Becaue bloggers have the potentila to become subject matter experts, they need to be vetted in the same way that you'd check out any other employee that's about to go on your payroll.

The Internet is like the Wild West in some respects. Anyone with a keyboard cna be a gunslinger. Bloggers are not professional journalists, but they should abide by similar rules when it comes to disclosure. All good professionals know that when you hire a person to be your spokesman or to rep your product, you've got to be sure that they don't have any known interests that are in conflict with your own.

Ask anyone who does background checks on possible employees, and they'll tell you that it's a pain in the neck. In some respects, it's even harder to trace bloggers because they don't always write under one name. Even if you do ask for the bloggers list of aliases, you're not always going be sure that you got them all. A cattle ranchr is not likely to hire a known vegetarian to say good things about his beef.

Don't reach for that keyboard just yet. This is about more than the 1st amendment free speech thing you may be itching to counter my argument with. The Edwards campaign failed to do one of the most basic of professional employer chores. Those malicious mavens are free to say anything they want on their own blogs, and they have. But...when they do go on record as saying something that would be damaging to a politician...they shuold avoid working for a politician when they know that person doesn't share their views.

If you intend to be a public figure, you've got to be responsible and accountable. That's how you gain cred-i-bility. Those two beligerent bloggers failed the responsibility test when they failed to disclose their views which could hurt the candidate. They failed the accountability test, too. Why? Because they weasel'd. They held out until they had to be fired or encouraged to leave. They hurt their employer.

I'm not famous [yet], but by the definition of the law I am in the same boat as those two trouble makers. It's my responsibility to tell the people whom I work with when I think there might be something that I've said in my official capacity that could be bad for them. If I'm not the right guy to speak to their audience, I need to be the one who's smart enough to walk away even if the employer doesn't catch it.


Edwards should've known better. Somebody on his staff should have known better. Even if he didn't, his bloggers should have. Freedom of speach doesn't mean freedom from professional conduct.

Originally posted by jsobecky
We can all relate with him.

An old political science professor once told me, "No one has ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American people". This has been proven to me repeatedly over the years. Edwards is slicker than Willie and he has been grassroots campaigning the local democratic machinery for four years.

The Kennedy's will smooth over any problem created with Catholics as I have seen some strong indications that they are in the Edwards camp. The legislation being introduced by Teddy in the senate puts Hillary's feet to fire in terms of forcing her to take a definitive position on Iraq before she wants. Kennedy is a political veteran and knows that this serves the Edwards campaign well.

For the record the only democrat I would vote for is Kucinich. Over the years I have a real good track record of picking the winners, but a lousy record of voting for them.

Excellent post, Justin Oldham. It's unfortunate that not many people share your sense of personal responsibility. If they did, so many of these incidents could be avoided, and we would all be better served.

You have voted Justin Oldham for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Thanks for the WATS and the vote of confidence. It's not wrong for us to epxect high standards from our public officials when we expect them from ourselves. This wasn't a small mistake. The contraversy has blown over quickly, but the effects of this boo-boo wil haunt Mr. Edwards for quite some time.

In the modern information age, it's possible for a single Google search to reveal more facts and figures about a person than you might think. I got an e-mail within the last month quizzing me about something I wrote in 2005. When it comes to who you employ, and why you hired them, backgrounds matter.

Freedom is speech carries with it some pretty hefty responsiblities. You really CAN say whatever you want, but you need to be aware that the content of that speech might bar you from future activities. In today's world where the Patriot Act is just the first in a long list of many laws that allow the Federal government to scope and grope, you've got to be prepared to answer for anything and everything.

The Edwards example is a professional issue. Today's legal guidelines now mean that you've got to take in to account...other things. Suppose somebody wants to sue you because you hurt their business? What happens if the definition of hate speech changes? We've already seen the definitions change regarding who and what is a threat to national security. You may not think that MaCarthy-ism could happen again, but...

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Thanks for the WATS...

You have voted Justin Oldham for the Way Above Top Secret award.

JO have a second. Your commentary is always relevant & erudite. We often disagree, but I don't come here looking for agreement. Viva la difference.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by df1]

Shucks, man. Shucks.