Okay for you learned people is this good or bad? I have read some saying this will come back and bite the right and she will be portrayed as a harmless poor female who was black balled by the righteous right.
If she had stayed on Edwards staff would not the right have been able to point to her as the fact the Socialist left openly supports religious hatred and intolerance to any opposition and used much of what she has said as proof?

Posted by Mike at February 12, 2007 10:59 PM

Just about everyone involved in this affair is covered...not in glory, but in something else rather fragrant...

Posted by civil truth at February 12, 2007 11:13 PM

Oh no CT... our glorious conservative leaders can do no wrong... outing the foul-mouthed bitch was absolutely the right thing to do! (Despite the declared rules of this blog, I assume it's okay to call a Democrat a bitch because GM did so the other day.)

Posted by e. nonee moose at February 13, 2007 07:59 AM

Actually Moose my very dear friend, the rules say that I can say anything I want in a posting but the rule against cussing applies to comments. ;-)

Big Rule # FOUR: Here's where I demonstrate that I can be a benevolent despot. If I break Rule Two, above, and someone politely reminds me of it, I will post an apology. I will not make excuses, or try to avoid the fact that I was wrong. This rule applies only to the comments, and not to posts. My posts are effectively my journal, and I may rant and rave a bit in them. If there is a glaring violation of Rule Two in my posts, I will consider revising and apologizing, if given a rational reason to do so.

Now, as to Shrillary being a less than wholesome candidate for President, one need only look at her pathetic excuse for voting for the war. She speaks out of both sides of her mouth (what ever that means) when she said she did "due diligence" and voted for it then said she was misled. That was for the consumption of Iowa caucus goers and nothing else. Too bad she hasn't learned from the "internets" that there are people out there who will "fact check her a**" in a "New York minute" (being absolutely appropo of her residency). I'd rather see Obama get the Dem nomination, I disagree with everything he says but I think he is honest in his beliefs... I think!

Posted by GM at February 13, 2007 08:32 AM

"outing" is just an ominous-sounding term for um, reporting what she has actually written. You can try to play Darth Vader theme music under it, Moose, but it is what it is. Edwards hired her, she had a track record, that was reported, it wasn't what he wanted.

I'm trying to work out a method by which one can see this as anything other than straightforward reporting. Trying to spin it as some right-wing hit machine just doesn't hold up to the simple facts.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at February 13, 2007 05:44 PM

AVI,

I wasn't necessarily defending her... just pointing out that GM has indulged in behavior similar to hers so that (at least to me) he seemed a little hypocritcal when he gleefully posted about her resignation.

GM,

I never actually read the full version of the rules here... just knew you were picky about swearing. Swear if you want to because, after all, it's *your* blog. But it does seem like a double standard of sorts. Of course Woody seems to be the more uptight of the two of you about this sort of thing. ;)

Posted by e. nonee mooseq at February 13, 2007 06:10 PM

...point to her as the fact the Socialist left openly supports religious hatred and intolerance to any opposition and used much of what she has said as proof?

The right can still do this, Edwards may well already have had his "Dean Scream" moment.

Otherwise, all I can say is @#$! %*#**@# @#@$@# Marcotte!!

Posted by DADvocate at February 13, 2007 06:34 PM

Would posting "I won't get f***ed again" break rule 4 ? :)

Posted by jim hitchcock at February 13, 2007 07:18 PM

Jim, it's okay to write the word "fooled."

Posted by Woody at February 14, 2007 07:56 AM

Although it's permissible to gloat at this foul-mouthed and unprofessional (let alone unpresidential) blogger, I am proud that the right side of the blogosphere has asserted a baseline, commonly accepted standard in our political debate.

Posted by Jeremayakovka at February 14, 2007 11:09 AM

I am proud that the right side of the blogosphere has asserted a baseline, commonly accepted standard in our political debate.

That was a joke, right?

Posted by e. nonee moose at February 15, 2007 08:50 AM

Sorry... messed up my html tag there. Only J's quote should have been in italics.

Posted by e. nonee moose at February 15, 2007 08:51 AM

If I were to hire out to candidate X, my archives contain certain assets and liabilities for said candidate. I have a fair estimate of that. I can't imagine the mutual foolishness that neither Edwards nor Marcotte were able to assess that in her material. She can say what she wants - I don't care if she uses bad language. He can hire who he wants - I don't care if they use bad language. I might, however, assess the wisdom and self-control of such a candidate more negatively. There are apparently many others who make a similar evaluation of Edward's candidacy on the basis of the Marcotte hire.

That is not anything except everyday reality, which we would use in courtship, hiring, shopping, and making friends. If a prospective hire brings in a letter of reference from someone who likes to write four-letter words, it is likely to reflect badly on the applicant.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at February 15, 2007 05:22 PM