Friday, February 23, 2007

They Just Won't Let Amandagate Die

Who, might you ask? Why, Amanda Marcotte, of course.

From the various tangents that went off here this week on the subject of the blogger dust-up on the Edwards campaign, it’s clear that the final “meaning” of the whole sad affair won’t be untangled from the various threads of religion and politics, the acceptable use of satire and “uncivil” language in politics and of course, the evolution of politics in the internet age. That said, I think Ari Melber of The Nation wrote an article that gets to the most important element of this whole story, which is that this right wing smear campaign against Melissa McEwan and myself was not about deep religious offense or any genuine offense over some naughty words, but about separating the Democrats from the resources provided by bloggers.

This, of course, is precisely what the "dust-up" was not about. The "dust-up" (read: ass-kicking) was about Amanda's incredibly ugly, hate-filled, a virulent brand of "satire" that insulted large swaths of the American public who might actually contemplate voting for John Edwards. It was about the incompetence of the Edwards campaign in hiring bloggers who lack the maturity to address their opponents' issues without accusing them of endorsing slavery or wanting their children to die of terrible diseases.

In an ironic twist, Amanda Marcotte has become that icon of feminism: the ever-shrieking victim. We all know that victims are blameless and therefore ineligible for even the slightest criticism. Well, Amanda has wrapped herself in this self-same victimhood and now just won't shut up about it.

Amanda quotes from this article in The Nation, which argues that the problem was the threat the nutroo--er, netroots pose to a Republican majority.
The fight was not so much about religion or online obscenity as power. The netroots are the most aggressive, ascendant force in progressive politics, wielding more members, money and media impact than most liberal organizations. In the 2006 election cycle, MoveOn alone spent more than every other liberal political action committee except the prochoice EMILY's List. According to the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet, online donors gave Kerry $82 million in 2004, and Democrats expect much more in 2008. (Bush pulled only $14 million from the web.) And now top bloggers--like Jerome Armstrong, Markos Moulitsas and Glenn Greenwald--have hundreds of thousands of readers, successful books and a bully pulpit in print and broadcast media.

Republicans cannot stop the donations or pressure the media into ignoring liberal bloggers. Instead, the GOP has tried to drive a wedge between Democratic leaders and the netroots by attacking bloggers--and their readers--as an extreme vitriolic embarrassment. During the midterms, the Republican National Committee repeatedly attacked Democratic candidates for accepting netroots donations and working with bloggers, even distributing a six-page "research" brief maligning Moulitsas, the founder of Daily Kos. Conservative operatives recently floated smears of anti-Semitism at MoveOn [see Eric Alterman, "No Comment," October 30, 2006], Republican donor Bob Perry sank $1 million into a new group devoted to battling MoveOn and Bill O'Reilly regularly denounces the "far left websites." The strategy is to scare Democratic politicians away from tapping their motivated base.

Is it really impossible for these people to grasp the idea that calling even some Christians "Christofascists" might be offensive to Christians of all political persuasions? Or that her inability to admit that the railroading of the Duke lacrosse players was despicable might disgust other potential voters? Or that her shrill condemnation of virtually all Southern males as bigots made her decision to support John Edwards look hypocritical?

No, in the search for validity, it was all about fear. Republicans fear the nutroots.

Well, no, we don't.

I actually relish the idea of the ascendency of the nutroots in the Democratic Party. I think it would be great for them to nominate completely leftwing candidates that don't have a snowball's chance in hell in the regular elections. I'm not sure what excuse they'll come up with for losing then, but I'm sure it will be interesting.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.