February 13, 2007

Insufferable Quote of the Day — Amanda Marcotte

From AP — Amanda Marcotte, alleged “I am woman” feminist, plays the whiny victim card on resigning from her position as one of John Edwards’ campaign bloggers (even though she couldn’t leave the Catholic- and Christian-bashing alone even after being hired by an obviously too-forgiving Edwards):

“No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it,” Marcotte wrote Monday night.

Translation: “It’s the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue’s fault that I slandered Catholics, the Pope, and conservatives with hate-filled, potty-mouthed postings for years, and made myself unemployable by political campaigns.”

What a load — but it could be a good (and calculated?) career move. I would guess that there’s money to be made in gullible leftist circles and on the university speaking circuit (but I’m being redundant) playing the faux martyr.

__________________________________

UPDATE: Of course, Mike Baker of AP played along, referring only cryptically to “her history of provocative online messages,” and describing the controversy thusly –

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, demanded last week that Edwards fire Marcotte and a second blogger, Melissa McEwan, for remarks he deemed anti-Catholic. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, called the messages personally offensive, but decided to keep Marcotte and McEwan on staff.

Baker (natch) provided no examples. If he had, it would have become obvious that Marcotte’s remarks for years have been objectively and deliberately anti-Catholic, not just “deemed anti-Catholic” by Bill Donohue — as if he’s the only one on earth who sees it that way. Zheesh.

UPDATE 2: As you’d expect, Michelle Malkin and Bryan at Hot Air have much, much more, including the HUGE point (ignored by AP, of course) that a lot of progressive-side Christians were and are offended by Marcotte’s writings, and wanted Edwards to send her away.

UPDATE 3: Howard Kurtz at the WaPo actually referred to a couple of Marcotte’s writing without crossing into R-Land. Michelle Malkin’s original post on Marcotte has some that do (so you’ve been warned).

Share

2 Comments

  1. Tom, I’m sure you’re aware of this but just to emphasize this point: many people left of the aisle had never heard of her before and didn’t read her. Now, I’m even less likely to read her. I really don’t think she’s won any new readers and I would think she’s lost credibility with older ones. Bottom line: I wouldn’t worry or waste time on this. And I guess that’s part of my problem with some of the big boxes, including Malkin – she wastes time on such petty personality-based items – we all have the right and the virtual space – but I can’t believe how many people make and take the time. Anyway – I didn’t read Pandagon before unless someone referenced it and I wanted to look and I won’t be going to it now either. I’m sure I’m not alone in this expectation.

    Comment by Jill — February 13, 2007 @ 9:50 am

  2. #1, Jill, good points, and I deliberately avoided commenting on all of this until Marcotte played the blame the victim card AND AP in effect covered for her. Especially the latter made it worthy of mention. Although I’m not big on the personality-driven stuff either, I found it absolutely stunning that Edwards’ people, and then Edwards himself once he injected himself into this, could be so clueless about the impact of hiring a person with the kind of blog trail Marcotte has.

    He needs someone like you…. :–>

    Comment by TBlumer — February 13, 2007 @ 11:53 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.