At Beltway Blogroll, Daniel Glover outlines the way that Amanda’s actions have become a “black eye” for Edwards.
No mention of PW. Jeff’s right. See comments.
h/t Glenn Reynolds
Dana Pico at Common Sense Political Thought has a good post up.
Kevin at LexBlog weighs in:
Apparently, after the revelation of the undisclosed DNA results, alibis, and conflicting stories from the victim, Marcotte was still railing against the Duke students as guilty without being tried. That was until the Edwards appointment. She’s now deleting posts and comments on her position. Too bad Walter Olson at Overlawyered discovered Google’s cache of her previous posts and comments.
For law firms looking to blogs as a marketing tool, understand blogs leave a trail. Generally, thats very, very good. Unlike a seminar, article, or newsletter, your thoughts, insight, and commentary on your niche area of the law are recorded and retrieved by folks looking for relevant information.
On the flip side, be willing to stand behind what you’ve said. Or at least, unlike Marcotte, correct yourself on the record as opposed to trying to erase your record.
Little Miss Attila offers Amanda her support.
Greg at Rhymes with Right
After the post was linked by Jon Ham of the John Locke Foundation, the new Edwards staffer went back and “sanitized” her post via the DELETE key, and replaced it with this pathetic justification.
So, I guess that that was the turning point, the wake up call?
Erasure under erasure. Geez, it’s like a tsespmilap. (thanks, TCW)
John Edwards’s Wikipedia entry has a link to Amanda Marcotte, but there’s no article there.
Actually, there is a link to your “Oh, Dear” post, which is essentially a link to Taranto snubbing pw.
Maybe they have a no-possum-linking policy.
That would be reasonable.
I apologize, then. I’ve been known to do that when I’m demonstrably wrong.
Christopher,
Coming from a badger, that’s rich.
From the pandagon commenter via Dana’s post:
This kind of insanity requires immediate intervention. This is a person who is a danger to themselves and others.
Pablo, haven’t you heard?
Just because you haven’t technically raped anyone, you’re still a rape-enabler or rapist-by-proxy or a vicarious rapist or a rapist-wannabe or a thought-rapist or a rapist-in-spirit.
But we can rest assured that you weren’t genealogically guilty as a fetus.
When you set the over/under at 35 , I assumed it was days , not hours .
That would be “tsespmilap,” wouldn’t it?
Honestly, Bill D., I did, too.
It should be pointed out that Amanda’s blog posts about the Duke case may have been cathartic for her.
–
pause
–
~ cough ~
–
and that’s all that matters, right?
Thanks for the plug, Mr Collins. How much was it that I owed you again?
My post did ping Pandagon on the article in which the lovely Miss Marcotte informed her loyal readers that she was going to the Edwards campaign, and had a trackback to her rather offensive one; neither had appeared on Pandagon as of a few hours ago.
I can understand Mr Edwards hiring of Miss Marcotte: he wanted a good blogger for his campaign, and if the size of her audience is any indication, she’s a good blogger. (Apparently a much better one than I am, if audience size is the criterion for judgement!) But the best bloggers leave a trail of opinions in their wake, and a candidate who does not wish to be saddled with them (and it ought to be an axiom that anything a candidate’s staffers do or say will be used to trash the candidate by his opponents) is going to be stuck with novices in this field. Sure, I’d love it if some high-paying Republican candidate wanted to hire me for the same type of job Miss Marcotte got, but I’m honest enough to know that, once they look at my paper (electron?) trail, they’ll all be running for the hills.
Q30
You forgot about all the inauthentic women who disagree with St. Amanda of the Holy Ovaries.
We are rape-apologists.
The posts from Harkonnendog are trolling. Go look at her blog, she’s a right-winger.
It is scary that some people there are agreeing with her, though.
howdy
I’m not a Badger. I’m a Bear. I’m just really lost.
Oh, Christ.
Thank you for quoting that. I need to start stocking up on emergency supplies. If these people are that bat-shit crazy, we’re all in horrible danger.
“Genealogical guilt”. *shudder*
I was going to say “Oh, thank God!”, but then I read the second sentence.
So why is “semanticleo” showing such interest in these threads?
Thanks, Dana. I received your PayPal payment:
Positive: Excellent customer. Fast payment. Would link again! A++++++
Libby at Impolitic is at it again. I don’t care about how this reflects on Edwards. I think those blogresses owe the people they’ve smeared, both accused and defenders of the accused, a gigantic apology. Because the way they’ve treated it . . . why . . . it’s McCarthyism, Charlie!
But since she apparently is constitutionally incapable of admitting she might be wrong, so strong is her capacity for self-delusion, she will instead resort to trying to cover their steps, which, if they’d been paying attention, they ought to realize is impossible at best and counterproductive at worst. As, for example, in this case, where Mr. Nifong screwed up by rushing to judgment. Which is why he tried to suppress evidence. In contradistinction to Amanda Marcotte.
Semanticleo is seeing if its been banned.
I don’t remember banning it, but since it made the comment that its ban has expired and that I will likely soon be renewing it, I gave it its wish.
Of course, it can still read here. It just can’t comment.
That’s why we love you, Jeff. You’re so thoughtful, such a giver!
yay! it seems to me that the “bannings” get wiped out after a DOS attack. I expect to see piator around before too long.
“Genealogical guilt.” Unbelieveable.
That’s the stuff of which Holocausts are made.
Genealogical Guilt: The New Blood Libel.
Unexpungable, Unforgiveable and Undeniable.
Genealogical Guilt—also known as “original sin.” Reparations anyone? Sure, as long as YOU agree to accept the penalty for any crime any of your ancestors might ever have committed, up to an including hanging. Agree to that, and then I’ll be the first in line to cut you a check.