Friday, February 02, 2007

The Edwards-Marcotte Fiasco

An astute observer of this case recommends analyzing events through the prism of what he’s termed the “courage-meter.” People in positions of authority have displayed little or no courage to do the right thing throughout this affair. North Carolina’s senators, Republicans Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr? Zero on the courage-meter. The state’s governor, Democrat Mike Easley? Another courage-meter zero. Durham’s Democratic congressman, David Price? A negative score, based on his de facto endorsement of Nifong only days before the state bar deemed the D.A. a rogue.

But this quartet has the hearts of lions compared to the state’s best-known Democrat, John Edwards, currently making his second bid for President. Before entering politics, Edwards was one of the state’s best-known civil attorneys*. He even worked in the law firm of Wade Smith, Collin Finnerty’s lead attorney in the lacrosse case. So if anyone should be sensitive to massive prosecutorial abuse, it’s Edwards.

His response? First silence—and then, as Liestoppers and Betsy Newmark have noted, appointing as his campaign’s lead blogger a figure who has branded the players guilty, in ugly rhetoric that almost makes Wendy Murphy look temperate.

Amanda Marcotte wrote on the Edwards blog that she came to her post after a stint at Pandagon, “which is one of the top liberal political blogs on the internet and known mostly for insightful and often humorous political blogging.” [emphasis added]

What kind of “insightful” blogging has Marcotte offered on the lacrosse case? Liestoppers had the graphic detail:

In the meantime, I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out.

Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?

So unfair.

Yes, how dare a rape victim act confused and bewildered like she was raped or something.

Natalia, do you know the details of the case? If so, why do you think a women enthusiastically jumped into a sexual situation with men making slavery jokes at her? Furthermore, what is your theory on why she supposedly looooooved having sex with guys holding her facedown on the bathroom floor? There’s no “if” they behaved in a disrespectful manner. We have conclusive evidence that happened.

This is about race and class and gender in every way, and there’s basically no way this woman was going to see justice. In her part of the country, both women and black people are seen as subhuman objects to be used and abused by white men.

Yeah, I know, Alon. Which is why I’m frustrated that people are pretending ‘can’t identify which one raped her” somehow equals ‘wasn’t raped’. I had some initial confusion about exactly who was assaulting me when I was assaulted, but that doesn’t mean that his hands weren’t actually where they were.

Plus, the media is acting like these men are exonerated!

After James Taranto brought attention to the words above, Marcotte deleted them (so much for “transparency” in the Edwards campaign). Her new statement?

Since people are determined to make hay over this quick shot of a post, I’m deleting it and here’s my official stance. The prosecution in the Duke case fumbled the ball. The prosecutor was too eager to get a speedy case and make a name for himself. That is my final word.

“Too eager to get a speedy case”?! Nifong has been dragging the case out for months, and opposed defense efforts to get a speedy trial.

Anyhow, the above post looks like more than a “quick shot of a post”—it comprised several paragraphs, and showed some knowledge of the basic outline of the case. Marrcotte even took the time to make a comment herself in the comment thread, suggesting that she hardly dashed off the post and then forgot that it existed.

The wording of the retraction post clearly implied that John Edwards’ official campaign blogger is still on record believing that a rape occurred.

Moreover, as the Liestoppers post makes clear, Marcotte’s position in the since-deleted post is fully consistent with her other “insightful” commentary on the case:

  • There’s just something about this Duke rape case that’s inspiring to rape apologists . . . [Feminists] could certainly come up with a more efficient method if we wanted to of getting men in jail besides getting ourselves raped and then raising a fuss as if we had a right not to be raped. Pandagon 5/10
  • In almost every article and piece of commentary, the event is portrayed not as a crime between individuals but as a clash between classes, races and sexes. That might be because the rapists [no “alleged” for Edwards’ official campaign blogger] were making jokes about slavery and picking cotton to the victim, which is to say reminding her of their racial privilege by referencing the history that created it. Pandagon 4/09
  • Smarty-pants, educated womenz (and one dude who loved the cock) who have sex with guys who aren’t me raped that stripper at Duke, not a bunch of overly entitled rich white boys making cracks about picking cotton. Pandagon 8/31

Edwards should demand Marcotte’s immediate resignation from campaign.

[Update, 6.11pm: See Overlawyered for additional details, including Marcotte's going beyond removing her original post to now deleting other comments she made about the case as well. Some people might call this an "Edwards Cover-up."]

[Full disclosure: I support Barack Obama, one of Edwards' rivals for the nomination.]

*--correction

236 comments:

1 – 200 of 236   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

marcotte's 'amazon wish list' is interesting stuff

Anonymous said...

For some reason, I had thought that John Edwards was a very successful personal injury lawyer (I remember a case about a child being hurt by the suction at the bottom of a pool), rather than a well-known criminal defense lawyer. If my recollection is correct, KC you may be confusing John with another Edwards (perhaps a Mark Edwards?), but I've been out of NC for 10+ years now, so I could be wrong.

Anonymous said...

So candidate Edwards has the option to have his very own "Sistah Soljah" moment?

Anonymous said...

Hmm. Amanda Marcotte, eh?

Should I call down to Kingsmill right now, or wait until they get back, KC? That's outrageous.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

A quick google of Marcotte found that she's got a face that could stop a clock, fitting the description of the typical angry feminist.

Also, some random reading of her blog entries found a great deal of extreme ideological genderspeak of the kind that most people, even liberal young women, reject. Edwards has made a big booboo in selecting her for his team.

emmy said...

Amanda certainly has no confidence in her opinion of the Duke case, since she simply will NOT leave up any posts that challenge her ridiculous assumptions of the case...I predict Edwards will roll her off the side of the presidental ship in short order...she is way too shrill and extreme for a serious presidential candidate to be associated with...

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

KC: Done. We'll see what happens.

She's a liability for a campaign. I figure Edwards should know that.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

I thought this line from her blog was interesting.

"In her part of the country, both women and black people are seen as subhuman objects to be used and abused by white men"

Anonymous said...

Does anyone have an email address for John Edwards?

I have gone to the the "Edwards for President" website, but could only locate places in which I could provide my email as a way of volunteering for Edwards campaign.

BTW, on the "Edwards for President" website there are several postings applauding Edward's recruitment of Marcotte to his campaign.

This will become a huge embarassment for Edwards, if does not immediately jettison the Marcotte baggage.

Anonymous said...

The sanitized version appears to reflect the same view as the original. If all Nifong did was "fumble" the "ball" in his quest for a "speedy case," isn't she saying that a more deliberate prosecutor would have ... would have ... suddenly every available football term is a double entendre ...

Dave in CA

Michael said...

Compare the quality of her blog to KCs. KC fixes stuff that's reported to him. If he changes something, he notes it. Blowing away stuff you don't like seems to me to violate what BLOGs are all about. Blogs should be a permanent record.

Like the photo record at an ATM machine or a keycard record in a dorm. Blogs shouldn't delete materials because they're inconvenient.

I suspect that this distinction is lost on Marcotte and Edwards. That he would hire someone as his blogger that clearly violates the spirit of blogging is telling in how clueless he is about the web.

If anyone has a list of dos and don'ts for blogs, please post them. I will spend a little time looking around. I imagine blogspot has something on this.

Anonymous said...

Don't think that Johnny Edwards made the decision to utilize Marcotte.

It's apparent to many in NC that Johnny Edwards' wife is running things. This was probably her call.

Anonymous said...

In almost every article and piece of commentary, the event is portrayed not as a crime between individuals but as a clash between classes, races and sexes.

Isn't this exactly what Edwards campaign is about?
Perfect choice.

btw, were Obama Hussein a white person I'm 100% sure he wouldn't be a senator or presidential candidate. I know he has a "compelling lifestory" as always mentioned by CNN and other left-wing mouthpieces (son of a US diplomat spending most of his childhood in Hawaii, that's certainly a rags to riches story), but what he has done himself (apart from advocating race quotas and speech codes and being good looking)? Nothing.

David said...

In a situation in which inflamitory statements were all too common your blog has been well thought out and backed with facts. During that time you have been branded a hollogan by those that would seek to discredit your efforts in an attempt to not have to justify their actions.

Your latest post gives those who only pretend to welcome the interaction of ideas and opinions on campus fodder to support their weak position.

Please drop the "... good fucking god..." kind of language, which can be used to discredit your more thoughtfull comments.

Thanks for holding these, over paid and under professional, "educators" feet to the fire.

Jen in Durham said...

Did you read what she wrote on the John Edwards blog site?


On the biographical details about me, I'm originally from West Texas but have lived in Austin, TX for 11 years... I love Austin, but I'm looking forward to packing up my two cats and moving to Chapel Hill this month.


I guess she's comfortable with moving to a part of the country where "both women and black people are seen as subhuman objects to be used and abused by white men."

I mean, if I were her, I'd steer clear of such a cesspool.

Will her boss Edwards be surprised to learn that this is how his fellow North Carolinians treat women and black people? Or is he the one who informed her of such?

Anonymous said...

Well that does it. I definitely won't be voting for John Edwards. Oh yeah. Wait a minute. I would never vote for the Silky Pony...Mr. Two Americas...Mr. I-Channel-Dead-Babies-In-Court...He is a sorry POS and he will never be anything more than he is right now...a lying sack of poo poo personal injury lawyer whose poor ol' deddy worked like a damn dog at the local meal (sic: mill). Okay, I feel better now.

Michael said...

re: 1:48

He was quoting from Pendagon. But I would agree with using asterisks there.
Sometimes when you're quoting, you want the raw feelings to come through.

Jen in Durham said...

David wrote:

Please drop the "... good fucking god..." kind of language, which can be used to discredit your more thoughtfull comments.

Ah, David, Marcotte is the one who used this language on her (official Edwards) blog. Perhaps you should direct your comments to her boss John Edwards.

Anonymous said...

The Duke Chronicle is reporting police have discontinued the investigation of the Guillford matter. Not many details, though.

Observer

james conrad said...

oh brother, john edwards, heres a guy thats playing the " two americas card, one rich, one poor". meanwhile, back in raleigh north carolina, edwards is building himself a 28,000 square ft mansion, complete with a room titled "johns lounge".BTW, i attribute KCs support for obama as youthful indescretion, i was there once myself, i voted for jmmy carter and marion barry in the '76 election

Anonymous said...

So. Another strident feminist. I think they all secretly undergo brain surgery in their early years, having all the useful bits removed and replaced by a playback device on endless loop programmed by the Gloria Steinem Thnik-Alike Society and quietly yearning, deep inside, to have a torrid affair with Rosie O'Donnell.

Guaunyu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

So much for Edward's hokey "I'm just a humble man of the people" routine. I don't know too many "middle of the road" folks down here that would strap Marcotte on as their mouthpiece.

However, this hypocrisy does stack up well with that of: G88/87, Brodhead, DA/ADA team, DPD, H/S and remaining cast of 1000's.

MGM

Also, the new 29,000 sq ft Edwards home is also a nice punctuation mark to John's "Two Americas"... Maybe Carolina in Wonderland?

Anonymous said...

Ok. Make that "Think-Alike."

Anonymous said...

Any person who would say, much less write the words "good fucking g*d" is a Godless, soulless reprobate, and the miserable existence that Amanda feels now will be nothing compared to what is in store for her in eternity. Repent you vile devil.

Anonymous said...

I was able to leave a message for John Edwards advising that he disassociate himself immediately from the horrid Ms. Marcotte at:

johnedwards.com/about/contact/form

Anonymous said...

strap Marcotte on??

So many lines...so little time.

david said...

Thank you jen for catching my error. I wish I could chalk that up to my progressive bi-focals.

Prof. Johnson, I was wrong and I apoligize.

Bet you never thought you would hear that from someone who spent 30 years at Duke.

david said...

Thank you jen for catching my error. I wish I could chalk that up to my progressive bi-focals.

Prof. Johnson, I was wrong and I apoligize.

Bet you never thought you would hear that from someone who spent 30 years at Duke.

Guaunyu said...

1:45 PM

Listen to Senator Obama's podcast. Read one of his books. If you can set aside your bias (be it anti-Democratic or perhaps something else) for a moment, you would likely see that - despite the fact that you disagree with him on any number of issues - he's a serious candidate. His positions are well-reasoned and consistent. Your disagreement with those positions does not make them any less so.

Furthermore, his race has nothing to do with his credentials or qualifications. Much has been made about IQ of late in the comments section of this blog, and Barack Obama's IQ is undoubtedly higher than many folks who have held similar office. It's undoubtedly higher than that of many - from both parties - who have served admirably in the oval office.

Anonymous said...

Barack Hussein Obama is a God-figure for the Godless. Plus he's a prime candidate for some of Bill and Hil's Arkancide. Never stand too close to your buddy Obama as long as Hillary sees the guy as a threat.

james conrad said...

re guaunyu.....obama has about as much chance of being elected prez as i do (zero). america is a country at war, the idea that anyone in todays political climate can be elected commander in chief without an ounce of experience in national security is a very big stretch, be they wht, blk, brown or green.

Anonymous said...

Ask people in North Carolina what they think of former senator John Edwards. I for one would never vote for that dissembling SOB. If his wife is running his campaign, then he is a bigger idiot than I previously thought.

As for Marcotte, I hope he keeps her strapped on (I shant split an infinitive here). She cannot hurt his non-existent chances, so let her rant. And she will find a city of kindred souls in Chapel Hill - it is full of Marxists and America haters. Power to the (rich, leftist) people!

And at 28,000 square feet Lil Johnny's new house will have plenty of room to have an in-home hair salon. You go, Breck Grrl!

Anonymous said...

Don't forget the other half of John's 2 americas.....his beach mansion on Figure Eight island --
only 440 private homes, no commercial or low-life rentals, and you can't even get ON the island unless you live there or are invited guest.

Anonymous said...

Obama, schooled in militant Islamofascism, and now conveniently a member of a screwy "Christian" sect in Chicago is, for terrorists and other haters of America, the ultimate Trojan Horse. Imagine this guy being the President of the United States. May God protect our nation from that ugly possibility. The Devil doesn't usually tempt people by appearing evil with horns and a pitchfork, but rather appeals to their sense of intellect while seemingly being perfect in many ways. Beware the Trojan Horse.

Anonymous said...

I'm a hard-core Democrat who is still undecided who I'm going to support this election cycle (and I raised around $10K in 2004). Edwards looks like the best of a sorry bunch this time around, but I doubt I'll lift a finger for him during the primaries as long as he's got that fool Marcotte working for him.

Anonymous said...

I don't know why people are dissing Edwards' remarks about the "two Americas." I think his observations are spot on -- there clearly are two Americas: one for the mega-rich, like Edwards, and one for the rest of us. The "us" is the dumb schmucks like me who have to pay Medicare taxes, and don't make enough money to be able to hide our income in tax scams that allow us to avoid paying our fair share -- like Edwards does. The "us" is also the people who live in small houses that don't have full-size racquetball and tennis courts, that don't cost over $2,000 a month to heat (nice environmental statement there -- wonder what old buddy Al would say about Edwards' monstrous house?). It astonishes me that Edwards has the nerve to go down to New Orleans and stand beside poor homeless people and claim that he wants to help them. If he really wants to help, why doesn't he invite a few of them to share his palatial digs? He's certainly got more than enough room to share.

Edwards' decision to hire this Marcotte idiot seems perfectly in keeping with everything else he does -- total hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:30 PM
Hardcore Democrats are not on the side of justice for white males of privilege. Even white males of privilege who are democrats believe that Precious was raped, or at least that "something happened". May you see the light.
Cheers.

Anonymous said...

To find out how john ended up with marcotte, look at his early top strategist is - that's the connection. i'm sure john wasn't the one who chose her, or performed any due diligence. Expect her to be ditched soon

Howard said...

Al;low me a moment of caution here. It is possible, I said possible, that these guys did it; not rape, but held her down against her will.

The charges as reprinted at Smoking Gun are very clear on that point.

It is possible that the barrage of lawyer speak has drowned out the evidence that something happened.

So she has lied. Lots of victims lie. Changed her story, lots of victims are so traumatized that they don't really know what happened.

That's why I hope this thing goes to trial, because if it doesn't these crazy Women's Study bitches will be stirring this up forever.

Anonymous said...

And so continues the exploitation of a disgusting case that started with heinous false accusations. Even as 3 innocent men stand charged (still) with felonies that never occurred, people everywhere piggyback onto the ride to push their own agenda. Sickening. The List of Exploiters is long.

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure that I know what I think better than you do, 2:35. But thanks for playing.

Fact is, virtually everyone who is paying attention has figured out that CGM made the whole thing up to stay out of the drunk tank. Yes, even liberals have figured that out. Only the true loonies like Marcotte refuse to see what is as plain as the nose on their faces.

Anonymous said...

A must read for all BARACK OBAMA supporters.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23383304-details/A+drunk+and+a+bigot+-+what+the+US+Presidental+hopeful+HASN%27T+said+about+his+father.../article.do

Anonymous said...

Howard, these young men should not be subjected to a Durham jury. My Lord, can you imagine what that representative slice of the community would look like? Does jury nullification mean anything to you? Think OJ Simpson jury, in reverse. Listenin' to all dat DNA mumbo jumbo and den doin' what da revrin tol dem to do. Hang Whitey.

Anonymous said...

2:36 - There's also a chance she got held down by aliens against her will as well, or was attacked by a roving group of carnies.

I just personally don't buy it.

The fact is if this case were to go to Trial, and the players get off, the wierdo fringe would still argue they did it, just that their lawyers were good.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

2:36 PM howard
"That's why I hope this thing goes to trial,..."

howard, dude, if the law worked that way, then you will find yourself routinely imprisoned in criminal trials, defending yourself to prove the accuser is an idiot.

That is why we have Constitutional Protections. Once you go to trial, you are already hosed.

That is why the courts have a Minister of Justice, to spare you the personal destruction of a public criminal trial if you are innocent. Just getting charged can ruin your life.

Nifong was the Minister of Justice in this case. He is now a defendant.

james conrad said...

heres my 2 cents on the prez candidates for '08 ( i know, 21 months till nov '07 is an eternity in national politics) POSSIBLE DEMS....hillary, biden, richardson, gore, bayh, probable candidate? hillary....POSSIBLE REP.....giuliani, mc cain, romney, gingrich, probable candidate? giuliani.....election '08?, GIULIANI in a land slide

Anonymous said...

If Obama were to be elected President, he will entering that office with far more international affairs experience than President Bush had when he entered office.

Nice job going great lengths to throw in the "Hussein", I think it might scare idiots that would otherwise vote for him from doing so. You know, because there is also a dead evil man whose last name was "Hussein".

That is amateurish, period. You probably also call the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" and so on. Thats like calling the Republican Party the "Republic Party". Its not the correct name and you are being a child.

Let us stop being divisive and (1) do what we can to try and save a process gone horribly wrong by standing up for the young laccrosse players at Duke; and (2) keep in mind that this is merely a high-profile case, but in terms of prosecutorial misdeeds, it is far from a novel situation.

Its a tragedy and all of us here wish this whole thing never happened. But it did. Lets stand by these men but also use it as a catalyst for reigning in prosecutorial misconduct.

Democrat, Republican, black, white, religious zealot, atheist... whatever you are. This is getting childish.

Anonymous said...

Amen, 2:56. Amen.

Anonymous said...

2:56 PM
Yes, it looks like the fate of the LAX players is old news already. Thanks for keeping us on point.

Anonymous said...

2:56

Nice try.

With respect to the mess in Durham, all the players are Democrats. It's their game to lose and it looks to me like it's lost.

james conrad said...

re 2.56...its true that national security prior to 9/11 was a distant consideration when choosing a president however, thats very much changed as of today. i doubt very much in todays climate either GW bush or bill clinton could be elected given their backgrounds in national security. back then, we had soccer moms, today we have security moms.the world changed, even if some choose to ignore that reality

bill anderson said...

While Marcotte may be off-the-charts, remember that her blog still is an official voice of the Edwards campaign. She is being paid by the Edwards campaign to bring in support through the blogs, and if the Edwards people are trying to say that the lacrosse players raped Crystal -- and they are unequivocal about that point -- then we have to say that John Edwards himself holds to that point of view.

Yes, he may not believe it personally, but until he says otherwise, the official position of the Edwards campaign is that Reade, Collin, and David are three rapists.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Marcotte's blogging partner at Pandagon explains a lot about what she has written at her blog and about how she has connected to John Edwards-

"Spaulding has a B.A. in Media Studies from Fordham University and in the non-virtual world, serves as Information Technology
Manager at Duke University Press. She is a board member of The Institute of Southern Studies, which publishes the award-winning
investigative journalism publication Southern Exposure, and the blog Facing South. Pam is on the organization's Media Advisory
Group.
She lives Durham, NC with her wife Kate -- they legally married in Vancouver in 2004 -- and their two dogs. "

I'll post the link on the next post.
Texas Mom

Anonymous said...

Bill, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

Anonymous said...

By the way her post was from Atlanta airport. She had probably been in NC and would need to go through Atlanta to get back to TX.

Anonymous said...

The link for Pam Spaulding's pdf biography is at the bottom of the page.
http://pandagon.net/about-pam/
Texas Mom
(who wonders how Alpine, Texas feels about Amanda Marcotte)

Anonymous said...

He is a personal injury lawyer. He got all his money from the settlement in the tragic case of the child. I am a seventy year old female and know thousands of women-most Rns to be sure. I know no one who claims to have been raped, In this case, they come out of the wood work - claiming a prior history of rape. WTF

Anonymous said...

Okay. I get it. So a Democrat and supporter of the 3 accused men such as myself has to answer for the actions of a locally-elected Democratic official in Durham. Gotcha.

You are a child and your statements are hurting, not helping the accused. I don't care if this guy is a Democrat or a Republican, and neither should you.

I'm still trying to figure out what the hell Mike Nifong being a Democrat has to do with right and wrong.

Now, I suggest you keep worshipping Ronald Reagan and at the same time talking about how Hollywood actors should just keep their mouths shut.

Anonymous said...

Guiloni or McCain in a landslide looks right to me and I am a democrat.

bill anderson said...

Bill, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

3:11 PM


I am not saying Edwards believes it; I am just saying that when an official of one's campaign makes a statement, it becomes part of the campaign until a higher-up disowns it.

I'm sure that some of Edwards' fellow attorneys already have contacted him about this. The attorneys actually had a strategy session today about Marcotte's blog, so they are taking her words seriously. It will be interesting to see how Edwards handles this, since this person truly seems to be a loose cannon.

As one who has done political writing and has worked as a business lobbyist, I am familiar with what happens in campaigns when someone other than the candidate starts shooting from the hip.

Anonymous said...

John Edwards, let's see. Isn't he that lawyer who extracted 10's of millions in malpractice awards using debunked junk science which claims that cerebral palsy is caused by OB/GYNs who do not call for C-Sections soon enough? -- this in the country which has one of the highest rates of C-Section in the world?

Is he not the reason for a shortage of OB\GYNs in the country?

Is he not also the would be president who wants to fix national health care?

Is he not from the party which is opposed to tort reform and which received the vast bulk of political contributions from the association of trial lawyers?

Politician = Hyprocrite

Mike in Nevada

Michael said...

re: 2:32

Regarding the two Americas, Russ Winter's blog on the Wall Street Examiner site does a far better job than Edwards does as he examines it from the point of data and analysis. He's not out for photo ops and isn't running for anything.

Anonymous said...

So you're trying to tell me that if I said today that I don't like dogs, and then a week from now Rudy Guiliani hired me to be his campaign blogger, that at that point it would become the official position of the Guiliani campaign and the NY Republican Party that they don't like dogs, either?

How's that?

Anonymous said...

Funny how so many things lead to Duke University Press.

"Social Text" from D.U.P. list the Editorial Board as a "Collective"

http://www.dukeupress.edu/journals/j_editors.php?issn=0164-2472

Anonymous said...

James Conrad, the world has NOT changed, and did NOT change on 9/11.

To wit: The terrorists successfully attacked America on 9/11. They attacked us during Reagan's administration (and were emboldened by his knee-jerk pulling out of Beruit). They attempted attacks on domestic soil during Bush I and Clinton's presidencies (attacking the WTC for the 1st time), and have continued to attack us ever since.

To say the world changed on 9/11 is to say that the attack was hatched on that day and that radical Islam is a new concept. Read Steve Emerson's "American Jihad". This isn't an old concept.

Go and read "Bin Laden Determined to Attack United States, May Try and Fly Airplanes Into Landmark Buildings" or whatever the exact title of that report was that the administration received.

The world did not change. We don't need to go and blame Democrats or Republicans for it. They did succeed during Bush II's administration, but it was a Democrat and Republican problem, a systematic failure in our security apparatus.

If the world changed, the difference is that for once, they were able to successfully perpetuate a "spectacular attack" on US soil.

Grow up.

Michael said...

re: 2:36

You need a refresher on this case. Unless you can
prove the metaphysics of
two people in two different places at the same time.

This is a complicated case and there is a ton of evidence to review. But two of the kids weren't there. And there was no DNA evidence. If you hold someone down against their will, unless you're wearing a body condom, you'll get your dna on the person.

We have at least 46 witnesses that said that nothing happened. And one that said it's a crock. Please reexamine the evidence.

Anonymous said...

If Obama were to be elected President, he will entering that office with far more international affairs experience than President Bush had when

Being a junior senator hardly qualifies for being a commander in chief. (that's why senators almost never win even senior ones).
Bush had 6 successful years of executive experience as a governor of a big state. Besides, in 2000, we were not at war. Had we been, I would have preferred more experienced candidate than Bush.
Omaba's executive experience is limited to hiring a blogger. That's hardly an assuring experience for commander-in-chief. I think even Hillary (even though I don't like her for other reasons) would be a better choice as a commander in chief and the leader of the free world.

Guaunyu said...

james conrad,

I actually agree that Obama can't win (even though I like him and respect him). My point was not that he's going to win. My point was that a previous anon commenter was dead wrong in saying Obama has no qualifications.

I disagree with you about Giuliani in '08. Giuliani's great from my perspective, but I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. Giuliani is fiscally conservative (so am I), but socially fairly liberal. Giuliani is pro-choice and supports civil union rights from gay and lesbian couples. That won't win him a lot of friends in the Republican primary. You know as well as I do that the primary season pushes Democrats too far to the left and Republicans too far to the right. In that atmosphere, much as I might wish otherwise, moderates don't stand a chance. Giuliani is, by any moderate's estimation a fellow moderate.

bill anderson said...

I think that accusing someone of rape -- especially when the evidence points toward innocence -- is a bit different than saying whether or not one likes dogs. This is THE criminal case in North Carolina, and the only thing we have in print from the Edwards campaign comes from Marcotte. If Edwards does not make his own statement, we have to assume that either he agrees with Marcotte or he is fearful of saying anything different, since the truth might conflict with the class and race warfare paradigm that is central to his campaign.

Anonymous said...

While all of the bads guys in the Duke LAX case may be duly elected democrats, all of the bad guys in the trials of the Scottsboro boys were duly elected democrats.
Go figure.

Anonymous said...

If 9/11 were THE declaration of war by Bin Laden against the United States, you'd be right. It was not.

If Bush and his supporters didn't think we were at war with al Queda prior to 9/11, then they aren't qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Clinton mistook a pharmaceutical plant for an al Queda hideout and bombed it. Republicans never let him hear the end of that one.

Republicans talked eerily of "body bags returning home" during the war in Kosovo. Democrats talked about "an evil dictator".

Politics is a joke and those who buy into are the object of that joke. Look up the language used by Republicans during Kosovo. Almost identical to Democrats now and vice-versa.

I am a Democrat because I agree with the party more often than not. Not because its a magical party that is always right.

Anonymous said...

Wow 327. You really got me there. In both cases they were Democrats, from the "Democrat" Party!?!?!? Obviously they don't know that freedom ain't free! Have they forgotten?

Let freedom reeeeee-ing. You're a great American.

I can't stand this garbage. Get over it. This is about those boys, not about Dems and Repubs. you are hurting their cause.

Anonymous said...

Since off-topic is the topic - I am a Republican. If he gets over his gaffe I would be inclined to vote for Biden/Obama as Biden's partition of Iraq is a good idea. It worked in Croatia/Kosovo/Bosnia and things are quite peaceful there.

Anonymous said...

3:27

You're logic is simple, but sound.

Democrats are responsible for the Sottsboro Case and the Lacrosse Case.

If this thing gets to the Federal level, then you'll see a change in attitudes. The US Attorney for the NC Eastern Region is a Republican.

Anonymous said...

Mike in Nevada

So correct. Edwards leads the pack of dirtbag lawyers who work this scam. Why are OB/Gyns dropping obstetrics right and left? Malpractice premiums at $100,000 a year and more in major urban areas. In some places there is no insurance available. If you were a bright young medical student would you go into OB/Gyn? Mr. Edwards is building his 28,000 ft. house on the proceeds.

MikeT said...

She is a true mental train wreck if there ever was one in the blogosphere. Anyone who has to write so many posts that are that replete with profanity and emotional opinion is automatically not "insightful," "erudite" or anything else in that vein. She doesn't realize that probably half of her readers or more come there for what amounts to a daily rubber-necking fest...

I mean... my God, I wrote more coherent, intelligent and worthwhile papers in middle school that the crap she squeezes out for her blog(s).

Anonymous said...

This is THE criminal case in North Carolina, and the only thing we have in print from the Edwards campaign comes from Marcotte.

We have nothing in print from the Edwards campaign saying a single word about the lacrosse case, no matter how many times you claim that we do.

I know it, you know it, and anyone with half a brain knows it. So quit trying to pretend it's otherwise. Marcotte the Moron made her stupid comments on her own blog, before she was even hired by the Edwards campaign, so it's ridiculous to try to put her inane blithering in his mouth, or anyone else's mouth for that matter.

But if you really think that it's going to help the three innocent laxers to try and use their plight as an excuse to wage some half-assed jihad against half the population, well, good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

A lawsuit against Marcotte would be justified. At least as a reminder to others that one can't just publicly speak of things one WANTS to be true to the detriment of others.

Anonymous said...

3:31 PM

Talk about hurting one's own cause. You're hysteric.

Anonymous said...

If Bush and his supporters didn't think we were at war with al Queda prior to 9/11,

And Al Gore was advocating war against al-Qaida?

Clinton (and Berger) refused to act against Al-Qaida (ie. kill or capture bin Laden). Occasional missile to factory (and notifying pakistan) is hardly a credible act.
Sandy Berger stole classified documents from national archives to hide their actions.

Re Kosova: Every republican leader (except Specter) demanded stronger actions against Milosevic.

Besides, in Kosovo, our national interests were not at stake. Serbs were not going to attack America. (That might be ok - even selfish- reason not to intervene).

Guaunyu said...

2:36 Howard,

The problem with wanting this case to go to trial is that an ethical prosecutor does not bring charges to trial if he knows that no reasonable jury could find proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given (1) all of the changes in CGM's testimony, (2) the inconsistency of the DNA evience with her statement that she had sex with no one other than her alleged attackers, (3) the alibi evidence corroborated by ATM footage, independent third party (taxi driver) testimony, and cell phone records, and (4) the flaws in the identification procedures, this case is so chock full of reasonable doubts that no reasonable jury could find the accused young men guilty.

For that reason, even assuming (solely of the sake of argument, because most of us know better) that something happened, the case should be dismissed.

james conrad said...

re 3.22 i have grown up, i'll be 60 this fall, lol. yes there were terror events prior to 9/11 going all the way back to jimmy carter in the '70s however, on sept 11 2001 almost 3,000 americans lost their lives on american soil. one has to go back to antietam in sept 1862 for anything approaching that level of killing on american soil. i argue that america changed forever on 9/11, profoundly so, in ways we may not even be fully aware of today

Anonymous said...

Kosovo and the Echoes of Isolationism

Robert Kagan
The New York Times
March 24, 1999

The conflict in Kosovo has exposed a multiple-personality disorder among Republicans. The party's Presidential candidates and its leaders in Congress insist they want more robust American leadership in the world, invoking the internationalist legacy of Ronald Reagan. But in the current crisis, candidates and legislators alike have flirted with another Republican tradition, the isolationism of William Borah, Robert Taft and Patrick Buchanan.

Two weeks ago, House Republicans voted overwhelmingly against allowing American troops to participate in any NATO peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. This week many Senate Republicans were even opposing NATO air strikes against Serb forces, right up until President Clinton announced plans to begin them. Many Republicans clearly believed they could score political points against the President by playing on the nervousness and confusion of the American public.

Despite unmistakable evidence of renewed ethnic cleansing by Serb forces under the command of Slobodan Milosevic, the Yugoslav President, leading Republicans expressed indifference or worse.

Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma said last week that he would oppose a NATO bombing campaign "unless and until the Serbs really begin a very significant massacre against the people in Kosovo." Medium-sized massacres, presumably, are acceptable.

Many Republicans even voiced concern that an attack on Serb forces would violate Yugoslavia's sovereignty, as if Belgrade had a legal right to commit genocide so long as it did so within its national boundaries. And almost all Republicans raised the cry of "body bags" and "quagmires" -- once again treating Mr. Milosevic as if he were a 600-pound gorilla instead of a bully and coward who in the past has quaked at the first sign of real military action.

Apparently many Republicans forgot that they made the same dire threats before the intervention in Bosnia three years ago and were proved utterly wrong. After three years, not a single American soldier has died in combat in Bosnia. Mostly, though, Republicans have adopted a Neville Chamberlain attitude toward the population of Kosovo, yet another distant people whose fate need not concern us.

"We don't have an obligation to send our men and women of the military in every time there's a humanitarian problem in this world, or a civil strife, or a revolution in a country," said Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico. But what about when the "humanitarian problem" occurs in Europe and when NATO, the alliance we lead, decides to act?

One might have thought Republicans understood that the United States has a vital strategic interest in the stability of Europe, and an abiding moral interest in preventing genocide and ethnic cleansing on a continent that in this century gave us two world wars and the Holocaust. Last year, Republicans voted overwhelmingly for NATO expansion. That vote was, or should have been, a vigorous reaffirmation of American leadership and responsibility for maintaining a just peace in Europe.

Where is that Republican commitment today? Until Mr. Clinton forced their hand, many Republicans wanted to let our allies do all the fighting and take all the risks. They seemed to want America to lead -- from behind. If the United States had actually followed this path, the damage to the NATO alliance would have been irreparable. If the United States won't take on a bully like Mr. Milosevic, why should anyone in Europe believe that Washington will be bolder in meeting even more dangerous threats to European security in the future?

Republicans have promised to make foreign policy a major issue in the 2000 campaign. And with good reason. The Administration's appeasement of China and North Korea, its inadequate response to Saddam Hussein, its endless hand-wringing (until now) over the Balkan crisis, its depletion of American military strength and its generally inconstant leadership in world affairs -- all this deserves a sustained and thoughtful critique.

If Mr. Clinton finally does the right thing, Republicans can make up for their recent errors by urging him to see this policy through to the end. This means, ultimately, driving Mr. Milosevic from power. That's the best solution for Kosovo and for the Balkans.

Guaunyu said...

3:33

Yeah. Biden's cool. He's a moderate, which is why he stands about as much chance of making it through the Dem primary as Giuliani does making it through the GOP primary. None. Sad, ain't it?

Anonymous said...

anyway, Obama is a candidate only because he is a black and good looking good speaker. There are thousands of democrats who are more qualified (but happen to be white males and therefore uninteresting).

This is very relevant to Duke hoax events where race was essential.

Anonymous said...

As a registered voter in Durham I look forward to serving on the jury of the LAX trial. OJ is not the only minority who can benefit from jury nullification.

Gen. JC Christian, Patriot said...

Good God. This kind of manufactured controversy is as Rovian as Kerry's supposed insult to the troops. Are you sure you're supporting Obama? Wouldn't you feel more at home in the McCain or Romney camps.

Well Armed Coward said...

This is great! So Amandapanda writes about Texas:
"both women and black people are seen as subhuman objects to be used and abused by white men."

This sack of delusional and abusive garbage hasn't meet my wife, who is both Tex-okie and an Injun to boot, and those ARE boots.

Perhaps this is part of Edward's log range plan to Raze Texas, as well as Raise Taxes.

As a white boy (a black cop actually called me that in Minneapolis, of all places....and....and...and I was destroyed, unempowered, diminished and...and...beside myself (which is a good thing, since you always need a driver when you're seriously slumming in MPLS, even if he does look a little too familiar).

Anyway, this bannana slug is one serious whack, but my advice to you all who don't want the Silky Pony eating out of your wallet is what Napoleon said:

"Never interfere with your enemy when he's making a mistake".

Yee-Hawwwwww!

Anonymous said...

Biden is cool. So is the back of his head where his corn row of hair plugs didn't take. Or were taken from. That man's hair would make Trump blush, if Trump was capable of blushing.

Even Rev. "I Take A Bath Every Day" Sharpton thinks Biden's hair is jacked up.

Could he be a bigger phony?

Anonymous said...

Since the thread seems to be going this way.

That seems to be one of the new memes/talking points within the democrat party. The idea that "9/11 wasn't that bad! Get over it!" It fits right in with their other closely held truths. ie. Saddam wasn't really that bad. The holocaust was exaggerated. etc. etc. But you kow what they consider evil? Some actor called another actor a name. It is all about feeeeelings. Facts are trumped by feeeelings. So some actor called another actor a name. BFD. Poor guy had to go to some kind of re-education camp just to keep his job which still seems to be in jeopardy.

Kevin said...

As a liberal who actually would like a *Presidential* presidential candidate, I can't say how much this pleases me. Edwards, like Obama, has none of the lone-wolf leadership experience that the office demands. And apparently, like in the last election, not only does he not have leadership credentials (and for that matter neither does KC's, Obama), he doesn't have a clue either.

As for Edward's particular choice, I have found the Pendragon site almost as big a turnoff for me as the Democratic Underground. Marcotte makes Markos Moulitsas look like Glenn Reynolds. (Heck, she makes Kos look like the Instawife!)

gs said...

I find it interesting that Marcotte said she removed the old blog entry. The Duke 88 also removed the orginal
Ad. Is this the lefts strategy for mistakes, delete the evidence?

Anonymous said...

***So some actor called another actor a name. BFD. Poor guy had to go to some kind of re-education camp just to keep his job which still seems to be in jeopardy.***

Are you referring to when Ronald Reagan called Dennis Miller a pinko... or was it Arnold?

Anonymous said...

As I keep saying over and over: certainly, it "could" have happened. In the horror of the moment she missed some of the details - I can buy that. She is not sure of the number - I can buy that. There is solid DNA evidence of multiple attackers, that backs her story up. There were non-LAX players at the party. So why the heck isn't the DPD out looking for the owners of that DNA? I mean if they believe all the stories and evidence, they need to be looking for some fat guys, one of whom has a mustache. Even before she changed her story - any good law officer who believed that story and looked at the DNA evidence would surely be out looking for the ral attackers. The reason they did not and do not is because THEY do not believe her either!!

Anonymous said...

Not sure anyone said anything remotely like "9/11 wasn't that bad" or "Saddam Hussein wasn't a bad guy".

I do recall writing about how only the uninformed would say that the war against al Queda started on 9/11.

If anything, that is a more alarmist/militant position than someone in la-la land who thinks terrorism began on 9/11.

Anonymous said...

Everything looks like rape to Amanda. I'll be very surprised if living in NC doesn't drive her crazy. Well, beyond her current state, anyway.

Anonymous said...

As far as I was aware, the only "Holocaust minimalists" are far, far, far right-wing conservatives religious zealots in Arab countries and in right-wing white power groups accross Europe and in the United States.

For a less extreme "there are two sides of the story" angle on this, read Jimmy Carter's book. For hatred and holocaust denials, you will have to go very, very to the right on the political spectrum.

james conrad said...

what little i've seen of obama is attractive but gee wiz guys, politics in DC is a blood sport and the idea that the clintonistas are gonna just let a new guy waltz away with the nomination is out there.IMO,obama isnt a serious candidate for '08, if anything, hes positioning himself for 20012

Anonymous said...

Faustian Bargainers.

Edwards, Nifong, Clinton, et al, will do or say anything for votes.

Anonymous said...

"There is solid DNA evidence of multiple attackers, that backs her story up. There were non-LAX players at the party. So why the heck isn't the DPD out looking for the owners of that DNA? "

1) There is solid DNA evidence of other men, not necessarily "attackers" (Unless all mean are attackers).

2) The non-lax players' DNA was also taken. No matches there as well.

3) Please try to keep up here.

Anonymous said...

So if Marcotte has said

"In her part of the country, both women and black people are seen as subhuman objects to be used and abused by white men."

why would she want to blog for John Edwards. After all, Edwards is from North Carolina, meaning he is also of those women and minority abusing white men, right?

Anonymous said...

Photo:

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0608/gallery.gulbis/images/015732563.jpg

Anonymous said...

***Faustian Bargainers.

Edwards, Nifong, Clinton, et al, will do or say anything for votes.***

Ah, yes. Another partisan who either (1) works for the Republican party; or (2) is too stupid to understand that both political parties will do and say anything for power.

Anyone who thinks either party is above partisan crap is naieve and needs to take an objective look at these things. You can support a party and not be a blind idiot. I'm a Democrat and many Dems drive me crazy. I'm pretty liberal but more "normal" than anything else. I care about, and like, politics, but I hate idiots on either side who think their party is sanctimonious, or somehow a little more ethical/above the fray than the other.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else find the 8/31 Pandagon post incoherent?

What is Edwards thinking, to hire someone who writes like that as his campaign blogger? It does not reflect well on his campaign.

Vivian Thomas said...

KC....of course your support Obama! It's sad that Obama's aura is held in such suspect because relatively pitiful parade of fools that are challenging him for the nomination. It's almost as if you are suspicious of the Sun because all the other stars are so dim.

Unfortunately, since his Bob Jones lobotomy, I am not as psyched about having to vote for McCain, since I NEED torte reform, but I'm sure looking forward to seeing Obama and McCain discuss the issues.

As for Ms Marcotte, she just seems to be another amateur feminist in the model of Melissa Lafsky who can't step up to the big issues. I'm interest to read her next post about how some cab driver was mean to her or how she got over the flu. Just sad.

Anonymous said...

4:14 When you don't seem to understand how to use the word "sanctimonious" in a sentence, be careful who you call stupid.

Anonymous said...

Ah, yes. Another partisan who either (1) works for the Republican party; or (2) is too stupid to understand that both political parties will do and say anything for power.

Lieberman (D), Bush (R), McCain (R) and few others are willing to do what they think is right and crucial to this country, even if it mean that will lose (or be in grace danger of losing) the next elections.

Of course, they are in a minority.

Anonymous said...

4:14

Thanks for calling me an idiot.

Sorry your party can do no better than Nifong, or Clinton, or Edwards, or Kerry, or Obama, or Dukakis, or Gore, or Kucinich, or Sharpton, or Jackson, or Meg Scott Phipps, or Frank Ballance, or Pee Wee Herman.

I'd be a bigger idiot if I were to think any of the aforementioned were worth my vote...well, maybe Pee Wee.

Anonymous said...

3:24

Commander in Chief Hillary ?

Why is that so arranged among the neron connections in my brain that it gives me a Dukakis in The Tank Moment .

Anonymous said...

4 07
No, the left wing is now the happy home of many, many holocaust deniers in the US.

Anonymous said...

***Sorry your party can do no better than Nifong, or Clinton, or Edwards, or Kerry, or Obama, or Dukakis, or Gore, or Kucinich, or Sharpton, or Jackson, or Meg Scott Phipps, or Frank Ballance, or Pee Wee Herman.***

Well, I gotta give you credit there. Those guys WISH they could do as good as, say, Bush and Cheney. Two really, really popular politicians who captured the hearts of Americans, and only get more and more popular as their terms winds down to an end.

Anonymous said...

She is from the Peoples Republic of Austin? Well now that explains quite a bit. They thought Ann Richards was just grand.

TombZ said...

John Edwards isn't all that popular in his home state:

1) He didn't bring in the vote for Kerry/Edwards. NC stayed red.
2) He declined to run a second time for senator; polls showed his incumbency to be a disadvantage.

Now he's jobless, without portfolio (not even a fictionalized one like AlGore), richer than Croesus and has a political future deader than Julius Caesar.

Picking Marcotte? That's a resume enhancer for Breck Edwards.

Loser.

Anonymous said...

As far as I was aware, the only "Holocaust minimalists" are far, far, far right-wing conservatives religious zealots in Arab countries and in right-wing white power groups accross Europe and in the United States.

Lord have mercy. If you consider Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and Edward Said as "far right-wing" idealogues, I shudder to imagine what your idea of a centrist is.

For a less extreme "there are two sides of the story" angle on this, read Jimmy Carter's book. For hatred and holocaust denials, you will have to go very, very to the right on the political spectrum.

Jimmy's book, eh? The same book that prompted the resignation of several members of the Carter Center because they felt it was biased crap?

Try again.

Anonymous said...

A balanced look at the Arab-Isreali conflict is NOT tantamount to denying the holocaust. A professor once told me that (granted, he may have been biased, you know, as a former agent of Mossad... plus, his opinion isn't as valuable as reactionary right-wingers who view a balanced look to be the same thing as anti-semitism).

However, the religious belief that the Jews need to be in Palestine when Jesus comes back so that they can perish... well, thats just so magical.

And those far left governments like Iran... or are they far, far right-wing religious governments that have gone so far as to advocate Sharia as their governing law. I forgot.

Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it "liberal". Iran is a very conservative place. Most of the antisemitism in the world is based in religion. That (if you wanted to be a child and hand out blame to a political idealogy in the United States) is alot more Republican than Democratic.

TombZ said...

4:34 said,
"Most of the antisemitism in the world is based in religion."

Umm, I think greater Europe maybe has had some problems with anti-semitism in the past, something about a holocaust, I hear. It still has some anti-semitism, though perhaps on a lesser scale.

Since religion in Europe is a dead issue, how do you justify your claim?

Anonymous said...

If you really think about it, the only real statesman vying for the White House is John McCain. He may not be the most popular guy within or without his party, but he's principled.

Edwards, Clinton, Biden, and Obama are light-weights...as they say in Texas "All hat, no cattle".

Anonymous said...

If you really think about it, the only real statesman vying for the White House is John McCain. He may not be the most popular guy within or without his party, but he's principled.

Edwards, Clinton, Biden, and Obama are light-weights...as they say in Texas "All hat, no cattle".

Anonymous said...

Excellent use of the non-word "alot" 4:34.

I am sure your reasoning ability is at least on par with your understanding of the English language.

Anonymous said...

***Since religion in Europe is a dead issue, how do you justify your claim?***

By going completely out on a limb, saying things like:

(1) The most antisemitism in the world right now comes from radical Islamists who dominate the middle East.

(2) They want to impose Islamic law throughout the world.

(3) They are clearly (if we had to label them) "conservative" and NOT "liberal". Hey, as Republicans love to say, San Fran residents would be the first to go if they could attack us at will (meaning, I guess, that the moral majority would be last, because, you know, they have more in common with the bad guys than the Rainbow Push Coalition).

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 4:40,

Remember the Keating Five? Covered in S & L pocket lint? McCain wasn't just among them, he was particularly prominent.

McCain's principles seem awfully negotiable to me.

Anonymous said...

The Duke case should not be a political issue. True, most players are democrat. I notice that those such as Rep.Walter Jones who are lobbying for a DOJ investigation are Republicans. Is that because of "principle" or because of partisan politics? If it is on "principle", then am I to assume that Republicans are more "principled?"

It's sad that J. Edwards hasn't the backbone to speak out on this case. He's lost it with me by hiring that disgusting Marcotte.

Anonymous said...

(1) The most antisemitism in the world right now comes from radical Islamists who dominate the middle East.

The same people Carter is supporting in his book. The same people Michael Moore (Carter's box-mate at the last donk convention) lauds as freedom fighters. The country of Iran whom the democrat party vows never to fight militarily.

OK. Point well taken, I guess.

Anonymous said...

4:45

So, you think it's partisan politics for Congressman Jones(R) to stand up for the accused?

Then I assume you think it's partisan politics for the NC Democrat hiearchy to not stand up for the accused?

Anonymous said...

3:17 said: I'm still trying to figure out what the hell Mike Nifong being a Democrat has to do with right and wrong.

The Democrats have been demagoguing race issues for four decades and you're wondering what relationship that has to demagogue Mike Nifong's wrongful acts?

Studied naivete, a strong suit among liberals.

Anonymous said...

4:14--re "who [sic] you call stupid"--that line would have worked better if you had chosen whom

2:10--re Obama's IQ. Agree, it's stupid to single him out. He's a cognitive lightweight (if you want some great entertainment at a party, pull out "The Audacity of Hope" and read it out loud), but so are most of the other candidates. I wouldn't let Bush manage a whorehouse. In America we have a serious problem attracting the truly talented into politics. I thought the coolest thing Clinton did was receive oral while talking to a head [no pun] of state on the phone. The "moral" vetting process in Amerika is 1 of the principal reasons we're stuck with Obama and Hilary.

THE COURAGE PROBLEM

definition of courage: the quality of mind that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession and resolution.

Let me address KC Johnson's courage, because there are elephants in the room he has barely addressed:

1. The Crystal Gail Mangum problem: I've seen no Johnson posts on what her punishment should be in a just society. In his suggestions to the North Carolins legislature, I was flabbergasted that he didn't address the introduction of a felony sex-crime statute for false accusers. And you people are worrying about small-fry bloggers employed by Edwards. Yawn!

2. Defunding the G88's power bases--black, queer, women's studies programs.

3. Addressing the Richard Brodhead disaster. Here's a guy who threw these boys under the train to appease a group of mediocrities. In a word, what Brodhead "accomplished" was outrageous.

Yeah, I'll have my courage on the rocks, with a twist.

Polanski

Chicago said...

Another excellent read KC. I doubt Edwards has a chance against Hillary or Obama though so it is almost moot.

Anonymous said...

451:

Forgive me for not arguing against the words you are attributing to the Democratic Party. The whole "we will never fight militarily" thing, and so forth. I'd love to, but I just don't have the ability to argue on behalf of your boogey-men.

I do, however, personally believe that those radical Islamists worldwide are far right conservatives, especially if the other labelling option would be to call them liberals. One label fits much better than the other.

As for defending the statements of the fake Democrats you quoted, I will take a pass. Thanks, though.

Anonymous said...

According to her blog, Amanda doesn't want kids.

thank God.

Anonymous said...

You all have it all wrong...Edwards is a liability to her...white, male, wealthy...

What are you thinking?

Anonymous said...

5:02

Sorry to disagree.

Edwards and Marcotte = Faustian Bargain.

Anonymous said...

4:08 PM
"IMO,obama isnt a serious candidate for '08, if anything, hes positioning himself for 20012[sic]"

I can agree with you there. He might be ready by then.

MGM

Anonymous said...

Another day, another set of tangents.

It'll be interesting to see if KC continues to post whatever is most newsworthy even on a day when there's no news in the case, now that he has seen what these things stir up.

Guaunyu said...

Wow, the tone has gotten nasty around here lately. It's a shame. The temptation to fire back rudely is great.

james conrad said...

guaunyu.....agreed, the nomination process does tend to polarize positions and candidates but hey, thats not always a bad thing. to survive politically in those stressful circumstances tells voters a great deal about the candidates. as for giuliani VS mc cain, neither candidate is pure from the base point of view, giuliani is a social liberal its true but mc cain has issues as well, RE:immigration. both have strong national security leadership qualities which i argue will be vital in the general election.

Anonymous said...

Marcotte could really sink Edwards. The situation is similar to "The Lamont-Hamsher Escapade", where democrat Conneticut Senate candidate Ned Lamont hired another well known bitter lefty (Jane Hamsher) as his blogger-in-chief. She was responsible for all kinds tasteless posts. One had Joe Lieberman in blackface, for example. Angry tin-foil hat types like Marcotte and Hamsher are a signifigant voice in the democrat party. Make no mistake.

Anonymous said...

"the idea that anyone in todays political climate can be elected commander in chief without an ounce of experience in national security is a very big stretch, be they wht, blk, brown or green."



HAHAHAHAHA ...yes the Shrub's valiant service in the Air NG certainly gave him all the foreign experience he needed ...

Anonymous said...

John Edwards:
If you have people reading this blog, you need to do something about this. I am a female Democratic voter who doesn't miss an election. I have always defended you, but this post about your blogger is beyond crazy. I believe KC Johnson to be reputable and beyond reproach. Your blogger's comments disgust me.

james conrad said...

re 5.23, theres only one small detail you are leaving out.....bush was elected PRIOR to 9/11

Anonymous said...

4:52,

I actually think Walter Jones is standing on principle, but I'm not sure about the NC Democratic heirarchy. I'm hoping it's not partisan politics.

Anonymous said...

That is enough for me. I will do all I can to make sure JOhn Edwards does not get elected anywhere, ever.He makes very poor choices of who he surrounds himself with.

Guaunyu said...

James Conrad,

First of all, lemme say that it's a pleasure exchanging thoughts with you. You can be counted on not to get rude. That's an admirable quality that's in short supply around here of late.

Anyway, as to Giuliani vs. McCain, neither has a lock on the base, but McCain's courting the social conservatives pretty hard lately. The New York Italian Republican playing a Democrat playing a Republican may do alright in New Hampshire, but he ain't gonna play in Iowa or South Carolina. Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong, though.

Although, truth be told, until he bagan courting the party's social conservatives (i.e. Focus on the Family's Dobson), McCain was relatively cool by me.

Holy cripes! How far off the topic of the malicious prosecution of three Duke Lacrosse players are we?!?

ptolemy said...

I happen to know Amanda from an earlier time as she graudated in the high school class with my son and was the girl-friend of his best friend. She had an incredibly snotty and arrogant attitude towards her fellow classmates, including my son, whom she felt to be ignorant and naive West Texas rubes.

At the high school senior prom, she dressed as one of the travestites from the Rocky HoOrror Picture show. No one understood what her outfit was because one one had ever seen the movie. (I had, but was only a chaperone there, not a student, and therefore did not comment.) She was outraged that her costume did not cause a stir. She loudly announced slowly for everyone to be enlightened as as though she was talking to kindergarteners where the costume came from and how important the movie was culturally. When the students did not react with shock, awe and wonder, but with continued cluelessness, she basicailly went into a sulk for the rest of the prom.

Half of the graduating class was Hispanic and generally poor and the large majority of Anglos there also came from families having incomes well below the national average. You cannot tell me that she identifies with the "common man." She is a cultural snob with the politically correct attitudes of the far left who identifies with the "cool" culture.

james conrad said...

guanunyu...well, you know, the thread drifted into politics, i blame KC, lol, he started it with that edwards post. the only reason i give the nomination nod to giuliani is, bush likes him, hes a genuine hero to all of america, north, south, east and west.

Anonymous said...

Forgive me Conrad. I read a good deal about Al Queda well before 9/11. Steve Emerson was interesting to me, especially his reports about Hamas in America dating well into the 80s and 90s. Beruit during Reagan, the embassies and the Cole, 1st WTC, etc., were more than enough in my opinion to justify voting based on foreign policy before 9/11.

To retrospectively attack Clinton for the Cole, Kenya and Tanzania NOW, after 9/11, is disingenuous if you didn't think those made foreign affairs the most important issue in the 2000 election. TO bring them up now, but to have ignored them in the post-Clinton election, is revisionist history. If those things really mattered to you and everyone else then, BOTH Bush and Gore would have been campaigning on the war against al Queda. None of those attacks apparently hit home enough for you to care about them during the 2000 election. Personally, since foreign policy wasn't on the agenda during that election, we were free to vote based on domestic policy.

Clinton, for all his flaws (including his failure to kill/capture bin Laden while President), was very focused on Al Queda. Richard Clark was canned by the Bush administration because he was a one-trick pony (coincidentally, his obsession, his "one trick" was al Queda).

We can't know what would have happened if another man were President on 9/11. Would a memo warning of exactly what happened about a month and a half before 9/11 have meant more to a Democrat? Maybe, maybe not in this tangled, beaurocratic monster that is the Federal government. But the fact remains... the warnings were there way, way before 9/11. Way, way before the 2000 election.

Granted, no one campaigned on terrorism until 9/11... but we can only judge Dems and Repubs based on what they did before and after. Both failed before, and the Democrats haven't had a chance after 9/11 (they finally did well in an election, but before during and well after 9/11, all three branches -- except maybe the Supreme Court -- were decidedly Republican). Since 9/11, Bush's foreign policy portfolio included the rubber-stamp war that both parties would have executed (Afghanistan) and Bush's baby that he got bipartisan Congressional approval for (Iraq).

Anonymous said...

Steve-o here. If you know anything about politics, and you don't like Edwards, you know that Marcotte needs to stay with the campaign, and not be hounded off at this early juncture. Give her time to become a real embarrassment. It won't take that long.

Anonymous said...

My mother (now 94-years-old) was extremely active in politics when I was growing up. She once told me, "Anyone worth running for office, won't." I recall having lunch in the Governor's mansion (not NC) and the governor commented to my mother how I was a nice young man, and was there politics in my future? To which my mother replied, "I'm afraid not. I've taught him to tell the truth."
Obama, Hillary, Bush, Edwards, Dole, whoever, would "Nifong you in a heartbeat" if it furthered their career.

Guaunyu said...

Nice misspelling of "began" in my earlier post, huh? Duh.

Anonymous said...

4:55 Poor,crazy,sad.demented Crystal has enought pain in her own head. Nifong engineeded the entire thing and she was as much a victum as the guys. Only someone named after a child molester would be looking for Crystal to be crucified.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, but didn't you hear that Nifong is a Democrat? Doesn't that basically seal the deal about Republicans being better than Democrats? I mean, Nifong clearly is representative of Democrats everywhere.

Plus, as someone so eloquently pointed out earlier, in another infamous case the bad guys were Democrats as well. Doesn't that just say it all? Only a complete idiot wouldn't take these two instances and draw that inference.

Also, John Edwards was a personal injury attorney. Any law man with a shred of character would work in the insurance defense field. Clearly, we have the perfect storm.

I'll alert the mainstream liberal press, although I don't expect they'll print it, because they are part of the great liberal conspiracy along with college professors, Saddam Obama, Nancy "stretch" Pelosi, Hillary "Rotten" Clinton, the New York Slimes, the Washington Compost, and NAMBLA.

If we don't stand up for this now, and work to get a Republican elected President in '08, San Fran values will take over the country. We will lose the War on Christmas. They will surrender to terrorists, etc.

Anonymous said...

Beirut, 1983...The Marine Barracks bombing. Did Reagan stay and kick butt? No. He pulled out our troops pronto. This, my fellow bloggers, is where terrorism against the US got its real boost.

And when we supported the Afghans against the Soviets, we trained them well (including UBL) and they kept many of the SAMs we left there and use them against us.

Time and time again, we are our own worst enemy.

Marcotte is small potatoes. She's a shrill little poseur who doesn't know sh*t from shinola and uses her little soapbox to pontificate and does not tolerate dissent. Why Edwards got her instead of someone like Digby or Atrios does not speak well for his campaign.

General Jesus (love him!) is right...this is a non-controversy on the larger poltical scale. To those of us from all political stripes who have actually followed the case, however, Edward's hiring of someone so obviously disinterested in application of procedure and judicial process and--oh yeah--that whole innocent until proven guilty thing is galling.

ChanceArmy

Anonymous said...

***That is enough for me. I will do all I can to make sure JOhn Edwards does not get elected anywhere, ever.He makes very poor choices of who he surrounds himself with.***

I'll alert the press!

The Lunatic said...

Furthermore, his race has nothing to do with his credentials or qualifications.

Mr. Obama has nothing in the way of credentials or qualifications for the Presidency. Eight years in a state legislature and two years in the Senate? Oh, yes, I'm sure that qualifies him to administer the largest bureaucracy in the world and run the foreign policy of the world's only superpower.

Of course, the same is true of Mr. John "I got tired of the law so I served a term in the Senate and then quit" Edwards.

Then there's Bill Richardson, whose qualifications include:

1) Fourteen years of holding Federal elective office

2) Immersion in foreign policy as ambassador to the UN and several missions as a special diplomatic envoy

3) Administrative experience both at a federal agency (Department of Energy) and as a state governor (four years)

4) Policy experience in energy issues.

5) High familiarity with our largest neighbor and border/immigration issues stemming from both personal history and experience as a New Mexico politician.

If you were trying to design an ideal resume for a presidential candidate, it'd be hard to do better. Throw in the fact that he'd be the first Hispanic president . . .

james conrad said...

re 5.45...i have never attacked clinton for 9/11, why? because its pointless. the point is, prior to 9/11 america was not engaged on islamic fascism. theres nothing like killing 3,000 people to get ones attention, i argue simply that after 9/11 america is NOW engaged

Anonymous said...

Conrad, I very strongly believe that BEFORE 9/11, the Clinton administration was more focused on bin Laden than Bush. Richard Clark was canned for his linear focus. That is well-documented.

Yes, after 9/11 the Bushies seem to have gotten the message, and then kind of misdirected their rage, but still. And yes, clearly Clinton didn't get the job done. But as for which party was more focused on al Queda before 9/11... we know of Clinton's FAILURES regarding al Queda... but in his (yes very short) term before 9/11... al Queda didn't EXIST in Bush's world. He didn't want any help from Clinton holdovers like Clark, he wanted neo-conservatives who shared his world view to surround him. Clark didn't fit the mold.

Vivian Thomas said...

Steve-o 5:47pm....

Don't kid yourself. Edwards' people will keep her under control and give her a guise of legitimacy even as the hordes of freak-feminist which she draws are running behind the campaign bus. Shame this amateur, freak out of such a high stage before this sideshow is given the any hint of legitimacy.

Anonymous said...

3:20 PM

Anonymous said...
So you're trying to tell me that if I said today that I don't like dogs, and then a week from now Rudy Guiliani hired me to be his campaign blogger, that at that point it would become the official position of the Guiliani campaign and the NY Republican Party that they don't like dogs, either?

How's that?


How about if in your snarky little analogy- instead of hiring someone who does not like dogs, let's say Guiliani hired some guy who doesn't like African-Americans or the "transgendered" or Pakistanis? You would probably be at the top of the list linking his views to Guilani's. No question.

Anonymous said...

lunatic,

You forgot to mention another of Richardson's qualifications, his false claim for four decades that he was drafted into professional baseball. That old boy can lie as well as either of the Clintons, so put him in the Whitewater, I mean Whitehouse.

Meanwhile, can we get back to the Duke case. Three falsely accused men still have their necks close to the noose.

james conrad said...

re 6.07 you are beating a dead horse here, clark wasnt fired , he quit, why? because he didnt get to meet with the prez every morning as he did with clinton.

Anonymous said...

You're right Conrad. Despite his best efforts, he wasn't able to convince Georgie about the dangers of al Queda. In a way, his failure to convince Bush about the dire threat of al Queda was a Democratic fault in the pre-9/11 war against al Queda.

But we lost the 2000 election (please no snarky comments please about Bush v. Gore), and we lost the opportunity to choose the national security focus of the White House.

Anonymous said...

Could we have a little less discussion about presidential politics here? That's not what this board is about.

However, KC's posting makes me think Edwards might be one of the less appealing options in 2008 if Amanda Marcotte is on his team.

Anonymous said...

Professor Johnson, You are obviously quite smart. I suggest you consider spending your considerable talents and energies on something more important than this relatively minor controversy at Duke. You risk following the lead of Jim Sleeper, who wrote a book that he claimed was about liberal racism in America but was really about some aspects of OJ Simpson press coverage that he didn't like.

james conrad said...

re 6.21 the reason clark got his panties in a wad was because condi rice ( the national security director at that time) thought it was better for bush to get his brief from CIA director george tenet....this is not a complicated story and happens all the time in DC

Anonymous said...

How about a pool on the date when the first trial begins. I'll pick September 10, 2007, as the date jury selection begins in the case against Evans.

Michael said...

I think that politics used as a lever to get the charges dismissed is useful. But long discussions on politics will just fragment the efforts to this end.

Anonymous said...

I think it is safe to say that the Bush administration, pre-9/11, shifted the (yes, flawed) focus on al Queda towards a neoconservative worldview about letting people in the Middle East elect radical islamist governments rather than have evil dictators rule the area.

They fixed that lack of focus on al Queda after 9/11, when they shifted the focus from Afghanistan to bin Laden's right-hand man, Saddam Hussein (Obama's uncle, right?). Anyway, everything has worked out great. Aggression against hypothetical threats has proven successful and should be the benchmark for any future presidential elections.

Further, it should be the chief foreign policy objective of all to ensure that Hamas and Hizbollah can be legitimately elected by now-oppressed peoples all over the Middle East.

Guaunyu said...

6:25

You're right that we've gotten off on a (useless?) political tangent, and for my (considerable?) part in taking us there, I apologize.

Mea culpa.

Anonymous said...

1:24 PM

The "face that could stop a clock" remark is quite inappropriate and makes you – and to a lesser extent all of us – look like morons.

We can disagree with her on this subject and argue that her remarks disqualify her from the Edwards campaign. But we shouldn't stoop to ad hominem attacks.

Anonymous said...

Another brilliant idea would be to allow anyone who supports these boys to feel comfortable here... and not to attempt at all costs to make sure that only people in lock-step with your own political beliefs can feel comfortable supporting these guys.

Anonymous said...

By Uncle Sparky:

Could all the posters posting as "anonymous" PLEASE pick a "nym" or nom de plume and use it at the top of each post. I've taken the liberty of doing that as an example.

It looks as if there is one person with multiple personalities arguing with themselves. Sheesh!

Anonymous said...

Oh crap. The Hurt Feeling Brigade for Speech Code Enforcement(tm) is back.

Guaunyu said...

6:35

Aw, Dude. You're so right, but you are about to get so flamed.

Yesterday (or day before?), I tried to say the ad hominem attacks were weak, and I was on the hotseat for hours.

So, anyway, when the ridiculous posts about how you won't listen to opinions other than yours start coming, know I'm with you.

Guaunyu said...

See that. 6:39 got one in before I could even warn 6:35.

Guaunyu said...

Oh, 6:38, you starry-eyed dreamer, you!

;-)

Dan Collins said...

Uh, could Protein Wisdom get a little love for its role in blowing the cover off of this? Just asking.

M. Simon said...

Another Democrat Ned Lamont moment.

LOL.

I wonder how Obama will be able to jetison his socialism for the general election.

Te socialst/Marxists are destroying the Dems. The theocons are destroying the Rs.

What a country.

Daniel said...

This poses a fascinating dilemma for John Edwards: Does he stick with Amanda Marcotte because she connects to the extreme left portion of the Democratic Party, or does he throw her under the bus to avoid unnecessary controversy?

It’s easy for commenters on this blog to exaggerate the extent of the controversy, since we’re all so familiar with the fake-rape case and Marcotte’s rantings are so obviously absurd. Still, when your campaign hires a blogger, you want that to have a positive public relations impact rather than even a small negative impact. This controversy, whatever its actual magnitude, is not a good thing for the Edwards campaign. Conventional wisdom would suggest that he cut his losses.

But dumping Marcotte at this point would have other negative repercussions among Edwards’ core left-leaning constituency. Can he afford that at the same time he’s taking flack for his 28,000 square foot mansion and his attempt to cut in line at Wal-Mart to get a PlayStation3? For a candidate who’s main theme is class warfare (“two Americas”), the cognitive dissonance is reaching dangerous levels. Would Edwards want to risk a spurned Marcotte screaming that he’s a cowardly rich white male hypocrite?

Since I’m a libertarian, I don’t have a dog in the fight for either the Democratic or Republican Presidential nominations. Except that since one or the other party is almost certain to win the election, I’d like to see each party nominate the least harmful person (who will not destroy the country in the next four years).

For the Democrats, I don’t see Edwards as that person, but fortunately I think his chances are not good. Obama has little experience and I disagree with most of his political views, but the country could probably survive his Presidency. Richardson has an impressive resume and would also be survivable. Hillary grates on me like fingernails scraping on a blackboard, but she has the best chance of getting the nomination and winning the Presidency. She's been through two successful Presidential campaigns, and that experience will make a big difference.

Among Republicans, McCain grates on me as much as Hillary. Giuliani I could sort of tolerate, and I think he has a very good chance of capturing the nomination; I disagree with the spin of many commentators (and fearful Democrats) that he can’t get past the hurdle of right-wing primary voters. Gingrich has zero chance of winning the general election and hence virtually no chance of winning the nomination. Romney would also be a survivable President, but I think he’s as long a shot as Edwards.

So Edwards’ hiring of Marcotte is of interest mostly because of its entertainment value, not because it will effect the outcome of the Presidential race, and not because his handling of it will tell us anything new about Edwards that we didn’t already know.

M. Simon said...

6:38PM,

I disagree with KC's politics.

I love his support for justice.

So why not come together on subjects we agree on.

I'm not so bigoted that I believe that politics must trump justice.

In fact that is part of KC's take on the case.

Anon #1 said...


Obama has little experience and I disagree with most of his political views, but the country could probably survive his Presidency.


Except that we would likely see strongly renewed demands from blacks for a larger say in running the country ... which might not be a good thing ...

M. Simon said...

6:32PM,

The election of Hamas is a great learning experience for the Palis.

Voting does make a difference. In fact it could mean the difference between life and death.

Well at least the Palis are focusing on each other and mostly leaving the Israelis alone. That is a benefit.

Anonymous said...

Except that we would likely see strongly renewed demands from blacks for a larger say in running the country ... which might not be a good thing ...


Not sure what you're driving at, but the "reparations" lobby would be tickled pink.

M. Simon said...

Observer 1:53PM,

I have been doing regular posting on the Guilford case.

The Palestinians Did It

Click on the "Guilford College" label at the bottom to get all the posts.

Anonymous said...

re fear of blacks running the country

Sub_Saharan Africa, Haiti, etc-- wherever blacks run things you have a disaster

The Black Agenda:

--quotas
--set-asides
--easy access to elite institutions
--more money for low-IQ students in "public" education
--more welfare, section 8 vouchers
--more low-skilled black immigration


Adds up to a disaster, or Detroit.

M. Simon said...

2:10 PM,

I loved Obama's speech at the Dem convention even though I disagreed with almost all his points.

He has a very serious socialist boat anchor from his days in the Illinois Legislature. It will sink him in the general election.

Kent said...

You forgot to mention another of Richardson's qualifications, his false claim for four decades that he was drafted into professional baseball.

I'm a New Mexico Republican who doesn't think much of Richardson. Notwithstanding, the claim you're sneering at turns out not to be false, at least not as Richardson made it. Midly spun? Maybe, but not much for a politician. If anyone really cares, I'll try to dredge up the Albuquerque Journal article on this.

I care, because you won't defeat Richardson with a bogus claim like this.

Anonymous said...

6:01 PM
"If you were trying to design an ideal resume for a presidential candidate, it'd be hard to do better. Throw in the fact that he'd be the first Hispanic president . . ."

My black seven trumps your Hispanic Jack... sorry! That's today's MSM and Hollywood left.

Anonymous said...

Uh, could Protein Wisdom get a little love for its role in blowing the cover off of this? Just asking.

Yeah, if you don't mention Protein Wisdom then Jeff Goldstein won't let Dan Collins have any dessert. And that would be sad.

Serenity Now said...

Here's a screenshot of Marcotte's original post, courtesy of Google's cache.

I also have the full html page (including the comments), if anyone needs it.

Anonymous said...

Gingrich - was he not the Speaker of the House who tried to crucify Bill Clinton - and he wound up resigning. I don't believe Americans will vote for a Hussein -except the muslins of course. What religion is Obama? Oh -Mel Gibson's father is a denier of the 6 million.

Anonymous said...

Racism is certainly driving this case but feminism is one of the underlying factors that has corrupted the system allowing this abomination.
While the short term goal should certainly be trying to help the falsely accused in whatever limited way we can, a longer term goal should be to try and fix the system so this does not happen again. Joe Biden would absolutely be the wrong choice for president if we want to fix the system.
Biden is one of the main supporters of the Violence Against Women Act and has actively fought making the language of that act gender neutral. His pandering to the female vote suggests he would strengthen rape shield and other pro accuser laws making it harder for the falsely accused to receive justice in the criminal system.

Anonymous said...

If you were trying to design an ideal resume for a presidential candidate, it'd be hard to do better. Throw in the fact that he'd be the first Hispanic president . . ."

Exactly. Even though I wouldn't vote for Richardson (I'm a republican) he clearly has the kind of experience that is needed for being a commander-in-chief (especially in wartime).

President is a leader, he/she will have plenty of experts helping, therefore president needs to have proven track record in executive position. Typically, governor is the best possible background, perhaps (now since we are at war) a retired general (Clark, Franks) might be ok as well (especially Sec of State & ex-general Colin Powell). I think Mike Bloomberg (successul CEO & NYC mayor) is also clearly qualified to be the president and the leader of free world.

McCain has almost zero experience in leadership positions in the last 30 years but perhaps because he has been a powerful senator so long (with military experience) that he is qualified as well. Romney (successful CEO, head of Olympics committee, governor) and Guliani (9/11 mayor, saved NYC from crime/taxes/corruption in 1990s) are also clearly qualified.

No way Obama or Edwards (or even Gingrich, even though I like him otherwise) are qualified.

Anonymous said...

To all of you Clinton apologists out there who are certain that the Bent One was a terrorist fighting machine: Besides a tiny, pink tag of wrinkly flesh, what do you think was in Sandy Berger's underwear when he pilfered the National Archives a year or two ago?

Anonymous said...

the memo where he or Clinton gave the order not to harm bin laden?

Had it been Karl Rove or Condi Rice this would be front page news all over leftland (CNN, al-NYT, al-Reuters etc) and senators would be requiring congressional and (new) criminal investigations. 9/11 commission was lied to about this and important original documents were stolen by Berger, as we now know.

Anonymous said...

The Pandagon 8/31 comment quoted in this entry is actually Marcotte's paraphrase or characterization of a blog entry by a conservative male blogger. I don't believe it is an accurate characterization, but the views expressed in the 8/31 comment cannot really be considered Marcotte's.

Gregory said...

This man is expected to pick the next Vice President of the United States, the next Secretary of State, the rest of his cabinet, a person to fill any vacancy in the United States Supreme Court, and people to fill every vacancy in the remaining federal judiciary as well as other bureaucratic positions.

It can be fairly said that in this instance, Mr. Edwards "chose poorly."

He has insulted his home state as well as the American System of Justice, with his apparent implicit approval of a modern-day lynching.

One should expect much more from the next President of the United States of America.

K.C. Johnson for President! Obama or Bill Anderson as Veep!

Dan Collins said...

KC--
Who's the "Black Agenda" guy? Got an IP address for me?

Locomotive Breath said...

..."chose poorly."

A "Raiders of the Lost Ark Reference".
I LIKE it.

Anonymous said...

me: A quick google of Marcotte found that she's got a face that could stop a clock, fitting the description of the typical angry feminist.

6:35: The "face that could stop a clock" remark is quite inappropriate and makes you – and to a lesser extent all of us – look like morons.

I disagree that my observation is moronic and ad hominem, and not germane. Call it the Andrea Dworkin syndrome. The angriest feminists consistently fall far below the average standard of feminine beauty and attractiveness. In my view a serious argument can be made that plain-janeism, and the sense of inadequacy it engenders, directly correlates to the disenchantment with men and the general alienation expressed by many of the most active and angry feminists.

beckett

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 236   Newer› Newest»