Dave, sadly genocidal, child-raping Catholicism is still the coddled cult of facsist minions like you. You hate Edwards' bloggers because their truth telling threatens the pedophile priest enslavement of women's wombs.

Dave, sadly genocidal, child-raping Catholicism is still the coddled cult of facsist minions like you. You hate Edwards' bloggers because their truth telling threatens the pedophile priest enslavement of women's wombs.

Dave, sadly genocidal, child-raping Catholicism is still the coddled cult of facsist minions like you. You hate Edwards' bloggers because their truth telling threatens the pedophile priest enslavement of women's wombs.

I just wonder if Mr. Edwards, if elected POTUS, would hire the two "Bloggin' Bimbos" again in minor staff jobs. Afterall, he hired them once. Senator Edwards, due to his weak response to this outrageous bigotry, has lost this Catholic's vote. Ah Catholicism, the last target of socially acceptable bigotry.

I just wonder if Mr. Edwards, if elected POTUS, would hire the two "Bloggin' Bimbos" again in minor staff jobs. Afterall, he hired them once. Senator Edwards, due to his weak response to this outrageous bigotry, has lost this Catholic's vote. Ah Catholicism, the last target of socially acceptable bigotry.

Except that they are supposed to be working promoting Edwards, not pushing an agenda that gives Bill Donahue a forum.

They screwed Edwards, and he's the one that'll pay.

Few people in these posts are discussing Edwards' candidacy, only the hired guns' anti-Catholic venting; true or not.

You go girls!

Brilliant, screw the guy who's signing your paycheck.

They've done to Edwards what Lani Guinier did to Bill Clinton. Push an agenda, without having eough common sense to know when to resign.

As long as these feminists (or are they the personification of the term, feminazi for pushing the feminist agenda when they are being paid for something else) are part of Edwards' camaign, Donahue has a pulpit from which to preach.

p.s. - I don't like Donahue, but these people legtiimzed his complaining this time.

Edwards did the "right" thing, not realizing that his employees may have made him the next George Allen.

If he can't get them to resign, then he needs to can their butts. If he can't do either, then he doesn't have enough sense to be President.

P.S. As a physically and mentally abused cradle Catholic who has researched the Vatican Nazi/pedophile priest/trafficked orphan guinea pig ratlines, I've concluded that the whole "Virgin" Mary racket is misogynist PEDOPHILE HERESY! Kudos to Edwards for keeping the brave feminist TRUTH TELLERS!

To William the Nazi Catholic Pedophile suck-up:
1. John "Adulterous" McCain
2. Mitt "Gay Flip Flopper" Romney
3. Sam "Opus Dei Pedophile Womb Pimp" Brownback
4. Rudy "9/11 Inside Job Perp" Guilianni
5. Mike "Fetal Facsist"Huckabee
6. Duncan "Dukester Gay Poker Player" Hunter
7. James "Fetal Facsist" Gilmore
8. Tom "Pro-life Shoot Already Born Latinos" Tancredo
9. Tommy "Mother Killer" Thompson
10. Ron "Fetal Facsist" Paul

Sorry Carlos, you're wrong. I've lived all over the country, but never in Massachusetts.

Homophobic are we?

Racist = hater.
Homophobe = hater.

No wonder you took offense at the criticism of the racist. Substitute homophobe for racist and there's litle difference.

BTW - Don't come back with one of those tired retorts about singing Kumbaya - never bought into that. Too bad though that you waste so much of your energy on hate.

This is why "bloggers" are retarded idiots. They claim all of their writings are meaningful and effective, but when there is something controversial, they say "oh, it's on my blog, so it really doesn't count the same as a regular editorial."

The fact is that these people are anti-Catholic.

Gore would be a much better candidate, because he doesn't stoop to this level of bigotry of people like Edwards.

And Kerry is a buffoon

Nor'Easter, you really blow. perhaps you are in Massachusetts, the Gay State. that's in the tired old Northeast.

Colin:
I hear you. Thanks for accepting a little constructive criticism from a complete stanger on the other side of the world.

Blarg: Hope that you're able to enjoy the spare time.

Just remember, when you do respond to William, you're "feeding the (ego) beast," no matter which side he's showing at the time.

Interesting observation on the manic-depessive or drunk aspect.

I'd love to see a certified psychologist's opinion of the type of person that's likely to be behind those posts. Too bad there's no way we could validate one's credentials on here.

But then, they might start looking at the rest of us also.

The frightening thing to me is that this kid actually seems to believe the tripe that he's peddling. He's not the "Harvard Sophmores sending fake letters to Dear Abby" type. He's for real. As he gets older, if he keeps up his obsession with politics and goes into it, he'll be even worse than Lee Atwater or Karl Rove.

The thing is, William isn't just a troll. Sometimes he discusses politics (both issues and candidates) in extreme detail. It's possible to have a fairly interesting discussion with him then. Other times, he makes excessively racist, insulting, and idiotic posts, full of bloodlust and far-right rhetoric. It's like he's manic-depressive, or posts drunk half the time.

I wouldn't respond, but I can't let idiocy pass me by. So I always end up arguing with semi-trolls. Plus, I have a lot of spare time on my hands.

I hate it when boards get hijacked by the racists (and if he isnt a racist he is willing to exploit other people's racism to win)Its a sad commentary that the United States still has people like that but freedom of speech is very important to me.

Kevin/Colin et al: While I agree that racism should be pointed out for what it is, William posts something along those lines about every third entry. He's been called on it, and simply denies it. He's unrepentent.

When people respond directly to his junk, he just sucks that person into his world of slime.

Take a look at a typical William entry and you'll see something which is actually quite slick. He includes a variety of talking points, bullets - whatever you want to call them.

Why slick? Because so many are almost guaranteed a response. He "fishing." He tosses out so much bait, that there's almost bound to be somebody who bites.

And with that, he inevitably gets the thread off track and into his mental midget world.

Compounding that is: responding to him just feeds his ego.

To me he gets "undeserved attention."

I suggest calling him on the racism, but doing it generally. Stay away from the specifics - the weird stuff that he loves to get into. That will minimize his messing with the thread and taking the discussion off course.

In a way William's "swiftboating" us. Throwing out crap and diverting attention from what the discussion should be.

Kevin -- What can I say, I actually enjoy pointing out racism when I see it. I will, however, tone it down since I can see how it would annoy others.

Colin, Truth Hunter, Blarg:
Why are you letting William goad you into an uninteresting, useless war of words? He's never going to listen, he's never going to understand you, he's never going to grow up. At least not in this blog context. Please, for the sake of the rest of us, IGNORE HIM. He's just posting to piss you off, but in the big picture, he's wasting all of our time. And you're letting him. I work with these sorts of people. Their minds were made up before they got out of bed this morning and there's just no point in trying to have an honest conversation with them. You give him undue respect.

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

william, we are lucky to have you as part of this conversation to explain to us who does and does not qualify as a christian. some may have been erroneously assuming that it had something to do with beliefs in peace, love, fair play, turning the other cheek, etc. but you have certainly set them straight. apparently, christians are whites who carry concealed automatic weapons in order to protect their property from anyone daring to approach it.

william for imperial wizard 2008!

william, we are lucky to have you as part of this conversation to explain to us who does and does not qualify as a christian. some may have been erroneously assuming that it had something to do with beliefs in peace, love, fair play, turning the other cheek, etc. but you have certainly set them straight. apparently, christians are whites who carry concealed automatic weapons in order to protect their property from anyone daring to approach it.

william for imperial wizard 2008!

'william, it's called thinning the herd. The stupid and slow get eaten first. '

I expect you two to disappear any moment then.

oh and as for the double standards here....

the media has indeed reported on a McCain blogger incident.

and if I really wanted to report on double standards I would talk about the hillary hating around here.

and a final point...as a non practicing catholic who disagrees with the teachings of the catholic church on a huge range of issues....I still find the comments offensive.

Edwards has proven himself unfit as a presidential contender. He deliberated on this for how long? Too long, how long will he deliberate on a swiftboat type attack? He only did something after it was clear that he would be abandoned by the netroots. He's pandering to them.

it's true I don't like edwards but it's for reasons like this. And his whole courting of the netroots is running away from every stance he held whilst in office. And you can bet that if he does by a miracle win the nomination he'll go charging back to the centre expecting to be followed.

finally though, he took too long to reach a decision that he never should have had to take. He should have checked and vetted them beforehand and been prepared. Another stupid story just like the whole selling his house episode.

Once again, William shows his wonderful Christian values. He's practically the second coming of Mother Theresa!

William, Thank goodness the bloggers didn't use cartoons or else you would have taken to the streets demanding their heads in true extremist-Muslim fashion.

You aren't doing the cause of religion any good either. You are reinforcing the absolute need for the separation of church and state to preclude immature and punishing know-it-alls from imposing their perverted view of the world on others.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

good post robert. You're right, I agree.

I need to make these remarks publicly, even though they will probably go unnoticed below the 96 other entries.

I do not know what these two women wrote in their blogs, what their intent was or whether the tone or content were offensive.

Nevertheless, I think Edwards' handling of this incident is enough to raise severe doubt about his ability to handle the pressure and intenstity of the Oval Office.

It is entirely unreasonable of Edwards to expect the public to separate any of his employees' pre-Edwards remarks from his campaign.

People are hired on the basis of their previous performance, period.

If Edwards' management style is so radical that he won't operate that way, we are in for a world of hurt if he ever tries to govern.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

"Smearing someone's good name with blatant lies, like William gleefully anticipates doing?"

Politics is about winning. Playing nice and being dignified and refraining from attacks doesn't work.

Just ask Jim Leach.

I will feel sorry (to some extent) for Osama or Edwards when they are smeared.

But it will be worth it when the GOP candidate is sworn in and Osama is on his way back to Chicago and Breck Girl is on her way back to his ambulance chasing financed mansion.

What matters is WINNING, and politics is rough.

The Dems didn't hesitate to use racial smears against Bobby Jindal, so why should we not use them against Osama?

You Dems aren't blameless.

With the future of our nation at stake, smearing some Muslim from Kenya/Indonesia is a small price to pay for the security of our country, and our nation's future.

If in order to win, Osama must be smeared, I am willing to do that.

Colin, if obama is the Dem pres candidate, there WILL be ads in the 08 general with his face with a bin laden beard and turban transposed over it. He will be flanked by Ahmedinejad,and Saddam in the ad.

I PROMISE YOU THAT.

Boy, it really is fun to see people reveal their true colors. Inappropriate sarcastic comments? Basis for ending someones career. Smearing someone's good name with blatant lies, like William gleefully anticipates doing? For him, a reason to be part of the Grand ole' Party.

Wonder why William said "black" about 40 times when talking about Senator Obama? It's almost...as if...he thinks...that's 'bad.' But wait, he already said he's not a racist. That's right, I forgot. Never mind.

"Isn't there a queer Episcopal congregation, or liberal Jewish synagogue you can join? or the breakaway church Jimmy Carter is so wild-eyed about?"

Excellent post. It's a shame what has happened to the Episcopal church though.

The main body has really abandoned and rejected God in order to be seen as "enlightened" and "tolerant" by leftist social elites.

The Episcopal Church of America has turned into a simply "spiritual" organization that merely uses the Cross as it's imagery instead of any other symbol.

How sad.

"btw, I agree with you about Edwards, but Obama is neither stupid nor slow... so when it comes to be his turn for the "smear jobs" that you two are hinting at, you can expect to face some trouble putting that one through."

Barry Obama MAY be smarter than Edwards (though they are both Ivy League IIRC.)

However, even if he is smart, he has WAAAAAAAAAy too many weaknesses and liabilities that can, and WILL be expoited by his opponents both in the primaries, AND in the general.

In an age when we are at war with Islamic terror, can you imagine Americans electing a half-black Muslim named Hussein who attends a black supremacist "church" and was schooled at a madrass????

See, I just said it. It doesn't matter if Osama really WASNT schooled at a madras, and isnt Muslim.

He is finished anyway, because people will see, hear and read our (GOP) ads against Obama and will not vote for him.

Bye Bye Barry Hussein.

"A small news item in February of 2007 -- that very few people will even take note of, let alone remember in 6 months -- has clearly destroyed Edwards' chances. Good point. In fact, William has now clearly demonstrated that no one can possibly win the Dem nomination other than Hillary, so we should probably just cancel all those primaries"

Oh, but people WILL remember it 6 months from now. Edwards' rivals in the primary will MAKE SURE it's not forgotten. They will make hay out of it. Do you think they would let something like this slide?

Right now, Hillary is saying "How dare that little upstart Edwards twerp run against ME? Doesn't he know this is MY year?"

The other Dems see Edwards as a threat, and there are a lot of Catholic primary voters in IA, NH and NV.

Also, if you don't think we (the GOP) would ROAST Edwards' in a general with this, you're delusional!

I can just imagine the TV ads now! :)

If Edwards had immediately fired the two bloggers, issued a strong, angry condemnation, and publically, personally made a statement announcing the firings, he MAY have been able to past this.

But his decision to KEEP the bloggers allows him to be portrayed as endorsing their statements.

Whether you like it or not, Edwards is ruined. RUINED, I SAY!!!!!!!!

Barack bin Laden is next.

"william, it's called thinning the herd. The stupid and slow get eaten first. ha!"

btw, I agree with you about Edwards, but Obama is neither stupid nor slow... so when it comes to be his turn for the "smear jobs" that you two are hinting at, you can expect to face some trouble putting that one through.

Clearly you really, really want Hillary to be the Democratic candidate. Hmmm...

it's great that Bill Donahue has caused so many faux Catholics on this site -- the ones who adore queer marriage and partial-birth abortion (quick, jam the scissors in before it cries!) -- to proclaim how very Catholic they "really" are. Please. Isn't there a queer Episcopal congregation, or liberal Jewish synagogue you can join? or the breakaway church Jimmy Carter is so wild-eyed about? (Jews need not apply.) that's where the homosexual pretend-priests purged by the GENUINE Catholics have repaired to, I read. No need to wonder where the priest's hands have been the night before he dispensed Communion, you see. Sanitary.

John Edwards, pack it in. take a leaf from John-Boy Kerry, weepier than Muskie, more ludicrous than Dukakis ("rape my wife? no biggie.") in his tank, and get back on the plantation with the Tarheels. paging Mike Nifong, would you care to run for President, Mike?

William is right. A small news item in February of 2007 -- that very few people will even take note of, let alone remember in 6 months -- has clearly destroyed Edwards' chances. Good point. In fact, William has now clearly demonstrated that no one can possibly win the Dem nomination other than Hillary, so we should probably just cancel all those primaries.

Out of curiosity William, at your school are you allowed to talk to Catholics? Just curious since at Bob Jones -- you know, where GWB gave his great speech in 2000, "the papists" aren't looked kindly upon. Nor is inter-racial dating. Honestly, if that's not where you're at school you should take a look at transfering. Definitely your kind of place.

"william, it's called thinning the herd. The stupid and slow get eaten first. ha!"

Well, I am celebrating :)

What I think will happen is that Hillary will win the primary, but she can't win the general with so many people already against her.

McCain will blow Hillary out of the water in the general election.

But personally I hope McCain or Guliani isn't the nominee.

I kind of like Duncan Hunter.

AJL, it doesn't MATTER if it's a smear job. It will WORK, and Edwards will be destroyed.

Edwards will be Swift Boated because of this, first in the primaries, and, if he somehow gets the nom, in the general.

What you and all Dems have to realize is that Edwards is radioactive (We're talking thermocuclear here), and his political career is finished.

Maybe Edwards can become a blogger or political analyst for MSNBC.

Aside from that, he's finished.

This is worse than Biden's snide remarks or Kerry's infamous botched joke.

It's even worse than "macaca" since almost all Americans are Christian, while there aren't that many Indians (and in Allen's state, comments like "macaca" are OK.)

Give up on Edwards. He can't win in a general, so there's no point in nominating him.

But I doubt he will even get the nomination.

Just wait until the Clinton war machine begins roasting Edwards.

The Clinton war machine is ruthless. It doesn't compromise, and it has NO mercy. Vince Foster was found DEAD!

Clinton is going to drag Edwards over the coals when it comes to Catholic voters.

He's done, same as Kerry.

Next.

Now Hillary is preparing to ruin Obama utterly, without mercy, and send him back to ILLinois with his tail between his legs.

After Obama is gone, Hillary's path to the nomination is pretty much clear.

Edwards is finished, and Obama has too many liabilities to last long.

They were her strongest rivals.

Now, the only people who have a chance to challenge Hillary are Vilsack and Richardson.

And I don't think Richardson will mount a serious challenge to Hillary. He would look ungrateful since Bill Clinton appointed him to Sec Energy and UN ambs.

And in any case, Richardson can't compete with Clinton for fundraising. Also, Bill Clinton probably knows of some skeletons which he can coerce Richardson out of the race with.

Once Obama goes down, Hillary will have no meaningful opposition, unless for some strange reason, Dems unite around Richardson or Vilsack.

And I really don't see that happening.

Obama's destruction will leave the left wing without a niche candidate, and Vilsack and Richardson are more conservative than Hillary, so the left will support her.

Moderates will also support her.

After Edwards' recent decision, he has no chance @ SC in the primaries. Given that Hillary is a more moderate, Protestant, Dem, she will take SC (or Vilsack may take it.)

NH also has a LOT of Catholics, as does NV. So Ed is screwed.

Richardson is too conservative on some issues to appeal to the left. Hell, he's even endorsed by the NRA.

Vilsack wasn't even a good governor of IA, and Hillary would crush him in a debate.

"Boy, I really didn't expect Edwards to destruct this early"

william, it's called thinning the herd. The stupid and slow get eaten first. ha!

Anyone else notice that most of the people claiming to be angry Catholics who have decided not to vote for Edwards... are partisan Republicans who would never have voted for Edwards anyway?

Anyone else notice that this "Anti-Catholic" label has been slapped on these girls by people who haven't even read their comments in context? Or that all of the allegedly anti-Catholic comments were made by only one of these two women (Marcotte) and McEwan is essentially being libeled?

Anyone else notice that (despite the claim made by Konic) actual anti-semitic comments haven't kept William Donohoe from getting unwarranted attention for his little PC Police crew that doesn't speak for most American Catholics?

This is a smear job, Chris. Don't just carry water for groups that have a vested interest in hurting Edwards. Look at the bloody evidence and discuss it.

William -- want to address any of your previous vile comments before we get to what these bloggers said? I'm quite a bit more concerned about your statements.

Since you asked, however, I'm not wild about the statements these two made. I think they were definitely in poor taste. Since I'm not a moron, however, I understand that (1) they were intended as sarcastic comments rather than an indictment of my religion; and (2) that the medium that is blogging lends itself to intemperate statements. You know, like many of the ones you've spit off lately?!

And guess what? Edwards said he thought the statements were in bad taste as well, that he disagreed with them, and that no one would or will say similar things while they're working for him. That takes care of the issue for me. Though obviosly I don't count as a real catholic since you've made that determination.

Boy, it really will be awkward going to church on Sunday since I'm not a real catholic anymore. Oh well...

Gosh, William, what a clever guy you are. Those nicknames kill me. Connecting a United States senator to a mass murderer based on the fact that they have the same name . . . who else would have thought of that?

Here's another: George "took the country into an unnecessary war, which led to the needless death and injury of thousands of Americans and even more thousands of Iraqis; unleashed what is likely to be a decades-long war in the Middle East; and undermined respect for our country and our values in pretty much every corner of the world" Bush.

I'll need to punch it up a little, but, like all good nicknames, it captures key features of the bearer's personality and behavior.

And no, I'm not really interested in your reaction.

So Colin, you are not offended by the statement of the bloggers, or Edwards' decision??????

If you actually think practicing Catholics will support Edwards after this, you are out of your MIND!

Not only that, Edwards now has NO chance to win the general.

2008 WILL be the DEMOCRATS' election to lose, and so far it looks like you guys are trying as hard as possible to lose.

Seriously, you shouldn't have all started drolling for Obama.

Then maybe Bayh would still be a candidate.

Kerry doesn't think much of Edwards...I wonder if he will pile on!

Blarg -- Don't forget that WILLIAM also called the Katrina refugees "parasites" and implied that (1) everyone who fled New Orleans was a minority; and (2)none of the non-minority victims in Mississippi or Alabama asked for or received federal aid.

Oh, and today WILLIAM proclaimed that NOT ONE SINGLE PRACTICING CATHOLIC will support Edwards. Wow, as a practicing catholic myself that is certainly good to know.

Yep, WILLIAM is the guy to decide who is a real christian. Definitely.

roo -

Agreed. My posts today and yesterday are on two different things.

Before I understood what the story on Melissa and Amanda actually was, I assumed it was on bloggers paid to post without disclosing their hired status. That's unethical. And it may be happening, so is worth investigating.

Now that I get the picture, I am just talking about how clueless Edwards is. He has not been shown to be unethical during this story, but he certainly has been shown to be clueless.

Well I for one HOPE McCain knocks off Guliani by fair means or foul.

What business does that immoral, ultraliberal, police-statist, gun grabbing ball of slime have running for the GOP nomination?

He has no right to foist himself on us.

He DOES have the right to run, and Terry Nelson has the right to ruin him utterly.

Here's one of the cleaner remarks from Marcotte: On June 14, 2006, she offered the following: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit. To which she followed with, You'd have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology. Like I said, this was one of the tamer statements these women made. Anyone who said they read these women's remarks and don't find them offensive lied and didn't read them, or, they are so far left they've left our atmosphere. It's nice to see some level-headed posters understand how alienating the Catholic vote is political suicide. We don't need Democratic lemmings following another out of touch candidate like Kerry over the cliff.

The readers here are so dense that it is small wonder that Bush was able to railroad us into Iraq. Look people, there is more than a little talk out there right now that Clinto and McCain campaigns are COOPERATING. What you are witnessing right now is classic James Carville and Rove tactics to early knock off their respective opponents. Given the high negatives of Clinton and McCain's fears of running against a moderate populist like Edwards (or a perceived one like Guilliani) they have to. If the press wasn't so taken with themselves, they would do a little digging and, then, instead of a ten minute wonder on John Edwards, they would have a story that would have legs. I don' much hold my breath becaue these are the same fools that fell lock stock and barrel for the Iraq invasion cheerleading.

Colin - I haven't backed a candidate yet, but it will certainly NOT be a Dem, especially a racist pinko like "Low Joe" Biden.

I like Duncan Hunter, and it would be interesting (and refreshing) to have a Congressman as a nominee for a change. Hunter has been in Congress since 1980, and is more than qualified.

I like Tom Tancredo the best. He's a true patriot and is really looking out for our country. But I really don't think he is serious at all about running. He's just doing it to raise his profile.

Jim Gilmore is good too, but he doesn't even have a website up! I doubt he is serious. Maybe he just wants a TV show like John Kasich (who would have been a GREAT president.)

Ron Paul is OK, but again, I can't see him taking off. Too little support.

Brownback is pro-amnesty and weak on the death penalty.

Huckabee is taking his "compassionate conservative" garbage too far.

He thinks that "too atone for" the way our country treated African Americans, we have to let as many Hispanics as possible come here and become citizens.

He STRONGLY favors amnesty, as well as govt benfits for illegals.

Huck is a tax raiser, a social program initiator, and a big spender.

He is also weak on law and order, and often pardoned dangerous criminals as governor, who later went on to kill people.

He is also anti-death penalty.

So Schuckabee is out.

I MIGHT be able to stomach McCain, but just barely.

Rudy is not even a RINO, he is a far left Dem, and that worthless fascist can stay in NYC.

America's mayor my arse.

"It was really pathetic how after Katrina, all the "victims" were crowding around the Superdome like sheep, whining "We want help! We want help!"

They are so used to being provided for by government largesse rather than providing for themselves, that they had no idea what to do when the check and food stamps stopped coming in.

This may sound cruel, but the people demanding "HELP" as if they were somehow entitled to it reminded me of zoo animals who's keeper doesn't feed them one day, and then they have no idea what to do so they start howling.

And now, all of New Orlean's finest citizens are scattered over the entire country, raping and murdering anyone they can find.

I pity the poor families who took in Katrina refugees, only to be robbed or have their daughter raped by the Katrina escapee.

If a Katrina refugee showed up at my door, I would show them the business end of my shotgun and tell them to beat it before I lost my temper."

You're right, William. I was wrong to judge you based on that post. Those words are so full of compassion that they could have been written by Jesus himself! I'm also reminded of the verse in the Gospels where Jesus told the apostles how if anyone comes into his house, he'd shoot them in the face repeatedly and piss on the corpse.

Remind me again how you're a real Christian.

Golgi,

Yes, hiring 'bloggers' is a horrible idea for any company or organisation, exemplified by for example the Washington Post's "The Fix" :)

Without going into a discussion about any delusions of coolness Edwards may have, I think hiring people to specifically write 'blogs' is perfectly fine when it is clearly understood that these people are spokesmen for the campaign.

What would NOT be fine is to hire people to *covertly* push your agenda while not disclosing the affiliation which is NOT what the case with Edwards is.

'To any Christians who are not offended by those bloggers' comments:
You are obviously not a real Christian, or at least, you are far more loyal to the secular-progressive ideology than you are to God.'
who the hell do you think you are, you snotnosed kid? That's up to God to decide, isn't it? what a demented racist little jerk you are.

AMen. He sees into the dark hearts of men like WIlliam. William needs to start living the Word. Sad child.

The GOP Line (since CC hasn't posted one in a while, I thought I'd give my own take)

1. John McCain

2. Mitt Romney

3. Sam Brownback

4. Rudy G. - Sounds like a GaNgSta RaPpA, no?

5. Mike Huckabee

6. Duncan Hunter

7. James Gilmore (former gov of Virginia)

8. Tom Tancredo

9. Tommy Thompson

10. Ron Paul

William said "Biden: very heavily damaged. It appears Biden is a closet racist, who hates blacks and Indians. I really don't see Biden recovering."

Does that mean you're voting for Biden then? That's great buddy -- glad to see you found your candidate.

As a Catholic, I am more offended by Donohue's comments than that little Amanda girl. He is dangerous.
William - your words show that you are troubled. Get help.

Blarg - You're taking my comments out of context. I made the comparison of the NOLA refugees to zoo animals since they, like zoo animals, are so completely dependent on a higher authority (the zoo keeper and the Govt, respectively), that when that authority stops providing, they have no idea what to do and are simply in shock.

It IS an apt comparison, and by NO MEANS did I intend to dehumanize the NOLA citizens when making that comparison. But the comparison still fits, undeniably.

And re: the deserve to be shot part, I NEVER said that. I did say that if a Katrina refugee showed up at my home, I would tell them to leave, and if they refused, I would DISPLAY my gun to get them to go away.

JR - No, I wouldn't vote for Edwards, who favors wealth redistribution (as long as it isn't his wealth.)

Edwards is clearly a socialist on the level of Adlai Stevenson.

But I CAN GUARANTEE you that NO, NOT ONE practicing Catholic will vote for him after he gave a de facto endorsement to those blogger's comments.

And anyone who says they are a practicing Christian/Catholic and don't care what the bloggers said is lying.

Even if Edwards wins the Dem primary, the GOP will make sure each and every American finds out about how Edwards refused to fire those bloggers, and everyone will be told exactly what the bloggers' said.

So, it wouldn't even make sense for the Dems to nominate Edwards' now.

He's just become unelectable, if he wasn't already.

Obama is also unelectable.

Dodd is another Kerry.

Biden is going down in flames.

Vilsack...um no.

Richardson - serious skeletons, Latino, lied about baseball, can't match Clinton in fundraising.

So basically, unless Vilsack busts out with some serious charisma, or Biden makes a miraculous comeback, you are stuck w/ Hillary.

William is a troll. *yawn*

People.....remember..the cold caluclating Edwards did not run for re election in NC in 2004 because he knew he would lose. He was not a popular guy because of this calculated phoniness as displayed with the recent quasi-episode (along with the mansion mis-calculation). These episodes alone are all kind of meaningless but paint a picture of arrogance and tone deafness that are blaring! Erskine Bowles was the Dems Senate candidate, and a good guy, but Edwards and Bowles were almost never seen together. Look how Edwards helped the Kerry vote in his home state (he didn't). Time to move on.......

"2. Barack "Saddam Hussein" Osama."

William is kindly lending support to my argument here.

William, what exactly makes mr. Obama deserving of this nickname? Did he commit crimes against humanity during his tenure at Harvard?

"The Intelligence Community judges that the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qaida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements."

The report described an Iraqi government, army and police force that cannot meet these challenges in any foreseeable time frame and a reversal of "the negative trends driving Iraq's current trajectory" occurring only through a dream sequence in which all the warring sects and factions, in some unexplained way, suddenly make peace with one another. Nor does the NIE suggest that this imaginary scenario might ever come to pass. Instead, it proceeds to describe the potential for "an abrupt increase in communal and insurgent violence and a shift in Iraq's trajectory from gradual decline to rapid deterioration with grave humanitarian, political, and security consequences."

'Deep within the bowels of the Pentagon, policy planners are conducting secret meetings to discuss what to do in the worst-case scenario in Iraq about a year from today if and when President Bush's escalation of more than 20,000 troops fails, a participant in those discussions told me. None of those who are taking part in these exercises, shielded from the public view and the immediate scrutiny of the White House, believes that the so-called surge will succeed. On the contrary, everyone thinks it will not only fail to achieve its aims but also accelerate instability by providing a glaring example of U.S. incapacity and incompetence.'

Lark - bite me.

Noreaster - Edwards isnt tainted. He's DONE. D O N E. I mean worse than Howard Dean DONE.

At this juncture, Crol Mosely Braun has a better chance at the Dem nomination.

The only question now is, WHO will benfit from Edwards' share of the vote that is now up for grabs?

Obama will most likely take the anti-war and social programs share of Edwards' support.

Unions back winners so they will play ball with Hillary.

The faction who supported Edwards b/c they thought he was more electable than HRC or BHO will most likely go to Hillary or Vilsack (a Catholic who isn't perverted, unlike Edwards.)

Wow, I am still STUNNED at this colossally idiotic decision of Edwards'.

WTF was he thinking?

If this 'scandal' is Hillary's doing (meaning her team's), then Edwards should fight back at her just as hard. Could it be possible that if some get as bad as they give, then it might not happen in the first place? Imagine - we might just be able to focus on some REAL issues. How refreshing.

Sure, but I would hope that a competent candidate would have more common sense than to hire me!

It's not about the bloggers themselves. Obviously bloggers are silly, that's not the point.

It's about Edwards being clueless enough to think that hiring paid bloggers would buy him coolness.

William, answer this question honestly: was there ever a chance you would have voted for any Democratic candidate, let alone Edwards? If not, why would Edwards care whether his decision meets with your approval or not?

It's high time Democratic candidates starting listening to their own voters, not the "helpful" opposition that expresses such great concern when Democrats don't bow before the great noise machine.

This early in the election cycle, most voters are not even paying attention. I don't doubt that this incident will be revived as a smear at some point, but if not this, then it would have been something else. Good for Edwards for drawing a line in the sand early. He has far more to gain (monetarily and otherwise) from the net roots than he does from people like William.

William, earlier this week you were talking about how Katrina refugees were like zoo animals and they deserved to be shot. What gives you the right to tell other people they aren't good Christians?

Maureen Dowd had a friendly column on Biden. She forgave him his trespasses.

Just to bring this 'scandal' to perspective.

None, NONE, of the commenters on this blog whether Democratic, Republican or Other would be eligible to work on anyone's campaign if the yardstick is whether they have ever made a comment that could be offensive to someone.

The New Dem Line (post Edwards' scandal)

1. Hillary "take no prisoners" Clinton.

2. Barack "Saddam Hussein" Osama.

3. Bill "baseball" Richardson.

4. Tom Vilsack. (Vilsack is just too boring to give a nickname to.)

5. John "I hate Jesus and Mary" Edwards.

6. "Clean Joe" Biden (who DOESNT shop at 7/11 - too many Indians, doncha know.)

7. Chris "Kerry's Clone" Dodd.

8. Dennis "Karl Marx" Kucinb*tch

What a lovely collection of the nation's leading liberal minds, all aspiring to be president.

I wonder who's on Hillary's "To Do" list after she takes down Osama?

Richardson maybe?

Edwards did the Christian thing and forgave the sinners their sins. But, this is politics, not religion.

They could have saved him the trouble and resigned; but they didn't.

Edwards is tainted significantly.

How sad that this MINOR thing is causing such a ruckus. Over the last week or so, I decided that Edwards wasn't the right guy for me to support, but I certainly didn't give this episode any weight. Building the big house while proclaiming to represent the working class was the bigger mistake, in my opinion.
We are holding these people to such high standards - do we ourselves meet those standards? Are these things really that big of a deal? For the most part, no. Do these women represent Edward's point of view? Highly unlikely. Should they have to do so? This is all just complete ridiculousness - and I think that most people would realize it for what is is. Will most people even hear about this? Probably not.
The problem is this - the Democratic candidates, for some reason, are afraid to fight back and point out the hypocrisy and the baselessness of these types of attacks - and to come back with their own. If Kerry had had an ounce of gumption, he would be President today. Why are Republicans so good at these attacks and the Democrats are so bad? Are the Democrats trying to take the higher road? Is that tactic winning elections for them? I think that people are realizing how badly they were snowed in the last two presidential elections and that they aren't going buy this kind of stuff any more - maybe that is just being Pollyanna-ish, but there is a point after which all just have to roll our eyes and say - who thinks we are dumb enough to think that this has anything to do with his ability, or lack thereof, to be President. Does that mean that Democrats shouldn't be fighting back at Republicans with the same stuff? Absolutely not.

'President George W. Bush's uncle, William H.T. "Bucky" Bush, was part of a group of outside directors at a defense contractor who realized about $6 million in unauthorized pay from an options backdating scheme, according to U.S. securities investigators.'

--bush family corruption. again.

'To any Christians who are not offended by those bloggers' comments:

You are obviously not a real Christian, or at least, you are far more loyal to the secular-progressive ideology than you are to God.'

who the hell do you think you are, you snotnosed kid? That's up to God to decide, isn't it? what a demented racist little jerk you are.

'Republicans try to win the nomination by sucking up to the likes of Falwell and Robertson and others who make a living out of making offensive comments about gays and saying any non-christian is going to hell. THAT is bigotry.'

Absolutely right... the republicans/religious right has accused 'liberals' of everything including murder and 9/11 -- turn on talk radio and within 2 seconds you'll be bombarded by pure evil hatred, slander, smears and threats to democrats.

Why is it that rush limbaugh, sean hannity and the rest of the ugly crew can be on air 24 hours a day, every single day, spewing hatred of democrats and no one has a problem with that?

Why is it okay to be 'intolerant' on one's political views, but not one's religous?

Or is it just that it's okay for republicans to criticize others, but not okay to criticize them back?

In short, more hypocrisy.

To any Christians who are not offended by those bloggers' comments:

You are obviously not a real Christian, or at least, you are far more loyal to the secular-progressive ideology than you are to God.

To John Edwards:

Congrats, John. You've chosen...poorly.

You now have practically NO shot at winning the Democratic nomination, and if you think Obama and Hillary won't find some way of informing primary voters that you chose to keep two bloggers who hate Christianity on your payroll, your pretty stupid.

Catholics are a big part of the Dem base, and you've just chosen to lose the Catholic vote just to keep the freaks on Kos happy.

Apparently, if you kept these two women after finding out their views on God and Mary, you are not even a Christian yourself, since if you were, you would have been disgusted and outraged.

WRONG decision, breck girl.

You have NO chance of being President now that you've alienated just about every Christian in the country.

Edwards, you obviously forgot the FIRST rule of trying to win over Catholic voters:

NEVER, EVER, EVER insult the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Edwards has basically ENDORSED horrid despicable sexual jokes about God and Mary.

You're done Edwards. Bye bye, you turd.

Good thing you built a new palace in NC, because you're not going to be living in the White House ever.

Hillary must be somewhere smiling.

Remember that song about the Twelve (?) Little Indians (CALM DOWN George Allen :))

In any case, the Little Indians are dropping like flies.

Biden: very heavily damaged. It appears Biden is a closet racist, who hates blacks and Indians. I really don't see Biden recovering.

Edwards: Pretty much finished after this latest decision to endorse bloggers who hate Christ and Mary, and make evil, perverted jokes about Them.

Kucinich: was never viable

Dodd: non-viable

Clark, Warner, Bayh, Bredesen: Decided not to enter the race.

Gore: looks like he's not running.

So, who is left?

1)Hillary, soaring in the polls.

2) Obama

3)Richardson

4)Vilsack.

Boy, I really didn't expect Edwards to destruct this early. But hey, politics is full of surprises, and good riddance.

Robert C. Byrd knows exactly what Edwards is.

Oh, and CC, you should move Edwards down behind Vilsack and Richardson, based on his dumb, unconscionable decision.

Apparently, Edwards likes evil, perverted jokes about God and Mary.

He hates God!

Can you even IMAGINE, CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE what Terry Nelson and the RNC will do with him in the general????

If you Dems nominate Edwards ANYWHERE on the ticket, you've just given us the White House, even if Tancredo is the nominee.

I'm glad Edwards had the courage to stand up to Bill Donohoe,
the Jew hater. No one seems to have a problem with the kind of stuff he says, the press didn't even pick it up.

This is a witch hunt ... pure intimidation. the media establishment wants to make it very clear that they are the kingmakers and power brokers had better keep off their turf or they will crush them.

I disagree with MikeB's comments above. MikeB is attempting to frame any criticism of paid bloggers as a "witch hunt." This attempt is inappropriate.

This is just a ridiculous double standard.

Republicans try to win the nomination by sucking up to the likes of Falwell and Robertson and others who make a living out of making offensive comments about gays and saying any non-christian is going to hell. THAT is bigotry.

What these bloggers wrote simply attempted to point out the hypocrisy in the religious right. And this double standard of persecuting these bloggers given all the people the religious right offends is just more hypocrisy.

Not only should those bloggers not be fired. They should be applauded for having the courage to point out the hypocrisy of a group that obviously carried a lot of power.

Really a lot of woman haters on here today, hmm? Wishing breast cancer on women? This is someone who claims that these girls were intolerent.

Hey Chris, I don't like paid bloggers, but it has now become evident that you are on a witch hunt. To begin with, the Edwards' bloggers are lightweights and downright honest in comparison to the Swift Boat crew and Rove, all of whom are smearing Guiliani this very minute. And Hillary has the original king of smear on her staff, James Carville, who has been releasing a steady stream of garbage about Obama and Edwards. This election is going to get ugly and your pointing to one candidate, one picked out by McCain's people as the strongest candidate and targeted by this "release" at that, is pretty absurd. Either you and CNN and the Post are being partisan or you're a lot dumber thn I thought.

let's elect the candidate who has done the least amount of "far worse things." just what we need! yeah, that's the ticket. no wonder the Dems have so many feeble candidates, on that basis Dems are eminently electable. vote for Willam Jefferson, Afro-Louisianan freezer cash felon! anything to get a bigger jet for Pelosi & entourage! paging Ralph Nader, call for Mr. Nader....

Those last couple posts are exactly what I'm talking about. It's a "sordid episode", Edwards isn't Presidential material, etc. Seriously, on the overall scale of things, is this really that big a scandal? I'm sure we could come up with dozens of politicians who did far worse things before and during their campaigns. And a lot of them even won!

This seems like a total non-issue to me. I can't imagine changing my vote over something so minor, and something so far from the election. Especially since the blog posts I've seen didn't even seem anti-Catholic; they just attacked particular actions by the Catholic Church.

Twenty years ago, this wouldn't even have been a news story. But because there are so many websites covering every aspect of the campaign in excrutiating detail, and so many attack dogs waiting for anyone to make the slightest mistake, we're talking about it.

Not only did he hire these two with full knowledge of their lack of character, he now permits their use of his site to submit bald faced lies about their prior rantings. A person is known by the company he keeps and Mr. Edwards has clearly defined his "character" via this sordid episode. Hardly a person one would want leading this nation.

The increasing religious intolerance in the blogosphere isn't progressive or left. It's old fashioned bigotry, pure and simple. And we need to speak out against it if we claim to be progressive. The Democratic tradition is that of Martin Luther King, not two loud mouthed young women who are more interested in short-term self-aggrandizement than working to build a better society.

Edwards is showing weakness: out of fear, he is pandering to a couple of noisy folks on the far left(Kos and MYDD primarily) who preach to very narrow ideological choirs.

I don't see how Edwards can now claim to represent the millions of Democrats (including the vast majority of Hispanics and African Americans) who hold religion sacred. The Democrats have a proud religious past.

We need a candidate who understands the meaning of tolerance. I liked Edwards in 2004, but he's lost my vote now. If he is willing to cave to make a few egomaniacal bloggers happy, he's not Presidential material.

John-boy Edwards couldn't even stand up to Pretty-boy Mr. Teresa Heinz, aka crying John Kerry from the Gay State, in the last election, so who expects him to stand up to two 20-something twee dilletantes, hoping to get noticed (and funded) by Arianna HuffnPuff, most likely? ah, North Carolina, land of nicotine addicts, tabacky profiteers, Mike Nifong, and 10,000 polluting pig farmers. it's enuff to give a poor woman breast cancer.

I disagree, Danny. For one thing, there is no monolithic "Catholic vote." There are millions of individual Catholics, some of whom won't vote, others of whom agree with Edwards's staffers, and still more who know nothing about this event. This episode probably caused a small percentage of Catholics to turn against John Edwards, but it would be stupid to assume more than a small fraction of total Catholic votes would be affected by a single mini-controversy.

I am Irish Catholic and he has not lost my vote. Like An Dliodoir, I will vote for a yellow dog before I vote for a republican.

Don't speak for all Catholics. I will be out walking my butt off for Edwards and if he loses I will be out walking my butt off for Hilary or Obama!

Edwards has no values or beliefs other than to say and do whatever it takes to win. His decision to keep the bloggers was a calculation of votes to win on the net vs. votes to lose from Catholics. A numbers game. This is exactly how he became rich as a plaintiffs attorney using junk science (cerebral palsey scam) while putting OBGYN's out of practice, making medical care harder to get, and causing the cost of medical care to increase. There is a common thread here people. Same thing as his calculation that there are more people that make under $200,000 than over $200,000 therefore get those under to vote money away from those over for health care. Overly cycnical??? No....not even close! Biased against Edwards? Yes... many if not most of us in North Carolina that had him pretend to represent us in the senate are! Edwards represents only himself

Someone should thell the former Senator that he just lost the Caholic vote!

KOZ - I don't agree that this is a minor issue - or that the same sort of thing will happen to Obama because he only has a few years of state and US senate experience.

This happened because Edwards has a ton of will to win and a ton of cash to spend, but no concept of good taste.

He saw the headlines about YouTube last fall, he heard about the "net roots."

So he said, "What can I do to be the most Internet savvy candidate? Because if I do that, I will be cool and I will win. What is cool? My fashion advisers tell me that 'sticky blogs' and famous bloggers are cool."

So he made a "sticky" blog and hired the most famous bloggers.

But because Edwards (in my opinion) suffers from a lack of good taste, he utterly failed to realize that true appeal on the Internet comes from being genuine, simple and direct.

The only thing that surprises me is that Edwards's vulgar blog concoction imploded so early. I would have predicted next summer.

In contrast, Obama has the good taste, and common sense, to avoid micromanaging what his supporters on the Internet say.

I am pleased that Edwards decided to keep them on but disappointed that he discussed the "kind of language" the bloggers are going to be using from now on in their writing. One of the ways i determine who to vote for is by looking at what type of people are supporting their candidacy and what those people actually believe. Now it will be harder to determine whether to just not vote for Edwards or to activly campaign against him.

So if somneone hires OJ Simpson It is OK with you and does not reflect on the decision-making capabilities of the candidate? Of course it matters what you have done in politics. theory and practice do not align here.

This same standard should be applied to Sen. McCain who has been unfairly pilloried for the work of some of his campaign staff prior to being hired by him. Let's be consistent - whatever they did BEFORE working for Sen. McCain should not be considered. Period.

Proof positive that the most minor of issues can sink a candidate these days. It is the sign of an untested politician that can't keep message control. It is only a matter of time before this happens to Obama - due to his inexperience. this won't happen to Hillary.

As I Catholic, I read the blogs by these two women and I wasn't offended by their views. The one was merely disagreeing with some policies within the Church. As Catholics, we discuss these issues among ourselves regularly and some of us have come to the same conclusions she did.

McCain's bloggers need to come under the same sort of scrutiny. There is the REAL story.

The problem is not where the criticism is coming nor is it necessarily what the issues being debated are. The problem for the Edwards campaign is that he is now stuck with a stinky sack of laundry. There are plenty of responsible liberals who either could or have maintained respectable blogs that while they may run counter to beliefs promoted by the Catholic Church do not incite and degrade the Church as a whole.

It's irresponsible and immature to not acknowledge that tolerance is a two way street when you are railing against intolerance. These two young ladies don't seem to get it. We could even go so far as to say that Edwards was irresponsible for hiring such abrasive people in the first place.

That said, it is important to distinguish what is said in private life and what is said in the work place. It is very easy to run off one's mouth on a blog, in a chat room or in general conversation. I don't wish unemployment on anyone willing and able to work. Edwards made the right decision to keep the two young ladies, but they should feel compelled to drastically tone down their rhetoric so as not to let him down.

Catholics are not their enemy. It's people who incite groups, such as Catholics, against the campaign who are their enemy. Now that they are a part of the campaign, they are their own enemy. They owe it to Edwards himself and the campaign to make it right, though there best chance was their public apologies and we see how they mostly missed that opportunity.

Racist Con Artists Draft Gore people creates thousands of illegal fake signatures with the help of few people , they also stole money from Katrina Victims. In order to Fool John Edwards supporters, Hillary's supporters and Obama supporters worthless unemployed Draft Gore Con Artists created fake signatures . These people don't have any moral values or ethics, basically Draft gore is supported by few unemployed desperate old Ladies who are looking for attention.

Draft Gore Criminals ruins and Destroys Al Gore ' s Reputation.

Hey look! The blogosphere made a story about themselves! Then screamed amongst themselves! And no one else cared.

This means nothing, no one cares, no one is going to think about this again in two weeks, except for the bloggers themselves.

If I criticize Edwards for anything, it's allowing the already inflated egos of bloggers to inflate even more by thinking yet again that they are the story.

I see you're qualifying the anti-Catholic accusation now, but still, not good enough, Chris. If you are going to accuse people of being anti-Catholic on your blog, then you need to evaluate that claim. To repeat it uncritically - even with a qualification - is to support it and give it credence.

You can't just run around calling people anti-Catholic because some people with a political agenda said so. You write for the Washington Post; you need to adhere to a higher standard.

I must have been sleeping. Can someone fill me in on what the two bloggers actually said.

Agree with the posters about intolerance and ignorance. If you are not one of the enlightened ones then you are not to be tolerated and it is okay if you are castigaged, stereotyped, and your views are dismissed. Because as we know, the ultra left doesn't think they are better than you, they know it in their hearts.

This is just a making a mountain out of a molehill by political thugs like the beligerant bully William Donohue of the Catholic League, himself a bigot in many of his public statements. I've read both women's personal blogs before, and their comments were fairly innocuous and meant to be satirical. It's different when you're writing for a big-time political campaign.

I find it interesting that the bloggers stress that these comments were on their PERSONAL blogs. Edwards stresses that they are his employees now and clearly they want this gig bad enough to set aside what they previously considered as their freedom of speech.

Hmmm, if someone were to unearth prior "humourous," anti-Semitic comments I think the "speed to fire" could be clocked at under 10 seconds, even if the comments were uttered when the bloggers were two.

In the meantime, this Democrat is going looking for another candidate.

This quote seems to me to go beyond "personal politics."

Q: "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?
A: You'd have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."

If the Wash.Post quoted this statement, rather than just averring to it, it would clear up if anyone believed that her "... (My) intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics.

"i wonder how the karma will redound to Mrs. Edwards' breast cancer?"

Carlos, this is truly a vile statement. The Universe will cause Elizabeth Edwards to suffer because two women wrote things that some people find controversial? I can tell that you are a great and deep thinker.

An Dilodoir,

Before you get an angry reply that it isn't intolerance because all religious practitioners are nuts who are awful for America, I would like to add the word "ignorance" to your word "intolerance."

Hating all religion is almost always due to ignorance.

sounds like these two are another instance of "the two Rachels."

maybe soon we'll be reading about a mutual-blogger-suicide pact out in Virginia, with these two found in a SUV, locked in a final embrace, cell phones still burbling. you go, girl!

i wonder how the karma will redound to Mrs. Edwards' breast cancer? much less her husband's once-more-unto-the-breach quixotic quest for the Presidency.

Yikes. . .that was meant to be right not "write."

Also, so many responders to these comment sections express such vitriolic hatred of religion and those who practice it. That is a form of intolerence. Intolerence is unAmerican. I often remind my fellow Catholics that the Beatitudes is far more reflective of the Democratic platform than the Republican. Secularists don't have all the answers and religion is not the root of all that is wrong with the world. They are different approaches to life and there are good people in both camps. We need to unite to defeat the Republican tyranny and negligence.

"Edwards might as well kiss his campaign goodbye. His campaign basically endorsed the remarks of his bloggers by not firing them. And if he thinks ticking off the Catholic church and its voting base will have no impact on his chances, then he's too ignorant to be president."

Sure, it doesn't help Edwards with Catholics, but he had a choice of ticking off two possible constituencies - Catholics, many of whom aren't really paying too much attention to the '08 presidential race right now, or liberal bloggers, who are very much engaged with the '08 campaign already, and would have raised a cacophany for weeks/months if the two bloggers had been fired. Choosing to mollify the people who are paying attention and have the potential to make a massive stink for his candidacy (and many of whom are currently talking up Edwards) rather than the people who might not even notice this minor fracas, and who are more likely to accept the point that these people didn't speak for him at the time anyway, seems like the right way to go to me.

http://turtleonafencepost.blogspot.com/

"I'm so, so sorry that you're such a moron you can't understand what a wonderful blogger I am, you moron bigot"

Well, if WRONG-WAY GEORGE has been able to keep ROVE after all the chaos he has caused, I see no problem with Edwards keeping two bloggers who made statements before being hired by Edwards.

Gracious, didn't McCAIN hire the SWIFTBOAT hitmen that lied about Kerry's military service? Also, hasn't McCAIN been cozying up to the very people he previously accused of being "intolerant"?

How about a little bit of light being directed there?

Thanks!

Interesting that both bloggers have gotten the "I'm sorry that someone was offended" non-apology apology down already.

I'm a practacing Catholic a life long yellow dog Democrat. I respect Edwards' decision to keep the bloggers and support their write to express their opinions. However, as a result of this decision to let blatant bigotry go unpunished, I will not be supporting Edwards in his campaign as I did in 2004.

Truth Hunter: Your blog says it very well about the border agents. Edwards is toast IMHO. I see now way he can make the grade.

How about looking into the bigoted remarks from that donohoe f*ck? People like him are reactionary, hypocrtit, neocon bigotsll! Hello black pot, meet black kettle. Religion is the scourge of the entire world anyway!!!
reminds me of this little diddy:

Intro:
There are days in my life when everything is dreary I grow pessimistic, sad and world weary. But when I'm tearful and fearfully upset I always sing this merry little minuet:

They*re rioting in Africa
They*re starving in Spain
There*s hurricanes in Florida
And Texas needs rain.

The whole world is festering
With unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans,
The Germans hate the Poles

Italians hate Yugoslavs
South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don't like anybody very much

have a nice day, all you religious bigots

One of the most often used Quotes from the Bible is, 1 Corinthians 13:11 "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a [wo]man, I have put away childish things."

I am sure these two will speak differently now, as well they should. This is the way the world works. We live, we grow, we change.

Now if only the Christins on Right would impliment another passage:

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matthew 7:5

I'm Catholic and an Edwards suppporter, and glad the bloggers weren't fired. William Donahue is a bloviating pontificator, and it would be a sore disappointment if Edwards would have caved to *that*. How can you stand up to terrorists if you can't stand up to one wingnut? And, from what I have seen of the blog entries in question, they are true, also crass and tactless, but this is the Internet. If you can't handle it, go sit in your rocking chair and read your newspaper.

Edwards might as well kiss his campaign goodbye. His campaign basically endorsed the remarks of his bloggers by not firing them. And if he thinks ticking off the Catholic church and its voting base will have no impact on his chances, then he's too ignorant to be president. He needed to cut them loose, condemn their remarks, and move on and hope the incident would be forgotten. Now it will be brought up over and over as long on Marcotte and McEwen are on staff. His Democratic opponents will work behind the scenes to make sure Catholic voters don't forget this controversy.

Typical of many that claim to want tolerance, as long as it is for things they believe in. They are not tolerant, and don't want tolerance, for those that have opposing opinions. Folks like this come out very strongly against the lack of tolerance in others, mostly those with conservative beliefs and values. But they show their true colors regarding the subject of tolerance in blogs such as these.

Good on Edwards for keeping these folks. As Micah Sifry has pointed out, if writing controversial, even offensive, things in one's past keeps a blogger from being able to work for a campaign, then it will cut off a huge swath of the online "netroots" from being able to work with campaigns.

That said, I wish Edwards had made a bit of an issue out of where these complaints came from, and the offensive things they've said.

Both girls offer non-apology apologies:

Amanda: "I am sorry if anyone was personally offended"

Melissa: "I'm sorry if my words were taken in that way"

They're not sorry they did it, they're just sorry someone didn't like it.

Amanda and Melissa made better statements than Edwards who tried to have it both ways.

Amanda summed it up... "Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights..."

Edwards schoolmarmish scolding before giving absolution grates.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com