That's going to be my theme for the day. (Scroll down for update)

Perhaps it's a common enough story, but I'm one of those people who has in my past been both very popular in certain circles and very much an outcast in others. The most painful memory of being unpopular comes from my time in the Marine Corps. Think of that poor guy in "A Few Good Men" and you're somewhat close to what it was like for me. I was naive and young enough at the time to not really notice until it was too late, and when I got kicked out I was actually quite stunned. I had thought that I was "part of something special" and that my friends would defend me. One young officer, whom everyone in the Company agreed was a wonderful example of everything that is excellent and right about servicemembers, did defend me, and to this day I hold her opinion above those who thought I was the 'wrong stuff.' Such is life, by such surprises and disloyalty we learn that the world is often an unfair and lonely place. It was an important lesson for me, in that I learned that people frequently clothe themselves in the language and trappings of "honor" and "loyalty," when in fact what they are really all about is getting ahead, even if it means stepping on their friends and colleagues to do so.

In other situations, I've known what it's like to be "the belle of the ball." Again, one learns important lessons in that role; there are pitfalls and challenges to being the person everyone wants to know and be seen with, and true friendship can be as hard to find in such conditions as when one is a pariah. Everyone loves a winner until the winner stumbles, and there is little that is more soul-destroying than realizing that without your (money/popularity/power), your "friends" would disappear like cockroaches under bright light. True friendship, and loyalty, are among the most precious things in the world. And nowhere are they more rare than in the world of politics.

This is a Great Test for Edwards. Blogger power is still a greatly unknown thing, just as it's known that certain well-established groups can motivate their membership to decisive and meaningful action. I would add that the Catholic population in this country is almost as diverse in political loyalty as the blogosphere, but I don't have hard numbers to make a more specific claim at this time. But I will say this: one of the most important qualities of a leader is loyalty. If Edwards can't stand up and defend his choices, he not only will lose the respect of people like me, but he'll prove that he lacks vision.

Like it or not, the future of politics will include the rabid lambs of the blogosphere, and the power of the blogosphere is still growing, even if the exact shape of its leadership and areas in which it can have an impact are still being debated. The key words in the PW link are "conservative religious group."

As I've argued over and over again- who here really thinks any group with that label will ever support a Democrat? Edwards and his top people need to go to a few conservative churches, but as regular congregants, not as official campaign members. Sneak in to a couple, as it were, and hear what is really being said by the bullies at the pulpit. I get regular reports from conservative churches of several kinds and I'm here to tell you: they break the IRS rule about not being political all the time. The theocratic pseudofascism of some church leaders would be shocking, if I were not an historian of religion and congnisant of the fact that many religious organizations exist specifically to serve that kind of political project. But the bottom line is that for the congregants, voting for a Democrat is akin to having gay sex with Satan. Nah.Gunna.Happen. Ever.

How many times will we see Democrats fail to understand the simplest of lessons? People like strong, loyal, stick-to-your-guns kinds of leaders. Kerry couldn't have come off more like a wimpy elitist if he tried. Learn from that, Jonny! Voters like leaders who aren't afraid to fight back, to stand up for what they believe in, who even...gasp...act like they don't care about focus groups and polls. The Democrat who gives this a try will be the one to enjoy real power. Goddess knows most Americans are sick and tired of triangulating "leadership" and politicians who only seem to hear the voice of the bean-counting consultant whispering in their ears.

Shakes and Amanda are solid, intelligent women with opinions. I was just reading a column (I'll link to it in a later post today) that women vote in greater number than men. Edwards has a real opportunity here, should he spin it right. He can play the role of Bold, Valiant Prince coming to the rescue of two high spirited women in his camp- what a narrative that could be! Or he can act like a dog-whipped, slinking Beltway insider, and run like a coward at the first sign that "some people" are upset that Blogs use curse words and say mean things about some people.

Despite what the polls may (or not, I don't think they do) suggest, even "low information" Americans have the gut understanding of what is real, and what is a steaming pile of self-serving justification. We've had more than six years of some of the most vile, hypocritical, self-indulgent, mealy-mouthed "government" this country has ever suffered. People are ready, so very, very ready, for real leadership.

I sincerely hope Edwards wants to be the one. And, as little as it may be worth, I will show my own kind of blogger's loyalty. If he dumps Amanda and Shakes, I wash my hands of him, and will never post another positive piece about him here again.

Update: and so it begins. If you have a blog of your own, I ask that you join in and take a stand for what's right. The SCLM is smelling blood, and we've got to fight back.

Does John Edwards Condone Hate Speech?

A bit of a tempest is brewing over the strident and profanity-laced writings of John Edwards' official campaign "blogmaster," Amanda Marcotte. She joined the Edwards campaign last week, and she's already gotten a lot of attention.

At issue are Marcotte's comments on her own blog, Pandagon (http://www.pandagon.net/), which has staked out a prominent place in the left-wing blogosphere. It's pretty strong stuff; her comments about other people's faiths could well be construed as hate speech.

Questions: What, if anything, does it tell us about Edwards that he's joined up with this blogger? Is Edwards' association with a person who has written these things a legitimate issue for voters, as they wonder--among other things--whom he might appoint to high office if he's elected? If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react? Is the mere raising of this issue a kind of underhanded censorship, a way of ruling out of bounds some kinds of opinion? Are we all just going to have to get used to a more rough-and-tumble, profane, and even hate-filled public arena in the age of the blogosphere?

ON THE CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ON BIRTH CONTROL:

Last year, Marcotte blasted the Catholic Church's position on birth control: "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." (Side note: Would there be a different reaction if John Edwards "blogmaster" had insulted Islam to this degree? Is it "okay" to trash Catholicism--but not Islam?)

ON THE DUKE RAPE CASE:

"I had to listen to how the poor, dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f***** 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."

ON REPUBLICAN VOTERS:

“Voters who are motivated by misogyny, homophobia, and racism aren’t going to leave a racist, misogynist, homophobic party for one that is all those things but just less so.”

ON CHRISTIAN SUPPORTERS OF ISRAEL:

"...on top of the usual motivations behind Christian Zionism—hatred for Muslims, a desire to bring the end of the world, political opportunism and a chance for ministers to make their congregations feel like they are a part of something dramatic and important so their pocketbooks fall opeN..."

ON NASCAR:

“There’s no real reason that NASCAR has to have a political edge to it, much less be some weird symbol of Southern male white supremacy and yet through careful Republican marketing, it has become just that.”

ON THE CRUCIFIXION, FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS, AND TORTURE

"The paradox was this—how can anybody look at the figure of Christ on the cross and think that’s anything but a condemnation of torture? For the thinking person, it clearly is. But for the fundamentalist, that image creates anxiety about death and makes them cling to their hierarchical values even more, and those values include the belief that Muslims are inferior, not-saved, and eligible for torture. They’re going to hell anyway, by the fundie logic, and why should god get all the fun of punishing them and making them suffer?”

Hey, Terry: here's a hearty FUCK YOU from your pals at Corrente, you fascist-enabling, power cocksucking, warmongering piece of shit.

Love,
CD